Gender and Higher Education - Essay Example

Research has shown that pre-entry qualifications play a significant role in predicting students’ performance as far as traditional A-level qualified students are concerned (Barrow et al., 2009). The age of students is yet another factor that has been found to be highly correlated with students’ performance in undergrad programs (Barrow et al., 2009). The main reason for this is the diversity of entry routes employed by these students when they enroll in an undergrad program (Barrow et al., 2009). Interestingly, mature strata of students are found to have achieved better grades than their non-mature counterparts. Similarly, the relationship of socio-economic class and ethnicity with the entry route also presumes much importance in the research literature (Barrow et al., 2009). This is attributed to lower standards of pre-entry qualifications of ethnic minorities, particularly those from overseas. There is, however, a large section of this relationship that remains unexplained.

Perhaps, one of the most significant factors affecting higher education is gender. Research demonstrates that a larger percentage of female undergraduate students successfully achieve ‘good’ degrees (either a first or a II: i) compared to their male counterparts (Barrow et al., 2009). Despite this, male undergrad students have a higher success rate of achieving a first-class degree than females (Richardson, 2004).

Although several explanations have been put forth for this trend, the one relating to gender-based differences in pre-entry qualifications remains the least sought after. More promising explanations have been offered which are detailed as follows.

Firstly, this trend is attributed to examiner bias favoring the males and the popular negative beliefs held by females that education is a male-dominated institution because of which they are bound to underperform (Bradley, 1993).  This relates to the higher composition of male students compared to their female counterparts in undergrad institutions. This explanation has its roots in discriminatory behavior and its underlying psychology of self-selection bias. Perhaps, female students feel threatened by discriminatory behavior which is just not existent; it is a false myth that leads to their underperformance at top levels. This is negated by some who claim that higher education is pro-female rather than pro-male (Pirie, 2001).  However, this explanation although remains valid in explaining male students’ superior performance at the top, it does a poor job in explaining male students’ skewed performance at the bottom end (Barrow et al., 2009). 

Another explanation offered is that differences exist in the cognitive abilities of the two genders (as measured by cognitive aptitude tests) (Barrow et al., 2009). A lot of variabilities exist amongst the cognitive abilities of males which accounts for the high dispersion of their degree performance results. Whether this cognitive ability is a product of nature or nurture has been ignored. The third explanation attributes the differing performances of two genders to differences in personalities (Barrow et al., 2009). Although it cannot be concluded that this difference is by virtue of nature or nurture, it has been claimed by previous researches that male students demonstrate high risk-taking dispositions compared to their female counterparts who are highly risk-averse and conscientious (in terms of the Big Five personality traits) which makes the former more likely to achieve ‘extreme’ results such as firsts or thirds/fails/passes and the later consistently taking ‘good’ degrees.

This is countered slightly by empirical research conducted by Barrow, M., Reilly, B., and Woodfield, R. (2009) which states that females are likely to have better pre-entry qualifications (owing to higher conscientiousness and risk aversion at A level compared to their male counterparts) which lead to higher chances of their getting a first-class degree. However, considering a ceteris paribus effect, the ratio of males to females getting a first-class degree was 2.5:1 (Barrow et al., 2009). Finally, the skewed composition of males in courses that award more first degrees leads accounts for a greater number of males getting first-class degrees (Barrow et al., 2009). The primary purpose of the research conducted was to establish the link between students’ performance at the undergrad level and gender dispersion at Sussex (Barrow et al., 2009). The research was conducted by the inclusion of three cohorts of students from the same undergrad institution in order to remove any bias arising from heterogeneity amongst institutions (Barrow et al., 2009). The research also concluded that students who entered undergrad level through the formal clearing process rather than through the traditional route performed worse.

The findings of the empirical research were consistent with that of previous researches. Female students’ performance was skewed towards the average ‘good’ degree as opposed to their male counterparts whose performance was strongly skewed towards extremes. Thus, male students at the undergrad level tend to be either the best or the worst performers, indicating their high risk-taking ability. Females were less likely to obtain a third/ pass/fail degree as opposed to their male counterparts.

To conclude, males are more likely to outperform females in undergrad programs as far as extreme positions are concerned; be it a first-class degree or a third/pass/fail compared to females who are inclined towards average ‘good’ degrees.