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?

I used to work for a Dutch Electronics firm, well known for TVs & lightbulbs. They had great flexible working which …. even the men took advantage of. They had good staff retention. Generally few women though because women weren't doing the needed degrees.

I agree about the word ambitious though. I was hard working & self driven, but never had 'ambitions' to be doing X by the time I was Y.

@decomposingcomposers - Not an unreasonable supposition - why would they stay if you made conditions less desirable?

I guess the new cohort with higher student debt will come in (and be more reluctant to leave)... but I don’t think that will be enough.

I'd also rather my DCs had 2 maths teachers than all their maths lessons for a week crammed into e.g. Monday&Tuesday.

That's where there needs to be a bit of planning though so that a teacher could work 2 days but maybe spread out rather than consecutive days.

And having experienced 2 teachers for a subject with my children it was not great. I dare say it could work well but there needs to be good communication (think duplicated work, different teachers requiring different things from work, handovers not done properly). It wasn't a good experience for the students and they definitely made less progress than had they had 1 teacher. Was it better than no teacher? Yes, obviously but that doesn't mean that it Was good or worked well, just that it Was the least worse option.

My Y10s have 4 lessons a week. My Y11s also have 4 lessons a week. In order to not split those classes I definitely have to be in 9 days out of 10.

I guess the new cohort with higher student debt will come in (and be more reluctant to leave)... but I don’t think that will be enough.

Exactly. Or drs who want to stay in the profession might well stay full time as GPs rather than leave medicine entirely. Having part time drs is not a problem so long as there are far more of them (other than losing continuity of care).

It is very difficult because there is a balancing of needs - the needs of the employee against the needs of the service user and what benefits one doesn't alway benefit the other.

noblegiraffe

So do you share the classes with another teacher? Is that working well for the students?

Yes, I understand that continuity is important. There are pros and cons to having 2 rather than 1 teacher. How well it works depends on how they divide the work load. As for gp's, apart from urgent appointments if I want to guarantee I see a particular Dr, I book in when they are available.

I think preventing part time work in some professions is untenable. Unless that profession had an excess of applicants per job and was not struggling to recruit and retain staff.

Treat staff like shit and they vote with their feet.

As for gp's, apart from urgent appointments if I want to guarantee I see a particular Dr, I book in when they are available

I've not found it to be great tbh. We can just never get to book an appointment because most of the drs are part time and there are just nit enough appointments available plus some services so coil fitting for example was done by only 1 gp who was part time. You just could not get an appointment with her because she was in demand plus you had to make sure that any appointment she had available coincided with suitable times for the patient.

@decomposingcomposers - that’s it - least worst solution. Because of rubbish working conditions. I’m sure being gp would be more bearable if they saw fewer patients with longer consultations and more time to do write up notes/letters/check results. Being a teacher may be easier and more sustainable if class sizes were smaller and curriculum did not change as much and there was adequate provision for special needs. It’s not just about amount of time worked, it’s about intensity.

I get that.

I just think that mire thought needs to be given as to how the needs of service users are balanced against the needs of employees so that the desire to work part time hours doesn't come at the cost of disadvantage to others.

@decomposingcomposers - Or more GPs could leave with no one to replace them... I think this is the more likely scenario. But I guess you could do a trial to find out... the nursing issue is probably the more pressing one though.

When there is a lack of qualified people for the job, it is in the service users’ interests to vote for a govt to fund the service so it will be more attractive. Pure economics. Nothing about whose job is harder/who deserves what. If you want more people to join, make it more attractive.

Namenic

It would be interesting to see what would happen. Would drs leave or would they accept working full time, particularly in general practice with no shifts, weekends to cover.

So do you share the classes with another teacher?

No, I told you I have a shitty timetable and sometimes have large gaps in the day where I’m not paid.

Funnily enough, other part time teachers at my school have had enough of this and quit teaching. Teaching is a model where refusal to implement widespread proper part time working practices has led to a retention crisis and a critical shortage of teachers.

@decomposingcomposers - there is out of hours gp covering late night and weekends (I dunno whether this is a mandatory rota or additional to core hours though).

I work in the health sector and I think more would leave, but I guess you could campaign to be the first area to try out removing part-time GP.

Namenic

In my borough the OOH GPs are employed just for that. Our GPs don't cover it themselves.

Funnily enough, other part time teachers at my school have had enough of this and quit teaching.
Well I'm not surprised if they are working 5 full days a week but only paid at 0.6. I've never heard of such a bizarre idea. Any part time teachers that I have known have done it for the purpose of reducing the need for childcare so they have worked either 2 or 3 days/week.

I think one about women in STEM is that often, we don't really know what jobs are available. Yes, we know what nurses, doctors, vets and teachers do. A lot of people have an idea of what engineers do, at least on one level And you can take a guess at some things like research scientist, but most of the people outside the relevant fields won't have more than a vague idea, and when it comes down to some jobs like UX designer or unix admin and various other tech roles, most people outside of IT have virtually no idea at all. So if parents don't have any idea about jobs involved, they're not going to talk to their children about them.

On top of this, we don't tend to see many depictions of STEM jobs in soap operas and so on. We see the IT Crowd and The Big Bang Theory, which are mostly nerdy men as a figure of fun. Where's the working mother in a soap opera, who happens to work in user experience testing or is a lab technician? I suppose part of it is that having people work in customer facing roles (receptionist, bar work, catering, retail,) opens up more opportunities for moving stories forward and interaction with other characters, which isn't so easy with a pass-accessed office or lab. So other than medical staff and mechanics, we tend not to see STEM roles as a just by-the-way, incidental part of everyday life.

Nonetheless, there are girls who make it through school without dropping STEM subjects - this is more likely to happen in single-sex schools. Some make it through university, too. I think another issue is that our education specialises way too early in the UK - I think the Scottish highers take a wider range than at A-level, but nonetheless, we do force people to reduce their choices at a ridiculously young age. Many people have no idea what they will want to do when they're 14 and choosing GCSE subjects, but those choices may be cutting people out of studying STEM subjects at higher levels even at that age.

Nevertheless, she persisted, and some girls do end up working in STEM. I was at a women in tech event a few years ago, and one of the speakers said, "You tend to get a certain sort of woman working in computing, because the rest don't make it." You do need a thick skin and certain level of stubbornness. I met someone who worked in nuclear physics, and she said she won't get involved in any events promoting STEM to girls, because she doesn't want to have the guilt of encouraging them into an environment which is still sexist. It's rarely overtly sexist these days (though don't be under any illusion that doesn't still happen), and a lot of men seem to think that as long as they aren't actively groping anyone by the photocopier, they're doing their bit, and everything is fine with the culture.

It's not though. There's plenty of unconscious bias (and at times, conscious bias.) Just happens to be the man who gets the promotion and that high-profile project - again. Happens rather too often to believe it's all fair and based on merit.

Then you get to a point where maternity leave or redundancy or something forces you to take stock of your world, and you realise you don't want to have to put up with that crap every day, you don't want to have to fight for everything in a way your male colleagues don't need to do. So you decide to go and do something else where you can focus all your energy on actual work, rather than fighting the system just to stay level.

And so the other women who made it through, 10, 15, 20 years behind you - they don't see any female role models in their area. All the managers are men. You find it difficult to believe that women can make it there, and meanwhile, all the male managers will be bemoaning that they can't get any women, despite all the gender equality initiatives they have tried. They will see there is no sexism, because it doesn't affect them at all, so they just don't notice all the institutional bias, and they'll decide that it's all because women just don't want to do it, so it's not their fault, and they don't need to change.

It can be very, very tiring. Death by 1000 cuts.

GPs are in desire across the globe so if you make working conditions undesirable here they’ll just move. I know a couple who have moved to Oz for better working conditions.
Or retire early. Either way, your retention rates will plummet.

PigeonofDoom

Do you really think that if the option was full time/emigrate/leave medicine that all drs would choose emigrate or leave?

You might well be right but I just think that is unlikely. And it isn't the part time hours that are causing the problem as much as not increasing the number of drs working the part time hours so that patient care and availability of appointments isn't affected.

Surely there's more to be considered when looking at part time hours rather than only what the employee wants?

It's in the employee's interest and probably the employer's. I don't think it is always in the service user's interests - be they students, patients or customers

It's always going to be in the employee's interest. As an employer, it's only in my interest as there are certain members of staff I want to keep and there is a shortage of experienced staff in my sector. Beyond that, no it isn't in my interest and involves more management for me and indeed the full time staff when they need holiday cover.

So far as clients, it requires careful handling and some clients really are not happy that the person dealing with their work is only there part time.

As I said, GPs are highly mobile. They can and already do emigrate to countries seen to have better working conditions, so you would be exacerbating an already existing problem if you force them all to work full time. Especially when you consider that “full time” for a GP involves a lot of additional overtime. As we’ve discussed in other careers, if you force people to do full time plus hours on top then you will lose a lot of your working mothers. GPs are allowed to have a life outside of work and a good employer would balance employees and clients needs.

GPs are allowed to have a life outside of work and a good employer would balance employees and clients needs.

I'm not disputing that they are entitled to have a life outside of work - in fact everyone is. I also have no issue with people working part time. That is between them and their employer. But it is for the employer to make sure that they balance it so that it doesn't affect service users and I don't think that happens.

I have head teachers talk about some of the negative impacts for schools when employing part time staff - sometimes the implications of on costs, the difficulties when a part time staff member leaves or goes onto maternity leave and the school has to try and find a replacement for the shorter hours, trying to arrange training days or parents evenings, so my point was in relation to the comment that allowing part time hours benefits everyone. I disagree with that point.

@decomposingcomposers - IF there were more GPs than jobs you could consider increasing job requirements (eg longer hours, less flexible time to fit with patients’ lives). BUT there are already too FEW GPs compared to jobs, and GPs are likely to be employable in pharma, management counsultancy etc. Therefore unless you consider GPs needs MORE, you will end up with a shortage which will be bad for patients.

You could increase SUPPLY of GPs by increasing training places, decreasing training time or improving work conditions. Some of these will have knock on effects of quality of patient care.

To apply this to teaching, take specialist maths teachers. It may well be a problem organising part time, but there really aren’t enough maths teachers to go around, so if parents care about having a teacher with a maths specialism (which may or may not be important to them), then it is up to the school/head/govt to give them good working conditions so they take the job in that school instead of somewhere else or different sector. Otherwise the kids will have a non specialist maths teacher to teach maths (maybe parents value having 1 single teacher more than a part time specialist).

EBearhug, yes, Death by 1000 cuts is where I've got to. I've found things much easier in smaller companies. Being part of a team of five or six people all working together is great. Always some frustrations and healthy debate, but you can still feel like you're working together. But when you're outnumbered 20 to 1, with all the competitiveness and backstabbing, never mind harassment and bullying, then you get to a state where you don't want to be there and you wouldn't recommend it to others.

But in reply to both of those points simply saying that it is better to have someone rather than no one doesn't mean that the patient or pupil is getting a good deal.

Yes, maybe having a part time maths specialist plus a part time non specialist can work well. I have to say ime the part time teachers weren't specialists so you ended Up With 2 part time non specialists. The communication didn't appear to be great and, as it was told to me, oftentimes the teacher would be asking the class where they were up to or what they had covered so far. Parent evenings were another issue with neither teacher available or one teacher there but claiming they were unable to answer certain questions because that was the remit of the other tacher. 2 part time form teachers was another issue altogether - as parents you had no idea who to contact and information never seemed to be handed over.

I guess the success or failure of part time working in certain professions rests on how committed the individuals are to making it work plus the expectations of the employer.

I understand that drs have choices but ultimately, as a patient, what concerns you is being able to see a GP when you need to see one, preferably the same one for continuity. That certainly isn't happening here and the reason given is that so many of the drs are part time. So for that reason I disagree with the statement that part time working benefits everyone.

It benefits the employee, not everyone.