Men vs. Women in Physics Careers

[yxgao]

It's no secret that most people in physics are men. Is this due to an inherent different in the abilities of men and women to learn physics, or rather that women simply have not been encouraged enough to do physics. By the first case, I mean that are the differences ingrained from birth, and that men are simply superior when it comes to physics? Has it been shown that in general, men have better analytical ability than women? Is this why some women who are not that good are still able to get into good graduate school? Is this fair that they only have to compete against other women, when some men who are much better are not accepted?

Although some women do pretty well, it is very rare to find a woman who is brilliant in physics. I do not think this is the environmental factor, and attribute it to an inherent difference in abilities. Even if you encourage a women from birth to do physics, and she is motivated, the best she could ever do would never compare to the best a man could do.

I understand that a woman can perform much better than men in physics, but why is it that on average you rarely see women in graduate school? Perhaps it is not suitable for them only because they cannot handle the work. On average, their undergraduate preparation is worse than men's, they score lower on the physics gre. Of course, this is not true in every case, but it is definitely true in most cases.

Similarly, why are most great physics foreign scientists? I believe they have an inherent better analytical ability than non foreign scientists.

[mattmns]

Similarly, why are most great physics foreign scientists? I believe they have an inherent better analytical ability than non foreign scientists.

I do not agree with this because you are comparing one country to the rest of the world, and when you do this it is easy to see that the rest of the world will almost always dominate. If you were to compare the number of great scientists in one country to the number of great scientists in another it would probably be a little more even.



I am not sure about women in physics. Women seem to do well in other sciences (biology, chemistry) My only guess would be the math factor of physics, but then why are women not that good at math? Maybe we will see a big rise in women in physics and math over the next 50-100 years. Women just got the right to vote in what, 1917 or something, and there are still complaints about women not getting paid equally. As for women getting accepted into grad school because they are women, well I feel that is terrible. Whether you are white, black, brown, green, male, female, you should be accepted on your academic record, not your physical features.

[yxgao]

I definitely see the lack of women in physics as an issue, and perhaps, as you suggested, there will be more women in the future in this field. However, this increase should be due to the increase in the ability of the women, and not only to equalize the number of females and males. However, if the difference in math ability between gender IS something inherent from birth, then this will not happen, and we will see more lower ability women being accepted unfairly over more suitable men.

I believe you should be accepted by your academic record as well. However, it is less competitive for women in physics and their academic records (in general) do not compare to those of men at all. So there are women who simply do get in just because of their physical features and not their minds, ability, or other relevant attributes.

[Math Is Hard]

yxgao, where did you get your GRE score data?

[jcsd]

I have a theory about this; the shape of women's heads is such that it minimizes the surface area thusly causing their heads to become overheated more quickly than their male counterparts. This why women should stick to less taxing tasks such as housework, child-rearing and molecular biology.......

[Dracovich]

Well in a gross generalization, it's been my observation that women don't have the same tendancy as men to COMPLETELY get lost in one thing. I know it's an old record, but men do seem to have a more one-tracked mind. How many men do you know who get completely lost in computers? Want to know everything there is to know about them, read everything they can get their hands on and just get completely lost in their hobby. This of course is not just computers, it applies to whatever hobby (be it productive or not), and in the case of physics, i'd imagine that this tendency to completely lose oneself in the work would mean that they get better.

I do think this is the reason that in most fields the ones that excell, and are that cream of the crop are usually male, even though that when looking at all the "Normal" ones, women may be of equal numbers/skills. Of course there are always exceptions, and like i said it is a gross generalization that is only based on my observations and nothing scientific :)

[yxgao]

yxgao, where did you get your GRE score data?

I read this on a physics newsgroup, but it was a while ago so I could be wrong.


Dracovich - what do you think will happen if there women tended to get lost completely in one thing too? Do you think they will come out to have equal mathematical abilities, or do you think there will still be other inherent differences?

[misogynisticfeminist]

Social construction, that's all I can say.

The approach to physics and engineering is basically the same, i guess. Men prefer looking at the bigger picture. A certain law or model is like a machine, you put in A, you get B. To understand physics, you have to understand the mechanism behind everything, and not just memorize a list of tables, say if you put in A, you get B, E you get F etc. Most women excel in chemistry or biology because it pays more attention to the details.

that's just based on my experience anyway.

[angelina]

seems that men get a better ability in math and phy but i really don't want to admitt that (for i'm a girl as u can see...)

[PerennialII]

Hasn't there been some research about men being "better" in getting 3D structures etc. while women do better in interlaced problems ? Overall I'd say all this is just historical baggage, I'd hope the percentages would get more even with a higher rate than at present.

[honestrosewater]

Going on very little sleep, so I'll forego citations until requested :tongue2: Or you can just ask google scholar.

As far as general intelligence, no significant differences have been found between men and women. Men outperform women in visual-spatial tasks. Women outperform men in verbal and language-related tasks. Mental activity in men (while performing some task) tends to be localized, while, in women, it tends to be diffuse. Preface all preceding statements with "generally".

Increasing diversity at any cost isn't a practice I support either.

I think the choice of profession is influenced more by social roles than individual abilities. First, consider exposure. How much time do little boys spend with a) mom in the kitchen vs. b) dad in the garage? Same question for girls?
That's all for now :zzz:

[honestrosewater]

Actually, I'll pass on the social argument; It would be way too long and messy.
I'll assume social gender roles are not a factor.

I am a woman BTW. The biggest difference I notice in dealing with physics, logic, and math (plm) vs. other fields is context; Establishing some context in which to place some given content is my first, most natural reaction and is essential to the way I think. Establishing that context is most often troublesome in plm. I notice no difference with regard to details, generalities, level of abstraction or complexity.

As a very simple example, in A \rightarrow B, A and B provide the context for each other. Of the readings "if A, then B" and "A implies B", the latter is much easier for me to analyze (it's meaning is clearer & more palpable) because the relation between A and B is stronger & more obvious (context being established via relations/connections).

When an argument is presented in a string of unrelated bits which are not tied together until the end, as is the case in many proofs, the meaningfulness or relevance of each bit is, at best, obscure, at worst, nonexistent. Thus the argument is more diffucult to follow; context is not established until the end. However, if each new bit of content is immediately tied to its predecessor, the difficulty disappears. It is not a matter of details, generalities, level of abstraction or complexity: it's context. And the establishment of context depends on the presentation.

If you reread previous comments in this thread, especially the gender performance differences, with context establishment in mind, you may gain some insight into a possible reason for the differences.

Well, I'm very tired so if that was rambling nonsense, sorry, I tried. Er, I tried not to... whatever.

Happy thoughts,
Rachel

[honestrosewater]

Coffee is kicking in :bugeye:

Two quick points.

1) To clarify, establishing context was not meant as merely making connections between concepts, as surely everyone must do so. The connections I'm talking about serve to complete an *incomplete* concept. Explaining the ways a concept can be incomplete would take more time and it's not very relevant. But if you want to know, ask.

2) Extending the point about presentation, there are reasons that a female entering a male-dominated field, and vice versa, would possibly be at a disadvantage. Assume, for the sake of argument, that a) women think best using language, while men think best using pictures and b) people use the form of communication they think best in. !They're only assumptions! A field dominated by men would use mostly pictures in its communication. A woman in this field is then forced to communicate in the form in which they do not think best, putting them at a comparative disadvantage. This argument can be greatly strenghtened and extended, but I'm trying to make this quick and not be a hog. :devil:

Happy thoughts,
Rachel

[Math Is Hard]

It might also be worth noting that grad school years tend to coincide with prime childbearing years. I can see this as a strong reason why there would be less women applying to grad school overall. Dracovich made an interesting comment about men having an ability to focus intensly on one thing. It's not easy to have that kind of single focus when you've got one eye on your textbook and another on your two-year-old. :smile:

I don't think that admissions standards should be lowered. If a person can make the cut, he/she should be able to enter the program. The people who enter the program should be the ones who are most prepared to handle the work.

I would still like to see some actual compiled GRE score data and get a better idea of the population variance. I did some googling with keywords "GRE scores women physics" and this site kept popping up over and over and over:
http://christianidentity.members.easyspace.com/standard.htm
I don't think I have to tell you why I find its numbers a little "suspect".

I found some studies on minority scores on the gre.org website, but I haven't had a chance to read them yet. I am going to take a look at them when I am back in the office next week and have a faster connection for downloading the reports.

[Physics_wiz]

I think the only difference is that women can identify with real life problems and social issues a lot easier than they can identify with physics concepts and things that you can't see. It's not easy to identify with things like "moment of inertia". For someone like me, I can understand this concept because I just accepted that it exists the first time I heard about it. I can almost visualize it and have some sense of what it is. If you ask a girl who was in the same physics class as me what moment of intertia is she would probably have trouble answering. Not because she didn't do her homework or because she didn't pay attention, but because it's not as easy for her to just accept something that she can't see.

On the other hand, if you ask a woman about ideas to solve an AIDS problem in a small country, she would instantly come up with ideas that can solve the problem. If you ask me how to solve an AIDS problem in a small country, I'd say..."Uh...stop people from having sex?" And that would probably be the best solution I have.

If you tell a woman to choose between two tasks: To build a car or build confidence in the most shy, diffident person in the world and make that person the bravest one. What do you think a woman would choose? I personally would choose to build a car. I would think most women would choose the second choice. I don't know about most men but I wouldn't have the patience or the abilities to change the most shy person to the bravest one. In short, I think men like to build machines and women like to build people. That's why more men like physics than women (I think).

I just came up with all that outta the blue so I'll probably get some replies that will tear my ideas apart and make me look stupid :grumpy:. Go ahead and post if you object to what I'm saying but please don't be offended by it or something, because that's just what I think and it might very well be wrong.

[yxgao]

Going on very little sleep, so I'll forego citations until requested :tongue2: Or you can just ask google scholar.

As far as general intelligence, no significant differences have been found between men and women. Men outperform women in visual-spatial tasks. Women outperform men in verbal and language-related tasks. Mental activity in men (while performing some task) tends to be localized, while, in women, it tends to be diffuse. Preface all preceding statements with "generally".

Increasing diversity at any cost isn't a practice I support either.

I think the choice of profession is influenced more by social roles than individual abilities. First, consider exposure. How much time do little boys spend with a) mom in the kitchen vs. b) dad in the garage? Same question for girls?
That's all for now :zzz:


Thanks for your thoughts, Rachel! While I agree with you that the CHOICE of profession may be more influenced by social roles than individual abilities, I believe that the superior performance of men over women in physics is due to inherent differences. Even if women did not spend time in the kitchen and young boys did not spend more time in the garage, and a girl and boy were trained the same way, I believe the boy would have a higher potential. jcsd's theory may be able to explain this

[yxgao]

I would still like to see some actual compiled GRE score data and get a better idea of the population variance. I did some googling with keywords "GRE scores women physics" and this site kept popping up over and over and over:
http://christianidentity.members.easyspace.com/standard.htm
I don't think I have to tell you why I find its numbers a little "suspect".

The results may be questionable, but assuming they are for the most part accurate, is the discrepancy between Asians and non-Asians caused by the same factors as between men and women?

What is cranial capacity anyways?

Anyways, I'm just curious to get your thoughts on this, since I will be applying to grad school and competing with other men and women and will have to live with the results of the selection process even if it affects only others and not me.

[Stingray]

Even discounting the possible differences in raw ability, there seem to be several factors working against women having a successful career in physics.

Most women do not like taking risks. Going for a research career in physics is a huge investment in time with relatively little chance of success. Even if you do get a job, the interesting discoveries usually require a lot of risk. Maybe the competition also turns some women off?

Also, women are less likely to be willing to neglect personal relationships for a career. You have to work a lot in physics, and there's really no way to get around that. This is also related to the fact that a lot of women want to raise a child at some point. There's too much competition in physics to allow any significant time off for that sort of thing.

For whatever reasons, I haven't met very many women who really enjoy physics or math beyond a superficial level. It seems to be a pretty clear difference, although it's hard to say how much is nature vs. nurture.

I also think that it is important to note that looking at studies which try to compare "averaged intelligence" in various ways aren't very useful. The average person of either sex has no chance to succeed in physics. The important numbers would be those describing the extreme upper tail of the "intelligence distribution," which are very hard to obtain in any meaningful way. Anecdotally, the most intelligent people I've known were all men. The most idiotic were also men.

[Math Is Hard]

What is cranial capacity anyways?
Cranial capacity is a measure of skull volume. The theory of a relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Here is a good website with more info:
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy/editors_choice/scientific_racism.htm

excerpt
... In the nineteenth century scholars such as Samuel George Morton attempted to prove that some "races" were superior to others by measuring the cranial capacity (brain size) of skulls representing different groups (e.g. "Blacks," "American Indians," "Whites"); his concluded, based on his measurements, that Whites were superior to other groups.

Almost a century later, Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould described in his book, The Mismeasure of Man, how he remeasured the same skulls used by Morton. He discovered that Morton must have attempted to confirm to himself what he and other Americans already "knew": that whites were superior to blacks and to Indians. He did this by accepting data that confirmed his biases, and rejecting data that did not support them. For example, he included in his sample of black skulls more females than he included in the white sample. In his American Indian sample, he included more small-brained Inca skulls than large-brain Iroquois skulls. In addition, he omitted small-sized Hindu skulls from his white sample. In fact when Gould remeasured the skulls, he found that the average size of black male skulls was larger than that of white males. He know now that skull size or cranial capacity tells us nothing about intelligence, but in the nineteenth century such "scientific" efforts were used by people to legitimate their racial biases.

[honestrosewater]

Even if women did not spend time in the kitchen and young boys did not spend more time in the garage, and a girl and boy were trained the same way, I believe the boy would have a higher potential.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? What is wrong with the short argument I made in post #13 part 2?

[Moonbear]

I think the argument that there is any intellectual inability on the part of women is nonsense!

There are a few reasons that have been brought up over and again as I've met with people who research these issues.

1) There are differences in learning styles among girls and boys...this is not an ability difference, just an approach difference. Most math and physics classes in high schools are taught in a way that isn't appealing to girls. Girls do better in cooperative learning environments, such as group discussions. While your other classes, such as language or history will often break out into groups in this way, or have team projects to work on, rarely is this done in the maths and sciences.

2) Girls aren't really encouraged from a young age to consider the sciences, and especially not physics, as a career option. While parents may buy model rockets and telescopes for boys, if a girl expresses an interest in science, often the parents lead her into medicine.

3) People know less about alternative careers for physicists than they do in other sciences, so they think the only path is to become a university professor. This career path in any of the sciences is still a tough one for women. This is both due to bias of the male department chairs and search committees (I have seen the "old boys' club" in action), and to the demands of the career and raising a family. It's easier for a single woman to succeed in academics. From what I've seen of married women with children trying to maintain careers, even though it's a two-career family, household and parenting responsibilities are rarely split as evenly. The women end up having a career AND taking care of the kids, and they burn out from trying to do everything.

For anyone interested, here are a few links for sites with information on or groups for women in physics.

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/
Contributions of 20th Century Women to Physics

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/women/women.htm
Women in Physics, 2000

http://groups.iop.org/WP/
Institute of Physics, Women in Physics Group

[Moonbear]

A bit more information:
IUPAP Conference: Women on Physics
http://www.if.ufrgs.br/~barbosa/conference.html
Look at the links for the Resolutions and Recommendations resulting from this conference.

And a news article about the conference (I couldn't resist this quote, bold emphasis mine):
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/3/1
The basic situation can be summarized as follows: women in all walks of life tend to earn less than men and tend to be under-represented in the higher echelons of society. The situation is more pronounced in science and technology, and even more so in physics and engineering. Is this a problem? A female correspondent to this magazine once claimed that it was not. Scientists tend to be underpaid and under-appreciated in general, she wrote, so women tend to avoid scientific careers because they are brighter than men!

[honestrosewater]

As far as general intelligence, no significant differences have been found between men and women. Men outperform women in visual-spatial tasks. Women outperform men in verbal and language-related tasks. Mental activity in men (while performing some task) tends to be localized, while, in women, it tends to be diffuse. Preface all preceding statements with "generally".

Strike the part about mental activity. More recent research doesn't support it, and I wasn't able to find the studies which did.

Also, I hope everyone notices what is missing in the results given above: variations within each group, overlap between groups, size of difference between groups, what the task was (many different studies use the same "questions"), etc.

Thanks Moonbear for posting some ways to improve the situation.

[yxgao]

You are missing the point of my argument. There are some women who clearly have better ability than men. However, in most cases they had to work harder to get at that position, and I don't mean socially. I mean they had to go through mental strain because it is more difficult for women to grasp the concepts. Like someone joked above, women's brains have minimized surface areas causing them to overheat more easily. While this should not be taken too seirously, there is some truth to it.

I agree with all your comments, Moonbear. However, you are completely missing my point. I understand that the reasons there are not as many girls as there are men are due to social issues, historical issues, personal interests (many women simply do not want to do physics) lack of encouragement for women to do engineering, among other reasons. Again, I agree with you on all this, but this is not what I am trying to say. I think a couple of the people who posted above you understood quite well my point. Perhaps I am not speaking of the general case but the top 1% of the population, which can compose a quite high percentage of the people whom I will be competing with whem I apply to graduate school.


Consider this theoretical situation. Many boys and many girls were raised with the same physics and math training in a gender neutral society. That is, women were not discouraged from doing mathematics, and men were not considered to be superior to women in engineering in any way. If you gave these girls and boys similar mathematics and physics training, and by the time they were in high school, asked them to take the Mathematical Olympiad or Physics Olympiad (the ultimate challenge!), the boys would surely be on top. Perhaps naive, but it does illustrate a point. I believe on average more girls simply wouldn't understand it, not because they don't want to, or they are not encouraged to, but because they simply cannot master the full depths and intricacies of the subject and how everything connects together. However, if the subject were Mol Bio or Chemistry, which does not require the fundamental understanding of everything, boys would not outperform the girls. Referring to high school math challenges such as the International Mathematics Olympiad, at this level of Mathematics, only boys will have such a high level of Mathematical ability. No matter how hard a woman tries, no matter what her social background is, she will simply never be able to compete with the number one person, who has always and will always remain male. This is a difference in ability, not social background.

Looking at it from another perspective, consider the differences between Chinese people and Hispanic people. This is a hypothetical situation, of course. Raise them from birth with the same academic training, and then ask them to take the Mathematics Olympiad and Physics Olympiad, when they are in high school. Assume the world is race blind and no one knows if they are Chinese or Hispanic. The Chinese people will dominate because of the inherent difference in abilities. Studies provide evidence of this, although I'm not sure how scientifically convincing it is. Yet I'm just trying to make a point. Of course, this is just math, and is a rather general statement. Of course, there are things other than Mathematics and Physics that Hispanic people may do better in, but these aren't one of them. This is my point regarding men and women in physics and engineering. The brighest of women will never exceed the brightest of men because of ability limitations.

--YG


I think the argument that there is any intellectual inability on the part of women is nonsense!

There are a few reasons that have been brought up over and again as I've met with people who research these issues.

1) There are differences in learning styles among girls and boys...this is not an ability difference, just an approach difference. Most math and physics classes in high schools are taught in a way that isn't appealing to girls. Girls do better in cooperative learning environments, such as group discussions. While your other classes, such as language or history will often break out into groups in this way, or have team projects to work on, rarely is this done in the maths and sciences.

2) Girls aren't really encouraged from a young age to consider the sciences, and especially not physics, as a career option. While parents may buy model rockets and telescopes for boys, if a girl expresses an interest in science, often the parents lead her into medicine.

3) People know less about alternative careers for physicists than they do in other sciences, so they think the only path is to become a university professor. This career path in any of the sciences is still a tough one for women. This is both due to bias of the male department chairs and search committees (I have seen the "old boys' club" in action), and to the demands of the career and raising a family. It's easier for a single woman to succeed in academics. From what I've seen of married women with children trying to maintain careers, even though it's a two-career family, household and parenting responsibilities are rarely split as evenly. The women end up having a career AND taking care of the kids, and they burn out from trying to do everything.

For anyone interested, here are a few links for sites with information on or groups for women in physics.

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/
Contributions of 20th Century Women to Physics

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/women/women.htm
Women in Physics, 2000

http://groups.iop.org/WP/
Institute of Physics, Women in Physics Group

[Math Is Hard]

yxgao, absolutely everything you've said here is personal conjecture with no hard data to back up your arguments. I am having a difficult time hearing your case with no concrete evidence.

[Justin Lazear]

I agree with all your comments, Moonbear. However, you are completely missing my point.

Consider this theoretical situation. Many boys and many girls were raised with the same physics and math training in a gender neutral society. That is, women were not discouraged from doing mathematics, and men were not considered to be superior to women in engineering in any way. If you gave these girls and boys similar mathematics and physics training, and by the time they were in high school, asked them to take the Mathematical Olympiad or Physics Olympiad (the ultimate challenge!), the boys would surely be on top. Perhaps naive, but it does illustrate a point. I believe on average more girls simply wouldn't understand it, not because they don't want to, or they are not encouraged to, but because they simply cannot master the full depths and intricacies of the subject and how everything connects together. However, if the subject were Mol Bio or Chemistry, which does not require the fundamental understanding of everything, boys would not outperform the girls. Referring to high school math challenges such as the International Mathematics Olympiad, at this level of Mathematics, only boys will have such a high level of Mathematical ability. No matter how hard a woman tries, no matter what her social background is, she will simply never be able to compete with the number one person, who has always and will always remain male. This is a difference in ability, not social background.

Looking at it from another perspective, consider the differences between Chinese people and Hispanic people. This is a hypothetical situation, of course. Raise them from birth with the same academic training, and then ask them to take the Mathematics Olympiad and Physics Olympiad, when they are in high school. Assume the world is race blind and no one knows if they are Chinese or Hispanic. The Chinese people will dominate because of the inherent difference in abilities. Studies provide evidence of this, although I'm not sure how scientifically convincing it is. Yet I'm just trying to make a point. Of course, this is just math, and is a rather general statement. Of course, there are things other than Mathematics and Physics that Hispanic people may do better in, but these aren't one of them. This is my point regarding men and women in physics and engineering. The brighest of women will never exceed the brightest of men because of ability limitations.

--YG

Are you trying to prove a point or are you trying to coax somebody into telling you that you're a bigot? I don't see any evidence for the first, so I'm guessing it's the latter of the two.

What's the point of this thread?

--J

[honestrosewater]

I echo MIH and Justin: Evidence, please. A viable theory would be nice, too. Even so, yxgao's assertions may be true. Personally, I find the consequences manageable, but people will deal with it well or poorly, as with everything else. Anyway...
I thought the purpose of this thread was to figure out the reason for the low percentage of women in professional physics. So what's the supporting/refuting evidence score so far, for the explanations proposed?
a) inherent inferiority
b) social inequalities
c) institutional bias (the institution of physics)
d) ??
e) ??

[yxgao]

I agree it is difficult to provide evidence. I would like to close this thread.

honestrosewater has summed up the evidence so far. The original point of the post was to figure out the reason for the low percentage of women in professional physics. This is important as many people, including myself, will be applying to graduate school soon and will be personally be affected. It is also important to discuss whether the selection of people across graduate schools is fair, regardless of gender (or other discriminating factors). I have concluded from this post that it is not fair. Men seem to dominate women in this field probably because of the reasons honestrosewater listed.

All but one of the top sixty people or so in the the 2003 International Physics Olympiad were men. (http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ipho2003/English/result.htm) Of course, this is just one thing related to physics and other things such as research should also be looked at. But as far as this list goes, I believe the huge difference in numbers is due to difference in inherent abilities. Although I don't have access to specific evidence of this, it is difficult to deny (for me, at least) that this is not true. Thanks for everyone who responded to this post. I have concluded from this post that the selection process is unfair and applicants should not be accepted (over men who are much more competent) just because they have breasts.

[honestrosewater]

honestrosewater has summed up the evidence so far.

Actually, that was meant as an unordered list, not a ranking. I was asking what the score was for each of the explanations listed, i.e., what is the score for a, b, c, d... I think there is clearly more evidence supporting, and no evidence refuting, b. But I still wanted everyone's opinions, and I consider the question still open.

I don't think a scientist can be so ready and willing to form, present, and defend a conclusion without any supporting evidence nor a viable theory. Nor do I know how you can defend your current position.

[ZapperZ]

I agree it is difficult to provide evidence. I would like to close this thread.

honestrosewater has summed up the evidence so far. The original point of the post was to figure out the reason for the low percentage of women in professional physics. This is important as many people, including myself, will be applying to graduate school soon and will be personally be affected. It is also important to discuss whether the selection of people across graduate schools is fair, regardless of gender (or other discriminating factors). I have concluded from this post that it is not fair. Men seem to dominate women in this field probably because of the reasons honestrosewater listed.

All but one of the top sixty people or so in the the 2003 International Physics Olympiad were men. (http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ipho2003/English/result.htm) Of course, this is just one thing related to physics and other things such as research should also be looked at. But as far as this list goes, I believe the huge difference in numbers is due to difference in inherent abilities. Although I don't have access to specific evidence of this, it is difficult to deny (for me, at least) that this is not true. Thanks for everyone who responded to this post. I have concluded from this post that the selection process is unfair and applicants should not be accepted (over men who are much more competent) just because they have breasts.

Since this IS a "Physics Forum", it should be noted that you made the single worst mistake any physicist can make when viewing a set of observation - you are mistaking correlation with causation.

I will not waste my time in arguing that this thread is more approprate to be shoved into the Social Science section, because it has no value in "Academic and Career Guidance". However, I will criticize your ability, or inability, to properly evaluate your observations. You see A, and for some odd reason, you conclude that it must be due to B, even when by your own admission, you do not have evidence of the mechanism that connects B to A. You made "correlations" between B and A, but lacking the mechanism, you cannot say that B causes A.

You also did not consider the possiblity that C, D, E, etc, may also cause A. Could, for example, the lack of social encouragement, inherent biases in the educational system, etc... also cause women to not even think of physics/engineering as a carreer, or even something they can be good at? Does the fact that almost EVERY Intro Physics texts illustrates simple 2D motion using "projectiles" that practically every male student as a child played with is something that should be considered?

I am an experimentalist, and the issue of how to accurately interpret, analyze, and conclude from a set of data is something I am always aware of. The "definiteness" of your statement here regarding this issue based on the flimsiest observation and analysis is scarry.

Zz.

[ginaoh]

Lots of sexism here.

[hitssquad]

Thanks Moonbear for posting some ways to improve the situation.What was the criterion for improvement?

[Nomy-the wanderer]

As a girl, i can tell u that the problem is the way women are brought up...

[Astronuc]

During her short life, Tinsley managed to be a force in astronomy from her first entry into the field. At the age of 25, an unknown graduate student at the University of Texas, she rose before an audience about to hear Allan Sandage and publicly challenged his idea that giant elliptical galaxies exhibited luminosities constant enough to be used as "standard candles" to estimate distances. She proved her point by the age of 36, and the variability of galaxy luminosities became the consensus view.

It was Tinsley who co- hosted the 1977 Yale conference that set the course of galaxy- evolution studies. She died 4 years later of cancer. Near the end, she wrote the following: "Let me be like Bach, creating fugues; till suddenly the pen will move no more."

from - EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES in a Changing Universe (http://www.howcomyoucom.com/Universe/evolutionofgalax.htm)

[honestrosewater]

What was the criterion for improvement?:redface: I don't know what you mean.

[gravenewworld]

You are born with intelligence. Abilities in math, science, language,verbal skills have no correlation with race or gender. Individuals are good at math or science etc. because that is just the way it is. Why someone or a group of people tend to show "more intelligence" needs no explanation. Schools should only take applications with qualifications only. There should be no section where you must mark what race you are and what sex. After completing the application you are given a code number. The school should then post the code numbers of accepted and non accepted applicants on their website. That would be totally fair. If everyone that was accepted were white males or all black females then so be it. They were the most qualified. There should be no consideration for social factors. For example, just because a kid grows up in the projects and went to school in a horrible public schooling system is no excuse for that kid to be excepted to harvard etc. because of their situation if they can't even do simple algebra or read at an 8th grade level. Minorities, women, and other "underrepresented groups" should be given no free breaks because of history or "social circumstances" if they can't cut it.

[hitssquad]

Thanks Moonbear for posting some ways to improve the situation.What was the criterion for improvement?I don't know what you mean.That means, "If the situation changed, what things about that change would mark improvement?" In other words, what is unsatisfactory about the current situation that it could be said that Moonbear had posted some ways to improve the situation? The original post asked "why," not "how can it be changed."

[honestrosewater]

That means, "If the situation changed, what things about that change would mark improvement?" In other words, what is unsatisfactory about the current situation that it could be said that Moonbear had posted some ways to improve the situation? The original post asked "why," not "how can it be changed."The discussion was a while ago, and I don't remember exactly what I was referrring to. I imagine it would have been to the three reasons she listed in post #21 and the links she gave in #22.
I don't think having few women in physics is necessarily a bad thing. If it just happens that way coincidentally, whatever. But if, as MB and others have suggested, there are women or girls who want, or would want, to enter the field but don't have the opportunity to, I'd like to see them given that opportunity.

[hitssquad]

So a lifting of special oppression would be a mark of improvement?

[honestrosewater]

So a lifting of special oppression would be a mark of improvement?Sure, if that's what's currently happening.

[hitssquad]

So a lifting of special oppression would be a mark of improvement?Sure, if that's what's currently happening.That seems to be off topic.

[hitssquad]

As far as general intelligence, no significant differences have been found between men and women.In his chapter contribution to the 2003 book The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/ARJtribute.htm), Helmuth Nyborg found a difference in the male and female g distribution means of .37 standard deviations, with male distribution being higher. For a typical SD of 15, that translates into a difference of 5.55 IQ points. Considering that and a difference in SD where the male SD factor is 1.06 (a wider distribution) and the female SD factor is 0.74 (a narrower distribution), Nyborg calculated that at a threshold of 3 SD above the mean (145 IQ points and not traditionally atypical for scientists), females would be outnumbered by males by 120 to 1.

Here is a pre-publication version of Nyborg's chapter:
google.com/search?q=%22Helmuth+Nyborg%22+%22Draft%3A+Do+neith er+cite+nor+circulate+without+written+permission+f rom+the+author%22 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Helmuth+Nyborg%22+%22Draft%3A+Do+neith er+cite+nor+circulate+without+written+permission+f rom+the+author%22)

Also, the book is available at Amazon.com where the full text is searchable and up to 50 scanned pages (all of the book is scanned and available; Amazon has a viewing limit of 50 pages) can be viewed by any one Amazon.com account holder.
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0080437931 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0080437931)

Attached is the graphic from Nyborg's chapter showing how the male and female g distributions compare when the above numbers are plugged in.

[honestrosewater]

Okay, I was just passing on what I had read; I don't study this.
So how many people would that affect- what percentage of the population has an IQ 2, 3, or 4 SD (of 15) above the mean?

[Stingray]

Although I didn't read any of those links, it isn't correct to assume that the distribution is Gaussian (which is what appears to have been done). When talking about scientists, only the upper tail is relevant. This probably can not be estimated by a Gaussian extrapolation of results obtained from mostly normal people. Anecdotal evidence seems to support this as well.

Error bars on those graphs would also be nice. Even without taking into account what I wrote above, I bet they'd be huge at 3 SD.

[Curious3141]

Okay, I was just passing on what I had read; I don't study this.
So how many people would that affect- what percentage of the population has an IQ 2, 3, or 4 SD (of 15) above the mean?

Off the top of my head, in a normal distribution :

> 2 sigma = top 1/50 = 2 %

> 3 sigma = top 1/1000 = 0.1 %

> 4 sigma = top 1/30,000 = 0.003 %

[hitssquad]

So how many people would that affect- what percentage of the population has an IQ 2, 3, or 4 SD (of 15) above the mean?Click on the attachment (http://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4366). It says in the caption: "2.15% of the population obtains a g score ≥ 2 SDs, and only 0.13% a g score ≥ 3 SDs (from Nyborg 2002)." Jensen says that the distribution of g tends to be normal within 2 SD of the mean but that the tails tend to be fat. The presence of fat tails reduces the extremeness of population differences between any two given distributions.

If a curve of a given sample set were to be perfectly normal, 15.87% of the items fall would above +1 SD, 2.28% would fall above +2 SD, 0.135% would fall above +3 SD, and 0.0031686035% would fall above +4 SD.
members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html)

In the American population of 290 million persons, a normal g curve would predict that 391,500 would have gs of 3 or above and 9,189 would have gs of 4 or above. Various sources posit that the presence of 4g+ mental ability in America is probably ~10 times as common as that.

[honestrosewater]

Okay, I'm not sure how to interpret the rest. Would you call that a significant difference?

[Astronuc]

"The 21st century will be the century of female management thanks to the flexibility and improvisational ability women have in solving problems. Women are naturally more creative than men." - U.S. management guru Tom Peters :biggrin:

That by the way, implies a certain type of superior intelligence. :smile:

And we probably need a woman as President in US since the current crop of males seem to offer dismal prospects. We certainly need the most creative minds to solve the various problems facing the US and world. :wink:

[alias25]

I love physics, and rearranging equations!! dunno why i seem to get captivated by physics sometimes its like im on a rollercoaster get a high from it in a way. when i get something its amazing and then i can see how things link and i even get ahead of my teacher lol i think he gets annoyed by that.and i ask too many questions. o noo im starting to think like a man. i dont really like maths on its own just booooooooring with physics you can apply it so is kwl. im a girrrlly girl. i need to slow down sometimes i think i go too fast for myself.
soooooorry if i babbled too muucchh
belle
*

[alias25]

sorry if i sounded a bit off. im feeling ill today, headache, heartache and sore throat.

[Sir_Deenicus]

IQ but measures how good one is at thinking like everyone else.

Dont forget Emmy Noether, a woman who much of modern physics owes much to.

[Andre]

About the original question about were the women are in physics. Most likely a cultural thing. Perhaps we need a lot more of them to dilute the testosterone level a bit and the associated I’m-right-and-you-are-wrong-because-mine-is-bigger-attitude.

[RufusDawes]

Women are too smart to waste time trying to become physicists. They're too busy become HR specialists and making kiler $$$.

.

[f95toli]

About the original question about were the women are in physics. Most likely a cultural thing. Perhaps we need a lot more of them to dilute the testosterone level a bit and the associated I’m-right-and-you-are-wrong-because-mine-is-bigger-attitude.

I would agree with that. I have been lucky in that I have mostly worked in groups (or at least sub-groups) with many women (not quite 50-50, but perhaps 30-70) and it definitely makes a positive difference to the working environment.
I would NOT want to go back to working in an all-male environment.

Also, it is certainly possible that there are biological differences between men and women when it comes to how we solve problems, but I find it very hard to believe that it has anything to do with the current gender imbalance; the differences between individuals are defiantly much bigger than any "generic" difference between men and women.

What is considered typical "male" and "female" professions tend to vary from country to country and it also varies over time. Nowadays there are e.g. plenty of women in biology and chemistry (at my old university there were something like 60% women in bio- and chemistry programs) but that was not the case just a few decades ago.

There are of course one "biological" problems specific for women in all branches of academia. Specifically that it tends to be very difficult to find a permanent position before you are 35 or so, not an ideal situation if you want to start a family and for women there are good reasons not to wait until they are in their late thirties before they have their first child . I have friend that have left academia for this reason.
Men can safely wait a bit longer and then, to put it bluntly, start a family with a younger woman.

[TMFKAN64]

If you gave these girls and boys similar mathematics and physics training, and by the time they were in high school, asked them to take the Mathematical Olympiad or Physics Olympiad (the ultimate challenge!), the boys would surely be on top. Perhaps naive, but it does illustrate a point.

I'll agree, it *does* illustrate a point. Just not the one you think it does...

[jhicks]

I'll agree, it *does* illustrate a point. Just not the one you think it does...

I hope that the fellow you quoted can read this from 3.5 years ago :rofl:

[mhazelm]

As a woman, I can attest to the fact that my mind is just as capable of understanding physics and mathematics as yours.

I've done very well in both.

All the physics students at my school who have received the Goldwater (in the past 4-10ish years), Rhodes, and Fulbright awards have been women. For instance, my best friend i physics is a single mother and still has a perfect GPA, Goldwater, exceptional research experience, etc.

Maybe you would see more women if there were less men with your attitude. For hundreds of years, women weren't ALLOWED to do anything like physics; we've barely even had the vote, let alone careers (careers didn't really begin for us until WWII). MANY women have been DISCOURAGED from birth to do physics. MANY women have to give up their career to have children - men can't have babies, and sad as it is in the 21st century, most men are unwilling to make the sacrifice of leaving their job to care for children. I don't know of any men who would.

The inequalities continue, but these are social inequalities stemming from people who are arrogant and shovanistic. Fact is, we are just as good, and you'll just have to get used to it!

As time goes by and we begin to finally break past these cultural issues, you will see more women in physics. At least, you're not getting rid of me.

[RufusDawes]

They discourage women because they care about them. Lots of men would have had better lives if they'd been encouraged not to go into physics.

[mhazelm]

It depends on what you mean by "better". I can't imagine what is more exciting than being at the forefront of modern physics - it's not about fame, money, or glory. It's just cool. For me there's nothing better than learning about the fundamentals of the universe - everything else fails.

But then, some people do want fame, or money, or social change, or whatever, and there's nothing wrong with that. Frankly, I think we should encourage people to do whatever pleases them the most (that's legal :rofl:). Aren't people happiest, and therefore better off, when they're pursuing what they're passionate about?

[thewhills]

I do not agree with this because you are comparing one country to the rest of the world, and when you do this it is easy to see that the rest of the world will almost always dominate. If you were to compare the number of great scientists in one country to the number of great scientists in another it would probably be a little more even.



I am not sure about women in physics. Women seem to do well in other sciences (biology, chemistry) My only guess would be the math factor of physics, but then why are women not that good at math? Maybe we will see a big rise in women in physics and math over the next 50-100 years. Women just got the right to vote in what, 1917 or something, and there are still complaints about women not getting paid equally. As for women getting accepted into grad school because they are women, well I feel that is terrible. Whether you are white, black, brown, green, male, female, you should be accepted on your academic record, not your physical features.

DON'T say that.
The President of Harvard nearly got lynched out of Harvard for saying Woman weren't as good at Math.

[erin85]

The above posters have already listed numerous reasons why women have been held down socially, so I'm not going to repeat them... most are quite true. Given that women are less encouraged to go into physics as children, and physics classes are taught in a style that is non-optimal for many women, the result is fewer women total in physics.

So, it's not surprising that MOST very famous and successful physicists are men, because most physicists are indeed, men. There are certainly extremely accomplished and intelligent women in physics. You don't hear about them as often simply for statistics reasons... there aren't as many. It's not a lack of ability, it's a numbers game. In addition, physics has been a boys club, essentially since it was really discovered. Even in the last century, when women were finally allowed to study physics, their discoveries were often claimed by men.

For one, consider the discovery of the double stranded structure of DNA (biology, not physics, but the basic structure still holds). Rosalind Franklin was extremely instrumental in this discovery - her xray crystallography made it possible, and she worked out the structure herself. Watson & Crick, on the basis of Franklin's unpublished evidence, published the structure, and subsequently won a Nobel Prize for it. It was a women who was behind the discovery, but men who got the credit.

As another example, take EBR-I, at INL. It was the first nuclear reactor to generate power. The day it was successful, all the scientists in the building wrote their names on the wall to celebrate. They were all male, and would not allow the female cleaning staff present to also write their names on the wall. However, this was not a scientist vs cleaning staff decision, because the male member of the cleaning staff DID write his name on the wall...

So, it's clear that past discoveries by women could have been masked as discoveries by men, skewing our statistics on the number of really great male vs female physicists. I think the scenario described, in which females simply don't have the capacity to understand the intricacies of physics is completely bigoted... I think that poster just wanted to get a rise out of us girls on the board...

[_Eternity_]

Hey, this is a great topic. I am a woman myself see why most women "avoid" physics. I'm listing several reasons as to why this is the case (my opinion):

1. Social brainwashing. Have you watched TV lately? Any show portrays women as"desperate HOUSEWIVES" *cough*, so from early childhood, girls "dream" of meeting a perfect husband, who will sweep them off their feet.

2. Women are more caring and tend to go into "caring" careers such as K-12 teachers, nursing, customer service, human resources and decorating

3. Different ways of approaching problems. As mentioned before, men see the BIG picture, women focus on DETAIL. I think you need both to be an engineer and depending on the type of engineering.

I can't think of anymore reasons. I love philosophy and I run into the same problem when it comes to logic. Only old males like discussing these things, and I'm a young female?

[thewhills]

Science and Engineering in the media is terrible in general.
The Media give kids a good look into the world of business,but not into science or engineering or math,

[mal4mac]

I do not agree with this because you are comparing one country to the rest of the world, and when you do this it is easy to see that the rest of the world will almost always dominate. If you were to compare the number of great scientists in one country to the number of great scientists in another it would probably be a little more even.

In a recent thread I compared Fields medallists between USA, UK,and France. USA was WAY behind, per head of population.

[mal4mac]

It depends on what you mean by "better". I can't imagine what is more exciting than being at the forefront of modern physics - it's not about fame, money, or glory. It's just cool. For me there's nothing better than learning about the fundamentals of the universe - everything else fails.


Even if you are highly motivated to do fundamental physics, they aren't going to pay you to do that. Unless you are amongst the lucky few. Having a mindset that "everything else fails" is a recipe for personal disaster if (as is likely) you get kicked out of the "fundamental physics research" career path. Better find something else that *doesn't* fail. Fortunately, there *are* plenty of other things that don't fail, if you have a realistic attitude.

[Count Iblis]

I think that the reason why you have less women in physics in the top position in almost all of the world's countries is partially due to (hidden) discrimination and partially due to the fact that physics and math education in primary and secondary school is abominable (all over the world).

The fact that math and physics education is relevant because there is a difference in how girls and boys on average interact with the educational system. There are minor differences in what girls and boys find interesting. Also there are minor difference in how serous they learn in school. There is some evidence that girls tend to be more serious about studying, they finish their university studies a bit earlier on average than boys. They attend classes better and study more serious for exams.

This would seem to give girls an advantage above boys. But in case of physics you get the opposite effect. What happens is that those students who excell at university tend to be the people who at high school studied physics and math on their own. So, the question is, if you are doing well and you are way ahead, are you then going to the university library and study quantum mechanics and relativity on your own?

I think that more boys than girls tend to do that. Not because boys are inherently better than girls in math or physics, but because boys have slightly different preferences on what to do in their free time.


Another related thing is that you have more boys who decide to study physics than girls in the first place. If you stick to the high school curriculum you wouldn't have a clue what physics or math at university is all about, so looking into this in your free time while at high school is also an important factor here.

Then, while studying at univesity, it helps a lot not to stick to the curriculum and do more than is strictly necessary. More boys tend to do that than girls. In case of physics such an attitude is likely to give you a much bigger advantage compared to other subjects.


I can give an anecdotal examples about my own experience on how important studying physics/math at high school is. When I was 15, I mastered the theory of complex functions. I was very good at solving complicated contour integration problems. When I was at university in second year I followed a math course in this suject. Most of the students were math students, I was the only physics student of the course (physics students are required to follow a certain number of optional math courses).

The exam was quite easy for me. I made one minor mistake and scored 98%. Out of the about 30 students there was only one other student who passed the test, he scored 70%. Everyone else failed the test (i.e. they scored less than 60%, which in our system is a "fail").

Clearly being able to perform like that at university is a big help.
Some of my friends who were also doing well at university told me that they also studied on their own in high school. Then it was no surprise that almost all of these friends went on to do a Ph.D., while of the others only a few decied to do a Ph.D. The ratio boys/girls went up even further at this stage.


I think that in case of literature, you can see the opposite effect, but it isn't as big as in physics, because language education is not as bad as math education in high school. Girls read more novels in their free time than boys. Also, there are more girls who will learn foreign languages on their own in high school than boys. This then leads to mor girls deciding to study foreign languages/literature than boys and outperforming them on average.

[Count Iblis]

Even if you are highly motivated to do fundamental physics, they aren't going to pay you to do that. Unless you are amongst the lucky few. Having a mindset that "everything else fails" is a recipe for personal disaster if (as is likely) you get kicked out of the "fundamental physics research" career path. Better find something else that *doesn't* fail. Fortunately, there *are* plenty of other things that don't fail, if you have a realistic attitude.

Well, you must focus on achieving certain goals. If you want to go into fundamental physics, you better make sure you start to achieve good results on your research. The sooner you start the better. With this focus in mind there is nothing wrong with an "everything else fails" mentality as that may keep you on the right track.

[Moonbear]

There is some evidence that girls tend to be more serious about studying, they finish their university studies a bit earlier on average than boys. They attend classes better and study more serious for exams.
Can you provide references for this? I'm not doubting your claims, I've just never seen such studies and would love to see them for myself.


Another related thing is that you have more boys who decide to study physics than girls in the first place. If you stick to the high school curriculum you wouldn't have a clue what physics or math at university is all about, so looking into this in your free time while at high school is also an important factor here.
Interesting point. Though, why do you think there's a gender difference in how this free time is utilized?

Then, while studying at univesity, it helps a lot not to stick to the curriculum and do more than is strictly necessary. More boys tend to do that than girls. In case of physics such an attitude is likely to give you a much bigger advantage compared to other subjects.
I'm not sure this is true. You're suggesting that men rather than women would seek further information outside the curriculum? I don't agree. Can you back up your claim with any published studies that provide such evidence?


I can give an anecdotal examples about my own experience on how important studying physics/math at high school is. When I was 15, I mastered the theory of complex functions. I was very good at solving complicated contour integration problems. When I was at university in second year I followed a math course in this suject. Most of the students were math students, I was the only physics student of the course (physics students are required to follow a certain number of optional math courses).

The exam was quite easy for me. I made one minor mistake and scored 98%. Out of the about 30 students there was only one other student who passed the test, he scored 70%. Everyone else failed the test (i.e. they scored less than 60%, which in our system is a "fail").

Clearly being able to perform like that at university is a big help.
Some of my friends who were also doing well at university told me that they also studied on their own in high school. Then it was no surprise that almost all of these friends went on to do a Ph.D., while of the others only a few decied to do a Ph.D. The ratio boys/girls went up even further at this stage.
And when I was in college, it was one of my female classmates who would score far ahead of everyone else on exams. Anectdotal evidence only provides one example, and doesn't explain overall trends.


Girls read more novels in their free time than boys. Also, there are more girls who will learn foreign languages on their own in high school than boys. This then leads to mor girls deciding to study foreign languages/literature than boys and outperforming them on average.
Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. Can you provide sources? Much to my chagrin, it's my boyfriend who has read far more novels and literature than I have...and his major in college was civil engineering. So, if you're basing it on anecdotal evidence alone, my anecdotal evidence speaks to the contrary. I'd prefer to see proper studies to support any claims.

[Tiger99]

I'm a woman in physics (sort of - maybe in mathematics).

I think it helps to have a lot of confidence in one's own abilities when dealing with the competitive atmosphere. In my experience, men seem to have a lot more confidence (or at least pretend that they do?). They say things like "I was really good at doing contour integrals in high school" or "I really understand this now", etc. Several times a man/boy has told he was just really good at physics and mathematics. Even the ones who have failed exams in mathematics and physics.

I've never met a girl who told me she was good at mathematics or physics, even though I've known girls who were child prodigies and got their degrees before most people finished school. Even these kinds of people rate their mathematical/physics abilities as just average or maybe slightly above average.

Then in the mathematics/physics community a myth prevails that you need to be brilliant to succeed. Only really really smart people can contribute dazzling insights into how the world works. I think perhaps there are a lot of men who would happily identify themselves as "brilliant" but very few women. So the women give up perhaps without any external barrier. They get into graduate school, they score a good postdoc, but even if they do, they don't think they're really smart enough to be a physicist, and eventually they leave of their own accord.

I generalized a lot to make this easy to say... Does it ring true with anyone though?

Also, it's a bit hard to judge someone else's ability, so if someone tells people they are not good, then perhaps others believe them? and maybe this is why people think women aren't as good as men at mathematics and physics? just a little bit at least?

[RufusDawes]

cause male brain is larger and more powerful.. female brain focus on picking beries.

Sad but true. Women prefer neat linear compartments. Not to say a smart woman can't do what she pleases and shouldn't be encouraged to. Silly argument b.c answer is so obvious..

[Count Iblis]

Moonbear, I tried to find that study about female students studying more seriously, but I could not find it on the internet. I read about that study in a local newspaper some years ago.

The other point I made about girls being less inclined to be involved in activities outside the curriculum is based on my personal experience, so it may not be true in general. But I do think that it is related to the first point about girls studying more seriously.

What I have noted lately is that due to changes in our educational system students, regardless of gender, are actually behaving more like high school students and won't explore anything beyond their curriculum.

So, if you give students some problem to solve for homework and there is a mathematical obstacle that requires the students to do a little more work beyond what they have learned in math class, the students will simply come back to me and say that they couldn't do it.

[Tiger99]

cause male brain is larger and more powerful.. female brain focus on picking beries.

Sad but true. Women prefer neat linear compartments. Not to say a smart woman can't do what she pleases and shouldn't be encouraged to. Silly argument b.c answer is so obvious..

I'm going to assume you just enjoy stirring people. No-one really thinks that anymore, right?
:frown:

[physics girl phd]

Maybe some of it comes from being an engendered field and some unenlightened advising, teaching, and even hiring and work practices: Since no-one else out here is providing any references on this (many of these from Jill Marshall's AAPT 2006 talk: The Gender Gap in Physics: Explanations, Data, Analysis -- personally I've become sick of all the gender-bias in physics. So sick of it all I avoid gender-related PER research like Jill's because it depresses me.):

Maybe her education was not equal: * Kahle, Jane Butler and Marsha K. Lakes (1983) The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20: 131-140. (I have personally read on graduate selection committee letters that even though she did better on the GRE than a male applicant, and has more research experience (via publications) than that male counterpart that her adviser still writes that she "looks cute working in the lab" rather than about her research technique. )

She might even be turned down from a job or application because her CV has a female name (while I was a grad student this came out... in science or nature, but I can't find it and am busy today)

She might be given more grunt work and less opportunity: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080423/full/452918a.html

While there might be "some" differences in spacial verbal skills it's not "significantly" different and it's not biologically evident:
*Hedges, L.V. & Nowell, A.(1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals, Science, 269, 41-45.
Cahill, L. (2005). His brain, her brain, Scientific American, 292, 40-47.

P.S. regarding "foreign" scientists... A lot of the Nobel Prizes in physics have been given to U.S. nationals... and many of those were born and raised and received their education here. www.nobelprize.org -- this of course assumes you are US like I am -- and I really think that's a centrist way of looking at things b/c there's a lot of national variation on this forum thank goodness!)

-- And did you know D. Jin at Boulder just made an ultra-cold fermi gas? That might be nobel-worthy in the future... oh yeah -- and the "D." is for "Debbie".

P.S. just ask my husband (a sociologist)... I'm certainly not neat, linear, and certainly NOT compartmentalized via my housekeeping tendencies. And according to him, the start to this topic and some responses therein are from ignorant sexist $%#@#$#%#'s. :smile:

[Moonbear]

Let's not forget the frustrating and still prevalent, "I have to support a wife and kids so need a higher salary" argument that still seems to be successful. I've never had as much success with the, "I don't have a husband to support me so need more money" approach. :uhh:

I'm going to assume you just enjoy stirring people. No-one really thinks that anymore, right?
:frown:

I hope so too. I'm going to take it as a joke, albeit a VERY BAD joke.