In high school my father, an electrical engineer, tried hard to persuade me to think about studying engineering. It was the late 1950’s and his argument went something like this: “You do well in your science classes; you like them; there are very few women in engineering and the country needs more. It will be a profession where you can stand out. ‘Standing out’ in a field because I was different and doing something women didn’t do, was not especially appealing to my teenage self.

Classroom experiences reinforced my hesitations. Teachers said things like, ‘Well, how did this happen? Susan and Mary received the highest marks on the  physic’s  quiz. You guys better get focused, girls aren’t supposed to outrank you.” Or, “Good work, girls, sure you didn’t have the math book under your desks? Ha, ha, just joking…”  The message was clear; boys do well in science and math; girls don’t.

Many are convinced that these gendered assumptions are the stuff of history.  Decades of work by feminists and  educators has resulted in major progress.  Gender gaps in K-12 math and science achievement tests have narrowed dramatically and enrollment differences in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) courses at the  high school level have all but disappeared. Some similar enrollment disparities at post secondary institutions have narrowed.

But large, troubling gaps in STEM fields remain. At the graduate level only 22% of students in engineering, 29% in mathematics and computer science, and 37% in physical and earth sciences are women. Among faculty in STEM fields, the percentages of women holding tenure track positions is even smaller.

These discrepancies are often attributed to individual choice.  The list of ‘personal choice’ explanations is long—and loaded with stereotypical assumptions about women: Women don’t want to spend long hours in the lab; women prefer dealing with people not test tubes; science doesn’t fit with family responsibilities.

Not so fast. Research recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and reported in major news papers reveals continuing bias against female students among both male and female science faculty members.   Researchers at Yale University drew a national sample of professors in STEM fields and asked them to evaluate the qualifications of an undergraduate student applying for a laboratory manager position.  Each faculty member reviewed the same resume, the only difference being  that a female or male name was randomly assigned to the materials.  Male students received higher evaluations from professors of both sexes. Males  were ranked as more competent, more likely to be hired and more worthy of mentoring.

The authors of the study suggest ”that  subtle gender bias is important to address because it could translate into large real-world disadvantages….{and that this bias} is likely unintentional, generated from widespread cultural stereotypes rather than a conscious intention to harm women.”

If scientists trained in careful analysis and attention to detail continue to reflect gender stereotypes in their student evaluations, is it any wonder that women have not achieved parity in STEM fields?  Teachers may not be as blatant or as public in their sexist comments as they were in the classes of my youth, but subtle, insidious biases remain.

Decades of feminist work has laid a strong foundation; but foundations weaken and crumble if neglected.  In today’s world with many feminist accomplishments  under attack, the work of activists focused on increasing the participation of women in STEM fields deserves our full attention. My father’s words still ring true; our country needs more engineers and scientists. A continued focus on women in STEM  benefits not only women, it benefits  the nation.