Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#2I wonder how this theory squares with the relatively high percentage of women that are accountants, tax advisors, investment professionals, actuaries, etc.
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#3Is this suggesting that girls do not choose STEM faculties because they can read better so they like more humanistic faculties, where there are more texts (as in literature books) to read? Or my text comprehension is that bad?
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#4Is this suggesting that girls do not choose STEM faculties because they can read better so they like more humanistic faculties, where there are more texts (as in literature books) to read? Or my text comprehension is that bad?
That’s how I understood it but I feel the same way as you do about my text comprehensions skills.
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#5Is this suggesting that girls do not choose STEM faculties because they can read better so they like more humanistic faculties, where there are more texts (as in literature books) to read? Or my text comprehension is that bad?
> so they like more humanistic faculties
Either that ("like more", ie preference), or they ask themselves what they're good at ("intraindividual comparisons of achievement"), and conclude that a career with words rather than numbers is better suited for them.
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#6Is this suggesting that girls do not choose STEM faculties because they can read better so they like more humanistic faculties, where there are more texts (as in literature books) to read? Or my text comprehension is that bad?
>> Or my text comprehension is that bad?
That depends. Are you a woman or a man? /s
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#7Is this suggesting that girls do not choose STEM faculties because they can read better so they like more humanistic faculties, where there are more texts (as in literature books) to read? Or my text comprehension is that bad?
It may be that the advantage in reading simply correlates with stronger interest in people/'social' stuff and weaker interest in STEM - this would then be the actual causative factor. One could guess that being interested in people/stories/'social' things would incent girls to read more and get better and better at reading.
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#8Girls are victims. They need help to be free of the oppressor. If they don't respond to the market price signals, is not that they don't care, but an invisible oppressor hand is holding them back.
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#9Is this suggesting that girls do not choose STEM faculties because they can read better so they like more humanistic faculties, where there are more texts (as in literature books) to read? Or my text comprehension is that bad?
Not exactly. From what i understood, this article is telling that if someone feel he is better at reading/comprehension than he is at math, he is more likely to not go into math-related field, regardless of his math performance compared to the average.
To dumb it up, most of the time, you don't go into a math-related field because you compare your math skills with other, but because you compare your math skills with your own reading skills (at least when you're young).
It feels right, it was a really tough choice between math and philosophy for me and only peer pressure sent me to STEMs (and i sometime regret it). I'm gonna wait until replication is done until i define an opinion.
Re: Girls’ advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in STEM
#10I wonder how this theory squares with the relatively high percentage of women that are accountants, tax advisors, investment professionals, actuaries, etc.
Obviously, those (as well as, say, the biological sciences) are not “math intensive fields”, despite appearances to the contrary, whereas churning out CRUD apps is math intensive...
EDIT: Or, to be fair to the authors, other factors besides relative reading ability, as well as as accounting for the other 20% of the gender gap in math-intensive fields in general, also explain the gender distribution between particular math-intensive fields.