Girls and Physics. It's too hard for them. ?

Why are people still going on and on about what a good school she runs? What the discipline is like?

Simple answer - to distract from the real issues.

Regardless of who wrote it did you not think it was relevant that in 2018 a physics teacher questioned her methods for science and then in 2022 she's saying that girls don't want to do physics? Isn't it remotely possible that there is a problem there? *Glorianny
Well I do think it's important that people are free to have an opinion but the weight attached to that opinion will depend on the authority of that person in terms of experience and knowledge. To move the debate on a bit, the uptake of physics "A" level by gender is disproportionate in most schools not just the Michaela school and even in single sex schools I think there is still a bias towards Biology and Chemistry for those girls who want to study science. Sorry I can't post data on this it is just a guess, so again, very happy to be corrected. I honestly don't know if this is a problem or not, do we expect there to be an equal take up of every subject or is it just some subjects? If you look at the results for both Maths and Physics at "A" level, there isn't any evidence that girls are any less successful than the boys and those that go on to University do just as well, if not better. My own experience is that "A" level candidates choose the subjects that they enjoy but also that they feel they will get the best grades in.
Growstuff I have no personal knowledge of John Bald, just came across him on the internet and didn't post a link because I'm aware that I couldn't validate anything he'd said. my point, perhaps clumsily made, was that we can usually find something on the internet to support a view, often when people read it they accept it as evidence when it is often just an opinion, sometimes a biased ill-informed opinion.

I do not like people to be silenced who are doing a lot of good, by the media.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/28/not-every-discrepancy-caused-discrimination/

These are her words:
'I hadn’t expected, when I was invited to the Commons science and technology committee earlier this week, to be engulfed by a media storm. During a discussion about diversity and inclusion in Stem subjects, I was asked why the girls at my school have shown a reluctance to study physics at A-level, despite them making up 65 per cent of our biology and chemistry students. One possible reason, I said, could be that they would rather avoid doing the hard maths that physics requires.

This was immediately interpreted by some bad-faith commentators as evidence of me harbouring “outdated stereotypes” and promoting “regressive tripe”.

Yet, if they had watched the entire session rather than a short social media clip, they would have noticed that I was talking specifically about my non-selective state school, Michaela, where GCSE results are among the best in the country. I spent 20 minutes explaining to the committee what I believe is needed across the country to support girls in choosing Stem subjects, but that has been ignored by much of the media.

We’ve worked hard at my school to eradicate the social factors that might have restricted underprivileged students, including girls, from reaching their best potential. We’ve brought in speakers and experts to counter the perceived lack of female or ethnic role models, and introduced high standards, such as requiring all pupils to study double or triple science to GCSE. Any neutral observer would agree that we’ve achieved a great deal of success in taking such actions: in 2019 our science department was ranked third best in the country and our maths department topped the chart.

It is in this context that I reflected on the choice made by some of my girls not to study physics. They are certainly not being hindered by a lack of ambition or talent or teaching, so something else was likely to be at play. Perhaps it is because girls are more inclined to be empathetic while boys are more systematic, as a large quantity of evidence suggests. This doesn’t mean women cannot be excellent physicists or mathematicians – indeed, there are plenty of examples, including many of my own female maths and science teachers. But some of our girls have made the decision not to specialise in a particular subject and have done so with a clear mind, with external factors controlled. That is not necessarily a problem.'

By the way, I hated Physics (my teacher was awful)and dropped it despite my teacher being strongly opposed to it. I am very good at Maths!! And my daughter made a career of it!

I do not like people to be silenced who are doing a lot of good ...

Who's being silenced? Certainly not Birbalsingh. I guess you mean the people who question her.

PS. I watched the entire session and your revisionism is laughable.

But even there, she still seems to be fixated on her own school rather than the wider picture across the country, especially in other deprived areas.

I know how big 83 million is, 83,000,000. But I can't imagine it in my head! And please don't call her anti-feminist.

Its not my revisionism, it is hers. And lots of girls don't want to do physics, even in single sex-schools. And my daughter has often talked to schools trying to persuade girls to take Physics, including her own! If she was interviewed, she would have said the same thing probably, of the top of her head. So please don't push media mis-interpretation down my throat!

growstuff

What does this have to do with girls and physics?

I responded directly to "*Interested*'s comment about discipline and Public Schools because I am strongly against State Schools being derided for having lesser teachers when I know it isn't the case.

Interesting that your daughter would have said the same thing, off the top of her head. Would she have said it was natural that girls didn't like hard maths, while boys did, and that there was research that showed it? Because that's what Birbalsingh said.

Hint : if she said that, your daughter would be wrong too.

icanhandthemback

growstuff

What does this have to do with girls and physics?

I responded directly to "*Interested*'s comment about discipline and Public Schools because I am strongly against State Schools being derided for having lesser teachers when I know it isn't the case.

Sorry if it seemed I was getting at you. I feel strongly about it too because I know it's not true.

I was disappointed that Interested is coming out with stuff which could be straight out of the Michaela PR handbook and has nothing to do with girls and physics

I've just been on the poor, silenced wee lamb's twitter page.

Yesterday she tweeted about a book that she said was well worth reading, and how much she was enjoying it. Some people following her pointed out that the author supported right wing policies, had published some anti-Muslim articles and that he had said that conditions for Muslims should be made more difficult in Europe.

Today, she's complaining that people want to police what she reads.

Honestly, the more I learn about her the more I think she's a danger to society.

growstuff, no problem.

growstuff

*Why are people still going on and on about what a good school she runs? What the discipline is like?*

Simple answer - to distract from the real issues.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I went straight for the opening comment, "Ms Birbalsingh is a school headmistress", and something about boasting, which led me instantly to bring her own school into the discussion.
We all comment from different perspectives. No distraction intended.
I am not, however, daft enough to ignore the fact that the implications of what she said go far beyond her own school in the position she holds.

Well I'm the OP . Sorry to be boring , because I've said this before, but until last week I'd never heard of the woman.

In her role as Commissioner for Social Mobility, she made a comment about something I happen to know about, and she was wrong. I would expect more from a headmistress (her description) and I'd expect anyone who works in education to know how big 83 million is. Or at least not to make a joke and boast about not knowing.

Nothing to do with her school. More to do with her self-aggrandisement.

Not boring. Just interested from different angles.

I was apologising for being boring. Maybe repetitive would have been better.

volver

Interesting that your daughter would have said the same thing, off the top of her head. Would she have said it was natural that girls didn't like hard maths, while boys did, and that there was research that showed it? Because that's what Birbalsingh said.

Hint : if she said that, your daughter would be wrong too.

Well, why don't you answer the question, when all things are equal, and girls are from privileged backgrounds, why do girls choose A level physics far less than boys? None of you have come back with answers. You have come back with the fact that she gave an answer which is one of many, off the top of her head. I suggest you look at her achievements. I have two friends who decided to change careers and become teachers in Maths and IT but the discipline in the schools they went into made it impossible to teach. And I am fed up with Labour party supporters who think good education is what their MPs children get in private schools, while they criticise a woman who has produced results with children who are under-privileged. And also those who think it is OK to try to bully me by saying I'm a Conservative. To want fair education with discipline where those who want to learn can learn to me is not a political point. And for those who are interested in research on this:

This is the IFS's research: there can be a multitude of factors, but there is no real answer.
''Publications Commentary Research People Events News Resources and Videos About IFS
Home Publications Why don’t more girls study maths and physics?
Why don’t more girls study maths and physics?
Rachel Cassidy, Sarah Cattan and Claire Crawford
Observation
22 Aug 2018
Share
The gender composition of those staying in education beyond school leaving age has been one of the most dramatic changes in education over the last 50 years: from a situation of significant under-representation, girls took 22% more A levels than boys this year and are over a third more likely to go to university. Indeed, these gaps are now so large that the under-representation of men in higher education – especially those from poorer white families – has become a topic of significant policy interest in recent years.

Yet against this backdrop of female success, there remain areas in which women are significantly under-represented. The A level results released last week confirmed that girls are still less likely to take STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) A levels than boys: despite receiving 55% of A levels overall this year, girls received just 43% of A levels awarded in STEM subjects. This is not the case for all STEM subjects: girls are just as likely as boys to take chemistry, and more likely to take biology. The most striking gaps are in physics and maths: girls accounted for 39% of this year’s maths A levels, 28% of further maths A levels, and just 22% of all physics A levels.

This matters because these A levels are important routes into studying STEM subjects at university and into STEM careers: an under-representation of women in maths and physics at A level leads to an under-representation of women in careers that use these subjects. This is important for society – for example, some research suggests that workplace diversity can aid innovation. These choices also matter for the individuals themselves: having a maths A level appears to bring financial rewards in the labour market, and both subjects can open doors to potentially lucrative university degrees. For example, recent IFS research suggests that, compared to the average female graduate five years after graduation, women with a maths degree earn 13.4% more, those with an engineering degree earn 9.7% more, and those with an economics degree – another subject in which girls are significantly under-represented and for which maths is often a gateway subject – earn 19.5% more.

Explaining the gender gap in maths and physics
The fact that fewer girls study maths and physics at A level is not because they are less well prepared: attainment in maths and physics GCSE is very similar for girls and boys. Moreover, the gender gap in the likelihood of taking maths and physics A level is very similar if we focus only on students who achieved top grades at GCSE, and so are likely to be the best prepared for A level study. For example, among pupils who achieved grade A or A* (equivalent to grades 7-9 under the new system) in GCSE maths in 2010, 37% of girls compared to 51% of boys took maths A level. Among those who achieved grade A or A* in GCSE physics, just 13% of girls compared to 39% of boys took physics A level.

So why do so few girls choose to study maths and physics? As part of a pilot study for a new project investigating why girls are under-represented in maths and physics, funded by the STEM Skills Fund, we surveyed just under 300 girls across 40 schools who were predicted to achieve at least grade 7 (at least grade A) in either maths, physics or combined science at GCSE. We also surveyed their teachers. The aim was to understand what drives girls’ A level choices, including why they may or may not opt for maths or physics. These findings were summarised in a recent IFS report.

The gender gap in maths and physics does not seem to arise because girls don’t find maths and physics interesting, or because they don’t understand or value the prospects offered by a STEM career. So what else is going on? Confidence seems to be a big part of the issue, particularly when it comes to physics. We found that, despite their high predicted grades, about half of the girls in our sample agreed or strongly agreed with the statements “I often worry that it will be difficult for me in physics classes” or “I worry I will get poor grades in physics”. The figures were about half that for maths. Teachers also cited a lack of confidence as the biggest factor affecting the gender gap in pursuing STEM subjects to A level: 80% agreed or strongly agreed that “these girls are just as able, but not as confident in their ability to learn STEM subjects as boys.” This chimes with research by the OECD and others, suggesting that a lack of confidence amongst girls might be an important determinant of gender differences in attainment in STEM subjects or the decision to pursue STEM careers.

Perhaps more challenging from a policy perspective is the fact that being one of the only girls in a physics class at school or university, or indeed in a STEM job, seems to be a major factor putting off some girls. Two thirds of the girls we surveyed viewed STEM jobs as male dominated, and a similar proportion of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that “these girls don’t want to/feel discouraged from pursuing STEM subjects at A level because many of their female peers do not.” The fact that girls attending single-sex schools are more likely to study these subjects than girls in mixed-sex schools supports this idea.

Encouraging a critical mass of girls into STEM
This raises a tricky issue: if girls’ hesitations about studying and working in male-dominated environments are an important determinant of their decision not to study maths or physics at A level, then interventions that attempt to encourage one or two girls in a school to change their behaviour may not be enough. What may be required are interventions which send a strong signal to girls that not just they, but also a significant number of their peers, are being encouraged to pursue physics and maths. But even this alone may not be enough: after all, girls attending single sex schools are still less likely to take maths and physics than boys. So what is likely to work? That is exactly what we hope to explore in future research.

We acknowledge the funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 695300 - HKADeC - ERC-2015-AdG/ERC-2015-AdG)''.

As far as I'm concerned she truly cares about the children in her school, and that puts any media report in perspective. She tried to do that in an article which I've quoted above.
I'm fed up of the right-wing and left-wing way of seeing the world. That what does real harm when you want to point a finger at someone who has worked hard to achieve something she believes in, in her life.
I'm not going to discuss this further.

Interested, don't preach at me about why fewer girls than boys do STEM. I've been living that for 40 years. The article you copied postulates an answer. And it's not that girls "naturally" find it more difficult than boys. Even thought Birbalsingh thinks it is.

I've no idea why you or she think it's got anything to do with the right wing or the left wing or the media; she said something ill researched and misleading, and now won't admit she was wrong. Hiding behind politics and blaming the media won't change that. Nobody should defer to her just because they think she's worked hard. Whether she believes what she said or not, "believing" doesn't make it right. If she knew anything about how science works, she's know that.

This is what the IoP say. They are hardly a hotbed of socialist thought.

www.iop.org/about/news/work-together-to-encourage-girls-to-study-physics

Incidentally, like growstuff and many others, I'm not getting my views about this from the media. I listened to the whole session of the committee she was involved with. That's why I know what she said, and that what she said was incorrect. No amount of hiding behind the media and blaming politics is going to change that.

I don't believe that girls are incapable of doing harder math. I think their 'interests' lie elsewhere, like TikTok, taking selfies, make-up and the Kardashians. Subjects like physics, you have to have a real interest in them and unless they've be brought up in a family of academics, they will just do whatever their pals are doing. Girls are every bit as clever as boys and could achieve as much but I just think their attention is drawn elsewhere.

^ Girls are every bit as clever as boys and could achieve as much but I just think their attention is drawn elsewhere.^

Whereas boys are studious, never disrupt a class and spend their free time, after consciently doing their homework, reading all about how physics relates to sport.

I was brought up by parents who worked in a factory and a shop. Was the first in the wider family to go to university. No academics. I managed to drag myself away from the mascara for long enough to get a PhD in Physics.

But effalump's post shows just what people think of STEM, and what we're up against.

volver

I was brought up by parents who worked in a factory and a shop. Was the first in the wider family to go to university. No academics. I managed to drag myself away from the mascara for long enough to get a PhD in Physics.

But effalump's post shows just what people think of STEM, and what we're up against.

And what people think of girls!