BRIDGING THE
GAP: GENDER EQUITY IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
REPORT
PREPARED BY
Dr. Mary Gatta
and Dr. Mary Trigg
Center for
Women and Work
Rutgers
University
New Brunswick,
NJ 08901
2001
INTRODUCTION
For
many years researchers have investigated gender equity in science, engineering
and technology educational programs and workplaces. These studies have been used to, among other things, raise
awareness of gender discrimination; inform policy discussions; and as an
impetus to address instances of gender discrimination. Currently the discussion of gender equity in
science, engineering, and technology is being addressed by the New Jersey
Council on Gender Parity in Labor and Education. The Council on Gender Parity in Labor and Education is made up of
individuals from government, education, and business to investigate issues of
gender equity. It is a permanent
Council established by the New Jersey Legislature in 1999. The Council finds that
gender inequity in science, engineering and technology fields is a workforce
problem that inhibits the full utilization of the labor force.
There is a national shortage of computer scientists,
engineers, and programmers, the effects of which are felt within our
state. This has resulted in approximately
190,000 jobs in Information Technology that are unfilled each year, and this
number is only expected to grow. The
Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering
and Technology Development reports that between 1988 and 1998 the occupations
that experienced the most growth were scientists, engineers, and medical
workers. These occupations are expected
to continue to grow throughout the upcoming decade, creating 5.3 million new
jobs to fill by the year 2008.[1]
However, despite the growth in science, math, and technology jobs, women are
vastly underrepresented in both the jobs themselves, and the educational
programs and college academic majors necessary for entrance into these fields. The jobs that are growing the fastest are
precisely the jobs in which women are not represented.
This report is
intended to be used as a resource tool that synthesizes the literature that the
Council has reviewed in its investigation of gender equity in science,
engineering and technology. In this report we explore the issues surrounding
the exclusion of women from science, math, and technology educational programs
and jobs. It is important to note that
the world of science, math, and technology is one that is rapidly
transforming. Indeed, over the past
decade women have made strides in some aspects of science, math, and
technology. For instance, in 1999,
women earned almost half of the advanced professional degrees in medicine, and
nearly 59 percent of the undergraduate degrees in mathematics in New Jersey.[2]
In addition, girls and women participate equally with boys and men in their use
of computers for email and the Internet.[3] However, despite such advances, women
continue to be underrepresented in these jobs.
This report is an attempt to systematically investigate the changing
world of science, math, and technology to address the needs of the labor force.
Overview of
The Issue
The Council
began its investigation of gender equity in science, math, and technology by
reviewing recent reports conducted by the American Association of University
Women (AAUW), and the Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in
Science, Engineering, and Technology Development (CAWMSET). From these reports the Council found that
women have yet to achieve parity in either the educational or the labor sectors
of science, math, and technology. Given
the heightened focus on this issue within both our state and the nation, the
Council decided to conduct a full investigation of gender equity in science,
math, and technology occupations. The
Council began by reviewing the work of recent Commissions to help frame the
issue of gender equity and technology.
The Council
first turned to a 1998 report by the AAUW, Gender
Gaps: Where Our Schools Still Fail Our Children, that illustrates alarming
disparities between boys’ and girls’ educational attainment in technology,
technology related fields, engineering and science. Specifically, girls are less likely to take high level computing
classes in high school, and in 1998 comprised only 11 percent of those taking
Advanced Placement computer science exams.
Girls outnumbered boys only in their enrollment in word processing
classes, what the AAUW termed the 1990's version of typing classes. At the college level, while women earned
about 25 percent of computer/information science bachelor's degrees, they
achieved only 11 percent of the doctorates.[4]
However,
what is perhaps even more important is that these educational inequities are
felt within our workplaces. Because
girls and women do not receive educational training in technology areas, they
continue to be excluded from science and technology jobs---the professions and
occupations that are growing. This is
not only a problem from an equity standpoint, it also limits our ability to
capitalize on the talents needed for the present and future workforce. These trends in the workplace and
educational institutions suggest that in order to increase gender parity in technical
occupations, one must examine the relationship of gender and technology from
kindergarten classrooms through corporate boardrooms. To frame the problem the Council turned to two main research
reports: Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age, conducted
by the AAUW, and Land of Plenty:
Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and Technology,
conducted by CAWMSET. Each report
contributed to a framework that the Council used to begin to define the issue
for New Jersey.[5]
Tech-Savvy took as its mission an analysis
of girls' educational preparedness for our technologically driven labor
market. The AAUW defines being
technologically literate as possessing a set of critical skills, concepts, and
problem-solving abilities to apply information technology in sophisticated and
innovative ways. This allows for
problem solving across disciplines and subject areas, and an understanding of
the basic principles of computer programming and science. Using this definition, they found that girls
usually are not in educational programs where they can acquire these
skills. Further, when they are in
technology classes they tend to be concentrated in computer “tools”
courses--such as learning to use databases, page layout programs, online
publishing, and productivity software.
As a result many girls do not qualify for the ranks of the
technologically literate.
However,
exclusion from computer literacy courses is not the only challenge girls face
in technology. Tech-Savvy also reports that girls face additional barriers to technology
such as masculine cultural stereotypes of the isolated male computer geek;
computer games that are geared toward boys; and teaching methods that
discourage interest in applied computer work.
Perhaps one of the most important findings is the link between
educational socialization and future occupational choices. Tech-Savvy
researchers found that often when "gender equity" in computer
technology appears in school curriculums many times it translates in practice
into programs in which girls master the computer "tools" of
PowerPoint, email, Internet Search Engines, word processing, and
databases. This has not worked in
girls' favor. These skills are demanded
in many of the low paying, traditionally female jobs in the service, clerical,
and retail sectors. In contrast, women
are significantly underrepresented in information technology jobs, systems
analyst, software design positions-- all of which demand technological
literacy, not simply tool mastery. This
continues to highlight the link between education and occupational choice.
The Council also studied the work of
CAWMSET to further explicate the experiences of women in science, math, and
technology jobs. This federal
commission focused on initiatives to increase the numbers of women, minorities,
and the disabled in these fields. They
focused on education (at the elementary, high school, and college level),
professional life, public image of computing, and national accountability. In addition to focusing on many of the
educational equity issues discussed in Tech-Savvy,
CAWMSET found gender inequity also exists in technological and science fields
in such areas as: salary discrepancies between men and women; the funneling of
women into low-paying, low-status industries, corporate jobs and academic jobs;
and the exclusion of women from informal networks and mentoring
opportunities. CAWMSET recommended a
national awareness and accountability to achieve gender parity in science,
engineering, and technology.
To
better summarize the large amount of information collected from secondary
research sources, this report will address gender equity within the educational
system and the workforce, building on the work of AAUW and CAWMSET. The first section addresses the
under-representation of girls and women in the science, math, and technology
educational pipeline. This section is
divided into two further parts: one in which we address gender inequity at the
pre-college level, and a second part in which we address gender inequity at the
college level. Each part is subdivided
into several subsections that focus on issues of gender stereotyping and biases
in the classroom. The final section
addresses gender inequity in science, engineering, and technology workplaces.
EDUCATION
Perhaps
nothing is more fundamental to a Council on Gender Parity than a core belief
that each student has a right to an education that is free of gender bias. Such a foundation is necessary not only for
equity reasons but also to prepare workers to enter into jobs that fully
utilize their talents and skills.
Research has documented that investing in education and training
increases worker productivity more than increasing the hours workers work, or
increasing capital stock.[6] Investing in our educational systems is an
investment in our workforce. As such,
ensuring that all children and adults receive the same opportunities in
science, math, and technology preparatory programs helps to guarantee that we
have a skilled workforce that will continue to meet our growing labor force
demands.
However, as research continues to
document, many students experience inequalities based on both gender and race
within our educational institutions.
These inequalities are felt throughout the educational system, but are
magnified within science, math, and technology preparatory programs at all
levels. In this section we discuss the
experiences of male and female students throughout the educational
pipeline. Overall, we find that girls
tend to be underrepresented in preparatory programs in science, math, and
technology at all educational levels from elementary school to post-graduate
departments. As mentioned earlier, when
girls are included in such programs, they are often encouraged toward word
processing or database inputting, as opposed to computer programming or systems
analysis. This coursework differential
is a major predictor of future occupational choice. The gender differences in science, math, and technology course
taking are most dramatic at the post-baccalaureate level. For the most part we simply are not
preparing girls to enter into jobs involving science, math, and technology
skills that are above the clerical level.
Efforts then to address the large number of unfilled jobs in New Jersey
and the nation, must begin by addressing the inequities within our educational
system in an attempt to reform them. In
the following sections we define the issues and problems in reaching gender and
racial equity in science, math, and technology at the pre-college and college
levels.
Pre-College Education
Ninety percent of the jobs today’s kindergartners will be
working in when they reach adulthood do not yet exist.[7] These jobs will require flexible analytical
skills that have a strong foundation in science, math, and technological
studies. It is imperative that all
children receive the skills taught in science, math, and technology educational
programs in order to be adequately prepared to enter into our workforce. However, research suggests that girls are
discouraged from science, math, and technology courses at an early age.
Researchers find two main categories of gender barriers that face women in the
science and technology classroom: disabling
stereotypes about gender appropriate behavior, and explicit and implicit gender biases in the classroom. Within each category of gender barriers are
numerous practices that cumulatively discourage women from entering these
nontraditional fields.
Researchers suggest that children internalize belief systems about “appropriate” careers for them to enter at the youngest ages (as early as pre-kindergarten). They then carry these belief systems throughout their educational career and adult job tenure. Each year these beliefs become more ingrained. Therefore, it is imperative that the gender inequities within the current educational system be addressed and removed in order for us to educationally prepare all children to fill our increasing job demands. At the pre-college level disabling stereotypes that preclude girls’ desires for future careers in science, math, and technology include the following:
1. A belief that
there is a biological foundation to gender performance in science, math, and
technology.
2. An equating of
computers, technology, and science with masculinity and male pursuits.
3. A competitive,
not cooperative, learning environment that makes it difficult for girls to
reconcile their desire to improve society with a future career in science,
math, and technology.
4. Gender
stereotyped production and marketing of computer games and educational
software.
Similarly, we
also find that gender biases exist at
the kindergarten through high school level that contribute to girls’ desire to
turn away from science, math, and technology courses and careers. We found such biases as:
1. Parents,
teachers, and guidance counselors not encouraging girls to pursue science,
math, and technology classes, clubs, and careers.
2. Teachers not
trained in science and technology.
3. Sexual
harassment and sexist behaviors in the classroom.
It is important to recognize that these
two categories of inequality are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is quite the opposite: they
coexist within our classrooms. This
reproduces and strengthens their presence within the educational system. For instance, stereotypical beliefs that
girls do not like math contribute to gender biased behaviors in which math
teachers may call on male students more than female students in class. The exclusion of girls’ contributions in
math classes, in turn, contributes to the stereotypical attitude that girls
just do not like math.
The Math Gene: You’re Born With It!
There is a
belief within our society that men and boys simply do better in science, math,
and computer technology fields of study than do women and girls. This belief is so pervasive that studies
have demonstrated by the time children enter third grade they believe that
“girls just cannot do math.”[8] Such erroneous beliefs have their roots in
both “scientific” studies and the popular media.
On
December 15, 1980 Newsweek magazine
ran the cover story, “Do Males Have A Math Gene?” Their answer was a definitive yes. The magazine based this claim on research that found that boys
performed better than girls on quantitative SAT exams, even when boys and girls
had taken the same number of math classes.
Such biologically deterministic studies took hold throughout the media
in the 1980’s and 1990’s, infiltrating everything from news articles to
toys. Perhaps the clearest example of
this was when Mattel introduced a Barbie Doll, “Teen Talk Barbie,” which told
little girls that “math is hard.”[9]
However,
Newsweek and other forms of
mainstream media did not report that there were flaws in the studies that
claimed that math ability was biologically destined. Patricia Campbell, of Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc., found
that studies asserting gender differences in math by using SAT tests have many
shortcomings. She argued that these
studies assume that simply because girls and boys have been in the same math
classes, one cannot assume they had the same experiences in those classes. She further pointed out that the researchers
in one study told the girls prior to the SAT test that girls do not test as
well as boys. Such problems cast doubts
on the studies’ conclusions.[10]
The
conflicting evidence in the media eventually led the British Royal Society to
state, “there is no convincing evidence of innate gender differences in
mathematical ability.” Three years
later, in 1989, the National Research Council of the United States, citing
evidence from a number of studies, found that “there is almost no difference in
the performance of male and female students who have taken equal advantage of
similar opportunities to study mathematics.”[11] However these findings did not make the
headlines as had the "math gene."
As a result, gender discriminating ideas regarding boys’ and girls’
abilities in math and the related disciplines of science and technology
continue to be prevalent within our society.
Beliefs
that girls do not do well in science, math, and technology erode girls’ sense
of self-confidence in their interests and abilities in these areas. CAWMSET found that among high school
SAT-takers, 75 percent of students who plan to major in computer science and
engineering are boys. Such beliefs are
also prevalent among younger students.
By eighth grade, twice as many boys as girls demonstrate an interest in
science, engineering, and technology careers.
Further, by eighth grade girls’ interest and confidence in their
mathematical abilities have eroded, even though they perform as well as
boys. Similarly, fewer girls enroll in computer science
classes and feel confident about their abilities to perform in such classes.[12]
Technology: A Male Frontier
Gender
discrepancies in science, math, and technology can be attributed, in part, to
public media images that ascribe success and interest in these areas to
boys. Often these messages are taught
to children in subliminal ways. Most commonly children learn the gender message
through the use of computer games and educational software. The AAUW found that most computer games and
software packages are designed for men by men.
They are geared toward traditionally male behaviors and activities. Specifically, these games and software
packages are action packed, violent, sports oriented, and aggressive. The AAUW, in reviewing popular mathematics
educational software used in kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms, found
that only twelve percent of the characters were female or had female gender identifiable
characteristics. Since women rarely appear in computer venues, many elementary
students find it hard to recall any computer software or games that have female
characters. For instance, while
elementary students could easily name software with male characters, only six
percent of the students could name software with female characters. This is further substantiated by a study of
thirty randomly selected software programs used in schools. Researchers found that out of 3,033
characters, only 30 percent were female and 80 percent of all characters
involved in adventures or leadership roles were male.[13]
Not
only do women rarely appear in computer games and software, when they do appear
they often are portrayed in stereotypical and unhealthy ways. For instance, female characters tend to play
passive traditional roles, such as the princess who must be saved by the male
hero, as opposed to leadership roles.
In addition, many female characters are physically portrayed in an
unhealthy manner. A recent study of 24
of the top selling video games found that 85 percent of female characters were
portrayed as having large breasts and unusually small waists and/or very thin
bodies. In addition 38 percent of
female characters appeared in video games with a significant portion of their
body exposed. Most commonly researchers
found that female video game characters tended to expose their thighs,
stomachs, breasts and/or cleavage.[14] This negative and stereotyped portrayal of
women in video games may contribute to girls’ diminished interest in video games. Research demonstrates that although boys and
girls spend close to the same amount of time using their home computers, boys
spend nearly 400 percent more time playing video games than do girls.[15]
Such toys,
games, and software help to reinforce the message that technological ventures
are male pursuits. The message is clear
for girls: they do not belong in science, math, or technology classes and
careers. Since computer toys are
marketed to boys, girls find that when they choose to go against the “norm,”
and pursue science, math, and technological classes, they may feel like uninvited guests. The AAUW reports that since girls are usually outnumbered in
classes they are unable to form peer support groups. These groups are essential to success in technology as they often
encourage participation in advanced computer classes. Without a core group of girls in classes, female students are at
risk for feelings of social isolation within the classroom.[16]
Not
only do girls face social isolation, they also fear that doing well in science,
math, and technology will raise questions about their femininity. Research finds that girls will turn away
from computer science classes and careers because they are unable to see them
as feminine pursuits. Technology, science, and math classes do not take into
account the different experiences and perceptions girls bring to them. The AAUW reports, “…it is clear that girls
are critical of the computer culture, not computer phobic.”[17] Girls believe that a high-technology career
means that one must be a male working alone with a computer for hours on
end. This image does not mesh with the
view girls have of the world. Many
girls approach their work and their place in the world from a cooperative
vantage point. The prevailing public
image of computing prevents girls from viewing a career in science, math, and
technology as helping them fulfill their values and achieve their goals.[18] Based on these findings the AAUW asserts
that “instead of trying to make girls fit into the existing computer culture,
the computer culture must become more inviting to girls.”[19]
Girls have
specific criticisms of the culture. For
instance, they are not interested in the violent games that destroy things, but
instead would prefer games that allow them to create things, simulate real
life, work though real life problems, role play, and face problems they have
yet to experience. Girls are interested
in the computer as a tool that allows them to accomplish something else, while
boys tend to experience the computer as a toy that is an end in and of
itself. As such, girls are more likely
to view the computer as a means to a greater good. For example, they may use the computer to promote human
interaction through the Internet and email.
On the contrary boys are more likely to use the computer to play games,
and focus on the hardware aspects. It
is then imperative that we begin to create and market computer games and
software that focus on the aspects of computer life that appeal to girls. Until we move away from viewing
technological pursuits solely from a male perspective, girls will continue to
be excluded from the frontier.
Gender
Bias in the Classroom
Cultural
stereotypes about appropriate gender behaviors are not the only barriers that
girls face. Often these stereotypes are
evidenced in the gender biases practiced in the classroom. Gender discrimination in the classroom can
be defined as “patronizing behavior and assumptions that women are less
qualified and/or committed than men, regardless of whether these assumptions
are conscious or unconscious.”[20] Such discrimination continues to exist
within our elementary and high school classrooms. Perhaps the most prevalent manifestations of these biases are the
conscious and unconscious actions of parents, teachers, and guidance counselors
to discourage girls from entering science, math, and technology fields, as well
as sexual harassment and sexism in the classroom.
Teachers: Role Models in the Trenches
Teachers’
expectations can have a direct influence on students' class work and scholastic
achievement. Children live up to the expectations teachers provide for
them. Teachers do not just teach
academic content, they also serve as sources of guidance, role modeling, and
mentoring. However from the outset,
teachers often expect different behaviors from their students, based solely on
gender assumptions. The AAUW found that
71 percent of male teachers believe that their male students are more
interested in the mechanics of computer technology, while only one percent of
male teachers feel their female students are more interested. Over one-third of male teachers further
believed that their male students enjoyed applied uses and experiences with
computers more than their female students would enjoy such pursuits. Female teachers were more likely to
consciously state that sex did not influence students’ interests in science,
math, and technology. Sixty-six percent
of female teachers find boys and girls about equal in their uses of technology.[21]
However,
even such conscious statements about non-gendered thinking do not always
translate into non-gendered behavior in the classroom. For instance, the Scholarly Communication Project found growing evidence of sexism in
the classroom. In this study
researchers observed classroom interactions and then interviewed teachers and
students on their interpretations of the events. Researchers found that “on two occasions during classroom
observations, the boys monopolized the computer tools. In focus groups [conducted after the class],
girls complained that boys often rushed to get supplies and made fun of girls
trying to use the equipment. Further,
the teachers allowed the boys to get away with it. Boys would criticize girls, resorting to stereotypes about girls’
lack of skills."[22] Such discriminatory behaviors, whether
conscious or unconscious, create an environment in which girls feel unwelcome.
In addition to stereotypical expectations,
the AAUW found that often teachers have a good deal of anxiety about technology
and little knowledge about how to use it themselves. Many teachers do not possess the technical skills necessary to
fully integrate technology into the classroom.
Nationally there is a lack of attention to teacher training and
certification in technology and science.
For instance, during the 1999-2000 school year, approximately 5.67
billion dollars were spent in American schools on technology. Of that money only 17 percent was spent on
teacher training.[23] If teachers do not possess the skills in technology
and science, they cannot encourage them in their students or act as role models
in that respect. In part, teachers’
lack of training in technology and science is particularly troublesome when one
considers that the majority of teachers
are female. Female teachers’
disinterest and anxiety about technology may be communicated to girls in the
classroom. For instance, each time a
teacher defers to a boy in the classroom to help with the computers or
audio-visual materials, a negative message is sent to the girls in the
room. In order to address girls'
discomfort with the science and computer culture, we must ensure that teachers
are adequately trained in technology.
Sexual Harassment
Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972 states that no individual may be discriminated
against based on sex in educational programs that receive federal funding. Included under Title IX are prohibitions
against sexual harassment. This
includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
and/or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
The New Jersey Gender Equity Task Force, a forerunner to the Council,
recognized sexual harassment as a gender barrier in education.[24] In their report, Balancing the Equation: A Report on Gender Equity in Education, they
found that sexual harassment significantly affects girls’ experiences in all
educational programs, but is particularly destructive in the nontraditional
programs, such as science, math, and technology. Sexual harassment contributes to an environment of intimidation
in these classrooms. After incidences
of sexual harassment, girls often report that they will choose not to
participate in science, math, and technology classes, clubs, after school
activities, and eventually careers.[25]
In
their report, Hostile Hallways: The AAUW
Survey of Sexual Harassment in Schools, the AAUW found that girls
experience educational, emotional, and behavioral impacts from sexual
harassment. Girls who have been sexually harassed report that they do not want
to attend school, or actively participate in classes (for example, they are
less likely to talk in class or answer questions). In addition, those girls find it harder to concentrate in
classes, study, and prepare for the classes in which they experienced harassment. As a result, they often find that their
class performance has declined. These
effects are critical in science, math, and technology classes. Girls may associate the sexual harassment
they experience in such classes with their pursuit of nontraditionally female
classes. As a result they may drop out
of the classes, believing that they do not belong in them.
In addition to
educational impacts, girls often experience emotional disturbances as a result
of sexual harassment. The AAUW found
that girls who have experienced harassment tend to feel embarrassed,
self-conscious, and experience lowered levels of self-confidence. Clearly, sexual harassment contributes to an
environment in which girls feel that they are not legitimate or welcome members
in nontraditional classes. Further,
girls often alter their behaviors as a result of sexual harassment. Most commonly the AAUW found that girls will
avoid both the person who harassed them, and the classrooms and activities
associated with the harassment.[26]
In 1993, New
Jersey researchers conducted a large-scale research project in which they
investigated incidences of sexual harassment among male and female middle and
high school students in the state. They
found that 97 percent of girls and 70 percent of boys experienced some form of
sexual harassment in school. However,
while incidences of sexual harassment were high among both boys and girls,
there were gender differences in the effects of the harassment. Fifty-two percent of the girls were very or
somewhat upset by the harassment, as compared to only 19 percent of the
boys. These emotional effects also
contributed to an overall climate of fear for girls. Forty-four percent of the girls worried about sexual harassment,
while only 11 percent of the boys voiced such concerns. As a result of the harassment, one in three
girls reported experiencing lower self-confidence, as opposed to only one in
ten boys. Interestingly, boys were most
concerned with harassment in which they were teased about being gay, and/or
called homosexual.[27]
Such
teasing and name-calling points to a form of harassment recognized as gender
harassment. This refers to acts of
verbal or physical aggression, intimations, and hostility, based on sex, but
not involving sexual activity or language.
The most prevalent forms of gender harassment include teasing and
bullying.[28] For instance, boys may make fun of girls or
put down girls’ abilities in science and technology classrooms. The AAUW found that boys often will refer to
girls’ femininity and appearance in computer science classrooms. This has the effect of making girls
uncomfortable and distracts them from their work.[29] As such, gender harassment in addition to
sexual harassment must be addressed in elementary, secondary, and high schools.
The Impact of Race and Ethnicity
These
problems are further intensified for students of color, who face greater
educational barriers than white students. Racial and ethnic minorities in the
United States face a serious lack of access to high quality education during
the K-12 years; this includes science and mathematics education as well as
education in other subject areas. Many
African American and Hispanic students attend urban schools that are
predominantly minority. For example, 32
percent of African American students and 25 percent of Hispanic students
attend
schools in the central city.[30] Data on the distribution of resources in
schools including high-quality curriculum, qualified teachers, expenditures,
and computer equipment demonstrate that inner city, high minority, and high
poverty schools consistently receive fewer and poorer resources than do schools
that serve a predominantly white population.[31]
This impacts the desire to stay in school; standardized test scores;
mathematics, technology, and science knowledge and skill development; and the
likelihood of attending college.
If we consider
Latina/os in the United States’ educational system, for example, data shows
that they are at a greater risk of not finishing school than any other ethno-racial
group and tend to leave school at an earlier age than members of any other
group.[32] The graduation rate for Latinas is lower
than for girls in any other racial or ethnic group. In 1995, Hispanic females made up 30 percent of high school
dropouts, compared to African American females, who made up 12.9 percent, and
white females, who made up 8.2 percent.[33]
On the positive side, women are slightly more likely to graduate from high
school than men (90 percent of women versus 87 percent of men.) Minority groups, including Hispanics,
African Americans, and American Indians have lower high school graduation rates
than whites.[34] Latina/o high school students are much less
likely to be enrolled in college preparatory classes than are their white
counterparts. In 1992 Hispanic high
school graduates were less likely than white graduates to have taken geometry,
Algebra II, chemistry, trigonometry, physics, or a combination of biology,
chemistry, and physics; they were much more likely to have taken remedial mathematics.[35]
It is unclear whether this pattern is equally pronounced for both male and
female students.
Secondary
schools with high minority enrollment offer less extensive and fewer advanced
science and mathematics courses and programs.
This impacts decisions to major in science or mathematics in college, as
well as admission to college. Minority
students are more regularly “tracked” in lower tier courses at all levels of
pre-college education, even when their schools offer high level courses. Latina/o and African American students are
underrepresented in Advanced Placement (AP) courses that give students the
opportunity to earn college credit for high school work and play a role in
admission to the nation’s most selective colleges. Advanced Placement candidates in 1996 were at or under 10 percent
minority on all of the following categories:
computer science, calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology.[36]
White and Asian girls overenroll in AP Science and Mathematics in relation to
their representation in the school population nationwide. Caucasian girls make up 31 percent of high
school students in the United States, and make up 35 percent of AP Math
students; Asian girls are 2 percent of high school students in the United
States, and make up 6 percent of Advanced Placement Math students. In comparison, Latinas and African American
girls underenroll by almost half.[37]
This trend undoubtedly reflects the lack of AP courses available in
predominantly Latina/o and African American high schools.[38]
College
and Post Graduate Education
For those women and members of
minority groups who do go on to college and post-graduate education, inequities
and challenges still face them. Data
show that white women, American Indians, and African Americans and Hispanics of
both sexes receive a disproportionately low percentage of science and
engineering degrees. White males and
Asians earn a disproportionately high percentage. 1997 figures reveal that women earned a little over one-third (37
percent) of all bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering fields. This is a positive trend, with the
exceptions of computer science, physics, and engineering.[39]
Women make up only 15 to 20 percent of undergraduate computer science majors.[40] These percentages have actually decreased
from the 1980’s when women made up around 37 percent of computer science
majors.[41] Many experts attribute this decline to a
change in the content of the computer science curriculum during the
decade. Simply put, there was a
movement away from word processing in the 1980's to computer programming and
systems analysis in the 1990’s. This
movement shifted women out of the academic major, and men into it. The trend in physics and engineering
Is more positive, but progress towards
gender parity has still been very slow.
In 1985, women earned 14 percent of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in
physics; this had risen to 18 percent by 1996.
Women earned 15 percent of the bachelor’s degrees given in engineering
in 1985, and still only18 percent in 1996.[42] Latina, African American, and American
Indian women lag behind white and Asian women in earning bachelor’s degrees in
science, engineering, and technology.[43]
There seem to
be two main points where women are likely to drop out of the educational
pipeline: first, when choosing a major, and second, during graduate
school. Fifty percent of qualified
undergraduate males choose a scientific major, whereas only sixteen percent of
undergraduate women choose such a major.
For women who do major in science, engineering, and/or technology, many
women stop at the master’s level, never completing the highest graduate
level. For example, in 1997 women
earned only 31 percent of science, engineering, and technology master’s
degrees. The challenge in higher education is to attract women in science,
math, and technology majors, and then retain women throughout undergraduate and
graduate levels.[44] This is particularly relevant as trends
indicate that the number of white males entering college will decrease
throughout the early part of this century.[45] Thus, the traditional source of educated and
skilled labor for these jobs is decreasing, just as the number of these jobs is
rapidly increasing.
Research
demonstrates that some of the main barriers to women in higher education are:
1.
Decreased level of confidence and self-esteem for some women.
2. Lack of role
models and mentors for women.
3. Gender
discrimination and sexual harassment in the classroom.
The Chilly College Climate: Diminished Self Esteem and Confidence
One
of the greatest gender challenges in higher education is trying to increase
women's presence in science, math, and technology undergraduate and graduate
degree programs. Connected to this
problem is the fact that women seem to experience a greater lack of
self-confidence throughout their college years, than do men. For instance, the Illinois Valedictorian Project, which followed 46 female and 34
male high school valedictorians through their college years found that although
the women graduated from college with a slightly higher grade point average
than male students (3.6 and 3.5 GPA, respectively), they experienced a greater
loss of self-esteem during those years.
In high school, about 20 percent of both male and female subjects ranked
themselves as "far above average intelligent," and about 45 percent
felt they were "above average."
As the students proceeded through college, gender differences in these
confidence rankings began to surface.
As college sophomores, 20 percent of the men continued to consider
themselves "far above average."
Yet the comparable percentage of women fell to three percent. By senior year, 25 percent of the men and
none of the women considered themselves as having far above average
intelligence. While the self-confidence
level of men slightly increased during college, the self-confidence level of
women dramatically decreased.[46]
The
annual American Freshmen Survey, a joint project of the American Council on
Education and UCLA’s Education Research Institute, found that women students
entering college in the fall of 2000 expressed far less confidence in their
computer skills than their male peers did.
Based on the responses of 269,413 students at 434 four-year colleges and
universities, the study found that women are only half as likely as men to rate
their computer skills as above average or in the top 10 percent. Only 1.8 percent of the women surveyed,
compared to 9.3 percent of the men, stated they intended to pursue computer
programming as a career. “This is an
area where the gender gap has done nothing but grow larger,” stated Linda Sax,
the survey’s director.[47]
Women's
lack of self-confidence can be attributed in part to the "chilly
climate" in science, math, and technology classrooms and academic
departments.[48] Dianne O'Leary[49]
notes that among other things, the college climate is chilly toward women
because:
1. There are few
women teaching or lab assistants and faculty members to serve as role models.
2. Programming
projects are designed for male students.
3. There is a
general devaluing of women's contributions by professors, especially
attributing them to male students.
4. There is a
friction between women coping with the chilly climate by being "one of the
boys" in work habits, socialization, and competitiveness, and those
seeking alternate paths.
5. Hostile
attitudes from a few male students.
6. Expectations
from the instructor that female students will do poorly.
7. Classes that
overwhelmingly use male language (for instance, "the user...he," or
"suppose your wife"), and gender stereotyped examples.
8. Sexual harassment.
The chilly
climate is infused with subtle forms of gender discrimination that affect
women's choices about enrolling in and completing science, math, and technology
degree programs. Indeed a body of research finds that the cumulative effects of the subtle
discrimination at the undergraduate and graduate levels may be more harmful
than the relatively infrequent cases of overt discrimination. The
Project on the Status of the Education of Women found that subtle
differential behaviors toward women can have critical and lasting effects. The study notes that this is especially true
when these biases involve gatekeepers---individuals who teach required courses,
act as advisors, or serve as department chairs. These cumulative behaviors have negative effects on women's
academic and career development by influencing women's decisions to switch out
of science, math, and technology majors or subspecialties within majors;
minimizing the development of students' relationships with faculty members;
lowering career aspirations and/or undermining confidence.[50]
While women
experience confidence gaps in undergraduate education, similar problems exist
at the graduate level. Indeed
researchers believe that confidence issues may in fact be greater in graduate
school because students receive primarily subjective feedback from advisors, as
opposed to more "objective" measure of tests and course grades.[51] Low self-esteem has the effect of lowering
women's career ambitions. Women believe
they will not succeed in science or technology careers. The relationship between women's
self-confidence and their subsequent career choices is integral to the
development of our workforce.
Women's self
esteem is also affected by the continual referencing of what experts call the
"boy wonder icon."[52] The boy wonder icon associates male traits
with science, math, and technology.
Perhaps the most prominent cultural manifestation of the icon is the
young, male computer hacker, an image a college female student cannot
achieve. The effects of this belief are
similar to those of the math gene in the elementary schools. The boy wonder icon helps to reaffirm male
students' legitimacy in technology classes.
Individuals believe that men just are better at using computers than are
women. This is clearly evidenced in the
2000 American Freshmen Survey, as well as in interviews with male and female
college students. Both male and female
college students report that men are better at computing than are women.
However what
is interesting is that researchers find that there are many male college
students who do not identify with the hacker image. These male students, unlike female students, are not distressed
by their lack of identification.
Instead these men tend to graduate from computer science majors, whereas
women frequently drop out. Unlike
female students these men do not feel that they must conform to the hacker
image; they do not question their abilities to become computer scientists; and
they do not report being discouraged by teachers or other peers who do identify
with the hacker image.[53]
Experts posit
that female students experience more discouragement from the hacker image than
do non-hacker male students because the computer science culture assumes that
men will succeed. As stated earlier,
technology and science are viewed as masculine pursuits. If success is marked for one gender,
individuals of that gender will experience increased confidence levels and a
sense of belonging. Alternatively,
women, who are not marked for success in science and technology classes, will
experience discouragement and feelings of inferiority. For example, as one female student in
computer science states, “they [male students] have the pressure to do well,
but they don’t have the excess pressure from us saying ‘you know you’re
pathetic, you just got in because you are a guy!’[54]
The atmosphere in college classrooms is
peppered with comments that are sexist, and whether intentional or not, have
the effect of making women feel undervalued and unwelcome. In her study, Why are There So Few Female Computer Scientists?, Ellen Spertus
reports that female undergraduate and graduate students majoring in science,
math, and technology face an onslaught of sexist comments throughout their
college experience. Often the sexism is
masked under the guise of humor. For
instance, a female graduate student recounts the following experience in which
a professor stated during a lecture, "pretty soon we will have robots that
are sophisticated enough to wander around shopping malls and pick up
girls." Other women share similar
stories. One female graduate student
stated that:
the
professor in an automata theory class introduced the topic
of
decomposition by saying 'machines are like women, many forms
of the same function' (wink,
wink). As the only women in the class
you can imagine I felt terrific. And
all of a sudden the guys sitting next to me sort of tensed up. Instead of seeing me as a fellow student,
his comment made them see me as something else- something kinda dirty.[55]
Perhaps some of the most damaging
comments relate to the belief among some male students that female students
were accepted into science, math, and technology departments solely because of
their gender. Over a quarter of the
women interviewed for a project conducted at Carnegie Mellon University
reported having heard such comments from their male peers.[56]
The
chilly climate is a reality in many science, math, and technology
classrooms. The atmosphere undermines
female students’ self-confidence and feelings of legitimacy in nontraditional
fields. Not only does the environment
affect women’s choices of major, but women who choose to major in science,
math, and technology are more likely than their male counterparts to switch to
a nonscience major.[57] This “leak” in the pipeline is attributed to
such factors as poor quality of teaching, inflexible curriculums, lack of role
models and faculty advice, the competitive nature of science, math, and
technology classrooms, and feelings of isolation.
Role Models Wanted
Advocates for
Women in Science, Engineering and Math (AWSEM) report that when asked many
women scientists can point to a single individual whose support and
encouragement enabled them to pursue their careers in science.[58] The presence of female mentors and role
models can indeed temper the chilly climate of university life. However since women are underrepresented on
science, math, and technology university faculties, it makes it difficult for
female students to locate positive role models and mentors. The same is true for members of racial and
ethnic minority groups.
Researchers
find that the relationship between faculty members and students is very
significant for female students.[59] Many female students leave math and science
majors because they are not able to form mentoring relationships with faculty
members. This relationship is
especially critical at the graduate level, where faculty mentors share with
their students information on research funding, avenues for publication,
conferences, networking with other professionals, and potential opportunities
for research collaborations. Such
information is essential for success in graduate school and in helping to land
a professional job.
However, in addition to future professional
benefits, the mentor relationship provides a female student with the sense that
she can see herself as part of the profession.[60] This helps to encourage and foster a
self-image in female students that they are legitimate members of the community
of science, math and technology scholars.
This legitimacy is essential in countering some of the effects of the
chilly climate. Despite the evidence
that mentoring relationships are beneficial for female students, many
universities do not have formal policies in place to ensure that mentoring
occurs, and perhaps more importantly, that female students receive mentoring
opportunities before they drop out of the pipeline.
However,
mentors are only part of the equation.
Research shows that female students also benefit from exposure to female
role models. Role models serve as
evidence that a successful career in science is not only a possibility, but a
viable option for women. For instance,
female faculty members prove by their very existence that obtaining a doctorate
degree and a faculty position are possible.
Similarly, gaining exposure to successful women in science and
technology careers outside of academia increases female students’ knowledge of
the opportunities available to them in science, math, and technology fields.[61]
Of course, the largest barrier to
female role models is that women are simply missing from science, math, and
technology faculties and jobs. As
noted, women make up a small proportion of faculty in technical disciplines
throughout the country, as well as in New Jersey. Thus, the potential pool of mentors and role models is quite
small.
In
addition to mentoring and role model opportunities from female “success
stories,” many students find that student peer groups provide a powerful source
of encouragement and development during undergraduate and graduate years. There is a growing body of evidence that
female students are unaware that peers (both male and female) could be
struggling with similar problems within
their courses or departments. Once
students begin to interact with each other they begin to associate their
struggles with factors besides their own individual failings. Peer support also helps provide entry for
women in to many of the informal structures that occur within the halls of
academic preparation. This helps women
to gain entrance into these networks early in their careers.
Female Faculty Members
The chilly
climate endemic to university life also affects the workplace experiences of
female faculty members in science, math, and technology academic
departments. CAWMSET found that among
full-time ranked faculty Ph.D.’s, 50 percent of men and 23 percent of women
were full professors. Even more telling
is that 29 percent of women in science, engineering, and technology were
tenured, compared to 58 percent of men.[62] Female academics in science, engineering,
math, and technology departments have yet to achieve parity with their male
colleagues.
Paying
attention to the situation for female faculty members is vital to help keep
women in the educational pipeline. As
noted, female professors play the important role of mentor and role model. Their lack of representation alone has
drastic effects. In addition, the
status of female faculty members provides clues as to how women are treated in
science, math, and technology careers.
Until recently, the experiences of women in these academic departments
were not well documented. However, that
was changed in March of 1999 when Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
publicly released the pioneering report, A
Study on the Status of Women.
Perhaps
the most interesting finding in MIT's study was that the researchers found, as
of 1994, the percentage of women faculty in the School of Science had not
significantly increased since 1974. The
percentage of women faculty had consistently remained around eight
percent. In raw numbers that means that
in 1994 there were only 22 tenured women on the faculty, as opposed to 252
tenured men in the six schools that make up MIT’s School of Science. The chances of a female student coming in
contact with, and receiving mentoring from, the small number of women
professors is quite low. Indeed it is
unrealistic to assume that the 22 women faculty would be able to provide mentoring
to the hundreds of female undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students. [63]
In addition to
invisibility, the MIT study demonstrated that female faculty members experience
marginalization and exclusion within their departments. This marginalization actually increased as
the women progressed through their academic careers. Women experienced discrepancies in salary, research laboratory
space and resources, amount of salary received from grants, departmental power,
leadership, distinguished professorships, and teaching assignments. It is not surprising that women students,
observing the treatment of female faculty in the sciences and engineering,
would seek other disciplines where mentors and resources were more equitably
allocated.
WORKFORCE
Peter Freeman and William Aspray in The Supply of Information Technology Workers in the United States
state that if the number of women in the information technology workforce
increased to equal the number of men, the huge demand for labor in these jobs
could be met.[64] Women make up approximately 46 percent of
the total American workforce. However
women fill only 19 percent of the science, engineering, and technology jobs,[65]
and women hold only 10 percent of the highest level information technology
jobs.[66] Attracting women to jobs in science, math, and
technology is only part of the problem however. Studies find that women leave science, math, and technology
careers twice as frequently as men.[67] As such, we also need to address issues of
retaining women once they choose these jobs.
As a center for high-tech companies, New Jersey is unable to
fill the large number of jobs in telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and other
technical fields. Although the state’s
colleges and universities handed out more than 13,000 degrees and certificates
in high-tech fields in 1999—which represents an 18 percent increase over the
decade—it is not nearly enough to keep up with the demand. According to the New Jersey Commission on
Higher Education, the 13-member board that oversees the state’s colleges, the
labor force shortage in the state is caused in part by the low numbers of
women, Blacks and Hispanics entering careers in technology, engineering, and
science. “New Jersey’s continued
economic prosperity is dependent upon a strong workforce, and this report
highlights a critical need for high-tech graduates that must be addressed at
all levels of the education system—by the K-12 community, the colleges and
universities and the state,” said James Sulton, the commission’s executive
director.[68] The
Commission’s 1999 report highlighted the fact that, while African Americans and
Hispanics earned less than one percent of the doctorates in computer science,
non-resident aliens in the state were earning 60 percent of the doctoral
degrees in computer science and 52 percent of the doctoral degrees in
mathematics. “If the state and the
nation are to prosper in the new knowledge-based economy, all segments of the
population need to be encouraged and prepared to participate in high-tech fields,”
the report’s authors concluded.
“The
current practice of looking abroad for workforce talent is not a long-term
solution.” [69]
Clearly, it makes good business
sense on the parts of workers and companies for women and minorities to enter
into science, math, and technology jobs.
Women who choose non-traditional careers can expect lifetime earnings of
150 percent more than women who choose traditional careers.[70] Corporations also realize that attracting
women and members of diverse racial and ethnic groups to careers in
high-technology fields helps to create a competitive market advantage. A survey of Fortune 100 human resource
executives found that diversity in the workplace brings about better
utilization of talents, creativity, team problem solving, and increased
marketplace and leadership understanding.[71] This sentiment was echoed by William Wulf,
president of the National Academy of Engineering, during a talk in which he
clearly referenced the positive role women and diverse employees play in
engineering jobs. As he states, “every
time we approach an engineering problem with a pale, male design team, we may
not find the best solution. We may not
understand the design options or know how to evaluate the constraints…there is
a real economic cost to that. It is
measured in design options not considered, in needs unsatisfied…It is that a
product that serves a broad…customer base may not be found.”[72]
With such benefits to both women and
companies it is necessary to explore why women and racial minorities continue
to be underrepresented in these careers.
The CAWSMET report argues that the glass ceiling that serves as a
barrier to women attempting to enter the higher levels of corporate management,
is being reinforced by the silicon ceiling.
This “new” ceiling keeps women out of the high paying and high skill
jobs in the science, math, and technology sector. This silicon ceiling is made up of such factors as:
1.
An environment that
is not experienced by women as female-friendly.
2.
An inability to
integrate work and family demands.
3.
A lack of female role
models and mentors.
4. A lack of attention to retraining female workers and displaced homemakers for science, math, an