Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    Coursework was brought in because BOYS were favoured by the previous exam system - multiple choice type and linear papers. A system needs to be found that is fair to BOTH genders. We haven't got that now.
    In my Sociology textbook, one that follows the AQA specification, shows the data on gender gap in achievement.


    Sources, as you can see below are provided by the Department of Education and by the JCQ Exam Council.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sufyaan65)
    In my Sociology textbook, one that follows the AQA specification, shows the data on gender gap in achievement.


    Sources, as you can see below are provided by the Department of Education and by the JCQ Exam Council.
    Your textbook only goes back to 1986 - big problem as that's when coursework started. You need to research the gender gap before that! Boys outperformed girls which prompted these changes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 303Pharma)
    Of the ten highest starting salary, entry level jobs, requiring a degree, nine out of the ten are male dominated (80-90% +). The other one, pharmacy is split, broadly 50 / 50, but trends show this will soon be another female dominated STEM profession going forward.

    Of the ten lowest starting salary, entry level jobs, requiring a degree, (care work, psychology, psychotherapy, speech, music and dance therapy, English lit.) all ten are female dominated (70-90% +).

    Behavioral psychologists have studied this for decades. From the ages off around two to four, and going forward for the rest of their lives, in general, females are more interested in people, males are more interested in things. This is borne out in the life choices and career paths they choose.

    In the societies were social conditioning bias has been flattened out the most, particularly the more 'democratic socialist' countries of Scandinavia, the variance is mostly done to biological difference.

    Differences in physical strength, hormones, psychology, brain structure is far more relevant, and immutable, than so called social conditioning.

    However, this is were the proponents of identity politics are wrong on the fundamentals. There is more variation within gender groups, than between gender groups. There is nothing, these days, stopping men or women, pursuing any life path they are capable of performing, if they so choose.
    The evidence suggests that culture is in fact the largest factor really - https://www.wired.com/2014/08/silicon-valley-sexism/ - differences in culture between UK/US compared to India where Women feel a lot more comfortable entering some kind of engineering profession compared to men has had a huge impact on the ratio between men and women in those fields
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I truly think the main reason is preference. If you take a look at scandinavian countries like Norway and Iceland, who have done far more than the rest of us in terms of leveling the playing field and ensuring equal opportunities, you find that almost 90% of engineers are male and the vast majority of nurses and medical practicians are female. Males simply tend towards engineering and maths subjects more while their female counter parts tend towards the biological sciences and humanities.


    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0153857
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InstituteAndFacultyofActuaries)
    Why aren't a lot of girls going into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) related study/work?
    Boys are considered a disadvantaged group in higher education and girls a privileged group (1,2,3,4). In a conference for teachers in March 2017, Mary Curnock Cook (chief executive of UCAS) compared the gap between girls and boys in higher eduction to that between the rich and poor (5). This gap has doubled in the last ten years (6, 7).

    Do you think the gendered, gynocentric approach of organisations such as yours are compounding this problem?

    1. http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/upl...oys-to-Men.pdf
    2. https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-...ver-150-higher
    3. https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-thinktank-men
    4. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ged-group.html
    5. https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/scs/re...sentation.pptx
    6. https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ars-ucas-study
    7. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809709961890635780
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    Your textbook only goes back to 1986 - big problem as that's when coursework started. You need to research the gender gap before that! Boys outperformed girls which prompted these changes.

    Name:  O-level-or-GCSE-5-A-C-passes-by-gender.jpg
Views: 42
Size:  212.1 KB

    This source, also provided by the Department of Education, shows that during O-Levels, boys and girls achieved relatively the same amount of grades. When 1986 hit, GCSEs, girls skyrocketed to a huge degree.

    I'm in Year 12, I did the reformed GCSEs for Maths, Lit and Lang. I remember the articles that cried out that the new reforms put the girls at a disadvantage, that girls no longer have the lead but boys were now 0.5% higher than females.

    By the way, I love coursework, they're an easy way to me to get marks because I'm very creative so I knew the most efficient way to get it done. I got an A in my History GCSE, I don't know how or why since I was more of a B student for History and I think credit goes to my coursework which my teacher gave me an estimate of A*, that brought my grade up a lot. I'm arguing because I see these individuals that are hell-bent on increasing gender diversity in favour of FEMALES and I'm thinking why? They got what they want, and it's quite odd that despite females doing better in GCSEs and A-Levels, they still need "help" and "rescuing" from "evil patriarchy".

    This year is when the Year 11s will be taking GCSEs exams which majority would be reformed, and I'm quite interested in seeing the backlash that'll occur when girls no longer have their 5% lead and instead it'll be boys who will have a measly 0.5% lead "PATRIARCHY!"

    I have stated my thoughts, and if you leave a reply, I will read it and take into consideration without leaving a reply because I have said all that's needed to be said.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sufyaan65)
    I have stated my thoughts, and if you leave a reply, I will read it and take into consideration without leaving a reply because I have said all that's needed to be said.
    You STILL haven't gone back to the 1950s and you neglect other factors like CSEs coming in in the 1960s - on the graph YOU posted boys were ahead in the early 1960s.

    What an arrogant response - says it all really.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sufyaan65)
    Hello, I'd like to ask what is the need for this urge to get females into STEM careers?
    Moniez and lots of STEM is cushy office work like software development. There's lots of initiatives to get women into IT/Software but very very few to get them into oil engineering.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by rickyrossman)
    Moniez and lots of STEM is cushy office work like software development. There's lots of initiatives to get women into IT/Software but very very few to get them into oil engineering.
    Actually the oil & gas industry does quite a lot to try and attract more girls and women into the industry...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    You STILL haven't gone back to the 1950s and you neglect other factors like CSEs coming in in the 1960s - on the graph YOU posted boys were ahead in the early 1960s.

    What an arrogant response - says it all really.
    I said I wasn't going to leave a response, so I do feel shameful going back on my words. I'm going to be talking to the audience rather than just you yourself because you are full of excuses there's no way I can win with you so I now am looking to win with the ones that count, the ones that matter because you aren't worth the count, you're too much trouble.

    Fellow members of TSR, this individual asked for data before 1986, before GCSEs. He/she claimed there was a gender gap in favour of boys, my proof, provided by the Department of Education, contradicted this claim of the user. The user has now backtracked claimed that BEFORE 1950 there was a gender gap in favour of boys I wonder how come in that case GCSEs were introduced when gender gap, as the user accepts, became non-existent AFTER the 1950s.

    If I could provide evidence, if I could access the proof with a simple Google search and share it with you all, I would. Not because I'd then win the debate, I already have. I would've provide so then we can be sure that the user would then whine "YEAH BUT BEFORE THE 1940s THOUGH!?"

    I am confident that my contribution to this mini-debate has opened our eyes, and I invite the user to provider his/her own evidence that gender gap existed before the 1950s, because I can't be bothered looking up statistics -that may have not even been recorded- for a debate I have already smashed, if you want to revive whatever last hope there is here then you can go get the evidence that gender gap existed before the 1950s, I've provided enough. And then, you can explain why after the 1960s, after the gender gap became non-existent, GCSEs still were introduced, and then you can talk to us about how we can get rid of the matriarchy system where girls are doing better than boys in education, after all you did say that in the early 1960s boys were doing better, and they were by half a percentage whereas now the evil matriarchy has girls nearly to a 10% lead.

    How arrogant do I seem now?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sufyaan65)
    I said I wasn't going to leave a response, so I do feel shameful going back on my words. I'm going to be talking to the audience rather than just you yourself because you are full of excuses there's no way I can win with you so I now am ellow members oflooking to win with the ones that count, the ones that matter because you aren't worth the count, you're too much trouble.
    Yes I said before 1986 but did I say just before, no of course not.

    Try looking at this: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...s/RTP01-07.pdf

    It is 134 pages - it deals in detail with some of the background. I guess you are a GCSE student? I've actually studied gender differences as part of my Masters.

    There were many factors - few women being allowed to take exams in 1950s, then CSEs coming in as many students at the time before that took no exams unless they were at a Grammar school.

    It was a background of under-achevement by GIRLS that was a trigger for GCSEs and coursework coming in.

    Yes, the system still isn't balanced ...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sufyaan65)
    I said I wasn't going to leave a response, so I do feel shameful going back on my words. I'm going to be talking to the audience rather than just you yourself because you are full of excuses there's no way I can win with you so I now am looking to win with the ones that count, the ones that matter because you aren't worth the count, you're too much trouble.

    Fellow members of TSR, this individual asked for data before 1986, before GCSEs. He/she claimed there was a gender gap in favour of boys, my proof, provided by the Department of Education, contradicted this claim of the user. The user has now backtracked claimed that BEFORE 1950 there was a gender gap in favour of boys I wonder how come in that case GCSEs were introduced when gender gap, as the user accepts, became non-existent AFTER the 1950s.

    If I could provide evidence, if I could access the proof with a simple Google search and share it with you all, I would. Not because I'd then win the debate, I already have. I would've provide so then we can be sure that the user would then whine "YEAH BUT BEFORE THE 1940s THOUGH!?"

    I am confident that my contribution to this mini-debate has opened our eyes, and I invite the user to provider his/her own evidence that gender gap existed before the 1950s, because I can't be bothered looking up statistics -that may have not even been recorded- for a debate I have already smashed, if you want to revive whatever last hope there is here then you can go get the evidence that gender gap existed before the 1950s, I've provided enough. And then, you can explain why after the 1960s, after the gender gap became non-existent, GCSEs still were introduced, and then you can talk to us about how we can get rid of the matriarchy system where girls are doing better than boys in education, after all you did say that in the early 1960s boys were doing better, and they were by half a percentage whereas now the evil matriarchy has girls nearly to a 10% lead.

    How arrogant do I seem now?
    +1

    You are not arrogant mate and you more than proved your point. The problem is not with you its with the person you are debating. These people want to protect their victim status in pursuit of the benefits that come with it. They will go to any lengths to justify this status, which is the opposite of their privileged reality. No amount of truths that you tell them will change their mind. Debating feminists is pointless!!! its a waste of time. They all without exception suffer from chronic deception and cognitive dissonance. Your comment should not aim to change their minds but to expose the flaws in their arguments/ideology to people who might listen to them and you did that perfectly here. That graph! +10.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InstituteAndFacultyofActuaries)
    This could be the case, but it may be because they aren't encouraged enough to think about other subject areas which are predominantly saturated with males
    Oh we can't have that can we. Why don't the IFoA publish statistics on the male/female ratio of your own workforce for us, thanks.
    •  Official Rep
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
     Official Rep
    (Original post by real_actuary)
    Oh we can't have that can we. Why don't the IFoA publish statistics on the male/female ratio of your own workforce for us, thanks.
    We have 60% of members who are male and 40% who are female
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    So why is no-one working to get men into Humanities? Why do you feel there needs to be this focus and not one on men into humanites?
    True
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    You can't generalise like that. I was at a mixed school and it did not stop females taking science and maths. What about the lack of males taking English does anyone get bothered about that?
    Or even what about the lack of males going to Uni and the number not finishing even when they do go?
    Where are the articles about this.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,132

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.