Gender and educational attainment — practice questions

Step 1: Analyse the data by calculating the gender gap in each year.

• 1988 Gap: 30% (Girls) - 25% (Boys) = 5 percentage point lead for girls.
• 2018 Gap: 71% (Girls) - 62% (Boys) = 9 percentage point lead for girls.

Step 2: Calculate the change in the gender gap over time.

• Change in gap: 9 points (2018) - 5 points (1988) = 4 percentage point increase in girls' lead. The gap has widened in favour of girls.

Step 3: Interpret the data in a sociological context. The calculations confirm that not only did girls outperform boys in both periods, but their lead has almost doubled. This strongly supports the view that girls' performance has improved relative to boys.

Step 4: Apply sociological explanations.

• External Factors: The trend can be explained by the impact of feminism raising girls' aspirations (Sue Sharpe's research), changes in the family (more female-headed households as role models), and changes in the labour market (growth of service sector jobs).
• Internal Factors: The initial gap in 1988 may have been widened by the 1988 Education Reform Act, which introduced coursework, a form of assessment that Mitsos and Browne argue favours girls' organisational skills.
• Boys' Underachievement: Simultaneously, boys' relative decline can be linked to a 'crisis of masculinity' (Mac an Ghaill) due to the loss of traditional manual jobs, leading to anti-school subcultures.

Step 5: Provide evaluation. While the data shows a clear trend, it's an oversimplification. The data is an average and hides class and ethnic differences (e.g., middle-class boys still achieve more highly than working-class girls). Furthermore, high attainment does not equal workplace equality; the gender pay gap and glass ceiling persist, and subject choices remain heavily stereotyped, channelling girls into lower-paid sectors.

Step 1: Calculate the gender distribution for each subject.

• Physics:
  • Percentage of boys = (96 / 120) * 100 = 80%
  • Percentage of girls = (24 / 120) * 100 = 20%
• Sociology:
  • Percentage of boys = (20 / 80) * 100 = 25%
  • Percentage of girls = (60 / 80) * 100 = 75%

Step 2: Identify and state the pattern. The calculations show a stark gender divide. Physics is heavily male-dominated (80% boys), while Sociology is female-dominated (75% girls). This pattern is an example of horizontal segregation within education.

Step 3: Apply a relevant sociological explanation. One key reason for this pattern is the concept of gender domains (Browne and Ross, 1991). This is the idea that through early socialisation, children come to see certain tasks, activities, and by extension school subjects as being either male or female 'territory'.

Step 4: Link the explanation to the data.

• Physics: This subject is often located in the 'male domain'. It is associated with mechanics, technology, and abstract problem-solving, and perceived as leading to 'male' careers like engineering. This makes boys feel more confident in choosing it, as reflected by the 80% male uptake.
• Sociology: This subject, focusing on people, relationships, and social issues, is often seen as part of the 'female domain'. It aligns with the traditionally socialised 'expressive' or caring role for women. This makes girls feel it is a more suitable choice, as shown by the 75% female uptake.

Conclusion: The numerical data powerfully illustrates a social pattern. This gendered subject choice is not based on natural ability but is a social construction, heavily influenced by early socialisation and the creation of gender domains which shape student identities and choices.