Guardian: Women outnumber men in 112 of 180 degree subjects; thoughts?

Scroll to see replies

It's not surprising, we already knew that women are more likely to go to university on the whole. Which also fits into the fact they do better in school. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with the uni admissions system here - it's more down to women generally being more interested in going to uni and more motivated to get the grades they need to do so - but the fact UCAS is moving to blind applications soon which means admissions officers won't see an applicants name or gender should answer the question one way or the other.

Ask yourself why girls are more "motivated" then.

Because the school system suits girls, not boys.

Reply 21

Twinpeaks

Original post by whorace

Not real degrees. Might as well be giving them money to do nothing for three years.

Whilst I disagree with you in saying that they aren't real degrees (I'm certain you'd disregard psychology as rubbish but psychological research is all around you m8). The stereotypically harder subjects are still male dominated, you are right in that sense.

I've said before, and I'll say it again, men with lower academic ability tend to choose apprenticeships. There are no apprenticeship opportunities for women, so the less academic young women just study a random degree at an unknown uni.

I know that sounds very judgemental, but it's true for a fair amount of cases. I come from a "disadvantaged area" and an awful school, yet most of the girls went to uni, and completed subjects like events management, public services, fashion design etc. You do not need degrees for those. Whereas a lot of the boys have gone off to become skilled/ unskilled tradesmen.

Reply 22

Saoirse:3

Original post by Rumpelforeskin

Ask yourself why girls are more "motivated" then.

Because the school system suits girls, not boys.

Any evidence for that?

Reply 23

username1221160

Original post by Skip_Snip

I wonder if they removed pointless degrees like "gender studies", "women studies", and other SJW crap the imbalance would still be present.

It would make no difference as, contrary to the knowledge of experts on the internet, you can't do a UK undergraduate degree in gender studies or women's studies.

Reply 24

Rumpelforeskin

Original post by Saoirse:3

Any evidence for that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7026774/Boys-failed-by-education-system-says-Eton-headmaster.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/elementary-school-bias-boys_n_2404898.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/09/why-girls-get-better-grades-than-boys-do/380318/

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/teaching-has-become-feminised-and-boys-lose-out-20131121-2xxu4.html

School is far too feminised for boys.

Why were boys outperforming girls before, why not not? What has changed?

The education system certainly has.

Reply 25

Nununu

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/women-push-for-places-on-ucl-engineering-course-after-it-dropped-need-for-physics-and-maths-a-level-10195690.html

We no longer have "equality of oppurtunity", women have an unfair advantage, I guess UCL have given up on catching up to ICL then. Smh.

Reply 26

Saoirse:3

Original post by Rumpelforeskin

The first is an opinion piece, the second based on the American education system and the last on the Australian one. Only the third has any relevance to what's happening here.

What that one says certainly doesn't back up your argument. It says that girls do better academically than boys in a study that took results from 30 different nations. That would suggest that it has absolutely nothing to do with the British education system, GCSEs or recent changes to it as has been commonly suggested. It's a universal phenomenon. And the conclusion this study reaches?

"Girls succeed over boys in school because they are more apt to plan ahead, set academic goals, and put effort into achieving those goals."

In addition, "girls are more adept at reading test instructions before proceeding to the questions, paying attention to a teacher rather than daydreaming, choosing homework over TV, and persisting on long-term assignments despite boredom and frustration... girls are apt to start their homework earlier in the day than boys and spend almost double the amount of time completing it."

What you would actually be arguing is that we should deliberately set up an education system like it once was NOT to value those skills, but instead be based entirely around your ability to cram for a last-minute test having arsed around all term even if you forget everything again a couple of days after taking it, just because it'd help boys. For me that's a total nonsense - the fact that you need dedication, organisation and comittment to do well is a very good thing and much better preparation for higher education, employment and general life skills. If girls are better than boys at it, so what? Grades should be about how capable you are, not about pursuing some false equality where there is none.

Reply 27

Saoirse:3

Original post by Nununu

How do you infer that from the article? What it actually says is that UCL believe having taken Maths and Physics at A Level is no longer a good indicator of likely success on an engineering degree and so have dropped the rigid requirement. Nothing to suggest boys don't still have the same oppourtunity to go there.

Reply 28

Farm_Ecology

Original post by Saoirse:3

If girls are better than boys at it, so what? Grades should be about how capable you are, not about pursuing some false equality where there is none.

I'm curious, but would you also agree that the reason men dominate high-ranking positions in businesses and government is because men are better at employment in these fields and therefore it is right they should dominate?

In fact, we should ask why men/women have these particular traits, why are women more likely to start homework earlier? Is it just some natural element of being male/female and we should just dust our hands of it and say "boy will be boys"? Or is it perhaps in part, due to the way different genders are handled in our society that lead to disproportionate emphases?

Reply 29

Nununu

Original post by Saoirse:3

Because the whole system is being stacked against them. The boys take the harder subject i.e physics get lower grades and then the place goes to girls who do an easier subject like biology get a higher grade and the place. But i don't see medicine dropping biology as a requirement because fewer boys do it at a level and fewer boys then doing medicine.

Btw how can it not be a requirement to not do maths to study engineeering, they must of really dumbed down their courses.

Reply 30

bob5124

Original post by Saoirse:3

What you would actually be arguing is that we should deliberately set up an education system like it once was NOT to value those skills, but instead be based entirely around your ability to cram for a last-minute test having arsed around all term even if you forget everything again a couple of days after taking it, just because it'd help boys. For me that's a total nonsense - the fact that you need dedication, organisation and comittment to do well is a very good thing and much better preparation for higher education, employment and general life skills. If girls are better than boys at it, so what? Grades should be about how capable you are, not about pursuing some false equality where there is none.

Is this an attempt to argue for a coursework examination system as opposed to an exam based examination system?

Is it total nonsense that one has to write about a subject without having the source material right in front of them to copy from? And why do you automatically assume that examinations are "cram and forget", but that coursework is not "copy and paste and forget"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9700573/No-exam-university-courses-fuel-rise-in-first-class-degrees.html

No-exam university courses fuel rise in first class degrees
Students are being awarded degrees in academic subjects without sitting any examinations during their three years at university.

Reply 31

Saoirse:3

Original post by Farm_Ecology

I think you make a good point. I'm not one of those people who believe we should just set up quotas for the top positions as a solution. Part of the problem is definitely that the physical exertion of pregnancy and childbirth, and the fact they then tend to be responsible for most of the child's care, hinders the careers of many women at a crucial age - you can see in politics that the vast majority of women at the top aren't mothers, and I expect business is a similar story. The only way to change that (given female pregnancy is inevitable and arguably the increased emphasis on childrearing is at least partly natural too) would be to change the business culture to be more accepting of people, predominantly women, who have career gaps or need to work flexibly or part-time. In some sectors at least I believe this would be a good innovation that will likely come about naturally, as it likely leads to a more motivated workforce as well as opens up the possibility of talented women being more able to contribute at the top level.

In all honesty I'd say it's probably a mixture of both. Girls do naturally develop more quickly and physically at least there's evidence to suggest that they are doing so earlier than ever with the average age of a girl's first period steadily decreasing: we don't know why this is happening or potentially if it's just inaccurate data, but if true it's certainly feasible that this is happening at other ways too and increasing their advantage. I actually wouldn't be opposed to experimenting with boys starting school an entire year later than girls to compensate for this. I do expect social factors and expectations play a role, but that's hard to do anything about on a macro level.

Reply 32

Saoirse:3

Original post by Nununu

Universities already look at the subjects taken. Most however don't regard biology as easier than physics. And I expect what they're doing is instead intensively teaching maths in the first year to catch students up - they do still demand top GCSE grades in it to demonstrate some capability. Evidently they believe this can work and give them better students because if they just dumbed courses down their reputation would suffer; they have no reason to do that.

Original post by bob5124

I believe in a mixed system much as we have now. I think exams have also changed somewhat though with more of an emphasis on critical thinking and developing argumets in essay-based subjects, for instance, rather than regurgitation of facts, which rewards those who've worked all the way along rather than crammed last-minute.

It really comes down to a simple question. Which of the following two students deserves a better final grade in a subject?

Student A: Daydreams in class, goes home and watches television, doesn't start homework until the last minute, and easily gives up when they find it difficult (which might have a lot to do with having messed around in the class!), but crams intensively for an exam at the last minute when the pressure is on before forgetting much of what they have learnt and repeating the process again for the next one.

Student B: Pays attention to their teacher, starts homework promptly, seeks help or tries a different method when they find it difficult and consistently has high attainment along the course. Prepares diligently for exams without a ridiculous amount of cramming at the end having worked towards achieving success in them for several months before hand.

Most everyone would say Student B, and thankfully that is also the student who tends to get the better grade in the end (regardless of how the education system is set up, the emphasis on exams over coursework, etc). It's also true that Student A is more likely to be male, and Student B more likely to be female. But I certainly don't want to see us start REWARDING Student A's dreadful attitude to work which isn't going to get him anywhere in the real world just so we can see equal pass rates between boys and girls and claim that's equality. It isn't. It's punishing hard workers to reward the lazy just because they happen to be predominantly of a certain gender, and that's utterly ridiculous.

Reply 33

bob5124

Student A doesn't do well in examinations either, so the scenario is irrelevant. Student A doesn't get rewarded under any system. An examination based system certainly doesn't punish hard working females and reward lazy males.

Reply 34

Saoirse:3

Original post by bob5124

Student A does a heck of a lot better in exams than coursework and can very often end up with a pass in them, therefore closing the "gender gap".

Reply 35

Zweihander

Original post by qwertzuiop

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/05/gender-gap-uk-degree-subjects-doubles-eight-years-ucas-study?CMP=fb_gu

Fine by me.

Let women do all the chitty degrees likes arts & humanities, whilst men do the real degrees (STEM) and still bring home the bacon.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 36

username2165807

Original post by Saoirse:3

it's more down to women [being] more motivated to get the grades they need to do s.

Gonna need some sources please or else I'm gonna have to say you've pulled that out of your arse.

Reply 37

bob5124

Original post by Saoirse:3

Student A does a heck of a lot better in exams than coursework and can very often end up with a pass in them, therefore closing the "gender gap".

A pass it not worth anything. A pass at degree level gets you a 3rd class degree, which is not worth the paper it is printed on. A pass at GCSE level is basically anything that is not a U. Even an F and a G are considered passes.

Being against examinations because you feel an unworthy student may get a "pass" doesn't even make sense. A simple pass is a poor grade and is the type of grade a poorly performing student gets. Someone cannot progress to anything of value on a pass grade.

Then we have the fact that an increase in coursework has resulted in massive grade inflation, which can certainly be seen as lowering the bar for all the top grades, allowing "unworthy" students to get grades the don't deserve.

No-exam university courses fuel rise in first class degrees
Students are being awarded degrees in academic subjects without sitting any examinations during their three years at university.

Now, if an increase in coursework results in grade inflation (allowing more students to get higher grades), how can one argue that examinations do the same thing?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 38

Rumpelforeskin

Girls outperforming boys starts way before school, but it becomes slightly more obvious when they reach their first steps in education, and then through to University. This is backed by countless studies and statistics.

I remember being back at school and having to read Romeo & Juliet, Pygmalion, Of Mice and Men, Death of a Salesman, Les Misérables (I went to a French school), l'Étranger, Cyrano de Bergerac and My Fair Lady amongst countless others... Although I thoroughly enjoyed the books/plays, I couldn't handle the analysis, re-reading, re-re-reading. It was torture to me and I couldn't hold concentration in many of my English and French classes. I did very well when it came to the sciences because it was, for a big part, practical, and that's the biggest difference between us boys and you girls.

Girls love to read, love to organise themselves, love homework, love essays, etc... whereas us guys wish we could just do things, in the practical sense. We want to blow **** up with in Chemistry, dissect frogs and goat brains in Biology, find out why things fall at certain times in Physics...

It's so ****ing obvious why more girls are attending University, yet some people still say otherwise.

Why are guys better in Sciences? Why are girls better at writing essays? Ask yourselves that!