Boys need encouragement to be scientists - what do you think?

[Ms. Toad]

I came across this letter to the editor, and I thought (particularly in light of the Legos-for-girls concerns recently ), "It must be satire, but it sounds as if the author is serious." (Sorry, you'll have to scroll down - no direct link is available to specific LTTEs)

Lego League 
builds diversity

I read with great interest the Jan. 16 article on the First Lego League district tournament (“Kids brainy about ’bots at local Lego tournament”). . . .

Sadly, I feel obliged to point out a glaring omission. There were boys involved, which the article did not mention. Every comment was from or about the girls.
. . .

I found the boys to be every bit as intelligent, dedicated and kind as the female participants.

Besides presenting a balanced article, it is important for our country that all children, regardless of their demographics, are encouraged to choose science as a career, since the pool of minorities and women is just not large enough to fill the ever-increasing need for these occupations.

So I went to find the original article:

Ladies and gentlemen, start your Lego robots: Young people compete in tournament


Girls know how to make Lego robots.

Just ask the girls from the Blazing Brains Lego robot team out of Hudson, a team that will go to the state championship next month.

I'm scratching my head over this one. I'm pretty sure, even in this day and age, that no one would have noticed if the article only mentioned boys. Here we have a science positive article that only mentions girls - and a complaint that boys need encouragement to be scientists, too.

The article starts out as if it is an article about girls in Lego competitions - which would be a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, it does appear to be the only general article about a tournament which was open to both genders - so should it have at least paid passing reference to boys (aside from the caption)?

[warrior1]

1. he missed the point

it was all children. That he pointed out the girls, was just nice.

[Ms. Toad]

2. He, the LTTE writer

or he the reporter (they are both male).

From interactions with the reporter, I'm pretty sure he would deliberately focus on minority/women's involvement as a way of making their presence more visible and acceptable.

If you are referring to the LTTE writer, I have seen (valid, IMHO) similar letters when articles about traditionally male activities perpetuate the myth that (for example) science and math are for boys. (And responses like yours that dismiss the concern because the slight to girls was not intended - it was just an article about children.)

[Patrick_Bateman]

3. What about the boys?!

Who are they kidding? We "boys" have had curriculum handed to us on silver platters. In most of my classes all through high school (better at Uni) the girls were practically invisible in the classroom ESPECIALLY in science and math.

I know good and well most of those girl students were equally intelligent if not more than most of us boys. They just lacked the confidence to raise their hands and participate. As well as most did not make asses of themselves yelling out in class like Horshack in Welcome Back Kotter.

[AngryAmish]

4. It seems like it has been a long time since you have been to high school

Women outpace men by a wide margin at all academic levels. Women make up the vast majority of the teachers and administrators. There is now informal affirmative action at many colleges to get more males to be enrolled. Nevermind the dropout and incarceration rates.

[Ms. Toad]

5. My daughter, who graduated in 2008

was the only girl in her high school physics class.

I would be surprised to find out that women outpace men in science. I work in a field which requires a science or engineering field. The professional conferences I attend are still about 90% male (and I don't notice much difference in proportion when I look only at the younger members in the profession).

[AngryAmish]

7. Anecdote is not data.

Nursing and teaching are a very highly paid jobs. Why do so few men do these things?

[Ms. Toad]

9. Relatively speaking,

based on education required, they are not.

Particularly if you compare them to jobs with similar educational requirements which are traditionally male dominated.

[txlibdem]

30. An anecdote is but a single data point. But it is data.

Add together a million anecdotal data points and you should have no qualms about it.

[Ms. Toad]

32. I had the same thought -

then wrestled myself to the ground before I added it

[txlibdem]

43. That's why you're the smarter one

My earlier post was in jest. I hope it was taken as intended.

[Ms. Toad]

45. Nah...

just every once in a while I manage to zip the lips.

[bhikkhu]

53. Here's a good source or data:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/archives.cfm#degrees

It has an abundance of statistics and graphics about the various numbers of various degrees in various fields. Not surprisingly, some fields have more women getting degrees, while some have more men.

[txlibdem]

6. All true.

We need young adults of all genders, races, etc., to be encouraged to go as far as they can go. Some may not make great scientists but that's okay: we need great artists, craftsmen, architects, engineers, etc., also. Each child should be challenged enough to find out what they are good at and then let them do the work to get there (with free public education up to the PHD level). Only then will we regain our former standing in the world.

I'm beginning to be ambivalent about whether we do or not. Charter schools, race to the bottom wages, disappearing safety net. It looks like America's racing toward 3rd world status at breakneck speed.

[Ms. Toad]

18. +1

I like the idea of encouraging and enabling everyone to be their best - whatever the subject matter of their best is - although I would probably modify it to whatever they enjoy doing most (even if it is not what they are most gifted at doing).

My daughter and I both "suffer" from being best at things which are not what we enjoy most. My daughter is gifted in math - but has little interest. My talents are stronger in writing than science, but (despite being Chatty Cathy on DU) I have little interest in writing professionally. I followed my love through college, my first graduate degree and the first 10 years of employment, then switched to being practical for my 3rd degree (and actually taught writing part time for a number of years). But, quite by chance, I have wound up in a career that requires a science degree - and a fair amount of writing.

[txlibdem]

31. I feel that students don't know what they want until later in life

Too bad that the memory download technology I wrote about in the Science forum (du2) isn't yet available to us. Then we could swap PHD's as we would our clothing: depending on the needs of the moment (weather vs societal requirements).

I have the affliction of loving all types of learning but cannot retain enough information to be the Renaissance Man that I want to be.

[Ms. Toad]

33. My theory is -

I periodically empty my memory banks, that way I can do lots of things. Just fill up, use it, then dump, and ready for the next career...

I've been: reporter, teacher (6 diverse subject areas), attorney (three different roles), enrolled agent (taxes), seamstress, photographer and digital retouch artist - and those are only the things I've been paid as an adult to do.

[txlibdem]

47. I like your theory but it wouldn't work for me.

The only thing I've mastered is the periodic emptying of my memory banks. Or I should say a gradual emptying of them. I find it harder to think new thoughts, they must be forced in there and do not slide into place by themselves (forced through repetition: reading it, writing notes about it, testing my understanding of it and then reading my notes again). Before I understood how my brain works I was a terrible student. I'd been that way when I was young (and until 9th grade or so): it felt like walking through a pool of honey or molasses to reach the destination and gain a new thought. Then it was like a light switch was turned on and my mind was like a sponge. I had a photographic memory (just shy of eidetic) for two decades, then it gradually went away. I miss being able to read something and then recite it word for word weeks later. But, such is life as the French would say.

[Ms. Toad]

49. Not that much different than my memory.

Although I never had the photographic memory piece of it. But I always had to derive all of the formulas on trig exams, for example. I memorized a couple of key relationships - but could never master the dozens most people memorize. Took me forever to do the exams, since I had lots more steps to do.

In law school most people have trouble organizing all of the concepts and need to create outlines as they go along to chart the relationships. I got complex relationships pretty much instantly - so outlining was a waste of time for me. Except during reading week - then, because I couldn't hold things in my memory, I outlined every single class during that single week just to "touch" every thing I needed to be able to access during the exams.

I've also learned that I completely lose things unless I can find a "door" - and once I do, it's all there. I guess like a computer memory bank. When you delete a file, all you really delete is the "door" to the file - the link that tells the computer where to find it. Once you have the link, you realize the file is still there. So - all I have to do is find that link, and my memory dump is reversed.

You figure out how your memory works, then figure out how to exploit it. Sounds like you've done pretty well at that.

[FrodosPet]

48. Blue Collar Greatness

Yes, we need great artists, craftsmen, architects, engineers, etc. We also need great plumbers, electricians, janitors, food service workers, etc.

Unfortunately, it seems far too many people, even here at a place that professes to care about "labor", have no respect for these jobs and the people who do them. They are used as the source of an insult, as opposed to being appreciated for the vital services they provide.

[Patrick_Bateman]

8. Graduated in 1978.

This shift is rather new. I was speaking of my own personal observations.

One thing that concerns me and I will keep an eye will be salaries in the fields that women dominate. I have a horrible feeling that salaries may go down.

I also wonder if most teachers and educational professionals were white men, if republicans would be so hasty in cutting their rights, positions and salaries.

[Ms. Toad]

12. The medical specialties dominated by women are generally not as well paid

http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/

and even when women choose traditionally higher paid specialties, their pay lags - and the gap is increasing:

[Patrick_Bateman]

13. This surprises me little n/t

[Ms. Toad]

16. I have seen discussions of salaries decreasing in specialties

as the specialty becomes a specialty of choice for women rather than men. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any of those discussions when I did a quick search. I'll add them later if I find links.

[Patrick_Bateman]

19. Thank you.

Actually my wife is who alerted me on this a few years ago.

Being married to a radical feminist has its priviledges.

[redqueen]

17. Really?

Just yesterday an OP about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was mostly ignored.

The very existence of any pay gap was denied, or if acknowledged, minimized. Not by most, but by a discouraging percentage of people who bothered to respond to the OP at all.

[Ms. Toad]

22. I was mostly ignoring DU yesterday entirely.

I guess maybe I should go dig out the articles I am recalling....

But for now I have to do something that will pay my bills.

[Patrick_Bateman]

10. Ms Toad

This is a great thread. You have opened the door for lively discussion. Thanks!

[Ms. Toad]

35. Thanks! n/t

[dembotoz]

11. BOTH boy and girls--we should be celebrating participation in science with the same gusto we do for

sports.

my kid participates in destination imagination and he also plays hockey.

i am proud of what he does in hockey

i am VERY proud of what he has done with destination imagination.

problem is there is a hockey avataar and no di avataar.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Yay DI!

My daughter was in DI, as well. Although I think they switched to a different program near the end of her time in it. It is a wonderful program!

And you have hit on another of my peeves about high school education, generally. Sports seems to get much more official recognition than other endeavors.

[FarCenter]

14. Both boys and girls should be encouraged to be scientists if they have the ability and interest

[Ms. Toad]

15. Thanks for the reply to the caption.

Do you have any thoughts on the news coverage (which was really the substance which piqued my interest)?

In the past coverage of science mostly mentioned males - and there would be an occasional LTTE which said, "How about some girl coverage?"

This coverage is the reverse of what has been the norm - in both the original article and the response?

Have we reached the gender equity point in science at which it really is legitimate to "require" articles about science specifically mention boys - or do girls still lag far enough behind in science that articles which focus (in large part or exclusively) on girls in science are still needed?

Does it matter if it is a specialty piece - or coverage of an event?

[Nikia]

23. Most engineering specialties are still over 90% male

There are some science specialties where women are more equal or even the majority. Engineering and physical science tend to be the domain of men though.
It depends on what the purpose of the article was. A few years ago, there was an article about male nurses in the local health system. The point wasn't to say that female nurses, which made up the majority of the nurses, weren't important but that there are male nurses too and that it might be a good career for other men.

[Ms. Toad]

26. That's why my professional meetings are 90% male...

I have to have either an engineering or science degree in my profession - and my observation was that that particular ratio hadn't changed much.

The article was coverage of the lego competition - as near as I could tell, it was the only coverage in the Beacon Journal of the event.

That's part of the reason for starting this discussion. Coverage of science slanted events in which only males are mentioned was/is par for the course even when there are female participants. Mostly no one notices that only males are mentioned. This event was covered by a reporter who has some sensitivity on the matter - and he only mentioned females (and drew fire for it).

Is the fire he drew an appropriate criticism (given that for years similar coverage mentioned only males)? Was it appropriate that he covered a mixed gender event and only mentioned the girls?

[etherealtruth]

38. I, too, work in a field that requires science or engineering degrees

I see the ratios changing slowly. In the thread that Redqueen refers to above, my contention that women were often paid significantly lower salaries for the same work with the same degree was soundly rejected (I stated from the outset that I understood personal experience was anecdotal, despite the pervasiveness of the disparity in my field).

We as women need to encourage others to pursue science and engineering degrees and demand parity. sadly it may take another generation to achieve this.

[FarCenter]

24. The coverage was clearly of the "encourage girls to take up science" genre

But that is a well known type of coverage. It would only be bothersome if it pretended to be an evenhanded coverage of the event described. However, it was clearly not news coverage, since the teams described were not the winning team.

The Association for Computing Machinery, for example, has initiatives to encourage girls and young women to consider the computer science field. These are generally positive.

Overall in science, participation by women is quite high, even though it is lowest in physical sciences and highest in life sciences. It is unclear what the skew is caused by, although the varying use of mathematics has been theorized. As life sciences use more mathematics and information processing tools, it will be interesting to see whether this holds up.

We should be encouraging girls to study STEM subjects and take up STEM carreers iff they have the abilty. Allowing them to be disuaded by contemporary cultural attitudes and by peer pressure is wrong. However, encouraging girls (or boys) who do not have the ability to take up STEM carreers is also wrong, since that will lead only to failure, career changes, and dissatisfaction.

Note that of the four girls named in the article, three are likely to be first generation Americans. Consequently, their families may provide them with some shelter from the corrosive effects of American culture.

[Ms. Toad]

27. As near as I can tell -

it was supposed to be event coverage. It is the only coverage of the event in the Beacon Journal (and other newspapers covered the event).

I am wholeheartedly in favor of encouraging more girls to take up science, and articles that feature girls in traditionally male fields (or vice versa).

I'm just curious about the reaction to what seems to me to be general event coverage of an event that might have been previously covered without mentioning any girls at all - that was written in a way that didn't mention any boys.

Is there anything wrong with tipping general event coverage in the opposite direction it is usually tipped (as the LTTE author seems to believe)?

[momto3]

37. I have a PhD in the biomedical sciences

It is well known that at the undergraduate level, more women graduate with degrees in biology than men. At the graduate school (PhD) level, there are equal amounts of women and men that graduate. But, full time, tenure track faculty positions are still dominated by men. And, if a women does achieve a tenure track position, they are not paid as well as their male counterparts.

The mechanisms of research funding and promotion penalize women for needing time to have a family. Unfortunately this leads to many highly talented scientists leaving the field all together. Inequality for women in leading positions in the biomedical fields will be lacking, until the entire system is change.

[Ms. Toad]

39. So - is the solution

to change the expectation that men don't need to spend time on/with their families? To modify the mechanisms of research funding and promotion so that employment in the field so demanding that it excludes activity outside of the job?

And, even if either of the above changes, what is the likelihood that men will actually spend time with their families rather than taking advantage of the "spare" time to find better ways to get ahead while the women juggling family plus job will still be less able to compete?

In other words - it it a problem with job expectations or societal expectations about who will primarily be responsible for tending the family (which will likely still leave women disproportionately in the mommy track)?

[momto3]

54. These are very difficult questions to ask.

These are great questions. I did not reply last night because I wanted to try to have a thoughtful and coherent response. I feel very strongly about these issues since they impact me directly.

My opinion (I want to stress opinion) is that the entire infrastructure of academic biomedical research needs to be changed. I think there is a glut of PhDs in this country. If institutions were more stringent on their requirements, the funding and lack of position problems would ease. There are currently too many PhDs and too few positions. This has led to the professional postdoc. I also believe that postdocs should have a union. Many PIs see postdocs as highly trained cheap labor and are unwilling to further that persons career in order to keep them around. There is no standard of salary for postdocs. NIH has set "suggestions" on salaries, but many institutions do not follow. Postdocs also work 60 hr weeks (at their miserable pay) to try to get enough publications for that elusive independent position. Having a family is very difficult at this pay scale and required hours in the lab.

This leads me to problems with the way research is funded. The NIH is the primary source of biomedical funding. You cannot apply for NIH grants unless you are faculty, and most institutions require new hires to have independent funding. You can see the vicious circle. There are postdoctoral grants available to new fellows. But, there is nothing available to the "professional" postdoc and this is one of the reasons why they are stuck in their position.

The NIH tends to only fund "safe" research, or research that they know will succeed. For new investigators this is nearly impossible since they lack the experience, and reputation, required to have guaranteed safe research. This also stifles research into areas that could really push scientific knowledge forward. These requirements mean that if one takes time off to have children or be a "family" person, you do not have the time put into being "experienced". I know of grants that were rejected because the PI did not publish within the past year. Of course, this effects both men and women, but women more if they choose to start a family.

The DoD also funds a decent amount of biomedical research. They are much more willing to fund risky research, unlike the NIH. Many of us are worried that the impending DoD budget cuts will end this funding source.

This leads to faculty hiring and tenure. Assistant professors have 7 years from the time of hire to attain tenure. Women at this stage are generally 25-35 years old. One can count on 50-60 hour weeks of grant writing, manuscript preparation, teaching, mentoring and various other "community" works (i.e. committees) in addition to establishing a successful independent research project. I'm sure that you can see how this would effect family life. Many women leave at this point. I am not sure that this phenomenon is due to women being more interested in family than men, but more to the fact that women have the uterus. It is physically impossible to work those hours, go through a 9 month pregnancy, deliver a child and recuperate. Men do not have this problem. The system does not account for this.

There are also very few experience independent women researchers to mentor young women researchers. I have had 2 male "mentors" in the past that criticized me for having a family. I was told that I would never succeed and that I should consider alternative careers to research. No wonder women leave! I was also told that I should hire a full time nanny to watch the kids and do the housework. I have to admit that I looked at him and asked if he new how much he was paying me. Seriously? A full time nanny?

I want to say that not every institution is insensitive to women and family life. But, many are and this is the reason for the discrepancy between women who have earned a PhD and those that have achieved successful independent careers. I work in a major world renown research institution. We have 80 full time faculty with only 2 being women. I have settled for a non-tenure track position. These are becoming more popular to those of us not willing to sacrifice our family for our career. I do not have the job stability of tenured and tenure track positions and am dependent on the funding I hope to bring in and the funding that currently supports me. In essence, I am a glorified postdoc. I do all of the work of a faculty member, but do not get the perks.

As I said this these are difficult questions to answer and something for which I feel very passionate. Sorry this is so long and thanks if you have made it this far.

[Ms. Toad]

55. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I'll respond more later today - but one of the things I struggle with on DU is that not many are willing to take the time to engage in discussions beyond quick, knee-jerk responses. That is nice for distracting banter, but not so great for exploring complex issues. So thank you!

[redqueen]

21. Quite a thought provoking piece.

I'm not sure I agree that no one would have noticed if the article had only mentioned boys, I like to think that some people would have noticed. But would they have bothered to comment? Probably not.

[raouldukelives]

25. Only if they aren't adept at toting a pigskin

Or leveling ferocious hits on people, or dunking or throwing a mean fastball. Obviously the highest achievement in our college system is the coveted Heisman Trophy but if they may not be so athletically inclined I think the Universities will allow them to pursue a career in the field of science. As long as they can afford it of course.

[Ms. Toad]

34. There is that, of course...

Maybe we need to start pushing pigskin toting for girls

[Spike89]

28. An odd split showing up in the stats the last few years

The efforts at making STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) curriculum attractive and welcoming to girls and women in high school and college have been quite successful in almost every way. Recently, women passed men in the number of science degrees earned. However, and this is the weird part, the women in STEM programs in college are much less likely than the men in the same programs to say they want to pursue a career in the field!
In other words, the women do well in math and science, but don't see the careers those skills open up as attractive.
One of my most recent books (edited, not written by me) was on this topic and teacher after teacher mentioned just how hard it was for them to convince girls, even those with great STEM skills, that jobs in those fields were not only lucrative, but fun and fulfilling.

[FarCenter]

29. Fulfilling - yes; lucrative - sometimes; but "fun"? - likely to be a disappointment.

A STEM career involves focus, concentration, hours of solitary work, intense small group interactions, vicious competition among researchers and groups for funding and recognition, and many hours of unpaid effort to keep abreast of the latest results in your field.

Fun as a motivation will never get you through the rough patches.

[EFerrari]

36. Women have been doing all of those things since time immemorial.

What they haven't been doing is all those things careerwise AND raising children mostly by themselves whether they are married or not.

[Ms. Toad]

40. To be fair, they mostly haven't been doing so

in the fields of physical sciences and engineering - at least not in very large numbers. And, in the company I run with (and professionally - I hang with a lot of people in the fields of physical sciences and engineering) I don't think things have really changed that much.

[EFerrari]

41. I was speaking to the skill set in the post, not about those fields. nt

[Ms. Toad]

42. That's why I pointed out that even if the skillset was familiar

using them in the field we're talking about is still pretty rare (let alone using them in the STEM field AND raising a family).

[EFerrari]

50. Right but that has nothing to do with women, which was one implication

of the post I was responding to.

[Drahthaardogs]

44. I am a scientist, a toxicologist to be exact.

I work with engineers, chemists, industrial hygienists, and some biologists. There is not, shall we say, an overabundance of women in my building. I would say the ratio is probably four or five to one.

[Ms. Toad]

46. It is really sad that it has not changed much since I earned my physics & math degree

more than 30 years ago.

I do actually do a rough count every year at the largest professional conference I attend. The ratio is about 9:1 - and holding pretty steady.

[mike_c]

51. I'm a biologist...

...and while we DO see more applications generally from men than from women when we advertise academic science faculty positions in my department, in the time I've been here the number of qualified female applicants has grown substantially. Also, the number of females in our grad programs has reached parity with males, and in our undergrad program females either out number males, or they're more likely to succeed than males (it's hard for me to say). This is all based on impressions more than real data, but for example, in the last 15 years I've had more female grad students than male, by about 2:1.

[Spike89]

56. Yeah, this is the disconnect I was speaking of

A decade or more ago, there was a real push to encourage women to move into STEM studies. This has been very successful. Women slowly reached parity, then even surpassed men in most academic STEM areas. The whole "Barbie says math is hard" mindset has been attacked and pretty successfully dismissed. Women, of course, are every bit as capable as men of doing math.
What has been surprising is that while the number of women pursuing STEM in school has grown considerably, the numbers aren't translating into a corresponding number of women aggressively pursuing STEM career paths. Sure, they are applying for post graduate programs and moving into tenure tracks, but they aren't leaving universities to take jobs in the field. Instead, data suggests they self-select for STEM-related jobs (teaching high school math, STEM businesss administration) or even non-related fields. Some STEM disciplines are more popular among women, but others seriously lag even though there are many, many women qualified.
Why do well-qualified women seem to shun certain STEM fields?

[mike_c]

57. I haven't a clue, but is that really a bad thing...?

I mean, if they're succeeding academically and reaching parity with males in training, but then CHOOSE to pursue other options afterward, might it be that women regard their career paths differently than men? Again, I don't have a clue, but I think you're asking a very good question. I don't know about exclusion-- I can only speak for my experience in academic life science departments, where EVERY personnel search committee I've ever sat on has had a strong pro-female, pro-minority bias, so I don't think the academy is excluding women from STEM disciplines, unless my experience is grossly atypical. That certainly happened in the past, but I don't see any remnants of gender exclusion in academic hiring today. Not in the CSU.

[Mopar151]

52. Techies get no respect

It's all about the money, honey.... Cuz' the money people run the show. If engineers want to get ahead, they go for an MBA, and move over to management. And in a lot of workplaces, tech skills like engineering, machining, technical writing, lab work, etc. means people line up to crap on you. Especially if you have enough skills in their area of expertise (HR, finance, purchasing, workflow{ERP,MRP,kanban,QC}) to know how lame they are - and that isn't hard, for someone who has been trained to THINK.


PS - one short chapter in Machinery's Handbook will make you dangerous to a CFO - tells you how to calculate payback and ROI.