Fact: 2.8% of chess grandmasters are women.
Fact: 11.1% of U.S. electrical engineers are women.
Fact: 20% of computer science specialists are women.
Fact: 20% of U.S. physicists are women. Despite increases in the number of women earning degrees in physics, the proportion of women in this field, averaging about 20% across all degree levels, is the lowest of all the physical sciences.
Fact: Less than 30% of PhD mathematicians in the U.S. are women.
Is the problem -- if it is a problem -- Nature or Nurture? If Nurture, then it must be that women feel uncomfortable in fields where males may patronize them. But, in that case, doesn't that point to Nature? That is, studies show women to be substantially more risk-averse than men. So, on average, they fear the consequences of competing with men in a "man's game." Men are risk-averse also, but not so much as women. Perhaps that has something to do with testosterone.
Another point: women seem to learn better in small groups. Cooperation is key. Men also cooperate, but the more advanced are prone to spending long hours in solitary study. Does this make a difference in depth of comprehension? The ratio of solitary to cooperative study is certainly very likely to be significant in advanced mathematics.
Clearly, we are not talking about the seemingly many exceptions that prove the rule.
The probability that Nature is the driver in women's career preferences is shown by the fact that women earn a slight majority of doctoral degrees in general. But in the "hard sciences," they trail by large percentages. Interestingly, in biological and agricultural sciences -- which are seen as a blend of "hard" and "soft" sciences -- the figures are about 51% for women vs. 49% for men. That's roughly even when you consider that the ratio of males to females in the U.S. population is 49:50.
Yet in the early years of computer science, women were well represented, especially among programers. Though programing [1] was highly detailed in that period, it had not reached the levels of complexity that are standard now. For some reason (Nature?), boys seem able to deal with computational "problem-solving" complexity better than girls. But, even if that is not so, girls are avoiding this field because they don't wish to cope with male dominance. But why have males gained dominance? As said, the answer appears to be Nature.
1. What do programers do? They program. So get with the program and use the slimmer, more sensible spelling. That goes for programing too.
Back in the seventies, a bunch of illiterate computer enthusiasts adopted the double-m spelling. And vroom! they won. But the American spelling of the base noun is program, not programme as in Britain.
In this country we tend to drop the double consonant in derived forms. To wit, cancelled was once quite common. But these days canceled is far more common.
Other words that rate a slimmer version: cigaret and employe, though you have to learn to read that one with a long e ending.
Fact: 11.1% of U.S. electrical engineers are women.
Fact: 20% of computer science specialists are women.
Fact: 20% of U.S. physicists are women. Despite increases in the number of women earning degrees in physics, the proportion of women in this field, averaging about 20% across all degree levels, is the lowest of all the physical sciences.
Fact: Less than 30% of PhD mathematicians in the U.S. are women.
Is the problem -- if it is a problem -- Nature or Nurture? If Nurture, then it must be that women feel uncomfortable in fields where males may patronize them. But, in that case, doesn't that point to Nature? That is, studies show women to be substantially more risk-averse than men. So, on average, they fear the consequences of competing with men in a "man's game." Men are risk-averse also, but not so much as women. Perhaps that has something to do with testosterone.
Another point: women seem to learn better in small groups. Cooperation is key. Men also cooperate, but the more advanced are prone to spending long hours in solitary study. Does this make a difference in depth of comprehension? The ratio of solitary to cooperative study is certainly very likely to be significant in advanced mathematics.
Clearly, we are not talking about the seemingly many exceptions that prove the rule.
The probability that Nature is the driver in women's career preferences is shown by the fact that women earn a slight majority of doctoral degrees in general. But in the "hard sciences," they trail by large percentages. Interestingly, in biological and agricultural sciences -- which are seen as a blend of "hard" and "soft" sciences -- the figures are about 51% for women vs. 49% for men. That's roughly even when you consider that the ratio of males to females in the U.S. population is 49:50.
Yet in the early years of computer science, women were well represented, especially among programers. Though programing [1] was highly detailed in that period, it had not reached the levels of complexity that are standard now. For some reason (Nature?), boys seem able to deal with computational "problem-solving" complexity better than girls. But, even if that is not so, girls are avoiding this field because they don't wish to cope with male dominance. But why have males gained dominance? As said, the answer appears to be Nature.
The American Enterprise Institute credits the Council of Graduate Schools for the data shown.
1. What do programers do? They program. So get with the program and use the slimmer, more sensible spelling. That goes for programing too.
Back in the seventies, a bunch of illiterate computer enthusiasts adopted the double-m spelling. And vroom! they won. But the American spelling of the base noun is program, not programme as in Britain.
In this country we tend to drop the double consonant in derived forms. To wit, cancelled was once quite common. But these days canceled is far more common.
Other words that rate a slimmer version: cigaret and employe, though you have to learn to read that one with a long e ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment