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

I know I'm going on about this, but anyway...

She's written an article in the Telegraph this morning and I can't read all of it because its behind a paywall. But in the bit I can see she's saying that if there is no room in public debate for people with her view about girls studying physics she "fears for our children".

But her views are wrong. They just are. She hasn't got it right at all. And she had been called to the committee as an expert. So what does that mean?

That we should give space in a national debate to people to say incorrect things, and let them have positions of power, even if we know that what they say is wrong? But accept it because they are good at something else? If that's the case then we should definitely "fear for our children".

My empathy quotient is low today.

Well, it made me laugh anyway, on a rather grey day. Thank you ?

Oohh look. The DM said this so it must be true

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5488705/Cambridge-uni-study-women-arent-biologically-empathetic.html?msclkid=636358fec7aa11ec9bfeae1a59b33b5d

I think I might just pop over to the Duchess of Wessex thread to talk about frocks and shoes. ?

?

Career in STEM, low empathy... Next thing volver you'll tell us you self-identify as male, I can see all the signs...

I'm afraid that also relies on a complete misunderstanding about how physics works, and relies on the old stereotype that its about learning the rules and regurgitating them. Ms B really doesn't understand physical sciences at all.

I have absolutely no idea whether that is so, but a current example on here would certainly lend credence to that theory.

Maybe you could explain that a bit more. Systematically maybe. My empathy quotient is low today.

I haven't listened to the speech made by Katharine Birbalsingh so I can't comment on what she said or did not say.

I would think training in cooking and budgeting an excellent idea, for everyone, plus a little instruction in carpentry and car maintenance, which I believe is delivered in many schools.

I find Educationalist a perfectly acceptable term.

In a later article Birbalsingh wrote: 'Perhaps it is because girls are more inclined to be empathetic while boys are more systematic (the reason why they do not pursue physics).
I have absolutely no idea whether that is so, but a current example on here would certainly lend credence to that theory.

Some girls and some boys may find maths for physics too difficult for a variety of reasons (such as limited ability or poor teaching) but her generalization about all girls is complete rubbish.

I was curious as well so I looked up the school. She doesn't exclude so apologies for my earlier selection. She does however select. But the biggest influence, and I do hope she will be telling the government how important this is, is the size of the school. She only has 840 children and her staff pupil ratio is 12to1. There is some evidence that smaller schools help the most disadvantaged and of course smaller classes do the same.
Her lack of success with girls and physics might also be to do with her teaching method. She favours learning by rote and regular testing which may not suit either the girl or the subject. If she was at all a good educationalist she would be looking at that.

Well thats all very creditable but she was appearing at a committee meeting about STEM, in her role as commissioner for social mobility, so what she said matters.

What I love about these threads is it makes me go away and do a bit of research before I form an opinion. Well I wouldn't have her as an expert on STEM or Social mobility, she doesn't do herself any favours and I strongly disagree with some of what she says. However, her schools results are there and actually if you judge the school by academic results, she's got something right. I read something about what the pupils thought and although her rules may seem draconian , they feel safe in the school. I wish it were the same for all pupils! I also like the focus on kindness and gratitude. The intake of pupils is interesting, 48% are disadvantaged, 30% are entitled to FSM, 14% SEN, 59% have English as a second language but 44% are above average at KS2 attainment. KS2 attainment is a lot higher than many state schools but nowhere near as high as the selective schools either in the state or private sector. You may not like the isolation of pupils who's parents have not paid for lunches, but it is part of the home school contract and at least the pupils get something to eat, unlike those schools that have canteen type facilities and it doesn't seem to be the "blunt" tool as described by the media (is it ever?) I can see why parents would want to send their children to a school like this, it sounds a hell of a lot better than some schools.

volver

Joseanne you could tell them how unnatural they are.

They should probably be learning how to cook from scratch and do household budgeting. That's only "natural", doncha know?!

Joseanne

^If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?^
I have not once in this dicussion queried the research or disgreed. In fact over the last 50 years I myself have been part of a national child development study where we have all regularly taken NFER type mathematical tests. I am fully aware that the results showed that girls performed better in Maths and Science.
I am talking about the constant desire to not see good in an energetic and inspiring educationalist just because. Same old story.

An educationalist? What a quaint term! What's the same old story?

You have no idea what I think of her methodology at Michaela, but she wan't representing her school at the Standing Committee meeting. She had been called as an alleged "expert" on girls and STEM subjects.

volver

Even if "they" meant her own pupils, she was then asked why the girls avoided physics but not boys. She said it was natural that girls found maths hard, and there was research that showed that.

I'm still speechless.

I wasn't very clear. The "they" in her interview were the people who said girls find maths hard.

Joseanne you could tell them how unnatural they are.

What, just because she is completely wrong about the thing that has defined my working life, but won't admit it?

This has nothing to do with her as an educationalist. She may run a fine school, I don't know. But I'll say this again; she knows nothing about STEM.

Sorry. I'm off out the door now for my first lesson at 9.35 am. I will try to refrain from telling my girl pupils that Maths is a national disease.

If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?
I have not once in this dicussion queried the research or disgreed. In fact over the last 50 years I myself have been part of a national child development study where we have all regularly taken NFER type mathematical tests. I am fully aware that the results showed that girls performed better in Maths and Science.
I am talking about the constant desire to not see good in an energetic and inspiring educationalist just because. Same old story.

Even if "they" meant her own pupils, she was then asked why the girls avoided physics but not boys. She said it was natural that girls found maths hard, and there was research that showed that.

I'm still speechless.

volver

Just to be clear, this is like saying girls are better at hoovering than boys, that it's a natural thing. It's that bad.

She said there was research to show girls find maths hard (there isn't) and that it was natural that the girls found maths hard, but not the boys.

If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?

She said "they", but never said who "they" are. She might as well have been quoting a tabloid.

The original interview was an absolute disgrace. She's supposed to be working as Commissioner for six days a week and had been called as an "expert", but it appeared she hadn't prepared or researched anything.

Or Marić Einstein.

Just to be clear, this is like saying girls are better at hoovering than boys, that it's a natural thing. It's that bad.

She said there was research to show girls find maths hard (there isn't) and that it was natural that the girls found maths hard, but not the boys.

If you don't find that weird, where have you been for 50 years?

Marie Curie was even earlier.

volver

She has not apologised, she has told everyone they misunderstood her.

And she said girls didn't fancy Physics because of the hard maths. Not the boys. Just the girls. Which she obviously still thinks is true. Maybe her school is lovely, I have no idea. But when it comes to STEM, she's living in the fifties.

Rosalind Franklin lived in the fifties. I wonder if anybody told her that maths was hard.