Who-Stole-Feminism.-How-Women-Have-Betrayed-Women

THE WELLESLEY REPORT 177an article entitled "Gender Bias in the Prediction of College Course Performance"in a 1988 issue of the Journal of Educational Measurement. But,as journalist Daniel Seligman reported in a March 1992 issue of Fortune,that article is a weak reed indeed. 61Its authors, Robert McCormack andMary McLeod of San Diego State University, take pains to say that oncethe difficulty of the courses is considered, there is no evidence of genderbias. In fact, McCormack and McLeod found, "Curiously, in those fewcourses in which a gender bias was found, it most often involved overpredictingfor women in a course in which men earned a higher averagegrade." 62Seligman's observations provoked a letter to Fortune from Susan Baileyand Patricia Campbell—two of the report's authors. They did not defend,explain, or apologize for their reliance on the McCormack/McLeod article;instead they claimed that other studies do support the finding of bias.Furthermore, they asserted, "It is hard to take seriously [Seligman's] critique. . . when girls are referred to as 'dolls.'. . . The Report was writtento document gender bias and to suggest positive steps to combat it.Reference to guys [and] dolls . . . does little to help our schools or ourstudents." 63Mr. Seligman's choice of words may have been frivolous, buthis point was not. And what are we to think when those who claim to behelping our schools refuse to answer a criticism that presents a simplefinding of error?Criticism by the education writer Rita Kramer in Commentary provokedanother angry letter from Sharon Schuster, the president of the AAUW.Ms. Schuster argued that girls' weaker performance was caused by thebiased content of the tests:Research studies reviewed in the report also found substantial genderbias in standardized tests. One analysis of tests found twice asmany references to men as to women, and more pictures of andreferences to boys than girls. A later study of the Scholastic AptitudeTest (SAT) found references to 42 men and only three women inthe reading-comprehension passages used in the four 1984-85exams. Of the 42 men, 34 were famous and their work was cited;one of the three women was famous (Margaret Mead) and her workwas criticized. 64Ms. Schuster seems to imply that if the SAT and other standardizedtests had more word problems that girls could relate to—say, aboutfamous women or perhaps about cooking, sewing, quilting, or relationships—thengirls' scores would go up.