To complain to Sunday Times on "UK girls flop" headline

[Duckdeamon]

Today's Sunday times (can't link as they have a paywall) has an article about the UK having one of the biggest gender gaps in science at age 15 of 67 countries (upcoming OECD/ Pisa report). Article is interesting: through quotes it discusses sexism, science and maths and technology leading to well paid job opportunities, that girls are being prevented from doing, gender imbalances in science, and evidence that girls are as good at maths and science as boys.

But why use the headline "UK girls flop in science league"? Which suggests that the girls are at fault!

The results are shocking, and girls are being let down.

I think you do need to consider where your interests lie - if you do a subject you're not that interested in, you're far more likely to drop out and not complete it at all. But I think it's worth looking at why you're interested in it - it might be the problem-solving or the logic or... whatever it is, there could be other subjects that would give you the same buzz, but has better financial prospects.

It shouldn't just be about money - but money is important. It gives you options about where you can live, how you can travel, what you can do in your spare time. I found that out by having very low-paid jobs - I could budget and so on once I left home, but I was very naive about different earning potentials in different careers; I think part of this is because my parents never discussed income. Sorting out my father's estate when he died was the first time I ever knew his salary. It was just a whole area of working life I never considered until I'd had to live on a very low salary and discovered that people in other fields started on more than double what I was on. I hadn't even known that was possible, somehow.

I don't know if I would have made different choices, but they might have been better-informed ones.

Good post, Bear!

Its true about lack of knowledge of STEM careers - even though DH and I are both PhD chemists, we've realised that we're pretty ignorant about the variety of engineering disciplines (starting to look at degree courses its a bit boggling the sheer variety!). For kids at the moment the main science stereotypes are probably from Big Bang Theory ... socially inept, sexist supergeek males, a couple of females (bio not physics) with glasses, one downright dowdy. (Leslie Winkle was a bit better but a bit too supergeek).

I'm not sure how calculating you can be about careers. The world changes.... I had a feeling as a teen that I'd do something that wasn't invented yet, and turned out to be correct. That may be increasingly true for youngsters today. At the point we had our first jobs, I was working for a tenuous startup, DH was with the bluechip global company - great career path through to good pension all stretching ahead. Well, that company managed to self-destruct, whereas I've got nearly 30 years unbroken service - lots of mergers along the way so somehow I'm now the one working for a global! But .... if I didn't love what I do, I don't think I could do it.

I was talking to an Indian colleague a while back, and she just didn't get the STEM issue we have. Her parents gave her the option of doing medicine or engineering at university, else they wouldn't support her doing it. I can't imagine most British parents being that restrictive (which is a good thing), but it doesn't mean they don't have any influence

We wouldn't do this here as we are determined that our DCs should be happy and that means doing what they want to do and them making the choice, problem is their limited experience of the options means they aren't really making a choice rather doing what they know, often following a parent.

So really DCs need much more information.

False dichotomy there between forcing your kids into a particular career, and letting them, unguided, 'do what they want'. Dunno about the rest of you but neither of those is how DH and I parent.

But yes, DCs do need a lot of information. Some schools are pretty good; some parents do put in considerable effort to help - and some kids actually do some digging themselves! At least now with the internet there is a lot more accessible information than when some of us were making our choices. You can find employment statistics for different disciplines and different universities.

I read this today, a Computer Weekly article on the BCS and why initiatives to attract women to IT aren't working. www.computerweekly.com/news/2240241162/BCS-network-to-figure-out-why-initiatives-to-attract-females-to-IT-are-not-working

There's a great report by ScienceGrrl which looks as the case for a gender lens in STEM. I found it a really accessible read.

Looks good - thanks! Will have to finish reading it tomorrow.

I watched a good documentary last night called Missrepresention which explained that the big media companies are actively trying to push back female advancement by degrading and trivialising women and girls and ensuring they focus on what they look like rather than try to become business leaders or enter politics.

This pushback started after the election of Ronald Reagan whose government were deeply conservative and were not happy with the equality advancements in the 60s and 70s. Basically it was saying there's a war on women and girls and that we've been taught to put ourselves and other women to keep the status quo. This is why we don't enter STEM fields on mass because we've been conditioned to believe it's not for us and that why a man can say 'well there are no visible barriers it's just because the girls don't want to do it'. That's partly true as most girls probably don't but they've been conditioned that way.

The ScienceGrrl report is long (I'm only about halfway through) but it's good!

One thing that bothers me a bit is some of the 'branding' of organisations who are trying to engage girls in particular ... 'ScienceGrrl', 'Stemettes', 'Little Miss Geek' ... seriously? I know my DD's reaction to those names is decidedly negative - I tried to get her to look at one of those sites some time ago and the silly, cutesey name put her totally off.

There are also issues with having groups like that, because they can emphasise the lack of girls, and that in itself can put them off. But I've met people running Stemettes and ScienceGrrl, and they're good at what they do. I do totally get where you're coming from with the names, though - they do have pink and fluffy overtones, even if what they're doing isn't. Maybe they think that's what girls want, and probably some do, but for others, it will be counterproductive. It would be so much easier if everyone were the same (but so much duller!)

Well, if the ones who don't like the fluffy names are like my DD then they're the ones who don't really need such groups anyway (though perhaps such groups need them?). Reading that report, it looked like the ScienceGrrl people were very aware of the issues - it ends really on the note that STEM provision, information, engagement etc needs to be improved for all youngsters.