"Women are always less likely to choose a STEM program, regardless of mathematical ability. Among those who went to university, 23% women in the three highest categories of PISA scores (out of six) chose a STEM program, compared with 39% of men in the three lowest categories of PISA scores."
It makes me think about WHY they might be "choosing" other fields. If it is truly because they are not interested and that is based on a somewhat educated view of what it actually is then I'm fine. If it is because they feel like they aren't "smart enough" then I think they need to take their queue from the 39% of men referenced in the quote and just go for it.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11874-eng.htmSince women's relative strength is verbal compared to mathematical ability, for a given level of mathematical ability, a woman is likely to have more verbal ability than a man and thus to choose a humanities major where verbal ability is more important. In other words, women who are very good at math are more likely than men who are very good at math to also be very good at other subjects and therefore to have choices other than STEM.
You're making a Ricardian argument that women are following their comparative advantage and choosing the skill set in which they are best qualified. Although the actual basis for that argument is flimsy, I'm going to run with your assumption and demonstrate why the line of thought presented is invalid.
Comparative advantage isn't blind to compensation. Average STEM salaries in the U.S. exceed humanities salaries.
http://time.com/money/4189471/stem-graduates-highest-starting-salaries/Women make an expected value calculation and are still over-represented in humanities, despite having comparable quantitative skills to their male counterparts, on average. (Read chay's quoted piece from Statistics Canada for some substantiation from a relatively pro-female market).
If talent isn't the impediment, something else is restricting women from accessing STEM as a viable option. Given that women are, on average, compensated less than male counterparts (after controlling for tenure and qualifications), the female STEM-humanities compensation gap closes, and the relative benefit to accessing a STEM career for a woman declines relative to humanities.
Another possibility is that a non-financial variable is driving women's decision not to enter STEM. If there are non-pecuniary barriers to entry (social, cultural, relational) that penalize women in STEM disproportionately to men, then women will also consider that cost in the calculus of career choice.
You have spoken in previous threads about the need to feminize your daughter with accultured female interests and, conversely, have opined on the value of sports knowledge and male cultural currency to be successful in various male-dominated fields. These are exactly the kinds of barriers that perpetuate gender imbalance. Though, I suspect, not all audiences here prefer the idea of equality.
