1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Admissions Drop Physics Requirement to Encourage More Women Engineers?

  1. May 28, 2017 #1

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    OK, first of all, I am not quite certain where this topic should go. It does deal with academic guidelines and requirements, but it isn't really a "guidance" for students. So I was half tempted to post this in the General Discussion forum, but at the last minute, decided to post it in Academic Guidance. The Mentors are free to move it to where ever they think is more appropriate.

    Secondly, I'm posting this to get the opinion of members here who are more familiar with the UK higher-education system and can provide a more informed opinion on this matter.

    Finally, we have many engineers here, from from the UK and outside of the UK. So you people have an intimate knowledge of what is involved in obtaining a degree in engineering.

    I'm reading this incredulous article where the new president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (which, I presume, is in the UK) is calling for universities in the UK to drop the requirement for Physics A-Level to encourage more women to enter the field of engineering. Her argument was that due to the "... initial male bias in physics lessons...", women are less inclined to take physics at the A-Level and thus, will not be able to pursue an engineering degree when they go to college.

    So my jaw dropped when I read this.

    I'm actually quite surprised by a number of things:

    1. If your arm hurts, then you should just cut it off. So if physics really is too difficult, then it shouldn't be a requirement or one shouldn't take it. Somehow, the question on whether it is actually NEEDED or useful was never discussed. This means that it is OK to "dumb down" something if it is just to tough to get through.

    2. Why was it required in the first place? Has the criteria changed so much that A-Level physics can be bypassed for prospective engineering majors in the UK? Most, if not all, of engineering majors in US institutions are required to take at least a year of intro physics. Heck, even those majoring in Engineering Technology have to take physics. Do UK engineering undergraduates have the same requirement? If they do, wouldn't not having A-Level physics be a disadvantage?

    3. It is my strong belief that one can definitely understand something even more if one sees it multiple times. Education leading up to A-Level physics exam provides an important introduction to many advanced concepts such as "force", "energy", "conservation laws", etc... etc. Encountering such concepts for the very first time in an engineering course in college is not the most ideal situation. This is similar to trying to learn the math at the same time one is tackling a physical problem. Sure, it can be done, but boy, is it a daunting task! So if we are expecting these women to skip A-Level physics and go straight into engineering courses in a university, aren't we putting them at a tremendous disadvantage over those who already had a background in physics?

    4. Finally, if I were woman thinking of being an engineer, I'd find this to be rather insulting to my intelligence. It feels as if the standards are being LOWERED just so I could get in, as if I do not have the ability to compete with other men. If there is a true, inherent bias in physics education at that level, then ADDRESS THAT and correct it there! Don't just cut off your arm. Instead, figure out what is causing it to hurt and treat that!

    I'd like to hear from those of you who went through the UK engineering curriculum, or are very familiar with it.

    Zz.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2017 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I'd lose my nitpicker status if I didn't point out that you mean "incredible" (unless of course you actually do mean that the article doesn't believe itself :smile:)
     
  4. May 28, 2017 #3

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    A specious argument, IMO.
     
  5. May 28, 2017 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    I like the way it is dealt with in Snooker: there are no women among the top players in the world but neither is there any rule that excludes them to achieve such a position. A structural engineer once told me he had the following dialog at the opening ceremony of a new building:

    Him (to one of the notabilities): "What you're doing in the back here? Shouldn't you be on stage?"
    The notability: "Well, during on opening ceremony like this I prefer to stand next to the structural engineer!"

    I think that sums it up. To lower any standards cannot be the solution. Instead we should ask what happens between the age of 8 and 18.
     
  6. May 28, 2017 #5

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm neither an engineer, nor from the UK. I lived there for a few years, so I'm somewhat familiar with the education system, for what it's worth. But I don't think that's all that much pertinent to your questions, as they seem be just about your reading of the article.

    There is nothing in there about dumbing anything down or physics being too difficult. It is explicitly stated that the reason (they suspect) for girls not taking the classes is self-image and peer approval which, at the age when kids have to decide what A-levels to take, skewes the gender statistics in favour of boys.
    By the time of the uni admissions, peer pressume might be less of an issue, so more girls would want to appy, but are shut off by the decision they made earlier.
    If you remove the A-levels requirement, then it does not compromise the uni educational level. It'll allow people who otherwise could not apply to give it a go. Whether they survive or not is then up to them.
    If an educational institution is intended on admitting only those applicants with sufficient bacground, then they are in the right to instate an admission exam.

    Again, this is not about somehow 'making' women go into those courses without relevant A-levels. It's about allowing those without them to at least have a chance.
    Yes, it does put everyone who hasn't had A-levels physics at a disadvantage. But you still end up with more applicants and successful engineers (of both genders) than if you kept the requirement.

    But it doesn't have to do with skill or intelligence. The issue is about a decision one makes when they're an impressionable kid.


    Perhaps the issue is with the OP misunderstanding the A-levels requirement - it's not just about taking the exam. To take the exam one needs to take a 2-year course. So if they change their minds by the time of uni admissions, they'd have to spend another two years taking relevant courses and then sitting the exams before being allowed to apply.
    The propositions can be rephrased as: let's remove the 2-year course requirement (the exam being relegated to either admissions procedure or just the overal survivablitiy in the course of education).
     
  7. May 28, 2017 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    But if this is the case, then don't make A-level physics as a requirement for an engineering degree. Since it has been a requirement for many UK institutions, then there must be something to it. If not, then these universities should remove it now.

    I grew up with the UK-type system until I did my university education in the US. And not only that, I spent two years teaching A-Level physics. So no, this issue is not due to a "misunderstanding" of the A-level system or requirements.

    Zz.
     
  8. May 28, 2017 #7
    I agree why drop A-Level physics as a requirement which would be a huge necessity for going into a field like engineering, maybe if they aren't smart enough to go through A-Level physics they shouldn't be going into engineering.
     
  9. May 28, 2017 #8

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Good. My comment was well intentioned and not meant to put you down.
     
  10. May 28, 2017 #9

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Mark, I'm not so sure of that. I think peer pressure today is, if anything, worse that it was decades ago because of social media. On the other hand women don't in general, I think, feel that they are not empowered they way men are. Still, it sounds believable to me that peer pressure at the high school level could be a factor.
     
  11. May 28, 2017 #10
    Why do not you encourage women to work in coal mines?
    Feminists only fight for women in positions of power and with lots of money, obviously they will never fight for equality where no one has power or makes little money.
     
  12. May 28, 2017 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is a very faulty view, and frankly, does not conform to the PF standards. Women fought to work in factories, in the frontlines of military battles, etc...etc. So to claim that they only want to work in position of power is false.

    It is also off-topic to this thread. I asked about the appropriateness of removing the requirement of A-Level physics for acceptance into UK educational institutions.

    Zz.
     
  13. May 28, 2017 #12

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    That's disgusting and as ZZ said, it's not in keeping w/ PF standards.
     
  14. May 28, 2017 #13
    There are schools in the US experimenting with separate math and science classes for boys and girls and they've had success. In fact, the performance of both groups improves without the distractions and social pressure. I'm not by any means an expert on the topic but my daughter is. It's generally understood that student performance improves when students are in a class with other people like themselves, others of the same ability, same gender, etc.
     
  15. May 28, 2017 #14

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Yes. I can't give citations but I have read (probably in Time Magazine, possibly in The Economist) of such trials and that they work well for all involved for the reasons you stated. That's part of the reason why I said what I said in post #9.
     
  16. May 28, 2017 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    But this "conclusion" is obviously falsified by the fact that many international students do well in US colleges. They are very much unlike the rest of the student population, and a minority in many of the classes they took. So how come they can do very well?

    Again, this thread is not, NOT about gender equality or education. It is about one very specific topic. How come it is so difficult to stay on topic here?

    Zz.
     
  17. May 28, 2017 #16
    This is precisely the topic of the article that you, yourself, began the thread with. Seems that you didn't understand what the article was about.

    Not sure what you're talking about. Again, I think you didn't understand the article. It is about the reasons that more girls don't take physics in high school and the author of that article is correctly ascribing some of that reluctance to peer pressure.
     
  18. May 28, 2017 #17

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I started this thread not to discuss a specific part of the link, NOT the entire link. In particular, I wanted to know if a undergraduate curriculum in the UK can accommodate someone without A-Level physics, and if a student without such a background will be at a severe disadvantage. That is why I clearly stated in the very beginning that I wanted to hear from UK engineers. Otherwise, why would I make such a request?

    If we want to talk about why more girls don't take physics in high school, then let's start another topic, or better yet, continue in the existing ones. But this is NOT the premise of this thread which I've defined in the very first post!

    Zz.
     
  19. May 28, 2017 #18
    You made it the premise.
    Your assumption that she was asserting that it's difficult or she wants to dumb something down was extremely offensive and not at all the point of the article. If your only question was whether it is necessary you shouldn't have begun your post with that assumption. I assume you don't have teenage daughters. Is it necessary? Probably not, students change their mind once they've reached college and frequently do quite well in something they had no intention of studying. Is it useful? Probably, which is why she wants to encourage more women to pursue engineering who may be well qualified but don't pursue it for reasons that have nothing to do with their interests or abilities. I don't necessarily agree with her approach which is why I offered an alternative that has shown promise.
     
  20. May 28, 2017 #19

    Choppy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    In response to the initial post, it seems at least on the surface of it, that dropping the requirement for Physics A-Levels for entry into university engineering programs has a lot of potential to do more harm than good.

    I'm not extremely familiar with the UK system, but it would seem that someone starting a university engineering program without having taken high school physics would be at a significant disadvantage compared to her other classmates from the first day of class. This 'solution' might encourage and even result in more female enrollment, but at what consequence? If all those extra students who enroll initially later drop out because they don't have the background they need to be successful, then all this would accomplish is a waste a lot of peoples' time and money. Even worse, it could lead to a secondary effect where students who would have otherwise stuck through it would be exposed to a much more common scenario of colleagues dropping out and potentially drop out themselves. Not to mention all those coming through (not just the female students) who avoided taking physics during their A-levels would likely feel set up for failure.

    I do take it with a grain of salt though. It could be something that's simply out forth to generate discussion and any actual implementation might come with a requirement to complete remedial introductory coursework.
     
  21. May 29, 2017 #20
    First let me say, I'm from the US and I don't know anything about the UK system.

    But, I have a bachelors in physics, and I did that with little physics in high school, certainly not 2 years worth. Do you think students should be disqualified from studying physics if they didn't already study it in high school? If not, why would you disqualify them from studying engineering? What about other subjects? Must one have taken French in high school, to study French Lit at University?

    Seems like they could make physics a requirement for getting the engineering degree, without requiring that the physics have been done in high school. The kids that did take it in high school just have a head start, that's all.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Drop Physics Requirement to Encourage More Women Engineers?
  1. Women In Physics (Replies: 13)

Loading...