The Past, Present, and Future of Women in STEM fields

Comparative Essay 1

Shannon Laughlin

By: Shannon Laughlin

What if I told you that the lack of women’s representation in science and mathematics wasn’t a cause for concern? That the strange drop-off between girls’ interest in science between high school and college shouldn’t be a surprise? Well, a lot of things would change. First of all, we wouldn’t be writing these blog posts, because our FYS wouldn’t exist. Perhaps we would instead be enrolled in a class focused on verbal fluency, where women truly excel, according to Doreen Kimura, the author of this week’s reading assignment. As you can probably tell, her essay left me a little taken-aback. Granted, her essay provides convincing points and is generally well-written. I simply believe that Kimura was too hasty and made far too many assumptions.

The first few paragraphs are focused on Kimura calling into question the entire basis of the argument. She asks why having less women than men in a certain field is even a problem, reasoning that there are less men than women in quite a few fields, like nursing and education, and no one seems concerned. She then calls upon many studies to show that women and men have different strengths, and implies that each sex has innate characteristics decided from birth. Men, for example, excel in spatial skills, while women excel in verbal memory. These characteristics come from prenatal and present sex hormones, and can help determine which field one chooses.

I have seen studies like these before and used to accept the differences between the two sex’s strengths. However, after seeing studies in the “Why So Few?” PowerPoint (slide 29) that state “spatial skills are not innate and can be improved with training,” I’m not sure which side to believe. What I am sure of, however, is that if these differences do exist, they are not a reason women should not choose STEM fields. In fact, I believe the very diversity in our perspectives is a reason women SHOULD become more involved. It is a known fact that diversity is beneficial in problem-solving, because more perspectives lead to additional and enhanced solutions. Whether or not men and women’s brains are different, it would be beneficial to have more women participating in STEM careers. Similarly, I’m sure there is a benefit to having men in women-dominated fields as well.

Kimura then decides to tangent off and explain the contradiction of girls’ overall higher STEM grades and boys’ surpassing test scores. She claims that this proves boys’ superior aptitude, despite girls having better general achievement. Here is where, in my opinion, Kimura’s argument takes a slippery slope. Just because men test better does not prove that they are better at math and science. In the first few weeks of this course, we have explored a host of reasons girls may not test as well, including gender bias and the incremental and entity theories mentioned in my last blog post. Kimura completely disregarded the overwhelming amount of research I have seen concerning this issue, which made her argument much less credible.

By-far, the most striking language Kimura uses in her essay comes in the last few paragraphs. She brings up the tendency of women being in secretarial positions and ties this into their supposed strengths over men in finger dexterity and verbal memory. She says that while tradition may have an impact in this trend, “traditions have to arise somehow.” She also finds scholarships specifically for women a “flagrant injustice” to men because they are just as qualified. It seems to me that Kimura has forgotten the struggle-filled and progressive history of women in the workplace, especially in the past century. She doesn’t consider that maybe women traditionally became secretaries because anything more involved was considered “men’s work,” and because women were expected to focus on raising their families.

I feel that Kimura has succeeded in demeaning a very relevant and important issue of today: the lack of women in STEM fields. It is usually beneficial to see the opposing side of topics, but some of Kimura’s questionable conclusions make it extremely difficult to concede.

Image: https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/2/005/02e/057/1fb1835.jpg

PowerPoint: http://www.aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-women-in-stem-ppt-long/

By: Shannon Laughlin

The first of many essays written to tackle the question “Why aren’t more women in science?” featured in Ceci and Williams book of the same name is by Virginia Valian, a distinguished professor and psychologist. She titles her work “Women at the Top in Science- and Elsewhere” because most of it discusses why women aren’t at the “top” of any field, science included. While exploring the theory that women are simply less talented than men in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, she brings up two fascinating points of view, called the incremental theory and entity theory. Incremental theorists believe that people’s abilities can be bettered through practice and hard work, while entity theorists think abilities are innate and unchanging.

These theories create a convincing argument when applied to the U.S.’s lack of high test scores. Valian supplies data of math test scores from the U.S. and Japan, and explains each countries educational mindset (29). The United States has a more entity theorist mindset and believes that kids can either learn the material or not, depending on their own abilities and interest. Japan takes on an incremental approach, believing that the material can either be taught well or poorly, and any student has the ability to master it. Consequently, Japan’s test scores were significantly higher than the U.S.’s (569 for girls and 571 for boys vs. 502 for girls and 507 for boys).

The relation of the theories to this data assumes that there are no other factors as to why Japan scores better than the U.S. in math testing besides educational attitude. It also shows girls still lagging behind their peers. Nevertheless, I still believe that Valian has made a logical point concerning the women in science dilemma. In her essay, she uses this data to eliminate the possibility that women are inferior to men in their STEM abilities and moves on to conclude that gender schemas are the reason women cannot rise to the top of their professions as easily. However, I am disappointed she did not discuss these theories further and try to see if they apply to the topic at hand. If the two mindsets can explain the difference between two countries STEM test performances, could it also explain the difference between that of men and women?

In my senior year of high school, I had a discussion with my math teacher, who was a former school board member and specialist in teaching strategies. He told me that a math teacher should never state that certain types of problems are “hard” and should instead explain that any problem is easy with applied effort (supporting the incremental theory). He said that students start doubting themselves, even subconsciously, and perform worse if they think the problem they are about to do is “hard.” This aligns with the incremental and entity theories- an incremental theorist would believe anyone can solve the difficult problem, and an entity theorist would believe some are unable. Thus, students would perform worse if their teacher used phrases that seem to support the entity theory. This supports the connection Valian mentioned between the theories and test scores.

Applying this to men and women, I found a study that tested people’s trust of companies with these differing mindsets (link below). Men and women were introduced to representatives from consulting companies that either were clearly incremental or entity in their attitudes. They found that women trusted incremental businesses much more than entity, but the difference in men was merely marginal. Researchers then asked the participants to assume that each interview went poorly, and to state the reasons why. Women consistently said they felt uninterested and indifferent during the entity company’s interview.

This trend of sensitivity to entity mindsets in women might explain why girls/women tend to perform worse on the math tests Valian cited, or even STEM assessments in general, like AP exams. Valian stated in her essay that 85% of the world is evenly divided incremental-entity on a particular trait (29). It would not be uncommon for students to be exposed to entity opinions- whether it be through a teacher, other students, or the internet. These opinions could cause them to believe that the examination will be difficult, and girls might disengage and perform worse than a boy would.

I’m sure that this is not the entire answer as to why girls tend to perform worse on assessments, and it assumes that test performance is linked to career choice in the big picture. However, I believe these two mindsets in relation to women’s advancement in STEM careers could make a big difference. More studies should be done to explore this theory, and in the meantime, girls of all ages should be encouraged with an incremental mindset that they can perform just as well as their male peers.

http://www.spspblog.org/who-belongs-in-business/

Welcome to your student blog for the FYS-Women in Science!