Article in The Economist about gender gap in education

[camaleon]

The article is here http:econ.st/1DYCQxm
Basically girls are outperforming boys in education. The explanation provided in the article seems to suggest that schools are favouring girls. No mention to the possibility of this being a reflection of universalisation of education and the results of girls participating in an even playing field.

One of the jewels of the article:"That should worry women, too: in the past they have typically married men in their own social group or above. If there are too few of those, many women will have to marry down or not at all"

Yes! Because marriage is all women should be thinking about

dp showed me this article yesterday, which i think is referring to the same report

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31751667

it has this additional comment:

"But there are a couple of big conclusions delivered by the OECD's education guru, Andreas Schleicher.

There is no "maths gene", there is nothing inherent about boys or girls doing particularly well or badly in different subjects.

If boys can do better than girls in maths tests in some western countries - and then girls in Shanghai can do better at maths than those western boys, it shows the variable factor is not gender, but those education systems.

Mr Schleicher says the study shows there is nothing innate, immutable or inevitable about gender differences in education.

There might be a blizzard of overlapping influences - self-confidence, parental expectations, society's stereotypes, gender bias, school support - which can affect how young people behave.

But it's nothing that is hardwired by gender."

Thank you for the extra info PetulaGordino.

There's been concern for quite a long time in education that the system now seems to favour girls...I think a system that creates different results by gender is worrying.

It should be about equal, taking into account other criteria.

It does though, highlight the gender pay gap...girls do better in education, but then as adults are paid less.

Well puffins, marriage to a man is a sure way of increasing the family salary to 180% as men are paid 20% more than women even if they aren't as highly qualified.

Stay single and you're on 80% of what a man gets!

And you're fucked if you marry your lesbian lover, as you are on 60% of a same sex male couple, who, even though life expectancy is lower, each get a 100% increase when they wed- and pensions reflect this too.

But Venus, men are not paid any more for the same job, with the same experience. If women chose different career options, decided not to take time out for children, worked as many hours as men and didn't retire earlier, there would be no gender waqe gap.

slightly beside the point, but i don't think same-sex couples get the same pension entitlements when they marry as opposite-sex couples

but yes, lesbians at the bottom of the pile as usual. what percentage would a lesbian couple who were both WOC be likely to bring in?

Well, it depends on whether they've had babies, obvs. Because naturally, women who have babies are worth less than men who have babies, because there's no structural gender pay gap at all. Women choose to be paid less.

So girls are doing better than boys at school and there is no innate educational advantage. Actually that doesn't read well does it as it suggests that girls have an advantage at school from gender bias and support. Certainly with the lack of male role models at school for my boys and a couple of teachers who preach rad fem at school have made things awkward. I have had issues with DS2 and his self confidence. People may remember my issue with a teacher a couple of years ago preaching all men are potential rapists to impressionable teenagers. I would like to think my boys have been lucky with the support they get as they are doing well and we expect that all of our children will have Uni education. But if the system gets overhauled again will it really make any difference? Both sexes need good role models in their teachers but in terms of day to day interaction my boys haven't had much. I have concerns that whatever happens at school there will be a bias one way or the other.

The lack of male teachers is part of the inequalities in the system sausage. If teachers and primary education were viewed as a serious matter (rather than a job dealing with childcare and mothers) more men would be in the system. But as it is, primary education is also the answer to many women who need to take up a job with compatible with their own childcare. At University level, a very important majority of professors are male.

I don't know your story, but a teacher preaching all men are potential rapist has nothing to do with feminism.

there will only continue to be bias if people continue to make assumptions about what people are good at, what will interest them, what skills will be important for them later in life, and how much time and effort should be spent on them based on what genitals they were born with

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.

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?

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...

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

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.

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.

The 'more opportunities in non-academic environments' is something I had not thought about messyisthenewtidy. Perhaps the fact that we tend to be stricter with girls (rather than using the 'boys are boys' argument) is reflected in academic achievement too.

The article states that when boys put the same effort they get the same result.

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!

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

But, of course, 'education favours women'.

Perhaps a look at the management team of the Economist explains the editorial line www.economistgroup.com/what_we_do/management_team.html

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)!

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.

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

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. .