717. Proof and Prejudice: Women in Mathematics
April 20, 2006
Read comments[2] Add comment[!]
"Margot Gerritsen, a Stanford assistant professor who teaches mathematics, said there are no differences in ability between her male and female students but that there are differences in attitude and perception."
Read the full entry for "717. Proof and Prejudice: Women in Mathematics"
Posted by markep on April 20, 2006
717. Proof and Prejudice: Women in Mathematics
April 20, 2006
Folks:
The posting below looks at culture of mathematics in the U.S. and women's experience as professional mathematicians. The article is by Lisa Trei and is based on a conference, "Proof and Prejudice: Women in Mathematics," sponsored by the Stanford Institute for Research on Women and Gender (IRWG) on Feb. 7, 2006. It appeared in the Stanford Report [http://news-service.stanford.edu/], February 15, 2006. Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Teaching as Dialogue
Tomorrow's Academia
-------------------------------------- 898 words -------------------------------------
PROOF AND PREJUDICE: WOMEN IN MATHEMATICS
Biases must be tackled to achieve gender equity in mathematics, scholars argue
BY LISA TREI
Mathematics has a public relations problem in this country, particularly among some girls and women, according to Hollywood actress Danica McKellar.
"Nobody out there is saying that smart is sexy and smart is important," said McKellar, the co-author of a mathematical proof. "Role models like Paris Hilton have everything to do with why this country is being dumbed down. We need better PR."
A year after Harvard President Lawrence Summers' remarks suggesting innate gender differences in science and math ability, the Institute for Research on Women and Gender (IRWG) on Feb. 7 hosted an event titled "Proof and Prejudice: Women in Mathematics," to examine the culture of mathematics in this country and women's experience as professional mathematicians.
At the opening, IRWG Director Londa Schiebinger took stock of what has unfolded since the Summers controversy. "In the year that has elapsed, many institutions, including Harvard, have stepped up efforts to remove all subtle and unexamined biases in institutions in efforts to make universities welcoming to women," she said, noting Stanford's recent announcement to support paid maternity leave for female graduate students.
Despite advances, unexamined biases remain within the culture of mathematics and science, Schiebinger said. "Many are held unconsciously by men and also by women-in university math departments as well as in our society in general," she added. For example, "Mathematicians are fat, scruffy and have no friends " is how the Times of London (Jan. 3, 2001) summarized the findings of a seven-nation study of schoolchildren's perceptions of typical mathematicians.
Schiebinger said the goal of the discussions "is to bring these biases to the surface, to examine them and, eventually, outgrow them."
Panel speakers acknowledged that progress is being made to improve gender equity in mathematics but that much still needs to be done.
Margot Gerritsen, a Stanford assistant professor of petroleum engineering who teaches mathematics, said there are no differences in ability between her male and female students. "There are big differences … in attitude and perception," she said. "I've seen much higher stress levels in women starting academic careers-about how they can contribute and fit in-than with the men." Male students are more likely to shrug off temporary setbacks, such as a poor test result, than women, she said.
Gerritsen argued that problems of perception begin in elementary school, where most teachers are women. If girls hear their female teachers say that math is difficult, she said, they are more likely to internalize it than boys. In middle and high school, the problem increases because the "brainy kid" is still portrayed by the media as "ugly, boring and a quite uncool character," Gerritsen said. "And often brainy is associated with being good at math. It's a big problem. I think the media does a very bad job creating a good atmosphere."
Stanford Associate Professor of Education Jo Boaler, an expert in mathematics education who spoke as a member of the audience, said elementary school teachers should not be blamed. Girls and boys achieve at similar levels in mathematics through school and at the undergraduate level, she said. "Girls are still achieving at very high levels across the board-that's the message that should go out there," she said. "The idea that they're not is damaging in its own right." But after college, she said, the numbers drop off. According to Schiebinger, women earn 46 percent of undergraduate math degrees in this country but represent only 8 percent of math professors.
Helen Moore, associate director of the American Institute of Mathematics in Palo Alto, discussed how the structure of graduate-level mathematics works against women. As an undergraduate math major, Moore was often the only woman in her classes. "I thought the others couldn't cut it," she said. When Moore entered the State University of New York-Stony Brook, the mathematics doctoral program had six women in the year above her and three women in her own class. All six above her left without doctorates, and Moore's two classmates left after three years.
Moore earned a doctorate in 1995 but was concerned about the program's poor retention rates for women. "I thought something was going on," she said. Moore explained that the way mathematical knowledge is tested early in the program, in a timed exam, is an obstacle because research shows that women work differently than men. "It's not clear whether the test actually tests mental ability," she said. "It may actually just test speed." Moore was able to convince her department to relax the time limits slightly.
Even women who make it as mathematicians often feel excluded from the broader culture, said Claudia Henrion, author of Women in Mathematics: The Addition of Difference. In researching the book, a recurring theme arose, she said: "The women were very accomplished but they still felt as outsiders in the math community." The talent exists, Henrion said, so the question must be, "How do we cultivate it and how do we create communities in which it is maximized?"
In that respect, academia still has a long way to go. About 60 percent of female faculty do not have children compared with about 30 percent of male professors, Henrion said. "The cost we're asking women to pursue this path is extremely high," she said. "They're being asked to choose in a way most men are not asked to choose. Until that gets addressed, it's a real disincentive for a lot of women."
Guidelines for posting comments:
Comments about this article: [2]
The discussion seems too narrow to me by not considering cohort effects and cultural environs. Start off by considering that most kids - male or female - don't do well in math. Then consider, as a consequence, what type of pressures are on kids with aptitude and inclination to engage in math and how those kids cope with these pressures. Next ask whether any of those coping mechanisms are themselves gender biased. For example, look at chess clubs and the gender composition of that. The argument is that coping often involves finding peers who are similar to relate to and activities that are of mutual interest. If one can find that, one can survive and "be oneself." If one can't find that, either look elsewhere or somehow "go under cover."
At my school the life sciences have essentially reached gender parity, but engineering (and math) are still heavily male dominated. This is self- reenforcing, in my view, and likely not to change unless the cultural and peer environs also change.
Posted by: Lanny Arvan, University of Illinois on April 22, 2006 11:54 AM
What bothers me about all these discussions is that they start with the *presumption* that we humans are inherently sex-neutral with regards to specific abilities and interests, and attribute all differentitiations so some kind of social bias, whether conscious or unconscious. However, nobody is ever required to prove this presumption -- it is the politically correct one; only people who disagree with it are immediately challenged to "prove" the reason for their challenge. Yet nobody in his right ming would doubt that horses and mares, or hens and roosters, have different tempers, behaviors, and inclinations. What is so "obvious" about humans being the only higher species that do not have such sex-based differentiation?
This brings us to idiocies like retaliating against Larry Summers, or having Jo Boaler saying at the conference that "elementary school teachers should not be blamed." Blamed for WHAT? For failing to change what is most probably biological bias? For their failure to produce sexless humanoids? Lisa Trei, Jo Boaler, like others in the "women in xyz" fields should stick to math (or xyz field). Alternately they should all start supporting eugenics and genetic engineering, which seems to be the only path to achieve the nightmare of a-sexed humanoids.
(Note: I hope it is obvious that group tendencies have large variance and have little to say about individuals in the group. Not that such disclaimer helped Larry Summers...)
Posted by: Zeev on May 21, 2006 03:54 PM