Statistically, yes. Statistics state that females are much faster learners than most males, but that is just statistically. There is no way to actually prove that those statistics weren't altered by feminists.

it may be true that girls are better learning. However nobody have proven YET that they are very good at putting the learned things into practice.

No.

I don't think so, but they are surely prettier.

Honestly, I know a lot more stupid girls than boys.

No, girls performance in school is not necessarily linked with their superiority. Look, how many CEOs are girls , how many presidents are girls, how many spiritual leaders are girls. There are a lot of things that determines ones ability to win the life. You can't think the performance only as a measure of superiority. Also higher result in school could be the result of their lack of interest in taking risk and unwillingness to go for creativity. And the school teachers usually prefer such sort of answers.

School learning environments and teaching methods tend to favour girls over boys, but if you look at long-term educational outcomes, more men than women get top grades on their degrees and more men than women advance to PhD level. This doesn't mean that one sex is superior to the other, it just shows that gender and social processes affect students' education differently at different life stages.

I wouldn't say that they are more superior but from a few studies that have been done here in the UK it would appear that girls are doing better at learning and exams than boys and have done so for a number of years.

In co-ed education, girls do seem to fare better than boys. But it's a matter of design, not nature. If you really delve into the statistics, you'll find that both boys and girls perform better in segregated environments. Boys and girls just learn differently, at least up until the late teens. A co-ed approach will necessarily favor one sex. If you go back 20 or so years, you'll find it used to favor boys. Of course, it would be a crime to discuss separating boys and girls since the world is comprised of negative thinkers. They'd all assume it was an attempt to institute inequality rather than an attempt to improve the overall quality of education for BOTH sexes.

Here's a hint about this topic... it doesn't answer the question, but it's good to know -- it will come in handy when you're older: Let the girls think they're smarter. Everything goes much more smoothly that way :)

Girls are better than boys. And the same hormones that make boys more physical that are lesser so in women, allow women to develop brains.

No. Just because some girls do well in high school doesn't mean thery are the answer to all of lifes questions. There is more to life than high school test scores.

Link to the argument(s) please. Your profile shows no listing of any such discussion, in fact it only shows 11 total posts in over a year on AB, and after recent discussions that occurred here along this line, I'm suspecting that this is one of two (or more) sock puppet accounts belonging to one individual. Attn admins: Name: 'Elliott' http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=317093 Account created 5 days prior to Boris, with only 100 posts since account creation.

I'm giving you max points on this question because this issue has bugged me for a while and I thank you for asking about it. So please don't be upset with the criticism that follows -- I'm not intending to make you feel bad, because I'm genuinely happy that you raised this: This question is utterly meaningless. Consider these two statements: Boys are better at math. Girls are better at English. When people say that, they're attempting to speak about average test scores in those subjects. But the averages tell you absolutely nothing about any particular person. Think about two bell curves charting test scores in math for boys and girls. It may very well be that the high point of the bell curve for the boys is slightly higher than that of the girls (and in language studies the opposite would be true), but that information tells you nothing about the individuals who make up the curve. In other words, people sometimes take that information, look at a particular boy and a particular girl, and decide that the former should be in math class and the latter should be in language arts. When, in fact, the average test scores in the population tell you absolutely nothing about how well, or how poorly, those particular kids will perform. At the level of interacting with individuals, the averages tell you absolutely nothing. There are lots of girls who are better at math than lots of boys. There are lots of boys who are better than lots of girls in languages. Some people find it difficult to treat everyone as an individual with his or her own unique mix of talents so they look for shortcuts. And consider this -- at the upper reaches of both areas (math and languages), in other words, in the genius range, I'm not sure there's much difference. If we stick with averages, and direct kids to stick with them, how do we know there isn't a female Einstein out there that we'll miss (or a male version of Jane Austen)? I think about me and my sister. We're both very smart (sorry -- true), but she's the math genius (an accountant and an extremely successful financial officer). And I'm a lawyer who mostly writes for a living. That's the great thing about stereotypes. They're so much fun to blow out of the water.

Physically wise men are obviously superior in most ways (we were the hunters and all, hold pretty much all the olympic records involving strength or speed) I'm pretty sure our brains work differently and we process and prioritize differently, and I would give women the better of the two. But also I that women are better nurturers because that is how it has been for millions of years and I think that if a women has children she shouldn't work 40+ hours a week and not be with her children. I'm all for affirmative action but neither are superior- I think we have our roles to play and that is how we have evolved/been created.