Preparing Girls for Math and Science Careers: Fighting The Nerdy, Beardless, White Male Myth

In the past few years we have been hearing some alarming news that suggests that young women are still not receiving an equitable education in math and science in terms of their opportunities, treatment, and educational outcome (Shroyer et. al. 65). For example, according to a National Science Board report in 1990, whereas 7.6% of young men studied mathematics through calculus, only 4.9% of young women did; while 25.3% of males took physics, only 15% of females did. Even among girls who are highly competitive in math and science, as little as 18.9% of those who have taken physics and calculus plan to major in math, science, or engineering in college. These figures are confirmed by census data which shows that in 1986, although women comprised 49% of the professional workforce only 15% of them were employed in math, science, and engineering professions (Shroyer et. al. 67).

If we accept the National Science Foundation assertion that our future economy will rely increasingly on persons skilled in mathematics and science and that we can no longer rely on strictly white male graduates to fill this need, then we must accept our responsibility to prepare young women and minorities for this role (Gardner et. al. 72). Given this mandate, we must carefully and honestly consider what influences are inhibiting girls’ achievement in math and science and essentially limiting their career choices. I contend that we as educators and our concomitant coeducational system are unintentionally perpetuating a system of gender bias against girls and young women which is effectively reducing their desire for and opportunities to achieve in math and science. And that this gender bias has resulted in their limited participation in math/science occupations.

Dr. Diane Ravitch, Senior Research Scholar at New York University and Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education, is one of many scholars who disagrees with my thesis. She points to the advances women have made in the past twenty years so that today 55% of all undergraduates and 59% of all masters degree candidates are women (Ravitch). Her statistics, while encouraging, do not speak to a primary aspect of gender bias, in that the vast majority of these women are continuing to aspire to traditional occupations, the choice of which was made under the guidance of an educational system which ascribes to traditional stereotypes of women.

Let me begin by defining what is meant by gender bias. Gender bias can be defined as a combination of stereotypes and personal and institutional discriminatory practices. Stereotypes may not be recognized as such and discrimination need not be intentional in order to occur. The assumption that boys are better at math and girls are better at verbal skills is an example of a stereotype. A counselor who consistently dissuades girls from enrolling in upper division math/science courses is discriminating against girls. A school which assigns the majority of its sports budget to boys' athletics is engaging in institutional discrimination.

Researchers concerned with the issue of gender bias have observed hundreds of classes to discern qualitatively and quantitatively the different ways boys and girls are treated in our schools. They have found that teachers interact more often with boys than with girls, giving them better feedback and challenging them to defend their answers (Pauley, Molinari). One study showed that teachers direct their academically related questions to boys 80% of the time and to girls 20% of the time (Molinari).

Many teachers would counter that they must give more of their attention to boys in order to maintain control of the class. The problem is that this tendency to attend to the boys in order to maintain discipline becomes habitual and even when students are working quietly, teachers still tend to give more of their attention to boys (Pauley). In fact, teachers give their attention most often to white males, then to minority males, then to white females, and finally to minority females (Sadker 10).

When boys are called upon they are given more time to answer questions than girls which is an unspoken expression of confidence in their ability. If a girl does not answer immediately, the teacher rescues her with an appeal to the class for someone to help her with the answer (Sadker 57). Girls are rewarded for passivity and sanctioned for speaking out; boys are rewarded for assertive behavior and sanctioned for passivity (10). Girls are subject to more sexual harassment than boys. For example between "33 - 60% of the girls in middle class vocational schools experienced sexual harassment", but less than 1% of boys did (111). Girls are more apt to be praised for their appearance and the appearance of their work, boys for their ability (55). Boys receive better sports facilities and are allowed to dominate the school building and school yard (64).

Over time this treatment has the pernicious effect of eroding girls’ self-esteem and diminishing their aspirations (Pauley). The American Association of University Women commissioned a survey to measure the extent of this reduction in self-esteem and its relationship to achievement. The study revealed that boys and girls experience a decline in self-esteem during the middle school years but this decline is more dramatic for girls than for boys. This self-esteem gap widens and continues through high school (Shortchanging 4). As girls’ self-esteem diminishes, so does their self-concept about math (Catsambis 200, Shortchanging 12). This is amplified by girls’ perceptions that their teachers do not have confidence in their math/science ability (Shortchanging 11). So strong is their declining math self-concept, that girls tend to view their competence as lower than it really is and boys as greater (Shroyer et. al. 68).

Intuitively, we recognize a relationship between self-esteem and performance. This relationship has been verified through research. Self-esteem relates strongly with self-concept and self-efficacy in math, that is perceived ability in math and confidence in one's ability to solve specific problems. Students with high self-efficacy will work harder and longer on a problem than those with a lower level (Pajares and Miller 195). In fact, so strong is the relationship between self-efficacy and performance that when children with the same level of prior experience are presented with a new math problem, self-efficacy is a better predictor of their performance (193). So, if students don't believe they will do well, they will not try and they will not succeed.

Math self-efficacy is also a major determinant in perceived usefulness. Students who are confident in their math ability expect that math will be useful to them in the future (Pajares and Miller 199). Thus a circular relationship exists. Girls who like and do well in math have higher self-esteem and assume math will be of use to them later on. Girls with higher self-esteem are more likely to aspire to non-traditional careers in math and science, hold on to these aspirations more stubbornly, and are more likely to achieve in these subjects (Shortchanging 16). Thus, discriminatory practices which occur in schools have the adverse effect of lowering girls’ self-esteem which in turn lowers their math self-efficacy, desire for continued achievement in math and science, and aspirations for careers in these areas.

Given the strong relationship between self-esteem, self-concept, and math performance, especially for girls, teachers must recognize the importance of their influence on girls in terms of bolstering this self-esteem and self-concept. But how can teachers be expected to encourage girls in math and science if they have been trained to accept the stereotype that girls are better at verbal skills and boys at math? (Davidson 5) They can do so by looking at the evidence which clearly shows that this claim is a myth.

For many years now, boys have consistently scored higher on math achievement exams than their female peers. For example, in 1991 51% of male students who took the National Scholastic Aptitude Test earned a score of 500 or greater in math; only 37% of girls earned the same scores (National). These statistics are confounded by the fact that girls consistently earn better grades in math/science courses than boys do (Shroyer et. al. 68).

Some researchers imply that this discrepancy is a reflection of what course grades and achievement tests measure. Course grades are determined by tests which are largely computational; achievement tests test problem solving ability. They claim that tests which measure computational skills favor girls and those which measure problem solving favor boys (Mills et. al. 341). Thus girls have better GPAs and boys have better achievement scores.

This hypothesis does not explain the decrease in the gap between girls’ and boys’ math achievement scores over time. In 1975, 17%; more boys earned a score of 500 or greater in the math SAT and in 1991, 14% more boys earned the same scores. This is a significant decrease given the number of students tested (National). Further, these differences in achievement vanish when achievement tests are altered so that students do not have access to the correct answer from a multiple-choice list, but must find the solution by other means. In England, Sweden, and the Netherlands, where such tests are administered, gender differences in terms of outcome do not exist (Davidson 5). We should note that those employed in math/science careers are rarely given a problem with a selection of possible answers to choose from. Mathematicians' and scientists' tasks are much more open ended and mirror the former examination style more than the latter.

Other stereotypes about males and females pervade our society. For example, teachers and students accept the stereotype that science and engineering are white male occupations. When several hundred ninth and tenth grade students were asked to draw a typical scientist, they overwhelmingly depicted him as a nerdy, white male in a lab coat (Gardner et. al. 75). Scientists are described as "abstract, analytical, unfeeling, and masculine" (Ruskai 2). This stereotype misrepresents science, which is also creative and intuitive (considered feminine traits) and serves as a strong social barrier because it is considered both feminine and nonconformist (2). Flagrant examples of this stereotype can be found in texts and laboratory manuals (Gardner et. al. 74), history books, and readers (Sadker 68). This stereotype is exacerbated by the fact that a very small percentage of high school math and science teachers are women.

What is the impact of this stereotype on girls? According to the National Research Council, gender differences in math performance are primarily the result of sex-role stereotypes (Shroyer et. al. 68), not innate ability. Thus, teachers must reject these stereotypes as a first step toward changing the expectations they have for their students. Expectations have the effect of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. If teachers expect girls to underachieve in math and science, they will.

A survey of a typical Midwest community found that teachers' and students' stereotypes about gender and math and science manifested themselves in the following ways: Girls were not encouraged to take upper level math/science courses and they were not encouraged to pursue math/science careers (Shroyer et. al. 66). Girls were not involved in math/science extracurricular activities (73). Teachers used math/science textbooks which were oriented toward males rather than females (74). Girls chose electives which prepared them for homemaking and pink collar employment rather than those which would prepare them for marketable and professional careers (71). These patterns of underachievement in math/science by girls in this town mirrored the patterns found nationally and, in general, the girls were not interested in entering math/science career fields (73).

But, we must ask ourselves, if gender bias did not exist, would there be a significant increase in girls’ achievement in math and science? A review of the attitudes and achievements of students enrolled in single-sex schools can help us answer this question. The effects of gender bias are greatly reduced in all-girls schools. Boys are not available to monopolize the teacher's attention, get the lion's share of sports, counseling, and other extra-curricular resources, and compete with girls for classroom leadership. Girls are not relegated to the passive role of observers of male achievement, but instead are active participants in all aspects of their education. Teachers and administrators are predominantly women and provide non-traditional role models.

In these schools girls have higher self-esteem, show more interest in math and science, and have fewer gender related stereotypes about jobs and careers (Sadker 233). Graduates of all women's colleges earn more degrees in non-traditional fields such as economics, math and science. Many such graduates can be found in high levels of government and Fortune 500 companies (233). Even detractors of the gender bias position, like Dr. Ravitch, admit that girls perform much better in single-sex schools, although she would argue that girls achieve in these environments because they are not distracted by boys (Ravitch). I maintain that the distraction is not purely chemical.

Obviously a certain amount of self-selection is going on in single-sex schools. Many parents who send their daughters to them may do so as a way to provide an environment which is conducive to girls' achievement. But, this serves to support my contention that schools which ignore sex-role stereotypes and encourage achievement foster girls' self-esteem, ambitions and non-traditional aspirations.

The evidence I have reported strongly supports my thesis that gender bias is prevalent and that it has the latent effect of discouraging young women from entering math/science career fields. Many persons would contend that gender bias is not restricted to the classroom but prevails in all levels of our society. I would agree with this. However, we have seen many examples wherein our educational system has led our society to change many of its values and assumptions for the better.

I would like to propose some actions which still need to be taken. During my review of the literature, I found evidence that there is a strong relationship between sports and gender bias in terms of how it relates to self-esteem and leadership skills. Further study should be done to demonstrate this relationship in order to push forward achievement of the goals outlined in Title IX. The move away from single-sex schools in the public school system should be reconsidered. Their strengths should be studied and they should be viewed as a good reference for finding pedagogical techniques which reduce gender bias and foster a sound learning environment. Practices which foster gender equity should be developed and tested. Gender equity should be discussed in all levels of education and included in those courses required for teacher certification.

Works Cited

Catsambis, Sophia. "The Path to Math: Gender and Racial-Ethnic Differences in Mathematics Participation from Middle

         School to High School." Sociology of Education. July 1994:199-211.

Davidson, Keay. "Nature vs. Nurture." San Francisco Examiner. Jan. 20, 1991. 11-17. SIRS 1991 Medical Science. Article

         52. Mag. Sec. 1-7.

Gardner, April L., Cheryl L. Mason, and Marsha Lakes Matyas. "Equity, Excellence and just ‘Plain Good Teaching’." The

         American Biology Teacher. Feb 1989: 72-77.

Mills, Carol J. and Karen E. Ablard and Heinrich Stumpf. "Gender Differences in Academically Talented Young Students'

         Mathematical Reasoning: Patterns Across Age and Subskills." Journal of Educational Psychology. 1993: 340-346.

Molinari, Susan. "Does the U.S. Education System Shortchange Females? Yes." Congressional Quarterly Researcher. Ed.

         Sandra Stencel. Vol. 4. No. 21. 497.

National Center of Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1993. U.S. Department of Education:1993. Table 127.

Pajares, Frank and M. David Miller. "Role of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept Beliefs in Mathematical Problem Solving: A Path

         Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology. 1994. Vol. 86. No. 2. 193-203.

Pauley, Jane. Failing at Fairness. Prod. Elizabeth Kevetas. "Dateline" NBC. n.d.

Ravitch, Diane. "Does the U.S. Education System Shortchange Females? No." Congressional Ouarterly Researcher. Ed.

         Sandra Stencel. Vol. 4. No. 21. 497.

Ruskai, Mary Beth. "Why Women Are Discouraged from Becoming Scientists." Scientist. Mar. 5, 1990. 17+. Sirs 1990

         Women. Vol. 4. Art. 25. 1-2.

Sadker, Moyra and David Sadker. Failing at Fairness. New York: Scribners. 1994. 1-235.

Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America. American Association of University Women, January 1991. (Pamphlet). 1-12.

Shroyer, M. Gail, Carol A. Borchers, Nancy J. Smith, and Emmett L. Wright. "Science and Mathematics Equity Issues at a

         Local School District Level". School Science and Mathematics. Feb. 1994. Vol. 94(2). 65-77.