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.

MrsWobble - it does matter, because these exam results decide what university you go to, and what you can study there. The most pouplar and demanding subjects, e.g. law, medicine etc., require top grades. So if boys aren't getting those top grades, then boys aren't getting the same access to professions like law and medicine etc. A quick look at statistics shows that many more girls than boys are going into the legal, medical and vetinary professions.

That matters, as boys and girls should have equality of opportunity.

I can see that there's a argument for saying that if young men are less mature than young women of the same age and therefore do less well in their A-levels, that therefore the young men / people who less mature are being disadvantaged regarding University places which are allocated solely on A-level results.

This wouldn't apply to Oxbridge, though, as students would be interviewed. However, we can think of the young man sobbing as a place at Leeds to read Law is offered to a more mature young woman instead.

In fact, the link that someone posted earlier was to a newspaper account of some research which appeared to show that men have a greater chance of being accepted at Oxford than women. MIGHT be because the interviewers are expecting the young men to continue to develop more than the young women, who they think of as being comparatively mature.

Ok Dittany, how about this. Edexcel maths A level January 2008.

Find the remainder when:X3-2X2-4x+8 is divided by

1/ x-3

2/ x+2
Hence find all the solutions to the above equation. This trivial problem gives you 7% of one of the papers (and is far from the easiest on the paper).

You asked for examples, not sure the most useful way of having the debate...but there you go.

but do universities really offer places based on GCSE results? I could summon up a bit more enthusiasm to care if this were A levels but I struggle to believe that an able boy who is Oxbridge* material will lose out on a place because of an "unfair" GCSE result

• law school/medical/whatever your chosen elite may be

Dittany, I am getting fed up of you ignoring the main thrust of my argument and focusing on the one less well thought out (and minor) subsidiary point.

The main thrust is that the exams are clearly sexist. If that is not the case, girls are either brighter or better at working hard. You have to choose. Please let me know?

The second thrust is that exams are so easy as to not be able to separate the brightest from the slightly better than average.

Mrs Wobble, interviews are generally granted on the basis of AS levels and GCSEs. Oxbridge do interview but only those with good enough results to get to that stage. However, you are probably right and the bias does occur lower down the food chain. The even averagely bright, if well taught, have no trouble at getting straight As; boys or girls. I went to Cambridge and, frankly, the idea of the interview being used as the main assessment tool is pretty scary! The questions were pretty random and I am glad I sat the (now defunct) entrance paper.

It's not just Dittany focussing on one part of your OP.

And ROFL at all your "thrusts" at her .

I wonder what the difference, if any, is in results between boys and girls in the private sector - especially same sex ones... just off to have a google - some have the girls and boys separate but within the same school IYSWIM that would be interesting.

Also what is happening in subjects such as maths and physics where there is less room for "vague empathetic" questions/answers...

The school that I had in mind (that I went to) shows better GCSE results in 2008 for the girls than the boys, including physics.

The reason for the question was that you would have thought that in very academic single sex private schools the teaching would be designed to bring the best results from the genders, as female teachers have also been "blamed" for the situation in the state sector - favouring girls and teaching in ways that they are more comfortable with. In my day the boys school outperformed the girls school.

There may well be something in it that the current system that favours girls, and if there is it should be identified.

However I would continue to strongly dispute the suggestion that girls cannot retain facts or solve problems, and that current exams are designed to pander to this.

Thank god no-one told me my place when I was doing my GCSE/A Level/Degree choices. I would have been desperately unhappy writing essays, empathetic or otherwise. I was however very happy fiddling with lasers and circuitry, and performing advanced mathematics to obtain my degree in Physics. How I managed that while simultaneously being unable to retain facts or solve problems is a continuing mystery.

Dh passed his English today with a c (max gradeat level taken). As he isdyslexic and worked his balls off I am proud of him; esp. as overall according to news English grades dropped.

He's off to uni in sept but a practical degree so will do well.

applauds

It was well known at my school that girls pretty much were better academic performers than boys.....predominantly because they were less likely to find farting and gassing woodlice funny! Girls also I think are conditioned 'to please' and hence try harder at school...not saying that some boys dont try hard. It was more male bravado - easier for girls to be seen as 'swots'....however they eventually buckle down and catch up....but I dont believe that exams are sexist.

I've just given one of my male students a big hug for beating his GCSE target (predicted an E, worked his arse off, got a C).

He's a lovely young man - polite & hardworking & sensible & goal-orientated.

Also, he has no mates to distract him because the boys think he's a total loser for actually attending coursework & revision sessions, & none of the girls want to go out with him because he has such a low status.

Now, I've also taught an equivalent female student for the past 2 years - again, not naturally terribly bright, but has really tried hard. Predicted a D, got the C she needs to go to the college she really wants.

All her many friends were surrounding her with kisses & congratulations for doing so well!

It's massively culturally influenced. generalisation alert - boys think it's naff to work hard. Maybe it is linked to the preponderance of women in teaching. Maybe it's worth asking why fewer men go into teaching?

Hmm. But if the argument is that girls are unfairly favoured by a culture that rewards hard work rather than 'thrusting' , male, problem solving, why then the solution's simple. Boys need to work harder.

I'd agree with you re: relative easiness of exams, sure. It's an obvious product of competing exam boards & performance-managed teachers.

Look at disparity in maths/science entrance and results in single sex girls schools and mixed.

Fact is gender stereotyping a la the OP is alive and well and in a school near you. Girls do talky talky, boys do sums.

Excellent thing about single sex schools is people like my brother (arty) and me (science) aren't constrained by gender stereotyping which would no doubt have led to disaster.

I seem to be in favour of single sex schools.

Although I hear that boys benefit from a mixed environment.

Guessing OP would be in favour of whatever gives boys the best outcomes.

Amazing set of posts. Sorry, had to go and have dinner.

It is sad that only a tiny minority can see an exam system where girls have a 9.2% edge as sexist. I promise you that would not be the same situation if boys outperformed by the same margin. Of course, this is Mumsnet!

The education system has served me extremely well and I am not bitter. However, I wonder what the world will hold for my baby and any other male children that I may have. Sad that so many on here clearly do not share my concerns.

It is equally amazing that so many are concerned about my so-called gender stereotyping. After all, my views affect very few people even if they were as extreme as some would like to think. On the other hand, the exam system and media affect millions but there is not the slightest concern shown.

I guess the lesson is that women, like men, enjoy being on top and, now that they feel that their time has come, have no more interest in fairness than those men who were against giving women the vote.

Whoa larry are you having a laugh?

As evidenced previosly on this thread, men generally have a much better outcome career/financially than women over a lifetime.

This appears to be irrelevant to you..

Cos bugger me girls are doing better than boys at GCSE. Well it's the end of the world.

I have a question for you larry. If exams were changed so that girls were 10% behind (I can't see a way od doing that, but anyway) would you be complaining? Well. Having re-read your last post, no.

Cos girls are fick, innit.

Well IF it is true that exams are getting relatively easier*, then that is one possible explanation for girls doing better now (without any other "sexism" being involved), according to some of the things I've read:

There are some theories (and I think I have also read some proper stats on this too, but sorry can't remember where - maybe someone else can back it up?) that men have a wider range of intelligence/aptitude than women. Meaning, there will be more men than women both at the highest end of the scale (genius) and at the lowest end (no-hopers), whereas the women have fewer geniuses and no-hopers but are more clustered around the centre (poor to very good, but not so many at the extremes). Bearing in mind this is all talking AVERAGES, so of course there will be some women at each end and plenty of men in the middle!

IF this is true, and IF you accept that it has become easier to get A and A grades, that would mean the boys at the "genius" end can still only get an A as there is no higher grade, while the boys at the extreme no-hoper end still fail. Meanwhile though it would be getting easier for those in between (where more of the girls are) to get less fails or low grades, and more higher grades including As and As, even if they were just "very good" but maybe not "genius".
This COULD mean that on average, the girls' grades are helped, while the boys' grades improve less because the geniuses now get less credit for their extra talent (can't get better than A) but the no-hopers are still at the bottom dragging down their average scores. Does that make sense?

*Disclaimer: I am NOT necessarily saying exams have got easier (don't think I have enough info to comment on that!), only saying that IF you accept that theory it could have this effect.

I don't want to get involved in this discussion because I will only get cross.

But I just wanted to say how the title makes me laugh as it reminds me of the Peter Cook sketch "Sitting on the Bench."

"Yes, I could have been a judge but I never had the Latin, never had the Latin for the judging. I just never had sufficient of it to get through the rigorous judging exams. They?re noted for their rigour. People came staggering out saying ?My God, what a rigorous exam? ? and so I became a miner instead. A coal miner. I managed to get through the mining exams ? they?re not very rigorous. They only ask one question. They say ?Who are you??, and I got 75% for that."

mysterymouse interesting point.

Personally, I do not accept the underlying tenet of your argument re. relative intelligence.

It's rubbish.

Not sure how this affects the argument, but worth chucking in anyway.

UnquietDad, cannot stop laughing. Hilarious. Had forgotten that one.