Women and maths

Ragni Piene argues that the problem of a lack of women in senior
positions in mathematics is a sociological one, and, by implication,
open to change (27 September, p 44). This is too easy an explanation
and requires statistical qualification on two counts.

Yes we've heard it all a thousand times before: "there is no difference

First, Piene explains that between men and women "these are small
differences in mean test scores [in geometry] - whereas variation
within both the male and female population is enormous." True, but
Piene is set on selecting the best mathematicians and this has
implications.

Consider the following analogy. On average, men are just a little
taller than women compared with the enormous variations in height
within both male and female populations. Now try choosing the 10
tallest people from a mixed-sex group of 1000 people selected at
random. The chances are that all 10 will be men.

This is because small mean differences translate into heavy loadings
at the extremes. So too with top mathematicians.

Secondly, it is well known among psychometricians that whereas the
mean general IQ scores of men and women in a given population are the
same, the spread is much greater for men than for women. Consequently
we produce more male than female geniuses, but also far more male than
female morons.

This is reflected in the observation that not only do men tend to
dominate the top of most fields of human endeavour, but also that
there are far more men than women in prison and sleeping rough on the
streets.

For every supposed glass ceiling stopping a woman getting to the top,
we also need to explain an equally resilient glass floor that stops
another dropping out.

Sociological rather than biological explanations for differences in
achievement may be more comforting at an emotional level, and more
appealing (for some) at an ideological one. But that does not make
them scientific.
John Harvey
London, UK