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?

Gently, my experience too. Indeed sometimes the pressure is too much - you are better off with all As in good arts subjects you will pass which will get you on to any number of graduate recruitment schemes than lower grades in maths and sciences. If you can get higher grades in your maths and sciences of course that is good though.

What is encouraged from above and what goes on on the ground are two separate matters.

Math I know very well what goes on on the ground. I have 3 DCs in two different schools and I have many friends involved in arts ed. I think it is you who are out of touch with what goes on on the ground given that you don't actually have any skin in this game. I do, as does JillyR2015.

'Skin in the game' meaning children in school, children of school friends in school, and children of cousins in school? Plus cousins and friends who teach sociology and history and physics in UK universities?

If yes to the above, then count me in.

A lot parents in my children's school want their children doing STEM subjects for A levels even if the school thinks the child is too mediocre at maths etc realistically to do the subject and get good grades. Parents are hugely pushing STEM subjects which is fine if it suits the child. I will depend on the schools. That is a selective private school. Other types of school might push soft often A levels in photography or whatever where grades may be high and the A level not so much use.

A lot of Americans (maybe even a large majority) leave home at 18 for university and do not return even if they go on to grad school

Part for me that doesn't ring true ... I reckon 50%+ leave home before turning 19, but mostly not for university. The majority don't complete Uni, am pretty sure the majority don't even start Uni. While it's very ordinary to live at home & attend your local 4 yr institution. Also a lot stay at home and muck around at other things. % of adult Americans that have a 4 yr University degree has been pretty stable for decades, around 37% iirc. Some of those degrees not obtained until people are in their 50s or 60s or older.

It doesn't ring true for me either, ragged. And doesn't fit in with the date from the US Census Bureau:
www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/fig1.jpg

The graph shows roughly 1/3 of US citizens over 25 have a bachelors degree. Allowing for those that fail to complete their course, it seems hard to imagine that virtually all the others would leave home when they go to university.

I have two nieces living in the US: one graduated last year and lived at home, the younger began her course last year and is living at home. Because that's the only way they afford to go to college. Both of them are working at nights/weekends too. Judging from the amount of friends who live locally and go to the same university this isn't at all unusual.

Math - your kids are all at university or graduated, are they not? So, no skin the game at all (children of friends or relatives certainly don't count). The problem with the lack of parity of esteem is happening at school level, not university level. If you in fact do have additional children still at school being forced to take options against their will and prevented from studying the subjects they want to study and would do well in because of government policy then obviously you are in the game - but if you do then I'm surprised you haven't mentioned it.

I suppose at GCSE kids do get forced to do subjects against their will (in my DDs case she'd have never have chosen a language and would have gladly done RS instead of Eng. Lit. ) but at that stage the breadth is good so it's accepted. But they shouldn't be forced to do subjects they don't want after that. DD's school will encourage them to do a mix at A level if they aren't sure (but not the 'soft options', enabling subjects)).

Only a few weeks ago the Secretary of State for education was strongly recommending that kids should do sciences at A level instead of humanities or arts subjects.

I have five DCs, one graduated, two in university and two not yet there. The youngest is 13. None of them is being 'forced' to take options against his or her will and nobody is prevented from studying subjects they want to study (except DC5/DD4 who if given free rein would stay home and watch Say Yes to the Dress on Netflix all day every day.)

I talk a lot with friends and with relatives, many of whom have children within the same age range as mine are and some of whom have younger children. I was 25 when my oldest was born and some of my friends were at least 10 years older when they started their families.

Because many teenagers are boneheaded idiots, if given a free choice many would choose subjects because their friends were taking them, or because they fancied the teacher, or because the course had the reputation of involving hardly any work or an easy exam. The idea that students are 'forced' to take subjects is really weird. A lot of students would prefer to do absolutely nothing. If DS had had his druthers he would have gone to driver's ed and that would have been the extent of his high school effort. He can now bore me to the point of tears for three-hour car journeys to and from his university waxing lyrical over the finer points of viruses. A few years of effort in a broad range of areas did him a lot of good. In systems where students study a broad range of subjects there is general agreement that this is good for the development of intellect and powers of reasoning, adds to general knowledge and keeps options open. A net positive rather than a negative in other words, and the idea that students should be the better judges of what they should study in school is seen as akin to letting the lunatics run the asylum.

Only one of all the students who graduated from elementary school with DS lives at home while attending a local university. He has a part time job, as do most students who moved away from home for university. One student joined the Marines, two had problems with drugs/alcohol and have been in and out of different vocational programmes and rehab, one got an associates degree from the local community college and now installs satellite TVs for a living. One plays semi pro basketball.

DD1's class had a similar profile, with one student joining the family plumbing business, one going to the local community college and two still course hopping, with the rest graduated from university.

From DD2's elementary school class one student did not graduate high school and works in a supermarket, the brother of the boy from DS's class who lives at home while attending a local university also lives at home and attends the same university, and the rest are scattered around the country at various universities. One dropped out of university when he got a job in a family business.

About 10% of their high school graduating classes of approx 800 students joined various branches of the military, and every year about a dozen students are accepted into the academies of the various service branches and will go on to earn degrees and a commission. A friend of DD3's is heading off to Annapolis in the autumn where she will study nuclear engineering and serve as a naval officer upon graduation. Many of those who enlisted will go on to avail of the GI bill at some point. DS's current roommate is an Army private whose tuition is being paid by Uncle Sam.

Because many teenagers are boneheaded idiots, if given a free choice

Not a view I share of teenagers trying to make specialisation choices at 15/16 onwards. They might be unsure and change their minds whilst making the choices but 'boneheaded idiots' they are not.

Plenty of teenagers make foolish choices of A levels and others are very good at considering options. Mine have just chosen so it's fairly topical and they've chosen with what they might study at university in mind too.

Being encouraged by politicians and parents doesn't make something desirable! I agree with Mathanxiety on this one entirely.
The denigration comes from peer pressure mainly- but also you constantly get the impression that being innumerate /unable to understand science is accecpatable- even now you hear flippant remarks from successful people and particualarly women about their inability to do numbers in a way you would never get with say reading (for women anyway)

on A level choice - mine were unusual and I have spent the last 30 years justifying them still in job interviews- it is a bit wearing!

Gosh you know a lot about other people's lives, MathAnx.

To get a high school diploma at all we had to take so many credits in particular subjects and there wasn't a lot of choice really about core subjects; any fails and you didn't get a diploma at all (but night school & summer school retakes possible). I like the English separate certificates in individual subjects system better.

For my 4yr (well 5 yr in my case, I was working PT) American university degree I felt forced to do lots (and I mean almost 2 dozen) options against my will. To get them all in I did some summer community college courses. I had to do those classes to get my degree (totally unrelated subject). The options were part of the GenEd reqs. Ultimately I gained a lot, but at the time it felt like an enormous annoying (and expensive) imposition at the time. I recall a lot of American college students moan about GenEd reqs they don't like.

We had to attend lectures 3 hours/week and take exams & get graded on homework over 15 weeks in...
upper division English writing subject or pass an exam in same;
public speaking;
some sciences;
history of western civilisation;
something arty (I did art history);
World politics.
A lot others I've forgotten about.

You can take some GenEd on a pass-fail basis, but most options count towards final GPA which affects chances of getting grad school place.

Fragile perhaps your secondary school aged kids move in wildly different circles to mine. There is no denigration whatsoever about choosing to do science. It's the arts and humanities kids who are seen as having little worth or value. Although let's face it, even science is nothing compared to sports prowess.

It strikes me that there is a wide range of approaches by schools (and parents) - DD's certainly doesn't denigrate arts and humanities. It seems to be going a bit off track away from the 'TE' part of stem at the moment in cutting back on DT provision (even at GCSE) which I'm very about - it was strong in this area till recently. I suspect (though don't know) that funding cuts are to blame, tech must be a lot more expensive than classroom-based subjects, and/or staffing as one teacher retired and I think another may be due to. When DD had a discussion with the HT what she could do for her 4th subject instead of the discontinued DT Systems and control, the HT suggested geography might be good as an 'essay subject' to complement phys/maths/fm.

Incidentally, AQA is not going to develop new specifications for A level systems and control or Electronics - so much for the supposed bias in favour of STEM!

There is little point trying to shift Math out of their entrenched views but I would just say to parents in UK schools now that, especially for girls, showing an interest in STEM subjects in our state and private schools, primary and secondary, definitely does not lead to any adverse pressure from peers or otherwise (unless of course it exists in the family, of course in many families being interested in any academic subject is met with incomprehension) but the reverse. When my DD dissected a fish instead of drawing it in art in Year 5 it was celebrated in school assembly and my DD has had nothing but encouragement, and her interest and achievement has been celebrated, and the same is true of her peers in local state schools. Science in primary schools is both an important part of the Key stage curriculums and designed to be engaging, and to say that there is not the same emphasis on numeracy as literacy is complete rot. Science and Maths classes in Secondary schools are neither short of pupils or of girls

However in Science classes in mixed schools there does seem to be an issue with the culture that develops within the classes that puts girls off. I suspect this has more to do with adolescent boys flexing their patriarchal wings but now the issue has been highlighted hopefully teachers can address it by varying teaching styles etc. so they have less chance to dominate the discourse. Science is becoming aware that some of it's paradigms, especially in Physics, are also gendered and this is something more fundamental that needs to be studied and addressed. No different to investment banking Now my DDs research team is up to PhD level equally gendered, and once again the fact that she is a woman definitely marks her out for what might amount not just to positive encouragement but positive discrimination.

As Gently has highlighted opting for humanities is where the adverse pressure comes in. That pressure tends to arise from the perception that a Humanities degree closes down career options. As Jilly highlights that is not true. Not getting strings of As and a 2.1 is what closes down options on graduate entry schemes, and relevant work experience, lots of it, that is the trap that pupils of either sex can fall into if they are not capable of excelling in STEM subjects, however hard they work. The Chemistry A2 regularly trips up even those with the ability and work ethic. In the case of the management entry schemes that many will end up on directly or indirectly employers are interested in a range of skills, experience (those gained in university just a part) and personal qualities relevent to their organisations needs. They full know the they will need to develop their managers further with job specific skills including communication skills /strategic analysis and planning / stats / modelling /computer /finance and accounting skills all of which will be different to anything taught in all but the universities that work very closely with industry.

As far as specialisation goes, sixth form pupils in this area, both state and private, do have a choice. They can opt for IB which means pupils continue with a broader education, it is perceived as more work than 3A levels but within that the work is not as in depth in terms of the knowledge and skills required in the specialist areas, though continued breadth. The IB qualification is one that is more valued globally where specialisation at 16 is not the norm. However many pupils do decide to specialise because they want the greater depth. I agree with summerends these pupils are not idiots and they do have a right to decide what they want to do with their lives in the short and long term provided they get sound advice.

And by far the most concerning issue is that our MFL courses in universities are dominated by private school pupils. Languages are going to be a crucial skill for those wanting to compete in an increasingly global economy, in a changing world, not just in terms of the linguistic skills but the ability to understand the perspective of different cultures. We, and I mean the western English speaking world, really cannot continue shouting loudly and slowly at the rest of the world.

In my friends rural NI school their issue is not whether the pupils opt for STEM subjects though, but whether they can be persuaded (and it is not for want of trying) to do any academic subjects at all, it is the business studies, tourism etc courses that are popular. Without any parental expectations they are the path of most interest / least resistance and then lead to mediocre courses with low grade requirements. That is poverty of ambition though, not gendered.

Poison, the chemistry A2 - absolutely. That was the one which tripped up one of my daughters - the one now on £65k whilst her sister who did arts A levels and went to Bristol is now on £100k. That Chemistry A2 might be the reason for their different pay, that alone, and of course the fact she might have worked harder as a teenager at school had she not been keener to do her sport. Mind you she's a perfectly happy lawyer and that's really good pay but it is point to bear in mind and I think my younger children's school has the same issue at heart when it puts off all these boys clamouring to do maths A level who are not top of the top set who year after year do not get the highest A level marks in maths and probably should have picked a different subject.

I am not saying don't do maths or chemistry A level but only if you are sure you'll get a good grade or absolutely want to.

Science and Maths classes in Secondary schools are neither short of pupils or of girls.

Only 15% of physics A level students are female. The overall numbers of students taking physics and further maths are much lower than they should be. The numbers of students taking triple science at GCSE is lower than it should be, which in turn knocks onto the numbers taking AS sciences and keeping them on to A2.

And sadly encouragement and positive discrimination for women in sciences when they are minorities is not common (the opposite).

That was the one which tripped up one of my daughters - the one now on £65k whilst her sister who did arts A levels and went to Bristol is now on £100k. That Chemistry A2 might be the reason for their different pay, that alone.

Am I the only person who laughed at this? As somebody who has top grades in all maths, FM, science A levels, a 1st from Oxbridge etc etc and still as an academic can't possibly earn £100k in the UK without moving to an admin position, I agree that a grade in chemistry A2 does not on its determine your salary!

opting for humanities is where the adverse pressure comes in. That pressure tends to arise from the perception that a Humanities degree closes down career options. As Jilly highlights that is not true.

Different degrees open up different career options, inevitably. At A-level, the advice in a good school will be about what combinations enable different pathways - and at that point, if the pupil is uncertain then you'll keep more doors open if you include maths and/or a science. If they're tending to the STEM side but aren't 100% sure, again they'd be advised to do at least one humanity/mfl/art in their initial 4 subjects - some of DD's friends are going to do some combination of maths and sciences and then art, german or geog (thats just in her group that I know of), and are very much encouraged by the school to do so. (And then there's 'enrichment' which are mostly language or essay based activities). I think though they've stopped offering any '.... Studies' except RS which is the exception to the rule.

The chemistry grade probably did make the difference. It easily could have done - slightly less good AS->slightly less good A2->non magic circle friendly university->non magic circle job->non magic circle salary (forever).

It shouldn't work like that, recruiters should look at more thank just the clean sweeps and the name of the Uni - but we all know that sometimes, it does work like that. If that's the world you're in, obviously. I can see that it would look odd to people who work in other professions/industries.

Poisonwood
When my DD dissected a fish instead of drawing it in art in Year 5 it was celebrated in school assembly
Your daughter is a legend. That is just great.

Cauchy
Yup, less girls take physics and further maths.
So What?
Less boys take Biology and that is not seen as a problem.

The point is - as Jilly has made clear for years and years - girls will succeed if they have it reinforced from a young age that they can do whatever they like.

If they want to do Astronomy degrees let them.
If they want to do Medieval poetry degrees let them.
The point is to encourage a joy of learning and analysis and self motivation that will set them up in whatever career they choose.

Cauchy I highlighted the issue with Physics, and I would include Further Maths (along with the fact that unless girls are absolute stars of the top sets and intend to become Mathematicians they see little point in taking it to that level, I would be interested in your perspective on that because for my DD even though she was top set it was a no brainer to keep up 3 Sciences and Maths rather than Further Maths, she did a degree in Natural Sciences, so has done lots of university level Maths since but the applied Maths she uses in experimental data analysis etc.), and in the culture of Science classes in mixed schools. I am talking out of direct local experience. In girls' schools especially locally Maths and Science are thriving in comparison to the Humanities, partly perhaps related to the proportion coming from other cultural backgrounds where STEM subjects are more valued. Scroll down to the breakdown here www.tiffingirls.kingston.sch.uk/getattachment/4e2cbe25-56aa-4ecf-8f88-2c4f5b661747/2014-A-Level-Results-Summary.aspx and here for a local private girls' school www.lehs.org.uk/examination-results/83.html and I fully expect that when the local state comprehensive girls' school publishes it's first A2 results they will manifest the same results, because I know they have the same sort of breakdown in the numbers on sixth form courses (and that is for girls, even though the sixth form has taken boys in). This does not suggest these pupils are being put off by a gendered approach in primary schools does it? In the mixed schools Maths and Science are not quite such dominant choices for girls but they are popular.

My DD did double Science at GCSE, she knew she wanted to be a Scientist so it was a chance to keep up two languages.

However what is your perspective on it being the gendered nature of the paradigms and methods in Science at all levels that is discouraging to girls as much as the cultural factors? It's not my field but my DDs course certainly encouraged both sexes to consider the issues. I am not vouching for the quality of this argument because I am not a Scientist but it is an example of the thinking and I do find this very interesting. www1.umn.edu/ships/gender/fem-sci.htm It is all very well encouraging and inspiring women to get into Science but if then they find that because of patriarchal bias their actual work and thinking is not as valued, as well as encountering cultural problems (some of which apply in all academic areas, women struggle to reach the higher levels in Humanities academia as well)

Oh and I know Maths nothing different in the way women think or in anyone's brain whatsoever, we all start out as putty who could become Further Mathematicians if we just worked hard enough......... (and by the way those Cadbury Crème eggs in the US are rubbish, they sweeten the chocolate recipe, as they do in Australia -also serving the Asian market, India etc. and now Kraft are doing it here as well to much anguish)

Talkin Thanks, I do partly put it down to all the disembowelled animals our cat left for her to examine from as soon as she could crawl.........

*girls will succeed if they have it reinforced from a young age that they can do whatever they like.

If they want to do Astronomy degrees let them.
If they want to do Medieval poetry degrees let them.
The point is to encourage a joy of learning and analysis and self motivation that will set them up in whatever career they choose*

Exactly