|
|
|
|
|
| | Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?Page 5 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) | | It might be a shocker also to guys that maybe women want to work out of the house because they know they can't trust men nowadays and will have to take care of themselves when thier "husband" cheats. Also it takes alot of money to live good or at least that is what everyone says. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 3:49:20 AM | There aren't more women involved in these 'macho' fields because they are either not encouraged to continue with them at school or actively discouraged fro m becoming involved . I had hoped that this stupid line defining male fields of interest and female fields of interest had been banished from school curricula . We will get there tho' , you'll see.  | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 8:43:31 AM |
There aren't more women involved in these 'macho' fields because they are either not encouraged to continue with them at school or actively discouraged fro m becoming involved . I had hoped that this stupid line defining male fields of interest and female fields of interest had been banished from school curricula . We will get there tho' , you'll see.
I disagree. It's because women have children and get left behind as adults. There are far more female research and lab assistants than there are female scientists. Women are also a distraction in the lab. Relationships, romantic or sexual, tend to form when there is a woman in the lab. Women can certainly as a group change the latter, but women won't stop having babies anytime soon that I can see. | |
|
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 10:29:25 AM |
Women are also a distraction in the lab. Relationships, romantic or sexual, tend to form when there is a woman in the lab.
I can't believe a female poster actually said that. Even if we were to make the assumption that this "problem" is so common as to have a discernible impact on productivity or whatever other measure of performance one might invoke for the lab or research group as a whole, how is this any different from office floors where both genders mix freely in all manner of other workplaces?
This doesn't even begin to explain--let alone justify--the implication inherent in this claim that women are kept out of science labs just because men got in there first. | |
|
Selima
| | Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 106 | |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 10:31:39 AM | I teach in a college prep high school program. As many girls as boys excel in math and science courses and plan to major in them when they reach university. As many girls as boys plan careers in medicine or engineering. I think a lot of cultural stereotypes are being expressed in this thread. What are the actual current statistics regarding women and men in math/science careers?
If there is a significant difference between the number of men and women in hard science professions, it must be due to cultural issues as I just can't see, based on the young women I know of, that it has anything to do with brain wiring or interest. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 12:20:40 PM |
I teach in a college prep high school program. As many girls as boys excel in math and science courses and plan to major in them when they reach university. As many girls as boys plan careers in medicine or engineering. I think a lot of cultural stereotypes are being expressed in this thread. What are the actual current statistics regarding women and men in math/science careers?
Here is one study (Ismene2, check out the links to the NSF reports in the bibliography--perhaps they'll answer your question).
http://www.spinstop.com/buzz/pub/hyde.htm
I personally doubt whether statistics pertaining to high school are reliable predictors of future success in careers in science, unfortunately, both for females as well as males. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of both male as well as female students who you say "excel" in maths and science will not be pursuing careers in these fields for a variety of reasons, so I don't think performance at the high school level or on standardised tests is especially relevant.
Science and maths classes taken during HS and freshman/sophomore years of college focus almost exclusively on teaching students the mechanics of computation and algebraic manipulation, along with a smattering of application-oriented, contrived and grossly oversimplified problems that encourage intuitive reasoning and problem solving. Don't get me wrong, these are all imporatnt skills, but they're far from adequate for a successful career in science or mathematics.
It is at this point that most young people decide to obtain a bachelor's degree and go out to work in the "real world"--I don't think this thread is talking about these people, rather the ones who are intent on pursuing a career in scientific research and/or academia. The latter subset of the student population goes on to take rigorous upper-level undergrad and grad classes on the fundamentals of logic, mathematics and the scientific method--these skills complement the intuitive reasoning developed in a student's prior years of schooling and help him or her develop into a complete scientist or mathematician. This is why I don't think stats pertaining to HS or standardised tests are relevant to the issue in question.
If there is a significant difference between the number of men and women in hard science professions, it must be due to cultural issues as I just can't see, based on the young women I know of, that it has anything to do with brain wiring or interest.
Is there any evidence supporting this assertion, or is it just that you don't like the idea that it might be due to fundamental biological or psychological differences between men and women? (Yes, I'm pulling a Lawrence Summers here, but somebody had to go there, right? :-p) If you read the paper I linked, there is data that suggests fundamental differences in the highest percentiles, but since they only had data on HS students and because most HS curricula don't place very many demands on the students in terms of advanced skills, they unfortunately couldn't explore this question further.
Finally, I'd like to point out the fallacy that scientific careers demand long hours and this is primarily what makes them female-unfriendly. Well, this is true of any career in academia, and if we just look across the campus toward the humanities departments, we find that the gender gap is non-existent among their faculty, and they work equally long, arduous hours. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 12:37:58 PM |
What are the actual current statistics regarding women and men in math/science careers?
There are some good statistics on the NSF website - http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
Breakdowns according to sex, associates degrees, bachelor's, masters and doctoral.
In the last 10 years, women have waaaay beaten men in all associate degree categories but the share of S&E degrees for women has gone down dramatically, from exceeding men in 1997 to about 60% of men in recent years. Incredibly, of the approximately half million associates degrees, less than 5% seem to be for S&E for either sex.
Of bachelor's degrees, women have beaten men since the 60s, when they got about 30% of the S&E degrees. Now they get as many as men.
Women have beaten men in master's degrees for the past 10 years too, but have stayed at around 80% of men in S&E.
Women have consistently garnered almost twice as many doctoral degrees as men over the past decade. Their share of S&E doctoral degrees has gone up from about 10% in 1997 to slightly under 80% today.
Math seems to be included in the S&E category, but where they break out separately, the numbers are close to the overall S&E numbers.
Stats for postdoctoral fellows show women to get around 29-33% (1996-2006). (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figg-1.htm) If my above figures are correct, and the same number of graduate degree holders of each sex go into postoctoral careers, the number should be around 44%, so that seems to be where things start to fail. The computer science, engineering, math and physical science share fall at or below 20% for women.
Edit:
Sorry! - S&E means science and engineering.
And these stats are for the US, not England (where I didn't know there were as many palm trees as your pic depicts, Ismene).
| |
|
Selima
| | Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 109 | |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 12:39:44 PM | msg 107: Well, you've made some assumptions here. As I said, I teach in a college prep program. I teach very high level kids, not average American high school kids, not average any country/culture high school kids. My school and the other international schools I teach in have about a 99% rate of students who go on to university, the best universities in the world and they do follow through with the university plans they have made in high school, and do follow through with their career choices, generally completing bachelor's degrees and following with master's degrees & doctorate degrees. As well, the program I teach in does not "focus almost exclusively on teaching students the mechanics of computation and algebraic manipulation, along with a smattering of application-oriented, contrived and grossly oversimplified problems that encourage intuitive reasoning and problem solving." Also, my students come from homes in which both parents have high level professional positions and university educations; these kids actually do not have to worry about going out to work in the " real world" as you suggest in your post. If they want a career in science, research, academia or medicine, they will have it. Their parents are CEO's, ambassadors, doctors, attorneys, etc. My schools do not have high school standardization tests.
Your attitude, the entire tone of your post is patronizing and supercilious, yet you have not a clue about anything to which I was referring...you simply made a whole lot of assumptions. Says a lot about your ability to read and reason. College prep program means college prep program, not typical, average high school. Maybe you should have asked some questions instead of jumping to so many simplistic conclusions.
. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 1:25:27 PM | 109: You're right in that I made some assumptions, and with all due respect, you're doing the same. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I was talking about your particular college prep programme--I clearly wasn't, because the study I posted clearly isn't about kids who were born with silver spoons in their mouths.
College prep program means college prep program, not typical, average high school. Maybe you should have asked some questions instead of jumping to so many simplistic conclusions.
Yes, I believe I got it the first time, and yes, I assumed that you meant that this programme covers classes like AP calc BC, AP stats, AP biology, AP chem, AP physics C, etc. as far as maths and science are concerned. If my assumption is more or less accurate, then my statement that these classes "focus almost exclusively on teaching students the mechanics of computation and algebraic manipulation, along with a smattering of application-oriented, contrived and grossly oversimplified problems that encourage intuitive reasoning and problem solving" stands, because that's precisely what they do. I took 'em all (or their equivalent) back when I was in HS, and while checking out the curricula for my younger brother, I noticed that they have actually been watered down since. Now, if you're trying to say that your programme goes above and beyond this and has even more advanced college coursework, then I stand corrected (but no, classes like calc 3 and linear algebra with applications that some high schools offer don't count, they're still a far cry from what is really needed later on). If not, I reiterate--it's much too soon to predict future success in scientific careers.
While we're on the topic of criticising one's perspective or the lack thereof, if anything, it's yours that might be skewed because you're talking about a programme that caters almost exclusively to children of the wealthy. We have solid historical evidence that the wealthy generally have easy access to a high quality education and their children avail themselves of these opportunities and often achieve a level of success that is grossly disproportionate to that of the general population--this is no secret. Your own assertions invalidate some of your prior statements because your experience is confined to a tiny subset of the general population. Unless you know of a plan to extend these educational opportunities to everyone, I'm not sure how this contributes to the discussion, because the latter is about observed gender disparities among current scientific personnel, and not about what the future might hold for a bunch of bright high school kids looking forward to college and pursuing their dreams. | |
|
Selima
| | Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 111 | |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 1:51:07 PM |
kids who were born with silver spoons in their mouths more assumptions...some are scholarship kids, and most, though they may be from successful families, both professionally and financially, are not spoiled...they work harder and are nicer, more decent kids than I've ever met anywhere. Could be because their educations include a big dose of international living and experiences. They don't go around stereotyping people with terms like 'born with silver spoons in their mouths.' You are really a piece of work. Your post was a response to mine...clearly. Now you are trying to backtrack...
They are not AP classes...I don't know anything about AP classes, what I do know is the type of school I teach in does teach deeper level level thinking and analysis in every subject. So your assumption about 'oversimplified problems....etc.' is till an incorrect assumption. "Now, if you're trying to say that your programme goes above and beyond this and has even more advanced college coursework, then I stand corrected" Yes I'm saying that...it teaches at a level of first and second year university coursework--good universities--and many of our teachers are former university and college teachers, including myself.
My assertions were not about statistics. They were about whether or not females were interested in and capable of studying within the sciences. You need to read my original post again. I was simply saying that girls have the interest, desire and ability to study in and have careers in the hard sciences to an equal level as boys. The fact that the girls in my schools (except for those on scholarship, not a few btw) have been given more opportunity to follow that path is irrelevant. That is not what I was addressing. I was addressing interest and ability levels.
My points address very directly the area of the discussion that focused on the ability and desire of females to find careers in the hard sciences. You are looking at things with very narrow tunnel vision. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 2:28:00 PM | | I just want to express moral outrage and sort of creep in here with this . Men in a lab would be a distraction too you know . As they are anywhere and also as I imagine women are anywhere. If we are to have an equal merit for an equal job world ... then we've got to cut that stupidity about working in a job you love with the opposite sex being a no-no because of sexual atraction ... oh come on .... this is the REAL world and sexual attraction is a REAL thing but surely not a factor that stops you concentrating on something that pays you well in both senses , job satisfaction and money ? Time for play after work . | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 2:33:28 PM | I just want to express moral outrage and sort of creep in here with this . Men in a lab would be a distraction too you know . As they are anywhere and also as I imagine women are anywhere. If we are to have an equal merit for an equal job world ... then we've got to cut that stupidity about working in a job you love with the opposite sex being a no-no because of sexual atraction ... oh come on .... this is the REAL world and sexual attraction is a REAL thing but surely not a factor that stops you concentrating on something that pays you well in both senses , job satisfaction and money ? Time for play after work .
Well, since men are already the majority, it would make sense that the addition of the opposite of that sex into the mix would be the distraction, the female, because it's human nature. Office relationships form in all fields. It's not conducive for advancement in research and in the lab. Mistakes cost tens of thousands of dollars, and can ruin a project in its entirety.
I didn't say it was the only reason, I think the child-bearing part is a much bigger reason.
I can't believe a female poster actually said that. Even if we were to make the assumption that this "problem" is so common as to have a discernible impact on productivity or whatever other measure of performance one might invoke for the lab or research group as a whole, how is this any different from office floors where both genders mix freely in all manner of other workplaces?
This doesn't even begin to explain--let alone justify--the implication inherent in this claim that women are kept out of science labs just because men got in there first.
I'm a scientist. Women are not "kept out." If you think I don't get flirted with at work, you're wrong. It takes a great amount of focus to ignore it, and you have to be careful not to flat-out reject the person because that would not be good for the lab either.
Women together also tend to be catty with each other. There are only 4 women in our 5 labs that aren't gossipy. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 2:44:24 PM |
Why aren't there more women with careers that involve math and science?
There are tons of women in the math and science field. There is a Lab at my work and of 5 employees, 3 are women. And when you look at university enrollment, at UofT, it's heavily skewed in favour of women in areas like Engineering.
The REAL question is, why aren't there more female car mechanics and construction workers?
And at the same time, why aren't there more Male Escorts, Strippers, Bank Tellers, Bank Managers, HR Reps and Customer Service Reps?
If we're gonna look at inequities, we should really look at the WHOLE picture... and that includes careers where there are hardly any men. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 3:04:46 PM |
...stereotyping people with terms like 'born with silver spoons in their mouths.'
A little melodramatic this evening, are we? The expression means that the person in question was born into wealth, thus making them wealthy by virtue of inheritance. It was a statement of fact, and wasn't about anyone's general demeanour or character. Now, if we could set that particular straw-man aside, I might be able to clarify a couple of things so that we don't keep arguing in circles any more.
Your post was a response to mine...clearly.
Yes, my post was a direct response to yours, because you specifically asked for statistics in 106, and I pointed to a study that provides some of them. I also wanted to point out that a lack of gender disparity in performance with respect to the sciences at the high school level and the first couple of years at university doesn't necessarily point to cultural or gender biases further down the line in academia--that's a fallacious leap of logic for several reasons, the most important of which is a complete lack of evidence supporting this.
To my knowledge, nobody disputes the established fact that no significant achievement or interest gap exists at the high school level. The disparities are only showing up once the students start the 3rd or 4th year at university, or at the graduate level, and the gap starts to widen from there. For anyone hoping to pursue a career at the absolute cutting edge of science, this is a very important period during which the student is made to go through a very rigorous training regime in the fundamentals of science along with a gradual exposure to basic research occurring at the institution. I think it's very significant that gender disparities in participation rates first begin to appear at this critical juncture. To my knowledge, this hasn't received a significant amount of attention thus far among educational policy powers-that-be, and I'd be much more interested in statistics showing these discrepancies between the 1st and 2nd years on the one hand, and 3rd, 4th years, graduate level and beyond on the other. To me it makes sense to identify the problem at its source, address it over there and then start working backwards or forwards as necessary.
I personally don't see the point of looking at statistics on high schools and drawing conclusions about working scientists 4 or more years hence. There is an awful lot that goes on in those intervening years--it's definitely not high school that holds the answers to the question posed. That being said, I highly doubt whether today, science classrooms and labs on university campuses are any more hostile toward women than high school science classrooms. | |
|
Selima
| | Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 116 | |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 3:32:10 PM |
point to cultural or gender biases I didn't say anything about cultural or gender biases ...I did say it may be cultural....such things, for example, as women leaving their profession for a number of years to have and raise children...there may be other cultural reasons why statistically there are fewer women in hard science careers than men... I didn't suggest it had to do with prejudice or biases but with culture...two different things. My main point, as I stated earlier, was to dispute some suggestions in the thread that women have differently wired brains and don't or can't cope with the hard sciences as men do, or that they don't have the interest or motivation to pursue such careers. I dispute those assertions. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 3:51:07 PM | 116: I don't find that argument very convincing, personally (I'm aware that you're not the only one promoting it, by the way). As far as academia is concerned, I'm sure this happens to women in the humanities, as well (then again, I've heard some rumours that anthropologists like to consume their young...), not to mention female physicians, nurses, etc. who also have demanding and highly stressful careers, but are generally well-represented in these fields regardless.
That leaves the explanation that science and engineering are stuck in the stone age as far as a female-friendly environment (or the lack thereof) is concerned, an argument (or possibilty) I find to be absurd. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 6:04:57 PM |
That leaves the explanation that science and engineering are stuck in the stone age as far as a female-friendly environment (or the lack thereof) is concerned, an argument (or possibilty) I find to be absurd.
I was out of the field for two years while raising my toddler and I cannot begin to tell you how behind I am in comparison to colleagues I was ahead of after graduation. Science is a fast-paced field and the higher up you move in the field the harder it is to stay on top of the edge. It's easy for people to get left behind, so if you have a child, you're more likely to never get back into it.
It's not that big of a deal. Honestly. It's just the way it works out. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 7:27:21 PM |
(then again, I've heard some rumours that anthropologists like to consume their young...)
I take exception to this, Sir. We need them for studies...
Women in hard science? More of it I say. Bikini researchers, bring 'em on.
Heterotic, I want to work in your lab already.
Seriously I think cultural stereotyping was behind the disproportion of male-females in these fields but I also think these ideas have changed. For example it is the contention of many space-sciences idealists that any prolonged future missions would involve some male-female crew ratio for psychological health reasons. Now that would never have got off the ground in 1950 (pun intended).
(I'm not really a scientist, but don't hold it against me, I do wish to become a science journalist) | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/20/2009 8:16:10 PM | | hi..... way back in highschool I was good in both subjects but I distinctly remember getting more headaches in those classes... my instinct and intuition seemed to steer me away from them I think and biology was no better with all that horrible dissecting... I went back to college for another diploma last yr and LOVED it but still no math or science.. if finances were not so strained I think that I would have went on to be an ND or a travel nurse I am not sure how much math/science/biology would be required ...... perhaps when women made those important choices for careers back then we had limited understanding of careers, little financial backing because ~men~ needed to be the breadwinners and we also had limited role models .... many blessings | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/25/2009 10:07:16 PM | this has been debated for ages and I have been analyzing it since I was a teenager...funny that my own personal circle of acquaintances seems to belie this, yet I can't dispute the general population statistics..
I know females who literally have math theorems named after them from their ph.d work. I made the highest grade on my report card in my school ever in algebra, a very proud A plus...the second highest math achiever in my school was a female who went on to get her PH.D in business..and she isn't some stuffy only left brained geek either lol.... Despite all my so called female right brain traits and emotions, I became a computer systems analyst.... I have spent a lot of time analyzing this.....and I confess I don't really have any answers still....but, I think it is partly environmental and it is changing.....I do think it is partly due to the way we are raised. My dad didn't send me away when I was inquisitive over how things worked when he and my brothers were working on the car or fixing the lawn mower, etc. I always had a curiousity at how things work and loved observing that process and had an opportunity to do that..
PERSONALLY, I think brain capacity is hereditary, and dominance may be mostly environmental...but, it still seems more complex than just that I confess..
I wish I could argue this point with the OP, although I see more and more females who are into scifi, great at math, technical, etc...they still remain a minority among my acquaintenances....but if I switch my thinking to those who are excellent in the science and other technical areas..it is pretty balanced...
I do think it is my science/math/geek traits that make it hard for me to find the right mate.......because I also am the emotional/feeling/touching/dreamy headed female too lol..
I think tho it is time to stop looking at this as a male/female thing....just search for what is compatible with you......I do think it is becoming more balanced despite the recent tests on male brains being larger than females...Sorry..my experiences just don't see that... | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 2:33:43 AM | | Definit[at]ly time to quit this male/female theme ... But I must disagree poster 103 ... one can still think , create new ideas and test them whilst pregnant and in fact your mind becomes strangely more alert ... I taught right up to the almost last minute and even when breast feeding , I still was designing interiors and taking my baby son to parties given by all my old uni. friends . I helped design our first house whilst pregnant with number two baby and if I hadn't been in the bush with no car , I would have taken a job if offered one .... women tend to help other women when you are young and procreating . It's possible to become involved with intensely intellectual books and conversation when pregnant , breast feeding , changing nappies ... you don't stop being an intelligent creature if you are a woman child bearing etc. Take hope from this , I hope . | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 10:06:05 AM | We have now been able to map out all of the areas of the brain. We know what parts deal with speech, action, computation, emotion, etc. When electrodes are attached to their heads, to display the electrical activity of the different areas of the brain where thoughts are being processed, and men and women are presented with a subject, a problem, an issue, or otherwise the same thing to think about, female brains light up differently than male brains. This answers a lot of questions. For instance, when presented with a sudden problem, the part of the female brain that lights up first is the SPEECH center, but the part of the male brain that lights up first is the ACTION center. It was found that women are more likely to TALK about a problem first and men are more likely to DO something about the problem first. Among other things, it helps to explain why, when driving, women are more prone to ask directions than are men. If the wife sees a spider in the house, the first thing she will usually do is say something like, "there's a spider in the house". If the husband sees it first, the first time he will say anything is when she asks, "what did you just stomp on?".
Ok, so this doesn't address the Op's question directly, but the same research on other areas of the brain does. When given a math problem to solve, it was found that men are more likely to have only the area of the brain dealing with computation to light up, whereas women are more likely to spend part of their mental energy lighting up other areas at the same time. The conclusions they have drawn at this point are, that men generally deal better with problems that require more focus, and women generally deal better with problems that require multi-tasking. On the bottom line, neither is better than the other, but they are definitely different. Understanding this could answer a lot of questions. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 1:40:05 PM | LOL...here's a topic to get the angry feminists ranting!
The reason is because men are better at math - period. Not because of "oppression", but because the male mind is more geared toward logic, while the female mind is geared to intuition. When I went to school, Calc 1 had about 4-5 girls in the class, all but one dropped out. In Calc 2, only one lady who was in her 60s took the class, and did quite good. By the time I got to Calc 3 - all men.
quick edit: The girl that passed in my Calc 1 class did because I tutored her. She's now a mechanical engineer at Northrup Grumman. She still sucks at math, but is a lot better at it than most women. | |
|
Selima
| | Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 125 | |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 3:55:31 PM |
the male mind is more geared toward logic, while the female mind is geared to intuition Oh the irony!!! Don't you realize this a deeply illogical conclusion? For one thing, basing a conclusion on extremely limited anecdotal observations is very poor reasoning.  | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
