Can women talk their way into school better than men?

[GiantSteps]

Well, this new study says nothing about the quality of speech or how persuasive one can be but in terms of quantity women do not, according to the study, talk more than men.

http://www.psycport.com/showArticle...ews_ap_org.anpa.xml&provider=Associated Press

Of course, it may be that if one were to ask who writes more, the answer might have to be women. After all, look at the SDN posts in terms of number and length from (RayneeDeigh, Paramour just to name two - I hope I got their sex right ) compared to those who have admitted to being men.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[irish80122]

I thought therapist4change was male? Maybe I am wrong, I am really bad at keeping all of that straight.

compared to those who have admitted to being men.

I admit it, I am male, you caught me

 

[psychwanabe]

T4C is male. Tim, right?

...maybe it's just that we're faster typers! lol

 

[GiantSteps]

I edited my post so that the only SDNer's I mentioned are definitely females.

 

[irish80122]

How fast do you all type? I have always had a computer and am constantly on mine so I average a little over 100 WPM, but I have a feeling that that is not uncommon nowadays as people have become addicted to their computers.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I edited my post so that the only SDNer's I mentioned are definitely females.

You totally had me on there, didn't you?!

Alas.....I'm a guy, though admittedly long-winded.

-------

As for the topic at hand, I think because the application pool is so skewed towards females, it is tough to know if there is an advantage. I hypothesize that women tend to be better at collaborative work, or at least give that impression, and this may influence a POI who is looking to fill a spot in their lab. I think men may have a harder time selling this, though in areas like MBA and law programs, it may help. Though those areas are still collaborative in nature, qualities of being able to 'head' a project are still sought after. These are obviously generalities, though it'd be interesting with such a shift in the market (from traditionally male, to overwhelming female) how that will change academic culture in the years/decades to come.

I considered some top MBA programs before going into clinical, and collaborative team work was a commonality across all programs. Though with that being said, most/all of the top programs are known for grooming the 'leads' that run companies, not the followers. My previous career required a great deal of collaborative work, while also needing ultimately be a lead, so I think it definitely helped in that regard. A person who can pull of that balance should receive multiple offers (if their other stats are obviously also strong). I always found this combination to be pretty rare in people. I believe very few people can balance the two areas effectively, and not just because I've been told I can do that.

-t

ps. Yeah....long-winded, with a few edits.

 

[Ollie123]

I think the skew is more due to more women being interested than decisions by PIs on who can best fill roles. I can't speak for others, but the male/female ratio was often 10 or even 20 to 1 in my upper level psych classes.

Not that I'm complaining

That being said, I think most guys going into this field have to inherently be a bit more "feminine" - at least stereotypically speaking. I mean, real men don't talk about emotions and feelings, right? (hope no one is offended by that, I'm talking about myself too!).

I do think you are spot on regarding the importance of collaborative work though. How many people do you see in all kinds of fields that just plain suck at working with people? I've got the collaboration aspect down, working on the leadership skills. I was shy for most of my life, so it is against my nature, but it really can hold you back professionally so I started to break that habit once I got to college. Being both a leader, and a collaborator is an extremely rare trait and valuable beyond belief.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

Haha I talk a lot online, but in person I'm really really quiet. People are always confused when they meet me in person for the first time.

How fast do you all type? I have always had a computer and am constantly on mine so I average a little over 100 WPM, but I have a feeling that that is not uncommon nowadays as people have become addicted to their computers.

Yeah I'm about 105wpm. I attribute this to a typing program I used when I was young (it had a cute little ghost on it, that's all I remember) and I think playing clarinet made me type faster, oddly enough.

That being said, I think most guys going into this field have to inherently be a bit more "feminine" - at least stereotypically speaking. I mean, real men don't talk about emotions and feelings, right? (hope no one is offended by that, I'm talking about myself too!).

You crack me up. lol. It's true though, most of the guys I know in psych have a more "feminine" way of relating to people. If you wanna find really macho guys you have to venture into the dark realms of Business or Political Science.

 

[tkj]

...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think the skew is more due to more women being interested than decisions by PIs on who can best fill roles. I can't speak for others, but the male/female ratio was often 10 or even 20 to 1 in my upper level psych classes.

Welcome to grad school....it is at least 80/20.

That being said, I think most guys going into this field have to inherently be a bit more "feminine" - at least stereotypically speaking. I mean, real men don't talk about emotions and feelings, right? (hope no one is offended by that, I'm talking about myself too!).

I think the 'hard sciences' attract a lot of men, as do the MBA and law programs. I think this may be changing as more women are focusing on their careers, but I can't say for certain.

I do think you are spot on regarding the importance of collaborative work though. How many people do you see in all kinds of fields that just plain suck at working with people?

Most stink. I think it starts with the US education system, which in primary education often teaches towards a test, and away from learning. I really think we are doing a disservice to our kids come up now, because we are teaching them how to pass tests, not how to acquire knowledge, utilize knowledge, build relationships, and expand core skill areas. I think the real limitation is the difference between regurgitating learning, and synthesizing learning (learning how to learn, and then being able to apply it). This creeps up in business because people come out and say, "Okay....what do I do?" Instead of, "This is what we should do, and this is why". Forbes had a GREAT special edition a few months ago about Generation Y, and how they are vastly different in the business world than their predecessors. They are more of the "this is what we should do, and why"...though there are some big caveats that came with it (entitlement, expectations, etc).

I think undergraduate is a place to expand social experiences and really build on collaborative learning, while also allowing room to work on individual skills. However, I've seen that many colleges and universities often are not setup to do this, or at least do this well.

By the time people get to the graduate level, they really should not only have these skills, but they should be working on mastering them, instead of starting at or towards the beginning. 95% of the people I hired were because of their social skills, because most will have similar backgrounds. Certain subject specific skills can be taught, but teaching someone social skills takes significantly more time.

-t

 

[Ollie123]

Very true about teaching someone social skills (I've tried before!)

I think part of the problem with teaching collaboration is because of the grading system. I HATED group projects in school, because there's the issue of "Are these people going to pull my grade down", etc. The end result is usually one person ends up doing the bulk of the work and "fixing" what everyone else did wrong. Of course, that's often how it works in the real world too, but most people don't like the fact that their kids college choice might be affected by them routinely being put in groups with kids who don't care. Same thing goes for college and it affecting potential employment/grad school opportunities.

The thing that really amazes me is the number of people that underestimate networking. The system encourages people to believe that if you get good grades, and do well on your GREs, the sky is the limit. We all know you can have a 4.0/1600 and still not have a chance in hell at getting accepted to a program let alone being successful in it I know the reason I got accepted is because I know people who know adcom members at various schools. Maybe this isn't how it SHOULD work, but letters from someone you know and respect mean more than letters from someone you've never heard of. If I had just "Done my work" in undergrad, I'd have never found a job afterwards. I got into my first lab by talking to one of my professors after class who had a friend who had filled her lab, but decided to take on one more after the professor convinced her I was worth it That lab led to another, led to another, led to a real job, led to 2 other even better jobs, led to grad school, etc.

Knowledge is important, but I've also gotten along spectacularly with every single prof I've worked with and that has helped me more than anything else in this field.

The issue (and I mention this because its interesting, even though its hella-tangential to the original topic) is, how can we teach this? I was sure never "taught" to network. I have a business degree too, and some classes mentioned it was "important" but that was the extent of it. It always came naturally to me though, so I just....did it. It wasn't until I graduated that I even realized I HAD been networking quite well for most of college. How can we teach students to collaborate without essentially punishing those who DO strive to succeed in a group setting?

This is without a doubt my biggest academic flaw right now. Without trying to sound snooty, I have a crazy-good memory and can plop down, flip through a textbook for 30 minutes, and ace an exam that plenty of folks study for days for to even pass. Yet when it comes time to apply that knowledge....I'm probably average at best. Case-in-point was hard science labs. I was a DISASTER in the chem lab, but barely did a damn thing to ace the classroom portion. Knowledge does not translate so easily to application, but knowledge without the ability to apply it is useless for anything other than coffee-table discussions at social gatherings.

There has to be a GOOD way to go about teaching people how to work together, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it done in a truly effective way.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The issue (and I mention this because its interesting, even though its hella-tangential to the original topic) is, how can we teach this? I was sure never "taught" to network. I have a business degree too, and some classes mentioned it was "important" but that was the extent of it. It always came naturally to me though, so I just....did it. It wasn't until I graduated that I even realized I HAD been networking quite well for most of college. How can we teach students to collaborate without essentially punishing those who DO strive to succeed in a group setting?

You hire people like me to teach you. People don't realize that there is a 'natural' piece, but a good majority of it is LEARNED. I am (I swear) an introverted person. I forced myself to be out-going and learn how to talk with people. (Note...not TO people, WITH people). Being introverted really helped me, because I knew where other introverts were coming from, so when I talked with them, it was much more natural. EVERYONE knows 'that guy' who is totally out-going and pushes too much. People don't like people who push too much.

I was helping a friend of mine out the other day with balancing networking (for his law firm) with meeting new people (which he didn't like doing). He was invited to an exclusive group of important people, and the last thing he wanted to do was mess it up. The gist of what I told him was that networking was everything but the business at hand, that comes once the relationship is formed. It seems counter-intuitive, but the more you can do for others, the better off you will be when they need help.

I gave him an example of a guy I met at a biz function...we'll call him Bob. We talked about a few different things, and settled on golf. Bob needed help with his golf game, and I knew a pro who was a great teacher, so I gave Bob the guy's name (Mike). A couple months go by and Bob ended up telling his friend Steve about his lessons, and that I introduced them. Bob gave him a good impression of me, and when a project came up for Steve's company....Steve called me. I met with Steve and ended up being able to help him out, so Steve looks good. Bob looks good because he helped Steve out, and Mike (the golf pro) sent me some balls and got me a tee time at a very nice club because I gave him a great (long term) student.

That is networking.

-t

 

[Ollie123]

ahhh, but how many high schools could afford someone like you Its great for corporate networking, but generally speaking the folks in that kind of field are not usually willing to work for the wages of a public school teacher. Because, as you said earlier, it IS a rare skill and they can often demand more for their time. So that might be a good solution for people already in the corporate world, but it doesn't help bring it in to the classroom at an early age and make "people skills" more prevalent in the general society.

Your story is a perfect example though. Its the sort of thing not many people do, but it can end up making an ENORMOUS difference in your professional career.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

ahhh, but how many high schools could afford someone like you Its great for corporate networking, but generally speaking the folks in that kind of field are not usually willing to work for the wages of a public school teacher. Because, as you said earlier, it IS a rare skill and they can often demand more for their time. So that might be a good solution for people already in the corporate world, but it doesn't help bring it in to the classroom at an early age and make "people skills" more prevalent in the general society.

Your story is a perfect example though. Its the sort of thing not many people do, but it can end up making an ENORMOUS difference in your professional career.

I am a big supporter of outside programs coming in and working at schools. I use to run a chapter of a non-profit that did just that....and it made a WORLD of difference. It wasn't networking, though a good portion of the program was about communication skills, which most/all of the kids lacked. Kids need to be taught these skills to be competitive in the global marketplace.

I think there is a widening gap because socializing at a young age is much different now than 20-30 years ago. Girls still do collaborative play, and boys seem to be doing less. There are still sports and competitive interactions, but far less cooperative interactions. Technology and societal changes are definitely NOT helping our kids socialize better. MySpace, Txt'ing, and Facebook don't count! I think girls have a slightly better understanding of relational interactions than boys. That being said, it isn't always a good thing. There are some great books about relational aggression, and how women are at the center of it, especially during the adolescent years.

-t

 

[psychwanabe]

I think there is a widening gap because socializing at a young age is much different now than 20-30 years ago. Girls still do collaborative play, and boys seem to be doing less. There are still sports and competitive interactions, but far less cooperative interactions. Technology and societal changes are definitely NOT helping our kids socialize better. MySpace, Txt'ing, and Facebook don't count! I think girls have a slightly better understanding of relational interactions than boys. That being said, it isn't always a good thing. There are some great books about relational aggression, and how women are at the center of it, especially during the adolescent years.

-t

These are interesting observations. Don't forget the video games that place children at play "next to" someone rather than "with" someone. My experience is that these video games tend to be played primarily by boys, which would contribute to the reduced socialization and verbal interchange that is already lacking in so many males. This means that technology is not only not helping, but is actually hindering.

Having said that, it seems that boys/men are more apt to share feelings on Facebook/MySpace, etc. than they might in person. Does this tendency give them an outlet to share their feelings that they would otherwise hide? In that case, technology might be increasing the awareness/sharing of a male's feelings even though it is reducing the amount of face-to-face social interaction.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Having said that, it seems that boys/men are more apt to share feelings on Facebook/MySpace, etc. than they might in person. Does this tendency give them an outlet to share their feelings that they would otherwise hide? In that case, technology might be increasing the awareness/sharing of a male's feelings even though it is reducing the amount of face-to-face social interaction.

Though on the other hand......the vast majority of human communication is non-verbal, so much of that is lost on mediums like MySpace and Txt'ing.

-t

 

[paramour]

Just trying to prove that females talk more than males--I honestly am not long-winded & gabby IRL. Really. I swear.

I read about this last week I think and thought about posting, but I actually managed to *sit* on it because I just kneeew someone would bring a few of us female SDNers up.

Well, this new study says nothing about the quality of speech or how persuasive one can be but in terms of quantity women do not, according to the study, talk more than men.

Of course, it may be that if one were to ask who writes more, the answer might have to be women. After all, look at the SDN posts in terms of number and length from (RayneeDeigh, Paramour just to name two - I hope I got their sex right) compared to those who have admitted to being men.

Yes, I am indeed female. Although I have noticed that some of your posts are quite lengthy, sooooo . . . . there something you need to tell us?

How fast do you all type? I have always had a computer and am constantly on mine so I average a little over 100 WPM, but I have a feeling that that is not uncommon nowadays as people have become addicted to their computers.

Or it could also be that you are simply surrounding yourself more with an area of the population that knows how to type? And do so well? I average 107+ most days--I actually slow down for typing tests that "count" (i.e., y'know for jobs & schtuff) to verify I'm accurate. This should, of course, be taken into account when calculating your WPM but I know a number of people who claim to type 'x' but it's littered with mistakes. Silly cumquats.

That being said, I am surrounded by individuals who type significantly beneath me. I know a few people who type approx. 60-62WPM average, but otherwise I have people amazed at my typing speed. Which I just don't get. 'Tis just the way I learned. I didn't have a fancy ghost game when I was younger like RayneeDeigh though. :cry:

That being said, I think most guys going into this field have to inherently be a bit more "feminine" - at least stereotypically speaking. I mean, real men don't talk about emotions and feelings, right? (hope no one is offended by that, I'm talking about myself too!).

Y'know, now that I think of it, all the guys I know who were seriously into psych were a bit effeminate. I do have a big tough retired Air Force dude in my summer session currently who's pursuing a psych major, so perhaps it's just the ones I've been exposed to at this point? Not so sure about macho guys in Politics/Business/Finance though as RD suggested. Sounds like I need to get out more.

I do think you are spot on regarding the importance of collaborative work though. How many people do you see in all kinds of fields that just plain suck at working with people? I've got the collaboration aspect down, working on the leadership skills. I was shy for most of my life, so it is against my nature, but it really can hold you back professionally so I started to break that habit once I got to college. Being both a leader, and a collaborator is an extremely rare trait and valuable beyond belief.

I can work with people. I reeeeeaaally dislike it, however. I, too, tend to be shy. Surprise, surprise! I honestly am not nearly so long-winded in person. I hate talking. Unless I'm out of it (e.g., not slept in a few days, or more recently, finally had adult contact after a month of staying home with a 6-y/o) and then I can ramble incoherently for awhile. Like RD, I talk a lot online, otherwise, I'm fairly quiet and keep to myself. I have to force myself to talk at times. I absolutely hated interviews where I was expected to be social. "Be yourself." Yeah, right, if I was truly being myself then you probably would have heard even less from me!

But, back to group work! I hate it, for similar reasons expressed by Ollie. I probably wouldn't mind it so much if I wasn't the only one doing the work, or at least putting some real effort into it, but this is unfortunately rarely the case. I thought it would get better in grad school. Alas, poor me, it wasn't. The few collaborative group projects we had sucked big time.

One project that I remember in particular required that we submit the group project as a whole for a portion of our grade, and then submit our individual efforts into the project to verify we all did something. There were 2-3 of us who did any work. Heck, one of those was an undergrad. Anyway, the other grad students contributed zilch, but one of those students decided that she was going to put all the info together for us for her part. Sounded good . . . except she did not follow through with any of it. So, the undergrad and I took it upon ourselves to do it and we sent it to her. She then turned around and submitted it as her own work, at the same time complaining that the other group members were lax in their contributions to the project. :| Thankfully, I had documented absolutely everything--emails and all--regarding contribution & lack thereof and submitted it all at the end to "prove" my own individual work. I had no desire of my grade being decreased due to someone else's incompetence and evil, conniving . . .

well, I'm sure you get the point! I dislike group work. Perhaps this will change, but I am skeptical. We shall see!

I keep up with paramour's blog quite regularly and I have to say, she manages to come up with more to write about in one day than I can in 1 year.

Who? Me? Yeah, I will admit that I write entirely too much. Hmm, you'd be amazed at how much crap I cut out of some of those posts. I make a half-hearted effort to actually trim the word count. I am still amazed at the number of people I know who actually read through my oh, so lengthy ramblings. Keep in mind, I don't converse with a lot of people though, so 'tis a way for me to get it out, so to speak, and forget about it. For the most part. It also keeps me mildly entertained & gives me something semi-productive to do at odd hours of the day.

And, on that note, I will cease & desist! Woo hoo!

 

[irish80122]

Paramour has a blog? I did not know that! One of us needs to start a Youtube channel, though that is more dangerous for obvious reasons. I keep thinking about doing it. Is anyone already on Youtube? I am addicted to that website, I just don't post videos as of yet!

 

[Ollie123]

Y'know, now that I think of it, all the guys I know who were seriously into psych were a bit effeminate. I do have a big tough retired Air Force dude in my summer session currently who's pursuing a psych major, so perhaps it's just the ones I've been exposed to at this point? Not so sure about macho guys in Politics/Business/Finance though as RD suggested. Sounds like I need to get out more.

I dual majored in psych and finance for awhile. Does that mean I'm manly and effeminate at the same time? I'm going to have to go eat chocolate and cry over a football game or something....

I'm SURE there are exceptions (I've met a few myself) but as a general rule, psychology emphasizes traits that are predominantly seen as feminine by western culture, so I'm sure it doesn't draw a lot of the "macho" crowd. Then again I think the culture as a whole is moving towards a gender-neutral status, so I'm sure it exists outside of psych as well, its just a matter of the degree. I'm not so sure that is a bad thing, though some will likely disagree. I think there are problems with it that need to be addressed, but overall I think clearly defined gender roles create more problems than they solve.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm SURE there are exceptions (I've met a few myself) but as a general rule, psychology emphasizes traits that are predominantly seen as feminine by western culture......

...but but...I can crush bugs, grunt, watch sports for days on end, and lift heavy objects!

-t

 

[GiantSteps]

Yes, I am indeed female. Although I have noticed that some of your posts are quite lengthy, sooooo . . . . there something you need to tell us?

Well, I can't very well take it out and let everyone admire it on a psychology internet site in order to prove my masculinity can I?

My birth certificate. What did you think I meant? Oh that crazy penus envy again. Freud was a genius! Women unconsciously have to talk a lot since lacking the male organ forever locks them in the oral stage of sexual development which they react against by using the mouth to talk alot or picking up the pen (the phalic symbol) to write their way, pen/phallic in hand, into the phallic stage!

As for me, no matter how much I write, Dickens and Faulkner will always have written more.

Also, I stink at typing. I do not know why I didn't take it in high school. However, I am currently trying to teach myself how to type the right way. Anyone know any good programs? I thought I found one on the internet Learn2Type.com but after using it once have been having trouble getting back on.

And, on that note, I will cease & desist! Woo hoo!

UNCLE! UNCLE! Paramour, you clearly abound in prolixity and trump the average male! However, remember that this was a study which is really looking at the average female and male. You are obviously an extreme measure and would have to be thrown out (I mean we have to get results right?)