Admissions Drop the Physics Requirement to Encourage More Women Engineers?

[Nugatory]

Why "more women in physics" is declared to be the improvement? What is the "now we have enough women" threshold? 30%? 50%? 80%?

My answer is: neither percentage is valid.

We need more _talented individuals_ in physics. I couldn't care less what sex are they.

I agree that we want talented individuals regardless of sex, and that an arbitrarily chosen threshold is unlikely to produce that result.

However, that doesn't preclude a non-arbitrary threshold. Instead, we can gather some data. First, what is the fraction of women in the relevant population? Second, how is the relevant talent distributed between the two sexes? Given this data, it's easy to determine what the percentage would be if selection were based completely on innate talent without regard to sex; and if the percentage of women in physics is less than that we are losing some talented individuals.

Although there are some methodological challenges in acquiring and evaluating the necessary data, the balance of the available evidence supports the conclusion that women are in fact underrepresented and therefore that there is a loss of talented individuals.

Of course what to do about it is a different question. It is quite possible that little can be done at the university admissions level because so much talent loss has already happened, at the elementary and junior high school level. An anecdote: My first-year algebra class when I was 14 had a 1:1 ratio of boys and girls, reflecting the overall composition of the student body. Three years later, precalculus had one girl, and next year's AP calculus offering had none - and remember, we're following the same cohort through five years at a moderately elite private high school.

 

[Nugatory]

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.

It is, however, worth noting that most of these experiments involve elementary or secondary school classes, so have less relevance to university admissions and requirements.

 

[nikkkom]

I agree that we want talented individuals regardless of sex, and that an arbitrarily chosen threshold is unlikely to produce that result.

However, that doesn't preclude a non-arbitrary threshold. Instead, we can gather some data. First, what is the fraction of women in the relevant population? Second, how is the relevant talent distributed between the two sexes?

This assumes that talented women are equally likely as men to _want_ to be in STEM.

Do you have evidence that there are no large statistical differences in what men and women like or dislike?

An anecdote: My first-year algebra class when I was 14 had a 1:1 ratio of boys and girls, reflecting the overall composition of the student body. Three years later, precalculus had one girl, and next year's AP calculus offering had none - and remember, we're following the same cohort through five years at a moderately elite private high school.

Conclusion: those evil young men bullied and intimidated poor girls. It's totally impossible that girls simply found math dry and lifeless. Let's embark on a crusade to punish all these obviously evil and discriminatory men.

 

[Mark44]

I'm reading this incredulous article

So my jaw dropped when I read this.

In line to a previous post by @phinds, the article was incredible, but you, ZZ, were incredulous, as evidenced by the statement that your jaw dropped.

 

[phinds]

No joke. Coal mining pays well for requiring only a high school diploma. In rural regions where few went to college, access to the only locally good paying jobs was an avenue for greater independence for women as well as undermining stereotypes about what is women's work versus men's work.

Yeah. What he said.

 

[kuruman]

I wouldn't take a ride in an elevator designed by a mechanical engineer, male or female, who has a degree that did not require physics. That's my bottom line and the pun is intentional.

 

[Irissvt]

Female student currently doing an A Level in Physics in a class of 8 where I am the only girl. Although I don't know enough about what the engineering courses at university cover I feel that lowering the requirements could potentially affect the way it is taught as students may be slower at understanding aspects due to a lack of simpler knowledge (forgive me if I'm wrong). There is definitely a wide percentage difference between males and females when it comes to studying Physics, according to the IOP in 2016 only 26% of A level entries into physics were female, but I think this will naturally increase over time with some schools pushing girls to take STEM subjects and the internet allowing you to easily explore areas teachers may not have considered for you. Personally I never felt that I couldn't or shouldn't take Physics or felt pressured to follow what my friends were doing, but I cannot speak for everyone. One thing to point out was that even though I was predicted good grades in science I was never advised about doing them for my A levels, so I think a way to increase the percentage would be for teachers or parents to just give them the idea rather than assuming they wouldn't want to study STEM subjects etc.

 

[AaronK]

I think, ultimately, it's the wrong course of action to take. One of the points people have mentioned in this thread is the feeling of discomfort/vulnerability/distraction students feel while learning alongside members of the opposite gender, that they do better when segregated--and that this relates to why women are less inclined to take physics at the A-level, because of "...initial male bias in physics lessons...".

To say nothing of the broader potential social implications of this as a way to educate a population in a Western country, it does nothing to solve foundational problems (like symptom prevention instead of cure). If they made it so females could pursue engineering without A-level physics, it would just create a power imbalance among some of the males and females in those university classes where knowledge of the relevant physics is recommended. Females in those classes that aren't especially geared towards STEM (but decided to pursue it because it became easier to access and because of the potential for lucrative future occupations) would probably begin to turn to some of their male peers for help, since presumably the males were forced to take the relevant A-levels while most of the females in the class presumably wouldn't have (or most wouldn't have independently developed the requisite knowledge).

I have many times asked peers of mine to help me understand some difficult concepts in physics and computer science, and since they were my peers, this always made me feel a slight bit less, like I wasn't as capable or as smart as them and had to rely on them for some detailed, brief tutoring. Now obviously there's no problem with asking for help, but literally ensuring a social dynamic of this kind on a broad scale, even if it is only until (or if) those females catch up to the males? Imagine for a moment that females aren't, *on average*, as predisposed to STEM-related subject matter as men are (as corroborated by mainstream findings in evolutionary psychology). If that is indeed the case, I think something like this would only breed more resentment or frustration among many of the women that decided to go into engineering without that earlier preparation. They might even suspect their is an "initial male bias" in many of the engineering classes that generally require the knowledge of A-level physics.

Also, we're talking about young people in university trying to get laid, and statistically speaking, there are going to be unethical actors to varying levels of behavior everywhere, even in the UK. Does anybody else see the potential problem here if there are some percentage of females who haven't prepared as much as they should have because they aren't required to, and all the rest of the males in the class have? Many of them will feel desperate to maintain grades and will struggle to keep up, and I'm sure there are going to be some males who will take advantage of some of those less prepared peers that they encounter in their classes. I can easily imagine a male student offering to "tutor" a less prepared female peer, with an ulterior motive in mind.

I'm not saying these potential problems can't be mitigated (for example, by requiring female students that didn't do A-level physics to take some prerequisite courses that will prepare them adequately with respect to their male peers), but ultimately it seems to me that allowing females to pursue engineering without the benefit of that prerequisite physics knowledge (and without completely changing the pedagogical approach to teaching engineering classes to account for females with less foundational knowledge) is one way to pave the path to hell with good intentions. I think it's important to get more women into STEM, but I don't think this is the wisest approach.

 

[atyy]

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?

Presumably if A-level physics is dropped as an entry requirement, universities will just teach it to engineering majors. In that way it would be more like the US, since A-level physics is roughly equivalent to one term of first year US university physics.

I think one constraint is that usually one only does 3 A-level science subjects. So for example, if one did A-level biology, chemistry and mathematics, then one would not be able to apply to engineering in university if A-level physics were an entry requirement.

I'm not sure what the current A-level mathematics curriculum is, but it used to include mechanics. If that is the case, then it would make sense to have either A-level mathematics or A-level physics (but not both) as the entry requirement for Engineering, if one wanted to broaden the pool of potential applicants. It looks like A-level mathematics does have mechanics (and calculus):
https://www.ashbournecollege.co.uk/a-level-college-london/a-level-maths/
"You will extend your understanding of mechanics by applying your knowledge of vectors and calculus. In particular you will be able to cope with simple problems of bodies moving in two dimensions as well as problems involving variable forces and differential equations. In resolving forces you will also find another application of trigonometry."

Perhaps the physics could be required at a lower level, eg. GCSE:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/education/subjects/zpm6fg8
https://kingston-college.ac.uk/subject/gcses/physics-gcse

Here is an example entry requirement for engineering (just to show that one typically does only 3 A-level subjects):
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/degrees/engineering-mechanical-meng/

I'm not familiar with engineering curriculum requirements, but for university physics (in the US), I'm pretty sure having A-level mathematics and GCSE physics would be enough.

 

[nikkkom]

Preview of the things to come if STEM caves to this pressure.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Ridiculous. Yet another bird-brained idea to lower the bar. Engineering dropping physics would be like law dropping reading or like physics dropping math.

I marvel. It seems like a joke. It is hard to believe that anyone could be so STUPID as to suggest such folly. A decade ago, I would have been sure this was a spoof or practical joke. But today, it may just be a serious suggestion.

 

[atyy]

Ridiculous. Yet another bird-brained idea to lower the bar. Engineering dropping physics would be like law dropping reading or like physics dropping math.

I marvel. It seems like a joke. It is hard to believe that anyone could be so STUPID as to suggest such folly. A decade ago, I would have been sure this was a spoof or practical joke. But today, it may just be a serious suggestion.

I'm not sure. US universities, including MIT have had a lower entry requirement for physics and engineering for many years than UK universities. It is true that the US degree takes 4 years, and the UK degree only 3, but I think that could be made up, since 3 years at MIT is equivalent to 4 years at many other places. Though of course, MIT has recently reduced some requirements on its physics BSc (reduced the requirement for 2 terms of junior year experimental physics, so MIT has been dumbed down to Harvard :P).

Let's say the aim is not to reduce requirements, but to make it so that one is not forced to make a choice of major so early, ie. it could be done such that the following A-level combinations would both be equally good for engineering entry (note that A-level maths includes simple calculus based mechanics, and that A-level physics is not calculus-based physics; GCSE is a lower level than A-levels):

A-level maths https://www.ashbournecollege.co.uk/a-level-college-london/a-level-maths/
A-level biology https://www.ashbournecollege.co.uk/a-level-college-london/a-level-biology/
GCSE physics https://www.bbc.co.uk/education/subjects/zpm6fg8

A-level maths https://www.ashbournecollege.co.uk/a-level-college-london/a-level-maths/
GCSE biology https://www.bbc.co.uk/education/subjects/z9ddmp3
A-level physics https://www.ashbournecollege.co.uk/a-level-college-london/a-level-physics/

 

[symbolipoint]

I wouldn't take a ride in an elevator designed by a mechanical engineer, male or female, who has a degree that did not require physics. That's my bottom line and the pun is intentional.

1. I cannot find the pun.
2. You would not likely find any information about the elevator you take about who did or did not design it, but the thought is what counts.

 

[Mark44]

I cannot find the pun.

"bottom line" I guess.

 

[WWGD]

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.

In the US, very small percentage of women take advance placement tests. There is a similar issue in the U.S, yet no one brings up the fact that women enter into and enter into IT-related fields in smaller percentage than men overall.

 

[WWGD]

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.

It goes both ways: Males who are studious are seen as nerds, and often mistreated accordingly, creating pressure for them to be jocks. Besides, the fact that some 60% of college degrees are obtained by women seems to not be in agreement with that, unless the pressure is very specifically against doing Physics-related material.

 

[WWGD]

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.

Correctly on what grounds, based on what evidence? EDIT: You refer to a study without a link and then there is no long-term results one can observe, since the study you suggested is a recent one. This is not very strong nor convincing. Ultimately, I don't mean to sound harsh, but, if you do not have a strong conviction and drive in what you are studying or your career, you will likely have trouble making it. Unfortunately most societies are not enlightened to the extent of offering support when one needs it, so it is not realistic to put the emphasis on variables such as peer pressure.

 

[atyy]

The answer is to encourage more women to take physics in high school. By the time they apply to college it’s already too late.

Hmmmm - they are not required to do physics?

I don't think the suggestion is to remove the physics requirement completely, only the requirement for physics at A-levels. For example, if the student omits A-level physics, and does A-level maths and GCSE physics, the student would have calculus, vectors, and simple calculus-based mechanics in 2D, as well as non-calculus physics. Also, A-level physics is not calculus-based either, so it is not necessarily a much high level than GCSE physics. In this way, a student doing A-level biology instead of A-level physics (but still doing A-level maths, which has simple calculus-based 2D mechanics, and GCSE physics) would still be able to apply for engineering.

 

[bhobba]

I don't think the suggestion is to remove the physics requirement completely,

I don't think so either.

Here in Australia by the time you reach grade 10 you have done a fair amount of physics anyway as part of general science requirements. Much more important is calculus - with that, and a reasonable physics knowledge it's pretty much all you need. And we have many areas of Engineering such as Biochemical where physics is not as important.

Personally I like the idea I mentioned before of professional engineering qualifications as Masters degrees. You just have to do undergrad some relevant math and science. Your HS preparation isn't of much importance - you do what you need to know undergrad. It takes longer to become an engineer - 5 to 6 instead of 4 years, but its much more flexible and you are better trained with all sorts of different backgrounds such as business, actuarial science, physics, computational science etc, all of which would be useful to have in teams solving engineering problems. IMHO its the 21st century approach where everyone is expected to change careers a number of times in your working life. You initial degree is just a start. Besides you don't have to worry about the issue of locking yourself into engineering - you lose interest while doing it and really want be something else, like say a psychologist.

Thamks
Bill

 

[radium]

Regarding the general comments on women in physics, the problem isn’t necessarily about lower percentages of women in the field. I think it’s likely that physics may never reach 50% (I think 30% is a very reasonable number and could definitely happen). The problem is that there are women who want to go into physics but do not end up doing so because of very negative experiences, which usually get worse as a woman advances in her career.

 

[WWGD]

Regarding the general comments on women in physics, the problem isn’t necessarily about lower percentages of women in the field. I think it’s likely that physics may never reach 50% (I think 30% is a very reasonable number and could definitely happen). The problem is that there are women who want to go into physics but do not end up doing so because of very negative experiences, which usually get worse as a woman advances in her career.

But that seems to assume that most men do not have to go through these. Getting a Physics ( or any science) degree at the graduate level is a very intense and demanding experience for just-about anyone. There is no royal road to a graduate degree. It would be great if everyone had the support they wanted to need/have, but sadly this is not always the case, so, if you do not have the intestines for it, you should not enter into the career, it is not for you.

 

[bhobba]

It would be great if everyone had the support they wanted to need/have, but sadly this is not always the case, so, if you do not have the intestines for it, you should not enter into the career, it is not for you.

But how do you know that? By which I mean the guts for it.

Personally I think allowing greater flexibility undergrad to explore your interests and yourself then going hard core post-grad is the more fruitful approach. As mentioned previously it fits in more with what we know about future careers - you will likely change it a number of times during your working life.

I did a math/computing degree undergrad, became a computer programmer for 30 years but during the last 10 or so lost interest in computing and found I liked theoretical/mathematical physics a lot more. Its what I do now I am retired, and fortunately the math part of my undergrad degree allowed me to self study it. They were discussing this very issue on a panel discussion program here in Aus, and strangely the conclusion was the future lies in taking more math/computing undergrad - they really could not think of any future careers, even law will be changed by AI, that will not require it - if you do that then just about any field opens up later depending on how your interests evolve. IMHO that's what we need to get across to students, and yes even university degree designers - you must have a reasonable amount of math/computing as part of your degree.

Thanks
Bil

 

[radium]

Physics is not an easy path for anyone but in general women face the additionals hurdles along the way. The way to summarize it would be to say that there is a lack of respect for women in STEM (there is also sexual harassment but that’s another issue). There has been a lot of improvement in many physics departments and those improvements are beginning to show. They often begin when there is a department chair (either gender) who is really dedicated to improving the environment and supporting women. However the effects of gender bias are still a very real problem. One can argue that physics is an inherently aggressive field, and that if women aren’t suited to handle it, they shouldn’t pursue it as a career. However, I would argue that regardless of how it pertains to gender, many aspects of the physics environment are toxic and are preventing good science from being done. So it is would be better for everyone if these things changed.

 

[DS2C]

Could someone give me an example of how women are mistreated, discriminated against, or treated unfairly in the STEM field? I am not arguing against it, I just didnt know this was a thing and I am trying to find facts. I tried a google search but all I could find was statistics of men in the field vs women. Trying to find something definitive and non-anecdotal showing that women are treated unfairly.

 

[AaronK]

Could someone give me an example of how women are mistreated, discriminated against, or treated unfairly in the STEM field? I am not arguing against it, I just didnt know this was a thing and I am trying to find facts. I tried a google search but all I could find was statistics of men in the field vs women. Trying to find something definitive and non-anecdotal showing that women are treated unfairly.

You probably heard about that because of this recent Medium post by Kristian Lum: https://medium.com/@kristianlum/statistics-we-have-a-problem-304638dc5de5

That sort of thing isn't too uncommon among men and women in environments where unethical actors can develop social reverence/power to thwart off potential reprisal for that kind of behavior. If I was a woman, and I experienced something like what Kristian Lum has without any way to get justice (in fact, attempting to bring up these sorts of incidents is often career-suicide, as she describes and worries about) or even just have it never happen again (the men mentioned in the article are very influential in her field and continued to get away with bad behavior presumably because of that), then I think I would make the decision to change paths/quit STEM.

 

[atyy]

Women push for places on UCL engineering course after it dropped need for physics and maths A-level
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/edu...d-for-physics-and-maths-a-level-10195690.html

Migrants and engineers
The Breakfast Show with Penny Smith and Paul Ross
An emergency meeting with European leaders to discuss how to cut the number of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean and the number of women taking engineering degrees at UCL has almost tripled after the university dropped the requirement of physics and maths A-level.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nr8z4#auto

It seems that it is not about lowering standards, rather not constraining choice too early.

 

[vela]

Could someone give me an example of how women are mistreated, discriminated against, or treated unfairly in the STEM field?

I know you're not looking for anecdotes, but let me share two with you anyway.

A computer science professor told our class about how she was refused entry to a conference (probably in the late 70s or early 80s) because she was a woman. She was told women don't work with computers, and she'd only be allowed in if her husband, the real computer scientist, accompanied her. (Never mind that the conference registration was in her name.)

A bunch of my engineering classmates took a course on "Communication in the Professional World." It was taught by this one professor, who, it was rumored, automatically gave an A to every woman in his class. Anyway, a few years after we had graduated, I had a chance to talk with one of my female coworkers who took his class. She despised him. He gave the class the task of giving five-minute impromptu talks on topics the professor chose. For all of the guys, he chose technical topics. Her topic: What does she look for in a man?

I'm not arguing against it. I just didn't know this was a thing, and I'm trying to find facts. I tried a google search but all I could find was statistics of men in the field vs women. Trying to find something definitive and non-anecdotal showing that women are treated unfairly.

I doubt you can easily find clearcut evidence of discrimination because it's not typically overt. It's the result of unconscious biases we all have, and it's difficult to identify bias at work.

One related study that comes to mind had to do with hiring for orchestras. Orchestras were predominately male, yet both the men and women didn't think there was any discrimination against women. However, when blind auditions were instituted, the number of women hired went up significantly.

http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-“blind”-auditions-female-musicians

I seem to recall hearing about studies regarding hiring in general which found similar effects. A list of qualifications, for example, would be perceived differently if it was attached to names revealing the candidate's gender or ethnicity. It's not that the people doing the hiring were sexist or racist, but unconscious biases affected how they judged an individual.

 

[martinbn]

Browsing through some A-level physics textbooks, I would say that it is better if you don't spend two years on that. Studying more maths would be better.

 

[alan2]

Correctly on what grounds, based on what evidence? EDIT: You refer to a study without a link and then there is no long-term results one can observe, since the study you suggested is a recent one. This is not very strong nor convincing. Ultimately, I don't mean to sound harsh, but, if you do not have a strong conviction and drive in what you are studying or your career, you will likely have trouble making it. Unfortunately most societies are not enlightened to the extent of offering support when one needs it, so it is not realistic to put the emphasis on variables such as peer pressure.

This is a pretty old thread so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. I think you're referring to my comment that it's known that gender specific classrooms increase performance of girls in math and science. I thought that was well known and I didn't need to link to specific studies. Just go to Google Scholar and type "gender specific classrooms". You'll find more than you have time to read. Generally, girls in gender specific classrooms outperform not only girls in mixed classrooms but outperform everyone in mixed classrooms. I'm a bit surprised this is even being argued.

 

[radium]

There are some articles, several in Science that show papers with women as first authors get fewer citations, regardless and of the quality of the paper, which is why some women choose to publish with only their initials. There was also a very disturbing study using machine learning to analyze the Econ (also a field where women are very underrepresented) hiring rumors forum.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...n-be-brutal-place-women-economics-paper-finds
The worst part of it is that this is coming from the younger generation who are supposed to be more enlightened on these issues.

 

[WWGD]

Physics is not an easy path for anyone but in general women face the additionals hurdles along the way. The way to summarize it would be to say that there is a lack of respect for women in STEM (there is also sexual harassment but that’s another issue). There has been a lot of improvement in many physics departments and those improvements are beginning to show. They often begin when there is a department chair (either gender) who is really dedicated to improving the environment and supporting women. However the effects of gender bias are still a very real problem. One can argue that physics is an inherently aggressive field, and that if women aren’t suited to handle it, they shouldn’t pursue it as a career. However, I would argue that regardless of how it pertains to gender, many aspects of the physics environment are toxic and are preventing good science from being done. So it is would be better for everyone if these things changed.

The research I have seen on harassment and discrimination has been very weak in that, among other things, harassment and discrimination are deemed to have happened if/when women say or believe it has. And even improved research would be too recent to have been replicated often -enough to have been considered established. And I have trouble with claims of bias on many grounds , including that I who have lived a reasonably random/rep life, have never seen it happen. I know many women who have careers as professionals of different sorts without having had any special support given to them. Again, if you decide not to take on a difficult path such as a graduate science degree based largely on the grounds of (supposed) bias or peer pressure, then you likely don't have it in you to undertake the grueling effort required. But, I do agree that one of the factors is that women are more reasonable , healthier emotionally, in the sense they seek to have a balanced life not entirely devoted to work, while men are willing to , unhealthily, devote their lives to their works, paying a high price in many regards. But this is in part the result of societal pressures whereby a man is appreciated as a function of being a good worker/provider. It seem many in the Feminist movement believe the hardships women go through do not have a parallel in what men go through. I have never bought into the white straight privilege they so often bring up. EDIT: Ultimately women are just not entering into IT-related careers in high-enough numbers. Just how do you expect anything close to a 50-50 ratio when only , e.g., around 8% of Physics, EE, etc. degrees are pursued by women? Women have it better in many regards than men, they just never bring these up. I have never heard them complain, e.g., about the fact that women are earning some 60% of college degrees nowadays.

 

[WWGD]

This is a pretty old thread so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. I think you're referring to my comment that it's known that gender specific classrooms increase performance of girls in math and science. I thought that was well known and I didn't need to link to specific studies. Just go to Google Scholar and type "gender specific classrooms". You'll find more than you have time to read. Generally, girls in gender specific classrooms outperform not only girls in mixed classrooms but outperform everyone in mixed classrooms. I'm a bit surprised this is even being argued.

Not what I found in my search, e.g, for a collection of studies : https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/single-sex.pdf

 

[anorlunda]

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.

I read the article, yet the premise is still unclear. Is the proposal to lower the bar for entrance requirements? or to lower the bar for college graduation requirements? A third alternative would be to lower entrance requirements, hold fast on graduation requirements, and increase the flunk out rate. A fourth would be to lower entrance requirements, but to have students make up the missing pieces before graduation.I also note that it is not just physics. The article talks about dropping both math and physics for all students male or female.

The president drew attention to initiatives at University College London (UCL) and respected engineering company Dyson, where requirements for all undergraduate applicants to have studied maths or physics at A-Level have been removed. Both organisations have seen increases in the number of women studying and succeeding, and she suggested others should consider following suit.

 

[bhobba]

It seems that it is not about lowering standards, rather not constraining choice too early.

Exactly.

Regarding bias etc - yes it exists but measures are being taken to curb it. I have seen it change a lot in my working life from the days when married women were not allowed to take clerical jobs in the government to the person in charge of my department was a woman. There is a bit of a way to go yet - it may still take a bit of time - but it will happen.

Even now studies about the pay gap between men and women have shown - when things like temporarily leaving the workforce to have children etc (yes of course men can do that too - but predominantly women CHOOSE to do it) are taken into account the pay gap is actually quite small. Not zero - which should be the aim - but so small I don't think its near the top of the issues women now face in the workplace.

Thanks
Bill.

 

[bhobba]

Could someone give me an example of how women are mistreated, discriminated against, or treated unfairly in the STEM field?

It's more cultural as seen by the fact in some parts of STEM like engineering and physics there are more men than women - in other parts like Biology and Psychology its the other way around. Sorting out the exact reason for that is the answer. I conjecture its a cultural bias women have against math so they gravitate to fields perceived as being 'math lite'. That is set to change in the future - all areas will be drastically changed by AI which requires good math/computing skills to understand. And yes you need to understand it - not just press buttons - its always an advantage knowing what's going on behind the scenes..

Women - or anybody actually, will not be able to escape it - but I believe women are equally adept and math/computing as men - its not related to studies that have shown boys tend to gravitate towards male type toys and girls female type toys when young (that's likely genetic) - math really is gender neutral.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

The article talks about dropping both math and physics for all students male or female.

That's true - however its another issue.

You forgot the alternative I have been suggesting.

Don't worry about it until undergrad where you can take the prerequisites necessary for the career you want and do that study post-grad. By that time you are much more mature and can make better decisions.

It was noticed in the medical field. What happened is if you got the marks to do medicine then it was more or less expected that's what you do rather that its what you choose to do because it's what appeals to you. To fix that issue medicine in Aus is now basically a post-grad degree - a few still exist where its undergrad but they are rare.

Thanks
Bill

 

[David E]

Although I am a geologist, I did some engineering courses as "subsidiary subjects" as part of my degrees, in the UK

(BSc, PhD; later a BMath in Canada)​

. But that was over 50 years ago, and at a time when fewer kids went to university. The engineering departments, then, dropped about 25% of the students every year, even though all had high school preparation in maths, physics, and chemistry that was equivalent to first year in many North American universities. Much of my lengthy professional life has been spent in what may be considered engineering and I have hired and worked with many engineers, many of them female and in no way have found any of the latter to be inferior to males. There is no question that adequate preparation is needed for engineering and it is great if this could be done at high school level but if this is not the case, it does not shut the door. I did Maths, Physics and Chemistry at school (I admit, I was a nerd, although I don't think the word had been invented then. but my interests have broadened since!), but the University of Birmingham in the UK had a year long pre-science/engineering program for those who did not have adequate preparation for those areas; more than one of my contemporaries (background in things such as history, Latin, English Lit., etc.) followed this transition to very successful careers in engineering and science.

I would enthusiastically encourage girls to become engineers (or scientists - what could be more interesting or rewarding?); otherwise, our society wastes half its potential! So the real question is how do we attract bright girls (boys, too) into the really interesting areas of science and engineering? Then, provide adequate preparation if they have not got this at school.​

 

[bhobba]

I would enthusiastically encourage girls to become engineers (or scientists - what could be more interesting or rewarding?); otherwise, our society wastes half its potential! So the real question is how do we attract bright girls (boys, too) into the really interesting areas of science and engineering? Then, provide adequate preparation if they have not got this at school.

Well said.

Of course when I say in Australia we are moving to engineering being a 3 year Masters after your initial degree, with you just needing the usual first year math and science preparation eg Calc 1, 2, 3 + Linear Algebra in the US system, and a related science eg the typical first year physics sequence for Mechanical Engineering. While it can be fitted into just about any degree, that does not mean better prepared students are not catered for - by doing some engineering subjects undergrad that will allow a reduction of one year in the masters so all up it takes 5 years instead of 6. This partly is in the choice of undergrad degree - in some it's easy - in others difficult - but not impossible. I mentioned actuarial science and systems engineering would be an excellent combination (strangely systems engineering isn't offered that much here is Aus - don't know why). You have no worry with math requirements for Actuarial Science graduates - but fitting the science requirements in can be an issue - it can be done but requires good preparation on the students part without detailing what that would be.

Thanks
Bill

 

[HAYAO]

At least the new president makes it easier for both men and women.

In Japan, we have "women only" and "women priority" academic posts, even though female:male student ratio is typically 1:9 in science department and engineering department. It makes it quite hard for men students and postdocs to apply for a position, whereas it is much much easier for women.

So much for gender equality.

 

[WWGD]

At least the new president makes it easier for both men and women.

In Japan, we have "women only" and "women priority" academic posts, even though female:male student ratio is typically 1:9 in science department and engineering department. It makes it quite hard for men students and postdocs to apply for a position, whereas it is much much easier for women.

So much for gender equality.

Ditto here, where in my school they had open spots reserved for women with all sorts of benefits: personalized tutoring/mentoring, funding among others and yet there were barely any takers. And then somehow this is the result of discrimination. Women have been overall much more effective at selling their brand than man have, one barely hears anything on men's issues despite much higher dropout , suicide, incarceration rates, women obtaining some 60% of college degrees, etc..

 

[Buffu]

Ditto here, where in my school they had open spots reserved for women with all sorts of benefits: personalized tutoring/mentoring, funding among others and yet there were barely any takers. And then somehow this is the result of discrimination. Women have been overall much more effective at selling their brand than man have, one barely hears anything on men's issues despite much higher dropout , suicide, incarceration rates, women obtaining some 60% of college degrees, etc..

Same here. It is so frustrating to see women and minority groups play "victim card" even after getting these special quotas.

 

[WWGD]

Same here. It is so frustrating to see women and minority groups play "victim card" even after getting these special quotas. It is crime being a normal male in modern society.

I think there may be some groups that really deserve it to redress previous injustices, like maybe Native tribes and Blacks in the U.S. But now with the quotas, I don't see what else to complain about. Inequality did exist but now it does not seem so pronounced, if at all. EDIT: But I grant you that many males who never beneffited are punished now by these quotas.

 

[Buffu]

I think there may be some groups that really deserve it to redress previous injustices, like maybe Native tribes and Blacks in the U.S. But now with the quotas, I don't see what else to complain about. Inequality did exist but now it does not seem so pronounced, if at all.

Yes I agree, those who deserve should definitely get quotas, like people from minority groups who are poor and can't afford proper education. I am fine with 100 more quotas if they go to people who deserve it. The problem is when people who can afford proper education get these special benefits.
Promoting equality for one group by discriminating against another is what these quotas are all about.

 

[alan2]

Not what I found in my search, e.g, for a collection of studies : https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/single-sex.pdf

Not sure what you mean. That mega study pretty much says what I said was known.

 

[WWGD]

Not sure what you mean. That mega study pretty much says what I said was known.

"As in previous reviews, the results are equivocal. There is some support for the premise
that single-sex schooling can be helpful, especially for certain outcomes related to academic
achievement and more positive academic aspirations. For many outcomes, there is no evidence
of either benefit or harm. There is limited suppo
rt for the view that single-sex schooling may be
harmful or that coeducational schooli
ng is more beneficial for students."
I thought your position was that SS schools were beneficial overall.

 

[PAllen]

"As in previous reviews, the results are equivocal. There is some support for the premise
that single-sex schooling can be helpful, especially for certain outcomes related to academic
achievement and more positive academic aspirations. For many outcomes, there is no evidence
of either benefit or harm. There is limited suppo
rt for the view that single-sex schooling may be
harmful or that coeducational schooli
ng is more beneficial for students."
I thought your position was that SS schools were beneficial overall.

Note, this meta review excluded all studies of single sex classes in coed schools, and as a result had confounding issues due to many of the single sex schools being religious in nature, so academics was not necessarily the first priority.

 

[alan2]

I thought your position was that SS schools were beneficial overall.

No, the topic is secondary math and science. I'm not qualified to make other judgments.

 

[cmyers152]

I don't think this would be a good idea. Intro physics 1 and 2 (Newtonian and E&M Without calculus) are fairly stripped down versions of the actual courses. They are there for the development of critical thinking skills and how to approach physical problems. If you can't pass those two and subsequently calculus 1 and 2, you should consider other majors. Male or female. Now, I do approve of the extra help given to those women who decide to major in engineering. It's a field that could use some diversity, and that diversity can breed new ideas which could help solve some of the world's biggest problems.

 

[radium]

In regards to the comments about quotas, I think the problem is that the presence (or speculation) of quotas gives the false impression that sexism is not a real problem, when it in fact effects almost every female scientist at some point in her career. They are in many ways a superficial fix to a very complicated problem and may even do more harm than good.