“It seems the real problem for men isn’t in higher education, but in secondary and primary education.”
I could suggest a number of reasons for why males seem to outperform females at the top levels of education, but underperform at the lower levels. Here are a few:1. The fact that higher education favours a different style of intelligence and learning from lower levels of education, privileging assertive, vocal, challenging, independent-minded, confident, combative, disputational, creative, and risk-taking thinkers, rather than thinkers who conform to set expectations and demands. These character traits are more common among males and, while often stifled or under-appreciated in lower levels of education come into their own at the highest levels of education.
2. The fact that most teachers at lower levels are female, while faculties in higher education are dominated by males.
3. The fact that primary and secondary education are typically non-competitive, egalitarian, conformist, inclusive, highly sensitive, communal, non-physical, quiet and sedentary, non-confrontational, affirming, and are test and grade-oriented. This doesn’t exactly play to boys’ strengths and tends to lead to the stigmatization of many male traits.
3. The fact that the male population has a greater level of variance than the female population. As a result, men are more likely to dominate at the top and at the bottom. In the lower levels of education, the greater level of male variance will lead to a greater number of boys failing. However, as the cream of the cream is only selected in the very highest levels, it is here that the other side of the greater male variance will come into its own.
4. The kicking in of the differences resulting from women’s motivations, choices, and self-investments in light of marriage, pregnancy, and child-rearing.
5. The lower motivation for women to assume the greater personal and professional costs and risks associated with pursuing a career in academia.
