Physics Men vs. Women in Physics Careers

[Sir_Deenicus]

IQ but measures how good one is at thinking like everyone else.

Dont forget Emmy Noether, a woman who much of modern physics owes much to.

 

[Andre]

About the original question about were the women are in physics. Most likely a cultural thing. Perhaps we need a lot more of them to dilute the testosterone level a bit and the associated I’m-right-and-you-are-wrong-because-mine-is-bigger-attitude.

 

[RufusDawes]

Women are too smart to waste time trying to become physicists. They're too busy become HR specialists and making kiler $$$.

.

 

[f95toli]

About the original question about were the women are in physics. Most likely a cultural thing. Perhaps we need a lot more of them to dilute the testosterone level a bit and the associated I’m-right-and-you-are-wrong-because-mine-is-bigger-attitude.

I would agree with that. I have been lucky in that I have mostly worked in groups (or at least sub-groups) with many women (not quite 50-50, but perhaps 30-70) and it definitely makes a positive difference to the working environment.
I would NOT want to go back to working in an all-male environment.

Also, it is certainly possible that there are biological differences between men and women when it comes to how we solve problems, but I find it very hard to believe that it has anything to do with the current gender imbalance; the differences between individuals are defiantly much bigger than any "generic" difference between men and women.

What is considered typical "male" and "female" professions tend to vary from country to country and it also varies over time. Nowadays there are e.g. plenty of women in biology and chemistry (at my old university there were something like 60% women in bio- and chemistry programs) but that was not the case just a few decades ago.

There are of course one "biological" problems specific for women in all branches of academia. Specifically that it tends to be very difficult to find a permanent position before you are 35 or so, not an ideal situation if you want to start a family and for women there are good reasons not to wait until they are in their late thirties before they have their first child . I have friend that have left academia for this reason.
Men can safely wait a bit longer and then, to put it bluntly, start a family with a younger woman.

 

[TMFKAN64]

If you gave these girls and boys similar mathematics and physics training, and by the time they were in high school, asked them to take the Mathematical Olympiad or Physics Olympiad (the ultimate challenge!), the boys would surely be on top. Perhaps naive, but it does illustrate a point.

I'll agree, it *does* illustrate a point. Just not the one you think it does...

 

[jhicks]

I'll agree, it *does* illustrate a point. Just not the one you think it does...

I hope that the fellow you quoted can read this from 3.5 years ago

 

[mhazelm]

As a woman, I can attest to the fact that my mind is just as capable of understanding physics and mathematics as yours.

I've done very well in both.

All the physics students at my school who have received the Goldwater (in the past 4-10ish years), Rhodes, and Fulbright awards have been women. For instance, my best friend i physics is a single mother and still has a perfect GPA, Goldwater, exceptional research experience, etc.

Maybe you would see more women if there were less men with your attitude. For hundreds of years, women weren't ALLOWED to do anything like physics; we've barely even had the vote, let alone careers (careers didn't really begin for us until WWII). MANY women have been DISCOURAGED from birth to do physics. MANY women have to give up their career to have children - men can't have babies, and sad as it is in the 21st century, most men are unwilling to make the sacrifice of leaving their job to care for children. I don't know of any men who would.

The inequalities continue, but these are social inequalities stemming from people who are arrogant and shovanistic. Fact is, we are just as good, and you'll just have to get used to it!

As time goes by and we begin to finally break past these cultural issues, you will see more women in physics. At least, you're not getting rid of me.

 

[RufusDawes]

They discourage women because they care about them. Lots of men would have had better lives if they'd been encouraged not to go into physics.

 

[mhazelm]

It depends on what you mean by "better". I can't imagine what is more exciting than being at the forefront of modern physics - it's not about fame, money, or glory. It's just cool. For me there's nothing better than learning about the fundamentals of the universe - everything else fails.

But then, some people do want fame, or money, or social change, or whatever, and there's nothing wrong with that. Frankly, I think we should encourage people to do whatever pleases them the most (that's legal ). Aren't people happiest, and therefore better off, when they're pursuing what they're passionate about?

 

[thewhills]

I do not agree with this because you are comparing one country to the rest of the world, and when you do this it is easy to see that the rest of the world will almost always dominate. If you were to compare the number of great scientists in one country to the number of great scientists in another it would probably be a little more even.



I am not sure about women in physics. Women seem to do well in other sciences (biology, chemistry) My only guess would be the math factor of physics, but then why are women not that good at math? Maybe we will see a big rise in women in physics and math over the next 50-100 years. Women just got the right to vote in what, 1917 or something, and there are still complaints about women not getting paid equally. As for women getting accepted into grad school because they are women, well I feel that is terrible. Whether you are white, black, brown, green, male, female, you should be accepted on your academic record, not your physical features.

DON'T say that.
The President of Harvard nearly got lynched out of Harvard for saying Woman weren't as good at Math.

 

[erin85]

The above posters have already listed numerous reasons why women have been held down socially, so I'm not going to repeat them... most are quite true. Given that women are less encouraged to go into physics as children, and physics classes are taught in a style that is non-optimal for many women, the result is fewer women total in physics.

So, it's not surprising that MOST very famous and successful physicists are men, because most physicists are indeed, men. There are certainly extremely accomplished and intelligent women in physics. You don't hear about them as often simply for statistics reasons... there aren't as many. It's not a lack of ability, it's a numbers game. In addition, physics has been a boys club, essentially since it was really discovered. Even in the last century, when women were finally allowed to study physics, their discoveries were often claimed by men.

For one, consider the discovery of the double stranded structure of DNA (biology, not physics, but the basic structure still holds). Rosalind Franklin was extremely instrumental in this discovery - her xray crystallography made it possible, and she worked out the structure herself. Watson & Crick, on the basis of Franklin's unpublished evidence, published the structure, and subsequently won a Nobel Prize for it. It was a women who was behind the discovery, but men who got the credit.

As another example, take EBR-I, at INL. It was the first nuclear reactor to generate power. The day it was successful, all the scientists in the building wrote their names on the wall to celebrate. They were all male, and would not allow the female cleaning staff present to also write their names on the wall. However, this was not a scientist vs cleaning staff decision, because the male member of the cleaning staff DID write his name on the wall...

So, it's clear that past discoveries by women could have been masked as discoveries by men, skewing our statistics on the number of really great male vs female physicists. I think the scenario described, in which females simply don't have the capacity to understand the intricacies of physics is completely bigoted... I think that poster just wanted to get a rise out of us girls on the board...

 

[_Eternity_]

Hey, this is a great topic. I am a woman myself see why most women "avoid" physics. I'm listing several reasons as to why this is the case (my opinion):

1. Social brainwashing. Have you watched TV lately? Any show portrays women as"desperate HOUSEWIVES" *cough*, so from early childhood, girls "dream" of meeting a perfect husband, who will sweep them off their feet.

2. Women are more caring and tend to go into "caring" careers such as K-12 teachers, nursing, customer service, human resources and decorating

3. Different ways of approaching problems. As mentioned before, men see the BIG picture, women focus on DETAIL. I think you need both to be an engineer and depending on the type of engineering.

I can't think of anymore reasons. I love philosophy and I run into the same problem when it comes to logic. Only old males like discussing these things, and I'm a young female?

 

[thewhills]

Science and Engineering in the media is terrible in general.
The Media give kids a good look into the world of business,but not into science or engineering or math,

 

[mal4mac]

I do not agree with this because you are comparing one country to the rest of the world, and when you do this it is easy to see that the rest of the world will almost always dominate. If you were to compare the number of great scientists in one country to the number of great scientists in another it would probably be a little more even.

In a recent thread I compared Fields medallists between USA, UK,and France. USA was WAY behind, per head of population.

 

[mal4mac]

It depends on what you mean by "better". I can't imagine what is more exciting than being at the forefront of modern physics - it's not about fame, money, or glory. It's just cool. For me there's nothing better than learning about the fundamentals of the universe - everything else fails.

Even if you are highly motivated to do fundamental physics, they aren't going to pay you to do that. Unless you are amongst the lucky few. Having a mindset that "everything else fails" is a recipe for personal disaster if (as is likely) you get kicked out of the "fundamental physics research" career path. Better find something else that *doesn't* fail. Fortunately, there *are* plenty of other things that don't fail, if you have a realistic attitude.

 

[Count Iblis]

I think that the reason why you have less women in physics in the top position in almost all of the world's countries is partially due to (hidden) discrimination and partially due to the fact that physics and math education in primary and secondary school is abominable (all over the world).

The fact that math and physics education is relevant because there is a difference in how girls and boys on average interact with the educational system. There are minor differences in what girls and boys find interesting. Also there are minor difference in how serous they learn in school. There is some evidence that girls tend to be more serious about studying, they finish their university studies a bit earlier on average than boys. They attend classes better and study more serious for exams.

This would seem to give girls an advantage above boys. But in case of physics you get the opposite effect. What happens is that those students who excell at university tend to be the people who at high school studied physics and math on their own. So, the question is, if you are doing well and you are way ahead, are you then going to the university library and study quantum mechanics and relativity on your own?

I think that more boys than girls tend to do that. Not because boys are inherently better than girls in math or physics, but because boys have slightly different preferences on what to do in their free time.


Another related thing is that you have more boys who decide to study physics than girls in the first place. If you stick to the high school curriculum you wouldn't have a clue what physics or math at university is all about, so looking into this in your free time while at high school is also an important factor here.

Then, while studying at univesity, it helps a lot not to stick to the curriculum and do more than is strictly necessary. More boys tend to do that than girls. In case of physics such an attitude is likely to give you a much bigger advantage compared to other subjects.


I can give an anecdotal examples about my own experience on how important studying physics/math at high school is. When I was 15, I mastered the theory of complex functions. I was very good at solving complicated contour integration problems. When I was at university in second year I followed a math course in this suject. Most of the students were math students, I was the only physics student of the course (physics students are required to follow a certain number of optional math courses).

The exam was quite easy for me. I made one minor mistake and scored 98%. Out of the about 30 students there was only one other student who passed the test, he scored 70%. Everyone else failed the test (i.e. they scored less than 60%, which in our system is a "fail").

Clearly being able to perform like that at university is a big help.
Some of my friends who were also doing well at university told me that they also studied on their own in high school. Then it was no surprise that almost all of these friends went on to do a Ph.D., while of the others only a few decied to do a Ph.D. The ratio boys/girls went up even further at this stage.


I think that in case of literature, you can see the opposite effect, but it isn't as big as in physics, because language education is not as bad as math education in high school. Girls read more novels in their free time than boys. Also, there are more girls who will learn foreign languages on their own in high school than boys. This then leads to mor girls deciding to study foreign languages/literature than boys and outperforming them on average.

 

[Count Iblis]

Even if you are highly motivated to do fundamental physics, they aren't going to pay you to do that. Unless you are amongst the lucky few. Having a mindset that "everything else fails" is a recipe for personal disaster if (as is likely) you get kicked out of the "fundamental physics research" career path. Better find something else that *doesn't* fail. Fortunately, there *are* plenty of other things that don't fail, if you have a realistic attitude.

Well, you must focus on achieving certain goals. If you want to go into fundamental physics, you better make sure you start to achieve good results on your research. The sooner you start the better. With this focus in mind there is nothing wrong with an "everything else fails" mentality as that may keep you on the right track.

 

[Moonbear]

There is some evidence that girls tend to be more serious about studying, they finish their university studies a bit earlier on average than boys. They attend classes better and study more serious for exams.

Can you provide references for this? I'm not doubting your claims, I've just never seen such studies and would love to see them for myself.

Another related thing is that you have more boys who decide to study physics than girls in the first place. If you stick to the high school curriculum you wouldn't have a clue what physics or math at university is all about, so looking into this in your free time while at high school is also an important factor here.

Interesting point. Though, why do you think there's a gender difference in how this free time is utilized?

Then, while studying at univesity, it helps a lot not to stick to the curriculum and do more than is strictly necessary. More boys tend to do that than girls. In case of physics such an attitude is likely to give you a much bigger advantage compared to other subjects.

I'm not sure this is true. You're suggesting that men rather than women would seek further information outside the curriculum? I don't agree. Can you back up your claim with any published studies that provide such evidence?

I can give an anecdotal examples about my own experience on how important studying physics/math at high school is. When I was 15, I mastered the theory of complex functions. I was very good at solving complicated contour integration problems. When I was at university in second year I followed a math course in this suject. Most of the students were math students, I was the only physics student of the course (physics students are required to follow a certain number of optional math courses).

The exam was quite easy for me. I made one minor mistake and scored 98%. Out of the about 30 students there was only one other student who passed the test, he scored 70%. Everyone else failed the test (i.e. they scored less than 60%, which in our system is a "fail").

Clearly being able to perform like that at university is a big help.
Some of my friends who were also doing well at university told me that they also studied on their own in high school. Then it was no surprise that almost all of these friends went on to do a Ph.D., while of the others only a few decied to do a Ph.D. The ratio boys/girls went up even further at this stage.

And when I was in college, it was one of my female classmates who would score far ahead of everyone else on exams. Anectdotal evidence only provides one example, and doesn't explain overall trends.

Girls read more novels in their free time than boys. Also, there are more girls who will learn foreign languages on their own in high school than boys. This then leads to mor girls deciding to study foreign languages/literature than boys and outperforming them on average.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. Can you provide sources? Much to my chagrin, it's my boyfriend who has read far more novels and literature than I have...and his major in college was civil engineering. So, if you're basing it on anecdotal evidence alone, my anecdotal evidence speaks to the contrary. I'd prefer to see proper studies to support any claims.

 

[Tiger99]

I'm a woman in physics (sort of - maybe in mathematics).

I think it helps to have a lot of confidence in one's own abilities when dealing with the competitive atmosphere. In my experience, men seem to have a lot more confidence (or at least pretend that they do?). They say things like "I was really good at doing contour integrals in high school" or "I really understand this now", etc. Several times a man/boy has told he was just really good at physics and mathematics. Even the ones who have failed exams in mathematics and physics.

I've never met a girl who told me she was good at mathematics or physics, even though I've known girls who were child prodigies and got their degrees before most people finished school. Even these kinds of people rate their mathematical/physics abilities as just average or maybe slightly above average.

Then in the mathematics/physics community a myth prevails that you need to be brilliant to succeed. Only really really smart people can contribute dazzling insights into how the world works. I think perhaps there are a lot of men who would happily identify themselves as "brilliant" but very few women. So the women give up perhaps without any external barrier. They get into graduate school, they score a good postdoc, but even if they do, they don't think they're really smart enough to be a physicist, and eventually they leave of their own accord.

I generalized a lot to make this easy to say... Does it ring true with anyone though?

Also, it's a bit hard to judge someone else's ability, so if someone tells people they are not good, then perhaps others believe them? and maybe this is why people think women aren't as good as men at mathematics and physics? just a little bit at least?

 

[RufusDawes]

cause male brain is larger and more powerful.. female brain focus on picking beries.

Sad but true. Women prefer neat linear compartments. Not to say a smart woman can't do what she pleases and shouldn't be encouraged to. Silly argument b.c answer is so obvious..

 

[Count Iblis]

Moonbear, I tried to find that study about female students studying more seriously, but I could not find it on the internet. I read about that study in a local newspaper some years ago.

The other point I made about girls being less inclined to be involved in activities outside the curriculum is based on my personal experience, so it may not be true in general. But I do think that it is related to the first point about girls studying more seriously.

What I have noted lately is that due to changes in our educational system students, regardless of gender, are actually behaving more like high school students and won't explore anything beyond their curriculum.

So, if you give students some problem to solve for homework and there is a mathematical obstacle that requires the students to do a little more work beyond what they have learned in math class, the students will simply come back to me and say that they couldn't do it.

 

[Tiger99]

cause male brain is larger and more powerful.. female brain focus on picking beries.

Sad but true. Women prefer neat linear compartments. Not to say a smart woman can't do what she pleases and shouldn't be encouraged to. Silly argument b.c answer is so obvious..

I'm going to assume you just enjoy stirring people. No-one really thinks that anymore, right?

 

[physics girl phd]

Maybe some of it comes from being an engendered field and some unenlightened advising, teaching, and even hiring and work practices: Since no-one else out here is providing any references on this (many of these from Jill Marshall's AAPT 2006 talk: The Gender Gap in Physics: Explanations, Data, Analysis -- personally I've become sick of all the gender-bias in physics. So sick of it all I avoid gender-related PER research like Jill's because it depresses me.):

Maybe her education was not equal: * Kahle, Jane Butler and Marsha K. Lakes (1983) The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20: 131-140. (I have personally read on graduate selection committee letters that even though she did better on the GRE than a male applicant, and has more research experience (via publications) than that male counterpart that her adviser still writes that she "looks cute working in the lab" rather than about her research technique. )

She might even be turned down from a job or application because her CV has a female name (while I was a grad student this came out... in science or nature, but I can't find it and am busy today)

She might be given more grunt work and less opportunity: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080423/full/452918a.html

While there might be "some" differences in spatial verbal skills it's not "significantly" different and it's not biologically evident:
*Hedges, L.V. & Nowell, A.(1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals, Science, 269, 41-45.
Cahill, L. (2005). His brain, her brain, Scientific American, 292, 40-47.

P.S. regarding "foreign" scientists... A lot of the Nobel Prizes in physics have been given to U.S. nationals... and many of those were born and raised and received their education here. www.nobelprize.org -- this of course assumes you are US like I am -- and I really think that's a centrist way of looking at things b/c there's a lot of national variation on this forum thank goodness!)

-- And did you know D. Jin at Boulder just made an ultra-cold fermi gas? That might be nobel-worthy in the future... oh yeah -- and the "D." is for "Debbie".

P.S. just ask my husband (a sociologist)... I'm certainly not neat, linear, and certainly NOT compartmentalized via my housekeeping tendencies. And according to him, the start to this topic and some responses therein are from ignorant sexist $%#@#$#%#'s.

 

[Moonbear]

Let's not forget the frustrating and still prevalent, "I have to support a wife and kids so need a higher salary" argument that still seems to be successful. I've never had as much success with the, "I don't have a husband to support me so need more money" approach.

I'm going to assume you just enjoy stirring people. No-one really thinks that anymore, right?

I hope so too. I'm going to take it as a joke, albeit a VERY BAD joke.

 

[sharanya]

i am a 17yr old girl and i ve been passionate about physics since i was 13 when the actual demarcation was made from the other sciences. it has to be the most beautiful science compared to everything else. i ve personally had no difficulty studyin physics and reading hawkings books even when i was in 9th grade. but i find men more interested in phy and more willing to discuss theories with me esp those concerning quantum physics and cosmology.

 

[Null_]

I must add that I am an 18 year old female, just about to graduate from high school. I plan to enter the field of chemical engineering in the fall. I feel that sadly, although my math teachers have been female, I have not been pushed in school. Now I don't think the guys were pushed any more than I was, but my teachers look at me strangely when I tell them that I am going into engineering. I was never encouraged to enter the field until I excelled in a college-level chemistry class (male teacher). This push has made a great difference, something to give encouragement that I may contribute to the knowledge base rather than just be a much-needed minority. I think most girls throughout high school and grade school are kept away from the math and science classes; I was always encouraged to enter english and history classes due to the fact that I did well on the tests, even though I did much better on the subjects I enjoy.

I have no female friends with whom I can discuss my readings; it is mainly my teacher and two male friends. Granted, I go to a fairly small school, but it is disheartening. I wish I would have been steered toward physics from a younger age, because now that I have found it I am in love. However, I must also be somewhat thankful that I have discovered my passion and am not going to be stuck analyzing Shakespeare and the Renaissance for the rest of my life (no offense..I enjoy learning about it but I see no point in devoting one's life to the study of human creations).

 

[Astronuc]

I must add that I am an 18 year old female, just about to graduate from high school. I plan to enter the field of chemical engineering in the fall. I feel that sadly, although my math teachers have been female, I have not been pushed in school. Now I don't think the guys were pushed any more than I was, but my teachers look at me strangely when I tell them that I am going into engineering. I was never encouraged to enter the field until I excelled in a college-level chemistry class (male teacher). This push has made a great difference, something to give encouragement that I may contribute to the knowledge base rather than just be a much-needed minority. I think most girls throughout high school and grade school are kept away from the math and science classes; I was always encouraged to enter english and history classes due to the fact that I did well on the tests, even though I did much better on the subjects I enjoy.

I have no female friends with whom I can discuss my readings; it is mainly my teacher and two male friends. Granted, I go to a fairly small school, but it is disheartening. I wish I would have been steered toward physics from a younger age, because now that I have found it I am in love. However, I must also be somewhat thankful that I have discovered my passion and am not going to be stuck analyzing Shakespeare and the Renaissance for the rest of my life (no offense..I enjoy learning about it but I see no point in devoting one's life to the study of human creations).

If engineering is your passion, go for it! I would recommend finding a mentor. Also, when attending university, look into the professional engineering society in your major. For chemical engineering, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, www.aiche.org[/url], and more specifically, the students section - [url]http://www.aiche.org/Students/[/URL]

We have summer interns, and this summer, a female student is working in our office.

My company has a female PhD Mech E who is one of the best in the industry. We had a female Mech E who had a law degree but had gone back to school to obtain a MS degree in Mech E. I have a female friend who is a Civil Engineer, and she just completed a law degree.
I work with many other female PhDs in the nuclear industry, at the national labs or who do research and teach at university. There a many possibilities.

 

[Null_]

If engineering is your passion, go for it! I would recommend finding a mentor. Also, when attending university, look into the professional engineering society in your major. For chemical engineering, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, www.aiche.org[/url], and more specifically, the students section - [url]http://www.aiche.org/Students/[/URL]

We have summer interns, and this summer, a female student is working in our office.

My company has a female PhD Mech E who is one of the best in the industry. We had a female Mech E who had a law degree but had gone back to school to obtain a MS degree in Mech E. I have a female friend who is a Civil Engineer, and she just completed a law degree.
I work with many other female PhDs in the nuclear industry, at the national labs or who do research and teach at university. There a many possibilities.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the words! I'm going to be in an honors program, which provides us a mentor. I'm also definitely going to look into the chemE society. There is also a female engineer club at my campus, which I'll most likely join. I really never thought much about being different than the guys, since most of my friends now are guys. I hope people don't make a deal about it..but I expect that it's getting better. After all, something like 20% of the chemEs are female, and there is a larger percent than that as professors. :)

 

[twofish-quant]

I generalized a lot to make this easy to say... Does it ring true with anyone though?

Absolutely. In some areas of physics there is a very, very strong *macho* atmosphere. I can do this integral and you can't so I'm *BETTER* than you. Oh YEAH! Well you are *STUPID* since I can do this integral better than you SO THERE. YOU ARE WEAK AND STUPID AND I RULE! HAHAHHA! You think you are smart, well *I* just published this paper, and won this award *SO THERE*

This is an environment which fit male gender roles.

However, one thing that has changed gender roles is the role of physics. In the 1960's, physicists got a lot of money to build bigger and better bombs and building bombs to make sure that you can fight the person across the ocean that is also trying to build bombs is a "male" role. If you look at what parts of physics are getting money today, people aren't interested in building bigger bombs to fight the Russians. What people are really, really scared of is *dying* or worse yet *dying horribly*.

So where the big money is is in the biological sciences. Biophysics and NIH is getting huge amounts of money. This helps women a lot because it fits into the female stereotype of the "caring nurturer." This has dramatically shifted the balance of power in research universities.

 

[jamesmo]

The premise that women are better at cooking and sewing is patently false. I would like to point out, I am a great chef and can sew. Until you have tried my salmon rissoto, you are in no position to say women can cook better than men. I also made my wife a lovely skirt for her birthday. I only got my Ph.D. in physics to sound cool at parties.

 

[Count Iblis]

Jamesmo, we'll see you http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1k5" then!

 

[Ki Man]

The gender disparity is a huge issue - who else will lonely physicists date? Bio majors?

But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does. So, if you were to have completely equal social conditions, women by that reasoning should be in slightly less numbers than men. This effect (if that postulated cause really does have any effect to begin with) could be exacerbating the fact that the gender gap in science education is only beginning to close. After all, the gap in all education, science or otherwise, wasn't closed too long ago.

 

[Jerbearrrrrr]

Maybe women just don't (or are less inclined to) care about photons and neutrinos.

I think in general, men are more likely to be interested in being rigorous. In my own experience even in the bar, men are more like to "argue" just for the sake of finding the answer to a random question.

Jo Brand summarises amusingly (but insightfully):
I said to my husband the other week, "Can you Hoover the front room while I'm at the shops," right? And I came back . . . All the furniture was out in the garden. He's on his hands and knees with the Hoover, using an attachment I'd never even seen before. And it just leads me to think that men are probably actually much better at housework than women.

I can do this integral and you can't so I'm *BETTER* than you.

That behaviour isn't exclusive to men though. Well..maybe in terms of integration it is.

 

[ViewsofMars]

From the American Physical Society - Women in Physics

APS, through the Committee on the Status of Women in Physics (CSWP), is committed to encouraging the recruitment, retention, and career development of women physicists at all levels.
[Please read on . . . ]
http://www.aps.org/programs/women/index.cfm

 

[lisab]

I just finished a QM course that's part of a Master's program in physics. Some 1/3 of the class were women! And that's in a graduate class!

But something twofish said really rang true, at least in my undergrad classes. It was very, very competitive environment, very macho, like a sport. Not what I would call a friendly atmosphere. I can easily see how a young person, male or female, could be turned off by that.

 

[Jerbearrrrrr]

It's completely the opposite here! Sharing notes, revising together, giving each other hints (not the full solution though of course)...I think it's more or less a good environment. People want to be at the top of course, so they work hard to keep up with their peers.
This is despite the fact that grading is done almost entirely by percentiles (the top x% get an X).

Well I do maths, not physics, but the mentality is somewhat similar.
Maybe I'm lucky then.

 

[ViewsofMars]

But something twofish said really rang true, at least in my undergrad classes. It was very, very competitive environment, very macho, like a sport. Not what I would call a friendly atmosphere. I can easily see how a young person, male or female, could be turned off by that.

Hi lisab More than likely what will make a difference in the future is the fact that K-12 are now being introduced to physics: " Physics is the scientific study of the basic principles of the universe, including matter, energy, motion and force, and their interactions. Major topics include classical mechanics, thermodynamics, light and optics, electromagnetism and relativity." You can see by exploring the following website what is now being offered to teachers of K-12. Some of the kids (boys and girls) are enjoying the classes. Of course where I'm from, adults don't draw lines between gender. Equal opportunity in K-12.lol!. I'll share a secret with you, the little girls in my neck of the woods are very astute and have good manners and so do the young boys.
http://teachengineering.org/view_su...on/wpi_/subject_areas/wpi_physics/physics.xml

As a woman with a long history of employment, there will always be days of enjoyment and stress. Hopefully, good stress. Healthy minded people in general do like to climb the ladder of success and manage quite successfully to remain good friends with co-workers. Starting a project and finishing it is a great feeling no matter what your profession might be! A professional always attempts to be friendly.

 

[Count Iblis]

I agree with what Jerbearrrrrr and Ki Man are saying about differences between men and women. But I also think these sorts of differences are only relevant at all because of a bad physics and math educational system in high school and primary school.

What happens is that many students, boys and girls, get a misleading picture of physics and math and will decide not to study such boring topics at university. The few students who do decide to study such topics will typically be those students who have pursued their own interest in these topics by reading books etc. Typically there will be more boys than girls who do that in case of math and physics.

Similarly, if we were to stop all English lessons in schools beyond lessons aimed at teaching the alphabet, spelling and very basic grammar then, over time, almost everyone would be practically analphabets. The small fraction who are good at reading and writing would be dominated by women. This would then lead to women dominating most academic topics, because reading and writing are such essential skills and because without being able to read well, you would't even know what interesting topics there are to learn about.

 

[ViewsofMars]

But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does.

I'd appreciate reviewing the research. Please provide me the article(s) from a peer-reviewed journel that substantiates your claim.

 

[jamesmo]

I'd appreciate reviewing the research. Please provide me the article(s) from a peer-reviewed journel that substantiates your claim.

I can't believe you missed the article. Though some differences were present early, those resolved at later timepoints. To remind you of the article:

R. U. Kidding, et.al., "Spatial reasoning of the male mind: Do men space out during the spring semister more than women?", Am. Jour. of Mandom, June, 2003 p 523-523.5.

Abstract: We observed 50 subjects (two cohorts: 25 male, 25 female) all in seniors at a 4 year college for behaviors that could be traced to the known condition of "graduation-pattern-spaciness". These behaviors include, staring out windows, sipping beers with friends, and spending excessive amount of time with other participates in the study, not of their study cohort. We coorrelated these with outdoor temperature, time to graduation, and major.

CONCLUSION: The males in the study did demonstrate a 25% higher "spaciness" in the earlier time groups (March and April, p< 0.05), however both cohorts (male and female) achieved a similar level of spaciness in May (p=0.3). The correlation in both cohorts with outdoor temperature was high (r=0.95). Physicists tended to be more vulnerable to the effects of graduation-pattern-spaciness.

 

[ViewsofMars]

"

I can't believe you missed the article. Though some differences were present early, those resolved at later timepoints. To remind you of the article:

R. U. Kidding, et.al., "Spatial reasoning of the male mind: Do men space out during the spring semister more than women?", Am. Jour. of Mandom, June, 2003 p 523-523.5.

Abstract: We observed 50 subjects (two cohorts: 25 male, 25 female) all in seniors at a 4 year college for behaviors that could be traced to the known condition of "graduation-pattern-spaciness". These behaviors include, staring out windows, sipping beers with friends, and spending excessive amount of time with other participates in the study, not of their study cohort. We coorrelated these with outdoor temperature, time to graduation, and major.

CONCLUSION: The males in the study did demonstrate a 25% higher "spaciness" in the earlier time groups (March and April, p< 0.05), however both cohorts (male and female) achieved a similar level of spaciness in May (p=0.3). The correlation in both cohorts with outdoor temperature was high (r=0.95). Physicists tended to be more vulnerable to the effects of graduation-pattern-spaciness.

"

What you have now presented hasn't previously appeared on this topic. I'd appreciate a link (url) to what you have presented. Also, a link(url) to "Am. Jour. of Mandom" would be helpful. (If this is a scientific journal then I am not familiar with it.) This also seems to be a type of trial study, which I surely don't consider it to be a scientifically peer-reviewed article. What you have presented from "Am. Jour. of Mandom" has little to do with your statement, "But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does."

 

[jamesmo]

""

What you have now presented hasn't previously appeared on this topic. I'd appreciate a link (url) to what you have presented. Also, a link(url) to "Am. Jour. of Mandom" would be helpful. This also seems to be a type of trial study, which I surely don't consider to be a scientifically peer-reviewed article. What you have presented from "Am. Jour. of Mandom" has little to do with your statement, "But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does."

The Am. Jour. of Mandom is one of several journals from the International Academy of Quackery. (www.iaq.org) Some of its other famous Journals are: Journal of Underwater Basketweaving, Amero-Franco Journal of Vino Therapy, and Crystal Therapy Review Letters.

Also, "But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does." wasn't my quote, I just happen to be a member of the IAQ and receive their journal.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I call this my "Switch and Bait." Easy to catch two, jamesmo ('a member of the IAQ and recieve their journal' which he states is from 'the International Academy of Quackery') and infers that Ki Man msg. #82 pertains to an article that came from the Am. Jour. of Mandom which is from 'the International Academy of Quackery' which the link jamesmo provided indicates it is not 'the International Academy of Quackery' but the INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY for QUALITY.

My conclusion is the IAQ (the International Academy of Quackery) purposed by jamesmo is not a peer-reviewed science journal such as internationally known Science and Nature AND neither is the International Academy for Quality.

 

[FD3SA]

Wow ladies and gentlemen...this thread has singlehandedly caused me to lose a great deal of respect for the quality of scientists who frequent these forums. I have never seen such a festering mess of anecdotal evidence, generalization, and unscientific gossip.

The greatest weakness of any scientists is his/her predisposition to compartmentalization of science. I see here eminent physicists falling back upon anecdotal evidence instead of discussing the details of human sexual dimorphism. This is a field that is progressing rapidly, and there are many excellent authors who tackle this issue from a variety of perspectives: anthropology, evolutionary psychology, game theory, and many more.We aren't asking the right questions. We see a trend of females not excelling at the highest levels of academia. We also see a trend in females reading romance novels, and females becoming infatuated with actors/athletes/millionaires and other successful males. Conversely, we see men are obsessed with challenging activities such as science, politics, sport and finance. To validate these trends, controlled scientific trials are required; and believe me, they have been performed. The hypotheses that describe these phenomena exist, have a staggering amount of evidence supporting them, and are excellent predictors of future trends.

But then, as with any science that deals with humans, the results are deemed "controversial". This obviously means nothing to a scientist, for there are facts and there are explanations of facts. I shall not proceed further, and will let readers come to their own conclusions. I recommend Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, followed by Matt Ridley's The Red Queen for starters.

I challenge all those readers interested in this topic to read the above two works, and go onto reading more detailed works if your curiosity is sparked. If not, you must understand that you are willingly choosing a path of scientific ignorance, and thus none of your arguments will hold a single grain of objectivity with which we can collaborate and discuss interesting hypotheses on the subject of human sexual dimorphism.

 

[ViewsofMars]

"

We see a trend of females not excelling at the highest levels of academia. We also see a trend in females reading romance novels, and females becoming infatuated with actors/athletes/millionaires and other successful males. Conversely, we see men are obsessed with challenging activities such as science, politics, sport and finance. To validate these trends, controlled scientific trials are required; and believe me, they have been performed. The hypotheses that describe these phenomena exist, have a staggering amount of evidence supporting them, and are excellent predictors of future trends.

"

Hi FD3SA, welcome. Do you have any articles from a peer-reviewed journal that will support your claim? Clinical trials often reflect a small group of individuals. These trials continue on for years until a break-through occurs. I am not saying that scientific trials are worthless, but often I see a very small number of individuals involved then next you know it's being broadcast on the Internet that "all men and/or woman". A generalization is made which doesn't truly reflect the trial study of a small population.

"

We aren't asking the right questions. We see a trend of females not excelling at the highest levels of academia. We also see a trend in females reading romance novels, and females becoming infatuated with actors/athletes/millionaires and other successful males. Conversely, we see men are obsessed with challenging activities such as science, politics, sport and finance. To validate these trends, controlled scientific trials are required; and believe me, they have been performed. The hypotheses that describe these phenomena exist, have a staggering amount of evidence supporting them, and are excellent predictors of future trends.

"

How many females and males reside in the U.S.A.? How many females and males reside in the UK? How many females and males live on this planet? How many females did you "see" in the trend as you mention above? Was there a reason males were left out of the trial that you did see? Once again I ask, "Do you have any articles from a peer-reviewed journal that will support your claim?" I would like to see the results of these trials that resulted in a trend that you did see.

 

[FD3SA]

Hi FD3SA, welcome. Do you have any articles from a peer-reviewed journal that will support your claim? Clinical trials often reflect a small group of individuals. These trials continue on for years until a break-through occurs. I am not saying that scientific trials are worthless, but often I see a very small number of individuals involved then next you know it's being broadcast on the Internet that "all men and/or woman". A generalization is made which doesn't truly reflect the trial study of a small population.

How many females and males reside in the U.S.A.? How many females and males reside in the UK? How many females and males live on this planet?

Hi ViewofMars,

I actually deleted a paragraph (for brevity's sake) that explained further what I meant when I spoke of hypothesis describing human sexual dimorphism. It went something along these lines:

When we speak anecdotally of male/female behaviour, we refer to very specific incidences (e.g. female mathematical ability). However, we must understanding that the current theory of human sexual dimorphism is nowhere near this level of sophistication and as such cannot make accurate predictions of how female neural plasticity lends itself to mathematical faculty (compared to males). I do not try to confer potential quantum states from the muffin model of the atom; I would beg of you not to do the same with human sexual dimorphism. Such discussions inevitably degrade into the realm of opinion, where anything goes and everything is "equally right". I would say the past six pages have thus far demonstrated this phenomena admirably.

This being said, the current theory of human sexual dimorphism does explain the majority of male/female behavioural predisposition as an extended phenotype that has conferred a selective advantage among successive generations. Thus, we can begin to guess why females are predisposed to certain behaviour (romance novels, successful men, etc.) and men to others (challenging pursuit). We have simply grounded our guesses in the existing realm of science, rather than whimsical circus of opinion.

Finally, I firmly admit that I have no firm scientific answer to questions like "are males predisposed to mathematical ability vs. females". But I do have some insight as to how males and females differ from an evolutionary perspective; this view lends itself to the formulation of some interesting hypothesis. I merely wish that I could discuss my hypothesis with an audience that views this problem objectively. The last six pages have left my curiosity in a dire thirst for objective discussion.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Finally, I firmly admit that I have no firm scientific answer to questions like "are males predisposed to mathematical ability vs. females". But I do have some insight as to how males and females differ from an evolutionary perspective; this view lends itself to the formulation of some interesting hypothesis. I merely wish that I could discuss my hypothesis with an audience that views this problem objectively. The last six pages have left my curiosity in a dire thirst for objective discussion.

Hi FD3SA, thank you for your honesty. I suggest that you ask a Mentor for help. Hopefully, you might be able to discuss this on another forum. I for one would be interested in your comments. I did present a document sometime back that may be of help to you. I'll search for it.

I've found it! This is what I posted to Physics Forums > Other Sciences > Social Sciences - Topic: On the issue of kids not pursuing engineering/science/math these days.
Msg. 143

The National Science Board’s newly released SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICTORS 2010. It's 566 pages. ( I love to read.) Here are excerpts from a few chapters.

Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
7-4
Information Sources, Interest, and Involvement

Television and the Internet are the primary sources

Americans use for science and technology (S&T) information.
The Internet is the main source of information for learning about specific scientific issues such as global climate change or biotechnology.

-More Americans select television as their primary source of S&T information than any other medium.
-The Internet ranks second among sources of S&T information, and its margin over other sources is large and has been growing.
-Internet users do not always assume that online S&T information is accurate. About four out of five have checked on the reliability of information at least once.

Continuing a long-standing pattern, Americans consistently express high levels of interest in S&T in surveys. However, other indicators, such as the types of news they follow closely, suggest a lower level of interest.

-High levels of interest in S&T are part of a long-standing trend, with more than 80% of Americans reporting they were “very” or “moderately” interested in new scientific discoveries. But relative to other news topics, interest in S&T is not particularly high.

-As with many news topics, the percentage of Americans who say they follow “science and technology” news “closely” has declined over the last 10 years.

-Recent surveys in other countries, including South Korea, China, and much of Europe, indicate that the overall level of public interest in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” tends to be higher in the United States.

-Interest in “environmental pollution” or “the environment” is similarly high in the U.S., Europe, South Korea, and Brazil. About 9 in 10 respondents in each country expressed interest in this topic.

In 2008, a majority of Americans said they had visited an informal science institution such as a zoo or a natural history museum within the past year. This proportion is generally consistent with results from surveys conducted since 1979, but slightly lower than the proportion recorded in 2001.

-Americans with more formal education are much more likely to engage in informal science activities.
-Compared with the United States, visits to informal science institutions tend to be less common in Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil.

Public Knowledge About S&T

Many Americans do not give correct answers to questions about basic factual knowledge of science or the scientific inquiry process.
-Americans’ factual knowledge about science is positively related to their formal education level, income level, the number of science and math courses they have taken, and their verbal ability.
-People who score well on long-standing knowledge measures that test for information typically learned in school also appear to know more about new science related topics
such as nanotechnology.

Levels of factual knowledge of science in the United States are comparable to those in Europe and appear to be higher than in Japan, China, or Russia.
-In the United States, levels of factual knowledge of science have been stable; Europe shows evidence of recent improvement in factual knowledge of science.
-In European countries, China, and Korea demographic variations in factual knowledge are similar to those in the United States.

Compared to the mid-1990s, Americans show a modest improvement in understanding the process of scientific inquiry in recent years.
-Americans’ understanding of scientific inquiry is strongly associated with their factual knowledge of science and level of education.
-Americans’ scores on questions measuring their understanding of the logic of experimentation and controlling variables do not differ by sex. In contrast, men tend to score higher than women on factual knowledge questions in the physical sciences.

Public Attitudes About S&T in General

Americans in all demographic groups consistently endorse the past achievements and future promise of S&T.
-In 2008, 68% of Americans said that the benefits of scientific research have strongly outweighed the harmful results, and only 10% said harmful results slightly or strongly outweighed the benefits.
-Nearly 9 in 10 Americans agree with the statement “because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation.”
-Americans also express some reservations about science. Nearly half of Americans agree that “science makes our way of life change too fast.”


7-15


International Comparisons
Using identical questions, recent surveys conducted in other countries indicate that the overall level of self-reported public interest in S&T is lower than in the United States. Between 75% and 80% of survey respondents in South Korea, China, and Europe said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” compared to 86% and 88% respectively of Americans in the 2008 GSS, respectively (appendix table 7-4) (KOFAC 2009; CRISP 2008; EC 2005).

Using slightly different questions, about three-quarters of Brazilians said they were “very interested” or “a little interested” in “science and technology” (MCT of Brazil 2006). In Malaysia, 58% of the respondents said they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in new technology” and 51% in the “latest inventions in science”
(MASTIC 2004).

In the 2005 European survey (called the 2005 “Eurobarometer”), there was considerable variation among different countries in self-reported interest in S&T-related issues, and the overall level of interest was down from the most recent survey in 1992. In both the United States and in Europe, men showed more interest in S&T than women. For more recent European data on interest in scientific research in general, see sidebar “Scientific Research in the Media in Europe.”5 Interest in environmental issues is similarly high in the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Brazil—about 9 in 10 respondents in each country or region expressed interest in this topic, although slight variations in survey terminology should be taken into account.6 In Malaysia, interest in
“environmental pollution” was lower (61% said they were
“interested” or “very interested” in this issue).

Like Americans, Europeans and Brazilians are more interested in medicine than in S&T in general. In the United States, nearly everyone was interested in new medical discoveries (94%) ; in Brazil, most people (91%) were interested in “medicine and health” issues. In Europe, South Korea, and China, interest in new medical discoveries seemed to be lower—between 77% and 83% said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in this issue. In Malaysia, 59% indicated they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in the field of medicine.”7
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf


The National Science Board’s newly released SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICTORS 2010. It's 566 pages. ( I love to read.) Here are excerpts from a few chapters.
Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
7-4
Information Sources, Interest, and Involvement

Television and the Internet are the primary sources

Americans use for science and technology (S&T) information.
The Internet is the main source of information for learning about specific scientific issues such as global climate change or biotechnology.

-More Americans select television as their primary source of S&T information than any other medium.
-The Internet ranks second among sources of S&T information, and its margin over other sources is large and has been growing.
-Internet users do not always assume that online S&T information is accurate. About four out of five have checked on the reliability of information at least once.

Continuing a long-standing pattern, Americans consistently express high levels of interest in S&T in surveys. However, other indicators, such as the types of news they follow closely, suggest a lower level of interest.
-High levels of interest in S&T are part of a long-standing trend, with more than 80% of Americans reporting they were “very” or “moderately” interested in new scientific
discoveries. But relative to other news topics, interest in S&T is not particularly high.
-As with many news topics, the percentage of Americans who say they follow “science and technology” news “closely” has declined over the last 10 years.
-Recent surveys in other countries, including South Korea, China, and much of Europe, indicate that the overall level of public interest in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” tends to be higher in the United States.
-Interest in “environmental pollution” or “the environment” is similarly high in the U.S., Europe, South Korea, and Brazil. About 9 in 10 respondents in each country expressed interest in this topic.

In 2008, a majority of Americans said they had visited an informal science institution such as a zoo or a natural history museum within the past year. This proportion is generally consistent with results from surveys conducted since 1979, but slightly lower than the proportion recorded in 2001.
-Americans with more formal education are much more likely to engage in informal science activities.
-Compared with the United States, visits to informal science institutions tend to be less common in Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil.

Public Knowledge About S&T

Many Americans do not give correct answers to questions about basic factual knowledge of science or the scientific inquiry process.
-Americans’ factual knowledge about science is positively related to their formal education level, income level, the number of science and math courses they have taken, and their verbal ability.
-People who score well on long-standing knowledge measures that test for information typically learned in school also appear to know more about new science related topics
such as nanotechnology.

Levels of factual knowledge of science in the United States are comparable to those in Europe and appear to be higher than in Japan, China, or Russia.
-In the United States, levels of factual knowledge of science have been stable; Europe shows evidence of recent improvement in factual knowledge of science.
-In European countries, China, and Korea demographic variations in factual knowledge are similar to those in the United States.

Compared to the mid-1990s, Americans show a modest improvement in understanding the process of scientific inquiry in recent years.
-Americans’ understanding of scientific inquiry is strongly associated with their factual knowledge of science and level of education.
-Americans’ scores on questions measuring their understanding of the logic of experimentation and controlling variables do not differ by sex. In contrast, men tend to score higher than women on factual knowledge questions in the physical sciences.

Public Attitudes About S&T in General

Americans in all demographic groups consistently endorse the past achievements and future promise of S&T.
-In 2008, 68% of Americans said that the benefits of scientific research have strongly outweighed the harmful results, and only 10% said harmful results slightly or strongly outweighed the benefits.
-Nearly 9 in 10 Americans agree with the statement “because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation.”
-Americans also express some reservations about science. Nearly half of Americans agree that “science makes our way of life change too fast.”


7-15

International Comparisons

Using identical questions, recent surveys conducted in other countries indicate that the overall level of self-reported public interest in S&T is lower than in the United States. Between 75% and 80% of survey respondents in South Korea, China, and Europe said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” compared to 86% and 88% respectively of Americans in the 2008 GSS, respectively (appendix table 7-4) (KOFAC 2009; CRISP 2008; EC 2005).

Using slightly different questions, about three-quarters of Brazilians said they were “very interested” or “a little interested” in “science and technology” (MCT of Brazil 2006).
In Malaysia, 58% of the respondents said they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in new technology” and 51% in the “latest inventions in science”
(MASTIC 2004).

In the 2005 European survey (called the 2005 “Eurobarometer”), there was considerable variation among different countries in self-reported interest in S&T-related issues, and the overall level of interest was down from the most recent survey in 1992. In both the United States and in Europe, men showed more interest in S&T than women. For more recent European data on interest in scientific research in general, see sidebar “Scientific Research in the Media in Europe.”5 Interest in environmental issues is similarly high in the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Brazil—about 9 in 10 respondents in each country or region expressed interest in this topic, although slight variations in survey terminology should be taken into account.6 In Malaysia, interest in “environmental pollution” was lower (61% said they were “interested” or “very interested” in this issue).

Like Americans, Europeans and Brazilians are more interested in medicine than in S&T in general. In the United States, nearly everyone was interested in new medical discoveries (94%) ; in Brazil, most people (91%) were interested in “medicine and health” issues. In Europe, South Korea, and China, interest in new medical discoveries seemed to be lower—between 77% and 83% said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in this issue. In Malaysia, 59% indicated they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in the field of medicine.”7
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf

Be sure to read within that pdf the following topics:
Chapter 1. Elementary and Secondary Mathematics and Science Chapter 2. Higher Education in Science and Engineering
Chapter 3. Science and Engineering Labor
Chapter 4. Research and Development: National Trends and International Linkages
Chapter 5. Academic Research and Development
Chapter 6. Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace
Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding