What should schools be doing to address this gender bias?

[Strix]

State schools 'making gender bias worse'

This article is about senior schools and A level choices. But I believe the gender bias also needs to be tackled in primary.

Actually, not enough girls doing science is a problem, for the economy of the country. A shortage of STEM skills is a real issue.

I did Maths and 2 sciences at A-Level and all the sciences for my O-levels (that's how long ago it was)

It never occurred to me not to and certainly there was no "surprise" from the school that I wanted to even though I was the only girl in all my classes. IMO the difference between me and the girls who didn't do these subjects was entirely down to different homelives, especially girls' relationships with their fathers (who statistically are more likely to have done science themselves)

My dad was (is) an engineer and encouraged my interest from very early on. He didn't have any sons (have no idea if my life would have been different if he had) but I suspect in very many families it will have only been the boys who were encouraged to "help" mend the boiler, change a plug, fix the car etc and if anything, with all the princess/pink nonsense about now it's getting worse not better. i.e. Dads seeing their girls as princesses not scientists.

Obviously this is a generalisation, but so is "girls don't do science". It's true in enough cases to have a big impact.

There are more than enough people doing science. There are more people doing science than there are science jobs. The right people may not be doing science. But the same is true of other subjects too. There is no real shortage of STEM skills at the high end, at the low end jobs are being reclassified as needing degree or A level STEM skills when actually, they don't, because of the whole 'we have far too many graduates now' issue.

In ability to communicate, to understand and to be critical is a problem for the country right now and will increasingly be even more of an issue. As for the arts - yeah, nobody needs 'em. Except the economy. And the treasury. Even if you want to completely ignore any other measures of worth, the net contribution the arts make to the coffers out of which all education is paid for should give people a moment's pause....but no. Because to understand the various drivers would require the sort of skills that don't get taught in physics A level. :(

On the radio this morning they had a woman from the institute of physics decrying the studying of English for girls and saying 'space' was the most interesting thing. Well, actually (maths graduate here) I completely agree. But guess what gets many people interested in space in the first place? Books! I got the feeling she had never looked at a book that wasn't a text book in her life, from the way she was talking. Very depressing.

So it's just a school issue?

Nothing to do with the representation from mainstream media that only geeks study science and pretty girls can get by on their looks?

Or a parenting issue in which I am equally guilty of indulging in. 2 yr old dd likes fairies and princesses (stories and ELC happy land fairies) and 4 yr old ds is interested in space, rockets and being a doctor. Both are exposed to each others play and we have stories together though as I'm the only parent here.

DH and I were talking about this as he's a physics teacher.

He said that it's true that most girls have a confidence issue when it comes to physics. He makes sure that he has single sex groups for practical work so the boys don't 'take over'. He's even started printing worksheets on pink paper as they are usually on blue paper but it has made no difference.

I did physics and remember that the boys were streets ahead of the girls. It didn't stop me doing it though. That said, I was miles better at biology.

I too am the daughter of an engineer in a all girl family. If I had had an older brother would I have learnt to build technical Lego and solder circuits, or would he have monopolised DDads attention.

I don't know. I'm bringing two DDs up in a house of geek and DD1 loves science and DD2 just gets good marks because she's clever.

The only other girl in my physics class happened to have been my partner in teaching maths to everyone else at primary. She came form a very WC background, had we gone to the other feeder primary with loads of good boy mathematicians, would she have had the confidence to go and do a referee and end up teaching maths all over the world?

DH is the son of too English teachers, but his hand writing is shocking and people/fiction books bore him. He latched on to a technical family friend and is a geek to the core.

It's terribly small things that encourage, discourage DCs from studying a particular subject.

Sadly, I think girls pick up science and maths discouraging vibes, very easily.

Metebelis - we need more of our children - of whatever gender - to be all-round literate. Journalists who can write sensibly about science; scientists who can communicate effectively; engineers who can write clear documentation; lawyers who understand statistics etc etc etc.

The narrative of 'boys are good at x, girls are good at Y' is counterproductive. So is the 'two cultures' meme.

Errol Exactly. Yet the current narrative is 'science is good, all else is bad' and that's just nuts. But it's having a real impact on the quality of university leavers at the moment. :(

Metebelis3

There are more than enough people doing science. There are more people doing science than there are science jobs. The right people may not be doing science. But the same is true of other subjects too. There is no real shortage of STEM skills at the high end, at the low end jobs are being reclassified as needing degree or A level STEM skills when actually, they don't, because of the whole 'we have far too many graduates now' issue.

In ability to communicate, to understand and to be critical is a problem for the country right now and will increasingly be even more of an issue. As for the arts - yeah, nobody needs 'em. Except the economy. And the treasury. Even if you want to completely ignore any other measures of worth, the net contribution the arts make to the coffers out of which all education is paid for should give people a moment's pause....but no.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue before that what we need in this country are more arts graduates and fewer technical specialists.

I can't see how arts make a 'net contribution to the coffers'. You put money in, you get art out. That's how it works.

Metebelis, I'm not buying that things are just fine in the science graduate situation. If that were true we wouldn't have a chronic shortage of maths and physics teachers (surely creating a vicious circle). Physics departments being closed down at universities is another bad sign.

I think there are a number of points. Firstly someone mentioned we should be tackling science at younger than primary level. I now possess a PhD (molecular/cell biology) but had never heard of a scientist until I read the Famous Five books. Even then, it wasn't until I started secondary school that I really knew what science was about. However, although I had dolls at home, I also had cars and a garage. My dad made sure I knew how to do DIY so I could change a plug and learned how to sand woodwork at an early age.
As an adult I left science because as a new mum I couldn't compete against men in the assessments so my value to the University was zero; I eventually gave up trying to fight the system and left. If my dd tells me she wants to be a scientist, I would have mixed feelings - I think she needs to look at her long term future and a career in science just isn't compatible with family life. Its all very well saying that it shouldn't be the mum giving up her career but biology dictates that mum is more involved than dad.
I am hoping that by the time dd is older, the system will have worked itself out so that females in science are more celebrate and looked after. Its big news at the moment with simple things like petitions to get more female scientists on question time, female-orientated awards etc... There's also been research into why the female:male bias exists at higher levels of science and yet again it comes down to the fact that the age for gaining permanent positions is usually when women are at child-bearing age. I think there is a lot of publicity about this and hopefully this will help address the balance.

It is absolutely not just a school issue. But it is a school issue.

Noble - I suspect we have a shortage of physics and maths teachers because physics and maths graduates (like myself) are preferring to do something other than teach not because there aren't enough of them. Physics and maths teachers, like all other teachers, aren't paid enough. And since teaching is a vocation and not everyone can do it (most can't) it's not the best example to choose to demonstrate a shortage of anything.

There isn't full employment of science graduates (although there is pretty close to that at the top end) which indicates that we need more targeted effort rather than the 'everyone has to do science whether they are suited to it or not' approach we get in some areas at the moment.

Flatpack - have a read of the CEBR report from earlier this year. The arts generate significantly more per pound invested than the health, wholesale and retail, and professional and business services sectors. Like I said - nobody needs 'em.

I eventually tracked down the report which you were kind enough not to link to.

You seem to be claiming that you can put arts in, and get money out. If this was the case we wouldn't need to subsidise arts. But we do. You put money in, and out comes the arts. At the top end, with the big museums and big galleries, yes, they make money. The local stuff doesn't, which is why there are local council grants.

I'm quite happy to accept the argument that the arts have value, but they have a financial cost and denying that fact doesn't help the case for supporting them.

Metebelis3

Noble - I suspect we have a shortage of physics and maths teachers because physics and maths graduates (like myself) are preferring to do something other than teach not because there aren't enough of them. Physics and maths teachers, like all other teachers, aren't paid enough.

This useful European Union study (handy to have sources) indicates that gross salaries for teachers in the UK are amongst the very highest in Europe. Only Denmark, Finland and Germany pay more. Our standards, of course, remain woefully low. In Finland primary school teachers are required to have a masters degree, whereas here they...aren't.

It's not the money.

perhaps then not enough of the able girls are doing science, but too many of the mediocre boys are?

Oh, and not just 'science'. Technology, engineering, computing.

I was the best at physics in my higher physics class. I was also the only girl. I was the only one to get an A out of the lot of them.

However I have an old misogynist wanker of a teacher who insisted on speaking to me like I was an idiot because I was female. He'd arrange experiments and give me stuff to hold while he explained it all to the boys. He'd even refer to me as 'his lovely assistant'. He was a total bastard and I told him as much when I took my books back after I'd left school (he didn't so much as say 'well done' for being the only one in his class to get better than a C). The chemistry teachers who overheard me applauded. He was well known within the school for being a sexist arse.

I'd hope things are better these days, but perhaps they're not.

Schools do need to change. (My DD is cast as 'Innkeepers Wife' this year - what's wrong with plain Innkeeper?)

But society needs to change too. And people currently working in STEM.

My blood boiled when I read this: stemettes.org/ How to make sure girls are encouraged in science etc... treat them as a different species?!

Urgh... I'm sure they mean well, same with Girl Geeks but I showed the latter to DD and she just went . She doesn't want 'othering' or patronizing, thanks.

If there were enough physics graduates it would filter into teaching, they are offering £25k to train!

As it is I read only 30% of state schools have a physics-qualified physics teacher.

As teaching seems to be female-dominated, maybe getting more girls into physics would solve the teacher shortage.

I suspect they'd have to make teaching a better option (and less of a political football, national punching back) for more physics graduates to want to go into it. It isn't just the money.

And yet it's the same punchbag job for all the other subjects, that there isn't a shortage for.
There are just a lot more graduates in those areas.

And fewer other job choices too, or at least much more competition for the jobs they probably dreamed off when they started their degree in English or history or whatever.

noble No, the maths and physics grads have (a) potentially better paying options and (b) possibly less facility for teaching. I know you're a teacher - surely you realise that most people just can't teach?

Are you suggesting that there aren't far fewer maths and physics graduates than other subjects?

Yes, I'm a maths teacher. I wouldn't say that being good at maths or physics means you're probably incapable of teaching.