Gender Differences In Math Ability Just Don’t Add Up

The phrase “Girls in STEM” has become a common one, with the aim to promote and support girls as young as early elementary school to be exposed to the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. While at first glance this seems like a commendable endeavor, the implicit, or perhaps explicit, bias here is clear: Girls are weaker, less accomplished, less comfortable, and/or less facile in these areas than are boys. Let’s give them a safe, nurturing environment to boost their abilities, so that by the time they hit late adolescence, they’re ready to enter the “STEM” fields with the powerhouses: boys. The gender gap in STEM fields is closing, yet remains wide. But is the act of creating yet another barrier around the less represented gender the best way to close the gap?

In 1992, a time which for many of us seems not that long ago, well before “Girls in STEM” was an entity, the Mattel toy company released Teen Talk Barbie. Aimed at the pre-teen market, each doll was randomly programmed to speak four unique phrases, including such mundanities as “Meet me at the mall!” “Do you have a crush on anyone?” or “I love to shop, don’t you?” One phrase of the over 200 possibilities was “Math class is hard!” Despite that fact that most of the Barbie phrases would nowadays strike a pretty sexist tone, the math one brought in more controversy than those focusing on shopping and crushes, the latter of which clearly implied a crush on a boy, not on another girl. The original commercial didn’t air the math quip, but is quite gender-biased on so many other levels:

A 2010 study reviewed over 240 research articles assessing mathematical skills in over 1.2 million people in multiple countries between elementary school and college. While math achievement levels were essentially the same between genders, the difference in attitude towards math was strikingly in favor of boys over girls. The study authors attributed much of this discrepancy to stereotype bias on the part of parents and teachers. This may start as early as ages five or six years, with subtle and not-so-subtle suggestions that math is hard for girls, and math is easy for boys. The flip-side, not in this study, but perhaps equally as biased, is that boys are weak in reading and English. As recently as this year, the phrase “reluctant reader” is oftentimes targeted at boys, and books to encourage said “reluctant readers” are often stereotyped “boy” books. Talk about implicit bias. It really does go both ways, and neither way is good.

We can now look beyond achievement scores, math grades, and levels of mathematical achievement, and enter the brain. A recent study at Carnegie Mellon University assessed whether or not gender differences exist on a functional level when it comes to math. Functional MRI (fMRI) is a radiologic technique that can see brain function in real time, as opposed to simply scans of brain images using standard MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). The study enrolled just over a hundred 3- to 10-year-olds, half girls and half boys. The first part involved showing the children an educational math video, and there was found to be no difference between genders in how the brain processed the information. In addition, the researchers administered a standardized math test to the study subjects, and also found no difference between genders. They concluded that societal factors attribute to math differentiation; not innate variations in abilities or cognition.

The question remains, does enhancing a discriminated group’s exposure to a certain area encourage productivity and confidence, or does it only serve as fodder for continued discrimination? In his 2007 opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote,”The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Some found this extremely racist, as the dire need for underrepresented minorities in so many facets of education and the workforce must be met with much-needed support systems. Some found his statement wise, as the act of differentiating, even in a positive sense, is, in and of itself, racist. While this is a gross oversimplification of a much larger issue, gender discrimination falls prey to many of the same biases. Perhaps one day there will simply be “STEM Clubs,” whereby gender denomination is not needed as a descriptor. The focus can then be on STEM, not on gender.