Women still lag in math and science
By Pragya Kakani
Improving the quality of education in mathematics and science has become a serious concern for the United States over the past several decades. A recent study by the Program from International Student Assessment (PISA) ranked America 21st in science and 24th in mathematics in the world. Moreover, as Stanford University researcher Erik Hanushek notes, “An increase of 25 points (five percent) on the PISA would boost the US GDP by $41 trillion over 20 years.” As such, experts have offered a plethora of school reforms, ranging from vouchers to magnet schools.
While the United States is constantly looking for ways to improve education across the board, however, less attention has been given to the significant gender disparities in math and science. These divergences if diminished would virtually eliminate the United States’ overall educational gap. Today, fewer than one-third of all doctoral degrees granted in math, physics, chemistry, engineering, or computer science are granted to women, and less than 10 percent of math-intensive research positions are held by women. Only 16 women have received Nobel Prizes in the natural sciences, and a woman has yet to receive a Fields Medal, colloquially known as the “Nobel Prize in Mathematics.”
The disparity between men and women in mathematics and science, however, is a multi-dimensional problem with few easy solutions. Because there are few physical barriers to entry for women into these fields, it is harder to target the causes of the problem. It is more likely that women are being deterred from the natural sciences and mathematics as a result of social and psychological factors rather than over discrimination. To increase the proportion of women in scientific fields, then, both academia and society would be well-served by adjustments in education as well as reconsiderations of social norms.
The Natural Factor?
Ever since Lawrence Summers suggested that women may lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of math and science, the issue of natural differences in scientific ability between men and women has received an increased amount of attention. Dr. Nora Newcombe, the chair of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychology’s Role in Math and Science Education, told the HPR, “Cognitive abilities [between men and women] don’t differ in many of the ways people think they do. There are a few differences though, especially in mental rotation.”
Indeed, though women and men score differently on tests, a sizeable percentage of the difference can be explained by societal causes such as young boys being more likely to play with blocks than young girls. Newcombe notes, “We can train and nurture spatialization. Studies show women who are trained can perform as well as their male counterparts.” Ultimately, a difference in ability between women and men is far from fully explicative.
Choosing the Career
In addition to natural ability, women in the sciences may prove more affected by their own preferences about their careers. Several studies, including a one performed at Vanderbilt by Camillia Benbow and David Lubinksi have suggested that, even when controlling for natural mathematical ability, men are more likely to prefer working with inorganic materials while women prefer working within the life sciences. Though it remains unclear whether these differences are social constructions or more fundamental, Joshua Rosenbloom, researcher at the University of Kansas notes that “these stereotypes do have a germ of truth.”
However, even women who do have a personal interest in math and science are often deterred from these fields later in their career. There is significant disparity in the percentage of science undergraduate degrees offered to women as opposed to graduate degrees and career positions. Newcombe explains, “The sciences are extremely demanding in bench time, and it’s easy to fall by the way side if one is trying to manage a family.” The desire that some women have to balance work and family life has led some women to other, more flexible, careers within the sciences. For example, the number of men and women training in medicine has equalized over the past several decades. According to Newcombe, “once the training period is complete, medicine is more amenable to part time schedules.”
Finally, worries about inherent prejudice against women in a male dominated field cannot be ignored. Inherent biases may be potent in the opportunities they afford women and in their psychological effect. Many studies have confirmed that women, affected by the stereotypes against them, will perform worse on exams if forced to take them with males than with women. Furthermore, informal networking through socializing with colleagues becomes more difficult for women in environments dominated by men. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to blame these factors as the sole cause of female underrepresentation. Newcombe notes, “The problem of hostility in the workplace was more prevalent a few decades ago and has since waned in importance.”
Reversing the Trend
While more women are choosing to careers in science and technology, there is still a significant gender gap that must be addressed. In addressing the differences between men and women in the sciences, one must consider the variety of social, psychological, and political variables involved. Moreover, correcting for these differences requires a diversified approach. It is important to implement educational practices that perhaps target disparities between men and women. According to the National Center for Education Research, these may include “teaching students that academic abilities are expendable and improvable,” to prevent girls from being discouraged from math and science. This may also include “exposing girls to female role models” in math and science to begin invalidating stereotypes. These forms of encouragement can be coupled with classes focusing on specifically improving students’ spatial abilities. In several studies, these practices have been shown to have impacts on girls’ performance on math and science assessments.
Addressing the gap in women’s achievement in the sciences would require institutional changes extending beyond education and into the professional realm. Professional institutions can help women overcome the work-family balance by implementing flexible career policies that ensure parents are not at a disadvantage should they decide to take time off for children. This would make it easier for women to pursue tenure tracks at universities and continue advancing in their careers. There may also be a role for the government in providing grants specified for women pursuing the natural sciences. Programs such as the ADVANCE grant from the NSF have already been working to support the endeavors women in math and science by offering universities over $135 million in funding to increase opportunities for women and promote equitable policies. While the trend of fewer women in the sciences won’t be reversed overnight, neither is the struggle a lost cause.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.