psuvm%cjc@psuvax.UUCP (05/19/84)
<> My strongly-held personal feeling is that each person should be treated as an INDIVIDUAL, not a member of any group, sex, race, etc., (unless relevance of that group membership can be demonstrated) However I also feel strongly that it is better to try to see the world as it IS, not as we would like it to be. The question of sex-related difference in math ability has not been proven, but there is evidence that it is not entirely environmental. I recommend reading a report in "Science" 2 Dec, 1983, also other publications referred to in that article, and followup letters that were printed in "Science" sometime this spring. This report is by Benbow and Stanley on recent results of the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. Very briefly: during 1980, 81, and 82, 19,833 boys and 19,937 girls in the seventh grade or of typical seventh grade age (12 years)applied for and took the mathematical part of the SAT, which was designed to measure mathematical reasoning of 11th and 12th grade students. The mean score for the boys was 416 (S.D. = 87) and for the girls 386 (S.D. =37); the ratio of boys to girls among those who scored >= 500 was 2.1:1; among those who scored >= 600 the ratio was 4.1:1. Substantial differences between the boys and girls attitudes or backgrounds were not found, nor were there substantial differences in stated interest in mathematics, taking of math courses in high school, or in math course grades. A similar nationwide talent search, less well studied, located 260 boys and 20 girls who scored >= 700, a ratio of 13:2. My own feeling is that in math and most other areas, males are not necessarily better, but rather more variable, ie. more at the high end of the scale and also more at the low. (In this article it was reported that the boys' scores had a larger variance than the girls'.) This idea apparently has been studied somewhat, but I haven't yet seen any writings about it; I'd like to see some discussion here. C. Clark (cjc@psuvm - Bitnet)
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/20/84)
A higher variance might be traceable to some basic biochemical difference between men and women. Also, a higher variance implies that if I wish to hire top mathematicians, they will all be men.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (05/21/84)
> Also, a higher variance implies that if I wish to hire top mathematicians, > they will all be men. Depends on your definition of "top". Unless the threshhold for "top" were set very high, the variance for women might be enough to put a significant number of women over the top, so to speak. (For that matter, if, for instance, males received a greater tendency towards flakiness along with a greater variance, the initial pool of eligible male top mathematicians might be greater, but more of them might be passed over for spending their lunch hour poisoning the pigeons in the park or somesuch.) Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (05/22/84)
>A higher variance ... if one were to hire top mathematicians, they would >all be men. (paraphrased) All is a bit strong. It is true that if men and women had the same average Math ability, but the men had the higher variance, the top (as well as the bottom) would be predominantly male. However, if there is just one woman in the population whose ability exceeds that of the lowest man chosen, you have lost in restricting your sample to men. Of course, the higher variance would give you no improvement if you used sex as a hiring criterion (at least in average skill of the people hired -- it might be worth your while to hire 4 or 5 bozos to get one really outstanding employee (ie, it may not be in your interest to maximize "average skill")). On the other hand, a slight difference in means between the groups would give sexual discrimination some positive value; but it still loses badly compared to a more pertinent measurement. Jens -- "Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd" Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (05/23/84)
> My own feeling is that in math and most other areas, males are not > necessarily better, but rather more variable, ie. more at the high > end of the scale and also more at the low. (In this article it was > reported that the boys' scores had a larger variance than the girls'.) > This idea apparently has been studied somewhat, but I haven't yet > seen any writings about it; I'd like to see some discussion here. I agree, although I have little scientific knowledge to base it on. It seems that male babies go through a somewhat more radical development (I don't know what that consists of) resulting in more male geniuses as well as more mental retardation and still births than females.