As a female, am I inherently bad at "top tier" maths/physics?

[Sophie Carmen]

Hi
I'm in college (UK) and I'm currently studying for my A levels...Including the subjects: Maths,Further maths and Physics.I'm doing pretty well at school, and i spend a great deal of my free time studying maths/physics for pleasure.My "dream job" would be to work as a physicist in academia.I have intentions of studying physics at university, and i would like to attempt a career in the subject. I REALLY love physics and mathematics, but sometimes i feel as if I'm biologically "handicapped" due to being female, especially at higher tier/university levels. Sometimes I feel this is true so much so that I believe that attempting a career in science would almost be a waste of time. Even if i were to decide that I'm probably not up to high level mathematics..I can't imagine myself never studying it independently, as it gives me so much pleasure.

Do you think it's "worth my time" to study maths/physics formally, considering the fact that i am female?

 

[fresh_42]

Yes.

 

[Dishsoap]

If you're expecting that the world will contradict your doubts and tell you that females are competent in the sciences, you're going to be disappointed. I'm a female about to enter grad school in physics, and the field is far more sexist than most people will even admit. Just yesterday, I was at our fall section meeting for the APS presenting a talk. Afterwards, I overheard a professor in the audience saying to one of his students that he had a question for me but wouldn't ask because I was "just a girl still in undergrad" and wouldn't know the answer. My professors, who I love and respect dearly, also have put me down and discouraged me because of my gender more times than I can count.

You have two options:

1) Concede, not study physics, and spend the rest of your life wondering "what if?".
2) Tell society to go %&@# itself, and prove the world wrong.

If you're looking for a group of people to feed you compliments, then you've come to the wrong place. If you don't think you're capable of studying science, then you won't. If you do, then you will. But your motivation can't come from other people, because other people suck. It has to come from yourself. And that... well, we can't help you with that.

 

[fresh_42]

Science has nothing to do with gender as great female scientist of all fields have proven. The fact that they don't appear in natural science to the same number as their male counterparts do is subject of many studies and certainly everybody here has his personal opinion on that - not necessarily the same! What you wrote about your passion is more than many of your fellow male students will come around with. And even more important: it is the key attitude to be successful. Curiosity and willing to - as I like to say - play with the stuff. Unless you are a genius - and the fewest of us are - there will be frustrating times ahead. As long as you don't give up and let them determine your passion it's all ok.

So definitely: YES.

 

[strangerep]

[...] sometimes i feel as if I'm biologically "handicapped" due to being female, especially at higher tier/university levels.

WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH. You are not intrinsically "handicapped" due to being female. Heh, I could say that I'm "intrinsically handicapped" because I'm not as smart as some of the other males.

Maths+physics are nontrivial subjects to master, and one can get a bit depressed at times. That doesn't mean one should give up.

You can always get a bit more help here at PF if you're having difficulty with some aspects of the subject.

 

[fresh_42]

... plus there are some very smart girls around here! Hopefully they won't read "handicapped".

 

[strangerep]

... plus there are some very smart girls around here!

... it might help to inspire others if more of the smart girls would give a gender hint in their avatars.

 

[jtbell]

Paging @e.bar.goum ...

 

[samalkhaiat]

Hi
I'm in college (UK) and I'm currently studying for my A levels...Including the subjects: Maths,Further maths and Physics.I'm doing pretty well at school, and i spend a great deal of my free time studying maths/physics for pleasure.My "dream job" would be to work as a physicist in academia.I have intentions of studying physics at university, and i would like to attempt a career in the subject. I REALLY love physics and mathematics, but sometimes i feel as if I'm biologically "handicapped" due to being female, especially at higher tier/university levels. Sometimes I feel this is true so much so that I believe that attempting a career in science would almost be a waste of time. Even if i were to decide that I'm probably not up to high level mathematics..I can't imagine myself never studying it independently, as it gives me so much pleasure.

Do you think it's "worth my time" to study maths/physics formally, considering the fact that i am female?

Emmy Noether was a female. I am a male physicist, but I wish to have just a fraction of Emmy Noether's reasoning power.

 

[FactChecker]

If you love the subjects, you have nothing to worry about.

I overheard a professor in the audience saying to one of his students that he had a question for me but wouldn't ask because I was "just a girl still in undergrad" and wouldn't know the answer.

The man is an imbecile.

 

[Sophie Carmen]

Emmy Noether was a female. I am a male physicist, but I wish to have just a fraction of Emmy Noether's reasoning power.

Emmy noether is my desktop background, haha. she is such an inspiration to me.

 

[FactChecker]

Emmy noether is my desktop background, haha. she is such an inspiration to me.

Rings, fields, abstract algebra -- She is the cause of much of my misery in grad school.

 

[samalkhaiat]

Emmy noether is my desktop background, haha. she is such an inspiration to me.

Then you are on the right track. Just carry on, theoretical physics is beautiful and hard at the same time. It requires commitment to hard work and a lot of patience. I used to spent my weekends studying knowing that all my friends were partying, and never regreted that.

 

[Sophie Carmen]

Then you are on the right track. Just carry on, theoretical physics is beautiful and hard at the same time. It requires commitment to hard work and a lot of patience. I used to spent my weekends studying knowing that all my friends were partying, and never regreted that.

Do you think that being female will hold me back intellectually?

 

[samalkhaiat]

Do you think that being female will hold me back intellectually?

Not at all. However, negative attitude would hold us (male and female) back intellectually. Hard work is all what we need.

 

[fresh_42]

Do you think that being female will hold me back intellectually?

No! That's one of the beautiful things in science: Nobody cares about gender, religion, age, nationality or whatever. Neither does physics or math. And PF is a proof for this. I'm astonished every time again, when I debate or joke here with someone literally on the other side of the world. Although I must admit, living in your time zone (+1) it has its disadvantages talking live to someone on the US pacific coast or Australia's Gold coast ... But who cares sleep

 

[Bandersnatch]

Being a female can act disadvantageously due to the stereotypes inherent in most societies. It has been shown that if you're told that you're expected to do worse in maths-and-physics because of your gender, you will. On the other hand, no actual gender differences have been found in mathematical/science competence.
Have a thorough read through this paper:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057475/ and the papers cited within.
It might shine a new light on the subject.

 

[micromass]

Emmy noether is my desktop background, haha. she is such an inspiration to me.

Noether is very inspirational. But you undoubtly know what happened to her. She was one of the brightest minds on the planet and she didn't get a position because she was female. She is not the only example of this.

Check out Sofia Kovalevskaya for another brilliant (but somehow less well known) female. And of course the recent fields medallist Maryam Mirzakhani.

Anyway, are you intellectually inferior because you are female? No. I'm a professional mathematician and I have many male and female colleagues. The female colleagues do not seem to be any worse or any better than the female colleagues.

What will probably happen though, is that there are some guys who think you're inferior because you're female. This can be annoying since those voices cannot always be ignored since they might be your professors or even your advisors. This will be your biggest issue.

But you are definitely not biologically handicapped because you're female. Besides, even if females were generally not as smart as males (for which there is no evidence at all, the converse would actually be more likely), then it still wouldn't matter since hard work is way more important than raw intelligence anyway.

 

[Remixex]

This is amazing, i live in Chile, and as students of almost third year of Geophysics we are 30 fellas, I'd say 15 of them are woman, and men are as competent as them when solving physics and math problems, sometimes they even have a different approach (granted, i don't know any "advanced" or "top tier" mathematics, my knowledge goes up to Vector calculus and linear Partial Differential equations) in fact it was very interesting to study Calc III with them because most of them have a good understanding of how to draw and imagine a 2D surface over a 3D space, i really struggled in that course because of my complete inability to imagine certain things.
There are loads of female teachers in my university, teaching and researching in a large variety of subjects(“Passive image interferometry for the observation of current tectonic and volcanic processes” would be one), and there's one thing they all have in common, they have a strong character, and that is a must when dealing with a "male" environment that physics and mathematics still is, they were able to form a position for themselves, now sadly you also have to prove yourself in the knowledge areas, the comment "just a girl still in undergrad" the girl part was uncalled for, but in this field, as you probably already noticed, the degrees are actually considered to be very important.
Do you think it's "worth my time" to study maths/physics formally, considering the fact that i am female?
Of course, in fact it doesn't even have to be "worth your time" (god it sounds so harsh) it has to be something that, if you like to do and want to do, it's a must that you do it, it is something that you devote your life to, and if you don't do it because "it's not worth your time" over "loving it" then you're going to live your life like that.
Cheers and good luck
-random undergrad student that probably doesn't know any better

 

[jack476]

ure.

Do you think it's "worth my time" to study maths/physics formally, considering the fact that i am female?

Who the hell told you that women are inherently bad at math? Whoever that was has not done their research: there is no difference in inherent or natural ability between men and women because no matter how you slice it math is not a natural skill.

No, women are not inherently bad at math. Yes, it's absolutely worth your time to study. And the career field isn't going to get any less sexist as long as women keep buying into that claptrap and letting themselves be pushed out.

 

[PhotonSSBM]

I latched on to feminism early on in my life in response to how my sisters were treated at their universities when they were studying law and ecology. It's almost impossible not to be condescended to by people because you're a woman when you're in science, because that's how a lot of us have been programmed to respond to women. There's a lot of feminist literature out there that speaks to what you're feeling and it may empower you to know that most women who are successful in their lives have grown past this nonsense and gone on to make great contributions to everything you can think of (not the least of which is math and science). I would suggest reading "Men Explain Things to Me" by Rebecca Solnit since it's closely related to what Dishsoap was talking about with how men treat her in her field and what I've heard many women rage about when it comes to sexism in science.

 

[e.bar.goum]

Hi
I'm in college (UK) and I'm currently studying for my A levels...Including the subjects: Maths,Further maths and Physics.I'm doing pretty well at school, and i spend a great deal of my free time studying maths/physics for pleasure.My "dream job" would be to work as a physicist in academia.I have intentions of studying physics at university, and i would like to attempt a career in the subject. I REALLY love physics and mathematics, but sometimes i feel as if I'm biologically "handicapped" due to being female, especially at higher tier/university levels. Sometimes I feel this is true so much so that I believe that attempting a career in science would almost be a waste of time. Even if i were to decide that I'm probably not up to high level mathematics..I can't imagine myself never studying it independently, as it gives me so much pleasure.

Do you think it's "worth my time" to study maths/physics formally, considering the fact that i am female?

Thanks jtbell for the ping, I can't imagine why you'd think I'd like to respond to this thread.

There is nothing biological stopping you from performing at high levels in physics/maths. That's just complete and utter hokum. And it has been proved in about a dozen ways. Probably more.

It is absolutely true, however, that as a woman in STEM, you will face additional challenges that your male counterparts will not. Some of these have been discussed in this thread. Women have fewer role models, and fewer mentorship opportunities. STEM is "coded male", insofar as qualities that are interpreted as "male" (also hokum) are valued over qualities that are interpreted as "female" (no matter whether or not you exhibit them personally). At the moment, in many places, men and women are represented at about 50/50 levels in undergrad and PhD's, but the level drops off rapidly after that. This is known as the "scissor diagram". This is for many structural reasons, including the lack of support for women who leave temporarily for caring reasons, and the fact that women are less likely to have bosses "tap friends on the shoulder" for jobs.

I'm not telling you this to put you off, but to show you that, essentially, the reasons that women are underrepresented in sciences are structural and societal, not "intrinsic". You've got to decide whether or not doing physics/maths is worth the trouble, and that's only something you can do.

Now, the good things about problems that are not intrinsic is that they can be fixed. And there is a lot of work going on right now to try to do just that. In the UK, there is a program called Athena Swan http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/ , which is a big deal. These days, to get major medical research funding, you have to have an Athena Swan award that demonstrates work towards gender equity. Many things that were acceptable even a couple of years ago are now totally not ok (see the Tim Hunt scandal, "shirtgate" etc etc). I'm a proud member of my research school's first gender equity committee, and I'm excited for what we can do.

I'm a woman in physics, and I'm lucky - I've had some fantastic female (and male) supervisors and mentors, and I've got hope for what we can do in the future. I hope you don't get put off of physics/maths by any ideas that you aren't good enough because you're a woman.

ETA: I can't spell societal, apparently.

 

[jtbell]

I can't imagine why you'd think I'd like to respond to this thread.

Actually, what inspired it was the post preceding mine about avatars. Then someone else came along and mentioned Emmy Noether.

 

[vela]

No! That's one of the beautiful things in science: Nobody cares about gender, religion, age, nationality or whatever.

I wish this were true, but I doubt it is. Scientists are people, and like everyone else, they bring along a lot of societal baggage. I can still recall how shocked I was back when I was starting grad school and heard about people trying to ban gay members from APS meetings. Granted, this was over 20 years ago, but I can't imagine that all bigotry has been purged from the ranks of the American Physical Society. I would hope that compared to the general public, scientists as a group are less bigoted, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were no significant difference.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Yes, there will always be people that dislike you or someone for a variety of reasons. One should not care what others think. You have to get over the idea of everyone having to like you. Stem is a hard field, and I have doubts about your ability to acquire a degree in one of the stem fields, not because you are a woman (woman are intellectually equivalent to man). Rather I feel that your lack of mental strength will hamper your success, in other words, caring what small minded " macho man" have to say about you.

Will you face discrimination, most likely, however it is how you deal with it is what is important. Less caring more studying. If you work hard, eventually you will have the respect of people around you that matter. It is a very noble idea to major in Stem. A field that requires sleepless nights and mental exhaustion to the brink of giving up. However, the knowledge you acquire is worth the effort.

 

[e.bar.goum]

Actually, what inspired it was the post preceding mine about avatars. Then someone else came along and mentioned Emmy Noether.

Well, that would make a lot more sense. Either way, thanks for the ping. You might have gathered from the above post that women in STEM is rather a big thing for me. Science is great, more women should feel welcome to contribute. Also, more diversity makes for better science (demonstrably so - there have been studies).

 

[donpacino]

1. As others have said do it!

2. Something to consider... I work for a large tech company. Out of the 50 or so young engineers at my site there are about 7 females. One is a little dittzy and another isn't the best employee. I could say that about more the a few males.

The fact that there are not enough females in tech has become a big issue. When we recruit for new incoming classes we also try to recruit a few girls at a minimum (more would be nice but there are so few). As others have said diversity is VERY important. In engineering (I'm assuming it is similar in science, if your end goal is to work for a large company) the female engineers that make it through are often placed in a great position to be hired.

Have I worked with bad female employees? Yes
Have I worked with bad male employees? Yes
Do I think their gender makes a difference? No

The only thing that will hold you back is you. Don't be a roadblock to your life.

note: I'm young and from what I can gather the workplace is much different now than it was then. I see no difference in how different genders are treated at my company, whether by executives, SMEs, chief engineers, or entry level engineers. Its entirely possible that wasnt the case 20 years ago.

 

[TMFKAN64]

sometimes i feel as if I'm biologically "handicapped" due to being female, especially at higher tier/university levels.

Do you think it's "worth my time" to study maths/physics formally, considering the fact that i am female?

I'm not sure how to read this question. Are women capable of doing top flight work in math and science? Yes, of course. Is it an uphill battle because of sexism? Also yes.

I would suggest that you keep going and find out exactly what you are capable of. If not for you now, for others who will follow.

 

[fresh_42]

I wish this were true, but I doubt it is.

I like to take this as a criterion whether a scientist can be taken serious or whether he / she is just another idiot.
Such a behavior is kind of cutting off the universal truth of physics or even more of math. As if noetherian rings would complain about being named after a female mathematician. Ridiculous.

 

[Dishsoap]

Also, something that you need to get used to as a female in STEM is that your awards will mean less. Getting a prestigious national scholarship will carry less weight on a CV because "you only got it because you're a girl".

 

[micromass]

Also, something that you need to get used to as a female in STEM is that your awards will mean less. Getting a prestigious national scholarship will carry less weight on a CV because "you only got it because you're a girl".

This is why I'm against positive discrimination. The goal and idea behind it is praiseworthy. But I prefer to make it as hard to a female as to a male. In that way, a female accomplishment can not be seen as less.

 

[gleem]

In an article appearing in Physics Today May 2014 "Psychological Insights for improve physics teaching" by Lauren Aguilar, Greg Walton and Carl Wieman. The article particularly addresses the lack of representation of women, Latinos and African Americans (under represented groups) in introductory college physics courses and why under representation still exists and what can be cone to ameliorate it. One of the reasons given was basically that women especially have been conditioned to believe that they are somehow inferior to men in science and math. They possesses too much self doubt even as they succeed and sometimes give up when it gets tough because of that lack of confidence or resolve. You fail only when You cannot or will not carry on in the quest of you goals.

In her book “The Only Woman in the Room: Why Science Is Still a Boys’ Club.” Eileen Pollock gives her experience as the first undergraduate physics major at Yale University and her reason for not pursuing a physics career Please read

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?_r=0
.
Believe in yourself and use your accomplishments to provide the validation for you choice of career.

 

[mathwonk]

I am often puzzled by discussions here on such topics as ones future in academia. Foremost to me is the schism between the reasons some people bring to the discussion and my own reasons. Many people here seem to express some version of the tendency you are insinuating, which is that they don't want to attempt a career unless they think there is a high likelihood that they will be excellent at it. No one can guarantee that for anybody, except the very few, and even the most naturally talented people are not always successful for various reasons.

My approach is rather that one should attempt the career that attracts him or her most, and that he/she enjoys working at. Life is more fulfilling when one spends ones days thinking about and working at the subject that gives one pleasure, challenge and satisfaction. To be sure there are side conditions that affect enjoyment that one cannot control, like recognition or lack of it, enormous material or public success or lack of it, and the presence or absence of support. But mainly one spends ones time as a scientist actually engaged mentally with material one enjoys, if one has chosen ones career by my criteria.

Of course one wants to have some idea of ones likelihood of success. But one cannot deduce this from ones gender, or anything else irrelevant like that. This information comes from what happens everyday when one works at the subject at hand. You are in school and doing "pretty well". Ok, if say there are 40 boys in your class and you are ranked in the top 10, then you are besting most of them. So what is there to ask us about? The data are right in front of you. You have to take confidence in the success you are having, and accept that evidence. Stop making up absurd reasons to doubt yourself when the evidence shows that you are doing actually pretty well. That's more than most people can say. But at some point, if you want to make it in science, if you are like me anyway, you will just have to take a chance, and say, well, I don't know how good I will be, but I want to do this and I am going to give it my best, and find out.

And try not to dwell on the negative stuff, we all get discouraged, and we all experience attempts to discourage us by other people. But I'll tell you my opinion about that , only people who are somewhat afraid of you will try to discourage you. if you are no good and no threat to their self esteem, they won't even notice you.

You are already doing well, better than most, the odds are in your favor. Good luck to you.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Also, something that you need to get used to as a female in STEM is that your awards will mean less. Getting a prestigious national scholarship will carry less weight on a CV because "you only got it because you're a girl".

My wife was an NSF fellow and never experienced anything like this.

If anything, given the laws of supply and demand, she has tended to make more $ than men in equivalent positions. Most employers know they need to employ a certain number of women, and they tend to pay pretty well for them.

 

[Dishsoap]

My wife was an NSF fellow and never experienced anything like this.

If anything, given the laws of supply and demand, she has tended to make more $ than men in equivalent positions. Most employers know they need to employ a certain number of women, and they tend to pay pretty well for them.

That's good to know! I'm just drawing off my own experience as an undergrad. When I won the Goldwater scholarship, my department didn't even announce it since it was pretty clear that's why I won it.

 

[mathwonk]

I don't see anything in the Goldwater criteria that favors females:

"Students are evaluated on:

• Demonstrated potential for and commitment to a research career in mathematics, the natural sciences, or engineering. (The most compelling way to demonstrate commitment to and potential for a research career is to have research experience.)
• Outstanding academic performance."

Unlike many solicitations there is not even any statement that women, racial minorities and other underrepresented groups are especially urged to apply.
So although your department may (or may not) have considered gender in nominating you, the Goldwater committee presumably considered only merit in making the award, at least if they were doing their job properly. So congratulations to you. There are many reasons people do or do not announce things appropriately, such as incompetence, envy, or lack of thoughtfulness.

 

[Dishsoap]

I don't see anything in the Goldwater criteria that favors females:

"Students are evaluated on:

• Demonstrated potential for and commitment to a research career in mathematics, the natural sciences, or engineering. (The most compelling way to demonstrate commitment to and potential for a research career is to have research experience.)
• Outstanding academic performance."

Unlike many solicitations there is not even any statement that women, racial minorities and other underrepresented groups are especially urged to apply.
So although your department may (or may not) have considered gender in nominating you, the Goldwater committee presumably considered only merit in making the award, at least if they were doing their job properly. So congratulations to you. There are many reasons people do or do not announce things appropriately, such as incompetence, envy, or lack of thoughtfulness.

Certainly true, but many solicitations for graduate applications also say they don't favor people of particular genders/races/religions/sexualities, blah blah blah. But we all know that they do.

 

[ModusPwnd]

At my job we are explicitly told to interview any female that is remotely qualified. For a male to get an interview he has to be exceptional. I think this is wrong, but I smile and nod along with my peers when looking through resumes. People say females are at a disadvantage and their opinion is taken seriously. If my opinion differs from that then it is summarily dismissed due to my sex organs. Since I am anonymous here I can voice my opinion without repercussions. I never saw females discriminated against in undergrad, grad or in industry. I've seen professors bend over backwards to try to recruit and keep females in the physics program and in their research groups. Ultimately, I think this was self-serving and not in their female student's best interest. I have seen female and male professors that were worthy of being role models to either sex. I've seen scholarships for females only. I have seen white males passed over for research positions, scholarships and prestige in favor of females and minorities. Now in my profession I work in an engineering group that is mostly females. Nothing wrong with that, they do great and one of them is my mentor. Also, our boss's boss is a female. The new engineer just hired is a female.

I don't want to dismiss anybody else's experience, I'm sure that females have encountered unfair hardships based on their sex. I hope that the other perspective doesn't get dismissed out of the gate just because it doesn't fit the status quo. In the end, the vast majority of all beginning science students get pushed out of science at some time, whether they are male or female. I don't take it as a forgone conclusion that it is a bad thing. I sure won't be pushing my daughter into science or engineering.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In addition to being married to a fabulous physicist, I've had the privilege of working with a whole bunch of great female scientists, engineers, and mathematicians over my career. I have probably co-authored more scholarly papers with female co-authors than any other physicist I know. I've also had a tremendous number of fantastic female students over the years. My observation is that very few young men are willing to work as hard as well-motivated young women.

We've also had the privilege of working with a couple home schooled young ladies these last two years, mentoring them in their science projects for ISEF-affiliated science fairs. Both young ladies won trips to the ISEF finals, won awards at the national level, and published papers. One project was a math-intensive project in fisheries science, and the other project was in applied mathematics. These young ladies are beautiful, confident, and powerful. No one doubted that they earned their awards, and they completely demolished their male competition at the regional and state levels.

Personally, I've long recognized my weaknesses in math and my limitations as a theorist. I compensated by learning to write computer programs and becoming something of a whiz at numerical analysis. I have a lot of tools in the numerical toolbox. I've also compensated by thinking like a biologist (hypothesis testing), with clever experimental designs, by reading volumes of literatire far exceeding most colleagues, and by inviting collaborators who offset my own weaknesses.

 

[StatGuy2000]

At my job we are explicitly told to interview any female that is remotely qualified. For a male to get an interview he has to be exceptional. I think this is wrong, but I smile and nod along with my peers when looking through resumes. People say females are at a disadvantage and their opinion is taken seriously. If my opinion differs from that then it is summarily dismissed due to my sex organs. Since I am anonymous here I can voice my opinion without repercussions. I never saw females discriminated against in undergrad, grad or in industry. I've seen professors bend over backwards to try to recruit and keep females in the physics program and in their research groups. Ultimately, I think this was self-serving and not in their female student's best interest. I have seen female and male professors that were worthy of being role models to either sex. I've seen scholarships for females only. I have seen white males passed over for research positions, scholarships and prestige in favor of females and minorities. Now in my profession I work in an engineering group that is mostly females. Nothing wrong with that, they do great and one of them is my mentor. Also, our boss's boss is a female. The new engineer just hired is a female.

I don't want to dismiss anybody else's experience, I'm sure that females have encountered unfair hardships based on their sex. I hope that the other perspective doesn't get dismissed out of the gate just because it doesn't fit the status quo. In the end, the vast majority of all beginning science students get pushed out of science at some time, whether they are male or female. I don't take it as a forgone conclusion that it is a bad thing. I sure won't be pushing my daughter into science or engineering.

ModusPwnd, this may be somewhat orthogonal to the discussion in this thread, but let me ask you this: you said that you won't be pushing your daughter into science and engineering. What would you strongly encourage her to pursue instead (push being too strong a word)? Are there fields you would rather have her pursue instead of science or engineering? Same question if you have a son.

 

[gleem]

If anything, given the laws of supply and demand, she has tended to make more $ than men in equivalent positions. Most employers know they need to employ a certain number of women, and they tend to pay pretty well for them.

Really most ?? you have one data point. Why is there so much about lack equal treatment of women in the news. Why did the APS recently expressed its concern of the lack of women in physics.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_2.cfm

A few days ago I listened to a discussion regarding the unfair wage structure for women ( women make typically 85% of what men make). Part of the reason for this is the lack of salary negotiation ability of women. One member of this discussion runs a company to help women improve this skill. One participant an engineer related her story of successfully running a program expecting recognition (increased salary) for her accomplishment which did not occur. She left the company and she was replaced by several persons. It seems many companies are still in the stone age. The take home message here is that the rules are often different for women than men and that they need to learn to play the game better.

Could it be that some companies higher women because they are cheap labor?

So as an observer I do not see that everything is rosy for women.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Really most ?? you have one data point. Why is there so much about lack equal treatment of women in the news. Why did the APS recently expressed its concern of the lack of women in physics.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_2.cfm

A few days ago I listened to a discussion regarding the unfair wage structure for women ( women make typically 85% of what men make). Part of the reason for this is the lack of salary negotiation ability of women. One member of this discussion runs a company to help women improve this skill. One participant an engineer related her story of successfully running a program expecting recognition (increased salary) for her accomplishment which did not occur. She left the company and she was replaced by several persons. It seems many companies are still in the stone age. The take home message here is that the rules are often different for women than men and that they need to learn to play the game better.

Could it be that some companies higher women because they are cheap labor?

So as an observer I do not see that everything is rosy for women.

I wouldn't say that everything is rosy either for women or for men, but I would be slow to attribute all observed differences to some kind of ill intent or bias.

Had you read the thread carefully, you would realize that my observations are based on much more than one data point. Although I am only married to one woman (that's how it works), over a 30 year career in science and engineering, I have worked with a lot of women both as a colleague, as a subordinate, and as a supervisor, so I have seen many data points in addition to having inside application, interview, and negotiating experience from the dozens of job searches my wife has participated in.

From my viewpoint, the dearth of women in physics is mostly explained by the dearth of women earning PhDs in physics. This is true in the other physical sciences and in electrical and mechanical engineering also, and it can also be strongly correlated to the number of women earning BS degrees in those disciplines, and then, in turn, to the number of women seeking BS degrees in those disciplines. Therefore, the most effective focus needs to be toward attracting and retaining young women in the STEM disciplines in which they are underrepresented. The hurdles once a women has done well and earned a degree (with a combination of GPA, experience, and motivation) that will make her competitive in the job marketplace are relatively small by comparison.

From what I've seen, attracting and retaining women in STEM positions once they have earned an appropriate degree (with a competitive combination of GPA, experience, and motivation) often comes down to issues other than salary. Women tend to place higher values on things like time with their families and flexibility of work scheduling and locations than men do. These issues rarely make it hard for an employer to attract and retain men in STEM, but I've seen it over and over again make it more challenging for employers to attract and retain women in STEM. Another challenging fact (outside of the employer's control) is that women's spouses tend to be less flexible in making sacrifices in support of their wife's career than men's spouses are in making sacrifices in support of men's careers.

 

[CWatters]

I REALLY love physics and mathematics

Go for it. Anyone that has the chance to get paid to do what they enjoy would be mad to pass it up.

Consider joining..

https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/

 

[StatGuy2000]

To the OP:

If you really love physics and mathematics, I would definitely concur that you should go for it! I personally feel that no one (male or female, of any ethnic/racial/cultural background) is inherently good or bad at math/physics -- if you have the interest in those fields and the willingness to work hard and engage in good study habits, you can and will succeed.

Yes, there are still be individuals who may hold inherently sexist/racist biases (since science is an inherently human activity like any other, and scientists are not immune to the same jealousies, irrational beliefs or biases that afflict other people), but don't let that discourage or dissuade you from your passion or interests.

I wish you all the best!

 

[gleem]

I wouldn't say that everything is rosy either for women or for men, but I would be slow to attribute all observed differences to some kind of ill intent or bias.

But didn't you note lower down in your response that there is in fact biases against hiring or encouraging women for specific jobs? (perceived) higher values on family time, location etc. all of which might affect their performance or contribution to the organization compared to men?

I too have worked with women my entire professional career in all roles from teacher to subordinate to collegial to supervisor and respect and appreciate their abilities and contributions and thus deserving of equal consideration and treatment in any career choice based on accomplishments. I think women are overlooked not encourage because of biases conscious or not; Women must develop the belief in themselves and their abilities and be able to say I'm as good as any man. An companies have go to stop living in the nineteenth century and recognize their abilities and aspirations.

These biases begin early and continue

Please read Eileen Pollock article base on her book, “The Only Woman in the Room: Why Science Is Still a Boys’ Club.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?_r=1

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Pointing to whatever biases there may be is not particularly helpful when encouraging a particular student. The focus on encouraging a particular student needs to be on the choices they need to make in order to succeed. Approaches which open the door to blame shifting rather than making decisions that are more likely to lead to demonstrated accomplishments are counterproductive. An individual student can only impact the decisions that are within their control.

Confounding one's actual experiences with pre-existing biases is also neither honest, productive, or valuable. Neither is perpetuating the myth that science is still a boys' club. The 100 or so female co-authors on my scholarly publications certainly do not believe science is a boys' club. As the first person in a large hispanic family to earn a degree in a STEM field, I chose not to ever believe the underrepresentation of a group would be a hindrance to me, and it hasn't. My wife has had the same experience as the first woman in her family to earn a degree in science.

You only lose when you believe the lies about the limitations, either external limitations or internal limitations.

The biggest hindrance to success in the physical sciences and engineering is the battle with the self in overcoming the difficulty of the material. It is an internal battle. The external battles are small by comparison.

 

[donpacino]

I REALLY love physics and mathematics, but sometimes i feel as if I'm biologically "handicapped" due to being female, especially at higher tier/university levels.

Part of the reason for this is the lack of salary negotiation ability of women.

Find what's common between these two statements.

 

[gleem]

It is to @Sophie Carmen's credit that she questioned the "feeling" that she was biologically handicapped with regards to math or physics. But we can ask why she had that feeling in the first place. She indicates success in her program so why all of a sudden should she feel handicapped. I for one do not feel it is an innate condition for if it where a natural condition why would she even question it.

The problem is that this is not a battle or war but an insidious social conditioning from an archaic attitude that women are not to be taken seriously and not strong enough to take care of themselves. Even as parents tell their daughter that there is no limit to want they can do or be they may yet inadvertently subconsciously guide them in a direction that they feel is more traditional and safer.

We can be hopeful that she is encouraged and emboldened to continue her education in physics from the responses that she has received from this forum.

There is much on the internet about women physicists. Four years ago the American Physical Society began a women physicist of the month recognition. Peruse their list of some 50 women who where chosen to date.

"Nominees to be profiled in this series should be a physicist who has had an impact on your life or career, both past and present, and/or whom you believe is worthy of recognition" http://www.aps.org/programs/women/scholarships/womanmonth/2015.cfm

or see Contributions of 20th Century Women to Physics

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/

listing 83 women making significant contribution up to 1976..Since then many more might be recognized for similar achievements.

 

[mathwonk]

"Certainly true, but many solicitations for graduate applications also say they don't favor people of particular genders/races/religions/sexualities, blah blah blah. But we all know that they do."

I don't know any such thing. I served on the hiring and personnel committee for about 10 years, several times as head, and I ordinarily never paid any attention at all to any irrelevant criteria like gender or race. The main and overriding criterion was always strength in research and teaching. There were a couple of exceptions in years when we were specifically told by the administration to look especially for applications from underrepresented groups. This only meant that we tried hard to include such applicants in the pool, but being mathematically qualified was still necessary, and they were not guaranteed to be chosen from that pool since there was still a public vote. I myself opposed even this philosophy as I felt that strength alone should always be the criterion. And this preferential inclusion of candidates only happened twice in my career, in which hundreds of candidates were considered. In fact essentially all the times when we did hire members of underrepresented groups, the candidates were not targeted for that reason, they were just the best candidates available and made a good fit with our groups. The times when we did target we usually did not hire the targeted candidates.

The more common occurrence is for members of a specific research group, like geometers, to prefer a geometer over an analyst, and this preference takes priority over gender, as well as over strength in my experience. I.e. a group of geometers will often be more likely to think a geometry candidate is more qualified than an algebra candidate, even if the algebraists disagree and can make a good case. There are also people who will argue that if their area has not had a recent hire then the next hire should be in their area, even if a stronger candidate is available in a different area. This is the real struggle in hiring. In my experience most men would be delighted to hire a strong candidate in their own field, male or female doesn't matter. Of course this is just my opinion and experience, and there are certainly people whose behavior and rules are different from mine, but you should not and cannot reliably generalize about what everybody thinks or does in hiring or giving awards. Those of us who want the awards to be meaningful give them as best we can according to the stated criteria. In some settings to do otherwise is illegal, and it is always dishonest and unfair.

 

[mathwonk]

To be more candid, I admit to having violated these strict guidelines a few times early in my career, when asked to do so, and having come back to this positiion by learning my lesson on those occasions from the problems that arose. The simplest problem and most obvious, is that if you prefer someone for reasons not related to merit, that fact becomes clear to everyone, and it causes unhappiness among those other candidates who deserve equal or better treatment and did not receive it. When people feel treated unfairly, the ship does not sail smoothly.