@PorgyGeorgy @TamaraBrouwer1 @BristolBen @HPluckrose
Presented without comment.https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/978286749771186177 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Yet this would mean boys and girls excelled at different aspects of the programme. Which is fine. But does standards should be shifted?
As long as they are shifted for everyone, I see no problem with this. All got longer in the exam? No unfair advantage. The only reason not to do this would be if jobs required people to do maths under great time pressure without ability to check work.
If so, then it would be essential for people to demonstrate they could do that by doing well in exams. If the job allows for doing maths without pressure and whilst being able to consult sources if necessary, no need to have high pressure exams to test ability.
I'm against fitness and strength levels being lowered in the military to accommodate women when a certain level of fitness and strength is required to do the job, obviously. There's a reason for ensuring people perform consistently well on those tests.
I agree on this. Because of the ramifications of lowering them. I also agree we can accommodate for different strengths men and women have. Planning, pressure etc are part of this as well.
Yes. It would be a shame to lose highly able female mathematicians because exams revealed more about their ability to cope with pressure than their ability to do maths.
Hm. Yes. Tho I'd figure they would do better at the coursework in the programme to even it out. But that's a guess.
They were getting significantly fewer firsts than men which is why this is being tested.
My daughter's school had an initiative to get boys' literacy up to girls by including more non-fiction books in library after studies showed boys to have more interest in them. The books were there for everyone so no discrimination but boys were the targetted beneficiaries.
I get that. I'm fully supportive of increasing the range of books to suit interests of sexes. Its a good idea. But something about this doesn't seem right. Will it even bridge the gap? Is the gap even a problem?
If it doesn't bridge or reduce the gap, the hypothesis that it is partly caused by women working less well under pressure has not held up. The gap would be a problem if it were caused by exams revealing more about who can work well under pressure than who can do maths.
I would be interested to see what it does. Though I would rather see accommodations made to improve working under pressure. As I would like to see accommodations made to improve literacy or coursework. But I'll cave and be interested in seeing the results of said experiment.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.