Boys vs. Girls on the 2010 SAT Test
If you haven't already seen it, here's another look at my December 2010 animation "Boys vs. Girls on the 2010 SAT Test," where I have a little fun trying to debunk "The Janet Hyde" at the University of Wisconsin, who claims there "There just aren't gender differences anymore in math performance. So parents and teachers need to revise their thoughts about this."
See some related CD posts here, here and here.
And here are the results for the 2011 Math SAT Test - the mean score for high school boys was 531 compared to a mean of 500 for girls; and 9,120 boys had perfect scores of 800 compared to 4,683 girls, for a M:F ratio of 1.95-to-1.
19 Comments:
results for the Math SAT: boys 531 vs 500 for girls; and 9,120 boys w/ perfect scores vs 4,683 w/ perfect scores.
_________________
Clear-cut case of gender discrimination. A class action lawsuit against the high schools should be launched immediately.
The numbers are even more telling when one understand that 771k boys took the test while 877k girls took the test making the ratio even more profound.
This is more a sign that college itself is less about training people for careers that add value in the free market, and more for indoctrination/public sector careers.
The overrepresentation of women in any field, or in higher education, is a strong indicator that the field/institution in question no longer operates under free-market principles.
Clear-cut case of gender discrimination. A class action lawsuit against the high schools should be launched immediately.
I wonder why more lawyers don't jump at the chance to take such cases pro-bono.
It should be a slam dunk, no?
SATs don;t mean squat.
Boys and girls got different scores, big deal.That said. my hat is off to those with perfect scores: that is no mean feat, even considering many of them probably had extensive particular coaching.
I had a friend who did it. He beat me by a bit, but you could not have paid me to live in the pressure cooker his parents applied.
He had a successfull college career, and later committed suicide.
SATs don;t mean squat.
Boys and girls got different scores, big deal.That said. my hat is off to those with perfect scores: that is no mean feat, even considering many of them probably had extensive particular coaching.
I had a friend who did it. He beat me by a bit, but you could not have paid me to live in the pressure cooker his parents applied.
He had a successfull college career, and later committed suicide.
For the last 40 years researchers have been tracking five cohorts of talented math students from middle school through most of their career. The results of the study, available at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/, should be read by anyone interested in this topic.
Hydra,
If SAT scores don't means squat, why would you tip your hat at those who got perfect scores? If getting a perfect score is no mean feat, then doesn't this invalid your claim that SAT scores don't mean squat?
Then you make a silly claim about this guy you knew one time. Ridiculous. This is like me claiming that girls are on average shorter than men because I know a girl who is taller than some men.
Learn what averages means. It helps when talking about statistics.
Ken:
"If SAT scores don't means squat, why would you tip your hat at those who got perfect scores? If getting a perfect score is no mean feat, then doesn't this invalid your claim that SAT scores don't mean squat?"
Hmm. Good point. I missed that one.
I've learned to skim Hydra's comments lightly, when I read them at all, and it usually takes a more serious offense against logic to make me stop & write a response.
Needless to say I stop pretty often.
Well if the WSJ knows what its talking about I'm wondering if the new immigration trends will change the scoring differences in math?
I like this sentence from the WSJ link juandos provided:
"The world's best, the world's hardest-working and the world's most ambitious are still coming our way."
Now, if we could just provide some incentive for the lazy and unmotivated to leave ...
"Now, if we could just provide some incentive for the lazy and unmotivated to leave ."
Perhaps reducing the number of taxpayer funded safety nets would be a place to start.
Ron H: "Perhaps reducing the number of taxpayer funded safety nets would be a place to start."
If safety nets were all locally administered and funded, we'd quickly see the free market at work.
Jet: "If safety nets were all locally administered and funded, we'd quickly see the free market at work."
Absolutely. Especially if they were funded by voluntary contributions or mutual aid arrangements as they were in the past before politicians found that spending taxpayer money was a good way to buy votes.
Now, if we could just provide some incentive for the lazy and unmotivated to leave ...
Instead, we're providing incentive for the productive to leave.
Yes, I'm sure we're still getting some people here. But, since 2009, the number of H1-B Visas applied for has been lower than the number the quota. In the past, those visas were heavily oversubscribed. Mexican illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle and people have returned to their home countries or moved on to others because it's getting harder to do business here.
We have skyrocketing taxes, rising regulation and an out of control welfare state. And we love to imprison people.
Methinks:
"Instead, we're providing incentive for the productive to leave."
Who is "we"? :)
I don't want you and morganovich to move to St. Kitts where your lives will be blissful and serene.
"We" need you here.
Thanks, Ron H.
By "we" I mean our political overlords who are completely unrestrained by any of the founder's intended checks. At this point, the United States is among the highest tax countries in the world and Obamacare will make that worse in January even if Bush tax cuts are extended. Besides that, there is a nasty class war being fanned and a belief that some people (the rich) should be forced into service to everyone else - which is to be expected with an expanding welfare state. It's just going to get worse. Something could change, but I doubt it.
The United States has made itself so unattractive that there are just places on the globe less aggressive, less tax happy and don't hate "the rich". The deterioration in this country in just the last 10 years is shocking. And alarming.
Methinks
"The United States has made itself so unattractive that there are just places on the globe less aggressive, less tax happy and don't hate "the rich". The deterioration in this country in just the last 10 years is shocking. And alarming."
I agree. I'm sure glad I'm not rich.
Wait. That doesn't sound right.
Will you be needing a chauffeur where you are going? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home