Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Nothing really to add -- no information on the case.
    
    Frankly, I'm amazed at these statistics.  Not really doubting them
    you understand, but based on my own experience I'd like to see evidence
    that the bias was really in the _test_ and not some other thing
    -- like the name accompanying the score, for example...which of
    course wouldn't explain the difference when grades were also
    considered...
    
    Of those of us on scholarship at A&M, the percentage of high scorers
    on the SAT was considerably higher among women proportional to the
    gender mix of the group.  [OK, paint me an elitist pig who got hers
    and could give a flip, etc, etc, etc :^)...I really do care, I'm
    just surprised.]
    
      Ann
    
    
  

Since those objecting to the SAT-only based system of awarding scholarships 
are implying that SAT's are biased against girls, I assume there is data to 
support that.  I don't remember anything about it, though, so if anyone has 
statistics on sex differences and SAT scores, that would help answer the 
question.

Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if that's true, since half of the SAT score 
if I remember is math, and there's lots of documentation that girls have 
more trouble with math than boys.  (Why is another question; personally, 
I believe it's the adverse effects of stereopying - the self-fulfilling 
prophecy.  But I imagine that's been written about elsewhere in this file.)  
So if girls have a tougher time with math, and math is half of the SAT score, 
but it's only one of a number of different subjects represented in 
grades/academic average, then the SAT-only based criteria does discriminate 
against girls. 

Susan

    New York state used (17 years ago when I was in high school)
    give scholarships based on the Regents Scholarship Test which
    was clearly not the same as the SAT. It's interesting if they
    are using the SAT now. While I know, as a sociologist by training
    that its harder not to bias a test then it is to bias one, I'm
    somewhat suspicious of this report. Why? Basically because boys
    and girls get the same education usually. There aren't boy schools
    and girl schools anywhere resembling white schools and black
    schools. The 'girls can't do that' attitude is much less then
    it used to be.

    If the boys are really getting that different an education that
    the SAT scores are that off then the class grades should be off
    the same way. My best guess here is that fewer girls are taking
    the test when it's just the test and more take it when grades
    count. This would easily be explained by guidance counselors telling
    girls (incorrectly) that they can't handle tests of that sort.

    I'd have to see a lot more data to make a reasonable final conclusion.
    For example, compare boys and girls from the same school, with the
    same grades. Are their SAT scores different? If they are then perhaps
    you've got a biased test. Of course it could just as easy (though
    perhaps less likely depending on your politics) that the girls are
    getting 'helped' in their grades. The point being that coming to
    a conclusion of sexual bias takes some serious study.
    
    			Alfred

>    Basically because boys
>    and girls get the same education usually.

I suppose you're really saying they tend to sit in the same classroom if
they're taking the same class. Which ain't really the same thing as getting the
same education (as you point out near the bottom of your note with a nod to how
sexism can change what you get).
	Mez

    re .3
    
    New York State started using the SAT score to deterine Regents'
    scholarhips for the high school graduating class of 1978.

    Today's WSJ .. P. a22 has an article on the editorial page focusing
    on the efficacy or not of the SAT.

      
    The writer, Paul Crouse, contends that the ETS and college board
    people sell the SAT well.  How efficacious the SAT is for admissions
    people and the students is somewhat controversial.  Bowdoin and
    Yale departed from others in the late '60's making SAT scores
    optional in the admissions process.  Bates has since followed.
    
    

    Is it possible that girls live up to their potentials with regard
    to scholarship, while boys tend to slack off?  From personal
    experience, I was basically a B/C student in high school, because
    school at the time was not important to me.  I was an A student
    when I finally got around to college.  My oldest son was a B/C student
    in high school, also, but did quite well on his SAT's (knowing that
    getting into college was important to him).  In his first semester
    of college he made the dean's list.
    
    So perhaps males do better on "must" tests, such as the SAT, while
    females do consistently well in their regular studies, but not
    indicatively well on tests.
    
    I'd be interested in any studies done in this regard.
    
    Jack

    	I'm surprised at this also.
    
    	In my (limited) experience, I didn't see any differentiation
    as to how well you did along gender lines.  (How's THAT for an awkward
    sentence!)  In fact if I remember correctly, here in South Carolina,
    every time we National Merit semi-finalists and finalists got together
    the girls dominated.  NM semi's are chosen soley on the basis of
    SAT score.  I can't remember if an essay was included in the
    determination of the finalists or not.  But I do remember that grades
    and such were not included until the final determination of who
    got what scholarship.
    
    	As for girls doing poorly (or not as well) because math is half
    the test and girls are not encouraged to succeed in math...  Well
    the same arguement could be given for boys and verbal skills. 
                            
    	Just out of curiosity, could anybody who has taken the test more
    recently than I, tell me if they made the LOGIC section a permanent
    part of the test.  When I took it in 78-79, the SAT was comprised
    of a verbal section worth up to 800 points, a Math section worth
    up to 800 points , and an experimental Logic section which had a
    total of 80 points available but not included in your final score.
                                                                  
    	I found it interesting that while I had a math score that quite
    good for this area but not up to the standards of, say, an MIT;
    my Logic score was almost perfect (79 out of 80).  I thought this
    gave an accurate picture of my abilities/applications.  That is
    I'm quite good at problem solving/understanding the underlying structure
    of things, but when it gets down to the actually adding up of the
    numbers and dealing with the picky details, if I'm not interested,
    I get sloppy.  I'd be interested in hearing if a) others felt that
    the Math and Logic sections helped better represent them than the Math
    section alone and b) if the College board people decided to add
    it as a permanent part, if they are still evaluating it or if they've
    dropped it altogether.              
    
    tlh
    

    actually, when i took those tests, the National Merit semi-finalists
    were chosen based on the scores from the PSAT/NMSQT (something like
    Preparatory SAT/ Nat'l Merit Something Qualifying Test). I was
    disappointed because they arrived at the "final result" by doubling the
    English score and adding the Math score. I didn't do as well in English
    as I did in Math, so I missed the cutoff by a few points. Oh well...
    
    Liz 

    re .8, .9-
    
    Liz, your description sounds closer to my recollections, though
    I took the tests the same years as tlh.  Nat Merit results were
    based on PSATs, which we took as sophomores in 1976-7.  Then the
    SATs as juniors in 77-78, and it was available as a senior if you
    wanted to retake.
    
    Also, I don't remember an experimental logic section, but there
    was a separate "Test of Standard Written English (TSWE)" also
    as an experiment...
    
    DougO

When I graduated from high school (1982), National Merit Semi-finalists
were selected solely on the basis of PSAT/NMSQT scores. (The verbal
score counted twice as much as the math score).

Then to be a finalist you had to get an equivalently good score
on the SAT's and write a short essay basically just listing what
extracurricular activities you're involved with (although I think
the wording was more of a "tell us why you're a wonderful human
being" type of thing).

Then to be a scholarship winner, your parents had to work for a company that
sponsored a scholarship or you had to be going to a college that offered
National Merit Scholarships (not hard to do, but since most colleges
only offered one such scholarship but accepted hundreds(?) of
National Merit Finalists...)

    The Test of Standard Written English was part of the SAT test I
    took in '80 or '81.  I believe it also had a logic section.
    
    Re: .11
    
    I'm not entirely sure that's how it worked, because my SAT score
    was as good as my PSAT score and I was only a Semi-finalist.  I
    remember the cut getting made before the SAT, possibly on the basis
    of the essay.  (It was a while ago, so I don't remember too clearly.)
    It might have been that there were just too many qualified students
    in the state (Texas) and they needed to cut back.

	 At my school...all the Nat'l Merit Scholarships went to women
	 from '78 til I graduated in '83.  (I don't know about
	 afterwards)  Also, when I there, there were only two guys in the
	 entire graduating class that got substantial scholarships
	 anyway...(over $500).  But that may have something to do
	 with the fact that there were no men in the top 10% on my
	 graduating class (class size...approx 450)....I also remember
	 a statistic after the SAT's saying that at our school that
	 the girls did much better than the guys....

	 i think there has to be alot more to it than just
	 gender....maybe the environment the students grew up
	 in...this school was in an army town...
	 

    		You sho'nuff are right.  I forgot all about the fact
    that it was the PSAT that started off the whole thing. 
    
    		re:Whoever it was that said they may have had too many
    students from their state...   I don't think so.  The competition
    was nationwide only until the awards of the scholarships came.
    If remember correctly (and I may not), there were ways to get
    scholarships other than from the school or the company your parents
    worked for, I believe they *were* all special interest though. 
    (Something the Southern Baptist Association giving a scholarship
    to a young man or woman who intends to devote their life to missionary
    work.)  (I don't claim that as a real example; it just popped into
    my head. :-) )  I can't offer any proof though, I got mine from
    my university.
    
	tlh
         

    I just read through the whole string, and decided that since I hadn't
    really been roasted in a long while, now was as good a time as any. :-)
    
    Perhaps the reason that girls do better in school than boys do is due
    to their choice of curriculum. I went to an all male high school, so I
    don't have any direct information, but I do know that when you get to
    the higher math classes, the gender mix tends to be more heavily guys
    than girls.
    
    I think that it's possible that while the girls are taking "easier"
    courses and getting better grades, the guys are taking "harder" classes
    and not getting comparable grades, but are learning more of the types
    of things that are useful in an aptitude test. It seems to me that some
    girls tend to take the kinds of classes (like history and othe social
    sciences) that increase knowledge on certain subjects without
    increasing the ability to learn other types of subjects. Math is one
    subject where taking more related classes translates into a higher
    aptitude as measured by any standardized aptitude test.
    
    I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. Does anybody see where I'm
    coming from?
    
    The Doctah

    re .16
    
    Doctah, you raised a perplexing issue.  One wonders what messages
    young women are receiving from "guidance" counselors, teachers,
    parents and friends.
    
    As long as bright women are an anomaly, and they are socialized
    in the home/hearth/family manner, and discouraged from non-traditional
    paths, then they shall continue to follow the more familiar path.
    
    If you remember high school (ugh), the bright women were looked
    upon as being a bit odd.  We know that that isn't true, but where's
    the logic in a teenager?
    
    Before I get flamed, my main point is that many bright women have
    to work bloody hard to maintain their grades, amongst the challenges
    of adolescence - extracurricular activities, friends, after school
    jobs, family situation, etc.  Some are fortunate to have supportive
    adults who encourage their development.  Unfortunately, many "fall
    through the cracks" and just get by.
    
    Judi
    

    Mark, if the SAT (which I've never taken) is anything like the GRE
    (which I have) then both clumps of skills are tested and equally
    weighted.  A techno-nerd will do neither better nor worse overall than
    a touchyfeely wiz.
    
    The question of "culture-free" tests is an *extremely* vexed one
    and has been for at least 20 years.
    
    						=maggie-who-used-to-
    						be-fairly-knowledgeable-in-
    						that-part-of-psych. 

    Re: .17
    
    >If you remember high school (ugh), the bright women were looked
    >upon as being a bit odd.
    
    Actually, a lot of the bright women in my class were in the upper
    social ranks -- half the cheerleaders were in my advanced English
    and math classes.  Oddly enough, I don't think many of them were
    in the advanced history courses.  And of course, I was one of very
    few females taking physics.

>    Before I get flamed, my main point is that many bright women have
>    to work bloody hard to maintain their grades, amongst the challenges
>    of adolescence - extracurricular activities, friends, after school
>    jobs, family situation, etc.
    
    I don't think that females have a monopoly on these situations.
    
    re: maggie-
    
     Do you mean that you feel that the SAT is not biased against women?
    
    The Doctah

    
    
    .16 & .17
    
    Prehaps I'm dating myself, but in my classes (in high school) the
    majority in the 'tougher' classes was female.  This was true of AP
    Calculus as well as Honors English.  The classes in which there were
    few girls were Electronics (a total of 1 in two levels) and Drafting (3
    in four levels).  I think this division of knowledge and skill is
    responsible for lower scores and lesser ambitions.  The number of
    women in advanced level and technical course plummets in college.
    
    
    Ann

    My AP calculus class 7 years ago was half boys and half girls. 
    Both the validictorian and the salutorian were women that were in
    my AP calculs, AP physics, and AP biology.  It was after highschool
    that I noticed a difference.  About one quarter of my AP calulus
    class went into a science related major - and I was the only woman.
    Reasons?
    
    Suzanne

    The advanced classes in my high school were at least half female, and
    our valedictorian was a girl (I was salutatorian; third honors was a
    boy, however).  Only 8 of us took advanced calculus, but I think it was
    50/50.  The AP literature classes were maybe 2/3 female.  The same
    thing was true of the mathematics and computer science classes in
    college, about half women, but very few other women in the physics and
    EE courses I took (don't flame me, please: I just noticed that I guess
    I think I was a "girl" in high school but a "woman" in college - must
    have something to do with turning 18...).
    
    I never thought that the SAT or GRE tests were sex-biased, although you
    could argue that they are (or were) somewhat culturally-biased: I
    remember all those silly "analogy problems" (you know, "mud is to
    shellac as milk is to fill-in-the-blank"), which would be hard if you
    didn't know how some of the words or objects were used in the "average"
    home.  At any rate, I scored well in both of them - in the case of the
    GREs, I took them the morning after a real big party, and hadn't even
    slept!  (Went back to the dorm and crashed out after the tests...)
    
    /Charlotte

    At this time of year I like to amuse myself by looking at the local
    paper's coverage of graduations.  The paper has pictures of the
    valedictorian and salutorian from each high school.  Over half the
    pictures are of females.  Usually, when I see males take both the
    val. and the sal. they are at the all male school.    
    
    Hardly a scientific, unbiased sampling, but amusing nonetheless :-)
    
    I did notice in high school that the females in the advanced
    science and math classes tended to be from affluent families.
    I don't think they were necessarily brighter than some of my
    less affluent friends, but that the affluent were more encouraged
    to take these classes.
    
    I've always been a good student, especially in math and science. I
    still remember my 10th grade guidance counselor advising me to take a
    typing course so I'd have some job skills (late '70s).  So I gave up
    one of my electives to take typing instead of Anatomy. Out of a 30
    person typing class there were only 2 males.  I guess the counselors
    didn't push them to take typing... I must admit that the class did help
    me in my job as a software engineer here at  DEC.  I can type in the
    code almost as fast as I think it up :-)  
    
    			Bb

    re: typing.
    
    An old friend of mine took typing in High School and was able to
    type 80 words a minute.  Years later he was a system manager for
    a major DEC customer ( I was the Field Service Account Rep.)  This
    guy could type 80 WPM.  40 of them were on the delete key.
    
    I guess I went to an unusual public high school, but, of the graduating
    class of 100 there were 7 people with 700 SAT's.  5 were female.
     One of those was the daughter of the School's Alegebra Teacher
    par excellance.  Granted, it was an unusual class.  For every vemale
    grad who dressed hair there was a mathemetician.  For every teacher
    there was a female architect.  Needless to say...the 25th reunion
    was enlightening.

    My mother (trained as a mathematician and musician, but employed until
    my birth as a secretary) told me to never admit that I knew how to
    type, and not to take typing class in high school so I would not get
    type-cast (like she did).  I took typing at the local secretarial
    college one summer, and made sure the (dimbulb) high school guidance
    counselor did NOT know about it - strengthened my case later when I
    went in to complain that I had asked him to order me the harder of the
    two calculus advanced placement tests instead of the easier one the
    rest of the class had requested.  He even eventually got it for me in
    time (found one of the local "snob" private schools had ordered too
    many copies).  (That test score, along with a couple of others and
    several semesters of heavy course loads while working 20 hours a week
    saved me the cost of a whole year of college; I graduated in three
    years.)
    
    
    I don't know where this idea that high school girls who did well on
    their SAT tests and/or took the advanced placement tests and the top
    academic courses were all from "affluent" families came from.  There
    were about two kids from relatively wealthy families in my whole school
    (graduating class about 350).  It was a pretty solidly middle-class
    environment.  Wealthy people (the few there were in our region) tended
    to send their kids to the snobby private schhols, along with the kids
    who were behavior problems in the public school system (eg, my cousin).
          

	At the Vo-Tech I went to instead of High School made the boys
	take blueprint reading and the girls take typing. Sigh, I really 
	wanted to take typing. I knew how to read blueprints pretty 
	well already, but couldn't type to save my life. Still cat'n :-)

							T_onK

I  heard an excellent lecture on this subject last year. For sometime
now, females have out-scored males on verbal; males have outscored
females on math (even when comparison is made only between students 
similar background coursework -- i.e., comparing students who have
taken HS calculus to each other, but not to students who took only 
geometry).

Then in 1987 males outperformed females in the verbal!!  Had males in
general learned better communication skills??  Was it a large-scale
social change?  No . . .  actually the test had been redesigned to
emphasize slightly different verbal skills.

The lecturer said that the test had been changed *in order* to make
the male scores better.  I am willing to say that I don't know the
motivations for changing the emphasis of the exam, but if changing the 
questions reverses male/female performances, then THERE IS GENDER
BIAS in the exam.

    	Of interest from Technological Review, May 89:
    
    		Gender differences in spatial and mathematical ability have
    	declined almost to zero, says a researcher at the University of
    	California at Berkeley.  Paralleling reports last year that the
    	verbal abilities of men and women are converging, the findings
    	suggest that gender differences in all cognitive abilities are
    	disappearing.
    		According to Marcia Linn, adjunct professor in the Graduate
    	School of Education. women's lower spatial and mathematical ability
    	has often been used to explain men's greater access to scientific
    	fields, higher income, and better math scores on the SATs.
    		However, the gaps in SAT scores, occupation, and income
    	remain, even though gender differences in ability have narrowed,
    	Linn observes.
    
    Ann-I'm-not-adding-to-the-education-deficit