2 more things about women’s representation in the sciences
I feel like I’ve probably blogged too much here lately about attempts to explain, or redress, the low proportion of women in the sciences. But here are a couple more links for you anyway. First of all, there’s more reaction to the recent Donna Shalala-led study on barriers to women’s careers in the academic sciences. Boston University’s group Women In Science and Engineering held a symposium to discuss “strategies for change.” From the Daily Free Press:
“Women have the drive and capability to succeed in science and engineering, and the problem is not simply the pipeline [to getting into the field],” Massachusetts Institute of Technology management professor Lotte Bailyn said. “The academic organizational structure and rules contribute significantly to under-representation of women in science and engineering.”
The symposium was part of WISE’s effort “to provide a united voice concerning climate concerns and hiring and retention issues,” according to the WISE website. Founded in 2004, the group aims to provide opportunities for female faculty and graduate students.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the infamous Lawrence Summers speech, “Harvard psychology prof Elizabeth Spelke published a study in which she found there were NO differences between male and female babies, children, and adults in terms of cognitive capabilities and aptitude in mathematical and scientific reasoning,” writes Thinking Girl at [insert witty title]. But linguist Steven Pinker rushed to rebut her findings, and the two held an online debate. “It’s long, but the gist of it is that Pinker takes a ‘nature’ line of argument and Spelke takes a “nurture” line of argument,” says Thinking Girl. She adds:
I’m with Spelke. I don’t think there are significant statistical differences in the cognitive abilities of women and men. I do think there are significant differences in the ways men and women are encouraged and socialized to think. (This is backed up by a study at U of Michigan, which suggests that women tend to choose careers based on their values more than on their skills.) All of Pinker’s points about “biological” differences between men and women have, in my mind (and Spelke’s), a sociological explanation. For example, Pinker says that men have different motivations than do women: men are more motivated by status than by family. My response to that point is that this has nothing to do with biology. Women are taught from childhood to care for other people, and men are taught that they must be providers and achievers. Is this difference in priorities really surprising?
She blames “crappy societal images” for steering women away from techy careers and fields. The whole post is very much worth reading.