# Equal efforts = unequal salaries... Wtf?! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2007, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-efforts-unequal-salaries-wtf/394863 "2007-03-06T22:04:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2007, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-efforts-unequal-salaries-wtf/394863/61 "2007-03-08T18:16:40Z")
Didn’t the president of Harvard or something get into big trouble with the PC crowd for saying that (on average) women do less well than men in math? > [@](#): > > There’s also a correlation with a lack of interest that may or may not be tied to math and spatial relationship skills. It’s hard to stick with something you aren’t good at, especially in a class full of people who _are_ good at it. To a certain extent, it is true that some of the disparity in math between men and women is part of nuture (as Barbie said, “Math class is hard!”). But not all of it. And therefore even women who _are_ better than average at math are swimming against the current of expectations - in many cases, entirely correct expectations. Which makes it even harder. Another factor is that women work more hours inside the home, and fewer hours outside it. For men, it is vice versa. Which can be seen as [ul][li]men oppressing women by neglecting their duties of equality at home, and neglecting their families by spending all their time clawing their way to the top, [\*]men oppressing women by preventing them from doing the same.[/ul][/li]Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-efforts-unequal-salaries-wtf/394863/62 "2007-03-09T08:31:06Z")
No time to find cites, but I believe it is well documents that girls’ performance and interest in math goes down like clockwork around puberty. The theory is that is because of social pressures and expectations, not because innate ability. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-efforts-unequal-salaries-wtf/394863/63 "2007-03-09T09:58:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Didn’t the president of Harvard or something get into big trouble with the PC crowd for saying that (on average) women do less well than men in math? [Larry Summers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers). But as the link explains, even with a small difference in averages, it’s the lesser variance of women from the mean that’s the killer when it comes to seeing women in top-end mathematical positions. Incidentally, as to the difference in SAT scores, [this](http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm) author claims to have done some figure-work. The difference in verbal aptitide is small - the difference in math, rather more marked. (Column 324. Also see column 265 for another mention of the Harvard business). [QUOTE=even sven] No time to find cites, but I believe it is well document{ed} that girls’ performance and interest in math goes down like clockwork around puberty. The theory is that is because of social pressures and expectations, not because innate ability. [/QUOTE] Whose theory? Another hypothesis is that it _is_ down to innate ability, and the kind of math being taught pre-puberty isn’t all that hard and the marks for it reward quiet persistence, such as small girls are better at than small boys. The pre-teens classroom is not very small-boy friendly, largely because of social pressures and expectations that little boys will act like little girls, the ideal pupils for women teachers. Just thought I’d toss that in as a possibility. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-efforts-unequal-salaries-wtf/394863/64 "2007-03-09T13:46:49Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] [Larry Summers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers). But as the link explains, even with a small difference in averages, it’s the lesser variance of women from the mean that’s the killer when it comes to seeing women in top-end mathematical positions. [/quote] Yes, thanks. And your earlier point that men are over-represented at both ends of the curve is valid as well, of course. > [@](#): > > Whose theory? Another hypothesis is that it _is_ down to innate ability, and the kind of math being taught pre-puberty isn’t all that hard and the marks for it reward quiet persistence, such as small girls are better at than small boys. The pre-teens classroom is not very small-boy friendly, largely because of social pressures and expectations that little boys will act like little girls, the ideal pupils for women teachers. Or that boys develop spatial and motor skills [later than girls](http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-brain.htm) No doubt some of the differences in math achievement is due to nurture, but not all. And I bet a good deal of the pressure is due to observed difference which is innate. Women who are good at math have to work against the perception that many women are not good at math, because many women are not good at math. IYSWIM. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-efforts-unequal-salaries-wtf/394863.md?page=3)