Discussion on:

Study shows pervasive gender bias in science

If you were to choose different male and female names, I would bet that the results could be closer together, if not reversed. Would an "Elizabeth" or "Margaret" have fared better, perhaps? Suppose the male name was of the diminutive sort, say "Johnny" instead of "John"?

This certainly seems to be a valid study, and I would like to see hiring managers all over the country made aware of it.

Fair point, but personally I doubt it would have skewed the wage offer by anything like 13%.

Laura, you are living proof of this. Ask for a raise.

Don Jose de La Mancha

... "I am in favor of gender equality because the human race can ill afford to ignore half its brainpower."

There are clear differences well demonstrated scientifically between the workings of male and female brains. Then there are the cultural templates that produce even greater differences in behavioral patterns and responses. Women in general, are more subjective, less detail oriented, less critical, and consequently less capable analytically. For example Laura our author. Experimental sample size? Significance of results unknowable without knowing sample size. Apparently SP in general is female oriented, because there are always insufficient details in their articles.

The results I've seen say the following:
Women are more objective, more detail oriented, and more critical, often to a fault. Frequently, when they pursue such interests, they are better at math, sciences, and engineering as a result. However, because they are more detail oriented, and more critical, they tend to be harder on themselves than men which affects their abilities.

Maybe you should stop looking at 60 year old biased studies and look at something a little more recent.

Hi,

You're correct that this was a small sample size: 127 respondents. However, given that we know that the gender gap in STEM subjects is particularly bad in certain countries (like the United States), whereas in other countries, girls perform just as well as or outperform boys, it does seem that gender differences in performance in our country are not due to innate differences. And those country-wide performance scores are definitely from sample sizes where you can be sure of statistical significance! http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/06/evidence_persists_of_stem_achi.html

Laura

Like question and no answers? Or do you like questions with no answers?

They all have answers it's just in this day and age of 'PC'. people don't like 'actual answers or reasons for behavior so it's always 'a problem' in search of Funding or a 'study'. but no 'conclusions' wanted or desired! You can spend more money that way or get more money spent that way!

Well the answers have been there for generations but the answer to this conundrum that I first became familiar with was that of Stephen Goldberg of the City College of New York back in the '80's.

Here's the answer: (both available on Amazon)

'The Inevitability of Patriarchy' and
'Why Men Rule'

He thinks that 'Diversity' in the sexes is a good thing kinda like 'Choice'.

To distill it down for you in a nutshell:

"When girls move in guys move out... It's a 'guy thing'"

Now if you were 'religious'... say a 'Christian' you might say it's a result of 'The Fall', i.e. the human 'sin nature' correspondingly where women can be catty..

Not as intended from the start but still the 'fallen result of' a 'dichotomy' that was built or 'designed' in originally, that's a 'good thing' if it was all guys or gals I would not be here to write about it and you would not be here to criticize it!

As the Frehch say Viva La Difference! Even if we dont understand each other, or think tht guys should be more like girls and vice versa. Well we arent and Im Glad!!!

So now you know The Answer and will never have to ask again, when women find something desirable men wont and they leave for some other area of the Bat Cave that has not been invaded yet.

Men need Space and Women need Connection to solve their problems or to recharge their collective batteries to once again enjoin the battle of the sexes or just to take some needed 'R&R.

You Go Girl!

A 2011 study looking at the income disparity between men and women STEM graduates 5 years after graduation found that schools tended to encourage women graduates into lower paying non industry jobs, like elementary and high school teaching.

While encouraging male graduates into higher paying industry jobs that subsequently set them up to get better paying teaching jobs in universities after they gain practical experience the women usually lacked.

When that study compared the income of men and women who made similar job decisions the 5 year incomes were equal with any differences found being performance based. The better employee, male or female, got paid more.

So the study you cite compared SIMILAR-DECISION males and females, and found similar wage results?

But did you forget what you said just before that? That men and women were "encouraged" to take different (and differently-paid) jobs?

In such a regime, I'd expect to see women "encouraged" into relative poverty, compared to men. Wouldn't you? An "encouragement" rapidly reinforced by their "lack of skills" from NOT being on the male track -- as you very competently pointed out.

The overall study found women were paid significantly less on average. However, they did find opportunities for direct comparison.

As with any group of people, a handful of the women went against the advice of their professors and guidance councilors and went into industry fields after graduation.

Those handful of women are the ones the study looked closer at and found no pay discrepancy that was not accounted for by performance raises. With that decision being equal the women were paid just as well as the men.

There were also a relative few number of men who went straight into teaching after graduation, against the schools advice, that saw the same low salaries as the women encouraged to go into teaching.

When the carrier paths were the same the pay was the same. Bottom line, New male teachers were not paid more than new female teachers. The same in industry.

The pay difference was driven by the carrier path chosen. Which the schools were influencing to the detriment of women.

This study confirms that bias in schools.

"A study shows that women are up against a huge obstacle when it comes to working in science: They are consistently perceived as less accomplished and capable simply because of their gender."

Really?

My oldest duaghter attended a male-dominated private university, one that specializes in aeronautical engineering. She graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Honors program, and the only one in her graduating class to receive her particular degree, a BS in Physical Science Education. One subject didn't even have a class, so she met with the professor for that one. She received paid internships from the Argonne National Laboritory and from TCU, doing stuff that's way over my head. She now teaches high school physics in New York, after tutoring chemistry, calculus, and physics at the local community college.

Her older brother degreed in Electrical Engineering at the top ten ranked enormous state university. There, the Women in Engineering program coddled and hand-held all the women engineering students, giving them special treatment, and leaving the men to carry on for themselves..

In my limited study, with a sample set of two, I find gender bias in science and engineering... in favor of women.

I would imagine your experience with you children has a powerful impact on you. Both of your children sound as though they are very gifted. I have had similar powerful experiences as an organizational effectiveness consultant. I consult with most of the Fortune 500 companies to improve their bottom line. In the twenty years I have been doing this work I have come across all kinds of bias that adversely impact how effective these organizations can be. I remember sitting in on an executive meeting of a large technology company that needed to decide on who to select for an important lead research scientist position. There was a candidate who was clearly the best (according to the decision makers), but she was a woman. They were concerned that if they selected her it would appear that she was selected because she was a woman and not because she was the strongest candidate. They almost did not select her for this reason. I was amazed. I asked the decision makers, "what is the impact on your business if you do not select this woman?" They selected her. It was a scary decision making process to watch.