Making Science a Little Too Sexy

The European Commission has decided to spend money to try to get more girls interested in science careers (why?) and came up with this rather silly ad:

The ad has gotten lambasted from many quarters, and I'll join in. First, the supposed 'under-representation' of women in hard science doesn't strike me as a pressing problem. The evidence for some ingrained gender differences and lifestyle factors in gender preferences for STEM careers is now so solid that only the hardest-core blank slaters dispute it. There's almost certainly a marginal extra underrepresentation caused by discrimination or amorphous 'cultural factors', but I wonder how significant it is. And in any event, women who are interested in STEM careers -- like men -- are not anticipating a sex-drenched, pulsatingly romantic workplace. They are more likely to be introverted problem-solvers who appreciate intellectual rigor -- precisely the sort of people who have probably never watched a music video with interest in their lives.

And one more thing: when I tried to watch it in my Google Reader RSS feed, I got the following error message:

This is probably just some re-poster, but wouldn't it be delightful if the European Commission's official YouTube account were disabled for copyright violations?

Comments

[Frederik]

>I think one has to distinguish between high school/Gymnasium performance or subject preferences, university (BA or MA) degrees and PhDs or professional researchers. As regards high school performance girls do well for all I know (because on average they outperform boys because of diligency, social skills etc.). Concerning research career paths it makes no sense at all to pressure someone into these who does not already feel a strong connection to the subject.

Im not sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that there are no biological disadvantages for woman concerning science, that they are even better in them in high school than boys, but that they somehow loose interest in them, when they choose careers? Because there is no social or artistic aspect in science? And they should not be pressured to take up STEM subjects?

I would argue that ads like these and 'girls days' and the like are all attempts to counter social pressures that discourage girls after puberty to choose STEM subjects.

[Johannes]

Maybe not core STEM subjects, but I believe that in Germany female students may already be the majority in medicine, biology and related subjects.

The genetic differences mostly concern spatial reasoning which is not always all that relevant in some natural sciences.
Also, as soon as there is some more social or artistic aspect in a subject, like architecture or urban planning or similar things, there ar more women in the field.

I think one has to distinguish between high school/Gymnasium performance or subject preferences, university (BA or MA) degrees and PhDs or professional researchers. As regards high school performance girls do well for all I know (because on average they outperform boys because of diligency, social skills etc.). Concerning research career paths it makes no sense at all to pressure someone into these who does not already feel a strong connection to the subject.

[Frederik]

I got no idea about the differences in spatial skills and if they are biological or socio-culturaly "ingrained" and i would venture that boys could become better at reading as well, if there is more encouragment from families and the public.

As I said, i think the bioligical proof for those ingrained sex differences is still controversial and, sadly, often used to reaffirm the status quo (women = caring/emotional = nurses, kindergarten teachers. men = rational/cold = engineers).

>And the mere fact that a girl may be good at math doesn't mean she will be likely to choose a career in which she will have to use that skill every day.

And that´s the problem, isn´t it? Those lifestyle choices and whatnut are exactly the things well-meaning but somewhat awkward (as the video clips shows) politicans try to change. And who knows, it could be, that those things work. (At the very least those clips will not discourage girls to choose STEM science as a carrer). I at least hope so...

[Andrew]

@Frederik: 'Girls are becoming as good as boys at mathematics, and are still better at reading.' The title says it all: girls are (on average) better at reading and other language-related tasks, another 'ingrained gender difference' that's been thoroughly proven. As for girls' math capabilities, those are on average comparable to boys', but boys' spatial skills are still better. And the mere fact that a girl may be good at math doesn't mean she will be likely to choose a career in which she will have to use that skill every day.

[Frederik]

>The evidence for some ingrained gender differences and lifestyle factors in gender preferences for STEM careers is now so solid that only the hardest-core blank slaters dispute it.

Are you sure about those "ingrained gender differnces". A quick look around the web shows that this idea is at least still controversial:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801
http://www.economist.com/node/11449804?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11449804

[cheeerio]

come on, now you are really getting ridiculous. I don't know if you want to be funny or sarcastic, but just stating that anyone in a STEM career wouldn't be interested in music or art is just a very blunt, rude, unnecessary statement. I don't know where that kind of arrogance comes from, but it's certainly not making you look like a very distinguished person.

[The Honourable Husband]

The equivalent ad? "Reading. It's a Guy Thing."