For years, the SAT has been used not only as a test to determine aptitude and predict future college performance but as a measurement of strength in certain subject areas for graduating youth all across the country. The scores have been cited in everything from incoming class statistics to comparisons of preparedness by location and their interpretations can have very real impacts. SAT scores are, in theory, meant to be unbaised and comprehensive representation of someone's preparation for college and general ability level in certain subject areas. By that definition, their use in college applications seems logical; the strongest students would have the highest scores.
However, more and more is proving that is not the case for anyone except for one very specific group--wealthy, white men. Research into scores shows direct relationships between class and scores (with poverty acting as a major score depressor). And math scores have long been host of a large gap-- a gap in the scores between young men and women, with men consistently receiving higher scores than women. This gap in scores between men and women is frequently attributed to a "natural weakness" women have in math, and is used--consciously or not--as fodder for discouraging women to pursue careers in mathematics or other math-heavy areas, like physics or engineering. But as is the case with so many other SAT score discrepancies, the driving forces behind these 30-or-so points are far more complex than "natural intelligence."
Philippa Fawcett, the first woman to receive the top score for the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos exam, would beg to differ. (PD-US)
The current research suggests the largest contributing factor to the math score gap is a phenomenon known as "stereotype threat," defined by Spencer, Steele and Quinn as the risk women face, when doing math, of being judged by the stereotype that women are "naturally" weak at mathematical ability. The stereotype that women are bad at math saturates pop culture as well as the academic world, and it has been the subject of hundreds (if not thousands) of papers published by everyone from psychologists to political think tanks. When women are taking standardized math tests, or simply taking classes that involve a high level of mathematics (i.e. math, physics, or chemistry) where they are outnumbered by men, they underperform in comparison to their actual ability because the pressure of "not living up to the stereotype" can interfere with their performance.
Evidence that supports this idea comes in many different forms. An intriguing study shows that girls in classes taught by teachers with math anxiety perform less well than girls in other classes. Many studies show that places with more gender-equal societies have either diminished or a complete lack of a gender gap in math scores. And girls consistently outperform boys in math classrooms. And perhaps far more powerful is the idea that math is an inherent "ability," rather than a skill that is learned through practice and hard work over time. How many times have you heard someone lament that they "just aren't a math person"?
Gifted mathematician and the founder of scientific computing Ada Lovelace would also beg to differ with your stereotypes.
Ultimately, all the studies and think pieces and comparisons point to roughly the same conclusion: In order to change the reality of women underperforming on standardized tests (which can contribute, in no small way, to women choosing to not pursue work in STEM fields) we need to actively combat the negative stereotypes surrounding mathematics and women. Math is a skill, not an innate ability--and anyone and everyone can learn it. Women can, have, and will done great things with mathematics, and as a society we need to stop putting math on a pedestal that only white men are deemed capable of reaching.
