Men 'outperformed' at university

[Mattias]

Yeah, it's not disputed that women are generally better students than men.

However, in terms of intelligence, I think they are probably around the same.

In my school, although girls try a lot harder and are generally liked more by the teachers, compared to male students, they aren't that bright.

Male students I think generally have the potential, just lack the will power.

Sometimes, depending on where you live, maybe the tendency to have boys rather than girls is stronger, (guys can't get pregnint!) and therefore people prefer girls less.

I think this probably motivates girls to do better, sense many of them have a inferiority complex, especially if they aren't really pretty.

Of course, maybe it differs from society to society...

I'm from hong kong, so im only speaking about what i see...

[wikinerd]

--snip--

I wouldn't say "outperformed". I remember reading an article about how the average female student's grades drop once they get to university (found the article-- it's the third one below), while male's stay roughly the same. Something about elementary/secondary schools favouring girls.Number of students isn't much of an indicator of performance and quality. Quantity ≠ Quality. The general trend is that, as per the articles' evidence below, girls get higher results in elementary/secondary schools, thus more of them get into university. Again, this doesn't mean they are "smarter".http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/26/schoolboys_bias_suit/

At Milton High School, girls outnumber boys by almost 2 to 1 on the honor roll. In Advanced Placement classes, almost 60 percent of the students are female.It's not that girls are smarter than boys, said Doug Anglin, a 17-year-old senior at the high school.Girls are outperforming boys because the school system favors them, said Anglin, who has filed a federal civil rights complaint contending that his school discriminates against boys.

http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/2002/20020522kersten.php

Is there gender bias in American schools? Evidence is growing that the answer is yes. But if you think it's girls who are suffering, you're wrong. Today, boys are on the short end of the academic stick, and their performance gap with girls is both startling and alarming.

And this one's particularly alarming. — From the Journal of Instructional Psychologyhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_2_30/ai_105478982/

This article examines gender bias in our nation' s schools. Studies reveal that in the early years of their education, girls are equal to or ahead of their male counterparts on standardized and psychological assessments. However, research has shown that upon graduation from high school, girls have often fallen behind their male counterparts. In addition, this article suggests some practical solutions that can be used to expand and enhance commitments to gender equality.

Need I say more?

By the sample of the population I go by, i.e. my friends and people I know, women have the edge to go further all around.

A very statistically sound sample, I might add. @OPJust one more thing. I haven't seen a lot of women in CommTech at any university lately. Is this a trend too? Do males outperform females in CommTech? NO. It's just that males tend to have more of an appetite for logical thinking and programming. Same applies to the high school. Males tend to be more aggressive and may question teacher's intelligence (which make teachers think less of them), while their female counterparts have more of an appetite for quiet work and "listening to lectures".Males tend to be more logical and their EQ might be lower than their female counterparts, so they might look and sound like ******heads, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. Females who have a very high EQ but cannot grasp how a tangent graph may have asymptotes aren't stupid either. People have strengths and weaknesses. If you focus on your strengths you might balance out your weaknesses. Edited June 16, 2009 by Aboo

[Vvi]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/26/schoolboys_bias_suit/

At Milton High School, girls outnumber boys by almost 2 to 1 on the honor roll. In Advanced Placement classes, almost 60 percent of the students are female.It's not that girls are smarter than boys, said Doug Anglin, a 17-year-old senior at the high school.Girls are outperforming boys because the school system favors them, said Anglin, who has filed a federal civil rights complaint contending that his school discriminates against boys.

That kid is such a whiner. "I'm failing classes because the system is designed to favour girls. The teachers like them more than me". Maybe if he'd just listen in class and not mess around, he'd get somewhere. His GPA is 2.88; no wonder he wants to change the system. He obviously wants to get into college, but changing the system so it suits him isn't fair. In my school, throughout all the grades, it can definitely be said that the guys are the ones who get lower grades in every class because they like to mess around, crack jokes and ignore the teacher in lessons. That's not true for all schools, but my school seems to attract those that have poor academic standards. If you get low grades, accept it and work on improving them. Don't blame them on others and try to sue the school for giving you the grades you deserve for putting in no effort.

And the father of that boy "says that teachers must change their attitudes toward boys and look past boys' poor work habits or rule-breaking to find ways to encourage them academically." Look past rule-breaking? So basically, give a free pass to people to start fights, skip class and still give them the same grades as girls? And how is looking past poor work habits a good thing for the future? If you don't learn to work hard in high school, you'll fail in college as well as in a job.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Vvi

[wikinerd]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/26/schoolboys_bias_suit/

At Milton High School, girls outnumber boys by almost 2 to 1 on the honor roll. In Advanced Placement classes, almost 60 percent of the students are female.It's not that girls are smarter than boys, said Doug Anglin, a 17-year-old senior at the high school.Girls are outperforming boys because the school system favors them, said Anglin, who has filed a federal civil rights complaint contending that his school discriminates against boys.

That kid is such a whiner. "I'm failing classes because the system is designed to favour girls. The teachers like them more than me". Maybe if he'd just listen in class and not mess around, he'd get somewhere. His GPA is 2.88; no wonder he wants to change the system. He obviously wants to get into college, but changing the system so it suits him isn't fair. In my school, throughout all the grades, it can definitely be said that the guys are the ones who get lower grades in every class because they like to mess around, crack jokes and ignore the teacher in lessons. That's not true for all schools, but my school seems to attract those that have poor academic standards. If you get low grades, accept it and work on improving them. Don't blame them on others and try to sue the school for giving you the grades you deserve for putting in no effort.

And the father of that boy "says that teachers must change their attitudes toward boys and look past boys' poor work habits or rule-breaking to find ways to encourage them academically." Look past rule-breaking? So basically, give a free pass to people to start fights, skip class and still give them the same grades as girls? And how is looking past poor work habits a good thing for the future? If you don't learn to work hard in high school, you'll fail in college as well as in a job.

Hmph... Whiner? Maybe. But he's got a point.

This "phenomenon" about "low academic attainment" among boys can be said to be caused by the teaching methods that specifically impair their ability to learn. This can be seen in methods in which math is taught. There's the "old school" method, where you're just fed with workbook after workbook filled with practice, and there's the new method, where teacher tries to "explain" examples and etc. The "old school" method impairs those who doesn't have such a logical mind and those who cannot concentrate on working on workbooks etc. Should the system change? Maybe; but by now I hope I've made it clear that this "phenomenon" is caused by something other than male stupidity.

And while you're thinking of your next argument I'd like you to read that article from the "Journal of Instructional Psychology".

Edited June 16, 2009 by wikinerd

[Sandwich]

Hmph... Whiner? Maybe. But he's got a point.

This "phenomenon" about "low academic attainment" among boys can be said to be caused by the teaching methods that specifically impair their ability to learn. This can be seen in methods in which math is taught. There's the "old school" method, where you're just fed with workbook after workbook filled with practice, and there's the new method, where teacher tries to "explain" examples and etc. The "old school" method impairs those who doesn't have such a logical mind and those who cannot concentrate on working on workbooks etc. Should the system change? Maybe; but by now I hope I've made it clear that this "phenomenon" is caused by something other than male stupidity.

And while you're thinking of your next argument I'd like you to read that article from the "Journal of Instructional Psychology".

Surely this is equally disabling for both genders? In my experience it's the guys who tend to have logical enough minds to see through and apply the principles (i.e. the important bit) with the old school method, as opposed to girls, for whom only the minority can actually see through the examples to the fundamentals. I know I can't! Given an example from the textbook and applying the way you've been taught to answer it favours neither gender. In the actual exams, the examples will have a twist on them or a spin on it, and so I'd say that if there's any favour, it would fall to the men. In my opinion there is no teaching method favouring males or females. Lack of understanding or ability is the same across both-- guys are always better at maths than girls, generically speaking, and there's no way to switch that around by the way we're taught.

Unless I misunderstood what you were saying.

[wikinerd]

Surely this is equally disabling for both genders? [...]

Yes. Males definitely have the advantage in math if they did things exactly the same way as the females, i.e. listen during class, actually working through the practice books, and actually use their brains. Problem is that most of them don't — the few who do make up most of the male population at universities. At that age, it's natural for them to just get distracted, or just be unable to sit and being lectured at for an hour and a half and sometimes question the teacher's ability, etc. More than once I've seen a male student who spoke up once too many during class only to see his marks drop due to the teacher nitpicking on their tests, quizzes, etc. And, well, teacher's generally favour girls.

As for assignments, she said, one teacher expects students to type up class notes and decorate their notebooks with glitter and feathers.

''You can't expect a boy to buy pink paper and frills to decorate their notebooks," Little said.

Another example?

She also said that teachers rarely ask her for a hall pass if she is not in class, while they routinely question boys walking behind her.

I can recall multiple times how a teacher have postponed a deadline or a test just because a bunch of girls said "please" 5 minutes before the deadline/test. If instead of girls there the boys asked for an extension it would've went very differently (they often get a lecture about how they should be more organized and should ask for an extension beforehand etc.).

While favouring girls during high school, the males get low marks, thus less of them get into university, while females gets into university only to find that they are no longer pampered——to the professors you're just a number, professors tend not to favour females anymore because there's so many of them around. (fyi last article.)

PS. On a side note, is there a particular reason my profile is being dugg down? Etiquette? Or just that debate and discussion has another meaning that I didn't quite catch?

Edited June 17, 2009 by wikinerd

[Sandwich]

So your point is that teachers favouritise female pupils because of the way they behave, so they get taught better? Ultimately the things which are assessed, insofar as I am aware, are examinations and coursework, both of which have an element of external assessment. So at the end of the day, even if boys are less likely to cover their work in glitter and jazz it up to make it look special (I must say, I only know a couple of girls who do this sort of thing!!), it ought to add up the same, as there are no glitter marks on the mark scheme.

Being honest, I think this very much depends on where you are. All-boys schools seem to manage okay! Questioning the teacher's ability is, besides not necessarily being a gender-specific thing (particularly if you do have rubbish teachers ) not a grade-destroying thing. Nor is not paying attention in lectures if you can understand the material afterwards. If the understanding is there, it's all equal, and classroom favouritism shouldn't reflect in grades. Unless you suggest boys are fundamentally incapable of learning until they're older, it's difficult to see where the problem is. There are tonnes of smart guys because they understand what's going on, and ultimately that's how everything is solved, whether you pay attention in lectures or not. I can't think of a different teaching style to help with understanding in that respect besides self-teaching-- which is what both genders do. All in all, I don't see a significant bias within the education system and the way of teaching itself which might lead to the significant under-performance of a gender! I mean, how would you propose guys should be taught to favour them? Just to illustrate where you feel the difference lies.

[Vvi]

That psychology article on how girls get lower marks in college contradicts with the article I originally posted, but that's because my article was based on a study of universities in the UK, and yours is on colleges in the US. In general, I would have to say that educational standards in universities are lower in the States. The first year of college there is a general studies one, and is used to make sure that every one is on the same level in terms of English, Maths and other subjects. Basically another year of high school. In the UK, you specialize as soon as you start, and you only take modules which are relevant to your degree. So it's not really any surprise to me that girls get lower marks on that side of the Atlantic.

Speaking of discrimination in schools (that anti-discrimination law that was passed mentioned in that psychology journal article), there is big-time discrimination against girls' sports teams in high schools. http://www.las-elc.org/arch-040304-sports.html . Other articles have focused on instances where the school budget is cut, and it's the girls teams that are cut, not the guys. In some places people obviously think sport is more important for guys than girls. Maybe if they gave more money to girls' sports budgets, they wouldn't have so many teen pregnancies or other problems with girls.

[wikinerd]

That psychology article on how girls get lower marks in college contradicts with the article I originally posted, but that's because my article was based on a study of universities in the UK, and yours is on colleges in the US. In general, I would have to say that educational standards in universities are lower in the States. The first year of college there is a general studies one, and is used to make sure that every one is on the same level in terms of English, Maths and other subjects. Basically another year of high school. In the UK, you specialize as soon as you start, and you only take modules which are relevant to your degree. So it's not really any surprise to me that girls get lower marks on that side of the Atlantic.

Speaking of discrimination in schools (that anti-discrimination law that was passed mentioned in that psychology journal article), there is big-time discrimination against girls' sports teams in high schools. http://www.las-elc.org/arch-040304-sports.html . Other articles have focused on instances where the school budget is cut, and it's the girls teams that are cut, not the guys. In some places people obviously think sport is more important for guys than girls. Maybe if they gave more money to girls' sports budgets, they wouldn't have so many teen pregnancies or other problems with girls.

Yes, that's called undergrad, and in this thread I'm just proving to you that the "low academic attainment" may not be as much as a "global phenomenon", and it may not be due to the differences in intelligence.

And what were you saying about "whining"? Just the fact that they didn't spend as much attention on the girls field they're suing the city?

Just showing you the flip side of the coin here-- I agree with you that they should get more attention, and monetary support, but that's precisely the same argument I've been trying to get across. It might be because the males did not have the attention as females did, and the fact that they've been stereotyped to be not-so-hard-working has really undermined effort to actually work hard.

You called for everyone's thoughts, and here's my five cent's worth.

So your point is that teachers favouritise female pupils because of the way they behave, so they get taught better? Ultimately the things which are assessed, insofar as I am aware, are examinations and coursework, both of which have an element of external assessment. So at the end of the day, even if boys are less likely to cover their work in glitter and jazz it up to make it look special (I must say, I only know a couple of girls who do this sort of thing!!), it ought to add up the same, as there are no glitter marks on the mark scheme.

Being honest, I think this very much depends on where you are. All-boys schools seem to manage okay! Questioning the teacher's ability is, besides not necessarily being a gender-specific thing (particularly if you do have rubbish teachers ) not a grade-destroying thing. Nor is not paying attention in lectures if you can understand the material afterwards. If the understanding is there, it's all equal, and classroom favouritism shouldn't reflect in grades. Unless you suggest boys are fundamentally incapable of learning until they're older, it's difficult to see where the problem is. There are tonnes of smart guys because they understand what's going on, and ultimately that's how everything is solved, whether you pay attention in lectures or not. I can't think of a different teaching style to help with understanding in that respect besides self-teaching-- which is what both genders do. All in all, I don't see a significant bias within the education system and the way of teaching itself which might lead to the significant under-performance of a gender! I mean, how would you propose guys should be taught to favour them? Just to illustrate where you feel the difference lies.

No, they're not actually "taught better". They're just getting better results, thus get into universities, thus the gender gap alleged in the OP's article. And all too often I've had teachers who gave these "glitter marks", or "extra effort" marks for girls— and so far, before I start IB, the final assessment is only 30% of your mark, and the exam papers have names on them, rather than numbers; bias may be present.

And no, I didn't quite see it that way; boys definitely don't get to fully understand the curriculum —— or at least to the point that the girls did. Again, no, boys are often too "lazy" (or rather, 'distracted') to "self-teach"——even though I personally know the few who do, that's hardly the "majority", the ones who are getting the bad results. But if they did, you wouldn't be reading that article on the "global phenomenon" and discussing this...

Unless, of course, you're just saying females are just more intelligent**, which means that you are, um, sexist— unless you've got the scientific proof to back it up. (which makes it a fact rather than a stereotype)

**If I didn't misunderstand, you're saying that boys are getting this low level of academic achievement even though they had understood the curricula just as well as their female counterparts — which means that the boys are unable to process and think with that information, and thus, less intelligent.

Edited June 17, 2009 by wikinerd

[Sandwich]

No, they're not actually "taught better". They're just getting better results, thus get into universities, thus the gender gap alleged in the OP's article. And all too often I've had teachers who gave these "glitter marks", or "extra effort" marks for girls— and so far, before I start IB, the final assessment is only 30% of your mark, and the exam papers have names on them, rather than numbers; bias may be present.

And no, I didn't quite see it that way; boys definitely don't get to fully understand the curriculum —— or at least to the point that the girls did. Again, no, boys are often too "lazy" (or rather, 'distracted') to "self-teach"——even though I personally know the few who do, that's hardly the "majority", the ones who are getting the bad results. But if they did, you wouldn't be reading that article on the "global phenomenon" and discussing this...

Unless, of course, you're just saying females are just more intelligent**, which means that you are, um, sexist— unless you've got the scientific proof to back it up. (which makes it a fact rather than a stereotype)

**If I didn't misunderstand, you're saying that boys are getting this low level of academic achievement even though they had understood the curricula just as well as their female counterparts — which means that the boys are unable to process and think with that information, and thus, less intelligent.

I thought your argument was that boys are disadvantaged by lectures and the style of teaching? In which case I was pointing out that lectures don't = understanding and that it is understanding which is important, because that's ultimately what will hit the high grades and what gets tested in exams. So the ability to understand is obviously there, but I was asking if you could think of an alternative to lectures in an attempt to teach understanding. In my opinion/experience there is no alternative to lectures.

By mentioning that it is understanding which is important and that lectures don't magically give you understanding of something (most people gain that through reviewing) I meant to point out that the issue does not lie with the teaching. If it lies anywhere, I would suspect it would be attitude toward learning. If you don't take the time to revise and go over things, you're not going to do as well as somebody who does, and there's no teaching method which can save any person, male or female, who doesn't go over stuff and understand it properly. It's just a fact that you're more likely to have a studious girl than a studious guy.

If you've not started IB yet then it is possible you've never sat proper external exams before (especially if 30% of what you've done is internal!) and in that case maybe there is an issue with your particular establishment. Examiners don't have a gender bias, though, and most people have sat official externals for important exams prior to the IB. Examiners, after all, have no clue who you are. These statistics are for University, not before it.

And seriously, relax a bit! This is a discussion, not a death match. No need to be aggressive, snarky or patronising. I feel for you that your posts are being negged, I don't think they should be, I have to presume it's because people disagree with either what you're saying or how you're saying it-- but it's not a reason to get heated with responses. I know the difference between a fact and a stereotype, and I'm happy to credit you with understanding, too! O:

Edited June 17, 2009 by Sandwich

[wikinerd]

No, they're not actually "taught better". They're just getting better results, thus get into universities, thus the gender gap alleged in the OP's article. And all too often I've had teachers who gave these "glitter marks", or "extra effort" marks for girls— and so far, before I start IB, the final assessment is only 30% of your mark, and the exam papers have names on them, rather than numbers; bias may be present.

And no, I didn't quite see it that way; boys definitely don't get to fully understand the curriculum —— or at least to the point that the girls did. Again, no, boys are often too "lazy" (or rather, 'distracted') to "self-teach"——even though I personally know the few who do, that's hardly the "majority", the ones who are getting the bad results. But if they did, you wouldn't be reading that article on the "global phenomenon" and discussing this...

Unless, of course, you're just saying females are just more intelligent**, which means that you are, um, sexist— unless you've got the scientific proof to back it up. (which makes it a fact rather than a stereotype)

**If I didn't misunderstand, you're saying that boys are getting this low level of academic achievement even though they had understood the curricula just as well as their female counterparts — which means that the boys are unable to process and think with that information, and thus, less intelligent.

I thought your argument was that boys are disadvantaged by lectures and the style of teaching? In which case I was pointing out that lectures don't = understanding and that it is understanding which is important, because that's ultimately what will hit the high grades and what gets tested in exams. So the ability to understand is obviously there, but I was asking if you could think of an alternative to lectures in an attempt to teach understanding. In my opinion/experience there is no alternative to lectures.

By mentioning that it is understanding which is important and that lectures don't magically give you understanding of something (most people gain that through reviewing) I meant to point out that the issue does not lie with the teaching. If it lies anywhere, I would suspect it would be attitude toward learning. If you don't take the time to revise and go over things, you're not going to do as well as somebody who does, and there's no teaching method which can save any person, male or female, who doesn't go over stuff and understand it properly. It's just a fact that you're more likely to have a studious girl than a studious guy.

If you've not started IB yet then it is possible you've never sat proper external exams before (especially if 30% of what you've done is internal!) and in that case maybe there is an issue with your particular establishment. Examiners don't have a gender bias, though, and most people have sat official externals for important exams prior to the IB. Examiners, after all, have no clue who you are. These statistics are for University, not before it.

And seriously, relax a bit! This is a discussion, not a death match. No need to be aggressive, snarky or patronising. I feel for you that your posts are being negged, I don't think they should be, I have to presume it's because people disagree with either what you're saying or how you're saying it-- but it's not a reason to get heated with responses. I know the difference between a fact and a stereotype, and I'm happy to credit you with understanding, too! O:

Predicted score?

Bias would be present because the ones who give your "predicted score" are the ones who teaches you.

And I started IB Econ SL... Wasn't that hard, but our coursework is still being marked by our own teachers. (Bias?)

Anyhow it wasn't really hard. But that's Econ, and SL.

@ ur last paragraph. LOL. IMO your(plural) posts are the ones who are starting to get heated. I'm just providing perspective. Frankly girls work harder than boys do. But while saying that I'd say that it might be because of the nature of male behavior rather than stupidity— and I'd say that "outperformed" would be a strong word. Quantity ≠ quality

Edited June 18, 2009 by wikinerd

[Vvi]

And what were you saying about "whining"? Just the fact that they didn't spend as much attention on the girls field they're suing the city?

There's a difference between the two. In the school that the 17-year old attended, the teachers didn't cut the budget allocated to boys. They didn't refuse boys the chance to use textbooks in class, or to participate in class discussions. But schools that cut funding for girls' activities do just that; they refuse girls the opportunity to take part in sports, and take away the chance to develop their skills.

And the thing with people negging your posts: everyone has an opinion, and people don't agree. People have started negging my posts on this thread, and I don't care. I'm not whining about it. All a neg shows is that someone didn't like your post; in this case, it's probably because you made your point in a rude way.

[wikinerd]

And the thing with people negging your posts: everyone has an opinion, and people don't agree. People have started negging my posts on this thread, and I don't care. I'm not whining about it. All a neg shows is that someone didn't like your post; in this case, it's probably because you made your point in a rude way.

And need I tell you that on other forums this doesn't really happen on a "I don't agree with you" basis, but rather, an "I find you extremely offensive" basis. People generally don't get negative rep unless they did something unbearably terrible.

By the way, I wasn't aware I was rude-- it was more like heated debate to me.. Can you point out the post(s) that you may find offensive?

(Or do you mean my sarcasm counts as rude?)

There's a difference between the two. In the school that the 17-year old attended, the teachers didn't cut the budget allocated to boys. They didn't refuse boys the chance to use textbooks in class, or to participate in class discussions. But schools that cut funding for girls' activities do just that; they refuse girls the opportunity to take part in sports, and take away the chance to develop their skills.

But the girls already have a field. It's just that not much attnetion is spent maintaining it. Same as the little attention, care, and leeway for breaking the rules given to female students in the article that I posted.

Edited June 18, 2009 by wikinerd

[moneyfaery]

Just one more thing. I haven't seen a lot of women in CommTech at any university lately. Is this a trend too? Do males outperform females in CommTech? NO. It's just that males tend to have more of an appetite for logical thinking and programming. Same applies to the high school. Males tend to be more aggressive and may question teacher's intelligence (which make teachers think less of them), while their female counterparts have more of an appetite for quiet work and "listening to lectures".Males tend to be more logical and their EQ might be lower than their female counterparts, so they might look and sound like ******heads, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. Females who have a very high EQ but cannot grasp how a tangent graph may have asymptotes aren't stupid either. People have strengths and weaknesses. If you focus on your strengths you might balance out your weaknesses.

Clearly I'm stupid but whoever said males were more stupid than females?? Performance/success is correlated to intelligence, but also hard work, maturity, upbringing, background, and a variety of other factors.

This "phenomenon" about "low academic attainment" among boys can be said to be caused by the teaching methods that specifically impair their ability to learn. This can be seen in methods in which math is taught. There's the "old school" method, where you're just fed with workbook after workbook filled with practice, and there's the new method, where teacher tries to "explain" examples and etc. The "old school" method impairs those who doesn't have such a logical mind and those who cannot concentrate on working on workbooks etc. Should the system change? Maybe; but by now I hope I've made it clear that this "phenomenon" is caused by something other than male stupidity.

The 'old school' method impairs not only boys. It impairs everyone aside from those who can't be arsed to understand the concepts and thus get by on memorization or complaining. This 'method' doesn't stem from a desire to impend the academic development of male students, but rather bad or lazy teachers who can't teach.

Yes. Males definitely have the advantage in math if they did things exactly the same way as the females, i.e. listen during class, actually working through the practice books, and actually use their brains. Problem is that most of them don't — the few who do make up most of the male population at universities. At that age, it's natural for them to just get distracted, or just be unable to sit and being lectured at for an hour and a half and sometimes question the teacher's ability, etc. More than once I've seen a male student who spoke up once too many during class only to see his marks drop due to the teacher nitpicking on their tests, quizzes, etc. And, well, teacher's generally favour girls.

You have ****ty teachers. And the last part has to do with attitude. I would agree with most of what you said if you didn't include gender biases. I didn't hw in HL Math, I skipped sooooo many classes (only second semester though), and I can't concentrate past 60 minutes. I'm sure I'm not the only 'female abnormality'.

Yes, males (until until university) don't tend to do well as females. This results more from a lack of maturity than a lack of intelligence. Anyone who skips without considering the consequences, has problems controlling their fist when angered, mess up their sleep schedule because of gaming, etc need to get their priorities straight. You said that males would do well if blah blah blah and actually use their brains. Well, academic achievement is just that - a gauge of how well you can use your brain, both in school and in life (to an extent). It's not a measurement of intelligence.

[moneyfaery]

And need I tell you that on other forums this doesn't really happen on a "I don't agree with you" basis, but rather, an "I find you extremely offensive" basis. People generally don't get negative rep unless they did something unbearably terrible.

By the way, I wasn't aware I was rude-- it was more like heated debate to me.. Can you point out the post(s) that you may find offensive?

I find your many stereotypes unbearable and offensive, especially in a discussion, but I haven't negged you.

Predicted score?

Unless you seriously **** up so much that your teacher wants you to be rejected from university, I don't see a problem. Predicted grades don't count for much other than admission and perhaps, ego. Arguing with teachers for fun is like arguing with your boss or a doctor. You don't anger someone who has more power than you unless you can gain something out of it.

And I started IB Econ SL... Wasn't that hard, but our coursework is still being marked by our own teachers. (Bias?)

Doesn't count for much. External markers will correct the scores at the end of the year, unless, like previously stated, your teacher hates you and wants you rejected from uni. There's still a possibility that your particular internal assessment will be sent in, in which case, the examiner's comments should be interesting.

It may feel unfair now but most teachers actually do try to predict accurately. There will always be teachers who predict lower and there's nothing you can do about it aside from trying to convince them of your ability, or suck it up and study hard for the actual exams. I was predicted a low 7 all year for HL Math; just before exams, we got a new (and more experienced) teacher who dropped it to a 6. Yes, I was severely pissed off for a while, but in hindsight, I'm 90% sure I'm not getting that 7.

[Sandwich]

Predicted score?

Bias would be present because the ones who give your "predicted score" are the ones who teaches you.

And I started IB Econ SL... Wasn't that hard, but our coursework is still being marked by our own teachers. (Bias?)

Anyhow it wasn't really hard. But that's Econ, and SL.

@ ur last paragraph. LOL. IMO your(plural) posts are the ones who are starting to get heated. I'm just providing perspective. Frankly girls work harder than boys do. But while saying that I'd say that it might be because of the nature of male behavior rather than stupidity— and I'd say that "outperformed" would be a strong word. Quantity ≠ quality

As Irene said, your internals end up becoming externals because a random set of them are sent off for moderation and all marks altered accordingly. Similarly predictions are based on internal exam performance and current work (like mocks exams, for example) and as these are marked in line with various mark schemes specified by the papers of previous years, the repercussions in terms of predicted grade are minimal. There are also various in-school appeal processes you can go through.

Being honest, I don't think teacher bias to the extreme that they'll actually underrate your academic performance, which is a bit of an objective thing, would be quite rare. And hey, teachers who hate you enough to do that are probably quite willing to dock girls just as much as guys(!). Most of the teachers who're stingy with predicted grades do it because they personally screwed up in their predictions the previous year-- predicted grades reflect on them as much as you if they fail to match up to your final grades. Bias probably isn't enough to tip you up or down a grade in this instance, or so I'd guess.

And by rude and patronising I more or less meant your decision to rub in your point of view by defining words etc. (that's explaining to other people what they mean) ... if you get my gist I'm just kidding, I know you understand what the word means (hopefully obviously, I didn't mean to offend you back), but it's sort-of insulting if you're debating with somebody to treat them like a dumb-arse, whether they have a different opinion or not. I didn't mean to prod you with a stick or anything, I just meant to chill out a tiny bit. I enjoy debating and other people's points of views and reasons etc, but there is a bit of an etiquette to it in terms of not making people out like they're thick, or discriminatory and so on. It's issues, not people and all that sort of thing, after all (:

I know we had a bit of discrimation going on in our school-- not gender discrimation but a little bit of race discrimination from some of the teachers, which was slightly disheartening. However, no matter how unpleasantly and impolitely that teacher behaved, it still didn't change the grades of the individuals concerned.

[powa2]

I don't believe that men are naturally smarter and women try harder. I think all creeds, races, gender are born with the same intelligence and its how you nurture that intelligence. I think women are making big leaps now in jobs that are traditionally seen as masculine and I think its because we're breaking the stereotype that men are usually better at math and natural sciences while women are better at languages and social sciences. Women doing better in university is just a extension of that, women are finding that its ok to pursue interests that are masculine and they usually do better than men who aren't as interested in the subject.

[karenzae]

I think one of the contributing factors is that girls tend to hit puberty and mature earlier than boys. When it's time to choose a high school, or decide whether to go to the IB program, girls are more likely to be mature enough to make the decision. So even if boys catch up a bit later, they may have already been set back because of a decision they had to make when they were 13 or 14.

The other thing is that women are generally thought to be better at planning ahead, whereas men are better at focussing on one task in depth. Things like going to university, studying for an exam, etc- all have to do with planning ahead.

I'm sorry I don't have specific studies or anything to back my points up.

[JustAnotherAsian]

My school the top students are boys, yet all the lower students are also boys. While the girls dominant right in between

[rummandcoke]

I don't believe that men are naturally smarter and women try harder. I think all creeds, races, gender are born with the same intelligence and its how you nurture that intelligence. I think women are making big leaps now in jobs that are traditionally seen as masculine and I think its because we're breaking the stereotype that men are usually better at math and natural sciences while women are better at languages and social sciences. Women doing better in university is just a extension of that, women are finding that its ok to pursue interests that are masculine and they usually do better than men who aren't as interested in the subject.

^ This. I think everyone has the potential to succeed in life, but how that is nurtured is what determines how well you do. For example, I come from a very highly academic background. My parents don't care for gender stereotyping with careers. They just want me to do something that will help me develop my skills and enable me to extend them further.

If you teach students starting with the mindset that boys can't be expected to focus and listen well, then teach to accommodate some preset notion that might not even apply, then yes, of course men won't do as well in school. Similarly, if you expect that girls cannot be good at math and science and teach in a manner that only focuses on the boys, of course the girls won't do as well. It's important to try and diversify the way you teach to make all subjects appealing to all students. Teachers need to start saying that it's okay to be interested a subject that is not traditionally thought of as something a particular group would be interested in. They need to start teaching while keeping in mind that there will be students who do not fall into the mold, and if you don't reach out to them, they won't do as well.

Teachers, above all, should care for the success of their students, not stereotypes and preconceived notions. End of story.