What you probably already knew, but never really wanted to admit (Are girls really brighter at 'A' level than boys?)

Member Name: senyhrag01

Product:	Are girls really brighter at 'A' level than boys?
Date:	05/08/02 (139 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: x

Disadvantages: x

MORE ABOUT THE DYSLEXIA ISSUE ADDED! Are girls brighter than boys?

The statistic used here (that girls do better than boys in A-Level exams) cannot be used to prove the hypothesis. ‘Brightness’ is purely an opinion of a particular person (someone who seems clever to one person may seem not so to another). Society, in general, measures intelligence using exams. As anyone who has taken exams will know, your end result is one which relies upon many factors; a major one – whether or not the questions that come up are the topics you have revised – is purely chance. Few would deny Einstein’s intelligence, yet he was illiterate until 13. Brightness is just one piece of the overall picture that, if there, may improve your exam result (though there is no guarantee, very clever people may find exams difficult as they may interpret a question in many different ways) but is by no means the single determining factor needed for you to get a good mark. Hence exam results should not be used as a measure of brightness.

In favour of the idea that girls are brighter: many [men] argue that the exams are biased towards girls and girls are therefore bound to do well. In a society that increasingly treats girls and boys in the same way, it is difficult to argue that the girls do better because they were brought up in a different way, and have certain knowledge that boys are denied. The only difference must be, therefore, genetic, or in built into girls. Following the previous idea (that exams are biased toward girls) it could be further argued that anyone who does well in a test did well because it was biased toward them specifically (eg, the topics they revised came up or the test demanded much imagination, which they may have in abundance). (This brings me onto another topic, see below). So using the idea that the exams are biased towards girls i
s not a valid argument.

However, as argued above, tests and exams are not representative of intelligence. So, from the evidence from A-Level (or even IQ tests) it cannot be known whether girls are more intelligent than boys at A-Level, or, in general.

Now, what you probably knew, but never wanted to admit:
The point I was going to come back to was in arguing the above through, I was slightly shocked with the conclusion at which I arrived: why do dyslexic people get more time in exams? Exams are obviously for testing people. They examine:
- Intelligence (to a smaller or larger extent)
- Knowledge
- Ability to work under pressure in a given time

This last point is very important (“if only I had another 5 minutes!”). Dyslexic people get more time, as they find it more difficult to read the question and write the answer. However, I may find I write slowly, should I get extra time? Ah, but dyslexia is a medical condition! It is a condition of the brain. The brain does not function as well as it could [/should]. Taking this further, my slow writing is also a case where my brain does not function as well as it could. What about the person who is less intelligent? This is also a case where the brain does not function as well as it could. Should the exam be made easier for them? If everything was equaled out (as seems was the intention of giving dyslexic people extra time) then the exam would be pitched at different levels for everybody so that everyone would come out with the exact same mark.

Why do dyslexic people get extra time? And how far do we go down, this line? Do we ban shortsighted people from wearing glasses in exams as wearing glasses counters their disability?

There is obviously a line to be drawn somewhere here.

However, I would argue that as exam marks may be used as a way of assessing a person's eligibility for a certain job/degree they have to be as realistic as
possible. By that I mean people look at the marks and decide whether a person is suitable for the position or not. As this is the case, the marks should indicate as realistically as possible how the person would cope with the demands of the position. Shortsighted people can wear glasses whenever they need to. So sitting an examination with glasses seems an accurate way of assessing their eligibility for the job. However, dyslexic people would not get more time. If they went for a position in a high-flying company, they would need to be able to write and read quickly. Dyslexic people may still be eligible for the job but they would need to be more intelligent (or whatever) than the non-dyslexic person to produce the same quality of work. Imagone two identical people, except that on is dyslexic. The dyslexic person's exam results would be the same as the non-dyslexic person even though they would be less good at the job, because the dyslexic person got extra time.

In this way, dyslexic people do get an unfair advantage over others in exams. Leave your opinion if you feel differently. Maybe you can, and I sincerely hope that you can, bring up some argument that I have left out, and explain why dyslexic people get more time. I feel really bad leaving such a negative and seemingly unfair opinion.

Summary: