On Monday, John Tierney of the New York Times published a provocative article, "Daring to Discuss Women in Science" in which he argues that biology may be a factor to explain why women are not reaching high-level positions. He suggests that boys are innately more gifted at math and science and that the dearth of women in science may point to simple biological differences. If this is the case, why would we waste our time trying to get more women in science?
Mr. Tierney, let's indeed discuss women in science.
First, let me start by saying that I applaud the discussion -- all potential explanations for a complex issue and all evidence need to be considered, even the ones that are not popular in the media or not "politically correct." I also believe that Larry Summer's now infamous comments about the possibility that biological differences account for the dearth of women scientists and technologists was, similarly, in the spirit of intellectual debate.
The problem with the biology argument that "boys are just more likely to be born good at math and science" isn't that it's not "politically correct" -- it's that it assumes that we can take away the power of societal influences, which have much more solid evidence than the biology hypothesis. Tierney makes the point himself in his article -- in order provide evidence for biological differences, he cites a longitudinal Duke study which shows that the highest achievers in SAT math tests (above 700), which counted 13 boys for every girl in the early 80s, became a ratio of 4 boys to 1 girls in 1991, "presumably because of sociocultural factors." Hmm, isn't this actual evidence that biology is not what is at play here? If it is possible to reduce the gender achievement gap in math by 3 thanks to "sociocultural factors", I rest my case, sociocultural factors are indeed extremely powerful.
The Duke study also notes that the 4/1 achievement gap at the highest score hasn't changed in the last 20 years despite ongoing programs to encourage girls in math and science, whereas the highest achievers in writing ability (SAT above 700) shows a ratio of 1.2 girls for every boy, slightly favoring girls. However, if the premise is that boys are inherently "better" at math, and girls are inherently better at writing, why would the achievement gap be so large in math and negligible in writing? The stagnant 4 to 1 ratio is not evidence that there is an innate biological difference in math aptitude, but rather confirmation that persistent sociocultural barriers remain -- that is, science and math are still thought of as male domains.
Research shows that math and science are indeed thought of as stereotypically male domains. Project Implicit at Harvard University studied half a million participants in 34 countries and found that that 70 percent of respondents worldwide have implicit stereotypes associating science with male more than with female. Years of research by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson and their colleagues shows that implicit stereotypes affect girls' performance in math -a phenomenon called "stereotype threat". When girls receive cues that "boys are better at math," their scores in math suffer; one study in a classroom setting showed that the difference in performance between boys and girls in math SAT scores was eliminated by simply having a mentor telling them that math is learned over time rather than "innate".
The problem is, girls are routinely getting the message that they don't belong in math and science, further undermining their performance (and Mr. Tierney's article isn't exactly helping in changing the stereotype for the general public). The result of this implicit (unconscious) stereotype is that parents, teachers, and school counselors are less likely to encourage girls to pursue math and science than they are boys. These girls are then less likely to seek advanced math classes and would be unlikely, without those opportunities, to make it to the above 700 SAT math score regardless of innate ability.
Anecdotally, I had this experience with my daughter a couple of years ago. At age 10, she had somehow decided that she wasn't good at math (despite being raised in a household with 2 PhDs). With her self-confidence plummeting, math homework became very painful in our household. When I dug deeper, I found that she mistakenly believed that you were either born with math ability or you weren't -- that this was an innate biological ability as opposed to something you could learn, and that somehow she hadn't been "born with it." Once I actively dispelled that notion and provided her with additional mentoring, her math performance significantly improved. I never hear her say that she isn't good at math anymore, and her math homework is flawless.
The Duke article, and Tierney, raises an important question about preference, however, that research suggests that boys are more interested in "things" and girls are more interested in "people", and thus gravitate towards fields reflecting that interest. In this research too, there is debate about what in this difference is "nature" versus "nurture" -- there are powerful socialization forces at play. Regardless, we have to dispel the notion that science is only about "things" and not about people or somehow disconnected from all social relevance. Indeed, some of the most successful interventions to increase girls' interest in math and science have been to reframe the curriculum to provide examples and projects that are grounded in the interests of a diverse population of students. The EPICS program at Purdue University is a great example of grounding engineering disciplines in socially relevant contexts and has been shown to engage a diversity of students.
What we need, to put this debate to rest, is to replicate these findings in a country where science and math is not viewed as stereotypically male. The most recent cross-national comparison study, published in 2010 in Psychological Bulletin by Nicole Else-Quest and her colleagues and comparing 43 countries, shows that the achievement difference in math between girls and boys varies broadly across countries.
Their research shows that country by country variation is correlated with gender differences in self-confidence in math, which is compounded by stereotype threat. One of the strongest predictors of the gender gap in math achievement is a given country's level of gender equity in science jobs, consistent with socialization arguments: "if girls' mothers, aunts, and sisters do not have STEM careers, they will perceive that STEM is a male domain and thus feel anxious about math, lack the confidence to take challenging math courses, and underachieve on math tests."
Until girls stop getting the signal that math is for boys, the 4 to 1 gender ratio in highest achievement categories of math and science will persist. This has nothing to do with innate ability.
Mr. Tierney, I look forward to your subsequent articles on this issue. Let's indeed dare to discuss women in science and continue to bring to bear the most relevant research on this issue.
At any time in history?
Increased focus, ability to sit still, communication, etc. etc.
So, whenever we discuss what women are "better" at....it's accepted as common sense gospel.
But, when you discuss even the possibility that men might be inherently better at anything the PC police flash the sirens and break out the pepper spray.
My thought is that evolution could adapt male/female brains to have different levels of neurotransmitters/receptors, different number of synapses per neuron, etc.. Perhaps this could be explained by male specific genes that are expressed in the brain, or due to a different hormonal environment during development?
If there is no dimorphism, I would think that would be due to lack of selection, rather than a limit on evolution.
There is no doubt that cultural norms play a decisive role in "aptitude" -- as witnessed by the math performance of Japanese girls, to give but one example (association with numbers was a low-status occupation in Japan; samurai did not "sully themselves" with finances).
Harvard admissions went gender-blind in my junior year; the gender ratio went from 5:1 to 2:1 just by the incoming class. Predictably, this elicited howls of protest about lowering academic standards by legacy-admissions alumni who had scraped by on gentleman C's. More on this issue:
Is It Something in the Water? Or: Me Tarzan, You Ape
http://www.starshipreckless.com/blog/?p=712
Have you considered the possibility that it is because the two are not the same and factors that affect one do not necessarily affect the other?
Note, I haven't said that boys are better at math. I am simply pointing out that your conclusion ("The stagnant 4 to 1 ratio is not evidence that there is an innate biological difference in math aptitude, but rather confirmation that persistent sociocultural barriers remain") has not been justified. You are assuming that which you are trying to prove, a logical error.
For example: Half of all undergraduate degrees in Mathematics are earned by women. Clearly women have what it takes to do math. But by the time you get to the PhD level, that ratio plummets: 8 men for every 1 woman, if I recall correctly.
So what's going on as we start moving up the difficulty scale of the subject? Every field has the course that separates those who will do well from those who will struggle (for me, they were Abstract Algebra and Differential Geometry...I got my degree, but boy did I wish I had gone into Biology instead.)
You're still assuming what you must prove. Clearly, social factors are involved. Where's your evidence that it's soley social factors?
Socio-cultural effects are difficult to isolate in our own culture, it would be far easier looking at another culture because we carry a bias with us. I suspect that, and that is all it is, that our culture from the earliest days of childhood puts a kibosh on young girls showing an interest in science or math. For example, how will I look to boys if I show that I am better at math or science. Young girls get this from all media, especially TV and movies.
Worst of all, is that we have a society that does not value math and science, it is put down and misrepresented in virtually all media--even worse than that it is poorly taught in our schools. It is actually surprising that we get any kids interested in science and math.
Seriously, a woman who stays in the home can work just as hard as a working one, and yet she is disrespected constantly and no one would take her seriously.
However, it is the same the other way. A man as the homemaker is a sad state, or at least what we believe to be sad even if he is completely satisfied.
Regardless, what Simard is talking about is the importance of Nurture over Nature and how our "Nature" is just an excuse. Based on data and facts, she is completely right.
I would like to see a study of math composed by women, for women, in a way that has the same historic depth and contemporary relevance. I'm not saying that women cannot excel in mathematics as a field formulated and dominated by men. Clearly they can, and do. (That so many do so given the additional adversity they face would show a greater capacity in many cases.). I would like the opportunity to learn mathematics from that basis. Certainly I would like that opportunity for my daughter, (I married my wife - in part - for her capacity to provide that opportunity).
My degree is in Math, and my career is designing algorithms. In a male-dominated field, I am called clever. One thing I have known my whole life, is this: Women are smarter. Anecdotally, your reasoned and clear position, in apposition to Mr. Tierney's is evidence for
Tierney's argument is even more tenuous when you consider that making it academically as a mathematician is not just a function of math IQ. It's also perseverance, teaching, creativity, and other characteristics. Thank you, Caroline Simard, for taking on this issue.
It's very unfortunate because the women I have met in IT have been really great analysts and technical troubleshooters. It is usual in IT to find that the guys are really good at the "break-fix" memorization stuff and getting into the hardware aspect of computing and the women are really good at diagnosing and finding solutions for ongoing issues and understanding network and design logic. One would think this a good match. However; the males tend to constantly question our knowledge, technical ability, technical expertise, and our judgment calls. It gets old after awhile. Imagine having to constantly prove you belong in IT on a daily basis despite degree, certifications and proven track record. I love IT - the males make it a tough environment to work in.
As to these articles about the topic, I wish they would just come out and state what the real problem is - outright gender discrimination.