Why are girls turning their back on science?

Women and girls are well-represented in life sciences, but the numbers
studying physical sciences are on the wane. Why? What are the consequences?
(Pic : The Telegraph)

National Science Week starts next week. To celebrate, I'm going to commit seppuku by posting some of my most controversial and morally ambiguous blogs to date.

Until that potential disaster however, I turn my attention to an article at Click on Wales by David Cunnah about the number of girls studying science subjects – in this case physics. Well, it appears at least one woman could buck the trend here in Charlotte Church.

Truth in Stereotypes

If you want anecdotal evidence, I studied separate sciences at GCSE and classes were slightly dominated by boys, with a large cohort of girls. At A-Level, my biology classes were about 50:50, while there were only 3 girls in my chemistry class - though more were in the class on the other side of the timetable.

Then again, I took AS-Level English Language and Literature and was one of only 5 or 6 boys in the year who did so.

It seems not a lot has changed, and it's backed up by hard evidence too. Last month, Shadow Education Minister Angela Burns (Con, Carms. W & S. Pembs.) revealed the number of girls studying science subjects at A-Level had fallen since 2012 – with the exception of biology.

The only detailed breakdown of figures by gender and subject I could find are from 2011-12 (xls).

At GCSE-level :

• 54.1% of separate science entries were male (8,703 vs 7,378).
• 65.4% of design and technology entries were male (5,893 vs 3,120).
• 57.5% of full course IT entries were male (2,675 vs 1,977).
• 97.9% of vocational engineering entries were male (492 vs 11).

The only subjects you can point to having a gender balance are those which are compulsory (like maths, English etc.), with the notable exceptions of history and business studies, which are near enough 50:50. Languages, humanities and arts subjects tend to be dominated by girls.

At A-Level :

• 56% of biology entries were female (1,316 vs 1,034) but....

• 52.2% of chemistry entries were male (984 vs 894)
• 79.9% of physics entries were male (986 vs 265)
• 59.3% of mathematics entries were male (1,914 vs 1,314)
• 60% of design and technology entries were male (514 vs 343)
• 60.6% of IT entries were male (766 vs 498)
• 97% of electronics entries were male (131 v 4)

Again the trend continues. Subjects like history, business studies, geography and music are more gender-balanced, while girls dominate subjects like English literature, religious studies, art and design and languages.

So some stereotypes are true (or perhaps self-perpetuating). Girls tend to take more context-based and social-facing subjects, while boys stick broadly to abstract and technical-based subjects. Where the skills overlap – like biology, history, business studies and geography – there's more gender balance.
Is it simply down to personal interests? Is it forced? Is it cognitive or confirmation bias? I don't know.

Science is hard, pays poorly as a career (except some fields like chemical engineering), has limited opportunities at the top, isn't treated with any respect, attracts negative stereotypes, can be overtaken by new developments very quickly and often requires very intense study or research to get anywhere.

Women in science also face the same problems as women in other walks of life. Though employers like universities are often more flexible when it comes to balancing work and family, you're less likely to find it in the private sector.

Having said that, one of modern science's big selling points for women and girls is that the "glass ceiling" is much easier to break through than areas like business. Science is quite meritocratic as quality of work is often (but not always) worth more than how it's presented or whether your face fits - unless you're presenting a science programme on the telly.

Why? What affect could it have?

Even at university level – where I studied life sciences – I'd say a majority of undergraduates were women, and in terms of postgraduates and doctoral candidates it's around a 50:50 balance.

I can say with confidence there are loads of women working in science, it's just that at the top level – professorships etc. - they're under-represented. That could be because there's a delay, and the numbers of women science professors and PhDs will gradually increase as the years go by. It could also be that women are dropping out of science in greater numbers after graduation to go into other careers.

No, not a character from a Jane Austen novel.
She invented computer programming.
(Pic : Metro)

As for why life sciences in partiuclar have been more successful than physical sciences in attracting women, I'd guess it's because many jobs which have been dominated by women, or increasingly more so (physiotherapy, psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, teaching) require a firm grounding in biology and chemistry, but not so much physics and maths.

I suspect girls are making a rational choice to stick to biology and (sometimes) chemistry as A-Level choices, instead of taking subjects like physics and maths, which aren't absolutely essential to their career goals and could put them at risk of being awarded a low grade if they're not confident or interested enough in those subjects.

At the moment - and as the Institute of Physics has demonstrated (pdf) - physics, IT and engineering skills are more important to the Welsh economy than other parts of the UK.

That's because Wales retains a large manufacturing base and has highly-developed niches in sectors like aerospace, energy, construction and the car industry.

Physics is going through a revolutionary period, and it's likely that we'll have to throw out our textbooks over the next few years thanks to the likes of CERN and rapid pace of technological change in areas like computing and materials science.

David also noted in his article that large numbers of teachers with physics degrees are dropping out of education around age 50 age 35-40 (pic). It could be simple early retirement. It could also be that teachers are struggling to keep up with the pace of change and are dropping out before their knowledge becomes obsolete in order to use their skills in other industries.

As physics – in scientific terms – goes through a metamorphosis, life sciences and biotechnology will become the "growth" science sector for this century, exemplified by the Welsh Government's Sêr Cymru scheme. That means it'll be at the heart of the economy, while other branches of science take a back seat.

Played a vital role in discovering  the structure
of DNA. Largely forgotten by history.
(Pic : Scientific American)

So as long as girls continue to study life sciences in large numbers, the career opportunities will hopefully still be there for them in the future. They'll struggle, however, to break into existing industries like manufacturing and engineering unless they take physical science subjects in bigger numbers. Subsequently that'll contribute to gender gaps in wages and skills in the short to medium term.

Maybe physical science subjects need to take a leaf out of life science's book and put the syllabus in some sort of context in order to make the subjects less intimidating.

You can argue that it's social engineering, and to a slight extent I'd agree. There's nothing inherently "bad" about girls not taking up science subjects, in the same way as boys not taking up humanities or languages. It's a free choice.

However, I'd also argue that both sexes might be wasting talents they don't realise they have, whether that's because of stereotyping, social conditioning/peer pressure, lack of confidence or lack of role models.

Come to think of it, the "lack of role models" argument for girls is ridiculous.

Marie Curie is arguably one of the most famous scientists, let alone women scientists, who ever lived. Rita Levi-Montalcini won a Nobel Prize for Medicine for discovering how nerves grow. We wouldn't have modern computing without Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper. Rosalind Franklin played a pretty critical and criminally understated role in the discovery of DNA.

Closer to home, there wouldn't have been a Welsh coal or steel industry without Lucy Thomas (a de facto geologist). The list goes on.

Wouldn't it be a tragedy and waste if we had a potential Marie Curie or Grace Hopper in our schools, who felt she couldn't take physics or IT for whatever reason?