In high school my father, an electrical engineer, tried hard to persuade me to think about studying engineering. It was the late 1950\u2019s and his argument went something like this: \u201cYou 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.\u00a0\u2018Standing out\u2019 in a field because I was different and doing something women didn\u2019t do, was not especially appealing to my teenage self.<\/p>\n
Classroom experiences reinforced my hesitations. Teachers said things like, \u2018Well, how did this happen? Susan and Mary received the highest marks on the\u00a0 physic\u2019s\u00a0 quiz. You guys better get focused, girls aren\u2019t supposed to outrank you.\u201d Or, \u201cGood work, girls, sure you didn\u2019t have the math book under your desks? Ha, ha, just joking…\u201d\u00a0 The message was clear; boys do well in science and math; girls don\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Many are convinced that these gendered assumptions are the stuff of history.\u00a0 Decades of work by feminists and \u00a0educators has resulted in major progress.\u00a0 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\u00a0 high school level have all but disappeared. Some similar enrollment disparities at post secondary institutions have narrowed.<\/p>\n
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.<\/a> Among faculty in STEM fields, the percentages of women holding tenure track positions is even smaller<\/a>.<\/p>\n These discrepancies are often attributed to individual choice. \u00a0The list of \u2018personal choice\u2019 explanations is long—and loaded with stereotypical assumptions about women:\u00a0Women don\u2019t want to spend long hours in the lab; women prefer dealing with people not test tubes; science doesn\u2019t fit with family responsibilities.<\/p>\n Not so fast. Research recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/em> <\/a> and reported in major news papers<\/a> reveals continuing bias against female students among both male and female science faculty members. \u00a0 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.\u00a0 Each faculty member reviewed the same resume, the only difference being \u00a0that a female or male name was randomly assigned to the materials.\u00a0 Male students received higher evaluations from professors of both sexes. Males\u00a0 were ranked as more competent, more likely to be hired and more worthy of mentoring.<\/p>\n The authors of the study suggest \u201dthat\u00a0 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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?\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n Decades of feminist work has laid a strong foundation; but foundations weaken and crumble if neglected.\u00a0 In today\u2019s world with many feminist accomplishments\u00a0 under attack, the work of activists focused on increasing the participation of women in STEM fields deserves our full attention. My father\u2019s words still ring true; our country needs more engineers and scientists. A continued focus on women in STEM\u00a0 benefits not only women, it benefits\u00a0 the nation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In high school my father, an electrical engineer, tried hard to persuade me to think about studying engineering. It was the late 1950\u2019s and his argument went something like this: \u201cYou do well in your science classes; you like them; there are very few women in engineering and the country needs more. It will be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1924,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21114,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-second-look","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1924"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5486"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5486\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}