SCIENCE EDUCATION

The Pipeline IsLeaking WomenAll the Way AlongMonica Healy always had a flair for mathematics. As achild growing up in the suburbs near Washington, D.C.,she liked math and consistently did well in math classes,scoring in the exceptional range on standardized tests.Given that kind of aptitude, Healy seemed to be cut outfor a career in some kind of science. But that wasn't theway it turned out. Instead, several obstacles intervenedand sent her down a different path.

One of those obstacles has to do with how societyviews girls and science. It's not necessarily a positiveview: The nuns in Healy's all-girl Catholic school didn'teven teach science. As a result, says Healy, "I reallycouldn't imagine doing anything useful with math."That obstacle was removed when she got to high schooland began taking chemistry and biology (along withmath, in which she continued to excel).

Yet there still was a problem, one that has to do withhow women view science: The science courses seemeddry and lifeless. That continued to be true for Healy atthe University ofMaryland, where her remaining inter-est in science vanished. In college, the conclusion thathad been there below the surface all along becameconscious and Healy decided she was a "people person."The students she knew who were majoring in science,she says, "were so dedicated to doing science that theydidn't seem to have room for people in their lives."

Today, Healy, 43, remains very much a people per-son. She is staff director of the U.S. Senate DemocraticPolicy Committee, where she works on ways of reform-ing the nation's complex, out-of-control health-caresystem. In her work, Healy uses the analytical skills shedeveloped in math class, but her work has far moredirect relevance to human concerns.

The story of Monica Healy raises questions for sci-ence education, because there are many Monica Healysin this country: bright women with scientific aptitudewho get diverted into other careers along the line. As aresult, women are seriously underrepresented in theranks ofscientists and engineers. Women make up 45%of the U.S. workforce, but they account for only 16% ofemployed scientists and engineers. Though women earnmore than half the bachelor's and master's degrees andmore than a third ofdoctorates awarded at U.S. collegesand universities, in science and engineering disciplinesthey receive only 30% of bachelor's degrees and less thana quarter of advanced degrees. And those dismal statis-tics would look even worse if the figures for one tradi-tionally "feminine" field-psychology-were removed.

"The pipeline is leaking women" is how Sue V.Rosser, director of women's studies at the University ofSouth Carolina puts it. "And unless this country doessomething to plug those leaks, women will continued tobe denied opportunities in rewarding, high-paying ca-reers and this country is going to be worse for it."

Over the past 15 years dozens of studies funded bypublic agencies, private foundations, industry, and schools

have pinpointed factors that drill holes in the pipeline.One is that-Monica Healy to the contrary-fewergirls than boys have the confidence that they can mas-ter math. But many of the other factors reflect the kindof science culture that caused Healy to lose interest:outmoded stereotypes, an emphasis on scientific knowl-edge independent of real-world uses, and an image ofscientists as obsessed with science to the exclusion ofotherhuman endeavors. Yet, as a potpourri ofinnovativeprograms shows, these conditions can be changed (seestory on page 412).

Those changes may not come so easily, though. Onesubject that shows how tough the work of change willbe is mathematics. A chief deterrent to later success inscience and engineering is the poor preparation in math-ematics most women receive in high school. The rea-sons for this difference have touched off some of thehottest controversies in the field of science education.Some researchers argue that the difference is due, atleast partly, to innate disparities in mathematical abili-ties.The proponents of the "innate abilities" argument,among them Camilla Persson Benbow and DavidLubinski, codirectors of the Study of MathematicallyPrecocious Youth (SMPY) at Iowa State University,contend that the disproportionatenumber ofmales in advanced math Percenlclasses in high school reflects un- Talentedderlying gender differences. Ph.D.s it

Much of the basis for these 3.5

claims stems from differences in the 3distribution of scores on the math

2.ssection of the Scholastic Aptitude rTest (SAT-M). On the whole, 2

young women score at least as well, 0 15and perhaps slightly better, thanyoung men on the SAT-M. Yet thedistribution ofscores differs sharply 0.5

according to gender: The curve for omen is more spread out, so that at Maththe lowest-and highest-levelsthere are more males than females.Because most scientists are drawn It's not math anxie'from those with the highest levels mathematically gifteof math preparation, "the effects of than men pursue sc

The culture ofscience fails toattract womenwho mightotherwise becomegifted scientists.

ty. Even among the mostd students, far fewer womenience careers.

a

Fielder's choice. The proportion of women getting advanced degrees varies enor-

mously by field-from less than 10% in engineering to more than 50% in psychology.SCIENCE * VOL. 260 · 16 APRIL 1993

zt of MathematicallyStudents Who Earnn Specific Subjects

Engineering PhysicalSciences

I Women i Men

70 Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women, by Field

62%60

50

40 - 37%

30- I28%24%

2018% 19%

10 II0

1B.iB.BB.I.i.

11l

rlrl.u.n0l.r.fiycrLk...P.

409

on

Sep

tem

ber

27, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

27, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

27, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

these disparate ratios for the math-science pipeline isclear," says Benbow. "A greater number of males thanfemales will qualify for advanced training in disciplinesthat place a premium on mathematical reasoning."

In addition, the SMPY researchers have found thatdifferences in values between boys and girls reinforcethe apparent differences in capacities at the very high-est levels of mathematical performance. On a battery oftests, males scored higher in preferences related to ab-stractions and theory, while females scored higher onsocial values. "What we're measuring here is related toone of the biggest differences between genders, namelythat of 'people versus things,'" says Benbow. "Femalestend to be more interested in the former, males in thelatter." In some instances, this will lead women to spe-cific fields, says Benbow: "Females tend to go into moreorganic sciences, such as biology, medicine, and psy-chology, while males go for the more inorganic fields,such as physics and engineering." But in other casesthese preferences can drive women out of science.

Critics of the "innate abilities" school aren't buyingthe idea that these differences are intrinsic. "Thesestudies have big holes in them," says Rosser. The criticshave no argument with the notion that women preferfields involving people rather than abstractions. Theystrongly dispute the hypothesis, however, that this is aninnate, gender-based preference.

To begin with, says Rosser, the Iowa State programlooks only at extremely high math achievers, whichaccount for a mere 1% of college-bound students. "Inaddition, the results of so-called interest tests dependon how you word the questions. Males are interested inengineering problems no matter what, but women re-spond more energetically when these problems are putin the context of helping people or the environment."It's not that women aren't interested in engineering,adds Rosser, it's a question of context: "Women aren'tso interested in engineering as a technical matter, butas a practical matter."

The majority of those who have studied the issue ofgender preferences as they relate to

for Women in z science argue that culture, rather'ngineering than biology, points women andmen in different directions. Almost

00 from birth, society sends girls andphomores boys different messages about their

abilities and expectations. OnceSeniorsI children reach school, those sig-

nals are reinforced by teachers.Studies in the mid-1980s by sev-

3,000 eral investigators, including MyrashCollege and David Sadker at AmericanUniversity in Washington, D.C.,

206,000 and Charol Shakeshaft, at Hofstra?84 B.S. Degrees University in New York, showed

46,000 that math and science teachers11986 M.S. make more eye contact with boysDere and pay more attention to them

I^/I7 O than they do to girls in their classes.Oeg~it 192Ph.D.s That disparity is reinforced bythe teachers' differing styles ofdeal-

86 '88 '90 '92 ing with male and female pupils.When boys give wrong answers in

*tudy of science class, teachers challenge them toteep from high find the correct answer; girls get

sympathy. Even in group activities

designed to provide a level playing field, girls may getshort shrift. "Boys tend to operate the equipment andactually perform the experiment while girls tend torecord data and write reports," says Patricia B. Campbell,director of Campbell-Kibler Associates, a science edu-cation consulting group. "This reinforces a boy's self-confidence, while eroding that of the young girl."

In fact, a loss of self-confidence-rather than anydifferences in abilities-may be what produces the firstleak in the female science pipeline. That leak beginsaround the seventh grade and continues through highschool. Helen Astin and Linda J. Sax of the Universityof California, Los Angeles (UCLA), studied seventh-graders and found an interesting difference. The differ-ence wasn't in performance-males and females per-formed comparably in math and science courses-butin the fact that females consistently underestimatedtheir abilities. Because of this lack of confidence, thefemales begin taking fewer math and science coursesthan their male schoolmates, a trend that accelerates inhigh school. "By the time these young women graduatehigh school," said Sax, "they have taken so many fewermath and science courses that it precludes significantnumbers of them from pursuing college science andengineering majors."

Indeed, the effects of taking or not taking math andscience in high school reverberate through a person'scareer, as the UCLA researchers found in a later studyof 15,050 first-year students at 192 4-year colleges anduniversities. In that study, 21% of men but only 6% ofwomen reported they would major in science and engi-neering. Among the biggest factors that helped womenstay in science and engineering were the number ofphysical science courses taken in high school and higherconfidence in mathematical skills.

One of the notable findings by the UCLA research-ers was that women who attended smaller, more presti-gious schools had the biggest decline in self-confi-dence-and the highest dropout rate. "The intensecompetition at these schools and the greater degree ofcontact with faculty were actually discouraging factorsexcept in situations where there were large numbers ofwomen students," says Sax.

The conclusion drawn by many researchers is thatthe presence of other women-creating a different en-vironment from the competitive male domain of mostscience-is a key ingredient in women's success. Andwomen's colleges do have a higher retention rate forfemale science majors than mixed schools. But the pres-ence of other women may be only one factor. Anothercould be that women's colleges are designing programsspecifically for women. "All our science classes, butparticularly the introductory ones, are structured aroundcooperation, hands-on learning, and relevance to real-world problems," said Leona Truchan, professor ofbiol-ogy at Alvemrno College, an all-women's school of 2500in Milwaukee. "This shows our women that they can doscience. It gives them the self-confidence to continueon when their coursework gets tough. As a result, wehave a very high retention rate."

The same principles-cooperation and hands-onwork-have helped transform chemistry, traditionallyone of the worst disciplines at retaining women stu-dents, at all-female Wellesley College in Wellesley,Massachusetts. "Our chemistry department totally re-vamped itself, from the design of its courses (they're

SCIENCE * VOL. 260 * 16 APRIL 1993

Education PipelineNatural Science/E

1978 '80 '82 '84

Downer. The drop-off in the samong women is extremely sischool through Ph.D.s.

410

.k.g.t..

A Thoroughly Modern MarriageIt's not exactly unheard ofin science for a youngerwoman to marry an older, better established sci-entist in herdiscipline-often onewhohas servedas her mentor-and thereby benefit from hisexperience and advice. It's not so often, how-ever, that it happens the other way: a marriagewhere the wife was the mentor and senior scientific partner. Butthat is the case for geologists Diana and Bob Kamilli. "People areamazed at our sort ofrole reversal," says Bob, a 45-year-old econom-ic geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Tucson,which has its offices at the University of Arizona.

The Kamillis' unusual two-career marriage has now lasted 23years and the couple has had to be flexible enough to survive somesetbacks. Perhaps the most serious was when Diana failed to wintenure at Wellesley, where she had been chair of the geology de-partment. They have survived, however, and both say their lives arerich and they are pleased with the way their careers have developed-even though, as Bob says, "we don't expect to be elected to theNational Academy of Sciences."

Bob says he is proud ofthe fact that Diana, 51, was "most definitelymy role model." She was 5 years ahead of him in science when theymet in introductory geology at Rutgers University, where Diana was agraduate student lab assistant andBob was an undergraduate. She wasimpressed with him as a student, and played an important role as amentor: "She introduced the idea to go to grad school, "says Bob. "Inmy family, I was the first generation to go to college."

By the time Diana earned her Ph.D. from Rutgers in 1968, thepair were planning careers in tandem. Diana taught geology at CityCollege in New York while Bob finished his bachelor's degree andapplied to graduate schools. Then, at 26, Diana was offered thechair of Wellesley's tiny geology department, and Bob was ac-cepted at Harvard; they got married and moved to Cambridge.

After 6 years at Wellesley, Diana was denied tenure, partly, shethinks, because her mentoring activities-teaching, taking studentson field trips, and running the department-left her little time topublish. She recovered by adapting her training to a differentscientific niche. She and a colleague received a National ScienceFoundation grant to do research in archeological geology through

actually harder but provide more cooperative and hands-on experiences) to the way the faculty interacts withthe students," said Paula M. Rayman, director of Welles-ley's Pathways forWomen in the Sciences program andan associate professor of sociology. "It's the model de-partment here." As a result, says Rayman, women notonly stay in chemistry but frequently switch into theprogram once they begin taking chemistry classes.

Keepingwomen in science through college isn't nec-essarily enough, however. Although Wellesley's reten-tion rate among science majors is higher than the 53%achieved by its neighbors Harvard and Radcliffe, a sur-vey ofrecent graduates turned up a surprise: 20% droppedout ofscience within 6 months of graduating. "This wasa shock," said Rayman. "We know the attrition rate ishigh after college, but we didn't expect that the biggestdrop would occur almost immediately, before getting tothe so-called chilly climate of graduate school."

Rayman found some factors that predict who's goingto go on in science after leaving Wellesley, such ashaving had experience in a faculty member's lab. Yetit's hard to escape the conclusion that the culture ofscience itself may also have something to do with

both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology. Having learned the importance ofpublishing the hard way, she published exten-sively on the composition and provenience ofMesopotamian potsherds, helping strengthen a

£K^* ~~theorythat the pots were made by travelingpotmakers, who used local materials rather than

carrying the pots with them along well-known trade routes.Meanwhile, Bob had finished his doctorate and accepted an

offer with Climax Molybdenum Co. in Colorado. "It was his turn,"says Diana. They moved to Colorado, where she tried archeological

consulting-analyzing arti-K facts and materials at arche-

ological sites. When he hada chance to join the USGSin 1983-in Saudi Arabia-the pair decided to go. "Iwas off the job ladder, andwe had a child by then, soitwas a good excuse to taketime offto be a parent," saysDiana. When they returnedto the United States in1989, Diana re-establishedher consulting business.

It's worked out so wellDiana says she sometimesfeels her unusual job strat-egy is "cheating." "Deepdown, I sometimes feel Ishould have a more struc-

Role rqversal. Geologist Diana tured job, with my training."Kamilli was mentor and senior rolemodel orherhusban,B~b.But, she says, "I don't thinkmodel for her husband, Bob. ti ol oki ebtthis would work ff we both

wanted structured jobs. This way, I can do science fairs with mydaughter, feed the kids' rats, and work at the microscope." Andthose are all things Diana Kamilli expects to keep on doing, thanksto some unusually flexible roles.

-Ann Gibbons

women's lack of interest in pursuing a scientific career."One ofthe characteristics ofthe ideology ofscience

is that science is a calling, something that a scientistwants to do, needs to do above all else and at all costs,"says Sheila Tobias, a consultant on science educationwith the Research Corp. in Tucson. "Another is thatboth scientific talent and interest come early in life-the 'boy wonder' syndrome. Ifyou don't ask for a chem-istry set and master it by the time you're 5, you won't bea good scientist. Since far fewer girls and women displaythese traits than boys and men, you end up with aculture that discriminates by gender."

Tobias argues that until the culture of science isrethought from the ground up and scientists begin tochange their notions of the preferred behavioral char-acteristics of a scientist there will continue to be highdropout rates for women. "The next step is to have someself-examination by the scientists themselves as to whata scientist really is," Tobias says. Until such a reexami-nation takes place, the best alternative will be programsthat aim to provide the kind of environment in whichscience seems a natural thing for a woman to do.

-Joe AlperSCIENCE * VOL. 260 * 16 APRIL 1993

Il.mr.a.emrr.c.narmrr

411