Another strike against the tendency to see cultural predilections of the moment as direct reflections of underlying genetically-determined features of human nature. For years, everything related to computers has been a predominantly male domain. But the New York Times reports on a dramatic shift: these days, young girls are much more likely to be creating original Web content than young boys.
Indeed, a study published in December by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that among Web users ages 12 to 17, significantly more girls than boys blog (35 percent of girls compared with 20 percent of boys) and create or work on their own Web pages (32 percent of girls compared with 22 percent of boys).
Girls also eclipse boys when it comes to building or working on Web sites for other people and creating profiles on social networking sites (70 percent of girls 15 to 17 have one, versus 57 percent of boys 15 to 17). Video posting was the sole area in which boys outdid girls: boys are almost twice as likely as girls to post video files.
The explanation offered for boys’ dominance in the video-posting category was that this was the best way to brag about one’s skateboarding prowess, although evidence for that hypothesis seems to be largely anecdotal.
Note that this phenomenon should not be taken as evidence that women are genetically predisposed to make Web pages (or to blog) — although, as you might expect, there is no shortage of just-so explanations bandied about. But it’s great that the internet has lowered the considerable barrier to young girls becoming interested in computers, and we can hope that some of them get inspired to continue onto technical careers.
“There was a study mentioned on NGC channel’s “My brillaint brain”, in which babies were taught to play certain intelectually challenging games. The study showed that when they had grown up they did on average much better in school.”
This is mildly interesting but I’d have to see a lot more evidence to be convinced. I suspect what we may have here is much like the claims that playing Mozart to your baby will make it smarter (or at least a musical genius).
Was there, for example, a control population, that was also treated specially, but just not given “intellectually challenging games”. ie was the effect perhaps just the result of extra TLC in childhood? Or was it a selection effect, ie parents who are willing to enroll in and then sustain having there children in these sorts of programs probably have children that are going to do better than average anyway through either genetics or home culture.
One has to be really careful with these sorts of studies because what one finds is often really subtle. For example (properly done) studies have shown that yes, children from English speaking homes, if exposed to Mandarin Chinese when young, will find it easier to learn the language as they grow older. BUT, and who would have guessed it, certainly not me, the exposure has to be in HUMAN form, ie caregivers chattering to the kids, making faces and so on. Just hearing the language in the background, or even watching TV with various types of Mandarin content has a statistically insignificant effect.
Unfortunately education seems to be a field that is massively driven by what people believe HAS to be true, and more so than most fields (for obvious reasons) has a wide gap between the “consumers” of education (the kids), and those that pay for it (partially parents, mostly the state), so it is especially susceptible to “research” showing that whatever ails kids, the answer is to buy my product or hire my consultancy.
There’s precious little good research done in education, and that which is done is then buried when it turns up results people don’t want to hear (vide the lack of widespread adoption of directed learning in spite of the substantial evidence that, for the class of students for which it is intended, it works better than anything else currently known.)
Whatever the original article intends to convey, it’s a great news for online predators.
“And another thing is the fact that almost no math is taught to 12 to 18 year olds. There is no good excuse for that at all.”
What about algebra, trig, and (sometimes) calculus?
Theres like a ridiculous lull period somewhere between the age of 9-13 in mathematics in the US, where more or less the entire curriculum could be condensed into a one year course. Theres no added difficulty really, its just more memorization (and we know kids can do that). Thats where the majority of serious students have the opportunity to start skipping grades/classes (I skipped some when I was younger, but could have again somewhere around there). Their are societal issues with kids skipping grades though, so i’d just assume everyone did it… Moreover, other countries do it with great results.
Its no coincidence one summer at say a math/physics/computer camp can put people like 3 years ahead of everyone else.
Allyson said: But they’re producing more television programs than ever before, and running more television studios.
That only proves my point that women like interacting more with people, men like interacting more with things. And putting content online is about artistic expression, it just uses a new (albeit technological) medium. Women have always been doing that. The point here is that there is no indicator that women are going to flood science or engineering jobs any time soon.
It’s not that they’re aren’t smart enough or that they think differently. Hell, we could use more women in science and engineering. It’s just that they have different interests.
Maynard, I agree that more rigorous tests have to be performed. However, one can just try to teach math, physics etc. to kids and see what the results are. Today we don’t do that at all.
Haelfix, that’s my experience too. In primary school you learn arithmetic and after spending a few years there you have mastered it. My father taught me some math when I was 10 years old. By age 12 I had mastered calculus. I could set up differential equations and solve them.
Thought experiment. Suppose you randomly select 100 average children of age 12. You then offer them $1000,000 if they pass graduate level exams on Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetism and General Relativity at age 18. They will get all the necessary tutoring for free. How many will win the prize? 🙂
Hey, tstr, wrt control statements being so essential to coding, maybe control statements are overrated. Rule-based systems aren’t just recursion-friendly, they’re recursion-cuddly. I already have gobs of fun with XSLT (in its non-horribly procedural manifestation) and expect to be learning lots more things like it.
What about helping girls hack their Barbie dolls so that, instead of saying “Math is hard” they’ll say “Linear algebra is cool.”
Girls are taking to blogs: Doomsday is indeed near!
Sean,
I read this article and thought the first half was great. It even drew on the historical context of women in computers, but by the end I felt like the entire theme had shifted. Rather than talking about these smart, talented young women leading technology, the author basically decided that girls only do it so they can talk more (because girls like to talk, you know). As a woman physicist (and lover of technology) I get annoyed at these kind of articles because there is this unspoken assumption that things related to technology are somehow unfeminine! I ranted about it here just a little. It felt like the author had to justify why these young women were attracted to technology by tying it to a gender stereotype – though I must say that a lot of my male colleagues talk MUCH more than I do.