When Elise Andrew, the owner of the Facebook page "I fucking love science" posted a link to her personal twitter account on the page, a lot of people got over excited. Whilst some of them, like me, were keen to expand their exposure to rather marvelous puns about transport proteins (oh come on, it is funny), an alarming number of Facebook commentators took it upon themselves to be shocked about her gender.
STEM gender gap - An unnecessary barrier ©Doctree; Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
Statements ranged from the confused: "Dude ur a chick? Wtf???!?", the confusing:"MUST BE A LESBIAN! just kidding", to the pretty insulting:"Please sell this page to a male.". And not all were, it seems, made in jest.
So why is there this alarm that an incredibly popular page focused on the wonderful world of science could be run by a woman?
Gender bias across all STEM subjects is a still a massive problem. It is a problem seen all the way from how lab partners treat each other in high school chemistry lessons to who gets what job and which pay packet well into adulthood.
The general idea that women neither like nor do well in math and science has been widely accepted by many people and for many years. Girls are meant to prefer the "arty" subjects, they like fiction and writing comprehension, let boys play with the chemicals and the machines. And yet, when interviewed and assessed in primary school, girls get higher grades and are more likely to express an interest in maths or science than boys.
The problems seem to begin in high school as girls are drip fed the idea that they are somehow under-qualified to perform scientific tasks. A study performed by Psychology Today, 72% of 11 year old girls felt that they were confident in their STEM skills, but only 55% of 15 year olds described themselves as confident. However when comparing the results of standardized test scores no loss in actual ability was seen.
This loss of self-confidence leads many to forsake the science subjects that they may have performed very well in at GSCE and choose A levels in areas where they haven't been convinced that they are innately unable to perform in.
This trend follows into higher education and post-graduate education choices. Growing up I was lucky, I come from a family of scientists across all fields and went to an all female high school, gender discrimination in the sciences wasn't something that I experienced. So it wasn't until the first year of my biochemistry undergraduate that someone suggested that "Surely doing just biology would be more girly?" and another informed me that "You don't look like enough of a nerd to do chemistry".
Whilst the male to female undergrad split in the biological sciences in the UK now lies at around 50:50, look sideways into the chemistry, physics and engineering fields and you'll find only one woman for every eight men.
The 2011 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (in the USA) showed the average weekly earnings of a woman in biological sciences ($853) versus that of a man in the same field ($1,117). This all adds up to a woman in the same area of work earning a little over £9000 less a year compared to her male counterparts.
You may have noticed that this study is rather general, perhaps the women are working part time (perhaps for childcare reasons) or in less well-subsidized areas and thus their average income is brought down?
Researchers at Yale in 2012 thought this too. They produced a set of CVs, each one with identical qualifications but half were identified as being from men, and half from women. They gave these CVs to 127 science faculty members (of mixed genders) at the university and asked them to rank the applicant on a scale of 1 to 7 and also suggest a mean starting salary that they would give each candidate.
Regardless of the gender of the professor, or even their field of study, the female "applicant" was consistently offered a lower starting salary and ranked lower on all accounts of competence. Over all, a woman going into this (albeit fictional) job would expect to earn over $3000 less per year than her male counterparts.
There is little to suggest that things are any different this side of the pond. If I wish to persue a career in academic science, a decade from now I can expect to be earning noticeably less than any guy in my graduation class who follows the same path. And God forbid I take time off to have children - or even suggest to a prospective employer that one day in the future I may wish to start a family.
But what can be done to address this ongoing inequality? Groups such as theWISE Campaign aim to encourage woman and girls to enter the STEM fields, but progress has been slow and any "trickle up" effect seen from encouraging girls to take science A levels has yet to make an impact. The Athena SWANaward, given in institutions to recognise their commitment to advancing women's careers in STEM academia, is helping to encourage universities to be aware of the bias that can and will affect their female STEM graduates. The Department of Chemistry here in York is the first Chemistry Department in the UK to hold an Athena SWAN gold award.
Will these groups (or any of the multitudes like them) have a positive impact on women's role in science and academic research? I do hope so. However the big change will need to come from a long overdue change in the way that "science" is seen as a boys-only club; young girls should not find themselves forced out of doing what they want to do by the opinions of others.
Published YorkerOnline 27th March
@Yorker Comment
@ImogenWrote
No comments:
Post a Comment