Gratuitous Application of Cognitive Differences
In chapter 7 of Why Aren’t More Women in Math and Science, Melissa Hines discusses her thesis that innate sex differences in cognitive abilities do not account for the differences in sexual representation in science. Her thesis is supported by experiments and data that illustrates how the little differences that do exist among sexes overlap and are not consistent enough to draw the conclusion that cognitive differences affect performance and representation in the sciences and mathematics. Cognitive differences have a small influence on the disparity of women in science when being compared to other factors such as environment, opportunity and confidence.
In her essay, Hines did well with defining terms and data analysis. It is clear that, in reference to her argument, “sex difference” is a term used to describe the average difference between males and females (102). It is important to understand that most of the sex differences found in sexes are not apparent in childhood, suggesting that cognitive differences are not immutable and change with age. Therefore, these differences are not reliable enough to explain the gap between sexes in science.
Hines first discussed a previous theory that brain size influences intelligence by using Broca and Le Bon as an example. Paul Broca’s and Gustave Le Bon’s idea of the relation between intelligence, race, gender and brain size reaffirmed how bizarre the assumption is that brain size affects intellect. Le Bon concluded that women “represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult civilized man” (Hines 102). I find the conclusion appalling yet interesting because the statement contradicts itself. If one believes and is knowledgeable of evolution, one would know that humans are not distinguished in hierarchy evolution by sex. Not only that but also, the premise of this statement is that women have smaller brains than men—if one compares the ratio of body size to brain size, one would see that women’s brains are in fact larger. The structure of the brain is very complex and “depending on the aspect of the brain structure that is the focus, one could argue that either males or females have more inherent intellectual capacity (Hines 103). This supports a point I’ve made many times that research can be construed and manipulated to support any hypothesis which is another reason why I’ve concluded that the argument of cognitive differences itself is not an adequate explanation of why so few women are in science.
The data presented by Melissa Hines refutes the possibilities of explanations such as spatial ability, hormones, and IQ being the justification of underrepresentation of women in STEM. Because IQ is determined by tests and tests sometimes have a tendency to be biased (depending on what’s being tested and who decides what questions make-up the assessment), IQ can be considered ambiguous. IQ scores have also “appeared to have resulted from selection biases” meaning people with higher IQs are more likely to participate in IQ based experiments. Hines ends her essay by explaining what she believes is the cause of most imbalance in sexual representation. She explains that success in sciences depends on much more than performance on standardized tests. Math and science achievement in the United States is far behind most countries. It is a fact that the United States government spends 10 cents to every dollar spent on K-12 education—a substantially lower amount than majority of the countries around the world (Woodruff). The low budget placed on schools in the U.S. has a great impact on the environment of the school, especially schools that are surrounded by poverty—which accounts for majority of schools in the U.S. So, it comes as no surprise that even the small percentage of students in Advanced Placement courses in the U.S. are not among the best in the world (Hines 109). Hines also believes that expectations and beliefs influence brain power. When one believes success is possible, one performs better and at a higher rate of efficiency. Scientist Dale Brown Emeagwali attributes her success as a woman scientist to her parents who supported her and continued to believe in her through every failure and accomplishment. Like Hines, Emeagwali believes the support of parents and teachers is detrimental to success in STEM. If a student’s parents and/or teachers has low expectations of them, that student is less inclined to try hard and less likely to have the confidence to overcome obstacles. On the contrary, if sex differences, though small and unrelated, have a large influence on women in science, it is only because we give those differences so much power.
Resources Cited:
Hines, Melissa. “Do Sex Differences in Cognition Cause the Shortage of Women in Science?” Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. (2007): 101-12. Web.
Woodruff, Judy. “How Do We Fund Our Schools?” PBS. PBS, 5 Sept. 2008. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.