RandomPoster
Platinum Member
- May 22, 2017
- 2,584
- 1,794
- 970
Why Higher SAT Scores Don’t Mean Boys Are Better at Math
"The College Board recently released data confirming that boys consistently outperform girls on the math section of the SAT. The report also reveals, however, that SAT scores alone are not an accurate assessment of girls’ math academic achievement."
"Mean math scores show a 31-point difference between male and female students for the 2015 batch of test-takers, with a similar male advantage across all ethnicities."
Notice the wording which allows for the word "advantage" to be snuck in there.
"the trend of boys achieving higher standardized test scores in math occurs well before they take the SAT."
Well, they were boys well before they took the SAT.
"Female SAT test-takers consistently outperform their male counterparts in verbal tasks, including a 12-point difference in writing"
What does that have to do with aptitude for mathematics? Also, why is girls outperforming boys in the verbal not as alarming as the boys outperforming them in math?
"On average, girls had taken more math classes (52 percent of those who had taken more than four years were female students), and completely dominated the stats on GPA and class ranking. The majority of of test-takers with an A+ average (97–100) were girls, at 59 percent — a difference of 18 percentage points."
So, in other words, girls are taking more math classes, getting better grades, and appear to be more studious than boys and boys are still outperforming them on the average on standardized math testing. Doesn't this suggest that boys might actually tend to be *gasp* more gifted at mathematics on the average than girls? Oh, the horror! Nope, it must mean the math section of the SAT is sexist and we aren't doing enough to tip the scales in the other direction.
"They noted that girls tend to emphasize mastery over performance, while the reverse is true for boys. This means that young women tend to work to understand the course material fully, rather than to achieve higher scores. Grades reflect persistence and focused effort over a period of time in a particular social environment, while test scores provide a single snapshot of performance."
I know, the underdog in this situation is better at the things that conveniently can't be quantified and objectively evaluated. Also, grades are more subjective than the SAT. They also reward paying attention in class and turning your homework in on time, which has nothing to do with aptitude.
"On top of all that, there is a predictable rise in test scores that students from higher-income families typically see: approximately 20 points for each $20,000 increase in income. In short, girls are not the only demographic at a disadvantage on test day."
"What are these assessments really testing? And do these assessments yield sufficient, unbiased information about reasoning skills and college readiness? If the answer to the last question is no, then it may be time to reassess our assessments."
Let me guess, everything should be subjectively evaluated so we can simply assign whatever scores and outcome we want. Subjective evaluations where you can simply assign whatever score you want are so much less prone to bias than standardized test scores.
"The College Board recently released data confirming that boys consistently outperform girls on the math section of the SAT. The report also reveals, however, that SAT scores alone are not an accurate assessment of girls’ math academic achievement."
"Mean math scores show a 31-point difference between male and female students for the 2015 batch of test-takers, with a similar male advantage across all ethnicities."
Notice the wording which allows for the word "advantage" to be snuck in there.
"the trend of boys achieving higher standardized test scores in math occurs well before they take the SAT."
Well, they were boys well before they took the SAT.
"Female SAT test-takers consistently outperform their male counterparts in verbal tasks, including a 12-point difference in writing"
What does that have to do with aptitude for mathematics? Also, why is girls outperforming boys in the verbal not as alarming as the boys outperforming them in math?
"On average, girls had taken more math classes (52 percent of those who had taken more than four years were female students), and completely dominated the stats on GPA and class ranking. The majority of of test-takers with an A+ average (97–100) were girls, at 59 percent — a difference of 18 percentage points."
So, in other words, girls are taking more math classes, getting better grades, and appear to be more studious than boys and boys are still outperforming them on the average on standardized math testing. Doesn't this suggest that boys might actually tend to be *gasp* more gifted at mathematics on the average than girls? Oh, the horror! Nope, it must mean the math section of the SAT is sexist and we aren't doing enough to tip the scales in the other direction.
"They noted that girls tend to emphasize mastery over performance, while the reverse is true for boys. This means that young women tend to work to understand the course material fully, rather than to achieve higher scores. Grades reflect persistence and focused effort over a period of time in a particular social environment, while test scores provide a single snapshot of performance."
I know, the underdog in this situation is better at the things that conveniently can't be quantified and objectively evaluated. Also, grades are more subjective than the SAT. They also reward paying attention in class and turning your homework in on time, which has nothing to do with aptitude.
"On top of all that, there is a predictable rise in test scores that students from higher-income families typically see: approximately 20 points for each $20,000 increase in income. In short, girls are not the only demographic at a disadvantage on test day."
"What are these assessments really testing? And do these assessments yield sufficient, unbiased information about reasoning skills and college readiness? If the answer to the last question is no, then it may be time to reassess our assessments."
Let me guess, everything should be subjectively evaluated so we can simply assign whatever scores and outcome we want. Subjective evaluations where you can simply assign whatever score you want are so much less prone to bias than standardized test scores.
