The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

why are there math olympiads for girls?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ZafarS
Let's analyze your reply:

Then those 2-3% would not be too happy with your claim. There are fewer female medalists. Okay, I agree. However, fewer doesn't mean nothing at all. You just looked pass those equally exceptional women claiming that all boys are better than all girls logically. I understand that generalisations come from facts, but there always are exceptions.

And there are also reasons why women haven't achieved more (babies, social pressure,...).


- I don't think my claim is of any interest to them. It is a factual claim, there are less successful women in these tournaments then men, they'd agree. Why would they be offended. That's like getting offended because water is wet.
I was referring to when you said "men are superior".

- Fewer does mean something, it means less than half in this context.
Yes that's what I meant too.

- I didn't look past any woman, I explicitly mentioned their existence.
You said stuff like "men are more...", "men do this..." as if the whole population of this world is divided into two distinguish category with fixed attributes by their genders.

- Wait, wut? How on earth did I claim that all boys are better than all girls logically?! That is preposterous, my claims weren't even remotely close to that.
I APOLOGISED. See EDIT.

- I know there are exceptions, I mentioned them explicitly.



But yeah, I was just trying to say why there's no need for single-sex competitions and quoted you in the process seeing that you were one of those people on the 1st page who are like these competitions exist because bla bla bla... (in retrospect, I should have quoted that Ultimate1 guy). My point is if girls are less likely to win, then let it be that way.
Original post by IntoTheWater
I'm not confused. The point of a math competition is to find out the best, boy or girl. We should have a pool of great mathematicians, not a best male mathematician and a best female mathematician like sports. I was trying to link to the thread's question: why are there math olympiads for girls? You yourself said that you knew girls who failed the mixed competitions got offered from the female ones. If it is to encourage female mathematicians, then they are doing it the wrong way. Those girls are not as good as the ones from the other competition. So what's the point? Are we not trying to find the best? Holding a competition for girls just for the sake of having girls doing maths is kinda forced if you ask me.

http://www.ukmt.org.uk/about-us/

That might help, regarding "the point". The purpose of the competitions isn't purely to find the best five 17 year olds in 2013, or something. The point is to advance mathematics. The maths charities think that a set of competitions does that. Chances are, this is something supported by research.

They have evidently decided an extra competition will advance mathematical education, and I'm guessing they have considered the unfairness to boys, and decided that if it means an increase in the number of applications to STEM subjects, it's worth it.

Like I said, more than a tad unfair to males, who will get one chance, whereas females get two chances, but it seems to me people on TSR are always complaining about humanities graduates' existence/too many humanities graduates existing, so in the end, the whole thing might make someone happy!

Also, apparently STEM grads are good for the economy.

Like I think I said, it's not a trade-off I think I would agree to, because I don't think the end justifies the means.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by mimi112
the question here is why are the elite results so ****ed up when girls do BETTER overall, math or pretty much anything else. bbc , guardian and the likes make sure to remind us year after year. i mean this is about brain power not how fast you run and how strong you are.


The girls do better because they are on average more mature and thus on average, at these young ages, work harder (because they know what's good for them in the long run more than the boys do). Fast forward to the elite level on the world-class and now you're looking at a selection of people with real, true, deep passion. These people want, desperately and deeply, to learn maths. When they go home from school, their first instinct from school is not "can I enjoy myself playing Call of Duty, or do I have homework to do first?" but rather "can I get some actual maths done, or do I have homework to do first?" and even then may neglect the homework.

There are far, far more boys with this kind of passion than girls. Even at stages such as the International Olympiad, most of the girls simply do as they are told and apply their brainpower where they can. But many of the boys at this stage care deeply about the subject and that is how they have mastered it to such an extent. Against such a strong field of intellectually capable and deeply passionate boys, the girls are not going to distinguish themselves as superior, because they certainly are not inherently.
Reply 63
If you keep looking, you will find sexist examples like this throughout society.

Endeavours in which women can compete fairly and often win are hailed as successful and proof of female equality or superiority. Endeavours in which women are able to compete in but are unable to win - such as the Tour de France - are decried as sexist, biased, bigoted, etc. and female only versions are demanded in which males may not enter (or quotas are introduced to remove merit in favour of women).

It is because sexual "equality" is defined as 'equality of opportunity' where that works in females' favour and defined as 'equality of outcome' where equality of opportunity does not provide females with enough advantage.
Reply 64
Original post by Darien
If you keep looking, you will find sexist examples like this throughout society.

Endeavours in which women can compete fairly and often win are hailed as successful and proof of female equality or superiority. Endeavours in which women are able to compete in but are unable to win - such as the Tour de France - are decried as sexist, biased, bigoted, etc. and female only versions are demanded in which males may not enter (or quotas are introduced to remove merit in favour of women).

It is because sexual "equality" is defined as 'equality of opportunity' where that works in females' favour and defined as 'equality of outcome' where equality of opportunity does not provide females with enough advantage.


feminists' vision of equality of opportunity:





if the outcome is not equal or better for women then something is wrong with the system. i really hope most women don't think like this.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by mimi112
feminists' vision of equality of opportunity:





if the outcome is not equal or better for women then something is wrong with the system. i really hope most women don't think like this.
I'd better pass this link on to explain to everyone we've been doing this feminist thing all wrong.

Just so you know, the only people I've met who did think like that were mentally ill... But don't let reality get in the way of that victimhood complex. The number of practising homoeopaths in the UK is probably greater than the number of extreme sexists masquerading as feminists. Never mind the number of people who consult homoeopaths!

When did the UKMT and similar organisations worldwide become known as bastions of feminism, anyway? I thought the conclusion of the thread was that mathematicians were overwhelmingly male.

If something happens, that is unfair to men, do feminists have to have done it? Are men incapable of being unfair to other men, now? If you disagree with this stance, write to the organisation- but enclose an SAE, because it is a registered charity.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 66
Original post by Octopus_Garden


When did the UKMT and similar organisations worldwide become known as bastions of feminism, anyway? I thought the conclusion of the thread was that mathematicians were overwhelmingly male.



the question is this : do you think that men having almost complete domination at the top in math, science, arts, chess and pretty much everything any field out there (related to intelligence or natural talent, non-physical ) where they are in direct competition with women only happens because of social conditioning?

or is there something related to biology/evolution that makes the very best people in everything that can be considered human achievement be almost entirely men (with very few women as the exception)?
I know people who have resat gcse maths and English loads and still struggle to get a C

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mimi112
the question is this : do you think that men having almost complete domination at the top in math, science, arts, chess and pretty much everything any field out there (related to intelligence or natural talent, non-physical ) where they are in direct competition with women only happens because of social conditioning?

or is there something related to biology/evolution that makes the very best people in everything that can be considered human achievement be almost entirely men (with very few women as the exception)?
It's going to absolutely blow your mind, but my stance is that I don't know, therefore I take care not to ride either hobbyhorse.

I do happen to know that social conditioning exists, but it's going to take a lot of studies and social changes before we can find out what its extent was and is.

It is my personal opinion that many people, both male and female, grow to hate maths by the end of GCSE due to social factors, rather than any innate difficulties, and that if we can eliminate those social factors, our society will be all the better for it.

EDIT: why have you simplified it to either/or? Could it not be a combination, where a natural biological tendency has been exaggerated by social conditioning? That's also a possibility.
(edited 10 years ago)
Women are usually discouraged from doing science and maths based subjects, not because they're worse at it but because it's seen as a 'male' subject.
If you look at the ordinary olympiads, even though they're open to both genders, you'd probably find that it is mainly guys that are taking part because girls have been discouraged from doing it.

Having a female only maths competition is probably an attempt to correct that and to encourage more girls to take part and take an interest in maths in a less intimidating environment.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 71
Original post by lizlaz350
Women are usually discouraged from doing science and maths based subjects, not because they're worse at it but because it's seen as a 'male' subject.
If you look at the ordinary olympiads, even though they're open to both genders, you'd probably find that it is mainly guys that are taking part because girls have been discouraged from doing it.

Having a female only maths competition is probably an attempt to correct that and to encourage more girls to take part and take an interest in maths in a less intimidating environment.


could millions upon millions of years of evolution have had an impact on men and women's brains as they did on the rest of our bodies in order to ensure the survival of our offspring ? or is everything different about men and women socially constructed?
Reply 72
very good documentary for anyone who wants to know more and hasn't been brainwashed by social engineers. i wish UK had stuff like this on TV and not just support ideologies that makes most people feel warm and fuzzy inside. the irony is that it's norwegian and the nordic countries are the ultimate bastion of political correctness and feminism.



(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by mimi112
could millions upon millions of years of evolution have had an impact on men and women's brains as they did on the rest of our bodies in order to ensure the survival of our offspring ? or is everything different about men and women socially constructed?


Um no? It's socially constructed. I don't see how a man being better at maths would benefit our offspring. The education system is a social construct anyway. You don't get algebra in nature.
Original post by lizlaz350
Um no? It's socially constructed. I don't see how a man being better at maths would benefit our offspring. The education system is a social construct anyway. You don't get algebra in nature.


http://io9.com/5985588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature

Derp.


Cool, well thanks. That completely proves me wrong.
The entire education system was based on these plants, not by society at all and it completely proves the idea that men being pushed towards maths and women being discouraged from it is because it's better for your offspring not because society makes that way.
Original post by lizlaz350
Cool, well thanks. That completely proves me wrong.
The entire education system was based on these plants, not by society at all and it completely proves the idea that men being pushed towards maths and women being discouraged from it is because it's better for your offspring not because society makes that way.


I was responding to the "you don't get algebra" in nature part. I care not for engaging in futile arguments about whether there is a sociological reason behind the fact boys outperform girls at Olympiad level Mathematics, although for the record I do not believe there intrinsically must be.
Reply 77
Original post by the bear
This is something i was not aware of !

Are the questions harder or easier than the normal Olympiads ?


:cookie:



what do you think?
Reply 78
Original post by lizlaz350
Women are usually discouraged from doing science and maths based subjects, not because they're worse at it but because it's seen as a 'male' subject.
If you look at the ordinary olympiads, even though they're open to both genders, you'd probably find that it is mainly guys that are taking part because girls have been discouraged from doing it.

Having a female only maths competition is probably an attempt to correct that and to encourage more girls to take part and take an interest in maths in a less intimidating environment.


Without wishing to be harsh, the people good enough to be taking part in the IMO aren't likely to be discouraged from STEM for any reason so silly as societal things. I couldn't really have ever done anything but maths, and I'm way down on them. These people are really good. It is mainly guys taking part, but the reason for that is that more guys qualify from the earlier rounds, not discouragement.
Original post by Slumpy
Without wishing to be harsh, the people good enough to be taking part in the IMO aren't likely to be discouraged from STEM for any reason so silly as societal things. I couldn't really have ever done anything but maths, and I'm way down on them. These people are really good. It is mainly guys taking part, but the reason for that is that more guys qualify from the earlier rounds, not discouragement.


The fact that it's the guys doing well enough to qualify could be because they're the ones encouraged to do maths from a young age so they end up being better. This gives the girls who ARE good enough to compete or who are on the verge of being good enough but perhaps not quite good enough to go against the guys a chance to compete too and it means that they don't get put off as they get older.

Latest