Cited by 238Education, Achievement, and GiftednessIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesCareer Development and Diversity

Why does Jane read and write so well? the anomaly of women's achievement

Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin·1989·Sociology of Education

Abstract

Numerous studies have found that women's academic achievement not only equals but often surpasses that of men. In this society, in which educational credentials are linked to jobs, promotions, wages, and status, women's educational accomplishments appear anomalous because women continue to receive far fewer rewards for their educational credentials than do men with comparable credentials. In view of the limited rewards that women are likely to receive for education, why do they do as well and attain as much education as they do? This article examines the anomaly of women's achievement in light of four hypotheses and presents empirical evidence to assess each hypothesis. Attention is paid throughout to racial and class differences in women's lived experiences in the opportunity structure. Finally, directions for future research are suggested. The evidence is in and the conclusion is clear: Women can and do achieve academically as well as do men. The myth of female underachievement has been exposed by many studies that have indicated that women's motivation and behavior to achieve not only equal but often surpass that of men (Klein 1985; Maccoby and Jacklin 1974; National Center for Educational Statistics 1986; Stockard 1985; Stockard and Wood 1984; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1987). Today, as in the past, more girls than boys graduate from high school and more women than men receive baccalaureate degrees,' and nationwide, women now outnumber men in master's degree programs. More…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2112823

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Girls are often rated to be more dutiful and cooperative in classes than boys.

    “Further, girls are often rated to be more dutiful and cooperative in classes than boys (Mickelson, 1989).”

    From Gender and Education (2015) · cites this paper as Mickelson, 1989

  • Girls have consistently outperformed boys in classroom academic performance throughout much of the developed world since at least the mid-1900s.

    “Considering children ' s academic performance in the classroom as opposed to performance on standardized exams, girls have consistently outperformed boys throughout much of the developed world since at least the mid-1900s (Mickelson, 1989).”

    From Gender and Education (2015) · cites this paper as Mickelson, 1989

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mickelson, R. A.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin
Venue
Sociology of Education
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1989-01
Volume
62
Issue
1
Pages
47
ISSN
0038-0407 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023573963
Cited by
238
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 24
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Sociology of Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
gender gap in education, educational credentials, returns to education, opportunity structures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review