Everywhere we hear about massive gender bias against women in fields like physics, technology
and engineering. But what if it's just not true? That's coming up next on the Factual
Feminist. There's a class at Harvard called Math 55, which is advertised in the catalog
as "probably the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country." Math 55 does not
look like America. Each year as many as 50 students sign up, but at least half drop out
within a few weeks. In 2006 the final roster was "45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian,
100 percent male." Some annoyed reader of the Crimson added "And all virgins." As a
rule, women tend to gravitate to fields such as education, English, psychology, biology,
and art history, while men are much more numerous in physics, mathematics, computer science,
and engineering. Why? Unfortunately, there's no simple answer. When professors were asked
why there was a relative scarcity of female pro¬fessors in math, science, and engineering,
1% believed it was due to women's lack of talent in those areas. 24% believed it was
because of sexist discrimination, and 74% chalked it up to differences between men's
and women's interests. Let's delve into each of these explanations. Only 1% said scarcity
of talent. I am surprised ANYONE agreed with that --even to a pollster. These days it is
politically radioactive to deny that everyone is good at everything and that no one is better
than anyone else. But consider this inconvenient finding: According to an analysis performed
by my colleague Mark Perry, for every 100 girls who score 700 points or higher on the
math section of the SAT, 184 boys do the same. The SAT performance gap suggests there may
be more boys at the highest levels, but it doesn't adequately explain the dearth of women
in Math 55 or university physics and engineering. There are still many gifted females who could
succeed in mathematics or computer science, even if the pool is somewhat smaller. So let's
consider the second possibility: sexist discrimination. This is hugely popular with some women's groups.
Over the past decade or so, there has been an avalanche of literature claiming women
face hostile environments in the math, tech and engineering programs. Here's the first
problem with all of this. Why is there so much alleged discrimination in math and engineering,
but not in biological sciences or agriculture or veterinary medicine or law-- where women
are flourishing? There are indeed many studies that purport to show bias against women. But
when anyone outside the STEM-equity universe reviews them, they turn out to be flawed or
sometimes, shamelessly slanted. So let's turn to the third possibility: different interests.
There's a lot of evidence that men and women, taken as groups, have somewhat different propensities,
aspirations. Women earn more PhDs than men in the humanities, social sciences, education
and life sciences—but men prevail by large numbers in engineering, physics, and computer
science. Does sex role stereotyping or patriarchy explain these choices—or could it just be
in the pursuit of happiness, men and women take slightly different paths? When asked
on a vocational preference test how you would prefer to spend your time, more men than women
say they would enjoy manipulating tools or taking apart a machines. Women are more likely
to say they would prefer to working with people and other living things. And here is one last
intriguing finding. Male and female math prodigies they differ in a significant different way:
Males are more likely to have what's called an asymmetrical cognitive profile. That means
that their proficiency at math is not accompanied by a proficiency in verbal expression. On
the other hand, females who are gifted in math are often just as gifted in verbal expression.
That gives them more career prospects that the gifts men don't have. My guess is that
girls with the talent for Math 55 are just too interested in other pursuits to spend
most of their week on linear algebra. Well what do you think? Are there any explanations
I may have missed? Please leave your answers and questions in the comments section. Follow
me on Twitter and Facebook. Thank you for watching the Factual Feminist.