The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics - Research Paper Example

The Underrepresentation of Women in Science and Engineering Does Not Result From Innate Differences in Aptitude and Interests Introduction When Lawrence Summers made a speech that argued that innate differences in aptitude and interests were responsible for the underrepresentation of women in science and, mathematic careers, many people especially women were offended. The comments were baseless since they were based on no research evidence. Moreover, they were biased since there are a considerable number of women who have succeeded in careers within the field on math and science. This eventually led to resignation of Dr. Summers from being the Harvard University president. There have always been questions regarding the extent to which sex differences can be accredited to factors such as socialization and innate differences. The explanations given have had implications on public policies. Additionally the conclusions made on such issues are likely to affect education, roles of males and females in the society, as well as the attitude of people towards education. This essay will argue that the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering is not the result of innate differences in aptitude and interests but due to other factors. Over the last half century, women have made tremendous progress in educational achievements. They have been able to venture in fields that were historically considered as male fields, which include law, business, and medicine. However, the number of women who have ventured in the fields of science and engineering remains low. This has led to several speculations regarding the reasons for sex differences in the aforementioned careers (Laursen and Bill 18-22). Some speculations are biased since they attempt to argue that males have certain talents and temperaments that enable them to succeed in science and engineering while women lack such talents. Another position used to explain the underrepresentation is the nurture position, which is based on the argument that males and females are biologically similar and the sex related difference, arise due to socialization and biasness. Other positions are intermediate and use both biological and socialization as well as biasness arguments to explain the sex differences in the fields of science and engineering (Trefil and Sarah 49-52; Bix 27-33) Several factors can be attributed to the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering careers. One of the major factors is the level of commitment required in the two fields. Pursuing courses in science and engineering and working in the related field requires a lot of commitment in terms of time and energy. Women especially the married one with children lacks the required time and energy since they have to make sacrifices for their families. Therefore, most women may fail to consider pursuing courses in science and engineering to enable them create time for their families (Laursen and Bill 20-25; Brief 7-15) Another factor that has resulted in underrepresentation of women in science and engineering is stereotypes and not innate difference in aptitude and interests. The society has created a biased environment by using negative stereotypes that depict women are not supposed to venture in certain fields. This has lowered the girls’ confidence in their capability to perform well in science and engineering. In some societies, women who venture in scientific and engineering careers are discriminated and considered somehow masculine. If girls pursuing science and engineering were celebrated and encouraged to pursue such careers, they will have high self-confidence and will focus more and achieve (Trefil and Sarah 49-52). Another facto blocking women from pursuing careers in science and engineering is discrimination is employment. Some girls study math and science but end up not enjoying equal employment opportunities with their male counterparts. Moreover, the females do not access benefits such as promotion due to the existing notion that men are better in engineering and science than women are. The existing biasness has contributed to the demotivation discouraging girls from pursuing careers in science and engineering. Therefore, women end up preferring careers in other field such as sociology where they are more likely to enjoy full benefits and develop career wise (Townley 296-299; Laursen and Bill 18-23). In order to succeed in the field of science and engineering, it is important that students be inspired and motivated. However, the existing myth that science is a field for male results in little efforts being put to aid girls in achieving higher grades in science. Moreover, the myth leads to female students developing negative attitude towards science and engineering. This is because some might believe that the ability to perform well in the course is related to genetics and their efforts are likely to yield no results (Bix 27-31; Brief 5-9). Therefore, girls are likely to struggle less in improving their grades in science and engineering. Consequently, it is the attitude towards science and engineering that make girls fail to perform equally well in aptitude test and not any genetic factors. Moreover, it is the existing myths that require to be destroyed since they are responsible for change in interest toward science and engineering amongst girls. This is because they may be growing in an environment where everybody believes women are incapable of triumphing in the field of science and engineering (Townley 295-298). According to Morton, et al. (2), “women in science, engineering and technology are less likely to obtain tenure (29% of women compared to 58% of men in full time ranked academic positions at four year colleges) and are lee likely to achieve the rank of full professor.” This demonstrated the existing discrimination. Irrespective of the less number of women in science and engineering, they still face discrimination and cannot attain position as easily as men do. Additionally, it is wrong to argue that underrepresentation of women in science and engineering is the result of innate differences in aptitude and interests (Trefil and Sarah 49-52). When dealing with cognitive abilities, it is almost impossible to separate characteristics that are resultant from environmental factors from those that result from biological influences. This is because the two influencing factors are reciprocal. For example, brain development, which affects cognitive ability, is dependent on different factors. The difference in development of male and female brains is influenced by factors such as hormones and learning environment. However, other factors such as experiences in life and prenatal environment affect the brain development. Furthermore, is almost impossible to determine the proportion by which the different factors affect brain development. In relation to sciences and engineering, the ability to understand could be affected by different factors including the brain capability. However, other factors such as attitude toward subject teacher are likely to affect the study habits hence performance. However, it is not possible to measure the contribution of the different factors (Trefil and Sarah 49-52; Laursen and Bill 22-24). Conclusion There have been several questions regarding the factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women in the field of science and engineering. The argument that the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering is a result of innate differences in aptitude and interests is groundless. This is because there is no existing evidence to show that the factors affect the choice of women to do or not do science and engineering courses. On the contrary, societal beliefs and the learning environment play a major role on the achievements of girls. The society is characterized by certain stereotypes that often discourage girls from achieving in engineering and science courses. In some cases, the learning environment is characterized by arguments that girls are genetically incapable of performing well in sciences and engineering courses as compared to boys. This results in girls developing indifference towards science and math, which often causes them to perform poorly in aptitude tests. Moreover, some society considers science and engineering as courses meant for men. They thus discourage girls from pursuing careers in these fields. Therefore, the low performance in the aptitude tests and reduced interest towards science and engineering is because of society beliefs and learning environment. However, poor performance in aptitude test and lack of interest in science and engineering courses amongst girls is not attributable to innate differences. This results in underrepresentation of women in the aforementioned courses. Works Cited Bix, Amy Sue. "From "Engineeresses" To "Girl Engineers" To "Good Engineers”: A History of Womens U.S. Engineering Education.” NWSA Journal 16.1 (2004): 27-49. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. Brief, Arthur P. Diversity at Work. n.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2008. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 28 Jan. 2013. Laursen, Sandra, and Bill Rocque. "Faculty Development for Institutional Change: Lessons from an Advance Project." Change 41.2 (2009): 18-26. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. Morton Ann Gernsbacher, et al. "The Science Of Sex Differences In Science And Mathematics." Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell) 8.1 (2007): 1-51. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. Townley, Cynthia. "More on Enrolling Female Students in Science and Engineering." Science & Engineering Ethics 16.2 (2010): 295-301. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. Trefil, James, and Sarah Swartz. "Problems with Problem Sets." Physics Today 64.11 (2011): 49-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. Read More