Girls top class, but system biased towards boys who do sums better

ShowMeTheCash

I saw this in another post but I think it needs a thread of it's own.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/exams/girls-top-class-but-system-biased-towards-boys-who-do-sums-better-36043860.html

Just some of the things in the article

"Yet again this year, girls are to the fore of Leaving Cert results. They top their male classmates across the board. History, geography, English, Irish, indeed all languages (bar Japanese for some reason), art, biology, music and theology. They're winners, in some cases by a long mile, leaving the boys trailing.
The lads, meanwhile, continue to show their prowess at the narrower skill set of maths, engineering, accounting and chemistry.

But the consequence of this skewed reality is that it is the boys who will end up with the lion's share of bonus points for being better at sums, and given preferential treatment for targeted STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) courses, which are where the big bucks reside. The system is simply designed against women to reward the minority getting points in the 'right' subjects rather than incentivising those who show a broader and more rounded ability."

Maybe I am a biased male but did she just say lads who show their prowess at the narrower skills sets of Math, engineering and chemistry are given preferential treatment for courses that are... wait for it Science, technology, engineering and math.

Some other amazing statement include:

"How and when did Pythagoras's theorem become more important than Hamlet's soliloquy, for instance? Who decided algebra is more vital to life success than Seamus Heaney's allusions?"

Math is used in every day life in every single thing we use, from calculating the pitch of the roof we live under to the computer used to type the article.

I am pretty sure I could live my entire life and not read Hamlet or Seamus Heaney and still survive. Mathematics is the corner stone to modern science and every scientific advancement in human history.

The author ends with

"Maybe it's time we woke up and rewarded girls for their better results instead of giving boys an artificial leg up. English literature or music is certainly as timeless, valuable and merited as maths. But not as quantifiable to the bean-counters in the Department of Education."

I actually do not really understand what the author is suggesting, reward them with what?

lawred2

That is some load of try hard shiite

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Charles Babbage

We have created a society where bad spelling or grammar will be derided, even among the lowest strata of society like After Hours. Being grossly incompetent at maths is still seen as acceptable in many circles and you have luvvies on the media etc who seem to think that being innumerate is OK. This acceptability of anti science then leads to people spouting manure about vaccinations and the like.

What a stupid article

lawred2

The author is likely bitter that orts history in UCD has only succeeded in landing her a number making coffee down in the IFSC for software engineers

Billy86

That is some amazingly misandric verbal diarrhea, where to even start? It's like the reverse Katie Hopkins.

clairewithani

The bonus points for higher level maths are to encourage more people to study it rather than to give boys preferential treatment. That person is looking for a reason to be outraged

clairewithani

clairewithani wrote: »

The bonus points for higher level maths are to encourage more people to study it rather than to give boys preferential treatment. That person is looking for a reason to be outraged

I agree, although I never did like the bonus points idea.
They should teach it better instead of freaking people out from go about "this is sooooo super haaaaard", and reinforcing that belief by pretending it's so super hard that you deserve extra points for it.
I wonder if they ever thought about bonus points for applied maths

bee06

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

"Maybe it's time we woke up and rewarded girls for their better results instead of giving boys an artificial leg up. English literature or music is certainly as timeless, valuable and merited as maths. But not as quantifiable to the bean-counters in the Department of Education."

I actually do not really understand what the author is suggesting, reward them with what?

Maybe it's time the media stopped implying that girls can't do Maths! As a woman with a first class maths degree who works with numbers every day and with a sister with a masters in something Mathematical I don't even understand I'm bloody sick of this assumption that we somehow need help to get more girls into Maths and science etc. How about people stop implying that what you are good at depends on your gender and not a complicated set of things that are individual to a person and let kids be good at what they're good at regardless of their gender.

If my unborn child is a girl she certainly won't be getting away with being crap at Maths because she's a girl. It will be the Pythagorean Theorem from 3 years old.

MightyMandarin

First off, I disagree with you in thinking that we could survive without literature and philosophy, but not without maths. They're both essential to our existence and a world without either would be pretty ****.

That said, this article is yet another hum drum of drivel spouted by some idiot feminist who, like many in 2017 unfortunately, thinks the whole world is stacked against women and despite the clear facts illustrating that women in education clearly have it better at the moment than men, still believes women are being discriminated against.

You really couldn't make this **** up.

Actually wait, maybe you could.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sonics2k

Yup, because what we want our engineers to have a strong knowledge of is speaking French and the allegories of Yates, and not maths.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

The author is likely bitter that orts history in UCD has only succeeded in landing her a number making coffee down in the IFSC for software engineers

I have to admit that I didn't check the link. Presumed it was an opinion blog and not paid for journalism..

I just noticed it was an Indo article in the education section.

The Indo is pure toilet at this stage.

super_furry

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Math is used in every day life in every single thing we use, from calculating the pitch of the roof we live under to the computer used to type the article.

NO! You stop that and you stop it now.

It's maths.

ShowMeTheCash

MightyMandarin wrote: »

First off, I disagree with you in thinking that we could survive without literature and philosophy, but not without maths. They're both essential to our existence and a world without either would be pretty ****.

Google - hyperbole

The comparison was ridiculous to begin with I was just making a point.

super_furry

On the one hand, it’s a deeply, deeply stupid article. But on the other hand, it’s from the Independent, the home of deeply stupid articles.

lertsnim

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I saw this in another post but I think it needs a thread of it's own.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/exams/girls-top-class-but-system-biased-towards-boys-who-do-sums-better-36043860.html

Just some of the things in the article

"Yet again this year, girls are to the fore of Leaving Cert results. They top their male classmates across the board. History, geography, English, Irish, indeed all languages (bar Japanese for some reason), art, biology, music and theology. They're winners, in some cases by a long mile, leaving the boys trailing.
The lads, meanwhile, continue to show their prowess at the narrower skill set of maths, engineering, accounting and chemistry.

But the consequence of this skewed reality is that it is the boys who will end up with the lion's share of bonus points for being better at sums, and given preferential treatment for targeted STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) courses, which are where the big bucks reside. The system is simply designed against women to reward the minority getting points in the 'right' subjects rather than incentivising those who show a broader and more rounded ability."

Maybe I am a biased male but did she just say lads who show their prowess at the narrower skills sets of Math, engineering and chemistry are given preferential treatment for courses that are... wait for it Science, technology, engineering and math.

Some other amazing statement include:

"How and when did Pythagoras's theorem become more important than Hamlet's soliloquy, for instance? Who decided algebra is more vital to life success than Seamus Heaney's allusions?"

Math is used in every day life in every single thing we use, from calculating the pitch of the roof we live under to the computer used to type the article.

I am pretty sure I could live my entire life and not read Hamlet or Seamus Heaney and still survive. Mathematics is the corner stone to modern science and every scientific advancement in human history.

The author ends with

"Maybe it's time we woke up and rewarded girls for their better results instead of giving boys an artificial leg up. English literature or music is certainly as timeless, valuable and merited as maths. But not as quantifiable to the bean-counters in the Department of Education."

I actually do not really understand what the author is suggesting, reward them with what?

That's like some of the bull**** you'd find on The Journal.

The_Valeyard

The author must be short on outrages for this week

suicide_circus

Girls should start the leaving cert with an automatic 300 point bonus to compensate for the patriachy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

lazybones32

If women get what they think they want, will they be happy? No.

Sonics2k

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No no, by all means, have an interest in history, theology, humanities and so on. I myself am far better at those an I am at maths or engineerings. A broad knowledge is a good thing to have, but like I said, I'd rather the people designing and planning our bridges have a talent of maths than their knowledge of daVinci.

ShowMeTheCash

Sonics2k wrote: »

No no, by all means, have an interest in history, theology, humanities and so on. I myself am far better at those an I am at maths or engineerings. A broad knowledge is a good thing to have, but like I said, I'd rather the people designing and planning our bridges have a talent of maths than their knowledge of daVinci.

I think the author also makes the mistake of thinking that someone who excelled at languages or history or English lit would then take up an engineering degree.

Maybe we should force girls into engineering degrees and boys into arts degrees!

Asus X540L

Because they have little to zero testosterone, girls find it MUCH easier to sit down and study without thinking of sports, tits, etc.

Also, there's plenty of boys who just need to pass the leaving as they want to join the emergency services or do a trade.

At the end of the day, almost every single genuinely intelligent, dangerous, and manual job is done by men, and always will be.

If women could no longer work men will more than be able to cope, if the opposite happened a different story entirely...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ShowMeTheCash

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would go further to say profitable job skills.
Math and technology are massively lucrative..... If you can make something or create something new that people can use they will pay for it. I would not pay someone with a knowledge of Shakespeare or Heaney, I would simply read Shakespeare or Heaney if I felt the inkling.

ShowMeTheCash

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I would go further to say profitable job skills.
Math and technology are massively lucrative..... If you can make something or create something new that people can use they will pay for it. I would not pay someone with a knowledge of Shakespeare or Heaney, I would simply read Shakespeare or Heaney if I felt the inkling.

I am being a little disingenuous with this post as I do understand that teachers teach and teachers did teach me Shakespeare and Heaney at school.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mzungu

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It would give a more rounded education alright. All those doing hard sciences take some modules in the humanities, and all those doing humanities should take some hard science modules. It makes sense. Plus, a few science modules are needed in the humanities, it might help discredit some of the postmodernism that has become accepted doctrine in those circles.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd have the totally opposite opinion. You should concentrate on what your good at and not waste your time on stuff you aren't.

I was always crap at languages, English literature nonsense, spelling etc but good at maths, science, accountancy etc. I hated the leaving cert as I had to do the languages and English and had to spend (waste) far too much time on them that the subjects I enjoyed and were good at suffered.

Undergrad of course was far better I could concentrate mostly on what I was good at and postgrad best of all where I could really excel as I could devote all my time to what I was good at.

I'd actually argue for being able to specialise at leaving cert and drop what you are no good at to come concentrate on what you are good at.

ShowMeTheCash

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Math is used in every day life in every single thing we use, from calculating the pitch of the roof we live under to the computer used to type the article.

I am pretty sure I could live my entire life and not read Hamlet or Seamus Heaney and still survive. Mathematics is the corner stone to modern science and every scientific advancement in human history.

Maths may underpin the science of the roof angle, surely philosophy, arts, literature etc. may help shape whether you want to live your life under a structurally sound roof, or travel, meet other people, experience other cultures...and enjoy life. My most enjoyable and memorable experiences, like running along a trail by a stormy sea one evening in West Cork last week, lean far more to arts than maths. Me and my running colleagues spoke of bleak Wuthering Heights weather, of paintings of angry seas, of poems like the Highwayman...no one mentioned algebra.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As they should absolutely be. Rather than a "literature? I learned far more from maths and roof angles than from questioning art".

In my job, law, pretty much the only art is advocacy and the art of argument. We rely on experts in science when necessary, but ultimately whether the case stands or falls depends on the ability to take the material and persuade one way or the other.

Capt'n Midnight

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I saw this in another post but I think it needs a thread of it's own.
...
But the consequence of this skewed reality is that it is the boys who will end up with the lion's share of bonus points for being better at sums, and given preferential treatment for targeted STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) courses, which are where the big bucks reside. The system is simply designed against women to reward the minority getting points in the 'right' subjects rather than incentivising those who show a broader and more rounded ability."
...

The author ends with

"Maybe it's time we woke up and rewarded girls for their better results instead of giving boys an artificial leg up. English literature or music is certainly as timeless, valuable and merited as maths. But not as quantifiable to the bean-counters in the Department of Education."

It's the bean counters in the private sector who put a lower value on the non-work related degrees.

More women could easily get jobs in STEM, but not as many chase them. In part this is due to the way techies are portrayed in our culture.

uch

I worked with two people, one male one female, one had a degree in applied mathematics, the other went on to masters level in that field, both were dopey cnuts when it came to getting any sort of task done competently out of them, I can't understand why it's so important to every exam when it's useless in real life for 95% of us, at least the 7% of people in Ireland who speak Gaeilge can use it occasionally, I've never overheard a maths conversation

Asus X540L

uch wrote: »

I've never overheard a maths conversation

I did. I heard this maths professor saying "I'm a mathematician, I have no life, and I can prove it"

uch

Asus X540L wrote: »

I did. I heard this maths professor saying "I'm a mathematician, I have no life, and I can prove it"

G'way ye fibber, where would you hear such a thing, apart from the till in Tesco

BoatMad

I've never overheard a maths conversation

ever been around mathematicians , its as dense a conversation as anything else

Tin Foil Hat

lazybones32 wrote: »

If women get what they think they want, will they be happy? No.

Most women are grand and happy.
However, the media insist on dredging up professional victims every time there's a discussion about anything concerning women.
It's never Jenny the accountant or Stephanie the Engineer or Orla the doctor, all of who are perfectly happy with how life has worked out for them.

"So Jenny, what do you make of this assertion that the education system is biased in favour or boys? It's a disgrace, isn't it"
"Actually Dobbo, Statistics show that girls do far better in education than boys do."

Never fukking happens.

steddyeddy

mzungu wrote: »

It would give a more rounded education alright. All those doing hard sciences take some modules in the humanities, and all those doing humanities should take some hard science modules. It makes sense. Plus, a few science modules are needed in the humanities, it might help discredit some of the postmodernism that has become accepted doctrine in those circles.

But we do. I took two electives per year. Ancient Rome, earth science, history and Italian. There's plenty of options nowadays.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mzungu

steddyeddy wrote: »

But we do. I took two electives per year. Ancient Rome, earth science, history and Italian. There's plenty of options nowadays.

Ah right, that's fair enough.

jimmycrackcorm

bee06 wrote:

If my unborn child is a girl she certainly won't be getting away with being crap at Maths because she's a girl. It will be the Pythagorean Theorem from 3 years old.

But clearly she will have a problem with her Japanese. It'll block her from buying Toyota cars.

ShowMeTheCash

Deleted User wrote: »

Maths may underpin the science of the roof angle, surely philosophy, arts, literature etc. may help shape whether you want to live your life under a structurally sound roof, or travel, meet other people, experience other cultures...and enjoy life. My most enjoyable and memorable experiences, like running along a trail by a stormy sea one evening in West Cork last week, lean far more to arts than maths. Me and my running colleagues spoke of bleak Wuthering Heights weather, of paintings of angry seas, of poems like the Highwayman...no one mentioned algebra.

I disagree, the idea that I need to study the ideas of other people to have ideas of my own is not a prerequisite. Could it help sure but I feel not required.

You suggest that reading Wutherring heights running a stormy path somehow makes you appreciate this aspect of life more? or understand it better?

I find this a pretentious idea, considering a lot of the developing world cannot read but I am sure I would not care to argue or pontificate the finer aspect of life to someone who lives in a developing country.

Reading poetry and philosophy is enjoyable I am not saying there is no value in it but the question was posed with the question "which more vital to life success".

backspin.

Its that journalists job to write articles like that, they are a goldmine for publications. We are the fools for feeding it with our clicks and therefore revenue to the newspaper. Trolling men pays these days sadly.

ShowMeTheCash

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you working in Quantitative finance or doing a Phd currently?

I think people lean towards what they are interested in, so I am not sure I totally agree. Yes people can enjoy a wide range of things being one thing does not mean you cannot be more than that.

But as you already stated being too many things ultimately means you may not spend the same amount of time in one area whereas someone who does may simply be superior in that subject.

Einstein talked about this when it was suggested he was a genius, his response was.

"I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my ideas"

And I think the obsession part I understand, if you obsess over something long enough you get good at it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

machiavellianme

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What do you expect? The article clearly states that feminists aren't as good at math. It's no wonder that the meaning of these figures elude them.

ShowMeTheCash

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know a little about Quant model development.

Do you do any work on the mathematical models, apart from the hedge fund have you worked with any larger institutions?