[fashikn]

Why is this so? For many reasons.

First of all, this field requires certain kind of mathematical thinking, so with that alone it appeals to men. Why aren't there so many men as nurses?

Part of it must be, that society expects some kind of roles from men and women, taking care of people is suppsoed to be for females, crunching numbers and high tech for men.

I don't think it's necessarily anything more or less than the general appeal. And because you have such heavy concentration in certain fields, naturally they are dominated by those individuals, and that in itself is like the snowball effect, it tends to make things even more polarized as a result.

I think, that at least in here, we're starting to see more women in computer science etc. More with information systems though, and more with society and information systems and things related to that. Still kind of non-existent in hardcore software engineering and programming.

I don't necessarily think this is a problem. I mean, people should be able to pursue their happiness, if you want to do something, you should go and do that, no matter what the standards and expectations of the society are. So if you are a girl, and want to do engineering, welcome! If you don't want to do it, then that's OK too.

[Feelundseenna]

because more men are very good at maths than women

I think thats the way God/nature made us

[artofeyyy]

Women are better at cleaning.

[Flatlytaize]

I can't think of a single one that is.

[RokeIdeadioke]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
because more men are very good at maths than women

I think thats the way God/nature made us Don´t think so.
At school the girls were normally better at math than the boys and those few ladies I know that study/have studiesd mathematics were very good in their field.

IMHO it is just that most women are more interested in other fields (especially fields that involve sovcial things) and therefore after school when they can decide what to study/learn most of them just go for a degree in a scial field or a field that involves caring for others (psychology, medicine etc.)
although they could be as good in a technical field as men.

IMHO this is mostly nurture, as even today girls are rather encouraged to play with puppets and learn a traditional female role model than to play with technical things.

[sisuarmalmicy]

The few studies I've read on the subject seem to indicate that

1. On average, women have a greater interest and aptitude for language, while men have a greater interest and aptitude for maths. This is independent of age.

2. However, when the studies only focus on children with a high socioeconomic status (i.e. children in fancy-pants private schools), the differences in aptitude vanish, and the differences in interest are somewhat diminished.

So I chalk it up to "mostly nurture and a bit of nature," i.e., the average woman has the same inherent maths aptitude as the average man, but has less interest in maths and therefore is less likely to have developed her maths aptitude. If your interest is in history then you're probably not going to try to learn much about calculus.

[11Woxsepmoomo]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
When my son was born, we tried to give him dolls to play. He didn't even bother. Then we had little cars and trains lying around, he jumped on them immediately.

Now that my daughter is born, we will give her cars and trains first and study the response. Experimenting on children.

[dolaBeetCeage]

At school the girls were normally better at math than the boys and those few ladies I know that study/have studiesd mathematics were very good in their field.

The average quality of female physicists I've met is significantly lower than the average quality of male physicists that I've met.

"Doing well" in high-school mathematics is meaningless. Anybody who's not completely retarded can learn that stuff if they work hard (which women are generally better at than men).

[maliboia]

PMS

[Patamuta]

I'd take a lazy super-genius over an above-average over-achiever any day. It's easier to exploit a lazy super-genius as long as you don't piss him (or her) off.

[economex]

To use a sports analogy, this is sort of the debate between a super-talented player who has injury issues and a less talented guy who plays every game.

Which guy you prefer depends on how the rest of your team is constructed.

-Arrian

[Nubtoubrem]

From the standpoing of research, ok, the supergenius is a valid choice. For most other things, not so much. That's all I'm saying.

Most people don't work in research labs.

-Arrian

[VioletttaJosetta]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Care to speculate why? There's a number of possible explanations whih spring to mind:

1) Men are intrinsically better at mathematics or are more intelligent than women. Therefore no matter which sample you take (assuming that becoming a physicist selects in an unbiased way for mathematical ability or intelligence...which is not true) the average male in that sample will have a higher IQ or better mathematical abilities than the average female in that sample. This would additionally explain the relative dearth of female physicists.

2) Women are less drawn to physics than men are (despite having identical mathematical abilities as men on a statistical level). To "correct" the gender imbalance thus caused, physics departments encourage female applications and grant priority to female applicants (this part is not speculation). This means that the selection process for male physicists is more stringent than the selection process for female physicists, meaning that the females selected will have lower average ability than the males selected.

3) Similar to 1, except instead of postulating a different "average" intelligence or ability in mathematics you propose a similar average with different standard deviations. In other words, larger numbers of very stupid males, but also larger numbers of very smart males. When sampling the top end of the spectrum, you again expect the females caught by this sample to have lower average ability than the males caught by this sample.

Simple "women aren't encouraged to go into technical fields" can explain the lower numbers, but cannot explain my observation of the relative abilities of the males and females which I've seen. In fact, if it was simple selection bias against women who have the ability to enter physics then you would expect the average female physicist to be significantly smarter than the average male physicist. Since my sampling is based on physicists in their mid to late 20s, this may well have been true in previous generations of physicists, but as far as I can tell it's not true today.

[GDRussiayear]

Originally posted by Arrian


Just say NO to Savasploitation!
Anyone who stands in my way will be crushed.

[JohnMitchel]

KH,

Sample size? You're talking about your personal observations here.

-Arrian

[S.T.D.]

Any possibility that #5 impacts 1-4?

-Arrian

[Lxbsvksl]

Originally posted by Arrian
Any possibility that #5 impacts 1-4?

-Arrian I have no idea. Again, if it was simple selection bias against women then you would expect a significantly more able population of female physicists than male physicists.

[h0ldem]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Well, yes, those are certainly possible reasons. I was wondering more along the lines of if you had reason to suspect one over the other. They all have their merits, and all have their weaknesses. I don't tend to believe 1 all that much. 2 and 3 seem stronger to me. There is evidence that males have a greater spread of intelligence, while there is little evidence to suggest that in the general public average intelligence is all that different.

[Smittoh]

Originally posted by Arrian
My immediate thought is that 15 female physicists may not really be a terribly informative sample. It could be that the recent group just sucks for some unknown reason... I dunno. With numbers that small, all sorts of weirdness is possible, don't you think?

Anyway, I think the answer to the basic question is "we'll see," presuming that the current societal trend wrt gender roles continues.

-Arrian I don't tend to think that this is a terribly important question except when some with an axe to grind make it one. I'm generally against pigeonholing people's abilities based on their gender or race, but I'm also against the current practice in physics of encouraging female applicants over male applicants.

In addition to that official policy there are also a number of unofficial policies in place. A couple of female professors in the department are infamous for going to bat for any female grad student who runs into any problems whatsoever. Including one case where a female grad student has been given 7 tries to pass the preliminary exams instead of the usual 3.

I don't particularly care though, since it's difficult to imagine somebody like that going on to become a serious contender for a faculty position.

[Pznrrmaf]

I've been interested in MBTI personality types lately and I have read that most men lean towards thinking-based decision making (logic-based) and that most women lean towards feeling-based decision making (value judgment-based). Feeling types tend to make good social workers, nurses, teachers, artists, etc. but are less good at math and science and are horrible at engineering.