Are Girls and Women Just Not Interested?
From early adolescence, fewer girls than boys express interest in pursuing science or engineering. In a 2009 poll of young people ages 8-17, 24 percent of boys but only 5 percent of girls said they were interested in an engineering career.
Even girls and women who excel in mathematics often do not pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. In studies of high achievers in mathematics, for example, women are more likely to pursue degrees in the humanities, life sciences, and social sciences than in math, computer science, engineering, or the physical sciences. The reverse is true for men.
Interest in an occupation is influenced by many factors, including a belief in one's ability to succeed in that occupation, culturally prescribed gender roles, and values.
Gender differences in confidence in STEM subjects begin in middle school, when girls report less self-confidence than boys do in their math and science ability. Likewise, children - and girls especially - develop beliefs that they cannot pursue particular occupations because they perceive them as inappropriate for their gender. And well-documented gender differences exist in the value that women and men place on doing work that contributes to society, with women more likely than men to prefer work with a clear social purpose. Since most people do not view STEM occupations as directly benefiting society or individuals, STEM careers often do not appeal to women (or men) who place a high value on making a social contribution.
Certain STEM disciplines with a clearer social purpose, such as biology, biomedical engineering, and environmental engineering, have succeeded in attracting higher percentages of women than other fields like physics or mechanical engineering. And projects emphasizing the socially beneficial aspects of engineering like www.engineeryourlife.org have been shown to increase high school girls' interest in pursuing engineering as a career.
What do you think affects girls' and women's interest in STEM fields?
Great post! I knew kids' interest in science was decreasing, but I never thought about it when you compare one gender to another. This finding shocks me because most people generally believe the stereotype that girls do better than boys in school and there is a much larger female workforce than back in the day (regardless of their lower wage than men). Yet, it looks like the numbers say it all. I really like some of the above hypotheses on child development. When I was younger, I did play with dolls and toys that expanded my imagination and urge creativity. But what probably attracted me to science was the explanation of it all, and esp. what related directly to me. I think girls will enter STEM careers if they are influenced/inspired early in life, before the more relatable subjects like history and english steer their course towards the humanities.
Thanks for sharing those interesting links, Alan. Reading the methodology on payscale.com, I noticed that they only include graduates who stopped their formal education after earning a bachelor's degree - they don't include anyone who went on for a graduate or professional degree. Because of this, it's not that surprising that the 3 schools with the greatest ROI are engineering schools since BS degrees in engineering command higher salaries than bachelor's degrees in other fields. But this information (at
http://www.payscale.com/education/average-cost-for-college-ROI ) is very interesting. If you have a minute, check it out.
Christi
And here is a solution, from SciAm.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=welcome-to-bring-science-home-2011-05-02
I saw an interesting ROI on education.
The top 3 schools were:
CalTech
Harvey Mudd and
MIT
All 3 are considered "engineering" schools.
http://www.payscale.com/education/average-cost-for-college-ROI
I know Harvey Mudd is nearly 50/50 on graduating males/females. So what are they doing right? I suspect that CalTech and MIT have the same results.
One of my co-workers pointed out that as bad as colleges may be, certification programs are even worse. A Cisco Certified Network Associate certificate is worth roughly $50 to $70k per year and most of the schools that offer the training have yet to figure out how to get women into their schools.
If the for profits, can't figure it out it does seem difficult.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Certification=Cisco_Certified_Network_Associate_(CCNA)/Salary
We use Global Knowledge and ITT to keep updated on a lot of Cisco products as well as other computer systems. Our sales person verified that they cannot get women to even try a course. When Ford closed its plant here not one woman took advantage of the Cisco program.
I love your last paragraph, Marian. I think making clear the societal benefits of science and engineering will go a long way toward attracting more girls.
And DrMobs, as the mother of 2 young kids, I know you're exactly right about how gendered toys still are today. And kids pick up what is appropriate for them and what isn't without ever being directly told. For example, when my son was just 2 and a half, he saw a Hello Kitty backpack at a store and, to the surprise of both my husband and myself, he said "That's for girls". As many of you who have raised children undoubtedly know, even though parents may take pains to avoid presenting certain toys or clothes or colors or careers as appropriate only for girls or boys, kids pick this stuff up very readily from the larger culture.
Christi
There is a big environmental learning component that drives the genders into faculties requiring quite separate skill sets.
Boys are far more likely to be given train and/or mechano sets that necessitate them developing advanced spacial and mensuration skills. They thus become more familiar with maths and engineering principles at an early age. Girls, on the other hand, are more likely to receive toys revolving around domestic skills and appearance, opening the way to creativity and skills involving the senses.
Open any toy catalogue and you will find this is still the case. At least now both genders are equally as likely to use advanced technology.
In my (albeit limited) observations, girls are more interested in the product (and its relationship to the world around them) than the process. This may, in part, explain the draw of biological or environmental sciences, where the results of their work are clear, where there is an obvious social benefit. The draw to, say, particle physics, where the goal is understanding "something cool" just doesn't seem to be there for girls.
As an example, when first exposed to computers in the 70's, I rushed to solve all the problems I had not been able to solve with my high-school mathematics skills. Once I had solved those problems, the computer became just a tool. In contrast, my male friends loved spending hours just playing with the computer, making things faster, noisier, etc.
I think the same is true in computer games: girls are drawn to those where they can build things, create new worlds, solve problems, etc., whereas boys (in general) like those activities where they can blow things up, defeat monsters, and draw high scores. There does seem to be a gender mindset. How many of us have observed small boys hit something with a stick for hours, and girls having long conversations with toys?
The question is, how to convince the girls that there is benefit for their world if they pursue STEM fields. When I work with girls, for example, I carefully edit out all references to engineering being used for military purposes. Boys find it cool, but for girls it seems a complete turnoff. Maybe more science books can be written with girls in mind?
