Why <i>aren't</i> more girls going into science?

"a culture in which professors rarely encourage their female students to continue on for advanced degrees"

I discourage ALL my students from getting advanced degrees. I point out that getting an MBA from anyplace other than a top name school is not value for money- this has been empirically demonstrated. I recognize an MBA isn't STEM, but my point is an advanced degree does not necessarily translate into a good career. Get a masters in certain fields and all you are good for is being a lab technician.

I also tell 'em that getting a PhD means knocking yourself out for a number of years (varies by country and discipline) to not get a job when you graduate. Then, when you get a job, you have to win the lottery (publish enough) or you'll be fired in 6 years. I will contend this is true for the majority of PhDs. I do recognize some PhDs go into research labs or the like. For a woman, its worse, because things like getting pregnant can happen. And if you believe in the "your tenure clock will be delayed for one year" thing that some universities have, I have a bridge to sell you.

I guess what I object to in the article you are reporting about is whether women are discouraged by "social pressure" or whether they legitimately assess that going into certain occupations is high risk for low return and rationally steer away from those occupations.

There are useful, money making advanced degrees like a masters in computer science. But not all advanced degrees are worth the money, time, and effort from a financial perspective.

The reason women have not gone into the more intellectual subjects is because of motivation. not because of intellectual failure as many people would quietly suspect from things I've read or heard in my life.
These subjects ask for interest in things either very demanding on personal interest or in a interest in high intellectual things as they are perceived. I don;'t think math is of the same status as 'science " subjects and is case in point of people intersted in a almost useless thing in its higher study. Save a few who get paid to do high math. I bet few high math achievers have dreams of using high math for their job.
I've heard even high physics students never seek or get jobs in these subjects.
Women are simply less motivated then men and its a unnatural recent femenist thing that has tried to create ambition in young women.
The bible says women were to be helpmate wives to their husbands and I see this as almost in their DNA.
The need for more attention in these obscure subjects just reveals this tendency.
Women with ambition all want to be high paid shrinks. One is never wrong and always helping.
Its just part of a spectrum that identity matters in who aims at certain subjects in the worl.
Women no more want to do science then play drums, poker, or football.
Its about motivation profoundly affected by identity.
I bet most women in these subjects come from identites and families in these subjects.

By the way . Why be opposed to male prominence or dominance??
Who's counting and deciding what is the right answer??
Why the thumbs down to boys? Why are people looking at identity and not the person/soul?
If its fair and square why not even nurture the boys more?
I don't think women ever will equal men in subjects demanding lots of energy demanding motivation.
I wish well for girls in anything but only from agreement to live with each other equally.
In reality women should support their husbands ambitions and destiny and not their own unless both could be done at the same time.
anyways creationist welcome and have excellent creationist women.

By the way Darwin insisted women were biologically intellectually inferior to men.
He was wrong and would be surprised at womens contributions in modern science but evolutionists should point out Darwin was wrong.
If they think he was of coarse.

I am one of the geezers who have lived through many of the changes that have brought more women into what have been traditionally male-dominated areas of work. I can recite some pretty horrific comments and that revealed some rather nasty attitudes that males had toward women in engineering, physics, and the various technical fields.

I have seen these things directly in academia, industry, and in the military. Given the barriers that have already been broken down, and seeing so many successful women now making up at least half of many of the formerly male-dominated professions, I would suggest that women have made remarkable progress. They are good students – better organized than males in high school – and they are better collaborators in areas that require multidisciplinary efforts. The female undergraduate and graduate students I mentored in industry were excellent.

Engineering has come around much faster; contrary to what I would have thought, from my experiences with engineers’ attitudes way back then, that it was the most hostile and least likely to admit women.

Unfortunately two of the areas I am very familiar with - physics and submarines - are still pretty much male-dominated. Although women now are crew members and captains of may surface vessels in the Navy, the first women officers are just now qualifying on submarines. Enlisted women will eventually be allowed, but this requires not only redesign of submarine facilities and berthing areas, it requires enormous changes in male attitudes.

The resistance to women on submarines is a little more understandable; although male submariner attitudes, especially among the old guys, are not.

Physics is a bit more puzzling.

I had the enormous good fortune to have had a dream job fall in my lap very late in my career. I was about to retire but had an opportunity to teach in a very selective program (ethnic and gender blind selection) at a math/science center for bright high school students. I did that for ten years and had a ball.

Some of my best students were the young women; and those are now PhDs at places like Cal Tech, the Perimeter Institute, and a number of other prestigious research facilities. They all had physics based degrees. These include a cosmologist; a planetary physicist studying extra solar planets, a biophysicist, and a Mars probe explorer. There was no question about their determination to go into physics at that early age. In fact, the father of one of the young women forbid her to go into physics and said she must enroll in engineering instead; which she did. But when she got to the university, she promptly switched into physics and was one of their top undergraduates. She went on for her PhD work in biophysics at Stanford.

However, of all the students at that math/science center that went into the sciences or engineering –male and female alike – most went into biology related fields such as medicine or biomedicine. The next larger group went into engineering. Physics and chemistry brought up the rear.

I have some insight as to why; and this came primarily from the female students. They, as a group, seemed to be savvier about where the interesting research and jobs were. They also already had more experience with biology because they started with biology earlier. All students were given access to outside mentors for research; and there were far more medical doctors as well as a pharmaceutical company that were willing to take on young students for research opportunities and mentorship.

We routinely placed a number of students each year with local physicists and engineers at a nearby university or with a number of local engineering corporations, including a major company that makes medical equipment; and that worked out well. Many students were able to become coauthors of research papers as a result; some having several publications before they graduated.

Overall, I suspect that the female students were already more aware of where the interesting developments in research were going to be taking place; and most saw that happening in the biology related areas. Physics often looks like too much of a long shot these days compared to other areas of science. The perception is that there are more opportunities for collaboration in other areas of science if one really wants to do science.

When students think of engineering, they don’t usually think of physics being just as good or better if they want to be able to adapt to rapidly changing technology and be able to cross disciplinary lines.

P.S.: Byers is a complete wacko. He knows nothing, as usual.

Women have so much going for them. In short: They are superior to men.

I believe the reason has much to do with evolution: the female gender is crucial not only for propagation but also for the survival of the species. Wasn't that the reason Elaine Morgan called her first book "The Descent of Woman"?

The sexes are different but on many counts the women come out on top. Man's contribution to a certain degree may make life a little easier but it seems women are quite capable on their own as well.

It is a pity so much of the world still view women mostly as breeders, housekeepers and a sex toy.

Josephine Cochran in America :)

Can we call them women in science instead of girls?

My perception (sans any real data) is that things have changed dramatically since I was in graduate school in the late 70s & early 80s. There were very few women in the biology program & many of those finished with a MS. Today the small program I teach in has above 50% female grad students.

[quote]a culture in which female scientists are hired less frequently than men, earn less money and are allotted fewer resources.[/quote]

Are there data to support these conclusions. Is a statistically significant smaller percentage of new Ph.D. women hired than new Ph.D. men? Does a beginning female Ph.D. earn less than a beginning male Ph.D. in comparable positions? Once hired, are women scientists allotted fewer resources?

Maybe. But I'd like to see the data.

My perception (sans any real data) is that things have changed dramatically since I was in graduate school in the late 70s & early 80s. There were very few women in the biology program & many of those finished with a MS. Today the small program I teach in has above 50% female grad students.

[quote]a culture in which female scientists are hired less frequently than men, earn less money and are allotted fewer resources.[/quote]

Are there data to support these conclusions. Is a statistically significant smaller percentage of new Ph.D. women hired than new Ph.D. men? Does a beginning female Ph.D. earn less than a beginning male Ph.D. in comparable positions? Once hired, are women scientists allotted fewer resources?

Maybe. But I'd like to see the data.

Sorry for the double post!

In the photo, is that Einstein in the middle of the front row?

Paul Burnett said: In the photo, is that Einstein in the middle of the front row?

Yes

http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~testaa/solvay.html

Is that Madam Curie to Einsteins right?

Thanks to everyone for not responding to the Byers troll. I may be getting soft in the head, but I will let him have his 1 nonsensical comment. This time.

My research lab held a talk on this topic on 2010. The title was "Gender Roles in Science and Math; Balancing Work and Personal Life". Unfortunately, I did not record the name of the speaker, but I did take notes. A couple of points jumped out at me:

1. Gender bias is present in women and men. That's clear from the data. We cannot blame the gender difference on chauvinist men alone.

2. The STEM pipeline leaks. And it leaks faster for women than for men. As many girls as boys enter the STEM career track in middle school. Years and schools go by. By the PhD level, more women have left the track for various reasons.

If anyone can verify these points or provide citations, please comment.

About those submarines: Most science meetings and talks I attend here seem to have about as many women as men in attendance. Our Human Resources department keeps track of those numbers closely. But about 5 years ago I attended a conference in Los Angeles that was about the military applications of geosciences. There were a lot of defense contractors. It was a different world! The conference room had about 95 men and 5 women. Very strange.

I did not want to preface Ms. Fagan's article with this thought, but I am frankly more concerned with the pay gap between men and women, and between fields that are seen as men's fields and women's fields. I frankly do not care as much whether women go into physics as whether women who enter teaching or social work are paid as much as engineers or electricians with similar educations and experience.

REHOVOT, ISRAEL—March 3, 2013—In honor of International Women’s Day, the city of Barcelona will present the 27th Maria Aurèlia Capmany award on March 4 to the Weizmann Institute of Science for its commitment to advancing young women in science. ... The Weizmann Institute was chosen for its national program for advancing women in science, founded at the Institute in 2007 to address the need to increase the numbers of women who choose science as a career and the percentages of women in top academic faculty positions. The program is meant to help young women through the main bottleneck that prevents many of them from continuing on to academic science positions in Israel: the need to conduct postdoctoral research abroad in the world's leading labs. By the time they have completed their PhDs, many women have spouses and young children, and the expense of moving the entire family abroad for several years can be prohibitive. To combat this problem, each year the Weizmann Institute gives special awards to 10 outstanding young women who have completed their doctorates in the natural or exact sciences in one of Israel’s academic institutions, and who have been accepted to postdoctoral positions abroad. These grants — $20,000 a year for two years — are given on top of the fellowships awarded by the host institutes or other sources, and are specifically intended to help the women bring their families along. ... To date, 64 young women have received these awards. Of these, 17 are now on the faculty of Israeli research institutes, two are in information-based industries, another two have accepted positions abroad, two have left the program, and the rest are still pursuing their postdoctoral training. In addition, since 2006, the Weizmann Institute has given biennial awards of $25,000 to women scientists of international stature. While this prize is given in recognition of groundbreaking achievements, its goal is also to encourage positive role models and provide inspiration for female students and young researchers.

On September 16, 2013, I listened to NPR’s “Fresh Air with Terry Gross” in which Terry interviewed Barnard President, Debora L. Spar about her book “Wonder Women.” Spar has some insights as to why women may have been expecting too much of themselves to want a career as well as a family.

One of the interesting facets of Spar’s career is that she always had some backup in the way of parents to help take care of children.

I don’t know how prevalent this issue is.

aehchua said: "a culture in which professors rarely encourage their female students to continue on for advanced degrees" I discourage ALL my students from getting advanced degrees. I point out that getting an MBA from anyplace other than a top name school is not value for money- this has been empirically demonstrated. I recognize an MBA isn't STEM, but my point is an advanced degree does not necessarily translate into a good career. Get a masters in certain fields and all you are good for is being a lab technician. I also tell 'em that getting a PhD means knocking yourself out for a number of years (varies by country and discipline) to not get a job when you graduate. Then, when you get a job, you have to win the lottery (publish enough) or you'll be fired in 6 years. I will contend this is true for the majority of PhDs. I do recognize some PhDs go into research labs or the like. For a woman, its worse, because things like getting pregnant can happen. And if you believe in the "your tenure clock will be delayed for one year" thing that some universities have, I have a bridge to sell you. I guess what I object to in the article you are reporting about is whether women are discouraged by "social pressure" or whether they legitimately assess that going into certain occupations is high risk for low return and rationally steer away from those occupations. There are useful, money making advanced degrees like a masters in computer science. But not all advanced degrees are worth the money, time, and effort from a financial perspective.

Matt Young:

You should care that there are so few women going into STEM careers. While I'm not disputing your point that pay grades ought to be a lot fairer than they are now*, the fact remains that there is no good reason why there should be more men than women going into STEM. And if there is no good reason for something that is demonstrably occurring, then there must be bad reasons behind it.

*(Are the awful pay and conditions for STEM post-docs any worse than being a social worker or a teacher? I doubt it.)

You should care that there are so few women going into STEM careers. While I’m not disputing your point that pay grades ought to be a lot fairer than they are now*, the fact remains that there is no good reason why there should be more men than women going into STEM.

bigdakine said:

aehchua said: "a culture in which professors rarely encourage their female students to continue on for advanced degrees" I discourage ALL my students from getting advanced degrees. I point out that getting an MBA from anyplace other than a top name school is not value for money- this has been empirically demonstrated. I recognize an MBA isn't STEM, but my point is an advanced degree does not necessarily translate into a good career. Get a masters in certain fields and all you are good for is being a lab technician. I also tell 'em that getting a PhD means knocking yourself out for a number of years (varies by country and discipline) to not get a job when you graduate. Then, when you get a job, you have to win the lottery (publish enough) or you'll be fired in 6 years. I will contend this is true for the majority of PhDs. I do recognize some PhDs go into research labs or the like. For a woman, its worse, because things like getting pregnant can happen. And if you believe in the "your tenure clock will be delayed for one year" thing that some universities have, I have a bridge to sell you. I guess what I object to in the article you are reporting about is whether women are discouraged by "social pressure" or whether they legitimately assess that going into certain occupations is high risk for low return and rationally steer away from those occupations. There are useful, money making advanced degrees like a masters in computer science. But not all advanced degrees are worth the money, time, and effort from a financial perspective.

You sound bitter. I tell earth science undergrads that they should not expect to find jobs in earth science. None the less, its a fascinating field to study. What every undergraduate in a technical field should do is make sure they get a solid background in mathematics and computer programming. But to tell people they shouldn't study what they find interesting is poor advice IMHO. Rather, they should be made to understand that they need to pick up marketable skills along the way. As for myself I have a Ph.D. in Geophysics. Do I feel cheated? No, it was a thrill ride. I have worked as an EE (following my undergraduate degree in geophysics), and on Wall Street and for Uncle Sam.

I'm not bitter. I survived the process and have a steady academic job. I also am not a woman. But sadly, many (if not most) of my colleagues (including women) did not. I know many brilliant, but bitter people who were denied tenure. Why would a smart person want to bang their head against a wall for 4-6 years (getting a PhD), then get insulted for another 6 years (getting rejection letters), before being fired (denied tenure). It just boggles the mind what life we put junior academics through. In some universities, I swear the administrators use the HR revolving door as a fan, cause there are so many junior academics going in and out.

We've got this ridiculous pipeline where we recruit slaves (PhD students), use them (training them at the same time), and then send 'em to the unemployment line or into careers they could have gotten without starving for so long.

I find this negativity about graduate school in STEM fields very frustrating! Some people (male and female) truly like science! We should be encouraged to continue studying and working in science!

Yes, we need practical advice about how to get where we'd like to be. Yes, it's important to discuss employment probabilities. Yes, it's important to encourage students to find ways to go to graduate school without taking out student loans. Yes, it's important to encourage people to get potentially paying skills and certifications, including teacher certification. Do all that but also encourage interested students to pursue science!

I say this as a woman who decided in second grade that I would be a biologist and now, over five decades later, works as a professional biologist. Working toward my graduate degrees in minimally practical fields was very worthwhile to me as a person. And I'm now a partner in a tiny consulting firm that gets paid to do projects that I find fascinating (as well as relative boring projects -- no job is perfect). True, I'm badly paid for a person with 14 years of post-high-school education, but I'm paid enough to survive and even pay for health insurance, and I do work I love. That is worth a lot! Surely, others will get the opportunity to do that too.

aehchua said: I'm not bitter. I survived the process and have a steady academic job. I also am not a woman. But sadly, many (if not most) of my colleagues (including women) did not. I know many brilliant, but bitter people who were denied tenure. Why would a smart person want to bang their head against a wall for 4-6 years (getting a PhD), then get insulted for another 6 years (getting rejection letters), before being fired (denied tenure). It just boggles the mind what life we put junior academics through. In some universities, I swear the administrators use the HR revolving door as a fan, cause there are so many junior academics going in and out. We've got this ridiculous pipeline where we recruit slaves (PhD students), use them (training them at the same time), and then send 'em to the unemployment line or into careers they could have gotten without starving for so long.

Bobsie asked "Is that Madam Curie to Einsteins right?"

Yes, it is. Go to the Wikipedia "Solvay Conference" article - Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli are there, along with other luminaries.

Mike Elzinga said: Once when I was worrying – unnecessarily as it turned out - about being too old after completing my PhD, my father asked, “How old will you be if you don’t complete your PhD?”

aehchua said: I discourage ALL my students from getting advanced degrees. I point out that getting an MBA from anyplace other than a top name school is not value for money- this has been empirically demonstrated.

When one is talking about careers in science, one must be careful to have the facts at hand. Although we are overproducing graduates when matched against the job market in virtually every sub-area of STEM (taken as computer/information science; life and physical science; engineering and engr. tech; mathematics), we are underproducing in computer science by almost a factor of three.

And we have very low rates of women and minority participation in computing; we are in essence short by a factor of three in graduates but drawing nearly all our graduates from only 30% of the total population. I think we can all recognize the mathematical problem here.

And the pay is very, very good. Why aren't more women going into computing? I don't know. One reason, I think, is the undue assumption that computing is not science but rather has some resemblance to engineering. Since the numbers of women in engineering are lower than in science (even outside the life sciences), one might surmise there was a connection in the perception of computing.

There are lots of jobs in STEM. It's just that three out of five are in computing, and yet that doesn't seem to be appreciated.

There is another factor - beginning in the 1990s after the Berlin Wall came down - that contributed to the downturn in hiring of US graduates. The US government, in order to prevent former Soviet scientists from heading off to other countries with their knowledge of nuclear physics and other fields related to military defense, started clearing the way for these scientists to be hired immediately in the US.

There was such a large influx of well-qualified Soviet scientists at the time that they flooded the market for physicists, as well as other scientists, in the US for quite a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The effect on the job market lead to a lot of US PhD theoretical physicists heading off to Wall Street and pulling down six figure starting salaries right out of graduate school. I knew a couple of such PhDs who told me that they had earned back their entire first year’s salary for the financial companies they worked for in the first three months of their employment.

Given the effect of some of the “mathematical tricks” with derivatives and other predictive models physicists generated, we got a lot of hubris in the financial markets that resulted in the meltdown in 2008. Maybe these guys (it was guys) should have been kept in physics research instead.

Matt Young said: As a biological determinist (sort of), I can see no reason why boys cannot be more interested in the "hard" sciences and girls in psych, nursing, or social work. Thus, my main concern is with equal pay rather than numbers of women in science.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn03G9TYHrs7Al9lZ7B0FnSbzI5vP9KHPE said: I find this negativity about graduate school in STEM fields very frustrating! Some people (male and female) truly like science! We should be encouraged to continue studying and working in science! Yes, we need practical advice about how to get where we'd like to be. Yes, it's important to discuss employment probabilities. Yes, it's important to encourage students to find ways to go to graduate school without taking out student loans. Yes, it's important to encourage people to get potentially paying skills and certifications, including teacher certification. Do all that but also encourage interested students to pursue science! I say this as a woman who decided in second grade that I would be a biologist and now, over five decades later, works as a professional biologist. Working toward my graduate degrees in minimally practical fields was very worthwhile to me as a person. And I'm now a partner in a tiny consulting firm that gets paid to do projects that I find fascinating (as well as relative boring projects -- no job is perfect). True, I'm badly paid for a person with 14 years of post-high-school education, but I'm paid enough to survive and even pay for health insurance, and I do work I love. That is worth a lot! Surely, others will get the opportunity to do that too.

Chris Lawson said:

Matt Young said: As a biological determinist (sort of), I can see no reason why boys cannot be more interested in the "hard" sciences and girls in psych, nursing, or social work. Thus, my main concern is with equal pay rather than numbers of women in science.

Matt, with due respect I disagree with your thinking here and I hope I've misread you. Firstly I agree that there *could* be biological reasons why women don't go into STEM careers as often as men, but this is really no different to saying there *could* be genetic reasons why blacks don't go to university as often as white/Asians. Yes it's true that there *could* be biological differences that have an impact there, but IMHO it's not a good idea to float it as a possible explanation when we know without a shadow of a doubt that there are powerful social and cultural factors that discriminate against women and black/Hispanic people. If you go asking women who have a career in science, you will find that most of them will report horrendous discrimination/putdowns/lack of access to career paths that lesser-credentialed males have been given. You can't blame this on women being biologically less interested in STEM because even amongst women who are interested enough in STEM to pursue a career in it, they face significant career barriers. And the flip side of your argument is no better. Women are more attracted to nursing, psych, etc., than men. We know this because of the numbers taking university places. But you've selected out the "soft" sciences unfairly. Medicine is as "hard" as subject as you can get, and currently most Western universities have 50% female medical students, sometimes slightly more. My experience from teaching medical students is that the women are just as intellectually good at and interested in the hard stuff like biochemistry, statistics, and pathology. In the "softer" fields like nursing, it's interesting to see that a lot of the positions of power such professors, union leaders, and so on are held by men in much greater proportion to their representation in the field. Here's an interesting paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206719/ Even though men make up only 10% of the nursing workforce in the UK, they make up 30% of first authors on published papers. I just don't buy the argument that men are 3x as good at science as women because of their biological superiority. Even if there is some biological component (for which I remind you there is not a shred of positive evidence), it will be tiny compared to the overwhelming force of cultural/social norms, and I can't agree with brushing aside attempts to make women feel more comfortable pursuing STEM careers, especially if the argument refers to hidden biological variables as an explanation. I do agree with you on fair pay, though.

First, I think we should float as many plausible arguments as possible and then evaluate them. Second, I did not mean to single out the "soft" sciences vs. the "hard" sciences but rather to distinguish between professions that work with people vs. professions that work with things (yes, yes, oversimplification, but you get my point). Next, past discrimination against other groups does not necessarily undermine the argument that women (or young girls) do not in general prefer different subjects than men (or young boys); women are more different from men than Irish from earlier American immigrants. (Even A.S. Neill of the Summerhill School ultimately had to admit that girls in general chose different toys from boys.) Finally, I have noted that women are indeed discriminated against, but I am more concerned with pay discrimination; I do not care what field a woman chooses, as long as she is paid fairly.

The world needs talented people. The number of talented people should not be halved by invidious discrimination. Each of us is harmed by that, in addition to the harm done to the people who are not encouraged to develop their talent.

Matt Young said: First, I think we should float as many plausible arguments as possible and then evaluate them.

Duncan Buell said: When one is talking about careers in science, one must be careful to have the facts at hand. Although we are overproducing graduates when matched against the job market in virtually every sub-area of STEM (taken as computer/information science; life and physical science; engineering and engr. tech; mathematics), we are underproducing in computer science by almost a factor of three. And we have very low rates of women and minority participation in computing; we are in essence short by a factor of three in graduates but drawing nearly all our graduates from only 30% of the total population. I think we can all recognize the mathematical problem here. And the pay is very, very good. Why aren't more women going into computing? I don't know. One reason, I think, is the undue assumption that computing is not science but rather has some resemblance to engineering. Since the numbers of women in engineering are lower than in science (even outside the life sciences), one might surmise there was a connection in the perception of computing. There are lots of jobs in STEM. It's just that three out of five are in computing, and yet that doesn't seem to be appreciated.

On the other hand, I can remember being advised (by someone who will remain nameless) to hunt for ex-Soviet scientists instead of paying for local graduate students on the basis that the foreign scientists coming in on H1-B visas would be more than willing to work for very low wages that no American would accept. There may well have been some significant salaries, but there was also the strong incentive to defraud the visa system.

I have to disagree with harold. The students I teach do not go out into worlds that ask for narrow niche skills. They go out into a world that is desperate for talent, asks for niche skills, and settles for well-educated computer scientists who can rapidly retrain. Me? I have taught first semester computer science in seven different programming languages, and expect to be learning a new one before I retire.

One of the issues that has not been dealt with properly in computer science is the gap between the entry level jobs that stay entry level and the higher level jobs that lead to career advancement. In a world desperate for talent, the number of jobs at the low end sometimes dominates the statistics of what employers are looking for. If looking to satisfy this quarter's requirements, then specific skills are needed. If looking to groom management for 5 to 10 years out, then a solid education is needed and the employers absolutely know this.

Duncan Buell said: And the pay is very, very good. Why aren't more women going into computing? I don't know. One reason, I think, is the undue assumption that computing is not science but rather has some resemblance to engineering. Since the numbers of women in engineering are lower than in science (even outside the life sciences), one might surmise there was a connection in the perception of computing.

1. Learn to make computers do what you need them to do.
2. If you take the Software Engineer track, consider going to graduate school at some point to learn the specifics of your application area. Be more than just a code jockey looking for the next gig.

There is a massive shortage in the U.S. It is very rare that we hire a native born engineer. Not because we can get foreigners cheaper, but because good ones are impossible to find.

Duncan Buell said: The students I teach do not go out into worlds that ask for narrow niche skills. They go out into a world that is desperate for talent, asks for niche skills, and settles for well-educated computer scientists who can rapidly retrain.

MarckusB said:

Duncan Buell said: The students I teach do not go out into worlds that ask for narrow niche skills. They go out into a world that is desperate for talent, asks for niche skills, and settles for well-educated computer scientists who can rapidly retrain.

As a mechanical engineer with more than 10 years in the "heavy duty" automotive industry, I have to agree with this statement, too. My (fortune 350) company always seems to be short certain engineering skillsets. We often hire people who meet the general requirements, and then spend three to six months or more training the specific skillsets. Experienced Modeling and Simulation engineers (FEA, CFD, Adams, etc) and Materials Engineers seem in shortest supply. My director and I discussed Women in STEM a few weeks ago, and I don't see our comments mentioned here: women's brains are physiologically different than men's. It harkens back to when men were the hunters and women were the gatherers. As a result, women tend to make connections between concepts better, and men tend to be better with spacial concepts. Science Channel had a couple episodes last summer highlighting this (Brain Games, I think). To answer Matt's concern, at least where I work, HR sticks everyone into strictly defined pay grades, so women and men with the same title are paid approximately the same. I think this propensity exists all the way to the executive level (I'll note the CEO apparently made less in 2012 than some of his subordinates). As an aside, for anyone with a young daughter showing an interest in building things, I strongly suggest checking out a startup called GoldieBlox. My six-year-old, who is thus far following in her Dad's footsteps, loves it.

I may be getting soft in the head, but I will let him have his 1 nonsensical comment. This time.

women’s brains are physiologically different than men’s. It harkens back to when men were the hunters and women were the gatherers.

Science Channel had a couple episodes last summer highlighting this (Brain Games, I think).

I just would like to start out by saying that it was really fascinating to see where this conversation went based on what I wrote for a class blog, so thank you.

I would like to bring the conversation back to the original topic; why are there so few females in STEM? There were some comments made about the biological differences between men and women. We can try to find the biology link all we want, but it comes down to psychology so much more than it ever comes down to biology. We are culturing our children to believe that women are good at some things and men are good at others. It’s a cultural problem.

We teach our children from the time that they are born about what gender they should be. We gender our children to think that “boys can’t cry” and girls must be nurturing. Boys are raised to be independent and assertive while girls are raised to be communal and passive. Science and math are taught to our elementary and middle school children as independent activities where the students must be somewhat assertive about their education. We’re teaching science and math to the people that think “like boys.” It’s taught to the children who like to learn and work more independently and who are more proactive with their learning. And we’re gendering our girls unintentionally to not be such independent thinkers and learners. The problem is that we’re teaching math and science to one type of thinker. Girls are getting bored with math and science as children because it’s not a community activity at all. This is a real shame because out in universities and industry, science and engineering is work done in conjunction with a lot of different people. There is collaboration, questioning, and teamwork abundant later in the career work, but absent from the early education.

I’ve been at Colorado School of Mines for almost three and a half years. I’ve seen the types of thinkers attracted to the school because so many of them are stand-alone thinkers, self-assertive in their educations, and competitive. The diversity of thinkers overall at the school is extremely low. I consider myself different because I think very globally about the work I want to do as a future chemical engineer. I don’t want to engineer something without collaboration and input from people, and I certainly don’t want to only interact with one kind of thinker.

The problem is the way we’re teaching our children math and science and how that one type of teaching lines up extremely closely with the cultured male persona we have also created. We have to change the way we teach it in order to get more girls involved. It’s not that girls are biologically less adept at math or science, it’s that culturally we’re telling them that they will fail, we teach contrary to the way they were hardwired to think/learn, and we write off the problem as “biology” rather than warped culture. I am a woman. I think in relation to others. I care about people’s feelings. I think engineering is fascinating and amazing. I know that the whole point of engineers is to make life for our society better.

So why do we discourage the thinkers who think communally when they can make those connections to people that are needed to complete an engineering design?