Women: Their Underrepresentation and Career Differentials in Science and Engineering: Proceedings of a Conference (1987)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

DISCUSSION: WOMEN IN ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE Susan F. Chipman LeBold provides much detailed information to flesh out the obvious fact that women are poorly represented in physical science and engi- neering fields. He points to changes toward more equitable represen- tation that have occurred in recent years but still leave engineering enrollments with a ratio of about six males to every female. Fields such as mathematics, biology, and psychology are characterized as hav- ing reached nearly equitable representation. As a psychologist, I feel obliged to point out that the label "psychology" covers the combination of a large helping profession with a relatively much smaller scien- tific research field. Although the representation of women in scien- tific psychology has certainly improved, it is unlikely that a state of equitable representation has been attained. As a research manager, I am aware that certain subfields of scientific psychology still have very few women in them. LeBold notes that the trend toward increasing enrollments of women in engineering has leveled off in the l980s. it is important to rec- ognize -that there was every reason to think that this would happen and to think that further increases in female engineering enrollments may be difficult to achieve. Dunteman, et al. (l979), did extensive analyses to model the career selections of participants in the National Longitudinal Survey, a study of people who finished high school in l972. These analyses showed that basic interest patterns—roughly characterized as an interest in "things" as contrasted to an interest in "people"—were very important in predicting the likelihood that a science or engineering major would be selected. There are large sex differences in those interest patterns, and they can go a long way toward providing an explanation of the sex differences in major selec- tion. However, despite analyses in which many variables were either included—such as the number of high school math and science courses— or explored for explanatory power—such as family formation plans, Dunteman, et al., still found unexplained negative effects of being female on the likelihood that a science or engineering major would be selected. These negative effects probably represent the barriers of sex- stereotyping. It seems likely that the increased enrollments in the past decade mean that those barriers have dropped: if we were to do a similar modeling of the selection of major fields using data from a 99

recent cohort, perhaps the "unexplained" sex differences would be gone. However, it seems certain that the sex differences in interest patterns will remain an important factor determining continuing sex differences in engineering enrollment. My own experience reviewing research on the issue of female enrollment in high school mathematics (Chipman and Wilson, l985) also suggests that early interest patterns and related career expectations determine enrollments in the high school math and science courses, not that course enrollments determine later career choices. High school workshops designed to encourage interest in scientific and engineering careers are fine, but it is almost certain that they are "too little, too late" to have a very significant effect. Indeed, we have very little understanding of what it would take to alter those basic interest patterns. And—despite the disadvantage that seems to accrue to those who care for people in our society—one might question whether it is really a desirable goal to attempt to reduce the propor- tion of people in our society who are primarily animated by an in- terest in and concern for people. A major focus of LeBold's paper, however, is on what determines whether people stay in engineering studies once they have begun. For these people, these women, the selection hurdle of appropriate inter- ests has been overcome. Social variables—such as teacher encourage- ment, mentoring, and financial variables—seem to be important factors at this point. Not surprisingly, for both sexes, cognitive variables are the big determinant of success and persistence in engineering studies. However, there are signs that the social variables must still be working to the disadvantage of women students in engineering. LeBold reports that men are somewhat more likely to attrite for aca- demic reasons, whereas women are somewhat more likely to transfer to another major and successfully complete college. At Purdue, however, the overall picture is one of negligible sex differences in the like- lihood of completing engineering studies once they are begun. LeBold also considers the idea of special single-sex programs for women students, reporting on an experimental program of his that did not prove popular with students and did not have any effect on cogni- tive or affective outcomes with respect to the subject-matter (LeBold, et al., l983). Because women scientists have come, disproportionately, from women's colleges, people often suggest that a single-sex environ- ment would be helpful in increasing women's participation in scientific and technical fields. Although I have not thoroughly reviewed the issue, I have never seen a really good study showing the positive ef- fects of women's colleges. in particular, I have not seen one that controls for the effects of social class and economic status. LeBold cites Auster (l984) as finding that women in engineering were more likely than men to have highly educated parents with high incomes. Scientists generally tend to come from relatively advantaged backgrounds, and this is likely to be still more true for women scien- tists, given the-lesser willingness to invest in the advanced education of women that both parents and institutions have shown. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Seven Sisters colleges would have a better than average record in producing women scientists. In the ab- l00

sence of strong evidence to the contrary, I tend to share the view of LeBold's students that an integrated educational environment is more realistic preparation for work in an integrated world. However, whether or not there is research to support the con- clusion, it seems only prudent for a young woman to select an engineer- ing program like LeBold's program at Purdue, where women are reasonably well represented and supported by an encouraging institutional envir- onment. Bibliography Auster, Carol. l984. Nontraditional Occupational Choice: A Compara- tive Study of Women and Men in Engineering. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Chipman, S. F., and D. M. Wilson. l985. Understanding mathematics course enrollment and mathematics achievement: A synthesis of the research. In Women and Mathematics: Balancing the Equation, S. F. Chipman, L. R. Brush, and D. M. Wilson, eds. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates. Dunteman, G. H., J. Wisenbaker, and N. E. Taylor. l979. Race and Sex Differences in College Science Program Participation. Report submitted to the National Science Foundation under contract no. SED-77-l8728. LeBold, W. K., B. R. Butler, and E. M. Knigga. l983. Putting It All Together. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University. l0l