Why is Math & Science still so male dominated?
Much to all our chagrin my math and science classes are ultimately male dominated. My Calculus 3 class has two girls, chemistry has four and the physics classes actually have no girls. Though the classes are less than thirty, these ratios are still rather small.
I know its not a concluding study, but it seems endemic of other schools. Why in this day and age is math and science still do male dominated?
I know its not a concluding study, but it seems endemic of other schools. Why in this day and age is math and science still do male dominated?
Comments
Actually, I bet all the girls get sucked into biology, back in high school, only 3 guys (including me) were taking AP biology, with some 50 girls.
Originally posted by chych
Actually, I bet all the girls get sucked into biology, back in high school, only 3 guys (including me) were taking AP biology, with some 50 girls.
This is the best way to learn "experimental" biology
Originally posted by Akumulator
Because guys think with their brains, girls think with their pussies.
And granted to their pussies, women control the brained guys ...
Additionally I remain unconvinced that all else being equal young boys and a young girls would chose among professions equally. Since I've been hanging out around babies these days I can see the difference between boys and girls is huge. I don't see a reason why that wouldn't carry into adult life and affect what areas people chose to study.
The important thing to remember is that it's about equal access and equal opportunity NOT equal outcome.
Originally posted by Scott
The important thing to remember is that it's about equal access and equal opportunity NOT equal outcome.
Yeah, but class is boring without enough girls, err...
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Why are there no great female chess players? Probably for the same reasons. A little bit of culture, a little bit of testosterone's effect on brain development.
I did not play chess anymore, but there where some great women chess players, not good as Kasparov and al, but some GMI where women.
Remember that Marie Curie, was nobel of physics and Chemistry
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I did not play chess anymore, but there where some great women chess players, not good as Kasparov and al, but some GMI where women.
Remember that Marie Curie, was nobel of physics and Chemistry
I don't want to piss on the campfire, but there are a lot more men who have reached the same accolade. And again, whether it's culture, testosterone, or some combination of the two, I couldn't tell you, but one datapoint will not do anything to refute a general trend.
And yes, there are women in chess, too. I think the mistake you're making is to think that my comments are based out of some kind of misogynistic motive. They're not. I'm just suggesting that the trend is so lop-sided that I can't imagine culture is the only detractor.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Remember that Marie Curie, was nobel of physics and Chemistry
And her research killed her.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
And yes, there are women in chess, too. I think the mistake you're making is to think that my comments are based out of some kind of misogynistic motive. They're not. I'm just suggesting that the trend is so lop-sided that I can't imagine culture is the only detractor.
Well, I'm not sure the effect of testosterone on brain development is a well-known or commonly accepted scientific theory that accounts for some of the differences between men and women. I think we're wading into some fairly complicated territory here. We *know* about how gender socialization affects career choices, ambition, and things like that. I just don't know about this testosterone argument. It sounds kind of hypothetical to me. What do scientists agree on about it?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I don't want to piss on the campfire, but there are a lot more men who have reached the same accolade. And again, whether it's culture, testosterone, or some combination of the two, I couldn't tell you, but one datapoint will not do anything to refute a general trend.
And yes, there are women in chess, too. I think the mistake you're making is to think that my comments are based out of some kind of misogynistic motive. They're not. I'm just suggesting that the trend is so lop-sided that I can't imagine culture is the only detractor.
There is a lot more girls riding horses, than boy, but I don't think that women have special skills for riding horses. I only think that they have more interest in riding.
There is scientifical studies about the gender of the brain, but I don't think that we can make any conclusion for or against genetical or hormonal related differences now.
Intelligence is the result of a genetical potential interacting with the environnement. It's difficult to separate the two. Speaking of IQ, experiences seems to demonstrate, that the genetical factor is the most important. There is also not much differences in term of IQ between man and woman. But in specialised form of intelligence, the gender seem to have an effect, in a statistical point of vue. But like in my example of horse riding, is it related to hormones or just taste ?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I just don't know about this testosterone argument. It sounds kind of hypothetical to me. What do scientists agree on about it?
Not only is it hypothetical, but it's not even necessarily grounded in anything. When I said "testosterone," at least in the first mentioning, I was trying to use it as an example of a hormone/chemical that also exists primarily in males.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
...
We *know* about how gender socialization affects career choices, ambition, and things like that. I just don't know about this testosterone argument. It sounds kind of hypothetical to me. What do scientists agree on about it?
I'm not sure we do "*know*" all that. If we don't understand the biochemical aspects of it how can we "*know*" for certain any other aspect? Also it's a observational form of science. You can't do experiments on children to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
There was an article in SciAm (can't remember how long ago) where it reexamined the issues of gender and personality... The interesting point of the article was that with new information the idea of the "opposite" sex doesn't seem to hold anymore. Rather it's better to think in terms of the "other" sex.
But for some reason, the big thinkers, the ones with the groundbreaking theories and discoveries tend to still be men. Women can be highly skilled technicians but seldom cause a paradigm shift ? which is not what I would expect by now, since they ought to be just as capable.
Originally posted by Scott
You can't do experiments on children to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
Sure you can.
Originally posted by johnq
Saying that there might now seem to be more female professionals in a given field means only that instruction and opportunity for jobs has increased.
But for some reason, the big thinkers, the ones with the groundbreaking theories and discoveries tend to still be men. Women can be highly skilled technicians but seldom cause a paradigm shift ? which is not what I would expect by now, since they ought to be just as capable.
But who decides what the paradigms are and when they've shifted?
Consider the flip side. Go to an English class. Suddenly the women appear in far greater numbers, almost certainly the majority. And I could easily turn up half a dozen research papers declaring that women have better language skills and are better communicators.
Now stop by the library on your way home. Go to the drama section. Members of which sex wrote most of the plays sitting on the shelves?
Seems to me, when it comes to paradigms, where you're observing the paradigm from can distort the significance of any shift which may appear to have occurred.