The Cost of the Clock: How Time Limits Can Unfairly Shape Girls’ Math Performance
A university math lab. Two students—both bright, both well-prepared—sit side by side, pencils tapping. The timer starts. Twenty minutes later, the buzzer rings. He finishes the last problem just in time. She’s halfway through her final question, eyebrows knit, eraser smudging the page.
When results come back, he scores higher—not because he understood more, but because he worked faster.
That tiny difference, multiplied across classrooms and standardized tests, can shape how teachers, parents, and even students themselves view “ability.” But new research shows this gap may have little to do with math skill—and everything to do with time limits.
What the Research Found
A team of psychologists led by Andrea Stoevenbelt at Tilburg University wanted to know: Are timed tests unfair to girls?
Their study, published in Educational and Psychological Measurement, looked at thousands of students taking math exams under strict time limits. They used advanced models (Bayesian item response theory, for the stats-savvy among us) to tease apart two things:
- Mathematical ability – how well students could solve problems.
- Completion speed – how quickly they worked before time ran out.
The results?
- There was a clear positive link between ability and speed—students who were stronger at math tended to move faster.
- But the gender gap didn’t appear in math ability itself—it appeared in completion speed.
- Women attempted fewer items before the time ran out, even when their actual math skill was on par with men.
In other words: under time pressure, the test started measuring test-taking strategy more than true math understanding.
The Myth of “Working Under Pressure”
We often hear that timed tests “prepare students for the real world.” But the real world rarely operates like a ticking stopwatch. Architects aren’t designing bridges against a timer. Nurses don’t make dosing decisions with a buzzer overhead. And yet, in education, we treat speed as a proxy for intelligence.
Stoevenbelt and her colleagues warn that this practice risks baking bias into the very fabric of testing. When performance depends not just on what students know, but on how quickly they can show it, we reward fast thinkers over deep thinkers.
And girls—on average—tend to approach problems more cautiously, double-checking their reasoning. That thoroughness, an asset in most real-world contexts, becomes a penalty under the tyranny of the clock.
What About “Stereotype Threat”?
The researchers also explored another famous factor: stereotype threat—the idea that when girls are reminded of stereotypes about women being “bad at math,” they perform worse.
Interestingly, in this large replication study, stereotype threat didn’t significantly affect performance. But the story doesn’t end there. The team notes that many stereotype threat experiments already use time pressure to make tests harder. That means girls might face a double disadvantage: not just anxiety from the stereotype, but structural bias from the timer itself.
Why It Matters for Schools and Parents
This study challenges one of education’s unspoken rules: that testing speed equals intelligence.
If girls and boys have similar math ability but girls attempt fewer items under time limits, then timed tests exaggerate gender gaps. That matters not just for grades, but for access—to advanced math tracks, scholarships, and confidence in STEM fields.
When students repeatedly encounter situations where their thoughtful approach is penalized, the message seeps in: Maybe I’m just not good at this.
That’s not a reflection of talent—it’s a reflection of design.
Rethinking the Role of Time in Learning
So what can schools and parents do? Here are some takeaways:
1. Slow Down to See True Ability
Untimed or extended-time assessments can reveal what students really know. Even a few extra minutes can make a huge difference for students who process carefully.
2. Talk About Test Design
Explain to students that time limits test strategy, not just skill. This helps them interpret results with perspective—and protects self-confidence.
3. Reinforce Process Over Pace
In classrooms, celebrate how students solve problems, not just how fast. Math isn’t a race—it’s reasoning.
4. Advocate for Fair Testing:
Teachers and school psychologists can push for assessment policies that include both speeded and unspeeded measures—or better yet, make time a flexible variable, not a fixed rule.
What This Means Beyond Math
The implications go far beyond a single subject. Timed tests are common in intelligence assessments, college admissions exams, and even job screenings. If we’re not careful, they can reinforce inequalities that have nothing to do with ability.
And while this study focused on gender, the same principle may apply to students with ADHD, anxiety, or cultural norms that value deliberation over impulsivity. The stopwatch doesn’t just measure knowledge—it measures comfort with speed.
That’s a different kind of intelligence altogether.
The Takeaway: Fairness Isn’t Always Fast
The researchers’ message is clear: when we equate speed with skill, we distort our understanding of learning.
If we want to create classrooms where every child’s potential is visible, we need to stop treating the clock as a gatekeeper. A slower test doesn’t mean a softer standard—it means a clearer view of who our students truly are.
Let’s Talk About It
🗣️ What’s the biggest mental health or testing challenge you see in schools today?
⏰ Do time limits motivate—or discourage—your students?
💭 How could schools rethink “fairness” in testing without lowering expectations?
Share your thoughts below or start a conversation with your school’s testing coordinator. Fairness begins when we start asking better questions.
