From the abstract:
In this monograph, we undertake extensive life-course analyses comparing
the trajectories of women and men in math-intensive
fields with those of their counterparts in
non-math-intensive fields in which women are close to parity with or
even exceed
the number of men. We begin by examining
early-childhood differences in spatial processing and follow this
through quantitative
performance in middle childhood and adolescence,
including high school coursework. We then focus on the transition of the
sexes from high school to college major, then to
graduate school, and, finally, to careers in academic science.
Source:
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Read the full abstract |
Download full pdf publication
There has never been a better time for women to enter academic careers in math-intensive science fields. That’s the message Cornell University psychologist Stephen Ceci says he was hoping to get across in last Sunday’s controversial op-ed inThe New York Times, “Academic Science Isn’t Sexist,” co-authored by Wendy Williams, also a psychologist at Cornell. But that’s not how the article, which attempts to summarize a 67-pagepaper they co-authored with economists Donna Ginther of the University of Kansas, Lawrence, and Shulamit Kahnof Boston University, came across to some readers.
In addition to the provocative headline, statements such as “the
experiences of young and midcareer women in math-intensive fields are,
for the most part, similar to those of their male counterparts” and that
female underrepresentation in some fields is “rooted in women’s earlier
educational choices, and in women’s occupational and lifestyle
preferences” sparked outcry from the blogosphere and on Twitter and
prompted heated discussion within the scientific community. Those
discussions have focused on whether the findings are valid, the
potential implications, and the best way to move forward.
Source: Science
Read the whole story on Sciencemag.org
