Gerlind Wallon
Aptitude or attitude?
analysis1 may 2005free access aptitude attitude lawrence summers recent remarks reflect little progress made publics understanding women underrepresented science gerlind wallon gerlind wallon search papers author gerlind wallon gerlind wallon search papers author author information gerlind wallon embo reports 20056400402httpsdoiorg101038sjembor7400414 pdfdownload pdf article text main figures toolsadd favoritesdownload citationstrack citationspermissions sharefacebooktwitterlinked inmendeleywechatreddit figures info january year lawrence summers president harvard university boston usa spoke conference diversifying science engineering workforce convened us national bureau economic research speech proposed explanations low representation women higher ranks science engineering remark issues intrinsic aptitude explain men better suited women hard sciences mathematics physics engineering caused uproar usa elsewhere summers later apologized comments issue womens representation sciences dominated major us news outlets weeks summers remarks highlight deeper problem way society perceives role women although socialization factors believed responsible inequality men women feminism affirmative action equal access tertiary education redressed balance society blame perhaps biology fault indeed number studies books articles insist kind genetic factor evolutionary history makes women different view remains popular despite various recent studies surveys worldwide programme international student assessment pisa study suggest opposite clear however women disappearing ranks women comprise 50 undergraduates 40 postdoctoral researchers 29 faculty assistant professor level average 132 full professorships europe held women ec 2003 number increasing slowly summers suggested aptitude difference sexes equal representation realistic verdict still differences small explain large disparities workplace instead seems number factors keep women away higher ranks science professions danger taking test results face value drawing conclusions aptitude based one study boys example score slightly higher girls mathematics section scholastic aptitude test sat standardized test taken us highschool students applying college see sidebar however token pisa 2003 study would suggest finns koreans japanese hong kong chinese intelligent people world given students performance far superior us german students example needless say conclusion drawnthe results explained differences teaching culture attitude although pisa also found males performed better females mathematics large number countries statistically significant difference found onethird countries including top performers finland hong kong japan iceland thailand girls consistently score better boys mathematics tests oecd 2003 wide variation gender gaps among countries suggests current differences inevitable outcomes differences young males females effective policies practices overcome long taken inevitable outcomes differences males females interests learning styles even underlying capacities wrote authors pisa study testing aptitude pisa programme international student assessment 2003 study tested mathematical abilities 15yearold students 40 participating countries significant differences overall performance mathematics section test male female students observed 27 countries however topperforming countriesfinland hong kong japanshowed statistically significant differences girls boys 1 4 sectors tested iceland thailand girls consistently outperformed boys timss trends international mathematics science study tested fourth eighth twelfthgrade students maths science 1994 1995 first group found statistically significant differences performance girls boys favour boys three 16 participating oecd countries second group 6 16 countries third group 14 16 countries two exceptions last category usa hungary summary girls perform worse mathematics progress school sat scholastic aptitude test taken american highschool students grades 11 12 used colleges universities admission decisions average scores mathematics section girls 35 points average boys however sat overpredicts male performance underpredicts female performance comparing test results actual performance college students wwwfairtestorgfactsgenderbiashtm fact males score 33 points higher mathematics section sat females go earn grades college mathematics courses danger taking test results face value drawing conclusions aptitude based one study summers linked womens underrepresentation sciences mathematical abilities would one explain similarly low numbers women humanities medicine mathematical skills major requirement obviously aptitude argument hold could even reversed since female students consistently outperform males reading literacy sections pisa therefore valid wonder women dominate humanities medicine law fact women comprise majority many fields undergraduate level trend reversed professorial level obviously seem factors work genetically linked aptitudes women comprise majority many fields undergraduate level trend reversed professorial level one factors may well societys perceptions women encouraged bestsellers men mars women venus john gray men dont listen women cant read maps allan barbara pease provide pseudoscientific explanation gender differences books others like proclaim men women developed different capabilities due distinct roles human evolutionary historyman hunter woman childbearer probably grain truth hidden roles ascribed authors onedimensional certainly based fact instead support longheld prejudices innate gender differences lead men better mapreading skills women good caregivers contrast difference rosalind barnett caryl rivers brandeis university waltham usa boston university boston usa respectively relies scientific literature thoroughly disprove gender myths authors highlight similarities sexes deplore fact despite wealth publications old stereotypes still persist taught classroom danger revival stereotypes popular books hamper progress even question achieved far investigate power stereotypes mahzarin banaji professor social ethics harvard university colleagues developed implicit association test iat uncover unconscious biases majority took test men women alike found easier associate men science opposed women science surprisingly also true female scientists took test furthermore 80 participants associated men work category women family category banaji concluded results show pervasive power cultural biases haveeven victims bias cromie 2003 vedantam 2005 research supported madeline heilman professor psychology new york university ny usa others showed men usually positively assessed women identical cvs sent appraisal independent gender evaluator heilman et al 2004 obviously women ingrained stereotypes much men comes surprise women aptitude part forsaken family responsibilities receive rewards men 1999 massachusetts institute technology mit boston usa published report mit school science admitted given female professorial staff compensation male colleagues terms pay space monetary resources committee positions bailyn 1999 generally income gaps 30 men women working comparable positions reported usa europe year ec 2005b comes surprise women aptitude part forsaken family responsibilities receive rewards men dearth women higher positions usually explained image leaky pipeline women disappear every stage undergraduate student full professor book aufstieg oder ausstieg inken lind center excellence women science bonn germany analysed wealth studies investigated problems women science came conclusion leaky pipeline model adequately reflect reality lind 2004 instead studies point accumulation seemingly small disadvantages discouragements add block careers women similarly yu xie professor sociology university michigan ann arbor usa kimberlee schauman assistant professor sociology university california davis usa criticize pipeline model implies problems entry point policies implemented stop leaks effect encouraging women enter sciences came conclusion women discouraged early entering science engineering xie shauman 2003 list small stumbling blocks long includes girls fear unpopular boys perceived science nerds doubts able combine family career societal misperception working mother exclusion informal networks name takes lot dedication overcome barriers men face reducing problem mere aptitude clearly wrong treating women men skirts ignores biology well women give birth children raising children takes time question society wants ignore consequences letting women carry bigger part burden european countries birth rate level necessary renew population consequences pension schemes becoming evident european commission predicts shortage qualified workers near future suggested qualified women could partly fill gap ec 2005a dilemma solved combating stereotypes finding new ways combine family career reducing problem mere aptitude clearly wrong treating women men skirts ignores biology well sylvia ann hewlett founder us national parenting association thus argues flexible working hours possibilities women reenter careers break hewlett et al 2005 survey 2443 women professional graduate degrees hewlett colleagues found 37 interrupted careers 44 family reasons contrast 24 653 men surveyed interrupted careers mostly change training 12 men cited family reasons although average length break 22 years cost women extremely high terms income career prospects significant proportion women 38 said deliberately chosen position fewer responsibilities lower compensation job qualified order fulfil family responsibilities another 36 total surveyed worked parttime time attempt balance work personal life hewlett suggests limiting possibilities women reenter pursue careers commensurate capabilities qualifications costs employer society great deal terms lost talent analysis summers made mistake comparing apples oranges based analysis career prospects men women assumption sent race equals clearly case difficult estimate damage remarks caused given role president one prestigious universities world given intense media coverage speech words certainly read many people subsequent studies responses counterarguments combined thorough understanding differences male female career paths outcomes lead effective measures could level proverbial playing field references bailyn l 1999 study status women faculty science mit mit faculty newsletter special edition 11 115google scholar cromie wj 2003 brain shows unconscious prejudices harvard university gazette 17 jul wwwnewsharvardedugazettegoogle scholar ec 2003 figures 2003 brussels belgium european commissiongoogle scholar ec 2005a commission recommendations european charter researchers code conduct recruitment researchers c2005576 brussels belgium european commissiongoogle scholar ec 2005b report commission council european parliament european economic social committee committee regions equality women men 2005 brussels belgium european commissiongoogle scholar heilman wallen fuchs tamkins mm 2004 penalties success reactions women succeed male gendertyped tasks j appl psychol 89 416427crossrefpubmedweb sciencegoogle scholar hewlett sa luce cb shiller p southwell 2005 hidden brain drain offramps onramps womens careers cambridge usa harvard business reviewgoogle scholar lind 2004 aufstieg oder ausstieg karrierewege von wissenschaftlerinnenein forschungsberblick bielefeld germany kleine verlaggoogle scholar oecd 2003 learning tomorrows world first results pisa 2003 paris france organisation economic cooperation developmentgoogle scholar vedantam 2005 see bias washington post jan 23 pw12google scholar xie shauman ka 2003 women science career processes outcomes cambridge usa harvard university pressgoogle scholar previous articlenext article volume 6issue 51 may 2005in issue referencesrelateddetailsloading