Sexism in exams (and how generally unrigorous they are)

[larrygrylls]

AIBU in being shocked at how unperturbed the media is in announcing a 9.2% outperformance by girls in the top four grades at GCSE?

How have we got to the stage where vague empathetic answers (at which girls excel) have become more important than learning hard facts and problem solving (which boys enjoy)?

In addition, how can anyone seriously debate the dumbing down of exams when 50% of all private school A level results came out at grade A. Frankly it is a joke and discriminates against the truly able. How are decent universities meant to select the top candidates? By lottery ticket?!
When I look at maths A level today, the questions are marginally above what I studied at O level and well below what I did at AO (the old exam taken by brighter pupils simultaneously to O level and by some others aged 17).

Why are parents of boys not crying foul and threatening to sue schools and exam boards using discrimination legislation. Were it a 9.2% bias in favour of girls, they certainly would be.

Spam. For the same reason that you hope I have no daughters. You clearly believe there is no other explanation for girls doing better than either a superior attitude or a superior intelligence.

FWIW, I have only one tiny son, aged 11 weeks tomorrow. I do, however, have an 18 year old God Daughter who has just got her 3 As at A level. I do not have this debate with her.

I haven't said that at all. I have made no comment about the exam results.

I have said that I take issue with your assertion that boys excel at hard facts and problem solving while girls are good at "vague empathetic answers". Which is an atrociously stereotypical attitude.

Great post Laurie

I love the idea of these exams that demand empathetic answers. I might start changing the exam questions we offer.

Biology: "How does a tadpole really ^feel^ as it becomes a frog?"

Physics: "Describe the emotions of an electron. How have its relations with the nucleus changed over the past 70 years?"

Geography: "Empathise with continents as they drift."

Spam, regard the context in which it was said. You cannot separate the comment from the context. And I would like to know your explanation for my two central questions:

. Why is there a 9.2% gap in performance in the four highest grades at GCSE.

. Why do the media not seem to care.

For what it is worth I do think girls are marginally better at communicating and boys marginally better at hard problem solving. That is a statistical bias, though, and does not mean that SOME women are not brilliant at problem solving and SOME men not brilliant communicators. I think exam structure can thus be made to favour one sex over another. Again, if this is not the case, I would like to hear another explanation. And I do not buy "girls mature earlier". I think Newton was in his teens when he started his work on gravitation.

And yet

However, our women students get noticeably fewer firsts than male students in standard University exams - and no, women don't also get fewer thirds than men. We have no bloody idea why.

Grendelsmum:

Physics is still a genuinely tough subject. Very few people study it these days to A level at all. And the results are not skewed according to sex.

And more like:

Biology:

"Please discuss the importance of man's influence on climate and the effect it has on biological diversity"

Geography:

"Contrast the life of a peasant in Vietnam with a poor person in the UK. How might they both FEEL about their situations"

These would not be unusual these days.

GrendelsMum

Fractions: Do you think the small number sometimes wishes that the big number would go on top for once?

Good for Newton. It doesn't mean that some things are generally as in 'can be generalised over a large enough sample' true.

Girls are better at coursework because they mature earlier. They are less easily distracted, they are more easily manipulated to people please.

There is no better explanation than that.

And even if there were an explanation why the heck does it matter?

By the time children leave education (including HE) it has evened out.

Well, this is turning into quite an interesting debate.

When we teach undergraduates, learning "hard facts" are seen by both students and lecturers as the easy bit. Every one of our undergraduates should know the hard facts. Frankly, if you went into an undergraduate exam and recited some "facts" I think offhand you would be looking at a 2.2.

What makes a good student is being able to do something with those facts - to develop a line of reasoning, make a valid scientific argument from them, to say where these facts might lead, what experiments need to be done to develop this.

"Please discuss the importance of man's influence on climate and the effect it has on biological diversity"

If that's a genuine question from a school-level exam, then actually I would say your quarrel is with the marking scheme, not with the questions themselves.

I think it's fair to say that my colleagues in HE would be quite happy to set a not-dissimilar question to our undergraduates, in the full expectation of seeing facts used as the basis for a fully reasoned argument. We might well expect to see numerous papers cited, graphs drawn, tables of figures listed (yes, all from memory)

Would you have been happier if the question had been phrased as: "State the relationship between environmental changes and biological diversity?"

Your comment betrays an extremely stereotypical view of the genders whether considered by itself or in the context of your original post.

Many people have made good suggestions on this thread to explain the disparity in results - girls maturing earlier than boys, the heavy coursework style of modern exams, girls working harder (maybe due to a cultural emphasis on girls behaving themselves and being "good") and so on.

None of these explanations say that boys are intellectually inferior to girls.

However in your opening post you explain that you believe the disparity is due to the exams being aimed at girls - and therefore not asking about facts or asking to solve problems but being all about waffling on a load of flannel. ie girls cannot solve problems or retain facts ie they are not as bright.

Look away all those with children who have just done very well in Physics A-level and are feeling justifiably proud...

---

Physics A-level is believed by some in HE to be covering much less advanced work than it used to - to translate for the DM, "Physics A-level is dumbed down so kids can pass, say boffins"

---

So easier than when I did it then?

Spam, so it is fine to say that girls mature earlier, they are harder workers and even, turning the whole thing round, that they are actually victims and conditioned to please! However, any hint that boys may be better at one aspect of intelligence (and problem solving is merely one aspect)is met by accusations of "stereotyping" and "discrimination". Being poorer at working hard, late developers etc, as you do, is saying that boys are inferior. Sorry.

Grendelsmum, physics A level HAS indeed been dumbed down but retains more rigour than most A levels.

If you are unable to retain facts and cannot solve problems, then you are thick, frankly. That is your view of girls.

Whether it is fine to say the things you quote back about girls is something to take up with the people who posted them. I was simply pointing out that people have given you many explanations, which you don't like. The reason you don't like the explanations is because they don't agree with your view ie girls are thick.

Spam, hold on a minute.

I was talking about girls outperforming by 9.2%. I think girls and boys are equal overall. You clearly have a very narrow definition of intelligence. There are clearly some areas where men may have the advantage, and some where women may have.

You clearly have no problem with the outperformance of girls at A levels and think that is fair and reasonable. I.E boys are thick?

It's pretty depressing that so many posters on here have no problem with boys being failed by the examination and education system (compared with girls) and are happy to explain it away with vague, unreferenced platitudes such as 'girls mature earlier' and 'girls are better at coursework' and don't appear interested in solving the problem. And yet those same posters complain that women are paid less compared to men. Isn't it possible that men are just better at working in offices than women?

(and no, that's not a serious suggestion, but I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy)

Why is it apparently not a problem that the schools system lets boys down, but it is a problem that employment lets women down?

Larrygrylls, I can only speak as someone who taught a male dominated A level for over a dozen years. The boys weren't inferior to the girls, far from it, but the girls routinely did better in exams. In my experience this was down to:

Girls being a bit more diligent in terms of working through the year.
Girls taking on board criticism of their work and making an effort to address their weaknesses and learn from their mistakes.
Girls taking their work a little more seriously than the boys. Many of them came from a culture where girls were definitley second class citizens. They knew their chances of getting married off at 18 were a lot less if they had the grades to go to university.
Boys hving a ssense of 'entitlement' to higher grades. It was very difficult to impress on them the idea that they were in competition with girls. They just naturally assumed they would do better because they were doing a 'boys' subject.

This attitude persists into university (where I now work) Female students routinely ask for help and are more likely to access support services.

I recently completed a higher degree. When it was announced I had gained the academic prize, my (mostly) male classmates were surprised. Why this was was a complete puzzle to me as I routinely out scored them in exams, which they all knew, and they all had, at some point, asked me for help. As one of the guys said "You just don't expect a woman to do better than you". Well duh! It's about time boys woke up to the idea that, if it's still not a level playing field, it's at least not so steeply tilted in their favour any more. Women have been denied access to higher education for centuries. This year Cambridge celebrated 800 years. They have only allowed women to be awarded degrees for 60 of those years. Women also no longer feel the need to hide their intellect to avoid putting off potential marriage partners. They are now free to excel. And if boys want to compete, we have to start teaching them that it's not enough to doss around all year, memorise a few facts, get average grades and yet still do better than the girls.

I rather liked the "it's not fair, waaaaah" OP used...try being a woman in the workplace!

but why does it actually matter if either sex outperforms in GCSEs in any given year?

at least Lauriefairycake's concerns (post of 15.52)have real impact

disclaimer: mother of 3 girls (with reasonably high expectations of good results even if marking scheme isn't biased in their favour, but who doesn't really care about GCSEs given that i also expect them to go to university)

Dittany, nothing like epater la bourgoisie of Mumsnet! The empathetic stuff was actually quoting someone I read on another site. However, the reality is that girls are outperforming girls by an enormous margin and no-one seems to care!

The idea, as someone posted, that it all evens out in the end is, frankly, little consolation to an 18 year old boy who has just lost his long dreamed of Oxbridge place to a "faster developing" girl.

The hard evidence about the style of exam questions is "common knowledge". Few would dispute the style has changed. I am not sure what kind of hard evidence you would like? I am not about to statistically sample 18 years of exam questions and run a complex algorith on them to please you.

The sexism part is obvious...unless...unless...you actually think girls are in some way better than girls. Is this the case??

Sorry girls are better than boys.

It ISN'T fair for boys, but then nor is the workplace for women. I don't see how the latter justifies the former, or even how its relevant in any way. They both need to be sorted out.