Official Comment Count: 1,034,701

Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine focusing in Neuroscience. He is due to graduate in 2032. He received a BS and a MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University -- where he spent most of his time drinking heavily and building vegetable catapults instead of learning information that would now be eminently useful. When he is not failing terrifically to perform his sworn duties, he enjoys watching bad movies, ethnic food, and running.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

Jake is joined periodically by two wonderful guest bloggers: Kara Contreary and Kate Seip. See the About Page.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own or those of my co-bloggers. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments we currently attend.

Search this blog

Archives

Blogroll


raptor.jpg

« Penis Transplant Rejected (Psychologically By Wife) | Main | University of Georgia Starts Project for Free Wiki Textbooks »

Gender Disparity in Academia Destined for Reversal

Category: Gender
Posted on: September 19, 2006 6:04 PM, by Jake Young

I have talked repeatedly here about how I don't think that genetics provide an adequate explanation of the gender disparity in science. I haven't mentioned that this gender disparity does not overly disturb me, primarily because I think that some time in the next 10 years this is going to get fixed in profound way. Here is some demographic evidence why women will soon surpass men in science and more generally in academia:

Girls have long gotten better grades than boys in all levels of school. But while at one time few women used those academic skills to get degrees, new research suggests that growing incentives are helping draw women to college in record numbers.

That helps explain why, since 1982, women have outpaced men in college graduation rates. In 2004, women received 58 percent of all bachelor's degrees in the United States, compared to only 35 percent in 1960.


"What has changed is that more women are now using their longstanding academic advantages and translating them into college degrees," said Claudia Buchmann, co-author of the studies and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University.

"In the 1960s and 70s, girls were getting better grades, but many young women were not going to college, or they were dropping out of college to get married. Now the benefits of a college education are growing faster for women than they are for men, and women are taking advantage."

Buchmann conducted the research with Thomas DiPrete, professor of sociology at Columbia University . Their results appear in the August 2006 issue of the American Sociological Review, and the February 2006 issue of Demography.

In the ASR article, the researchers examined data about students from around the country participating in the National Education Longitudinal Study. These were students born in 1973-74, who were college age in 1992. They were followed through 2000.

The researchers found that girls did better academically than boys in both 8th grade and in high school. Still, boys were just as likely as girls to enroll in a four-year college (52 percent of girls in the sample, compared to 51 percent of boys). But women were significantly more likely to graduate. Overall, 63 percent of women who enrolled in four-year colleges graduated, compared to 55 percent of men. (Emphasis mine.)

Precisely because I think there is much evidence for genetics playing a large role in performance in science, I think this problem is going to rapidly take care of itself. In a generation, men are going to be the minority of college graduates, and I have every reason to believe the minority among scientists.

It is going to be somewhat interesting to see whether affirmative action policies will be enforced when the roles are reversed. Somehow I doubt it. Maybe then we can finally get to the business of judging the quality of scientists by their science and not their demographic characteristics.

Comments

I would be happy to see such a reversal, but I am afraid I don't follow you. You claim that genetics ought not play a major role (to dismiss that men are better than women), but shouldn't you also dismiss that women are better than men? Shouldn't you be predicting a 50-50 split?

Also, not all college graduates are science majors, are they?

Posted by: Koray | September 19, 2006 7:23 PM

I don't think it's genetics, either. My feeling is that the combination of outreach ("affirmative action" plus less extreme forms of encouragement) and perhaps cultural change among college students and potential college students (guys getting too lazy and complacent, maybe? Maybe academic stuff isn't "manly" enough any more?)

As to the latter possibility, all I can say is *I'm* secure about who I am...

Posted by: SMC | September 19, 2006 7:38 PM

men are going to be the minority of college graduates, and I have every reason to believe the minority among scientists.

1) women might drop out of science earlier
2) there might still be variation as you ascend up the ranks, with women being dominant in the less prestigous domains and men dominating the plum jobs
3) women are the majority of law students, and have just become the majority of medical students. but it is a long way for them to attain parity in say mechanical engineering graduate programs. i have no expectation that accusations of gender bias will disappear until women attain parity of plum jobs in mechanical engineering, which we are very far from

Posted by: razib | September 19, 2006 8:29 PM

dang dude.. aren't you burned out on matisyahu yet?

p.s. i recently moved up here. wanna have a cup of coffee sometime? ht me up.

Posted by: coffee mug | September 20, 2006 10:26 AM

Yeah, women are going to take over math-based fields like we've taken over medicine, law, languages, psychology, and all the other non math-based fields. When are we going to do it? As soon as we get what this NAS committee recommends. More government outreach and funds, more money for women from foundations, more money from industry to fund scholarships for women in math, physics, CS, and Engineering, and better versions of the SAT and GRE that stop making top-level males come out better than us. The Fields medal committee discriminates against women too. It's all going to change soon.

Posted by: Buffy | September 20, 2006 5:06 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most Active

  1. Those crazy Brits 10.13.2008 · PZ Myers
  2. If McCain loses, God's Reputation Will Suffer 10.13.2008 · Ed Brayton
  3. How low will he sink? 10.12.2008 · PZ Myers
  4. McCain on Negative Attack Ads 10.13.2008 · Ed Brayton
  5. On racial discomfort and blogger diversity 10.13.2008 · DrugMonkey

Search All Blogs