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 tendency 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

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.

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.

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]

Beatrice Tinsley (1941-1981) - Galactic evolution

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

 

[honestrosewater]

What was the criterion for improvement?

I don't know what you mean.