Here's 100 Years of Proof That Girls Are Better Students Than Boys. In all subjects, even math and science.
In 2006, Newsweek magazine declared it, loud, on their cover: America's boys were in crisis. Boys were falling behind their female counterparts in school. They were getting worse grades, lagging on standardized tests, and not attending college in the same numbers as girls. "By almost every benchmark," Peg Tyre, the author of the cover story, wrote, "boys across the nation and in every demographic group are falling behind." And so it began-the end of men, but also an ongoing conversation on how to better boys' performance in the classroom. From the article:
This "boy crisis," however, was based on an assumption: that males had previously been on top. Granted, there was evidence to support that idea. For one, educational institutions for most of modern history have been openly sexist, favoring boys. And traditionally, males had outperformed girls in standardized tests and in math and science. But "by the mid-1990s, girls had reduced the gap in math, and more girls than boys were taking high-school-level biology and chemistry," Tyre wrote.
The assumption that boys had been the better students didn't seem right to (married) researchers Daniel and Susan Voyer of the University of New Brunswick in Canada. "I've been collecting grade data for a long time," Daniel Voyer says in a phone interview. "Typically if you find gender differences, they are in favor of girls - it doesn't matter what it is. So it started to kind of puzzle me." And so the pair set out to test, collecting every study they could find on grades and gender since 1914 and crunching the numbers in a mega-meta analysis, the first of its kind.
While the girls' advantage is largest in reading and language studies, it exists for all subjects, even math and science. And though they tested data from across the world, the Voyers found the gender gap was largest in the United States.
What's most striking is that the gender gap held across the decades. If the boy crisis existed, they would have seen boys' performance peak and fall over time. That wasn't the case. "Boys have been lagging for a long time and ... this is a fairly stable phenomenon," the paper concluded.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 02 2014, @12:34PM
Some non-hand-wavy soft-science findings: The most important thing to remember about most gender-related statistical differences is that variation within genders is almost always much greater than variation between genders. For example, on average men can run 100 meters faster than women, and Usain Bolt can run faster than Florence Griffith Joyner, but Joyner is much faster than most men. On average, girls score about 10-20 points higher on the SATs than boys, but there are boys who score 1600 and girls who do terribly (or don't even take it).
So what this basic point means is that regardless of this or any other finding, you should not be treating kids significantly differently based on gender, but on their actual skills and personality. You should be giving girls the chance to be great athletes or mathematicians or scientists, and boys the chance to be great therapists or romance novelists or nurses, if that child wants to pursue those kinds of activities and/or is good at them.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin