Drop the Physics Requirement to Encourage More Women Engineers?

[radium]

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.

 

[DS2C]

I'll start by saying I fully support women in any form of STEM fields. Myself and the SPS chapter at my university do quite a lot to promote it such as bringing high school girls to the labs and showing them around campus etc. I'm not familiar with the UK system, but I don't think that changing educational requirements in any way is the answer. I'm just a student, but I'm 29 years old so I'm not completely wet behind the ears. One thing that I admire about STEM fields (maybe correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's about finding truth and using that truth to benefit ourselves and those around us. There is no room for politics in it. Would changing required standards for a particular gender not be considered politics? If I was a woman entering engineering I would feel like my future accomplishments would be cheapened and I would absolutely feel insulted.
This is actually a general statement, but one that I think applies to this situation especially.

 

[phinds]

One thing that I admire about STEM fields (maybe correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's about finding truth and using that truth to benefit ourselves and those around us.

I admire your idealism but sadly, you'll have to face the real world eventually. I certainly do agree that that's what it SHOULD be about.

 

[DS2C]

I admire your idealism but sadly, you'll have to face the real world eventually. I certainly do agree that that's what it SHOULD be about.

It's an interesting world we live in...

 

[donpacino]

If women are held to a different standard than men, it will both be insulting to women who actually want to qualify on an equal playing field, and lead to situations where men may be more qualified (in the short term) than women, which would make the problem worse.

While I'm willing to bet there are gifted students out there that do not study at all, for most taking those tests will require them to learn something new. This will give them an advantage when they move onto college or beyond, as they will carry some of that knowledge, or at least the study habits and tools they used to get that knowledge. By allowing some people to bypass that test, isn't it likely you are possibly diminishing the potential quality of the same students who would have taken the test and chose not too. Real life anecdotal evidence: My college roommate found a way to cheat on tests for a class. He passed the class with an A without doing any work. The following semester he failed, because he knew nothing about the subject going into more advanced classes.

In a class of 20 people, I would rather see 3 females stand at the same level as the males, then 10 females, 7 of whom could be lower than the males. Again this would lead to the perception that women are bad a physics, because overall there is no gate (assuming doing well on the test is an indication of doing well in the college programs).

 

[radium]

My issue with proposals like these in general is that they are superficial attempts to fix a problem that is very complicated. It’s much easier to take the easy route and make superficial changes than actually address the real root of the problem. To do that would require a lot more patience and accountability. The number of women in physics is not going to suddenly multiply within a few years, it will take a long time for there to be real improvement.

Rather than cut requirements for women to enter the major in college, they should be doing more to encourage them to stay on track (this is most relevant in the US since you don’t choose your major right away) and attempt to fix the “leaky pipeline”.

 

[symbolipoint]

Another question which comes up is, is the low proportion of women in Physics really a problem? The answer must be complicated.

 

[bhobba]

Hmmmm - they are not required to do physics?

Well I can only speak from the situation in Australia, which is a bit similar to England.

Each university sets its own entry requirements. At the school I went to they have this thing called assumed knowledge - for engineering its not physics, its Math B (equivalent to the English system AS Level Math) and good old English. The thing about assumed knowledge is its just that - they assume you are at that level - you don't have to be in order to be admitted. If you feel you do not have the required background simply contact them and they will arrange some way for you to get it - private reading, remedial classes, individual tuition etc. We also have the university of open learning that has these things called uni-prep subjects to bring you up to the required level.

Provided the student is motivated its not an issue IMHO.

The thing with girls is motivating them. Everyone says they are not like boys and do not do STEM subjects preferring humanities. That however does not stand up to scrutiny - more girls than boys do the STEM subjects of biology and psychology. Could it be the math requirement and girls are not interested in math? Well psychology requires a lot of stats - but you know what - I don think they realize that when they enroll - yet seem not to have any trouble. It's obviously simply some kind of bias they have - the cause - who knows - maybe cultural, expectations - genetic (my personal suspicion) - I don't know - but its not a good thing and best tackled in some fashion.

To me this suggests a simple solution - you have some kind of career guidance at HS all must do that explores exactly what's required for various careers. I think once girls understand the fear they may have of math (and this is just a theory I have - I don't know if its actually true), physics or whatever can't really be escaped from in the world of the future - we all will need a good level of technological literacy - then slowly a more 50-50 spread in those other STEM areas will happen - maybe even a better spread in Biology and Psychology as well.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Another question which comes up is, is the low proportion of women in Physics really a problem? The answer must be complicated.

Yes it is complicated

I remember a documentary exploring the idea it's simply cultural and if girls were bought up like boys it wouldn't happen.

What they found is girls tended to gravitate towards things like Barbie dolls, cloths etc etc and boys to things like GI Joe dolls, truck toys etc etc. There seems to be some kind of genetic thing in all of this.

Nothing that can't be overcome I think - we just need a gentle way for people of both genders to understand the world of the future will not be like the past - greater technological awareness and understanding will be required - especially in things like math and computing. While it's not girls natural inclination, simply starting them at an early age in things related to this like computer programming (in a fun way of course) will help - just look at how addicted youngsters are to things like twitter etc.

Is it a problem.? Of course it is - we may be depriving our-self's of the next Noether or Lisa Randal.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Rather than cut requirements for women to enter the major in college, they should be doing more to encourage them to stay on track (this is most relevant in the US since you don’t choose your major right away) and attempt to fix the “leaky pipeline”.

The way they are attacking that for engineering in Australia is your initial engineering qualification is a Masters. That takes three years on top of your normal three year degree - but can be reduced to two by suitable choice of subjects undergrad.

Here are the details:
http://www.eng.unimelb.edu.au/study/degrees
http://bcom.unimelb.edu.au/breadth/breadth_studies_in_engineering

You can do undergrad in all sorts of things - Business, Psychology, Biomedacine - you can see some of them in the link. Some allow you to complete engineering Masters in two - others it will take 3.

The only issue is I would like to see physics, actuarial science (I think that would be killer combined with systems engineering) and of course applied math with a two year option path - but hey Rome want built in a day. But still a step in the right direction IMHO.

We need innovative solutions like this to solve these issues - it involves just a bit of lateral thinking - I don't think its too hard to solve. You learn the prerequisites undergrad like physics, math, chemistry etc and are not limited that much by what you did at HS. Plus you get two degrees - they are always saying they want people with a broader focus in engineering - well this is one way to do it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PAllen]

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.

This is just false. I remember a major battle by women in the early 70s to break into coal mining in the US.

 

[nikkkom]

The number of women in physics is not going to suddenly multiply within a few years, it will take a long time for there to be real improvement.

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. No one, be it a woman, man, or sentient white polar bear (if such would be discovered) should be _discouraged_ from going into STEM, or judged on their genitals, or color of fur. We should not care about those irrelevant, and uncontrollable characteristics - and I personally don't.

Whatever percentage of sexes in STEM this approach will result in is the "correct" one.

 

[Buffu]

This is just false. I remember a major battle by women in the early 70s to break into coal mining in the US.

Are you joking ? Why would anyone want to work in coal mines ?

 

[PAllen]

Are you joking ? Why would anyone want to work in coal mines ?

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.

 

[Nugatory]

Are you joking ? Why would anyone want to work in coal mines ?

For the same reason that men do. If it's the best-paying job available to you and you need the money, then you want the chance to do the job.

 

[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.