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...w_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></O>
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

[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/

glenn <O</O

[The Black Fox]

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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]

Originally Posted by The Black Fox

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

[Hindmost]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

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

[epepke]

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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]

Originally Posted by epepke

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

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]

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Hindmost]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Chris Haynes]

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

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). 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, 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 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 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]

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

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...

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

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

[chance]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by epepke

...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]

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

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]

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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

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.

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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

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 ...

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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]

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

I....Ordinary Differential Equations class.

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

They're engineers.

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]

Originally Posted by kittynh

...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/laure...k-autobio.html

[Chris Haynes]

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

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]

Originally Posted by glennmr78

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]

Originally Posted by drkitten

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]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Fine, but can she cook ?
...

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