Economist: girls actually better than boys at maths

There never will be

There never will be equality, that term is used by women, it really means to have the parts of male supremacy that they like, they still want all the benefits of being a woman, men are expected to cater to that becasue everyone seems to have accepted that it is more difficult to be a woman and they deserve it. TBH im sick of dealing with it.

Quote:

"If you teach girls separately from boys, they perform dramatically better, especially in subjects where "traditionally" boys are expected to be stronger, such as maths and hard sciences."

As far as education, i believe girls are more personally driven to do well, their mothers certainly enforce how lucky they are to have 'these opportunities' open to them, i know that was the case with my sister. Therefore girls are more driven to do well.

Boys seem more restless and the only thing i concentrated on in class was how the girl next to me looked, girls are a distraction, i feel that hindered my progress in all subjects not just maths. So this nonsense about girls doing better when they are not placed with boys is making it out like boys are hindering girls ability due to peer pressure. That comment works in reverse, im sure boys do better without girls in class with them....

@ Ian

"Err.. statistics is a branch of pure math :p"

Err.. no it's not. At least not when I did my A levels all those years ago.

Back then, pure maths was the study calculus, trigonometry, matrices and other general algebra. My exam board (JMB if you're interested) stipulated that each student be taught a pure maths curriculum plus one elective from mechanics, stats or 'applied' (bit of both).

And "nearly all math is applied" is tosh too. While all maths can be applied to some degree (it would be pretty useless if it couldn't), 'applied maths' teaches how maths is applied rather than teaching mathematical theorems specifically. A simple example is the triangle, from a purely mathematical perspective it is a 3 sided euclidean shape where the sum of the internal angles is pi rad/180deg, etc. If you are building a bridge however...

Going back to the study, how can there every be true gender equality (in education, life, whatever) when the whole issue is so highly politicised? The reality is that true equality is impossible because the different sides have different ideas of what equality is. If boys do well then it indicates that the education system is more suited to males and if girls do well then likewise. The worst part is that politicians will endlessly exploit this situation to achieve whatever end they desire.

And the same goes for racial, or any, equality discussions. The worst part is that politicians will endlessly exploit these situations to achieve whtaever end they desire.

Not to sound sexist..

Women are highly more successful in American schools OVERALL, but males tend do better math, by a bit , Is the idea of equality, "Women do better at everything, get every advantage, and are generally more intelligent"

Another bitter and twisted feminist speaks.

On the Gaussian distribution of linguistics, I'll accept that women are better at languages for the most part, because in the cave they had to deceive men out of food and a living, using only their mouth, guile, and their vagina. It therefore follows that they had to be good at lying by ommission and/or ambiguity.

Similarly, in order to get sex in the post stoneage world, men had to build things that didn't fall down. I drove to Surrey and back this morning, a long way. On the way I traversed hundreds of bridges, and was over flown by devices of such aerial cunning that Newton couldn't have forseen them. There were no women involved in any of this construction, other than perhaps choosing what colour it will be. Similarly, we can count on one hand the number of female inventors who've invented things men wanted, but didn't have. (I exclude things like the bra, if men had wanted women wearing bras I'm sure we'd have invented them.)

Were I a great linguist, I would no doubt despair at men's inability to put their verbal case forward. I'm not however, I'm merely above average at logical analysis, and I can say from looking around at those I consider exceptional, there's one woman for every dozen men at the higher levels, and at the very top there's simply no women at all, I've been in meetings where it was clear the highest performing women there were so out of their depth they would have been more useful as tea ladies. I'm sure there are women all over who've been in literary meetings where the same is true in reverse.

I don't deny, or even complain, that the education system has been tinkered with, to stop boys getting too far ahead of girls before they've even started, because for all sorts of reasons poverty is reduced when women work. (I think the government terminology is "It's better women pay for 20% of their keep than none at all.") however, to deny that boys losing out to girls at maths is for anything other than

a. a politicised education system leading to

i. Boys being positively held back by the state education mechanism,

ii. Exams being modfied so girls do well at them,

then they're either lying or misguided.

I personally subscribe to a couple of personal beliefs, which is that firstly, as a class women sit closer to the norm, there are more male geniuses and more male morons. The examples I gave above are merely the end points, there's a huge, vast even number of people in the middle for whom sex is irrelevant.

Secondly, that women are more predisposed to work hard just to be liked by their teacher. I'm sure that if young teachers gave a blowjob to the highest achieving boy, (or just tortured the weakest,) then boys would beat girls hands down.

Alas, this isn't wanted politically, if girls don't have continual good feedback, they fall on their backs with their legs in the air, and cause a drain on the state. If boys fail, well, then they're fodder for enemy cannons, which is something we need right now.

This is why we've invented hundreds of new professions, centred around not doing very much other than talking (usually complaining,) we've got to employ all these girls with women's studies degrees somewhere.

As for equality and equality laws, I'm all for them. Some men complain that equality laws always seem to favour women. Of course they do, it's because women can't compete with men in the most fields, who else are the laws going to support? The strong? Laws by their very nature are designed to protect the weak, but in order to stay elected, the government has to frame them in the context that everyone could benefit from them, even when clearly only one party ever will.

The usual sexism

i) Presume that male people are bad and oppressors and inferior and that, therefore, female people are good and oppressed and superior.

ii) Ignore for the time being the fact that in those places where feminism has had most success, the average academic performance of female pupils is higher than that of male pupils in every subject area other than maths, with the obvious consequences in higher education.

iii) Look at maths only and "correctly" interpret results dependent on the "correct" interpretation of various factors selected to give the "correct" impression of societies, thus "proving" that female people are good and oppressed and superior and that, therefore, male people are bad and oppressors and inferior.

QED.

What are these people going to do when their success is complete and female people do better than male people in everything?

Oh wait, silly question. They'll parade it about as proof that female people are even more superior than previously thought and therefore outperform male people despite male people oppressing them.

>if young teachers gave a blowjob

Of course there was a time, back when boys did better than girls, that most teachers were male and such an activity would be counter-productive.

It's a shame though that there's no social link between boys doing well at school and getting laid. Although I don't think that would have improved my sex life either.. :(

@ Ted Treen

your grandpops was spot on.

1 - <quote>results mainly from sexual discrimination</quote>.... how the fuk do they justify that statement? most teachers are women. am i to assume that females teach males better than they teach females? bullsh*t! boys have been on a consistent downward spiral of late and have no descent male role models within education to emulate.

2 - positive discrimination is still discrimination... women have never missed any of the free lunches available and STILL they demand more.

3 - there is a valid reason too: men are conditioned to protect their family, women are only conditioned to protect themselves and their children. revoke women's rights - they have abused them for too fuking long.

Re: if young teachers gave a blowjob

"I'm sure that if young teachers gave a blowjob to the highest achieving boy"

A bit of boasting so I'll remain anonymous. I was the highest achieving boy, nay pupil, in the top stream of my school back in the days when we had real exams and if I ever thought for a second that I was going to be so rewarded then I would have made sure to be well down the list. The maths teacher used to be a professional wrestler with Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks amongst his peers. I was never sure why he got back into teaching, I'm sure wrestling was less dangerous.

Foolishness

It's well established there is no innateness to performing a task one learns by being studious. The only question is which gender in any given society is pushed more towards academics on average, and how teachers tailor their instruction. That's if we could have all else equal which is never the case, such studies are always prone to the errors and interpretive bias of those designing and analyzing them.

Boys and girls are both equally capable of a full mastery of math in which there is a 100%:100% competency showing no innate discrepancy.

Which group is more clever? Probably the ones who do worse at math at a later age - realizing that most of the jobs they'll have will not need the level of math taught, that their studies are more productively spent in other areas.

Different

Comparing objective data (maths exam results) against subjective data (perceived equality) will always produce whatever the author wants it to. This is an economist _producing_ statistics (Lies, Damn lies etc.) in an emotive field of choice, sexual discrimination. Discrimination is bad, whatever kind of discrimination. And I include this report in that field, it too is discriminatory in that it is supporting, without FACTS, a view that women are poorer at a single area of study because they are being discriminated against.

Perhaps it is time that she and all 'feminists' understand that men & women are different. They have different abilities & skills, these are meant to complement each other not complete. There will always be those who excel in specific areas, some of these will excel in areas which do not traditionally 'belong' to their own gender/sex/orientation/inclination/floppy bits.

An AC poster has said that she enjoys having doors held open for her & the man paying for meals etc. Is that not also discrimination? The man being expected to pay for the evenings / outings entertainment? Why not the woman paying? To remove the monetary influence why don't women hold doors open for men? These habits and attitudes have grown over a long time. Some need to be changed, some do not. If women want true and complete equality then they have to start the process as well. So, next time you are out with your male S.O., you pay for the evening, you hold the doors open, you do the things that you so like the men doing. true equality will mean women losing so much.

Men and women are not equals. In every endeavour you care to mention there will be inequalities, whether they be hand / eye coordination, physical strength, spatial awareness, comprehension & understanding, anything. Women will be better at some things, men at others, this is provable. Wanting women & men to be equal does not mean that it is possible.

I was ace at maths when I was at school...

...does that mean I'm gay?

@Slaine

Wo(e) man.

Says it all.

Women will never be equal cos we're better :-D

You have a math degree, right?

Isn't cos a function, i.e. cosx or cos(x)?

Your typo is very interesting.

Schooling

My sister got an A in GCSA IT, I failed, I left school after my GCSEs after enrolling in Biology, Business studies and Physics, for A-level, realising how poor these courses were, and just set out having a laugh, left home off my own back when I was 18. Now with no qualifications and no mortgage i'm working in top sector IT contracting, i'm 25.

My sister is still in uni flitting from course to course, my girlfriend has been out of uni for over a year, and still can't hold a bloody job down, especialy one related to her degree (languages btw), she's a year younger than me, has 5 times the debt and earn less than an a third of my wage.

So.... I may have been beaten in school by many females who showed a brilliant application of memory, but i'm doing pretty well for myself in the real world, where most people realise how little sign of actual ability exam results show.

Published...

How the hell did these "findings" escape into the wild when the stats wouldn't even pass muster in an AS level stats exam?

Please tell me that the peer review process has torn this to shreds... pretty please?

Heck, show me equality between MEN!

There aint none.

Men don't rule the world. 0.0001% of men rule the world. A whole 0.0009% more than women.

Men have crappy jobs and bonking our way to money isn't as accepted for men as for women. And, given that most of that extreme money is in the hands of 0.0001% of men, there's a lot of competition for marrying into that from women for men to have a decent chance of getting hooked.