The taboo of boys’ educational inequality

Governments are putting a lot of effort into promoting girls into science fields. But they are silent in the face of a serious problem, write three researchers: the under-education of boys.

When he was rector of the University of Montreal, Robert Lacroix received an intriguing call from the president of the Union des producteurs agricole.

He wondered why the farmers’ representative insisted on meeting him. UdeM does not even have an agronomy department.

The man wanted to alert him to the shortage of veterinarians for large animals and denounce the functioning of “his” faculty. This specialization is statistically of more interest to men. However, the staff of the faculty of veterinary medicine is overwhelmingly female. The field is very limited and as the female students generally have better grades than the males, they find themselves there in the majority.

Since then, we have responded to this lack of agricultural veterinarians by opening a center specializing in farm animals in Rimouski.

But the anecdote led Robert Lacroix, economist, to delve into the well-known phenomenon of girls’ overperformance at school from the other end: the under-education of boys.

From catching up to overtaking

For years, we have seen women catch up in school and we took it for granted that, in the end, there would be parity. However, in Canada, according to the latest data, the student clientele of universities is made up of 58% women. And 60% of university degrees are awarded to them.

Why is there such a big gap in the academic achievement of girls and boys?

To answer the question, Mr. Lacroix gathered around him his economist colleague Claude Montmarquette (who died in September 2021), the professor of child psychology Richard E. Tremblay and the economist Catherine Haeck, specialist in questions of education and children’s health. They have just published the fruit of their work in a book.^⁠.

First observation: the educational catch-up of girls has been spectacular for 75 years, in Quebec as in all developed countries. In the early 1950s, women made up only 22.5% of total students in Canadian universities. In 1992, they made up 56% of the workforce. And now they are around 61% (with a peak of 63% 15 years ago).

During the same period, society as a whole increased its enrollment rate massively. The rate of people without a diploma has dropped and the vast majority of people aged 25 to 34 have a post-secondary diploma. But it is much more true for women. The graduation gap is around 10% – this is true in Quebec, Canada and all OECD countries.

From kindergarten, we observe a better performance of girls, notes Richard E. Tremblay, world authority in child psychology.

At 2 years old, girls have “superior cognitive performance”.

What happens before… 0 years

In fact, you have to go back in time even further. Much is played out in the belly of the mothers, explains Mr. Tremblay. Male fetuses are more affected by environmental disturbances – taking alcohol, drugs, stress.

The phenomenon, however, is not new. It was simply hidden by the absence of girls at university and the separation of girls and boys at lower levels.

“Since girls did not have as much access to higher education as boys because of all sorts of social, political and religious barriers, we had no point of comparison,” says Mr. Lacroix.

But if we consult the evaluations made at the end of primary school in the 1950s and 1960s in Quebec, we observe the same type of gap in school performance between the sexes to the advantage of girls.

The school system should not be blamed, thinks Robert Lacroix: “The differences exist before entering school, so that the school cannot be held solely responsible for differences according to sex at birth. »

It is not stressed enough, Quebec students do particularly well in international tests (PISA). But in all areas except math, and especially in reading and reading comprehension, girls perform better.

This is the perpetuation of what we observe at a very young age: very young, girls show on average more social competence, emotional maturity, communication skills and general knowledge, and more cognitive and language development. early.

Intervening with mothers is in any case beneficial for all children, girls or boys.

“It’s not normal that from the age of 5, you see differences between girls and boys,” says the researcher.

“As much as I can’t accept inequalities for women in the labor market – equal work, equal skills…unequal pay –, I can’t accept them the other way around in the education system. It may not be a popular topic, but the data is clear. »

According to the researchers, “the subject is not under the microscope because men do not seem to suffer from this gap at the moment. Their activity rate and their remuneration are even higher”.

The lost potential

But the under-education of boys has a personal and social cost that will only increase. First, the trades that will disappear because of automation and robotization are those where there are more men. Many “exit doors” will close. Next, women’s study and career choices no longer have academic barriers; with the best results, they are free to choose. This is not the case for boys, more of whom are forced to exclude certain fields for lack of sufficient grades.

“The idea is not to replace female students with male students, but to bring in more people; there are many places that are not filled in universities, we can grow,” says the UQAM professor.

In addition to its “intrinsic” value for individuals, education has considerable social value. The increase of one year of average schooling of a population generates an increase in economic output of 10% per person, note the authors. It is, moreover, the massive increase in schooling which explains most of the growth in production per capita since 1960.

The wage inequalities that persist between men and women are no longer due to the under-education of women, but to other social mechanisms and to the general organization of society, which makes it difficult to reconcile work and family and the sharing of tasks.

Governments insist on attracting more girls to science, technology, computing and mathematics (“STEM”), with little success.

“I work on the transmission of inequalities, I have data from millions of people in Canada. I look at them everywhere, the inequalities. And they are not justifiable anywhere. I do not live well with the fact of settling an inequality by creating another, continues Catherine Haeck. I’m tired of being told that to realize my full potential, I have to be an astronaut or have a STEM degree. »

In other words, the professional choices of women are quite enlightened, it should perhaps be said.

Treating… the “badness”?

What are the solutions ?

For the authors, the absolute priority would be to invest massively in early childhood. Every dollar invested early saves 11 dollars later.

They note the efforts of the Minister responsible for Social Services, Lionel Carmant, but this is still a drop in the bucket.

Mr. Tremblay cites an intensive program in grades one and two that he helped implement, where at-risk children were identified and supported. “Very long term (some are in their 50s), watching with a control group, they do a lot better in life. » Better schooling, better health, lower crime, etc.

Despite these results, the program was never expanded. There are “lots of micro-programs” in Quebec, says Catherine Haeck, but nothing systematic. “You shouldn’t just target boys, there are of course girls in difficulty, she says, but by helping everyone, you help the boys. »

The early childhood centers (CPE), while they have had a beneficial social impact, have not reached their target with regard to children most at risk. “We don’t see any beneficial effect on the children,” says Ms.^me Haeck.

In short, an enriched early childhood education system is needed.

At all other school levels, for which they put forward several proposals, the key is the identification of children at risk, and their support. Good programs have been set up to fight against school dropout – notably at the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school service centre. But too little. “It is clear and clear that we under-invest in early childhood,” says Robert Lacroix.

“Children don’t vote,” concludes Catherine Haeck.

Men’s under-education and women’s choice of profession

Robert Lacroix and Catherine Haeck, Claude Montmarquette as well as Richard E. Tremblay

The Presses of the University of Montreal

232 pages