ChatterBank1 min ago
A-level sexism
13 Answers
I see that for the umpteenth year running girls have more/better a-level grades than boys. Which means, in turn, that girls will be more likely than boys to get into university.
This seems to be sex discrimination to me, broadly similar to the issue of there not being enough women MPs.
So, should we consider:
Universities have targets, to ensure that 50% of their intake are male.
The pass grades be adjusted so as to ensure (overall) equal grades for both sexes.
A proportion of 'male-only places' be allocated per university course.
This seems to be sex discrimination to me, broadly similar to the issue of there not being enough women MPs.
So, should we consider:
Universities have targets, to ensure that 50% of their intake are male.
The pass grades be adjusted so as to ensure (overall) equal grades for both sexes.
A proportion of 'male-only places' be allocated per university course.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Catso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
How is it discrimination when they are not marked according to gender? Why should males be given special consideration and awarded places despite performing worse in exams than females? The issue is really how to motivate teenage boys to work harder for these exams rather than to reward them whether they work or not
-- answer removed --
Well, I'll offer another comparison then.
In order to increase the number of successful female applicants for the Fire and Police Services, the physical entry requirements are different between the sexes.
Suzyboo, these examinations aren't judged by gender, but by performance. IE while undergoing the tests, it is irrelevent what sex the applicant is (OK, I may be simplifying here). The selection is made afterwards, when the bias is introduced by altering the 'pass mark', depending upon the sex of the applicant. Why should females be given special consideration and awarded the jobs despite performaing worse than the males? Why do we not just say 'well females must work (IE train) harder to pass these tests' instead of altering the pass requirements?
In a pickle: why not say 'well, it would be better if bigger, fitter aspirants gained places in the police/fire services; if the women can't hack it - tough, we won't take them'? Why tinker with the selection criteria, just to get more female officers? Why isn't tinkering with the selection requirements causing the promised chaos?
MP's do have to pass 'exams', but not admittedly formal tests of knowledge. They have to be selected by the local party activists - this is a form of testing. You've missed the point that without 'tinkering with' the selection process the overwhelming number of newly selected candidates would be male. The process is (sometimes) rigged (for want of a better word) to favour female candidates.
chazza's seems the most logical and thought-through reply so far.
It seems to to me we should be taking positive steps to ensure more males succeed in their attempts to gain educational qualifications and to enter university.
In order to increase the number of successful female applicants for the Fire and Police Services, the physical entry requirements are different between the sexes.
Suzyboo, these examinations aren't judged by gender, but by performance. IE while undergoing the tests, it is irrelevent what sex the applicant is (OK, I may be simplifying here). The selection is made afterwards, when the bias is introduced by altering the 'pass mark', depending upon the sex of the applicant. Why should females be given special consideration and awarded the jobs despite performaing worse than the males? Why do we not just say 'well females must work (IE train) harder to pass these tests' instead of altering the pass requirements?
In a pickle: why not say 'well, it would be better if bigger, fitter aspirants gained places in the police/fire services; if the women can't hack it - tough, we won't take them'? Why tinker with the selection criteria, just to get more female officers? Why isn't tinkering with the selection requirements causing the promised chaos?
MP's do have to pass 'exams', but not admittedly formal tests of knowledge. They have to be selected by the local party activists - this is a form of testing. You've missed the point that without 'tinkering with' the selection process the overwhelming number of newly selected candidates would be male. The process is (sometimes) rigged (for want of a better word) to favour female candidates.
chazza's seems the most logical and thought-through reply so far.
It seems to to me we should be taking positive steps to ensure more males succeed in their attempts to gain educational qualifications and to enter university.
Hey Catso,
There was never a problem before girls started out-classing boys educationally. Yet now this has happened, there are 'shock horror' stories in the media about how this can be addressed.
If boys want to overtake girls in the exam stakes, they should put their noses to the grindstone and do what us girls had to do - work hard!
There was never a problem before girls started out-classing boys educationally. Yet now this has happened, there are 'shock horror' stories in the media about how this can be addressed.
If boys want to overtake girls in the exam stakes, they should put their noses to the grindstone and do what us girls had to do - work hard!
-- answer removed --
there is a clear physical difference between men and women, men are generally stronger, and marking structures must reflect this - you cannot alter nature, but you can work around it, and acknowledge physical capabilities and limits.
with any job, there will always be various aspects that men perform better with, and equally many things that women do better - thats not to say both cannot do all the things the other can do - they will just do them differently.
however, with the brain/mind there is no physical or mental difference - so the reason boys don't do as well as girls is sheer lack of ability and lazyness - so there is no reason to adjust the marking procedures.
perhaps it is because generally women have to try harder in life in order to succeed in this world - and it shows.
with any job, there will always be various aspects that men perform better with, and equally many things that women do better - thats not to say both cannot do all the things the other can do - they will just do them differently.
however, with the brain/mind there is no physical or mental difference - so the reason boys don't do as well as girls is sheer lack of ability and lazyness - so there is no reason to adjust the marking procedures.
perhaps it is because generally women have to try harder in life in order to succeed in this world - and it shows.
The A-level results either show that there is a difference in intelligence or that the way the a-levels are taught and/or examined results in indirect discrimination against boys.
If neither of the above were true, then the results would match (well, at least be a lot closer than they are).
I don't believe the former, so the cause must be the latter.
And zacsmaster, how do you think a prospective fireman/policeman/mp feels when, although they have performed better and/or are more suitable for the role, lose out to a female candidate, who only triumphed because they were female?
If neither of the above were true, then the results would match (well, at least be a lot closer than they are).
I don't believe the former, so the cause must be the latter.
And zacsmaster, how do you think a prospective fireman/policeman/mp feels when, although they have performed better and/or are more suitable for the role, lose out to a female candidate, who only triumphed because they were female?
1 to 13 of 13
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.