Why do young women lose interest in science?

[SouthernDem2006]

We have all seen the commercials. Whats the deal?

[BlueBerry Pick'n]

I didn't, but I think its 'LITERALLY' peer pressure.

look how many girls are interested in science since Xfiles & CSI?

[Shrub_Out]

I didn't, but I think its 'LITERALLY' peer pressure.

look how many girls are interested in science since Xfiles & CSI?
Has to be some kind of conditioning, at least in the States. (I wonder what the figures are in other countries?)

I find it interesting, however, that roughly 70% or so of the women I advise every summer are either in a health-career training program (nursing, radiography, occupational therapy, nuclear medicine, etc.) or are pending acceptance into it. To be accepted into the any of these programs, you have to have had at least one semester of physics and two semesters of human anatomy and physiology. (All of these sciences, btw, name at least a semester of college-level algebra or calculus as pre-reqs.)

Either these women have overcome that lost interest in science or are completely clueless as to what you have to know in order to enter any health profession. My hopes are on the former possibility. :)

[webhead]

Left brain v. right brain?

I think the way in which the brain is wired, that is the part of the brain in which activity takes place that allows for greater ability in one area rather than another area. Subjective v. Objective. Facts v. creativity. Paint by numbers v. free hand. Baking v. cooking.

[KyndCulture]

I've never lost interest in science.

[Shrub_Out]

Left brain v. right brain?

I think the way in which the brain is wired, that is the part of the brain in which activity takes place that allows for greater ability in one area rather than another area. Subjective v. Objective. Facts v. creativity. Paint by numbers v. free hand. Baking v. cooking.
In women's brains, the corpus callosum (tissue that connects both hemispheres), is more developed, allowing easier usage of both halves.

[webhead]

In women's brains, the corpus callosum (tissue that connects both hemispheres), is more developed, allowing easier usage of both halves.
No wonder my daughter does so well in all subjects. And all this time I thought it was generation skip.

[KyndCulture]

In women's brains, the corpus callosum (tissue that connects both hemispheres), is more developed, allowing easier usage of both halves.

That's exactly right. That's why I am a technical programmer and an artist.

Two thing that don't go together often.

[Mr.Dude]

Has to be some kind of conditioning.
It must be. Here's question for the ladies:

Since science is all about understanding the universe that surrounds you, did any of your science teachers ever inspire in you a desire to learn more or did they try to make it the dullest, boringest most convoluted subject so that you would rather stick your head in the deep frier in the cafeteria kitchen than spend one minute on the homework?

Or did you get info from your peers that warned you that was what science was really like so you avoided it by taking another elective?

The few ladies I had in physics in college were all very bright but only one of them seemed to enjoy the material for its own sake. But ladies only made up about 10% of all my classes, so I've assumed that high-schools and grade schools practice some form of aversion therapy.

[fairyduster]

I've never lost interest in science.

Science is life. Everything and everyone revolves around it.

I tested in the top 2% in the US. Whatever that means. :shrug:

[talidapali]

To answer the question...most of my science teachers subtly but actively discouraged girls in their classes from trying to succeed. Even in my college level classes, the teachers would try to brush me off when I had questions still about the materials they covered. I was a snotty bitch and made them answer question after question until I understood the material to MY satisfaction. Hell, my tuition was paying their salary...they owed me.

[Zemo]

Science is life. Everything and everyone revolves around it.

I tested in the top 2% in the US. Whatever that means. :shrug:

Smarty pants [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Zemo]

My school made science so boring.
I was a math major and any interest I had for science I developed after leaving school.
Had to study physics for my minor degree in elect. engineering.

[GymGeekAus]

Science, schmyance!

[Mr.Dude]

I tested in the top 2% in the US. Whatever that means.
It means you are dangerous. You have a brain and aren't afraid to use it.

[BlueBerry Pick'n]

Has to be some kind of conditioning, at least in the States. (I wonder what the figures are in other countries?)

I find it interesting, however, that roughly 70% or so of the women I advise every summer are either in a health-career training program (nursing, radiography, occupational therapy, nuclear medicine, etc.) or are pending acceptance into it. To be accepted into the any of these programs, you have to have had at least one semester of physics and two semesters of human anatomy and physiology. (All of these sciences, btw, name at least a semester of college-level algebra or calculus as pre-reqs.)

Either these women have overcome that lost interest in science or are completely clueless as to what you have to know in order to enter any health profession. My hopes are on the former possibility. :)

is it possible we're generalizing in this case? Let's flip this idea on its ear. I'll take an example from the Carole Gilligan controversy ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). (wow, this became a bit funny, I found it misshelved between Desmond Morris' Catlore & Elephants Can Dance. *doh* I might have been a bit whimical that day... hum...

anyway, I'll quote the whole passage to help you understand how we may, in fact, be attributing or denotating status to behaviours which are either socially or hormonally differentiated.


At a time when efforts are being made to eradicate discrimination between the sexes in the search for soccial equality and justice, the differences etween the sexes are being rediscovered by the social sciences. This discovery occurs when theories formerly consdered to be sexually neutral in their scientific objectivity are found instread to reflect a consistent observtional and evaluative bias. Then the presuemed neutrality of science, like that of language itself, gives way to the recognition that the categories of knowledge are human constructions. The fascination with point of view that has informed the fiction of the twentieth century and the correspoinding recongition of the relativity of judgement infuse our scientific understanding as well when we begin to notice how accustomed we have become to seeing life through men's eyes.

A recent discovery[/I] (margin note: Gilligan published in '82)
, of this sort pertains to the apparently innocent classic The Elements of Style by William Strunk & E.B. White. A Supreme Court ruling on the subject of sex discriminiation led on eteacher of English to notice that the elementary rules of English usage were being taught through examples with countposed the birth of Napoleon, the writings of Coleridge, and statements such as "He was an interesting talker. A man who had travelled all over the world and lived in half a dozen countries," with "Well, Susan, this is a fine mess you're in" or, less drastically, "He saw a woman, accompanied by two children, walking slowly down the road." ...
Thus a problem in theory became cast as a problem in women's devlopment, and the problem in women's development was located in their expeience of relationships. Nancy Chodororow (1974), attempting to account for "the reproduction within each generation of certain general and nearly universal differences that characteriZe masculine and feminine peronality and roles," attributes these differences between the sexes not to anatomy but rather to "the fact that women, universally, are largely respponsible for early child care." Because the early social environment differes for and is experienced differently by male and female children, baic sex differences recur in personality development. As a result, "in tany given society, feminine personality comes to define itself in relation and connection to other people more than masculine personality does."

In her analysis, Chodorow relies primarily on Robert Stoller's studies which indicate that gender identiy, the unchanging core of personality formation, is "with rare exception firmly and irreversibly established for both sexes by the time a child is around three."Given that for both sexes the primary caretaker in the first three years of life is typically female, the interpersonal dynamics of gender identiy formation are different for boys and girls. Female identity formation takes place in a context of ongoing relationship since "mothers tend to experience their daughters as more like, and continuous with themselves." In a Different Voice ([Only registered and activated users can see links]).

[Mr.Dude]

is it possible we're generalizing in this case?

Yes, but the question posed is a valid one. Since science is the search for truth and there are fewer women as percentage in the sciences than their percentage of the general population, are women being discouraged, directly or indirectly(through the teachers actions or peer pressure, etc.), from pursuing the sciences?

My belief is that science overall is being made to seem difficult to discourage students overall. Socially it does not receive any credit. In fact it is often thought of as a breeding place for "Nerds." Does that social slur keep people from pursuing it?

This country does not graduate enough scientists and engineers to keep up with the demand. We are losing this vital piece of our educational future. We may end up as a nation of consumers, unable to understand the technology beyond the marketing information we receive about it.

[BlueBerry Pick'n]

to restate my point: why do we presume some traits & behaviours are more valuable to society than others?

is not social cohesion & other 'hormonally correlated' cognitive traits an equally valuable skill?

perhaps the emphasis that women be MORE like men is a misdirection, in that it de-emphasizes that which is equally appropriate to a variety of people.

we seem to presume that middle class professional values should apply to everyone...

should they? :hug:

[Mr.Dude]

to restate my point: why do we presume some traits & behaviours are more valuable to society than others?

is not social cohesion & other 'hormonally correlated' cognitive traits an equally valuable skill?

perhaps the emphasis that women be MORE like men is a misdirection, in that it de-emphasizes that which is equally appropriate to a variety of people.

we seem to presume that middle class professional values should apply to everyone...

should they? :hug:
You're quite right about all of this. But my point was not about what "society wants" but rather, just in general, when woman are forced to take science(like in gradeschool and highschool), do they receive/perceive social and societal pressures that discourage them from even considering further study of the subject? If women do not want to follow up on science, that is perfectally all right. But I was attempting to assess how much they were being discouraged by the system when science was a required, not an elected subject.

I can understand anyone not wanting to take science. I was discouraged mightily in highschool. Then one day a student taking Physics couldn't understand the question, so I looked at it. I immediately understood it and that set me off. Yet if teachers actively make the subject dull, boring, convoluted and just plain difficult, I can't imagine anyone taking it, regardless of love of the subject.