Countries with Less Gender Equality have more women in STEM

[Katy]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/countries-with-less-gender-equity-have-more-women-in-stem-huh/

Thought this was interesting.

[Arcadia]

Not surprised. Asian girls in general are expected to do well in STEM, can’t play the gender card on our parents who believe nurture can boost whatever nature gave.

I worked as a engineer in Asia and ladies have benefits that are just not factored into the gender pay gap, and I actually had a higher pay than the guy engineers of the same rank. There is no girls only STEM clubs or courses either. Girls who made it are seen as people who made it, not because of URM or “diversity quota”. 

[Greta]

"Early in school, teachers’ unconscious biases subtly push girls away from STEM."

Yeah, I can believe this.  My brother and I both had the same teacher for third grade (four years apart).  We both had a hard time with multiplication tables.  All I remember getting from that teacher was scolding and disapproval.  My brother got extra help and encouragement, and a mini-celebration when he passed the final test.  

I have always loved science, but also thought of myself as not good enough at math to do most sciences.  I got my degree in biology specifically because I felt I couldn't handle the math required for astronomy, which was my first love.  I wonder if my math skills might have developed differently if I had ever had one teacher who had said "you're pretty good at this. If you work hard, you could do really well."  I almost always managed to make A's in math in primary and secondary school (I think I had a couple of B's in elementary school, but that was it), but despite that, I always felt like I was bad at it.  And no one ever told me otherwise.

ETA:  But it's funny to look back and think of how many teachers encouraged me to become an English teacher, despite the fact that I'd never expressed any particular interest in going that direction.  I absolutely loved science, but I had precisely one teacher (my high school biology teacher) who encouraged me to go into science.

ETA2:  I feel I should clarify that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with my teachers encouraging me in English!  The fact is that I did do well in English, so it was natural for them to encourage me.  But I also did well in science, and I though I didn't think so at the time, looking back I think I was doing pretty darn well in math too.  But I didn't get the same encouragement in those areas.

[rdj2027]

My daughter was told in 3rd grade that math is for boys.  It was ironic as she has far greater math abilities than any of her brothers. 

[Katy]

I'd never heard of the free curriculum linked to in the article.  Has anyone used it?

[Arcadia]

From a Feb 18 The Atlantic article The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

““Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose STEM professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing.

When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in STEM. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places.

The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.

The findings will likely seem controversial, since the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is often used as a reason, by some, to argue we should forget trying to recruit more women into the STEM fields. But, as the University of Wisconsin gender-studies professor Janet Shibley Hyde, who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here.

“Some would say that the gender STEMgap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.””

[Bluegoat]

Yes, this is well-known, it's sometimes called the "Scandinavian Gender Paradox."

It's because in countries with poor sex equality, STEM and other male-associated professional jobs tend to pay better and be more highly respected.  So women and girls that are bright and ambitious see them as a good way to go, and supportive parents and teachers will also see them as desirable.

In the countries with more equality, there isn't so much push, financially, to go into, say, engineering,  as opposed to a traditional female job like nursing.  And there isn't a sense that these female-associated jobs are lesser.

 

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, Greta said:

I have always loved science, but also thought of myself as not good enough at math to do most sciences.  I got my degree in biology specifically because I felt I couldn't handle the math required for astronomy, which was my first love.  

 

In the 80s when I was in secondary school and junior college (7th-12th grades), there was an unspoken stereotype that girls do the soft sciences (biology and chemistry) while boys do the hard sciences (physics).  

In engineering school, there was also girls being encouraged into electrical engineering or chemical engineering instead of mechanical engineering or civil engineering which are seen as being physically taxing fields. With automation, mechanical engineering and civil engineering are much less physically taxing than in my grandparents days. 

This May 17th 2018 BBC article, How physics gender gap starts in the classroom, talks about the Physics gender gap. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44141840#

“In 2016, 1.9% of girls chose A-level physics, up from 1.6% in 2011. 

But that compared with 6.5% for boys in 2016 and 44% of schools in England still send no girls at all to study the subject.

The IoP said physics-based skills were essential for many future careers, from artificial intelligence to aerospace. 

However, the gender balance at physics A-level in England's schools has changed little in decades, with only 20% being female.

"There is no evidence to suggest any intrinsic differences in ability or interest to explain why girls and boys choose technical subjects differently," said IoP President, Prof Dame Julia Higgins.

...

"An ill-judged quip that girls 'can't do maths', or 'physics is too hard', can lead to girls making life-changing decisions that alter the subjects they study or the career they pursue," said Prof Higgins in a foreword to the report.

"Women in physics are still in the minority, and this lack of visibility preserves the myth and cements the fact that physics is simply not a subject for girls."”

[Greta]

55 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

From a Feb 18 The Atlantic article The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

““Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose STEM professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing.

When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in STEM. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places.

The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.

The findings will likely seem controversial, since the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is often used as a reason, by some, to argue we should forget trying to recruit more women into the STEM fields. But, as the University of Wisconsin gender-studies professor Janet Shibley Hyde, who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here.

“Some would say that the gender STEMgap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.””

 

Interesting - I wasn't aware of this dynamic.  Thanks for posting this.

[Bluegoat]

5 minutes ago, Greta said:

 

Interesting - I wasn't aware of this dynamic.  Thanks for posting this.

 

Yes.

The original article doesn't want to accept the possibility that the difference stems from a tendency of men and women to have different interests.  (Which IMO is pretty typical of Scientific American.)  I can't say I find their arguments that the evidence indicates something different very compelling.  They don't really explain why it might be that in egalitarian countries, people would be more biased towards the sciences so girls would be pushed that way by teachers and parents.  Their suggestion that it is just cultural differences is possible of course, but they've offered no real explication or evidence of what that might be or - especially -  why it just happens to correlate with cultures with less gender equality.  If it was just normal cultural variation, we'd expect that it would be just as likely to be varied among cultures that have greater and lesser amounts of equality.

I don't have a lot of time for the implicit bias tests either - I think it is very difficult to know what is really being measured when you try and attach it to specific cultural phenomena.

[Violet Crown]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

“Some would say that the gender STEMgap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.””

 

Of course this is just anecdata, but my family's experiences reflect this. Dh has for years coached our high school math team, and every year he and the coach(es) for the middle school team encourage the girls in the middle grades to continue competitive math at the high school level, but with limited success. Dh, having three girls, has skin in the game; but every year the fifty-fifty ratio of girls competing in middle school contests drops to only one or two girls at the high school level. The parents report that the girls are still interested in math but can't take the time for competitions because of other conflicting activities which they prefer. Of course I'm sure it contributes to the phenomenon that the girls see a nearly all-male high school team. But it does seem like the girls have a wider range of interests they do equally well at than the boys.

[Violet Crown]

I don't quite understand directing children away from an interest because of career prospects. I don't believe the "art history majors will end up as Starbucks baristas" trope; I know too many people who majored in philosophy, classics, music, literature, and even art history who are supporting themselves and their families, some in jobs directly related to their college majors, others not--but not apparently hampered in their professional lives by their choice of major. If they have a raging talent for, and interest in, a field that justifies pursuing it at the university level, I can't imagine trying to dissuade them.

I think we often see people who really aren't that great at anything academically, and arguably shouldn't be in college at all, opting for "soft" fields, and this gives the illusion that it's the major, and not the student's abilities, inhibiting job prospects.

 

[Greta]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Yes.

The original article doesn't want to accept the possibility that the difference stems from a tendency of men and women to have different interests.  

 

And "relative" abilities (if that's the right way to word it) like the second article pointed out.  What I mean is, as I've been thinking more and more about this topic today, I've started to wonder if the teachers who encouraged me in English were on the right track all along!  Because while I did fine in math, and I loved science and did very well in it, the truth is that English and reading just came more naturally and easily to me.  So perhaps my teachers could see what I wasn't seeing:  that's really where my personal strength was.

[Arcadia]

14 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

 The parents report that the girls are still interested in math but can't take the time for competitions because of other conflicting activities which they prefer. Of course I'm sure it contributes to the phenomenon that the girls see a nearly all-male high school team. But it does seem like the girls have a wider range of interests they do equally well at than the boys.

 

There is also an English language gender gap. Girls in school generally do better in languages as in essay writing better than boys and so boys end up shying away from humanities that involves lots of writing. My boys would rather do physics exams than environmental science exams because of the perceived persuasive writing required for environmental science, so even with science choices the amount of writing required affects choices subconsciously . 

My kids assigned public high school state exam results for 11th grade (474 students) had females doing better in both English and Math.

English (passed): 77.48% of females, 68.66% of males (failing badly: 15 females, 34 males)

Math (passed): 44.29% of females, 41.27% of males (failing badly: 60 females, 91 males)

 

[Violet Crown]

5 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

There is also an English language gender gap. Girls in school generally do better in languages as in essay writing better than boys and so boys end up shying away from humanities that involves lots of writing. My boys would rather do physics exams than environmental science exams because of the perceived persuasive writing required for environmental science, so even with science choices the amount of writing required affects choices subconsciously . 

My kids assigned public high school state exam results for 11th grade (474 students) had females doing better in both English and Math.

English (passed): 77.48% of females, 68.66% of males (failing badly: 15 females, 34 males)

Math (passed): 44.29% of females, 41.27% of males (failing badly: 60 females, 91 males)

 

 

These are nearly all homeschooled kids.

[Bluegoat]

4 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

I don't quite understand directing children away from an interest because of career prospects. I don't believe the "art history majors will end up as Starbucks baristas" trope; I know too many people who majored in philosophy, classics, music, literature, and even art history who are supporting themselves and their families, some in jobs directly related to their college majors, others not--but not apparently hampered in their professional lives by their choice of major. If they have a raging talent for, and interest in, a field that justifies pursuing it at the university level, I can't imagine trying to dissuade them.

I think we often see people who really aren't that great at anything academically, and arguably shouldn't be in college at all, opting for "soft" fields, and this gives the illusion that it's the major, and not the student's abilities, inhibiting job prospects.

 

 

I think it depends.  I doubt I'd advise against humanities education.  The arts, I might be more careful about, and that is based on what I've seen with people I know.  Often they have struggled in some way with employment or salary, especially if they are unmarried.  Most of the ones doing well have spouses who are in high paying jobs.  

[LMD]

There has been a lot of academic work done on sex socialization, it begins at birth, is unconscious and ubiquitous. There is no evidence that girls' brains are just naturally less mathy.  You can get Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine online as a free pdf.

So these sort of affirmative action policies may help a little, they may harm a little ("you can be a girl and good at math" reinforces the cultural message that girls aren't supposed to be good at math, it's a surprise!), but look deeper at what the culture values - policies like this are at best a bandaid.

[Bluegoat]

As far as I know Cordelia Fine isn't particularly in line with the weight of opinion in her field.  Which is certainly her right as an academic, but I don't know that I'd consider her an authority for a particular position.

I don't think men and women having, as populations, different interests, is the same as saying girls aren't mathy.

[LMD]

Who would you consider an authority in the field Bluegoat? Not snark, genuinely interested.

11 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

As far as I know Cordelia Fine isn't particularly in line with the weight of opinion in her field.  Which is certainly her right as an academic, but I don't know that I'd consider her an authority for a particular position.

I don't think men and women having, as populations, different interests, is the same as saying girls aren't mathy.

 

I agree with your second paragraph. I just believe that the evidence is more in the direction of cultural socialisation.

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, LMD said:

Who would you consider an authority in the field Bluegoat? Not snark, genuinely interested.

 

I agree with your second paragraph. I just believe that the evidence is more in the direction of cultural socialisation.

 

I don't know that there is really a "who" because it seems to be some real variety of opinion, so it's more a weight of opinion than a consensus.  But she seems to be way to one side, and she's also on the softer science side - once you get into the harder sciences there seems to be more of a tendency to see brain differences as having significant elements.  

This is an interesting documentary, if you haven't seen it, and it talks to some specific scientists if you are looking for some names - I don't remember them of the top of my head.  The whole episode is about the gender equity paradox and is very interesting, as is the whole series.

I tend to think that the tendency of women to go into certain professions rather than others, when it isn't directly related to issues around family life, isn't about women being less mathy or good at science.  It's more about them being more interested in other people and relating to people in a certain way, and perhaps less interested in certain kinds of technical work or work with machines etc.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, OKBud said:

I do believe that men and women tend to have different tendencies and inclinations, on the whole. 

I don't think that's a problem in an of itself. 

The problem has never been, oh maybe 80% of women would rather be writers than engineers (or whatever). The problem has always been that women are have been systematically denied the tools, educations, and opportunities to excell in areas other than those prescribed to them on the basis of their sex. 

Pragmatically, women need to have equal access at every step along the way, in one's own country (Sweden =\= every other place on the planet just because they're the stone-cold whitest) before we can even make any kind of judgement calls about where women prefer to work. 

 

Isn't that most of human history though?  When has occupation for most really be about what they'd rather do?  For women, it's been overwhelmingly dictated by the realities of childrearing.  It's just a game-changer, even in terms of resource allocation where resources are limited.

[LMD]

Thanks for the link Bluegoat, I'll have a look, looks interesting. I do note that of the experts cited 4/6 are advocates of evolutionary psychology which is part of what Fine discusses. They are all psychologists as is Fine so I'm not sure what you mean by soft sciences - but maybe you meant the field in general rather than just the film. I will watch it with an open mind!

Being more relational and less technical strikes me as something that could well be explained by social constructs. You might find this article interesting. http://theconversation.com/new-insights-into-gendered-brain-wiring-or-a-perfect-case-study-in-neurosexism-21083

[Targhee]

Perhaps I have the outlier, because my oldest is very good in math and science and has great confidence in it. She has never been dissuaded from pursuing it (that I’m aware of) and in fact we are always trying to encourage it. She wants to be an actress ? and she’s only so-so at that. Nothing wrong with actors - it’s just painful to hear her talk about passing over her gifts for her “dreams.”  But perhaps that reflects the Atlantic article more, that she doesn’t feel pressure for a high salary and would feel equally respected in either acting or STEM.  

[Arcadia]

19 minutes ago, Targhee said:

But perhaps that reflects the Atlantic article more, that she doesn’t feel pressure for a high salary and would feel equally respected in either acting or STEM.  

 

My kids are turn off by engineering careers because of my husband’s pay and working hours, as well as layoffs being frequent (the most recent is Qualcomm). One is looking at business and law, the other is looking at tax accounting. 

My lady cousins are all “mathy” and most went into accountancy because it pays better than engineering for similar ranks in the corporate world. Accountancy isn’t counted as a STEM field/career so they won’t have been counted under ladies in STEM. I was in engineering management so I could be counted as 1/3 engineering and 2/3 management, so probably not counted at all if I was surveyed during my working years. 

My English scores were as high as my math scores so teachers and lecturers never knew what to suggest for careers other than maybe technical writer/translator. 

[nixpix5]

1 hour ago, LMD said:

Thanks for the link Bluegoat, I'll have a look, looks interesting. I do note that of the experts cited 4/6 are advocates of evolutionary psychology which is part of what Fine discusses. They are all psychologists as is Fine so I'm not sure what you mean by soft sciences - but maybe you meant the field in general rather than just the film. I will watch it with an open mind!

Being more relational and less technical strikes me as something that could well be explained by social constructs. You might find this article interesting. http://theconversation.com/new-insights-into-gendered-brain-wiring-or-a-perfect-case-study-in-neurosexism-21083

Social sciences are often seen as a soft science. I fall into both categories having been in a hard science field (neurobiology and biophysics) followed by a career change into mental health counseling. Going through my counseling graduate program was challenging and painful for me because once you understand brain science at a certain level, people who only understand it at a "softer science" level become challenging to have deeper conversations with or to get them to see faulty thinking in the theory. It is like someone well versed in calculus chatting with someone who stopped at pre-algebra. They get pre-algebra fantastically but they cannot comprehend higher level math because they don't get it. If we were to let someone with a pre-algebra level understanding then write about the how's and why's of calculus it would lead to a paper with some serious holes in the understanding. 

I just wanted to explain this a bit because a psychologist does not do higher level science at the same level. I do feel it matters coming from both sides of it. 

[LMD]

Thanks nixpix5 I figured it was along those lines, I just got myself confused because most of the cited experts from the documentary are of a similar academic background as far as I can tell.

As an aside, I just realised that Cordelia Fine is giving a lecture in my city this week! *ponders schedule*

[Bluegoat]

3 hours ago, LMD said:

Thanks for the link Bluegoat, I'll have a look, looks interesting. I do note that of the experts cited 4/6 are advocates of evolutionary psychology which is part of what Fine discusses. They are all psychologists as is Fine so I'm not sure what you mean by soft sciences - but maybe you meant the field in general rather than just the film. I will watch it with an open mind!

Being more relational and less technical strikes me as something that could well be explained by social constructs. You might find this article interesting. http://theconversation.com/new-insights-into-gendered-brain-wiring-or-a-perfect-case-study-in-neurosexism-21083

 

Ah, I wasn't thinking in terms of the film as far as soft/hard sciences, I was thinking particularly of neuroscientists.

I have a lot of problems with the kinds of arguments in that article.  Size for example - scientists actually don't know that size doesn't make a difference in terms of how the brain works, so to say differences are only related to size seems to be jumping to conclusions.  But my bigger problem is that if really, it is allow mostly  down to social conditioning, we would expect to see that men and women in different societies would have quite different social conditioning.  But that really isn't the case - we actually see fairly consistent kinds of conditioning through most human societies.  That is hugely suggestive.  And beyond that, it isn't just humans - we see very similar things in other primates and other mammals - who presumably are not socially conditioned.  And all this talk about brain structure largely ignores the effects of hormones.  We know sex hormones have significant influence on behaviour - heck, as an individual I know that sex hormones fluctuations influence my behaviour.  Who said biological sex differences, in terms of behavior, were down to brain structure alone?

So I find myself asking - why would the brain be different from the body, in terms of being affected by it's biological role? Why would there be such a large break between humans and other mammals in this area?  Doesn't the maleness or the femaleness of the body affect the brain, since they are a unity?  Why do we consistently see women in human societies behaving more relationally than men?  Why do we also see that in a good many mammals that live in groups?  Why do we see more violence among so many male mammals, that can affect females and the immature? 

And I really want to know why we are so comfortable with that if we talk about chimps or elephants or lions, why do we see the unity of the physical body and brain, but it makes us very uncomfortable with humans?

[Greta]

14 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I don't know that there is really a "who" because it seems to be some real variety of opinion, so it's more a weight of opinion than a consensus.  But she seems to be way to one side, and she's also on the softer science side - once you get into the harder sciences there seems to be more of a tendency to see brain differences as having significant elements.  

This is an interesting documentary, if you haven't seen it, and it talks to some specific scientists if you are looking for some names - I don't remember them of the top of my head.  The whole episode is about the gender equity paradox and is very interesting, as is the whole series.

I tend to think that the tendency of women to go into certain professions rather than others, when it isn't directly related to issues around family life, isn't about women being less mathy or good at science.  It's more about them being more interested in other people and relating to people in a certain way, and perhaps less interested in certain kinds of technical work or work with machines etc.

 

I enjoyed that documentary.  Thanks for posting it.  I thought the study about in utero testosterone levels and their effect on the development of empathy and language ability was really fascinating.  

As to the part I bolded - I was just thinking this morning about how my daughter plans to get a STEM degree (geology/paleontology) but what she plans to do with it is more people- and relational-oriented.  Her hope is to work in a natural history museum in a capacity which would allow her to share her love of paleontology with the public.  She has specifically said that her dream job would be "talking about dinosaurs all day"  ?

13 hours ago, Arcadia said:

 

My kids are turn off by engineering careers because of my husband’s pay and working hours, as well as layoffs being frequent (the most recent is Qualcomm). One is looking at business and law, the other is looking at tax accounting. 

My lady cousins are all “mathy” and most went into accountancy because it pays better than engineering for similar ranks in the corporate world. Accountancy isn’t counted as a STEM field/career so they won’t have been counted under ladies in STEM. I was in engineering management so I could be counted as 1/3 engineering and 2/3 management, so probably not counted at all if I was surveyed during my working years. 

My English scores were as high as my math scores so teachers and lecturers never knew what to suggest for careers other than maybe technical writer/translator. 

 

I was chatting with my husband about this thread last night.  He has several decades of experience in the engineering and physics world, both in private industry and in a national laboratory.  He was saying that he believes the reason there are fewer women in STEM is that smart women can see that the crap you have to put up with in STEM (the long hours of demanding work, the pay being low relative to the amount of work you have to put in, the massive layoffs, the problems created by H-1B visas, etc.), just isn't worth it, and they wisely go into business instead (which is what he wishes he had done in some ways).  So it was interesting for me to read your post today, saying basically the same thing!

[regentrude]

48 minutes ago, Greta said:

He was saying that he believes the reason there are fewer women in STEM is that smart women can see that the crap you have to put up with in STEM (the long hours of demanding work, the pay being low relative to the amount of work you have to put in, the massive layoffs, the problems created by H-1B visas, etc.), just isn't worth it, and they wisely go into business instead (which is what he wishes he had done in some ways).  

I highly doubt that is the reason. First, the trend of girls not engaging with math and science starts in school, way before young women begin to weigh issues like work hours and job security. Second, I grew up in a country where issues of job security were non existent, all careers paid pretty much the same, and girls were heavily encouraged to go into technical fields to help wit the labor shortage  - yet the ratio of girls to boys among physics majors in their first year was 1:7.

[Katy]

I don't think poor working environments and inherent sexism from childhood are mutually exclusive reasons why women who are qualified don't stay in STEM careers. I think both are factors.

One of my good college friends majored in math.  When we first met and she told me that was her major I was bewildered, but I didn't say anything because I immediately realized I was being incredibly sexist.  I think she was the only female in the department, but definitely in our class with a math major. She now works as a VP in marketing. I don't think she worked in math for more than two years before she decided to get out and get her MBA. She gave me the impression that women improve working environments, but it might take 30 years or multiple lawsuits to make the culture at any given company better.  Her opinion is that if her daughter majored in math she would encourage only working for huge companies - Fortune 500 or better so abusive work environments are less likely to be a problem.

One of the female industrial engineers I know hated her first job out of college. It was fortune 500, but in a very male-centered industry.  Then she got onto a cosmetics company with female leadership and now she loves her job. Every aspect is better, from factory workers to the way peer reviews are handled. She got two promotions in the short time she's been there.  She got none at her other company.

Lets not forget the programmers and engineers who were interviewed after that sexist post about why women weren't suited to work in tech last year.  Many of them left because the male-centered environment and peer-reviews that were unfair to women tend to drive women who are capable of finding a better job out of the large companies.  It seems at that time Amazon was in the middle of losing the first round of lawsuits regarding the sexism of the way they set up peer reviews. I haven't followed those stories since, but I do remember thinking I wouldn't put up with that for a mere $100,000 either.  Life is too short and making less money but being home with my kids is more fulfilling.

[Bluegoat]

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

I don't think poor working environments and inherent sexism from childhood are mutually exclusive reasons why women who are qualified don't stay in STEM careers. I think both are factors.

One of my good college friends majored in math.  When we first met and she told me that was her major I was bewildered, but I didn't say anything because I immediately realized I was being incredibly sexist.  I think she was the only female in the department, but definitely in our class with a math major. She now works as a VP in marketing. I don't think she worked in math for more than two years before she decided to get out and get her MBA. She gave me the impression that women improve working environments, but it might take 30 years or multiple lawsuits to make the culture at any given company better.  Her opinion is that if her daughter majored in math she would encourage only working for huge companies - Fortune 500 or better so abusive work environments are less likely to be a problem.

One of the female industrial engineers I know hated her first job out of college. It was fortune 500, but in a very male-centered industry.  Then she got onto a cosmetics company with female leadership and now she loves her job. Every aspect is better, from factory workers to the way peer reviews are handled. She got two promotions in the short time she's been there.  She got none at her other company.

Lets not forget the programmers and engineers who were interviewed after that sexist post about why women weren't suited to work in tech last year.  Many of them left because the male-centered environment and peer-reviews that were unfair to women tend to drive women who are capable of finding a better job out of the large companies.  It seems at that time Amazon was in the middle of losing the first round of lawsuits regarding the sexism of the way they set up peer reviews. I haven't followed those stories since, but I do remember thinking I wouldn't put up with that for a mere $100,000 either.  Life is too short and making less money but being home with my kids is more fulfilling.

 

Do you meant the guy from Google?  I didn't think he was sexist.

[Katy]

41 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Do you meant the guy from Google?  I didn't think he was sexist.

 

Did you read that yourself or did you only hear pulled quotes in conservative media?  I heard glowing praise from one side and fury on the other so I read it.  Several statements were sexist no matter how conservative you are.

[Bluegoat]

11 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Did you read that yourself or did you only hear pulled quotes in conservative media?  I heard glowing praise from one side and fury on the other so I read it.  Several statements were sexist no matter how conservative you are.

 

I don't know that I follow any conservative media, I read it myself.  I disagreed with some of his conclusions, but I didn't think they were sexist.

[Greta]

3 hours ago, regentrude said:

I highly doubt that is the reason. First, the trend of girls not engaging with math and science starts in school, way before young women begin to weigh issues like work hours and job security. Second, I grew up in a country where issues of job security were non existent, all careers paid pretty much the same, and girls were heavily encouraged to go into technical fields to help wit the labor shortage  - yet the ratio of girls to boys among physics majors in their first year was 1:7.

 

I will admit I was skeptical when my husband proposed that explanation - and I told him as much.  I mentioned your first point to him, in fact, but never having lived anywhere but the US, wasn't equipped with the knowledge in your second point.  But then when I saw the same points he'd made proposed here I thought perhaps I'd dismissed the idea too easily.  The biologist part of my brain always thinks that if there is a biological explanation, then that is the simplest and most likely explanation.  The feminist part of my brain thinks that sexism, both subtle and overt, is very real, and could be at play in this dynamic too.  But overall, I suspect that biological differences in interests and personal strengths is probably playing the largest role here.  What do you think?

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, Greta said:

  The feminist part of my brain thinks that sexism, both subtle and overt, is very real, and could be at play in this dynamic too.  But overall, I suspect that biological differences in interests and personal strengths is probably playing the largest role here.  What do you think?

 

There is also the subtle racial stereotyping in schools here. A mixed race (Caucasian-Asian) child who looks more Asian would be expected to do academically better than one who looks more Caucasian. There is also at least two issues here. Getting females to major in STEM in college and getting females to work in STEM as a career. 

This Atlantic article, The Problem With ‘Asians Are Good at Science’, did raise some of the issues of Asians females in STEM careers. 

“In recent years, the authors of this article, alongside our colleagues at the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, have investigated gender and racial biases that pervade STEM professions. Our research has found that Asian Americans, especially women, often face significant career hurdles tied to perceptions about ethnicity and race.  

...

In this study, Asian American women engineers were significantly more likely than white women to report that they were held to higher standards than their colleagues. Taken more broadly, this suggests a pernicious bind: Though Asian Americans might be seen as having a specific set of technical skills, white men with identical skills may be assumed to have a broader range of skills they haven’t demonstrated. So, like women and other people of color, Asian Americans in STEM may have to be more skilled than white men to be seen as equally competent. “Not a whole lot is taken on promise,” said an Asian American astrophysicist. “You have to prove yourself all the time.”

Asian Americans also face bias stemming from assumptions not just about how they do act, but about how they should act. At work, white men generally have more leeway in their behavior: They can shout and scream when they’re angry; they can brag when they’ve accomplished something. For women and people of color, a narrower range of behavior is often accepted.

...

Our study of science professors found that Asian American women report more pressure than any other group to act feminine—and more pushback when they don’t, in the form of negative performance evaluations and assessments that they have personality problems. “ immediately started, I guess, having a reputation of being a dragon lady,” said one Asian American biologist. “Early on when I started working here, a faculty colleague of mine said ... ‘I can hear you way down the hall because your balls clang.’”

Our research found that Asian Americans, both male and female, are expected to be good team players and worker bees. Asian American women engineers were significantly more likely than white women—and much more likely than white men—to report the expectation that they work hard, keep their heads down, avoid confrontation, and let others take the lead. This makes it difficult to get ahead as a scientist, a job that demands assertiveness, aggressive lobbying for research opportunities, and leadership of teams of people.

“If you’re a young man, you’re a boy genius,” said a female Asian American astrophysicist. “But if you’re a young woman, you are so threatening that, in order to be able to cope and to be liked ... I have had to become as amiable as possible and a group player all the time.” She felt that she could not promote her accomplishments and thus rarely spoke about the awards and media attention she received for her work.” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/asian-americans-science-math-bias/551903/

[Arcadia]

6 hours ago, regentrude said:

Second, I grew up in a country where issues of job security were non existent, all careers paid pretty much the same, and girls were heavily encouraged to go into technical fields to help wit the labor shortage  - yet the ratio of girls to boys among physics majors in their first year was 1:7.

 

From USNews article, Girls Need Confidence, Good Scores to Pursue Physics https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2016-12-21/lack-of-math-confidence-may-deter-girls-from-physics-careers-study-finds

”Female students placed more weight on actual or perceived mathematical skill, while male students looked to their interests to guide them in their career paths. To consider physics-related careers in 12th grade, teenage girls needed to do well on math exams in 10th grade. Test scores had little bearing on male students; they were willing to pursue physics careers in 12th grade if they expressed an interest in math in 10th grade.

...

"In terms of math performance, girls score as well as boys from elementary school through high school and, in the U.S., earn roughly half of the undergraduate degrees in mathematics," Janet Hyde, one of the study's authors and the co-director of the longitudinal Wisconsin Study of Families and Work, said via email. "The gender gaps are in physics, computer science, and engineering … Only a minority of students take physics in high school -- a big mistake -- and girls are less likely to take physics courses than boys are."

...

It may also contribute to why more girls turn to biology rather than the math-heavy physics. Math interest, test scores and self-confidence do not play a role in either male or female students' interest in pursuing a career in biology, the study found.

Researchers found no significant gender differences in chemistry career intentions.

Both male and female students with more interest and self-confidence in their mathematical abilities scored higher on standardized math exams. What the students' mothers thought of their math skills was also critical to their interest, self-concept and test scores, regardless of gender.

"In the family, we know that parents estimate their sons as having higher math ability than their daughters, even though the data show that girls perform as well as boys in math," Hyde said via email. "In our study, we found that mothers' perceptions of the children's math ability in seventh grade predicted the adolescent's math self-concept in ninth grade. Parents' belief in you is a powerful force."

...

In Australia, the study's findings were more extreme. A teenage girl's self-confidence in her math ability influenced not only whether she would consider a physics career, but whether she was willing to pursue any major science field, the study found.

In the future, STEM fields must be differentiated from one another in research on gender and STEM, according to the study. It will also be critical to understand why young women opt in to some fields, rather than focusing primarily on why they choose not to pursue others.

"The nation's future economic success depends on innovations in science and technology; we can't afford to waste half of our talent -- women -- when we are in a global economic competition," Hyde said via email. "We have to figure out why women aren't entering some STEM fields. This study gives us some answers ... It tells us how math motivation in 9th grade predicts interest in STEM occupations at the end of 12th grade."”

The study the article refers to is this one but has a paywall.

Mathematics—a Critical Filter for STEM-Related Career Choices? A Longitudinal Examination among Australian and U.S. Adolescents https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0711-1#Sec17

[LMD]

I often wonder what would have happened if a teacher, or my accountant father, had noticed my equally good maths scores and suggested a maths pathway rather than english/literature pathway. That path was well entrenched by years 11/12 - even though I could still beat the boys in maths, guess who got the specialised teaching and encouragement?

I very nearly went back to do finance through a mentorship/degree at my old job. I didn't know enough to ask/push and then I had babies and homeschooled. The english/lit actually helps a fair bit with this path... when my youngest is 16 I'll be 45 and we'll see about a second career.

[Arcadia]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

Coincidentally, or not, I didn't have any female science teachers in 11th or 12th grade. I shuffled myself into biology instead of physics, because the physics class was all boys, and I felt uncomfortable being there.  

 

1 hour ago, LMD said:

I often wonder what would have happened if a teacher, or my accountant father, had noticed my equally good maths scores and suggested a maths pathway rather than english/literature pathway. That path was well entrenched by years 11/12 - even though I could still beat the boys in maths, guess who got the specialised teaching and encouragement?

 

I won school level awards in both English and Math in high school, and was the team leader for the school science team. People did teased the guys in my science team but never in a mean way. No one suggested an English pathway for me other than Law school, I am effectively bilingual in English and Chinese though. There were five girls in my physics and calculus class for 11th & 12th grade which means I had lots of volunteer escorts when I studied late on campus to make sure I get home safely. My male classmates were rather chivalrous. 

As for teachers,

Math: 1st to 10th grade were females teachers (some were nuns as I went to a catholic school), 11th & 12th grade was a female lecturer and a male lecturer co-teach and the lady was much better at multivariable calculus while the guy was fundamentally weak in math.

Science: 3rd to 8th grade female teachers

Physics: 9th & 10th female teachers, 11th & 12th male lecturer (former engineer)

Chemistry: 9th grade female teacher, 10th grade male teacher, 11th & 12th grade female lecturer 

Biology: 9th grade female teacher (I drop biology after 9th)

Head of Science in junior college (11th & 12th) was a lady physics lecturer 

 

So I had plenty of female math and science teachers including nuns. My cousins are mostly males and I have more nephews than nieces so I was used to a male dominated environment. My parents did pay for afterschool math tutors because I was faster than my teachers were teaching. Basically nature and nurture, and the Asian stereotype of being good in math regardless of gender means no one look at me funny for being good at math (the US Math Olympiad girls team is all Asians)

 

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

 

From USNews article, Girls Need Confidence, Good Scores to Pursue Physics https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2016-12-21/lack-of-math-confidence-may-deter-girls-from-physics-careers-study-finds

”Female students placed more weight on actual or perceived mathematical skill, while male students looked to their interests to guide them in their career paths. To consider physics-related careers in 12th grade, teenage girls needed to do well on math exams in 10th grade. Test scores had little bearing on male students; they were willing to pursue physics careers in 12th grade if they expressed an interest in math in 10th grade.

...

"In terms of math performance, girls score as well as boys from elementary school through high school and, in the U.S., earn roughly half of the undergraduate degrees in mathematics," Janet Hyde, one of the study's authors and the co-director of the longitudinal Wisconsin Study of Families and Work, said via email. "The gender gaps are in physics, computer science, and engineering … Only a minority of students take physics in high school -- a big mistake -- and girls are less likely to take physics courses than boys are."

...

It may also contribute to why more girls turn to biology rather than the math-heavy physics. Math interest, test scores and self-confidence do not play a role in either male or female students' interest in pursuing a career in biology, the study found.

Researchers found no significant gender differences in chemistry career intentions.

Both male and female students with more interest and self-confidence in their mathematical abilities scored higher on standardized math exams. What the students' mothers thought of their math skills was also critical to their interest, self-concept and test scores, regardless of gender.

"In the family, we know that parents estimate their sons as having higher math ability than their daughters, even though the data show that girls perform as well as boys in math," Hyde said via email. "In our study, we found that mothers' perceptions of the children's math ability in seventh grade predicted the adolescent's math self-concept in ninth grade. Parents' belief in you is a powerful force."

...

In Australia, the study's findings were more extreme. A teenage girl's self-confidence in her math ability influenced not only whether she would consider a physics career, but whether she was willing to pursue any major science field, the study found.

In the future, STEM fields must be differentiated from one another in research on gender and STEM, according to the study. It will also be critical to understand why young women opt in to some fields, rather than focusing primarily on why they choose not to pursue others.

"The nation's future economic success depends on innovations in science and technology; we can't afford to waste half of our talent -- women -- when we are in a global economic competition," Hyde said via email. "We have to figure out why women aren't entering some STEM fields. This study gives us some answers ... It tells us how math motivation in 9th grade predicts interest in STEM occupations at the end of 12th grade."”

The study the article refers to is this one but has a paywall.

Mathematics—a Critical Filter for STEM-Related Career Choices? A Longitudinal Examination among Australian and U.S. Adolescents https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0711-1#Sec17

Although of course the plural of anecdote is not data, I’ll say that personally I was always a very strong math student and never doubted my math abilities. While I didn’t major in computer science, all of my jobs have involved a significant amount of programming. But I never, ever considered a major or career in engineering or physics despite extensive support and encouragement for engineering from my dad. Why? I basically have very little interest in or understanding of how mechanical things work, despite lots of exposure. From talking to his dad, being shown things, and having books read to him, I would say that by age three my son probably had a much better understanding of how the physical and mechanical world works than I will ever posses. He’s also always had a very keen interest in these things, just like his my dad and his dad, and I’m the complete opposite. But in terms of raw math abilities, they would all say I’m the strongest.

[....]

On 5/17/2018 at 9:38 PM, Targhee said:

Perhaps I have the outlier, because my oldest is very good in math and science and has great confidence in it. She has never been dissuaded from pursuing it (that I’m aware of) and in fact we are always trying to encourage it. She wants to be an actress ? and she’s only so-so at that. Nothing wrong with actors - it’s just painful to hear her talk about passing over her gifts for her “dreams.”  But perhaps that reflects the Atlantic article more, that she doesn’t feel pressure for a high salary and would feel equally respected in either acting or STEM.  

 

Yep.  We've got that here, too.  Our 3 girls are very good at math.  I've bent over backwards trying to get them interested in engineering, etc.  Nope.  Two of them want to major in Fine Arts.  Oldest possibly Psychology or Kinesiology.

Oh well.  lol

[Bluegoat]

On 5/19/2018 at 1:37 AM, Frances said:

Although of course the plural of anecdote is not data, I’ll say that personally I was always a very strong math student and never doubted my math abilities. While I didn’t major in computer science, all of my jobs have involved a significant amount of programming. But I never, ever considered a major or career in engineering or physics despite extensive support and encouragement for engineering from my dad. Why? I basically have very little interest in or understanding of how mechanical things work, despite lots of exposure. From talking to his dad, being shown things, and having books read to him, I would say that by age three my son probably had a much better understanding of how the physical and mechanical world works than I will ever posses. He’s also always had a very keen interest in these things, just like his my dad and his dad, and I’m the complete opposite. But in terms of raw math abilities, they would all say I’m the strongest.

 

I had a somewhat similar experience.  I wasn't a great math student, but I did very well in computer science and my teacher, who was the head of the math department, too me aside and suggested that I should really consider going into it in university.  He said my programs were elegant, which I found really encouraging.  But while I enjoyed writing the little programs, I really didn't find a lot of the work involved interesting - I thought it was boring repetitive, and mostly I wasn't all that interested in creating actual programs to do things or even working with hardware.

[vonfirmath]

On 5/18/2018 at 11:37 PM, Frances said:

Although of course the plural of anecdote is not data, I’ll say that personally I was always a very strong math student and never doubted my math abilities. While I didn’t major in computer science, all of my jobs have involved a significant amount of programming. But I never, ever considered a major or career in engineering or physics despite extensive support and encouragement for engineering from my dad. Why? I basically have very little interest in or understanding of how mechanical things work, despite lots of exposure. From talking to his dad, being shown things, and having books read to him, I would say that by age three my son probably had a much better understanding of how the physical and mechanical world works than I will ever posses. He’s also always had a very keen interest in these things, just like his my dad and his dad, and I’m the complete opposite. But in terms of raw math abilities, they would all say I’m the strongest.

 

I was a very strong math student, never doubted my abilities, and went to college to get a computer engineering degree. It's the only thing I wanted from 8th or 9th grade and I stayed on track and got accepted at Texas A&M University in that field.

My biggest problem is I ran out of math in HS my junior year (AP Calculus BC) and my parents could not afford to send me to Blinn or Texas A&M for one course my senior year... and then I went off to college and compounded this by not taking math my first SEMESTER of college!  And by the time I took my first Calculus class, I was lost. I had forgotten the math and I floundered and didn't really recover at all.