Hi Sheril,

Those of us over in physics would kill to have the numbers you quote above for the life sciences. (Ok, maybe not kill, but you get the idea...) There's a very long way to go, and there's no single point on which we can push to fix everything. There are several interlinked causes, and - in some fields and institutions - entire cultural changes are needed. Readers should not forget about other recent articles and documents produced on the matter. There was a article by Cornelia Dean in the NYT last December, and of course there was the big report by the National Academies of Science and of Engineering last year “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering”. I blogged about these and other issues over on Asymptotia and there was plenty of discussion and opinion there too, as well as links to the articles. I recommend a read of the reports (or at least some summaries) and the article. The two posts are here:

http://asymptotia.com/2006/12/19/women-in-science-what-to-do-next/

http://asymptotia.com/2006/09/18/on-the-potential-of-women-scientists-and-engineers-in-academia/

Cheers,

-cvj

But if men and women are indeed different, than it's puzzling why so many females are now entering the marine sciences.

no, it makes sense. if men and women have different distributions of strengths & preference (both of which can have multiple dimensions) then you'll see that play out across disciplines which emphasize the need for different strengths and preferences. at the graduate level women dominate the humanities and the social sciences besides economics. they're nearly at parity in the biological science. where they are a very small minority in the physical sciences and engineering. if women are 55-60% of undergraduates right now (i think they are nationally), but 70-75% of english graduate students, it stands to reason that they'll be less than 55-60% in other fields.

data
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/gradenrl.htm

eyeballing some numbers
all S & E 42%
ag sciences 46%
bio sciences 56%
comput sci 25%
earth, atm. ocean sciences 45%
engineering 21%
math 38%
physical sci 31%
psychology 74%
social sci 52%

that is for women as a proportion in 2004.

razib... I see that what I wrote was ambiguous. I did not mean "kill to have the data" - we know the data - I meant "to have those proportions of women in our field". Physics in the USA especially has serious problems in this regard.

By the way, it is much more revealing to break down the proportion figures according to various stages in the career. That is much more useful for seeing where the pipeline gets very badly broken.

Thanks.

-cvj

cvj, i wasn't posting it for your benefit. not everyone knows the data off the top of their head.

Ok... just making sure. But I hope that people note my comment about breaking down the numbers for better understanding of how bad it actually is, especially in the physical sciences (there are departments with entirely no women on staff or faculty, etc).

Cheers,

-cvj

Well, remember we're always talking about the tails of a distribution -- scientists don't have middling intellects or a middling degree of curiosity, work ethic, math training, etc. The ones who make up the tenured faculty at elite institutions must be very extreme.

Smaller female variance will always mean fewer females in both tails, and a difference in means will have the same effect at one tail but not the other -- roughly, cognitive abilities like intelligence differ in variance only, personality traits differ in means (except for Conscientiousness).

Another thing I've been kicking around lately is that, when you look around the world, males are more likely to "hunt large game" -- in hunter-gatherer societies, they hunt down large dangerous game that is shared among the entire group, even when targeting nuts and berries could be more healthy for them. Females are more likely to gather smaller things that are shared mostly among their own relatives.

In the sciences, males are more likely to chase after big theories that try to explain a lot -- difficult things to actually subdue, but which are then shared among the entire field. Females are more likely to focus on more tractable problems that are usually relevant to those sub-fields closest to their own.

To be clear: the distributions overlap, but the male mean in grand theory-building is higher than the female one. Charles Murray notes this disparity in his *Human Accomplishment*.

On the one hand, dealing with more tractable problems is good, and those who pursue this strategy think it's a total waste of time to chase after grand theories. But on the other hand, it *is* more impressive to invent a theory of relativity or prove Fermat's Last Theorem. As such, theory-builders tend to reap larger rewards -- Nobel Prizes, Fields Medals, other prizes, elite faculty positions, etc. As they say: no guts, no glory.

And as with hunting, chasing after elusive beasts has higher variance in outcomes -- for every Einstein, there are scores of nobodies. But for those with more "realistic" pursuits, there's not such a wide disparity, since it's easier.

Personality trait distributions and their relation to women in science:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/07/women-in-science-part-3595726061058.php

BTW, you can tell I'm not a mathematician. Replace "proving Fermat's Last Theorem" with "inventing calculus" as something monumental that the entire field uses.

Hi "agnostic":-

Where's your evidence that females are less interested - or able - in the pursuit of "grand theories"? How do you *even measure that* and convincingly control for other factors, such as being denied in large numbers the opportunity to follow such pursuits?

Thanks,

-cvj

That sound is the top of the can (of worms) hitting the floor. I would characterize the issue slightly differently. Instead of asking if there are inherent genetic differences that may make one gender (or race) more capable of success in any given endeavor, we should ask if our institutions, and the environments within, are operating in a way that no person is limited in their pursuit in a field due to gender, race or height or whatever. I am willing to acknowledge that possibly we don't know everything about the differences in how men or women may think about the world. I am not willing to accept that we as a society should allow people or institutions to place barriers to success based on gender.

Elliot

Elliot:- *Exactly*!!

Cheers,

-cvj

Since I recognize all of those leaving comments - including some of my favorite visitors from The Intersection - I find it ironic given the topic that everyone weighing in so far is male ;-)

Furthermore, I'm also often perplexed as to why the science blogging world is overwhelmingly full of fellas as well:

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/09/girls.php

I suppose it likely reflects the general gender trend in academia.

I suppose it likely reflects the general gender trend in academia.

no, it is a tail distribution effect :-) the proportion is higher on the web than in real life.

Where's your evidence that females are less interested - or able - in the pursuit of "grand theories"? How do you *even measure that* and convincingly control for other factors, such as being denied in large numbers the opportunity to follow such pursuits?

the differences seem to manifest early on. as for grand theories, etc., in IT the way to get women "hooked" is to "make it relevant" and "practical." they want to see the "results." e.g., there was a university which was offering introductory classes where students would design software by hooking up pre-existent modules. the theory was that more women would enroll since it didn't involve low level boring minutiae (and coding is often quite boring). i think this points to the fact that the average female is more practical and less attached to theories or enraptured by their depth. some scholars have argued that the same contrast exists between ancient greek & chinese philosophy. the greeks were fascinated with the implications of paradoxes derived from their axioms. the chinese were not, and when a paradox emerged they pushed it aside and focused on the results and ends which would foster a stable society (there was a school of logicians, but they had a low status).

As a female physical scientist, I found my education had prepared me well for life in the Antarctic.

Out of 18 people in my tiny community of Antarctic scientists and support staff, just two of us are gals; very similar to the proportions in my undergrad physics lectures.

In both cases, everyone would like to see a better balance, men and women alike!

OK napoleon...

Sheril,

"I'm also often perplexed as to why the science blogging world is overwhelmingly full of fellas as well...I suppose it likely reflects the general gender trend in academia."

Possibly, but it could also be tied to the online social "environment" -- see here:

http://xkcd.com/322/

and also here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499095.stm

Unfortunately, the anonymity that's part & parcel of the internet makes it harder to police the little trolls that too often make the web an unwelcoming place for female bloggers.

Sam

Sam,
Maybe girls just aren't very good at science and math. Not to be sexist, but maybe they're just not.

Gabe,

Let's try it this way around:

Maybe boys just aren't very good at science and math. Not to be sexist, but maybe they're just not.

Since we have no evidence either way, we could just as well go along assuming that, just for the heck of it, but somehow society is set up in a way such that we don't. So why do it the other way? Alternatively, we could go in with no prejudices about who is better at what, and give everyone the same opportunities and environments in which to perform. So far, we have not done so in general... and that's really the main point.

-cvj

Gabe,

How then do you explain the fact that there are highly successful women doing science/math?

e.

Gabe,
I read that you are at it again on Correlations, as well as The Intersection. Are your constant sexist comments a 'put on'? Again, come into todays world and expand your horizons. Shame on you for a second time...

Dear Sheril, Gill, Correlations readers, everyone in the world,

I am writing to apologize for my stupidity. I'm a chauvinistic pig. Basically what happened is my brilliant beautiful gf Gillian forwarded me this website because we go back and forth about gender and ability in science and engineering. I like to piss her off and since the post was such a 'big deal,' I commented with my standard reply.

I had no idea anyone would care about my comments and I now realize the impact of blogs and the huge audience on the internet. I'm a jerk and I'm sorry.

Gill insists I comment again here to apologize, which I probably would anyway if I wasn't so embarrassed that I came across as such a jackass. I can't believe I'm being compared to Watson now. I guess I deserve that.

Basically, I do think that maybe men and women have different natural abilities, but by no means do I doubt that women are incapable of great discoveries.

I don't deserve you Gill and you're intelligent and amazing. Please don't stay mad at me over this.

Thank you for writing me the letter Sheril on your other blog, sometimes it's worth making someone think about the result of their actions and the power of words. I'm just really sorry everyone.

Gabe,

I'm glad you've written back and am encouraged that you've taken responsibility for earlier comments. As Linda eloquently wrote at The Intersection, 'small steps accumulate to equal GIANT progress... Keep it going.'

To readers,

I've enjoyed following comments on these threads - there have been many interesting contributions reflecting such varied experiences. I do believe the academic climate for women is changing for the better... And I recognize that the pace of social change is slow. It's through actions like admitting when mistakes have been made that we may move just a bit closer to narrowing the gender gap.