Surprise—The AAUW Finds that More Girls than Boys in College is No Crisis

|

Crying "crisis" every time some social scientist notices some differences between groups is very popular nowadays. The implication is that equality should be the status quo and that differences must be the result of malign forces. (Admittedly, sometimes there are malign forces, e.g., Jim Crow laws.) Conservatives now indulge in America's favorite passtime of claiming victimhood and so worry about the "boy crisis" in American education. The logic of a "boy crisis" means that special attention must be paid to boys over girls. Naturally this logic threatens the perks and programs of entrenched victim groups.

The image

That being the case, is anyone shocked that the feminists at the American Association of University Women are promoting a "study" that purports to show that the "boy crisis" is a "myth?" Some researchers don't think it's a myth. And the Washinigton Post did not express any concern over how the study sponsored by an organization devoted to the interests of university women might have been skewed by conflicts of interest. At the end of its story on the AAUW report, the Post did note:

AAUW's study does show female students outperforming male students in some measures. Women have earned 57 percent of bachelor's degrees since 1982 and outperformed boys on high school grade-point averages. In 2005, male students had a GPA of 2.86 and girls, 3.09.

I will also mention that a friend of mine at a prominent university told me recently that he and his colleagues could fill all their graduate program slots with qualified women. However, women will refuse enter programs that have too few men, so his program has instituted affirmative action for men in order to attract women.

In any case, I don't believe that there is a "boy crisis" or a "girl crisis." The real victims are boys and girls who are stuck in our deteriorating government-funded educational system.

Whole Post article here.

Disclosure: As an undergraduate I entered the University of Virginia two years after it co-educated. From my point of view, the male/female ratio was far from optimum.

NEXT: The Failure of Centralized Scientific Planning

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Prediction: This will be more “proof” that men oppress women womyn in our society.

  2. I talked to one woman who said that it would be obscene even if women make 99? to the dollar of men, which is just fucking silly.

  3. Our educational system’s failure to develop mathematical, scientific thinking in young people is the actual crisis. And the end result is a disproportionate number of women achieving success than men in the academic ranks (as those traits are more easily developed in men than women).

  4. However, women will refuse enter programs that have too few men, so his program has instituted affirmative action for men in order to attract women.

    This just proves guys are stupider because if engineering geeks were as smart as they claim, they would do the same thing to force recruitment of chicks into their sausage-fest field.

    I did not take computer science/engineering in college so I, of course, am not stupid.

  5. But Stephen, that would discriminate against minorities who have a history of underperforming in such areas. BELLCURVE!!!

    *wags finger at Stephen*

  6. The logic of a “boy crisis” means that special attention must be paid to boys over girls.

    I think the claim is that our education establishment has lunged too far in the direction of accomodating womyn’s special needs, and as a result now discriminates against boys.

    I’m not sure if this means we now need to lunge in the other direction, or just stop it and treat everyone the same. Your logic may vary.

  7. Our educational system’s failure to develop mathematical, scientific thinking in young people is the actual crisis.

    That’s probably true, but I don’t think women having higher GPAs than men is a result of that. I’d think a more thorough study would be required to draw that conclusion.

    Women have earned 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees since 1982 and outperformed boys on high school grade-point averages.

    That may be due to the phenomenon of married women going back to college during that time period. Why did they choose 1982, one wonders.

  8. The real crisis here is that more girls are wasting four years and six figures getting a B.A. while the boys are out learning how to do something useful and getting paid for it. I don’t suppose the AAUW would really care to mention that particular counterpoint.

  9. The real failure here is equality. The governmental education system assumes we can cram in all people of different abilities under one system, and that’ll work. News flash: it doesn’t.

    Recent research backs this up:

    http://www.corrupt.org/news/university_education_is_not_for_everyone

    http://www.corrupt.org/news/education_equality_fails_american_students

  10. However, women will refuse enter programs that have too few men, so his program has instituted affirmative action for men in order to attract women.

    This seems pretty sexist. Are womyn only concerned with the number of males in their programs?

  11. Surprise–The AAUW Finds that More Girls than Boys in College is No Crisis

    I thought the crisis was that college girls were having trouble finding sex partners, since college guys were all milking the lizard watching net.pr0n instead.

  12. That may be due to the phenomenon of married women going back to college during that time period. Why did they choose 1982, one wonders.

    Because that’s when it fits their conclusions.

    Dammit, now there will be all kinds of breaks for Myn, and I’ll be too old to take advantage of them.

  13. See, I would have a post that looked at the study, looked at the AAUW’s claims, and considered them on their merits to be more interesting than one about how the AAUW are hypocrites, everything’s fine, except there are still public schools, and mumble muble something about a study.

  14. joe,

    I thought the AAUW were the one’s saying everything’s fine.

  15. why is reason so skeptical about this because AAUW funded it but had no problem devoting like a week to the Heritage Foundation’s global warming conference?

  16. Also Ronald Bailey’s anonymous friend at a prominent university should be a guest blogger.

  17. Our educational system’s failure to develop mathematical, scientific thinking in young people is the actual crisis.

    Is it our educational system? Or our very ADHD-riddled media and society at large?

  18. Q: why is reason so skeptical about this because AAUW funded it but had no problem devoting like a week to the Heritage Foundation’s global warming conference?

    A: Because the AAUW has a history of producing fraudulent “studies.” When challenged to release their raw data and methodology, they stonewall. It has nothing to do with left v. right.

  19. This seems pretty sexist. Are womyn only concerned with the number of males in their programs?

    My ex-wife swore that getting more men into Nursing was the key to getting Nursing salaries increased.

  20. “Q: why is reason so skeptical about this because AAUW funded it but had no problem devoting like a week to the Heritage Foundation’s global warming conference?

    A: Because the AAUW has a history of producing fraudulent “studies.” When challenged to release their raw data and methodology, they stonewall. It has nothing to do with left v. right.”

    And no skewed study from the non-partisan Heritage Foundation 😉

    The AAUW are tools, plain and simple. That said, I having a daughter myself, I have no problem with the government engaging in some reasonable “social engineering” to make sure that largely discredited but often perniciously held stereotypes about women don’t keep them from excelling in the more financially rewarding fields. By the way, did I mention that many of these stereotypes often had some government backing? The effects of them don’t go away over night y’know…

  21. And here we have another winner in the Discrimination Sweepstakes!

    I tell ya, this week has been a bonanza for The Oppressed! Better than a Vegas vacation!

  22. My ex-wife swore that getting more men into Nursing was the key to getting Nursing salaries increased.

    Why, because men will demand higher salaries? What will they do, not take nursing jobs until salaries go up….wait…isn’t that what they’re doing now?

  23. What’s interesting is the extent to which some professions are being “eaten alive” by women, others are barely touched. For example, chemistry-derived jobs are far below 50% female, and chem majors in college are too. This means women won’t obtain ‘parity’ in these professions for decades.

    On the other hand, 85% of veterinary students are female. This is an insane imbalance. I’d really like to know what causes it, since when there are fewer women it’s discrimination but when there’s more women it’s “jobs men won’t do”…

  24. The government used to have legal bars directed women from many professional fields (like lawyers) and state run schools, though they took the tax money of men and women alike, would deny women slots in certain areas. Add this to a slew of laws that made it harder for a woman to financially excel or work in a demanding profession (for example the strange property laws that gave men control over women’s property, or treated widows and widowers differently in inheritance, etc). So, facing these barriers, few women tried to do certain jobs. And after years and years of this it had effects on the culture. Young girls did not see any women lawyering or doctoring, they saw them teaching school and nursing. And so they assumed their goals should fall in line. So did everyone around them. And countless little comments and actions of their family, friends, schoolmates, teachers, guidance counselors etc. helped push them in the “right” directions…

    Now when these laws were properly lifted (many of them not until fairly recently [e.g., check out Reed v. Reed, 1971]), the culture did not just suddenly change. And I realize that for many libertarians nothing less than preventing girls from applying for certain college slots and jobs via gunpoint should be recognized as a barrier, but in the real world these things really have a molding effect. Since the government spent years helping establish these stereotypes and attitudes, I’m fine with reasonable (and nondiscriminatory [two wrongs don’t make a right]) government intervention to make the situation better.

  25. Scott,

    It had something to do with her belief that hospitals pay men more than women, IIRC it was every bit as irrational as the stuff SugarFree quotes from that feminist website.

  26. Typical university age is a rowdy age for men. I didn’t get my shit together until my mid-twenties. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is all there is to this. Yeah, and women definitely don’t want to go to a school without men. I recall reading a study a couple of years back about this. IIRC women by and large preferred schools with gender parity, and preferred to date men with greater educational attainment than themselves (whereas the polled men just preferred to date more attractive women).

    “What’s interesting is the extent to which some professions are being “eaten alive” by women ?”

    I think there is a bit of a social stigma to the core science fields – math, chemistry, physics. From my personal observations (I’m a PhD physical chemist, my wife is a physician), the life sciences seem to be more acceptable to women. Don’t know why. I certainly haven’t seen any hostility to women in my field. Quite the opposite.

  27. women, IIRC…every bit… irrational

    This is all I need to read. Sexists.

  28. 85% of veterinary students are female.

    And 95% of butchers are male.

    So animal-related occupations in total have gender equity.

  29. We just can’t have this. If we let all these women get educated, none of them will want to have kids! And then what will happen to Social Security?

  30. Could you guys hold it down, please? I’m trying to watch a really exciting woman’s college basketball game here!

  31. I’m fine with reasonable (and nondiscriminatory [two wrongs don’t make a right]) government intervention to make the situation better.

    MNG – I am failing to see where you did not just undo yourself in that sentence. So, even though two wrongs don’t make a right, it is OK for the government to de facto, if not de jure, discriminate against “boys” to make it better for “girls”.

    The problem, of course, is that this is collectivist thinking: it’s not the “Boy Team” v. “The Girl Team”; it’s individual girls who were harmed (and nothing can be done for them) and individual boys who are actively harmed by discriminatory policies. I know it’s in the interest of “fairness”, but you’re viewing people through a gender-collectivist lens.

    And so they assumed their goals should fall in line. So did everyone around them. And countless little comments and actions of their family, friends, schoolmates, teachers, guidance counselors etc. helped push them in the “right” directions…

    Life be hard…we can’t fix how ignorant people were in the past. What we can prevent, however, is perpetuating that ignorance by swinging the pendulum in the other direction.

    Additionally, I’d like to mention that, despite the “little comments” of my friends, family, everyone around me, I don’t believe in God…can I get statutes instituted for me as an oppressed member of a religious minority?

  32. I don’t claim any great insight on the reasons why some sciences have fewer gender disparities than others. The biology/physics contrast may be as simple as the fact that the health professions are more integrated, so women considering the possibility of a career in healthcare also check out biology, and some of them stick with biology.

    But the medicine/physics contrast is downright weird. Yes, we physicists are a bunch of arrogant men who think that we’re all God, and you have to spend a long time in school studying science to enter this field. Guess what? The same can be said of medicine. OTOH, at least in medicine you get paid handsomely to put up with arrogant, macho colleagues. So maybe it’s as simple as the pay difference: Women thinking of careers that involve a bunch of arrogant men want to be paid handsomely for putting up with that shit, so they pick medicine over physics.

    But I could be totally wrong here.

  33. THOREAU,

    IS IT TRUE THAT ALL WOMEN IN PHYSICS HAVE HUMONGOUS TITS?

  34. Boys go to Jupiter to get more Stupider.

    Girls go to Mars to get more candy bars.

  35. I should also mention that out of the 6 or so doctors in my wife’s group, only one is a man.

    thoreau –

    I went to the March APS meeting for the first time this year (I’m working for a physicist). My hotel was a block off Bourbon. It was absolutely hilarious walking through the French Quarter, seeing all the physicists (most still wearing their nametags) wide eyed, surrounded by strippers and drunken college kids on spring break. Hope you were in there somewhere.

  36. Nope, I went to Biophysical Society in February instead.

  37. My ex-wife swore that getting more men into Nursing was the key to getting Nursing salaries increased.

    WTF? I have many RN clients, 90% of whom are chicks. They make great money. Three 12 hour shifts a week. Anything over than is time and a half. Throw in shift differentials and sometimes it ends up time and 3/4.

  38. Q: why is reason so skeptical about this because AAUW funded it but had no problem devoting like a week to the Heritage Foundation’s global warming conference?

    A: Because the AAUW has a history of producing fraudulent “studies.” When challenged to release their raw data and methodology, they stonewall. It has nothing to do with left v. right.

    It ain’t biased if it agrees with your preconception, but it is if it doesn’t…or something.

    Remember folks, as nice a guy as Ron Bailey is…he is writing for a publication that has a specific political agenda. His job is to find ways to promote that agenda through reporting on science. In a partisan tit for tat, highlighting the other side’s bias makes you seem balanced and neutral.

    Note the phrasing:
    Naturally this logic threatens the perks and programs of entrenched victim groups.

    This is not the writing of a man looking objectively at the study. This is the writing of a partisan lobbing shots at his opponents.

    Notice also that Ron forgot to mention what the study actually found: the main disparities in education are based on family income and not on gender…(no methods are reported, so it is hard to say if they are valid).

  39. My experience with women show that most, but not all, are more caring of others than a similar number of men. Perhaps my friends and associates are a skewed sample, and I undertsand this is anecdotal, but it could explain some of the difference in careers.

    Of course, it could also be that for the past few generations women were pushed into nursing and this trend continues.

    So, what game is on tonight?

  40. Ah yes, the “boy crisis.” The AAUW released another study attacking the “boy crisis,” much like the Educational Sector’s bankrupt report by Sara Mead, which concluded that there is not a boy crisis, and that the disproportionate performance of girls is not bad news about boys doing worse, but good news about girls doing better, and that boys are doing better than ever before. The Washington Post and other news media has passed along this garbage with no critical analysis.

    Of course, these arguments are ridiculous. To argue that boys are “doing better than ever before,” both the Education Sector and AAUW base their arguments on absolute numbers. That is to say that more men go to college now, than say in 1950. The argument is bankrupt, easily destroyed by arguing the absurd. For instance, say that today 100,000 people are going to college, 60,000 girls, and 40,000 boys (60/40). All of a sudden, the next day, the college population doubles to 200,000 people, 150,000 girls, and 50,000 boys. The argument can be made, “Well, boys are doing better than ever. Now we have 10,000 more boys going to college.” But in reality, whereas yesterday we had a distrubtion of 60% girls, and 40% boys, today, we have 75% girls and 25% boys. When exactly does it become a crisis? When 80% of college classes are are made up of women? 90%? Ever? With this argument, we can get rid of affirmative action because blacks are doing better than ever before. Silly.

    In 1992, when the AAUW came out with its polemic report that girls were being screwed in schools, the AAUW supressed evidence that girls had already surpased boys in almost all subjects and almost all measures. That trend has condinued. Today, with 57% of colleges made up of women, the disparity continues to grow.

    When women were the ones outnumbered at colleges, we blamed the schools and passed Title IX. When boys are getting screwed, we blame the boys and largely ignore the problem. Anybody who has studied the situation knows that both the Education Sector and the AAUW’s recent reports are attempts to make lemonade out of lemons, by putting a gloss over that which has become abundantly clear; boys are getting metaphorically raped by an education system.

    What has happened is that women’s organizations, in an attempt to mitigate any call for the fair distrubtion of resources, have played the race card and said, “Oh, don’t worry white middle America, your sons aren’t doing that much worse that white girls, its only the blacks and Latinos who are woefully behind — no problem here.” The argument is racist and patently untrue on both the interpretation of the research and the actual facts. Boys — ALL BOYS — regardless of income or race fare worse than girls, a reversal of fortunes that has specifically been ignored by both the media and academics, because boys are not as sypathetic as girls. The race/class argument has not, to my knowledge been used when arguing comparative disadvantage of girls.

    Both the Orwellian language used in their arguments by opponents of helping boys, and the repeated attempts to disprove the obvious, betray the notion that girls progress has been not come at the expense of boys. This is a fight about resources. Thank God for the women who are mothers of boys.

    It is also rather scandelous that Title IX, a gender neutral statute, has been interpreted by the bureocratic establishment as not benefiting anyone but girls. The enforcement has been corrupt.

  41. Just curious, Neu Mejican, but did you by any chance miss where the people who run this site describe it as “a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews” or the Reason “Hit & Run” part about “Continuous news, views, and abuse by the Reason staff.” I mean, have you been laboring under the assumption that Reason purported to be agenda-free wire service or that this particular blog was supposed to be just straight news reporting?

  42. Notice also that Ron forgot to mention what the study actually found: the main disparities in education are based on family income and not on gender…

    Not really. That’s how the executive summary spun the data. However, the actual data is less cheery. Have a look.

  43. “I am failing to see where you did not just undo yourself in that sentence. So, even though two wrongs don’t make a right, it is OK for the government to de facto, if not de jure, discriminate against “boys” to make it better for “girls”.”

    I’m not calling for affirmative action for girls (as far as slots), but I think it’s OK to spend funds to lessen effects that were in large part created and sustained by government action in the past. It’s OK for the government to take steps to encourage women to enter fields traditionally denied them, for example.

    “Life be hard…we can’t fix how ignorant people were in the past.” We can try to make that ignorance less prevalent during our and succeeding generations, because that ignorance had a very real effect on young women’s life chances.

    Athiesm has rarely been popular, but it’s rarely been the subject of actual legal bars the way being a woman was for most of US history.

    “What we can prevent, however, is perpetuating that ignorance by swinging the pendulum in the other direction.” Wow, that’s easy to say when its our gender that has been favored by conditions for centuries. Hey gals, sorry about all that, and we know it’s created a culture where its prevalent to be worked on from the day you are born to accomplish less, but hey, we can’t let that pendulum swing back any, right?

  44. Hey gals, sorry about all that, and we know it’s created a culture where its prevalent to be worked on from the day you are born to accomplish less, but hey, we can’t let that pendulum swing back any, right?

    Again, MNG…that’s collectivism. “We” didn’t “create” the culture, someone added to sexist notions, and it is fundamentally mean-spirited to punish some group of beings with penises because some other group of beings with penises were assholes when they were in power.

  45. TWC,

    WTF? I have many RN clients, 90% of whom are chicks. They make great money. Three 12 hour shifts a week. Anything over than is time and a half. Throw in shift differentials and sometimes it ends up time and 3/4.

    Back then she did not sound like “great money” was fine, she had the impression that if more men were it, HUGE money would be the norm.

    I don’t remember if they were short staff or turning people away at the time, might have been closer to the latter. This was in the mid-1980s through mid-1990s.

  46. A_R,

    Post number one has a prediction and I think you are arguing with the person fulfilling it.

  47. MNG,

    Please supply some evidence that historically the average woman was more disadvantaged than the average man.

  48. If there’s no crisis on either side of the gender gap, then shouldn’t we be discussing getting rid of Title IX and other discriminatory laws? Or is that too paleo of an idea to bring up here?


  49. Please supply some evidence that historically the average woman was more disadvantaged than the average man.

    the nineteenth amendment.

    what do i win?!?!?

  50. I would bring up “the glass ceiling” to win the prize, but it is called that because there is not evidence that it exists.

  51. Please supply some evidence that historically the average woman was more disadvantaged than the average man.

    The problem is that most people can’t see further back than their own generation. Plus there is no context to draw on.

    Although the feminist movement takes a lot of credit for liberating women from whatever it was they were chained to, in reality capitalism and materialism and plenitude is what broke down the gender roles that we open minded 21st Century types hold in such disdain.

    Labor saving devices, man. My mother spent Mondays washing clothes and Tuesdays ironing. Today we do the wash in between commercials and phone calls.

    When my grandmother was four she and the rest of the girls and women spent the entire day cooking and cleaning up for the men of the house and farm hands. The men of the house and the farm hands rose before daybreak and worked until an hour after sunset. Every day except Sunday when they took the morning off for church (after chores of course).

    You move past all that stuff and you don’t need a wife who can cook and clean any more than you need a draft horse or a lance.

    That’s what’s liberating and it has been as good for the men as the women.

  52. Disclosure: As an undergraduate I entered the University of Virginia two years after it co-educated. From my point of view, the male/female ratio was far from optimum.

    I entered Ga Tech 30 years or so after it co-educated. I dont want to hear any Wahoo whining about ratios.

  53. what do i win?!?!?

    Shaddup and iron my shirt!

  54. Back then she did not sound like “great money” was fine, she had the impression that if more men were it, HUGE money would be the norm.

    I think I dated her. 🙂

  55. dhex,

    Your response is typical and is an example of the collectivism that AR wrote about.

    Throughout human history the percent of people who could vote is well less than 1%. Neither the average man nor the average woman has had much political power.

    Even in the US the record is more mixed than the feminists like to portray. Both sexes gained full voting rights in the 60s. 1897 would be the year that a white woman would have to been born to not have had the same voting rights as man born at the same time. Since that time more men have been disenfranchised if you consider the tens of thousands who were sent to war, and sometimes killed in those wars, before they had the right to vote on whether we should be in at war or not.

    Any more examples?

  56. The biology/physics divide isn’t hard to fathom. It’s all about mathematical ability. At the relatively extreme (compared to the population at large, not mathematicians) levels of mathematical ability required to do upper-level undergrad and graduate work in physics, men dominate that population at an easy 10-1 or more. This appears to be genetic, just as men’s superior ability at spatial reasoning is. There appears to be a lot more men at any given extreme of ability (high or low) than women, that is men have more statistical variance in ability even if their average ability is the same as women’s. To anybody invested in the idea that men and women are “equal” and interchangable this is pure heresy.

  57. “Throughout human history the percent of people who could vote is well less than 1%. Neither the average man nor the average woman has had much political power.”

    Scott, you’re just not thinking straight. Yes, many women and men were denied rights throughout history. But at all times MORE women than men were denied these rights. Take your voting example. While MANY men could not vote in 1897 there were LESS women (proportionately) who could. Ditto for 1910. Ditto for 1820. Etc.,

    As I mentioned there were legal bars for example to women acting in certain professions (such as lawyers). There were legal disadvantages in the areas of property, wills, contracts, etc. You have never heard of this?

    I’m afraid it’s you and A-R who are supporting collectivism and I who is pushing individualism. Government backed collective rules firmly ensconsed and protected memes into our culture that did and still do disadvantage girls, and you want to see those collectivelly generated effects continue, while I want to make it so these collectively generated effects dissappear and individual women are not hampered by them.

  58. Bob–

    I’ve heard that argument a lot. While I can’t say that I know too much about graduate physics curricula, undergraduate physics curricula require no more math than the undergraduate math major. Women receive around 45% of all bachelor degrees in mathematics in the U.S., so I don’t think it is a lack of ability.

    I think it’s the labs. Physics, chemistry, and engineering require a lot of building and tinkering with equipment, and I think females (generally speaking) don’t enjoy that kind of work. Of course, I have no data to support that…


  59. Throughout human history the percent of people who could vote is well less than 1%. Neither the average man nor the average woman has had much political power.

    so specific disenfranchisement is excluded because there was also general disenfranchisement?

    that’s fascinating. retarded, but fascinating.

  60. Not seeing it overtly stated, but if anybody is under the impression that there was a federal ban on women voting in the US at any time need only look at women’s voting rights in NJ from the time the USA was formed until that State’s legeslature removed women’s voting rights.

  61. The University I attended, UTK, had been racially and sexually integrated ages before I got there. Our main “rights” gripe was about people of-age having alcohol in the dorms.

    Not much experience with attending backward institutions, or those emerging from backwardness.

    Living in places like that, yes, I was able to escape Chicagoland for the progressive Knoxville, TN as a teen.

  62. Ron,

    Did Thomas Jefferson sign your diploma?

  63. I mean, have you been laboring under the assumption that Reason purported to be agenda-free wire service or that this particular blog was supposed to be just straight news reporting?

    DAR,

    In case you missed the context there, I was reminding Anon that this was not a straight news source, but an advocacy rag.

  64. Bob Smith,

    There was a nice take down of that argument by Spelke in a debate with Pinker recently on The Edge debate on the topic.

    Tangentially, the math involved in modern biology research is not, by any means, trivial. When you are modeling complex genetic and epigenetic factors in a living organism, you are dealing with systems with more complexity than most physicists ever consider…no?

  65. From what I understand, real manly men can use slide rules and do engineering things like maths and calculus and linear systems.

    Girly men do silly emotional things like write poetry and novels (they’re probably gay too).

    Also, women and others are silly and unless you’re being oppressed or maybe beaten RIGHT NOW you have no right to complain about everything.

    Did I get that right?

  66. http://www.You can find the Spelke Pinker debate here.

    edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

  67. Government backed collective rules firmly ensconsed and protected memes into our culture that did and still do disadvantage girls, and you want to see those collectivelly generated effects continue, while I want to make it so these collectively generated effects dissappear and individual women are not hampered by them.

    How about you provide some evidence that these effects still continue?

  68. Not really. That’s how the executive summary spun the data. However, the actual data is less cheery. Have a look.

    Pigwiggle,

    I don’t really have time to go through the 124 page report this morning, but a quick browse would support their executive summary. Differences between genders are trivial compared to differences based on SES/Ethnicity.

    The largest advantage continues to be for upper class white males…And it is upper income females that are driving the changes in demographics…did I miss something?

  69. Math in biology…

    I believe Dr. T can speak meaningfully about the math used in current biology research…

    And the Human Genome Project was anything but a trivial computational problem…

    String theory ain’t the only abstract math in town (and it’s “Not Even Wrong”).
    http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

  70. From what I understand, real manly men can use slide rules and do engineering things like maths and calculus and linear systems.

    I still have a couple of them someplace. Also got to learn how to plot field artillery with one, but us non-FA types were not allowed to use the red numbers.

    Can also knock dents out of fenders with a hammer and dolley.

    Do I win a prize?

    If I can pick my prize I want a girlfriend who can weld.

  71. While MANY men could not vote in 1897 there were LESS women (proportionately) who could. Ditto for 1910. Ditto for 1820.

    Actually, the US got universal male suffrage in 1864. Granted, black men still couldn’t vote in the South after Reconstruction, but that doesn’t really help the “some people suffered systematic oppression and required special laws to overcome that” argument.

  72. Neu Mejican:

    “Differences between genders are trivial compared to differences based on SES/Ethnicity.”

    And I’ll bet all of the above are trivial compared to differences in IQ.

    Seriously, if you’re going to try to make an argument about relative performance in the education system, you should maybe, at the very least, make mention of the single, most important factor contributing to academic success.

    Oh, and you should also avoid assuming that everyone is equally intelligent.

  73. Russ R.

    The single most important factor?
    Really?

    I don’t buy it.

    Who was assuming everyone is equally intelligent?

    As for which is more important SES or IQ…I think the data would support SES, but you could prove me wrong.

  74. Back in the 1990s, as a reporter for Education Week, I analyzed the AAUW’s research sounding the alarm about a schoolgirls’ crisis and obtained internal documents from the organization shedding light on its motives and means. I ended up summarizing my findings in a freelance piece for The Weekly Standard, which I have now posted on my Web site, http://www.colorandmoney.com. Hate to toot my own horn, but I think it is the most thorough and hard-hitting story on the group you will ever find in the popular media, and should be required reading for anyone trying to pass judgment on this group’s latest report.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.