There are 5,940,000 female and 4,861,000 male students in our
undergraduate schools, and if the math skills of these girls follows the pattern
of the Howard Wainer study, then 2,678,940 girls
have math skills equivalent to boys who flunk out of math, 1,799,820 have math
skills equivalent to boys who get D's, and 1,455,300 have math skills equivalent
to boys who get C's.
None of them have math skills which would qualify them to follow a career in
STEMS, while more than half of the 5,940,000 boys who were rejected (or
2,970,000 of them) to make room for these girl students, WOULD have benefited
from a career in STEMS.
Why would we as a society do this at a time when high tech careers are so
valuable, and so profitable? It's like cutting our nose off to spite our face. f
you ever wondered why we can't make our own shoes, much less our own
semiconductors and electronics, and instead must go all the way to China to have
them made for us, then now you know why.
Math tests simply present mathematical facts to students to measure how well
they can solve problems, and cannot be designed to "discriminate against" women,
Blacks, Hispanics, nor Asians (particularly Asian men who score higher than the
so-called privileged White men). The fact that 51% of college boys can solve
problems ( and thus get A's and B's in college math) which no girls can solve,
not even those who get A's in college math, means just that--no American girl
can solve problems that at least half of American boys have proven on SAT math
tests that they CAN solve. All math problems are representative of how well a
citizen can solve problems at school, at work, in science, in politics, and in
life.
What's the effect of this invidious discrimination against our
boys? If all of the 5,940,000 boys who had been denied admission to make
room for this many girls, had instead been accepted, we would now have
10,801,000 boys in college, and at least half of them, or 5,400,500 boys who CAN
solve math problems, would be in our undergraduate schools where they CAN
benefit from an undergraduate education. This is 122% more than the current
figure of 2,430,500 students who DO understand math.
Also see the Scientific Evidence that Men and Women are Designed Differently
Note that this salary database reports the 2.2 times greater earnings of male doctors over female doctors in Dallas, Texas, which is consistent with the BLS Survey which reports that male physicians earn 60% more than female physicians ($140,000 vs $88,000), that male dentists earn 60% more than female dentists (110k vs. 68k).
This BLS report "Highlights of Women�sEarnings in 2010" shows that the weekly earnings of a woman who takes out hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans to become a physician are only $13 dollars higher than a woman who could become a pharmacist with NO student loan debt ($1,618 vs. $1,605). It also shows that male nurses earn 14% more than female nurses, that male police officers earn 29% more, male bartenders earn 32% more, male janitors earn 47% more, White women earn 35% more than Hispanic women (oh, the irony), men who live in West Virginia earn 45% more but those in California earn only 12% more, that in 1994 men with BS degrees earned only 30% more than women with BS degrees but by 2009 they earned 37% more, that men inspectors and men truck drivers earn 44% more.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2010.pdf
The less than 140 girls in the NSF Physics program who participated in 12th grade TIMSS performed very poorly in TIMSS physics: 41 points lower than the *average*12th grade girl in Cyprus, 34 points lower than the *average* girl in Greece, 13 points lower than Latvian girls, 68 points lower than Norwegian girls, 52 points lower than Russian girls, 62 points lower than Swedish girls, 19 points lower than Australian girls, 28 points lower than Danish girls, and 32 points lower than Slovenian girls. And of course compared to boys from all countries (*except* the US whose boys scored 9 points lower than NSF girls) they scored significantly lower than all others: 40 points lower than boys in the NSF physics program, 44 points lower than Canadian boys, 96 points lower than Cypriot boys, 59 points lower than Czech boys, 15 points lower than French boys,60 points lower than German boys, 70 points lower than Greek boys, 54 points lower than Latvian boys, 132 points lower than Norwegian boys, 109 points lower than Russian boys, 131 points lower than Swedish boys, 64 points lower than Swiss boys, 69 points lower than Australian boys, and 69 points lower than the international average.
Our NSF boys didn't do much better--they scored lower than the AVERAGE GIRLS in Sweden, Norway, and Russia, by 46, 50, and 15 points, resepctively.
TIMSS shows that at the 12th grade level, whose scores are very different from the 8th grade level in both directions (up for most countries, VERY much down for the US), Norwegian boys scored 2 standard deviations higher than Swiss boys (589 vs. 519). But Swiss boys scored 2 standard deviations higher than Swiss girls (519 vs. 444). And Swiss girls scored another standard deviation higher than American girls (444 vs. 393), for a total of 5 standard deviations of separation between American girls and Norwegian boys.
SAT scores for 12th graders show that boys in Catholic states score almost two standard deviations lower than boys in Protestant states. And girls in Catholic states score another two standard deviations lower than boys in Catholic states, for a total of 4 standard deviations of separation between Protestant boys and Catholic girls. They also show that two thirds of those who score over 600 in SAT math are boys and only one third are girls.
Even though the GRE (Graduate Record
Examination) is not a representative cross-section of the American
population, as it's taken mostly by college graduates hoping to go to graduate
school and thus represents a small, elite crowd, it still confirms the phenomena
closely enough. Not only does it show that the standard deviation for males of
every race in every GRE subject is higher than for females of those respective
races and topics, but it too shows that the gender gap for Whites and Hispanics
is two thirds of a standard deviation, hardly a "statistically insignificant"
difference as the news media expounds. Even the smaller standard deviations of
.6 for "other" races, .59 for Mexicans, .56 for Asians, .5 for Puerto Ricans,
.47 for
Indians, and .4 for Blacks can hardly be characterized as "statistically
insignificant".
NAEP confirms the phenomena, plus provides the additional insight that blacks score another 5-9 standard deviations lower than Whites, and that blacks in the District of Columbia have an IQ which is 4 IQ points lover than the average for American blacks, another half of a standard deviation.
While egalitarians delight in proclaiming that the gender gap
in NAEP math decreased from 7 points to only 3 points and the White/Black race
gap decreased from 38 points to only 28 points just in the last three decades,
the most casual observation of the data will prove to you otherwise. Is it
really possible that our education system managed to alter God's Design by
narrowing race and gender gaps which have existed for millennia--in only a few
short decades? No. Is it possible that, given such huge gender and race gaps in
other standardized tests, that NAEP managed to produce a test which illustrates
no gender and lower race gaps? No. What did happen is the way the standard
deviation was changed in the reporting of the data. The most optimistic
assessment of how this standard deviation was changed shows that this supposed
decrease in the race gap from 38 to 28 points was actually an increase in the
standard deviation from 5.4 to 9.3. Is that possible? Could this dumbing down of
America as reflected in the 135 SAT point decrease just in the last four decades
and our scoring dead last in 17 of 34 TIMSS subjects have resulted in the
dumbing down of Blacks even more?
That's actually not impossible, because the experts who've manipulated this test
data (and they are truly experts at manipulating this data) have managed to remove it from our public consciousness and from all
political debate.
Not every step along the way is necessarily cumulative. It's not possible that the total number of standard deviations of separation between American black females in DC and boys in Norway is a total of 14 to 18.5 standard deviations. This comparison of different types of tests designed to measure different attributes with different and in some cases unknown standard deviations is for illustrative purposes. The facts are known by the experts and we the sheeple need to know what they know.
Does the throwing "gender gap" occur in Germany?
|
||||
|
Article Excerpt |
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
ABSTRACT�Only 1% of the world's chess grandmasters are women. This underrepresentation is unlikely to be caused by discrimination, because chess ratings objectively reflect competitive results. Using data on the ratings of more than 250,000 tournament players over 13 years, we investigated several potential explanations for the male domination of elite chess. We found that (a) the ratings of men are higher on average than those of women, but no more variable; (b) matched boys and girls improve and drop out at equal rates, but boys begin chess competition in greater numbers and at higher performance levels than girls; and (c) in locales where at least 50% of the new young players are girls, their initial ratings are not lower than those of boys. We conclude that the greater number of men at the highest levels in chess can be explained by the greater number of boys who enter chess at the lowest levels.
A US Census Bureau population survey reports that men earn 85% of family incomes and women only 15%.
We evaluate two alternative explanations for the converging gender gap in arrest�changes in women's behavior versus changes in mechanisms of social control. Using the offense of drunk driving and three methodologically diverse data sets, we explore trends in the DUI gender gap. We probe for change across various age groups and across measures tapping DUI prevalence and chronicity. Augmented Dickey-Fuller time-series techniques are used to assess changes in the gender gap and levels of drunk driving from 1980 to 2004. Analyses show women of all ages making arrest gains on men�a converging gender gap. In contrast, self-report and traffic data indicate little or no systematic change in the DUI gender gap. Findings support the conclusion that mechanisms of social control have shifted to target female offending patterns disproportionately. Little support exists for the contention that increased strain and liberalized gender roles have altered the gender gap or female drunk-driving patterns.
Even after four decades of affirmative action and rampant feminism, how can it be explained that men STILL get 14 TIMES as many patents as women?
 |
Adding women to the ownership of a man owned business reduces its potential receipts by $323,300 or 55.5%. |
|
|
Adding men to the ownership of a woman owned business increases its potential receipts by $108,100 or 71.5%. |
|
|
Completely removing women from ownership increases potential receipts by $431,400 to four fold greater than a woman owned business with no men owners present. |
A Globe review shows that the proportion of women among bachelor's degree recipients in computer science peaked at 37 percent in 1985 and then went on the decline. Women have comprised about 28 percent of computer science bachelor's degree recipients in the last few years, and in the elite confines of research universities, only 17 percent of graduates are women. (The percentage of women among PhD recipients has grown, but still languishes at around 20 percent.)
"One of the most remarkable changes in the U.S. labor market during the 1980s has been the sharp reduction in the pay gap between men and women. In 1979, the ratio of the average hourly wage of women to that of men was 68.6 percent. By 1991, it had increased to 78.5 percent."
This ignores the other "most remarkable changes" in that timeframe, which was the two thirds plunge in household incomes in the US while other industrialized nations' (as well as former third world nations') household incomes skyrocketed, as well as factors like the following:
"The authors then turned to the connection between attitudes and salaries. Those subjects that had traditional attitudes towards workplace gender and were a standard deviation off the mean showed substantial salary disparities, with men earning over $11,000 more than their female peers. In contrast, those that were a standard deviation more egalitarian in their attitudes had a pay gap just over $1,000. Only about $1,500 of that came from higher earnings by egalitarian females; the rest is accounted for by a precipitous drop in the earnings of egalitarian males.
"Part of that difference arises from career choice; traditionalist men mostly outearned women in fields where there were fewer women employed. The difference was also largest in jobs on the lower-end of the income scale, suggesting that traditional gender roles are stronger influences in blue-collar fields. Seniority also had a big impact on disparities: over the 25-year study period, pay went up 120 percent for women, but nearly 320 percent for men."
After thirty years of relative constancy, the gender pay gap in the United States narrowed substantially in the 1980s. For example, published tabulations from the Census Bureau on the median annual earnings of year-round, full-time workers indicate that the female-to-male ratio rose from 59.7 to 68.7 percent between 1979 and 1989�a gain of 9.0 percentage points. However, the rate of convergence slowed markedly in the following decade, with a further increase to 72.2 percent by 1999�an increase of only 3.5 percentage points. In this paper, we shed light on several possible sources of slowing convergence in the 1990s using data from the Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the only nationally representative data base that contains information on workers� actual labor market experience. Labor market experience has been shown to be an extremely important factor in explaining the gender pay gap (Mincer and Polachek 1974) and its trends (e.g., Blau and Kahn 1997; O'Neill and Polachek 1993). We focus on a number of hypotheses that might help to explain the slower progress of women in the 1990s.
3 STANDARD DEVIATIONS
As early as 1928, it was known in our literature that there is a three standard deviation difference between the lengths of the male and female chromosomes.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/pollInsights/#GG
Labor Unions
Currently, 58% of Americans say they approve of labor unions, while 33% disapprove. The high point for approval of unions came in 1953 and 1957, when 75% approved. The low point was in 1979 and 1981, when 55% approved. [Aug 5-8, 2002; Aug 14-17, 1981; May 4-7, 1979; Jan 17-22, 1957; Oct 9-14, 1953]
Most Valuable Subject in School
Among the general American population, 34% say math is the subject they studied in school that has been most valuable to them, while 24% say English/literature/reading. Among men, math is chosen more frequently than English is, by 41% to 15%. Among women, English is chosen more often than math is, by 32% to 28%. [Aug 5-8, 2002]
Fear for Children at School
Among white Americans who have children in school, 27% say they fear for their oldest child's safety while he or she is at school. The percentage is substantially higher (42%) among nonwhite American parents. [Aug 5-8, 2002]
Public or Private School
The vast majority of parents with children in kindergarten through 12th grade (89%) say they send their children to public schools. Seven percent say they send their children to private schools, while 2% say their children attend parochial schools. Another 2% say their children are home schooled. [Aug 5-8, 2002]
Are Americans more likely to say that the Republicans or the Democrats watch out for the best interests of ordinary Americans, rather than the interests of corporations? Find out by reading Gallup's analysis of the political impact made by the corporate scandals.
Look at all the following countries whose 12th graders didn't participate in TIMSS, but whose 8th graders scored up to 100 points higher than ours!
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,49290.90.html
I'll admit, I haven't
read all 6 pages of the thread. Maths terrify me. I fell off the
truck back in 5th grade. I'm a member of the early "new" math generation,
and I went to a private lower school where some teachers liked math and taught
it the "old" way, some decided to teach it the "new" way, and some didn't like
teaching it so it wasn't emphasised.
I did okay in algebra, as long as we were talking theory. Calculators were
banned, and to this day I still sometimes mentally count on my fingers, so
arithmetically I'd sometimes fail getting an answer (which was a fail--loic
didn't count for points).
I really liked, and did well at, geometry for some reason now lost to me in the
midst of time and maths fear. While I was otherwise a good good chemestry
student that loved the sciences, I lost it when I had a HS instructor that
insisted on starting every class with a graded quiz of 10 questions that
stretched across the full front of the room blackboard which had to be answered
in 5 minutes using a slide rule. In that entire year I think I might have
managed to get one of those damned questions finished before the time was up.
Other than that my understanding of the science was sound, and I absolutely
loved biology, but those damned quizzes cost me my grade--and any confidence I
had. I barely passed that class.
I've avoided taking any maths and sciences since, although at the zoo I teach
basic science, including chemestry, biology, geology, and ecology--and do it
very well from what I'm told by teachers bringing in their classes, and by other
volunteers that have taught the subjects, some professionally, for far longer
than I.
My late husband, who was a math whiz, insisted that, based upon what he'd
seen of my interests and abilities, I'd enjoy and do quite well in physics--but
the entire idea scares the pants off of me. In order to eventually
graduate from any program I have to have my math requirement satisfied.
I've avoided taking it formally for 36 years (oddly, the older I get, and the
more I avoid it formally, the more it makes sense to me in an informal setting).
But, I also haven't graduated in 36 years; I sure as heck have enjoyed all the
other courses--mostly, from year 1, upper level-- I've taken in that time,
though.
I sometimes think I'm the personification of Zonker from Doonsbury, except for
our different motivations for not graduating. I'm a fairly strong person,
but I actually panic and break down crying at the idea of having to take a math
class for a grade.
From http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/13/gender
Both male and female undergraduates are more likely to have higher college grades as the percentage of female faculty members increases. The more time female students devote to exercise and sports, the higher their grades are likely to be. For male students, more time on exercise and sports has the opposite effect. Women are more likely to report growth in critical thinking during college if they attend private colleges than public universities.
These are among the statistics in a new book that aims to change the way educators think about the gender gap in college enrollments. With women making up solid majorities of undergraduate enrollments nationally, and more than 60 percent at many institutions, gender gaps are a hot topic � but the focus has been on why female numbers are up and male numbers aren�t. Linda J. Sax says that�s only part of the equation.
Sax, an associate professor of education at the University of California at Los Angeles, says it is time to focus on the ways men and women experience higher education and why some experiences help either men or women but not both. The emphasis on the total enrollment figures hides real issues facing men and women in college, she argues in The Gender Gap in College: Maximizing the Developmental Potential of Women and Men, just published by Jossey-Bass.
The book�s purpose, she writes, is to �add context to what have become oversimplified but popular messages � that gender equity has been achieved, that women are an academic success story, and that men are experiencing an educational crisis. There is some truth to each of these messages, but they tend to convey the status of women and mean as a zero-sum game.� The more nuanced reality, she writes, is that there are problems facing both men and women � and educators need to acknowledge and respond to these differences.
While arguing for this type of analysis, Sax also acknowledges in her book that there are dangers associated with it. �There is a legitimate argument that the study of gender difference primarily reinforces gender differences,� she writes. Noting that in many cases, differences among men and among women are greater than the differences between them, she warns against using such analysis to �overstate� differences or to stereotype students. But she goes on to say that there are enough notable differences that the benefits of this research outweigh the risks.
And that led her to examine the data from millions of students nationwide collected by UCLA�s Cooperative Institutional Research Program � which is best known for producing the �freshman survey� each year, but which also surveys students at other points in their college careers.
One reason that it is important to examine these gender differences, writes Sax, is that the female college experience isn�t consistent with the data showing female students doing better than their male counterparts academically. It�s not that they don�t perform better, but the women enter college with a significant confidence gap. On a series of factors, male freshmen � who on average aren�t as well prepared as females � have much more confidence. Only on writing does the female self-confidence level outpace the male level (and reflect reality).
Self-Confidence of First-Year College Students by Gender, 2006
|
Academic Skill |
% of Women Who Think They Are Above Average |
% of Men Who Think They Are Above Average |
|
Intellectual self-confidence |
52.2% |
68.8% |
|
Mathematical ability |
35.9% |
53.1% |
|
Academic ability |
65.9% |
71.9% |
|
Writing ability |
49.3% |
45.7% |
Of particular concern, Sax writes, is that women appear unwilling to believe or admit that �they are as competent as their performance would suggest,� and that this lack of confidence generally appears to grow during college. [editor's note: whether consciously or unconsciously, teachers give grades to female students which are two letter grades higher than boys of the same academic level].
In looking at data on grades, Sax finds that there are some factors that help both male and female students achieve academically. As many have noted, levels of �academic engagement� promote academic success for all students. And both male and female students are least likely to do well at large public universities.
One finding in particular is striking, given the debates about affirmative action and the importance of diversifying the faculty, which was once overwhelmingly male. The data suggest a direct relationship, Sax writes, between institutions having larger proportions of female students and faculty members and all students � males too � performing better academically. While noting that the data do not suggest why this is the case, Sax urges researchers to explore the reasons for this relationship.
But at the same time, Sax also finds that male students tend to perform better academically when they have campus peer groups that support �traditional gender roles.� And at campuses with a strong emphasis on the arts, male academic performance tends to suffer.
One of the areas of particular concern to Sax is self-confidence in mathematical ability, given that this skill set is necessary for success in so many science and technology fields. Some of the relationships she finds are not surprising � for example that men and women both have higher confidence in math if they major in engineering or science fields. But the impact of major is stronger for women than men, which Sax says could mean �that continued exposure to mathematics is particularly important for female students.�
One key area for women�s mathematics self-confidence level, Sax finds, is the role of faculty. Female students� confidence levels go up more with positive interactions with professors, but there is also a correlation between female students who feel their questions are dismissed and declines in self-confidence.
At a time when many colleges promote the idea that they are teaching critical thinking skills, Sax also finds differences in the way male and female students report gains. Women are more likely to report gains if they attend private residential colleges and major in the humanities. Women who major in education tend to report little change in their critical thinking abilities, but men at campuses with many education majors � even if the men themselves aren�t in the major � report major gains. Both men and women gain if they seek out ethnic studies or other courses that expose them to different kinds of people than themselves, Sax reports.
In all, Sax�s book identifies 584 �college effects� that are not identical for men and women. She closes by urging other researchers to explore why these differences exist and what steps might be taken to improve the academic experience for men and women. And she notes that even where the data suggest similarities for male and female students (with both benefiting from interaction with professors, for example), the nature of those interactions may have differing impact. �Institutional efforts aimed at improving the college experience for both genders must consider the unique needs of each,� she writes.
| Original references to the NCES data base |
| Additional Graphs of SAT, NAEP, IAEP, ACT, and other sex differences |
The physical, emotional, and mental differences between males and females.
Male brain has 3 1/2 billion more brain cells than the female brain
In the following 12 subjects, no country scored lower than American 12th Grade Girls who scored:
22 points lower than American boys and 90 points lower than Greek girls in Numbers & Equations.
41 points lower than American boys and 123 points lower than Cypriot girls in Calculus.
31 points lower than American boys and 121 points lower than French girls in Geometry.
34 points lower than American boys and 139 points lower than Norwegian girls in Physics.
53 points lower than American boys and 130 points lower than Norwegian girls in Mechanics.
21 points lower than American boys and 152 points lower than Swedish girls in Electricity & Magnetism.
6 points lower than American boys and 37 points lower than Norwegian girls in Heat.
18 points lower than American boys and 86 points lower than Swedish girls in Wave Phenomena.
20 points lower than American boys and 92 points lower than Swedish girls in Modern Physics.
31 points lower than American boys and 117 points lower than French girls in Advanced Math.
23 points lower than American boys and 65 points lower than Swedish girls in General Science.
11 points lower than American boys and 77 points lower than Dutch girls in General Math.
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls understand math.
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls understand physics.
| Boys score 46 points higher than girls in SAT math. |
| Boys score 72 points higher than girls in GRE quantitative. |
| Foreign boys score 171 points higher than American girls in GRE quantitative. |
| Boys score 2 points higher than girls in ACT math. |
| Boys score 5 points higher than girls in NAEP math. |
| Boys score 53 points higher than girls in TIMSS physics. |
| Boys score 41 points higher than girls in TIMSS calculus. |
| Swiss boys score 47 points higher than Swiss girls in TIMSS calculus. |
| Boys score 17 points higher than girls in IAEP math. |
| Men college graduates earn 66% more than women college graduates. |
| Median weekly earnings of men exceed those for women by 35%. |
| Men outperform women in Olympic Platform Diving by 46%. |
| Men outperform women in Olympic 100 Meter Freestyle by 10%. |
| Men outperform women in Olympic Pole Vaulting by infinity. |
| Men outperform women in Olympic Shot Put by 31%. |
| Men outperform women in Olympic 1500 Meter Run by 9%. |
| Men outperform women in Olympic Springboard Diving by 20%. |
| Men outperform women as racing champions by infinity. |
| Men outperform women as boxing champions by infinity. |
| Men outperform women chess champions by infinity. |
| Men outperform women as baseball champions by infinity. |
| Men outperform women as money winners in golf by 118%. |
| Men outperform women as Nobel Peace Prize winners by infinity. |
| Men outperform women as Nobel Prize in Physics winners by 76X. |
| Men outperform women as Nobel Prize in Chemistry winners by 45X. |
| Men outperform women as Nobel Prize in Medicine winners by 25X. |
| Men outperform women as Nobel Prize in Literature winners by 13X (oops, 10X). |
| Men outperform women as Nobel Prize in Economic Science winners by infinity. |
This study analyzed data from the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) taken between 1977 and 1988 to study trends in the numbers, test scores, and other characteristics of high school seniors planning to major in math, science, or engineering, and to compare t hese data with comparable data from examinees planning to major in other fields. Results indicated that: (1) the total test-taking population declined in number until 1983 and has since been increasing; (2) the percentage of examinees who planned to major in math, science, or engineering increased from 24% to 29% of the examinee population; (3) in 1988 examinees planning to major in math, science, or engineering obtained a mean verbal score 18 points higher and a mean mathematics score 31 points higher th an the population average; (4) among students planning to major in math, science, or engineering, the mean mathematics score declined until 1981, increased until 1985, and declined thereafter; (5) among examinees who identify themselves as white and who p lan to major in math, science, or engineering, there has been a differences of nearly a standard deviation between the mean mathematics scores of males and females; sex differences were not as great among black examinees; and (6) among examinees who ident ified themselves as black and who plan to major in math, science, or engineering, the mean mathematics score for males rose 18 points, and the mean for females rose 20 points. Appendices include Student Descriptive Questionnaires and definitions of major field categories in Science and Non-Science Tables. (MKR)
Percent or factor by which males exceed females.
| Men | Women | Factor | |
| Height (cm) | 176.8 | 163.7 | +8% |
| Weight (lbs) | 163 | 127 | +28% |
| Life Expectancy | 70.3 | 77.9 | -10.8% |
| Abortions | 0 | 1,600,000 | 0 |
| Suicides | 18.6 | 6 | +200% |
| Vietnam Casualties | 58,151 | 76 | +763X |
| Accidental Deaths | 74,403 | 30,909 | +2.4X |
| 1982 Arrests | 6,464,604 | 1,289,373 | +5X |
| Child Murders (excl SIDS) | 500 | 611 | -22.2% |
| % of World Chess Champs | 100% | 0% | infinity |
| SAT Math Scores | 502 | 457 | +9.8% |
| Average # Brain Cells | 22.8 Billion | 19.3 Billion | +18.1% |
| Death Rates/100K--Cancer | 221 | 191 | +15.7% |
| Heart Disease | 284 | 279 | +1.8% |
| Accidents & Violence | 81 | 32 | +2.5X |
| Auto Deaths | 23 | 11 | +2X |
| Homicides | 9 | 2.8 | +3.2X |
| Firearm Injuries | 26 | 4 | +6.5X |
| Drugs | 7 | 3 | +2.3X |
| Alcohol | 11 | 3 | +3.7X |
| Deaths Per Year | 1,163,000 | 1,116,000 | +4.2% |
As affirmative action and other anti-productivity federal schemes have taken effect, both SAT and ACT scores have declined, and the gender gap in mathematics widened, from 17.6% in 1967 to 18.1% in 1989 on SAT Math, and from 12.2% to 13.7% on ACT M ath.
| SAT Math | 1960 | 1965 | 1970 | 1975 | 1980 | 1985 | 1989 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 529 | 520 | 509 | 495 | 491 | 499 | 500 | -29 points |
| Women | 485 | 476 | 465 | 449 | 443 | 452 | 454 | -31 points |
| Percent Difference | 15.44% | 15.94% | 16.60% | 18.47% | 19.75% | 18.65% | 18.11% |
Percent by which males scored higher than females averaged 17.65% over the last 3 decades. Source: College Entrance Examination Board, New York
College Grade
Number of Number of Percent Percent Men Women
SAT range Men Women (Men) (Women)
(592 & up) 5,693 0 22.0% 0% A
(575-591) 7,357 0 28.4% 0% B
(549-574) 6,931 5,144 26.8% 24.5% C A
(532-548) 2,881 6,383 11.1% 30.4% D B
(524-531) 3,030 0 11.7% 0% F
(493-523) 0 5,394 0% 25.7% C
(476-492) 0 2,235 0% 10.6% D
(475 & Below) 0 1,872 0% 8.9% F
1) 50.4% of the men scored higher than the highest scoring women.
2) 68% of the men scored higher than the highest women.
3) 64.5% of the women scored lower than men who got "D"s.
4) And that 45.2% of the women scored lower than all of the men.
5) Percent of women in the men's "A" range = 0%.
6) Percent of women in the men's "B" range = 0%.
7) Percent of women in the men's "C" range = 24.5%.
8) Percent of women in the men's "D" range = 30.4%.
9) Percent of women in the men's "F" range = 0%.
| ACT Math | 1960 | 1965 | 1970 | 1975 | 1980 | 1985 | 1989 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 24.5 | 22.3 | 19.3 | 18.9 | 18.9 | 18.6 | 18.3 | -25.3% |
| Women | 22.7 | 20.6 | 16.2 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.1 | -29.1% |
| Difference | 7.9% | 12.2% | 19.14% | 16.67% | 18.12% | 16.25% | 13.66% |
Percent by which males scored higher than females averaged 14.84% over
the last 3 decades. Source: The American College Testing Program. Note: the narrowing in
the gap from 19.14% in 1970 to 13.66% in 1989 is the result of declining male scores
rather than increasing female scores, indicating that narrowing the gap even further
requires decreasing male scores even further, rather than increasing female scores.
A similar psychological phenomena has affected economic performance in the US.
NOTE: Changes in 1990 in both the SAT and ACT test make an accurate
correlation with previous data impossible. The Department of Education reports that
the SAT "has increased" while ACT scores "remained flat", indicating
that the increase in SAT scores is due entirely to the changes in the test and not to any
improvement in education quality.
Even with such low numbers I think this is a pretty significant difference in scores. They barely overlap within their standard deviation. I called the GRE Board and they confirmed that there is a gender gap on the test and that white males generally score higher than women and minorities.
My own thoughts on why the gender gap exists are the following. Educational research on standardized tests have shown that women will spend more time `proving' that they have the right answer while men are more likely to `go with their gut feeling' and skip on to the next problem. Its a problem of confidence and guessing. If you don't guess on these tests and only answer the questions that you've had time to work out, there's very little chance that you will do as well as someone who is willing to guess and works through the test quickly. You don't have time to double check your work and women are more likely to do this. I know for a fact that I did not guess the first 3 times I took the Physics GRE and barely made it all the way to the end. The fourth time I studied by doing hundreds of multiple choice, learning to do them quickly and raised my score almost 200 points from my lowest score. I think the gender gap might disappear or at least narrow if the time allowed for the test was longer, or if it was fill in the blank.
There is a graduate student, Phil Bunce, getting a Masters degree in Physics Education
who is going to do his thesis on the validity of the Physics GRE and its value in Graduate
School Admissions. The primary goal of this research will be to determine if the physics
dept's use of this test at UT is valid. He's going to compare undergrad GPA, Grad GPA in
core courses with Physics GRE score for males and females for the last 5-10 years. We may
have difficulty getting a broad enough database because of the low number of women
students. If you or your school would be interested in performing a similar study or would
be interested in the results of such a study feel free to contact me. Thank you, Jennifer
Siders January 29, 1996 -- I will be getting a detailed summary of Physics GRE results
from ETS very soon and can send you a copy if you wish. What I have at the moment is the
1989-92 Volume and Score Data for the Physics GRE Test. I received this from someone who
had attended an ETS meeting. It took me a while but I found someone at ETS who knew what I
was talking about and is going to send me one directly. This way I can cite a source for
the information. :-)
| Gender & Country | Percent(of test takers) | Mean Physics GRE |
|---|---|---|
| Men | 84 | 681 |
| Women | 16 | 605 |
| Difference | 425% | 18.77% |
| China | 16 | 836 |
| USA | 56 | 604 |
| Difference | 250% | 57.43% |
I have data from a survey I did over the internet and also from 3 years worth of applicants to our Physics Dept that show a similar gap. There will be a special session at the APS/AAPT meeting May 4 on this topic where I will be presenting these results.
Annual Earnings, by Education Attainment
| Total | Not High School Graduate | High School Graduate | Some College or Associate Degree | Bachelor's Degree | Advanced Degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | $28,448 | $14,934 | $22,978 | $25,660 | $40,039 | $58,324 |
| Women | $17,145 | $9,311 | $14,128 | $16,023 | $23,991 | $33,814 |
| Difference | 65.93% | 60.39% | 62.64% | 60.14% | 66.89% | 72.48% |
Percent by which males earn more than females at various education levels averages 64.75%. Source: US Dept. of Commerce.
Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage & Salary Workers.
| 25 yrs & older | 25 -34 | 35 -44 | 45 -54 | 55 -64 | 65Yrs & Older | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | $559 | $478 | $598 | $656 | $586 | $453 |
| Women | $416 | $396 | $437 | $441 | $396 | $335 |
| Difference | 34.38% | 20.71% | 36.84% | 48.75% | 47.98% | 35.22 |
Percent by which males earn more than females at various age levels averages 37.31%. Source: US Dept. of Labor
| Diving | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 148.58 | 164.18 | 504.12 | 600.51 | 835.65 | 710.91 | 638.61 | 677.31 |
| Women | 99.8 | 109.59 | 390 | 406.59 | 596.25 | 435.51 | 445.2 | 461.43 |
| Difference | 48.88% | 49.81% | 29.26% | 47.69% | 40.15% | 63.24% | 43.44% | 46.78% |
Percent by which males score higher than females in platform diving averaged 46.16% over the last 3 decades. Source: for all Olympic scores, International Olympics Committee.
| Freestyle | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 53.4 | 52.2 | 51.22 | 49.99 | 50.4 | 49.8 | 48.63 | 49.02 |
| Women | 59.5 | 60 | 58.59 | 55.65 | 54.79 | 55.92 | 54.93 | 54.64 |
| Difference | 10.25% | 13.00% | 12.58% | 10.17% | 8.01% | 10.94% | 11.47% | 10.29% |
Percent by which males swim faster than females averaged 10.84% over the last 3 decades.
Pole Vault -- Olympics Scores.
| Pole Vaulting | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 16' 8 3/4" | 17' 8 1/2" | 18' 1/2" | 18' 1/2" | 18' 11 1/2" | 18' 10 1/4" | 19' 9 1/4" | 19' 1/4" |
| Women | na | na | na | na | na | na | na | na |
| Difference | na | na | na | na | na | na | na |
There are no pole vaulting competitions for females.
Shot Put -- Olympics Scores NOTE: Males's Shot Put is 16 Pounds NOTE: Females's Shot Put is 8 Pounds -- half of the males's shot put
| Shot Put | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 66.71 | 67.4 | 69.5 | 69.1 | 70 | 69.8 | 73.7 | 71.2 |
| Women | 59.5 | 64.3 | 69 | 69.4 | 54.79 | 55.92 | 54.93 | 54.64 |
| Difference | 12.12% | 4.82% | 0.72% | 0.43% | 27.76% | 24.82% | 34.17% | 30.31% |
Even with TWICE the weight the percent by which males scored higher than females over the last 3 decades averaged 16.89%.
1500 Meter Run -- Olympics Scores
| 1500 Meter Run | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 130.3 | 123.4 | 123.0 | 119.4 | 115.4 | 118.4 | 112.1 | 114.8 |
| Women | 142.6 | 142.4 | 140.9 | 136.6 | 131.0 | 123.4 | 120.7 | 125.9 |
| Difference | 8.63% | 13.34% | 12.70% | 12.59% | 11.91% | 4.05% | 7.13% | 8.82% |
Percent by which males run faster than females averaged 9.90% over the last 3 decades.
Springboard Diving -- Olympics Scores
| Springboard Diving | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 159.9 | 170.2 | 594.1 | 619.5 | 905.0 | 754.4 | 730.8 | 676.5 |
| Women | 145.0 | 150.8 | 450.0 | 506.2 | 725.9 | 530.7 | 580.2 | 572.4 |
| Difference | 10.28% | 12.86% | 32.02% | 22.38% | 24.67% | 42.15% | 25.96% | 18.19% |
Percent by which males outscore females in diving averaged 23.56% over the last 3 decades
Racing Champions
| NASCAR | Motorcycle | Formula One | LeMans | One-Mile Speed Record | Indy Car | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 28 | 20 | 14 | 3 | 24 | 36 |
| Women | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Difference | 28 | 20 | 14 | 3 | 24 | 36 |
Number of males champions versus number of female champions
Boxing Champions Since 1882
| Heavyweights | Light-Heavy Weights | Middle Weights | Welter Weights | Light Weights | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 49 | 51 | 55 | 47 | 48 |
| Women | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Difference | 49 | 51 | 55 | 47 | 48 |
Number of male champions versus number of female champions
Chess Champions
| World Chess Champions Since 1866 | US Chess Champions Since 1857 | |
|---|---|---|
| Men | 16 | 46 |
| Women | 0 | 0 |
| Difference | 16 | 46 |
Number of male champions versus number of female champions
Baseball Champions
| Home Run Leaders | Runs In Leader | Batting Chamion | Cy Young Awards | Most Valuable Player | Rookie Of The Year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 210 | 205 | 221 | 77 | 227 | 36 |
| Women | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Difference | 210 | 205 | 221 | 77 | 227 | 36 |
Number of male champions versus number of female champions
Leading Money Winners in PGA and LPGA
| Home Run Leaders | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | $1,395,278 | 1,165,477 | 979,430 | 1,344,188 | 1,478,557 | 1,499,927 |
| Women | 654,132 | 863,578 | 763,118 | 693,335 | 595,992 | 687,201 |
| Difference | 113% | 35% | 28% | 94% | 153% | 118% |
Percent by which the male leading money winners' earnings exceeded the female leading money winners' earnings.
The Nobel Peace Prize Awards
| Awards | Physics | Chemistry | Medicine | Literature | Peace Prize | Economic Science |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 152 | 137 | 103 | 90 | 102 | 36 |
| Women | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 0 |
| Difference | 76X | 45X | 25X | 10X | 14X | infinity |
| Commercial Pilots | Airline Transport Pilots | Airplane Mechanics | Flight Engineer | |
| Men | 132,763 | 114,498 | 405,727 | 58,040 |
| Women | 5,965 | 2,936 | 5,344 | 1,427 |
| Difference | 22x | 39x | 76x | 41x |
The men’s discus weighs between 2.005 and 2.025 kilograms and has a diameter between 21.8 and 21.1 centimetres.
For women, the discus weighs 1.005 to 1.025 kilograms and measures 18-18.2 centimetres in diameter.
Corrected by kavking@my-deja.com who is the first feminazi to win a Dewey Button for Accuracy on October 3, 2000.
.svg.png "Soviet Union"){kind=small}
