All in all, women are doing pretty well in science. Surveys from the National Science Foundation show that the percentage of women getting science and engineering B.A.s has gone from from 39 percent in 1984-85 to 51 percent in 2004-5 (though the number of them actually stay in the profession is still dwindling). In fact, only one field can truly call itself still entrenched in male domination: computer science. The stark gender divide was summed up beautifully in last week’s New York Times:
Ellen Spertus, a graduate student at M.I.T., wondered why the computer camp she had attended as a girl had a boy-girl ratio of six to one. And why were only 20 percent of computer science undergraduates at M.I.T. female? She published a 124-page paper, “Why Are There So Few Female Computer Scientists?”, that catalogued different cultural biases that discouraged girls and women from pursuing a career in the field. The year was 1991.
Computer science has changed considerably since then. Now, there are even fewer women entering the field.
And the numbers are just as startling: “In 2001-2, only 28 percent of all undergraduate degrees in computer science went to women. By 2004-5, the number had declined to only 22 percent.” And this year? “Many computer science departments report that women now make up less than 10 percent of the newest undergraduates.”
So why is this happening?
Well, it could be a perfect storm of a continually male-dominated culture, fewer opportunities open to women, persistent societal preconceptions, and subtle discrimination. Or it could be some Larry Summers-esque sign of the female-math-skills apocalypse—though we seriously doubt it.
Or it could be the (novel) idea that nothing is wrong—maybe there are no barriers keeping women out, and they simply aren’t choosing to come in. Female comp sci students could be funneling their talents and interests into other science fields, now that women have greater opportunities there. Or they might be making choices based on the job market, like the comp sci star described by her professor as “chos[ing] to major in nursing because of what the student perceived as better prospects for finding employment.” In all honesty, she may not be so off-base.
Related:
RB: Note to Media: They Give Nobel Prizes to Women These Days
RB: Title IX Hits the Science World, But Will It Do Any Good?
RB: The Mommy Wars and Science Collide (Again)
November 17th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
It’s all about the money (mostly, anyways). By the time you’re out of school with whatever degree you have, more then likely you’ll be thousands and thousands of dollars in debt. You gotta pay if off as soon as you can so it doesn’t hang over you, threatening your furture prospects.
Yes, I am a girl, and I’m currently going to University, and I have considered nursing as a career.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Could it be that women are underrepresented in engineering vs science? After all, CS is mostly seen as an entry into software engineering, making it more parallel to engineering majors than science majors.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
There’s a discussion of this over here - http://granitegeek.org/2008/11/16/why-dont-women-like-computer-science/
My take is that the definition of “computer science” is too narrow, and unlike 20 years ago, now refers to a small segement of the software industry. The cool jobs, while all involving coding skills, aren’t strictly CompSci anymore. Also, with object oriented programming having morphed into something so well structured and easy to use, CompSci doesn’t have that weird genius mystique anymore. Code is built by people who are very, very good at using existing tools and prebuilt code modules.
I see plenty of women with highly technical, powerful positions within the Software industry. I think the NYT article is a bit of a red herring, looking at who enrolls in a very small subsection of the majors that deal with computers.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Hire by brains not genitalia. Google exclusivly hires the Profoundly Gifted no matter what the packaging. Intelligence does exist, it can be measured, it does make a difference. Now, the distaff side of the argument:
YOU did it! YOU weren’t happy making babies and driving black cars with stick shifts. YOU wanted pastels and automatic transmissions. YOU wanted to vote, YOU wanted to be in the workplace, YOU wanted to be in the military. YOU wanted Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, diversity, compassion, and daycare. You’ve gotten it lady, trumped in spades redoubled. Work your butt off, abandon any thoughts of family, and watch as real experts in whining being carried in sedan chairs beat you to the finish line every time. Nobody dares hold you dearly for fear of being drawn and quartered by “social activists” and their pro bono legal representation. The best you can hope for is to get laid.
The rub with victimology and rule of the disempowered is that there is always somebody even less qualified, a worse victim, and more screwed up than you are. You wanted a break for being a woman? Okay, but you’re a White woman and just got euchred out of that position by a Chicana two-fer. She finds herself competing against a sexually harassed Black lesbian single mother intravenous drug addict with AIDS doing the Macarena in a wheelchair. They are all pushed aside by Sarah “Moose Jewel” Palin and her exercise in Trig-onometry.