A levels - aaaagh!

[MacaroonMama]

This is from the Telegraph (photo not link).
Look at this incendiary headline! Oh so that's why girls had been outperforming boys - the exams were too easy! Make them harder, and of course the boys triumph. FFS.
Nothing productive to add, sorry, I just needed to share.

It's possible that the Telegraph has got confused between the new GCSEs which are tougher and the new A-levels which aren't. They'd be thinking 'what's the point of a hugely expensive and disruptive overhaul to A-levels if it doesn't make them any more difficult?

So rather than labelling them tougher because boys did better in them, labelling them tougher because they thought that they were supposed to be more difficult.

It's possible that the Telegraph just want any old excuse to boast about boys being better than girls and don't care if they are getting their facts right.

Vestal Virgin I was thinking this about lots of American TV, not just the Simpsons. Family Guy, Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens etc. It's totally the case that the women are more intelligent than the men, BUT the show is about the men, and how great they are, even though they're useless fools. However, because they wear a penis, they're clearly the hero of the show.

It's totally the case that the women are more intelligent than the men, BUT the show is about the men, and how great they are, even though they're useless fools. However, because they wear a penis, they're clearly the hero of the show.

Yeah, exactly. It basically tells female viewers: "Don't think that just because you are cleverer, you can be the hero. No matter how clever and skilled you are, you never will be as good as the one with a penis."

... kinda explains why so many girls want to transition, thinking about it.

I'm at university on a course that has a relatively even split of male and female (slightly more female, but not as stark a difference as, say nursing or psychology) .

The faculty always makes a big deal of analysing the exam results by gender (I suppose they really mean sex) to ensure that their teaching and assessment methods don't favourise. All well and good in theory, but the way it is discussed seems to imply that they are making sure that boys/men are doing as well as girls/women, but not so much the other way around.

I suspect that if the boys had a small but consistent higher exams results, nothing would be done (as people have already mentioned it's the natural order of things) whereas if the girls did there would be much hand wringing and discussion of what needs to be changed.

Not making generalisations, but in my peergroup the two scoring the highest marks (a good margin above anyone else) are men, one is incredibly clever and the other is clever, and insanely hard working. But with those two excluded, the women work a lot harder and more consistently throughout the year, are more organised and pull their weight more in group projects. Why shouldn't we score well??

Why shouldn't we score well??

Because we don't want things to go too far do we?

There's this myth that exam results and course grades are somehow completely impartial agencies which act by themselves. That they have no bias, just like gravity, or the need for oxygen etc.

But in fact exam results, course work, class grades etc are all just products of society. People sit and create the criteria that decide what is 'success' or not. I constantly questioned this during my MA. I totally get that a properly written academic paper fits certain criteria, BUT why couldn't there also be space for an impassioned speech, or personal account? After all, the arts award grades for dance, music, fine art etc. so personal, emotional, nebulous concepts can be rewarded, graded, quantified. But try to present a paper as a short movie, or personal account within and 'academic' subject, and it isn't admissible. The criteria which are respected and rewarded are a style of writing most associated with 'typical' male traits of language use. And it was always the women (and the women-heavy departments within the college) that were strictest about sticking rigorously to the expectations of academia.

So, even before we get onto 'harder years' or subjects or how grades are given etc, there's a HUGE bias in education that favors the typical 'male' style & subject matter of learning.

That headline is maddening.

Why couldn't it be "Changes in A-levels leads to slip in girl's A-Level results"? or something that even pretends not to be delighted that the natural order of things is being restored?

I go the bbc for the daily newspaper front pages - apparently, the Mirror has headlined the phrase "alpha males"

So one year boys do better than girls , next it might be the opposite - percentages are close - who cares ? - hurrah for boys this year . Look forward to the statisticians ' nightmare ' and headlines when some kids take the option of ' gender neutral ' .

Exam boards are consulting with Stonewall about the option of a gender neutral category.

schoolsweek.co.uk/a-levels-2017-exam-boards-consider-additional-gender-category-for-results-table/amp/

It does make sense however, that boys would benefit from this new system. The stereotype does exist that girls are more hard working in school and thus their coursework is on average better.

Having taught for over 20 years, I've always heard from 'experts' on training events, that girls tend to do better at coursework, and boys at exams. No idea if this is meant to be innate or due to socialization.

So - a qualification that relies 100% on coursework would favor girls. One that's 100% exams would favor boys. I would assume a 50/50 split would be more equitable, if the DoE/exam boards etc actually wanted girls and boys to have equal access to success.

I know I have boringly posted this several timez before but I will say it again....

I took the 11+ exam in 1954 (yes I am that old). The grammar schools at that time were keen to have a 50/50 boy girl split, but in order to achieve that they had to set a higher pass mark for girls than boys otherwise the ratio would be skewed because more girls passed than boys. To achieve the required ratio, some girls results were even retrospectively downgraded.

The 11+ exam was, of course, a sudden death exam at which, if the modern so-called experts were correct, boys should have done better. .

When it was finally noticed that this was somewhat unfair on a percentage of girls the excuse was soon trotted out that it was not because girls were succeeding more, but that boys did not mature as early as girls.

Talk about heads they win tales you lose. Can't remember when it all changed but no one seemed to bother about those girls who were deprived of their grammar school places because of a rigged system.

If anyone doubts me I an google and bring up the evidence, but I assure you this is true.

"times" of course not "timez". Must have "menz" on the brain...

WhoPut - can you point me in the right direction for info? Not because I doubt you, but because I would love to have access to that info. for future reference.

(I'm in the US and Google can take ages to plough through things before getting to the right sites. A head start would be appreciated, thanks)

I taught secondary science a few moons ago - the coursework was hit and miss to be fair. A general summary would be: average girl would write reams of lovely handwriting without making one actual statement to get her the mark (e.g.. the chip got heavier), whereas average boy would scribble something just about legible about chip and heavier. I would say girls are rewarded for things like neat handwriting, or doing as they're told (sit down and copy) but challenged less to think on their feet, think critically, or be questioned in front of the class by the teacher. I wouldn't in the least bit be surprised if girls are conditioned in ways that make them better suited on average to do better at coursework than exams.

isnt it the published headline that every year is tougher and harder than previous years?

No. There's usually whining about dumbing down and lowered standards.

I thought they were all getting easier as more and more people got A grades? Hence the invention of A* and endless headlines about lowering of standards (as girls did better).

Angel

michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/schools-in-1950s.html

para 10 makes a reference

There will be others, but I have to go now. Will look for others tomorrow

It's hard to get away from the fact that coursework is far more vulnerable to cheating than exams, so I can understand why exam boards want to move back to more controlled tests.

But it's interesting that many pp have said that the skills that have stood them in good stead professionally are more akin to those they need for delivering good coursework than thriving in exams. I am an exam person (I need the pressure to give me a kick up the backside, and respond well to being put on the spot), and have done well professionally in a career that rewards people who can work under pressure. Most of our top paying / most respected / most sought after careers are similar, I think: medicine, law (court room, anyway), city trading etc.

Just saw this on twitter and it seemed appropriate

Whoput - thank you! I'm pretty good at tracking down things on tinternet, but it's harder to get specifically UK stuff, so a starter helps.

Angel If you google Gender and Educational Achievement - Earlham Sociology there is a PPT presentation which also touches on this. I guess it's pretty much ancient history now (bit like me )

Iam whoput but I probably shouldn't be by now.