Executive Summary
In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences released a report, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, which examined the causes of the different rates of participation among women and men in science, technology, engineering, and mathematic disciplines (STEM).[i] The report explored several potential factors that might contribute to fewer women than men pursuing STEM degrees, but concluded that discrimination was the central impediment to women's progress in these fields. The report called for greater government action and oversight to reverse this trend. The media have reported these findings, and many policymakers have embraced the report and explored legislation to codify the report's recommendations.
Yet policymakers and the public should not simply accept the report's conclusion that discrimination is the primary cause of enrollment differences and should consider the potential pitfalls of greater government involvement in students' decisions about what field to pursue. Innate differences in aptitudes, temperament, and interest likely play a role in leading fewer women than men to pursue and commit to STEM disciplines. Attempts to steer students toward one area of study to achieve a politically correct gender balance would ignore students' true preferences, potentially leaving them worse off.
Greater government intervention to encourage institutions to reach an outcome closer to parity in enrollment in STEM fields could also have a discriminatory impact on men. While policymakers and bureaucrats attempting to institute policies to encourage institutional change would undoubtedly claim not to be creating a "quota" or encouraging the creation of different expectations for male and female students, the experience with the use of Title IX in the athletic arena should serve as a warning to the public. Title IX has encouraged schools to embrace a quota mentality in college athletics, leading many schools to eliminate men's teams in order to reduce the number of male athletes so that men's and women's participation rates are more equal. If this approach is applied to academic subjects, it could adversely impact students and scholarship.
Even those who champion women's interests alone should be concerned about the potential for Title IX's application to academy. After all, women now account for six in ten undergraduate students, and earn the overwhelming majority of degrees in biology, psychology, and much of the humanities. If Title IX is applied to STEM, it would be reasonable to assume that Title IX also would have to be applied to other academic areas. As a result, women may find themselves discouraged from pursuing disciplines that, for a host of reasons, they have traditionally found most attractive.
To the extent that there are barriers to women pursuing STEM, including discrimination against women and stereotypes that deter women from pursuing these fields, individual institutions are best suited to counteract these problems. Numerous nonprofit organizations reach out to young women to encourage them to pursue degrees in STEM fields. Individual schools are attempting to reach out to prospective female students as well as find ways to make STEM departments more hospitable to female students. These are the best ways to alleviate social pressures without undermining the independence of the academy.
[i] National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.
5 Comments
rm | May 19, 2008, 10:36am | #
The minute we allow the goevernment to mandate, regulate, and overall interfere with any "women's issue" is when we accept that we are helpless victims who cannot succeed without the help of Uncle Sam!
Lil | May 19, 2008, 3:22pm | #
Maybe you are not old enough to remember school sports before Title IX. I do. The boys had football, basketball, baseball, swimming, soccer. We had volleyball. Title IX levelled the playing field so that schools were forced to offer sports to women. What is wrong with that? So the boys lost a few sports, but the women gained so much more. As for expanding this notion to academics, it would be better to get women excited about these fields, then they will want to major in them. I don't believe that women are being discouraged from following these fields so a Title IX-type solution would not help.
jessica | May 20, 2008, 4:20pm | #
I'm a genius in certain areas, but I always flunk out in the math, science, technology stuff. Teachers try to get us interested in it without discrimination. I go into the zone when they start talking about it. It's just not interesting to me so I avoid it.
I avoid sports for the same reason. Teachers always yelled at me to pay more attention to the game whenever we had P.E. I would go into the zone. I couldn't wait for the game to be over so we could go inside. For me to care less about who wins a game would not be possible. The ball would land near me and I would just stand there and look at it.
My lack of interest made the teachers very angry so I know they were not discriminating against me.
Jane | May 20, 2008, 6:10pm | #
A consortium of engineering organizations conducted research on the career interests of high school-aged women who are currently enrolled in and succeeding in challenging math and science courses. None expressed interest in pursuing engineering careers. Not because they think it's too difficult (many plan to pursue careers in medicine) or too boring (others are planning to study accounting), but instead because they don't understand the personal and professional rewards a career in engineering would offer.
Would a Title IX approach help or hurt? I don't know. But an effort is underway to retool the way engineering is marketed to students to effectively convey the rewards and benefits in ways that appeal to women. See the results at www.engineeryourlife.org
Dena Leichnitz | May 23, 2008, 5:05am | #
I believe you are correct Carrie, women should decide what discipline to pursue not the government. I wouldn't want the government telling me because we have Carrie Lukas, Maya Angelou and a host of other women writers that I could not pursue my dream of becoming a writer-it is not "masculine" enough and I should be a doctor. Well I hate hospitals, can't stand the sight of blood and having to watch people die would make me a nutcase so I would be a very lousy doctor. I don't have the interest or the temperament to be a doctor. I do however have an intense interest in politics and would make a great lobbyist or political commentator(I was one for awhile). Women shouldn't be force-fed what their passions should be. They should choose, isn't that what feminism is all about? How come feminists always want us to choose what they want and not what truly makes us happy. Choose abortion, not motherhood. Choose science, not being a teacher. Choose being a whore, not a faithful wife. Choose Humanism, not God. Choose death, not life. It is always about their choices not ours. As stated above, I have no problem with STEM disciplines making themselves more attractive to women but it should be done on a strictly voluntary and private level. The government should not get involved, everyone only suffers when they do.