guy@rlgvax.UUCP (06/22/84)
A letter to the editor in the 22 June 1984 issue of Science magazine (the official magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) from Lynn H. Fox at the School of Continuing Studies at Johns Hopkins makes a very pertinent statement: ...Personally I believe that arguing for the superiority of one group over another in terms of innate potential on the basis of crude measures is not good science or socially productive. I am concerned that prolonged debate of this issue (especially in the popular press) on the basis of research that does not address all the relevant dimensions could be harmful in that many able females may become discouraged or be discouraged by teachers or parents who misunderstand the difference between speculation and fact. Those who argue for the biological basis of differences seem to be saying that it is important to make people aware of sex differences in mathematical test performance so that "unrealistic expectations" will not be set for girls. While I understand the concern about quotas being set for colleges and industry, surely there is harm in the misconception that sex differences between groups mean that all men are better than all women. In the not so distant past women have been discouraged from attempting careers in fields dominated by men. If more men than women possess the necessary combination of abilities to suceed in some endeavors, let this be demonstrated fairly in an open arena of competition in the classroom and on the job. We should not erect psychological barriers to thwart the achievement of those women who do have the talent.... The letter was in response to two other letters published in the 23 March 1984 issue of Science (p. 1247) referring to a report in the 2 December 1983 issue of Science (p. 1029) by Camilla P. Benbow and Julian C. Stanley; the two letters "discuss(ed) the correct interpretation of a study by Fox, Brody, and Tobin (1) of social processes that inhibit or enhance the development of competence and interest in mathematics among highly able women in 1982." Dr./Ms. Fox was the senior investigator for that study. The letter also states that the fact that Benbow and Stanley found far more boys than girls scoring above 600 on the SAT in Mathematics may not mean that boys have more innate ability than girls, because ...The SAT-M is not a pure measure of innate ability, but rather a measure of ability as it has developed in interaction with educational experiences within and outside of schools. The SAT-M has not yet been shown to accurately predict adult creative achievement in mathematics or engineering or success in a career. It also states ...On standardized tests of achievement girls tend to do better than boys on decimal problems, while boys have the advantage on fractional problems. If there is a female advantage in thinking about or learning decimals, surely we will want to modify instructional strategies to accommodate those differences, rather than saying, "boys can't learn decimals and should avoid careers in accounting." The study (1) is: 1. L. Fox, L. Brody, D. Tobin, "The Study of Social Processes That Inhibit or Enhance the Development of Competence and Interest in Mathematics Among Highly Able Young Women (National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C., 1982). It was reported at the January 1982 AAAS annual meeting in Washington, D.C.. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy