I'm digesting the latest copy of the Social Report, the government's annual statistical monitoring of social performance, and there were some interesting statistics which grabbed my attention. Over the weekend, the Sunday Star-Times had a feature on the new gender imbalance at universities, which began with the line
Young women, not content with outshining the boys at secondary school, are now stealing a march on them at universities and polytechs.
DPF has a compilation of the headline statistics here.
In right-wing circles, its traditional to blame this on the new, "feminised", PC education system - and in particular on NCEA. But I'm not sure how well that explanation fits with this graph, on gender-differences in school-leaving performance:
As can clearly be seen, differential performance at secondary school is nothing new; girls have been outperforming boys as far back as records began - and under the "manly" system of external, one-off examinations to boot. So its clearly not NCEA which is at fault. Likewise, I'm not sure how relevant complains about modern "feminised", "PC" education are, when the differential success is pronounced as far back as 1990.
Secondly, the SST's core story - that there are more women than men at university - isn't even new. As the figure below shows, there have been more women than men in tertiary education in every age-group except 15-17 year olds since 1996 (and looking back through past editions, its since 1994). The gap has been consistently widening, just as it has been in secondary school performance, but its been there all along.
So what story are these statistics telling? Clearly, I'd like to see more data, both going further back, to see when these trends started, but also around things like gender differences in school leaving rates, because I suspect the latter is likely to be quite important. There's probably an aspect of natural aptitude in the school stats (as numerous educationalists have pointed out, girls work at school while boys dick around - so of course they do better), which naturally carries on to greater tertiary participation. But I think there's also been a clear change of expectations. Firstly, we are now in an age of mass tertiary education, in which people with the grades are expected to continue on to university. And secondly, there have been changes in expectations around women and work, to the extent that any discouragement in attending tertiary education of pursuing a career which requires it has mostly passed. If a greater proportion of girls are getting the grades which translate into an expectation of university attendance, then that would explain the current gap. Though again, we'd need more statistics to nail this down (anyone have anything relevant here?)
What we are clearly seeing though is the death of unearned male privilege in tertiary education, which should eventually mean the death of unearned male privilege in careers. And that I think is something we should welcome.
13 comments:
One thing that does bear investigation and I'm sure ties in is the trend over the same period away from trades education to university-based education. When apprenticeship schemes were largely abandoned, schools saw little value in investing in woodwork, metalwork shops etc and moved into a computer-based view of technology. Some boys will have flourished in the new environment, but for a large number who are kinesthetic learners, this would've been a big barrier. Instead of persuing a trades-based practical qualification they went to university and did poorly there. It's well past time we reestablished the position of trades education relative to academic schooling, and boys will enjoy the biggest gains from it.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/08/2006 03:00:00 PM
I don't know that increased female partcipation in Universities is the death of male privilege. I believe, though have no statistics to hand, that the majority in doctors in the former Soviet Union countries are women. Curiously doctoring there is a relatively low status and poorly paid occupation.
Posted by Amanda : 8/08/2006 03:29:00 PM
It is often alleged that the improvement in girls’ performance at school has come at the expense of boys. In fact the data that you have presented (along with a wide range of earlier education data) confirms that boys and girls have both improved their educational outcomes. While girls have widened the qualification gap over boys they have not done it at the expense of boys – the table you shows indicates the percentage of boys getting NCEA level 1 or equivalent improving from mid 40s to mid 60s over 20 years – nearly a 50% growth. If it were not for the comparison with girls everybody would be lauding New Zealand’s education system for achieving that learning outcome for boys…
Posted by Anonymous : 8/08/2006 03:39:00 PM
MTNW: I'm more thinking that that is an outcome - and driven by meritocracy at work.
Though the status angle can't be discounted, and its interesting to see the tone in DPF's comments to denigrate university study and attempt to lower its status, now that women are achieving equality there.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/08/2006 04:09:00 PM
"Though the status angle can't be discounted, and its interesting to see the tone in DPF's comments to denigrate university study and attempt to lower its status, now that women are achieving equality there."
That a long bow to draw, I/S.. I'd say you're the one making being sexist in assuming a correlation that doesn't exist. They aren't denigrating university study *because* females are achieving.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/08/2006 07:03:00 PM
Huskynut: I recognise status games when I see them, and it certainly smells that way to me. But YMMV.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/09/2006 01:55:00 AM
I was at the Act Northern Regional Conference the other week and Dr Paul Baker, the Rector from Waiaki Boys High, spoke on the same issue and presented roughly the same stats. Personally I can't see the big deal in this. If more women are graduating than men, so what! If women are doing better than men, so what! At face value it means very little. What needs to be emphasised is the implications these types of statistics have on the country and our next 50 years. I haven't given a lot of thought to that but I can see that if there are more women than men in high paying jobs then that may mean a decreasing birth rate (as women choose careers ahead of children) which will afect the tax base, hence more migrants etc. This is the kind of research needed. Not just statistics.
Posted by Gooner : 8/09/2006 09:55:00 PM
Gooner: I'd respond to your point abour more women choosing careers instead of children with another "so what"? It's up to them - not the state.
But clearly, I'm some form of life-hating nihlist, to think that government has no business at all in intensely personal decisions such as what sort of family you want.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/09/2006 11:36:00 PM
Here you go, I/S:
On secondary school retention rates:
"Historically, young women have been less likely than young men to remain in secondary school to the senior level, but today the opposite is true. Girls have been more likely than boys to remain at school to Form Six since 1974, and more likely than boys to go on to Form Seven since 1988 (Figure 3.3)."
...
"The upward trend of female participation in the senior school has been matched by an increase in the proportion of female students leaving school with at least some recognised school qualification... Females have been more likely than males to leave school with a qualification since 1968."
"The number of students enrolled at university increased almost four-fold for women and by 70 percent for men between 1971 and 1991. Among all those enrolled at universities, women have outnumbered men since 1986."
Statistics New Zealand (1993), All About Women in New Zealand, pp59,61, 69, 70.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/11/2006 10:45:00 PM
Helpful: thanks. So that's probably the reason for the persistant gap right there - girls bother to stick around to get qualified.
I wonder how wide that gap is in seventh form now?
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/12/2006 12:29:00 AM
I/S: This is the best source of information on recent trends in secondary school retention, including gender differences and an international comparison. Lots more useful stuff on that site.
http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/indicators/engagement/simu20.html
Posted by Anonymous : 8/12/2006 09:16:00 AM
"Gooner: I'd respond to your point abour more women choosing careers instead of children with another "so what"? It's up to them - not the state.
But clearly, I'm some form of life-hating nihlist, to think that government has no business at all in intensely personal decisions such as what sort of family you want."
I/S: I think you got me wrong. I wasn't criticising your statistics or your post.
And where you conclude thus:
"Though again, we'd need more statistics to nail this down (anyone have anything relevant here?) What we are clearly seeing though is the death of unearned male privilege in tertiary education, which should eventually mean the death of unearned male privilege in careers. And that I think is something we should welcome."
I agree!
Posted by Gooner : 8/15/2006 09:39:00 PM
Gooner: the crack about being a life-hating nihlist was aimed at other commenters, not you.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/15/2006 11:24:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).