Article in The Economist about gender gap in education

I've worked as a (group and individual) tutor for nearly 20 years and one point that keeps cropping up among the boys I've taught (15-17 yo) is the idea that education and academic achievement are somehow "unmanly". My kids usually tend to be from immigrant backgrounds so I'm not sure how widespread this view is in the white dominant culture, but would be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed the same. Because remarks like "I'm not learning French, that's gay" would go a long way in explaining why these boys intentionally underperform in school. In other words: the patriarchy - it hurts men too (no shit).

Messy that sounds about right. At school I was always top of the class but was always called 'conscientious' whereas the boy who was second in the class was universally recognised as 'clever'

Thankfully revenge is a dish best served cold, I have a much better career than he does. not bitter and twisted at all

And here we have girls under performing compared to boys.

I've taught in two nearly identical schools, except that one was all boys and one all girls (both state grammar schools). What I've found (totally anecdotal, so no actual evidence), is that the girls tended to take study more seriously than boys at GCSE (on average). At a level, the boys start to catch up, but it's not until yr13 that both groups seem to take study equally seriously (usually not until uni applications went in). By 'taking study seriously', I mean recognising that school is important if they want career prospects and/or university, working hard throughout lessons without much reminding to stay on task, completing homework and revision on time and to a high standard, being organised (ie remembering to bring exercise books, textbooks, pens to lessons).

Obviously there were examples of very studious boys and girls who didn't do any work, this is all just on average.

It could also be that this is just what is expected for them by their teachers. Girls are expected to be organised, and boys expected to mess about.

IIRC that was when they marked girls down because they were doing too well on the 11+ and subsequently taking up too many grammar school places.

As someone who took the 11+ in the 50s I can confirm Messy that girls did have to get a higher mark to pass than boys so that a roughly 50/50 ratio prevailed in grammar schools - otherwise the girls would have outnumbered the boys.

Interesting isn't it that girls got higher marks in the "sudden death" (no coursework) 11+ in the 1950s when the current view is that boys do better at sudden death exams while girls do better at coursework.

Who is fooling whom about what boys and girls are more suited to, I ask?

But you are aware of those stereotypes; it's more of a problem when you make such assumptions without ever questioning them.. - and a lot of people do do that.

And yet, in the 50s, didn't boys 'outperform' girls?

IIRC that was when they marked girls down because they were doing too well on the 11+ and subsequently taking up too many grammar school places.

Buffy you are right. If girls do well, especially at a technical subject, I tend to think it's because she's a hard worker but for a boy I would assume he's innately clever. As much as I hate those stereotypes I can't stop them popping into my head!

Oh that is absolutely an essentialist explanation of it...in real life situations it is much more that statistically girls tend to be more...and boys tend to be...rather than they just are, but that takes longer to write, lol.

I do think it's a huge huge issue that there seem to be 'girls' subjects' and 'boys' subjects' at higher levels of education.

But primary education is hugely important (I mean apart from the obvious it's where they learn the basics bit) as by secondary school the pupil's own idea of their ability is what often dictates how they perform and that is determined by what happens at primary school.

I think you're right that suddenly as it's become boys under performing it's become more important - but, personally I don't want any group of children to be in an education system which seems to be failing them...whether that's boys at primary or girls in some subjects at secondary or FE.

Buffy - it's because a teacher standing in front of a class suits boys better, there's no issue with impulse control if everyone is engaged in solo work silently, there's nothing to distract them and boys have more confidence to put their hand up to ask questions if they're unsure.

In that environment girls don't get the help they need if they're unsure about something and boys dominate teacher time.

With more collaborative teaching methods they're expected to stay on task while also working with other pupils...girls do that better (even by school starting age) so if they're unsure of something they may get help from their partner or group and in addition to that they're more likely to ask for teacher time because they gain confidence from the other pupils or they know that they aren't alone in being stuck on something.

With more interactive learning, that also provides boys with more distractions.

It's not just that classroom environments have changed, but it is part of it that even at 5 boys have been socialised to be louder, more active and to be more self directed than girls...and that girls have been socialised to be quieter, less demanding of attention and sit and do 'girly' activities.

Education favours girls as education requires children to:

sit still
pay attention
organise themselves
work steadily
interact with others in a consdierate way
not make a fuss
have a good concentration span

All things girls are socialised into doing and boys generally are not.
So girls have a head start because they have the study skills generally when they start school - boys are allowed/expected not to sit still and "need to run around more". So girls will do better because they have better study skills from a very young age.
When education was for boys only corporal punishment was used to make them work - it was highly coercive. Now education is cooperative and boys don't co-operate as much as girls.

However this educational achievement doesn't translate into higher pay or pensions for women as when they have children they are expected to stop work. .

I knew that second coffee was a bad idea, sorry for the essays.

Sorry OP I know it's a thread hijack to go on about the pay gap when it's supposed to be about the situation in schools.

I'm really shocked to hear of that teacher saying all men are potential rapists. That's not feminism, just abuse imo.
I remember a man (a catholic priest actually) coming in to my primary school and saying that rape was impossible as there would be lubrication!

Sometimes people come out with the most stupid things, and these say more about the person saying them ime. Hope your DS is ok, sausage.
I think I'd report that teacher. She sounds like she has some serious issues, perhaps even with past abuse, and probably needs some help.
The priest who talked to us was probably a rapist, or had serious rape fantasies in hindsight, and shouldn't have been anywhere near children.

Interestingly, there's a lot of research on pay scales and colour / ethnicity in the US, and of all things, above average height and attractiveness / good looks seems to be significant factors in whether you're promoted in corporations.

Most tall, attractive, whiter men are paid more than shorter, uglier, darker men within corporations.
But interestingly for males, most company directors and entrepreneurs are short squat little blokes- they weren't getting what they wanted in a corporation, so they started their own thing.

Hispanic and black women are at the bottom of the heap in corporations, not so if they start their own businesses where outcomes are more individualistic.

I had male and female teachers, as I went to a mixed secondary school. I didn't see any of the teachers as role models, but then I don't see anyone as a role model, as there's no one like me, and I don't want to be like anyone else.

What's this new obsession with role models anyway? Seems like cookie cutter dronespeak to me.
Why are we talking so much about role models?
Why are we looking for a hero? Sorry another hijack.

Well you can look at the unadjusted stats here in the EU report on the pay gap
There is a lot of information available about the gender based pay gap. It's of huge concern, especially as women live longer and have less to live on with their smaller pensions.

If you look at the man's salary as 100 units then the 80 comes as a result of taking 20 % from that.
Women in a same sex couple earn 160 units and men in same sex couples earn 200 units.
Men and women in a relationship earn 180 units. Across the EU , women's salaries are 16% less than a man's. In the UK it's about 20% less.
See for yourself in this graph.

The evidence shows that the pay gap is most prevalent in business, not in public sector jobs, and that the gender based pay gap now mostly occurs in older workers, before equality legislation was enacted, and also for part time workers.

Imvho businesses can be very discriminatory when suggesting salaries to me, and I always negotiated at least 20% extra for any job I was offered, (sometimes I negotiated a 100% increase, inline with what I knew male candidates were offered) and these offers was accepted, so I know there was plenty leeway.
(I didn't take the +100% job in the end as they were just too disrespectful.)

Of course most businesses don't allow their employees discuss their salaries, but you hear on the grapevine that men earn more than women- these are the places where the old hoary clichés are rolled out about women not being interested in their careers after taking 'time out' to have babies.

Where salaries are out in the open, (public sector) there is less gender based discrimination, and no shit is bandied about about women losing their career mojo once they have kids. Funny that.

I think these videos about the 1% are of academic interest, and bear little relation to how things are going to work for you. Imvho you have to fight for your rights on a case by case basis.

That's not to say that the women in the corporate videos who have fought for their rights aren't to be respected for their own achievements, and choices, just that you won't get anywhere sitting on their laurels (or your own)!

Depressingly, if you look at universities and beyond, the picture in academia reverses.

But, of course, 'education favours women'.

I read that article and was amazed by the Economist shaking their head at the poor women who can't have the big jobs because those jobs require long hours and inflexible working, the poor women who will have to marry 'down' or not at all, and the poor men who are leaving school unskilled and with no jobs to go to, and couldn't manage to put together a scenario where the unskilled men marry the highly qualified women and look after their children while the women do the inflexible, long hours jobs. It must be completely unthinkable!

Young women earn more than young men the biggest factor which changes this is having children.

However relationship choices also have an affect here as well. Women typically partner up with men who are older and generally earn more. If they decide they want someone to look after the children full time then it only make sense that the person will the lower earner.

Maybe if women don't marry at all or marry 'down' it would be better for women's careers overall.

Talking totally from personal experience of course but I think a lot of it has to do with self-image and what's considered "cool".

DS often reports that the boys take the piss out of other boys who show too much enthusiasm for studying whilst the girls place a lot of their worth on the grades they get.

It's surely a good thing for girls that they are placing more value on their intelligence and academic achievements. When I was young it was practice to dumb yourself down in order to not scare off any boys..

But I don't think boys are doing as badly as people make out. And I would say that the reason less of them go to university than girls is that there are far more opportunities for them at a non academic level.

Boys are just thick... It's obvious that girls are the more intelligent. Why aren't the media covering this? Misogynists!

Venus - sorry to be pedantic but on this thread about education I fear that you are letting the side down with your poor arithmetic.

If men are paid 20% more than women, then when you marry one your household income jumps to 220% of your single income (e.g. you earn £100, he £120, total £220)

If you stay single you are on 83.33% of his pay (e.g. 100/120).

Similarly a lesbian couple would get 83.33% compared to a same-sex male couple - e.g. (2x100)/(2x120).

If your pay is 80% of a mans, then his pay is actually 25% greater than yours.

Sorry I just couldn't let that lie...

Petula - what percentage would a lesbian couple who were both WOC be likely to bring in?

Fortunately that scenario is moot, as obviously it's a logical impossibility.

I believe it's generally accepted that the heavens would actually fall if such a coupling were to occur.

Women of colour are only ever 'corrupted' by naice white girls - surely everybody knows that?

men are not paid any more for the same job, with the same experience.

Men should not be paid any more for the same job and same experience. But despite legislation on this for 40 years, we cannot say they are not in all cases.