Science, Math, Physics: Where are the women?

Started by Trieste, March 04, 2011, 12:28:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Trieste

An interesting article in Slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2286671/pagenum/all

The full citation of the original article is here:
STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
By Stout, Jane G.; Dasgupta, Nilanjana; Hunsinger, Matthew; McManus, Melissa A.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 100(2), Feb 2011, 255-270.

Oniya

And this is why I make sure to stay on top of the little Oni's math work.  She's a natural in science (blue ribbon in the 4th grade science fair!), and I figure if we keep both of those up, she'll have programs like this looking for her.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Heart

I'm right here ^.^ Getting my Bachelor of Science at the end of the year!

DarklingAlice

Very nice article. Yet more evidence on the growing tide that the idea of different genders having different aptitudes is nothing more than socialized horseshit.

For the record, there are far more women than men in my microbial biology program although the numbers are practically reversed in the biotechnology program. It suggests that this issue revolves more around math and computers than science per se.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Oniya

I was always told that men were supposed to be better in 'pure math', and women were supposed to be better in things that involved visualizing (like the IQ questions involving looking at a fold-up box pattern and matching it with a view of the assembled cube).

I said to hell with that, and shot the curve. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sure

Women outnumber men overall in college degree programs but the majority stay away from the sciences. Men outnumber women in all preprofessional and scientific degrees, except psychology, as far as I am aware. This is despite men being outnumbered by women overall in terms of attendance. In terms of engineering, less than a fifth of all engineering students are female. Of those who are female, the most common are chemical or biological focused, the least common are computer engineers (computer science has slightly more women than engineering does, though, except when CS is lumped in as an engineering program).

I don't quite see how this is sexism, though. I've seen administrators and students move heaven and earth to try and make engineering more attractive to women and it hasn't worked. I've seen them get exceptions to rules that stand for virtually everyone else, I've seen them grouped together specifically because of this effect, I've seen them given access to aids that male students weren't, and it did nothing in regards to the numbers entering or staying as engineers. To me, it's apparent women are choosing to not enter the program, and frankly no matter what this article says the ultimate onus lays with the individual women who choose not to join.

Oh, and anyone who says women are worse at science or math inherently are wrong. Women do tend to pursue it less but those who do pursue it do no worse nor better than men in my experience.

Trieste

Sexism doesn't necessarily have to be an active process. I think in this case, it's more that young women don't have the role models that men often do, and they are socialized to be more susceptible to social pressure to identify with those in their immediate environment. As such, they are going to gravitate toward professions and majors where they can more readily get that.

Plus, there are still teachers in grade schools (and in the higher levels) that tell you that you don't have to worry about being good in math if you're a girl. I was told that as a child, and I am not alone. I don't know what the statistics are, but they are out there.

My own personal pursuit of my degree has been frustrating and troublesome. I have been told that I should steer clear of the sciences lest my tits knock over the test tube racks. That's pretty much a verbatim quote, by the way, from a college advisor. I've been told that there are no attractive female scientists. I have been patronized and asked if it's my time of the month when I disagree with an administrator about the course of my own studies. I have been called an arrogant bitch for telling one of my advisors that he can either help me or get the hell out of my way.

That open door the article mentioned? It has a pane of glass stretched across the threshold, and there's no way that you get to the other side without getting your fists bloody.

Oniya

I don't suppose anyone here remembers the kerfuffle over the talking Barbie that came out a few years back?

'Math is haaaaard.  Let's go shopping!'  >_<  Mattel got a backlash over that one.

When I was at an all-female college, the math department virtually fell over themselves if someone declared the slightest hint of possibly becoming a math major.   I used to joke that they'd materialize like a Star Trek away team, even if it was a whispered declaration in the far corner of the athletic field.  There were two and three students in some of my higher courses, and the minimum for an official class was four.  Several required courses had to be done by Directed Inquiry just so that two of us could graduate on time.  I certainly can't say that there was anyone discouraging the students from majoring in mathematics, but there was little interest.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

DarklingAlice

The doll actually said: "Math class is tough." Not as bad, but still not anything promising. And still a little disgusting.

And I am with Trieste here, sexism (or rather genderism) gets ingrained in society and does not need to be active. Even without people actively standing in your way, there is a passive discouragement. Although I question the role of role models. I have had about two people I would even describe as role models and I didn't find the second one until grad school. So I can't say that they were instrumental in decision making.

Not that I am anywhere near traditional gender norms. <_<
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Trieste

Perhaps I should have used the word 'examples' instead of 'role models'. It might have been a little less sentimentally loaded. >.>

Sure

Nothing you've said has taken the onus of the choice off of the individual women  (and several of them are bunk regardless). At the very most, they're assuming the level of responsibility of a criminal who comes from a broken home. It's still the criminal's choice, responsibility, and fault (though fault is not the right word in concern to specific college degrees). And likewise, the fact less men are going to college is still those individual men's choice, fault, whatever.

Of course, finding ways to encourage women into hard sciences and men to go to college is laudable (and criminals to stop committing crimes). But to call it sexism or a glass whatever absolves the individual of responsibility, as this article attempts to do. No matter what is affecting your decision a belief in free will necessarily means that at the point of decision you are free to choose what you will. No matter what the reasons are, the reason any individual woman is not in a math/science program is because she chooses not to be. Consciously at that.

And, by the way, your own experience with sexism in no way diminishes my (and Oniya's) experience where women were given an environment that was even more encouraging than the one men got and didn't go into those fields regardless. My point was not that sexism does not exist (it does against both genders) but rather that the absence of sexism or at least a decrease in the level of sexism does not lead to a corresponding increase in females.

Trieste

Well, I mean, clearly young women would rather go shopping than do math and it's entirely their fault. I can't believe I actually might have thought that individual choices are stifled or directed by social pressures and norms.

Individual choices are clearly made in a vacuum and remain sacrosanct. Thank god for Sure, or a whole generation might be sucked into a lie.

Oniya

I don't think that anyone was suggesting that. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste

I think that the absolutism of free will that Sure is talking about implies precisely that. I think it severely underestimates the power of discouragement, the dearth of positive reinforcement, and the outright obstacles that students can face. Men face it in places like nursing school (yes, still) and women face it in places like physics faculties.

Sure

Quote from: Trieste on March 06, 2011, 10:48:44 PM
Well, I mean, clearly young women would rather go shopping than do math and it's entirely their fault. I can't believe I actually might have thought that individual choices are stifled or directed by social pressures and norms.

Individual choices are clearly made in a vacuum and remain sacrosanct. Thank god for Sure, or a whole generation might be sucked into a lie.

Your sarcasm neither contributes to this conversation nor is appreciated. It only serves to denigrate your own points and your own intellectual acumen and show that you must set up straw men in order to counteract my points. I ask you to please stop.

PS: A whole generation? Are you broadcasting this live or something?

QuoteI think that the absolutism of free will that Sure is talking about implies precisely that. I think it severely underestimates the power of discouragement, the dearth of positive reinforcement, and the outright obstacles that students can face. Men face it in places like nursing school (yes, still) and women face it in places like physics faculties.

On the contrary, decisions do not take place in a vacuum. I never implied as such. What I stated is that regardless of the influences the ultimate responsibility for the decision still belongs with the individual. The outside influences are just influences, the decision and responsibility for the decision lies with the individual. They can affect the decision taken but cannot diminish the individuals responsibility for that decision.

Free will is flatly not absolute, you are affected by your environment, but it is ultimate. That is, it is a necessary and controlled component in and for any action you take. Therefore ultimate responsibility lies with the individual regardless of influences. Therefore although these women may have pressure on them not to become engineers, the fact any individual woman is not an engineer is ultimately her own responsibility. She could have chosen to be an engineer instead of a history/english/film/acting/whatever major but she chose, of her own free will, not to be. Even if she would have had to put up with sexism, scorn from home, people sniggering, being unpopular, or whatever else she still had that choice and she made it.

If it is not, all sorts of problems arise. Like, for example, if free will is not ultimate, then blaming the victim is defensible:
She was just too influenced by the outside factors of the woman's skirt and that sexy underwear and her lack of a bra, you see. Given different conditions she would never have raped that girl. So clearly the conditions are to blame, not the rapist.

She was just too influenced by outside factors to choose an engineering degree, you see. Given different conditions she would have been an engineer. So clearly the conditions are to blame, not the woman.

Also, you are still ignoring my point that in at least two cases when there was less sexism the corresponding number of women in these fields did not go up.

WhiteyChan

As someone currently doing a 4 year Masters degree in Physics - at a British University, yes, so it may be slightly different to the States, but still applicable - I can tell you what I've noticed.

There are more girls in my year than in the previous year; which had more girls than the year before that. And there are more girls in the year below me than in my year. The number of women entering the field, at a higher-education level anyway as I don't know about post-grad research, is increasing every year. In terms of results, in most cases, there is little difference between the guys and the girls. The guys possibly have a larger range, from just passing to getting 85+%, but that's only because there are more of them still. The averages are about the same, around 65% for a 2:1. In the two lecture courses we've had taught by female professors, there hasn't been any noticeable difference in this compared to the 10 courses we've had taught by male professors (I guess it is interesting to note the number of male:female professors, but that can be explained if you consider that the number of women entering the field is increasing - maybe in 20 years time, when current graduates have had chance to gain experience in physics, this ratio will even out).

Girls generally do better at practical labs than guys, though - but whether this is just down to girls being a bit more organised about the experiments or the fact that the head lab technician is a woman (who, by the way, is many kinds of awesome), I can't say. Its no bad thing, though, shows that women can be better than men at science.

This is all coming from my experience so far as a physics undergraduate, talking to friends about exam results and whatnot. All of the above should not be taken to be a proper study, as it is not in any way, shape or form.

grdell

Quote from: Trieste on March 06, 2011, 09:14:04 PM
I have been called an arrogant bitch for telling one of my advisors that he can either help me or get the hell out of my way.

Does he still have a job? I would have raised holy hell over language like that being used against me.

But...

I am currently tutoring the daughter of a friend in math. She has a female teacher. Yet still she lacks confidence. She's good - she gets the material after I explain it fully (which is what isn't happening in the classroom), and if it weren't for her test anxiety, she does just fine on tests. She blows through her homework, with a clear understanding of the concepts. She wants to get into astronomy, which is very VERY math-and-science heavy. Her parents have warned her about it, her teachers and advisors have warned her about it, I have warned her about it. She's determined. Her (female) friends think she's crazy for taking the high honors math courses when she doesn't *have* to. But her parents and I have also encouraged her into following her ambitions. She knows what she wants and she knows it's going to be a hard road to get there, but she's determined. Which seems at odds with that lack of confidence I mentioned at first. But nobody has ever said that the human being is a simple animal...

And...

I wish I could recall the article in which I read it, but there was an absolutely appalling occurence of sexism against men in a case in Australia not too long ago. There were only two males in a class for early education (preschool, IIRC), and they were heavily discouraged from taking it at all, and when they insisted, were told - actually TOLD! - to be as overtly heterosexual as they could. So, yeah, it still exists, and it's not just women.

Just my two cents.
"A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them." ~XKCD

My Kinsey Scale rating: 4; and what that means in terms of my gender identity. My pronouns: he/him.

My Ons and Offs, current stories, story ideas, Apologies and Absences - Updated 28 Jan 2024.

SinClaire

I used to work at a science museum, and one of the pet projects I had was finding ways to get girls more involved with science and technology. What I figured out was, if you start very early on, girls are very, very interested in science/techy stuff, and are more likely to continue down that path on their own, regardless of peer pressure - parents are a whole different issue, of course. But if girls haven't been exposed to hands-on science by the end of elementary school (I'm Mexican, and our system runs different than in other countries), it's not likely they'll get involved.

I'm kind of an example of that. Growing up, I had some books about "how (insert everyday household item here) works??", and I liked reading them with my dad and brothers. I was allowed to play with things around the house, provided it wasn't something that could harm me, and any questions I had were answered - not always on the spot, but my parents were kind and insightful enough to provide me with an answer. That continued throughout junior high school and high school - which is how I ended up at the science museum. Now, my career of choice is not related to science (I'm studying a bachelor's degree in Translation & Interpretation), but I do want to get involved in science popularization, mainly translating texts so everyone can have access to the latest developments in science and technology. And I mean everyone - kids, adults, people with higher degrees of education and people who may not have finished elementary school.

On the other hand, I've female friends who know zero, nada, absolutely nothing about science and technology. Talking it out with them, their parents never allowed them to take apart an old radio, or help change a lightbulb, or watch a documentary on the Big Bang. Instead, they were provided with dolls and dresses and shielded from anything deemed as "man stuff".

Of course, I also have friends who were brought up like that, and are studying robotics… Difference is, somewhere along the way, they met someone who introduced them to that field. Or, like me, they got a book from Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking that opened their eyes to the awesomeness of science and technology beyond gender.

It's a mix of a lot of things - upbringing, schooling, friendship, luck, and yes, even the will to get yourself into that field. I mean, I could've been a neurosurgeon, or researcher or something like that. I even studied psychology 2 years before switching majors. But I chose not to go that way, because my calling is different, and I feel I can do more good to science by helping spread what we already know than by researching new stuff.

That's just my take on things, though. But I do take some courage from the fact that, like WhiteyChan said, there's more girls and women stepping into the science/tech/math fields with each passing year.

Oniya

I can actually point to one man as being responsible for my love of mathematics.  In 7th grade, I got stuffed into a math-related elective because when you're a 7th grader with a last name near the end of the alphabet, all of the popular electives have filled up by the time your schedule requests get looked at.  The teacher for that class showed us things like bead-and-string puzzles, tiling patterns, dice games, card games - and how math figured into these.  It was like playtime!
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste

It's like that with several things. I was aggressively exposed to algebra at an early age, and I actually really enjoy working with algebraic problems - unless it involves geometry. I hated geometry; the teacher was a bitch. Woman or no, she really taught me to loathe that class, and now I'm still awkward with it.

My brother and I are very different kinds of smart. He has difficulty with books, but has sheer charisma and ... whatever it is that people do that makes other people like them. :P He has been 'people-smart' since forever, and he's recently picked up reading as a sometimes hobby. But he learned to read very late, and had to be essentially forced to sit and do his nightly reading. Me, I was reading before they were really even teaching it in school, or so I'm told.

There are children who love to write, and children who hate it. Usually you'll find that the ones who love it were exposed to good teachers or good influences early in life. I could count a million disciplines that early exposure seems to make a difference in.

Part of the difficulty with science fields is that it brings together this nexus of things that girls 'don't do'. Math, physics, chemistry, biology. How many people expect a high school girl to dig into the class frog dissection without squealing in disgust? How many female mathletes are there out there? When I was still participating in Odyssey of the Mind, our team was just about evenly split between girls and boys, but most of the other teams were mainly boys.

That's just the way it works. *shrug* That's what needs to change.

Neroon

Just to add a little something to this discussion about how influences might affect people, here is an article I found in my work email this morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13128701

The basic finding I see there bears out a lot of what I see in education recently.  Frequently, girls are described as "hard working" while boys are described as having an aptitude for certain subjects but typically "don't like writing a lot".  Thus I find that the proportion of high achieving male students entering my classes in year 7 is lower now than it was 22 years ago when I started teaching.  Typically, the girls out perform the boys, though they are often far more worried that they "don't get science" than their male peers whose attitude is one of "Yeah, I understand this stuff, so I don't need to work now, I can just turn it on for the exam."

Of course, with teenagers the mindset is hard to change; a great deal of damage has already been done by the time they get to me, in terms of the self confidence of the girls and the work ethic of the boys.  Continued success in science through their hard work can improve the girls' self-belief.  However, the tendency of boys to coast is much harder to change.  This is leading to the trend that Whitey has described in his post: women are catching up in the "hard sciences" and soon will overtake men.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Lilias

#21
I can actually make a valid claim that I have no head for numbers, at least from the point where their use crosses into abstract thought. My father used to tutor maths, physics and chemistry, and he was always there to help me with my homework. It still didn't work. I simply didn't like numbers; my kind of smarts has to do with words, as my half-dozen languages can attest.

My secondary school had six maths teachers (four men, two women) and four science teachers (two men, two women). Towards the end, when we were choosing our specialty areas for university, the science departments were pretty evenly split between boys and girls, while the linguistics department, where I went, was overwhelmingly female. So, even back in the 80s, things were not as uneven as they may seem at first.

Both my best and worst science class experiences had to do with male teachers. The former was a substitute in year 8, who had everyone in his class not only acing our exams but also worshipping him (and crying when he left). The latter was a bare two years later and, well, he was the kind of teacher that should have been stripped of his licence. Unfortunately, I fell into his hands in a key year and, by the end of it, the damage was impossible to patch up.

As for the talent vs effort debate, I wonder what took people so long to figure it out. Any really talented person will affirm that great talent needs more work than anyone else, to remain great. I grew up hearing 'Oh, you're so good, but you have what it takes to be even better,' which essentially meant that the best that I could be was not good enough, so I might as well coast rather than exhaust myself. I'm not making that mistake with my son.
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

Trieste

I would say that it genuinely depends on the person. Similar discouraging 'encouragement' was a solid theme throughout my grade school years. Honestly, it was shocking if I didn't get a comment on my progress reports or report cards to the effect of, "Very smart, but lazy. Is not fulfilling her potential." and if I were to be completely honest, it bred a compulsive urge to excel at everything academic that sometimes borders on mania. I'm not particularly competitive; the only reason for seeking valedictorian or similar is for the grades, really. But my mental state is definitely achievement-oriented: if I'm doing well, I'm usually pretty happy, while a poor grade can ruin an entire week.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I think that being able to picture oneself in one's field is extremely important, and probably has more to do with the success of women in women's classes than anything else.

Jude

Quote from: Trieste on April 20, 2011, 09:19:42 AM
Anecdotal evidence aside, I think that being able to picture oneself in one's field is extremely important, and probably has more to do with the success of women in women's classes than anything else.
There's really something there.  We'd all like to believe that people are born with an innate drive that takes them in one direction or another, but that just doesn't seem to be how the human mind works.  Some people have factors which lead up to them picturing a career even if it isn't a typical choice for someone of their personality, sex, or appearance, etc... But most people look at themselves and instead wonder, "Where do I fall?"

This is true for all careers, and it isn't social oppression as much as it is a natural human instinct that results in a societal tendency to stick to the status quo.  The problem is then compounded by the fact that being in science, math, and physics isn't as attractive to most people as being, say, an investment banker or someone else who pulls down a huge salary.

WhiteyChan

Quote from: Neroon on April 20, 2011, 08:35:09 AM
The basic finding I see there bears out a lot of what I see in education recently.  Frequently, girls are described as "hard working" while boys are described as having an aptitude for certain subjects but typically "don't like writing a lot".  Thus I find that the proportion of high achieving male students entering my classes in year 7 is lower now than it was 22 years ago when I started teaching.  Typically, the girls out perform the boys, though they are often far more worried that they "don't get science" than their male peers whose attitude is one of "Yeah, I understand this stuff, so I don't need to work now, I can just turn it on for the exam."

Of course, with teenagers the mindset is hard to change; a great deal of damage has already been done by the time they get to me, in terms of the self confidence of the girls and the work ethic of the boys.  Continued success in science through their hard work can improve the girls' self-belief.  However, the tendency of boys to coast is much harder to change.  This is leading to the trend that Whitey has described in his post: women are catching up in the "hard sciences" and soon will overtake men.

Ha. Now, this I can relate to. In my case, I've coasted all my life, even up to my second year of my degree (so, now). My 'revision' for the january exams consisted of doing a couple of past papers, then panicking lots and making brownies the night before the hardest one. Still managed to get a 1st in all of the modules. On the other side, all of the girls I know in physics spent ages doing revision - making notes, doing past papers, going back through the problem sheets, and generally doing lots of work. And as far as I can tell, most got a 1st too, or at least a 2:1. Kinda makes me wonder what my marks would be like if I actually did work... Maybe I should properly revise for my summer exams xD

Noelle

I'll be honest, if I had to reverse four years of college and choose a new path, I'd replace my art degree with one in a science field. It's just a pity it took me so long to take a bigger interest -- I used to be really into my science classes in the K-12 levels, but once they started becoming more mathematically dependent, I dropped off because I couldn't keep up. I still don't much care for numbers, I'm afraid I don't really have the mind for them, but science was one area where I always worked hard to understand it, even if I didn't get the best grades.

I don't really have the studies or the numbers or anything, but I think this might strike on a bigger problem -- taking that early interest and cultivating it fast before it dies out or shifts to something else entirely. Granted, I don't regret getting an art degree, given that's been my biggest passion throughout my life, but I still feel like there's a lot out there I'd love to learn and I think I could've excelled at science if I would've felt it were a more viable subject for me to pursue.

Trieste

I honestly think they make the sciences more math-heavy than they need to be. To be quite frank, it's really better if you know the integrations behind this chart or that number, and derivatives make your life infinitely easier when dealing with enzyme kinetics - but the computers do most of the heavy math lifting for you, and it's been that way for years now. As long as you have the correct formula, it's not really needed to be able to derive the path length of a spectrophotometer from Einstein's equation (or whatever). I hate, hate, hate it when they put math in my chemistry. I think that they need to throw other concepts at grade schoolers than math (or, at least, leave the math to math teachers, preferably ones who will work hard to make math interesting to kids). Acid-base reactivity is cool, and it extends far past adding baking soda to vinegar. Electrophoresis and basic hands-on experiments are not beyond the realm of the possible for high schoolers.

I've seen a bunch of third-graders manage to grasp the very basic concept of the electron before. Will they 'get' quantums or orbitals? Tch, no. But beginner's organic chemistry, flavor and food chemistry, and some basic genetics beyond Punnet squares are certainly not beyond the grasp of teenagers, if introduced correctly. And none of it is math-based.

Oniya

I ended up taking a 'non-math-based' physics course, as I was simultaneously enrolled in Calc I (which I could have skipped, as it was the same as what my high school called 'Functions').  Without the structure of acceleration being the derivative of velocity over time, and velocity being the derivative of distance over time, it was a jumble.  Damn near failed the course (of course, the food poisoning I got on the day of the exam didn't help either - I was told that I was distinctly green.)  Once I had a chance to re-learn the material with a math structure, it all clicked like a first-grader's jigsaw puzzle.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Caeli

I actually loved math in high school (I rocked chemistry, and did passably well at physics). I remember auditing a science-major science class when I started class, though, and was completely floored by the math involved. Math is my one of my favorite subjects, but I've always been better with variables than the actual figures and numbers (I remember having a lot of difficulty with concepts in physics, though). I decided to go after a liberal arts degree because I got scared off by the amount of classes I would have needed (I'd wanted to graduate early so I could help my parents out financially sooner).

Kind of wish I'd at least given it an honest chance, now. But at the charter school I work at, it's so gratifying to see girls who are passionate about engineering, about science, and all that. I've been contacting the ones who plan on majoring in science to tell them about scholarships and internships and stuff at museums, at science centers, and so on.
ʙᴜᴛᴛᴇʀғʟɪᴇs ᴀʀᴇ ɢᴏᴅ's ᴘʀᴏᴏғ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ sᴇᴄᴏɴᴅ ᴄʜᴀɴᴄᴇ ᴀᴛ ʟɪғᴇ
ᴠᴇʀʏ sᴇʟᴇᴄᴛɪᴠᴇʟʏ ᴀᴠᴀɪʟᴀʙʟᴇ ғᴏʀ ɴᴇᴡ ʀᴏʟᴇᴘʟᴀʏs

ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ❋ ғᴏʀ ɪᴅᴇᴀs; 'ø' ғᴏʀ ᴏɴs&ᴏғғs, ᴏʀ ᴘᴍ ᴍᴇ.
{ø 𝕨 
  𝕒 }
»  ᴇʟʟɪᴡʀɪᴍᴏ
»  ᴄʜᴏᴏsᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴏᴡɴ ᴀᴅᴠᴇɴᴛᴜʀᴇ: ᴛʜᴇ ғɪғᴛʜ sᴄʜᴏʟᴀʀʟʏ ᴀʀᴛ
»  ひらひらと舞い散る桜に 手を伸ばすよ
»  ᴘʟᴏᴛ ʙᴜɴɴɪᴇs × sᴛᴏʀʏ sᴇᴇᴅs × ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀ ɪɴsᴘɪʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴs

WhiteyChan

I think its worth noting, at this point as we descend into arguing about mathematical content of the sciences, that the maths in science is different to pure maths. Very different. In physics, the maths involved is usually algebraic; 'solve this differential equation' being a fairly standard question. In fact, I think nearly all of my courses so far have been just constructing a differential equation based upon a principle (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, for example, or Schrodinger's Equation), then solving it. Maths, on the other hand, involves vector spaces, sets, groups, fields, n dimensions - much more abstract concepts. Even I can't understand most of what the mathematicians are doing. Physics, in other words, is the application of a theory based upon empirical evidence, whereas Maths is abstract thought that may or may not have relevance to the real world (and usually, only when the physicists get a hold of it).

And, in my university at least, there are a lot more girls doing Maths than Physics, strangely. In Physics, the split is about 75-25% at the moment, whereas in Maths its nearly 50-50, I'd say about 55-45%.

Just thought it was useful at this point to separate Maths and Science, in this argument.

Trieste

* Trieste doesn't see anyone descending into any arguments, but if it happens, she would like to request a tub of Jell-o.

I am pretty good at algebra and, like Caeli, I actually work better with variables than actual figures - or did, at least. Now I've gotten much better at geometry and at working with angles and whatnot. I had significant trouble with physics, in part because my physics WAS calc-based, but I was behind in the accompanying calc classes. Lemmie tell ya, having Calc III -before- Physics II would have made a significant amount of difference. As it was, I was left in Physics II teaching myself dot and cross products, what a unit vector was, and how the hell to work with a determinant. Very discouraging.

Noelle

That's the thing, I struggled to scrape by Algebra II and got completely obliterated by Calculus when I tried to take it in college (the phrase nobody wants to hear: "You should remember this from high school"), so going any farther with a subject like physics was basically off the table. The only chemistry class I ever took, I really enjoyed, but I already felt like I hit the ceiling on where I was going because I didn't get that far in math classes.

I think it would be short-sighted to totally separate the two subjects in this thread because they are related; I find myself interested when someone explains different concepts and theories from a subject like physics, but I don't actually have the right skillset to jump in a class and learn. It's not to say I never could, it's just that it wasn't really an option for me during my standard four years at college :P

And I think it's also worth pointing out that personal anecdotes are awfully hard to discuss in relation to a national trend.

For the record, I ended up dropping calculus before it sufficiently ripped me in half and took general logic and loved every twisted minute of it.

Jude

#32
I'm obviously biased being a mathematician, but I don't think you can understress the importance of the mathematical background to any scientific discipline.  If you don't understand the math behind how that equation is derived then you have to take its validity on faith.  That's antithetical to the very concept of science.  In order to truly be a luminary in your field you need to be able to follow the branching logic (which is almost always mathematical) that establishes all of these principles.  This may not be 100% true for all scientific disciplines, but when it comes to something like physics, understanding the math is absolutely vital to truly grasping the concepts at play.  And a good understanding of statistics is important for everything, even the soft sciences.

And I'll balance your anecdote with another anecdote Whiteychan, both of which have an equal chance of being descriptive of the larger picture.  Every class I took in math or science at both of the colleges I attended (I transferred to a larger institution after 2 years) had fewer female students in it than males.  Furthermore, the incidence of female students was kind of like oxygen while climbing mountain:  the higher we got in course numbers, the fewer women we'd encounter.  My lowest level mathematics class (Calculus 1.5 basically; it was designed for people who did AP Calc in high school as I did) was maybe 25% female while my lowest level science class (first level Calculus based Engineering Physics) was about 40% female.

Differential Equations was the first all male class I ever took, and then the following semester I had a sausage-fest Relativistic Mechanics course (I can still recall my teacher joking about how he was willing to bet that none of us in the class had been laid within the past month during our first day).  My Quantum Mechanics class was 100% male as well.  In higher mathematics there would occasionally be one or two females, but it seemed like they often had trouble and dropped out (though I fully recognize that there could be some psychological factors making this ore noticeable; there were fewer females after all, so when they disappeared it was a lot more apparent - plus women are much more likely to cry in the middle of class when they get an F on a test, and that makes for a memorable afternoon).

There are differences in the average male and female brain.  For the longest time it was actually thought, and for good reason not just simple misogyny, that women and men fundamentally are designed to excel in different areas.  It could actually be true; women and men play very different biological roles which require distinct skill sets.  There is however, a lot of debate on which way you can point the arrow of causation.  Do women and men tend to have a different neurological structure because of social forces, or are these social forces a manifestation of the different underlying architecture in the brain?

Either way, the establishment of a trend doesn't mean that exceptional individuals can't buck that trend.  Men are stronger than women are on average as a result of simple biology, but you'd be wrong if you thought that there are no women out there who are stronger than most men.  Even if men are better suited on average for computationally heavy fields due to biology, that doesn't mean there aren't women out there who have contributed brilliantly to these fields.  In fact, I'm sure we've all noticed that people who are really driven to defy fate (I mean this metaphorically, not metaphysically) often are successful in ways that the exceptionally gifted and lucky sometimes fail to be (props to Gattaca, even if I don't entirely love that film -- it's a solid B).

EDIT:  And as a bit of a counterpoint to my last paragraph, check out this article, it's pretty awesome.  I have a feeling a lot of people on E will appreciate this too given the relative fascination with gender here:  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain&page=3

Trieste

Quote from: Jude on April 22, 2011, 09:41:36 AM
I'm obviously biased being a mathematician, but I don't think you can understress the importance of the mathematical background to any scientific discipline.  If you don't understand the math behind how that equation is derived then you have to take its validity on faith.  That's antithetical to the very concept of science.  In order to truly be a luminary in your field you need to be able to follow the branching logic (which is almost always mathematical) that establishes all of these principles.  This may not be 100% true for all scientific disciplines, but when it comes to something like physics, understanding the math is absolutely vital to truly grasping the concepts at play.  And a good understanding of statistics is important for everything, even the soft sciences.

I disagree with this. While I'll grant that statistical analysis is a necessity in everything (I use it daily in my lab), understanding the math behind every equation is something that is not necessary. That's why you have consulting scientists, and why there are different disciplines within the scientific field. If I'm in the midst of drug discovery, I'm going to be characterizing the activity and whatnot of a particular molecule, with my understanding of the related maths and models. However, if I want to know how the molecule works, I'm going to need to call in an organic chemist who specializes in mechanism of action. They will tell me their best hypothesis for where the electron goes, why and when and how, and then we test it. This is done often in chemistry and biology; I'm pretty sure it's also done often in things like physics, soc, anthro, engineering, etc.

There is a reason why it's prevalent that there are different kind of specialist doctors in addition to general practitioners, and it's a virtue in the field to know when you are in over your head and need to consult with someone more knowledgeable. Aiming to understand every nuance of everything is probably laudable to some, but it's not antithetical to the concept of science not to aspire to this.

Jude

#34
You're right in that you can't know everything, but if you don't understand the mathematical architecture behind your particular specialization (not necessarily all of chemistry for example), don't you think it's going to hurt your ability to be an effective scientist?  In any case, I don't know how knowing more is going to hurt you, so boiling more math out of science classes is very questionable to me.  But again -- I've admitted my bias. :P

I only have a minor in physics.

Oniya

There is a difference in how much math a given discipline would need.  Physics has a distinct calculus base, but I can't see a need for calculus in Biology or Chemistry. Remembering my college roommate's Organic Chemistry book (shush, I was bored), I'd say Algebra and Algebra II there.  Biology would depend on whether you're talking macro or micro - possibly less math for the former, but I'd include most of the 'under Calculus' set for the latter.  Astrophysics would probably require going all the way through Calculus, and probably non-Euclidean geometry as well (to deal with gravitational wells and space curvature).
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sure

You know, I have to say, while I have counter-examples to a statement 'Women just don't like/aren't any good at math'. If someone were to make a statement such as 'Women avoid physics' I can't really think of anyone. I mean, the more physics a degree involves, the less women it has. The difference between Computer Science and Computer Engineering is five or so courses related to electrical physics and Computer Science has nearly double the amount of women in it as Computer Engineering, for example.

I do have to say a lot of science and math in science and engineering degrees seems to be for its own sake, though. Whether that's a bad thing or not is debatable, particularly because mathematics is a system you can use to 'find' things about your discipline even when the more knowledge (in the sense of discipline specific knowledge) fails to help.

Something else: Why is there not the same amount of concern about men choosing not to go to college. Or the fact that men are not going into the Liberal Arts? I'd be particularly interested in hearing from people such as Caeli who have a direct influence and have taken an interest in supporting women in the sciences, math, and physics, but hasn't mentioned anything about helping men trying to go into traditionally female fields.

Oniya

#37
I've actually seen a lot of ads recently with the message that someone with a college degree earns X amount more than someone who doesn't.   It may not be specifically directed at men (in fact, there's one for Sanford-Brown that seems directed primarily at women: 'Girl goes to Sanford-Brown, gets her self-confidence, guys like us don't have a chance.'), but the majority are directed at people in general.

Oh, and just because my brain doesn't let me wander away from such things, I found an article (admittedly 5 years old, but the trend was still going up) about women in physics compared to men:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/science/22phys.html 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Noelle

...Why would we be concerned about fewer men going into the liberal arts?

For one, when you're in a perceived place of privilege (typically white males), nobody is going to be concerned with the fact that you're not going into the liberal arts because it's assumed that you don't need the encouragement. For instance, I'm pretty sure nobody is particularly worried about white people not taking specific kinds of jobs because it's assumed that white people already have access to those jobs and don't need encouragement, whereas people who are at a systematic disadvantage due to social misconceptions or otherwise often need to get a kind of push to reverse what is seen as inequalities that have made them avoid those places in the first place. If whatever inequalities existed in the past discouraged women from pursuing science and math-related fields to the point we're still seeing some kind of imbalance in the numbers, it's natural that we try and compensate by focusing our attention on women and rebuilding that connection.

Secondly, really? Liberal arts? Again, I have to stress that as a woman with an art and a French degree from a liberal arts college, I understand pretty well the importance of the liberal arts in our world and do not care to see them diminish anytime soon, but I am under no pretense that it is anywhere near as vital to life as we know it as science/math areas. I'd be more concerned about a shortage of doctors or researchers than I would English teachers and philosophy majors. :\

Jude

#39
That article is interesting.  It implies there's no institutional discrimination against women while also establishing that women probably just aren't very interested in physics for cultural reasons, and that's why they trend away from it.  It kind of makes me doubt the validity of claims that there is a real, substantial bias in academia itself against women in the hard sciences.  Sadly, I'm not sure that it really vindicates the idea that the sexes are equal in capacity however, as even in France only a quarter of women are in physics.  The disparity is probably not as big as people believe that it is, and it probably doesn't apply to the top percentile or create a ceiling effect.

As far as the liberal arts things goes, of course people don't care as much about that.  It's not as important.  Science and math are what really matter in today's world, not who can paint prettier pictures or write better poetry.  We'll make a computer in 50 years that can beat any human at that anyway.

Oniya

Oh - if you're interested in a woman to reference in a physics-based field:  Henrietta Leavitt.  She's responsible for discovering the period-luminosity relation of Cepheid variables, which led to our ability to measure interstellar and intergalactic distances.  Hubble claimed that she deserved the Nobel prize, but she had died of cancer before the Society nominated her.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sure

If you're going to establish that Liberal Arts degrees are inferior to Scientific degrees, then the argument becomes: Why is there less concern about declining numbers of men going to college at all? Of course, not everyone is willing to say that Liberal Arts degrees are inferior, but regardless you've failed to answer my question therein.

Men are falling behind both in grades and in the maximum level of educational attainment. To imply that is a privileged position is going to be hard, but I won't say impossible as you may try if you please. Further, men are underrepresented outside of certain specific fields (science and business, basically). The fact that there is a focus on the fact women are not in one field but not that men are not in another tells me either men are valued less, or the fields are valued less. You are asserting the later. However, I would again be most curious to see why the fact less men are going to college at all is not considered important or worth focusing on or compensating for.

Oniya, my point is not that no women were in the field, just that I see a pattern (looking over things superficially) of women not going into fields based on their relatedness to physics. Even the degree with the least amount of females by percentage is at 9%, so there are women there. And I'm certainly not implying women cannot do as well because I don't believe that.

Trieste

Quote from: Sure on April 24, 2011, 08:55:30 PM
If you're going to establish that Liberal Arts degrees are inferior to Scientific degrees, then the argument becomes: Why is there less concern about declining numbers of men going to college at all? Of course, not everyone is willing to say that Liberal Arts degrees are inferior, but regardless you've failed to answer my question therein.

Men are falling behind both in grades and in the maximum level of educational attainment. To imply that is a privileged position is going to be hard, but I won't say impossible as you may try if you please. Further, men are underrepresented outside of certain specific fields (science and business, basically). The fact that there is a focus on the fact women are not in one field but not that men are not in another tells me either men are valued less, or the fields are valued less. You are asserting the later. However, I would again be most curious to see why the fact less men are going to college at all is not considered important or worth focusing on or compensating for.

Oniya, my point is not that no women were in the field, just that I see a pattern (looking over things superficially) of women not going into fields based on their relatedness to physics. Even the degree with the least amount of females by percentage is at 9%, so there are women there. And I'm certainly not implying women cannot do as well because I don't believe that.

I'm not certain you followed the gist of Noelle's post, but it was not necessarily a value judgement on men so much as it was to point out that men have traditionally had more opportunity to enter professional fields. In fact, the only professional fields in which women have traditionally been predominant are nursing and maybe teaching. There are a growing number of male nurses and teachers, and since fields like law, medicine, and finance are traditionally male-dominated, there has indeed been a focus on putting more women in those professions.

As far as not attaining a college degree, there are many programs that are aimed at getting people in college, not just men or women. There are often separate resources for women and minority ethnicities, but this is a function of an organized civil rights movement on behalf of those due to historical minorities. White men have never needed to have their civil rights agitated for unless they belong to a minority group of some sort, and considering the preponderance of white men in, say, Congress, I would go so far as to say it is still not needed.

But I'm pretty sure you already knew all of this, so I'll be interested to see how you relate the nonexistent anti-white-male movement to the success and/or paucity of women in life sciences, math, and physics.

Oniya

Quote from: Sure on April 24, 2011, 08:55:30 PM
Oniya, my point is not that no women were in the field, just that I see a pattern (looking over things superficially) of women not going into fields based on their relatedness to physics. Even the degree with the least amount of females by percentage is at 9%, so there are women there. And I'm certainly not implying women cannot do as well because I don't believe that.

And I didn't read that you were implying that.  I was curious to see if I could find a name associated with something reasonably big after seeing the first part of the post.  (Yes, I sort of went bottom to top on things *grins*)

Quote from: Sure on April 24, 2011, 06:34:29 PM
You know, I have to say, while I have counter-examples to a statement 'Women just don't like/aren't any good at math'. If someone were to make a statement such as 'Women avoid physics' I can't really think of anyone.

Out of curiosity (and skipping around quite a bit) - what would you say are 'traditionally female fields'? 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

#44
I really don't care if the number of men in college continues to lag.  They have the money to attend and choose not to -- statistics show that -- so why should I give a damn?  I only care if minorities don't attend because if they are being systematically denied opportunities to do so.

And if women are being systematically denied the opportunity (or discouraged from) taking part in hard-science and mathematics careers, that is a concern of mine.

The two areas I know of where men are actually denied don't bother me, because women actually are better suited for those positions.  Nursing and teaching will forever be female dominated because women are better at nurturing; they just are.

Noelle

Quote from: Sure on April 24, 2011, 08:55:30 PM
If you're going to establish that Liberal Arts degrees are inferior to Scientific degrees, then the argument becomes: Why is there less concern about declining numbers of men going to college at all? Of course, not everyone is willing to say that Liberal Arts degrees are inferior, but regardless you've failed to answer my question therein.

We could talk about how society impresses upon us that everyone must go to college or else, the fact that college degrees are worth less despite the increasing cost, or that we're in the midst of a recession where racking up that much debt just doesn't seem worth it, but I'll address your concern in the next quote.

QuoteMen are falling behind both in grades and in the maximum level of educational attainment. To imply that is a privileged position is going to be hard, but I won't say impossible as you may try if you please. Further, men are underrepresented outside of certain specific fields (science and business, basically). The fact that there is a focus on the fact women are not in one field but not that men are not in another tells me either men are valued less, or the fields are valued less. You are asserting the later. However, I would again be most curious to see why the fact less men are going to college at all is not considered important or worth focusing on or compensating for.

Hardly difficult. The standard white male has been in a position of privilege for quite a long time in terms of ability to obtain careers as well as advance in them, not to mention rate of pay in comparison to women especially. It would be even harder, I would argue, to dispute any of these things in American history, but indeed, you may try if you please.

At any rate, Trieste summed it up well enough -- I wasn't insinuating that we shouldn't care about men, just that in the scope of people who have traditionally had a leg up on everyone else in history, the stats almost universally point at white males. The fact that they are seeing struggle now doesn't necessarily imply that society has shifted such that white men aren't favored in many instances and it conversely doesn't mean it's not worth our attention, but nobody's about to hit the panic button for white males anytime soon unless the shift is more dramatic.

I don't have the statistics on hand at this very moment, but if I recall, white males typically do better in terms of finding jobs even in spite of a lack of college experience. Remember that we are also living at a time when it seems that a college degree is viewed negatively and may not be worth going into debt for, especially with a struggling economy. When you're desperately trying to find a job and you see college graduates moving home with their parents, it kind of destroys the image that higher education will, in fact, set you free.

Sure

QuoteThey have the money to attend and choose not to -- statistics show that -- so why should I give a damn?

The same reason you give a damn women don't choose to go into scientific fields? Or at least that's the reason I give a damn (about both).

QuoteThe two areas I know of where men are actually denied don't bother me, because women actually are better suited for those positions.  Nursing and teaching will forever be female dominated because women are better at nurturing; they just are.

See, I consider this a sexist sentiment.

@ Oniya,
My words have been poorly chosen: I shouldn't have said 'anyone'. I can indeed think of female physicists. I should have said I can't think of general counter-examples, and I can't. As to traditionally female fields, I should have said 'female dominated' as that is more what I'm talking about. There aren't too many traditionally female fields but nowadays women do dominate certain parts of college curricula.

Anywho, currently about 60% of college degrees are awarded to women. They are overrepresented (more than 60%) in Humanities, Art/Music, Communications, Education, and Psychology. They are underrepresented (less than 40%) in Business and Management, Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and CSE. Fields in between are Life Sciences and Social Sciences (both have slight male majorities overall and a more complex breakdown if one wants to get into it). The least female degree is Computer Engineering with about 9% women, the most female degree is in education or health care (they switch off every few years) with about 75% women. However, the degrees which women are a majority in are also the more common degrees overall. Only about 15% of students nationwide are scientists or engineers (which covers almost all male dominated fields).

So I would say Humanities, Art/Music, Communications, Education, Healthcare, and Psychology, and increasingly college generally. Collectively these make up the majority of degrees awarded by a good amount.

@ Trieste,
You presume I'm talking about whites only for some reason. I really don't know why, unless it's because you're searching for a way to discredit my ideas and can't without setting up a strawman. Indeed, a lot of this seems to be setting up a strawman.

I'm afraid what you say about men entering female fields is incorrect. Women are entering into male fields much faster than men are entering into female fields. Partially because female fields are not as lucrative. But once again you are off topic. I am talking about college numbers. There has indeed been a decrease in the percentage of men going to college. I am sure you already knew this and am not sure why you brought up a point about something different?

There are many that deal with women specifically, as well, and women are not a historical minority. They have always been a majority. And to say it is not needed is a completely different topic. Once again, you are talking about something wholly unrelated to what I am talking about.

The reason it relates is because equality necessarily has to be for everyone. It's not equality if it doesn't deal with both sides of the equation. The idea that equality can be achieved by only dealing with women's rights, or that because you want to argue that men are not 'as oppressed' as women they are not oppressed at all, is again another topic but I feel such an idea is foolish. As foolish as Civil Rights activists who believed that Feminism was unrelated to their own goals, or that because Blacks had it worse women's complaints were unimportant. Are you honestly going to assert female choices in regards to education are unrelated to, or more important than, male choices?

And I do not believe there is a conscious anti-white male movement any more than I believe there is a conscious anti-female movement.

@ Noelle,

This is somewhat redundant, however, you are taking a slightly different view than Trieste. To summarize:
+Workplace inequality in no way decreases the importance of inequality in college attendance.
+I would argue dramatic shifts or facts are ignored, but regardless of that fact you would have to make the argument that in all instances white males are always more privileged than other races or genders. This is not true, and since it is not, they still have areas needing to be addressed. This is one of them. I'm not suggest we devote all national resources to the problem but we are current devoting basically none (to my knowledge).
+Really? The statistics I've seen say that women do better but those statistics refer specifically to engineering where there's a dearth of females (thus raising their value relatively). I did see something as part of a campaign to get women to go to college saying payment and employment rates approached parity if both genders had degrees, but that didn't account for race.
+I would argue a college degree is important despite the current economic downturn.
+The percentage of women going to college is going up, not down, so if there is an effect related to taking on debt and seeing college students going home instead of getting jobs it appears to only affect men. Finding out why that is would be worthwhile, I think.

If you'd like to discuss general privilege, that would be another topic. Here, however, we're talking about college attendance and discrepancies.

Trieste

Quote from: Sure on April 24, 2011, 10:13:56 PM
@ Trieste,
You presume I'm talking about whites only for some reason. I really don't know why, unless it's because you're searching for a way to discredit my ideas and can't without setting up a strawman. Indeed, a lot of this seems to be setting up a strawman.

It's not a straw man. Generally, if someone is not male, they are either white or part of a minority group. Minority groups have their own support and infrastructure, like I pointed out.

The rest of what you have to say builds on your misconception, so isn't really in need of comment.

Oniya

Quote from: Sure on April 24, 2011, 10:13:56 PM
Anywho, currently about 60% of college degrees are awarded to women. They are overrepresented (more than 60%) in Humanities, Art/Music, Communications, Education, and Psychology. They are underrepresented (less than 40%) in Business and Management, Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and CSE. Fields in between are Life Sciences and Social Sciences (both have slight male majorities overall and a more complex breakdown if one wants to get into it). The least female degree is Computer Engineering with about 9% women, the most female degree is in education or health care (they switch off every few years) with about 75% women. However, the degrees which women are a majority in are also the more common degrees overall. Only about 15% of students nationwide are scientists or engineers (which covers almost all male dominated fields).

So I would say Humanities, Art/Music, Communications, Education, Healthcare, and Psychology, and increasingly college generally. Collectively these make up the majority of degrees awarded by a good amount.

*nods*  I was just curious, as I said.  Looking at the division, it seems that there's a quantitative vs. qualitative split, as far as where the focus of those degrees are concerned.  Even in the more scientific branches listed (Healthcare and Psychology), the professional is dealing mostly with interpreting symptoms in a patient instead of collecting data in a repeatable, closed system.  Business and Management is a bit of an exception, and might have a bit to do with old stereotypes creeping in as well.  I might have to go see what kind of female CEOs I can find out there, just for my own edification.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sure

Quote from: Trieste on April 24, 2011, 10:20:50 PM
It's not a straw man. Generally, if someone is not male, they are either white or part of a minority group. Minority groups have their own support and infrastructure, like I pointed out.

The rest of what you have to say builds on your misconception, so isn't really in need of comment.

Very well, how have you not mischaracterized my arguments? Please show me where I suggested there is an anti-white male movement, as one of the more egregious mischaracterizations I believe has occurred.

I do not see the relation of minority support infrastructure to my point: the fact that men appear to be going to college less than women and to be going into certain fields less than women and that this, too, ought to be corrected.

Further, I would be most interested in hearing what this 'misconception' of mine is. You failed to actually name it in your post. The only thing I could think of is if I'm misunderstanding your and Noelle's arguments? Unless you agree with me and I'm not seeing it, I simply don't see how my (or any) 'misconception' makes my post unworthy of comment.

Quote*nods*  I was just curious, as I said.  Looking at the division, it seems that there's a quantitative vs. qualitative split, as far as where the focus of those degrees are concerned.  Even in the more scientific branches listed (Healthcare and Psychology), the professional is dealing mostly with interpreting symptoms in a patient instead of collecting data in a repeatable, closed system.  Business and Management is a bit of an exception, and might have a bit to do with old stereotypes creeping in as well.  I might have to go see what kind of female CEOs I can find out there, just for my own edification.

You might be interested to know that Business and Management approaches 40% (I think it's 37% or 38% or so?) female so it's the most female of the bunch.

That would be interesting, though. I've always been curious about how people get into high ranking positions, what the journey was so to speak, and I'm sure that the commonalities would help determine why, say, there are so few female CEOs or Asian Congressmen (when Asians have a higher education and earning average).

Trieste

Quote from: Sure on April 24, 2011, 11:10:02 PM
Very well, how have you not mischaracterized my arguments? Please show me where I suggested there is an anti-white male movement, as one of the more egregious mischaracterizations I believe has occurred.

I do not see the relation of minority support infrastructure to my point: the fact that men appear to be going to college less than women and to be going into certain fields less than women and that this, too, ought to be corrected.

Further, I would be most interested in hearing what this 'misconception' of mine is. You failed to actually name it in your post. The only thing I could think of is if I'm misunderstanding your and Noelle's arguments? Unless you agree with me and I'm not seeing it, I simply don't see how my (or any) 'misconception' makes my post unworthy of comment.

I didn't say there is an anti white male movement; you're the only one who has mentioned it. The misconception I was referring to was your misinterpretation of my comments as a straw man.

Clearly people should be given the opportunity to go to college and further their education if they want to. I said that before. And the original article is about the success of the women as correlated with the gender of their instructor. There is very little said about men, except in passing as part of the statistics.

I'd ask to see where you're getting your statistics, but the quality of your last couple citations has been poor and I don't really feel like sifting through any more of them.

I feel that you're trying to make this topic about the poor, downtrodden white man who has been marginalized by anti-sexism and some sort of white discrimination. Quite frankly, this is crap. While women have not necessarily been in the minority population-wise, women's civil rights have long been far behind those of men.

No amount of squawking about how unfair it is to give everyone else a leg up will change that.

I'm very sorry, but either stick to the actual topic - which is centered on the correlation between the success of women in higher education and the gender of their instructors - or go make your own thread about which to talk about the abuse and disadvantages of the one demographic that consistently has had the most advantages in Western culture for thousands of years. You can even feel free to quote this post in the OP of your new topic.

Thank you.

Sure

If you wish to take every post from this post to the current one and split it into a separate thread, then, I suppose that would fulfill your request this thread remain solely focused on women without stifling my comments?

Regardless, it is my belief that any discussion of women necessitated a discussion of men, since gender relations necessitate both genders. As you disagree with this idea, apparently, and it is your thread, I'll stop and try to limit myself to what I see as less than half the issue (less because of non-male/female persons).

Back on the topic of just women, then, coming to think of it the majority of people (men and women) go into liberal arts. So perhaps something about it is more attractive in general? If so, then that might explain why more women choose it, particularly if the thing that draws them is more overt or what draws men to science is less overt. I couldn't think of what it is, though.

Oniya

I think (judging from my collegiate experience) that the Liberal Arts Major is more a function of an indecision than being drawn to it.  'What do you want to major in?'  'I dunno... I'll just take classes that interest me and go from there.'
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste

Quote from: Oniya on April 25, 2011, 01:06:53 AM
I think (judging from my collegiate experience) that the Liberal Arts Major is more a function of an indecision than being drawn to it.  'What do you want to major in?'  'I dunno... I'll just take classes that interest me and go from there.'

That's my impression at my current university, although it seemed like in high school everyone wanted to be a psych major in college. ... I don't know why.

Remiel

Jude, I find the following statement to be sexist and indeed I take offense to it:

Quote from: Jude on April 24, 2011, 09:43:55 PMThe two areas I know of where men are actually denied don't bother me, because women actually are better suited for those positions.  Nursing and teaching will forever be female dominated because women are better at nurturing; they just are.

I don't have any research handy to refute that assertion, but instead, I present you with a logical corollary.  That's the equivalent of saying, "science and technology will forever be male dominated professions because men are better at instinctively understanding complex mathematical concepts and spatial relationships."   Either you must accept both statements, or reject them both.  If you decide that women have an advantage at certain professions as a function of their gender, then you must accept that the reverse exists.

I choose to reject both statements.  While it is possible that certain societal expectations and norms have led to a preponderance of women in the nursing and teaching fields, I see no reason why a man can't be just as good at either as a woman.  There are male gynecologists, for example, and they are just as qualified as female ones.

Now that said, I find this portion of the original article to be the most intriguing:

QuoteThey measured, for instance, how often each student responded to questions posed by professors to the classroom as a whole. At the start of the semester, 11 percent of the female students attempted to answer questions posed to the entire class when the professor was male, and 7 percent of the female students attempted to answer questions posed to the entire class when the professor was female. By the end of the semester, the number of female students who attempted to answer questions posed by a male professor had not changed significantly: Only 7 percent of the women tried to answer such questions. But when classes were taught by a woman, the percentage of female students who attempted to answer questions by the semester's end rose to 46.

The researchers also measured how often students approached professors for help after class. Around 12 percent of the female students approached both male and female professors for help at the start of the semester. The number of female students approaching female professors was 14 percent at the end of the semester. But the number of female students asking for help from a male professor dropped to zero.
(emphasis mine)

This is a markedly interesting observation, but the article never explains or even speculates why this is so.    Why should it make such a significant difference whether the class was taught by a man or a woman?  Is it due to an inherent, perhaps unconscious bias and preference of male professors toward male students?  Or is it rather due to a factor internal to the group of the female students themselves?  Could they have had more difficulties understanding and communicating with a male teacher than they could understanding and communicating with a female one? And if that is the case, does it imply the converse--do male students have more trouble understanding and communicating with a female instructor than they do understanding and communicating with a male one?

Jude

#55
Reality is sexist.  Men will forever be favored for physical labor, and women will probably forever be favored for anything that involves patient/child care.  The sexes have natural strengths and weaknesses, and you can't just pretend them away by ignoring that men and women are not the same.  What's important is that we have a reality-based view, not a "the sexes are equal in all facets" delusion.  The only reason I'm not willing to say that men will forever dominate math and science is because I don't think that trend is well established as non-cultural one, but biological.  If it was well established as an unchanging part of human nature, I'd make a similar claim.

So yeah, if saying women make better nurses and teachers makes me a sexist, then I'm a sexist.  That label doesn't bother me.  I'm only bothered when my views deviate from reality.  Show me that they're unrealistic, and I'll change, call me a sexist, and I'll shrug.  The only responsibility I have to be as truthful as I can.

If you want to debate whether or not women are especially suited for careers in teaching and nursing, we can do that on another thread.  If I'm factually wrong, I have no trouble adjusting my views to better represent reality.

Oniya

I think it's unfair to men to assume that they can't be nurturing.  But that's just me.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Noelle

I don't see where he claimed that men couldn't be nurturing or that women couldn't do things like hard physical labor.

Honestly, even if we encouraged women to go out and become construction workers and ran a campaign for a few decades to get more of them to try, I'm sure numbers would go up for women in construction-type jobs, but I doubt they'd ever be equal -- there are exceptional women who break from the mold and are capable of doing outstanding work in unusual fields, but that's why they're called exceptional and not the rule. It doesn't mean we should discourage anyone, men and women alike, from pursuing career fields they're passionate about just because it's non-traditional, it just means they may have a different path than some to get there.

The nice thing about being human is that unlike most animals, we are not relegated to instinctual or seemingly 'natural' roles, and history proves this. Women have broken from being housewives and baby factories to being breadwinners and leaders (take, for instance, Hilary Clinton). Humans have the ability to transcend societal mores and defy what's expected of them. That does not mean, however, that they are going to be universally successful. I would argue that men probably have an easier time becoming nurses than women do with becoming a construction worker. Again, that doesn't mean (and I don't think anyone here is arguing) that people should be discouraged from pursuing roles that fall outside of the box. That's kind of the whole purpose of this thread.

Jude

As long as you have the aptitude you should be allowed, and encouraged, to do whatever you wish.  That includes women in physics and men in nursing.  When I say that nursing will probably forever be a female dominated profession because women are better at being nurturing, I'm saying that women have more natural aptitude for on average because it better fits their biological predispositions.  That may not be true, it could be that the perceived difference in nurturing between women and men is purely cultural; I'm certainly open to that possibility -- I just doubt it's very factual for a whole slew of reasons I'd rather debate in another thread if people really want to discuss that.