Women in Science (Lack of) -- an excellent post and interesting theory Larry Summers missed

[WhipperSnapper]

(Please read the linked article first before commenting.)

I read an interesting post earlier tonight proposing that one reason we see fewer women in science is because they are less irrational than men and tend to make better career decisions. I don't agree with this theory, but at a time when our media, politicians, and pundits talk about how we need more scientists and college education as though it were a foregone conclusion beyond question, I found this post to be excellent and a breath of fresh air.

"Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States."

Any thoughts about the post? Can't say I'm at all surprised that a conventional academic/politician like Larry Summers failed to see the fourth possible explanation.

http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science

Here's another interesting bit:

For whom does academic science as a career make sense?

...

Does this make sense as a career for anyone? Absolutely! Just get out your atlas.

Imagine that you are a smart, but impoverished, young person in China. Your high IQ and hard work got you into one of the best undergraduate programs in China. The $1800 per month graduate stipend at University of Nebraska or University of Wisconsin will afford you a much higher standard of living than any job you could hope for in China. The desperate need for graduate student labor and lack of Americans who are interested in PhD programs in science and engineering means that you'll have no trouble getting a visa. When you finish your degree, a small amount of paperwork will suffice to ensure your continued place in the legal American work force. Science may be one of the lowest paid fields for high IQ people in the U.S., but it pays a lot better than most jobs in China or India.

 

[CycloWizard]

I have been reading quite a bit of literature on this subject recently. Obviously, I had to get at the root of my own insanity: why did I spend an extra 5 years in school only to make what I could have made with my bachelors degree in engineering? Why do most of us do it, then take post-doc positions that actually pay, on average, 27% less than what we would have made with a BS in chemical engineering?

My anecdotal experience tells me that most of the Americans in grad school do it because a) they don't know what they want to do, b) they want to do research, c) they don't want to work for an oil company, or d) some combination of the above. The answers for foreigners are much different, though not as different as you might think. The financial incentive is obviously much greater for someone from India, China, or eastern Europe, since they would only make about $10k/year with a BS, while an American with the same degree would make about $55k/year - both make about $24k/year in grad school.

Of course, I also have another foolish brother who is getting a PhD in developmental psychology at Stanford, so I've been reading some books in that field, as well as some general books on what promotes "excellence" in people. The developmental psychologist will tell you that it's a sense of purpose that drives people to pursue careers which are very difficult, yet not financially lucrative. The reason that women do not engage in scientific work at the same rate as men is that women have many means of finding the "ultimate" purpose in life - family, children, and so forth. Men, on the other hand, can never achieve the same sense of purpose from these things because of their different associations with children, so they are actually filling that need with work. It made a lot of sense to me when I read that, though my wife (one of the few, the proud - the women with a PhD in engineering) didn't like that explanation so well.

 

[frostedflakes]

MS/Ph.D definitely doesn't make much financial sense for many science majors, you'd really only do it if you have your heart set on R&D. For engineering, I think starting salary for Ph.D graduates generally isn't much higher than for graduates who have a BS and four years of experience in industry under their belt. The latter also doesn't have four more years of debt to pay off.

I don't buy the argument that pay is the reason not as many women choose to pursue these careers, though. Everybody loves money, this is not a trait exclusive to females. If money was the only reason, the male/female split in science majors would be 50/50 and fewer members of both sexes would choose these careers. This isn't the case, though. I don't know about other majors, but at my school I think engineering overall is about 30% female, and closer to 10% for electrical and computer engineering.

My belief (and I think there have been studies that suggested this as well) is that it has to do with females generally being more outgoing and social than men. For example, it seems like there is no shortage of women in health care and other science related careers where you get to interact with and help people. Contrast this with something like physics or engineering where you will more than likely be cooped up in a cubicle or lab with much less human interaction.

 

[Moonbeam]

A scientist is at a disadvantage because science is love. A lover of knowledge will do science for free. He or she will pay to do it. Learning and discovery are joy. Love is like a compulsion.

What most people what is money and the security and prestige that money brings.

For the scientist most of the world people build is a total waste as are their lives. A scientist is a child.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
For engineering, I think starting salary for Ph.D graduates generally isn't much higher than for graduates who have a BS and four years of experience in industry under their belt. The latter also doesn't have four more years of debt to pay off.

People are idiots if they didn't get paid to get an engineering or science PhD.

 

[frostedflakes]

Ah yeah, my bad. I guess most (all?) universities offer stipends to Ph.D students?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A scientist is at a disadvantage because science is love. A lover of knowledge will do science for free. He or she will pay to do it. Learning and discovery are joy. Love is like a compulsion.

What most people what is money and the security and prestige that money brings.

For the scientist most of the world people build is a total waste as are their lives. A scientist is a child.

Moonbeam, you're missing the point. It's not that they want to be wealthy, just comfortable (ie, say $60,000/year) and to have a sense of job security and to actually be able to do the science work. Did you read the article at all? Would you agree that a piddling $60,000/year plus benefits is commensurate with 9+ years of college education? There's a difference between doing work you love for a middle class income and struggling to find work you want to do while living in genteel poverty and being miserable.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Ah yeah, my bad. I guess most (all?) universities offer stipends to Ph.D students?

In the sciences, yes. If they didn't they wouldn't have any grad students and science research wouldn't get done in the U.S. since it's a pyramid scheme. One proposed solution is to have Ph.D. birth control--fewer grad students--and to instead have permanent science research positions for say $60,000/year with benefits.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Although there has definitely been a history of low participation by women in science I hear so much about it lately that I have to believe it's set to change, and the only thing lacking has been the time for it to catch up with the effort to achieve it. Hell, I know at least 3 or 4 people who are actually pursuing degree sets geared specifically towards this issue (some combination of Gender Studies, Writing, Science, History of Science, etc).

The woman I've been seeing just received her acceptance into the Stanford ChemE PhD program. She's been heavily into science for most of her life, and decided she wants to do research and teach it for the rest of her life. I know others in similar (though not quite as prestigious) situations.

 

[First]

What 4th possible explanation? Every reputable study ever done shows all the same things; the more education, particularly in the math and sciences, the more prosperous and wealthy the nation. Going for a PhD is very different than going for a Masters, the former being primarily for research and the later more for financial means. The scarcity of, for example, nurses, doctors, and lawyers (to a lesser extent) can be seen directly in their extreme increase in entry level salaries over the last couple decades. PhD's are a whole other breed, and no illogical nonsense about artificially controlling the amount of PhD students is ever going to stop them from going into research. The entire country was founded on the idea of free movement of ideas and R&D; one of the biggest reasons you're even typing this message is based on pioneering research done by a German at the turn of the century whose theories were greatly aided by the very same U.S. PhD grad students you'd like to limit. To suggest we limit the amount going in shows a complete lack of understanding of the statistics, all of which state the same thing; the more education the better (there is a threshold as there is with anything else of course).

 

[StageLeft]

Women are less rational than men, overall. I truly believe this is a fact and not simply a prejudice.

The money argument is silly, especially since men on average make more than women across the economy. They love money at least as much, probably more. Women don't go into science just as men don't go into cutting hair. There are rolls that are classically biased to particular genders. There's no deep rooted anything else going on. It's a pretty simple issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A scientist is at a disadvantage because science is love. A lover of knowledge will do science for free. He or she will pay to do it. Learning and discovery are joy. Love is like a compulsion.

What most people what is money and the security and prestige that money brings.

For the scientist most of the world people build is a total waste as are their lives. A scientist is a child.

Moonbeam, you're missing the point. It's not that they want to be wealthy, just comfortable (ie, say $60,000/year) and to have a sense of job security and to actually be able to do the science work. Did you read the article at all? Would you agree that a piddling $60,000/year plus benefits is commensurate with 9+ years of college education? There's a difference between doing work you love for a middle class income and struggling to find work you want to do while living in genteel poverty and being miserable.

Perhaps I was not clear with what I said. People and scientist are not the same thing to me. Scientists, lovers of knowledge, are like a separate species of being. They just want to do science. Comfort and all that shit are just a means to an end. The government should support scientists so they don't have to worry about living. Build a science city and give them money for research. Let private business pay the government royalties for products sold using their ideas and discoveries.

 

[JS80]

I'm thinking scientists are risk averse so they prefer security which usually tends to equal lower pay.

 

[zephyrprime]

Why is this even an issue? The reason is simple and obvious. Women aren't interested in the sciences as much as men are. They just aren't. Why aren't more men nurses? Why aren't more men project managers? The converse reason applied to a different area. Men and women have different interests. I don't agree with Summers that women aren't as smart. They're just not interested. Plus, we're not doing women a favor by shoe horning them into fields they're not interested in. Their drop out rate is very high for the fields we do this in.

And it's not because of the money either. If that were the case, tons of women would be investment bankers.

 

[ericlp]

http://science.discovery.com/brink/danica/danica.html

I always thought she was hot when she first on motor trend. Anyway..... I never did catch her on the science channel. I wish more sexy babes would start doing math, all of us might start leaning!

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Perhaps I was not clear with what I said. People and scientist are not the same thing to me. Scientists, lovers of knowledge, are like a separate species of being. They just want to do science. Comfort and all that shit are just a means to an end. The government should support scientists so they don't have to worry about living. Build a science city and give them money for research. Let private business pay the government royalties for products sold using their ideas and discoveries.

I'd vote for you.


<--in a very well-funded lab doing fascinating, cutting-edge work...for $13/hr