<p>is it that the ladies are just more driven and organized??i have boys who enjoy science fairs too and we follow the results and they were pointing out that lots of the winners are female.</p>
<p>Why not? There are two sexes, so strings of people of the same sex winning more than one year in a row are not too remarkable.</p>
<p>In this generation, girls in general seem to be outpacing boys in many areas. I suspect that one reason why is the same reason why immigrants so often excel when they come to the United States–the idea of the challenge is more fresh and new to them, because they’re coming into a fresh challenge from behind. It’s exciting for girls to achieve so much, when boys have had the lead for so many generations. That may be why schools are struggling to fill their classes with lower achieving boys so that girls don’t go to school alone (of course, back in the day when boys took the lead, this concern for equality was not as obvious). Still, boys have their strengths and advantages as well.</p>
<p>Well, why wouldn’t girls win? They are just as smart as boys and they make up 50% of the population. Odds are you are going to have some female winners from time to time. It doesn’t necessarily say anything about females being more drivien or organized. I think it says that girls can do high-level science - just like boys.</p>
<p>it is just so interesting… back a long long time ago i was discouraged from studying math (it is too hard for girls) etc so it is cool to see young women succeeding. i was reading someplace that more women are getting into med schools etc also.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science fairs are less IQ-loaded than objective competitions, which males continue to dominate by a large margin. The proliferation of fields in which a student can conduct research favors girls, in that it makes it harder to directly compare candidates. It increases the weight of diligence, mentoring, writeup, starting early, listening to the advisor, progressing steadily, and other things not all that related to scientific potential, though certainly related to ability to progress through an academic system. </p>
<p>The Westinghouse/Intel/Siemens/ISEF competitions have also changed in ways that make them more appealing to women, which would probably increase participation and the motivation of any given woman contestant:</p>
<p>– the number and size of the scholarships have more than doubled
– the competitions have become a standard college admissions credential. Formerly they were more a pursuit for determined geeks that was somewhat separate from admissions results (but of course influential on the cost of attendance if they won).<br>
– better support from high schools for those participating in competitions, something that used to be true only at a few high schools that emphasized these contests
– high school labwork is now an almost obligatory head start in studying medicine and biology, which are fields preferred by women</p>
<p>Some other points favoring the rise of women in these competitions are:
– use of the school transcript, not just the science project, as part of the evaluation
– weakening of the SAT, which is also used as part of the evaluation but can no longer make meaningful distinctions between candidates for victory in the Intel contest. The old SAT verbal was unforgiving at the top of the scale and men dominated the upper score range. Women have the advantage in the rest of the verbal score range, but not at the top.</p>
<p>Part of it may be that a lot of boys are interested in fields that simply cannot be developed at a high school level. For example, nuclear engineering, aeronautical engineering, etc. </p>
<p>While I don’t want to rain on the parade of the top level intel/siemens winners (I was one of them, and I am friends with many of them), we all openly acknowledge that the work done for these competitions is not in any way deep (with the exception of probably Viscardi/Vaintrob types). It’s really just a practice run of seeing what it’s like to do some basic research, write a paper, prepare for a talk, etc. (And the comments that these students are doing “graduate level work!!!” are ridiculous. Those projects are definitely not at the level of graduate students at HYPSM, where many of these students end up, and the media works with intel/siemens to play up the results)</p>
<p>The foundations for deep work are generally laid from age 15-30 or so, so IMHO the Intel/Siemens competitions are good indicators that one can become a scientist. They do not have any bearing on whether one will do ground breaking work as a scientist. In fact many of the friends I made at the top level of intel/siemens are not even interested in science/math/technology anymore.</p>
<p>While Siemens does not request SAT scores, Intel does. Intel STS finals actually had very little to do with one’s research project and everything to do with having a broad scientific base of knowledge, as reveeled in the course of the four interviews each finalist has with the judges panels. </p>
<p>The ability to communicate effectively to a broad audience is a HUGE part of both competitions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, heaven forbid that competitors be judged on things that actually matter in the practice of science. Clearly, the skills needed to be a successful scientist have nothing to do with “scientific potential”, none at all.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I am/was not an Intel/Siemens contestant. I haven’t raised any Intel/Siemens contestants. That said, I know a few, including a few recent winners. One in particular was doing her research at a single-initial school. Over the years, she collaborated with other researchers (grad students, postdocs, some professors) at other single-initial schools. Some of these other researchers assumed that this particular individual was a grad student, based on her level of understanding and how she communicated with them. She may have been an exception. Still, I wouldn’t categorically state that all such projects are definitely not at a grad level. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>siserune, many of the above apply to both men and women. The first three items should increase the attractiveness of the contests for both genders, more power to the organizations that make it possible. As for the last one, I’ll agree that there are more women then men entering medical and biological sciences careers, but I’ll quibble about saying that high school labwork is an “almost obligatory head start” to those careers. Might be true in some areas of the US, or in certain school districts, but by no means for all. </p>
<p>
As is increasingly true for professional scientists and engineers. Caltech has a program on this for undergrads, including an essay contest. I’m not sure if it’s mandatory or not, but the articles that the undergrad winners produce are really impressive. </p>
<p>The bottom line may be a mix of factors. More women then men entering college. More women seeing science and engineering as possible career choices. An educational and social environment that is more accepting and supportive of women in these careers and taking the requisite coursework.</p>
<p>Studying the sociological changes in time of the winner profiles for the competitions would in itself make a good competition entry ;)</p>
<p>Slithey Tove, I used to tell my kids when they were little that no matter what kind of juob they got when they grew up, they would need to be able to communicate their ideas to other people, both orally and in writing. Researchers need to be able to present their ideas in such a way as to elicit funding, and need to communicate their results as well.</p>
<p>Intel and Siemens both put a lot of emphasis on making one’s project understandable to a wider audience. </p>
<p>Another observation – at both Siemens and Intel, at least half the projects are bio/chem. With more women going into the biological sciences vs. other scientific fields, and so many porjects submitted related to those fields, this may also be a reason why more young women are rising to the top in these competitions.</p>
<p>Take THAT and eat it, Larry Summers!</p>
<p>Okay, on a more serious note. </p>
<p>I do concur that it is more conducive to do certain kinds of lab work as a HS student attached to a professor. We discovered that physics is generally not one of the areas, so my S was willing to attach to a USC professor in Earth Sciences and work on climate modeling (think global warming) over the summer. </p>
<p>I gather physics labs can be too complex and are filled with expensive equipment. University labs also have to be concerned with risk management issues in having students under 18 on the premises (some of them resolve this issue by designing group programs over the summer, which include teaching the group proper lab safety from the get go.)</p>
<p>Obviously, most of what I’ve said applied to both girls and boys but I offer it to go along with others observations than more young women are going the med/bio route than engineering/physics. I had a engineering student as a roommate in the late 70’s and she had more classmates calling her for dates than I could keep up with. It finally came to a head when I left her a message regarding a date with Tim and she said, “WHICH Tim?”</p>
<p>Recent studies have suggested that women are out performing men in terms of graduating from college, grade averages, and SAT type scores. Remember when they were pushing single sex ed for girls, no some are saying we need to redesign schools for boys to succeed. Looks like the tension between ying and yang.</p>
<p>To reply to the question that is the thread title:
For the same reason that you often get a run of heads or tails, if you toss a coin 68 times in succession (agree with tokenadult)</p>
<p>I was just about to say the same thing, QuantMech: it’s a thing called chance. </p>
<p>I do love all the explanations. It’s a human trait to explain things without regard to the element of chance. Why were 4 winners in a row over 6 feet tall? Why were 3 of 7 named Joe? </p>
<p>The other option is they decided to pick girls to encourage girls. That doesn’t mean the girls weren’t deserving winners but that the judges tilted the field just enough for political reasons. I doubt this is true. I’m betting with QuantMech on this one.</p>
<p>“why do YOU think the top intel winners have been women the past few years?”</p>
<p>‘cause women are smarter and better at science? Just sayin’ ;)</p>
<p>I thought the 2009 Intel science talent search winner is a boy (Eric Larson from Eugene, Ore).</p>
<p>susan4, maybe it’s a question of two different Intel competitions, one the Intel Science Talent Search and the other the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair?
Winners of the latter are at:
<a href=“http://www.societyforscience.org/intelisef09/IntelISEF09GAO.pdf[/url]”>http://www.societyforscience.org/intelisef09/IntelISEF09GAO.pdf</a>
I can’t tell some of the genders for sure, from the names.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s just as much of a fallacy to attribute something to chance just because it <em>might</em> have occurred by chance. Chance and systematic factors both play a role here.</p>