Reply #54: Boys are more competetive

[loyalsister]

They are less interested in reading or learning, more interested in "winning." It's all wrapped up in our evolutionary history, and the role of males and females have played. It's the females who teach the species. Thus the better verbal ability. This is a neurological fact. Females can produce more words on demand, have more regions of the brain devoted to speech, and the brain is better connected. They don't however like to engage themselves in competition. The competition of the grading system has been something that has been a part of the school setting for so long has not been something that females have naturally felt comfortable participating in.
The way girls have tried to gain reward in school has been by behaving well. They have won favor with teachers, and those efforts have traditionally been reflected in their recorded performance measures. They also learned because they basically like to learn. This is damn fortunate since they have had the traditional role of teaching the species. On average, girls read more than boys. Call it sucking up or whatever, schools have officially recognized good and bad behavior in the grading system for a very long time, and it has probably always influenced teacher's grades.
Standardized testing, however, has not been their strong suit in the past. There is also the problem that girls multi task better but don't feel as comfortable focusing their attention for long periods of time. Recently, we're overriding traits that developed as a result of evolution. Women have begun to place more of an emphasis on competing. Girls can do better on those tests if they can force themselves to compete and concentrate.
You're exactly right about the meaningful nature of SATS as an appropriate measure. I think it depends on the school. It is very likely that there are schools that offer curriculla that students can tailor to their cognitive preferences. Some students don't like to compete or be graded in traditional ways and some schools may offer such those options. Others prefer heavy competition.
Think of the design of programs offered by Devry. Who atttends them? I haven't seen data, but have never known a woman to attend that program. What about something offered to would-be engineers who could opt out of humanities courses if they wanted, etc.
Yet, it appears that it has been decided that a person had no sense of culture and could not be considered to have an advanced education without them. Maybe that's unfair. I suspect it was a woman who made that decision because it was a way to put men's and women's educations on equal footing in the times when they could not attend the same schools. Women were the ones who decided what "etiquette" and "good manners" were all about. And, things like knowledge about humanities fellunder the heading of being "cultured." The things that persist....
This book I mentioned comes off as some kind of "feminist" book, but really it is and it isn't. Certainly not if I'm pulling this out of it. It talks about historically overlooked talents of girls while remembering to emphasize that this does not dwarf the talents of boys. The thing is, if we recognize biological differences we all do better.