Why do teachers give girls higher marks than boys? Researchers have the answer

Again, literally the only way you correct for unconscious bias is conscious bias. Where did you get the mistaken impression that it's supposed to be comforting knowledge?

If your target is X = 0, and you think or you've been told that you act as if X = -2, then you act as if X = 2 and hope for the best.

OECD. The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour. (2015). Confidence, PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en on page 159

> Train teachers to be aware of their own gender biases The report also shows that teachers generally award girls higher marks than boys [for the same exact work], given what would be expected after considering their performance in PISA. This practice is particularly apparent in language-of-instruction courses. Girls’ better marks may reflect the fact that they tend to be “better students” than boys: they tend to do what is required and expected of them, thanks to better self-regulation skills, and they are more driven to excel in school. In addition, girls appear to be stronger in displaying the knowledge they have acquired (i.e. solving an algebraic equation) than in problem solving, the latter of which is a central component of the PISA test. But this report reveals that the gender gap observed in both school marks and PISA scores is not the same in both language-of-instruction classes and mathematics. The fact that it is much wider in the language-of-instruction courses suggests that teachers may harbour conscious or unconscious stereotyped notions about girls’ and boys’ strengths and weaknesses in school subjects, and, through the marks they give, reinforce those notions among their students and their students’ families

---------

Cappelen, A. W., Falch, R., & Tungodden, B. (2019). The Boy Crisis: Experimental Evidence on the Acceptance of Males Falling Behind. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3348981

Abstract

> The ‘boy crisis’ prompts the question of whether people interpret inequalities differently depending on whether males or females are lagging behind. We study this question in a novel large-scale distributive experiment involving more than 5,000 Americans. Our data provide strong evidence of a gender bias against low-performing males, particularly among female participants. A large set of additional treatments establishes that the gender bias reflects statistical fairness discrimination. The study provides novel evidence on the nature of discrimination and on how males falling behind are perceived by society.

From the conclusion

> The emergence of the ‘boy crisis’ prompts the question of whether people interpret gender inequalities differently depending on whether males or females are lagging behind. We study this question in a novel large-scale economic experiment conducted with a general population from the United States. The participants act as spectators and distribute earnings between two workers in a controlled labor market environment. When initial earnings are based on merit, we find that the spectators are gender-biased against males. We show that this gender bias is driven by female spectators and we provide evidence suggesting that the underlying mechanism is statistical fairness discrimination, where spectators interpret a male loser as someone who has exerted less effort than a female loser. Our study provides new evidence on the nature of gender discrimination, by showing how the perception of females being disadvantaged may cause people to infer that low-performing males have exerted less effort than low-performing females. […]

--------

Perspectives in Male Psychology, Louise Liddon & John Barry, page 79, about "Lavy, V. (2008, October). Do gender stereotypes reduce girls’ or boys’ human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 92(10–11), 2083–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.02.009":

> An Israeli study of nearly 30,000 pupils in more than 300 schools examined data for three cohorts of Jewish secular high-school seniors in the years 2000-2002 (Lavy, 2004). Student matriculation exams were routinely graded in two ways: an external grade which is blind to name and sex of the pupil, and an internal grade which is non-blind. The pupil's final grade is a mean of the internal and external grades. This study found that boys were given lower grades in the non-blind assessments across all nine subjects studied. The researcher, having ruled out the other possible explanations, concluded the discrepancy in scoring was a result of bias in the unblinded grading. A strength of this study is that it is a natural experiment.

--------

Terrier, C. (2020, August). Boys lag behind: How teachers’ gender biases affect student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 77, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101981

> Without teachers’ bias in favor of girls, the gender gap in choosing a science track would be 12.5% larger in favor of boys. [...] Girls’ better behaviour in class is not behind this nudge forwards.

------

Di Liberto, A., Casula, L., & Pau, S. (2021, November). Grading practices, gender bias and educational outcomes: evidence from Italy. Education Economics, 30(5), 481–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2021.2004999

> We study if the Italian school system suffers from gender bias when judging students. To this aim, we use a differences-in-differences approach that compares the teachers' assessments and the standardized test scores that the students receive during the school year. We have census data for all Italian fifth and sixth graders in two different subjects, math and language, that include a rich set of additional controls. Our evidence reveals that, since primary school, boys are graded less favourably than girls in both math and language. This result is also confirmed for middle school students (sixth graders), and it holds even when (a) we separate the analysis between the most and least developed Italian regions, (b) we control for possible gender-specific attitude towards cheating and teachers' manipulation and (c) we introduce class and school fixed effects in the models. Comparing the results obtained across different levels of schooling and subjects, we cannot clearly identify the role of specific mechanisms in determining the gender bias. Overall the analysis suggests further study on the role of teachers' characteristics.

----------

Lucas Gortazara, David Martinez de Lafuenteb, AinhoaVega-Bayoc (July 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103725

> In this paper, we study the presence of systematic differences between teacher non-blind assessments and external blindly graded standardized tests as a measure of grading misalignment. Using a large administrative database covering two student cohorts (N = 31, 183 pupils) from publicly-funded schools in the Basque Country (Spain), we explore the grading gaps found between these two type of assessments for several student characteristics using fixed effects modeling. We find that, after controlling for standardized achievement, systematic teachers’ under-assessment exists for student groups that, on average, lag behind in school: boys, children from an immigrant background, and low SES students. The observed data patterns withstand several robustness checks, including the use of instrumental variables approach (IV) and other alternative regression specifications.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/xx5n...

A lot of the "socialization" you learn in school is very dissimilar to "real life" though.

I don't know many workplaces that are organized into teams of 25 employees all the exact same age with just one single supervisor decades older as the sole person they spend much time with that isn't their exact age.

School's great weakness regarding socialization is it mostly teaches people how to get along with others who are the exact same age. It overemphasizes this and creates a strange cultural bubble where kids (and later young adults) are overly disconnected from the culture of older and younger generations. So much of what kids "learn" in school is from being around each other-- and what do other kids know? Not much, either. This is the blind leading the blind.

There is no good reason for this, it's just an artifact of running schools in a seemingly cost efficient way. But because we've grown up with it for a few generations now, many of us will try to justify segregating people by exact age as natural and valuable in and of itself, when it's not.

If schools mixed ages more, I'd be willing to consider school "good for socialization" but there is very little about the school environment that resembles anywhere most kids will have to spend a lot of time in as adults, especially successful ones.

I think the point that folks are trying to make here is that by treating these boys as actors in a system ("conscious bias to correct unconscious bias") is essentially mistreatment via failure to see and treat them as individuals. Teachers should in theory be focusing on the betterment of all of their students as individuals and it is messed up if they are intentionally treating some students worse (lower grades for work of the same quality in this case) in pursuit of some higher goals.

Wait, are you saying education system in general is broken? Absolutely agreed. It's just not the topic in question.

In a better system there would be no grades, but as long as we have a system centered around grades and discussing an article about gender bias in grading that's the topic. And within it it's bordering on deliberate, malevolent ignorance to say "oh no, boys are being mistreated by receiving slightly worse grades" without acknowledging that before that girls were discriminated against incomparably more strongly and while it's not ideal it would seem as if there are attempts to improve the system here.

The original argument was that there was an unconscious bias against girls before, and I posit that conscious bias is the only way to correct for unconscious bias, and sometimes conscious bias overcompensates without any ill intent (because humans are complicated and your unconscious bias against a person is not something you can measure with a stick, my wild guess is the "unconscious" part might have something to do with that). Someone tell me this is wrong, I am yet to see a single argument how.

Second, one of the guesses in the conclusions section of the paper explicitly states that it could all be simply the effect of teachers trying to use whatever they think is effective for the betterment of the students: they might think boys would be motivated to work harder if they are given lower grades while to girls failure is destructive and they need constant encouragement. Is the original intent good? Sure why not. Is this sexist though? Absolutely. Is withholding failure from girls only strengthens fear of failure in them, hurting them in the long run, while making boys more prepared for competitive environment outside the school system? Should this be more of concern than hurting boys by giving them slightly lower grades? I'd say so.