Females in Science

[Hindmost]

Harvard President Lawrence Summers jumped into hot water about a year ago by implying females did not have the same innate ability in math and science.


http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire?mode=PF


He apologized, but I am sure it started a firestorm of conversations all over the world on this topic. From my own teaching point of view—as a high school science teacher in a small school—I have seen male and female abilities as essentially equal. It is a small school and I have only been teaching a few years so I do not have great statistical evidence.

One of my goals as a science teacher is to show students the benefits of obtaining degrees in engineering, physics, math or something science related. All too often, many talented females in my classes had little interest in studying engineering or similar subjects. After I have described the classes and work needed to obtain an engineering degree, a significant number of my students—both male and female—were convinced they didn’t want to try engineering. I have become an inverse function. I have had a few successes in guiding students toward engineering, but they include just one female who wanted to do environmental work.
<O:p></O:p>
My reason for this thread is simple: Why are many high performing females not interested in engineering, math and physics degrees? And for all the women out there with engineering, physics and math degrees, what was the appeal?

glenn:boxedin:

[athon]

It's long been a focus of research in pedagogy why some subjects have a sex bias, and there are several schools of thought on the subject.

Biologically and sociollogically there is a difference between males and females. Simply walking through the town mall will show you that. Just how much biology impacts on the behaviour of an individual is another discussion, but from an early age there seems to be a trend where males perform better at concrete tasks which involve logic and visual acuity. Females tend to follow a pattern where statistically they are slightly better at tasks that involve abstract (females tend to mature into abstract thought earlier than males as well) and empathic reasoning.

These are not strict biological laws, and the tendency a society has to impart this bias on its constituents is significant. But the bias is there and by secondary school it the disbalance between males and females in different disciplines is obvious.

This used to be further encouraged by active discrimination, and social imprinting. Today this is not as strong, and is fading with subsequent generations. However we are still seeing differences.

Firstly, it might be asked 'is there anything wrong with that'? Afterall, as long as nobody is discriminated against - either subtly or forcefully - then where is the harm? I argue that there is no real problem with this, at face value.

However, the damage is done when disciplines are distinguished by a strict set of skills, those same skills which lend bias in the first place. For example, to see 'science' as a set of skills which males tend to do better at is erroneous at best. Women tend to do well at biological sciences due to the need for 'fuzzy' definitions, and understanding of abstract models. For one thing, males who have less ability at doing this could learn from increased numbers of females in the classes. For another, to engenderise one discipline is to further seperate it from the skills of others.

Some form of integrated curriculum is needed in early years of education - and even into secondary education - to combat this. Blurring the lines between subjects could better address this issue than anything else.

Athon

[Hindmost]

Statistics, at least here in the US, indicate that math and science ability in males and females are essentially equal. This was not true many years ago. I believe this is because there is less active or passive bias in teaching now. Although I am sure it still exists somewhere.

When I have high performing females indicate that they are not a math-science type and then get an “A” in my class, I want to find out why they are not interested in an engineering or science based career. I am usually told that engineering is just not interesting.

The long-term harm will be reflected in technology leadership losses—I am focusing on the US here, but it applies to all technical societies I believe--which would translate into a diminishing ability to keep our lifestyle as nice as it is. Since females are a larger portion of college enrollment of late, I feel enrollment in engineering and science in should be in greater numbers as well. (it is going up a bit however)

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0407/ (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0407/)

glenn:boxedin: <O:p</O:p

[The Black Fox]

After I have described the classes and work needed to obtain an engineering degree, a significant number of my students—both male and female—were convinced they didn’t want to try engineering.

Maybe you should focus more on the rewards of having an engineering degree (good pay/employment prospects etc)? I know many engineering students (I used to be one myself) and the amount of work they get is often obscene, the lecturers often lack any communication skills and the material can be very dry. It is not an attractive prospect, but the potential career afterwards can be.

At my university, women are still heavily outnumbered by men in engineering fields. However, I'm pleased to report that my biology class is 50:50 women to men, so there's hope yet :)

[slingblade]

I don't like having to do things I am not good at, especially when I am striving to improve, and don't. Note the double frustration there: I not only do it poorly, but I have to do it. That makes it so much worse.

I dreaded going to college, because I knew I would have to take algebra, and I found it so much gibberish thirty years ago in high school. But this time I had good teachers who used different strategies to help me learn. I also took a basic logic class before I began my maths, and though I didn't know it when I signed up, I discovered while in the class that logic is algebraic. I can't tell you how much this helped me in math classes.

I'm somewhat androgynous: I have always liked logic and puzzles, and have always been very good at spatial relations--a male trait, from what I understand. I love science, and probably would have been good at math early on, had I had instruction more suited to my learning styles, and had I suffered less bias from teachers. Tenth grade was the last level at which my school required a math class, and the male teacher actually advised us girls to do our best to get a C, and then we wouldn't have to "suffer through" math any more.

I think these are some of the ways women can be encouraged to play a larger role in any of the sciences: find and remove as much gender bias as possible; address differing learning styles; teach adjuncts of math, such as logic, in order to show relevancy and make it more interesting. Above all, start as early as possible to make math enjoyable (no, that's not a contradiction).

[CplFerro]

Here's something to chew on:

The Science of Sex:
Glenn Wilson on the Origins of Genius


I shall begin this discussion of sex differences in ability and achievement in the place where the most striking and controversial gender differences are observed. Virtually all the people throughout history whose achievements are acknowledged as products of undisputed genius have one thing in common. They come from a great variety of geographical, national, social and religious backgrounds, but they are all male. Starting with names like Da Vinci, Newton, Einstein, Galton, Shakespeare, Edison, Goethe, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Picasso, we might have to fill many pages before the first comparable woman would appear. When we consider the claims of women for inclusion in the list of outstanding accomplishments, their contributions can be seen mostly in the fields of literature (Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf), humanitarianism (Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa) or politics (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir), rather than science, technology music or fine art.

The supremacy of men in the field of scientific achievement can also be seen in the record of Nobel prizes awarded for physics, chemistry and medicine/physiology. Reviewing the background of the 164 recipients of these prizes between 1900 and 1950, (Moulin (1955) noted that only three were women and they had all shared prizes with their husbands. The only exception was Madame Curie, who after sharing a prize with husband Pierre was later awarded another one independently. In a follow-up study by Berry (1981), the sex of the recipients was not mentioned at all. Berry describes the national origin, race, personality and social background of prize-winners, even the age at which their father died, but he does not mention whether any were female. When I contacted him for further information he explained there were so few women in his sample he didn't think them worth mentioning. Apparently there has been no appreciable increase in the number of women receiving Nobel prizes for science in recent years.

In a recently published book on scientific genius, Simonton (1988) discusses every imaginable demographic and personality factor that might be related to scientific brilliance, including such things as age, birth order and persistence, but sex or gender do not appear in his index. Is this because the gender issue is too hot to handle, or are we supposed to assume without inquiry that genius is a purely male phenomenon? Certainly, raising this question in public today is no way to make female friends, but it is surely intellectual cowardice to side-step it in a book specifically about the topic.

Few social learning theorists or feminists, if pressed, would deny the preponderance of male genius, but would proffer an explanation in terms of the limited educational opportunities for women throughout history and general discouragement to achieve outside the realm of motherhood and the home. This explanation seems to be unsatisfactory on a number of counts.

(1) Variations in the social position of women do not seem to be accompanied by any change in the sex ration of geniuses. For example, despite the increased number of women in science laboratories in the last three or four decades, the outstanding discoveries are still mostly made by men.


(2) Many male geniuses have to override considerable disadvantage in their educational or social background and considerable social or religious opposition before their contributions are recognized. Galileo, despite being old, feeble, and virtually blind, was imprisoned by the Vatican for his heretical support of the heliocentric theory. Michael Faraday was the son of an itinerant tinker, had practically no schooling and could not afford any books. Isaac Newton came from a family of small farmers, was a premature child so puny and weak that he was not expected to live and received a poor education at the local village school. Charles Dickens and Charlie Chaplin both came from backgrounds of working-class poverty that they capitalized upon in their art. Charles Darwin defied his religious training and risked social ostracism by advocating evolution theory. George Washington Carver emerged from a background of civil war and slavery in Missouri to become one of America's greatest biological scientists, despite constant hunger, poverty and ill health and having been denied education because of his colour. Social and educational advantages cannot be held accountable for the achievements of men such as these, so why should disadvantage be invoked to account for the absence of female achievement?


(3) Social learning theory does not adequately explain why a proportion of women do occasionally achieve quite well in certain areas (e.g. literature and politics) but not in others (e.g. science and architecture). Music composition is an interesting case in point, since it is a male-dominated profession despite the fact that girls are given more than equal encouragement to learn music at school and there are many accomplished women performers. British composer Peter Maxwell Davies recalls asking to study music at high school in Manchester and was told very firmly by the headmaster, 'This is not a girls' school!' For hundreds of years European ladies have been expected to sing and play an instrument such as the piano as a social grace, and yet the great composers have without exception been men.



--Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 97-99. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.

[Hindmost]

Maybe you should focus more on the rewards of having an engineering degree (good pay/employment prospects etc)? I know many engineering students (I used to be one myself) and the amount of work they get is often obscene, the lecturers often lack any communication skills and the material can be very dry. It is not an attractive prospect, but the potential career afterwards can be.

At my university, women are still heavily outnumbered by men in engineering fields. However, I'm pleased to report that my biology class is 50:50 women to men, so there's hope yet :)

I actually do show students the rewards associated with an engineering career...they see the lifestyle I have and the benefits and I keep them up-to-date on salaries and opportunities. (I also let them know about the pay cut I took to teach) I do want to make sure they understand the challenge in college; when I started engineering school I was not prepared for the amount of work and how fast everything was taught....like taking a drink of water with a firehose. As my students work on problem sets, I want them to know that the next 4-5 years will be filled with problem sets and more problem sets.

glenn:boxedin:

[Hindmost]

Here's something to chew on:


--Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 97-99. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.

Ok I did a bit of research on this...but I am not talking about people out past 6 sigma on the bell shaped curve. The people described in your post are certainly extraordinary. I am looking for information to motivate females that score 700 plus on their math SATs into more science related fields.

glenn:boxedin:

[epepke]

I actually do show students the rewards associated with an engineering career...they see the lifestyle I have and the benefits and I keep them up-to-date on salaries and opportunities.

I still don't understand why you think this should be appealing to more than a small number of women. Could you please elaborate?

[Hindmost]

I still don't understand why you think this should be appealing to more than a small number of women. Could you please elaborate?

Good question. I believe that I am looking for that same answer myself. I am not saying it should be more appealing, but I am trying to find out why high performing females seem to be less interested in pursuing science based careers. I am tacitly assuming a person getting high marks in math and science would find a career applying those skills appealing. If I can get some good views on this subject, I may be able to encourage more females into science based careers--hopefully they would find it enjoyable. Coincidentally, there is an article in a magazine that I get titled," Why are there so Few Female Physicists?" by Laura Ann Robertson. It is asking some of the same questions I have. It deals with the classroom environment as a primary focus: ensuring participation and encouraging real hands on work during labs etc--I like to think I provide a good environment in my classes for such things, but I am checking to make sure.


glenn

[Chris Haynes]

I do not have an answer for you. I can perhaps point you to some resources.

One I know is this:
Society of Women Engineers K-12 Resource Page (http://www.swe.org/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=115&ssSourceNodeId=89)

That is mostly engineering, I tried http://www.awis.org/ ... but their resource page is harder to find, but I know there are lots of other programs.

Many are often dependent on who is locally participating. In some places it would be scouting programs, or local programs. For instance in one high school I was in Oceanography Explorer Scouts (a section of Boy Scouts of America that is co-ed), but when we moved to an area with very little scouting support --- BUT... the school's math teacher started up a JETS program (Junior Engineering Technical Society, http://www.jets.org/ ). Where I live now my younger son is participating in an "Archictecture, Contruction and Engineering" mentor program (http://www.acementor.org/ ).

I remember in my last year of high school our JETS group went to the Engineering Open House at Texas A&M (we only had to take a bus from Killeen, but there was a group from El Paso!). Now I mostly drag kids to our local university's Engineering Open House (the kids are usually mine and their friends, for my daughter's 9th birthday party including taking most of the guests to the open house). The open houses usually occur on a Friday (when school groups come through) and Saturday.

I've also taken kids to the open houses put on by the dept. of astronomy, dept. of oceanography and the School of Medicine... Oh, and should I forget... my oldest 7th grade science teacher took her classes to this: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/baw.html

Good luck.

[epepke]

Good question. I believe that I am looking for that same answer myself. I am not saying it should be more appealing, but I am trying to find out why high performing females seem to be less interested in pursuing science based careers. I am tacitly assuming a person getting high marks in math and science would find a career applying those skills appealing. If I can get some good views on this subject, I may be able to encourage more females into science based careers--hopefully they would find it enjoyable.

OK, I think I see the mistake you're making.

When girls get to be about 12 or 13, they start reading Seventeen. When they get to be about 15, they start reading Cosmopolitan and Vogue.

The articles in these magazines are along the following lines:

1) How to marry a rich man.
2) How to apply makeup, so that you can do 1.
3) What clothes to by, so that you can do 1.
4) How to diet, so that you can do 1.
5) How to do sex, so that you can keep 1.
6) How to deny sex, so that you can do 1 instead of just sleeping with him.
7) What colleges to go to that provide the best opportunities for 1.

And so on, and so forth. This is what you're working against. Lotsa luck.

Of course, some girls won't be interested in that, but you're working against a pretty strong cultural mythology.

[Freethinker]

As an engineer who has worked with many good and bad engineers over the years, I have concluded that good engineers are born that way. Good engineers have an inate curiousity about how things work, and a natural problem solving aptitude. I've hired people with outstanding grades who were very poor engineers, people with average grades who were outstanding engineers, and even people with poor grades who made acceptable engineers.
What does this have to do with the original poster's question? Virtually all of the outstanding engineers I've worked with have been men. I realize that it probably isn't statistically significant due to the low number of women engineers, but I believe that there are people born with the "engineer gene" and most of them are men.
Good engineers I've been around seem to share a disposition that makes them want to do things for themselves, like building houses, fixing cars etc.. As children they take things apart to see how they work. As adults, they try to make themselves well educated about anything they are involved with. They do their own taxes, make their own investment decisions and don't focus on things like clothes and new cars.
Maybe the goal shouldn't be to encourage good students to pursue a career in science or engineering, but rather to identify students of either gender with the "engineering gene" and encouraging them. Trying to encourage people without the "knack" into the wrong field won't fix anything.

[writerdd]

Well, then someone needs to start writing articles "Why Science is Sexy" for those magazines!

[jj]

I'd just love to introduce the guy who said that to Ingrid Debauchies and Jelena Kovacic. Both nice, civil people. They'd leave him in shreds.

[drkitten]

I'd just love to introduce the guy who said that to Ingrid Debauchies and Jelena Kovacic. Both nice, civil people. They'd leave him in shreds.

I think that you may be looking at the wrong end of the stick. Similarly, the people who are arguing that "statistically, men and women are equal in mathematical ability" are looking in the wrong spots.

I'm sorry, but Dr. Debauchies is hardly a realistic test case. She's an *****' MacArthur Fellow, for Pete's sake. You know, the "Genius Grants"? She's as smart as you, me, and CFLarsen put together, with room left over for Mercutio. She's a full professor in the second-best mathematics department in the world.

Part of the problem with women -- and men, for that matter -- going in to science and engineering is that being "average," or even being "above average," isn't good enough. Even being "brilliant" is often not good enough, because there are more than enough brilliant people who want to be scientists and engineers for the field still to be competitive. To be a top-flight scientist or engineer, you need to be brilliant -- but also (and perhaps even more importantly), you need to be a good communicator, creative, and with a strong work ethic.

Summers' point, the one that seems to keep getting lost in discussions like this, is that people of "average" intelligence tend not to be scientists. It's not enough to look merely at the mean, but we also have to look at the distribution about the mean. I will accept that there are about as many women as men with IQ's above 100. But here's my question. What's the ratio of women with IQ's above 130 to men with IQ's above 130? Is that also 1-to-1? (And, please, cite your evidence....)

[69dodge]

It's "Daubechies". For those who don't know who you're talking about.

A video of a talk she gave about wavelets is available near the bottom of http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/index.shtml (March 4, 1999).

[kittynh]

Kitten was interested in science but not particullarly good at math. Still, she went to a high school that was founded with the intent of teaching women the "male arts" of science and math (in 1917 I think). Her school is still all female and the focus is on letting women learn math and science the way they seem to do best. That is by asking a lot of questions, and feeling comfortable in their understanding before moving on to the next topic. When boys can't read, there are tutors and all sorts of interventions. When girls start to slip in math and science, there is a ho hum. Not "let's find a way to keep women interested, as this is very important for them to know."

She did 5 AP tests, and went on to college where she is a science and language double major. But I keep pointing out to people that she got that little bit of an extra nudge when she needed it. And she went to a school that pushed science and math on women. It was at her high school that she learned the HAPPIEST people are those in science fields. It's a fact! She also learned that math and science are like any subject. You will only succeed if you work hard at it. TV and movies seem to act like anyone interested in science and math is just naturally good at the subjects. Sorry, those subjects take work! And those subjects can be learned by anyone (well anyone willing to put in the effort and with decent teachers, and that isn't really a total idiot!)

I guess MIT thought so too (for those of you that live in a hole and haven't heard me bragging about her being accepted to grad school at MIT/Woods Hole).

If she had not gone to the high school she went to she would be an English major. I'm totally serious.

[Hindmost]

I do not have an answer for you. I can perhaps point you to some resources....Good luck.

Thanks, I will give everything a try.

glenn

[Hindmost]

Kitten was interested in science but not particullarly good at math. Still, she went to a high school that was founded with the intent of teaching women the "male arts" of science and math (in 1917 I think). Her school is still all female and the focus is on letting women learn math and science the way they seem to do best. That is by asking a lot of questions, and feeling comfortable in their understanding before moving on to the next topic. When boys can't read, there are tutors and all sorts of interventions. When girls start to slip in math and science, there is a ho hum. Not "let's find a way to keep women interested, as this is very important for them to know."

She did 5 AP tests, and went on to college where she is a science and language double major. But I keep pointing out to people that she got that little bit of an extra nudge when she needed it. And she went to a school that pushed science and math on women. It was at her high school that she learned the HAPPIEST people are those in science fields. It's a fact! She also learned that math and science are like any subject. You will only succeed if you work hard at it. TV and movies seem to act like anyone interested in science and math is just naturally good at the subjects. Sorry, those subjects take work! And those subjects can be learned by anyone (well anyone willing to put in the effort and with decent teachers, and that isn't really a total idiot!)

I guess MIT thought so too (for those of you that live in a hole and haven't heard me bragging about her being accepted to grad school at MIT/Woods Hole).

If she had not gone to the high school she went to she would be an English major. I'm totally serious.

This definitely gives me hope. Your post does seem to indicate that a culture of instruction that is focused on teaching to everyone equally is very important. (with the additional specific "push" when needed.)

A second important point you made is how science and math take work. I do sometimes think there are students out there with the capability, but they would rather take an easier major just so they can relax during school. I believe that is why grad schools get alot of students in their late 20s or early 30s applying. People start to realize they didn't get enough or the right skills.

Tell Kitten congrats--they don't just let anyone with a checkbook into MIT.

glenn:boxedin:

[Hindmost]

As an engineer who has worked with many good and bad engineers over the years, I have concluded that good engineers are born that way. Good engineers have an inate curiousity about how things work, and a natural problem solving aptitude. I've hired people with outstanding grades who were very poor engineers, people with average grades who were outstanding engineers, and even people with poor grades who made acceptable engineers.
What does this have to do with the original poster's question? Virtually all of the outstanding engineers I've worked with have been men. I realize that it probably isn't statistically significant due to the low number of women engineers, but I believe that there are people born with the "engineer gene" and most of them are men.
Good engineers I've been around seem to share a disposition that makes them want to do things for themselves, like building houses, fixing cars etc.. As children they take things apart to see how they work. As adults, they try to make themselves well educated about anything they are involved with. They do their own taxes, make their own investment decisions and don't focus on things like clothes and new cars.
Maybe the goal shouldn't be to encourage good students to pursue a career in science or engineering, but rather to identify students of either gender with the "engineering gene" and encouraging them. Trying to encourage people without the "knack" into the wrong field won't fix anything.

I have worked with some of the same engineers. I really don't know how some of them got an engineering degree. I agree that a person must have a certain amount of innate ability, but I don't think I would call it being born with a specific gene. By the way, that is what cost Harvard President Lawrence Summers his job. I am not trying to encourage students without the ability to study science--that will just frustrate the student when they start flunking. I am trying to encourage some students with the "knack"--both male and female--to study science or math. I usually tell students that if they can pass integral calculus and pass basic statics and dynamics, they should have enough ability to get their engineering degree. (although the physics of magnetism can be soooooooooooooooo difficult as well) Ambition is another thing...

glenn:boxedin:

[Chris Haynes]

I have worked with some of the same engineers. I really don't know how some of them got an engineering degree. ...

Oh, wow... so have I! I've wondered the same thing... except I usually add why did some people give so much &^%$#! in the late 1970s about majoring in engineering, when it was obvious some of these guys should not have gotten into the college of engineering.

(One of the answers I gave back then to why I was in engineering was that I started out majoring in oceanography, but decided to major in something that included an income. Which is true, because the Ocean dept. had a picnic for ocean majors explaining the reality (don't expect a real job until you get a PhD, and even then it is not certain). This came back a few years ago when I took my son to the Oceanography Open House... I mentioned that I started there but switch, and the guy responded "Oh, you went for the money track!".

Another story about having boobs and majoring in engineering in the Days of Disco... I went to a Disco with a friend (who was gay, we would look like a couple and compare guys together). Sometimes (when friend was off somewhere else) I would have some guy come around to chat with me. After I answered truthfully to "what's your major" I found that they tended to disappear fairly quickly!)

[epepke]

Good engineers I've been around seem to share a disposition that makes them want to do things for themselves, like building houses, fixing cars etc.. As children they take things apart to see how they work. As adults, they try to make themselves well educated about anything they are involved with. They do their own taxes, make their own investment decisions and don't focus on things like clothes and new cars.

As an teacher and an ex-professor who did outreach programs, I've met a lot of young girls with that kind of predilection. I tried to speak to them. They're very bright and interested, and it works well for a time.

Then they get their first lipstick, which is probably bubblegum-flavored, and it all goes to hell.

And you know what? They're right. Their decisions are totally rational and work in the current cultural climate.

[ysabella]

That Glenn Wilson thing spoke between the lines to me, actually. Sort of wrong even before he starts.
He says women's few paltry contributions have existed in Literature, for one, and gives examples of Jane Austen and Virgina Woolf - but women started writing novels centuries before Austen. Women invented novels. The first novel was written in Japan in the 11th century, by a woman (the Tale of Genji (http://www.taleofgenji.org/)). But novels were seen as fluffy women's books until men started writing them too, then they became Literature. Never mind that women invented the form itself. It just didn't count until men adopted it.
The reason I even learned about this is because of one of Sandy Lerner's projects, funded by her money made as co-founder of Cisco Systems (look up "Chawton House").
The Glenn Wilson thing also mentions how few women contributed to fine art. Well, they weren't allowed to. In the old system of apprenticeship, women just weren't taken on as students. You did sometimes have daughters of painters whose dads would teach them. A good example would be Artemisia Gentileschi (http://www.artemisia-gentileschi.com/index.shtml), who was a fantastic painter even as a teenager, but rejected by every art academy. Women did lots of crafts, designing and painting household goods, but of course crafts were seen as women's stuff and pointless. Does it somehow prove that there are no women artistic geniuses when things done by women are counted out, and women aren't allowed to do non-womanly things?

And regarding musicianship, once again...it's only in very recent times that American orchestras have started having "blind" auditions (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/A94/90/73G00/index.xml)where the auditors don't know whether the person auditioning is male or female. The number of women being offered orchestra jobs shot up, and the number of women playing in America's top orchestras has since gone up fivefold since this started in the early 80s.

(Searching for those numbers found me this Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/business/free_forbes/2006/0213/111.html) about blind evaluations, by the way, interesting sidebar.)

When it's easy to show these weird assumptions in the "girly" areas of the arts, why is it so hard to believe that there are perhaps some entrenched issues in the traditionally male-dominated sciences?

[Hindmost]

Oh, wow... so have I! I've wondered the same thing... except I usually add why did some people give so much &^%$#! in the late 1970s about majoring in engineering, when it was obvious some of these guys should not have gotten into the college of engineering.

(One of the answers I gave back then to why I was in engineering was that I started out majoring in oceanography, but decided to major in something that included an income. Which is true, because the Ocean dept. had a picnic for ocean majors explaining the reality (don't expect a real job until you get a PhD, and even then it is not certain). This came back a few years ago when I took my son to the Oceanography Open House... I mentioned that I started there but switch, and the guy responded "Oh, you went for the money track!".

Another story about having boobs and majoring in engineering in the Days of Disco... I went to a Disco with a friend (who was gay, we would look like a couple and compare guys together). Sometimes (when friend was off somewhere else) I would have some guy come around to chat with me. After I answered truthfully to "what's your major" I found that they tended to disappear fairly quickly!)

You just admitted going to a Disco...on a very public post...:D

An engineer friend of mine just got married. His wife actually switched majors from biology to engineering. That was the first time I had heard that change. She indicated that she knew engineering students that were working on problems and she became intrigued. Switching into engineering was rare--as I am sure you know. Always felt that about half of the business department was comprised of students that left engineering. (I also got an email from a female student of mine awhile back--she indicated that a lot of the female engineers at her school changed majors very quickly--she is doing well tho.)

glenn:boxedin:

I worked in nuclear power...so "those" engineers could be extra scary!

[chance]

As an engineer who has worked with many good and bad engineers over the years, I have concluded that good engineers are born that way. Good engineers have an inate curiousity about how things work, and a natural problem solving aptitude. I've hired people with outstanding grades who were very poor engineers, people with average grades who were outstanding engineers, and even people with poor grades who made acceptable engineers.
What does this have to do with the original poster's question? Virtually all of the outstanding engineers I've worked with have been men. I realize that it probably isn't statistically significant due to the low number of women engineers, but I believe that there are people born with the "engineer gene" and most of them are men.
Good engineers I've been around seem to share a disposition that makes them want to do things for themselves, like building houses, fixing cars etc.. As children they take things apart to see how they work. As adults, they try to make themselves well educated about anything they are involved with. They do their own taxes, make their own investment decisions and don't focus on things like clothes and new cars.
Maybe the goal shouldn't be to encourage good students to pursue a career in science or engineering, but rather to identify students of either gender with the "engineering gene" and encouraging them. Trying to encourage people without the "knack" into the wrong field won't fix anything.

I somewhat agree. But to what do we owe the sex imbalance, is it genetic or upbringing?

IMO it has significant genetic component, and if one is to take an evolutionary view of it, men hunt, women gather/nurture (generalising of course). Hunting requires a single-mindedness that lends itself to scientific and engineering disciplines, when you couple that with the ability to think outside the box, you get inventiveness.

[LostAngeles]

I kept expecting to be the only female in my math and science classes. This has not been the case at all. Calc 3 had very few students but nearly half were femlae. My Physics 102 class (dubbed "Physics for Scientists and Engineers) is about a third to a half female as is my Chem class and my Ordinary Differential Equations class.

Alas, they're not really math or physics or chem majors as I understand it.

They're engineers.

:D

[kittynh]

That was one reason we liked the all girls high school Kitten had picked out. It was weird to see a school where the girls really didn't worry about make up and often went to class in their nicer PJs. (the girls sleep on the 2nd and 3rd floors, the classrooms are on the first floor - so they would often roll out of bed and go to class). Now on the weekend when they had dances with the all boys school - all the lipstick and fashion came out!

And there is the general feeling that even the math and science guys are going to want to date and marry a hot blonde that knows all about makeup and the domestic arts. Not that a good female scientist can't look hot! But sadly, Kitten has had fellow students say to her, "I really don't date women that are smarter than I am." At TAM there was kind of a glaring example. Oh well, she wouldn't trade her MIT grad school for a "meaningful" relationship at this time.

[Chris Haynes]

...Then they get their first lipstick, which is probably bubblegum-flavored, and it all goes to hell.

And you know what? They're right. Their decisions are totally rational and work in the current cultural climate.

Fortunately, my daughter shares my disgust for that kind of stuff.

You do realize that there are some of us who actually have made it past that point and decided to go for calculus instead of cosmetics!

[LostAngeles]

Fortunately, my daughter shares my disgust for that kind of stuff.

You do realize that there are some of us who actually have made it past that point and decided to go for calculus instead of cosmetics!

Yeah, but mine's really out of lazyness.

"But it's really easy to put on!" protested one woman.

"Yes. Then I have to take it off at night and I just want to go to bed."

"...Wow. Yeah. Good point."

[Chris Haynes]

You just admitted going to a Disco...on a very public post...:D

I've even admitted my age elsewhere!

I note you did not highlight who I went the Disco with... I had given up on men by then. Truly, finding men to go out with engineering has its pros, and its cons:

The odds are good, but the goods are odd.

Oh, by the way, I'm married to an engineer. A very normal one.


An engineer friend of mine just got married. His wife actually switched majors from biology to engineering. That was the first time I had heard that change. She indicated that she knew engineering students that were working on problems and she became intrigued. Switching into engineering was rare--as I am sure you know. Always felt that about half of the business department was comprised of students that left engineering. (I also got an email from a female student of mine awhile back--she indicated that a lot of the female engineers at her school changed majors very quickly--she is doing well tho.)

glenn:boxedin:

There was a math problem on the chalkboard in the back of one of my calculus classes. I haven't used TeX for a long time (yes, I did use it twenty years ago), so I'll give the verbal description (which means I'll not use acronyms, so others can figure it out):

As the Grade Point Average in engineering aproaches zero, the answer becomes Business School ...

I worked in nuclear power...so "those" engineers could be extra scary!

Ah HA! I know a person who graduated with a degree in Nuclear Engineering. After spending five years in the Navy on subs, he now works for the state's Dept. of Health's "Radiation Safety" section. He actually works in something related to his Nuke degree... he knows where all the radon is.

He is not scary, but he is very talkative! Though, he has great stories and makes some really good Thai food.

[Chris Haynes]

I....Ordinary Differential Equations class.

Alas, they're not really math or physics or chem majors as I understand it.

They're engineers.

:D

Let it be known that I took DiffyQ with my future hubby (a brilliant man that I've been married to for almost 26 years). I did so much better at that than he did... his only "D" in college.

But then he is an electrical engineer, he only has to count in 0's and 1's.

[Chris Haynes]

...high school ....

I graduated from the 2nd high school I attended. My physics teacher there gave me material from the College of Engineering at Texas A&M encouraging women to study with them (my physics teacher had worked as a chemical engineer until the death of her husband, then she needed a less demanding job because of her kids). This helped steer me towards engineeing, along with the Ocean Dept's "reality check" picnic

I graduated a year early, because if I had not I would have gone to a third high school! (I took steps to accomplish starting in 8th grade after seeing my brother go to four different high schools... we were Army brats. As it stood, I attended 9 seperate school districts.)

My boys (and my daughter may also in the next few years, she is only in 6th grade, but things change) go the high school this female scientist attended:
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/2004/buck-autobio.html

[Chris Haynes]

Yeah, but mine's really out of lazyness.

"But it's really easy to put on!" protested one woman.

"Yes. Then I have to take it off at night and I just want to go to bed."

"...Wow. Yeah. Good point."

Once upon a time I participated in a phone survey of a local drug store. A few questions were on their cosmetic department. It went something like this:

Q: How do you rate the cosmetics section at StoreX?

Me: I do not wear makeup, so I cannot answer that question.

... later (less than two minutes) ...

Q: What changes would you recommend for the cosmetics section of StoreX?

Me: I still do not wear makeup.


..... By the way I also do not carry a purse. When I was sixteen I was in Tocumen Airport waiting for my parents to come home from my brother's wedding with the money saved from the summer in my macrame purse. All of it was pickpocketed from my purse... since then I have stopped using purses. I've even sewn pockets into pants and skirts.

[LostAngeles]

Ah, but the TSA apparently counts my messenger bag as a purse. I've heard people, outside of the airport, refer to it as a purse.

All my "purse" stuff goes in my pockets. I do maintain a very simple over the shoulder purse for "nice" occasions but that's it.

[Chris Haynes]

Ah... I know of which you speak!!!

I have a leather briefcase. It has detachable shoulder straps. When I was walking into work one day, a fellow engineer referred to it as a "purse". I immediately flipped off the straps from my shoulder, and carried it by its handle with my hand. He then corrected himself and called it a briefcase!

It was truly bizarre.

The briefcase only held books, papers and calculator... "purse" stuff was in the pocket (in my pants pocket are: wallet, keys, a pen, money belt, coin bag, pocket tape ruler).

In present times my hubby's laptop case in almost indistinguishable from my old briefcase including having a shoulder strap (okay, it's made of nylon not leather!).

[Silly Green Monkey]

I switched to belt pouches after someone removed the money from my purse, which was too heavy to be carrying around everywhere.

[Freethinker]

I agree that a person must have a certain amount of innate ability, but I don't think I would call it being born with a specific gene.

I agree, but I didn't really mean that it was genetic, just that engineers aren't created in engineering school. There is something that gives them the right mind set to do it, whether it is genetic or upbringing I don't know. My guess is 3/4 genetic 1/4 upbringing. My 15 year old daughter has exhibited many of the characteristics, but she doesn't quite have the curiosity her younger brother has.

[Lothian]

I'm sorry, but Dr. Debauchies is hardly a realistic test case. She's an *****' MacArthur Fellow, for Pete's sake. You know, the "Genius Grants"? She's as smart as you, me, and CFLarsen put together, with room left over for Mercutio. She's a full professor in the second-best mathematics department in the world. Fine, but can she cook ?


WHAT ??

[Chris Haynes]

Fine, but can she cook ?
...

Ah... cooking and engineers, what a combo:
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/

[Hindmost]

I agree, but I didn't really mean that it was genetic, just that engineers aren't created in engineering school. There is something that gives them the right mind set to do it, whether it is genetic or upbringing I don't know. My guess is 3/4 genetic 1/4 upbringing. My 15 year old daughter has exhibited many of the characteristics, but she doesn't quite have the curiosity her younger brother has.

I would say we are "in phase." This is one of the problems with posting--really can't fully express some stuff. I do tell my students that wanting to be an engineer or physicist is not just a matter of hard work...you can really work hard and never pass the first statics class. (a student of mind came back to visit me and was telling me how some students were getting grades of about 10-20 on their first college physics exams--brought back a lot of memories.) Statistically, I think it would be very difficult to find out how much is genetic and how much is upbringing. However, the fact that male and female math and science scores have shown much less differentiation now as compared to 30 years ago does seem to indicate that genetic differences between male and female brains really can't be that significant. (according to US government statistics.)

glenn:boxedin:

[Hindmost]

I've even admitted my age elsewhere!

I note you did not highlight who I went the Disco with... I had given up on men by then. Truly, finding men to go out with engineering has its pros, and its cons:

The odds are good, but the goods are odd.

Oh, by the way, I'm married to an engineer. A very normal one..

Glad to see you didn't put normal in quotes.

As the Grade Point Average in engineering aproaches zero, the answer becomes Business School ....

Are we tooooooooooo elitist???


Ah HA! I know a person who graduated with a degree in Nuclear Engineering. After spending five years in the Navy on subs, he now works for the state's Dept. of Health's "Radiation Safety" section. He actually works in something related to his Nuke degree... he knows where all the radon is.

He is not scary, but he is very talkative! Though, he has great stories and makes some really good Thai food.

I had a reasonably long Nuke career...used to do startup...nothing left to startup. I did my turn with the Navy program too. Now, I don't want to decommision plants even though I could make more money than teaching.

glenn:boxedin:

[LostAngeles]

Ah... cooking and engineers, what a combo:
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/

That's one of the things I want out of Chem. I want an A and I want a better understanding of cooking and sauce making...

...Yes, I am in love with Alton Brown, why do you ask?

[epepke]

Fortunately, my daughter shares my disgust for that kind of stuff.

You do realize that there are some of us who actually have made it past that point and decided to go for calculus instead of cosmetics!

Yes, and I said so.

Of course, some girls won't be interested in that, but you're working against a pretty strong cultural mythology.

[screw_dog]

I agree, but I didn't really mean that it was genetic, just that engineers aren't created in engineering school. There is something that gives them the right mind set to do it, whether it is genetic or upbringing I don't know. My guess is 3/4 genetic 1/4 upbringing. My 15 year old daughter has exhibited many of the characteristics, but she doesn't quite have the curiosity her younger brother has.
(emphasis mine)
I'd be very careful of confirmation bias, particularly as you are dealing with characteristics that are difficult to quantify objectively.

[articulett]

I agree that men tend to excel in many areas. But it's the framing of these difference that men seem to have a problem with. Certainly the cruelest people in the world have been men too--they rape, kill, pillage, start wars, abuse power, and make up reasons as to their superiority (and invent gods that are like them). They are the sex primed to think of "us" vs. "them". Of course, most men are not killers, but most killers, by far, are men. Men need to invent gods to keep other men from killing--females, in nature, don't do a lot of killing except for obtaining nourishment. Males kill for power and the sexual opportunities in brings.

The human sexes evolved different type brains (no doubt much of this is related to sex hormones the brains are bathed in and information coded on the sex chromosomes.) In fact, a recent study showed that the pleasure centers of a man's brain light up when a cheater is punished; whereas a woman's does not--just the empathy portion (even for a jerk.) Males evolved traits that helped their genes and those who carried them survive--and women evolved traits that helped those who carry their genes survive. Now, I am speaking in generalities, but there are quite a few differing experiments which support these differences. In general, females, tend to think more globally (multitasking and doing well in many areas) while men tend to be more uneven in their skills. On I.Q. tests, men are overly represented in the top and bottom percentages, while females congregate towards the middle. Although, males and females average about 2 children each--a son is more likely to give you none or many; whereas daughters stick closer toward the averages. (In harem societies this is even more obvious). It would, of course, be unfair to limit individual men or women or to support confirmation bias against any particular person due to these tendencies--so framing is important.

It may be that insulting women or assuming their intellectual inferiority might be something which keeps women out of science. It could be that getting women interested in science might be as futile as trying to get more women interested in football--but, as a woman in science, I don't think it's the capacity for understanding that is lacking. I think that it's a woman's innate desire to trust and placate authority that makes her less likely to be a maverick in any area. Testosterone gives a man the urge to confront and challenge authority--to dismantle his heros and see if he can rise in power--this is not in a woman's best interest in general. Women tend to fare better if those who have power over them are placated...if they trust those whom they are told to trust--they don't ask too many questions. Women do seem more gullible and prone to really buy into beliefs that disempower them.

I was told the whole story about heaven and hell and I believed it.
I have a very high I.Q., and it never made a lot of sense, but I was told that faith was good, and it would be arrogant to try and understand everything. It didn't occur to me to think that my authority figures could be wrong, misguided, lying or trying to manipulate me. I started considering the possibility after figuring out the Santa thing--but it was scary to think about because it could mean that I would suffer eternally. (It took me a long time to question the concept of "soul"). But it was also scary to think that I could believe the wrong thing by accident and suffer eternally--so I tried to bide my time until the truth became clearer (and feared dying before figuring things out).

Women are more tentative--they are placating in their speech-they will state facts with qualifiers (e.g. "I don't know how to make myself believe in any god") whereas men will state opinions as facts. (There is no god). The woman might, in fact, be a much stronger atheist than the guy, but she will also stop and consider what she hopes to gain from the stating her opinion and what she might lose. (This is probably why a lot of rape cases never get reported too.) In a world of guns and men who have a tendency to see things in terms of black and white--good and evil--right and wrong--in a world where men also tend to be your doctors, judges, lawyers, employers, leaders, and much needed help in child rearing (and also the stronger, angrier, less empathic and more egomaniacal sex)--you might be really careful explaining that the world is in color and not black and white. (And women actually are much better at distinguishing shades and colors as well as smell.) Of course, I'm speaking of generalities again. But if men feel offended, then it might help you understand what we women feel when you purport that our lack of excellence in science has to do with lack of intelligence or something "less" about us.

Yes, men tend to focus more closely--allowing them to excel in areas, whereas as women tend to be good at smoothing and juggling and filling in gaps--which allows men to focus. Raising children and doing the scutwork and taking care of the social and mundane aspects of life takes a lot. Women who are married and/or have children are less likely to excel in any area than their unmarried unburdened counterparts. Whereas, a man WITHOUT a wife is seldom a success in any given field. The fact is, women make mens lives easier--they often make it possible to excel. They are often the invisible uncredited sources behind many a genius. That schizophrenic genius from "A Beautiful Mind" was only able to function and express his genius because his wife propped up every other area of his life...(and then did so again with her schizophrenic son who didn't succeed quite as well). But the "beautiful mind" probably didn't know that or give her the credit deserved. And those who praised his genius, seldom thought to thank the person who made it so that he wasn't in an institution.

And that's another price men pay--mental illness is far more prevalent in men...so is mental retardation...so is autism. Men are scarier, more impulsive, and more prone to lashing out or falling apart than their XX counterparts. That's the price of getting a boost towards genius. Men are more expendable from an evolutionary perspective--One ejaculation could father all the people in Europe (230,000,000 sperm)--they have evolved to "give it all" or die trying--to fight for the right to lead, get power, get women, fight for ideals, focus on a goal. Such traits are not in the best interest of the sex who has to bear children and bring them up until they can take care of themselves--and keep their less balanced partners in balance. (Men are also more prone to excesses).

I don't disagree with the Harvard man. I don't like when political correctness gets in the way of truth. But, I think men would do well to think of their goals, before taking action or spouting out. If your goal is to open the door to women in science, show them why the men they trust might be misguided--give them the power to trust their brains and question authority. Notice and talk to those who are excelling. Applaud and seek advice from women who are taking steps in that direction--ask what they think the barriers are. A women might have come to a similar conclusion as the harvard man, but, I suspect, the wording would be far more palatable to the sensitive. I find a lot of women in biology--not so many in the "non life" sciences. I love biology--LIFE--and think engineering is snooze worthy (and I find football and wrestling snoozeworthy as well). It is helpful to think about tendencies in groups--to explore them and address them--but it's not helpful to imply that a particular group of people doesn't have the brains to understand something. Just because you can get a group of people to feel subservient to you, doesn't make it right or true. And tendencies in groups invite confirmation biases towards individuals when expressed poorly. (I am speaking to CPLFerro here and those wh can't understand what happened to the Harvard fellow--not the original poster.)

It could be that my attempt at teaching men to speak about other people (even, egads, women) in the same manner you'd want people to speak about any group you belong to might be as futile as trying to make women want lap dances or dig engineering. But as most women innately know...a mind is changed only one step at a time...and not via insult-- conclusions are usually reached when people feel as if they have reasoned their way towards the answers. Labling someone stupid or evil seldom leads to greater understanding even though it can be an effective ego boost for the lablers. I don't think I'd be very good at engendering male cooperation in rape prevention, by starting a speech saying, "Men just can't seem to control themselves...". But seeing a professor get fired might make another man think about his goals before he says something he later regrets. He might just be able to use his words to solve a problem or invite others into the learning arena. It's an expensive price for the Harvard dude to pay--but only because this man was fortunate to be in a position of power in the first place.

As for encouraging women, I think it helps to show ways in which knowledge is power...and the way trust and faith lead to failure and ignorance. Women trust authority figures...even stupid authority figures...because they, themselves, are more trustworthy. It takes a similar mind to understand that someone could be pretending to have your best interests in mind but really only have their own.

A man at JREF asked if women were more likely to claim to be psychics or mediums because they are taking advantage of the fact that women are more trustworthy--I thought that was such a man's way of thinking--attributing a manly motive to a woman. As a woman who believed in psychics and the like at one time, I would guess that most psychics and so forth really truly believe they have insight...they misinterpret information under the guise of what they've been told is true or possible.

--Now I wonder if most men who claim to be prophets or religious leaders or god (and it's always men) are really scamming people. I've always assumed they were schizophrenic or really believed the crap they spew. But now I'm not so sure. Maybe they want others to believe it for the power it gives them. Certainly pedophilic priests can't believe in hell, right?

[articulett]

I agree, but I didn't really mean that it was genetic, just that engineers aren't created in engineering school. There is something that gives them the right mind set to do it, whether it is genetic or upbringing I don't know. My guess is 3/4 genetic 1/4 upbringing. My 15 year old daughter has exhibited many of the characteristics, but she doesn't quite have the curiosity her younger brother has.

Speaking in generalities, girls tend to talk earlier and show more interest in people and nurturing even at very young ages...whereas boys will show more interest in things--cars, guns, garbage trucks, etc. My son was two when he decided to use his female playmate's doll carriage as a lawn mower which led to hysterics by her and puzzlement by him. He then took out her dolly and used it as a "leaf blower" (making whirring sounds and sweeping the ground with it's long hair) which caused her to shriek in horror. I was laughing so hard. Both children had a set of androgynous feministic parents--and yet the effect of hormones on the the young brains was evident early on.

I am also a pacifist, but I couldn't sway my son's love of guns--he saw one at Disneyland (Pirates of the Caribbean) at two years old and became hooked. Thankfully, he's evolved into a pacifistic teen despite his early weapon fascination. I have no desire to even touch a gun.

[Chris Haynes]

Yes, and I said so.

Oops, sorry. Sometimes I am guilty of skimming... especially when posts are very long! (yours wasn't... but I'm trying to read and run right now).

[epepke]

I don't disagree with the Harvard man. I don't like when political correctness gets in the way of truth. But, I think men would do well to think of their goals, before taking action or spouting out. If your goal is to open the door to women in science, show them why the men they trust might be misguided--give them the power to trust their brains and question authority. Notice and talk to those who are excelling.

I generally have a fairly strong allergic reaction to the Deborah Tannen/John Gray stuff (Women are From Uranis, and Men are Just **********). But I will tell a story.

Way back when, there was this thing called the Mythopoetic Men's Movement. It basically consisted of guys sitting around playing drums, talking about Iron John and The Fisher King, and reading their own poetry (which was generally pretty bad), and talking about their feelings.

Not surprisingly, a bunch of women decided that, because women weren't involved, that it must be evil and threatening to women.

So Kay L. Hagan and Gloria Steinem got some authors and put together an anthology called Women Respond to the Men's Movement. I didn't read the book; there's a limit to my masochism. I did, however, see the episode of the Phil Donahue Show where a bunch of the authors got to talk. One of them went on about how men got the keys to the executive washroom so that they could plan their rapes. (I am not making this up.)

So I thought about this for a while, and here's what I came up with. Women go in groups to the toilet. They do so in order to plan strategy and tactics. (This, so far, is true, and don't bother telling me it isn't, because I've gotten many women to admit to it.) Now, I'm a man. Men don't usually talk to each other in the toilet. In nice places, the women's toilet is a lot bigger. So I imagine that it's because they have big screens for Power Point presentations and tables with maps that women can move little dolls around with long sticks, just like in Battlestar Galactica, only with little models of vipers and Cylon ships. That's my male fantasy, and I think it's at least a little bit funny.

However, she had come up with a female fantasy, and it isn't funny at all. To her, males must go to the toilet to plot strategy and tactics. And what do men do? They RAPE! Raperaperaperaperaperaperape! Unlike women, of course, who are sugar and spice and everything nice. So that was her female fantasy.

What's my point? I'm not sure, but part of it is that I don't believe in a lot of this stuff. If mental illness is so rare in women, why is it the only thing a woman needs to get published? Why have I met so many women with BPD, bipolar depression, unipolar depression? And there are special mental illnesses such as PMS and post-partum depression, which get a woman clemency if she, say, hacks off the arms of her infant. (Poor dear!)

The "poor dear" stuff is the flip side of the coin (and it isn't so flip) of the idea that women need special encouragement, because they're so people-oriented and so much better in tune with dem ole wellsprings of life.

As for the tactful people-oriented stuff, well, I've been to high school. I know the form that this can take. I've even gotten a chance to read some of the correspondence that happened in my own high school, and I was rather apalled.

I'll work with a woman who can hack it any day. But if I have to review a paper or a grant proposal, sorry, but I'm not going to think that it might be a poor dear, and so I'm not going to pull punches.

But maybe a teacher should do it. But does this not, ultimately, do a disservice to students? What is the line between encouragement and coddling?

[jj]

I think that you may be looking at the wrong end of the stick. Similarly, the people who are arguing that "statistically, men and women are equal in mathematical ability" are looking in the wrong spots.


Well, I'm mentioning people I'm acquainted with. Sorry!


I'm sorry, but Dr. Debauchies is hardly a realistic test case. She's an *****' MacArthur Fellow, for Pete's sake. You know, the "Genius Grants"? She's as smart as you, me, and CFLarsen put together, with room left over for Mercutio. She's a full professor in the second-best mathematics department in the world.


Yes, I know she's a MacArthur fellow. I'll object to the characterization of myself, you and CFL, too, because I dare say that you're wrong in that regard. I suspect you underestimate yourself, too. Now, I didn't say any one of us matches up, but then again I'm not going to start waving credentials at you, either. I am quite sure that the three of us put together compare more than fine, though. (Well, actually, I don't know Claus that well. I have seen you work through problems in debate here, and NOW HEAR THIS YOU UNDERESTIMATE YOURSELF AND YOUR ability to do abstract algebra. You hear me? Hello?

I know where she is, she used to sit down the hall from me, Doc, before she moved to Princeton. As did Jelena. Thing is, Ingrid could take down the guy who spouted off the article in the OP POLITELY, almost kindly, with a smile on her face, which is indeed an ability I find admirable.


To be a top-flight scientist or engineer, you need to be brilliant -- but also (and perhaps even more importantly), you need to be a good communicator, creative, and with a strong work ethic.


Some of us dyslexics have managed that, too, you know. (cough) I think there are multiple measures of brilliance. I know very good mathematicians who can't solve a real-life problem, physicists who are absolutely brilliant, but can't fix an electronic circuit, people who can do the math but not debug a program, people who can't do math, but who can debug any program any where, any time, and even find math errors in the program because THEY DON'T MAKE LOGICAL SENSE. (n.b. all these people are self-described)


Summers' point, the one that seems to keep getting lost in discussions like this, is that people of "average" intelligence tend not to be scientists. It's not enough to look merely at the mean, but we also have to look at the distribution about the mean. I will accept that there are about as many women as men with IQ's above 100. But here's my question. What's the ratio of women with IQ's above 130 to men with IQ's above 130? Is that also 1-to-1? (And, please, cite your evidence....)

I don't think that once you get outside of the '120' area "IQ" means squat. I know people who tested off the top who can't solve a problem, and people who barely test above mean who can dismember problems almost by reflex. Most of the IQ measurements I'm aware of were made by Stanford-Binet, which I do know is a bit old, to say the least, but in general, I'm strongly convinced that there isn't one "IQ", and that different people succeed via different skills. Speaking as a person who rates solidly in the 2nd %ile of the Iowa Skills on "clerical skills"...

Yes, I'm aware that all of this is anecdotal impression, but the people I refer to are people who HAVE succeeded at Bell Labs or AT&T Research. That's a pretty rarified sample, yeah.

As to numbers, I frankly don't know. I've seen more than one woman discouraged out of engineering, for instance, by expectations and the system, and that really annoys me, to say the least. Smart people are very, very hard to find in any flavor.

[jj]

Sometimes (when friend was off somewhere else) I would have some guy come around to chat with me. After I answered truthfully to "what's your major" I found that they tended to disappear fairly quickly!)

Useful, it's a fast "idiot test", eh?

[jj]

It's "Daubechies". For those who don't know who you're talking about.


Yep, and now I'm on record as spelling her name wrong YET AGAIN. Oh well. I think there's a reason she refers to me sometimes as "Jim Johnson" :)

Oh well.

[drkitten]

I don't think that once you get outside of the '120' area "IQ" means squat. I know people who tested off the top who can't solve a problem, and people who barely test above mean who can dismember problems almost by reflex. Most of the IQ measurements I'm aware of were made by Stanford-Binet, which I do know is a bit old, to say the least, but in general, I'm strongly convinced that there isn't one "IQ", and that different people succeed via different skills. Speaking as a person who rates solidly in the 2nd %ile of the Iowa Skills on "clerical skills"...

You're missing my point. I've argued myself that IQ per se isn't a very good measure of intelligence at all, but it's (as I write) about the best data we have for relatively fine-grained comparison of individuals and large groups at problem-solving ability. Feel free at any point to cut in with the joke about the drunk looking for his lost quarter in the wrong spot "but the light is better here."

One of the lessons that we have from the IQ data -- and other "intelligence" data supports it as well -- is that people tend to distribute themselves along a typical, "normal," bell curve, and it therefore makes sense to talk about things like mean, median, standard deviation, kurtosis, and all the other lovely distributional properties that used to put me to sleep in stats class. We can also talk, broadly, about people being "average," "above average," or even "genius" in terms of where they fit on this bell-shaped curve. Mensa, for example, uses a 98th percentile cutoff as their definition of "genius," and that cutoff has a relatively clear-cut interpretation. We can also talk about the intelligence "requirement" for various jobs, which again we can infer from statistics. For example, the "median" IQ for engineers has been measured at about 130-135, with the tenth percentile coming in at about 124. This can be read that people with IQs of 120 or below -- which is substantially more than three-quarters of the population -- are unlikely to be able to successfully compete for engineering positions.

The point, then, is that "average" people don't become engineers. Nor, by the same argument, do "average" people become college professors, high-level researchers, physicians, lawyers, and so forth. In order to succeed at this kind of professional occupation, you need to be substantially brighter than average.

Note that this is, in mathematical terms, "necessary but not sufficient." Just because you have an IQ of 135 doesn't mean you will be a successful mathematician. First, IQ is a lousy measure of "intelligence." Second, we agree that there are a lot of other characteristics that are necessary to be a professional success. But if you don't have the fundamental smarts, it will be a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to make up for the lack of grey matter.

But just saying "men and women average equally well on IQ tests" says little about whether or not their IQ distribution is the same. There are other measures of bell curves than simply the median. For example, if men have a higher standard deviation than women on IQ tests (as it happens, this seems to be the case, empirically), then we would expect that more men than women would be able to make the necessary cutoff IQ for professions. (We would, of course, also expect that more men than women would not be able to make the cutoff IQ for low-end jobs.) If intelligence is independent of these other factors -- work ethic, creativity, and so forth -- then we would expect to see more men than women in the professional fields simply because the pool of people with high enough intelligence is dominated by men.

You said that "once you get outside of the '120' area "IQ" means squat." In principle I agree with you, although I might put the "means squat" cutoff a little higher, myself. But if we agree that up to a certain point, IQ is meaningful, then we need to take seriously the idea that high IQ's are not evenly distributed between the sexes. If it turns out that the pool of people with IQ's above 120 (or whereever) are 70% male, then we would expect, all else being equal, to see males occupying 70% of university faculty, with no discrimination whatsoever.

So the question is : are the number of people smart enough to be Harvard faculty evenly distributed between men and women. I don't think they are (for reasons I explained). But regardless of my personal feelings, neither questions of "average" performance (Harvard people aren't "average" by any stretch of the imagination), nor questions of individual aptitude (Dr. Daubechies isn't representative of either university faculty or of women in general) shed much light on the question.

[jj]

You're missing my point.


Well, no, I'm not.


So the question is : are the number of people smart enough to be Harvard faculty evenly distributed between men and women. I don't think they are (for reasons I explained). But regardless of my personal feelings, neither questions of "average" performance (Harvard people aren't "average" by any stretch of the imagination), nor questions of individual aptitude (Dr. Daubechies isn't representative of either university faculty or of women in general) shed much light on the question.

Like I said, my data points are both anecdotal (for the most part) and self-selected or industry-selected by either Bell Labs, AT&T Research, or Microsoft, and I dare say that there is no way I can even remotely suggest that this is a population sample.

My only feeling (and it is just that) is that women are often discouraged from exhibiting the kinds of behavior that result in doing well on tests, depersonalizing problems and applying "force" to them, for instance. (Obviously not physical force.)

Perhaps I should put it more explicitly, I DO NOT HAVE A SAMPLE THAT IS ANYTHING LIKE RANDOM to work with. The people filtered into the various AT&T/Bell Labs programs are not average. The people hired by Microsoft, likewise. There are substantial numbers of women in all these groups. Probably less than 50%, but not enough less that I can ascribe this to pure ability, especially given the kinds of self-depreciating behavior that I've taught (or tried to teach) any number of female co-ops and summer students I've had to NOT DO ANY MORE. That would also apply to some minority students who were male, by the way.

Curiously, most of the really, really astoundingly bright people I've had come by were among the most modest, I dare say they really did think it was 'easy'.

[drkitten]

Like I said, my data points are both anecdotal (for the most part) and self-selected or industry-selected by either Bell Labs, AT&T Research, or Microsoft, and I dare say that there is no way I can even remotely suggest that this is a population sample.

My only feeling (and it is just that) is that women are often discouraged from exhibiting the kinds of behavior that result in doing well on tests, depersonalizing problems and applying "force" to them, for instance. (Obviously not physical force.)


Okay. I think we're in closer agreement than you think.

I think you know me well enough to know how much weight I give to unrepresentative samples and "feelings." They're useful as a starting point for investigation, but not much more. The question -- and this is where Summers put his foot into it -- is whether or not this kind of discouragement is actually present, and how much causal effect it has, and how we can detect it (and ultimately, of course, eliminate it). His point is that analysts tend to be trapped in a politically-demanded belief in "equality" between the sexes (on average), and that very few people are seriously considering the implications of the fact that professional mathematicians and engineers -- or university faculty -- or AT&T/BL researchers -- aren't average. And that it's therefore naive and probably unreasonable to expect the research staff at Bell Labs to split 50/50 by sex, even if there were no discrimination at all.

I'd like to see better studies done to establish what kind of a baseline would be reasonable. You say that you see less than 50% females in your lab -- "but not enough less that I can ascribe this to pure ability." How much less would you expect if it were sorting purely on ability? I don't know -- I don't have the data. And unfortunately, I don't expect to be seeing such data soon, because it's politically infeasible to try to gather.

[jj]

I'd like to see better studies done to establish what kind of a baseline would be reasonable. You say that you see less than 50% females in your lab -- "but not enough less that I can ascribe this to pure ability." How much less would you expect if it were sorting purely on ability? I don't know -- I don't have the data. And unfortunately, I don't expect to be seeing such data soon, because it's politically infeasible to try to gather.

I agree such a baseline would be useful, but I think that it would be at the present impossible to separate the measurement from the social conditioning.

Interestingly, I see a higher percentage of females doing serious math (here, not the same level as at Bell Labs, since I'm in a development organization), and a higher percentage of males doing hotshot computer code writing. But it's hard to say why, indeed.

[chance]

A question / observation: I am not an engineer but my son is, during his university years, I learned a few thing about the engineering culture:

1. One a deep dislike for arts students, :) but topically

2. “girls cant code” which means they are poor at writing software code.

Number two would seem to be an observation of the elite women who make into engineering, is this borne out by anyone experience? Or do you suspect that the sample size was too small?

[epepke]

A question / observation: I am not an engineer but my son is, during his university years, I learned a few thing about the engineering culture:

1. One a deep dislike for arts students, :) but topically

2. “girls cant code” which means they are poor at writing software code.

Number two would seem to be an observation of the elite women who make into engineering, is this borne out by anyone experience? Or do you suspect that the sample size was too small?

I suspect that it's a small or weird sample.

[Hindmost]

A question / observation: I am not an engineer but my son is, during his university years, I learned a few thing about the engineering culture:

1. One a deep dislike for arts students, :) but topically

2. “girls cant code” which means they are poor at writing software code.

Number two would seem to be an observation of the elite women who make into engineering, is this borne out by anyone experience? Or do you suspect that the sample size was too small?

Sample size is too small...check out this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Murray_Hopper

glenn:boxedin:

[ysabella]

A question / observation: I am not an engineer but my son is, during his university years, I learned a few thing about the engineering culture:

1. One a deep dislike for arts students, :) but topically

2. “girls cant code” which means they are poor at writing software code.

Number two would seem to be an observation of the elite women who make into engineering, is this borne out by anyone experience? Or do you suspect that the sample size was too small?
Wow, I would have pissed those guys off. First of all I was and still am an art student, plus I'm a chick! And I have a degree in computer science!
Luckily, I don't think they are the majority. When I was a student, and professionally since then, I have nearly always found men very pleasant to work with. The main exception I can think of was a guy from India, but I think he was difficult for everyone to deal with.

I think it's more true that "most people who think they can code, can't code." Now that I'm in the industry...there is SO much crap out there. And given the mix, way more men than women are generating it. :rolleyes:

jj, you keep mentioning AT&T/Bell Labs - one of my instructors at Evergreen was a woman who worked at Bell Labs. Sheryl (Sherri) Shulman. :)

[jj]

jj, you keep mentioning AT&T/Bell Labs - one of my instructors at Evergreen was a woman who worked at Bell Labs. Sheryl (Sherri) Shulman. :)

Doesn't ring a bell, I was at Murray Hill, in "Acoustics Research" down the hall from the Unix group.

Do you know where she was? There were about 35000 of us for a long time. :D

[articulett]

I suspect that it's a small or weird sample.

I suspect coding might be as interesting to girls as football. I bet it's more a lack of interest or affinity than ability. Maybe it's akin to men not liking shopping or asking for directions.

[kittynh]

Someone reading this thread pointed out to me that until recently, and perhaps even now, there have been careers where being a woman was the norm. Such as teaching in the elementary school level. Even now at the school where I work it is considered very unusual that the grades 3-6 are taught by men. This is a team taught class and a LOT of people said, "there has to be at least one female teacher in there!". If there were 3 female teachers, and there have been, no one would say "there has to be at least one male!"

As my friend put it, "there is no shame in being a female first grade teacher, but a male? You are seen as being somehow self sacrificing to settle for a lower paying job like that. It's a matter of male pride."

Parents push their sons. Your son comes home and says, "I want to go into English." You are like, "huh?" Daughters, well if you are my daughter I"ll tell you why science and math are much better choices. When you call me crying that it's really hard, and you are so tired and overworked, I"ll tell you to suck it up and keep your eyes on the prize!

I STILL hear moms in the area saying, "she's going into teaching, which will be nice when she has kids as she'll be home when they are." Oh yeah, great reason to be a teacher. Please, teach because you WANT to!

Sadly, very sadly, I recently heard a young man who was going into grad school for the sciences say the SAME THING! He's looking for an education major. Sure he LIKES the science women, but you have to put family first!

Saying that gender identity roles are dead, is like saying racism is dead. It's weak, but it's still there.

And you have to ask is it all a bad thing? If you want a stay at home mom for your future children, or you think that staying at home with your kids is important, then you rethink your job choices. It limits the pool a bit. I've known some really brilliant women that have stayed home. They've usually gone on to some really great work later in life (once the kids are older), but you take a hit career wise.

[RandFan]

So two of my friends are debating a TV documentary where a woman scientist traveled on a boat in dangerous waters in the antarctic or something doing research. My woman friend said that the responses and reactions of the crew to the woman were blatantly sexist. My male friend argued that she was seeing things that just weren't there. So my female friend relays one particular exchange that took place on the boat during it's sojourn and asked me my opinion. I responded, "I'm confused, why did they let a woman on the boat?"

:boxedin:

I got punched in the arm for that one and it hurt. I deserved it.

[Chris Haynes]

The first woman to do research in the Antarctic is a semi-retired professor at our local university. She has some great stories about it (along with being an engineering professor in the early 1960's, http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/oralhist/interviews/peden.htm). I got to listen to her and this astronaut, http://www.museumofflight.org/display.asp?Page=050921DunbarAnnouncement )... they knew each other when the latter was an undergraduate. The astronaut applied several times to the program, the first couple times she was rejected because she was a woman, she made the cut the second time they accepted women.

These are interesting books on the subject that I have read recently:
Promised the Moon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568582757/sr=8-1/)

Managing Martians (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767902416) (her job now: http://www.sfhomeworld.org/about/staff.asp)

Making Time (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1555536123/)

I tried to find the website of where the taping of the conversation would be, but I don't think it is publically available yet (it may be accessible here: http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/swe ). I did find their mini-biographies along with a bunch of other women in a large PDF file:
http://www.swe.org/stellent/groups/website/@public/documents/webdoc/swe_000952.pdf

[Overman]

The fault if 80% upbringing. Not necessarly by parents, more by social forces. MTV, and COSMO, and Seventeen, all of which makes girls pretty in the face but ugly in the head.

They don't even run good science on hair products, which the readers would probably enjoy...

[epepke]

I suspect coding might be as interesting to girls as football. I bet it's more a lack of interest or affinity than ability. Maybe it's akin to men not liking shopping or asking for directions.

I don't think so.

There are, as far as I can tell, three basic cultures in coding: engineering, mathematics, and hacking.

Engineering seems to attract the fewest women. (However, they make a lot of money. The IEEE survey puts their salaries consistently higher than men's.)

Hacking and mathematics seem to attract a lot more. It isn't near parity, but in mathematics and hacking the "girls can't code" meme seems to be absent.