🚀 go-pugleaf

[Followups to misc.kids]

hamilton@DNVN.com (Hamilton) wrote:
>John Arrowsmith <john@arrowsmith.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Hamilton <hamilton@DNVN.com> writes

>> >Since by high school boys do better on virtually all measures of
>> >performance including the SATS in this country, it seems that the
>> >real losers in the school system are girls who are not encouraged
>> >to perform to their best level and who are systematically advised
>> >into less demanding subjects.  

Is this true across the entire population of boys and girls, or is a more
select subset of the boys being compared with a broader subset of girls?
I.E. do marginal boys tend not to take the SAT at all? Certainly college
admission and graduation rates (higher for girls, I believe) would imply
that these apparent deficiencies may not be of enduring effect.

>> >This is particularly true in math and science.

Here we probably do have a cultural predilection for encouraging boys in
these fields, though I suspect that is to some degree an echo of a real
genetic difference in the means of the respective curves.

>> Is "in this country" Australia ?

>You have the SATs in Australia?  If not, you are being a jerk.  If
>so, sorry.

Hamilton, you crossposted to aus.students without any apparent 'Strine
content. Thus John's remark.

It would be interesting to see to what degree these gender differences
persist in non-'Murkin contexts. I am not willing to presuppose that all
observed gender differences are someone's "fault".