“It’s not rocket science.â€
The old saying is supposed to put one at ease when attempting to solve a problem. But it also is our way of elevating rocket scientists as the epitome of intelligence. Thus we are left with the image that only the most intelligent people can be scientists and engineers. Please note that I said “most†intelligent because obviously you need to be intelligent to do science.
That said, people have often pointed to the fact that there are more male geniuses or, more recently, that boys make up a large majority of those in the 99% percentile in math:
At the very highest level, the 99.9th percentile, this difference meant 2.15 males for every female. This difference was large enough that, in an occupation requiring math skills at that level, the job ranks could be expected to be filled 68 percent by men, 32 percent by women — enough to explain, as Summers suggested, part of the gender gap.
While I have not seen the breakdown of what people, men and women, who score in the 99th percentile do with their lives, I doubt we can focus on this slim slice of the population to increase the number of scientists and engineers in the United States. Thus the idea that because we currently have more male geniuses is a reason to just accept that we will always have more male engineers is hogwash. Thankfully others see through this flawed logic.
In my career as a student, scientist and advisor, I have seen students who blow my mind with their genius trip on their laurels and ego to fall flat on their face. I have seen students who started their college careers in remedial math, yet worked hard and succeeded not only in passing Calculus, but continued on to graduate school. And yes, I have seen the stereotypes: Genius students sprint through college in 3 years and straight into medical school; others drop out after getting clobbered by Calculus. Having a solid foundation in math is obviously key, but in the end percentiles cannot predict creativity or aptitude for science and engineering.
In my opinion, this argument is merely another excuse to avoid the harder questions of discrimination, curriculum, and the lack of encouragement we give our girls to consider engineering and science. Given the need for more engineers in our society, we should be working to find ways to encourage as many students as possible, of both sexes, to turn to this field. It is a sad fact that even with a 3:1 advantage in math genius, our boys are not turning to engineering as a career and that spells trouble for the future of our economy.
Comments
Rebecca London — January 15, 2009
A somewhat related issue--this week the National Research Council released a report on learning science in informal environments.
1/14/09
Today, the (U.S.) National Research Council (NRC) released its highly-anticipated report Learning Science in Informal Environments: Places, People, and Pursuits. According to the NRC, "tens of millions of Americans, young and old, choose to learn about science in informal ways - by visiting museums and aquariums, attending after-school programs, pursuing personal hobbies, and watching TV documentaries, for example. There is abundant evidence that these programs and settings, and even everyday experiences such as a walk in the park, contribute to people's knowledge and interest in science."
Philip Bell, co-chair of the committee that wrote the report and associate professor of learning sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle stated that "Learning is broader than schooling, and informal science environments and experiences play a crucial role. These experiences can kick-start and sustain long-term interests that involve sophisticated learning. Think of the child who sees dinosaur skeletons for the first time on a family trip to a natural history museum, and then goes on to buy dinosaur models and books, do Web searches about dinosaurs, write school reports on the subject, and on and on."
In addition to finding that informal learning experiences can significantly improve outcomes for individuals from groups that are historically underrepresented in science, the report notes that there is strong evidence that educational television can help people learn about science. The report also points to evidence that participation in informal science learning (like volunteering in the collection of scientific data) can promote informed civic engagement on science-related issues such as local environmental concerns.
The report outlines six "strands" of science learning that can happen in informal settings, and these strands could help refine evaluations of how well people are learning in these environments. For example, learners can experience excitement and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world. They can come to understand and use concepts and facts related to science. They can learn how scientists actually conduct their work using specialized tools and equipment. And they can develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science.
Recommendations in the report include those directed towards exhibit creators (exhibits should be interactive, designed with specific learning goals in mind, provide multiple ways for learners to engage with concepts within a single setting, and prompt visitors to interpret what they have learned in light of their prior experiences and interests); front line staff (drawing on learners' experience and knowledge by using everyday language, referring to common cultural experiences, and using familiar tools is important); and the field as a whole (more professional development and a common knowledge base among scholars and educators).
For an overview of the report, which was sponsored by the National Science Foundation, and a link to read it in its entirety, please visit: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12190