Last year, the prestigious Siemens science competition was swept by girls, and now girls have swept the top tiers at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.
Very cool.
Engineering has always been a place where there are more men than women, and it’s great to see girls doing so well in the field. I happened to be at a picnic last night for an engineering department, and it occurs to me that I saw just about as many women as men there, at least as far as grad students go. It’s possible there was a selection effect going on: maybe a bunch of men didn’t show up — but that seems unlikely, as there was free food, so I would expect all the grad students were there. 
Not to hammer the obvious, but clearly the all-XX chromosome win for the Intel fair shows that women and men, boys and girls, can both excel in science and engineering. And because I can, I’ll also point out that any society that relegates women to an underclass is, at the very least, throwing away half their brain trust. Not to mention just being stupid.
Tip o’ the soldering iron to Rebecca, who’s doubled up on the X chromosome herself.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Smart chicks rock!
May 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Awesome.
And thanks for mentioning this, BA. Glad to have you on the side of reason in gender relations as well.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Why do you think it is society? Maybe girls are just not interested in
stuff like that?
Just for fun: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
And not for fun (along the some of the lines in given paper) – how come mostly men die in the war? Who is underclass?
Don’t you think that view “there is some place where women make less than half, so that must be enforced by patriarchal society” is rather primitive and not that scientific?
And yes, smart girls rock.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
[...] The second is from Bad Astronomy Blog, about how for the first time girls have swept the top tiers at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. [...]
May 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Occam’s Razor:
a.) The Y chromosome alone determines interest and aptitude.
OR
b.) The Y chromosome doesn’t have *that* much power, but the sum total of the times girls are told, explicitly or implicitly, that they are weird or even unwanted in the fields of math, science, or engineering from their peers, their instructors, and society at large is a very powerful dissuasive pressure.
Now, the answer is obvious to me, given that I’ve stood up under that dissuasive pressure and have no Y-chromosome, but it’s sometimes hard for my male counterparts to visualize.
Think of every “no gurlz allowed” or every “dumb women with technology” joke you’ve ever heard. Now, put yourself in the mind of any technologically-minded girl or woman that hears that joke. She’s being told she doesn’t belong. She’s weird. The guys are normal, she’s not. This *sounds* harmless, and it *can* be overcome (again, I’m proof), but it’s definitely discouraging. And it doesn’t let up. It’s the message that is sent day in and day out. You’re weird. You don’t belong. You should go over there. Even if your presence in the Boy’s Club isn’t directly resented, it’s still *strange*, and that’s a bit of social pressure that is not negligible.
Assumptions that girls aren’t interested can be directly harmful, too. If any guys reading this have had a mentor, someone who helped you build your first telescope, showed you how to put together a computer, taught you car maintenance, or otherwise given you some sort of tinkering or sciencey bug, ask yourself: if you were a girl, would they have approached or humored you? Or would you have missed out on that opportunity?
And I’m not even TOUCHING on direct, aimed-at-you sexism. It’s still out there, don’t kid yourselves, but this kind of general dissuasion and disadvantage is much more persuasive and much more insidious. And I *know* this pressure exists. I let it roll off my back every day, and I see valuable minds deciding it’s easier not to fight it. I find it a much, much more plausible explanation (given, again, that I know it exists) than the Natural Order of Things in which “girls are just not interested in stuff like that”.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
(sorry for the long rant; this is, as you might imagine, a subject near and dear to my heart)
May 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Oh, and the “persuasive” in the last paragraph should be “pervasive”. Slight difference there.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Let’s see: women are banned from combat postings (and until recently weren’t even accepted into anything but auxiliary services, let alone admitted into the military academies or institutions such as the Virginia Military Institute). Surprise! surprise! More men die in war. Gee, I guess males must be an underclass. I guess heterosexuals must be an underclass, too. Since homosexuals are supposedly not allowed in the military, presumably not many homosexuals are dying in combat, hence proving that the poor downtrodden heterosexuals are an underclass.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I just saw on the NSF statistics page that young women in the physical sciences can expect to make $1.14 for every dollar that young men make. I’m delighted – it certainly took long enough for companies and universities to start wising up that one way to attract more women is to give them a fair shake (and then some).
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/employ.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tabh-16.pdf
May 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I’m in the legal profession and when my mom went to school she was one of very few that even tried for law. She graduated fourth in her class. I went to school 21 years later and women were over 50 pecent of the class. When I went to find a job my gender was a non-issue. Woman can excel in fields once they feel it is open to them.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I would echo the “Smart Girls Rock!” sentiments of above, but with a minor codicil:
Smart Girls not only rock, they are better companions to be with, more satisfying friends, and more unabashedly sexy than their unfortunate sisters from the shallow end of the IQ pool.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Rimantas, as a girl who is very much interested in “stuff like that,” I’d like to say:
I’m tired of that question.
Attempting to deny the impact of continued sexism on women’s achievement by parroting an old sexist stereotype (women aren’t interested in or aren’t good at the sciences) is the height of boneheaded irony, but the amusement value for me–and other women who have to deal with the consequences of these attitudes wore off about a hundred years ago.
And in the face of such overwhelming evidence that sexism still exists and is still a factor on how professional women are received by their peers, it points to an interest on your part in justifying a sexist status quo. It’s willful ignorance.
I expect this thread to be overrun by other people who will also try to deny the existence of sexism by making unsupportable and sexist claims about how men and women are different. (”Sexism doesn’t exist, sweetheart! You’re just being hysterical!”)
It makes my poor female brain hurt. I don’t think I can bear to read it.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Funny (or sad, depending how you look at it) story i got on this. Went as an exchange student to UC Irvine last year, and had a few classes in the engineering building (tower). For some weird reason there was only a mens toilet on every other floor, and a womens toilet on every other floor. When i asked about it, i found out that it was because that when the building was built (around 1960/1970), it was common knowledge that no women would ever study engineering, so they didn’t bother putting womens toilet in the building. Later of course they started to enroll and they needed toilet facilities, so 50% of the floors became men and 50% became female.
Of course, maybe whoever told me this (i forget who exactly did so, i think it was a teacher though), was making it up, or was repeating some myth. But i thought it was amusing anyway
May 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Actually, the Y chromosome does have a lot of power.
It’s been beaten on by the X chromosome over the eons, for sure (largely, no doubt, to keep the rascally Y from trying to kill all sperm containing an X).
But it still holds a vast amount of control over the body via testosterone level manipulation – there’s a whole lot of genetic machinery in place, all over all the chromosomes, that flips one way or the other depending on how much testosterone there is.
That includes genes for building bits of the brain, too.
It’s a simple fact that men, on average, have different aptitudes than women, on average. Boys really are better at math, and girls really are better at language. The same is true of interests, which usually follow aptitudes.
It’s a peculiar fault of many people on the political left that they believe the only way to fight exclusionary practices is to pretend there are no differences to justify them. Those with the proper frame of mind will have ground to a halt at that last sentence, because they realize that the existence of differences does not justify said practices. That’s the key realization that so many fail to make.
Even if the most mathematically gifted girl with an interest in pursuing the field were behind the least gifted boy with the same interest, that would be no justification for preventing her from trying. Either she has what it takes, or she doesn’t.
In reality, the most mathematically gifted girl is leagues ahead of the least mathematically gifted boy, and it’s easily possible that at any given time, said most gifted girl is also ahead of the most gifted boy (such is the nature of averages).
In the case of science and engineering, men will be better, on average, than women. If you grab them off the street, that is, and force them to enter the field. If you limit yourself to those men and women who have chosen to pursue an education and career in science and engineering, then average differences between men and women in the general population are irrelevant in determing which will be better at the subject.
Such average differences will, however, tell you how many men and how many women you should expect there to be in pursuit of the fields in question. If you abolish any and all exclusionary policies, as well as any affirmative action policies, you’d end up with the natural ratio of men to women in the various science and engineering fields, based on the average male and female interests and aptitudes. No one at this point can possibly know what that ratio is, but it can be said with confidence that it’s not 50/50.
So we shouldn’t expect equal numbers of men and women in any field where the natural average levels of interest and aptitude are different among the sexes.
All that said, I must aver that until the last vestiges of exclusionary practices are finally cast aside, attempts to encourage more women to enter the science and engineering fields, providing assistance as needed, are well justified.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I wonder…
If I get cloned with my Y chromosome removed and my X chromosome duplicated, what kind of girl that would become.
I bet my XX version of myself would be a little more well adjusted and a lot cuter.
Phil, have you ever wondered what your XX clone would be like?
May 17th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Hmmm, maybe I should have saved that question for the live video chat.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“…if you were a girl, would they have approached or humored you? Or would you have missed out on that opportunity?”
Well, since every friendly approach an adult male makes to a young girl (not just children, but teenagers as well) is now potential grounds for the complete loss of his freedom, followed immediately by total destruction of reputation, zero ability to obtain or keep a job, and permanent listing as a danger to the neighborhood (presuming he can find somewhere the law will let him live)… no, I don’t think such approaches are likely, and getting less so.
It’s a real shame that just as females are actually getting the credit they deserve for being complete, functioning human beings, a social hysteria of epic proportions has driven most mentors fleeing in the opposite direction. Personally I wouldn’t mentor a non-adult female for anything anyone has to offer. I value my liberty far too much.
That’s not to say that females can’t accomplish much by yourselves or within the confines of female-to-female mentoring (once there are enough technical females to get that handled… a few decades yet, I’d hazard), but it sure looks like it’s going to be a lot more difficult than it needed to be.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
You know, this comment thread alone is proof positive of sexism in the sciences.
The post is a wonderful, supportive, celebratory article about the extraordinary ways in which girls and women are being fostered into the sciences, and we should all be reveling in the happiness of it!
Let’s salute this new generation of girls for whom sexism is waning, if only just a tiny, smidgen of a bit, and enjoy watching them grow into the powerful minds they possess! And for those of us who still endure the ever looming specter of sexism in our careers, let’s fight it, knowing that we are paving the way for the next generation, just as they will pave the way for the generation after them, until one day, these conversations will be moot.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“any society that relegates women to an underclass is, at the very least, throwing away half their brain trust. Not to mention just being stupid”
This, I believe, has actually been historically demonstrated in WWII. The integration of women into the workforce by the Allies and the comparative reluctance of the Axis nations to do the same certainly contributed to the industrial production disparity that played such an important role in the outcome.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“It’s a simple fact that men, on average, have different aptitudes than women, on average. Boys really are better at math, and girls really are better at language. The same is true of interests, which usually follow aptitudes.”
Bzzzt. This is not a fact. It is an unproven assertion.
The reason that it is unproven is that it is rather difficult to separate inherent aptitudes from pervasive societal steering. For every “nature” claim there is a “nurture” counterclaim, in fields from biology to anthropology to sociology. The null hypothesis is that there is no inherent difference in brain function; and that null hypothesis has yet to be overthrown by conclusive evidence to the contrary. Sure, it’s “common wisdom” that there are such inherent differences; and there are some studies that purport to show that there are such inherent differences. But there is no scientific consensus on that point, despite the repeated efforts to declare that case closed. (For a history of attempt to “scientifically prove” someone’s bias on the basis of ethnic group, etc, “The Mismeasure of Man” by Gould is recommended reading.)
(Interesting tidbit: in medieval Europe, upper-class women were discouraged from studying Latin, which was considered too “masculine” for their poor female brains. They might, however, study astronomy, which was considered among the subjects suitable for a female. So where does that fit with the modern North American assertion that math is masculine and language is feminine?)
Now, I will agree with the remainder of the arguments on how “average differences” should not reflect on individual aptitudes, and how if there WERE average differences, that would not justify discrimination anyhow. However, I nonetheless cannot let pass the widespread canard that the hypothesis that mental differences according to gender are inherent has yet been supported by the balance of the evidence. And the convolutions of that last sentence should prove that language is not my foremost aptitude…
May 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
C is absolutely correct.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
So, what you’re saying is…
“The Girls Swept Siemens.”
Oh, come on people, that practically wrote itself.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Seriously,
Congratulations to the winners.
Here are two videos fo the girls talking about their discoveries.
Best of luck in their future endeavors.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
but the sum total of the times girls are told, explicitly or implicitly, that they are weird or even unwanted in the fields of math, science, or engineering from their peers, their instructors, and society at large is a very powerful dissuasive pressure.
Yeah, and boys like me who were into science and math were *SO* lauded by society at large, especially our peers in high school.
Oh, and being into math and science was REALLY attractive to the girls!
Christ! I just broke my *own* sarcasm meter!
May 18th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Well, since every friendly approach an adult male makes to a young girl (not just children, but teenagers as well) is now potential grounds for the complete loss of his freedom
A bunch of people at my work, both male and female, used to mentor science and engineering at local schools, but no longer due to the reason you state. There was a local case of a guy getting accused of something, and it took a lot of time and a lot of money (it nearly bankrupted him) to clear himself, and it only happened because the girl finally admitted to making it up.
I’ll let you guess if the girl received *any* punishment whatsoever.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:48 am
I took undergraduate studies in science and in the humanities. There were equal numbers of male and female students. It is in the higher levels that the number of women dwindles. Males are a majority in graduate studies, and a vast majority of the faculty stuff.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:49 am
[...] that necessarily true? Looking over the winners that are being lauded as examples of how “any society that relegates women to an underclass is, at the very least, throwing away half their br…” – yes, but what may be thrown away if such women are already in an ‘underclass’ [...]
May 18th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Agreed…and here’s where I whine about a majority of Americans not thinking we’re past due for a feamle president.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Agreed…and here’s where I whine about a majority of Americans not thinking we’re past due for a feamle president.
I’d rather think at a deeper level.
I want a President that can do a good job. Race and gender should be irrelevant.
Voting for someone because they are female is just as stupid as voting against someone because they are a woman. It’s a willful reduction of unknown petabytes of intellect down to a single bit.
Why do people seem to have such a difficult time seeing both sides of the coin?
May 18th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Actually I hope that in the not-too-distant future stuff like this won’t be news because it will be commonplace to see women achieve awards like this in almost every discipline. But it won’t be as fun to rub stuff like this in the faces of sexist a-holes.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:30 am
I love you. You are great! And that puts you in the company of God, as in “God is great”.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:38 am
the reason of sexism are gov laws … look at muslims they dont let womens do anything and their population is growing
ok ,yeah theres no difference between womans brain and mens brain and blah blah
the thing is …who is gonna watch the kids ? thats how democracy thinks XD excuse my bad english sound like 14 old XS
May 18th, 2008 at 6:39 am
When my son was in high school I asked if he was going to get involved in the First robotics team or any other tech clubs, and he said, ‘No, they’re for girls’. While I assured him they were not, it seems the push to include young girls is also excluding young boys. I fear that some of our best and brightest young men are seeking careers other than science and engineering because, rather than opening the doors wider to a more diverse community, attention has skewed to those considered under represented.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:07 am
“In the case of science and engineering, men will be better, on average, than women. If you grab them off the street, that is, and force them to enter the field.”
Really? Why?
MAYBE I’d be willing to consider that possible if you do literally mean men and women.
But if we’re pulling kids off the street? No way.
Even in the first case, though: better at what? Better in what ways? Because “science” and “engineering” aren’t just about straight-up mathematical and technical skills. It’s not about sitting around all day with big ideas in your head, bolstered by some equations. Not by a long shot. A good part of what goes on in, say, astronomy, is project management, communication (intra- and inter-collaboration), team management, hiring, teaching, training and development . . . .
May 18th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Tim G.:
Thanks for posting the link to the videos — those were awesome. Good science, clearly explained.
And congrats to the winners!
May 18th, 2008 at 11:49 am
So we shouldn’t expect equal numbers of men and women in any field where the natural average levels of interest and aptitude are different among the sexes.
Thanny, you’re right. I’m a Ph.D. student in ecology and my field (as well as much of biology) seems to be well on its way to becoming female-dominated. Guess men just aren’t cut out for or interested in biology.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I am 74 on my way to 75 so have seen this issue over a few years. I have 2 strong independent women as daughters and what a change I have seen over these few years of my life. You go, girl!! Women are starting to “get there.”
May 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
This post made me happy. It provides some evidence that our society is progressing for the better.
The comments made me sad. It provides evidence that sexism is still rampant among supposedly rational people. A post about some girls winning some awards somehow lead a few people griping about how all accusations of sexual abuse are made up. The heck???
For all of you who like to say “Well, this is how it is, so this is how it is meant to be” regarding sex and performance—you realize one could make the same arguments about race, right? Your arguments could easily be used to “prove” that [insert ethnic group here] are biologically inferior. You don’t say such things, of course, because to do so would be to expose yourself as prejudiced.
To the guy who griped that his son was reluctant to join robotics group because it was cootie-fied, I have a few points:
1) If it’s hard for a boy to join a group with lots of girls in it, imagine how it must be for a girl to join a discipline that has been male-dominated for CENTURIES.
2) Was he reluctant to join because the girls were actively pushing him out, telling him that boys aren’t meant to build robots, etc., or was he reluctant to join because girls are icky? If it’s the latter option, then sexism and viewing girls as undesirable is the culprit. Sexism hurts dudes, too.
3) Would you have griped if the robotics group were, say, predominantly Asian? (I’m assuming you’re caucasian—if not I apologize.) And when your kid said he didn’t want to join a group that was full of Asians you would grouse about how hard it is for a white kid to not be in the majority anymore? Would you gripe about how “those people” are pushing you and your kind out of the sciences? (I’m assuming not—these are rhetorical questions and all. Just trying to point out how prejudiced it all sounds.)
May 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Why “at the very least“? What a ridiculous, totally unsupported, sexist comment.
You’d never get away with saying the opposite.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Zar-
Thanks for the points you made and the chance to respond. I’ve been involved with education programs at NASA for the last 18 years; it is where I first met Phil. I’ve worked hard to ensure an inclusiveness in every program I have worked with. There are also many programs that target specific populations that are de facto exclusionary to others. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as everyone has the ultimate opportunity to rise to their potential. But, at my son’s school, there was a very aggressive teacher that basically made him feel not welcome, and, as I mentioned, skewed the opportunity to the girls. No cooties involved in this, just someone’s opinion of who was entitled to the program.
The US needs more engineers. Period. Race or gender does not matter, the more kids who are encouraged the better. These young women who won the Siemens award are shining examples of what we need to address future opportunities. But we still need more. With all the increase in numbers from females in/and underrepresented populations, we are not seeing a total increase as the largest group that contributed to that number, caucasian males (my son), has decreased. All students should be afforded equal opportunity to access these programs, and encouraged to do so, and made to feel welcome if they choose to attend.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Woo Hoo!
May 19th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I tend towards the view that the best way to find out if women and men really have different natural aptitudes in different fields is to start by eliminating all the social and economic barriers which might lead to different outcomes for men and women, wait a couple of generations for the transients to die away, and then look and see how the numbers shake out. That’s the scientific way to do it.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:16 am
I think we have a new kind of pareidolia here – seeing sexism (and racism for that matter) whenever possible. Well…
@Kutsuwamushion, I am sorry, but I do not believe that you have read that article at all. If anything is sexist, it is your attitude and argumentation. Well, lesson learned – I should stay away from topic like this.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I should stay away from topic like this.
Or rather, you should make some effort to discover the state of anthropological and sociological research in the fields of science and technology, and specifically the gender disparity therein, before you make unfounded claims based on articles you read on CNN or wherever.
Your claims about “interest” are predicated on a rather shakey argument:
1) Our interests are entirely or mostly determined by our gender, or by other genetic factors. This assumption is generally based on the stereotype that men are good with logic and tools, while women are good with emotions, language, and interpersonal relationships.
2) The process of knowledge-making was handed down by god or the universe or something, and should not be tampered with at all. Seemingly, it was perfectly designed for men and their logical, tool-loving minds, which is why there are so many men in science and so few women. To alter that would only be a detriment to science/an affront to god/whev.
2) Given #1 and # 2, women are less likely to do science because it overwhelmingly deals with logic and tools. Wait, hold on, ignore the report-writing, the client-meeting, the grant-funding, the shmoozing, and the grad-student-herding. Also ignore the fact that women are also under-represented in fields that require a tremendous amount of interpersonal relating, like politics and business.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I didn’t mean to target Rimantas, but make a general comment on the theory that women “on average aren’t interest in the hard sciences and in engineering, so we shouldn’t worry about the disparity, because they have freedom to choose, y’aknow”.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
A few comments here (like the “Robotics Club is for girls” one above) have me worrying. I teach at a community college. At a recent class, every single girl in the class had done a particularl assignment, but only one guy had. Girls in general seem better prepared and get higher grades. I’m not just noticing this in my own classes, but those of my colleagues.
Certainly women are achieving more, both in the sciences and humanities, and I’m not knocking that. Good for them. But I’m worried that at least part of the reason may also be that the guys of the current generation are slacking. I’m not sure why – the usual suspects of video games, poor role models, or what. But it’s worrisome.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
The level of the discourse on this topic is very sad. S. Thomson does a great job of setting up a strawman (especially item 2, which NOBODY has even implied) and then destroying it. Zar also earns an A+ in Strawman Construction and Destruction 101, with extra points for the phrase “cootie-fied”; I applaud Jim G.’s restraint in his response.
Why do some people seem so threatened by the notion that there are sex-related, heritable differences in interests and aptitudes? Look at our closest cousins, the primates – all of them exhibit substantial differentiation in behavior between males and females. Look at the evolutionary history of Homo Sapiens – why would we expect that we have erased the evolutionary pressures that differentiate male and female behavior? See any number of Dawkins’ works, or Steven Pinker’s popular books for supporting evidence (quickly dons asbestos suit in anticipation of the Lewontin, Rose, and Gould apologists showing up en masse …).
None of this says that science and engineering are the exclusive province of males. No reasonable person denies that females have had major obstacles to overcome in access to many academic fields, and that such obstacles have often been in place from early childhood. No reasonable person fails to do what he/she can to erase those barriers, and looks forward to the day when those barriers no longer exist at all (and no reasonable person can deny that those barriers are today much less important than even 20 years ago). But no intellectually honest person can deny that, across statistically significant samples, sex is a significant factor in aptitude and interests. (Note that I did not say the major factor or the most significant factor, so build your strawmen on somebody else’s back, thank you very much.)
It’s great when girls / women do great at science. It’s great when boys / men do great at science; plenty of them got horribly abused in all levels of school for being “geeks”, “nerds”, or for people of color, “acting white” (see the work of the economist Roland Fryer about this). But what’s even better is when people get to pursue their dreams and do the stuff that really makes them happy, whether that leads to equal outcomes for the sexes in science and engineering or not!
May 26th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Well is somebody made to this point, see this also:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/05/free_choice_and_the_.html