On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:47:41 -0400 Andrea L. Klein wrote:
> From: Andrea L. Klein <alklein@WESLEYAN.EDU>
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:47:41 -0400
> Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:48:37 -0400 Joel VanLaven wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps that adage should be more like: reading is NOT for
boys
> > and math
> > > is NOT for girls, so feminist sci-fi is for NO traditional people.
> > >
> > > -- Joel VanLaven
> >
> >
> > I don't know what the figures look like in the US, but in the UK
there is
> > currently mass panic in some quarters because girls are now
beating
> > boys in the maths and science exams taken at 18 years old. And
> > guess what, the rhetoric is *not* about how wonderful it is that
girls
> > are doing so well! Only a few more years to wait and it should all
be
> > filtering through to the colleges.
> >
> > Farah
> >
>
> Wish I had the stats, but apparently here in the US girls DO do
better in
> high school math in terms of grades--girls have better GPAs
generally--but
> still trail in the SATs. (For non-USers, the SATs are used as one of
our
> main predictors for college success.) Amidst the constant debate
over the
> validity of the SATs, the verbal section (as well as the math) keeps
being
> reviewed for biases--ethnic, gender, class, whatever. In addition to
> other changes, the verbal section was revised to include more
scientific
> readings in the reading comprehension in an attempt to equalize
the
> genders (girls were and still do score higher, but the scores are
now
> closer). I'm not sure what went/goes on with the math-section
> discussion--might it be gender-biased? I don't know.
>
> The above info comes from Matlin's psyc of women text. It might
be
> loaded, I don't know. No better way to lie than with statistics.
>
> Hedges & Nowell (1995) assessed test scores b/n 1971 and 1992
and found
> that in large-scale surveys, high school boys score on average
higher on
> the math sections, and/but show more variability in scores--that is,
there
> are more males than females at both the high end of the spectrum
and the
> low end.
>
> One limitation of Hedges & Nowell's approach is that the scores
from the
> earlier years would be recording students who were not required to
take a
> certain number of math classes. In 1970, Sells found that high
schools
> were serving as a "critical filter," keeping many women from
careers in
> math and science by not requiring math courses, rendering more
women than
> men (who opted to continue the math) ineligible for college math
and
> science (50% of Berkeley men had 4yrs of HS math, 8% of women).
Thus, the
> girls in the earlier studies might have been less prepared for the
> tests--and the tests then reflected experience not ability. So, I don't
> know if the gender gap in math scores is narrowing or not, I'd
presume it
> is. It definately is in terms of math and science courses in college.
>
> Anyway, sorry to be long-winded...thought some might be
unfamiliar and
> interested. The point is simply that assumptions of biological
> differences are being questioned. Though that seems a redundant
point to
> make to a feminist listserver.
>
> Andrea Klein
Thanks, I think similar things happen here in science. I have a very
memorable experience when I was fourteen of girls being asked to
switch to biology because too many people wanted to do physics.
BUT all of the twelve girls who had originally opted for physics were
in the top set. It would have made far more sense for the boys in the
lower sets to have been moved into general science making room
that way. Inevitably, all but five girls dropped out.
Farah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:05 PDT