Alone and Unobserved

Cross-posted as a comment on the Trembling Hand post “Why Women Don’t Make Games,” in which Tim Dean claims the reason more women don’t become computer programmers is because men are naturally better at math.

His argument, boiled down to its essentials:

Go read that blog post and then read this response.

Tim, while it’s clear that you read the data in the article, or at least a rough summary of the data, it sounds like you didn’t read the conclusion. [Or] if you did, you’ve chosen to ignore it.

It is true that the study shows a gender-based disparity in math scores at the higher end of the scale. However, the authors of the article don’t make any claims to understand *why* such a disparity exists, since their study didn’t address that question in the slightest. Instead, their conclusion is as follows:

“If educators and others are concerned about encouraging women to enter S&E [science, mathematics, and engineering] careers, the gender difference at the high end of the math score distribution is an important problem that must be addressed….

“Future researchers in this area should focus on identifying the determinants of this gender difference. Among the likely determinants are attitude changes toward math learning, social expectancies for math achievement, and social stereotyping of female students’ career options. Also, future research should use longitudinal panel data to examine math achievement change at the individual level. For example, a group of male and female students with above-average math achievement could be identified in eighth grade and followed as they progress through higher grades to determine whether the male students become progressively better in math achievement while the female students remain at the same level or become progressively worse.”

In other words, the data show a disparity; now it is up to further research to continue the research, and to determine possible causes *and remedies* for this disparity. Your conclusion (that there is a biological basis for the disparity and that it is irremediable) is a non sequitur.

I also take exception to your generalizing high-school-level mathematics scores to ability in higher mathematics. The kind of math studied in high school (even at the higher level) and actual higher mathematics are almost two completely different subjects. I have a master’s in math, and I tutored and TA’d college level math for years, and I never encountered a difference in ability between male and female students in math courses (including a number of CS/programming students) that could be easily reduced to purely biological terms.

Another part of the article that you ignored is the *opposite* gender-based disparity in the test scores of African-American students. Do you have some made-up racist explanation for that portion of the data to round out the sexism of your other made-up conclusions?

I’d like to add that there are several other problems with Tim’s assertions. One that immediately springs to mind is the fact that gender disparity in male-dominated occupations and gender disparity in female-dominated occupations are not parallel cases. Research shows that men do quite well in female-dominated occupations such as elementary education, nursing and librarianship, being promoted faster and higher and earning more money than their female coworkers. The same cannot be said of women in male-dominated occupations, where women are not promoted, and do not earn as much as their male coworkers. (See The Gendered Society by Kimmel for an entire book full of this kind of information.)