How can I encourage my daughters to consider traditionally male dominated careers?

[meinus]

I've been trying to expose my daughters to career areas that are traditionally male dominant. I wanted to share this video because I like how it simply shows a young woman 'as' an engineer and they liked the fun machine setting: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XppH0LJ7c4E
Has anyone seen any other good videos like this that I could show them?

sheffield economics requirements. Some of the courses require A level maths, most don't; a B at GCSE is required.

Errol - we recruit science graduates from top RG universities. Many of them can't strng 3 sentences together in writing, or develop an argument, analyses (written) information or explain what their analysis of numerical information actually means. I do a lot of exam marking too (professional level) and the quality of the written work is sometimes atrocious.

I have a maths degree, incidentally. From cambridge. I'm not anti maths - I think it's the best and easiest subject to study at A level, it's a rest cure compared to the brainy stuff (where you actually have to write multiple essays that, you know, make sense). But we should probably be encouraging our kids to do the brainy stuff, not the easy stuff, no?

ANALYSE not analyses. This iPad and my cack handed typing are a fatal combination.

I was top of my year in maths and chemistry at my academic private school.

But I didn't want to do stem at Uni.

I didn't want a job I was only doing for the money. I wasn't very good at essay based subjects but did a social science subject degree because I was interested in it. I've never regretted that decision.

I can't think of anything worse than working for a bank/big pharma/oil company/arms manufacturer.

The ethics of my work is of the upmost importance to me. I didn't see how a stem degree would lead to a career that matched my values. (Medicine was ruled out because I'm too squeamish)

I'd much rather my dd pursued a career like mine where she is actually making a positive contribution to society than be an accountant living in a mansion spending her days helping other mansion dwellers dodge tax.

www.whynotchemeng.com

This is a good website for those potentially thinking of a chemical engineering career.

Gently (love your name BTW) - not sure if 'studying English' (let alone history) during the 6th form would be the most appropriate way to tackle those sorts of issues. Maybe the science A-levels need more 'QWC' type of stuff (I don't know what they're like now - just come across this concept as my DD has just done GCSE mocks and it seems to me that science and the electronics needed quite a lot of decent writing to get top grades). Or an appropriate EPQ type thing.

jackie - sounds like you've got a somewhat oddly biased view of what sorts of things a lot of STEM careers involve.

Economics degrees with a very strong maths component exist at several top UK universities.

My parent did the following:-

1. Single sex private schools
2. I remember being given chemistry sets.
3. My father (whose first degree, before medicine was physics) took us to children/teenager lectures put on by the local university on science.
4. My parents bought me a part set which came each month of a science course thing as a teenager.

I ended up a business lawyer on well much much higher pay than most STEM career people actually. In fact my last firm recruits people with biotech etc PHDs who convert to become lawyers as they earn more than in science on the whole. I still like science though and was very good at maths at school and therefore can understand clients' businesses, accounts and run my own pretty well.

Let girls be Tom boys. Buy nothing pink. We bought our daughters some feminist books showing women as doctors and the like and both the girls have done well - on high pay already in their 20s. Also never give up full time work - if your mother adores her high paid interesting career her daughters might. If the model present to the girl is women serve at home and clean up after men and earn nothing likely she will replicate that model. By our deeds are we known.

I have been doing some commuting on domestic flights again recently, as I did all the time in my business career working for a large organisation. The depressing thing is that the business people on them, the suits are overwhelmingly men, of the laddish type who when I was a senior manger I percieved as a vanishing breed, as clever young women rose up the hierarchy on the basis of talent, rather than bloke skills and testosterone driven politics. I don't know what has happened, it is only 15 years since I changed direction (a decision that had little to do with gender but discrimination on health grounds, another chestnut).

Banking is not a sector in which the culture is entirely testosterone driven, only in a few very high profile areas of their operations, trading etc., like any business there are all sorts of areas of their operations that require skills and qualities that women tend to be stronger in, analysis, team working, looking at the longer term, goal orientated rather than status orientated. The problem is that the front office has become culturally dominant with the results that senior managers are from and guided by the values there. That is the crux of the banking crisis. Reassert the rightful dominance, or at least equal weighting in the power structure, of back office risk management, strategic analysis and planning etc and you go a long way to solve the systemic problems, and guess what? Women are better represented in those areas.

And yes in academia, the discrimination is much much worse, absolutely no consideration in the culture of the need to create an environment in which women can contribute their talents, at least in business they play lip service.

To OP I went into business because my father had an SME (small to medium enterprise) and involved me in running it and understanding the issues from a young age. Now one of my former colleagues is a mentor for a charity that works with disadvantaged pupils to provide role models and I am appreciating that most believe business is not for them because it carries an air of mystery and privilege, as opposed to the reality that at it's core good business is just people using their common sense, it is just full of status conscious prats people who try to give it an air of mystery by using stupid jargon . Do involve your daughter in business, be it appreciating how an organisation works through casual work, mentoring schemes, work experience schemes. There is no one set of qualities and skills that make a good businesswoman (apart from common sense) so lots of opportunities to use whatever her talents /skill set are, and plenty of graduate, or non graduate management schemes designed to develop individual talents and skill sets for specific areas of their business. I did quite well though I am dyslexic, a blue sky thinker, creative but useless at detail, so it was marketing and business strategy for me, recognising implementation and project management were best left to others.

In an ideal world economics would require maths and further maths A Level. So would maths, physics and engineering. In reality such requirements exclude too many students so can only be imposed by the top selective universities. At a typical RG only 50% of the students studying maths will have a full further maths A level, for example. Not insisting on maths A level qualifications does not in itself mean that the maths contents of the degrees is low, although obviously places like Cambridge which take students with FM can go a lot faster at the beginning.

We recruit science graduates from top RG universities. Many of them can't strng 3 sentences together in writing, or develop an argument, analyses (written) information or explain what their analysis of numerical information actually means.

Yes, this is something which is fundamentally wrong with the UK system at the moment. Science and maths graduates even at the very top places have little exposure to writing and communicating. I wish we could force them to do more writing but the students don't want to and many academics want to them to pick up soft skills in their own time, rather than devoting lecture time for it.

Jilly - there's nothing wrong with buying your DDs pink if they like it and (crucially) if it's not an inferior product to the 'tomboy' equivalent. My DD used to like it - I'm sure she did lots of 'kitchen science' clad in it, and the photos of her atop each of the yorkshire 3 peaks attests that it doesn't sap physical ability or determination (and then she turned 7 and banished pink from her wardrobe - her choice). Let them be whatever sort of girl they damned well want to be - so long as it's one making her own informed choices and not limited by stereotypes.

I went part-time when my DD started school - and have thus shown her the reality of a still well-enough paid, extremely interesting scientific career and a great work-life balance. There's more than one way of doing it! And frankly I hope that more employers take the enlightened attitude mine did (for both female and male employees) in the future.

My children's school says don't do economics at university unless you ahve maths A level and I suspect that is wise advise if you want to go to a decent university and get a good degree (and my 2 (boys) are going to do economics AS or A2 but not maths A level so it is a very relevant issue when picking your A level subjects ).

I have worked with science experts, computer programmers and many others some of whom have good business and verbal skills and some who are "just" brilliant at their work. Start ups tend to need the mixture of people - the techies but also the business expertise and personal skills.
There is huge pressure amongst my children's friends' parents at present for all A levels to be STEM type subjects.

I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to respond to OP directly.

It seems the best way to offer your daughters career choices is not to label ANY career as 'traditionally male dominant'. Their main role model will be you. So if you've already classed something in that way, that could be the believe they grow up with?

I don't know what age your DDs are, but mine is 10, and I have always presented options to her in a gender-neutral way. We discuss ALL possibilities, based on her interests, not er gender.

We're lucky that our DDs are growing up in a time when they are constantly told that anything is possible. Whatever they want to be, they can be. All we have to do is encourage their interests, expose them to as many opportunities as possible and watch them grow. It should never matter to them, or be a deciding factor for participation, if they are the only girl interested in a particular subject. just like it should never matter what race they are when interested in that same subject. Why should gender or race ever matter? There are so few careers that exclude any gender nowadays... I'm only saying that because I'm sure someone will point one out!

I. Am. A Girl. Hear me Roar!... my husband's favourite way of reducing my daughter to giggles.

We recruit science graduates from top RG universities. Many of them can't string 3 sentences together in writing, or develop an argument, analyses (written) information or explain what their analysis of numerical information actually means.

Nothing new.

When I was at Uni in the 80's there was a running joke that graduate employment forms for engineers were multiple choice because they could not write a whole sentence

I know it's nothing new, but with more and more kids being forced into STEM A levels possibly against their will, it is becoming a bigger problem. My profession is trying to raise awareness of the qualities we look for in trainees but it's a bit of an uphill struggle - in this thread one ill informed poster has described it as a STEM career. It's really not.

You could tell them that traditionally male careers are nearly always better paid.
Showing videos probably wont do it.
Going into a career because its male dominated is possibly the worst way to choose a career.
Find out what motivates them, making things, helping people, making money, find out their skills, what jobs are available etc etc.
Most of all, let them choose for themselves, but just make suggestions based on the factors I mention NOT on whether its male or female dominated.

I have a DD studying Science, as well as all the cutting edge Science she has also studied modules on ethics, sociology (including not just the nature of gender discrimination within Science careers but gendered nature of scientific paradigms - were you taught the sperm penetrates the egg? it doesn't the two come together in a biological process, peer review etc.), history, communication etc. and she has had to write essays. She plans to be a research Scientist but she will be a thoughtful one who will not take for granted that Science is objective and free of human influence, and who has written and communication skills, just as important for Scientists as in business.

And I think this idea that somehow there is an unbreachable gap between skills in humanities and STEM subjects is dangerous. We need people in the UK economy who understand human behaviour and are skilled in analysing it, just as much as we need people who can do the numbers etc. I am a History graduate but I am also passionate about eliminating evidence free analysis from business, the numbers are important but they need to be hung on analytical frameworks. In business you need teams with both, and too often you have to spend a lot of time getting Humanities and Science graduates out of their respective ruts, getting Science graduates to think strategically, express themselves effectively and getting the Humanities graduates not to be phobic about numbers and qualitative analysis.

I also have a DD studying Humanities, both my DDs had the same upbringing, the same grovelling in the mud for creepy crawlies, the same reading, the same trips to museums and galleries, both Science History and Art. One is good at Maths and Science, one is good at emotional intelligence and empathy, success follows motivation follows ability which is why I think forcing DCs down the STEM route is misguided, and I have seen the casualties.

success follows motivation follows ability which is why I think forcing DCs down the STEM route is misguided

Excellent comment. I couldn't agree more. I have 1 DC doing all arts/humanities A levels, one who will do all STEM A levels (unless he decides to do music tech on the side too) and the third is too young to know yet - she could end up doing anything. Every academic subject has parity of academic esteem as far as we are concerned (except business studies which, as two people who have taught on business undergraduate, post graduate and professional programmes, we know is bobbins at GCSE and A level). The current trend to denigrate arts and humanities subjects is deeply worrying, not just because it's wrong headed in and of itself but because it sells those kids who have their strengths in those areas down the river. And society needs a balance - not all one or all the other. The dearth of women in STEM was an issue and possibly still is but you don't fix that by forcing those who are uninterested to do STEM subjects - you fix it by giving confidence to those who are interested/skilled in those areas.

Well said.

GentlyBenevolent, it's such a ridiculous suggestion that this is what is done in the US, where not only will all those American kids heading to Harvard and MIT etc., have taken a broad range of courses in their high schools, they will continue to do so during their university years, on top of their major(s). The result is versatile graduates who are both numerate and literate at a high level.

DS is doing a major in biology and minor in chemistry at a US university. Along the way he has done two years of English Lit and English writing classes, three years of German, several modules of history/sociology/philosophy-ethics, psychology, lots of maths including calc III, and physics. DD1 graduated with a major in econ and minor in fine arts, and did physics, calc III, biology, psychology, philosophy-ethics, chemistry, Persian, French, English, history and sociology courses along the way. This is on top of all their required classes that they took in high school across a broad range of subjects (maths, English, MFL, social sciences, art, lab sciences).

Of course STEM students should do English/humanities/MFL too. What would be the problem with making students study a broad range of subjects? This is done successfully in Ireland and in the US and probably other places too.

There is no such thing as 'natural ability'. This is amply demonstrated by the appeal of and success rate in higher level maths in the Irish Leaving Cert once it was awarded extra points for university admission purposes, and by the fact that maths success rates vary widely among different countries and between boys and girls from country to country, with boys outdoing girls in some places and parity or girls doing better in others. What we are looking at when we think we see 'natural ability' is actually what students are encouraged to think they can do, what is acceptable for students to devote time and effort to doing well at, and what is perhaps subtly discouraged and perhaps not so subtly either when it comes to aspirations.

And I think this idea that somehow there is an unbreachable gap between skills in humanities and STEM subjects is dangerous.
I agree with this, but the notion that there is 'natural ability' in any subject but particularly in the maths and science field is incredibly pernicious when it comes to girls' choices in a princessified society. Set in stone notions about who is naturally talented and at what also work against boys.

Goddess I worry about all that 'anything is possible' stuff that is bandied about. When children believe that and then fail they feel they have been sold a lie. The thing to encourage is their best effort at all times.
'If you work hard enough' has to be added to that to make it realistic. Anyone, if they put their ears back, be disciplined and work hard enough, and consistently, can get to grips with any subject.

Errol I was stunned to see that article, which DD1 brought to my attention at the time it was first broadcast. DD3(16) answered the question. She is taking AP econ this year and will be doing calculus next year.

JackieHarris there is far more to STEM careers than working for The Man.

GentlyBenevolent, I am very concerned that you are proposing the idea that students need to have an 'interest' in STEM or humanities or literature in order to benefit from studying those areas, and your lack of questioning of the environmental factors that go into forming the alleged 'interest'.

The result is versatile graduates who are both numerate and literate at a high level.

FSV of 'high level'.

There is no such thing as 'natural ability' Yes, there is. There is also such a thing as a natural disability. Tone deaf people cannot be taught to sing. Dyspraxic people cannot be taught certain aspects of spatial awareness. And so on.

Anyone, if they put their ears back, be disciplined and work hard enough, and consistently, can get to grips with any subject. This is blatantly untrue. Most people might be able to get to grips with most subjects given ideal circumstances. But not anyone.

How long do US degree courses take, Math?

TBH I think that some extra courses (possibly not examined) would be good at university level - some of the things they're not necessarily mature enough to really understand earlier; a lot of kids get put off great literature by being forced to 'study' it too early.

It's a great shame is that there used to be a lot of courses that adults could do pretty much just for fun (DH did a lot of geology, some astronomy and various other things when he downshifted) but those have had their funding pretty much removed.

'Natural ability' certainly exists - but it is a property of the individual, unrelated to gender, race, class or whatever.

In Scotland you study 6 subjects at higher level. Standard university entrance qualifications are Maths, English and foreign language at Higher level, plus other course specific qualifications. So, a broad range. Obviously the UK authorities are well aware of the difference in the educational systems and each has its own merits. And students from across the UK manage to co-exist on university courses despite these differences.

And despite Math going on about the superiority of the US system, let's remember that in order to do Law or Medicine you have to do an associated degree first and then proceed to your chosen subject.

Speaking personally, I suffered through maths, although I was rather good at it. I just was not interested. Not in the slightest. Same for science. It would have been incredibly counter productive to force me to do science right through school. I only did maths because I had to in order to get into university.

and how silly to try to contend that "anyone" can get on well in any subjects. Obviously people with dyscalcula just aren't trying hard enough. Lazy slackers.