I'm sorry I don't know what subject heading to use for this. We have at
least three different subjects being discussed under this heading, but I
still think they are all related, so I'll continue with the original subject
heading.
I would like to offer several responses to recent posts, plus a bit more
speculation.
(1) Thanks to Wes Davis (and some others who responded privately) for
confirming that females are responding to extra credit more than males. I
was pretty sure this was happening at more places than Bluffton, Ohio.
Wes expressed some surprise I was aware of this. There are some minor
reasons for this, and one major reason. The minor reasons are because I
have a son who just graduated from high school, I have a daughter who is
entering the ninth grade, my wife teaches fifth grade but has also taught in
grades 6,7,8, and most of my social friends are teachers and principals.
The major reason is... and this is important for high-school teachers to
realize... the trends you see (or set) in high school are going to be seen
by us in college just a few years later. You probably already knew that...
if you succumb to extra credit leading to grade inflation at the high school
level, then we are besieged with demands for the same at the college level.
So, when I started seeing an increase in requests for extra credit at the
college level, and mostly coming from females, I started quizzing my teacher
friends and also my son. The response from teachers was, "Oh yes, that's
been going on for several years now." The response from my son was, "Geez
dad, are you just now figuring that out?"
Hugh Haskell reported that rather than gender differences he was more likely
to see extra credit being completed by students who didn't need it because
they were already doing well in the course. I believe this observation is
also correct. I call these students "hurdle jumpers." At one time I think
there were as many male hurdle jumpers as females. But I think there are
now many more female hurdle jumpers than males.
(2) Another observation I am now stating for the first time is a connection
between extra-credit, females in science, and female athletes.
Opportunities for women athletes have grown by leaps and bounds in past
years. Although women still have minimal athletic opportunities beyond
college, the high-school and college opportunities are significant.
It will not be a surprise if I say the typical female high-school student is
a year or two more mature than the same-aged male. This alone can account
for better time management and better perspective on how to "succeed." But
the female athlete must be especially good at time management. She has
training, practice, and games... and if she can juggle all that and still
get good grades, she is going to earn a scholarship to college -- perhaps a
full ride. This year, the women's basketball team was state runner-up. The
women's soccer team made the state quarter-finals. Almost all the women on
both teams are "scholar athletes" and the seniors on both teams have HS GPA
of 3.95 or higher. Every senior on these teams got a full-ride or nearly
full-ride scholarship to college... the scholarships are primarily to play
basketball or soccer, but the academic performances were also significant
factors in getting the scholarships.
These female scholar-athletes did not take "fluff courses." They took math,
chemistry, and physics. They succeeded quite well because they did every
piece of extra credit and jumped every hurdle the teacher threw at them.
However, this does not always mean they learned what they should have
learned, and this does not mean they have any real appreciation for the
subject in terms of what it might be like to be a scientist or
mathematician, etc.
The star of the soccer team was so "successful" in chemistry that when she
accepted a full-ride scholarship to college, she stated she would be a
chemistry major. That brought the appropriate oohs and ahs, but since she
is a friend of my family it also sent her to see me to find out "what is
chemistry like, and what will I do in college as a chemistry major, and what
will I do in life as a chemist." At this point she has come to the
realization that she probably really hates chemistry and there is no way she
wants to be a chemist. The idea she would have to take more math and more
physics and at least one chemistry course per semester while she is in
college does not interest her at all. The idea of spending her life doing
research in a lab sounds "boring to the max." As I tried to help her decide
what she likes and what she is good at she finally said, "I am good at
soccer and I really like soccer, but I really have no idea what academic
area I like. In fact, I am not even sure what academic areas I am good at."
Of course realizing this before she gets to college shows an incredible
amount of maturity. But that does not compensate for the fact that high
school did not give her the opportunity to discover her academic talents.
The academic lesson she learned was "jump the hurdles and you can get good
grades and lots of praise."
(3) Although point (2) stressed the female athlete, there are other driven
females in high school who also learn they can have "success and praise" by
jumping all the hurdles. Some men are also driven this way, but right now
not so much. Unfortunately I am not sure what is driving males right now.
In many ways the bulk of HS males seem depressed. Anyway, I think this is
why we see many more females doing well in high school science than males.
(3a) We currently structure the courses to match the academic style of the
female student; (3b) They get a fair amount of praise for doing so well in
disciplines that have traditionally been male-dominated; (3c) They can get
good scholarships at colleges for this performance, especially if they are
scholar-athletes. It is not surprising that "females rule" and "boys are
dumb" phrases are common. Perhaps this is why I detect males are depressed.
(4) However... as pointed out by John Denker... now we have to ask "where
have all the girls gone?" Why aren't we seeing a swell of females entering
the science professions if we are seeing a swell of females doing well in HS
science?
I believe I have already explained that with my soccer-player example. Many
female scholars did well in high-school science for the wrong reasons.
Although some of them truly love science and choose it as a career, most of
them find they do not like science. This might partly happen because they
find college and jobs do not necessarily get packaged into nice "extra
credit" parcels. Or, for that reason and more, they might not succeed as
well in science after they leave high school. But I think they mostly just
don't like it. They liked it in high school because they did well and got
lot's of pats-on-the-back. When the work gets harder and the
pats-on-the-back get fewer, they seek other careers.
Please note this is not intended to be "put down" of females in science.
There are plenty of males who have the very same thing happen to them. And
be sure to realize I don't blame females for this predicament. I also don't
blame HS teachers because we know what kinds of pressures they are under. I
do think there are things HS teachers can do to help alleviate the problem,
and avoiding extra credit is one of them. If it is true that "hurdle
jumping" helps grades, but probably causes more harm than good, we need to
avoid the promotion of hurdle-jumping whenever we can. Rewarding
hurdle-jumping does not give students a true feel of the academic
disciplines, and it won't even give them a core academic preparation in the
field unless the hurdles are chosen very carefully. Again, this is not only
true for females, but also males. But it is my premise that HS females are
more susceptible to this, and we do them a disservice if we pander to this
in our attempts to get females into science.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817