> Another, to me reasonable, explanation for the results is that teacher's grading includes potential, based on their experience. It's hard to know, and would be very hard to ethically test.
Before discussing this, I'd like to make sure I don't strawman the point you're trying to make: the only way I can interpret this, as of now, is that you think it's "reasonable" to believe that girls inherently have more potential than boys. And, even disregarding that, that it would be reasonable to grade based on "potential" than on actual performance.
I ask to make sure because there's no way I got that right. Mind you, some groups of people say stuff like that in earnest so I'm not sure if this is an instance of that or, I hope, I misinterpreted.
My personal belief (which does not yet have enough evidence) is that boys have a greater variation, and indeed in general society encourages girls -- but this particular paper overclaims (while providing interesting evidence).
It could be one gender does have greater mental potential -- certainly one has greater physical potential, but the gap is much smaller and certainly not yet decided.
So I guess my interpretation wasn't that far off then. You actually were suggesting that girls had more potential.
Well, since you also make clear that you believe such a thing only because you choose to and without evidence, I guess there's really no point in discussing it. All I can say is that I disagree, entirely, and this article (and many others with similar findings) are more than enough reason why.
I don't see how you could read that from my reply. I don't think girls we can know if girls have more potential "independently of the world around them".
It is true girls currently, on average, do significantly better at exams at many levels, in particular to get into University (at least, in the UK). Why is open to debate.
Tests are not run for fun - they are ultimately there to measure the potential for achievement in workplaces/academic research, and to prioritize scarce university spots (and eventually jobs) based on this imputed expected potential.
Before discussing this, I'd like to make sure I don't strawman the point you're trying to make: the only way I can interpret this, as of now, is that you think it's "reasonable" to believe that girls inherently have more potential than boys. And, even disregarding that, that it would be reasonable to grade based on "potential" than on actual performance.
I ask to make sure because there's no way I got that right. Mind you, some groups of people say stuff like that in earnest so I'm not sure if this is an instance of that or, I hope, I misinterpreted.