Women In Science: Why So Few? (VIDEO)

Hi everyone. I'm Cara Santa Maria. And I'm standing here today because I chose to pursue a career in a STEM field. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. And unfortunately, there aren't enough of us out there--women, I mean. Women make up just about half of the American workforce, but we hold less than a quarter of the STEM jobs.

In fact, a recent survey revealed some surprising findings about girls' attitudes toward STEM careers. Thirty percent of teen girls say that math is their most challenging subject, while only nineteen percent of boys say the same thing. You know, I remember walking through a shopping mall a couple of years ago and seeing a girl wearing a tank top that said "I'm too pretty to do math." After my horror subsided, I thought to myself, is this normal? Why is she okay wearing that?

Well, one thing we've noticed throughout the years is that girls consistently say that they just aren't that interested in pursuing a math, science, technology, or engineering career. But why? Is there something intrinsically male about STEM subjects? Are girls wired to be less interested in them? Here's what we do know: males have been shown to outscore females on tasks measuring spatial skills, such as mental rotation, while females generally perform higher on verbal tasks. But even if this difference has a strong biological component, evidence suggests that these discrepancies can be overcome in a short period of time with simple training. And the truth is, what appears to have the greatest impact on girls' attitudes are sociocultural factors like stereotype threat.

You see, when people are afraid they're being stereotyped, they can feel those eyes on them. They're extra sensitive, which translates into a fear that they may slip up and confirm that very stereotype. In one of the first experiments about stereotype threat, two groups of boys and girls with equivalent math abilities and interests were given a graduate-level aptitude test in mathematics. In the first group, before taking the test, they were told that there was no gender difference in past participants' scores. When the exams were graded, they were seen to perform similarly. But in the second group, the students were told ahead of time that men performed better on the test than women. The results were staggering. On average, boys scored in the 86th percentile, while females' scores hovered around a mere sixteen percent. Since then, this phenomenon has been demonstrated by more than 300 different experiments.

We are faced with a chicken-and-egg situation: girls have less confidence than boys in their ability to succeed in STEM subjects, so they're less likely to try to succeed. In fact, boys and girls show similar aptitudes and interests in science in elementary school, and then suddenly, at puberty, the gender gap dramatically widens. All girls in STEM fields, even today, can speak to the fact that there are subtle signs of discrimination around every corner. In fact, studies show that both men and women hold implicit biases, or attitudes that they are unaware they even have, regarding gender roles in education and the workforce.

So how do we effect change? First, let's bring these biases into the consciousness of the public at large. You have them. I have them, but we don't want to. And one of the best ways to educate young women is to give them somebody to look up to. We need to see more female role models in science, technology, engineering, and math. And we must must remind young girls that it is cool to be smart!

And just look at what some of our most inspirational female scientists have accomplished. Marie Curie discovered radioactivity, without which, we wouldn't have lifesaving x-ray technology. And Jane Goodall's research has raised global awareness of the plight of great apes. Just last year, in the first ever Google science fair, of the 7 thousand, 500 entries from 91 different countries around the world, the top three winners were girls. I hope the next time I'm at the mall, that girl's t-shirt will read "I'm pretty, and I rule at math."

What do you think? Drop me a line on Twitter, Facebook, or leave your comments right here on The Huffington Post. Come on, talk nerdy to me!

See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts: www.huffingtonpost.com/news/talk-nerdy-to-me
Like Cara Santa Maria on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Cara-Santa-Maria
Follow Cara Santa Maria on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CaraSantaMaria

Further Reading:
U.S. Department of Commerce
ScrippsNews
Smithsonian.com
NewScientist
Science
Progress
Live Science

Comments

[chemENG]

01:30 PM on 03/19/2012

I switched from art/fashion design to become a chemical engineer. I believe being a minority woman is of great benefit to me. And even more so being an attractive woman. We need women role models that are NOT Snooki, real housewives, actresses, etc. We need smart woman role models to be promoting science education and women with brains. I think the best way to reach the young is through TV. Unfortunately, we need a some people in HOllywood to help make a hit reality TV series focusing on smart woman. Maybe " Boobs and Brains"...you gotta put a little crap in there to make it interesting for an american audience. I would gladly participate :)

[Meredith Bayer Barbieri]

08:35 AM on 02/24/2012

One of the problems is that students must put more time into learning science and math than the humanities. They confuse "a lot of work" with "too hard". I was a Biology and Chemistry major and the time investment was huge compared to the few papers I'd right each semester for my humanities courses. Quite frankly, those classes were easy A's while my math and science classes required hours of practice problems, concept maps, and note cards. I'm not saying young ladies are lazy, but there are a lot of distractions when you are a college freshman. I went to a woman's college, so maybe things would have been different had I studied at a co-ed institution. You have to WANT to learn science. I wanted to learn it because I found it fascinating. We need to show kids that it is fascinating before they leave high school. I teach Biology at a university and too often I have to sign withdrawl slips because the freshman level class is "too hard". Perhaps it's the parents. Maybe they don't encourage girls to push through adversity. I'm doing the best I can.

[Meredith Bayer Barbieri]

08:37 AM on 02/24/2012

I see I spelled "write" as "right". Don't judge. It's early.

[Elizb1]

01:49 PM on 02/24/2012

Meredith, I would have to highly disagree with you. I am a student of the Humanities; Anthropology to be exact. I am constantly studying, there are not simply a few research papers to be written, but articles to be read, analyzed and questioned, scientific observation, laboratory studies, anatomical memorization, statistical analysis, etc. We also have theories and formulas to understand, memorize, and apply in new and innovative manners. Simply because we are studying humans does not mean that we do not go through rigorous scientific training as well. Anthropologists have pioneered many of the studies done on sex, gender, and cultural disease patterns that affect modern policy, norms, and safety precautions. So would not you hope that students of the humanities have been treated with as much stringency as students of biology or chemistry? I do not mean to come off in an attacking manner, I simply wish for you to understand that the humanities are also sciences that require just as much dedication and comprehension as your field of study.
Best, Elizabeth

[mariange111]

10:06 PM on 02/23/2012

So I'm a woman in technology (20+ software development). I've always loved math and science, but it took a LOT of effort in high school to both keep up with schoolwork AND still be a girly-girll - hair, makeup, clothing, social chit-chat - that stuff doesn't just drop into your lap. You have to learn and practice with it, and I am SO glad that I took it seriously and didn't become one of those dowdy-plain-jane types. That's one of the things that really scares girls off science - being labeled a spinster nerd. Guys still want Victoria Secret models as spouses - if they're smart, great, but that part is more optional in a mate, it seems.

[Cheryl Mason]

02:18 PM on 02/21/2012

I went to a university to study Civil Engineer in the fall of 1978.
There were very few women in the program.
It took me 5 years, but I graduated with a BSCE in
November 1983.
In my Senior Civil Engineering classes I was the only
women in the whole class.
BSCE greduate,
Cheryl Schellenberger Mason

You don't have to be a man to
graduate as a Civil Engineer

[Rebecca Guenard]

03:59 PM on 02/10/2012

A recent paper published in the Review of General Psychology written by Dr. David Geary and Dr. Gijsbert Stoet questions the Stereotype Treat Theory. They reviewed the original and subsequent studies and found there were flaws in methods and statistics.

I put in my two cents on the matter at my blog. http://atomic-o-licious.com/post/16530592590/i-dont-believe-the-stereotype-threat-theory-either

I agree with VirginiaDreaming, there are a wide variety of male and female minds and generalized, oversimplified theories that say "things are this way because..." run the risk of wasting time and money by getting developed in to educational policies that do no one any good.

Being smart is actually quite trendy among little girls right now. There is a whole series of nerdy girl t-shirts that are similar to the hypothetical one you describe and one of the most popular accessories are glasses.

[VirginiaDreaming]

11:34 AM on 02/10/2012

When you start to compare men and women you have to step back and ask, are all men the same, are all women the same? The answer is a resounding no. So you are trying to compare two groups that are incredibly diverse. In fact the differences within each gender are significantly larger than the differences between the averages of each gender. In fact research shows that aptitudes and thinking styles actually correlate much better with the ratio of testosterone/estrogen in the blood of a person than to their actual gender. (This research was summarized in Scientific American).
The second question is, are these "male" aptitudes better, or are these "female" aptitudes better? The answer is neither because in general these aptitudes are complimentary. For example, in math females tend to more adept with computations and plane geometry, while males tend to be more adept with dealing with variables and applying mathematics to 3-D geometry. Since our tasks are rarely simple, this suggests to me that neither gender is ever superior at a complex task, but that teams including both males and females are far superior.
A final comment - as a high school chemistry and biology teacher I started putting this idea in practice by creating study teams that included students with both types of aptitudes. My students scores on their final exams jumped the year I started this practice and stayed high every year after that. Certainly not proof, but suggestive.

[CagefreeScience]

09:44 AM on 02/10/2012

The gender gap in STEM disciplines is definitely a large one, but when it comes to business, especially in the higher management positions, this gap skyrockets. Probably the reasons for that are exactly the same in both cases, but stereotypical thinking seems to affect women in business even more. Do we have any ideas how to improve this? Definitely, only complex solutions including activity in different life areas and different public domains, from changes in education through social campaigns to policy solutions are necessary. And many of them are happening, however they don't seem to be widespread enough.

Speaking of role models, more and more amazing young women make career in sciences and we should promote their appearance in broadcast media. Here's an example of one of a talented female scientists: http://www.scoop.it/t/women-in-stem-women-in-numbers/p/1164329945/interview-with-daniela-witten

[Dutch001]

08:55 AM on 02/10/2012

However you choose to pretty it up or rationalize it, science and math anxiety is narcissism. People who say "my feelings are more important than learning something important" are basically narcissists. And unfortunately, women are too often encouraged to fixate on feelings.

One of the most useful things society could do, if we can figure out how, is to train children to say "F### my peers."

And sorry nhfarmer, every human is NOT a scientist. That's like saying every child who sticks random objects in his mouth is a gourmet. Real science is disciplined and informed. The real tragedy is not that people outgrow their childlike curiosity, but that they don't. That's why we have entertainment geared for short attention spans and ten second sound bites for news. That's why somebody can watch a video of 9-11 with no knowledge of engineering and say confidently that it was a controlled demolition.

I will tell you one thing about my own education. I was "lucky" enough to be in what was then called "New Math" as a high school freshman. I thought it was boring and pointless. I moved to a different high school and took the same class as ordinary algebra, enjoyed it thoroughly, and blew it away, as I did the rest of my math courses. In college I did fine in calculus but thought, and still think, the formalisms were utterly useless. Just tell me an integral is the area under a curve, okay?

[VirginiaDreaming]

12:21 PM on 02/10/2012

Sorry Dutch, but fear of math or any other subject is a rational fear of failure (and failure's potential negative consequences) that has just gone too far. It is similar to stage fright, just more diffuse. For example, I have a doctorate in neurosciences, yet failed both spanish and french in college, mostly because of my fear of languages.
And real science is more complex and creative than you seem to believe. The child-like curiosity is what starts the whole process, creativity is what allows us to conceive of instruments and experiments, and discipline (or the desire to be right) is what allows us to continue working. My last post-doc was with a professor that seemed to think like you - she focused on her career and discipline, but rarely generated or even responded to original ideas. Not surprisingly she did not get tenure.
You also have to realize that not everyone thinks like you do. I am not saying that you are wrong, just that each way of thinking has a purpose and the mixture of styles produces much more than one style by itself.

[Dutch001]

08:16 PM on 02/11/2012

"A rational fear of failure (and failure's potential negative consequenc­es) that has just gone too far" is no longer rational. "Ego protection," a favorite edu-speak buzzword, is code for narcissism.

And I've been a scientist (and tenured) for a long time. "Childlike" curiosity is shallow and superficial. What strikes so many adults as "original" or "creative" about children is mostly hyper-literal thinking that not even the dullest adult would engage in. The child who wonders why mommy ate the new baby is a perfect illustration. "Aww, isn't that cute," we say, but we'd hardly say that about an adult.

The fundamental fallacy here is to judge children on a scale appropriate to their age, but then try to apply the results to a direct comparison to adults. If you want to compare the intellectual abilities of children and adults, it has to be on a common scale. That would be like comparing children to adults on a running track or basketball court. We wouldn't compare 100-meter times of first graders and adults, because that would be ridiculous, but somehow people think it makes sense to compare children to adults intellectually.

We've been tweaking the system for decades, trying to make learning more engaging and interesting. Considering the resources we've thrown at it, if this approach worked, we should be seeing dramatic improvements by now. The latest hype is "student centered learning." We don't need student-centered learning. We need learning-centered students.

[nhfarmer]

07:55 AM on 02/09/2012

Every human is a scientist. Science teaching needs to start very early. I volunteer-taught Hands-on-Science for five years, all in the First Grade, while my daughters attended First Grade and for a few years before and after they were in the First Grade. My goal was to have each of about one hundred First Grade students take something home each week that they had constructed with their minds and hands, and that exhibited a scientific principle. My now grown-up daughters tell me that their friends, many women included, thank First Grade Hands-on-Science for nurturing their motivation to become researchers, doctors, PhDs, etc.

We must teach students at a very early age that the Arts contain Science and Science contains Arts. Human learning should not be reduced to an either-or proposition.

I wonder if the debate about so-called innate mathematical ability covers the possibility that an enjoyable yet obscure stimulus at an early age begins a self-programming of mathematical algorithms in the human brain. When I was in the eighth grade, I was in the ordinary math class while some of my friends were in the advanced math class called "algebra". One day my friend showed me his algebra homework, and said it was very difficult. I solved the algebra problems immediately in my head. I cannot really explain this other than to say that, from a very early age, I remember being fascinated with the relationships between numbers on license plates.

[Operafaust]

07:40 AM on 02/09/2012

Why are there relatively fewer women in STEM occupations? Yes, ther are social and cultural factors involved (stereotyping, et cetera) but I think a big part of if is that men and women are simply not interested in the same things. We take this for granted in other spheres of human endeavor (preferred forms of entertainment, for example) but suddenly become blind to the obvious when it comes to career choices. Of course there are exceptions- the female theoretical physicist, math professor, or engineer. But by and large, women tend to me more drawn to fields of study that have a more easily identifiable human, emotional or social component, whereas men are more likely to be fascinated by things that are almost entirely abstract and far removed from day-to-day life. A man is more likely to by stimulated by running vector autoregression models on obscure variables, whereas a woman of equal quantitative aptitude may nonetheless find the study of clinical psychology more personally fulfilling. She can crunch numbers with the best of them, probably, but simply doesn't want to.

[evildoer]

03:24 PM on 02/17/2012

There are strong cultural biases against women in STEM. I a mid-Baby Boomer woman in a STEM occupation. I showed aptitude and interest in science and engineering at an early age. However, I was constantly steered -- by my parents, teachers, and counselors -- into 'soft' interests: teaching, secretarial, etc. In high school I developed a math phobia (I wonder why?). After 10 years, a BA and liberal arts MA, I plowed myself into and through calculus with all As and completed a STEM degree. Thank FSM I did this, or else I might be one of those unfortunate long-term unemployed. In addition to my for-pay work, I now volunteer for Girl Scouts, hoping that I might make a difference in a girls life.

[Paluxy Moon]

05:13 AM on 02/09/2012

There is a subset of the female population that has what it takes to be good at STEM jobs, and girls in middle school and high school should be encouraged as much as possible to explore these jobs. Without encouragement during the middle and high school years, girls are easily persuaded by other influences and may miss out on opportunities.

STEM careers require bigger sacrifices during college years, since girls don't have strong peer groups in such an environment and may have to work harder to achieve academic success. But the rewards later in life are huge. The ability to have a challenging, flexible career gives a woman more choices in life.

As one of only two design-qualified female electrical engineers at the nuclear power plant where I work, I can say it isn't for every woman. But for me, it's a great job. There is a certain personality type required to do the analytical work, yet soft skills are essential for the negotiation part of the job. Women have persuasion skills that can be very effective in such an environment.

The nuclear industry desperately needs more women engineers and has started a group called Powerset in partnership with Texas A & M, and funded partially by the Texas Governor's office, to mentor high-achieving high school girls. The goal is to encourage girls into STEM academic paths, with the eventual hope of gaining more women in the nuclear field. The resonse has been overwhelming!

[SKSagar]

05:41 AM on 02/10/2012

Talking of nuclear industry...The scientist who was at the centre stage in the discovery of nuclear fission was a lady … `Lise Mietner`. It was a massive leap of imagination. The fact that she was a woman may have attributed to the fact that this vital piece of information - pertaining to the discovery – was passed on - by her - to the right hands , long before it could reach the wrong hands. And this aspect might have even changed the history of the planet in preventing a major catastrophe.

[SwiftJonathan]

04:52 AM on 02/09/2012

If a person isn't interested in science, they aren't interested in science. No amount of statistics will change that. It's the wrong way of looking at things.

The right way would be to give those who are interested a much better education for free.

[jeanrenoir]

12:00 AM on 02/09/2012

The reason so few women study the STEM fields can't be fear or intimidation. In all other academic areas, including medicine and law, women are CRUSHING men academically. The Ivy League has to have informal affirmative actions admissions for men, or women would swamp all their campuses with their higher SAT scores and grades. Maybe most women just don't LIKE math, which counts for a lot in our hedonistic society.

[SwiftJonathan]

04:54 AM on 02/09/2012

Women are just as good at science as men. But somehow physics and mathematics are not very appealing to women. With mathematics I kind of understand... physics, not so much.

But all this "crushing" talk is nonsense. If you have ever met the really smart guys, you will know that ANYBODY, man or woman, will have a hard time coming even close.

[BluePhantom2]

09:20 PM on 02/08/2012

Ladies, my Stepmother was an aerospace engineer in the 60-90s as was my dad. My dad will be the first to admit that she was smarter then he is. She had to do everything better then the men just to be there but she did it! and you can too. Stereotypes just give you a goal to break so PLS go break it. If you let other people tell you what you can't do you will go nowhere!

[Rotobabe]

08:46 PM on 02/08/2012

I have a PhD in chemistry and decided to go into patent law - and I love it. My decision was based on the fact that companies were up and down on whether to hire PhDs and that hasn't changed much. Now, I can work at home (which bench chemists can't do), open my own firm if I want to, and do more to control my options in life. I do a lot of mentoring of women who want to go into intellectual property law, and I always tell them to finish their advanced science or technical degree. We don't get respected walking into a room of scientists, if we don't come in with the same degree. PhD programs are also a great way to learn how to think logically, identify a problem, study the options and make reasoned arguments. With respect to young women who might want to get a science degree - I think it's great. There is absolutely nothing you can't do with a degree in science or math, but you can't be a scientist with an English degree. And before the folks with English degrees say anything - I was getting my English degree in college, before switching to Chemistry my Junior year...on a bet...from two of my sorority sisters...who were both Physics majors.