Few gender differences in math abilities

Post Reply New Topic

A worldwide study on math abilities in boys and girls found that girls don't perform worse than boys, boys are more confident in their math abilities and girls from countries where gender equity is more prevalent are more likely to perform better on math assessment tests.

Here's the news article:
ScienceDaily - Worldwide study finds few gender differences in math abilities

I am sure females are as apt is learning math a males. However one wonders why the population of world-class mathematical creators is primarily male.

Most of the original contributions to mathematics are from males. There are notable exception, for example Emily Noether whose theorem linking symmetries in physical laws to conserved quantities is of the utmost importance. Emily Noether was also David Hilbert's auxillary brain at Goetingen University.

Julia Robinson has made important contributions to the theory of numbers.

There are several more females of the first rank, but they are far fewer in number than males.

ruveyn

In history the reason is that females didn't get the opportunities to study that males got. Women were raised for housekeeping and raising children.

It's said that the IQ distribution curve is "flatter" for males compared to females. In other words there are more males compared to females in the extremes of the distribution -- exceptionally smart, or exceptionally dim.

In history the reason is that females didn't get the opportunities to study that males got. Women were raised for housekeeping and raising children.[/quote]

That was true when Emily Noether attended Geottingen. There was a heavy anti-female bias in academia in Europe. (This was early in the 20th century, before the Great War). It took special action on the part of David Hilbert (at the time, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world) to get fair treatment for Fraulein Noether.

However, there are no rigid institutional biases against females studying math or the science in American universities, these days. So why aren't there more first line female mathematicians creating new stuff in mathematics?

When a paper is submitted to a journal the gender of the contributor can be masked by using initials. That way the referee will not know the gender of the person submitting a paper.

ruveyn

This is really old news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan31.html

The reason why we don't see females in mathematical disciplines as we do boys is quite simple:

and later the same article notes the following:





Interestingly enough, the following:



What I wonder, is this new safe place going to produce the same results from those in the class as it would when the place was considered, less safe? Adversity often produces higher levels of success.

Lingering cultural biases. From an early age girls are discourage from taking an interest in math or science. It is acceptable (even expected) for young girls to declare that they hate math and can't understand it. Taking that sort of attitude (before even beginning to learn any mathematics) obviously does not lead to many women becoming mathematicians.

While I don't have evidence to support my "theory," I tend to view that statement as quite often a mere excuse. While I would agree there exists some bias and it does play a role; I think we, as a society, tend to overlook quite a bit of inherent qualities in both males and females as well as various disciplines (as the article I cited suggests). It's like acknowledging various inherent qualities in some way reflects an automatic negative perception. For instance, the notion that males tend to be more aggressive than females isn't to suggest females are lesser overall, just less aggressive--as in that particular quality.

[/quasi-rant]

The article you linked suggested that fewer women go into math and science because they don't want to, or they aren't interested in it. I think women being less interested in technical subjects is at least partially a cultural issue. This claim is definitely backed up by the study linked in the OP.

While I agree with the "excuse theory" of KazigluBey in general, I don't think interest would explain difference of 10:1 (M:F) ratio of professors and grad students that I see on my Univ. That is too much to be nature driven.

I grew up in eastern europe and there we had about 50% of girls in engineering department. No one even questioned it, it was normal. When I was visiting Japan, I felt like a endangered species and in US it is somewhere less severe but the equal opportunity disclaimer pisses me off always.
My point is that it is possible to achieve gender equlities (meaning up to the nature-driven boundary) in just 1-2 generations. And obviously just after that is achieved, we can discuss natural distribution of preferences, strengths and weaknesses between genders (or races).

I am recalling that even that we had 50% of undergrad women the percent in faculty was much smaller. Majority can't make a work/family balance with high pressure advanced education or jobs. That is the other thing that needs work.

What do you think it was about Eastern Europe that made the ratio so different than in the USA? Less cultural stigma for women in tech fields? More encouragement?

Seems like USA is not overly hostile (as far as I can tell not being a woman) and does do some encouraging of girls re: science/tech, but the ratios still are so far from 50:50. I was a Physics undergrad (in the USA) and there were 6 women out of 211 students who were declared Physics majors.

There is still the 'glass ceiling', which means it is still more difficult for women than it is for men to reach higher positions.
In general, in relations, if couples want children, women are expected to put more time and energy in raising the children and do the housekeeping.
For women it is a disadvantage when looking for a job, because when they are young and they want to have children in the near future, potential employers prefer men, because women may not be able to work full time, because it is hard to combine family life with a full time job in a high position.
I think it is very difficult to reach real equality, to get rid of the glass ceiling and the cultural differences.

Hello Scientist,

I'm not sure if you were replying to my post, but if so, why don't those factors seem to matter in Eastern Europe? In EE are child rearing duties distributed differently? Or maybe AnotherOne talking about a country where jobs and educational positions are mandated and apportioned by the government??

It just sounds like, from AnotherOne's post that EE has "done it." So I'm wondering how they got 50:50 ratios of male:female students in engineering -- what do they do differently than, say, the USA?

Apple_in_my_Eye

my guess would be that socialism that we had after the WW2 made a radical erasing of all gender or other (like wealth) differences. Obviously that was very rough and the system produced lots of pain in the first generation but after that, 2nd generation lived relatively free and normal life.
I am not advocating socialism just analyzing based on my experience.


Scientist

From my experience (and I know lots of phd couples), it is not the employer who decides against women. Actually Universities would like to have more women faculty (looks good for PR) and they can get more money/grants if they have women/minorities on staff. It is actually women themselves that stop climbing the ladder tired of the power-hungry battle that is needed to survive.

All of it? No. Most of it? I believe so.



Here's my problem with the notion of gender equalities: How do you accurately measure it? You can't simply look at numbers as it requires that whatever percentage one feels should exist as an end result, first exists in desire (and quite often many demand to see almost even numbers when looking at desire). Secondly, the US cannot compare itself necessarily with Europe or various countries (such as Japan, etc). Different countries have different cultures as well as different histories for which to shape their culture.



I disagree and for one reason only: "women are expected."

That's a rather sexist statement in the sense that it completely absolves women from decisions they have chosen to make on their own--decisions where they were at full liberty to choose any option available.

Not to suggest a glass ceiling does not exist anywhere, but that more often than not what appears to be an imposed glass ceiling based on sex is little more than a myth rooted in the refusal to apply one's own self (or demand that of others) equally to begin with (speaking in regards to the US here).

Physical, motor skills and other "nature-made" differences between genders are not that much pronounced. I don't think that world record in any sport is 10 times different for men and women. Also GPAs, IQs and other tests are not that much different why would interests would be?


Regarding "glass ceiling": if women have attendance and GPA of 50% at undergrad level why they drop 4 times to 10% in upper levels?
Men are better? Not according to GPA from the undergrad level. And it doesn't make sense that in some countries women are "naturally" more inclined to math and in some they are not. If there is a brain difference it should be universal at least on the race, continent level.

This also happened in my (now ex-) socialist country. I mean this glass-ceiling thing.