Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
Britni Sonsky
1102H
Annotated Bibliography
Gender Roles in Major and Career Selection
Women’s Representation in Science and Technology (STEM) Fields of
Study, 1976-2006
This paper discusses women’s under-representation in science and
technology (STEM) fields in undergraduates. There has been a steady, yet
gradual rise in their representation due as much to women’s advances as
by men’s decline. Despite the progression and constant changing of
gender roles in modern society, there are still underlying correlations that
may suggest an early exposure to segregated roles. Women tend to earn
higher GPA’s facilitating entry into these fields, but they rank lower in
academic self-assessments, especially in math, impeding their pursuit.
Also, researchers have identified factors that have lead to this underrepresentation. These include a lack of exposure to the field in in early
education. A trend was recorded in terms of performance in fields and
their selected paths. A number of prominent analysts have noted that
much gender inequality still exists despite feminist movements. 29.3% of
these women would have to change majors to be treated equally as
men. The other objective involves which factors are associated with the
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
gender segregation. Therefore, it focuses on structural characterizations:
Gender-role
socialization,
characteristics:
classroom
demographics,
experience,
academic
and
performance
individual
and
self-
confidence, perceptions of science careers.
These
demographics
and
trends
indicate
that
though
the
continuous feminist or gender equality movements have made significant
gains, there is still much work to do. I can tie the demographics of my
other sources together using this as a background or speculation of
underlying reasons. Forbes’s “STEM Fields and the Gender Gap: Where are
the Women?” makes suggestions of how we can reverse this trend. The
three concepts Forbes-woman Heather R. Huhman asserts are to “create
programs that will encourage women to study tech, rework the K-12
curriculum, and combat stereotypes” Though I agree with her ideas, these
are already put in place, but as the statistics overwhelmingly show, this is a
process.
De Welde Kristine Laursen Sandra and Thiry Heather. Women in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). University of Colorado at
Boulder Florida Gulf Coast University,
In connection, the second source, discusses how two-thirds of both
boys and girls prefer science to other subjects, but the differences surface
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
in middle school. Though in high school, girls and boys take relatively
equal amounts of science courses, females are less likely to pursue a
career based in science in college. Interestingly enough, AfricanAmerican women have indicated higher interest in science than their
Caucasian counterparts (Hanson 2004). Also, though women do make up
a large percentage of science degrees, they’re clustered into specific
fields. Women constitute the majority of life-science degrees, but make up
one-fourth of physics degrees (NSF 2007a). There are even drastic
variations within subfields of engineering. Women make up a mere 14% of
degrees in electrical engineering, but 35% of that in chemical
engineering. “Men outnumber women (73% vs. 27% overall) in all sectors
of employment for science and engineering (S&E) (NSF 2007a). Gaps
between men and women are larger in business and industry (79% men
vs. 21% women) and in federal government jobs (73% vs. 27%).”
However, women outnumber men in educational institutes of lower
ranking, such as k-12 and 2-year colleges, where they earn lower salaries
and less prestige. Even as the gender gaps close in terms of percentage,
men in STEM still hold higher ranking than their counterpart females.
Though this is a devastating trend in the United States, this is far from a
national issue. “In a study of Swedish postdoctoral fellowships, women had
to score five times higher in the merit review process to be rated the same
as men (Wennerås & Wold 1997). In Italy, women researchers in national
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
labs advance at half the rate of their male peers (DeWandre 2002). In the
UK, women have accounted for half of biology graduates for 30 years, yet
women hold only 9% of full professorships (DeWandre 2002).”
The studies, however, discuss that other countries excel almost
exponentially more than the US in terms of doctorates and science
degrees. Therefore, suggesting tat this underrepresentation may primarily
be a cultural phenomenon. Also, it is indicative that despite women’s
involvement in science, their relative branches have a non-aggressive,
non-invasive theme. Within the large sector of science, they branch away
from “hard-science”, and within hard science, they veer away from
hands-on approaches like in electrical engineering.
Zafar, Basit. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports
College Major Choice and the Gender Gap
Staff Report no. 364 February 2009
This paper analyzes the discrepancies between genders and their
major choice. Two main reasons have been suggested for the gender
gap: “differences in innate abilities and differences in preferences”. Whilst
addressing how college majors are chosen, it is evident that males and
females have similar preferences while in college, but their preferences
diverge in terms of the prospective workplace. Even today, the
differences are drastic, “13% of women majored in education compared
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
to 4% of men, and only 2% of women majored in engineering compared
to 12% of men (2001 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study).”
These statistics don’t stop here, as they have social and economic
impacts. An employed education major on average earns a mere 60% of
what an engineer majors earns. That stated, it seems only fair, majoring in
a field of science, engineering specifically, is not only more rigorous, but
also more time consuming.
Harvard University president Larry Summers stated that women’s
inability to advance in scientific careers was indicative of their lesser
innate aptitude rather than social predisposition or discrimination. This
appalling viewpoint, without research to show this genetic causation is the
backbone that maintains gender inequality in education. Also, the fact
that this suggestion comes from an educated and respected person
further indicates that bias will always occur. This misconstrued idea of
women lacking the innate ability that men so-call excel in is countered by
studies of mathematically gifted individuals across genders revealing
differences in choices (Lubinski and Benbow, 1992). Nonetheless, this
innate ability becomes irrelevant as the “gender gap in mathematics
achievement and aptitude is small and declining (Xie and Shauman,
2003; Goldin et al., 2006)”. Also, if there were to be a stark difference in
achievement, this would not be causation or have any indication in terms
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
of preference and the likelihood of men majoring in specific areas of
science or engineering.
Zafar approaches the same theoretical model as Altonji (1993),
which treats education as a “sequential choice made under uncertainty”.
Altonji uses college as the model whereas Zafar uses the model of the
individual. He views the collegiate model as overlooking that “subjective
expectations maybe be different from objective probabilities” (Zafar,
2009). I find this viewpoint interesting because these outliers are what
drew him to research the gender roles.
National Center for Education Statistics 2009-2010,
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2012) Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001),
Chapter 3.
Full time workers aged at least 25 made 35% higher than female
equivalents with the same education level. However taking inflation into
account, from 1995 to 2011, full-time females with a bachelor’s degree
had a 4% increase in median annual earnings, whereas men’s salary with
the same qualifications did not increase a significant amount. Though this
shows an improvement in compensation, the male salary does not need
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
to increase, whereas the female salary is still lagging. This does portray a
sense of hope, yet the progression is less than modest.
The greatest number of bachelor degrees was in business, social
sciences and history, health professions and related programs, and then
education. Once higher education was examined, a surge in health
professions,
biology/
biomedical
studies,
legal
studies,
education,
psychology, and business are evident.
The table above, unlike the other statistics I have included does not
involve gender, but give a background to the major. Here, business is
clearly shown to far outnumber other majors and still grows. An interesting
trend in this chart is that fields like education, psychology, and visual arts
grow at some of the slowest rates and some even decrease. These three
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
fields are stereotyped for women. Meanwhile, biomedical science
increases faster. This may be explained by an influx of female to the STEM
field.
The table below shows the trend that as education increases,
women become increasingly undervalued and unequally compensated
at work. This is the opposite of what society should strive for. As women
work and study to deviate from old societal constraints, the constraints
worsen. The logic of these statistics is practical in the sense that at the
base level without sufficient education, men are worth almost as little as
women in the work place, but as education increases, the rate of
importance of men is 1.34 times greater than that of women.
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
Etzkowitz Henry, Sociology Board of Study, SUNY Purchase and Computer
Science Department, Columbia University
Kemelgor Carol, Sociology Board of Study, SUNY Purchase
Neuschatz Michael, American Institute of Physics
Uzzi Brian, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
Barriers to women in Academic Science and Engineering, 1994.
It is suggested that two stages of barriers exist against women: the
first threshold “beyond which gender no linger matters”, and the second
“a glass ceiling of gender specific obstacles to advancement in top
positions”. They found that there were certain “series of mechanisms that
mitigate against the progress of women in academic careers”. These
began in non-academic areas from the differential socialization to roles in
marriage and family. They then go on to discuss the emotional and
psychological role that societal grouping has on the educated women in
this field. Knowing well that they are predisposed to a lower success rate,
women entering graduate programs reported that the experience
eroded their self-confidence. Understandably, marriage and child
bearing are maladaptive events for females entering this field. Three key
negatives times are “having a child during graduate school, marriage at
the point of seeking a job, and pregnancy prior to tenure”. In history,
when women became pregnant they were expected to leave work
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
leading to the “mutual exclusion” of academic and family life, leading to
the mentality of female graduate students assuming they will be
penalized for having children.
Therefore, women are expected to follow in the footsteps of men if
they want to be successful, by taking a competitive and aggressive
stance. This leads to two responses: the female that follows the male and
expects others to do the same, and the female who takes an alternative
approach and balances the workplace. The females who delineate are
referred
to
as
“instrumentals”.
These
women
are
strategic
and
independent, but many times lack self-confidence.
This research can be utilized to establish how the societal situation
affects the rhetoric of women’s approach. This study is different than the
others because it applies the aftermath of what the statistics represent.
Survey Questions
I conducted a survey to establish a physical sense of the buildings
relative to the majors to see if there was a trend between gender
dominated fields and the resulting layout of the building. These were the
questions I asked:
1. What major are you?
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
2. Have you noticed a majority of a gender represented in your major?
3. Did you expect this?
4. Why do you think this is?
5. Do you view the building of your major as better suited for this gender?
6. What career or major do you associate with men? Why?
7. What career do you associate with women? Why?
The consensus is that engineering, business, and anything math or
science related major is dominated by men and has almost no need for
women. Ironically, a higher percentage of the females I surveyed are
majoring in the field of science than the males I interviewed. Most of the
students interviewed said they had not noticed a certain design or layout
that differentiated between genders, but those who did a recognizable
difference could not differentiate what it was. The males that I interviewed
were proud of their reigning stereotype as more respected, better
educated, and better suited for success, giving no explanation as to why
they grouped women in this manner. However, most of the females
interviewed recognized the stereotype, but rather than state it as a fact,
acknowledged the sad truth and misconception that science is not a
place for females.
Once the expectations were established, I observed how these
demographics could affect the structure and layout of the buildings. From
my personal view of the engineering building, the situation is a majority of
Britni Sonsky
Final Daft
guys so a structural bias seems inherit. There is a dull and industrial look
that encompasses the building establishing a professional environment.
Rather than focus on design, the building’s only concern is functionality.
As compared with the psychology building, there are windows making
the walls looking out to a bridge over water. The design is relaxed yet
modern and appeals to a quaint comfort. As a female prospect and a
psychology major at that, I am naturally drawn to the psychology
building. Though there is correlation, causation cannot be determined
due to extraneous factors. For example, the psychology building is newer
and had the engineering building been new, they make have designed it
to be as aesthetically appealing. Though there are easier observations to
make such as the layout of the bathrooms, UCF is proud of its successful
universal design and most likely avoids gendering its campus.
Though I didn’t observe staunch structural evidence of gender’s
role in the buildings, the stereotyping was evidenced in modern day
respectable students, who observe the demographics following society’s
expectations.