…and this is a 
Motivating students (and motivating women) to pursue science careers
Category: Academics • Communicating science
Posted on: August 6, 2008 1:45 PM, by PZ Myers
Peter Wood has an interesting commentary in the Chronicle today. At least, it starts out well, but by the end it turns into a bit of a train wreck. The good part is a discussion of a growing deficiency in science and math training in the US. The usual ignorant reaction to this problem is to flog the students and demand more drill-and-practice in the classroom, more testing, incentives and punishments for the schools … the familiar Republican litany of No Child Left Behind, which treats the problem as a superficial one that can be corrected with more multiple-choice tests, or by marshaling market forces to make that engineering job in adulthood more attractive to 8 year olds. That's not the answer.
The precipitous drop in American science students has been visible for years. In 1998 the House released a national science-policy report, "Unlocking Our Future," that fussily described "a serious incongruity between the perceived utility of a degree in science and engineering by potential students and the present and future need for those with training."
Let me offer a different explanation. Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market's demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off -- often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren't very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, "Why bother?"
Those of us who are scientists did not go into this field because we calculated the economic benefit (we'd need to be profoundly innumerate for the answer to that one to come up positive), nor was it because our middle school teachers gave us lots of tests. It's because we were inspired by the dream of learning more about the world around us, and we were motivated in spite of the difficulties of the subject.
Right now, this is an anti-intellectual country in which the media and politics constantly bombard us with the message that science is uncool, the domain of geeks and nerds, and instead of bringing out the power of science in our schools, the emphasis is always on the boring minutiae. It's important to master the tedious mechanics, of course, but we also need to put the excitement front and center. And we also have to challenge students, rather than putting them on coasters and letting them slide to graduation.
At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn -- and worse, fail to develop as "whole persons" -- if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren't among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who "feel good" about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.
The intellectual lassitude we breed in students, their unearned and inflated self-confidence, undercuts both the self-discipline and the intellectual modesty that is needed for the apprentice years in the sciences. Modesty? Yes, for while talented scientists are often proud of their talent and accomplishments, they universally subscribe to the humbling need to prove themselves against the most-unyielding standards of inquiry. That willingness to play by nature's rules runs in contrast to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along insouciance that characterizes so many variants of postmodernism and that flatters itself as being a higher form of pragmatism.
That's the good part, but unfortunately the rest is a cranky tirade against diversity, especially those darned women who are asking for special privileges to break into the domains that properly belong to men.
The science "problems" we now ask students to think about aren't really science problems at all. Instead we have the National Science Foundation vexed about the need for more women and minorities in the sciences. President Lawrence H. Summers was pushed out of Harvard University for speculating (in league with a great deal of neurological evidence) that innate difference might have something to do with the disparity in numbers of men and women at the highest levels of those fields. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering." Officials of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education are looking to use Title IX to force science graduate programs to admit more women. The big problem? As of 2001, 80 percent of engineering degrees and 72 percent of computer-science degrees have gone to men.
A society that worries itself about which chromosomes scientists have isn't a society that takes science education seriously. In 1900 the mathematician David Hilbert famously drew up a list of 23 unsolved problems in mathematics; 18 have now been solved. Hilbert has also bequeathed us a way of thinking about mathematics and the sciences as a to-do list of intellectual challenges. Notably, Hilbert didn't write down problem No. 24: "Make sure half the preceding 23 problems are solved by female mathematicians."
Grrrr. Summers was not speculating in league with neurological evidence — he was babbling about the anecdotal evidence from preferred toys in his children to justify patterns of discrimination against women. Women are entirely capable of doing science and math as well as men, but cultural forces and the pressure to conform to anti-science norms — the very level Wood is saying we need to work at to improve science participation in the first half of his essay — conspire to discourage women from working at the highest levels of their fields, and encourage men to discriminate against them. The title of the essay is "How we keep students out of science"…maybe he should open his eyes and notice that the question of "How we keep women out of science" might very well have the same answers.
What if we treated his initial description of the problem as prescriptive: we have a science-gap in American students, therefore we should take this as evidence that Americans are inherently more stupid than others, and therefore should give up on trying to teach them more science? The answer, then, is to invest less in education and more in importing Chinese. Ridiculous, I know, yet that is what he is proposing with women: they are less capable by assertion, therefore don't worry that that part of the science labor pool might be underutilized.
It seems to me that working to improve science education for a significant segment of the population that is not being inspired to pursue science and technology careers is a good strategy for working out solutions for the whole population. If our educational system has shortcomings in bringing up enough scientists, I'm all for working on the part of the problem that has the same shortcomings times two — we'll get the biggest boost there.
As for the Hilbert story — he also didn't impose the restriction that the 23 problems should only be solved by men.
Education & Careers
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 6, 2008 2:01 PM
Perhaps part of the problem of motivation in the sciences is that the so-called big issues are supposedly not to be answered by science.
Religion, philosophy, psychology (which has varying degrees of science), and the humanities are supposed to deal with "the soul" and whatever is "deep".
That's pretty much bull. Science at its best is not divorced from psychology, philosophy, or the humanities--it supplies what's otherwise missing from them, like evidence and causality. Any proper answer to almost anything human involves science.
Yes, it's sort of the old academic divide--and the sense that science is just facts. Not really, it's everything.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: J | August 6, 2008 2:02 PM
...the familiar Republican litany of No Child Left Behind, which treats the problem as a superficial one that can be corrected with more multiple-choice tests, or by marshaling market forces to make that engineering job in adulthood more attractive to 8 year olds. That's not the answer.
Right on. Here's the thing, though: Lots of things differentiate education in unsciency America from much-more sciencey countries in Europe and Asia and that's this: They're not afraid to Leave Some Children Behind. Virtually every school district in the U.S. spends GOBS of money--usually quite without results--on 'special education' for children with below-average academic abilities. Some school districts use 'mainstreaming'; keeping all children in a particular grade together, regardless of ability.
This does not work. Good students' abilities just do not rub off on their peers. I know, you'd think they would, but they don't. And no, it doesn't work to 'make good students into teachers' by having them actively take a hand in helping their peers. Mostly it seems to distract good students from becoming even better.
I think we need to be less afraid of letting good students race ahead and, quite frankly, letting bad students off at the side of the road.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | August 6, 2008 2:04 PM
Sheesh, that bias makes it sounds like a religious problem, doesn't it? And having worked in K-12 education for 13 years, I can attest to the number of xtians working in those grades...could it be a correlation?
The behavior changes called for by Wood HAVE TO evolve. But first it would be helpful for all who work with these learners to begin this change by acknowledging EVOLUTION then teach evolution adequately to the learners beginning in the primary grades.
Posted by: Eshto | August 6, 2008 2:09 PM
My partner is Latino, he was very interested in science because he grew up watching Star Trek (a not uncommon story from what I hear). He became interested in astronomy and after a lot of hard work and assistance from programs like Trio, he got into college.
When he arrived at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he was one of the very few people of color in his astronomy classes. People constantly made fun of him under their breath: "looks like someone's here because of affirmative action, der der der..."
He had such a miserable time he quit and pursued art and sociology instead.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 6, 2008 2:12 PM
The name of the act should be "no bureaucrat left behind."
Posted by: Olly McPherson | August 6, 2008 2:14 PM
Why did I leave a career in science? I didn't want to spend six years of my life working 60-plus hours a week in grad school for no money only to have little guarantee of a good job afterward.
It's problematic that there's little room for a career for people who are interested in science but don't want to 1) spend their lives being unappreciated lab monkeys or 2) knuckle under to a thesis advisor for years with the hope of maybe getting a post-doc when they're 30. (Option three, being a pharmaceutical rep until your looks fade, isn't very appealing either.) Sure, I'm oversimplifying things somewhat, but those are the options presented to your average undergrad.
A science structure that offered people more opportunities to learn and expand their careers as they progressed would be more appealing, especially to people who are older or need to work to support themselves and their families. (This is true for most other types of graduate school as well.)
I think the U.S. science culture is poorly served by its emphasis on dues-paying and boot-licking. Obviously you want qualified, informed people. But I don't think a class of Brahmins is necessary.
Posted by: LisaJ | August 6, 2008 2:19 PM
You're right. He really started off well, and then ugh, what an ass. I definitely agree with his that we need to change our education standards, here in Canada too. I'm not even 30 yet and even I see how kids today have it so much easier in school than I did. I think there are too many rules these days that teachers need to follow, and this prevents them from telling some kids that they aren't doing a good enough job and then making sure that thay do. The converse is also true, that those kids who are really bright maybe aren't getting the attention they need to realize that and to then attain to higher acheivments. This idea to have all kids feel like they are on a level ground with each other does nothing to help the kids who aren't doing so well, and also only places the 'smart kids' at too much of a comfortable place.
I see it even in some of the undergrads that come through my lab (I write as I secretly block my computer screen from the undergrads). They have such a sense of entightlement, and feel that their A to A+ average (which is also bullshit, might I add. That was alot tougher to obtain back in my day) should be enough to get them any Grad school position they like, any scholarship, etc... and hey, their work ethic doesn't match up with their makrs or their expectations. They just don't go above and beyond and really try to be creative and independent. It's quite sad, really.
Posted by: SiMPel MYnd | August 6, 2008 2:20 PM
Not only has science been branded as uncool culturally, it is often openly ridiculed and ignored for political and/or religious "reasons".
In the global warming "debate", scientists who support changes to energy policy to combat the problem are called idiots, trouble-makers, fear-mongers, etc. In churches, scientists are painted as idiots because scientific conclusions don't match their fairy-tales.
Why would any kid want to become a scientist when they constantly get the message that "scientists don't know what they're talking about"?
The bottom line is that we're an anti-intellectual society because we keep letting the stupid people be in charge. I think that candidates for office should be required to score above some decent level on an IQ test. That would weed out the George W's from office. Unfortunately, IQ tests are generally culturally biased, so that would be an issue. I'm just tired of listening to poltical-speak--most of them sound (and frequently are) dumber than a bag of rocks...
Posted by: Joseph | August 6, 2008 2:21 PM
That whole Republican thing about "praising children" seems contradictory, doesn't it? We don't work our children enough - we praise them too much! So let's take things away from them! Such silly thinking is typical of your Republican educational wonk, and a way for them to poke financial holes into a traditionally liberal establishment. Show me one science teacher who's actively letting kids coast - or one principal who would allow it, considering how schools are rated and graded these days. It's true there's corruption, but I don't think there's that much.
Those of us who work in public schools have a better answer: infuse money into the system earmarked specifically for technology and math/science. It's stupid to think we can inspire children in this day and age of high technology when public schools in central Manhattan don't even have functioning science labs. What do they have to get inspired with? I know pop culture is "just" pop culture, but look at the TV show Smallville - we have there a female reporter, in fact several, who are talented with computers and with science, and there's several other shows and movies with capable women - but often none of the very real resources we see rich white actresses using on television are available to our kids. There's a disconnect between the level of technology we see on TV - or which we see in our homes - and the level of science being taught in schools.
And what materials we do have are outdated and in some cases useless (Just look at some textbooks still used in school today - some of them don't even include evolution or Pluto! And when evolution is included it's described in such vague terms that it makes almost no logical sense.) Modern textbooks, and online courses, are far more accurate - but take money which schools are losing because "the answer is to make kids WORK HARDER!" They already "work" eight hour days during which they're virtually imprisoned by school and police, and force-fed unhealthy food, and forbidden to go to the bathroom. No work establishment would be allowed to get away with such behavior.
My take is that the real problem isn't society or our culture - we are a people obsessed with science and technology and what they can do. But what teachers are told to do in the classroom - and the resources they are given with which to do it - has nothing to do with modern science or technology.
Posted by: Tim | August 6, 2008 2:24 PM
Would it be possible to build some classes around the work of science popularizers? Might create a bit more interest then the leaden prose gracing a lot of textbooks.
Posted by: Thethyme | August 6, 2008 2:27 PM
I know I certainly promote science and math to my nieces and nephews... I try to tie it in to anything we are doing and plan babysitting events with it in mind like building rockets and taking them to museums and engaging them in their thoughts on the exhibits...ad they are very responsive! I know I certainly would like to return to University and further my education in both math and science.
Posted by: Neil | August 6, 2008 2:28 PM
J@#2: I have no problem with paying more taxes to support more advanced classes for the "smart" kids. I don't mind a few divisions by talent and interests being made available. I probably could have benefited from such. There is already a bus stop for those who aren't going to excel in academics. It's called high school graduation. Having more options available for good students is a good idea, having more vocational training available is a good idea, but closing off options any earlier than that would rob many students of opportunities that are scarce enough already.
Posted by: Lord Zero | August 6, 2008 2:36 PM
Well, shame on the fail of the teachers to
motivate their students.
Anyway, why a life goal must be to make
money ?
As scientists we follow something more
valuable: Knowlenge.
The humanity as a whole improves on
the research of scientists, not money
makers.
My life as a meaning, in fact i feel like
my existence its more valuable as more
i pursue the real knowlenge about the world,
through science.
This feeling its barely compared to anything else,
its addictive, i couldnt live without it.
Posted by: Becca | August 6, 2008 2:37 PM
Peter Wood is not part of any solution involving a pro-science culture.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wood200508090808.asp
Apparently, he wants "Evolution" to be taught as some fairy tale that scientists take on Faith on par with Creationism. He does make some quiet allowances for "evolution" (note the little "e") being central to biology. What a tool.
He's an old man yearning for the good old days when students were strong enough to walk uphill both ways, barefoot, in the snow, and didn't need to be mollycoddled. Despite the supposed toughness of his idea of the American Student of Science, he's still apparently afraid to open science up to those pesky women and people of color.
That said, he had one thing at the end I could agree with:
"Bill Gates may not be the right person to tell us how to restore that mixture of awe, admiration, sheer ambition, delight in meeting difficulties, and stubborn curiosity -- the patient exuberance -- that draws students into the adventure of science. A few of our students catch it despite the preoccupations of their teachers and their textbooks."
Posted by: lylebot | August 6, 2008 2:37 PM
Hey LisaJ, your peers were doing the same stuff when you were in school. I'm in your age group (slightly older) so I can say that pretty definitively. There's always a group that's going to try to get as much as they can for as little work as possible. Just because you didn't doesn't mean others weren't...
Anyway, I have a hard time reconciling old-crank talk about how easy the kids these days have it with the stories I see in the NYTimes about how kids these days spend 8 hours a day doing their homework.
Posted by: Sharon | August 6, 2008 2:39 PM
I read an article about the women in science issue not too long ago that made me think (well, I think the article was from 2006, but I only read it recently...). It proposes that the better question is why anyone persues a career in science/acedemia and that men may be more prevalent because it's easier for men to start a family in their mid-late 30s (or earlier 40s - whenever you get past that post-doc) than it is for women.
It goes in the other direction, really. It suggests that men are too stubborn to see how much of a crap job being a professor is (no offense PZ) and how hard it is to get to that point in the first place.
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
Anyway, as a new (female) master's student I thought it was interesting.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 6, 2008 2:41 PM
PZ, you sound religious. Summers was asking legitimate questions. What specifically do you find "babbling" in his speech, and based on what evidence are you accusing him of trying to "justify patterns of discrimination"?Posted by: Psi Wavefuntion | August 6, 2008 2:41 PM
LisaJ,
I'm a 2.5th yr undergrad with a 58% avg, paid research assistant position and a conference publication...marks are a bunch of BS! Tell that to those cocky OMG-look-at-me-I-has-a-95%-avg bastards! XP
(I do realise the avg needs to go up...suck at studying though; studying science and doing science are unrelated activities, it seems...)
-Psi
Posted by: LisaJ | August 6, 2008 2:41 PM
Oh yeah, and as for motivating women in Science. Obviously I think he was a total ass regarding that aspect. The biggest challenges I've found, which I have had to work very hard at changing my thought processes on over my years in science, is the immense social pressures that are placed on us. The worst proponents of this, I'm sure in many cases, are your own family members. Even if you're not from a strict family with obvious expectations for you, they are still there. I grew up thinking that I was supposed to get married, have a few kids, make sure I could be a devoted mother and put my kids first. Well, I'm sure this is still all attainable for me and I can accommodate kids when I like, but now I realize that I don't have to give everything up to make a nice life for my kids and family... and I SHOULDN'T FEEL BAD ABOUT IT! Based on societal norms and just the natural female instinct, there is alot of pressure on us to be the ones to do the most sacrificing in order to have a family. The message we need to get across is that you don't need to sacrifice everything in order to have a family, and truthfully, it is a much greater gift to your children to give them a mother that is doing what she wants with her life and is contributing in a way that is exciting to her, as opposed to feeling guilty if you're not with them 24-7.
There is a strong common thought process among my female colleagues (at the grad school level) who feel that a career in Science is incompatible with having a family. This does not need to be the case, but I believe it's what scares away most females from following the Science path. We need to convince not only ourselves, but also our male colleagues, that certain additive pressures are there for us, but that we can all work together (largely mentally) to make sure that this doesn't necessitate excluding us from a Science career. Also, we need to quickly shoot down the sort of crap we see in PZ's post here. Women are not mentally inferior as Scientists, we're not idiots due to our genetic makeup... for crying out loud isn't it better to have a greater variety of intelligent people working on solving important Scientific questions? To further stereotype women as inferior Scientists is an incredible disservice to the confidence of women who are interested in this avenue, as well as to scientific progress as a whole.
Posted by: LisaJ | August 6, 2008 2:44 PM
Psi @ #18. Ugh, I hear ya. I find, where I am anyways, that it's often those who have coasted along and got an easy 90% average who are totally incapable of independent thought in the lab. It is annoying.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 6, 2008 2:46 PM
I wouldn't try to reason with J; his post is predicated on the assumption that students in special education classes are just lazy. That degree of willful ignorance is impenetrable.
Posted by: Zar | August 6, 2008 2:47 PM
First off, I don't by the nostalgia for an age that never existed. There are/were lots of dumb, lazy people in the older generations. See for example our commander in chief.
Part of the problem, I think, may be community/parental involvement. I'm not suggesting helicopter parenting, of course, but it is so important to have parents who encourage learning, reading and curiosity. So many parents just let their kids be ignorant. So many students just want grades without having to work for them, and have no interest in learning for the sake of learning. All that matters is job training. When I tell people what I'm studying (linguistics) they often ask "Why?" with this tone of "Why on earth are you studying that?" Because I think it's interesting, dammit!
I was lucky. My parents, both educated people, strongly encouraged learning. They made us read books. They took us to museums. They provided lots of educational media. When we asked questions about the world around us (Why is the sky blue? What are stars? What makes rain/lightning? Why do things float?), they would find the answer and explain it to us. They took an active part in our learning and development. It's not enough to just praise or criticize kids from afar. You have to get your hands dirty. Education should not end when the bell rings.
We have a really low opinion of education, I think. Studying is for nerds. Learning is for nerds. Damn those teachers for not being able to magically make my kids smarter. Poor teachers! It's damn hard to give every kid the attention they need when you have a class of thirty.
Not to mention budgetary problems in poorer communities. It's a lose-lose situation: either the school ends up strapped for cash, or property taxes go way the hell up and retirees end up having to work at Wal-Mart to stay afloat.
Really, should we be surprised that students are lazy? We're a society of lazy consumers who take the path of least resistance. We ridicule anyone knowledgeable. We make people feel guilty for being smart and educated (not for being snotty---I hate that too, but for simply being smart). When I tell people where I'm going to school I have to be evasive so they don't get weirded out: I say New Haven instead of Yale, and I just met a guy who says Boston instead of Harvard.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 6, 2008 2:50 PM
These questions have already been answered repeatedly. Go learn instead of expecting us to spoon-feed it to you on your schedule.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 6, 2008 2:52 PM
That or that kids who don't perform near the median aren't worth investing any resources.
I guess I'll tell my little brother who throughout his entire schooling before 9th grade scored in the lowest percentile. Once some learning disabilities were identified he graduated from UNC with a 3.5, Got a masters, is working as an investment counselor making way more than I, bought a house 8 years before I did and is doing just fine.
But he was the dumb kid in school. Never did well.
Posted by: Olly McPherson | August 6, 2008 2:54 PM
Great post, Sharon. Throw in the fact that tenure-track positions seem to be a going, going, gone proposition (welcome the world of adjunct teaching), and that's one more reason not to pursue a career in science.
Posted by: Noni Mausa | August 6, 2008 2:54 PM
Oh woe is me, I must be soooo uncool. (Like this is a big surprise.)
I have worked in journalism, and one of my favorite assignments is to be sent to talk to a researcher about something. Without fail I get an hour or more personalized lecture on some topic I may never have heard of -- better than a banana split any day!
Take mycorrhizas. Do not recoil at the long word, it just means microscopic fungi which have learned to live snuggled between the cells of the tiniest rootlets of plants. Once settled in, they stick their little fungi heads out and collect nutrients from the soil, more effectively than their parent roots can, and share the goodies with their host plants.
I never heard of them (and I are a collidge grajuate, nearly). But without them, many plants do poorly. I got to sit down and see a whole slide show and lecture courtesy of a Brazilian researcher working on northern mycorrhizae and their adaptation to various crops. And the researcher was as happy to give the lecture as I was to get it. Excitement is contagious.
We have Take Your Kid To Work Day -- what we should do is farm out kids to random scientists now and then. Plus it would save big bucks otherwise wasted on day care...
Noni
Posted by: Donnie B. | August 6, 2008 2:55 PM
PZ, did you see Thomas Cech's opinion piece in Science News a month or so back? Similar subject matter -- how to encourage more young people to enter careers in the sciences. Well worth a look.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/33374/title/Thomas_Cech
As an aside, Tom's father was a close friend of my dad when we lived in Des Moines back in the '70's. They both worked at the VA hospital there, and the Cech family lived only a few doors up the street from us. I didn't know Tom personally -- he's a few years older than me -- but I guess I sorta kinda knew him 'way back when (long before the Nobel).
(And yes, I'm a shameless name dropper, on those few occasions I get the chance.)
Posted by: Mike Scott | August 6, 2008 2:59 PM
Yep, I'm and educator in Virginia and the acronym du jour for this new initiative is called STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Apparently it's come to someone's attention that we don't produce enough of these types to be competitive in the world market and as an economic issue, it has dire consequences. I'm very pessimistic about realistic solutions to this problem though. I relish the thought of mountains of money for innovative programs. Here's a few of the problems that I think inhibit science education in my State.
Number one is the reality that elementary school teachers are, as a group, woefully unprepared to teach science at any level. Very nice people and generally good with literacy instruction and basic math, but scientific principles aren't their strong point. That's why most of the instruction at that level is "factoid" based. I've seen very few teachers present scientific methodology or invest in inquiry based methods that are engaging and that promote higher order thinking. You can't do it if you don't know it, and its clear to me that most of haven't a clue and there isn't a quick place to go for them to find one. Science is a red headed step child in elementary school and by the time a kid has done a thousand worksheets they think science is a "fill in the blank" discipline.
It's likely that student will not have a teacher whose primary degree is science until they take a specific course in high school. Most of the middle school teachers I work with have endorsements in science, but they don't actually have a primary degree in any scientific discipline. Content knowledge is about 1/3 of what teacher needs to be successful. ( The other thirds,,,,pedagogical skill and ... compelling nature)
Problem number 2 is something I fond quite frustrating as secondary biology teacher in a rural area ( uh.. yeah, fundamentalist area) and that is having mince words and tip toe around evolution. You do have parents and kids that just refuse to engage in the conversation and claim it violates their religious beliefs and that disrupt anyone's attempts to have a fair discourse on the topic. That happens in earth science and all the biological series of classes. The point is, the community only gets the rigor that it wants and such pressures can easily permeate a community to the extent that school divisions and teachers just don't push for great science too hard. Unfortunately, I think it is the pervasive attitude in our country.
You can ramp up math and engineering, but biology is hornets nest.
Problem 3 is that if you want good people with great qualifications, you gotta pay'm. My son is a computer science and math major who enjoys the intellectual challenge of both disciplines but expects to make significantly more than the $38,000 a year that new teacher would make. Basically the pool of really qualified people go where they can make a good living. I've worked in a major research hospital and I've taught public school. There's a huge difference between the former and the later in terms of intellectual preparedness and I wish we had a few more teachers whose education was as extensive as those I worked with at the hospital. Heck, I just wish all the teachers I work with could correctly average their grades. (It's pitiful, but we all know few like that.)
Better preparation, better pay for highly qualified people are problems that can be addressed. Cultural and religious problems are a little tougher.
Posted by: Janus | August 6, 2008 3:04 PM
"Women are entirely capable of doing science and math as well as men, but cultural forces and the pressure to conform to anti-science norms -- the very level Wood is saying we need to work at to improve science participation in the first half of his essay -- conspire to discourage women from working at the highest levels of their fields, and encourage men to discriminate against them."
Really. Is there any solid evidence for this claim, or are you just mindlessly repeating politically correct dogma?
I'll grant you that women are being discouraged by society as a whole, and discriminated against in many places. But what makes you think that this is the sole, or even the main cause of women's lack of interest and success in scientific endeavors?
You're a biologist, PZ. You know better than most of us that there are important physical differences between human males and females. You also know that there are important neurological differences between the males and females of many species. While human males and females are obviously very similar, isn't it likely that the male and female brains work in slightly different ways? And isn't it possible that these differences include something that gives males an advantage in scientific research?
Posted by: JBlilie | August 6, 2008 3:05 PM
NCLB is jokingly (graveyard humor) referred to by St. Paul teachers as "No Public School Left Standing." The system requires a certain percentage of "improvement" every year. This is impossible in the long term: try to improve 3% every year starting at 60% -- you exceed 100% in 18 years. The better you are to start with, the sooner you reach the limit above which you can't go. So, the whole thing is cynically designed to discredit public education (the most effective and efficient economic development program ever devised) and pave the way to private school vouchers.
Posted by: Danio | August 6, 2008 3:07 PM
Lisa @#19. I agree that a career in 'Science' in general is far from unobtainable for a woman scientist who has, or hopes to have, a family. I'm not sure this applies across the board to academic positions, though, particularly not to tenure-track professorships at research universities. I'm sure there are exceptions, but of all of the women scientists I know personally in tenure track positions (N=~20) who have kids grade-school age or younger, every one of them has either a partner who is a stay-at-home, huge amounts of family support (i.e. local, involved, sometimes live-in grandparents) OR a partner who is also in academia and thus able to coordinate teaching schedules, etc. For many of those of us who don't have those options, the academic track is frankly too daunting to contemplate, hence the trend toward seeking either 'permadoc'-type positions, or pursuing 'non-traditional' (i.e. non-academic) career paths.
Posted by: PHSphil | August 6, 2008 3:08 PM
@Tim, #10: It could work for younger kids, but by grade 7 or 8 it's too late, I think. My biology teacher last year (9th grade) was great for a few reasons. We spent the first month doing critical thinking/skepticism, and our first major project was picking a pseudoscience and dissecting it. He also tried to follow the style of science popularizers in how he presented things. He tried to give it that same sort of feeling of "wow, that's AWESOME!" He was fairly good at it, too.
Unfortunately, it was lost on most of the kids. I was the only one who was really interested in skepticism. A few others at least understood it, but the interest wasn't there. The same was true of the science itself. Very few of them had any real interest in the material, and only one or two had that "Oh, wow, THIS is science?" moment. The others enjoyed the class, but not for the science. Most were too set in the "science is stupid" mindset already.
The other problem was that it took time away from dealing specifically with biology. Taking the time to cover scientific thinking and the scientific method meant that we had a lot less time than other classes to learn the material immediately at hand. Earlier in education, the classes have time to spend much more time on that sort of thing than high school classes.
We were learning science, which is more important than learning the facts of any specific field, but the school system and the test makers don't agree, and so it had to be crammed in around other material, and compete for time. The time just wasn't there to really look at things and show just how incredible they are, and I think it's a huge loss. That's the best thing to convince people of just how great science is, and it's the first thing that "has to" get cut in the interest of time.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 6, 2008 3:09 PM
And, it's working already. Just today they announced that Minnesota's list of schools "not making adequate yearly progress" has increased year on year. Minnesota's schools consistently score at the top of the nation. What problem is NCLB meant to correct? Oh yeah, wealthy folks can't get a rebate from the government for opting-out of the public school system.
Posted by: Navin | August 6, 2008 3:12 PM
Oh man. This is exactly the crisis that the proposed Minnesota Planetarium and Space Discovery Center is aimed at alleviating. Unfortunately the planetarium is stuck in limbo with an apathetic public partner. This article published yesterday summarizes the recent history and challenges of building a flagship regional S.T.E.M. educational asset. I hope the many MN and regional science educators and enthusiasts that read Pharyngula are somewhat aware of and supportive of the vision for this facility, but I'm not sure. MPlanetarium.org for more information.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 6, 2008 3:12 PM
Bill Hicks had a line about the government losing the War on Drugs, and what that meant. "It means that there's a war. . . and people on drugs are winning it!"
I get a similar feeling when I hear someone bloviating about Larry Summers. Aw, the poor man got pushed out of his cushy job at Harvard? Well, then he was too weak for academia. Go stick a G.I. Joe action figure in your Tonka truck and get back in the fucking sandbox where you belong, you big baby!
Posted by: bigjohn756 | August 6, 2008 3:16 PM
The Federal Government has no business dictating to local school systems under any stretch of the imagination. Since when has our national government done anything efficiently? They steal our money, squander half of it to pay their friends and relatives to do unnecessary jobs and then what's left is used to bribe educators to do things that they would never do under any other conditions.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 6, 2008 3:17 PM
I am a working engineer (male) and I know plenty of good women engineers. The percentage of engineering students we had when I was in school was less than 10%. It seems to have changed little. When I describe my work to almost any woman I know, they all go, "yuck, I'd never want to do that." I also note that there is always a shortage of science and math teachers: the person interested in a teaching career and the person interested in math and science are rarely the same person.
So, I think there are systemic reasons for women's lack of interest in science/math. I think some of it is genetic and some of it is cultural. What are the proportions? I don't know.
I agree with PZ's comment that if we can find ways to get young women and girls excited about science, we will go a long way to solved the whole science brain-drain. If you punt on half the population, you're terribly handicapping yourself. I think special work is needed to turn this around -- it has a lot of momentum. If it takes single-sex public schools, etc., (though not public funds for private schools -- unless they are contracted to the public school district and have to follow the same rules and standards -- and accept all comers) then I'm for those things.
Posted by: Nicole TWN | August 6, 2008 3:18 PM
"It proposes that the better question is why anyone persues a career in science/acedemia and that men may be more prevalent because it's easier for men to start a family in their mid-late 30s (or earlier 40s - whenever you get past that post-doc) than it is for women."
Word. Wordy McWord-Word. A point of anecdotal evidence: when I was in grad school (Master's in Computer Science, 2003, in a program that had an astonishingly high 25% women), it wasn't uncommon for the men to have very young families (i.e. infants and toddlers). Number of women with very young children? Zero. None of us women had kids at all, in fact, except for a couple of reentry students who had teenaged kids.
WHY this was so is a complicated question, of course, but it seems pretty clear to me that women, even very educated women--the guys' wives/girlfriends/partners were invariably smart, and frequently in grad school themselves--still expect or are expected to do most or all child-raising... and that's just not compatible with the demands of academia. Sure, some women can do it (my best friend's mom gave birth to my best friend a week before taking her bar exam), but it adds a side order of hard to an already steep challenge.
Another observation: the women in grad school with me were exceptionally talented women*, who were frequently just as good in "girlier" subjects as they were in math and science. I was no exception; I even minored in English. Think the counselors/professors/people in our lives all said, "Wow, with your mighty mathematical brain, you should major in the hard sciences!" Or think we were pretty much all encouraged, subtly or no, to switch into softer majors?
* I snuck in when no one was looking.
Posted by: LisaJ | August 6, 2008 3:23 PM
Janus @ #29: "While human males and females are obviously very similar, isn't it likely that the male and female brains work in slightly different ways? And isn't it possible that these differences include something that gives males an advantage in scientific research?"
Yes, it is possible that the male and female brain works slightly differently in some respects. But why does this need to mean that males are better researchers? From my experience this means that you have a greater variety of thought processes working together to solve a scientific problem. It's only an asset to have males and females working together in Science, in my experience anyway. I know that your assertion that males may be better researchers because of their brain type is not generally correct, because I am a female grad student and I feel I'm doing pretty well, in reference to both male and female grad students around me. I don't feel incapacitated in any way because I have a girl's brain. I know lots of other female Scientists who would say the same thing.
Danio @ #31: I do agree that a woman in Science who wants a family definitely does will have a tougher time than a man in balancing family and work. I myself know that I want to keep pursuing Science and stay on this track, but it's because I want kids that I am unsure if I'll set my sights on a permanent academic position or something more along the lines of a 'premanent post-doc' position, as you noted. So yeah, I do still feel limited, and I'm still trying to figure out what would be the best career option for me, however I know that a career in Science in some respect is totally doable. It's definitely frustrating, and I think we need to work on making it easier for women to balance an academic position as well as a family. I have no idea what the answer to that is though!
Posted by: rtp | August 6, 2008 3:23 PM
Hey PZ, A couple of comments.
Test do inspire scientists! I am a pscyhometrician/statistician in Psychology and Education.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with multiple choice tests- examining the evidence in the field shows they can assess higher order thinking as well as constructed response items. The problem is using tests for more than what they purport to be and thinking that because we test that will induce change. I hate NCLB, and I am in the testing field.
As for more women in science: I think you should listen to what Stephen Pinker has to say on the topic http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html .One argument that makes sense and is scientific has to do with the fact that men have more variability (but same means as women) in their distributions, causing a wider difference in the upper (and lower) tails, and this difference becomes prominent at the extreme ends, which is where the people at the highest levels of their fields are. What Summers had to say was probably correct, (I did not hear about the toy preference thing you mentioned and am not sure where it comes from) but what he had to say was based on some evidence. I am all for women in science and I am ok with putting extra-funds to try and inspire them more so than males but I do not think the issue is as "environmental" (the social conforming) as you make it out to be. I am not saying women are not discriminated against I am sure some(or most) are nor am I saying that their isn't a large portion of the problem due to the conforming pressure placed on them. I just think this issue may be more 'nature' than most think.
Lastly, I want to agree with you that inspiration is needed and the drull, boring rote methods used to teach science are not helping. -Also Great blog man.
Posted by: bunny | August 6, 2008 3:24 PM
About the only part of this essay that I can say I agree with is the initial definition of the problem: we need more scientists, and society is not bearing a scientist-healthy attitude.
I completely disagree that boosting self esteem is detracting from the scientific community. A hugely inflated ego going into college is exactly what a good scientist needs. Good ideas are only useful so long as they are heard; if every scientist was so modest about their ideas that they were afraid to put them up for review, science would not advance at all, let alone flourish. Scientific advance comes through collaboration, yes, but the definition of science as a search for truth necessitates that such collaboration be abrasive and egotistical if it is to be successful. If the heights to which we stoke the self-esteem of pubescents is too high, so be it; if their pride is unfounded, it will quickly be cut to size in college. Not to mention, self esteem problems can be cited as a reason of low female presence in the scientific community!
Who was it that said that the limits of the human intellect can only be found by passing them? If your goal is scientific advancement, modest scientists do not make for effective implements.
I'm sure there are examples of 'talented scientists' that run with the grain of nature rather than against it, but these people are only extensions of the increased standardized testing and standardization the article berates! The entire existence of a hacker culture is evidence that so-called 'talented scientists' are not in fact line-toers modestly seeking attention. It is the hallmark of a questioning mind, paramount to the scientific method, to break the rules and to go against standards.
Yes, the cultural denegration of scientists is leading to a smaller percentage of people choosing scientific careers than is merited by the reliance of society on science, but the proposed methods of alleviating this problem lead only to scientific stagnation, a far worse fate.
Posted by: Rydrum2112 | August 6, 2008 3:24 PM
Hey PZ, A couple of comments.
Test do inspire scientists! I am a pscyhometrician/statistician by training, there is nothing wrong with multiple choice tests look at the evidence in the field showing they can assess higher order thinking as well as constructed response items. The problem is using testing for more than what they are or thinking that the because we test that will induce change.
As for more women in science: I think you should listen to what Stephen Pinker has to say on the topic http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html .It has to do with men having more variability (but same means as women) causing the tails in the distributions to be different, causing a wider difference in the upper (and lower) tails of the distribution. What Summers had to say was probably correct, I am not sure where the toy preference comes from, but what he had to say was based on science. I am all for women in science and I am ok with putting extra-funds to try and inspire them more so than males but I do not think the issue is as "environmental" (the social conforming) as you make it out to be. I am not saying women are discriminated against I am sure some(or most) are. I just think this issue may be more 'nature' than most think.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 6, 2008 3:25 PM
As a non-scientist, I am trying to understand the lament, here.
Are there too few scientists for the jobs available?
Are bright youngsters with above average IQ's opting out of science because they like fire trucks?
Is it important to have a sex-balanced team of scientist working on science?
While I enjoy science and the fruits of science, I wonder if creating more scientists will just result in having over-qualified construction laborers and waiters?
While my scientific ignorance is measurable, is it problematic?
Posted by: rtp/rydrum2112 | August 6, 2008 3:26 PM
Sorry about double post- browser messed up.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 6, 2008 3:30 PM
It's "possible" but the available evidence does not support this hypothesis, and the people like yourself who want to declare the question settled in favor of it all have obvious ulterior motives.
And you're not really trying to argue that it's "possible," are you?
Posted by: Helioprogenus | August 6, 2008 3:30 PM
I'm sure he thought he was being illuminating, while completeling shutting himself off from reality. Through the course of my education, I've run into a handful of women in mathematics and physics, but upon having met them, any illusion that famale brains are routed differently was completely tossed out the window. Perhaps during the critical phases of development, with society bombarding them with superficial garbage and constantly convincing them that the physical and to a lesser extent biological sciences are masculine territory, the awe and inquisitive nature towards the world around us is chipped away. Once the neural pathways in the brain are reinforced to believe that there are subjects that are gender biased, it's difficult to recover from it. Hopefully, the state of education will have a paradigm shift towards increasing funding for science, improving educational tools to take full advantage of those facets that brought many of us into the fold. The application of various tools towards solving the mysteries that otherwise would remain unsolved.
Posted by: michael fugate | August 6, 2008 3:37 PM
Some great resources on changing science teaching to improve understanding and increase diversity can be found here: http://scientificteaching.wisc.edu/.
I participated in a NAS/HHMI Summer Institute on Undergraduate Education in Biology - well worth the time.
Posted by: Wookster | August 6, 2008 3:37 PM
Lord Zero @#13: "Well, shame on the fail of the teachers to motivate their students. "
The point is not that teachers are failing to motivate their students. The point is that teachers are not EQUIPED to motivate their students, in terms of science equipment, modern textbooks, teaching and presentation technology, class sizes, etc. Blaming the teacher is like not equiping a workman with a shovel and then blaming him for not digging a hole.
Posted by: wookster | August 6, 2008 3:40 PM
wow, I'm awesome at spelling. I, of course, meant EQUIPPED, not EQUIPED. *sigh*
Posted by: commissarjs | August 6, 2008 3:43 PM
@ Janus #29
Define these differences and how they impact the ability of women to understand science and math.
Posted by: Brian | August 6, 2008 3:47 PM
Go here and wonder at the bad faith:
http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2008/08/gender-blind-math-admissions-may-be.html
This post is a sadly perfectly common example of the misuse of statistical reasoning to justify discriminatory practices.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 6, 2008 3:49 PM
He doesn't have to define them; he's emotionally invested in the idea that women are inferior and in avoiding any change to the status quo, and therefore hypotheses that fit his prejudices are true by default unless his opponents can show that they're "impossible." If you can't see that, you're just blinded by Politically Correct progaganda.
Posted by: Katsu | August 6, 2008 3:51 PM
This is a little off the topic of just how douchey Peter Wood sounded when he went on about Title IX, but it did make me think about my own personal experience. I'm currently an undergraduate in a geology program. When I entered my university, I originally tried to declare for the geophysics program. My undergraduate adviser put me down as a geology student in spite of my protests, and the 15 minute explanation he gave me as to why pretty much felt like it amounted to, "You womens, you don't like the math."
Well, after I passed Calculus III with flying colors, I came to the realization that really, I didn't want to go further into mathematics than that. I pretty much proved to myself that while I can do math, and do it well, I really, really hate it. This lead to a lot of agonizing on my part, because if you are a woman that's good at math, it feels like there's a lot of pressure to prove something to jackholes like the adviser I had at the time. So I felt like I was somehow letting down the team by even considering dropping back to a much less math intensive major. My boyfriend (who got his masters in mathematics) finally had to sit me down and have a long talk; as the normal victim of my math induced, frustrated tantrums, all he could really say was, "Look, we all know you can do this. But it's just as obvious that you don't enjoy it, and you don't *want* to."
I guess it just strikes me as another unpleasant aspect of this problem. If you're a woman and you do go in to the sciences, there can be this huge personal burden of stress because you feel obligated to prove something to people like Mr. Wood. Not that it will ever make a difference to them.
As a side note, I've noticed at least my geology program is approaching a fairly even split, though we women are still outnumbered. Still, it's a real contrast to the absolute sausage-fest in the physics building next door.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 6, 2008 3:52 PM
Azkyroth:
Go buy yourself an inflatable doll. If you want to link to PZ's actual argument on this topic, fine. But a Google page with a bunch of search results? Shove that up your USB port.
Posted by: Clare | August 6, 2008 3:53 PM
#40
See this recent article in Science for a rebuttal of the Pinkeresque view:
DIVERSITY: Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance
Janet S. Hyde, Sara M. Lindberg, Marcia C. Linn, Amy B. Ellis, and Caroline C. Williams. Science 25 July 2008 321: 494-495
Posted by: Wookster | August 6, 2008 3:59 PM
JBlilie @ #37: " I think some of it is genetic and some of it is cultural. "
Seriously? You were goin' along great and then BAM, you let Summers take over your brain for a while. Show me a study showing an ability gap that controls for cultural differences in the ways that boys and girls are raised before you fall in line with that "genetic differences" crap.
Posted by: Carlie | August 6, 2008 4:00 PM
This is a really touchy subject for me right now. I'm teaching in a girls' science camp this week. The local paper did a nice little story. In the online version, there was one comment on it that said it was sexist to let only girls in. I wrote and posted a reply comment explaining how women have been historically been disadvantaged in science, added a few references to journal articles on the subject as well as a link to AWIS, and wrote that as a teacher in the camp, our goals are to provide positive role models in science for the girls as societal pressures still push girls out of hard science fields.
My comment got deleted.
I emailed the paper's online division to find out why; I'm interested to see what they say.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 6, 2008 4:04 PM
Um, no.
1. Science, engineering and technical careers do not just draw from the upper tail of any putative skill distribution.
2. Reducing a multifaceted thing like mathematical ability to a single dimension is a crime against reason.
3. In some countries, girls have