insideMAN

“40 times more pictures of successful female than male students on results day”

by 24 Comments

There were 40 times more pictures of female students than male students receiving their A Level results on the morning of results day, according to the Guardian’s picture desk.

Writing on the Guardian’s live results day blog, Guardian picture editor Matt Fidler wrote:

“It’s 11.30 on the Guardian picture desk and so far we have only one photograph on our agency feeds of a male student receiving his results, from Wigan in Lancashire, v 40+ photographs of female students getting theirs.

“Luckily the Guardian has its own photographer out in Bristol to correct the balance later. In the meantime, here’s a group picture of taking in both sexes.”

The BBC’s education story featured three pictures of successful female students, with no male students.

Journalist Martin Daubney reported that there were no young men on the morning’s Sky News results day coverage.

The disproportionate number of images of successful female students were accompanied by headlines in The Times and The Independent that appeared to celebrate the widening gap between female and male university admissions.

The Independent ran the headline: “A-Level results 2015: Women outperform men again as record numbers secure university places.”

The front page headline of this morning’s Times was: “Women take record lead in university admissions.”

The Independent reported that in excess of 27,000 more females are due to start degree courses this autumn than males.

  • Charlie Hurd

    Pathetic.

  • karenwoodall

    27,000 more women than men and 40 more pictures of women than men, women outperform men in admission to university and men are still not disadvantaged? Those pesky men must be running some kind of undercover operation, so their situation cannot be focused upon in case it is a trick to grab the power back. Best keep talking about and looking at the women, because take your eye off them and put it onto those failing men and you can be sure the men will be grabbing the power and the headlines and putting women back into the kitchen again.

  • Tony Adamson

    I have posted this comment elsewhere on this site, but no one seems to have read it, so I’m posting it again; please do read it – it is very important.

    THE MYTH OF MALE UNDERACHIEVEMENT

    I am a teacher with over 30 years experience and so I feel that I am qualified to speak.

    Many reasons are given for “male underachievement” – lack of male teachers,
    “lad culture”, coursework etc, but while these things may make some
    contribution to it, by far the most important factor is structural; the exams
    favour girls.

    What happens in every country in the world is that when the exams are easy (as
    they are now) then girls do better than boys, but when they are difficult (like
    they used to be) then the situation reverses and boys do better than girls. The
    reason for this is because while there are more boys at the top end of the
    ability range there are even more girls in the middle. I am writing from
    experience. When we give the students “A” level exams set at today’s standards (easy) then girls do slightly better than boys, but when we give them exams similar to how they used to be (hard) then
    boys do much better than girls – what happens is while boy’s grades fall
    slightly, girl’s grades go right down (typically girls who usually get 80’s and
    90’s go down to 40’s and 50’s). This happens every time we set difficult exams
    and it also happens at other schools.

    If you consider what happens at 16, boys and girls did about
    the same in the old “O” levels and the pass rate for these exams was fairly
    constant year after year. When “O” levels were replaced by GCSEs the pass rate
    went up and up (the pass rate for “O” levels in 1987 was 25% while in 2014 for
    (A star – C) GCSEs it was 69%) and as it did so the “gender gap” widened and
    widened. This huge increase was caused by progressive “dumbing down” – girls do
    better as exams get easier (see the excellent article by Nathan Trent http://boyseducationaustralia.blogspot.co.uk/
    If you consider what happens at 18, thanks to dumbing down,
    some universities have lost confidence in “A” levels http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…
    and have experimented with entrance exams. Boy’s do much better than girls in
    these exams https://www.tes.co.uk/article….
    (and notice the comment by Professor Alison Wolfe about GCSEs and “A” levels
    favouring girls).For many years now, Medical Schools have been setting
    entrance exams (because “A” levels are not difficult enough to identify genuine
    high ability students) and boys do much better in these tests. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…

    Now consider what happens at university. More girls go to
    university (because more pass “A” levels), but study the following graph http://www.randalolson.com/201…
    It compares what percentage of boys and girls study each different subject and
    the average IQ of students studying each different subject (the data is from
    the USA, but similar applies to the UK and the rest of the world). Notice the
    following (1) Far more boys study STEM. (2) Boys dominate subjects were the
    average IQ is high (120-129) and very high (130+). (3)Girls dominate subjects
    were the IQ is average (90-109) and above average (110-119). (4)The more boys
    study a subject the average IQ INCREASES. (5) The more girls study a subject
    then the average IQ DECREASES.

    All of this explodes the myth of “male underachievement” – what we have been seeing in the education system is due to “dumbing” down and grade inflation. Because they have been so badly discredited, we need to scrap
    GCSEs and “A” levels and replace them with new exams that test for both high and middle ability.

    • Tony Adamson

      For some reason, most of the links cited
      above don’t work . So here they are again – I hope they work this time!

      Lost confidence in “A” Levels http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…

      Boys do much better than girls in university entrance exams https://www.tes.co.uk/article….

      Medical school tests http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…

      IQs of university
      students http://www.randalolson.com/201…

    • Groan

      http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=437 http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=121 Mr Collins a former teacher has done some pretty exhaustive work summarising the research. Boys experience both direct discrimination and the indirect discrimination you describe. It seems as a society we expect boys to “win through” against the odds while supporting girls. For a number of years the UCAS head has been one of the few voices to suggest that such disregard for boys achieving their best is worthy of challenge. It seems there does become a time where an absence of positive reinforcement takes its toll.

      • Tony Adamson

        Thanks for replying to my comment. I agree that direct discrimination is also very important. The problem (at my school, anyway) is that we tend to treat boys and girls as two separate homogenous groups, so all girls (because they get overinflated grades) are treated as
        though they are clever and all boys are treated as though they have learning
        difficulties (even the ones with strings of As and Astars!). This is very de-motivating.
        If we had better exams (ones which reflected the true abilities of the students) then girls would not get overinflated grades and so boys and girls would be treated the same. So rather
        than bemoaning boy’s “poor educational performance” we need to campaign for fairer exams – ones which test for both high and middle ability. It would not be difficult to create such
        a multi-ability exam – all you need to do is to tag a few hard questions at the
        end of each paper. What would happen then is more girls would pass but more boys
        would get higher grades.

        • Groan

          I found your comments and insights very interesting I hope you comment again or write a piece for the blog. In my professional life my work includes those young people who are “challenging” and generally not achieved much. Mainly boys but including some very let down girls. Perhaps my perspective is skewed but I see so many stories of boys being so let down by a sort of relentlessly punitive approach. Now don’t get me wrong I have no illusions and I get how intimidating a late teenage boy can be. Over the years this seems to have got worse rather than better. In a sort of paradox the growth of “isms” appears to have moved us from a notion summed up by “hate the sin not the sinner” to something akin to “original sin” in boys in particular with every infraction, outburst or idiocy interpreted as a deeply malevolent manifestation of something rotten at their core. This probably appears extreme and there are still workers (of both sexes) still able to work with hope and positivity but there really is something disturbing and this growing return of irremediable badness. A bit off topic so sorry about that.

          • Tony Adamson

            I am very fortunate to have taught in a school with very few “challenging” students – most of them are compliant if not motivated. Many years ago, however, I did teach boys who were “difficult”. They were not bad lads – they were just not interested;
            they did not see the point of being in school learning things that they didn’t
            think would be any use to them in adult life. Since then I have met young men
            who were of that kind and who are now doctors (honestly!), research scientists,
            teachers and university lecturers. What happened is when they became young
            adults they could see the value of education, became not just interested in it but
            tiger keen, went to an FE College and got to where they are now from
            there. The key is that they engaged in education when they wanted to – when they were interested. I think that lack of interest is not so much a problem with teenage girls because they are more compliant – far less likely to question the validity of what they are doing. It is not, however, “all a bed of roses” for girls. For example, many girls want to be vets and the vet schools are swamped with applications from them (1 in 4 “A” level
            students now get grade As). Some of these girls are very good (we call them
            “3Gs” – “Genuinely Good Girls”) but some are not (the ones
            with overinflated grades) – in some cases the latter are accepted while the
            former are rejected (and the same applies to other high value courses such as
            those at Oxbridge). This is not a problem with boys because only genuinely good
            boys get grade As. More seriously, something that my colleagues and myself have
            noticed is that a significant number of 3Gs have nervous breakdowns (in some
            cases requiring hospitalisation). This never happened in the past (when we had
            proper exams). It would be interesting to see if this was a national trend and
            to try to find out what is the cause of it. I would like to write an article
            for the Blog, but a new term approaches and I must direct my efforts towards doing
            my best for my boys AND girls (maybe next year, after I have retired). In the
            meantime we must spread the word that male underachievement is a myth; boys are
            not underachieving – it is more the case that because of the nature of the
            exams then girls are getting overinflated grades. The way to do this is via
            newspapers and radio stations and a good time to start would be next Thursday
            when the GCSE results are out

    • Anti_Femastasis

      Notice the following (1) Far more boys study STEM. (2) Boys dominate subjects were the
      average IQ is high (120-129) and very high (130+). (3)Girls dominate subjects were the IQ is average (90-109) and above average (110-119). (4)The more boys study a subject the average IQ INCREASES. (5) The more girls study a subject then the average IQ DECREASES.

      • Tony Adamson

        Thank you for the additional information – but I wish you had cut off the title and the label on the x axis of the graph. As I have explained elsewhere, girls are also victims of our poor
        education/examination system. To give you another example, my friends daughter got
        reasonably good GCSE grades, reasonably good “A” levels went to a
        reasonably good university and got a reasonably good degree. Her parents were
        very proud of her. I didn’t have the heart to tell them that thanks to grade inflation, “reasonably good” is not good at all – and that’s why she has been unemployed since graduating 12
        years ago. Her elder brother didn’t do as well at school or university, but he
        went through the education system when standards were higher and as a result
        got a very high paid job which involves extensive international travel.

  • – TheFinn –

    It’s just getting absurd.

  • jonnu
  • john adams

    I fear with my background in the media there really isn’t much thought ot give to this situation. Women, especially young women, are simple considered more photogenic. I’m not defending htis dreadful stance, it’s simply the way the media works. It’s wrong and I’m delighted to see the Guardian (of all publications) picking up on this.

    • Groan

      Yes I don’t know if he coined it but Warren Farrell’s use of the term “Genetic Celebrity” sums this up nicely. Over the years I’ve seen a few light hearted programmes where attractive women “passing” as men comment on how “invisible” they become. They don’t like it because though being noticed may have its all down side generally they feel its much better to feted. I doubt there is much that can be done about this,or rather the things that have been done, all covering “modest” clo thing for instance, appear draconian. As you say young women are indeed usually much more “photogenic” .

      • Ali Radicali

        I’d settle for women/society acknowledging that women have these sorts of privileges instead of the typical “muh soggy knees” sob stories.

    • https://twitter.com/TicklishQuill Isaac T. Quill

      “Women, especially young women, are simple considered more photogenic.”

      Photo Privilege?

  • Flo

    Meanwhile women are less intelligent than men on average. They are actually so retarded they believe a government diploma makes them smarter. Women are like sheep… nothing more, nothing less.

  • Paul Mills

    It’s strange this statistics thing. Last week I was visiting my folks in the fens. In the ‘local rag – 8 boys to 2 girls. In the Friday paper it was 6 boys to 5 girls…. go figure ?

  • Groan

    Interesting figures on Gender in a report on public health in Greater London “Girls are 1.3x more likely to have a
    GLD* compared to boys”

    *GLD: Good level of development

    In Greater London 69% Girls have GLD and 52% Boys so right at the start of their school career, in terms of being “school ready” boys are in fact disadvantaged, not surprising that this carries on through the years. All the more reason for some focus.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-inequalities-in-London

  • poppycockfuss

    Do the girls in the pictures dictate who is being photographed? Man the fuck up you silly men.