Nurturing Women in Science and Math

The Wandering Scientist, one of my favorite working mom bloggers, brought my attention to John Tierney’s recent New York Times op-ed, Daring to Discuss Women in Science.  The piece is nominally about new legislation being introduced to increase the number of women in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, math), but Tierney veers into broader territory by suggesting that men are innately better at STEM learning than women.

There are a couple of issues here.  First, there’s the base suggestion that women are inherently not good at left brain functions.  This assertion is not new, it’s certainly not daring, and it continues to hurt women’s advancement and achievement in inumerable ways in areas beyond just math and science.  The science Tierney cites is light: mathematician Quomodocumque and his commenters do a good job of deconstructing the stats.

Tierney seems to think that the PC police will try and get him for just “reporting the facts.”  I’m not denying that feminists, particularly those in the science community, are up in arms about this.  But it’s not for empty reasons; we’ve been burned.  Women have been denied training and education in math and science fields for years.  Even those who have natural aptitude have struggled to get what they need to nurture and support their interest.  Those who have shown less ability have been written off, though with some effort and encouragement many could have developed a high level of competancy.

Let’s imagine the counterpart scenario: boys are deemed inherently less competant in verbal skills because girls get better scores on standardized verbal tests.  As a society we decide to divest resources in educating and promoting male achievement in professions like communications, writing and the arts.  How many wonderful professionals in these areas would we lose?  It’s crazy to even think about.  And yet this is exactly what is happening to girls – to the detriment of STEM industries – because of arguments like John Tierney’s.

We don’t study prodigies when we think about other fields.  We don’t assume that a child who does well on the verbal section of the SAT will automatically be a great writer or communicator.  But for some reason, we do think that way when it comes to STEM.  And that holds boys and girls to impossible standards when it comes to junior achievement in these areas.

Even if there is some credence to the idea that proportionally more men have prodigious natural talent in STEM functions than women, it’s not clear that this should translate into the disporportionately small number of women in STEM jobs.  “Natural” talent doesn’t automatically mean a better scientist or better doctor or better professor.  In fact, hiring someone who has a lot of solid knowledge, great passion, and good interpersonal skills may be as good or better than hiring a prodigy.

But let’s circle back to where Tierney originally started: the legislation that creates “workshops to enhance gender equity” in STEM fields.  I actually think this is a pretty lame idea.  This kind of program hasn’t worked to increase gender equity in the corporate world, and I don’t see it doing any better with the STEM community.  It isn’t likely to effect profound change and is probably a waste of resources, two good reasons to be against it.  What New York Times columnists should be writing about is why we can’t seem to come up with solutions that will increase the number of women pursuing STEM education and jobs.  There have to be some better ideas out there. 

Related links:

• Extremely interesting and valid points on women in science, and science education generally, at Maitri’s Vatulblog.
• Geek Feminism does a great job of rounding up other responses to the article here.
• The Association for Women in Science is working to achieve gender equity in STEM fields.
• Check out IWasWondering.org, a site for kids and tweens all about women’s adventures in science.