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