Under the Microscope Prof William RevilleMary Wilson interviewed John Walsh, Education Correspondent, Irish Independent, on RTÉ Radio 1 Drivetime (January 9th), about the latest figures on intake to third-level education, broken down by gender. Mary introduced the topic: "Most of the doctors, dentists and lawyers of the future will be women, if new CAO figure are anything to go by.
Over 15,000 females are accepted on honours degree courses compared to under 11,000 males, and only engineering and architecture courses are still attracting a majority of males. One of the surprises is the high number of women, particularly in the sciences which would have been seen more traditionally as male domains." John agreed and added: "More girls stay on to Leaving Cert than boys . . . and tend to do better in Leaving Cert than boys and are therefore in a better position to take high-point courses at university." Mary asked: "Any reason being put forward as to why they are performing better?" John replied: "Some people would argue that women are much more intelligent." Mary replied: "That's a given, John."
I am not so thin-skinned as to be bothered by these comments about male intelligence, which were merely jocose banter. However, imagine the reaction such public banter would receive if the gender situation were reversed.
Gender balance is generally perceived to be a problem only when males are in a majority. Student enrolment in our universities is now strongly tilted in favour of girls and few seem to see any problem with this. On the contrary, the only perceived problem is how to increase female enrolment in the few third-level areas where males are still in the majority, eg engineering and some science areas.
Girls now outperform boys both at second- and third-level education. More girls than boys stay on at second level to do the Leaving Cert - in 2006, 27,235 female candidates and 24,815 male candidates sat the Leaving Cert examination. And the girls get significantly better results, outperforming the boys in every major subject. In 2006 girls achieved 6,000 more A-grades at honours and ordinary level than did boys. Girls achieved 6,275 A1s at higher level compared to 4,078 A1s for boys. Boys outperformed only in three areas - Italian, agricultural economics, and engineering and construction studies.
Girls now take up 60 per cent of places at university, including the majority of high-points places. In 2005, 2,064 females enrolled in first year at UCC compared with 1,334 males. In 2006, the percentages of university high points courses taken up by girls in first year were Medicine (58.6 per cent), Physiotherapy (76.9 per cent), Dentistry (56.1 per cent), Veterinary Medicine (71.1 per cent), Law (61.1 per cent). But, it's not only the medical/legal courses that require high points, women have now moved into the majority in areas traditionally dominated by men - in 2006 first year university enrolment in science was 52 per cent female and 53 per cent female in business and administration courses.
All of this excites very little comment, but there would be a national uproar if the situation were reversed. You can imagine the headlines: "Why is Our Education System Failing Our Girls?" So, why are we not concerned about our boys doing relatively poorly? The conventional explanation of why the girls outperform boys is that girls mature faster, settling better to study at second and third level than the boys who tend to behave more impetuously. But the emotional and physiological development of girls relative to boys was always like this, so, why did boys perform so much better in the past? I think that much more is involved here than rates of maturation.
The relative slide in the educational performance of boys has paralleled the changing roles of the male and the female in society. The traditional male role was breadwinner and physical defender of the family and the traditional female role was child-rearing, nurturing and home-making. But, in recent decades woman have entered the workforce in huge numbers and their role as mothers and home makers has been de-emphasised. Women now have great choice and freedom in the manner of how they live their lives. Overall, the changes for women have been liberating and empowering and have greatly broadened their horizons.
On the other hand, the role of men has diluted and faded. The man is no longer the sole breadwinner in many families, he not infrequently reports to a female boss at work and many traditionally male professions, eg medical doctors, now have a majority of women. Moreover, during the transition from the traditional role to this new dilute role, men have been subjected to much feminist criticism of the fundamental male nature: aggressive, violent, domineering, acquisitive, competitive, emotionally constipated, sexually predacious, and so on. It is not surprising therefore that many males might feel a bit insecure and alienated in this new climate, particularly males growing up in this changing time, whose attitudes were not influenced by a traditional milieu. It seems highly likely that this new male insecurity is a causative factor in the recent educational underperformance and in the tragic rise in the suicide rates among young men.
In my experience, many campaigners for gender balance in favour of women are unwilling to acknowledge or sympathise with gender imbalance against males. This is selfish and unfair and is part of a politically correct agenda that has no sympathy for any perceived traditional "powerful" group.
It is high time for men to "raise their consciousness" about their condition and to start taking care of themselves.
William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Public Awareness of Science Officer at UCC (http://understandingscience.ucc.ie.)