Lillian DeGennaro
Dr. Crutchfield
Cornerstone
18 September 2017
The Societal Definition of Academic Excellence for Women
Excellence is a concept that is difficult to clearly define or convey with words. It is more than just succeeding in one area or doing well at a particular task; excellence is shaped by societal pressures and viewpoints and personal goals. The former, however, is what greatly shapes the excellence of women in the classroom, while impacting their education in an extremely negative way. Societal influences, such as the view of the purpose of women and how it pertains to their education, the view of women as inferior in schooling by both teachers and male peers despite increased achievement (seen by standardized test scores), and gendered patterns in education can hinder academic excellence for women.
In the past few decades, society’s view of female purpose has changed drastically; however, outdated views persist and continue to suggest the primary or sole purposes of women are their roles as homemakers and mothers, along with their responsibility to fulfill the needs of men, which has affected the way women function in the classroom. These ideas of female responsibilities can be seen in the words of many deeply respected men, such as Rousseau, who stated in his 1976 work, Emile, “Woman is expressly formed to please the man… Women’s education must be wholly directed to their relations to men” (Diller et al. 33). This view persists in recent times, as it has been deeply ingrained into the minds of generation after generation (Diller et al. 64). For example, in a study done by the Garcia Project in Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Iceland, it was found that members of the various recruitment committees for university faculty tended to associate women with being a mother, and therefore, women were seen as being unable to dedicate the necessary time to academic affairs (van den Brink and Benschop 4). This cultural expectation has led to the hindrance of education for women in another way as well; not only is a woman’s ability to commit to her career questioned, her ability to care for children and spouses, along with her femininity, is questioned when she is participating in academic matters (Diller et al. 125). Many people believe that “a woman who has a head full of Greek… might as well even have a beard,” as Kant wrote (125). There is an inherent belief that women are unable to exist as both an academic and a caregiver (125).
There are also gender stereotypes prevalent in the curriculum of schools, which may not seem like a pressing issue but contributes to inherent sexism in the classroom nonetheless (Diller et al. 65). Most textbooks that are used in the classroom were written in the 1960s or 1970s and contain gender-biased language; an example of this is math problems that set up a scenario where a woman is cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, or doing any other traditional female role, while other scenarios show men working, travelling, or playing sports (65). The language of these problems can shape the understanding and viewpoints that children hold about their sex and the opposite sex, along with the limitations and expectations for both sexes (65).
The aforementioned societal expectations for women contribute to the view that women are inferior in education and lack excellence when the contrary has been shown to be true in recent years. Since the 1980s, GCSE scores of girls have been increasing drastically, and now, they either outperform or do as well as boys on GCSE tests of every subject (Francis 7). Furthermore, as noted by Valerie Walkerdine, boys are underperforming in language studies, and yet their underachievement is virtually ignored compared to the emphasis placed on girls’ supposed underachievement in science, which “unduly problematizes” women in the classroom (Francis 5). This trend is especially harmful, as many use it as proof of women contributing to men’s failure, due to more attention being focused on fixing the problems that women face in certain areas of study like math and science (Francis 10). This blames women for their excellence.
Despite the fact that girls tend to score the same or higher on the GCSE and other standardized tests as boys do, there are still biases that cause these trends to be ignored. First of all, some teachers, especially in primary school, tend to have lower expectations for women and girls (Diller et al. 111-112). This is caused by teachers believing that women will not excel for whatever reasons – they are preoccupied with boys or appearances or they just “aren’t good” at certain subjects; this belief that women will not do well prevents educators from holding them to the same standards to which they hold men (111). This also results in women’s voices being given less importance than men’s, since it is perceived that women will not achieve as much as men will (112). Teachers also tend to give women less attention in the classroom, and when women are given attention, it is mostly neutral or negative, compared to the mostly positive responses given to their male classmates (Diller et al. 52). In a study done by the University of Toronto on the subject of equal opportunity at the university, many concerning trends showing gender bias were reported, such as academic work completed by women whose subjects were other women not being highly-valued, even if the work was on par with work done by men, and men who were part of the faculty being promoted over their female coworkers who were just as qualified (Diller et al. 119). This is not just happening in Toronto; this can be seen in various institutions throughout North America who claim to provide equal opportunity in education (119).
The ignorance of the excellence of women is not limited to teachers or university staff. There is also a prejudice present in the classroom when it comes to male peers and classroom discussion. When in classes that contain both sexes, women are less likely to speak their minds or be confident in their answers (Diller et al. 52-53). This is perhaps due to the fact that women face more interruption by male classmates than men face by women and these interruptions often hold personal comments that are unrelated to the discussion at hand (53). Also, discussion points spoken by men are usually received better than those spoken by women, in the regards that they tend to be more closely listened to and are attributed to him (53).
Gendered patterns that persist in education are also contributing to society’s contorted views of women’s excellence in education. As early as middle school, women are discouraged from taking electives that are traditionally studied by men, such as wood shop or auto shop (Diller et al. 27). The basis for this deterrence is that they would either interfere with the education of men in these classes or get hurt while doing the activities of the class/ using the machinery or tools (27). This hurts women’s education because they are prevented from pursuing subjects that they are interested in, due to the society’s expectations of what subjects they should study; their excellence in many subjects is hindered because they are afraid to study subjects regarded as “boy” subjects. Gendered patterns persist in higher education in a more voluntary way. In college, women usually study humanities and avoid sciences, while men study sciences and avoid humanities (Francis 8). These ingrained course expectations can be harmful because when there is a majority of one sex studying a certain subject, it can be discouraging to people of the opposite sex who want to study that subject but fear being outnumbered (8). A woman who wants to study science could be discouraged because she does not see people like her succeeding in that area; perhaps this is why women who do study science tend to do more poorly than those who study humanities (8).
Conclusively, societal bias contributes to the definition of academic excellence for women in a destructive manner. Excellence in this context is limited by cultural and traditional views on what women should do and/or be, the ignorance of the achievement of women by educators and classmates, and the gendered patterns involved in areas of study. If it were not for these issues, perhaps more women would be considered “excellent” in the sphere of the classroom; there certainly is cause for them to be considered so.