Girls who DON’T study STEM

[Ippagoggy]

As a woman in STEM (I work as a quant for a hedge fund and I studied maths for my undergrad and computer science for my phd), I am often dragged into discussions at work about “why there aren’t there more women in our field?”

while there are a number of hypotheses put forward (I won’t bother repeating them), one thing that is generally acknowledged that the phenomenon starts early, with fewer girls taking these subjects at school (at least in the west) and this then leads to a “pipeline problem”.

I therefore would love to ask the women on here — both of their own experiences from
their school days and what they might observe of their daughters. Why have you or your daughter NOT chosen a study path or career in STEM? Was it simply that there was never any interest (and fair enough! Different people like different things)? Was there a lack of exposure in some way? Or maybe their interest in your part was but you felt discouraged from pursuing that interest for one reason or another? And what would those reasons have been?

By the way, to be clear, I am not passing any judgement on the value of STEM subjects versus non-STEM. We need both. I am just genuinely curious to understand how people are wired.

for me, when I was about 11 years old and has access to a computer that I was allowed to play with — I could not believe my eyes. This box was basically like magic and the thought that I could actually learn to make it do things was intoxicating. I became a nerd overnight.

But it still takes a strong woman to go against convention

I remember being at a woman in tech event, and one of the speakers said something along the lines of, "there's a certain type of woman who works in IT - because the rest don't last and go and do something where they're not fighting the culture all the time."

Our daughter’s Chemistry teacher, a Dr. of Chemistry, told us that our daughter was the most naturally talented chemist she had ever taught.
Our daughter wasn’t interested, found chemistry dull and wanted to study psychology.

It's been awesome to read through the responses. It seems as though for a sizeable majority, the primary reason for not pursuing STEM was that their interests and passions were elsewhere (as opposed to something more sinister). That said, I am sad to hear about the instances where there was an initial interest but that it was shutdown/not adequately supported, or where a lack of confidence in maths held someone back.

I did find @mathanxiety and @ZebraDanios 's insights on risk-tolerances and an aversion to "being wrong" super interesting though. On "being wrong": I work in a field where we come up with a hypothesis for how something might work, try it, it fails, we think about what went wrong / was missing, try something new, it fails, and then repeat this another 10 times and then BOOM! we have something pretty cool. Needless to say we need to be extremely okay with getting things wrong. It's not a sign of weakness : it's what happens in research and experimentation and how we iterate towards the truth or an improved solution. I actually love this about research it teaches humility and perseverance.

@Needmorelego : I wanted to explain what a 'quant' is :-) We are the nerdy types that work for places like investment banks or hedge funds on the mathematical modelling side of things. I've been in this field for a while and the overwhelming majority of us (probably 95%+) will have a degree in one of: Maths, Physics, Engineering or Computer Science. There are a lot of different types of quants out there, but I'm what you might call a 'systematic trading' quant. My team's job is to take a slice of investor money and make more money for them by trading (buying and selling stocks, bonds, commodities, etc). BUT here is the fun bit and the reason we call it 'systematic' : every trading decision (what we buy, sell, how much and for how long etc) is done by a computer program. For example, the computer might decide that gold is too cheap relative silver, and buys and sells accordingly through an electronic exchange hoping to lock in some profit in anticipation of the prices reverting back to some equilibrium; at the same time it may also decide that NVDIA stock is due for a price correction and sell a few shares of those. All of this happens automatically; I could be having my lunch or even sleeping while it is busy trading in and out. I and my team write the models and the software that encode the models and logic behind these trading decisions. It's fun and very varied and (in our case) we keep a percentage of our profits, so it can be very motivating.

On the question of "Should we be trying to promote interests in STEM" which has laced the thread, I'm in 2 minds. Part of me says yes because:

1. Regardless of boys/girls, we should be promoting STEM and doing so vigorously because there are a lot of pressing problems we need to solve : climate change, plastics pollution, antibiotic resistance, etc.

2. Given the gender pay gap, girls should be made aware of the fact that STEM majors do tend to lead to better remuneration. Not saying this will close the gap, (the motherhood penalty will persist until there are some major policy changes), but if a girl is on the fence, maybe this could be a deciding factor for her... and potentially quite a pragmatic one.

On the other hand, the way STEM is promoted at the moment, I find it almost insulting to the other subjects and it seems to make the assumption that every subject should be targeting for 50:50 because men and women are equally likely to like the same things in the same proportions (something I personally don't believe is true). I want equality of opportunities, not outcomes.

The focus of my original question of "why not STEM?" was very much on the school years and how young girls develop / foster their interests. But I am well aware that there there is a whole separate (but related) topic of retention of women who have chosen STEM fields... but I'll leave that for another thread. hah.

Regardless of boys/girls, we should be promoting STEM and doing so vigorously because there are a lot of pressing problems we need to solve : climate change, plastics pollution, antibiotic resistance, etc.

Would it be cheeky of me to suggest that many of these problems were caused by STEM run amok? And that maybe a bit more attention to elements of intellectual endeavour outside of STEM might yield better results?

Given the gender pay gap, girls should be made aware of the fact that STEM majors do tend to lead to better remuneration. Not saying this will close the gap, (the motherhood penalty will persist until there are some major policy changes), but if a girl is on the fence, maybe this could be a deciding factor for her... and potentially quite a pragmatic one.

Or we could campaign for equal pay regardless of maternity leave, or forced paternity leave to level the playing field... It would be nice to see the enormous contribution of women to the existence of the human race acknowledged in a concrete way. That won't happen because of fundamental selfishness, clannishness, and lack of logic on the part of the patriarchy. No babies eventually means no-one buying what industry creates.

DD was massively drawn to humanities, English "won" over History for uni. Though she did do maths A level too. It's been fun listening to her over her summer holidays - she's spent quite a bit of time tweaking a spreadsheet to manage her reading for the next year, so that she can estimate how much time she needs to be reading each day to get through it before the start of term (adjusting for how long the first part of each book takes).

Like many others referenced above, she likes getting things right, but also really doesn't like it unless she understands "why" eg for a method of solving a problem. She's got a real gap with visualisation which has got in the way when others say "I get it" in a discussion about a maths problem and she really needs to write things down. Got in the way at home too sometimes as her younger brother was pretty precocious mathematically and since both of us studied maths/physics (amongst other things) at uni we've enjoyed indulging that.

We can also reference the issues that come when you are good at lots of things and have to make choices.

When I did my GCSES mid 1990s, my school did half termly tests and everyone was ranked according to their results, and told their rank (probably a whole other thread on the appropriateness of that!).

Anyway, I was always ranked 3rd for maths (out of 250) and top 10 for science.

Despite that, when it came to A level options, whilst my humanities teachers definitely pushed me to pursue their topics, my science and maths teachers (all male) did not. They focused on the boys, most of which had lesser scores than me. I was invisible to them.

The careers advisor told me I would make a great librarian.

It's sad really. I got straight As / A stars across the board. I could have done anything with a little more helpful guidance and a push. Instead, I ended up doing English at university and it hasn't really helped me career wise at all. If only I had a time machine....

This is SUPER interestingin Australia it's the opposite, anything that requires interpretation to both do and mark tends to score lowerthis affects everything from university entrance calculations to which subfields of certain subjects get PhD admissions at elite universities. It's really hard for people interested in human computer interaction (as opposed to algorithms or theoretical computing) to get into computing PhDs, for example, because those "softer" (how I hate that word) subjects don't have a right answer, whereas the really "brilliant" students can score 100 on a question where there is a clear binary between right/wrong or works/doesn't work

Yes, the reason I am lacking in Maths despite having used inferential statistics at PhD level is the failure of visualisation you mention.
I have an urge to convert all formulae into written sentences. Concepts disappear from memory because I can't visualise them. Could knowledge of this improve Maths teaching? I suspect so.
On one of my Masters degrees, the lecturer explained the concept of data existing potentially in three dimensions (so not just X and y axes on a graph) by asking us to imagine bees sitting on a perspex sheet turning in space.

how many feel about STEM. Of course (according to MN) since he's a bloke so he can't possibly say anything relevant to female experiences.

This is rather relevant too. Males are more limited than women by social perception & stigma barriers wrt occupations to choose.

I was good at those subjects at school, but they were not interesting to me. There was one definitive answer for everything which felt boring, like I didn't even need to try and come up with different solutions or new ways round problems as there was always just one correct way. None of it felt important and you had to do years of the repetitive dull stuff before you came to anything interesting or new.

I did other things and am now training to be a nurse, and a fair bit of GCSE biology came up in anatomy and physiology and that was interesting, it was good to see it taken further. I think GCSE is so broad but basic you only get the surface of everything which can kill some of the curiosity as you only need to know the basics for the exams so they won't teach you any more.
I prefered subjects where it was incouraged to go a bit further.

Also the computer science room at school was so hot and stank like sweat and cheese so it was wildly upleasant to spend any time in there. Nobody took it for GCSE in my school year even though it was offered and I know two lads from my year went on to do it at Uni.

I've been really struck by the different approaches to what is a "good mark" in the UK (where my children have been schooled) and Australia (where DH and I grew up). There is much more headroom left for the highest achievers, especially at the point of public exams, and this seems to apply in maths and science as well as in the humanities. While I think there is benefit in everyone being able to experience getting most of an assignment or test or exam correct, it is unhelpful for children to get used to 95% or higher all the time if they are capable of "more" but never challenged in school.... but that's another discussion thread altogether!

I was very STEM in school and scored As at maths and physics for A level.

However, I also had the most incredibly engaging / inspirational drama teacher at GCSE so I chose to do Theatre Studies as a fun A level.

The practical experience of rehearsing plays and also working with the whole school drama club doing all the backstage / organisation felt very 'real' and was great fun. She also set me up with some incredible work experience which again helped to make that seem like a more tangible path. Which I eventually followed.

Maths / physics just seemed like fun (I was good and enjoyed them!) but as a 17 year old I couldn't really 'see' myself in a job as I didn't know what jobs that would be.

So I suppose you could have got me to stay on my STEM path with:

• more inspirational teachers
• real world experience in the industry whilst at school
• better education around the careers that STEM opens up

Agree.

Most of the women I worked with until recently were educated and grew up abroad where it is normal for women to study then work in STEM subjects. In some cases if you are lucky enough to have had access education you are aware that STEM careers pay well.

In fact the oldest person I know who worked as a programmer is a friend's mum who is from India. However when she moved to the UK she stopped working.

Given the huge teacher retention crisis at the moment, it sounds like one major issue is going to be finding and keeping lots of inspiring teachers who are also going to be willing to work for a teacher's salary rather than a traditional STEM one.

@FusionChefGeoff unfortunately this is where your own networks come in, which is crap if you don't know anyone in certain field.

Due to how legislation works it is near impossible to give young people work experience/work shadowing in many areas. I've worked in places where their have been uni students doing internships in technology. They have ended up moving equipment around and if they have been lucky some manual testing on applications/websites.

Also the problem with some roles in STEM is that some new ones start existing e.g. data scientist while old ones start becoming obsolete e.g. digital marketing very quickly. (Only using that example as I know someone who has moved from one to the other.) However you need to be working in the area to understand that.

They need to look for older people who are happy that work for 10 or so years as classroom teachers after having careers in different areas of STEM.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/21/something-that-actually-matters-four-retirees-on-why-theyre-becoming-teachers

Problem is age discrimination.

My daughter said that in her pre-GCSE computer science class, the male teacher was only interested in the pupils who already understood basic coding (all were boys) and was irritated by questions from the girls, who had a lower level of knowledge. He wasn’t interested in helping the girls come up to the level of the boys. Unsurprisingly, none of the girls carried on with computer science to GCSE. It’s off putting to feel dim and unhelped.

I’m no longer a child but honestly, it seemed boring. Things like history, English and art were far more interesting. The idea of having a career where you can make a difference eg by teaching, nursing, social care or whatever felt way more important to me. The people I know who chose stem also thought it sounded boring but were very money driven and thiguht it would make them money. I got the impression the boys did it because they thought it would make them money.

Sorry haven't read the full thread, apologies if this point has been made already.

It would seem a lot are citing a lack of interest in STEM or passion elsewhere. I love science and work in the healthcare field but I am one of 2 out of a group of 10 childhood friends who ended up in a STEM working field.

I'm wondering in part if early years toys and play may somehow subliminally influence this.

Toys marketed to boys tend to be practical and STEM based e.g. cars, tools, robots etc. Girls toy market seems to be more nurturing and creative e.g. dolls, crafts (all bloody pink!).

I hated playing with dolls and gravitated towards my brother's Lego and Knex but it makes we wonder if I had not had a male sibling would my choices be different, these toys were not bought for me.

I am trying to correct this by buying my girls an equal amount of STEM toys as creative.

Teaching also plays a major part. I had an two incredible science teachers at school who encouraged me and helped me thrive in the subject. I do worry with the issues around teacher recruitment at the moment.

I taught textiles for 25 years. I came from a design background and knew lots about production and fabric properties.

Despite many attempts by various bodies over the years it has been impossible to change textiles from an all female subject. A few boys take it, but not enough to even cause a blip on entry numbers. It’s female dominated.

My experience is a lot of females are drawn to pattern and fabrics. I don’t think it’s conditioning, it’s just what they want to do.

And they often don’t want to do the STEM bit. And neither did l to be honest.

@Ippagoggy thanks for explaining your job. I still don't quite understand exactly what you do but I am glad you enjoy it 🙂

I hated playing with dolls and gravitated towards my brother's Lego and Knex but it makes we wonder if I had not had a male sibling would my choices be different, these toys were not bought for me.

I had my own Lego, Dad's Meccano (all lead-painted, I expect,) and an eclectic mix of farm toys - I grew up on a farm. I liked making things, so had streets of hand-drawn houses alongside Lego ones to herd plastic cattle along....

Toys seem to have got much more gendered since my '70s childhood - great for sales, especially in mixed families (you can't share those toys, they're for boys!), but I'm sure it does feed into ideas about what children can and can't do as adults, too.

I’d argue that the salary puts people off teaching but by and large I don’t think it’s what makes people leave. I’m in a group about getting out of teaching on FB, and everyone talks about how they’re treated rather than what they’re paid - lots of people are willing to take a significant salary drop to work in a job with better conditions than teaching (it’s something I’ve considered too).

@ZebraDanios I think we're probably in the same group! I know what you mean and that definitely affects retention. I just wonder how you get people to pick it when, apart from saviour complex, the other options are better financially and in terms of perks!

I also think that it can take time to make a great teacher, so you need to hold on to these new recruits mentioned by the Guardian for long enough to actually make a difference.