Re: Article about gender disparity in academic competition, with Bonus Flame!!

pakman044 <*pakman044_at_pakman044.yahoo.invalid*> · Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:52:02 -0000

For some reason, when I was in high school, the boys in general were 
more likely to persist and return to quiz bowl meetings rather than 
the girls, and in general it was easier to recruit them.  We *did* 
have several girls on our team, but those were mainly ones who were 
already established at other forms of academic competition at school 
(mainly Science Olympiad).

This year, when I started recruiting for a team at NC State 
(although it wasn't very *good* recruiting), the majority were boys 
and when it came down to it, the persistence was also fairly bad--
only one girl is what I would consider "active" in attendance right 
now (the rest basically showed up to one or two meetings and then 
never came back).

I don't know why this is.  It is possible that there could be some 
external factors affecting this, or it could be possible that since 
I am a white male, it is more difficult for me to reach out to other 
people.

At tournaments (at least high school; have not yet been to the 
college variety yet), most competitors were boys and most captains 
were also boys.  The theories about timidity and similar things are 
possible, but from a talent level, most girls and boys are on 
similar overall levels and could compete if someone actually was 
good enough at motivation.  So I think that the problem is more 
local in nature that while it shows up as a national trend, it won't 
be solved nationally.

A factor at the college level could be that many teams are still 
emerging, and are focussed mainly on the issues a) getting *anyone* 
to come to practice and b) getting *anyone* to come to tournaments.  
I know those are issues *I* have to deal with.

Patrick King

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, theblasmo <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> The disparity seems to exist only at the university level. Having 
> played on the junior/community college level, I can tell you that 
at 
> least half of the players were women, and the same numbers could 
be 
> applied to the teams at our last high school tourney. I'd say that 
> the explanations that usually crop up during these discussions -- 
> men are more aggressive, more into trivia, etc. -- are the same 
ones 
> that are used to describe the instincts of the better players, 
> regardless of gender. I've had the great pleasure of playing on 
> squads with some of the best women who've ever played the game: 
> Emily Moore (easily one of the best players to pick up a buzzer, 
> period), Sarah Cooper, and my wife included. It's perfectly 
> legitimate to admit that there are certain differences between men 
> and women and their approaches to certain situations, but in most 
> cases, those differences are less instinctual than societal. The 
> media, politicians, and especially those chowderheads behind the 
> new "macho s**thead" movement behind Maxim, Spike TV, and Carl's 
Jr. 
> (don't bother me..I'm not thinking...)tend to push the ideas that 
> men are more aggressive and women more passive, and some people 
> follow those roles, either without thinking about the possibility 
of 
> there being another way to act, never being told there is one, or 
> never figuring it out for her/himself. I'd say the disparity might 
> be more regional, in that more progressive parts of the country 
> might not follow the stats, but besides the fact that universities 
> are supposed to more progressive, and therefore, less likely to 
> follow regional habits, I'd like to think people are just a h**l 
of 
> a lot smarter than we give them credit. Except for Weiner's 
comment 
> about CBI, which makes him a misogynist by proxy, and is pretty 
much 
> the sort of thing we'd expect him to say. Especially since it's 
> probably a joke to him. The irony is that CBI is probably one of 
the 
> most progressive of the formats, at least in terms of population 
and 
> politics. Not that the others aren't, mind you, I'm not saying 
that 
> all. But CBI has always gone out of its way to put forth a 
> progressive "agenda" if you will, in terms of race, gender, and 
> orientation. So, far from being misogynists, those of us who play 
> CBI would seem to be more open-minded than others, if we follow 
> Matt's humorous vein. Sure, you can bash CBI for its format and 
> question distribution, but try to tie that to politics, even for a 
> laugh, and you fall flat on your face. All apologies.
> David Murphy
> University of Oklahoma