Endless Summers
Who's keeping all the women out of science and engineering? It might be the women themselves. Elaine McArdle writes in The Boston Globe that the speculation that cost former Harvard prez Lawrence Summers his job -- the notion that men might have innate abilities or interest in hard science and engineering positions -- is backed up by some new studies:
An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women - highly qualified for the work - stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.One study of information-technology workers found that women's own preferences are the single most important factor in that field's dramatic gender imbalance. Another study followed 5,000 mathematically gifted students and found that qualified women are significantly more likely to avoid physics and the other "hard" sciences in favor of work in medicine and biosciences.
It's important to note that these findings involve averages and do not apply to all women or men; indeed, there is wide variety within each gender. The researchers are not suggesting that sexism and cultural pressures on women don't play a role, and they don't yet know why women choose the way they do. One forthcoming paper in the Harvard Business Review, for instance, found that women often leave technical jobs because of rampant sexism in the workplace.
But if these researchers are right, then a certain amount of gender gap might be a natural artifact of a free society, where men and women finally can forge their own vocational paths. And understanding how individual choices shape the gender balance of some of the most important, financially rewarding careers will be critical in fashioning effective solutions for a problem that has vexed people for more than a generation.
As Steven Pinker asked when he spoke a few years ago at the Human Behavior And Evolution Society conference in Austin, why should women be shoved into careers that don't suit them -- any more than we'd seek to have men shoved into talking professions like psychotherapy, if they're not interested, or pressure them to teach kindergarden?
A few words from McArdle's article on preferences:
Math-precocious men were much more likely to go into engineering or physical sciences than women. Math-precocious women, by contrast, were more likely to go into careers in medicine, biological sciences, humanities, and social sciences. Both sexes scored high on the math SAT, and the data showed the women weren't discouraged from certain career paths.The survey data showed a notable disparity on one point: That men, relative to women, prefer to work with inorganic materials; women, in general, prefer to work with organic or living things. This gender disparity was apparent very early in life, and it continued to hold steady over the course of the participants' careers.
Benbow and Lubinski also found something else intriguing: Women who are mathematically gifted are more likely than men to have strong verbal abilities as well; men who excel in math, by contrast, don't do nearly as well in verbal skills. As a result, the career choices for math-precocious women are wider than for their male counterparts. They can become scientists, but can succeed just as well as lawyers or teachers. With this range of choice, their data show, highly qualified women may opt out of certain technical or scientific jobs simply because they can.
These studies looked at different slices of the working world, but agree that in a world in which men and women both have freedom of choice, they tend to choose differently.
Then don't miss this from the Bad Astronomer!
Radwaste at May 20, 2008 2:09 AM
Finally...I read those articles you see every once in a while about the dearth of women in one profession or another. 'Task force vows to increase the number of women engineers by 2015' or whatever, all these lofty initiatives listed as just the trick to do the job. I don't know how often I've wondered, 'What if they build it and nobody comes?' What if the interest is not there? It seems that that particular possibility is never considered.
crella at May 20, 2008 4:30 AM
Great post title!
Jody Tresidder at May 20, 2008 5:35 AM
Thanks, dahlink.
Amy Alkon at May 20, 2008 5:36 AM
Daughter #1 perplexes me - she says she loves science, but hates math. Yet her most recent progress report (she's a sophomore in high school) says she's holding a B- in science, and an A+ in math, with an average of 103. Child is a voracious reader, as well. And most of you (?)have seen the video of her playing the piano. She's volunteering this summer at the local VA hopsital (through the Red Cross), and we've discussing various part time jobs for her (she'll be 16 in November), one of which is animal care (she'll be babysitting a neighbor's kitten over the Memorial Day weekend). #2, on the other hand, says reading and writing sucks (right now she's got a D+ in Language Arts, thus proving her theory), but she's holding A's in both math and science. Child is a master at every single Nintendo DS game she owns, and can outrun most of the boys in her class. I'm doomed. o_O
Flynne at May 20, 2008 5:41 AM
It is hard to understand the unwillingness to understand: the men and women have equal rights, but that does not make them identical. Nice to see someone in the mainstream media who dares to address this.
Summers' comments (men's higher variance in relevant innate abilities) were politically incorrect but absolutely true. It's a crying shame that he was such to gutless to stand by his statements...
bradley13 at May 20, 2008 5:45 AM
Now that was a poorly edited comment. Sorry...
bradley13 at May 20, 2008 5:46 AM
[...] why should women be shoved into careers that don't suit them -- any more than we'd seek to have men shoved into talking professions like psychotherapy, if they're not interested, or pressure them to teach kindergarden?
The whole point of feminism, to my mind, was precisely this: that no-one should be shoved into anything simply on account of their sex. Jobs should be open to all applicants irrespective of their sex (unless a specific sex is a job requirement, eg to play a role in a theatrical production).
It was called "feminism" not "humanism" because in practice, most of the shoving was to prevent women from doing anything other than housework, nursing, teaching, midwifery, etc, but the implication is that these were closed to men. No longer, and a good thing too.
Norman at May 20, 2008 6:02 AM
Summers wasn't forced out of Harvard because of his comments, he was forced out because the faculty couldn't stand him. Basically, he liked to micro-manage and was a big dick all around. The media jumped on the comment, but the fact is, he was already hated for other reasons.
Nicole at May 20, 2008 6:03 AM
Feminism is about anything but choices. Or, rather, you're free to choose as long as you pick a feminist-approved choice. And don't be getting those fake titties, sisters! (Systers?)
Amy Alkon at May 20, 2008 6:14 AM
Feminist mentality on womens choices
>>What is the point in haveing options if you choose the wrong one?
lujlp at May 20, 2008 6:40 AM
Summers wasn't forced out of Harvard because of his comments, he was forced out because the faculty couldn't stand him.
Yep - faculty loathed him, students loved him. Having been one of the latter rather than one of the former back in the day (though not during Summers's time), I tend to have a soft spot for him, but I do totally agree that he was the victim of a turf war. That having been said, I think his comments on gender and innate ability did help give the faculty a wedge issue to push him out.
Of course, I find this all very funny, because the description given of what men like to do is closer to my interests than the description given of what women like to do (on average). I'm not in the sciences or math, but I am in finance, which involves numbers...
marion at May 20, 2008 6:44 AM
I don't think it's completely about aptitude.
As someone who went "all the way" in a hard science (Ph.D. and a postdoc in chemistry) and then left academia (now a science journalist), my observation is that the academic culture of science is terrible. There is a lot of competition and bullying. You are expected to work 60-80 hours per week (or at least be in the lab that long . . . whether you are running experiments or surfing the web) for very little return. Most experiments fail; your adviser expects you to make them work now so that he can get that grant written. He makes you feel like shit and like there is something wrong with you if you can't.
During my graduate work, a large percentage of my fellow students (probably not 50%, but 30-40%) were women and they did just fine. As a postdoc, I was the only woman out of five total postdocs in my lab. My opinion, based on my own experience and from the experiences of people I know from my days in academia, is that women just don't want to put up with a lot of the crap that goes on.
So yes, innate differences in attitude, but not innate ability.
Jen G. at May 20, 2008 7:14 AM
My opinion, based on my own experience and from the experiences of people I know from my days in academia, is that women just don't want to put up with a lot of the crap that goes on.
Apparently, neither do some men. We just lured a Ph.D. away from Yale to our little biotech company. He's very happy about getting a reasonable salary for reasonable hours, and we're happy to have his knowledge. Win-win.
Flynne at May 20, 2008 7:19 AM
There may be an evolutionary imperative at work here: Men have to succeed to get chicks. Women don't have that same mandate for mating success with men.
Sure, the work world is hard, but not having the attitude for it doesn't mean it should nicey up for you. That's not "equal treatment," that's coddling.
Another question Pinker brought up (and I'm paraphrasing from memory); basically, why should we care that women aren't engineers or in the hard sciences?
In short, if you can't stand the heat, go back to the kitchen and bake brownies. Or get a job in P.R. or selling real estate.
Amy Alkon at May 20, 2008 7:24 AM
but Amy, there can't be a patriarchal conspiracy, if women are the ones choosing! :devil:
Like everything else it seems, if there is a wrong to be fixed, it must swing to the opposite extreme. If women used to be denied jobs, then the only answer is that they should be in every kind of job now. Even if they don' wanna.
Fighting the institutional problems of tech/hard science fields is pretty difficult when there is no critical mass of people pushing for that change. This is true of gender issues... but the fix isn't necessarily to ask why more women aren't interested, although it IS valid to ask that. I think the best is to remove gender from the equation, but that must be forced by management. But it is a fine line.
There is quite a bit of difference between "she can't do that, she's a girl" and 'the law says we have to have another girl on this team to meet the balance quota.' but we often get the second to try and remedy the first...
seems like there should be a better way...
so, Flynne, sounds like both kindchen are doing well, why are you perplexed? #1 probably loves science, BECAUSE it doesn't come as easily, and is a challenge, and curiosity. Math may be boring. So? Try and find a physics teacher over the summer who is willing to show the math involved with physics, and why you can't do one without the other. A really good one is to take on the physics of wind resistance, and explain terminal velocity limitations. When you start in physics you negate Air, because you don't have the math for it, but it gets REALLY interesting when you have to add air in. Throw a basketball off the Empire State? You could catch it at the bottom. Heh, her brain may implode at the possibilities.
as for #2... well as I recall I hated English and embraced math, because English has too. many. exceptions. to. rules. --see, Miss Anzini is likely spinning in her grave from that. The little light went on when I started studying Latin and Greek roots to English words, and realized that rules in English were products of what original root language that part of English came from. English is a mish-mash, and knowing that helped me to quantify the contrdictions, by knowing that there was another set of rules based on where English appropirated something.
I still, however, speak only 2 languages: English, and bad English... :corbyn dallas: Couldn't tell you a predicate from a future perfect tense...
SwissArmyD at May 20, 2008 7:26 AM
Yeah, I'm not saying men don't leave academia for the same reasons. I just think for some reason, women have less patience for the culture. Again, observational, generalized speculation: family life is more fulfilling to many women. If you get off on career success and public recognition, working your ass of in science is worth it. For me, it wasn't.
Jen G. at May 20, 2008 7:27 AM
I just think for some reason, women have less patience for the culture.
I would say "because they can."
As for family life being more fulfilling to women, most men don't have the option to say, "Hey, if the work world is too hard and unfun, I'll have kids and become a Brentwood mom."
Amy Alkon at May 20, 2008 7:30 AM
Hate to but your bubble, Jen, but there is a difference in innate ability. In terms of raw intelligence, the curve for men is much wider. In other words, there are, as a percentage of population, more men at either extreme of intelligence. Which is why we will likely never see a (or more than one) female analog to Stephen Hawking.
You see it in comp sci all the time. For every female superprogrammer, there's like 5-10 males at the same level of ability.
It's because we're wired differently at the factory.
brian at May 20, 2008 7:46 AM
Just to clarify, when I say "leave academia", I don't mean most of them stay home and start popping out kids. Once you've invested that much in your education, it's hard to step away. Most find an alternative career that may or may not directly use their science training, or go into industry where the hours are more reasonable (as Flynne pointed out), or they take jobs much lower on the academic totem pole, like lecturer positions that focus on teaching or instrument lab managers.
I think that changing the culture of academia would be good for both men and women. But change will have to come from within, and the ones with the most invested in change are women. That's the only argument I see for actively recruiting them.
And I said I don't think it's completely about innate ability.
Jen G. at May 20, 2008 7:48 AM
Oh, wait. I did say that at the end. Sorry. The first line of that post is my actual opinion. I forgot a word in the last line.
Jen G. at May 20, 2008 7:51 AM
Heh, interesting that you post about feminism being against fake boobs, Amy. I find many feminists are also against REAL boobs. I noticed this on another advice column, at salon.com. Someone wrote in saying she had small breasts and wanted implants, and the responses went nuts trying to discourage her. Yet when people talk about reductions, even when they are only for aesthetic purposes, salon readers are very encouraging. They say it's completely different, but it seems to me that boobs have become this symbol of traditional femininity, so, lop 'em off!
Nicole at May 20, 2008 8:09 AM
"Which is why we will likely never see a (or more than one) female analog to Stephen Hawking." Oh come on hawking's is an outliers. I don't think we will see another Hawkings for many generations, male or female.
"I find many feminists are also against REAL boobs." Most of the true man hating feminists appear to be pissed because they can't fit into "the ideal" thus they want no one to come close. My opinion is that their hatred for mens magazines come heavily from the fact that these photo shots are reminders of their own failings. If you got called fat as a child anything that reminds you that your fat is likely to piss you off.
vlad at May 20, 2008 8:29 AM
Feminism has way too many boobs.
jerry at May 20, 2008 8:33 AM
":corbyn dallas:"
Dude - totally fucking love that movie. And I so appreciate that ref (made me smile despite shoveling garbanzo beans into my mouth. Lovely image, yes?) Most people will say The 5th Element is horrendous.
Some friends and I were at the video (yes - VHS!) store to pick something out for a sleepover. I saw The 5th Element, and the flying cars and super tall buildings on the cover, and thought "holy crap I have to see this." Everyone else hated it! I was 11 and I was turned into a closeted sci-fi dork.
Gretchen at May 20, 2008 8:52 AM
Another female sci-fi dork checking in!
deja pseu at May 20, 2008 9:46 AM
Hey gretchen once the perfect human cloning can I get a DNA sample?
lujlp at May 20, 2008 10:31 AM
Vlad, I think it has less to do with angst about being chubby and more to do with a denial of the feminine in general. I mean, how dare these men see these women as *gasp* women? For extremists, everything should be gender-neutral and men should never connect women to sex.
(BTW, I consider myself a feminist, although I probably define it differently than most people here.)
Monica at May 20, 2008 10:47 AM
We at "The Patriarchy" have ordained that women are not to go into math and science careers. We've been at it for decades now, and nobody can stop us. Unfortunately, some women have been getting into these fields anyway. We'll have to make this a priority at the next Patriarchs' conference. :)
Thomas Fullery at May 20, 2008 10:57 AM
I couldn't have said it better myself, Thomas. ;)
MIOnline at May 20, 2008 10:58 AM
Thomas, didnt you get the memo from my sub committee?
Here is a copy
From: WWWTSTBA patriorical subcomittiee on sexual awarness
WWWTSTBA = Who would want to screw these broads anyway?
To: All conspiracy members in good standing
We here at the WWWTSTBA have taken it upon ourselves to both further the patriarcy and placate femminist at he same time. We have endevored to get certain women into the workplace. While we know that seems counter productive please bear with us.
These women we are placing in the workforce are pushy, unattractive and have self esteem - obviously they pose a threat. However, by placing them in the work force we nutrelize them.
1. They are too busy working to have time to activly fight the patriarcy, yes they still complain but they no longer take action.
2. While trying to maintain a career they fail to have children thus fail to pass on their ideas. The few who do have children will rely to TV to distract the kids, and or agents in hollywood will be able to commence brain washing protcals.
a. as a side note we would like to thank HAMCTF(hollywood area mind contol task force) for all the slutty stippers that barney and the teletubbies helped to produce. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK GENTS.
3. As working women these ladies will naturally develop a superiority complex, they will look down on other women - harass, harague, denegrate, and insult 'their inferiors'. This phenomina will cause other women to lose their self esteem making them easier to control and keep in their place.
So as you can see the WWWTSTBA has things well in hand, and those uppity women only think they have made progress.
However is you feel THE PLAN needs tweaking all members in good stnding know where the online suggestion box is located.
Sincerly,
the WWWTSTBA
lujlp at May 20, 2008 11:23 AM
Amy, this is hardly the way to suck up to the lace-curtain MSM. You are VERY naughty!
How come you have bigger balls than so many of the p-whipped guys I know?
Jay R at May 20, 2008 12:22 PM
"Vlad, I think it has less to do with angst about being chubby and more to do with a denial of the feminine in general. " Sorry chubby was just the most prevalent example I have seen. It looks to me that they fall short of the ideal so they want to lower the bar and make themselves look better relative to the general population.
The hatred of men looks like it stems from the fact that they do not get the man they want (the parameters being impossible: submissive and servile go getters) thus we are all evil.
vlad at May 20, 2008 12:30 PM
Dear WWWTSTBA patriarchal subcommittee on sexual awarness,
Your idea is brilliant! Might I add that we should pay these women 75% of what we pay the men in these scientific workplaces? The only drawback is that companies will want to hire all women to save money and clobber the competition, but it's men high up in The Patriarchy that own the companies anyway, so who cares?
Thomas Fullery
Thomas Fullery at May 20, 2008 1:07 PM
Amy - Feminism is about anything but choices
I was talking about what it was. But is this new image of feminism real, or just media hype?
If you have not seen it yet, check out Millie Tant, a character in a UK satirical comic called Viz. For example, Millie once declared that fireworks are actually 'big explosive penises' that 'skewer and rape the virgin female sky'.
I think it was Private Eye, another satirical paper, that introduced the term "wimmin" for the modern feministas.
Norman at May 20, 2008 1:58 PM
Leave a comment