With an SAT score of 710 in math and all honors classes from a prestigious college-prep high school, I should have been poised to do well as a physics and math double major at the University of Chicago in the early eighties. Maybe having female teachers might have made a difference. There certainly weren't any back then. I'd never had any in high school, so I don't think that was really the problem. At least in high school the classes were balanced between girls and boys. In college, I was one of two girls in a class of fifty. It was lonely and intimidating. If I asked a question, would the professor be annoyed at the clueless female? If I studied with a classmate, inevitably he wanted to know what it was like to kiss me. After my sophomore year I gave up and majored in English. Then I ended up doing research in ophthalmology. I'm probably the only English major who has ever used trigonometry on the job.

If we want more female mathematicians and scientists, perhaps we should encourage women's colleges to place more emphasis on those fields.

Opthalmology is one of the most lucrative fields in medicine. If we make no effort to increase the number of women science proffessors smart girls will grow up to be rich medical doctors instead of poor scientists? Is that the point of your story? Or did you just want to share your irrational college insecurities with the group?

Ha! My experience is the opposite it would seem. I got very low SAT scores in math, and about a 750 on the verbal. I went into undergrad in 2000 thinking I would major in science and do pre-law, and then do patent law as a career (a friend of mine actually did this and now makes a looot more money than I do). But then I took organic chem and fell in love-- and took physical chem and fell even more in love, and decided to try the grad school thing. Despite my very low GPA, I was accepted at the Stony Brook University chem dept, and got a PhD in chemistry in 2008. The experience I had applying various spectroscopic techniques to biological (protein) samples was unique and got me several publications, and thus I got offers from all the postdoctoral positions I applied for (including University of Tokyo, Boston University, and Georgia Tech), even though I graduated in the middle of an economic collapse. I have every intention of sticking to an academic track, seeing as I don't really care about owning a fancy car (I like to bike), having a huge house, or eating out every single night; I mostly just want to be able to afford the occasional scifi novel, food (for cooking myself), and rent. These things are quite affordable on my current salary, I have no complaints--- and I get to take a stab at curing (brain) cancer, which is kind of a personal goal for me.

mav62, as a male undergraduate (original major was physics) at the university of chicago from the late 80s, i can tell you that most of us (me and my very, very few science and math major friends) were lonely and intimidated. i really think that is the chicago experience. i still feel intimidated all these years later, and i ended up with a phd in isotope geochemistry and a job as a professor myself. but, i agree with you that more female profs and high school teachers are needed! the impacts on women would be profound.

great story! good luck with your post-doc and future career!

I think more female science and math teachers in high school would be a huge help.

The percentage of male students who start in science or math and change to non-scientific majors is also huge. The key is to get more female students into the hopper at the beginning of the process and then ensure there are enough female mentors for the upper level undergrad courses and female thesis advisors for the grad students.

I don't think the sex of the professor matters much for the intro courses, which are usually huge, dull, and often graded with a curve designed to shake out the less dedicated aspiring scientists and mathematicians.

Then again, maybe that is part of the problem, too. Given all of the funding that science programs bring to the university, why is it that the average intro liberal arts class will have between 15 and 50 people while the average into science class is usually at least 50 and often in the hundreds. Learning would be a whole lot more personal and interesting with smaller class sizes.

Exactly!

If women do better when taught by women, then let's prove it by making all-women's colleges better. If women do not like to be in colleges that were successful when they were places founded by white guys for the benefit of white guys, then create something for women. Why should women be in institutions that are not created for their needs? Or why, for that matter, should men be in institutions that may need to be modified to their detriment for the benefit of women?

If this research right, single sex institutions will be better. If the research is wrong, we will know. Besides, if there are no men around, then they can't be blamed if things don't work out for women. if men are oppresing women, then women shouldn't want to be around them.

And maybe this will be better for men. The "reforms" of modern education seem to be getting us worse outcomes for men. We certainly seem to be having a harder time training the engineers we need than we did 40 years ago.

Just to clarify, I am not an ophthalmologist. I did research in ophthalmology, working for a consulting firm. I designed studies, analyzed data, wrote papers, and edited textbooks. How much money I made is irrelevant. I wanted to be a theoretical physicist, so I guess I would have rather been a poor scientist than a middle-class one.

Well, I understand your initial post, even if here2help did not. I can share my experience...

I was initimidated out of a math degree when I could not find anyone to help me in linear algebra theorems, as I missed the first week of class and was literally "left behind." There was a sink-or-swim culture which undergrads subscribed to as well, with the idea that if you need help, you may be in the wrong field. Classmates were not willing/able to explain things, the grad student tutor had his own work to do. I had to find classes which I could keep up with the fast pace and self-study.

How would I do it again? I would have liked someone to tell me at age 18 that I need to speak up for myself, find a faculty member who wants to be an advisor (not check off the advising duty once a term), and go up to and talk to faculty and grad students involved in the classes I enjoyed. This was something I had a hard time doing, especially at a large place like Cornell, especially when everything else in my life changed by being there, and I had to learn how to function in that new environment. That may not be a uniquely female problem, but not an uncommon one either.

And so how does a new university student find a mentor? How does one female professor mentor the 300 aspiring students? Placing an importance on individal interactions and effective teaching is a great start; creating good learning environments outside the massive lecture hall is also a great idea; switching to problem-based learning involving senior faculty, grad students and undergrads together may help; maybe selecting for colleges which make quality teaching a demonstrable priority with special "mentoring funding" can get the topic some needed attention.

its always amusing these issues are brought up so consistently in a one sided manner.

<link> [uaf.edu] it is amusing the language/reading gap that favors women is just accepted, when under the same viewpoint it should mean that boys are horribly discriminated against when it comes to that aspect of education!! look at the gpas, women outperform men in many areas other than mathematics. are we to conclude that men are being highly discriminated against as well? that is the logical conclusion from such thinking. "Grades: That females receive higher grades in virtually every subject is undisputed. In reviewing the literature on gender differences in cognitive tests, for the flagship journal of the field, American Psychologist, Halpern (1997, p. 1102) points out that "higher grades in school, all or most subjects" is an area of unquestioned female advantage. Another recent, comprehensive review of the research literature on gender differences in school performance comes to the same conclusion: Data from a wide variety of sources and educational settings show that females in all ethnic groups tend to earn higher grades in school than do males, across different ages and eras, and across different subject matter disciplines. Many researchers in past times and today consider this to be such an obvious fact that they treat it as axiomatic....Modern reviews of the subject are unanimous in their finding of higher grades for females (Dwyer & Johnson, 1997, pp. 128-129)." "Class Rank and Honors: Since girls receive higher grades in school, they should also surpass boys in class rank. This is exactly what happens. Examining gender differences in high school class rank and honors in a nationally representative sample from the 1970s, Adelman (1991, p. 3) makes this point, "No matter how one slices the high school class of 1972, women's mean class rank exceeded that of men by a minimum of 10 points." Caucasian women attained, on the average, the highest class rank (67th percentile), while African-American men attained, on the average the lowest class rank (44th percentile). African-American women ranked far higher (56th percentile) than African-American men. The same pattern of female advantage in grades and honors shows up in the 1990s, in a nationally representative longitudinal study of the high school class of 1992 (NELS Second Follow-up, cited in Dwyer & Johnson, 1997, p. 139). In the academic arena, high school girls outdistanced boys in making the honor roll, in getting elected to a class office, and in receiving writing awards and other academic honors. In the academic arena, boys outdistanced women in vocational-technical honors and in awards in science and mathematics competitions. While males are still ahead in gaining mathematics and science honors, females are making strong gains. From 1995-1998, close to 40 percent of the winners of the most prestigious science competition, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, were female (Science Service, 1998). The Westinghouse Science Talent Search requires high school students to complete a project in science, mathematics, and engineering and submit a report communicating the results. The work goes on over many months, often with the assistance of a parent, teacher, or other researcher. The contest is notable for producing winners who later go on to win a Nobel Prize. Westinghouse finalists from the 1940s through the 1970s were overwhelmingly male. The number of females among the top 40 finalists has increased since the 1980s and is approaching parity (Table 2)." all this hand wringing over women is clearly missing the real problem eh?

more proof the bias in education is against men. <link> [bbc.co.uk] Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of UK university achievement, according to a report from higher education researchers.

until such things are addressed i'll take the complaining about women in this or that with a large grain of salt.

Many pundits don't realize that most women's colleges are overwhelmingly interested in math and science, sometimes to the detriment of their overall educational program. "Improving women in the sciences" is one of the easiest grants to write, as the government and private donors (including nearly every national scientific professional association or society) are devoting huge resources to this area. In my own academic experience (as teacher and administrator) I've seen that most science departments are almost desperate to hire women, even, at non-top-tier institutions, women who are clearly less qualified. And while scientists are often sexist or boorish--they tend to have little understanding of or training in culture, "soft skills", or the like--the worst cases are retiring and being replaced by younger people who came up understanding sexual harassment. In short, there are a lot of tired arguments being advanced, arguments based on the way things were 25 years ago for the Baby Boomers. It's not like that so much anymore.

The real story is twofold: we have a lot more mediocre students and a lot more mediocre colleges to serve them these days. And a lot of students, especially the mediocre ones, just aren't interested.

This is partly owing to the work involved and partly to a teen's inability to conceptualize the future. It's also the result of a fuzzy understanding of career paths. Even academics can't often explain "what you do" in the sciences, other than become an academic. But everyone knows what a doctor or lawyer does (note that despite "shortages" in the sciences, we still have a glut of doctors). So that's what the kids go after, especially the less-talented ones, since they've been told since birth that they can do anything and have no idea of the increasingly poor financial prospects for second-rate doctors and especially lawyers. Right about the time this becomes apparent, it's childbearing time, which suddenly seems like a lot more attractive option. Getting on the mommy track, even for a little while, has a huge opportunity cost for scientific and professional jobs. You can reenter the workforce, but you'll probably end up being a purchasing manager or something. (And who sets out to do that?)

If you really want more women in the sciences--outside of academia--persuade them not to have kids. It's not about sexism by the time you hit your early thirties. It's about competition, and if a kid will get a competitor out of a man's way, he'll jump on that (as will childless women).

More women who have gotten their PhD's in the sciences did their undergraduate work at Mount Holyoke than any other institution (regardless of size). Being that Mount Holyoke is the first women's college in the USA, I think that says it all.