Comments on: Boys, Girls, and Math

By: J

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:23:41 +0000

Deven,

It seems pretty clear that the study would not be at all prominent without the recent Summers controversy. I think a more interesting question is whether the media would be reporting on it more accurately or honestly in that scenario.

By: Deven

Deven — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:52:19 +0000

Scottnyx, Thanks. The post does not endorse the WSJ or get the contrasts you note so I suppose you are responding to comments.

I am more interested in the way the articles look to Summers and Barbie to draw attention to the study. I think the study may be useful or at least get to some of the issues in play, but I wonder whether it would be so prominent without the recent history.

By: scottynx

scottynx — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:12:40 +0000

The results of the study can be interpreted as consistent with what Larry Summer said: That girls and boys have the same average achievement, but boys have higher variance, leading to an over-abundance of males at the higher (and lower) ends of the achievement spectrum.

It seems that only the wall street journal reported on the “boys higher variance” part of the study with this headline: “Boys’ Math Scores Hit Highs and Lows”

Here is Andrew Gelman of Columbia talking about the variance part of the study as well, and the contrasting parts that were emphasized by the WSJ vs the NYT (and virtually all other newspapers).

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/07/nyt_vs_wsj_on_g.html

Also, here is Alex Tabarrok of marginalrevolution talking about how the study vindicates summers:

Summers Vindicated (Again)

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/summers-vindica.html

By: Snark

Snark — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:29:05 +0000

The study appears to focus on mean scores. Larry Summers, however, was positing that boys might have more variance. That is, boys would perform as well as girls on average, but boys would have both higher and lower extreme scores. The reporting does not seem to discuss this angle.

By: Deven

Deven — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:10:00 +0000

Dear Not Snark (thanks for clarifying),

I am not sure what to make of the apparent coincidence. Not having access to the article, I can’t say whether anything in there looks at the two together.

Still from the reporting I think they uncouple them a bit, because they looked at several levels of testing (beyond the No Child levels I believe) when reaching their conclusion.

By: Not snark

Not snark — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:59:54 +0000

It is unfortunate that the finding of no difference in girls and boys scores coincides with the elimination of hard, complex math problems from the text.

By: Deven

Deven — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:03:22 +0000

You would think that? Why? Just teasing. Interesting tip. Of course the post does point a law angle (two in fact) the No Child Left Behind and the trademark/reputation issues that pop up around this one as it is reported.

Thanks for the comment.

By: John Armstrong

John Armstrong — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:12:12 +0000

While everyone's been talking about this, I would think you'd be more interested in the attempt to apply Title IX to math and science departments. That seems to have more of a law angle.