Women Are Outperforming Men at University

[Homo Aestheticus]

"Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of university achievement, according to a report from higher education researchers. A Higher Education Policy Institute report shows that women are more likely to get places in the top universities and go on to get better grades. Women also outnumber men in high status subjects, such as law and medicine. The report also shows that the greater success of women in education is  a global pattern."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8085011.stm

*******

This does not surprise me one bit.

Let's face it: women have as much cognitive ability and other talents as men in all fields with the exception of artistic creativity I think... Undoubtedly, we will see more and more top notch physicians, executives, professors, scientists and philosophers but I don't think we will ever have a female Bach.

[Holden]

"Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of university achievement, according to a report from higher education researchers. A Higher Education Policy Institute report shows that women are more likely to get places in the top universities and go on to get better grades. Women also outnumber men in high status subjects, such as law and medicine. The report also shows that the greater success of women in education is  a global pattern."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8085011.stm

*******

This does not surprise me one bit.

Let's face it: women have as much cognitive ability and other talents as men in all fields with the exception of artistic creativity I think... Undoubtedly, we will see more and more top notch physicians, executives, professors, scientists and philosophers but I don't think we will ever have a female Bach.

The feminisation of our primary education system may have a lot to do with this. I'm glad that women are doing well in what was a long held male bastion but I am now worried about what is happening to our men in society.

[Ten thumbs]

If the day comes when female artistic achievements become accepted, we may well have a female Bach. I have pointed out before that Berthe Morissot was one of the principal impressionists and just as fine a painter as Renoir or Monet. Only the fact that she was a woman has prevented her becoming a household name.

[DavidRoss]

The feminisation of our primary education system may have a lot to do with this. I'm glad that women are doing well in what was a long held male bastion but I am now worried about what is happening to our men in society.

Yes.  There's nothing new in this finding--the trend has been reported for the past couple of decades as a clear consequence of increasing feminization of the classroom--intentionally gender-skewing instructional methods to reward feminine behaviors and to punish masculine ones.  For those interested in more than mere speculation stemming from unfounded prejudices like those expressed in the original post,there's a growing body of professional literature on the subject.  For an overview offering more depth than the BBC news item linked above, a place to start is this article from the May 2000 Atlantic Monthly.

[Josquin des Prez]

http://www.mensaction.net/video/Vagina-Vocational-Centers.html

[Josquin des Prez]

If the day comes when female artistic achievements become accepted, we may well have a female Bach.

Clueless as ever, are we.

[Florestan]

The feminisation of our primary education system may have a lot to do with this. I'm glad that women are doing well in what was a long held male bastion but I am now worried about what is happening to our men in society.

Yes. 

And yes again.

[karlhenning]

If the day comes when female artistic achievements become accepted, we may well have a female Bach.

It does not mean what "Josquin" is fond to imagine that it means, but strictly speaking, there will never be a "female Bach," any more than there can now be another male Bach.  Won't go into it now, but suffice it to say that this statement of mine does not deny that there are women of genius.

[Josquin des Prez]

It does not mean what "Josquin" is fond to imagine that it means, but strictly speaking, there will never be a "female Bach," any more than there can now be another male Bach.

Redundant. It is obvious that Ten thumbs was referring to genius, not Bach specifically.

[Josquin des Prez]

Let's face it: women have as much cognitive ability

Which is why they routinely fail to outscore men on SAT tests, even after the tests have been "revised" to favor women:

http://www.fairtest.org/sat-gender-gap-grows-again
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/29/news/mn-39684

Besides, you have failed to read the article header properly. Let's see:

Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of UK university achievement, according to a report from higher education researchers.

They are ahead of men in almost every measure. But what does "almost" mean? Scrolling down towards the end of the article:

There are also still some subject areas, such as courses related to maths, physics and technology, where men are in the majority.

Maths, physics and technology, the only fields where you can't get ahead by memorization and recitation alone. I'm going to call this one busted.

[PSmith08]

Maths, physics and technology, the only fields where you can't get ahead by memorization and recitation alone. I'm going to call this one busted.

Oh, golly. Would that ideology could color reality more often. Math, even at the collegiate level, probably up through Calc. I/II and linear algebra, is almost entirely memorization and recitation. It's rare that anyone proves, for example, the power rule or the chain rule, and, even when they do, the methods tend toward the facile. The simple reason is that the rigorous versions of the proofs require more sophisticated methods than a Calc. I student has at the ready, but there it is. If you want to prove your hypothesized masculine intellectual superiority, then your own methods are going to have to get less facile.

[Josquin des Prez]

Oh, golly. Would that ideology could color reality more often. Math, even at the collegiate level, probably up through Calc. I/II and linear algebra, is almost entirely memorization and recitation. It's rare that anyone proves, for example, the power rule or the chain rule, and, even when they do, the methods tend toward the facile. The simple reason is that the rigorous versions of the proofs require more sophisticated methods than a Calc. I student has at the ready, but there it is.

Perhaps todays mathematical methods have been feminized and dumped down like the rest of the curriculum, i don't know, but i distinctly remember math to be a subject which required a lot of problem solving and abstract thinking. It was also a subject which was applied extensively in other fields. I'm not sure i can say the same about, say, history, at least in the way it was taught to me. There is a reason why mathematical problems are included in IQ tests, which are not designed to measure memorized information. Sorry, but you are wrong.

hypothesized masculine intellectual superiority.

Is my argument really that difficoult to grasp?

[Josquin des Prez]

BTW, here's another golden nugget from the article:

A science test taken by 11 and 12-year-olds in the mid-1970s had been successfully passed by 54% of boys and 27% of girls.

When the same test was taken in 2003, the scores for both boys and girls had fallen to 17% - a much more rapid decline for boys.

Today, women excel in school when compared to men, but both men and women are behind the scholastic standards of 30 years ago. That tells you everything there is to know. Modern academia is a joke, an empty charade who's purpose is to indoctrinate children in far-left/PC ideologies. There is no knowledge being imparted to our children, which is why most creative fields today are in a decline, including the sciences.

[PSmith08]

Perhaps todays mathematical methods have been feminized and dumped down like the rest of the curriculum, i don't know, but i distinctly remember math to be a subject which required a lot of problem solving and abstract thinking. It was also a subject which was applied extensively in other fields. I'm not sure i can say the same about, say, history, at least in the way it was taught to me. There is a reason why mathematical problems are included in IQ tests, which are not designed to measure memorized information. Sorry, but you are wrong.

I'll ignore your conclusion, which is merely an argumentum ad verecundiam, and say only that it is impossible to progress in real mathematics without memorization and recitation. You're talking about story problems, which, while math, are not really real math. Finding out how many pigs Farmer Johnson took to market on Tuesday might be an adequate test of critical thinking, but there is no opportunity for study of the structures and functions that make up "mathematics" in that problem. Real math requires students to learn to do things before they learn why those things work. They must memorize the rules. Just like the other sciences. So, when you imply that girls do not excel in areas where you cannot get by on memorization, you are categorically incorrect. You need to keep your lines clear.

Is my argument really that difficult to grasp?

That is the one thing I cannot say about your argument. It is indeed not difficult.

[Josquin des Prez]

I'll ignore your conclusion, which is merely an argumentum ad verecundiam, and say only that it is impossible to progress in real mathematics without memorization and recitation.

You can say it, but you'd be arguing against a fallacy. Nobody said that it is possible to progress in mathematics without memorization or recitation.

Real math requires students to learn to do things before they learn why those things work.

You seem to be confusing memorization and recitation with learning. You can get by in a history class by parroting the informations contained in a book. You cannot do the same thing in either math or any of the harder subjects. You need to understand the information contained in the book, which requires abstract thinking. You also need to do computations with your mind, which also requires abstract thinking. You can appeal to authority all you want but your argument is invalid.

That is the one thing I cannot say about your argument. It is indeed not difficult.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to restate it.

[PSmith08]

You seem to be confusing memorization and recitation with learning. You can get by in a history class by parroting the informations contained in a book. You cannot do the same thing in either math or any of the harder subjects. You need to understand the information contained in the book, which requires abstract thinking. You also need to do computations with your mind, which also requires abstract thinking. You can appeal to authority all you want but your argument is invalid.

I'll take your word for it that I appealed to authority. I did, however, use Latin. I understand your confusion. Moving right along, it is my contention, simply put, that it is impossible to understand, at least in any deep and meaningful way, much of mathematics. I would warrant that most calculus students do not understand the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. They might be able to reproduce a proof, but they do not understand why that proof works. You must, therefore, get by through "parroting the informations [sic] contained in a book." Once again, we're talking about two different kinds of math. You're talking about story problems and brain teasers, and I'm talking about real math. If you were talking about real math, you'd have a much stronger position, but I can't make your arguments for you. Speaking of,

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to restate it.

It is an article of faith for you that men are intellectually superior to women; men, therefore, are necessarily intellectually superior to women. All of your discussions on that topic must end at that point; it is a teleological tautology for you. I know, it's not really much an argument, but it's not really much a theory, either.

[Josquin des Prez]

Once again, we're talking about two different kinds of math. You're talking about story problems and brain teasers, and I'm talking about real math. If you were talking about real math, you'd have a much stronger position, but I can't make your arguments for you.

I'm talking about math as it pertains to scholastic achievement. When i was in school i don't remember many instances in which i was asked to recite a theorem's proof or to pick a definition among multiple answers. I was asked to apply what i learned by means of problem solving. But even the acquisition of raw mathematical abilities involves a level of abstract thinking. Most of the information is carried by means of specific symbols which in itself is a function of abstract thought, and even spacial thought in the case of geometry. An abstraction is not the same thing as a simple piece of information, like say, the date in which Columbus landed in America. So even assuming learning mathematics is a simple function of memorization and recitation it is still a discipline which requires an ability to think in abstractions. So in this instance, your attempt to prove mathematics is a simple matter of memorizing and recitation is based on a semantic fallacy. Memorizing an abstraction is not the same thing as memorizing information. 

It is an article of faith for you that men are intellectually superior to women; men, therefore, are necessarily intellectually superior to women. All of your discussions on that topic must end at that point; it is a teleological tautology for you. I know, it's not really much an argument, but it's not really much a theory, either.

So you really don't know what the argument is. Why not just say so?

[Ten thumbs]

All this goes to prove my point: we have not yet reached an age where female artistic achievements are accepted for their worth. We still belittle them without any genuine justification. Sorry, but you will find it difficult to argue that Berthe Morissot, Emily Dickinson and Jane Austen were not geniuses and there are also a number of female composers who produced original, ground-breaking works.

[The Six]

and there are also a number of female composers who produced original, ground-breaking works.

I'm not denying their existence, but who?

And are female artists really being belittled??

[Novi]

You seem to be confusing memorization and recitation with learning. You can get by in a history class by parroting the informations contained in a book. You cannot do the same thing in either math or any of the harder subjects. You need to understand the information contained in the book, which requires abstract thinking. You also need to do computations with your mind, which also requires abstract thinking. You can appeal to authority all you want but your argument is invalid.

You seem to have a facile understanding of history. The funny thing is that as far as spurious gender stereotypes go, history's probably one of the blokiest disciplines - at least around here. Now history of art, on the other hand ...