Encouraging Women in STEM.

[DpWm]

The institute for Apprenticeships seems to have developed a novel way to encourage female applications for apprenticeships in STEM careers, which sits around a woeful 9%, and apparently works, seeing a rise of about 40% female applicants when tested.

feweek.co.uk/2019/05/10/ifa-to-trial-gender-neutral-language-in-bid-to-boost-female-stem-applicants/

It's really interesting and quite depressing, if this really works, to see how gendered language works to hold women back. It reveals how extremely sexist the world is, how women and men are shaped to view themselves.

From link
The advert that increased female applications by 40 per cent referred to by Morfee, and seen by FE Week, lists a number of “feminine and neutral” words that should be used in job adverts, which include: understand, kind, honest, dependable, co-operative and support

It also lists “masculine” words that should be avoided, such as: active, decisive, leader, ambition, challenge, objective, competitiveness, independence, opinion, confident and intellectual.

So women are put off from applying for jobs that ask for applicants who are "ambitious" and "intellectual" and prefer jobs that ask for those who are "kind" and "supportive".

I understand why they have taken this approach, and great if it helps women into stem, but avoiding the words of traits that actually help people get ahead in their career is surely just a bit of a blunt tool, and pretty sexist.
So much work needs to be done for women to see they can have all the traits usually associated with masculinity, why should "ambition" be reserved for men?

"Honest" and "dependable" seem a bit redundant- aren't they pretty much essential for any job?

From my experience of sales - I'd say not....

On that, I remember having some training in hiring/interviewing/reviewing, and talking to my then boss about it afterwards - we were given these forms, with scores and words to describe interviewees, and they were standard for any role. So there'd be things like 'creative' or 'self-starter' - and we talked about it and decided that these things were a tad ridiculous, because (for example) - if you're hiring a bookkeeper, you don't want someone who's 'creative', we were hiring programmers, and we didn't want self-starters who'd go off on flights of fancy rather than maintaining the code in a reliable, standard way.

So words matter. I'm senior now, but I wouldn't have applied for a job with 'kind' or 'ambitious' in the descriptions, because those, to me, are both code words for wanting me do much more work than you want to pay me for.. but perhaps I'm jaded.

Where did you get the idea that girls think that women can’t be doctors?

Because primary aged girls I have worked with have rarely said they want to be a doctor but have often said they want to be a nurse. Girls have told me that girls are nurses, men are doctors. Hopefully it changes in secondary school.

Most children think of engineers as people who fix their cars or people who come to the house to fix/service things like boilers. These people are nearly always men so they draw men.

And as you go higher up the chain, management, consultancy, it's still predominantly male. The footwork is more equal.

It never ceases to amaze me how many men there are in senior nursing roles given what a small proportion of the workforce they make up.

STEM is such a broad and diverse catchall term. Women are over represented in areas like psychology, medicine, biological sciences while very under represented in areas like physics, engineering.

So women are getting into STEM but usually in roles that are more people oriented, while men tend to be drawn towards subjects that are oriented around things.

The difference in interest for people vs things could be completely down to socialization or a mix of biological as well socialization. It can be hard to untangle since humans absorb a lot around them from an early age.

Also there will be other factors like flexible working around children, sexist attitudes from colleagues or management etc that can influence the sort of career trajectories taken by women.

Poorer or less developed countries have higher rates of women in STEM because IMO it seems like a more pragmatic decision. There's not much social security so both men and women think of degrees that can lead to stable, well paying careers, especially if it has potential to emigrate to a better life elsewhere. And STEM subjects tick the box compared to say, a history or art degree. So it's no surprise more women go for those kinds of jobs. They want to provide for their families.
That's what I did anyway. My decision to get into computer science was because I knew the jobs potentially paid well. It used to surprise me that people in the West went for degrees based on how much they liked the subject lol.

I work in IT but in a non-technical role. My company has an active diversity policy but it still must be 80% male in the tech area. I have a dd and actively encourage her these areas, especially seeing the salaries of specialist contractors.

Nonny, we have many contractors from the Indian subcontinent. A much higher percentage of those are female than in tech roles from the local population.

I didn’t really understand physics at school 20years ago. There were few resources to get into programming. I’m now trying to get into software dev/IT as DH is in it and work-life is fantastic (better than my other stem job).

Much better resources now.

Surely by the time it comes to applying for apprenticeships the damage is largely done?

I work in a STEM field, we’re fairly balanced in my company where men and women are concerned, including management.

However I think this is largely due to the fact that the company is known for allowing flexible working, job shares and working from home. So it is more likely to attract women in the field as largely it is still women who are relied on for childcare etc.

I come from bio sciences where there is no problem getting women through the door at degree and post grad level but a huge problem with maintaining that representation at senior levels. So you have a situation where most undergrads/phds are female but most lecturers/professors are male. It boils down to one thing- active discrimination against working parents, particularly those that are female and dare to take mat leave. There is no flexible working, and short term funding via grants means you are penalised for taking mat leave and often left in a legal grey area (from personal experience). The message is sent to you that as a working mother, you are no longer focused on the job and cannot work the required unpaid overtime for the job. I have had friends be to this explicitly by their bosses. You are left out of trips to the pub with that all important new collaborator. I could go on (at length!). I have seen this happen again and again to my female friends, most of whom have left academic STEM after having kids. These are experienced researchers and such a waste of talent. Makes me livid. I have jumped ship to a traditionally more female friendly career (clinical research) and the difference is astounding. Women in senior posts! Who knew that was possible

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the problem in biosciences isn’t wording or recruitment, it’s institutional sexism. This might have more of an impact in STEM subjects with a low uptake by women/girls but not so much in my field.

TheresWaldo - Exactly. There's a lot of money in contracting, if you know the right contacts and what projects are going around.

If you're self employed, it can be good, especially as you gain more experience. I don't know how much the staff from the Indian subcontinent get paid if they are working via an Indian tech company though. I think they still get paid in Indian currency by their company to keep overall costs low. Maybe it's different these days. Either way it will probably still be better than average salaries in India.
It's a running joke amongst us Indians that the only career options deemed acceptable to Indian parents are doctor, engineer, chartered accountant, lawyer etc. :) It's all about money and prestige as that's the only way to secure your future and that of your children. So women will go for such jobs out of pragmatic necessity and cultural pressure to bring in more money for the household.

Whilst I wanted my daughters to have whatever opportunities they wanted, I also want them to be happy. Whilst one has chosen to to a degree with just 4 other females (out of 36) and a male dominated career where the team she will lead is likely to be 80% male (she still learning) the other chose a female dominated degree, more nurturing and has no set career path.

The highly pressured and competitive stem careers are great for some and not others, remember most men don't work in stem either! Rather than changing job ads we need to educate and encourage all young people to have good skills and to be able to take the right job for them, my dh is a lecturer in a stem subject and of his PhDs all the women have dropped out (after completion) some into scientific publishing, others into "ordinary" jobs because the pressure was too much, they wanted 9-5 jobs. You can't make jobs fit by quota

How many jobs are of necessity (rather than culture) truly incompatible with being a parents and/or 9-5? In STEM, some medical roles, to be sure, but medicine does attract and retain young women.

Wow, that’s pretty insulting to your husbands ex colleagues. Lots of women, like myself, enjoy high pressure jobs. I could completely handle the pressure in academia, I just didn’t see the point because:
A) there is no real need for the pressure, it’s artificially created by a grant funding system that relies on publication of results at an realistic speed. In my experience (and a major reason I left academia), the intense pressure on researchers doesn’t drive research, it leads to high levels of scientific fraud. I saw this repeatedly.
B) what is the point in working in a high pressure environment and half killing yourself when you know that, as a women, your chances of success are already stymied? I frankly couldn’t be arsed fighting the machine anymore. I wanted a workplace that actually valued me.

As I said, it’s not women, it’s the workplace that needs to change. Both at the institutional level but also in terms of the funding model, which harms science itself, not just researchers.

Interestingly, my female friends that have moved into industry have done very well and would argue that is just as high pressure.

Exactly errol. If there’s one thing I can’t stand from my years in academia, it’s presenteeism. The “I stayed here until 8 o’clock last night drinking coffee, twatting about on the internet and losing time through my complete lack of organisation“ badge of pride. It’s endemic in academia. I now work in a 9 to 5 environment and I was amazed when I started at how much more efficient everyone is. There’s no reason people can’t work like that in academia (barring time courses).

My personal view of the word ambitious is that it implies selfishness. Looking to get ahead, take the credit. It would put me off applying for a job. Being kind and caring and a good team player is just as important in a STEM job as any other so I think this is a good move as it values what women bring to the work environment. Please don't be fooled into thinking the so called 'masculine' traits are more valuable and more worth mentioning.

I work with (not in) the armed forces and massive leaps have been made recently to be more gender diverse and to encourage girls into STEM. Although the general public finds it harder to adapt it seems. A local councillor(male) replied to my email listing attendees and speakers at their event pointing out an alleged typo. He said "I'm sure Colonel X won't appreciate thag you wrote Stephen as Stephanie."
Actually Colonel X would have expected it to be Stephanie because that's HER name!
This was followed by a surprised "Oh, a lady Colonel"
No, just a Colonel. Like any other Colonel!! grrrrrr

I write scientific software. It's very much the sort of thing also done in academia.

I don't work 9-5 ... for many years I've worked from home, and half time since DD started school. Flexible hours, it's about getting the job done not presenteeism or pointless meetings.

I'm not 'ambitious' ... I want to do my job well (which of course means my skills evolve and grow), I'm not sniping for my bosses jobs.

SimonJT
the company is known for allowing flexible working, job shares and working from home. So it is more likely to attract women in the field

That's exactly the sort of thing required to encourage women and working parents into a workforce, not fluffy words appealing to "kindness" etc.

As PigeonofDoom summarizes it's institutional sexism that's the problem.
Fluffing about with words just feeds into this sexism imo.

the company is known for allowing flexible working, job shares and working from home. So it is more likely to attract women in the field

And, crucially, retain them.

Interesting article. I think unfortunately a huge part of the problem is the sexist assholes at the top. I am considering PI positions in the next year or two and had a really odd encounter at a conference the other week. Quite senior prof in my field, found out we have similar interests, all "oh we should sit down over a beer" lots of winking and oh yes look at us NETWORKING at a conference from his side. Cringe.

Then half an hour of banging on about his self developed positive discrimination to encourage women to apply at his institution, followed by fifteen minutes of how that wasn't positive discrimination and he doesn't believe in positive discrimination because ALL discrimination is discrimination against some (ie white men).

Rounded off with a hilarious joke about how the new IBM CEO didn't accept her job quickly enough and if she was a man would never have possibly asked for a whole evening to, you know, go home and think about how being the CEO might impact the rest of her family or, shock, whether she actually wanted the job. Because obviously a man would have accepted on the spot and that is therefore the right way to do it. And then everyone actually laughed.

I was sat there the whole time like, what the fuck? It's no wonder women don't want to work for assholes like that. Needless to say I have not followed him up on his offer for "help".

I can't get hugely excited about getting more people of either sex into STEM, I wish there were more really good people going into the humanities.

But the sciences and tech are really quite uneven for sex representation. Medicine is much more female, my son asked me once why doctors are all women. (He forgot his grandfather is a doctor I guess.) Biology, oceanography, medicine, animal sciences, all tend to have a lot of women. Physics, chemistry, engineering, have a lot of men.

I am not sure that this is in itself a real problem. But one thing I have noticed is that women in these jobs are more likely to go for the kinds of positions with more limited hours. My husband is a chemist in the civil service, and there are a lot of women in those science positions, and it's the same in law positions in the civil service. I think it's because for women who have kids, they are often wanting limited hours and good benefits. Something like academia, with all its demands, isn't as attractive.

But one thing I have noticed is that women in these jobs are more likely to go for the kinds of positions with more limited hours. My husband is a chemist in the civil service, and there are a lot of women in those science positions, and it's the same in law positions in the civil service. I think it's because for women who have kids, they are often wanting limited hours and good benefits.

No shit, Sherlock! And maybe the question on a feminism board is how to encourage men to demand jobs with family-friendly hours, for the benefit of all. (Including, probably, benefit to the employers - long hours cultures are generally less productive, poorer retention of skilled staff.)

I've shared my positive experiences of STEM before, but I'll do so again.
I'm not sure where it goes wrong.
At school, the top of the class in maths, physics, chemistry, biology were all girls (and in most other subjects too, tbh).
At uni (25 years ago), most of the people on my chemistry course were girls, out of maybe 40 in the year. Friends on biology and biochemistry courses were more than half female too. We had female lecturers and professors.
I've worked at STEM companies with majority women (and some majority men of course).
I know top women professors, CEOs, directors, heads of dept., consultants, surgeons, etc.
I realise this is my personal experience and not the majority according to statistics, but there are women doing well in STEM and working at the top.

I have 3 teens, the two eldest are girls. We are in the USA and my eldest is very interested in the FBI. She is going to uni in the Fall and will major in German with another subject she hasn't chosen yet. She had a lot of leadership roles at school, including leading a small group of 8 for 5 days including overnights. All the participants in her group applied to be a leader (like her) the following year. She is also interested in Environmental science. She plans to continue taking math and science at uni until she chooses a major. She understands that having knowledge of STEM subjects is necessary and it's important not to abandon them.

Number two has a very strong interest in medicine and thinks she wants to do Emergency Medicine. DH is a doctor though.

I think girls are turning toward medicine because it's a STEM career they understand. Engineering and IT feel more remote and vague and are very masculinized. I think if careers linked to these subjects were clearly articulated and what they could lead to maybe more women would be interested.

With my girls I have encouraged athletics, independence and leadership and to follow their interests. I have been around so many hopeless male managers I know for a fact many women could lead extremely competently.

And maybe the question on a feminism board is how to encourage men to demand jobs with family-friendly hours, for the benefit of all.

Do family friendly hours benefit everyone though? By everyone I mean employers and service users too? Certainly in medicine, particularly GP practices, I don't see the huge increase in part time GPs being a benefit to patients.