Society & Culture - Posted by Karl Bates-Duke on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:32 - 12 Comments 
(6 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
(6 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5) Loading ...Gender gap persists among top test takers
Much has been said and written about the small numbers of women found in top positions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and there are probably many social and cultural reasons for that gap, says lead researcher Jonathan Wai. But there do appear to be some real differences in math and science reasoning that may factor into the disparity. (Credit: iStockphoto)
DUKE (US)—While performance differences between boys and girls have narrowed considerably, boys still outnumber girls by more than about 3-to-1 at extremely high levels of math ability and scientific reasoning.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
At the same time, girls slightly outnumber boys at extremely high levels of verbal reasoning and writing ability.
Those are the findings of a recent study that examined 30 years of standardized test data from the very highest-scoring seventh graders. Except for the differences at these highest levels of performance, boys and girls are essentially the same at all other levels of performance.
The findings come from a study performed by Duke University’s Talent Identification Program, which relies on SAT and ACT tests administered to the top 5 percent of 7th graders to identify gifted students and nurture their intellectual talents. There were more than 1.6 million such students in this study.
Researchers focused in particular on gifted seventh graders who scored 700 or above on the SAT’s math or verbal tests, which is higher than most high school juniors score.
Among these students at the very top of the performance curve, the differences in verbal and mathematical performance have maintained a persistent gender gap over the last 15 years, says Jonathan Wai, a post-doctoral research associate at Duke and lead author on a paper appearing in the July/August issue of the journal Intelligence.
The ratio of 7th graders scoring 700 or above on the SAT-math was about 13 boys to 1 girl when it was measured in a landmark study 30 years ago, but that ratio dropped dramatically in the 1990s, Wai says. Since 1995, the gap has remained steady at about 4 boys to 1 girl.
The top scores on scientific reasoning, a relatively new section of the ACT that was not included in the earlier study, show a similar ratio of boys to girls.
Much has been said and written about the small numbers of women found in top positions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and there are probably many social and cultural reasons for that gap, notes Wai. But there do appear to be some real differences in math and science reasoning that may factor into the disparity.
“Our research only serves to inform the debate,” Wai says. “It’s apparent that there are still differences in ability levels due to gender, even as women have occupied more STEM jobs in the last 30 years. We will continue our research, but for now it seems that ability is still a factor in the equation.”
In earlier work that examined how many of these talented youngsters went on to earn Ph.D.s, publications, patents, and tenured professorships, Wai and colleagues at Vanderbilt University found that differences in math ability did seem to affect what happened 20 years down the road. “Differences in ability within the top 1 percent make a difference in predicting real world achievement in STEM and other areas,” Wai says. “What matters is ability, not the sex of the individual, in predicting these outcomes.”
Acknowledging that there are some differences in ability might further the efforts to get more women into math and science, Wai says. For example, it would be good to know more about what made the test performance gap close so dramatically between 1981 and 1995. “Perhaps that’s something we could use.”
The research team also looked at 13 years worth of SAT and ACT data for U.S. high school students. They found a similar pattern among the top performers. In 2009, males scoring a perfect 800 on the SAT-math outnumbered females about 2 to 1.
“Even though there are more female role models in math and science now than 30 years ago and sex biases may have eased, we’re still seeing these differences among the most talented students,” Wai says. The current study doesn’t address how those differences might affect a person’s career path directly, but “interests and preferences are probably more important than abilities,” he adds.
“The more important question is whether these differences explain any of the gender differences in career choices and the kinds of behaviors linked to career success, and if so how much,” says Jacquellyne Eccles, McKeachie-Pintrich Distinguished University Professor of Psychology and Education at the University of Michigan, and director of the Gender & Achievement Research Program. “This is a very hard question to answer when the social and cultural forces influencing career choices and persistence/engagement are also very strong.”
More news from Duke: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu
Please wait
12 Comments
Barry Smith
emwej
The war against males continues…
Problem: the test relies solely on SAT and ACT tests.
Unbelievable.
Jill
” it would be good to know more about what made the test performance gap close so dramatically between 1981 and 1995. ”
This is truly the most interesting result found; worthy of more study – but a lot of variables I’d think
A guess would be the change in expectations for females – this was a time of growth of the feminist movement and the 2nd generation’s kids were going through school
”it would be good to know more about what made the test performance gap close so dramatically between 1981 and 1995.”
Agree this is the most interesting aspect. It seems to raise the possibility that the remaining gap may be the result of lingering cultural expectations or lack of access. Yet, without explanation, the article implies the opposite possibility is more likely – that the remaining disparity is “real”/innate.
” differences in math ability did seem to affect what happened 20 years down the road.”
This statement makes no mention of the impact of being a mother and raising children might have on future career paths – no matter how smart a woman may be. Was this factor addressed by the earlier study?
I’m not a femi-nazi, just a fan of detailed and accurate critical analysis – which doesn’t seem to be in full force here.
The main thing is to nurture our children’s abilities and individual talents – and treat all people as equals.
Deborah
Could the results be related to the way the tests themselves are designed? Here’s something I read a while back.
http://www.fairtest.org/gender-bias-college-admissions-tests
Jon Wai
Hi, this is Jonathan Wai, the lead researcher on the Duke study, which can be found here:
http://www.tip.duke.edu/about/research/intelligence_article.pdf
Barry Smith: This is an interesting point and deserves future research. Work by Richard Whitmire, for example, his book Why Boys Fail may be of interest to you. Susan Pinker’s book The Sexual Paradox also discusses both sides of the issue that you raise.
A link to Whitmire’s site on the book: http://www.whyboysfail.com/
Pinker, S. (2008). The sexual paradox: Men, women, and the real gender gap. New York: Scribner.
Jon Worrell: You’re right that the SAT and ACT tests are likely not perfect measures of abilities. However, research has shown that by using these tests initially designed for college bound juniors to examine the abilities of 7th grade students, they likely function as powerful tests of reasoning ability because 7th graders are unlikely to have been exposed formally to the content of the measures, especially for a test like the SAT Mathematics. See Benbow (1988) for further information if you are interested. Additionally, research has also shown that these tests measure intelligence, at least to some degree (Frey & Detterman, 2004 for the SAT; Koenig, Frey & Detterman, 2008 for the ACT).
Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability among the intellectually talented: Their characteristics, consequences, and possible explanations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169−183.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/BBSBenbow.pdf
Frey, M. C. & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the SAT and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373-398.
Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability. Intelligence, 36, 153−160.
Jill: What you suggest is an interesting possibility. We are currently investigating this issue further in our research and we hope to uncover some clues that perhaps we can use, maybe to further the efforts to get more women into high level math and science.
e rodriguez: We don’t know whether the ratios will remain the same or change in the future and so future examinations will be needed. As we mention in our paper, we believe that explanations that examine multiple perspectives simultaneously (e.g. Halpern, Benbow, Geary, Gur, Hyde, & Gernsbacher, 2007) provide the most balanced explanation for our results. The earlier study (Wai, Lubinski and Benbow, 2005) conducted did not include the impact of being a mother in terms of future career paths, however, it is interesting that we found that differences in the top 1% in ability on the SAT-Mathematics were associated with the later earning of PhDs, publications, patents, and even tenure at a top university. This appeared to hold up for both males and females separately as well. Research by my colleagues at Vanderbilt University, David Lubinski and Camilla Benbow, provide further information regarding the issues you raise, including discussions of women choosing to have children and also pursue a high level career (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). If you are interested, I suggest reading these articles, or visit David Lubinski’s website which includes links to the most recent research coming from that lab: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/david_lubinski.htm. Thank you for your insightful comments.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1−51.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/ScienceSexDifferences.pdf
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youth: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484−492.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/WaiJEP2005.pdf
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math–science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316−345.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/DoingPsychScience2006.pdf
Bangalow Accommodation: I cannot agree more that we should treat people as individuals and nurture each child’s abilities and individual talents, as you say.
Deborah: This goes back to the comment I made in response to Jon Worrell. The ETS and the ACT companies also go to great lengths to make sure that their tests (the SAT and ACT respectively) do not favor one gender over another, so it is unlikely that the way the tests are designed have affected our results.
In all of this, please keep in mind that we had a sample of over 1.6 million test scores of 7th grade students across a period of 30 years. A sample this substantial provides important data that we hope will help inform the debate. Of course, this data is consistent with multiple explanatory points of view and we sincerely hope that our research will help stimulate discussion, which I can see it has here.
Thank you all for your excellent comments and queries.
Deborah
Jon, with all due respect, in order to defend your paper you *have* to choose to believe that the these tests are not gender biased. I don’t see you addressing the issues Fairtest has brought up, for example biased test questions, multiple choice format, guessing penalty, and “speeded” nature, at all.
Also from Fairtest, “The SAT I is designed solely to predict students’ first year college grades. Yet, despite the fact that females earn higher grades throughout both high school and college, they consistently receive lower scores on the exam than do their male counterparts.”
Your findings are completely dependent on the SAT and ACT as instruments of measure. You cannot ignore the issue of whether they are gender biased.
Jon Wai
Deborah: Thank you for your respectful response. I apologize if I did not address all the details of the link you provided, but it is because from a technical standpoint the issues raised by the link you provided have already been addressed long ago. The tests are not biased towards one gender over another. Keep in mind females outperformed males on verbal and writing ability tests whereas males outperformed females on math and science reasoning tests in the top 1%, so if the tests were really biased towards one gender over another, we should see one gender consistently outperforming the other on all the tests, but we don’t. There is a vast technical literature on the topic of test bias and I suggest that if you are interested you start with Bias in Mental Testing by Arthur Jensen which still remains the best synthetic work on the topic:
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. Free Press.
You might also want to read the articles that I suggested in my earlier post on the SAT and ACT:
Frey, M. C. & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the SAT and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373-398.
Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability. Intelligence, 36, 153−160.
Deborah
Thanks, Jon. Maybe I’ll delve into some of the vast technical literature. Maybe. ;-)
You’ve probably already seen this, but in case not, I’ll share.
Bear in mind, I only happen to know about this article because a fellow list member posted the link in a message to a group to which I belong.
“The math gap
MIT economists find a new reason to think that environment, not innate ability, determines how well girls do in math class”
Jon Wai
Deborah: I appreciate this very interesting link, I had not seen it, so thank you. Indeed the factors influencing mathematics achievement, both in the class and at extremely high levels is quite complex, and without a doubt, environmental factors are important. We’re currently conducting research to examine what sociocultural factors that likely caused the drop in the male-female math ratio from the early 1980′s to the early 1990′s and perhaps that’s something we could use.
The study looks at the closing of the boys to girl ratio from 13 to 1 to 4 to 1. One sunny interpretation in the paper is that more girls are doing well. A not so sunny possibility for the ratio change may be that boys are doing less well. Perhaps, it is a combination of these two things. I’m concerned that the second possibility may be ignored in our race to bring gender equality.