Historically, women in the United States have been represented at lower rates than men in both science and engineering college programs and careers. Over time, this pattern has led to a significantly higher concentration of male professional engineers compared to women. Additionally, this disparity has led to careers in Education, History, English, Humanities and the like to be seen as "feminine" careers and areas of study. Some Feminist theorists suggest that these social and historical factors have perpetuated women's low participation rates in engineering over time. Numerous explanations and points of view have been offered to explain women's participation rates in this field. These explanations include beliefs regarding women's lack of interest in science and engineering, their physiological inability to succeed as engineers, and environmental factors in women's childhoods that discourage them from entering science and engineering fields.
Negative perceptions of female engineers may play a role in explaining their low numbers within the field. According to recent statistics, college-educated women are less than half as likely as men to be employed in science and engineering jobs.
Two forms of activism tasked with raising awareness include both organizations on college campuses and those geared towards society at large.
History.
In the early 1960s, a President's Commission on the Status of Women emphasized the need for women to fill a shortage of jobs in teaching, science, and engineering. In 1960, however, less than 1% of recorded engineers were women. Furthermore, female engineers that were employed were less likely to have obtained advanced degrees in their field than men. Research has shown that these trends were reflective of both men's and women's dominant opinions regarding women's role in the workforce throughout this period. At the time, both groups largely emphasized women's roles as traditional homemakers and mothers rather than as serious scientists or engineers.
Despite changing political views towards women and minorities during the civil rights movement, college women's enrollment rates into engineering were still relatively low when compared to men's. For example, in a study of over 440 college campuses nationwide throughout 1971–72, approximately 17% of polled Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) majors were women. This coincides with the fact that, throughout this period, there was little recorded formal discrimination in the American educational system. Women who actually applied to engineering programs were enrolled at similar rates to men. Early increases in these numbers did occur, though, throughout 1968–78. During this period, there was an estimated 100% increase in the number of female science and engineering majors throughout the United States. However, it was also estimated that they still accounted for less than 4.9% of such majors throughout this period.
Despite women's increasing numbers in science and engineering fields, affirmative action and similar efforts were implemented throughout the U.S. to increase STEM enrollment rates. It was proposed, among other factors, that early socialization by elementary schools and social stereotyping was to blame for this issue. In the mid 1980s, a shortage of qualified engineers was predicted by the year 2000, further instigating efforts to both recruit and retain women in these fields. Existing groups that promote women in engineering: ASCE Task force Committee on Women in Civil Engineering, Extraordinary Women Engineers Project Coalition.
Statistics and relevant data.
According to the National Science Foundation, overall, women have higher college graduation rates compared to men. However, men disproportionately outnumber women in the number of Science and Engineering (STEM) degrees received. Between 1989 and 2008, the approximate percentages of women receiving their Bachelor's degree in any engineering field were 17% and 19.6%, respectively. The percentage increase in the computer science industry displayed was larger, increasing from approximately 10% in 1989 to 21% in 2008.
Concerning minority (African American, Hispanic, Native American) women, the percentages of engineering bachelor's recipients increased from approximately 7% in 1989 to 12% in 2008. The percentages of minority women with engineering doctoral degrees were much lower, however, barely increasing from 1% throughout this period. Asian women actually accounted for a lower rate of engineering bachelor's degree during this time period, from approximately 2.5% to 5%. PhD recipient rates from 1989 to 2008 were nearly identical to minority women's.
According to the National Society of Professional Engineers in 2004, there were approximately 192,900 female engineers throughout the country, compared with over 1,515,000 men. Of these women, approximately 1/3 of them were software engineers (62,900). Women were also employed in higher rates than men in environmental engineering (9% to 4%) and chemical engineering (7% to 4%). However, they were less likely than men to be employed in mechanical engineering (8% to 17%) and electrical engineering (12% to 18%).
In 1999, women made up approximately one quarter of all engineers under the age of 25, whereas they constituted one-twentieth of those over age 49. This age discrepancy has been attributed to women's notable, but recent, movement into engineering within the past few decades. According to the Society of Women Engineers, women and other minorities constituted approximately 16%-17% of engineering graduate students from 1990 to 2003. Furthermore, in 2003 approximately 20% (approximately 12,000)of new engineers were women, compared with about 80% of men (approximately 49,000).
According to the ASEE, the top 10 colleges producing women engineers:
Explanations for low participation rates.
Numerous explanations have come forth to account for the lack of women engineering majors in college. Historically, women have both majored and remained in college engineering programs at lower rates than men. One of the reasons used to explain this trend has been a supposed overemphasis on the traditional "male breadwinner" household model when it comes to organizing families today. Although the percentage of families organized according to this model has declined considerably in recent decades, many individuals, including women, still see adult men as the primary wage earners in households where men were present. Even if this is the case women represent close to 60% of university graduates, including biology mayors. IES: What is the percentage of degrees conferred by race and sex?
Recently, greater emphasis has been given to women's socialization throughout their childhood and adolescence years. Socialized early in their childhoods, girls are said to be raised in societies where science, engineering, and mathematical fields are largely promoted as being "male professions". The media has also been criticized for giving little representation of females within the industry. Instead, some scholars feel that the media is guilty of perpetuating gender stereotypes by representing women in traditional "female occupations" such as nurses, school teachers, and housewives. Men help feed into this because they feel as if women aren't cut out for traditional engineering roles but rather one's where they don't have as much responsibility associated directly with the job itself. This idea is supported by a study where STEM field applicants were given a first and second choice on their majors. The results showed that women were more likely to pick male dominated fields in their second choice rather than in their first. This study found that orientations toward certain fields of study were less segregated than actual behaviors, suggesting that cultural perception toward certain fields curbs the aspirations of women that are the most competent. One of the many reasons behind this is that it stems from the treatment that women face from their male peers during collaboration. Women have reported that the males in their groups assign the women routine managerial and secretarial work to complete, leaving the women to be excluded from the hands on engineering work. The overall idea that women are underrepresented in the field has paved a way for these barrier to be raised against women becoming successful members within the field themselves.
Christina Hoff Sommers has suggested that subjects such as engineering may be less popular among women because they do not accommodate some of their typical interests with the interaction between living beings being one example. This is not necessarily to suggest, with Lawrence Summers, that women are incapable or less fundamentally capable than men at engineering, but rather that they tend to be less interested in the subject in general. The principle strength of this argument is that it explains the phenomenon without drawing tenuous links with difficult-to-measure influences such as 'culture' and 'role-models', but it is also to some degree reinforced by academic consensus, which was identified in the 'Social and Political views of American Professors' paper as 75% in favor of the claim that differing interests between men and women caused the disparity, rather than discrimination.
The presence of role models, and especially female role models, has also been emphasized as a means of increasing women's numbers in engineering. Women with one or two engineering parents are said to be moderately more likely to major in such a field themselves. Women also choose to look up to women who are already in the field as role models and mentors for their future career aspirations because they begin to think that they too can accomplish what they had once done themselves. Additionally, encouragement from teachers, counselors, and administrators. are all said to have a positive impact on a women's chances at moving into engineering. Better high school preparation in mathematics, biology, and chemistry were also said to better a women's success in an engineering career. However, according to some scholars, the above factors do not occur in a great enough number to compensate for women's current disadvantages. Thus, generally speaking, it is likely that women engineers will remain largely discriminated against and have inadequate resources at improving their outlook unless substantial social changes are made to society.
Socialization and societal outcomes.
Educational outcomes.
It has been suggested that, due to the social and environmental factors described above, high school and college women tend to have lower confidence levels in their mathematical ability compared to men. Shelley Correll's observations using the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) revealed that, on average, women who positively assessed their math ability before testing had a higher average score than women who did not rate themselves well. Moreover, longitudinal studies on both sets of women also revealed that the ones who did rate themselves highly were more likely to subsequently enroll in college-level calculus.
Goldman later discovered that positive math assessments played an important role in women's choices to enroll in engineering. However, other studies have before and since emphasized women's early life experiences in shaping their career aspirations. Feeling they are not skilled enough to successfully complete an engineering program or other advanced mathematical and/or science courses, some women perform poorly and thus complete a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, in the U.S labor force, there is approximately less than 1 female engineer for every 10 males. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2011, 13.6% of those employed in Architecture and engineering occupations were women.
Further studies have also shown that a lack of pre-degree training in high school did not sufficiently explain women engineer's dropout rates later in college. Analyses of males' and females' grades revealed that, on average, women who had dropped out of engineering programs were either approximately as qualified or even more qualified than their male peers who continued their studies. Additionally, surveyed female dropouts revealed that very few (approximately 9.8% to 11.5%) actually dropped out because they viewed the work as too difficult. Among their primary reasons for dropping were: loss of interest in the field, the inability to see themselves as professional engineers, inappropriate behavior from male peers, and the highly pressured environment professional engineers worked under. A phenomenon called "stereotype threat" may also help explain women's educational outcomes. Because of existing stereotypes regarding women's ability to excel in mathematics-intensive coursework, they are sometimes said to perform worse than they originally would have had the stereotypes not existed.
Workplace outcomes.
According to Hersch, a significant number of corporations have increased the number of women engineers hired in the past couple of decades in response to political and social pressures. In addition to their engineering expertise, women engineers are said to bring unique caring and non-technical problem solving skills along with an enlarged customer support base. Typically preceding these management changes were other policy shifts such as: 1) a company move from heavy to light manufacturing; 2) a greater emphasis on service and professional jobs; 3) improved working conditions, and 4) a general improvement of women's status on the job.
Overall, however, engineering is said to remain a highly gender-stratified occupation. Among the engineers currently employed, men substantially outnumber women. On average, men