On July 21, the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing, “Encouraging the Participation of Female Students in STEM Fields.” STEM is an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
“Over the past 30 years, as the barriers of entry into many STEM fields have eased, women have vastly increased their proportion of bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees earned in math and in the sciences,” said Dr. Marcia Brumit Kropf, chief operating officer of Girls Incorporated. “In 1970, women earned 0.8 percent of bachelors, 1.1 percent of masters, and 0.6 percent of the doctoral degrees in engineering. In 2006, the percentages were 19.5, 22.9, and 20.2, respectively. The story is the same in physics, geology, and chemistry. In math, women are earning nearly half of the bachelors and masters degrees, and almost a third of the doctoral degrees…At the same time, however, substantial gaps remain. Girls continue to lag behind boys in computer science, comprising just 17 percent of students taking the Computer Science A advanced placement exam in 2008, and just 12 percent of those taking the more rigorous AB exam, virtually the same proportions as in 1997. Likewise, just 35 percent of AP physics test takers were girls. Of greater concern is the fact that gains in education have not translated into workplace parity as of yet. Women still represent fewer than one in five faculty members employed in computer science, mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences collectively. In engineering in particular women account for just one in 10 faculty members. And, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008 women accounted for just 24.8 percent of all those employed in computer and mathematical occupations, just 6.7 percent of mechanical engineers, and just 6.3 percent of engineering managers.”
In discussing ways to increase girls’ participation in STEM education, and subsequently women’s participation in STEM fields, Dr. Kropf noted the importance of role models, saying, “At an event at the White House last month, tennis great Billie Jean King spoke about the importance of female role models in sports. She said, girls ‘have to see it to be it.’ The same holds true for STEM. So, we incorporate a strong career component in our STEM programming. Girls Inc. has just completed a $2.3 million grant from the National Science Foundation for a program that connects girls with women in STEM career fields, including members of the Society [of] Women Engineers. And this is not just a 20-minute career day speech. This is working together over time on a substantive project, allowing for positive connections to be built. Role models are particularly important for girls of color, but sadly, minority women in science are scarce. African American women make up just 1.5 percent of all those employed in science and engineering occupations, Hispanic women account for just 1.3 percent and American Indian and Alaska Native [women] account for 0.1 percent. Ironically, African American women have been shown to express higher levels of interest in science than white women. Seventy percent of the girls served by Girls Inc. are girls of color. And 65 percent come from families with incomes under $25,000. It is essential that these girls receive high quality STEM programming that will open these fields up to them.”
Barbara Bogue, co-founder and co-director of the Society of Women Engineers’ Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (AWE) Project, associate professor of engineering science and mechanics, and director of the Women in Engineering program at Pennsylvania State University, discussed “the need for improved assessment and evaluation practices of programs serving women in STEM.” She noted, “While there are some similarities among the various STEM fields, there are also many differences. It is important to note that engineering and science are different fields…Discussions and statistics that treat all STEM disciplines as one mask real issues. For example, 2006 National Science Foundation (NSF) statistics show that women received almost 50 percent of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees in 2005-06. Taken on face value, these statistics make it look like there is no problem. If we break out engineering, however, the percentage of women receiving degrees is a very low 18 percent. And even within engineering, there are great variations. Environmental, bio[logical], and chemical engineering — all fields related to biological sciences — have high percentages of women at 40 percent, 37 percent, and 34 percent, respectively. Unfortunately, these are relatively small disciplines in terms of numbers enrolled. Mechanical and electrical engineering, on the other hand, are disciplines that traditionally have the largest populations of students, but have very low percentages of women at 11 percent and 12 percent, respectively. Computer engineering, another field critical to national competitiveness, has only 11 percent.” Ms. Bogue added, “These differences have real implications for policy makers and STEM practitioners. A recent study by Sonnert and Fox finds that it is advisable ‘to take field difference into account and to tailor efforts and initiatives to the situation in specific fields, rather than simply targeting “women in science” or “women in science and engineering” in toto.’”
The learning environment plays a significant role in the numbers of women in STEM education and careers, noted Ms. Bogue, “Next, climate studies that look at students’ learning and working environment are an important area of research for uncovering barriers for women in engineering. A student’s learning environment, or ‘climate,’ can have an impact on the successful retention and development of all students in STEM fields. Unwelcoming classrooms, outdated teaching styles, and a lack of accommodation for different social or cultural experiences can all add up to create an environment that students decide to leave rather than thrive in. This affects all students, men as well as women. However, students who are already marginalized as ‘non typical,’ or who are severely underrepresented, as are women in engineering, experience these adverse environments more keenly. Much research shares common findings that women who are equally prepared academically as men when they enter engineering leave engineering or science with higher GPAs [grade point averages] than their male counterparts who leave, having found less of a sense of community and citing that they have encountered poor teaching…AWE results and other findings belie the postulation that women do not pursue engineering because they are just not interested or don’t have the talent. Rather, they indicate that women who have the talent and interest are being turned off by how the discipline is presented.”
Dr. Sandra Hanson, professor of sociology at Catholic University, discussed her research on women and girls in STEM fields and noted that race is a factor that needs to be considered as well, saying, “Implicit in my research is the notion that STEM is not just a male culture; it is a white male culture…An important lesson from my work on women in STEM is that one cannot just talk about ‘women’ or ‘men’ in STEM. Men and women across race and social class statuses have very different experiences in STEM. Gender cultures vary tremendously across race groups and my recent research on African American women in science suggests a considerable interest and engagement in science. Many people assume a double disadvantage associated with race and gender for young African American women as they enter the STEM education system. It is important that researchers not make any assumptions about the effect of being female or black without considering how these statuses might converge. In other words, we need to avoid talking about ‘women’ in science. Instead, we should be looking at the experiences of different groups of women. Because of the unique gender system in the African American community, these young women actually have some advantages in the STEM system.”
Dr. Hanson continued, “In a related way some of my research has focused on the unique science experiences of another racial/ethnic group Asian Americans. My surveys with hundreds of Asian American youth reveal considerable complexity in their science experiences in spite of stereotypes about the ‘model’ minority. Both Asian American girls and boys outperform white youth (even male white youth) in science. This finding is an interesting one given the evidence of traditional gender systems in many Asian American cultures. My research does show, however, that Asian American girls do not have the same level of science achievement as Asian American boys. Although Asian (and Asian American) culture can be seen as a model for creating interest and achievement in science (for girls as well as boys), the youth in my survey reported considerable stress and anxiety associated with overwhelming familial pressure towards success in science. The next ethnic group that I will focus on in my examination of the confluence of race and gender in STEM is Latino youth. There is a dearth of research on the experiences of Latino youth in the U.S. STEM education system in spite of the fact that Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic/racial minority in the U.S. Both Latino men and women are under-represented in STEM. Stereotypes about Latinos involving ‘marginalized populations,’ ‘immigrants,’ and ‘second-language users,’ as well as the assumption that the Latino experience is at odds with the larger U.S. culture work against these young people in the science education system. I hypothesize that Latino women will have considerable interest and potential talent in science in spite of stereotypes involving ‘marianismo,’ which see them as submissive, subservient, and thus uninterested in STEM. There is growing, but limited research on Latino women that shows that they are breaking these old stereotypes and increasingly earning graduate degrees and higher salaries in professional (and science) areas.”
Cherryl Thomas, president and founder of Ardmore Associates, LLC, and Dr. Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), also testified.
