Hamilton 1

Noah Hamilton

Prof. Dunham

ENG 1201 Online

4 July 2019

Women in STEM

Women compose 58.2% of the

population in the United States workforce

(“United States Census Bureau”, 2018),

yet women only comprise approximately

29% of the population in science,

technology, engineering and

mathematics (STEM) fields (“National

Girls Collaborative Project”, 2018).

Thus, a definite under representation of

female workers exists in STEM fields.

The general population must recognize

and address this gender gap by changing

the approaches to raising female children,

altering bias based workforce environments

and eliminating the gender wage gap.

 Hamilton 2

In modern society, many people may argue, “bias is obsolete.” But, studies have shown a

gender bias is still an axiomatic act of many persons’ daily lives. Physics professor Sarah

Rugheimer discusses the many unconscious biases people portray in daily life throughout her

website, “Women in STEM Resources”. Rugheimer examines the experiment in which two

applications with equivalent credentials were created, but the two applications were assigned

differing names. One application was submitted under the name “John”, and the other was

presented under the name “Jennifer”. The applicant “John” was intended to be viewed as a male

student, while the contender “Jennifer” was intended to be an assumed female student. These

applications were then administered to both male and female evaluators in biology, chemistry

and physics departments to be rated according to competence and hireability. In the end, the

application titled “John” received a rating promoting higher salary recommendations, greater

competence and a more substantial hireability than the application of “Jennifer” by

approximately 12 percent. So, both female and male evaluators either consciously or

unconsciously held a gender bias in their evaluations, as two identically capable applicants

received varying ratings with the only difference lying in gender. (2019). But, why does this bias

exist? And, how are people to truly make this bias obsolete?

The gender bias begins to be evident at an early age for both males and females. Many

children begin to understand their interests before the age of five. According to Dr. Holinger in

his article, “Discovering our Children’s Interests”, from PsychologyToday, parents interacting

with their children in regards to the childrens’ interests on a daily basis should begin before the

child reaches five years in age. Holinger additionally states: “​If the child is made aware that

his/her interests are important, the child then can more clearly identify genuine likes and dislikes,
 Hamilton 3

leading more readily to choices of career, spouse, and so on.” With this statement, Holinger

concludes young childrens’ interests are very important in regards to the future of these children.

Holinger even supports the idea that the nurturing of a young child’s interest(s) will affect the

career choices of this same child in the future (2011).

Unfortunately, children are treated differently based on gender. In the academic journal

“Women in Science: Surpassing Subtle and Overt Biases through Intervention Programs​”,​

physicist Ruxandra Bondarescu states: “The shaming of girls when they act like ‘boys’, media

depiction of males and females, indulgence of boys when they are exploratory and even break

things, while letting girls know that such behaviour is unacceptable for them leads to building

societies where STEM exploration and creativity are considered the man’ purview” (1). Thus,

Ruxandra promotes the idea that male children are given parental support to explore and create,

while female children are reproached by parents for acts of exploration and creativity. Therefore,

the unequal treatment of children based on gender shapes a future in which women lack interest

in STEM. Fortunately, this problem has an attainable solution.

Young girls should be encouraged by their parents to adventure, build, create and

sometimes destroy when appropriate. For instance, a parent should attempt to disregard any basis

for gender in a toy or game. Instead of buying one’s daughter a doll or makeup because the two

carry a generically feminine connotation, a parent could purchase Legos because they promote

creativity. Bondarescu describes the lack of these small alterations in gender treatment as having

more visibly apparent effects in highschool and college.

Statistically, female students in highschool are more likely to take an advanced placement

test than a male student, yet the likeliness of a female student taking advanced placement tests in
 Hamilton 4

computer science, physics and calculus is lower than that of males (Bondarescu 1). So, the

majority of advanced placement test takers is a female demographic, but the female test takers

tend to avoid advanced placement tests for STEM based subjects. Thus, interests implanted in

female children due to societal gender boundaries do lead to interests among female teenagers

being less directed toward STEM topics.

To fix the gender gap in STEM interests of teenagers and young adults, the public must

encourage female children to be self expressive in any sense of exploration and creativity. Then,

female teenagers may be more aware of their STEM interests and equal capabilities to men in

terms of comprehending a STEM field. In the article “Why So Few? Women in Science,

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics” by Dr. Catherine Hill, Hill states: “...​in math and

science, a growth mindset benefits girls.” So, Hill suggests societal members should inform

female children and teenagers of their ability to improve and accell in a math and/or science

field. But, these mindset growths can be caused by more a broad societal group than the parents

of female children. A teacher, peer, family member, friend or any person can empower young

women if they are simply aware of the need to do so.

In conclusion, parents must communicate to their female children that women are

allowed to create, build and explore. Furthermore, any surrounding person should encourage the

empowerment of young women and accept that a woman’s capabilities are equal to a man’s in

order to destroy gender boundaries in child development. Adversely, many employers have

refused to acknowledge these needs and have thenceforth turned female students away from

STEM with their conscious and/or unconscious biases.

 Hamilton 5

The STEM workforce environments have not been made suitable for potential female

employees. According to Bondarescu, approximately 52% of the women who enter science and

engineering fields will change careers in their mid thirties (2). So, the minority of women who

generate an uncommon, socially restrained interest in STEM subjects will likely not pursue a

complete career with their interests. These career changes are likely due to the lack of

acknowledgement for female contributors in academic STEM professions.

In “Women in STEM Resources” by physics professor Sarah Rugheimer, Rugheimer

describes the differences in the potential to be published based on gender. Rugheimer begins her

argument by discussing the lack of support a woman is likely to receive from an institution’s

faculty when she states: “the widely-reported lower publication rates of female faculty are

correlated with the amount of research resources typically needed in the discipline considered,

and thus may be explained by the lower level of institutional support historically received by

females” (2019). Thus, females in scholarly positions commonly receive less assistance from

their departments than males in scholarly positions. To counter the gender bias in higher

academic settings, faculty members should significantly promote the scholarly work of females

in STEM. This correction could be made if employers and employees were only made aware of

their own unconscious gender biases.

According to Rugheimer, students and professors in academic institutions hold gender

biases that lead to the limiting of women in academic professions. Rugheimer states: “This study

found that males enrolled in undergraduate biology classes consistently ranked their male

classmates as more knowledgeable about course content, even over better-performing female

students” as a demonstration of the average adult male’s perception of a woman’s intelligence

 Hamilton 6

(“Women in STEM Resources”, 2019). The study demonstrated the existence of expressed

gender bias as a result of individuals’ unconscious gender discriminations. In conclusion, a

female employee must work harder and achieve more than a man in a STEM based field to be

considered equal in rank. Although, after achieving more than a male member of staff in the

same field, a female member would still likely make a lesser wage/salary than the male

possessing inferior credentials.

The median salary in STEM fields for a female employee is frequently lower than the

average salary for a male employee in the same field. Rugheimer evaluated the gender wage gap

for specific subjects and determined in biomedical and biological sciences, the average female

earns approximately 88% of the median male’s salary. In geosciences, atmospheric and ocean

sciences, the normal female’s salary would nearly 92% of a male’s salary. The general Female

then earns about 89% of a male’s salary in physics and astronomy. And, in engineering fields,

the typical female only earns approximately 92% of a male’s salary. Overall, the median salary

for men in STEM fields is 24% higher than the median salary for women in the same fields

(“Women in STEM Resources”, 2019). While many potential approaches to​ the gender wage gap

are possible to attempt, the most effective solution is likely to allow and offer pay transparency

for female employees.

In Richard Trotter’s academic journal, “The New Age of Pay Transparency”, Trotter

describes pay transparency as a removal of secrecy from the pay of colleagues that allows female

coworkers to review the pay of their peers before discussing their own salary. With pay

transparency, female job applicants would have a basis for pay to allow themselves the ability to

negotiate fair and equal salaries before hire. Pay transparency can only transpire if the general
 Hamilton 7

public motivates the government and faculty administrations to support such a principle

(529-30).

Advancing the conventional method for establishing employee’s salaries would

additionally extend to ending the gender wage gap in all fields. While many STEM occupations

generally accommodate a gender wage gap, almost all professions contain the same sexually

biased institutions for determining the pay of workers. In the CNBC article “A New Study

Suggests Women Earn About Half What Men Earn” by reporter Emma Newburger, Newburger

states, “The standard annual wage gap measured by the Census Bureau shows that women make

80 cents for every dollar earned by a man.” to convey the average gender wage gap in all

professions of the United States (2019). Thus, not only would pay transparency promote gender

equality in STEM fields, but the concept would provide the potential for equality in every

occupation. Unfortunately, without solving the problem of the gender wage gap, the opportunity

for progress and innovation in STEM specializations will be missed.

Men and women are statistically equally capable of comprehending the content a STEM

field requires, but the brain of each gender varies by differing natural capabilities. According to

Diana Halpern in her academic journal “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and

Mathematics”. Halpern states: “Females tend to excel in verbal abilities, with large differences

between females and males found when assessments include writing samples” to demonstrate the

females’ evident acceleration in writing and verbalizing difficult concepts. If women continue to

be underrepresented in STEM fields, many research institutions may then lack the natural ability

of the female brain to verbalize difficult concepts extensively. Meanwhile, Halpern describes

men as generally “...more variable on most measures of quantitative and visuospatial ability.”
 Hamilton 8

Thus, the currently over represented males in STEM occupations are likely contributing to their

fields the natural ability of the male brain to understand measurable data and the visualization of

differences and similarities between objects. So, if male and female employees are equally

represented in STEM based professions, then the perspectives of two varying brain structures

could contribute alternatively to the progress in STEM.

Adversely, many people insist society has no fault for the lack of females employed at

STEM related institutions. For instance, in a personally conducted interview, an anonymous

interviewee was questioned in regards to gender biases in modern american society. The adult

interviewee was asked, “Is gender bias evident in educational and workplace environments?”

The interviewee responded, “It’s not real, because women are allowed to do the same jobs as

men. And, women have, in the past, been promoted to superior positions in workplaces” (19 July

2019). Thus, people argue that societal boundaries affecting women’s interests in STEM do not

exist. And, for societal boundaries to not affect women entering STEM, an attempt to alter the

societal boundaries would be ineffective. But, many European countries have already made

societal changes and witnessed progress in the representation of women in STEM. Thus, the

argument declaring societal gender biases unreal is false.

Associate Professor ​Panagiota Fatourou developed the academic journal “Women Are

Needed in STEM: European Policies and Incentives”, which pertains to actions taken to promote

gender equality in Europe and the expected effect(s) over time in various european countries.

Fatourou’s data depicted percentages by year from 2011-2017 of students in an informatics

major that are female comparatively by country. Belgium’s and Denmark’s percentages lay

beneath 10% in 2017, while Estonia’s and Romania’s percentages lay at the peaks of the chart at
 Hamilton 9

approximately 30% in 2017. Thus, North Eastern Europe has promoted gender equality in STEM

based fields in a superior manner to North Central Europe. Meanwhile, North Eastern Europe

may lay at the peaks of the graph, but Western European Countries have had the greatest

increase in percentage of female students in an informatics major overtime. So, North Eastern

European and Western European approaches to the under representation of women in STEM

occupations should be reviewed and applied in foriegn countries with societal gender boundaries,

such as the United States (54).

Fatourou explains the european initiatives creating progress as: “...gender equality in

careers, gender balance in decision-making bodies, and integration of the gender dimension in

R&I” (55). In conclusion, STEM field employers should create a comfortable and equal

environment for men and women at a workplace. Plus, the government should create a system of

equal pay for equal work on a gender basis. Then, STEM career faculties should promote more

women into administrative positions. Lastly, employers should be motivated to apply an equal

risk and insurance policy for all faculty members without a gender basis. As many countries in

Europe have created progress in the representation of women in STEM professions, the United

States and all other lacking countries should follow suit. By applying simple principles of

awareness to the government and STEM institutions, female workers could gain equal

representation to men in STEM occupations.

 Hamilton 10

Statistically, many european countries

have proven the representation of women in

STEM professions can be increased. To

amplify the amount of female workers in

STEM careers and eliminate axiomatic gender

biases, people must be aware and seek to alter

the gender boundaries of society created for

young children, in inadequate workplace

environments and for unfair gender based

salaries. The current denial of existing gender

divisions has created a society in which male

 Hamilton 11

and female employees can not experience equal career opportunities and representation in the

workplace. But, awareness should be spread in concern of societal gender biases and evident

gender gaps. In the future, perhaps the percent of STEM fields’ positions held by female

members of staff will be at or above 50%, as people become empowered to obtain true gender

equality.
 Hamilton 12

Works Cited

Anonymous. Personal interview. 19 July 2019.

Altchek, Ana. “Women in STEM Events Demolish Discrimination.” ​The Pitt News,​ 3 Apr. 2018,

pittnews.com/article/130229/opinions/women-stem-events-demolish-discrimination/.

Bondarescu, Ruxandra, et al. ​Women in Science: Surpassing Subtle and Overt Biases through

Intervention Programs.​ 2018. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsarx&AN=edsarx.1808.05549&site

=eds-live.

Dillingham, Steven. “Statistics.” Statistics | National Girls Collaborative Project, United States

Census Bureau, 2018, ngcproject.org/statistics.

Fatourou, Panagiota, et al. “Women Are Needed in STEM: European Policies and Incentives.”

Communications of the ACM, ​vol. 62, no. 4, Apr. 2019, pp. 52–57. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1145/3312565.

Halpern, Diane F et al. “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.”

Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological

Society​ vol. 8,1 (2007): 1-51. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x

Hill, Catherine. “Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics.” ​AAUW,​ AAUW, 2019, www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/.

Holinger, Paul. “Discovering Our Children's Interests.” ​Psychology Today,​ Sussex Publishers,

2011, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201106/discovering-

our-childrens-interests.
 Hamilton 13

National Girls Collaborative. “Statistics.” ​Statistics | National Girls Collaborative Project,​

National Girls Collaborative, 2018, ngcproject.org/statistics.

Newburger, Emma. “A New Study Suggests Women Earn about Half What Men Earn.” ​CNBC,​

CNBC, 4 Dec. 2018,

www.cnbc.com/2018/11/28/study-for-every-dollar-a-man-earns-a-woman-earns-49-cents

.html.

Rugheimer, Sarah. “Women in STEM Resources.” ​Women in STEM Resources - Sarah

Rugheimer,​ 2019, www.sarahrugheimer.com/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html.

Trotter, Richard G., et al. “The New Age of Pay Transparency.” ​Business Horizons,​ vol. 60, no.

4, July 2017, pp. 529–539. ​EBSCOhost,​ doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2017.03.011.