results? it's a tie. i say let's go into overtime! Female students just as successful as males in math and science, Asian Americans outperform all
I remain skeptical of the findings of any organization whose agenda is immediately recognizable in its name, be it pro-male, pro-female, or pro-race. More than that, the true measure of the importance of these things plays out in the job market and on the professional achievement ledger. Lots of people get good grades in high school, and turn out to amount to nothing as adults. In reality, many of these young women who are doing well in the sciences in high school could very well have a notable career in those fields professionally. However, most of them will pursue careers in other fields outside of the sciences, not because they've been shutout from pursuing a career in the sciences (though that's the angle many women's organizations like to take on the matter), but because they chose to pursue something that interested them more.
Here's some data that suggests your theory is incorrect. USATODAY.com - College gender gap widens: 57% are women http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/europe/08iht-ffdocs08.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Sex ratio for medical residencies
The first link talks about overall numbers, not those confined only to the sciences, and the other links don't tell us much if anything about what's going on here in the United States, with the UK link really only discussing a developing trend in that part of the world in a specific age bracket, not a fully established norm across the board. We all know that there are more women in colleges today, but we also know that the majority of those women are pursuing careers other than those in fields like engineering and mathematics. Here are some excerpts from a Forbes article on this very subject: Business degrees now comprise 18% of all degrees awarded to women, nearly twice as much as the No. 2 most popular major, health professions and clinical sciences. But despite more women moving into this field of study, there is a continuing gender imbalance in the majority of undergraduate college majors. Engineering and computer science remain overwhelmingly male (No. 3 and 4, respectively for men) while women continue to dominate "soft" majors such as education, psychology and English (No. 3, 5 and 9, respectively). Even in the social sciences: "There is no clear gender split in the social sciences and history, with a nearly equal division of degrees awarded to both men and women; it is the No. 4 choice for women and No. 2 for men. Source Link: Top 10 College Majors For Women - Forbes.com I've heard many women's organizations complain about women being "underrepresented" in the engineering field, but they aren't considering that in order to be better represented women have to pursue it in greater numbers. Pursuing Business and English in greater numbers is a choice women are making. It's not a bad choice by any means, but it's a reason why women are "underrepresented" in the fields many women's organizations have complained about.
I'm not sure why you've chosen to focus on this "women's organizations" issue. It's neither in the original article nor in any of my comments. Clearly this is just an issue that exists in your own head. The article simply demonstrates that in the area of math/science women show as much ability/potential as men. Obviously many choose to go into different fields. There is some interest in determining how those choices are made but nowhere does it suggest that women are being systematically excluded. In regards to this thread, you've invented that issue yourself.
First of all, there are several articles posted. Secondly, I've "invented" nothing here, and the tone of your words are a bit uncouth. There is no reason to do that. Thirdly, my point speaks to the constant use of the word "underrepresented" by organizations in this realm in regards to these types of topics, and it was used in the literature posted here, too. And to that point, I merely stated the fact that this lack of representation has to do with the amount of participation. My bringing up what many women's organization state (their words, not mine) on the issue is simply a matter of fact, so to act as if it's off-color for me to mention it in this perfectly relevant context and then even going so far as saying "it's in my own head" is pretty exaggerative, and kind of low to be quite honest. The first linked article in your first post says right at the top of the page--and I quote--"According to a study to be released tomorrow in Psychology of Women Quarterly, a SAGE journal, male and female students earn similar grades in math and science while Asian American students of both genders outperform all other races." Last I checked, Psychology of Women Quarterly is a women's organization. And that organization like any "pro" organization, has an agenda. If this were a pro-smoking organization called Smoker's Quarterly and they came out with a study saying smokers are just as healthy as non-smokers, I would be just as skeptical of it given the organization's likely bias for its own cause. It has nothing to do with the type of organization it is, it's simply about how--as I explained in a previous post--organizations that are pro-something tend to create or actively seek out conditions that fit their agenda(s), and are also quick to make complaints about the result of something rather than the more directly connected reasons behind it.
Your idea of bias is a bit unfounded, the Psychology of Women Quarterly study that women and men earn similar grades in math and science (which is not surprising) and Asian American students of both genders outperform all which is also not a huge stretch. Exactly what is the bias towards women? Did you expect women to be inferior overall in STEM? Are women incapable of conducting unbiased scientific research? If an Asian American journal arrived at the same conclusion, would there also be a bias?
It turns out that women far outweigh men in psychology, which is a science. Men: A growing minority? Kelvin O, PsyD, was one of 12 men in a class of 70 in the clinical psychology graduate program at Alliant International University in Los Angeles. "Sometimes I felt like my voice wasn't really heard," he says. Being one of the few men in his program also made him feel socially isolated. "There were girls' nights and girls' outings," he says. Naturally, he wasn't invited. "I kind of felt left out at times," he says, adding that he probably missed out on some networking opportunities.
The demographics of self-selection would be an interesting and informative topic for someone out there to research. In my field I am quite the rarity. Most are female, 40+ and married. I fit into none of those categories. The rare male in the field is almost without exception gay. That exception is me. Now, how the heck does it happen that one particular field gets dominated so heavily by people in such well-defined demographics? And how the heck did I mosey unwittingly into a field where I am the exception to every rule?
