

Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science? - wallflower
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?hp

======
melindajb
For a profession that is all about being an meritocracy, the willful blindness
displayed here in the comments to the actual data presented in the article, is
disturbing, if not unsurprising.

We have a shortage of scientists in this country. The fact remains that in
science, and ultimately in the technology companies that men who grow up in
these distorted academic norms found and run, there are things that can be
changed. This benefits everyone, and doesn't require lowering standards.

There's a ton of data shared here, and in stated Hacker News tradition, I'd
prefer to see a robust discussion of that vs kneejerk reactions. It's a long
article and worthy of serious consideration.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
_We have a shortage of scientists in this country._

Not according to the labor markets we don't.

~~~
melindajb
Do you include computer science in your assessment?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
For _computer scientists_ rather than software engineers? Yes, yes I did.
Compare how many CS PhDs end up as full-time research scientists versus how
many end up as engineering/development staff of various kinds.

------
jleyank
Got pissed enough to log in..,

I'll only discuss chemistry as that's where I live:

1) "science" != academia. There's a large albeit shrinking PhD employment in
Pharma and biotech. Probably larger than academia if teaching colleges are
omitted.

2) there's NO shortages. We've got more candidates than positions and the
layoffs over the last 5 years don't help. 20% out of Merck is the latest -
might be 10's probably 100's of PhDs.

2b) PhDs enter the biz 27-32 and start having difficulties over 40. Narrow
window, eh?

3) cultural and media depictions just suck. Employers are viewed as ogres,
staff as tools or even participants in ogre-ness. Who the #!?%? wants to sign
up for that? And there's no gates or zuck to counterbalance - who knows the
players in the field outside the field?

4) investment takes a long time and ideas tend to not pan out. And it takes a
whole lot of $$ to get to that failure. Look at the Alzheimer's or cancer
fields.

5) biological systems are far messier than computational ones. Yeah, computers
are basically free and the software environment is far better than it was but
data is still a problem for model building and physics is a bear for complex
simulations.

I could go on (and on) but I wanted to end with a plea. If you've made it to
the end please keep in mind that while the next social startup might be fun,
there are a fair number of problems needing both algorithmic and
implementation work. We'd greatly profit from young blood coming in and
redoing computational modeling, harnessing cluster and cloud topologies (like
the DoE challenges) for large-scale calculations, ...

We have far too much left over from Vaxen. It holds us back and must be
replaced.

~~~
melindajb
thanks for being pissed off enough to log in. we need more scientists, of all
kinds. Lately I've been reflecting on the work of Dr. Carl Hart of Columbia
University. He's a neuroscientist focused on the science of addiction,
especially for crack and methamphetamine.

Guess what? He's African American. Guess what? He has family members who are
severely addicted. Guess what? He has found that 80%+ of people who take meth
or crack are NOT addicts, and that a strong incentive like $20 or good social
structure can be just enough to overcome the desire to take drugs.

As far as I'm concerned, he's living proof of why we need diversity in
science. Who better to study addiction than one who has seen it and lived it
first hand?

More info: [http://www.wnyc.org/story/298365-drugs-neuroscience-and-
curr...](http://www.wnyc.org/story/298365-drugs-neuroscience-and-current-drug-
policy-according-dr-carl-hart//)

------
tapatio
"As so many studies have demonstrated, success in math and the hard sciences,
far from being a matter of gender, is almost entirely dependent on culture — a
culture that teaches girls math isn’t cool and no one will date them if they
excel in physics; a culture in which professors rarely encourage their female
students to continue on for advanced degrees; a culture in which success in
graduate school is a matter of isolation, competition and ridiculously long
hours in the lab; a culture in which female scientists are hired less
frequently than men, earn less money and are allotted fewer resources."
RANT_START This person is delusional. Women are encouraged everywhere to be
bold, be strong, be independent, go to college, blah, blah, blah. Who here has
heard anyone tell a woman math isn't cool and that no one would date them if
they excelled in physics? This is unbelievable bullshit. /RANT_END

~~~
acjohnson55
It's called "lip service". It's quite possible for people to assert one thing
but in actuality be part of a system that systematically drives contrary to
that assertion. You know, kind of like how our founders held those truths to
be self-evident that all men are created equal and then codified slavery in
the next breath. Just because we say women should do X doesn't mean we've
actually created an environment that nurtures that outcome.

~~~
tapatio
Sorry, I don't buy that. I pushed a lot of young women into STEM. I've told
them many times that it would be a great field for them to get into. 99% of
them ARE NOT INTERESTED. They don't care about how exciting it is or how much
money they'll be making. Kind of similar in vain to the women who pick "hot"
dudes to marry even though they are losers/deadbeats and later complain about
said dudes.

------
jseliger
As an alternate perspective, here's Philip Greenspun:
[http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-
science](http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science) .

~~~
melindajb
I'm curious. did you read the parent article? or do you just post this in
reaction to all articles on women in science? What is your response to the
original article?

~~~
geebee
I'm not jslieger, but I did read the parent article.

The nytimes essay does mention briefly the claim that women may be "happier"
in "people" fields like medicine, but it presents this more in terms of the
intrinsic rewards of the field.

I'm a PhD dropout myself, and I am a little bewildered that so many articles
can lament the shortage of US Citizens or women in academic science research
roles without at least considering the growing body of research that confirms
that science is a risky and relatively poorly paid career path. If you'd like
something less caustic than the greenspun article, try out the RAND study that
concludes that the american aversion to science careers is rational and market
based (just google "RAND scientist shortage").

As I mentioned in a previous comment, what I said above is in now way intended
to suggest that there is no problem here. I can claim sour grapes, and I can
advise others that those grapes are sour, but that doesn't justify
discrimination. I do see a problem for women in science.

But those grapes really are pretty sour. It makes no sense to discuss the
shortage of group X in science without acknowledging this. It's not the only
thing to be discussed, and I'd agree it is not the only problem. But to leave
it out is a glaring omission.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Increasingly, it's like discussing a shortage of nuns versus an abundance of
monks. The fundamental recruiting problem is that monastic lifestyles _are not
fulfilling or desirable_ for the overwhelming majority of the population.

Hell, I really like CS research, I'm a grad-student, but I'm _always_ looking
over my shoulder asking if I _really_ want to be on an academic career path,
or what the hell else to do with myself.

~~~
scott_s
Make an academic webpage! Mention all of your interests, past and current
work! Put the URL in your HN profile!

That exclamation points are because I care. I just spent ten minutes googling
around to find your work. Computer science is nice in that researchers can get
jobs in industry, and not just academia. But you have to be discoverable
first.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Actually, thanks for the pointer, although at this point I don't have any
_approved_ publications (that is, publications that have actually made it in
somewhere). I'm a rising second-year MSc student, so I've had one paper
rejected _repeatedly_ (which I keep revising, because why not), one paper just
got submitted last week, and one paper is currently under construction.

Can you recommend a tool for building academic webpages? The last time I did
web design was making a shitty Pokemon fanpage in the 1990s, so I'm kinda out
of date on what to actually _do_.

~~~
scott_s
But you _do_ have an undergrad thesis. And it's still worth saying what you
work on.

I'm afraid I'm not aware of any tools for creating academic webpages, but you
don't really need one. An academic webpage is really just an online CV. You
should say what you interests are, talk about the projects you've worked on
(and are working on), papers published (including thesis). Oh, and, of course,
how to reach you. A single page should suffice. For my current one, I use
WordPress because I want to have a blog, too. You can look at the remnants of
my old academic page for structure:
[http://people.cs.vt.edu/~scschnei/](http://people.cs.vt.edu/~scschnei/) I
used to have a h1 for About Me (where I listed interests), publications and
projects.

How good it looks is secondary. It's just important to get that information up
there, easy for people to find. You're actually approaching the time in grad
school when industry internships are ideal: you'll be done with classes in a
year or two, you've done a research paper or two, but you have a few more
years before finishing your dissertation.

By the way, having even publications under submission by the second year of
doing course work is great progress. Rejections happen. Where did you submit,
by the way?

------
patrickg_zill
template for article:

"Why Are There Still So Few Women in [high paying or high status job]"

note: there are no articles asking why there are so few women in a dangerous
and/or underpaid or low-status occupation. Such as commercial fishing, oil and
gas fieldwork, "ice road trucking" etc.

~~~
ameoba
Nor are there articles asking why men aren't nurses, waitresses or
receptionists.

~~~
melindajb
see my comments on low status occupations.

------
tapatio
Why Are There Still So Few Men in Elementary Schools?

~~~
acjohnson55
Because it's a career with limited advancement opportunities, stressful work
conditions, and and low lifetime earning potential? Because we can choose a
careers that are far better in all of those dimensions and more AND are
demonstrably socially welcoming for our gender?

You might as well ask why there aren't more millionaires going into fast food
or Ivy Leaguers in migrant farming.

(my point of view, as a former high school math teacher and current software
engineer)

~~~
tapatio
Not true. I know several women in education who are pulling in $100K+ per
year. Plus they get a pension when they retire. They all started out as
teachers and worked their way up. While they are not millionaires they do have
a nice lifestyle. And from the Greenspun article mentioned in this thread:
"Even a public schoolteacher actually does better than a scientist. Consider
the person of unusual ability who takes that bachelor's in science and decides
to become a schoolteacher instead of going to graduate school. At age 22, the
schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get
married and have children. By age 30, when the scientist is forced to start
moving around to those $35,000 per year postdocs, the schoolteacher is earning
$50,000 per year. By age 44, when the scientist is desperately trying to
switch careers, the schoolteacher is making more than $90,000 per year for
working nine months (only the better school systems pay $90,000 per year, but
remember that we posited a person with a high IQ and motivation sufficient to
get through graduate school in science). Being a public employee and a member
of a union, the schoolteacher cannot be fired but may at this point in his or
her life begin thinking about a comfortable early retirement and some sort of
second career."

~~~
acjohnson55
You're citing pretty much the tip top end of the scale. What do you suppose
the 95th percentile tech person makes?

I make roughly twice as much as an engineer than I did as a teacher. I may
work year round, but work is faaaar less stressful. As a teacher, you might
wear many hats every day, including that of performer, improvisor, tutor,
coach, mentor, surrogate parent, administrator, behavioral therapist, crisis
manager, decorator, and so on, and so on. Add to that the putting up with the
constant flak you receive from being in a profession that's just frankly not
valued in this country's culture.

If you really care to learn what it's like, I journaled my brief career as a
teacher: [http://alanjayteaching.com](http://alanjayteaching.com).

------
tapatio
And another: Why Are There Still So Few Men in Pharmaceutical Sales?

