Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Wanted: More WIS (Women In Science)

There they go again, falling ass over teakettle into the gender gap in science.

WASHINGTON -- The landscape of scientists and engineers is certainly a lot more diverse than it was 20 years ago, but serious gender gaps remain. That was the consensus here at a hearing of the House Committee on Science and Technology?s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education Tuesday. The hearing focused on finding ways to attract more female science students.

The analysis, such as it is, is boringly familiar (see here, here, here, and here):

The fact that women are underrepresented in a number of STEM fields shows itself in the proportions of degrees granted to each gender. In 2006, women earned 58 percent of all bachelor?s degrees, but only 20 percent of computer science bachelor?s degrees, 21 percent of physics degrees and 20 percent of engineering degrees, according to data from the National Science Foundation. The same data also found that on the whole, women hold more than half of science and technology degrees, with women earning 77 percent of psychology degrees, 62 percent of biological sciences degrees, and 54 percent of social sciences degrees.

Why, you may ask, are there more women in Biology? Because, explains Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, because there are more women in Biology.

[Leshner] said that role models may already be a proven method of eradicating the gender gap. In biological sciences, one reason that the majority of degrees are now granted to women is because the number of female role models in that field far outnumbers the other STEM fields, leading to what he termed a ?self-fulfilling prophecy.?

Excuse me ? not only for asking a rude question but actually repeating the same rude question I?ve asked before (see posts linked above) ? why? Why does it matter if there are (as apparently there are) too many women in biological sciences and too few in physics?

One of the reasons for concern frequently cited concerns national competitiveness. A Report from the National Academies, for example (discussed here) argues, among other things, that we need more women in science because ?the country faces increasingly stiff global competition in higher education, science and technology, and the marketplace.? But if that?s a reason for concern, I asked (with prompting from my wife), shouldn?t we raise the question of

whether foreign women who are in this country only temporarily should be counted toward ?compliance? with the ?goals? recommended by the committee. Insofar as it is necessary to displace some men to make room for more women, should American males be displaced to make room for foreign females?

In the hearing that is the occasion for today?s article, however, another reason is given.

?The jobs of the future are going to require of workers a basic understanding of the principles of math and science. If we do not persuade women to pursue these fields, they are already [risking] cutting themselves out of a great job future,? said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI).

In other words (actually, pretty much the same words), women who choose not to major in math or science don?t know what?s good for them, and need instruction and guidance from their guidance counselors in Congress. Sure, right. Congress has done such a good job managing the economy and other small things, why shouldn?t it tell girls what to major in? And if it runs out of ideas (it wouldn?t be the first time), it can always turn to the Obamanauts in the White House for advice, since in their concern for fairness to the fair gender they recently created a new White House Council on Women and Girls. (See Men And Boys Need Not Apply: Obama Wants Fairness For ?Women And Girls?.)

But let?s say we agree this gender gap in science is a problem worth of being fixed. What, exactly, is the problem; what, exactly, needs to be fixed? Here are some explanations from today?s article:

The problems with -- and thus, possibly the solutions for -- getting female students involved in science begin at an early age. Sandra Hanson, professor of sociology at Catholic University and a researcher on women in science, said that the culture of science is often associated with white men. When a study asked little kids to draw pictures of scientists, she said, they often drew white males. When they did draw women, the women looked ?severe and unhappy.? Nearly 70 percent of fourth graders of both gender report liking science, but by eighth grade male students report liking STEM fields twice as much as female students. As time goes on, female students face a drop-off in interest, particularly in middle school when students become more self-conscious, during high school when they have to decide whether to put themselves on advanced track math and science curricula, and throughout college and graduate school.

So, I?m tempted to say, we should teach little kids how to draw happier pictures of women scientists, and we should somehow prevent middle school girls from changing their interests, ... but I won?t, since that would be too snarky.

O.K., O.K., let?s get (more) serious. Here?s more:

The hearing charter stated, ?Issues such as a lack of female role models or a female peer group, and unsupportive classroom environments have been shown to deter women from pursuing or remaining in STEM degree programs in post-secondary school.?

?Unwelcoming classrooms, outdated teaching styles, and a lack of accommodation for different social or cultural experiences can all add up to create an environment that students decide to leave rather than thrive in. This affects men as well as women,? said Barbara Bogue, co-founder of the Society for Women Engineers at Penn State....

Bogue warned against ?negative role models? who give the impression that they are overly obsessed with their work and drive people away by making the field seem too demanding.

I sent the Inside Higher Ed article I?m discussing to my daughter, Jessie, who has just finished her 5th year of a Ph.D. program in Applied Physics at Caltech (she?ll probably get her degree in October, just before her 23rd birthday). Her reply bears repeating (which I do with permission):

I particularly like this quote:

Bogue warned against ?negative role models? who give the impression that they are overly obsessed with their work and drive people away by making the field seem too demanding.

Because of course we wouldn't want anyone giving an honest impression of the field...

Aside from the issue of whether scientists should be ?overly obsessed with their work? and demand (even if only by ?role model? example) that obsession of their students, how, exactly, should science instruction go about accomodat[ing] ... different social or cultural experiences?? What are the ?outdated teaching styles,? the newer, presumably better ones? How can classrooms be made more ?welcoming??

Finally, there?s a lingering question I?m not sure anyone has considered. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that women scientists, or women who are potential scientists, really are ?different,? that they have ?different social or cultural experiences? and so require a different type of classroom, a different style of teaching, a more relaxed (or at least not ?overly? obsessive) attitude toward their work. If all aspects of the vocation of science ? recruiting, teaching, mentoring, work habits and expectations, etc. ? were transformed to attract more women, would not those very changes tend to discourage and drive away men, who by (this) definition are different and don?t like or want any of those things?

Just asking.

Full post as published by Discriminations on July 23, 2009 (boomark / email).