"Most institutions of higher learning, except engineering schools, now have a female edge, with many small liberal arts colleges and huge public universities alike hovering near the 60-40 ratio. Even Harvard, long a male bastion, has begun to tilt toward women."

Before this goes into a larger discussion three quick questions:

What constitutes a institution of higher learning? Are we talking Associate degrees? State schools? Private or Public college? Online degrees?

What defines an engineering school?

What age group are we comparing here?

Only Tamar Lewin, the author of the article in The New York Times, can answer your question since she is the one who made the statement.

My own interpretation, based upon my own experience and the references she cites in the article, is that an institution of higher learning is a two- or four-year college with some manner of accreditation and ability to confer a degree. Those degrees range from a two-year associates degree to a four year bachelors degree at both private and public college. It is not clear whether online degrees are included in the referenced studies or in the comments made by others in Ms. Lewin's article. Finally, as far as I can tell, the studies do not reference age since matriculation at institutions of higher learning do not have age limits.

If you would be so kind to reply, what bearing might those answers have on the fact that, as a demographic group in the United States, college women are excelling on campus and in all manner of professional endeavors EXCEPT engineering? There is an enormously important issue (and opportunity!) here that has implications for all.

In the U.S., the economic value of a non-technical degree has declined in recent years. We need to encourage all of our young people to explore fields such as engineering. Full disclosure: I'm a graduate of a small, liberal arts college. And I struggled early on in my career.

Maybe this an urban legend, but I've heard that a certain state university in the American Midwest graduates more Communications majors each year than there are jobs in communications. If this is true, then something is terribly, terribly wrong.

Moose,

The graduate with the Sience degree asks, "Why does it work?" The graduate with the Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?" The graduate with the Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?" The graduate with a Liberal Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

Unfortunate---but true in these times.

There's much wisdom in that one, misplayed. Ah, to know now what I didn't know at age 17!

Moose

Actually, Moose, I take exception to misplayed's comment but I won't make it political grist as "dubya" has done with John Kerry's poorly executed attempt at humor.

Our strength comes from our diversity and we do need graduates with a strong grounding in liberal arts. It just seems to me that things are out of kilter.

To your point, do we need to find a way to impress upon 17 year olds (or younger) that the educational choices they make at that age will deeply affect the quality of their lives? If so, how? Surely there are better minds than mine who have tried to address this issue already...at least, I hope so!

The line "...our strength lies in our diversity..." is patently false, and that should be easy to see just by reading the phrase while bearing in mind the definitions of the words. It would be more correctly stated, "...our strength lies in our [excellence, knowledge, subject mastery, curiosity...pick any similar term]..." The idea that combining a bunch of different things automatically improves whatever the outcome might be has no basis in fact and is, indeed, proven false by many examples which may be found in nature and in man's endeavors. This is not to say that a diverse mixture is inherently weaker than homogeneity, but a society's strength does not lie in diversity per se.

I don't want to get involved in the politics of liberal/conservative, traditional/new age, or any other argument of this sort; I just think that we should be a bit more careful about voicing various platitiudes here. Thank you all for your time.

How about, "Our strength lies in the synergy of our diversity." (Assuming there is some!)

Will that work?

The reason that women don't enter engineering is because they are smart and know that it doesnt pay well in comparison to other fields such as legal and medical.

Can you substantiate your point, Guest? I not only think you are wrong but I think your assertion is damaging.

10-4 to you guest. I fully agree in fact the best thing I can say of my engineering degree is I knew better than to let my daughter make the same mistake

How sad that you consider your engineering a mistake; so much so that you share such a comment publicly.

What was it that you found so lacking or distasteful in your engineering education?

And would that be a statement you would share with a son as well as your daughter?

There are a lot of older, bitter, engineers out there who did not advance in their careers as they had expected to or been led to believe they would by guidance counselors , engineering academics, mentors, etc.

They look at many of their peers who were equally talented (or even less so), but who chose what ended up being more financially lucrative careers in law, medicine, computers, etc. or even other engineers who went into marketing, or got promoted to management, and said, "Why not me?"

So it is possibly a case of "sour grapes".

I admit, I sometimes have a taste of the "sour grapes" myself, but I still believe that an engineering education is one of the best that one can receive, especially at the undergraduate level, as compared to a more general "college education" or the so-called "liberal arts".

However, the main point is are you happy doing what you do, and secondarily, can you provide for yourself and/or your family satisfactorily doing that. If the answer to either is NO, then you should look for another career for yourself. However, that does NOT mean that the same education cannot be fulfilling for someone else and should be discouraged.

My own father was an Engineer who did quite well, early in career at least, becoming an executive in a Manufacturing company. However, as parents often do, he wanted "better" for his kids, so encourage us to consider professions in Law or Computers, the next "Big" thing. I always had an interest in science so chose to study Physics, but was attracted to the more practical nature of Engineering. Eventually, my Dad was proud that I had followed in his footsteps, especially, since both my brothers dropped out of school before finishing their degrees. One has since become a Geologist, going back to school and continuing to earn his MS (and now works in the Oil industry), and the other now has his own trucking business, so all's well that ends well!

I think we still see what has always been seen, women tend away from programs with a high involvement high level math and physical sciences. The thing that no one considers is the fact that in the past 20 years or so, many campuses have started a dual programs of BS for practicioners/ and BA for secondary teachers. Believe me the secondary teacher courses cover substantially easier concept than PDE's or Linear Algebra. So you may have many women graduating in Math and Science, but this does not mean they have similar education in those disciplines. I think it would be helpful if they differentiated the statistics to show what proportion were in elementary/secondary education based programs. If you create a program intended to improve female enrollment by watering down the curriculum, you could get higher participation by women. I am sure that engineering programs oriented to teaching the history of engineering and the simple basis for early elementary engineering concepts with far less technical units required would promote recruitment, especially if the only identifiable difference was a BA versus a BS. I think statistics like those presented need to actually compare apples to apples, so people know the truth, rather then help these campuses improve frosh recruitment to dumbed down programs (Frosh recruitment is where the money is at).

The problem is most industry can not discern the difference between a BS in a certified program and a BA oriented towards teaching ( much like my elderly grandfather never could seem to understand the difference between a degree in Physics and Physical Education). There is little consideration for someone being able to solve the involved design problems, every engineering manager thinks he could do that himself. A big portion of the daily work at entry level for engineers is really clerical or administrative work, because engineers are salaried exempt (clerical/admin are hourly) and most corporation feel personal secretaries are not justified for many low and mid level managers anymore (but these guys do not see it so they subvert the system to use general clerical/admin for their own needs and assign their work off to professionals). So if you are mostly going to do admin, accounting and clerical as day to day work, why would a company worry about your technical skills. This is not to say that women should not be in these fields, I know some women who are very bright and have a strong technical background in engineering and physical sciences. However, they are frequently social outcast amongst other women, much more so than technically trained men are amongst other men (women as a group seem to frown on smart women, more than men frown on smart men).

You start your discussion with some interesting thoughts, Guest (known but to yourself and God), but you end with some rather trite comments that result in too much heat and very little light.

Your observations about the rise of Bachelor of Arts (BA) degrees in technical disciplines versus the traditional Bachelor of Science (BS) degrees warrants further discussion. Were I to pursue my undergraduate degree again (and if money and time were no object), I would like to have attended a 3-2 program where I would have, in essence, split my time between a 'traditional' liberal arts college and a 'traditional' engineering school.

As misplayed wrote above, it is true that with my engineering studies I learned how things work. But as an engineer, my practice (and my passion) has been to figure out how best to make new things work (which is a very open-ended proposition generally starting with nothing more than an idea), sell people on my concept, obtain the necessary capital (i.e. money) and build a team to start something (a business, a program, etc.) new and valuable...for the common purposes.....

My undergraduate education was woefully inadequate in that regard. But, my sons' education in the liberal arts at Jesuit colleges (Loyola College, Boston College) have given them a much broader understanding of their place in the world, the greater purpose of their lives, and, as such, with feet still firmly on the ground, they have a greater reach and superb view that will serve them well.

Having digested the previous postings (burrrrrrrp!) and being an involved observer of the interactions of men and women in the engineering workplace, as well as in engineering schools (including Pre-Engineering programs at the community college level) I shall attempt to mount the Soapbox and deliver my $.02 worth.

But first my qualifications:

• BS in Engineering Management w/emphasis in Mechanical Engineering (an ABET-accredited Engineering program) from the primarily Engineering-oriented campus of Midwestern public university system.
• MBA in Management from the Evening program of a private, semi-prestigious, primarily Liberal Arts University (member of AACSB, but not AACSB-accredited)
• Over 25 years working for various manufacturing companies in either Manufacturing Engineering or Product Design.
• Varied industrial experience, including Automotive parts, Machine Tools, Medical Equipment, High-production Consumer Furniture, Low-Volume and Custom Store Fixtures, and Industrial/Aerospace Hardware.

Now the observations:

Yes, it seems that women are advancing in many fields, most of which have been traditionally dominated by men, including Law, Medicine, Business, Religion, as well as Science, Math, and Engineering. But at the same time, men have been advancing in many traditionally female-dominated, or at least non-restrictive, areas, including Nursing, Education, and of course the Liberal Arts. Actually it seems that, in general, as cultural and economic paradigms have given way, women have certainly picked up more opportunities than men, if only for the fact that they had previously been much more restricted, if not legally, then culturally, socially, and even psychologically (by childhood conditioning).

So why does it seem that women are still so underrepresented in Engineering, both in school and in Industry? I think it is in part that women have been oversold on the idea that an Engineering degree is a panacea for all their career concerns, without really being equally sold on the idea of the difficulties that will be encountered, so as not to "scare them off". However, eventually many of these women, who probably would never have "made it" in Engineering anyway, find other things of equal or greater interest that are easier to do. Am I being paternalistic or misogynistic here? NO, I am not blaming the women, I am blaming the educators/recruiters. When young men enter Engineering it is with their eyes wide open. They are usually warned of the difficulties of engineering education (usually by the same educators/recruiters who are busy "selling" the women! They also relate well to older engineers, fathers, uncles, and other primarily male mentors, who have no wish to "snow" them.

Do the young men themselves resent or otherwise attempt to prevent women from succeeding? I asked my all-male Engineering Design class of 12 community college students in the Pre-Engineering program why there were so few females enrolled in the program. They had not one clue, but, to a man, they expressed the desire that there were more!

Perhaps that is why my Alma Mater has had an enrollment ratio, for the last few decades, since more "opportunities" had been created for women in Engineering, that begins with almost parity (1-1) for the incoming freshmen, but steadily declines to around 1 in 5 of the graduating Seniors being women. Not to say there isn't a large dropout rate for men as well, who either change majors and colleges or drop out entirely, but even of those women who stay in school, many have already changed to other fields which happen to be offered by the primarily Engineering-oriented campus.

In some cases, it might be said that the non-engineering majors who are women see the advantages of getting their degree from a known technically-oriented school, however, many are just staying there because of relationships (real or desired) with a male engineering student, who is bound to do well after college (husband material). Most men, on the other hand, have no such motivation, since their tendency is either to discount the women in school as future mates or they have other standards for evaluating the opposite sex. Yes, we men sometimes do think with other parts of our bodies!

Further, I have found that in industry women often use their education to start in Engineering, always a good experience, but quickly try to move away from the field into other associated areas, including sales, marketing, production, inventory control, information technology, etc. Something about "getting your hands dirty" seems to appeal to men more than women. This may even begin in school. I don't know if this is genetic, physiological, or a psycho-social vestige of a bygone era. It just is. Men on the other hand, if passed over for promotion into general management, often tend to find satisfaction and identification in their work as Engineers. Women, in a similar situation tend to "get out while the getting is good". Maybe women are smarter than men in this regard!

OK, I have rambled on enough. Please note that I do not claim my observations to be an all-encompassing TRUTH. Many might seem to be biased, but that is not my intention. Perhaps I have shed a little light onto this subject. At least I hope so.

Thanks for your observations, STL.

So, at your alma mater (part of a Mid-Western USA public university system), the Freshman engineering class has an equal number of men and women. But, four years later, there is only one woman for every five male graduates. Does that mean that approximately 80% (or more!) of the women drop out (I recognize there are other population adjustments that impact that percentage)? If so, you have raised a VERY significant point that Tamar Lewin did not mention in her article nor have I heard mentioned elsewhere.

As to your comment about engineering career paths, it would be extremely helpful if others would add there observations here. I have made similar observations to STL, that many young engineers do not want to "get into the trenches" (my term, comparable to your "hand's dirty" reference) of industry and choose to pursue other career paths, including management. I chose that path, too, but am not so sure that more women engineers jump out of the trenches than men.

You have opened the door for a discussion on career paths for those who have completed an engineering education. Aside from doing traditional 'engineering' work in industry, I believe the education serves as THE BEST foundation for any career or avocation (though, as I wrote earlier on the value of a liberal arts education, it is by no means the only foundation). So, it, AGAIN, begs the question as to why more women do not see the benefits of an engineering education versus other options or (as you may have alluded) do not stay the course once they have started their engineering education? Or, am I sadly, SADLY mistaken about the value of a rigorous, quantitatively-based, analytically-driven education as a means to thrive and serve in contemporary society.

"Does that mean that approximately 80% (or more!) of the women drop out (I recognize there are other population adjustments that impact that percentage)? If so, you have raised a VERY significant point that Tamar Lewin did not mention in her article nor have I heard mentioned elsewhere."

Let me clarify: I am only talking about one case, and that is for MY campus, not the university as a whole. Also, as you have correctly observed, the remaining percentage of graduating female engineers is roughly 20%. Where did all the women go? Sadly, (depending on your point of view) a large number do get married and do not finish their degree, at least not at our school. This is what we jokingly refer to as "getting their MRS degree". Many transfer to another school and major (although some might transfer to engineering at an "easier" school). There is also an influx of primarily male transfer students in the junior and senior years from Commuity Colleges, so that ups the male percentage as well. Please note my own personal CC experience as an instructor and my anecdote mentioned earlier. And of course some just drop out. But many men do as well. The graduating senior class is always much smaller than the freshman class, despite transfer students coming in as upperclassmen.

As for the rest of your post, I agree about the value of the engineering education. My own personal observations led me to conclude that more women than men do not want to "get into the trenches" as you put it. I think it has something to do with the same reason that most women I know and have known always want the Man to "kill the spider!" and not do it themselves! Hey, I don't like spiders either!

Let me also further the "spider" analogy with some other observations, by saying that as some point in their childhood, most women (though not all by any means) don't want to "play in the dirt" any more, and become more concerned with clothes, hair, makeup, etc. (and of course, boys) while we boys never seem to lose our interest in things that are dirty, grungy, oily, etc., and when we eventually "clean up" it is usually the bare minimum, unless we are trying to impress the opposite sex at that moment, or have a job interview!

Let's look at other areas besides engineering. I am not going to try to quote any statistics, but just think of who these things appeal to most, men or women, and who are you more likely to find doing them? How about: Restoring/maintaining old cars, Ham Radio, Woodworking, Hunting, Fishing, Mining, Plumbing, Farming (not just gardening), Off-road vehicles (4-wheel drive, dirt bikes, and quads), Target shooting (rifle, pistol, shotgun), fireworks, and just plain blowing things up (demolition)! And before I get replies from men who claim their spouse loves doing one of the aforementioned activities with them, stop and ask yourself, would she still be doing this by herself, or with another woman if I wasn't around? Women do like to do things with their man, and will sometimes tolerate a lot, while deep down they are really disgusted with the whole thing, or at least ambivalent about it!

I like to watch the show on the Discovery Channel called "Dirty Jobs", (while my wife hates it by the way!), and 9 times out of 10, the "dirty job" being profiled is being done by a man.

Interestingly, plumbers, for example, are well-known to make good money, far better than many academically-based careers, but do you see any academicians bemoaning the fact that women are not yet making up a substantial part of the Plumbing Industry, or enrolled in Vo-Tech schools as apprentice Plumbers?

Whoa, pardner........Let's not go any farther down this road. I posted a link in my original entry to similar comments made by Lawrence Summers when he was president of Harvard University. The firestorm he created ultimately cost him his job!

And, while I don't claim any knowledge on the subject, let's leave it that you've made your point and move on to other thoughts and considerations. (and, as always, opposing viewpoints are welcome at any time.)

Even if your assertion is true that socialization (i.e. environmental influence) MAY, in general, vary between men and women, it still does not account for the lack of enrollment by women in engineering schools. Medical School (and, OK, I'll add nursing school to placate any notions you may have from over 25 years ago) fit my definition of 'being in the trenches'.

So, what is the appeal of medicine that is not found in engineering?

Whoa, yourself, pardner! I never made an assertion that socialization was the cause of the differences between men and women. In fact, and you can check this, I said:

"Something about "getting your hands dirty" seems to appeal to men more than women. This may even begin in school. I don't know if this is genetic, physiological, or a psycho-social vestige of a bygone era. It just is."

I will have to read that about Lawrence Summers. So much for academic freedom!

Medical School (and Nursing School as you added, though I don't get your thinly veiled attempt to discredit my "notions from over 25 years ago") may fit your definition of "being in the trenches' but it doesn't fit my definition of "getting your hands dirty". Actually, having worked in a hospital as a medic in the military I can speak about that as well (surprised?). Medicine (and Nursing to some extent) are actually very "clean" professions. Yes, surgery does tend to get a bit messy, but it is still considered a sterile environment! Hospitals and clinics are always well-cleaned, patient care is all about keeping clean and reducing the risk of infection. I can understand very well why medical careers appeal to women.

Engineering on the other hand is full of all kinds of nasty stuff, dusty, smelly, scary, yucky stuff! Chemicals, cement, concrete, wastewater, tar, oil, grease, rusty metals, sparks, high voltage, radiation, fuels, dust, rocks, sawdust, fire, fumes, smoke, noise, even just plain dirt and mud! Ya gotta luvit! And guess where engineering students get exposed to a lot of this stuff? You guessed it, Engineering 010: Intro to (Blank) Engineering and other freshman/sophomore classes, including lab work, field trips, projects, career fairs, etc.

Back to that comment about "25 years ago". Does that mean you think that I am out of touch, that being younger, you are somehow better informed? Typical rookie mistake. Do you think we stop learning after the first 10 years? After the first 20? Wake up and smell the Starbucks, baby! You'll be there soon enough, and with the dwindling youth population (except for the occasional "baby boom" echo), lower engineering enrollments in general, pay not keeping up with retirement costs, and rising retirement ages, greater longevity with better health, you will be in good company with many seniors still in the workplace complaining about you young "whippersnappers"! Now, where did I put my slide rule and drafting instruments? Oh, yeah, I left them next to my scooter chair, Geritol, and big, dark, safety glasses!

mea culpa, STL. I did not mean to offend you or discredit your comments. I apologize.

I have tried to be very careful on this very sensitive subject because my intent is to focus on what is occurring (or not) at engineering schools. There is an enrollment trend that mystifies me and bothers me because I see it that many talented people (women AND men) are missing a terrific opportunity. The loss is not just theirs but shared by all.

I will continue to attempt to choose my words carefully but I am learning firsthand via this blog how the written word may still be misused and/or misinterpretted. As I am 51 years old (you may recall my comment in this blog about the college age children I have), my comments reflect my own age, experience base and perspective which I know are different enough from my contemporaries and even more so from those younger than me. It isn't my place to judge your opinions, your age or your experience.

OK, sorry to accuse you of being a whippersnapper!

I have seen the opposite of what the author wrote in our colleges. In some colleges, there are more women than men. I agree with the previous comment, that many women (as with men) do not chose an engineering career because they can make more money in other fields with less educational stress and effort. I have met many female and male engineers over the past decades that have left the field because they were recruited with the misconception that they would be working in a nice clean air conditioned office. When they find out (after graduation) that the majority of jobs require fwork on the field, with little chance of desk work they either go back for a law degree, MBA, or M.S. so that they can get away from field work.

MillMatt, either you have not read what Lawrence H. Summers said at the NBER Conference, and are simply parroting the politically correct stance, or you are blinded by a dogmatic and irrational emotional response to his expression of truths you don't like.

Summers addresses some vitally important truths that are extremely unpalatable to those who have sacrificed their intellectual honesty to the pressures of political correctness. He should be applauded for having the integrity to do this at all, and even more so because he does so in a very gentle and tactful way. Yet you describe his words as "rancorous." I wonder why.

Let's take a look at the definition of "rancor," as provided by wordnet.princeton.edu:

rancor: a feeling of deep and bitter anger and ill-will

Now let's take a look at some typical examples of Dr. Summers' own words, and see if we can detect any rancor:

At the very beginning of his talk, he emphasises that he will

"adopt an entirely positive, rather than normative approach, and just try to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality."

He introduces what he is going to say as follows:

"There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the -- I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are -- the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described."

He summarizes the high-powered job hypothesis this way:

"Another way to put the point is to say, what fraction of young women in their mid-twenties make a decision that they don't want to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week. What fraction of young men make a decision that they're unwilling to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week, and to observe what the difference is."

He goes on to point out the simple facts, proven over and over by countless scientific studies (many of which were actually trying to show the exact opposite) regarding sex differences:

"It does appear that on many, many different human attributes -- height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability -- there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means -- which can be debated -- there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined."

And he connects the two hypotheses by observing that

"whatever the set of attributes are that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth -- I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true -- is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem."

Finally, he concludes by saying

"Let me just conclude by saying that I've given you my best guesses after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking very hard about how to do better on these issues and that they are too important to sentimentalize rather than to think about in as rigorous and careful ways as we can. That's why I think conferences like this are very, very valuable. Thank you."

In between, Summer makes a number of other interesting points, which I strongly urge you to read for yourself at

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

especially if you think I've taken his words out of context or left out the nasty stuff to make him look better. The best way to convince yourself that I'm portraying him honestly is to go read for yourself.

So, MillMatt, where is the rancor? There isn't any... at least not in Summer's words. Where we find the rancor is in the response of the forces of political correctness, which caused this man to lose his job over these words. Why? Because he spoke the unspeakable: he spoke the truth. The truth dissolves politically correct dogma like a good cleanser dissolves filthy scum in your toilet bowl.

The very fact that a man like Lawrence H. Summers, President of Harvard University, can lose his job for speaking truths, which are vital to the quality of education in this country, is vivid proof of the creeping rot with which political correctness has infected all of our universities, up to and including the very finest. Look at North Korea if you want to know where this will lead if left unchecked.

Instead of asking futile questions about how to push more girls into engineering, why don't we just respect their right to choose for themselves, and turn our attention to something far more important, like how do we exterminate the creeping rot and eradicate political correctness? How do we preserve intellectual honesty and freedom of speech? How do we restore the great American engineering schools to the standards of excellence that made them great in the first place?

Wow, you said a mouthful! Don't be too hard on MillMatt, I don't think he had anything personally against Dr. Summers. If he misused the word rancorous, he wouldn't be the first, or the last, to misuse words here on CR4. Perhaps Dr. Summers hypotheses were taken as rancorous by the PC academicians who brought about his downfall, even if he never meant them that way. Besides, with a couple of kids in college, MillMatt has a lot more to worry about!

Thanks for the analysis of those hypotheses. I tried reading the speech, but soon found myself snoring! A little too dry and academic for my tastes! At least I did not think the words were rancorous, whether or not the hypotheses were.

I thought it interesting that he observed a difference in the standard deviation between men and women, whether or not there was a difference in the means. To me that says there is much more variability, and more extremes, in one group than the other. At least in your excerpts, I did not see where he said which group had a larger variability, but if I had to guess, I would guess it would be the women. Am I wrong?

If that hypothesis is correct, then it would explain a great deal about why more men stick it out in engineering school and even more men continue in the field. Engineering expertise tends to take a long time to develop and may actually be more suited to an average to above average intellect who is willing to plod along, gut it out through seemingly endless homework problems and lab reports in school, and later have the patience of Job while developing a complex design that may require testing many alternatives and iterations before obtaining even a workable solution.

Perhaps the higher standard deviation for women leads to fewer women in the range that is suited for Engineering, while also having a disproportionate number of superstars and superduds.

I agree, it is time to stop pushing women into engineering and focus on making engineering schools better for men and women who choose that path.

Thank you, STL. I don't have anything personally against Dr. Summers. If anything, I empathize with his circumstances. I do believe that his presentation was given in a spirit of intellectual inquiry and openess for debate. Nonetheless, he paid a very hefty price for his effort and the issues he raised are now more clouded than ever.

But, while the academicians and intellectuals continue to sound off on such matters, we engineers live and breathe the substance of these issues every day and, for many of us, throughout our entire careers. Who better to grapple with these issues? Who better to assess the problems? Who better to address the opportunities?

I like to think of engineers as pragmatic, risk mitigating, action-oriented professionals. If so, then WE as a collective group can employ the quantitative information that inspired both Ms. Lewin and Dr. Summers in their presentations (If there are those who believe Dr. Summers had an alterior motive with his presentation, do they not also believe Ms. Lewin had her own agenda that transcends current enrollment statistics at colleges and universities in the United States?). And, WE can build on this information to the benefit of all (including those women and men who, for whatever reason, are now overlooking the benefits, opportunity and fulfilling experience of an engineering career).

Maybe the engineering schools do need to do a better job. Maybe engineering schools curricula need to be integrated into college of liberal arts more seamlessly (and vice versa). Maybe we all need to improve our personal and collective activities?

All that I have read in this blog, all that I have read elsewhere and experienced in my career suggests that there is enormous opportunity in engineering but too many others miss the opportunity. As such, the issue here is not so much about women purusing opportunities in law, medicine and business rather than engineering. it is that, as there has been enormous growth of female college students and successful professionals over the past 25 years in nearly all fields except engineering, the data suggest that there is an enormous opportunity for improvement.

Tamar Lewin is a graduate of Barnard and Columbia Law. Dr. Summers started his studies as a Physics major at MIT but switched to economics. When, Robert Reich (graduate of Dartmouth-degree unknown to me, graduate of Yale Law School, and esteemed professor of Social and Economic policy at Brandeis and now UC Berkeley) was U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, he made many strong statements about the importance of manufacturing prowess in global competition. And, most recently, in The World is Flat, A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, Tom Friedman, a graduate of Brandeis University, writes emphatically about the importance of engineers to a nation's economic prominence.

So, here are four prominent, intelligent and influential individuals who are espousing the importance of engineering and related technical matters. Yet, NONE of them have ever been 'in the trenches'; none of them have ever 'gotten their hands dirty'. Whether I agree with them or not, I appreciate the discussion their efforts. But, it will be little more than hot air, their efforts will all be for naught unless someone actually does something. Who better than those of us who have chosen the rigor, the discipline, the perspective of an engineering education and career?

Carpe Diem.

Thank you for your very thoughtful review of Lawrence H. Summers' presentation. I very much appreciate that you took the time bring his thoughts and perspective into this discussion. I hope others will, too.

In retrospect, I might have chosen another adjective or phrasing to describe the hypotheses presented by Dr. Summers. I introduced the potential for a personal bias or opintion that I was trying to avoid. And, even though I have read his presentation, I have avoided drawing any conclusions from it...yet. Partly, I'm still learning (hence, the purpose of this blog so that I, and all readers, may learn more on the broader subject of engineering education). And, partly, the backlash and events following his presentation suggest there are broaders issues at play here that will take time to put in any meaningful context. As you write, there are extremely important matters (beyond the context of this specific blog) related to intellectual honesty, freedom of speech and political correctness that have clouded the discussion Dr. Summers was trying to initiate. It is my hope that CR4 is a more appropriate forum since the audience is comprised of and intended for engineers, dare I say, pragmatists.

With your discussion of his hypotheses, you have shed much more light on this topic and I thank you for doing so. AND, I am VERY grateful for the conclusion you reach as you have articulated what I believe to be meaningful substance for continuing discussion and pragmatic action. I don't know whether girls (or boys) are being pushed preferentially into law, medicine, theology or engineering; I just don't know that answer to that. Candidly, I would hope that the data Ms. Lewin draws from for her article are an indication that these girls (and boys) are being given the chance to assess all areas of professional endeavor and are making personal choices based upon their interests, strengths and opportunity.

If girls, in general, are making pesonal choices NOT to pursue engineering in favor of other opportunities, why? Is it, as you raised in your final question, that engineering schools need to be restored to a standard of past excellence that is now lost? It may be. Certainly, you have added a new spotlight to the discussion; perhaps the engineering schools need to make some fundamental changes.

Anyone have thoughts on whether such change is needed? What changes would they be?

I can tell you what changes I would NOT make. One is what you suggested, the integration of engineering schools into more liberal arts colleges. I think it is the very nature of a technical institution being different than a liberal arts college or university that sets it apart for excellence, in the abilities of the students it attracts, in the corporate funding for research it receives, and in the quality of the faculty it recruits, not to mention the esprit de corps felt by its graduates, which is often reflected in the endowments it receives from them.

How many people across the country or around the world think of engineering when they hear the names Harvard or Yale, or even University of Michigan (which has a top-notch engineering school!)? But say M.I.T. or CalTech, or even Purdue, and you have instant recognition as an engineering school.

Even right now, the Chancellor (highest university officer on campus) at my Alma Mater has recently called for discussion of a name change, from the current name that only mentions the state university and the campus location, to one which would more fittingly reflect its status as the top technical institution in the state. This may not fly, as other proposals from our campus have been quashed by the politicos and the powers-that-be within the larger University system, but it is an indication of the thinking going on within technical academia.

If we look outside the academic world, we can see that women as a whole perceive the world in an entirely different manner than men. It follows that they would perceive the opportunities available for shaping that world as having very different possibilities. Academically men and women seem to have equal abilities in acquiring the theoretical information to perform any task. However, men and women differ widely in their approach to solving technical problems. In my mind, the yuck factor is foremeost in many decision making processes for many women. Additionally women have an innate penchant for survival of the species in the near term that is completely absent in young men. So if a project, and almost all engineering projects do, involves danger then there is a subconscious reluctance to entertain the undertaking. I think that this unconscious assessment of risk is what turns more women away from considering a career choice outside laboratorylike or office or home settings. Running endless molecular combination models, or circuitboard models, or any other models are fine along with the occasional field trip, but digging into the actual nuts and bolts of fabrication and initial testing in what usually amounts to high risk situations sports very few eager women participants. But as in all things there are the rare exceptions.

I don't feel the lack of women participants has as much to do with recruiting practices as much as with what women perceive as their own perceived ability to successfully execute the demands of a physically risky or challenging project. What I am saying is women don't normally have the ability to suppress the requirement of reckless abandon that men do automatically. For example, in an earlier blog today Jorrie asks a question about harnessing a near earth asteroid to provide a fuel saving in travelling to Mars. All the answers ignored the obvious dangers associated with such a mission and immediately focussed on the developmen of a technology that would allow capture and exploitation of the asteroid's energy to solve the problem. A typical male response--all we have to do is figure out a way to do it and just do it. Once men develop an understanding of the problem it's a given that it can be done, and done successfully. A very untypical woman would see it similarly, but most would ignore the hypothesis as being unlikely or fanciful but mostly unrealistic from the outset.

Just my $.02

Wrench, Please read post #28 from AnnafromA2. I hope that you thoughtfully consider the perspective and experience she shares.

MillMatt,

I have read both of their posts and do not find much this is mutually incompatible. I think they both describe conditions that some prospective women engineers encounter, including different perspectives. As exemplified by Anna's comments, the "Yuck" factor is not the same for all women, or men, or for all jobs in engineering.

They both made excellent points, many of which I had also previously stated. There disagreement seems to lie in what can, or should be done. The key thought seems to be the aversion to danger/evil/risk (yuckiness) that women have, whether that yuckiness is real or perceived due to societal pre-conditioning. While "wrench" glorifies the risk-taking male, who is a very necessary part of engineering, that risk-taker also needs a counterbalancing risk-assessor for the endeavor to be successful. Whether the risk-assessor is male or female matters not. I think it points out that there is room in the Engineering profession for many different perspectives and characteristics.

I think, though that the most successful engineers are the ones who can harness both extremes within themselves, and see all sides of an issue. Perhaps this goes back to the point Dr. Summers was making about the larger standard deviation in studies of women versus less variablility in men. And this tighter grouping might be what makes more males attracted to and successful in Engineering than women, who have more variablity, and therefore, more extremes. Obviously, there are many women and women who share the same characteristics, and they BOTH make good, all-around engineers. Those outside of our normative grouping may also make good engineers, but I think they would tend to specialize in an area that takes advantage of their extreme talents, abilities, and interests.

Therefore, I would recommend that the best approach to recruiting and retaining engineers, whether they be men or women, is to inform them about the variety of opportunities in Engineering today, i.e. "This ain't your grandfather's Engineering profession!", including the pitfalls as well as the rewards. One way to continue this effort after initial recruitment is a mentoring program. Many colleges have this and some corporations do as well, but probably not enough. I know from personal experience that the "academic advisor" is usually not that interested in students "feelings" and neither is the supervisor in industry. I was lucky enough to have a few unofficial mentors, more senior engineers, help me out and show me the ropes, i.e. talk with me about problems I was encountering and frustrations I was feeling. To some extent, that is what we are doing here on CR4 as well when an obviously younger or less experienced person asks a question, so we should be a little more sensitive in our approach.

Wow, guys. Such a lot of comments (some very thoughtful and some less so) and not one of the commentators has been identifiably female. It's possible some of the guest comments were from women, but it sure didn't sound that way to me. Could it be that CR4, like the field of engineering in general, has few female "inhabitants"? Why do any of you think that might be?

I'm a woman engineer, primarlily experienced in manufacturing and mechanical design, and I've also been active in recruiting newly degreed engineers. I have a few comments to toss into the ring for your consideration. A big part of the problem in attracting and retaining women in engineering is the common societal perception that science, and by extension the applied science of engineering, is dangerous if not actively evil, and that it is practiced mainly by geeky male social misfits. Since young women take this myth in from the media, their teachers, counselors and (sometimes) families, if they don't somehow get firsthand experience with cars, computers, amateur radio, model rockets, treehouse construction or some other entry point to the joys of making things that work, they will never decide to major in engineering. That common society is just plain wrong about the degree to which engineering involves more mess or dirt or unpleasant working conditions than many traditional feminine occupations is unfortunate, but obvious to anyone who thinks about motherhood, nursing (which also has a huge shortage of graduates vs. demand) or hairstylists or retail clerks.

Once a manufacturing engineering colleague asked me "Why would a girl want to work in manufacturing, anyway?" (This particular colleague was neither politically savvy nor politically correct.) He seemed confused when I responded "Women have always been the ones responsible for making things. I prefer to work on a larger than household scale, is all." On another occasion, I was trying to get diagnostic information for a household sewer line pump which had stopped working. The help line operator, when informed that I was a mechanical engineer who had designed pumps in automatic transmissions, allowed as how I should be able to understand the exploded view drawing that came with the machine just fine. "But ma'am", he said, "Are you sure you want to get your hands in other people's excrement?" When I said that I was the mother of 3, he still didn't get it. "Who do you think changed most of the diapers?" finally clued him in, and earned me a sheepish admission that I was clearly qualified to do a diagnostic inspection on my macerating sewer injection pump after all.

I agree with the guest posts regarding Lawrence Summers. Summers paid a very high price for raising a reasonable question regarding obvious statistical disparities between men and women in some areas. Denying the facts, or insisting that it isn't possible to look honestly into *all* possible explanations for the observed situation does nobody,and especially not women, any good. It's highly reminiscent of the huge outcry about The Bell Curve being profiundly racist, which in almost every case attacked the authors' presumed intentions and conclusions about race, rather than their data sources, their methodology, or the conclusions the authors actually did draw.

The comments made by the other 3 individuals cited by MillMatt are valid, and the dropout rates mentioned by STL Engineer pretty common in most engineering programs. (While STL Engineer is careful not to extrapolate much beyond his own observations, the Society of Women Engineers collects statistics on these issues from around the country and the world. ) Well qualified high school women are pursuing engineering (and other BS degrees) less frequently than than similarly qualified males are. Once in engineering school, women drop out or change majors more often than the men do. And once in the profession, women leave more often than males do. I will comment based on my own experience (plus SWE reports) that employerrs are rarely willing to make engineering jobs part time, or even limit them to a 40 hour standard work week. This means women who want to have children will be severely disadvantaged in their engineering careers, or will have to spend very little time caring for their own children. Many women I know change career tracks for that reason, even when they otherwise enjoy and are successful at engineering.

So, do any of you have any idea how *we*, the engineers now working in the various branches of our profession, can make it better? Or things we can recommend to our immediate bosses?

Anna

Will you marry me?

Sorry, STL Engineer, but you should read a person's bio before you propose to them. I'm already married, quite happily, to another engineer.

As a matter of fact, yesterday was our 18th wedding anniversary.

Anna

Ooops! That was meant to make you laugh! I am married also, though not to another engineer. That was just my attempt at a humorous way to say, "Well said", "Good Job!", "I like your style", "Hit the nail on the head", "I totally agree", "Ditto", "Kudos", "Wunderbar!", "Magnifico!", "Superb!"

STL-

Your proposal did make me laugh! I figure if you liked me that well, knowing absolutely nothing about me but what was in the post, you must be similar to me in many ways. Thank you for the compliments. All of them. Are you by any chance planning to attend the Heinlein Centennial in St. Louis this summer?

As long as you making such offers to strange women you meet on-line doesn't bother your wife, we're cool. My husband isn't troubled by my receiving contractual offers of any sort. It's the informal ones he has a problem with, and then only if I wanted to follow up.

Anna

I did not know there was a Heinlein Centennial in St. Louis this summer! 2007? Sounds interesting! My favorite Heinlein works are "Door into Summer", "The Past through Tomorrow", "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", and "Friday". "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Starship Troopers", OK, but not so much.

No, I don't often make such offers to strange women, (or was it strange offers to women? ), and my wife and I joke about each of us having a "boyfriend"/"girlfriend" on the side. We just have to be careful the kids don't think we are serious!

Your post also mentioned Amateur Radio as one of the entry points "to the joys of making things that work". Is this one of your interests as well? I became a Novice in High School, then a Technician (old style), and, after a few years out of the hobby while focusing on career aspirations, now a General working on Amateur Extra.

My error. The Centennial is in Kansas City, not St. Louis, in July of 2007. See http://www.heinleincentennial.com/ for details of the schedule and how to sign up. So the event is much closer geographically to you than to me, but not in your home city after all. Hey, I haven't finalized the schedule for who's going where in December yet, much less settled on an itinerary for July!

My Dear Husband (DH) and I are both fairly hard-core Heinlein fans, and DH actually got to meet Robert on several occasions, due to them both being Annapolis alums. I suspected you might be a bit of a fan because precipitous offers of marriage to almost total strangers are so common in Heinlein's fiction. And many engineers like the sort of "hard SF" that RAH wrote. My litmus test for Heinlein fanatics is "Did you finish reading Job?" I did, and liked it. DH didn't. You?

I haven't ever held a radio license myself, but my Dad did, and I've had discussions in the past with several clubs about the ways in which they might attract girls and women to the hobby if they wanted to do so. Basically, emphasizing the pleasures of interacting with people from all over the world, and the occasional opportunity to help strangers by relaying emergency messages, while de-emphasizing the "gee whizz" aspects of the technology would help to attract and keep women's interest. I don't mean eliminating or sugar coating the technical and code-practice aspects for girls; I mean not making that the first thing you hit people with when they walk in the door. But nowadays, Amateur Radio will never replace MySpace or LiveJournal among young women. Probably won't even make a dent!

Anna

PS. It occurs to me that we've hijacked MillMatt's thread. Is there a way in this forum to split off a new thread from an existing one?

PS: Anna, I was wondering whether you two might be hijacking my blog (thread?), too. So, I asked the guys in charge about options to manage such transitions (twigs from the main branch?) just in case things went too far afield.

One option is for the two of you to start your own thread elswhere on CR4. The other is to use the email capability that you have within CR4.

I chose not to interfere with your discussion but I have also chosen, until now, not to be involved either. I am learning something about Heinlein (a subject I know NOTHING about), I am watching to see what others think of this transition and....well, I'm intrigued by the interaction between the two of you....especially as it might relate to the topic of this blog which I initiated.

Hi MillMatt -

It would be my preference to keep the conversation public, rather than take it to e-mail, in order to encourage anyone with something to say here to jump in. We have (mostly) keeping some content in most exchanges related to the originating post. But starting a different thread, about Heinlein, or about "What attracted you to engineering as a career?" would be OK too, if you prefer.

I will also say for the record that a very young or insecure woman might have reacted to STL's joking very differently than I did, and either flamed you all as a bunch of sexist swine, or just left without posting anything further. But I try to only take offense at comments that are intentionally offensive. And where I come from, a proposal of marriage is usually intended as a compliment, even if unexpected or actually unwelcome at the time.

One of my more interesting "mentor" experiences was trying to calm a new-ish (18 months post-graduation) woman engineer who was working a college-grad-training rotation in a different department at the same auto OEM as I. It seems that a major vendor had posted an invitation to that whole department to a "Holiday Luncheon" on the bulletin board outside the supervisor's cube. The "luncheon" was to be held at a nearby topless bar. The new grad was all for marching into HR and filing a formal sexual harrasment complaint. Right this second! This department was *obviously* a bastion of intolerable sexism.

I urged her to wait a day or two to see what happened, and that maybe she should mention her discomfort to her supervisor, without making any threats or invoking the word "harrassment". She didn't want to speak to him, though. She had only been assigned to the group 2 weeks and didn't feel comfortable doing so. I offered to go with her, or to speak to him for her, but she didn't like those options either. The next day, in the staff meeting, the supervisor brought up the invitation, apologizing to the group on behalf of the vendor for the "completely inappropriate" invitation that had made so many of them uncomfortable. The invite hadn't been cleared with him before it was posted, and company policy was to avoid holding (or attending) workgroup social events at "adult" establishments. It seems that three of the youger guys didn't like the idea of a topless bar for a Christmas party either. Something about "not in the spirit of the season". Even the salesman responsible for the faux pas got a bit more enlightened; he rescheduled the party at a pizza place for after work, and encouraged the group to bring their "significant others".

FWIW,

Anna

Well, Anna from Ann Arbor,

I think it would make more sense for you to Start a new discussion on Heinlein. It's easy enough to do and I think you will draw a much more interested audience by doing so. Being buried under the title of this blog with keywords that have no relevance to the new topic of interest has little value to the conversation you seek to continue. I will be sure to read, too, as I still don't know a Heinlein from a Holstein but figure there must be quite a difference.

As for your other suggestion to start a blog on "What attracted you to engineering as a career?", I will do that. I had some other ideas that I wanted to pursue this week, but given the interest level, I will change the schedule and move towards what you suggested (either late tonight or tomorrow). Would it be OK with you if I first focused on what attracted our readers to engineering school? I, for one, really wasn't so much attracted to engineering as a career but as a foundation for whatever career I chose. So, I would like to have non-practicing engineers be able to participate, too.

Finally, I applaud your efforts with the rookie engineer who, with your help, took a more tactful and, subsequently, more meaningful approach to resolving a bad situation. I wonder what Tamar Lewin would have to say about such situations? And, I wonder what Maureen Dowd would have to say about such situations in the Twenty First Century?

Ahh, a Heinlein Centennial in Kansas City. That makes more sense, since RAH was a native of Butler, MO which is near Kansas City. I believe Heinlein also received a Hugo award at the World Science Fiction convention in Kansas City.

Interestingly, I discovered that the 2007 WSFC will be held in Yokohama, Japan, while the alternative (when the WSFC is held outside of the US) North American Science Fiction Convention will be in St. Louis in 2007, in conjunction with the annual St. Louis Archon, an event usually frequented by several of my old college friends.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any new Heinlein since college days. The last Heinlein book I read (for the first time anyway) was "Friday" (1982). I see that "Job" was published in 1984, so I missed that one. I guess I am just not a hardcore SF fan anymore. My last "favorite author" was Tom Clancy, if that tells you anything!

On a final Heinlein note, there is a small reference in one of his books, I think it was "The Green Hills of Earth", where his hero had studied engineering at "a small, but tough, college in the Ozarks", which, if you hadn't guessed by now, is my Alma Mater, which brings us back full circle to where I started discussing my Engineering school experiences.

Can you grok it?

Thank you, Anna. You truly are shedding some much needed light (as I infer is your intent from your avatar) on this subject.

If you could provide a link or means to access the data from the Society of Women Engineers (SWE), I will be very grateful and I hope we all will take time to assess that information. As I mention from time to time, I much prefer quantitative information as the foundation for discussion; the more you can share, the better!

Also, you write: "That common society is just plain wrong about the degree to which engineering involves more mess or dirt or unpleasant working conditions than many traditional feminine occupations is unfortunate, but obvious to anyone who thinks about motherhood, nursing (which also has a huge shortage of graduates vs. demand) or hairstylists or retail clerks."

While you raise many important thoughts, I have quoted this particular statement because, while qualitative, your perspective suggests to me that change is possible and that we will all benefit. Oh, I can hear the guffaws on my last statement already (I prefer to be hopeful), BUT your comments suggest to me that a change in perception (which has occurred in other professions) is possible in engineering, too. And, whether Lawrence Summer's hypotheses are correct or not, they are not relevant to expanding opportunities for all, to enhancing the world of engineering (and science) for all and to serving the common purposes.

Bravo, Anna!

OK, MillMatt,

Following a link from the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) link which you posted, I get the following summary of the briefing presented to the US Congress on "Women in the Scientific, Technical, Engineering and Mathematical (STEM) Workforce". The links in the following pasted quote are NOT live; the links on the SWE Web site are. A request to Melissa.Carl@SWE.org will get any of you who ask politely your very own copy of the briefing document, though I believe it's also in The Congressional Record. The academic reports cited are available as .PDF files, but for a fee.

I based my comments on a slightly longer and more detailed summary than what follows in the fall edition of the SWE magazine in early October. Since I am a SWE member for many years now (I joined in 1978, I think.)

My avatar, as you perceived, is because it is "better than cursing the darkness". Also because I don't do cute animations WRT myself. It's hard enough for females to be taken seriously by their technical / professional peers without being deliberately "cute", which strongly implies "juvenile" to most people.

As far as changing the perception of society-at-large (or just young women) about the true state of affairs in different professions, well, there are several organizations that SWE collaborates with working on that very issue. The Girl Scouts of the USA is one very important one. There's also the Sally Ride Science Clubs which are springing up in Middle Schools across the country, and which have periodic day-long fairs, mostly on university campuses, though medium-to-large businesses are also welcome to become volunteer hosts. There's the frequently re-targeted Take Your Daughter to Work Day, originally organized by the Ms. Foundation, where children, especially girls, are encouraged to go to work with an adult mentor (not just parents!) to learn about careers in the workplace. Individual SWE chapters have a variety of mentoring, job shadowing, and outreach programs in place. Many of we women are trying to do our part to counter popular misconceptions, and thereby bring our successors along.

Anna

CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING FOCUSED ON NEED FOR MORE WOMEN IN THE STEM WORKFORCE

SWE held its 2^nd Congressional briefing this year on September 26, 2006, on the need for more women and diversity in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce. This briefing was held in conjunction with both Reps. Ginny Brown-Waite and Hilda L. Solis, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, and the House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Caucus, and was co-sponsored by the National Science Teachers Association, the ASME Center for Public Awareness, the ASME Center for Leadership and Diversity, SAE Women Engineers Committee, the National Center for Technological Literacy, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, and the American Council on Education.

Women comprise nearly 60 percent of all undergraduate college students and nearly half of all master's doctoral, law and medical students. Yet women remain under-represented in engineering and the physical sciences, earning only 20 percent of those bachelor's degrees. Dr. Semahat Demir, SWE's Director of External Affairs, moderated the 90-minute session featuring two distinguished speakers, Dr. Johanna Levelt Sengers, Scientist Emeritus at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and co-chair of the new InterAcademy publication, Women for Science, and Department of Education Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Stephanie Johnson Monroe.

Dr. Sengers addressed why the under-representation of women and minorities in STEM fields is both a national and international concern, referencing the InterAcademy report as well as the recently released National Academy report, "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering." Assistant Secretary Monroe discussed the action plan from the First National Summit for the Advancement of Girls in Math and Science, and encouraged attendees to get involved in the next steps from the Summit. Representatives Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), both Ph.D. physicists and Congressional champions on the need to improve STEM education, also provided short remarks to attendees.

For additional information regarding the briefing, please contact Melissa Murray Carl, SWE Washington Representative.

What bugs me about the article is the complete lack of sympathy for boys and the "Yay for Girl Power, women are kicking ass" attitude. From what I've read on this topic, which is quite a bit, the major cause of the gender gap in college is due to boys not doing nearly as well with reading and writing in k-12 as girls. The statistic is something like the average 10th grade boy reads and writes like the average 8th grade girl. On most statewide standardized tests there is around a 20 point gap between boys and girls in the reading and writing section scores. This achievement gap is the main reason why more boys drop out of school and never consider college. Go back 30 or 40 years to the 60's and 70's. From what I understand this was an era when girls' performance in math and science was comparable to boys' current performance in reading and writing. There were some pretty major initiatives taken then to improve girls' performance in math and science that involved shaping the subjects to appeal to girls more and to boost girls' confidence. Flash forward to today and girls now do as well as boys in math and science testing and represent and higher percentage of students in honors and AP math and science courses in k-12. All it took was some focus on their needs. Knowing this little bit of history, I am troubled with statements like "The boys are about where they were 30 years ago, but the girls are just on a tear, doing much, much better,". Once again, that "who cares about boys, girls are kicking ass" attitude. It is amazing to me that people are not concerned that boys' achievement in education has stagnated for 30 years while girls' achievement has sky rocketed. In fact, this is a major reason why this article gives to not be concerned about the current status of men in college. In fact, the author seems to think we should completely dismiss the issue because "The idea that girls could be ahead is so shocking that they think it must be a crisis for boys," Ms. Mead said. "I'm troubled by this tone of crisis. Even if you control for the field they're in, boys right out of college make more money than girls, so at the end of the day, is it grades and honors that matter, or something else the boys may be doing?" "Even if you control for the field they're in, boys right out of college make more money than girls,". Unfortunately this just isn't true, the most recent statistic I heard on the news was that women between 20-30 are out earning men, and by as much as 20% in some cities like Dallas and this gap in pay is due primarily to the gap in college graduating rates between men and women. "The men don't seem to hustle as much," Ms. Smyers said. "I think it's a male entitlement thing. They think they can sit back and relax and when they graduate, they'll still get a good job. They seem to think that if they have a firm handshake and speak properly, they'll be fine." Entitlement thing? Most non biased educators I've spoke to about this topic think that the gap in achievement, and the disdain many boys have for education, develops by the time they're in the 3rd grade. Is that an entitlement thing? Or is that an educational system that is simply not appealing to boys' interests as much as they are to girls'? There a plenty of other quotes in this article that scream to me, like the quotes above, "men are doing it to themselves, it's their own fault, and girls are motivated and care and that's why they're doing better, if you think this is a gap caused by discrimination you are wrong". Again, "The boys are about where they were 30 years ago, but the girls are just on a tear, doing much, much better,", so coming around to my point. 30 years ago there was an initiative to improve the performance of girls in math and science, but at the same time that girls were suffering in math and science, boys were suffering in reading and writing. The major gap we are seeing today is due to the fact that for the past 30 years there has been a major focus on the achievement of girls and special attention given to their needs when at the same time the needs of boys in reading and writing was considered to be a non issue. Instead of focusing on boys' own needs we dismiss their problems, blame their problems on them, and pump them full of Ritalin so teachers don't have to deal with them. This is a problem that begins by the 3rd grade, blaming the problem on those boys once they get to college seems to deliberately hide the problem and to blame the victim. On another note, I think it would be nice to see more women in Engineering. I think it would be nice to see a better gender balance all around in college and society.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, Guest. I hope you'll come back and register with CR4. You have some thoughtful things to say.

Check out this article, "The Myth About Boys", when you get a chance. It's a different take on the argument that boys are somehow in "crisis".

I have to agree Moose, at least anecdotally. With a niece and nephew that lived with us during many of their formative years, and two younger boys and a girl of my own, it seems that the boys are at least holding their own. And while the niece is making good grades at the University after floundering a bit in Community College, she is still not quite focused on her career possibilities, while her brother, a high school senior and recently improved academic performer, already has major career goals and plans in mind (despite a continuing major interest in "gaming" activity!).

Part of the "problem", if it is a problem, is that boys tend to have many distractions, if they are distractions, that do not seem to interest girls, in general, quite as much. These include sports, cars, technical hobbies (besides computers), and of course the ubiquitous computer and video gaming. However, I cannot say that the latter is all bad. Video games (Major League Baseball for one) have been instrumental in getting my boys interested in other activities. They also participate in the Scouting program, and there are definite differences between the programs and value systems of the BSA (which tends to be more independent, outdoors oriented, and traditional) and the GSA (which tends to be more PC, career-oriented, and less adventurous). It is true that an inordinate number or our leaders are former Eagle Scouts (the top earned rank in Boy Scouts) and other experienced Boy Scouts, because Scouting is about leadership and achievement.

Boys will be boys, the saying goes, and it is still true. Testosterone is a potent chemical influence. That energy needs to be channeled and controlled. Boys need to learn how to be men, and not women. We cannot and should not ever in my opinion try to have a totally genderless or gender-neutral society. Yes, some things need to be equalized, since the role of women has changed somewhat and they are expected to be just as much a "breadwinner" as the man, but by the same token, if I were starting a business, I would not want it staffed by all men, or all women, or even gender-neutral "worker bees". Interaction is stimulating and men and women need each other, even if they complain about minor habits and other irritating complaints about the opposite sex.

I don't know about statistics. In many debates, both sides use statistics to their advantage, overlooking errors in their own data and analysis and pointing out those in the opposition's case. The old saying is "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." So who do you believe? We try to just muddle through as best we can, and recognize that every child is an individual, not just a statistic!

Overall I think the time magazine article "The Myth About Boys" misses the issue. The major problem to blame for the gender gap in college enrollment is a literacy gap between men and women. Especially among boys from poor families illiteracy seems to effect boys to a degree we don't see in girls from the same demographic. We need to focus on boys' specific needs in reading and writing, especially in k-3, and we need to adapt an educational environment that is appealing to the average boy's behavioral needs. By the time we are old enough to attend college most of the gender differences in learning are not significant. When children are younger there are major developmental, and thus learning, differences between boys and girls and if you leave a child behind in 3rd grade they will likely not be able to succeed in later education. It is imperative that you get children engaged in their education early or failure becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The time magazine articles draws a Rockwellian picture of boyhood growing up in a society that will ultimately favor men anyway. Unfortunately, it's just not true anymore. The gap between boys and girls in reading and writing needs to be addressed. We don't have to stagnate girls to help boys achieve, the success of boys and girls in education is complementary, and concern for their achievements must go hand and hand. But for that to happen, we have to actually have some concern for the achievement of boys too. We can't keep telling ourselves "This is a man's world, so boys will be fine" or "it's not that boys aren't doing well, it's that girls are doing so great!". This mentality entirely dismisses a problem where ignorance of it is not bliss. If you really want to read a good report on this, see what the Australian parliament is coming up with... http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/eofb/report.htm

And to Moose, I wanted to respond to your earlier comment about a certain University outputting more communications majors than there are jobs. I agree, that's a problem. It's also a problem that we don't enough Engineering majors, female or male. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard American employers are more and more having to hire people from other countries to fill shoes there aren't enough qualified Americans to fill. This is a real problem. But, relating this to the gender gap in education. A female communications major with a BA has a BA, even if she has to accept work in something undesirable because there aren't enough communications jobs, she has a BA and can get a decent job. She can also expect to earn more money than a male (or female) that doesn't even get into college. There is also the argument then, that men without college degrees can get good paying work such as construction, laboring, trucking, law enforcement, etc... which is true, but these jobs are for most men not as desirable as the job you can get with a college degree and all of those typically male jobs I mentioned represent considerable risks to body and health. Also, just because those jobs for men are available does not excuse an education system that is leaving a solid portion of men functionally illiterate. Not that I'm ignoring women, but it is a lot more men than women not going to college, and focusing on boys and their needs doesn't have to conflict with the needs of girls. The history of girls progress in math and science between 1970 and now shows that you don't have to hinder one group to help the other.

Thanks for your comments, e4xd5. I look forward to reading the report for which you provided a link. Welcome to CR4!

Hi e4xd5,

You said "We need to focus on boys' specific needs in reading and writing, especially in k-3, and we need to adapt an educational environment that is appealing to the average boy's behavioral needs."

As a female engineer (I made other comments further up this thread) and the mother of three boys (2 in elementary school, 1 in high school) I couldn't agree more. The vast majority of elementary school teachers are female. Schools, especially elementary schools, usually seen to value quiet compliance over active experimentation. And the vast majority of teachers and school administrators are heavily invested in denying the obvious developmental differences among children of the same calendar age. Kids should advance through school based on what they have learned, NOT their age. In many cases these days, parents of boys are holding them out of kindergarten for an extra year (red-shirting) to give them an extra edge of maturity. I think we might well be seeing parents who can afford to pay for an extra year of full-time child-care trying to address the mismatch between young boys and schools in one of the few ways available to them.

Without a strong foundation in the basics of literacy (phonological awareness, vocabulary, letter-sound-symbol correspondences) kids don't learn to read, or don't learn to read well. Without some guidance and encouragement, they often don't find reading material that matches their interests. Not just books; magazines, video games, web sites, and role-playing games all may call for substantial amounts of reading for understanding, on topics boys may find more interesting than the usual school offerings. If kids don't start to find reading material that interests them within a very short time of learning to read, they are not motivated to put in the large amounts of practice this very complex task requires. And so they get behind, and fall further and further behind over the years of school.

Thanks for the pointer to the Australian study, I look forward to sharing it with my school districts' strategic planning task force, as we address some of these issues in my community.

Anna