Another post for International Women’s Day - this time on my response two years ago to Katharine Birbalsingh’s (a former government social mobility tsar and current head teacher) assertion that girls avoid physics A-Level because it’s too hard.
To enroll in HS physics, I had to meet with the counsellor and the principal for their permission. In the end I wore them down since they refused to say the quiet part out loud and I refused to accept their facile counter arguments. The all-boy class groaned when I walked in; there goes the grading curve I heard someone say.
I’m positive there were other girls at school with me and before me who had a mind for it and would have liked to take the class. I wasn’t naturally talented in theoretical science, but figured the challenge would be good for me. While boys were being raised to see the world as theirs, we girls were being raised to fit ourselves into a piece of it. Who knows how advanced our world would be if we opened it up to everyone?
I've got a degree in Mathematics (University of Bristol 1993-96) and I have dyslexia.
Dyslexia affects people in different ways but in many cases like mine dyslexics can be very good at mathematics.
Historically studies into dyslexia said that more boys had dyslexia with a 4:1 gender ratio. But then some feminists didn't like anything that showed a difference between men's and women's brains.
So the feminists organised a study into Dyslexia which was designed specifically to show that men and women had an equal chance of having dyslexia. So it was a scientific study with the conclusion fix at the start and the study had to then prove the initial conclusion.
So the study that was biased in the direction of proving men and women had an equal chance of having dyslexia proved it wasn't a 4:1 ratio it was a 1.5:1 ratio. So even when you're biased trying to prove equality in dyslexia it's still not a 1:1 ratio.
But now all previous studies that show 4:1 ratio are ignored (because that is sexist) and the one biased study that didn't show a 1:1 ratio is the only one that is important. And people ignore the 1.5:1 result and say it's equal.
Now I want equality between men and women, but as someone with dyslexia I also want idiots to stop playing politics with research into dyslexia.
Anyway if more men have dyslexia than women, even if it hasn't be diagnosed, then you will probably get more men who are good at mathematics and physics.
According to the British Dyslexia Association 10% of the population have dyslexia or some sort. That is a high enough figure to have a noticeable effect on the gender ratio of physics students.
Hi. Great article. I’d love to find out more about Profs Susan Michie and Liz Stokoe and their work on gender and personality. Could you point me in the right direction to find out more please? Thank you!
I found this an informative and enjoyable read, but think this short excerpt from Birbalsingh’s long consultation with this select committee has taken on a life of its own. If I remember correctly, the question was why so few of *her* girls (a tiny sample) chose physics, to which her answer was that *her* girls that chose other subjects probably did so because they didn’t like the hard maths (I think it would only have taken 3-4 more girls to meet the magic 50-50). I recall she did hypothesise that boys & girls have different innate interests, but caveated this, I recall, with the fact that she was not expert. She was fairly clear that Michaela try to strip out all of the biases that nudge boys and girls towards subjects that do not interest them, in addition, I think, to their head of physics (but maybe maths) being a woman. In many respects, I expect Michaela is an outlier to much of the research summarised here, but yes, had Birbalsingh had time to prepare for this specific question, survey the evidence, and provide a detailed evidence-based response, she may have come up with something similar to this. But that said, this piece doesn’t say anything about why a few more of *her* girls, a couple of years ago, didn’t choose physics. For that, I think we’d need to ask them, and perhaps not be surprised to hear that they do not enjoy hard maths (similar to their boys who chose other subjects).
Firstly, she had no idea (by her own admission) that the % of girls doing physics A Level at her school were so low until the day before. (surprising in itself that she didn't know). Secondly, given that there is no way she knew why that was the case and so just made something up. And in making something up, drew on stereortypes (they don't fancy it, the maths is too hard), despite - as she also says - so many girls doing Maths A-Level!
She showed zero curiosity as to why this might be the case, didn't consider where there were biases at work and where they might come from - despite the efforts of her school.
In the following days, insead of going away and learning more about it from e.g. Inst of Physics, she doubled down on her initial, ignorant remarks.
Thanks for this. It’s been a while since I watched this in its entirety, and my memory may be coloured by some of the things I have heard/read since, but I recall she was pushed for her “best guess” as to why a minority of *her* Physics A-Level students were girls (when the majority of her biology, chemistry and maybe maths A-level students were girls, and all of their students do at least double science at GCSE - perhaps topping the tables), to which she guessed that perhaps the girls who did not choose it did not like the hard maths. I recall her Physics A-Level class is pretty small, perhaps suggesting boys aren’t choosing it for similar reasons. I recall she spent a great deal of time discussing the socio-cultural reasons for why girls may not choose STEM subjects, and how they successfully control for this (assuming it is acceptable for their boys to represent the minorities in most of these subjects), yet something interesting, if statistically-insignificant, was going on uniquely in their Physics cohort for that year. From there, I recall, it exploded with high profile female STEM academics almost accusing her of denying their existence. I recall she did do some rowing back, apologising for her clunky language, and regretting not saying something less, better, clearer and/or more precise, but it is correct that she did not row back on everything, and certainly complained about her treatment by sections of the media.
Another story about the problems with education here. Not to diminish the story’s importance, but Sunak’s maths to eighteen also reflects the system’s lack of breadth, when most of the rest of the world are doing maths to eighteen. In fact for at least 50 years to my knowledge. And in fact 6-8 subjects are taken to 18, not the A- level effort you have here. We did an intermediate exam at 15 (3rd year high school) then used O-levels for exam practice in 4th year, I then changed schools where at the new one they used O-levels for exam practice in the penultimate year, followed by matriculation in the final year. Then 5 years at third level. Typically if you were doing science subjects, you did the three chemistry, physics and biology regardless of gender. The system here is a weak education. Anyway happy Women’s Day.
My experience (I am a physicist with PhD, born in 1952) is that I had to choose in high school (a mixed one) between being a girl or being good in physics. As most people in my family only start a relationship long after high school, I could choose physics (and explain things to the boys). But almost all girls were much more interested in boys.
The problem with girls only schools in my country (the Netherlands) at that time is that they supposed girls were not interested in physics. A self fulfilling prophecy....
To enroll in HS physics, I had to meet with the counsellor and the principal for their permission. In the end I wore them down since they refused to say the quiet part out loud and I refused to accept their facile counter arguments. The all-boy class groaned when I walked in; there goes the grading curve I heard someone say.
I’m positive there were other girls at school with me and before me who had a mind for it and would have liked to take the class. I wasn’t naturally talented in theoretical science, but figured the challenge would be good for me. While boys were being raised to see the world as theirs, we girls were being raised to fit ourselves into a piece of it. Who knows how advanced our world would be if we opened it up to everyone?
I've got a degree in Mathematics (University of Bristol 1993-96) and I have dyslexia.
Dyslexia affects people in different ways but in many cases like mine dyslexics can be very good at mathematics.
Historically studies into dyslexia said that more boys had dyslexia with a 4:1 gender ratio. But then some feminists didn't like anything that showed a difference between men's and women's brains.
So the feminists organised a study into Dyslexia which was designed specifically to show that men and women had an equal chance of having dyslexia. So it was a scientific study with the conclusion fix at the start and the study had to then prove the initial conclusion.
So the study that was biased in the direction of proving men and women had an equal chance of having dyslexia proved it wasn't a 4:1 ratio it was a 1.5:1 ratio. So even when you're biased trying to prove equality in dyslexia it's still not a 1:1 ratio.
But now all previous studies that show 4:1 ratio are ignored (because that is sexist) and the one biased study that didn't show a 1:1 ratio is the only one that is important. And people ignore the 1.5:1 result and say it's equal.
Now I want equality between men and women, but as someone with dyslexia I also want idiots to stop playing politics with research into dyslexia.
Anyway if more men have dyslexia than women, even if it hasn't be diagnosed, then you will probably get more men who are good at mathematics and physics.
According to the British Dyslexia Association 10% of the population have dyslexia or some sort. That is a high enough figure to have a noticeable effect on the gender ratio of physics students.
Rumour has it that Einstein had dyslexia.
Hi. Great article. I’d love to find out more about Profs Susan Michie and Liz Stokoe and their work on gender and personality. Could you point me in the right direction to find out more please? Thank you!
I found this an informative and enjoyable read, but think this short excerpt from Birbalsingh’s long consultation with this select committee has taken on a life of its own. If I remember correctly, the question was why so few of *her* girls (a tiny sample) chose physics, to which her answer was that *her* girls that chose other subjects probably did so because they didn’t like the hard maths (I think it would only have taken 3-4 more girls to meet the magic 50-50). I recall she did hypothesise that boys & girls have different innate interests, but caveated this, I recall, with the fact that she was not expert. She was fairly clear that Michaela try to strip out all of the biases that nudge boys and girls towards subjects that do not interest them, in addition, I think, to their head of physics (but maybe maths) being a woman. In many respects, I expect Michaela is an outlier to much of the research summarised here, but yes, had Birbalsingh had time to prepare for this specific question, survey the evidence, and provide a detailed evidence-based response, she may have come up with something similar to this. But that said, this piece doesn’t say anything about why a few more of *her* girls, a couple of years ago, didn’t choose physics. For that, I think we’d need to ask them, and perhaps not be surprised to hear that they do not enjoy hard maths (similar to their boys who chose other subjects).
Firstly, she had no idea (by her own admission) that the % of girls doing physics A Level at her school were so low until the day before. (surprising in itself that she didn't know). Secondly, given that there is no way she knew why that was the case and so just made something up. And in making something up, drew on stereortypes (they don't fancy it, the maths is too hard), despite - as she also says - so many girls doing Maths A-Level!
She showed zero curiosity as to why this might be the case, didn't consider where there were biases at work and where they might come from - despite the efforts of her school.
In the following days, insead of going away and learning more about it from e.g. Inst of Physics, she doubled down on her initial, ignorant remarks.
Thanks for this. It’s been a while since I watched this in its entirety, and my memory may be coloured by some of the things I have heard/read since, but I recall she was pushed for her “best guess” as to why a minority of *her* Physics A-Level students were girls (when the majority of her biology, chemistry and maybe maths A-level students were girls, and all of their students do at least double science at GCSE - perhaps topping the tables), to which she guessed that perhaps the girls who did not choose it did not like the hard maths. I recall her Physics A-Level class is pretty small, perhaps suggesting boys aren’t choosing it for similar reasons. I recall she spent a great deal of time discussing the socio-cultural reasons for why girls may not choose STEM subjects, and how they successfully control for this (assuming it is acceptable for their boys to represent the minorities in most of these subjects), yet something interesting, if statistically-insignificant, was going on uniquely in their Physics cohort for that year. From there, I recall, it exploded with high profile female STEM academics almost accusing her of denying their existence. I recall she did do some rowing back, apologising for her clunky language, and regretting not saying something less, better, clearer and/or more precise, but it is correct that she did not row back on everything, and certainly complained about her treatment by sections of the media.
Another story about the problems with education here. Not to diminish the story’s importance, but Sunak’s maths to eighteen also reflects the system’s lack of breadth, when most of the rest of the world are doing maths to eighteen. In fact for at least 50 years to my knowledge. And in fact 6-8 subjects are taken to 18, not the A- level effort you have here. We did an intermediate exam at 15 (3rd year high school) then used O-levels for exam practice in 4th year, I then changed schools where at the new one they used O-levels for exam practice in the penultimate year, followed by matriculation in the final year. Then 5 years at third level. Typically if you were doing science subjects, you did the three chemistry, physics and biology regardless of gender. The system here is a weak education. Anyway happy Women’s Day.
My experience (I am a physicist with PhD, born in 1952) is that I had to choose in high school (a mixed one) between being a girl or being good in physics. As most people in my family only start a relationship long after high school, I could choose physics (and explain things to the boys). But almost all girls were much more interested in boys.
The problem with girls only schools in my country (the Netherlands) at that time is that they supposed girls were not interested in physics. A self fulfilling prophecy....
(Comment to Q2)