Good-ish news on the gender front

Hidden in a Chronicle round-up on what psychological researchers think they know about differences in mathematical ability between male humans and female humans:

Data from Mr. Stanley's program, at Johns Hopkins, shows just how strong the cultural factors are in determining math achievement. In the early 1980s, he and Ms. Persson Benbow reported a whopping disparity in the numbers of mathematically gifted boys and girls who scored 700 on the math section of the SAT at the age of 13, a distinction achieved by one in 10,000 students. A quarter-century ago, there were 13 boys for every girl at that level. Now the ratio is only 2.8 to 1, a precipitous drop that has not been reported in the news media. "It's gone way down as women have had an opportunity to take their math earlier," says Mr. Stanley.

I spent much of my adolescence in milieux where so many people were in one of the Stanley et al samples that I sometimes had to explain that, no, the talent search just hadn't reached Weatherwood yet when I was that young. I was haunted by their work, the same way I used to feel like I couldn't really be smart 'cause I didn't have bad allergies like all the really smart kids did. I am so glad to see this factoid slip out.

Even more so, since, unlike most of this "research," it really is about the far right tail of the distribution.

Comments

[Tiruncula]

I was in that study when I was in 7th grade, and I remember it was one of my early consciousness-raising moments when I learned that the minimum score for girls to be selected for the awards and summer enrichment programs was lower than that for boys. I was infuriated. Of course, I had no resources for interpreting the scores in context of statistics and larger issues, but my gut-level rage gives me (retrospectively) a lot of empathy for the punched-in-the-stomach reaction that some women who heard Summers' remarks have reported.

The statistics you quoted above are remarkable. I'm going to have to go and read up on what exactly I was participating in way back when.

[Emma Jane]

It is shocking, and wonderful, to see this change. Especially since the original data were played so, so hard in support of an inherent-difference explanation. Back then, the SATs were far more trusted and were far more likely to be viewed as measuring something not taught in schools. Plus, since none of the students had attended high school yet, the playing field was supposed to be level, so the exams must be measuring something that's just about innate talent, right?... yeah, right.