Anonymous wrote:My DD with the scores that she has is getting placed into teams and events that she would not have had the opportunity if she was a boy. I see tremendous encouragement and a very strong push for girls in math.

DS who went though this process had to compete hard for the same spots.

On the other hand there are very few girls who want to get into math. Vast majority of DD's friend group are more into makeup.

My daughter was into both math AND makeup and had less than zero interest in competition math. She’s applying for PhD programs in math now.

I think that differences in interest/participation and performance in competition math is not at all the same thing as math aptitude and gender differences there are not a good stand in for whatever (likely small) real differences exist.

My DD with the scores that she has is getting placed into teams and events that she would not have had the opportunity if she was a boy. I see tremendous encouragement and a very strong push for girls in math.

DS who went though this process had to compete hard for the same spots.

On the other hand there are very few girls who want to get into math. Vast majority of DD's friend group are more into makeup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we're discussing nature vs nurture, the problem is that due to patriarchal beliefs, there are more boys than girls that are pushed into math and the intense extra curricular preparation that comes with the math competition territory.

Therefore, scientifically, you cannot conclude that boy brains are naturally "better" at a certain kind of math reasoning than girl brains. That brains are different by sex has been known for decades... but we still don't understand the ramifications of the physical differences in the real world, because it's very difficult to separate behavior from upbringing.

I'm a woman, and I disagree with your statement. Go to predominantly Asian schools, and you'll see plenty of parents pushing girls into math. Then there's the whole push for Girls in STEM.

Males just think differently than females. It doesn't mean they are smarter, but just different. And this difference makes them stronger in mathy type subjects. Females are great multi-taskers and can see patterns in people and events a lot better than males can, while males have better spatial awareness.

There are articles about such differences, and I see it play out not only with my own kids (boy and girl) but also in the workplace.

Of course, as in all cases, ymmv, and there are plenty of girls who are amazing at math and algortihms (Ada Lovelace says hello), and certainly plenty of men who are terrible at math.

Very well put.

Dad of a boy and girl. DS is objectively in the top 100 students in math in US. DD is just as smart but her brain works quite differently. She can read people, grasp the meaning between the lines so much quicker and better than my son and me.

My wife is one of the smartest people I know, even tells me she was strong in math in school, but she just cannot do math the way even I can do.

I am a woman who was strong in math in high school. My husband is terrible at math. I also have a boy and a girl and they’re equally average at math. Neither of our anecdotes are worth much.

There are certainly biological differences between men and women and for good reason - this enabled the suvival of humans. Why so obsessed with who is "smarter" or "better"? Why not be grateful that we are social creatures and rely on each other so it's great we have different strengths. Being better at math doesn't make you better overall. The kid who is top in US in math still needs others to survive, just like we all do, so he/she is not objectively "better."

Also, my DD consistently gets the top score in math testd/classes at her magnet school. But she never had any desire to participate in the math competitions. Instead, she values collaboration more and helping those who are not understanding the math. She thinks praticing for a math compeition would be boring and a waste of time when she can spend that time on her health (physical and mental) and on making the world a better place (helping others, helping the environment, etc). She doesn't feel any need to "compete." So maybe boys are more competitive in general, which goes along with testosterone, so it makes sense. So if many more boys are entering those competitions, more boys will win the top awards even though I'm sure plenty of girls could do just as well if they chose to spend their time that way. Girls want to spend more time with people and boys want to spend more time with things and competition.

These gender wars of who is better just make no sense.

Anonymous wrote:https://theconversation.com/girls-and-boys-solve-math-problems-differently-with-similar-short-term-results-but-different-long-term-outcomes-269059

“ In a 2016 study of U.S. elementary students, boys outnumbered girls 4 to 1 among the top 1% of scorers on a national math test. And over many decades, boys have been about twice as likely as girls to be among the top scorers on the SAT and AP math exams.

However, girls tend to be more diligent in elementary school and get better grades in math class throughout their schooling. And girls and boys across the grades tend to score similarly on state math tests, which tend to be more aligned with the school curriculum and have more familiar problems than the SAT or other national tests.”

Asperger's

Anonymous wrote:Weighing in to say I have a daughter very gifted in math and you would not believe the feedback she gets vs the feedback my other child, a boy who is bright and mathematically inclined (but better at other things and significantly less talented in math) gets.

Spoiler: he gets (conservatively) 3x the praise and encouragement in math that she does when she is very objectively more mathematically inclined.

And as they get older, her math peers have looked increasingly less like her (largely as a result of the sex bias in encouragement, I suspect.) many of the mathy boys hang only with each other outside of school are aloof and dismissive of kids who don’t look or act like them in mathy settings.

I’d say it’s premature to attribute differences in high level math chops purely to biology at this point.

I suspect you are in a low-Asian-immigrsnt neighborhood. Asian immigrants don't believe that girls can't learn math,

Anonymous wrote:Weighing in to say I have a daughter very gifted in math and you would not believe the feedback she gets vs the feedback my other child, a boy who is bright and mathematically inclined (but better at other things and significantly less talented in math) gets.

Spoiler: he gets (conservatively) 3x the praise and encouragement in math that she does when she is very objectively more mathematically inclined.

And as they get older, her math peers have looked increasingly less like her (largely as a result of the sex bias in encouragement, I suspect.) many of the mathy boys hang only with each other outside of school are aloof and dismissive of kids who don’t look or act like them in mathy settings.

I’d say it’s premature to attribute differences in high level math chops purely to biology at this point.

I see the opposite. There are math clubs, events, and scholarships for girls-only

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP's observation -- boys and girls have similar average scores on state math exams, but boys outnumber girls among very high SAT scores -- was the (in retrospect, now quaint) original reason that Larry Summers was defrocked as president of Harvard. Summers pointed out that while male/female average scores are similar, the spread of scores (measured by the standard deviation) is larger for men than women. In general this doesn't matter much, and at most colleges it doesn't matter than much. But at the VERY extremes, such as Harvard students or Harvard professors, you'll find more men than women. (You'll also find more very low male scores.)

While this was controversial when Summers said it, the results are pretty straightforward once you understand the differences in the variation, not the mean, of math scores.

Do you trust that this is biologically determined when the whole system is run at the top by sexist people who have incredibly low judgment like Larry Summers?

This is the problem: truths are abused to excuse unjustified behavior. For example, maybe group A does have more high scores than group B. After you filter for high scores, like college admissions or objective tests, the do the remaining members of group A still have higher scores than the remaining members of group B?

I think the broader distribution of male vs female traits has been observed for pretty much as long as these things have been measured, including in animals before humans. Moreover, if it were sexism, you'd expect to see a difference in mean scores, not the same mean but wider male variation.

Now, what society or colleges should do about it is a values judgement. My point is simply that the SAT score distribution isn't particularly mysterious.

Anonymous wrote:
Do you trust that this is biologically determined when the whole system is run at the top by sexist people who have incredibly low judgment like Larry Summers?

Anonymous wrote:Weighing in to say I have a daughter very gifted in math and you would not believe the feedback she gets vs the feedback my other child, a boy who is bright and mathematically inclined (but better at other things and significantly less talented in math) gets.

Spoiler: he gets (conservatively) 3x the praise and encouragement in math that she does when she is very objectively more mathematically inclined.

And as they get older, her math peers have looked increasingly less like her (largely as a result of the sex bias in encouragement, I suspect.) many of the mathy boys hang only with each other outside of school are aloof and dismissive of kids who don’t look or act like them in mathy settings.

I’d say it’s premature to attribute differences in high level math chops purely to biology at this point.

I believe you.

At mid-career, I see more than I did as a young woman.

Anonymous wrote:The OP's observation -- boys and girls have similar average scores on state math exams, but boys outnumber girls among very high SAT scores -- was the (in retrospect, now quaint) original reason that Larry Summers was defrocked as president of Harvard. Summers pointed out that while male/female average scores are similar, the spread of scores (measured by the standard deviation) is larger for men than women. In general this doesn't matter much, and at most colleges it doesn't matter than much. But at the VERY extremes, such as Harvard students or Harvard professors, you'll find more men than women. (You'll also find more very low male scores.)

While this was controversial when Summers said it, the results are pretty straightforward once you understand the differences in the variation, not the mean, of math scores.

Do you trust that this is biologically determined when the whole system is run at the top by sexist people who have incredibly low judgment like Larry Summers?

The OP's observation -- boys and girls have similar average scores on state math exams, but boys outnumber girls among very high SAT scores -- was the (in retrospect, now quaint) original reason that Larry Summers was defrocked as president of Harvard. Summers pointed out that while male/female average scores are similar, the spread of scores (measured by the standard deviation) is larger for men than women. In general this doesn't matter much, and at most colleges it doesn't matter than much. But at the VERY extremes, such as Harvard students or Harvard professors, you'll find more men than women. (You'll also find more very low male scores.)

While this was controversial when Summers said it, the results are pretty straightforward once you understand the differences in the variation, not the mean, of math scores.

Weighing in to say I have a daughter very gifted in math and you would not believe the feedback she gets vs the feedback my other child, a boy who is bright and mathematically inclined (but better at other things and significantly less talented in math) gets.

Spoiler: he gets (conservatively) 3x the praise and encouragement in math that she does when she is very objectively more mathematically inclined.

And as they get older, her math peers have looked increasingly less like her (largely as a result of the sex bias in encouragement, I suspect.) many of the mathy boys hang only with each other outside of school are aloof and dismissive of kids who don’t look or act like them in mathy settings.

I’d say it’s premature to attribute differences in high level math chops purely to biology at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this and I feel like it is spot on. Girls really like to use the algorithms. They just do. I can completely see it being due to girls being more likely to want rules and being rule followers

I think that's true as far as it goes, but it's not a biological argument. Girls are socialized to be rule followers. So if you change how you teach in response to the information in the article, are you teaching the child in the best way their brain can learn? Or are you just reinforcing the social norm that caused the gender divide in the first place?

I have kids of multiple sexes/genders who follow rules, and have different levels of math interest and ability.

So? Individuals are different, and kids get nurture/socialization from outside the home even if they are treated the same by parents (which is rarely the case anyway: parents often treat their kids differently).

I happen to think that there are biological differences in learning, but nothing about the article or these anecdotes can demonstrate that because we know that girls get very early social messages about rules, social conformity, making the teacher happy, etc. "Girls just really like to follow the rules" is a social observation not a biological one.