<p>Can we put a gender quota on Congress? I mean, they're not exactly 50/50 either.</p>
<p>I think Title IX for science is ridiculous. Performance and performance alone should be the determining factor for admission to undergrad and grad school. BTW, the resistance I encountered in school to my progress was far worse than these anecdotes of oppression people have cited in this thread. Yet, I don't feel I deserve anything more than those who outperformed me but didn't have to deal with what I went through.</p>
<p>Anyway, there are a few points I'd like to make.</p>
<p>1.) About half of my math and science teachers were female in high school. Isn't this fairly typical? Then why are we assuming that it must be that the male high school faculty is discouraging females from advancing in science.</p>
<p>2.) There are other reasons for gender disparity. I went to a technical school in high school and college, and it seems that the girls were far more practical than the guys. Most of the girls wouldn't get a PhD in math or physics simply because of the question, "What can you do with it?" In other words, even if you are outstanding there is not much of a payoff. Guys tend to have a more romantic view of being a physicist or mathematician.</p>
<p>3.) I am just as opposed to Title IX for boys in english and the humanities. Frankly, I would consider it an insult if I got a boost because of my gender.</p>
<p>double post...</p>
<p>misinformation on my part Miami. My bad. </p>
<p>I still wonder what we would find if we compared the gender numbers of American born science PhD students to the gender numbers of foriegn born PhD students in science fields.</p>
<p>^^I don't know. But based on my experience, I think bio and chemistry are fairly close to 50-50 genderwise for American-born grad students.</p>
<p>^I'd agree from looking at my TAs in chem and chem lab and from my experiences researching at a biomedical lab. However, that still leaves out physics, math, and engineering. It's my impression that those fields are dominated by Asian and white males. Whether that is for no good reason or because women strong at science are encouraged to not enter those fields but to enter bio and chem, I don't know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Title IX, since it is statistically-based, cannot be defended against and forces schools to use inappropriate quotas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it isn't. Title IX is actually quite vague. Here's the actual text:</p>
<p>"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter's administration came up with the original policy implementation, which allows a school to take one of three approaches to compliance, only one of which is statistically-based. If a school chooses to take that particular approach, don't assume that it's somehow essential to Title IX, because it isn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion, other than encouraging kids to be physically active and to avoid immorality, there is no reason to force your kids to play with one type of toy more than another one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cognitive benefits? I certainly plan to encourage any future kids I have to play with blocks, for example, as it's useful for their spatial abilities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My sons both played sports, Legos, video games, guns, bows and arrows, etc., and they will likely both be liberal arts or business majors. My daughter, who played with dolls and still very much enjoys cake baking, is majoring in biomedical / electrical engineering. Why? Because they discovered that they like those subjects. How horrible! There must have been some major discrimination that forced them into those fields!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a straw man (and the same sort of anecdote that you dinged me for). Just because your kids went into certain fields because they enjoyed them doesn't mean that there is no institutional discrimination against women in sci/eng, or disincentive for girls.</p>
<p>If you don't like anecdotes, you can find relevant research from Virginia Valian, Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, and Ben Barres.</p>
<p>Collegealum, I was not talking about HS. My HS chemistry teachers were all female, and they were wonderful and because of them I got hooked on science. However, in college I encountered a very different picture - only one female chemistry assistant professor, and the attitude among the faculty was that women did not belong in chemistry. However, that was a long time ago, but the progress is very, very slow judging by the data collected by the ACS (it is from 2 years ago, but I doubt the numbers changed drastically over the last two years):</p>
<p>Chemical</a> & Engineering News: Education - Women Faculty Make Little Progress</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once again, the only news about the percentage of women faculty members in the top 50 chemistry departments is that there is no news. For the sixth year in a row that C&EN has examined this topic, there has been little growth. Women are still vastly underrepresented among full professors, despite slow and steady progress between the 2000–01 and 2005–06 academic years.</p>
<p>C&EN surveyed schools identified by the National Science Foundation as having spent the most money on chemical research in 2003, the latest year for which data are available. The schools were contacted by e-mail and telephone and were asked to provide the number of male and female tenured and tenure-track faculty holding full, associate, and assistant professorships with at least 50% of their salaries paid by the chemistry department in the 2005–06 academic year. These numbers exclude emeritus professors, instructors, and lecturers, as well as any faculty and endowed professors whose salaries are not paid by the chemistry department. The response rate was 100%.</p>
<p>In academic year 2005–06, women represent 13% of the total chemistry faculty at the top 50 institutions. This increase comes after holding at 12% in 2004–05 (C&EN, Sept. 27, 2004, page 32), 2003–04 (C&EN, Oct. 27, 2003, page 58), and 2002–03 (C&EN, Sept. 23, 2002, page 110). In absolute terms, the total number of faculty positions increased from 1,594.5 last year to 1,633, and the total number of positions filled by women increased from 197 to 213.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hate to say it, but pure chemistry, not biochem or bio, is still an "old boys' club". It will take a generation or two, not Title IX, to change the picture.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Title IX for science is ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have you actually read either the text of Title IX or Carter's test of institutional compliance? Carter's test is athletics-specific, but you could just substitute in domain-related words. Title IX, contrary to popular opinion, is not at all written to be quota-centric. All it says is that educational institutions that receive federal money can't discriminate, and all the test says is that you have to demonstrate that you're accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.</p>
<p>Edited to add: As it happens, I dislike quotas. I think they're a lazy person's (or school's, or society's) way to deal with a complicated, systemic problem. Just wanted to make that clear.</p>
<p>jessiehl,</p>
<p>"If you don't like anecdotes, you can find relevant research from Virginia Valian, Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, and Ben Barres."</p>
<p>I tried looking up the research of Spencer, Steele, & Quinn on the internet. As far as I can tell (from my quick review), their research leads them to conclude that (1) men and women who have interest and backgrounds in math tend to do comparably on easy tests but men do better on difficult math tests; and (2) women do not do well on tests when they are told ahead of time that there might be gender differences of results. I guess I do not see how this proves institutional discrimination.</p>
<p>Venkat89,
In regard to distribution % in foreign countries, it is all $$$ related. Believe it or not, medicine (including dental) and education (including science) 30 years ago (I do not know about know, it could have changed) back in Russia were STRONGLY dominated by women. Reason - low pay.</p>
<p>"Hate to say it, but pure chemistry, not biochem or bio, is still an "old boys' club". It will take a generation or two, not Title IX, to change the picture."</p>
<p>Actually, this really is not true in organic or organometallic chemistry, at least not in terms of the gender ratio of grad students. I don't know about physical chemistry.</p>
<p><<quote: ...there="" was="" an="" easily="" observable="" difference="" between="" the="" way="" female="" students="" at="" bu,="" for="" example,="" dressed="" classes,="" and="" [wellesley="" students]="" did.="" as="" you="" might="" expect,="" they="" up="" wore="" makeup,="" we="" didn't.="" fascinating.="" a="" lot="" of="" us="" mit="" women,="" this="" our="" perception="" wellesley.="" maybe="" fashions="" have="" changed.="">></quote:></p>
<p>Maybe they have. Back in the mid-to-late 70s, I would say that the casual daytime attire of women at MIT and Wellesley was pretty much indistinguishable: jeans and t-shirts or other shirts and sweaters. The female students at BU were often seen to wear--gasp!--SKIRTS!</p>
<p>Pafather says, based on his personal observation of soccer teams:</p>
<p><<this obviously="" does="" not="" prove="" that="" no="" girls="" work="" as="" hard="" boys="" or="" even="" most="" harder="" than="" girls.="" it="" only="" proves="" among="" elite="" soccer="" players,="" the="" average="" boy="" spend="" many="" more="" hours="" kicking="" around="" a="" ball="" girl.="" title="" ix="" demands="" equal="" number="" of="" opportunities="" for="" in="" sports,="" though="" do="" do.="" matter="" fact,="" division="" 1="" soccer,="" girls="" teams="" are="" allowed="" to="" provide="" 20="" percent="" scholarships="" boys="" teams.="" assuming="" gender="" discrimination="" just="" because="" outcomes="" different="" (effectively="" how="" is="" administered)="" bad="" analysis="" and="" my="" opinion="" unfair="" (if="" you="" want="" reward="" desire="" with="" opportunities).="">></this></p>
<p>The likelihood is that female soccer teams are able to offer more scholarships in soccer because they offer none elsewhere: football, for example. Title IX doesn't require the same sports for both genders: it requires equal opportunities to participate, which sometimes meant adding a "female" sport to make up for the resources devoted to a "male" sport. </p>
<p>And it has been hugely successful. Female students now participate in sports at the high school and college level in enormous numbers, which is good for all involved on a fitness level, if nothing else.</p>
<p><<similarly, consider="" the="" type="" of="" person="" who,="" for="" no="" immediate="" benefit="" besides="" wanting="" to="" solve="" a="" challenging="" problem="" or="" develop="" something="" cool,="" spends="" thousands="" hours="" developing="" computer="" code.="" sure,="" some="" these="" types="" people="" are="" female.="" but="" overwhelming="" majority="" happens="" be="" male.="" there="" is="" gender="" bias="" here,="" simply="" self-selection.="" this="" does="" not="" imply="" that="" worlds="" greatest="" scientist="" cannot="" female,="" even="" most="" males="" would="" make="" better="" programmers="" than="" females.="" it="" demonstrate="" those="" who="" happen="" love="" work="" on="" computers="" (i.e.="" do="" if="" they="" were="" paid="" very="" much)="" overwhelmingly="" boys.="" surprising="" large="" graduate="" students="" in="" electrical="" and="" engineering="" males?="" you="" faculty="" member="" looking="" grad="" (which="" i="" have="" been),="" want="" absolutely="" subject?="" prefer="" student="" can="" tolerate="" subject="" only="" statistically="" should="" capable="" performing="" as="" well?="" clearly,="" deciding="" advance="" particular="" loved="" your="" discipline="" based="" students="" wrong.="" identified="" genuine="" enthusiasm="" an="" interview="" during="" interview,="" discriminatory="" take="" into="" account.="" might="" end="" up="" with="" gender-balanced="" research="" lab;="" statistics="" prove="" anything="" about="" bias.="">></similarly,></p>
<p>Frankly, I think that if you think that preconceived notions about who is <em>supposed</em> to be enthusiastic have nothing to do with perception, you are grossly mistaken.</p>
<p>You might be interested in reading the portion of Malcolm Gladwell's book <em>Blink</em> in which he describes the auditions for a brass musician at the New York Philharmonic. The section in question was very low in females, and everyone "knew" that females were less suited to the instrument. When they finally decided to audition players <em>behind a screen</em>, so that they were completely anonymous, they were bowled over by a player who turned out to be someone they already knew and had heard play many times: a woman who regularly subbed for them. But because she was a female, they literally could not hear how great she really was. Women just weren't that strong. Or so they thought.</p>
<p>Post #18 said that girls were less willing to put effort (in athletic training or problem solving in math/ physics/ engineering), I believe post #22, point #2 provide good reasons for that: girls are just much more practical. </p>
<p>When it comes to real engineering (not BME), and pure chemistry, female proportion is simply small. However, if you look at M:F ratio in med schools and law schools today, it is about 1:1. I dont think that med schools and law schools actually lower their standards to admit female students. Being practical is probably the true reason that not many females chose math, physics and engineering as their career.</p>
<p>"Being practical is probably the true reason that not many females chose math, physics and engineering as their career."</p>
<p>Since when is engineering not practical? Not only is the discipline of engineering essentially defined as the practical application of technology to solving problems, but an engineering career has good starting salaries, expected growth, etc. Furthermore, good engineering students can typically attend grad school with full funding, thereby not accruing any loans. Finally, a PhD in engineering can usually enter the workforce immediately, rather than having to undergo various post-doc positions common in physics or chemistry. Part-time work or even working from home is also possible with many engineering careers.</p>
<p>If your suggested reasoning is the "true reason" women decide not to enter engineering (i.e. they think it is not "practical"), then I conclude that women employ a much different definition of "practical" than I do.</p>
<p>I'm a woman PhD Electrical Engineer.</p>
<p>pafather, sorry to state the obvious but Men and Women ARE different. Said one way, Men are more focused - said another, women can multitask better. Both are desirable traits.</p>
<p>I believe that the bottleneck/barrier to women in the hard sciences and engineering is attitudes in academia such as you profess. We need to harvest the skills and talents of the entire population - and excluding 1/2 because they are not the same is not useful. Both skillsets are needed and if male academics only value the male skill sets we will not get past this.</p>
<p>pafather, engineering is very practical. I am sorry about that. We are talking about different things. If you can do better on average in the long run by going to med schools or law schools (which are highly competitive), even you have to put tremendous effort (and financial investment) but willing to, why not?
My D1 starts college in about a month and she is going to try EECS (at least CS), even only one female student earned a CS degree this year (among 19 graduated with CS degrees) from the college that D1 is entering. However, D1 does plan to continue her professional school afterwards.</p>
<p>"When it comes to real engineering (not BME), and pure chemistry, female proportion is simply small. However, if you look at M:F ratio in med schools and law schools today, it is about 1:1. I don’t think that med schools and law schools actually lower their standards to admit female students. Being practical is probably the true reason that not many females chose math, physics and engineering as their career."</p>
<p>At one of the top 10 chemistry grad program, and there was a 1:1 male-female ratio. Women were well-represented on the faculty in synthetic chem (organic and organometallic,) although it may not have been 50%. The women faculty tended to be younger. Physical chemistry might have been more male-dominated.</p>
<p>Also, women are well-represented in chemical engineering. At MIT, it is pretty close to 50-50 male-female.</p>
<p>As other posters have mentioned, Title IX simply requires that programs receiving federal funding not discriminate on the basis of sex. I don't think anyone really thinks this in itself is a bad idea; the worries are for whether or not the implementation will be truly effective and equitable.</p>
<p>Someone mentioned Virginia Valian's research. I've been reading her book lately, Why So Slow?, and hit the chapter on academia today. The premise of her book is that there is gender bias in society, including in the business and academic worlds, and its cause is unconscious differences in the ways we think about men and women, and the assumptions we make about them. </p>
<p>Among her findings in the chapter on academia are that men and women from the same "cohort year" (the year in which they received their Ph.D.s) usually start out at either roughly the same salary, or with women making about 80% or more of what men make, but as each time period goes by, the women fall farther and farther behind the men in terms of rank, tenure-track, and salary. Elite private universities tend to hire fewer women as assistant professors (the bottom rank of full-time professorship) than is proportional to the number of women in the applicant pool. </p>
<p>One study tracked a cohort of men and women who had received postdoctoral fellowships from the National Science Foundation or the National Research Council. After adjusting for productivity, the women, in all the fields except biology, still held lower ranks than the men. The more prestigious the institution a woman was at, the lower was her rank; there was no such relationship for the men. Men were more likely than women to benefit from having an influential advisor, though both sexes were equally likely to have an influential advisor.</p>
<p>Later in the book is a case study of an attempt by the JHU med school to accomplish parity between their male and female employees. In the course of making this attempt, the committee doing it found that women were put up for promotion later than their comparable male peers, and were less likely to have been advised about the criteria for promotion. Mentors of male junior faculty were more likely to pass along certain information than mentors of female junior faculty, and male junior faculty were six times as likely to be invited to chair conferences. Too, at the beginning of the effort, 38% of the women surveyed said they felt like a welcomed member of the institution, compared to 74% of the men.</p>
<p>The book also has a lot of interesting research on how expectations shape girls' and boys' performances in math and science, and how parents unconsciously communicate relevant gender role assumptions to their children at a very early age, but I don't want to make this post too long, so I'll summarize it and then come back later.</p>