On the Problem of Education: Women in the Sciences

In October 1992, Mattel Inc. was nationally criticized for a line of their talking Barbie

dolls. Teen Talk Barbie was dressed in a frilly, colorful 90’s outfit and a matching voluminous

hairstyle. Each doll could say four phrases, of which were randomly chosen from 270

possibilities during manufacture, and were things a stereotypical media-portrayed teenager

would say, such as “Who do you have a crush on right now?”. However, one possible phrase was

“Math class is tough”, which did not sit well with women’s groups across the United States

because it perpetuated the stereotype that girls are inherently bad at math and science – or at

least not as good as boys are. Granted, this was one out of 270 sayings, giving a 1.48% chance

that the saying would be one of the four phrases programmed into a doll (1.49% if sampling with

replacement, but the sample is large enough that the probabilities are comparable), making the

dolls with this saying very rare. Therefore, it didn’t make sense for Mattel to recall the entire

line; instead, they offered replacements for the possible 15 out of every 1000 dolls. However, a

handful of them still exist.

 

The unfounded assumption that men are better than women in the sciences is still a very

real problem, despite the increasing representation of women in science, technology,

engineering, and math (STEM). National Numeracy, a campaigning group in the United

Kingdom that strives to promote basic mathematical literacy for everyone, found in a 2012

survey that only 59% of women consider themselves good at math compared to 71% of men.

However, a Brigham Young University study found that in a multi-round elementary school

math contest, despite being outperformed in the first session, girls ultimately performed just as

well as boys or better. But why the initial discrepancy? And why is this stereotype so pervasive

that women themselves are convinced that it’s true?

 

The BYU study ultimately determined that girls performed better under lower-pressure

conditions such as de-emphasizing speed or removing the competition aspect so that only

individual ability is tested. This correlates with similar studies done by Oxford and Cambridge

that propose the discrepancy in performance might be due to anxiety – a result of social and

cultural stereotypes that set girls up to believe they are less competent.

 

This widespread belief also extends to a gender bias in teachers, which has even more

negative consequences. The national Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 found that teachers

have a tendency to subjectively rate the math abilities of their female students as lower than their

male students despite comparable test scores in reality. Further, statistics from the National

Science Foundation support the fact that while there is not a gap in proficiency, high school boys

and girls have very different attitudes towards math and science with 40% of girls reporting that

they do not like math, compared with 27% of boys. This, combined with the existing assumption

that girls are less proficient in STEM is a plausible explanation for the underrepresentation of

women in the sciences.

 

While it seems like an inescapable situation between society’s unspoken expectations and

women’s self-fulfilling prophecies, studies such as those found in BYU and Oxford indicate that

a little encouragement really can go a long way. Today, most universities have clubs or

organizations that promote women’s involvement in the sciences, and there are even national

efforts such as ADVANCE through NSF. But the most important thing is to address the

falsehood behind stereotypes, both for women in the sciences as well as women everywhere.