We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The SAT that I took in 1956 is nothing like the SAT now. We were not told we could study or offered "prep courses." To this day, I don't know what I got on the SAT but it was good enough to make me a National Merit Scholar. There was no thought of taking it twice. We were marched into a study hall, told we taking a "test," and that was it.
Much the same thing happened with the MCAT, the test for medical school. I took it for "practice"at the advice of my roommate.
I have degrees from the Universities of London (BA, MA) and Oxford (DPhil). But in the US, when asked where I went to "school" I just mutter that "I went to university in Europe" and that is so alien (even in New York City) that the conversation moves on to something else. I know that where one went to university is a vital social marker in this country, but hey, a little mystery is a good thing sometimes.
It is not possible to find an institution in this country, much less other countries, that is not rotted to its very core. They are all converged by SJW's who view Marxist doctrine as to right wing. They are in the gutter and still trying to dig deeper....and produce nothing of value.
Do not despair. Every age has its own dragons, and these are ours. I think these are simply obstacles, not a doomed struggle against the dying of the light. Yet even if the latter, be of good cheer. We wanted lives of intellectual adventure, and they have found us.
Okay, the historians at Oxford apparently know very little about statistics. Differing rates of 32% and 37% for women and men is probably not a statistically significant difference. And even if it is, five points really isn't that much. The confidence intervals are going to be quite close.
The article isn't very helpful either.
For example, have they tried grading the exams 'blind' by assigning numbers instead of names? That method can make a big difference - for example in symphony orchestra auditions, after they started having musicians audition from behind a screen the proportion of women getting hired doubled. Many graduate programs grade their qualifying exams with only numbers attached and not the students' names, so that the professors actually have to pay attention to the work and not just grade based on reputation. ;-)
Also it's unclear why "the ladies" would do so much better writing at home rather than in an exam room. Wouldn't the male students benefit as well??