More Brain Points

The Glass Ceiling: Holding Women Back Since 1984

            The term “glass ceiling” has been around since Gay Bryant put a name to it in 1984, but since then we may have forgotten that it’s just a word.  Before that time and ever since that time women strive to overcome this “barrier.”  But what is this barrier really other than a word? Does this gap exist because men are more capable of moving up then women, or is it something society has pushed on each gender?  More specifically, women have a hard time excelling in STEM jobs – science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.  I recently came across two explanations that support my ambiguous inquiry: 1) Society is shaping women to think that they can’t pursue STEM careers, despite encouraging scores on standardized tests, and, 2) Women have more career options than men, and therefore choose jobs that truly interest them instead of just getting what they can.

            A New York Times article by Natalie Angier (2013) reviews a presentation that she believes encompass this gender gap problem in STEM careers.  Doctoral student Anthony Derriso presented information concerning a study that he has been working on since 2009.  The data comes from self-report surveys given to ninth graders concerning a range of topics that aim to reveal gender disparities.  An example question is: “are you likely to pursue a scientific career?”  Sixty-one percent of the students who responded “yes” (11%) were male even though self-report surveys showed no differences in aptitude across gender (how they view their own math and verbal skills; how engaged and supported they feel by teachers, family, and peers).  So the question we are left with at the end of this article is “why the humungous difference in intent…when given the choice, why do so many girls walk away from science and math?”

            In her book Pink Brain, Blue Brain, Lise Eliot explores similar issues of gender inequality, taking the reader on a trip from the womb to adolescence.  Particularly relevant to the article by Angier is a chapter that looks at the development of math and science skills in young children, and how boys and girls progress differently.  She speculates an answer to the questions posed by Angier and Derriso.  Eliot proposes that these gender gaps in math and science are “both innate and cultural…Without question, parents and educators can do much more to raise girls’ interest and achievement in these important fields” (207).  Similar to Derriso’s self-report task among ninth graders, Eliot notes that girls and boy do in fact begin their academic career with comparable math and science skills, and also that boys usually end up on top.  Here, it is suggested that the academic gender gap beings when girls enter college.  Eliot has found that girls’ and boys’ math and science scores are comparable up until college (yes, the boys are a bit ahead in test scores by now, but nothing significant).  Here, is where we need to implement the change in these young girls.  Referencing author Steve Olsen: “The paucity of girls at the highest levels of competition is much worse in the United States than in other countries…cultural factors keep girls from math” (214).  Eliot believes that girls are just as mentally apt in STEM fields/careers as boys, but that they are not socially accepted. 

            In March of 2013, Ming-Te Wang, Jacquelynne S. Eccles, and Sarah Kenny published a study on individual and gender differences in STEM careers.  They obtained findings along the same line as the data Derriso had for his presentation, but their deduction rivals Eliot's.  The present longitudinal study looked at 1,490 individuals when they were in twelfth grade and again at thirty-three years old.  They wanted to know if students with high verbal and mathematical abilities would be more or less likely to engage in a STEM career when compared to someone who had high mathematics skills, but only moderate verbal skills.  It turns out that the former group was less likely to obtain a STEM career, while the latter excelled in STEM involvement.  More interesting yet, a majority of the participants in the high-high group were female.  The researchers’ conclusion took a different direction than previous studies: “The pattern of gender differences in math and verbal ability may result in females having a wider choice of careers, in both science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM fields, compared with males.”  Wang et al. also note that individuals are compelled to gravitate to what they are good at, so it makes sense that women are in non-STEM jobs because of how many options they have that are more desirable.

            There is a lot of debate about the gender gaps that occur – nature or nurture?  Is it a matter of aptitude or intention?  Can we overcome the stigma of STEM careers or are women disinterested in these fields?  There is a lot of conflicting evidence out there, with more data being gathered every day. 

           

_________________________________________________________________________

Angier, Natalie. “Mystery of the Missing Women in Science.” The New York Times. 2 September, 2013. Web. 24 February 2014.

Eliot, Lise. Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps - and What We Can Do About It. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009. Print.

Wang, M., Eccles J.S., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not Ability but More Choice: Individual and Gender Differences in Choice of Careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Psychological Science, 24(5). doi: 10.1177/0956797612458937