There is still an ongoing debate on whether males actually exceed in spatial ability than females. This claim has become a taboo for females in STEM. In “Science, Sex, and Good Sense: Why Women Are Underrepresented in Some Areas of Science And Math,” author Diane F. Halpern does an excellent job embracing the positives of these cognitive sex differences. She does agree upon the existence of cognitive sex differences; however, she concludes that no talent is immutable. An individual’s mindset along with the environmental factors such as stereotype threats are also determining factors for career choices. We cannot point fingers and argue cognitive sex difference is the sole reason for female underrepresentation. Although cognitive sex differences may exist, underrepresentation in the math and sciences is not so much due to these differences, but rather due to the environment and mindset of an individual.
COGNITIVE SEX DIFFERENCES:
Let’s first get one thing clear. Evidence and data suggests that males are more skilled in spatial ability, while females exceed in visual-spatial tasks (125). Females do not have the exact cognitive abilities as males; however, this does not mean they are incapable in working in the math and sciences. Women are obtaining 50% of the MD degrees from medical schools, 75% receive VMDs, and 44% receive PhDs in biology and life sciences (122). Overwhelming data shows that women are capable of succeeding in STEM. However, women are not achieving equally in parts such as engineering, computer science, and mathematics. Diane F. Halpern suggests that even in the science fields, women tend to choose careers that deal with “people” rather than “things.” She suggests that this may be a reason why females are not so well represented in careers like engineering. However, it is hard to conclude that this is the sole reason for such underrepresentation. This then leads me on to my main two points, which are the environmental factors and mindset that come into play for the underrepresentation of females in STEM.
ENVIRONMENT:
With the current freedom and opportunities females are given nowadays compared to the past, it’s hard to notice gender bias. However, bias does exist especially in the realm of science. Due to an existing gender bias, this creates the presence of sex-segregated jobs. Author Halpern mentions how the presence of sex-segregated jobs influences some of our career choices. For example, it is likely that there will be less female piano movers in New York City because, on average, women tend to have less upper body strength than men. However, this does not necessarily mean that there will be no female piano movers. Even as we are living in the 21st century, a lot of women are the caretakers of the family and home. Due to this extra job as the “caretaker,” women need more flexible times to take care of the children or carry on other household duties. So, jobs like engineering and computer science, which require more time, forces women to pursue other careers in STEM that offer more flexible time. Another environmental factor Halpern mentions is the presence of stereotype threat. Stereotype threat has shown to exacerbate a female’s overall performance. Women are underrepresented in STEM due to gender schemas. Gender schema is just another word for gender stereotype or stereotype threat. Gender schemas cause people to underrate women, preventing highly capable females from reaching STEM. In general, gender schema is a term used to explain stereotypes in a more neutral manner. Through external environmental factors from society, gender schema is now used to distinguish gender in a more discriminatory manner. This has led people to assign specific nurturing and expressive traits to females. As a result women tend to be underrated while males have more of an advantage. Two tests were done that demonstrated people’s tendencies to undervalue a female’s credentials. One test was done during a job interview (Virginia Valian). In the control group, candidates were identified by initials and not by gender. The evaluators tended to choose the candidate with more education about three fourths of the time. When genders were revealed, evaluators favored the male over the female even when the female candidate had a stronger educational background. When the roles were switched and the male had a stronger educational background, evaluators still chose the male candidate. A computer simulation (Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996) has shown that even a small percentage of bias will create a large sum of disadvantage toward females. Over time, males will reach the top faster and eventually have a large pool of men representing STEM. This stereotype threat and bias affects some females to think from an entity perspective rather than an incremental perspective.
MINDSET:
Through the influence of our environment, females who have been exposed to stereotype threat and gender bias are prone to be entity thinkers. Female underrepresentation has some part to do with an individual’s mindset. There are two main perspectives that an individual has: entity and incremental. Entity thinkers believe traits are inherent and fixed, while incremental thinkers view traits as something that could be grown through effort. Carol. S Dweck performed a test on two groups: people who were taught math ability as something that reaches fruition and people who were taught that math was inherent. The group that was taught from an incremental perspective performed better on tests than people who were taught from an entity perspective. Similar to Dweck’s argument, Halpern also argues that traits are not “immutable” and “everyone improves in each area with education.” A study was done on taxi drivers. These taxi drivers had enlarged portions of their right posterior hippocampus compared to the control group of adults whose employment required less spatial skills. This size variation suggests that spatial tasks increase through practice and are not static. Countless of data have shown that regardless of the existence of cognitive sex differences, females are capable of growing their spatial ability. Just like how taxi drivers improved certain parts of their brain, females will be able to improve spatial ability through effort. With the help of an incremental perspective, females who choose to improve their skills will truly prevail in careers like engineer.
Overall, the environment and mindset are determining factors to the underrepresentation of females in science. Rather than embracing cognitive sex differences as a taboo, it should be fully embraced. These differences are not inhibiting factors. We are focusing too much on one lens. Instead, we should focus on multiple lenses to improve the environmental factors and the mindset of females through proper education and encouragement.
Sources:
Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams. Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007. Print.
Image Sources:
(1stimage)http://staff.ncsy.org/education/education/material/ci2SMULO9J/taboo/
(2nd image) http://www.livescience.com/20011-brain-cognition-gender-differences.html