Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan Marietta, Professor of American Civics, University of Tennessee

The Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2025, agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship. It will likely hand down a ruling next summer.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order removing the recognition of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of both immigrants here illegally and visitors here only temporarily. The new rule is not retroactive. This change in long-standing U.S. policy sparked a wave of litigation culminating in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by Trump to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Both sides agree that to be granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, each side will give a very different interpretation of what the second requirement means. Who falls under “the jurisdiction” of the United States in this context?

As a close observer of the court, I anticipate a divided outcome grounded in strong arguments from each side.

Arguments for automatic citizenship

Simply put, the argument against the Trump administration is that the 14th Amendment’s expansion of citizenship after the eradication of slavery was meant to be broad rather than narrow, encompassing not only formerly enslaved Black people but all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.

The Civil War amendments – the 13th, 14th and 15th – established inherent equality as a constitutional value, which embraced all persons born in the nation without reference to race, ethnicity or origin.

One of the strongest arguments that automatic citizenship is the meaning of the Constitution is long-standing practice. Citizenship by birth regardless of parental status – with few exceptions – has been the effective rule since the time of America’s founding.

Advocates also point to precedent: the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. When an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens sued after being refused re-entry to San Francisco under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the court recognized his natural-born citizenship.

If we read the Constitution in a living fashion – emphasizing the evolution of American beliefs and values over time – the constitutional commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, seems even more clear.

However, advocates must try to convince the court’s originalists – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – who read the Constitution based on its meaning when it was adopted.

The originalist argument in favor of birthright citizenship is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was meant to invoke only a small set of exceptions found in traditional British common law. In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court relied on this “customary law of England, brought to America by the colonists.”

One exception to birthright citizenship covered by this line of rulings is the child of a foreign diplomat, whose parents represent the interests of another country. Another exception is the children of invading foreign armies. A third exception discussed explicitly by the framers of the 14th Amendment was Native Americans, who at the time were understood to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal government as a separate sovereign. That category of exclusion faded away after Congress recognized the citizenship of Native Americans in 1924.

The advocates of automatic birthright citizenship conclude that whether the 14th Amendment is interpreted in a living or in an original way, its small set of exceptions do not override its broad message of citizenship grounded in human equality.

Opposition to birthright citizenship

The opposing argument begins with a simple intuition: In a society defined by self-government, as America is, there is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.

This argument emphasizes that citizenship in a democracy means holding equal political power over our collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.

The court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 – just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment – endorses “the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.

Scholars who support this view argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.

Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation’s laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.

If mutual recognition of allegiance is the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the Trump administration has not violated it.

The opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has been misrepresented. In that case, the court only considered permanent legal residents like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily. The focus on British common law in that ruling is simply misguided because the findings of Calvin’s Case or any other precedents dealing with British subjects were voided by the American Revolution.

In this view, the Declaration of Independence replaced subjects with citizens. The power to determine national membership was taken away from kings and placed in the hands of democratic majorities.

For opponents of birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment does not take that power away from citizens but instead codifies the rule that mutual consent is the touchstone of admission. The requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction” provides the mechanism of that consent.

Congress can determine who is accepted as a member of the national community under its jurisdiction. In this view, Congress – and the American people – have spoken: Current federal laws make entry into U.S. borders without permission a crime rather than a forced acceptance of political membership.

What might happen

The court will likely announce a ruling in summer 2026 before early July, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The court will ultimately decide whether the Constitution endorses the declaration’s invocation of essential equality or its creation of a sovereign people empowered to determine the boundaries of national membership.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – will surely side against the Trump administration. The six Republican-appointed justices seem likely to divide, a symptom of disagreements within the originalist camp.

The liberal justices need at least two of the conservatives to join them to form a majority of five to uphold universal birthright citizenship. This will likely be some combination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Trump administration will prevail only if five out of the six conservatives reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone.

America should know by July Fourth.

Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase – https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-courts-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-will-depend-on-its-interpretation-of-one-phrase-271064

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By David Higgins, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

The committee advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy voted on Dec. 5, 2025, to stop recommending that all newborns be routinely vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus – undoing a 34-year prevention strategy that has nearly eliminated early childhood hepatitis B infections in the United States.

Before the U.S. began vaccinating all infants at birth with the hepatitis B vaccine in 1991, around 18,000 children every year contracted the virus before their 10th birthday – about half of them at birth. About 90% of that subset developed a chronic infection.

In the U.S., 1 in 4 children chronically infected with hepatitis B will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.

Today, fewer than 1,000 American children or adolescents contract the virus every year – a 95% drop. Fewer than 20 babies each year are reported infected at birth.

I am a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist who studies vaccine delivery and policy. Vaccinating babies for hepatitis B at birth remains one of the clearest, most evidence-based ways to keep American children free of this lifelong, deadly infection.

What spurred the change?

In September 2025, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, debated changing the recommendation for a dose of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, but ultimately delayed the vote.

This committee regularly reviews vaccine guidance. However, since Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disbanded the entire committee and handpicked new members, its activity has drastically departed from business as usual. The committee has long-standing procedures for evaluating evidence on the risks and benefits of vaccines, but these procedures were not followed in the September meeting and were not followed for this most recent decision.

The committee’s new recommendation keeps the hepatitis B vaccine at birth for infants whose mothers test positive for the virus. But the committee now advises that infants whose mothers test negative should consult with their health care provider. Parents and health care providers are instructed to weigh vaccine benefits, vaccine risks and infection risks using “individual-based decision-making” or “shared clinical decision-making.”

On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But while parents have always been free to discuss benefits and risks with their health care providers to make a decision on what’s best for their child, this change is not based on any new evidence, and it introduces uncertainty into a recommendation that has long been clear.

As a doctor, I am already seeing this uncertainty play out in the clinic. I recently had new parents ask to postpone the hepatitis B vaccine until adolescence because they believed federal health leaders had evidence that people only become infected through sexual activity or contaminated needle use.

After a brief conversation, they came to understand that this was inaccurate — children can be infected not only at birth but also through routine household or child care exposures, including shared toothbrushes or even a bite that breaks the skin. In the end, they chose to vaccinate, but this experience highlights how easily well-intentioned parents can be misled when guidance is not clear and consistent.

Why the CDC adopted universal hepatitis B shots

Hepatitis B is a virus that infects liver cells, causing inflammation and damage. It is spread through blood and bodily fluids and is easily transmitted from mother to baby during delivery.

The hepatitis B vaccine has been available since the early 1980s. Before 1991, public health guidance recommended giving newborns the hepatitis B vaccine only if they were at high risk of being infected – for example, if they were born to a mother infected with hepatitis B.

That targeted plan failed. Tens of thousands of infants were still infected each year.

Some newborns were exposed when their mothers weren’t screened; others were exposed after their mothers were infected late in pregnancy, after their initial screening. And like any lab test, the screening can have false negative results, be misinterpreted or not be communicated properly to the baby’s care team.

Recognizing these gaps, in 1991 the CDC recommended hepatitis B vaccination for every child starting at birth, regardless of maternal risk.

The U.S. adopted a policy of vaccinating all babies from birth because the number of people with hepatitis B infections was, and remains, relatively high, and because many mothers do not receive prenatal care, so their infections go undetected.

Meanwhile, in some European countries, like Denmark, only babies with certain risk factors receive the vaccine at birth. That’s because in those countries, hepatitis B infections are much less prevalent and pregnant mothers are more widely tested due to universal health care. Due to these differences, that approach is not effective in the United States. In fact, most World Health Organization member countries do recommend a universal birth dose.

Vaccinating at birth

The greatest danger for infants contracting hepatitis B is at birth, when contact with a mother’s blood can transmit the virus. Without preventive treatment or vaccination, 70% to 90% of infants born to infected mothers will become infected themselves, and 90% of those infections will become chronic. The infection in these children silently damages their liver, potentially leading to liver cancer and death.

About 80% of parents choose to vaccinate their babies at birth. If parents choose to delay vaccination due to this new recommendation, it will leave babies unprotected during this most vulnerable window, when infection is most likely to lead to chronic infection and silently damage the liver.

A research article published on Dec. 3, 2025, estimates that if only infants born to mothers infected with hepatitis B received the vaccine, an additional 476 perinatal hepatitis B infections would occur each year.

The hepatitis B vaccines used in the U.S. have an outstanding safety record. The only confirmed risk is an allergic reaction called anaphylaxis that occurs in roughly 1 in 600,000 doses, and no child has died from such a reaction. Extensive studies show no link to other serious conditions.

How children get exposed to hepatitis B

Infants and children continue to be vulnerable to hepatitis B long after birth.

Children can become infected through household contacts or in child care settings by exposures as ordinary as shared toothbrushes or a bite that breaks the skin. Because hepatitis B can survive for a week on household surfaces, and many carriers are unaware they are infected, even babies and toddlers of uninfected mothers remained at risk.

Full protection against hepatitis B requires a three-dose vaccine series, given at specific intervals in infancy. Anything short of the full series leaves children vulnerable for life.

In addition to changing the birth dose recommendation, the committee is now advising parents to consult with their health care provider about checking children’s antibody levels after one or two doses of the vaccine to determine whether additional doses are needed. While such testing is sometimes recommended for people in high-risk groups after they get all three doses to confirm their immune system properly responded to the vaccine, it is not a substitute for completing the series.

The recommendation for all babies to receive the vaccine at birth and for infants to complete the full vaccine series is designed to protect every child, including those who slip through gaps in maternal screening or encounter the virus in everyday life. A reversion to the less effective risk-based approach threatens to erode this critical safety net.

Portions of this article originally appeared in a previous article published on Sept. 9, 2025.

Dr. Higgins is affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Immunize Colorado, and Colorado Chooses Vaccines. These are volunteer roles.

– ref. Vaccine committee votes to scrap universal hepatitis B shots for newborns despite outcry from children’s health experts – https://theconversation.com/vaccine-committee-votes-to-scrap-universal-hepatitis-b-shots-for-newborns-despite-outcry-from-childrens-health-experts-271202

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

As disputes rage on over religion’s place in public schools, the Ten Commandments have become a focal point. At least a dozen states have considered proposals that would require the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, with Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas mandating their display in 2024 or 2025.

Challenges led to all three laws being at least partially blocked. Most recently, on Dec. 2, 2025, families in Texas filed a class-action lawsuit seeking to take down displays across the state. Federal trial court judges have already temporarily blocked the law in around two dozen districts. Ongoing appeals from the bills’ supporters, though, seem aimed at overturning a 45-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibiting such displays.

As religion and education law researchers, we believe this situation is especially noteworthy because of its timing. In 2022, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to assess religious freedom cases, which may come into play – and its judgments on religion’s role in public education are perhaps the most religion-friendly they have ever been.

The Ten Commandments and the courts

Controversy over the commandments is not new. In more than a dozen early cases, courts generally upheld laws and policies mandating their recitation in schools. These enactments survived because the Supreme Court did not extend the First Amendment to state laws until 1940.

Litigation over posting the Ten Commandments in schools first reached the Supreme Court in 1980. In Stone v. Graham, the justices invalidated a Kentucky statute requiring displays of the commandments in classrooms. The court reasoned that the law violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

At the time, the court applied the first of the three criteria it has since abandoned, known as the “Lemon test,” to evaluate whether governmental action violates the establishment clause. Under this test – which developed from a 1971 Supreme Court decision – governmental actions must have a secular legislative purpose, and their main effect may neither advance nor inhibit religion. In addition, they must avoid excessive entanglement with religion.

In Stone, the justices rejected Kentucky’s argument that the displays served a secular educational purpose. The court disagreed that a small notation on posters describing the Ten Commandments as the “fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States” was sufficient, noting that the posters were “plainly religious in nature.”

Twenty-five years later, in 2005, litigation over public displays of the Ten Commandments returned to the Supreme Court. This time, neither display was in a school.

The first dispute arose in Kentucky, where officials in two counties had erected courthouse displays including the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. The justices limited their order to one dispute, in McCreary County, invalidating the display for violating the establishment clause – largely because it lacked a secular legislative purpose.

On the same day, the Supreme Court reached the opposite result in another case, Van Orden v. Perry. The court permitted a display including the Ten Commandments to remain on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin, where it was one of 17 monuments and 21 historical markers.

Unlike the fairly new displays in Kentucky, the long-standing one in Texas, with the first monument erected in 1891, was built using private funds. The court left the Ten Commandments monument in place because it was a more passive display. The Capitol grounds are spread out over 22 acres, meaning the Ten Commandments were not as readily apparent as if they had been posted in classrooms.

‘Follow God’s law’

More recent controversy started in 2024. Louisiana mandated that the Ten Commandments be posted in public schools, and a federal trial court soon blocked the law. Undeterred, Arkansas and Texas passed similar legislation the following year.

Arkansas Act 573, signed into law in April 2025, obligated officials to display a “durable poster or framed copy” of the Ten Commandments in all state and local government buildings, including public school and college classrooms.

Republican Rep. Alyssa Brown, one of the Arkansas bill’s sponsors, described it as an effort to educate students on how the United States was founded and how the founders framed the Constitution.

“We’re not telling every student they have to believe in this God,” she told a legislative committee, “but we are upholding what those historical documents mean and that historical national motto.”

Texas, meanwhile, adopted a similar law in June 2025.

“It is incumbent on all of us to follow God’s law, and I think we would all be better off if we did,” the bill’s sponsor in the Texas House, Republican Rep. Candy Noble, said during debate.

Shift at SCOTUS

Supporters of these laws argue that they are constitutional because of an important shift at the Supreme Court. In 2022, the court adopted a new “history and tradition test” to assess religion in public places, including classrooms.

The “history and tradition test” originated in 2022’s Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case about a public high school football coach who prayed on the field at the end of games. The court ruled that school officials could not prevent the coach from praying because it was a personal religious observance protected by the First Amendment’s other religion clause: that the government shall not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion.

The Kennedy case charted a new course on religion’s place in public life. Acknowledging that it “long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot,” the justices explained that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.‘” It remains to be seen how this standard plays out.

Blocked – for now

In August 2025, a federal trial court temporarily barred officials in four school districts from enforcing Arkansas’ law. The court found that the required display would have “forced [students] to engage with” the Ten Commandments, and “perhaps to venerate and obey” them. The court also applied the new historical practices and understandings test, holding that there was no evidence of a tradition to display the Ten Commandments in public schools permanently.

The same judge later prohibited two more Arkansas school boards from posting displays.

In Louisiana, too, a federal trial court blocked a state statute. The 5th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals initially affirmed that order. However, an en banc panel of the 5th Circuit – meaning all the circuit’s active judges – will rehear the case on Jan. 20, 2026.

The Texas statute’s future is also up in the air. In August 2025, a federal trial court enjoined the law, temporarily stopping it from going into effect in 11 districts. Acknowledging the cases from Arkansas and Louisiana, the judge held that Texas’ law likely violated the First Amendment. The full 5th Circuit will hear oral arguments in January, alongside the Louisiana case.

On Nov. 18, a second federal trial court judge enjoined the Texas law in around a dozen new districts.

Religion’s role

Controversy over the Ten Commandments continues to raise larger questions over the role of religion in public education, if any.

Supporters of such bills seemingly fail to recognize that they cannot impose their religious values in the public sphere. At the same time, some opponents – including Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, Hindu and nonreligious plaintiffs – do not necessarily wish to remove religion entirely from educational institutions.

These critics want to uphold the principle that, as the Supreme Court has affirmed, the government must demonstrate “neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” In other words, critics do not want one religion or religion generally to dominate.

Today’s challenge is to find the balance in public life. We believe the courts and legislatures must avoid sending the message that religion has no place in a free and open society – just as they must not permit one set of values to dominate, as the bills in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas seem to aspire to do.

How the courts and legislatures balance the rights of the majority and minority in these disputes over the place of the Ten Commandments in public life may go a long way toward shaping the future of religious freedom in American public education.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Sept. 5, 2025.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 3 states are challenging precedent against posting the Ten Commandments in public schools – cases that could land back at the Supreme Court – https://theconversation.com/3-states-are-challenging-precedent-against-posting-the-ten-commandments-in-public-schools-cases-that-could-land-back-at-the-supreme-court-271287

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sarah Lubienski, Professor of Mathematics Education, Indiana University

Among high school students and adults, girls and women are much more likely to use traditional, step-by-step algorithms to solve basic math problems – such as lining up numbers to add, starting with the ones place, and “carrying over” a number when needed. Boys and men are more likely to use alternative shortcuts, such as rounding both numbers, adding the rounded figures, and then adjusting to remove the rounding.

But those who use traditional methods on basic problems are less likely to solve more complex math problems correctly. These are the main findings of two studies our research team published in November 2025.

This new evidence may help explain an apparent contradiction in the existing research – girls do better at math in school, but boys do better on high-stakes math tests and are more likely to pursue math-intensive careers. Our research focuses not just on getting correct answers, but on the methods students use to arrive at them. We find that boys and girls approach math problems differently, in ways that persist into adulthood.

A possible paradox

In a 2016 study of U.S. elementary students, boys outnumbered girls 4 to 1 among the top 1% of scorers on a national math test. And over many decades, boys have been about twice as likely as girls to be among the top scorers on the SAT and AP math exams.

However, girls tend to be more diligent in elementary school and get better grades in math class throughout their schooling. And girls and boys across the grades tend to score similarly on state math tests, which tend to be more aligned with the school curriculum and have more familiar problems than the SAT or other national tests.

Beyond grades and test scores, the skills and confidence acquired in school carry far beyond, into the workforce. In lucrative STEM occupations, such as computer science and engineering, men outnumber women 3 to 1. Researchers have considered several explanations for this disparity, including differences in math confidence and occupational values, such as prioritizing helping others or making money. Our study suggests an additional factor to consider: gender differences in approaches to math problems.

When older adults think of math, they may recall memorizing times tables or doing the tedious, long-division algorithm. Memorization and rule-following can pay off on math tests focused on procedures taught in school. But rule-following has its limits and seems to provide more payoff among low-achieving than high-achieving students in classrooms.

More advanced math involves solving new, perplexing problems rather than following rules.

Differing strategies

In looking at earlier studies of young children, our research team was struck by findings that young boys use more inventive strategies on computation problems, whereas girls more often use standard algorithms or counting. We wondered whether these differences disappear after elementary school, or whether they persist and relate to gender disparities in more advanced math outcomes.

In an earlier study, we surveyed students from two high schools with different demographic characteristics to see whether they were what we called bold problem-solvers. We asked them to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with specific statements, such as “I like to think outside the box when I solve math problems.” Boys reported bolder problem-solving tendencies than girls did. Importantly, students who reported bolder problem-solving tendencies scored higher on a math problem-solving test we administered.

Our newer studies echo those earlier results but reveal more specifics about how boys and girls, and men and women, approach basic math problems.

Algorithms and teacher-pleasing

In the first study, we gave three questions to more than 200 high school students: “25 x 9 = ___,” “600 – 498 = ___,” and “19 + 47 + 31 = ___.” Each question could be solved with a traditional algorithm or with a mental shortcut, such as solving 25 x 9 by first multiplying 25 x 8 to get 200 and then adding the final 25 to get 225.

Regardless of their gender, students were equally likely to solve these basic computation items correctly. But there was a striking gender difference in how they arrived at that answer. Girls were almost three times as likely as boys – 52% versus 18% – to use a standard algorithm on all three items. Boys were far more likely than girls – 51% versus 15% – to never use an algorithm on the questions.

We suspected that girls’ tendency to use algorithms might stem from greater social pressure toward compliance, including complying with traditional teacher expectations.

So, we also asked all the students eight questions to probe how much they try to please their teachers. We also wanted to see whether algorithm use might relate to gender differences in more advanced problem-solving, so we gave students several complex math problems from national tests, including the SAT.

As we suspected, we found that girls were more likely to report a desire to please teachers, such as by completing work as directed. Those who said they did have that desire used the standard algorithm more often.

Also, the boys in our sample scored higher than the girls on the complex math problems. Importantly, even though students who used algorithms on the basic computation items were just as likely to compute these items correctly, algorithm users did worse on the more complex math problems.

Continuing into adulthood

In our second study, we gave 810 adults just one problem: “125 + 238 = ___.” We asked them to add mentally, which we expected would discourage them from using an algorithm. Again, there was no gender difference in answering correctly.

But 69% of women, compared to 46% of men, reported using the standard algorithm for their mental calculation, rather than using another strategy entirely.

We also gave the adults a more advanced problem-solving test, this time focused on probability-related reasoning, such as the chances that rolling a seven-sided die would result in an even number. Similar to our first study, women and those who used the standard algorithm on the computation problem performed worse on the reasoning test.

The importance of inventiveness

We identified some factors that may play a role in these gender differences, including spatial-thinking skills, which may help people develop alternate calculation approaches. Anxiety about taking tests and perfectionism, both more prevalent among women, may also be a factor.

We are also interested in the power of gender-specific social pressures on girls. National data has shown that young girls exhibit more studious behavior than do boys. And the high school girls we studied were more likely than boys to report they made a specific effort to meet teachers’ expectations.

More research definitely is needed to better understand this dynamic, but we hypothesize that the expectation some girls feel to be compliant and please others may drive teacher-pleasing tendencies that result in girls using algorithms more frequently than boys, who are more socialized to be risk-takers.

While compliant behavior and standard math methods often lead to correct answers and good grades in school, we believe schools should prepare all students – regardless of gender – for when they face unfamiliar problems that require inventive problem-solving skills, whether in daily life, on high-stakes tests or in math-intensive professions.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Girls and boys solve math problems differently – with similar short-term results but different long-term outcomes – https://theconversation.com/girls-and-boys-solve-math-problems-differently-with-similar-short-term-results-but-different-long-term-outcomes-269059

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor​, University of Memphis

Which terms best represent 2025?

Every year, editors for publications ranging from the Oxford English Dictionary to the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English select a “word of the year.”

Sometimes these terms are thematically related, particularly in the wake of world-altering events. “Pandemic,” “lockdown” and “coronavirus,” for example, were among the words chosen in 2020. At other times, they are a potpourri of various cultural trends, as with 2022’s “goblin mode,” “permacrisis” and “gaslighting.”

This year’s slate largely centers on digital life. But rather than reflecting the unbridled optimism about the internet of the early aughts – when words like “w00t,” “blog,” “tweet” and even “face with tears of joy” emoji (😂) were chosen – this year’s selections reflect a growing unease over how the internet has become a hotbed of artifice, manipulation and fake relationships.

When seeing isn’t believing

A committee representing the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English settled on “AI slop” for their word of the year.

Macquarie defines the term, which was popularized in 2024 by British programmer Simon Willison and tech journalist Casey Newton, as “low-quality content created by generative AI, often containing errors, and not requested by the user.”

AI slop – which can range from a saccharine image of a young girl clinging to her little dog to career advice on LinkedIn – often goes viral, as gullible social media users share these computer-generated videos, text and graphics with others.

Images have been manipulated or altered since the dawn of photography. The technique was then improved, with an assist from AI, to create “deepfakes,” which allows existing images to be turned into video clips in surreal ways. Yes, you can now watch Hitler teaming up with Stalin to sing a 1970s hit by The Buggles.

What makes AI slop different is that images or video can be created out of whole cloth by providing a chatbot with just a prompt – no matter how bizarre the request or ensuing output.

Meet my new friend, ChatGPT

The editors of the Cambridge Dictionary chose “parasocial.” They define this as “involving or relating to a connection that someone feels between themselves and a famous person they do not know, a character in a book, film, TV series … or an artificial intelligence.”

These asymmetric relationships, according to the dictionary’s chief editor, are the result of “the public’s fascination with celebrities and their lifestyles,” and this interest “continues to reach new heights.”

As an example, Cambridge’s announcement cited the engagement of singer Taylor Swift and football player Travis Kelce, which led to a spike in online searches for the meaning of the term. Many Swifties reacted with unbridled joy, as if their best friend or sibling had just decided to tie the knot.

But the term isn’t a new one: It was coined by sociologists in 1956 to describe “the illusion” of having “a face-to-face relationship” with a performer.

However, parasocial relationships can take a bizarre or even ominous turn when the object of one’s affections is a chatbot. People are developing true feelings for these AI systems, whether they see them as a trusted friend or even a romantic partner. Young people, in particular, are now turning to generative AI for therapy.

Taking the bait

The Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year is “rage bait,” which the editors define as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.”

This is only the latest word for forms of emotional manipulation that have plagued the online world since the days of dial-up internet. Related terms include trolling, sealioning and trashposting.

Unlike a hot take – a hasty opinion on a topic that may be poorly reasoned or articulated – rage baiting is intended to be inflammatory. And it can be seen as both a cause and a result of political polarization.

People who post rage bait have been shown to lack empathy and to regard other people’s emotions as something to be exploited or even monetized. Rage baiters, in short, reflect the dark side of the attention economy.

Meaningless meaning

Perhaps the most contentious choice in 2025 was “6-7,” chosen by Dictionary.com. In this case, the controversy has to do with the actual meaning of this bit of Gen Alpha slang. The editors of the website describe it as being “meaningless, ubiquitous, and nonsensical.”

Although its definition may be slippery, the term itself can be found in the lyrics of the rapper Skrilla, who released the single “Doot Doot (6 7)” in early 2025. It was popularized by 17-year-old basketball standout Taylen Kinney. For his part, Skrilla claimed that he “never put an actual meaning on it, and I still would not want to.”

“6-7” is sometimes accompanied by a gesture, as if one were comparing the weight of objects held in both hands. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently performed this hand motion during a school visit. The young students were delighted. Their teacher, however, informed Starmer that her charges weren’t allowed to use it at the school, which prompted a clumsy apology from the chastened prime minister.

Throw your hands in the air?

The common element that these words share may be an attitude best described as digital nihilism.

As online misinformation, AI-generated text and images, fake news and conspiracy theories abound, it’s increasingly difficult to know whom or what to believe or trust. Digital nihilism is, in essence, an acknowledgment of a lack of meaning and certainty in our online interactions.

This year’s crop of words might best be summed up by a single emoji: the shrug (🤷). Throwing one’s hands up, in resignation or indifference, captures the anarchy that seems to characterize our digital lives.

Roger J. Kreuz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 2025’s words of the year reflect a year of digital disillusionment – https://theconversation.com/2025s-words-of-the-year-reflect-a-year-of-digital-disillusionment-270769

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jonathan Deutsch, Professor of Food and Hospitality Management, Drexel University

Working in restaurants is physically, mentally and emotionally taxing and often thankless work. So it was wonderful to see so many hardworking friends in the Philadelphia dining industry recognized at the Michelin Guide’s 2025 Northeast Cities Ceremony in Philadelphia on Nov. 18, 2025.

Three Philadelphia restaurants each received a star: Provenance, Friday Saturday Sunday and Her Place Supper Club. In addition, 10 other food destinations received a Bib Gourmand for providing “exceptionally good food at moderate prices,” and 21 received Michelin-Recommended status. Pietramala was the sole winner of a green star for sustainability.

I’m especially proud that the Culinary Arts and Science program at Drexel University, where I teach, has had student co-ops and employees, as well as alumni, at all three starred restaurants.

As a classically trained chef, culinary educator and author of the textbook “Culinary Improvisation,” which teaches culinary creativity, I’ve been following the Michelin developments in Philadelphia closely. I am also a contributor to The Infatuation Philly, whose mission is to bring you honest and trustworthy opinions about where to eat. I spend a good amount of time experiencing and reviewing restaurants.

In “Culinary Improvisation,” my co-authors and I discuss the “ingredients” needed to foster culinary innovation: mastery of culinary technique, access to a diverse range of ingredients and flavors, and a collaborative and supportive environment to take risks and make mistakes.

I worried that Michelin, while good for bringing more tourist dollars and recognition to the city, would be bad for fostering some of the very qualities that already make Philadelphia one of the most innovative and high-quality dining cities in the country.

I was particularly concerned that the freedom to experiment, create and innovate would be stifled under the spotlight of outside inspectors.

According to the Michelin Guide, stars are awarded to outstanding restaurants based on: “quality of ingredients, mastery of cooking techniques and flavors, the personality of the chef as expressed in the cuisine, value for money, and consistency of the dining experience both across the menu and over time.”

The criteria do not mention innovation.

Some confounding snubs

The three Philly restaurants that were awarded stars are all deserving, but I believe there are so many oversights, especially on the creativity and innovation front. Reviewing the reviewers, I don’t think they deserve a star.

Within the city boundaries, Emmett, Fork, Vernick Fish, Ogawa, Rice and Sambal, Elwood, Alice, Fiore, a.kitchen, Perla, Bastia, Blue Corn, Little Fish, Mawn, Lacroix and Le Virtu all stand out to me as places that embody the creative energy of Philly’s dining scene and should be at least recommended.

While the guide refers to “Philadelphia and surroundings,” and a Michelin representative reportedly indicated that suburban restaurants would be considered, no restaurants outside the city limits were honored. Did the inspectors not want to battle rush-hour traffic to visit the comforting yet exciting things happening at Cornerstone, June BYOB, Hearthside, Zeppoli, Park Place, Ripplewood, Andiario, Lark and The Choice?

The three recommended cheesesteak places – Dalessandro’s, Del Rossi’s and Angelo’s – are arguably fine, but it’s a tourist stereotype to include so many.

In contrast, China Gourmet, Nom Wah, Bai Wei, E-Mei, Café Nhan, South Philly Barbacoa, Black Dragon, Doro Bet, Farina di Vita and John’s Roast Pork received no mention by Michelin – while all are on my short list to recommend to visitors looking for great food at a good value.

Philadelphians know that cheesesteak may be obligatory for visitors, but the roast pork sandwich – ideally with provolone, broccoli rabe and long hots – is the real reason to visit.

James Beard darling Mawn didn’t make the list, nor did the [omakase experience at Royal Sushi and Izakaya], which Philly food media thought was a given for a star. The casual izakaya part of the restaurant did receive a Bib Gourmand, but the review doesn’t mention the food at the omakase bar, leading chef-owner Jesse Ito and Philly food critic Craig LaBan to speculate that Michelin inspectors couldn’t get a reservation. If that’s the case, it’s inexcusable. When asked, a Michelin spokesperson said they don’t “reveal specifics.” Michelin inspectors should do the work to get into the critically acclaimed places.

As for Mawn: Wait in line for their no-reservation lunch like the rest of Philly.

Where to eat now?

As a strategy for building tourism, filling seats during lunch hours and early in the week, and recruiting out-of-town restaurant talent, Michelin makes a lot of sense for Philly. But many people don’t realize that Michelin is pay-to-play in the locations included in its guides, so Philly’s lack of Michelin stars before last month should not indicate that the city’s restaurant scene was not already Michelin-worthy. We just hadn’t paid for the privilege of being inspected.

Additionally, Michelin awards are just one of many awards and accolades that Philly restaurants can get.

The Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau has not stated how much they paid to have an outside for-profit company come and confirm that Philly indeed has good restaurants. But in 2024, Houston reportedly agreed to pay the Michelin Guide $270,000 for the privilege. Assuming Philadelphia paid a similar amount, if not more, that averages to about 100K per star.

In Philadelphia, that money could have been used for scholarships for culinary students, workforce development training ahead of the city’s celebration of the nation’s 250th birthday or strengthening high school and community college culinary and hospitality programs. It could have gone to tax incentives or lowering hurdles for underrepresented or emerging restaurateurs – uses I believe would make Philly’s food scene even stronger.

Instead it was used to give restaurants that had already received prestigious James Beard awards and other recognition even more kudos – making them even more difficult to get into for Philadelphians and tourists alike.

In a city known for its grit, doing its thing whether you like it or not, and thumbing its nose at New York and Washington, D.C., this whole thing strikes me as very un-Philly.

I’m going to make it a point to visit all the restaurants I love that haven’t gotten the credit they deserve. With over 6,000 restaurants in Philadelphia, I’ll be busy. The tourists can have the Michelin places until the hype dies down.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Jonathan Deutsch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A culinary educator and local dining expert breaks down Michelin’s debut Philly list − and gives zero stars to the inspectors – https://theconversation.com/a-culinary-educator-and-local-dining-expert-breaks-down-michelins-debut-philly-list-and-gives-zero-stars-to-the-inspectors-271049