Week 10 – Flashcard Test Answers

We read this earlier so a lot of it is repetitive. Again, it's really long, and he just kind of lists observations but I'll try to bring out the key points. It also jumps around between diff topics a lot. SYSTEMIZERS vs. EMPATHIZERS, MEN vs. WOMEN -Systemizing = predicting an output from a system when you vary the input -Men are better at intuitive physics, attention to details than women. This overlaps w people w autism who have a strong visual search ability. Men also more attracted to systems or functional toys like cars/trucks. -Women better at empathizing and language skills: start talking earlier, have larger vocabulary -This has evolutionary function bc traits have been specialized for different goals -Difference in mathematical ability (i.e. girls better at calculating/computation, boys better at problem solving) might develop later in childhood, but he denies that this has a social function b/c this difference holds true across cultures worldwide. Men mostly win worldwide math competitions AUTISM/ ASBERGERS -Autism or Asberger Syndrome is genetic. The author tries to prove this by showing that the fathers/grandfathers of autistic kids are most likely physicists. -Gives examples of people in history (mostly physicists w/ symptoms of autism or asbergers -low sympathizers, lonely): Newton, Einstein -Talks about personal experience w/ a man named Richard who had outgrown his AS (shows the importance of the environment) but was better at systemizing than empathizing/social skills Autism conditions (autism= empathy disorder b/c autistic people can't read others' minds or understand how their own actions impact others ): (1) genetic in origin (evidence: studies of twins, chances of autism higher if identical twin has it than if identical twin does not have it), (2) mostly males who have it (3) conditions develop pre-natally (4) Autistic/ AS people have unusual talents in seeing/understanding patterns, small details (feel the need to control their environment), (5) are often lonely as children

*very science-oriented but he still might ask about the findings* From the beginning, the environment acts differently on wired brains in girls and boys bc of differing hormonal influences on developing brain -effects of exposure to sex hormones are called organizational bc they alter brain function permanently during a critical period -Sex differences lie in ability rather than IQ -*Men* better at spatial/math reasoning tests, finding shapes hidden in bigger figures, remembering routes (navigational ability) > left half of brain is critical for speech and right is critical for perceptual/spatial functions → women are more affected by damage to the right & the reverse is true for men; women use the hemispheres more equally than men -*Women* better at matching, verbal fluency, math calculation, remembering placement of objects, precision-related tasks, math calculation, remembering landmarks -Studies w/ rats show that male hormones organize male behaviors early in life -*Homosexual vs. heterosexual men*: differences in size of brain region that usually is bigger in males than females, homosexual men don't perform as well on spatial tasks as heterosexual men -*Study of girls exposed to androgens (male sex hormones) in pre-natal/neonatal stage*: more tomboyish/aggressive than sisters, better @ spatial performance than low-androgen men *Conclusion: division of labor (men as hunters/defenders, women gathering food and tending to the home) put different selection pressures on men and women. Men needed long-distance, route-finding abilities, women needed short-rang navigations w/ landmarks & noticing small changes

*Sparknotes version*: This article is long, rambling and actually kind of confusing. Read below if you want a lot of detail. Basically showing intellectual differences between "exceptionally able" men and female. Uses the *Theory of Work Adjustment* to explain the differences in abilities and preferences btwn men and women. Concludes that women won't go into as prestigious fields as men b/c of preferences, abilities. Women vary more in their abilities which enables them to go into more fields, whereas men are fairly exclusive in their commitment to the sciences. Math section of SAT highly favors males. Suggests the need to "conduct multi-attribute assessment of key characteristics relevant to criterion behaviors of interest". I think this basically means looking at preferences/abilities in order to understand behaviors. Also poses the question of requiring men and women to study courses they wouldn't other take (i.e. requiring gifted females to take more math classes/ gifted men to take more social/artistic classes) to improve their representation in those fields -People who have potential for exceptional achievement need certain encounters w/ the environment to bring about accomplishments -Quotes Tannenbaum who said that great performance/productivity comes from (1) superior general intellect, (2) distinctive special aptitudes (3) nonintellectual traits/ (4) challenging environment (5) good fortune the first three from above, superior general intellect, distinctive special aptitudes, nonintellectual traits, form what is called the Theory of Work Adjustment (*TWA*), discussed frequently throughout this article but never really defined beyond this -People who have developed math/spatial/mechanical reasoning/investigative/theoretical abilities will choose careers in the physical sciences *males & females seem to be converging towards a common mean on intellectual abilities (but this is NOT the case for gifted individuals)* -Men are more variable than females across intellectual measures (even if women have the superior intellectual ability) >Study of high school students [four measures: English language, spatial visualization, math. reasoning & general intelligence] showed more variability in males than females for English language, for which females were superior -When looking at gifted students, top portion is inordinately male. -At age 13, gifted males have abilities and preferences oriented towards careers in physical sciences, whereas girls will develop talents in equal proportions and go onto artistic/social/investigative jobs. → "due to more evenly distributed preferences, mathematically gifted females' career choices will be less distinguished than male counterparts" -Thorndike used the *people-versus things* distinction: females prefer the former while males prefer the latter [this can explain why females prefer biology & medicine to "inorganic" domains [no clue what these are] -Females more likely to plan to work part-time than men, so they will devote less time to vocational development than men -Poses the question of requiring gifted females to take more math classes/ gifted men to take more social/artistic classes improve their representation in those fields

this article is ridiculous because it basically just cites some evidence/study and then says its inconclusive. here are the only findings that weren't refuted: -Girls get higher grades in math & boys do better on standardized tests but boys might just have an advantage in the standardized test environment and women in the classroom testing environment. -The study that showed male performance among high-ability students is flawed b/c of a selection bias -*Males showed better performance of mental rotation of figures ...but gender difference in spatial ability could only explain a small part of male dominance in engineering*

Article focuses on changing the way we think about education considering differing talents/abilities/styles of learning. 3 main findings: (1) girls rely more heavily on language than boys (2) boys need hands-on experience (3) the places where learning disabilities occur are places where biggest gender differences are (i.e. dislexia/poor language skills most common on boys -Most common learning disability= reading (and boys = 75% more likely to have it -Girls more accelerated in developing speech perception/listening -Boys better at detecting animal/environmental noises, but this does not really translate into anything at school b/c emphasis is on language -Shows curve for math students in UK: no difference at age 11, then dramatic increase in test scores for boys & decrease for girls -Denies socialization claims for attitudes (i.e. that girls don't care about math as much0 Conclusion: -we need to determine if we want the goal of education to devote equal amounts of time for boys and girls in math education

-This is a review by Wilkinson of Guinier's book, Becoming Gentlemen. The book says that the teaching style in law school encourages females to feel alienated. Women perform worse in law school, doubt their abilites, speak up less, receive less feedback. The book encourages law schools to listen to the voices of females/people of color and respond to the changing legal environment. It will encourage females to develop better problem solving skills.

Adapted from a speech by a UVA law professor in response to the book. She makes some generalizations about women. (1) They have more options then men in careers (2) Law/law school is like war. It requires people to take positions and put themselves on the line in defending someone (3) Women disguise competitive instincts (4) Maybe the reason why there are less women at the top of their class in law school can be explained by the fact that fewer women can perceive themselves as ambitious.

-Kind of self explanatory... -Says cultural obstacles might inhibit women (family support received, more household tasks) -Men also did better than men from other racial groups -Women might not try as hard on the test b/c they're less likely to seek competitive residencies -Previous research shows female do better than men on clinical skills tests

PSAT added multiple choice test for writing to give girls higher scores b/c they'd received a complaint that girls lose out to boys unfairly. Also, girls did worse on the PSAT and better at school than boys, but the PSAT was what determined the National Merit scholarships so this was another reason for complaint. -CollegeBoard rep. said two sections were tilted towards girls' lower math score by counting verbal twice for the merit calculation. -Problem with math= girls' "math anxiety" -National Merit also considers grades, extracurriculars -60% of top 15,000 PSAT scorers are boys -In a case in NY, the court ruled that scholarships determined by SAT scores discriminated against girls. When grades were also taken into consideration, girls won 9% more scholarships.

Discusses the SAT test and how it can unfairly judge certain students eventual ability and success in college due to the limited testing areas.However, there is a new SAT test that has three scored parts writing, math, and critical reading with 2400 points rather than 1600. The Math section also now includes more advanced algebra, but doesn't include quantitative reasoning. It wasn't revised to bridge the testing and score gender gap, but certain people do believe that the old test poorly reflected the aptitude of young women. Women were scoring roughly 40 points lower on average than males. One researcher suggested that the new writing section would benefit females as they often outperform males in this category. Some educators have even said that women are more naturally inclined to be better at schooling: they plan, follow instructions, work better in a team, and ask for help when needed.

There is some sort of National Geographic Annual Geography Bee (I imagine it like a spelling bee only with geographic trivia...) Overwhelmingly the participants are male; in the last decade only one winner has been female. National Geographic thought it was really curious so they got some researchers to study it: they found that there was nothing in the competition that was biased against girls, but that boys have better spatial skills (the ability to imagine how objects looks from different perspectives). Boys are also just more naturally interested in it; one hypothesis is that it just might not be "cool" for girls. Girls get better grades in class, but the guys win the bees. This could also be competition-shyness. Then it jumps to a math bee where only 27 out of 228 contestants were female, they say math anxiety is well documented to girls but geography is very questionable. One researcher points to the situation of being lost: men reach for the map and insist of figuring it out, while girls ask someone else for directions. The article goes on then to talk about how Americans aren't good at geography in general.

This is a response to the "where in the World are girls in georgraphy" article. The author is not pleased at the findings. He is a father of boys and was interested to see what subject his boys could do well in. However, he read the article to be assuming that boys were succeeding at the expense of girls. He was angry because the author, instead of focusing on the academic achievement of boys, diminished it by focusing on why girls weren't wining geography bees. Its basically just an op/ed about how she didn't report on the actual bee but instead reported on gender issues, which wasn't her place I guess?

This is literally charts and graphs and about 3 sentences: Men lag behind in pursuing degrees. Women appear to be working harder in HS than young men and getting better grades. 55% of college freshman are female. Women are more likely than men today to aspire to be lawyers and plan to get M.D degrees. More than half the bachelors and masters degrees are now awarded to women. Forty-six percent of law degrees go to women, as do 43 percent of M.D degrees.

Talks about the unpopularity of the subject of computer programming to girls, saying that it may parallel the subject of math for women in earlier generations: a boys club that prevents women from getting a foothold in the technological world. One group says that girls see computers as communication tools, and the best way to get them engaged is to function classes around website design or online magazines—but other groups say it has to do with the lack of emphasis placed on comp-programming for girls. 19000 boys took the AP computer programming test, compared to 2400 girls. At all girls schools, most computer teachers say they cant recruit enough students to even field an advanced placement class in comp. programming. Women earn less than a 3rd of the bachelors degrees in computer and informational sciences—only 18% of the advanced degrees. In the industry men outnumber women 4:1. Some believe this disparity in involvement is due to social conditioning; there is substantial evidence to the truth in this if you look at women's interest in math 3 decades ago and compare it to present day.

The typical story about how females work harder at school that young males. Studies have shown that men, regardless of socioeconomic status or race, are less likely than women to get bachelors degrees, those who do are less likely to complete the degree in 4 or 5 years. The gender gap is smaller than the black/Hispanic gap for college representation. So the debate is worried about where attention should be focused, gender or race. Boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled than girls. But since boys make more than girls right out of college, what is it that boys are doing differently? People point to the fact that no one cared about the race discrepancy but yet white middle class males being disproportionately affected is a problem... Mens work ethic is different than women's. The amount of time men spent socializing and relaxing mirrored the time that women spent preparing for class, that this could have to do with an entitlement issue, that men think they can do nothing and still get a good job. If colleges are genderblind on accepting applications they more often accepted female applicants. So now a big issue is getting gender balance in admission rates. "A 4.0 is worth it to females but not to males" Conclusion: Possibly, men do better at jobs because of their ability to work long hours and had fewer career interruptions. This article was sort of aimless, its basically contemplating why men have the advantage in the working world while women dominate the college arena.

Opens by talking about the movie "Failure to Launch" and the writer talks about how hes seeing that particular scenario more frequently in real life (Dead beat guy that lives with his parents basically) One third of young men ages 22- 34 are still living at home with their parents, a 100% increased in the past 20 years. This has not occurred in women, it is suggested that women, while perhaps living at home, have a definite and direct plan for their future. So what's happened to the boys? No conclusions are drawn. Response #1: Men lack of motivation is in response to not being seen as head of the family and sole provider. Since women have taken over part of this role it has created a cultural shift. Since they are replaceable, perhaps this is why they are unmotivated. Response #2: Draft dodging (I don't really understand this rationale) Men stayed in school to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war, so men are unmotivated because there is no longer a draft which they must avoid.... Response #3: Boys can still have sex even when they move home... Girls shouldn't sleep with these losers and parents shouldn't allow girls to sleep over. Men will be motivated to move out if they are deprived of sex (quite the radical position).

Talks about the literary preferences and differences between men and women. Men like books written by men about loneliness and alienation (depressing much? Bunch of weirdos) while women liked books written by women that describe relationships and are generally "a lot better." A main reasoning for this stark difference could be that the part of the brain where men experience negative emotions, the amygdala, is not well connected to the part of the brain where verbal processing happens, whereas the part of the brain where women experience negative emotion, the cerebral cortex, is well connected. So women are better at processing emotions than words. The article then goes into how men and women's brains work differently. Women use both sides more symmetrically than men, we hear and smell and perceive risk differently. Thus biological factors could influence reading tastes, women with a disorder that makes them secrete make hormones are more likely to pick violent stories. Reading rates have fallen three times as faast among young men as among women. *Author believes it's a start to assign books that kids actually care about*

The Bush administration announced plans yesterday to relax restrictions on single- sex public schools and classrooms, effectively ending three decades of federal attempts to enforce a nationwide policy of coeducation. New regulations will make much easier to establish single- sex schools at the taxpayer expense. It previously stipulated that it same sex classes were prohibited except in small circumstances (phys ed. or sex ed.) Under the new rules it will not be necessary for a school district to establish equal numbers of same sex classes for boys and girls, there could be a coed class instead. Stil certain groups are opposed to single sex sanctions- saying it "perpetuates sex stereotypes and undermines workplace equality" Women cant be equal partners if they never had a chance to compete with men. Advocates of single sex education say that boys and girls frequently perform better without the distractions of the opposite sex. This option has been offered in private schools for years, now its offered for kids in public schools.

1. The main idea is that Sax believes boys and girls have different educational styles and different expectations for the teacher student relationship. 2. Girls are faster to go to a teacher for help, and generally outperform boys on report cards. Girls also have a lower sense of self esteem and more critical of their own work. 3. Boys relationships are hierarchical and girls relationships are egalitarian. 4. Boys act out more because they see it as a way to gain status among other boys 5. Girls thrive from the teacher being supportive and nonconfrontational, while boys respond well to confrontation 6. Boys respond better to stress than girls because stress enhances the growth of neural connections in the male hippocampus. 7. **VT study found that areas of the brain involving language and fine motor skills mature 6 years earlier in girls. Areas of the brain involving targeting and spatial memory mature 4 years earlier in boys. 8. Sex differences in childhood are larger and more important than sex differences in adulthood, thus the need to teach them differently.

1. General expectations in most classrooms (no distractions etc.) are easier for girls to meet than boys and that is why boys need single sex education and are falling behind. 2. Single sex classrooms are particularly good for minority, low income students and especially in secondary school to prevent dropping out. 3. Sax (who she gets her argument from) says the reason that many same sex classrooms have failed is due to the improper training of teachers and their knowledge of sex differences. 4. Teachers in Iowa, who are in same sex classrooms say they'd never go back to before.

Girls pictures are more detailed and boys pictures are more likely to depict motion. This is because the eyes of young girls are thicker with cells that collect information about texture and color. Boys eyes are thicker with cels that follow motion and direction. Advocates for same sex education to reduce pressures that discourage learning.

Seattle elementary school that used to be failing adopted same sex classrooms and saw dramatic improvements in just a year. Students behavior and test scores improved. However, not all schools achieve the same results where they saw no significant improvement in grades or test scores, and boys discipline referrals soared. Sax says professional development plays a crucial role in the amount of success. There are hardwire differences in the ways boys and girls learn. Girls have a sense of hearing 7 times more sensitive, and much more easily distracted by noise. Again like earlier in his other article he discusses the brain functioning and development differences from the VT study. Allowing a choice for parents in public education about same sex education is the best option.

Feminists are divided on same sex education. One group thinks girls can learn without playing dumb to attract boys. The authors think its harmful because it provides an artificial world in which gender differences are accepted for disparate treatment and are left unprepared to form egalitarian relationships. There are 3 main reasons: 1. Research on academic outcomes has failed to show a real advantage to single sex schooling. 2. Small and insignificant differences of the brain function between adults, and even smaller differences among boys and girls. 3. Single sex schooling facilitates social stereotypes and prejudice in children.

Activists are arguing for the ban of single sex education and the author disagrees. It would affect those who have less money and the wealthy have always had a choice about single sex education for their children. Dallas has had a great success story. She argues that gender segregation is not the same as racial separatism. Racial separatism demeans human beings and single sex education is freely chosen, and many have flourished intellectually and socially. Some argue it's associated with higher divorce rates, but in a British study they found the same marital satisfaction rates as co-ed classrooms. It also breaks the barrier of girls in math and science and boys in literature and language.

Boys are less likely to go to college and receive degrees, and girls are underrepresented in engineering and computer science so there is a push for single sex education. Teaching may subtly communicate different academic expectations of boys and girls and these biased expectations may become self fulfilling. Students are more engaged, behave more appropriately and perform at a higher level when taught by one who shares their gender. In science, social studies, and english having a woman teacher raises girls achievement by a standard deviation of 4 and lowers boys by a standard deviation of 4. The opposite exists for a male teacher. Separation leads to better classroom behavior, and students aren't as timid to ask questions about material. In conclusion, learning from a teacher of the opposite gender has a detrimental effect on students' academic progress and their engagement in school.

Like the title, girls at single sex state schools outperform girls of the same intelligence at mixed schools. The lowest achieving girls in single-sex classrooms had shown the greatest improvement. Lowest achievers suffered the most from mixed education. In conclusion, girls do better at single sex schools.

The general president of the fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha (African American men) wrote Obama a letter suggesting the formation of a White House Council on Men and Boys since there is one on women and girls. They say legislation is needed for particularly African American men who suffer from lower high school graduation rates, and the small number of those who go to college that actually earn a degree.

Single sex middle schools are more efficient because they cater to the biological differences between boys and girls and better spur academic development. However, coed high schools are the better option because they expose them to these biological differences, and furnish them with the opportunity to interact with members of the opposite sex socially and academically. Boys have hierarchical social groups, while girls form egalitarian ones due to biological differences. Schools need single sex education at an earlier age to have the best environment for learning for either sex. This should occur in middle school because it marks the peak of physical development and soaring testosterone levels for both genders. High school should be coed because it is key to social development so girls and boys learn distinct conversation rituals and appropriate sex roles. Girls will better learn how boys are interested in unattached sex, and boys will learn how girls link love and sex to relationships. He gives examples like Hampden Sydney College and their treatment of women as sex objects, and how girls at single sex schools like Bryn Mawr were more promiscuous. Therefore, at higher education to better communication between boys and girls and learn how to socialize together and understand sex differences.