“Life is not easy for any of us. But what of that? We must have perseverance and above all confidence in ourselves. We must believe that we are gifted for something and that this thing must be attained.”
As a woman who was denied admittance to Krakow University and the French Academy of Science (even after winning the Nobel Prize for Chemistry), Madame Marie Curie would know about a hard life. Still, with the perseverance and confidence she speaks of, she helped to pave the way for women in science across the globe.
However, according to NYTimes.com, women’s progress in science “has been slower than in other parts of society – and much less uniform.”
In fact, according to NYTimes.com:
- The percentage of female graduates in computer science from American universities peaked in the mid-1980s at more than 40 percent and has since dropped to half that.
- In electrical and mechanical engineering, enrollment percentages remain in the single digits.
- The number of women who are full science professors at elite universities in the United States has been stuck at 10 percent for the past half century.
- Only a handful of women preside over a national science academy.
- Women have been awarded only 16 of the 540 Nobels in science (Curie and her daughter Irène Joliot-Curie hold three Nobels – close to 20 percent of all female winners.).
So where are all the women in science? Are Curie’s “perseverance” and “confidence” still lacking a century after she won her first Nobel?
The old-school notion that men are just naturally smarter and more variable than women has been debunked time and again. While studies prove that there are differences in the way men and women think, these differences aren’t correlated to their science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) abilities.
In fact, according to a June 2009 report by Janet Hyde and Janet Mertz, gender disparities in math performance are correlated to societal and cultural gender inequalities rather than STEM intelligence. In other words, gender inequality in the classroom – such as advising female students against taking engineering courses and not identifying and nurturing mathematically gifted girls – can lead young girls to believe they do not belong in the STEM fields.
To deter gender inequalities and encourage better STEM education for girls, many people are turning to all-girls primary and secondary schools.
Because of the aforementioned differences in the way men and women think, all-girls schools are designed to accommodate the specific cognitive, social and developmental growth rate of girls, according to the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools (NCGS) Web site. They “help counter gender-stereotyping in subject choices” and give girls opportunities they may not have had when competing for the spotlight with their male counterparts.
Supporter Rosemary C. Salomone, MD, said on the NCGS Web site, “All-girls settings seem to provide girls a certain comfort level that helps them develop greater self-confidence and broader interests, especially as they approach adolescence. Research has found that single-sex schools and classes promote less-gender-polarized attitudes toward certain subjects.”
I myself am currently in the process of selecting an all-girls school for my 12-year-old. In my 20s, I never would have thought of sending my girls to single-sex schools, but now I believe they will greatly benefit from the specialized curriculum, which puts an emphasis on closing the STEM gender gap.
Still, people say there’s a lack of sufficient female STEM role models. Join me tomorrow for more about the importance of role models on young girls.
What do you think? How do we better nurture the natural passions in our children?
– Kathie
No Comments so far ↓
There are no comments yet; start things off by filling out the form above.