A New Study Shows Men in Science Classes Really Are Arrogant Bastards

Good thing these smart female researchers studied it.

Shutterstock

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

As any woman in science can tell you, it’s an uphill battle. For decades, guys have been told they’re better at, and more “naturally inclined,” to be good at science, math, and engineering. And now, shockingly, a new study reveals that dudes may actually believe that all to be true. 

Published in the journal Advances in Physiology Education Wednesday by an all-female group of baller researchers from Arizona State University, the study found that typically, men in science class over-estimate their intelligence, even if their grades are the same as their female peers.

The researchers observed a 244-member, discussion-based physiology college class. They discovered that the average male student is likely to think he is smarter than 66 percent of the class, while a female student with the same average GPA is likely to think she is smarter than only 54 percent of the class. And when working in pairs, a male student is 3.2 times more likely than a female student to think they’re smarter than their partner.

To measure the students’ academic “self-concept” in the class, the students took a survey which asked them to report “the percentage of the whole class that they perceived they are smarter than, in the context of physiology.” They were also asked to report if they were “smarter or less smart” than the person with whom they worked most closely in the class. 

As a result of lower “self-concept,” “females are not participating as much in science class,” Sara Brownell, an assistant professor of life sciences at ASU, and an author on the study, tells NBC. “They are not raising their hands and answering questions.”

A similar, but even more extreme phenomenon can be seen in comparing native and non-native English speakers. An average, English-speaking student of either gender is likely to think they are smarter than 61 percent of their classmates, while a student whose native language isn’t English and has the same GPA is likely to think they are smarter than only 46 percent of the class. 

Percentage of classmates that the average student perceives he/she is smarter than

“Why does academic self-concept matter?,” the authors write. “We found that students with higher academic self-concept are more likely to report participating more in small-group discussions; this could have implications for student learning, because studies have shown that greater participation can lead to greater learning.”

To be clear, as the authors explain, there are a few limitations to this study. For example, “reporting on how smart one feels compared with another person may cause students to answer the question in a socially desirable way,” they write—meaning, although a student may think of themselves as being smarter than 50 percent of the class, they may be hesitant to say they’re smarter than a specific classmate (that is, their class partner).

The other major limitation is that this study was performed in one class, at one institution, and results could of course be different in other classroom settings. “Future studies may want to explore the extent to which academic self-concept is malleable and to what extent instructor behavior or course structure could influence it,” the authors add. 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest