Say Hello to Athena

it's not a problem but genetics.

In montclair 79.6% of boys are proficient(or above) in math and 75.8% of girls.

http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc08/details/13/3310/HSPA-MATH-050.html

In the language arts it's the other way around.

89.6% of girls are proficient (or above) and 82.8% of boys.

http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc08/details/13/3310/HSPA-LAL-050.html

I don't think boys are "hindered" and "unsupported" in the language arts. It's natural genetic aptitude.

Men evolved throwing spears (geometry) and women evolved building societies and culture (language).

It's just the natural way of things.

I'm not saying that girl's aren't capable of Math and Science. My GF is an accountant and Im an idiot when it comes to math. So I dont think its a matter of "full range of careers." You just have to get these girls interested in Math geared careers. And by "interested", make it "cool"

Hattori,

Languages can be made cool, but math and science can never be made cool (except by MC Hawking... and he's retired).

(this is coming from a science nerd, btw)

Understood. With that being said, the disconnect for me is where we have 75.8% of girls proficient(or above) in math and women so under-represented (11-28%) in critical-to-fill STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) careers.

"the disconnect for me is where we have 75.8% of girls proficient(or above) in math and women so under-represented (11-28%) in critical-to-fill STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) careers."

It's obviously not their educations, is it?

It seems there are a variety of factors, their education being only one. Perhaps nature is a factor, as you suggest. Other "nurture" factors may include social pressure and messages (from media, teachers, guidance counselors, parents, etc.), their confidence level, whether or not they have played team sports, their interactions with role models in STEM careers, etc.

why should we be so concerned with this? Why does (presumably) 50% of scientists need to be women? Should 50% of nurses be male?

As long as no one is being held back from doing what they want to, what is the issue?

This will be the second summer my daughter, who is twelve, will be attending summer camp at NJIT in the FEMME program for girls from 4th grade thru H.S.
for math & science. A great program with science & math projects, field trips and plenty of exercise!

Women don't work in these fields because these fields require dedication. Women deal with pregnancies and all the correlating dr appts and then they have the babies and take maternity leave. Men never have babies and can spend every day in the lab or in the office, uninterrupted, for 40 years.

Not saying that women can't be successful in math and science careers, just a thought on why they aren't.

Great question -- I so appreciate you asking it.

I think there are many answers to this - here is one perspective that I think is relevant:

It's from "Falling Short in Producing American Scientific and Technical Talent" by Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

There is a quiet crisis building in the United States — a crisis that could jeopardize the nation’s pre-eminence and well-being. The crisis has been mounting gradually, but inexorably, over several decades.

If permitted to continue unmitigated, it could reverse the global leadership Americans currently enjoy.

The crisis stems from the gap between the nation’s growing need for scientists, engineers, and other technically skilled workers, and its production of them. As the generation educated in the 1950s and 1960s prepares to retire, our colleges and universities are not graduating enough scientific and technical talent to step into research laboratories, software and other design centers, refineries, defense installations, science policy offices, manufacturing shop floors and high-tech startups.

This “gap” represents a shortfall in our national scientific and technical capabilities.
The need to make the nation safer from emerging terrorist threats that endanger the nation’s people, infrastructure, economy, health, and environment, makes this gap all the more critical and the need for action all the more urgent.

We ignore this gap at our peril.

Closing it will require a national commitment to develop more of the talent of all our citizens, especially the under-represented majority — the women, minorities, and persons with disabilities who comprise a disproportionately small part of the nation’s science, engineering, and technology workforce.

For the United States to remain competitive in a vibrant global innovation and research environment, it must have access to the best minds. The nation’s technological strength depends entirely on its ability to attract, educate, recruit, and retain the best science and engineering workers.

Our government, universities, and industry must act now to develop the intellectual capital of the future.

http://www.rpi.edu/homepage/quietcrisis/index.html

it is the result of social expecations reinforced by teacher behavior. a program like this can only do good. regarding the 'non-issue' of gender in the sciences, men and women each approach problem solving for a different tack. to have one or the other dominate the field skews the way researchers frame their questions (and which questions they apply themselves to.)

cmd,

no where in that gap is gender mentioned.

If that's your concern - the number of people going into science, then it seem to me you should put resources behind encouraging boys to go into the field. Since they have (as you say) a preference for the field by 11%-28% margin.

Why should resources be spent paddling upstream?

"it is the result of social expecations reinforced by teacher behavior."

Would there be any, uh, science to back up that claim?

Women scientist are great, nothing wrong with them, but I just don't see a "problem" here in a modest gap in gender. No more than there is an "issue" that more women are nurses, or therapists, social workers and teachers...

ROC is right on this one. Who cares?

This kind of social norming with regard to proper percentages is off putting and flies in the face of individual choice.

Why are there (historically) more female teachers? The answer has everything to do with quality of life-- your share a schedule with your kids.

Of course it might be what Obama's right hand economic man, Larry Summers believes: women lack the innate abilities in math and science that men possess.

(That's Change you can get behind.)

I think ROC suggests a simple reason.

For me, the question is why did our schools allow an organization that discriminates (can boys join in?) have access to our schools?

Any and all "enrichment" allowed by the BOE MUST be open ALL students!

Science, per your request:

In a study she presented recently at a campus meeting, Davis-Kean and colleagues analyzed how parents' values and attitudes affect children's math performance and later interest, and how these attitudes vary by the child's gender. They used data from a longitudinal study of more than 800 children and a large group of their parents that began in 1987 and continued through 2000.

They found that parents provided more math-supportive environments for their sons than for their daughters, including buying more math and science toys for the boys. They also spent more time on math and science activities with their sons than with their daughters.

Davis-Kean and colleagues, including the late Janis Jacobs of Pennsylvania State University, Martha Bleeker of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and U-M psychologists Jacquelynne Eccles and Oksana Malanchuk, also found that parents' attitudes, particularly stereotypes they hold about whether math and science are more important for boys than for girls, have a significant effect on their children's later math achievement, and even on their eventual career choices.

They found that girls' interest in math decreases as their fathers' gender stereotypes increase, whereas boys' interest in math increases as their fathers' gender stereotypes increase.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070624143002.htm

Currently only 20 percent of engineering undergraduates are women. Only ten percent of the engineering workforce are women. For years, false notions of girls’ innate inability in math, lack of science preparation in high school, and assumptions about the effects of historical and institutional discrimination, have been offered as causes for the startling disproportion. Recent surveys, however, refute most of those theories, including the ones that question girls’ academic readiness to study engineering when they leave high school. Girls and boys take requisite courses at approximately the same rate, with girls’ enrollment often exceeding that of boys. Instead, experts contend that the major culprit is one of perception among girls and the people who influence them, including teachers, parents, peers, and the media.

http://www.nanascorner.com/2009/02/04/introduce-a-girl-to-engineering-day-feb-19/

New research by a team that includes vocational psychologists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) indicates that the self-confidence instilled by parents and teachers is more important for young girls learning math and science than their initial interest.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080905153807.htm

Simple, if your child shows an aptitude for math or science, then foster it....nuff said.

cmd,

"Science, per your request:"

Well the science you cite is about parents, the point was made about teachers. Not quite scientifically germane to the question posed. You're not a woman are you? Just kidding.

So basically you are saying parents are not doing something right in how they raise their daughters.

A specious point of view I think. While no doubt parents who stress science to their daughters are more likely to turn have their daughters in science. I'd image liberal parents don't encourage military service either, so what?

The question remains. So what is the problem if there are fewer female scientists or fewer male therapists? Who cares, and why?

p.s. if you think the problem is the parents, why go into the schools? To subvert the parents?

In fact, the point was made about "social expecations reinforced by teacher behavior"

Parents play into social expectations. The second of the three articles posted mention teachers as well as parents.

We are not going into the schools. We are having a conference in the community that will invite parents, teachers, administrators, and other community members who have an interest in the matter to participate.

Everyone will not have an interest in the matter. I imagine some girls, young women and their parents will have an interest. They are the ones who will participate in the conversation and chose whether to do anything.

The question about "So what is the problem if there are fewer female scientists or fewer male therapists? Who cares, and why?" is a fair one.

As previously mentioned, the under representation of women in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields is a national concern. The National Academy of Sciences has identified an urgent need to build science and math capability across gender in order to draw upon a more inclusive pool of talent for the challenges that lie ahead.

Additionally, the fastest growing and the highest paying occupations are science, math, or technology-related. This is about ensuring girls and young women have an opportunity to reach their full potential with respect to their careers, which will translate into access, influence, and financial stability.

Finally, if someone in the community wants to hold a similar conference to support boys, please let me know and I will be happy to share the methodology, contacts, lessons learned, etc.

Cheers.

In fact, the point was made about "social expectations reinforced by teacher behavior"

Parents play into social expectations. The second of the three articles posted mention teachers as well as parents.

We are not going into the schools. We are having a conference in the community that will invite parents, teachers, administrators, and other community members who have an interest in the matter to participate.

Everyone will not have an interest in the matter. I imagine some girls, young women and their parents will have an interest. They are the ones who will participate in the conversation and chose whether to do anything.

The question about "So what is the problem if there are fewer female scientists or fewer male therapists? Who cares, and why?" is a fair one.

As previously mentioned, the under representation of women in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields is a national concern. The National Academy of Sciences has identified an urgent need to build science and math capability across gender in order to draw upon a more inclusive pool of talent for the challenges that lie ahead.

Additionally, the fastest growing and the highest paying occupations are science, math, or technology-related. This is about ensuring girls and young women have an opportunity to reach their full potential with respect to their careers, which will translate into access, influence, and financial stability.

Finally, if someone in the community wants to hold a similar conference to support boys, please let me know and I will be happy to share the methodology, contacts, lessons learned, etc.

Cheers.

It has been my experience that we are doing a poor job in this Country in encouraging young people to enter into STEM careers.

Encouraging those kids who are capable of achieving excellence needs to start early, and I think being taught by teachers who are excited themselves about STEM is key. I think we have too few of those teachers, and we have too few role models and mentors for children of both genders, let alone girls.

Social expectations and parent encouragement too play a large part.

Let me give two personal experiences, both from my daughter's middle school experiences in Montclair.

First story. It's back to school night and we are listening to the science teacher talk. He says "I've never taught science before and don't know a lot so I'll be learning along with your kids."

Next story. Again it's back to school night and a mom asks the science teacher: "How do you grade girls?" They teacher asks "What do you mean?" The mom says "Well, since everyone knows girls don't do well in science, how do you 'curve' the grades for them?"

Now I am also want to be quick to add that I know several women teachers, in science and math who are superb. Excited about what they teach, they convey the excitement.

Cary Africk
(in his role as dad)

Cary,

Your first example begs the question: can we allow first-year teachers to teach?

I'm sure the teacher KNOWS something more about science than the students. However the old teaching adage is true: you only need to be a day ahead of your students......

Some teachers who know everything are terrible. Likewise, some new, energetic teachers are great.

Your example doesn't tell me much.

As for the second, I'm SHOCKED to hear that a Montclair parent is looking for preferential treatment for their child.

SHOCKED!

(Though, perhaps the question isn't a curve, but a teaching style that understands that there are many different learning abilities-- some determined by gender.)

Prof,

Thanks for the quick response!

The first question was meant to stimulate discussion as to the necessity to have highly qualified teachers, and teachers that are certified in their subject matter. It would be nice to know that someone teaching science was certified in teaching science, and that their degree was even in science.

The second example was not a matter of a Montclair parent looking for preferential treatment, but was an example of a parent who truly believed girls were less capable of understanding science.

Your answer, though, is PERFECT. Teaching styles that recognize differences.

Looking at the Athena website, I'm struck that their programs seem to be split 50-50 between encouraging girls to pursue STEM carerrs & to enter the world of investment banking. It's a curious mix.

There are a dozen things to say about that, but my immediate thought was, if this program had existed 30 years ago, maybe the subprime mortgage meltdown wouldn't have happened the way it did.

OTOH, there was that recent NYT story about women bullying women in the workplace, something I've also seen first-hand, so maybe the meltdown would have been even worse.