Männer an Hochschulen und Universitäten übertreffen derzeit Frauen bei den Abschlüssen in Physik, Ingenieurwesen und Informatik (PECS) in einem Verhältnis von ungefähr 4 zu 1. Die meisten selektiven Universitäten haben die PECS-Geschlechterlücke aufgrund der SAT-Ergebnisse in Mathematik nahezu geschlossen, während weniger selektive Universitäten dies getan haben gesehen, wie es sich erweitert
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1065013
9 Comments
I’m curious what effect this has on other disciplines. When people in one gender enter one major, they’re not entering another. So if more women are going into, say, physics at a selective school, what major are they coming out of?
One possibility: top schools are ~~lowering admissions standards for women~~ emphasizing non-numerical admissions standards to increase female enrollment, scooping up the lion’s share of women with middling math SAT scores, leaving fewer such women for less selective schools to recruit.
Another (related) possibility: top schools are becoming more selective for male students, leaving men with high math SAT scores to compete for spots at less selective schools against middling students of both sexes, increasing the share of male students at those universities.
Another (least likely) possibility: less selective schools are just doubling down on the sexism from which elite schools have awoken.
I curious to know if the closed gap is because the stricter standards for test scores dropped lower achieving men out and so it appears more even. I.e. if I have 10 people at the strict school and 5 are men and 5 are women, that appears to achieve “even” more than a less strict school’s ratio of 8 men to 5 women.
I’m also curious if there are similar gaps/parity in social science fields.
Please read the paper before commenting. “More selective’ means math SATs at 770 or higher.
This seems sort of obvious, selective universities can easily create gender parity from their large pool of applicants.
Theory: Woman and men score similar on SATs, so they’re ability to get into top schools is roughly equal. Woman have a lower interest, on average, in obtaining PECS degrees.
Case 1(high SAT): Women with mathematical amplitude gravitate towards said degrees whether passionate about it or not due to teachers, counsellors, parents etc. instilling that it’s the right move due to their talents and perhaps cultures push for women to take on more technical careers.
Case 2(average SAT): Without the additional motivation given by their peers the natural interest differential becomes more apparent.
I’ve personally witnessed this. On the other hand if there are barriers holding back women from getting into certain careers they’re passionate about, fixing the issue would be wonderful. But sexual differences relating to interests are biological and real.
Isn’t this basically saying, that with a larger pool of students studying for this. More men go towards these degrees. But when you limit the pool to top performers there is barely a gap.
Basically men like these jobs/ choose these degrees more. And top performers are pretty even gender wise.
I got a physics minor and the 300 level classes were all 10 guys and 1 gal.
When you level the playing field and people are completely free to choose what interests them, they will choose what interests them. This counter-intuitively widens the gaps between the sexes like we are seeing more egalitarian countries such as Norway. Plenty of research pointing this direction. At the end of the day, men and women by and large have different interest on average. Disparity is not evidence of discrimination.