Women in Math & Science
by rrusczyk, Jun 17, 2006, 3:21 PM
After the flap over Larry Summers and an ongoing discussion in a private Forum on our message board, I have been thinking more about the issue of women in math & science. I won't chime in much on the comments Summers made, except to note that the furor over it does show the closed-mindedness of the 'academic elite'. (Not saying Summers is right or wrong in his comments, just that people who disagree should confront his argument with facts, not charges of sexism.)
At AoPS, we've seen a curious phenomenon. In the Intro classes I've taught with younger students, around 60% of the top students are female. In the Intermediate and Olympiad classes, the percentage is considerably lower. I'm very curious to see if those Intermediate & Olympiad class percentages gradually go up over time as our top younger girls move into the Intermediate and Olympiad ranks. Such an occurrence would argue that our class structure, for whatever reason - perhaps anonymity, overcomes to some degree whatever it is that causes fewer women to participate and excel in mathematics at a high level.
My question for the girls is this: why do your smart peers not participate? What do you think would make them participate in math and science programs? Is it the structure of the program (individual-based rather than group-based, competitive rather than collaborative, etc)? Is it the lack of other girls?
As for whether or not it's a genetic issue, I'll note that we don't really know if there's a wider distribution of genetic mathematical ability among men than among women (ducks rocks thrown at head). But even if this is the case, it should not serve as a deterrent for individual women. Just because there are more men at the top doesn't mean that you aren't as good as they are. So, for an individual female making a choice about what to study, this whole 'Are boys better than girls genetically?' issue is garbage. 'Girls aren't as good as boys as math' is a cop-out for girls who use that to skip math. Not only is the statement ill-formed and meaningless, the sentiment behind it - that there are more high-end boys than girls - doesn't mean anything when evaluating the potential of an individual.
(Lest I be tarred and feathered, I'll note that I'm not responsible for comments left here by other people!)
At AoPS, we've seen a curious phenomenon. In the Intro classes I've taught with younger students, around 60% of the top students are female. In the Intermediate and Olympiad classes, the percentage is considerably lower. I'm very curious to see if those Intermediate & Olympiad class percentages gradually go up over time as our top younger girls move into the Intermediate and Olympiad ranks. Such an occurrence would argue that our class structure, for whatever reason - perhaps anonymity, overcomes to some degree whatever it is that causes fewer women to participate and excel in mathematics at a high level.
My question for the girls is this: why do your smart peers not participate? What do you think would make them participate in math and science programs? Is it the structure of the program (individual-based rather than group-based, competitive rather than collaborative, etc)? Is it the lack of other girls?
As for whether or not it's a genetic issue, I'll note that we don't really know if there's a wider distribution of genetic mathematical ability among men than among women (ducks rocks thrown at head). But even if this is the case, it should not serve as a deterrent for individual women. Just because there are more men at the top doesn't mean that you aren't as good as they are. So, for an individual female making a choice about what to study, this whole 'Are boys better than girls genetically?' issue is garbage. 'Girls aren't as good as boys as math' is a cop-out for girls who use that to skip math. Not only is the statement ill-formed and meaningless, the sentiment behind it - that there are more high-end boys than girls - doesn't mean anything when evaluating the potential of an individual.
(Lest I be tarred and feathered, I'll note that I'm not responsible for comments left here by other people!)
February 2012
January 2012