I just saw this today and the application date starts today as well. For all us girls who are STEM inclined...

I don't think government programs should exclude males or females unless there is a strong rationale. Looking at the criteria at the site, boys ARE able to apply, but they don't want boys to apply. My eldest son is interested in astronomy, so I'll encourage him to do so.

NASA B.O.Y.S!

I understand your point of view Bostonian, and as the mom of a son who is really into astronomy and science, the first thing I thought was "Gee, I wish there was a program like this for boys!". Then I realized after reading your reply that boys probably have to be accepted into this program... but fwiw... I'm also a female scientist and I've seen in my education and career how there can be gender barriers and I also understand wanting to get more girls interested in science. Sometimes you can't do everything with limited resources. If I was a mentor scientist in this program, I'd be committing my time expecting to mentor a girl, and that's why I would be making the commitment. So while I get that it should in theory be ok to go ahead and sign up a boy, I don't necessarily think it's something I'd do. But that's just me!

polarbear

I am an active member of a local Women in Technology group, and it's been interesting to watch the metamorphosis over the past three years. At first it was a core group of women who really leaned on each other for resources, support, connections, etc. in fields that are typically dominated by men. Many of those women helped me tremendously when I started my own tech company.

Now the monthly meetings have a ratio of about 2/3 women and 1/3 men. We've attracted some excellent guest speakers, educational classes, etc., that men have opted into taking part in. We've always welcomed men, but the focus has been on helping young girls and career women succeed in fields previously dominated by men.

I imagine the motive behind this program is similar, so I'd definitely encourage your son to apply.

i think this is great. When I took engineering, only 4% of the class was female. I think there has to be greater emphasis to encourage girls. Think Larry Summers and his comments about math and science and women....

Ren

I can't say I support the message that the brothers of the girls partaking of the program will be receiving.

What message will the brothers be receiving?

What message? That the program is encouraging girls to stay involved in science?

I would explain to my children (boys and girls - and I have both btw) - that girls have traditionally been under-represented in science and technology fields, and that this is one way that scientists are using to try to encourage girls who enjoy science to stay interested in it and consider it as a career path. That's what it is.

polarbear

The message that boys' interest in science is less worthy of being encouraged than that of girls.

Boys get the message that their pursuits in STEM fields are supported at every level. Providing opportunities for under-represented groups does not by default send the message that over-represented groups are not valued.

Here are some messages I've received as a founder of a STEM field startup.

From an Angel Investor presentation: "You don't have even one token male on your board? We would feel more comfortable with your proposition if there was."

From a reporter: so really it's your husband who's helping you out and doing the hard stuff. (husband is not even on my board).

I could go on.

Boys will likely get the message that their parents filter down to them. We have the opportunity to help our kids form opinions by providing reference through our own attitudes.

When my daughter is going to science and even nature-related things, even LEGO events, there are rarely more than maybe 1 or 2 girls, for say, every 10 boys. Wherever I go the boys seem to be quite nicely represented.

Boys are allowed in the program, so...what's the problem? They aren't being shut out or excluded. Maybe the red carpet isn't being rolled out exactly for them? Hasn't the red carpet been rolled out for them for enough thousands of years in these types of endeavors to satisfy the boys or those parents of boys who have an issue with those who specifically are encouraging girls?

The people who made the web site have deliberately made it seem that the program is only for girls, when in reality boys are eligible. That is wrong, and I wonder if it is illegal. Past discrimination against females does NOT justify current discrimination against males.

Sorry, Bostonian, but I really disagree with this. By this premise, no school should be allowed to have culturally-focused clubs, the NAACP should not be allowed to state that they're promoting the advancement of a specific race, and that magnet schools cannot focus on students who have unique skills like, say, being gifted, because it discriminates against kids who are, say, not gifted but would like to be included anyway.

Indeed. Same goes for chess camp (10% girls).

I took my DD9 to a public astrophysics lecture last week. I pointed out to her that there were a lot of kids in the audience. She responded, "yeah, but they're all boys."

At the age of 9, she's already learned that this is a field for boys. She's learned this from every direction, including her classroom teacher, the gifted teacher, the TV programs she watches, and what her friends and her friends' parents tell her.

If NASA wants to develop talent in the STEM fields, it needs to specifically target the 50% of the population with the talent that has been told repeatedly since early in life that they don't really belong. The data show the power of mentoring girls and young women with female role models.

And yes, it's legal and right.

...and I'm taking her to next week's astrophysics lecture as well. Sadly, it will be given by another man.

My best advice to those who don't approve of this NASA program or the way it's being represented: It's a free country. Contact them directly and tell them. And use your real name.

If you read the materials, this is a very small pilot program. They will select 15-20 girls. I doubt that the 15-20 professional women volunteering their time would be pleased if they ended up with boys. If you want something to include boys, I would ask them to expand their program next year.

I have two DDs and am in a STEM field. I agree with geofizz and master_of_none. I have two DDs and my older one in particular prefers to discuss things, etc. My younger DD and I probably do fine with show and do, but prefer the other way as well. My girls are lucky since it seems (thinking about it now) many of their subjects including science and math are taught using group dynamics.

FWIW, the ratios in my work group are similar to what is described above.

I sent the link on to my DDs Middle school math teacher and she hopes to get it posted on the MS website as an opportunity.

The message is that from the perspective of the people implementing the program, a boy's interest in this area is so common that it doesn't hold as much value as the interest of a girl, and isn't worthy of patronage, regardless of level-of-interest or aptitude.

Have any of you put yourself in the shoes of a boy who shares a love of space with his sister of similar age? Sure, the program will begrudgingly accept him, but the intent to exclude boys is clear. Why should he be made to feel unwelcome in pursuing his interests? Isn't that exactly the type of feeling that the program advocates want to alleviate, except they apparently only want to alleviate that feeling for girls?

I am an engineer who grew up as a talented math student, and I am somewhat accustomed to the double standard. There was always extra excitement surrounding a girl who was good at math (and awards for best performing girl at public school math competitions... sorry to the dozens of guys who outscored her, you're the wrong sex). Now I am involved in recruitment and hiring, and the excitement carries on. Engineering firms compete to bring in female engineers in a way that they don't compete for males. Maybe this is a complete reversal from decades past. If so, I think we should damp the oscillation instead of driving it.

I don't advocate sexual discrimination, but I do recognize it as a right for private clubs. I didn't see information on the website about funding for NASA G.I.R.L.S. and I'm not going to look into whether or not a legal case could be made against it. I will simply say that I'm against it, and should the time come, I don't look forward to making the decision about whether or not to let my daughter partake in something she would love that isn't open to her brother, who may love it equally. Seeing as how I'm an engineer, my children wont be lacking STEM mentorship either way.

I will take it upon myself to make sure that my daughter never feels that STEM topics are inappropriate for her, while advocating for every facet of her education, math and science included.

There is a shortage of qualified STEM workers in this country, and addressing that shortage is important to our future economy and national security. Women happen to be underrepresented in STEM, and also happen to make up over half the population. Boys have more than enough role models and mentors available if they want to pursue STEM fields. Girls have Marie Curie and... ?

The rationale of making female mentors available to girls is plenty strong.

DD8 took a Lego robotics class earlier this year, in which she was the only girl out of 10 kids. She loved the programming, so her grandparents got her a Lego robotics kit for her birthday. Building the robots was the first time she'd really had to do a task where she couldn't just glance at the instructions and be able to do a "good enough" job, even once she'd had some practice.

So when we were taking a frustration break, I explained to her how the skills she was developing - looking carefully, following instructions exactly, double-checking her work - would help her be successful in science, later. And then I started a sentence with, "some people think Lego is for boys, and some people think science is for boys," and she rolled her eyes and interrupted with, "Mom, *everybody* thinks that."

Show me STEM mentors that are accepting boys and turning away girls. I've never heard of such a program. It seems to me that every mentor available to a boy is also available to a girl. Thus your comment that boys have more than enough mentors while girls don't is highly suspect.

I would say that the rationale for making STEM mentors available to our youth is plenty strong. The rationale for making mentors available to select youth groups is flawed.

It sounds like this is personal for you because of your own experiences of dealing with bias.

I guess I could take it personally as well that I was turned down for funding by a group of Angel Investors because I was a woman that they thought wasn't up to the task of running a tech corporation. But the truth is that they would have made lousy advisors and mentors and second-guessed every decision I made because of their bias. After continuing to bootstrap, I made it to a profitable year without taking in any investor capital. So I'm in a better position, and I've proven them wrong in the very best of ways - by being successful.

The point is that BIAS is very different than mentoring a specific under-represented group with the goal of alleviating cultural and societal bias. It is a shame that your corporation displayed bias and that you dealt with teachers who displayed bias. I am sure you're mentoring your own son to not show bias, having experienced the negative effects in your own career.

I'm just wondering. How long ago was that?

I helped raise funding for a tech startup back in 2000, so I knew the VC community quite well. Granted, I am not a woman, but there were successful women entrepreneurs at the time.

2010 - local angel investors; not national. I considered and was approached by a national VC but by then was only a few months from revenue and no longer wanted to go that path. The data, however, indicates I was not along. Women led tech firms are funded only in a fraction of the amount and in far less quantity than similar firms with male CEO's.

Decades ago, the guy who invented Legos was pretty clear that they were supposed to have universal appeal. Boy or girl, Lego was for everyone.

Then, at some point, all that changed, and pretty much everything outside the Duplo range became aimed at boys. Last Christmas, I tried to find a Lego kit (not just a bucket) that my daughter would like, and had to hunt high and low to find a lighthouse or a log cabin. Everything else was blast 'em up!!

Then I read that Lego was trying to make a line called Friends that would appeal to girls. I thought the kits were (are), well, err, kind of stereotypically over-the-top uber-pink GIRLIE!! You can judge for yourself.

I don't jump in here very often anymore, but I think one of the points being overlooked in the discussion is the primary aspect of a mentor/mentee relationship - it's not the technical stuff, it's the other stuff - the social side, the networking, the obstacles, the exposure, the who you know, the unwritten rules, etc. These mentors are female and their primary target audience is female because that is who the mentors feel need their specific expertise and who they can provide the best and most appropriate assitance/advice to.

A mentor is an experienced advisor and supporter who advises and guides a younger, less experienced person. I'm sorry but male STEM workers simply aren't going to provide the same kind of advice, guidance and perspective for a young girl interested in a STEM field as can a female who has been there/done that, especially because of the history of bias that already has several examples posted on both sides of this discussion.

The point of this program is to connect what I think nearly everyone on this thread has agreed is a rare resource - experienced female STEM workers - with students interested in the STEM fields. The boys interested in STEM fields have lots of other exposure to potential mentors - teachers, professors, parents even in their day to day life. The girls, not so much.

Those of us with daughters interested in the STEM fields seem to find very few available mentors who are female, without intensive effort. The girls interested in STEM fields need access to female mentors both to truly understand the bias and gender issues that may be found in day to day working conditions, but also in order to figure out how to deal with those issues and build a support network. I could find male mentors easily for my DS. This resource provides a concentrated access to female mentors that many young girls would otherwise have no access to at all.

Was this an official NASA sanctioned event, or something this particular pilot likes to do on his or her own time? Do you know whether or not an effort was made to invite or coordinate with the girl scouts or another girl oriented group?

Well said.

Another important function of a mentor is to serve as a role model, which is only effective if a child reasonably thinks that they have a chance to grow up like the role model. The correct gender can be an instant disqualifier.

And it goes both ways... the child must identify with the mentor, and the mentor must identify with the child. Since boys and girls have completely different social experiences...

Events like these are considered public affairs events, and organizations make requests. I don't know if the girls scouts made a request but I doubt they would be denied if the crew had time available. I'm also not clear why having an organization that caters to one "group" needs to take away from the others. There are many examples of groups, boy/girl scouts are just one and while my daughter could possibly join the boy scouts, I doubt she would enjoy it or want to do this. I did play baseball as a kid because we missed softball sign up. While I didn't hit home runs, I did steal a lot of bases and get walked a lot .....

I wanted to second Prissy's point. I would think girls would want to find like role models to show them that they can do it as well vs a male mentor.

While I don't think I ran into bias in college, I did get some bias in elementary and high school (ooposite from DAD22s experience where girls got special favors). So it can go both ways. Instead of being bitter, I just like to prove them wrong and even today enjoy finding solutions to problems/errors that the guys sometimes don't see or overlooked.

I would suggest if anyone is looking for mentors it sounds like there might be some available on this forum (for a wide variety of careers).

I think you're missing half the point of my post. The bias I experienced was at public school. NASA is a government funded organization. I expect my government to operate without bias. I'm glad that your angel investors missed a money making opportunity as a result of their bias, but while I see it as the duty of government to treat citizens fairly, I don't see it as the duty of government to force citizens to treat each other fairly. I want people to do that on their own. However, our government actually does have anti-discrimination requirements for economic entities, so it seems to me that you could have filed a case against your would-be angle investors, if you felt you had sufficient evidence. (Not saying you should have, obviously that's a personal choice, and I wouldn't ever bring a case against a non-government entity for excluding me from their business dealings.)

I think there are two different problems here that are being conflated. One is bias in hiring and the other is bias in expectations. The NASA mentoring program is addressing bias in expectations.

There are many valid criticisms of hiring practices that exclude or pick people based on gender, race, etc. I generally agree with them. There are exceptions (e.g. clothing models), but generally, there are good arguments against bias in hiring.

At the same time, bias in expectations is everywhere, and it can be harmful. The uber-girlie Lego kits I linked to are a good example. They're simplistic, as opposed to complex kits aimed at boys. Is this because girls can't do "hard" kits? I don't know. But if you don't believe me, just click through the Lego Friends kits on Amazon or some other site and look at them. They feature basic designs, and everyone is nice and happy and smiling and not challenging the status quo (again, compare to sets for boys). This is only one of countless examples. My DD7, who figured out how to divide in her head when she was three, told me that she's not good at math because it's not for girls. She certainly didn't hear from anyone in her family.

You had better hurry. All of society is giving your daughter a different message, including, possibly, her teachers if she is in a b/m school.

I see where you're coming from, but it certainly isn't a windmill worth tilting in my book. A few female scientists and engineers chatting via Skype with little girls is a good thing, but maybe offering a similar opportunity for boys wouldn't be out of the question. I think Val put it very well

You may think girls' Legos are too girlie, but they will sell well only if many girls like them. If they sell poorly, they will be discontinued. That is how the free market discourages "bias", properly defined as *incorrect* beliefs about the sexes. Some activists in the government, which is not subject to market discipline, want different groups make the same choices about what to study or what careers to pursue, and they are willing to discriminate to achieve their aims. This is economically inefficient and morally wrong.

The best sort of mentoring and the best role models would be born out of already existing relationships:. Teachers, parents, interested professionals. I think we all agree that these relationships can have great impacts on people's lives.

The fact that NASA has created a program to mentor young girls, along with the low numbers of girls going into STEM programs, suggests that the informal system has broken down for girls and Women@NASA is attempting to make up for this breakdown. The informal system seems to work for boys so complaining about this little program for a handful of girls seems a bit petty, imo.

As for what message it sends to boys, well, it seems to me it sends the message that the industries are is designed with them in mind so they don't need these "make-up" programs. And why should we be more worried about the messages boys receive than the messages girls receive?

This reminds my of the day I went to little league football registration with my DS7, who sincerely asked, "how come there aren't any girls here?" Sigh. I wish we lived in his world.

Agreed. The vast majority of teachers are female, and being raised without a father is much more common than being raised without a mother. So it seems to me that the opportunity for girls to have a significant relationship with a positive same-sex role model is significantly greater than the opportunity for boys.


Petty. Principled. Tomato. Tomahto. I can easily put myself in the situation of someone with a girl who is interested in the program who also has a son who would be interested in the program if they didn't discriminate against him. If something is unfair on an individual level, but argued as fair on a group level, I usually don't agree with those arguments. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on the issue called "The Quest for Cosmic Justice."


What do you mean when you say our industries are designed?


Did someone say we should be? I suggested that the message boys receive should not be completely ignored.

Please refrain from insults - I went back and deleted a few comments.

Thanks!

On the topic of girls having so many same-sex role models: Did you notice how many of the girls want to be teachers or moms in the "What do they want to be thread?" Just sayin....

Look on www.nasa.gov and go to the student section. There are many oppotunities. Find something they can both do.

Wow, ok so I have been really busy this week and haven't gotten back to this post. I was trying to pass along an opportunity that rarely comes along for girls who are excited about this kind of thing. And its free besides your own supplies.

Any opportunity, no matter for girls, boys, 2e, 99.9%'ers, should be cause for applause. Especially with cut backs to gifted education in many school districts.

Thank you NASA Women!

I think my comment was one deleted, although not sure why, it wasn't an insult and not directed at any particular poster. I think that it perhaps could be worthwhile for men, particularly fathers of daughters, to examine male privilege as it relates to women and girls in STEM fields.

The issue was not mentors in general. It was mentors in STEM fields.

Single female parents, female elementary school teachers, female girl scout leaders, female atheletic coaches (typically in female associated atheletics such as gymnastics, dance and cheerleading) etc. can be excellent positive same-sex role models in many areas. But in the vast majority of circumstances they are not and cannot be positive same-sex STEM mentors/role models by virtue of the fact that they are typically not themselves involved in STEM careers, nor in many cases do they even know someone who would be a positive same-sex STEM mentor for a young girl.

Boys are much more likely to have male parents, male scout leaders, male coaches, male teachers etc. who may function as positive same-sex role models in those particular areas, but who are much more likely to fill the role of same-sex STEM mentors/role models, again by virtue of the fact that they themselves are more likely to be involved in or know someone involved in a STEM career who could mentor a young boy.

Regardless of whether and/or how the industries are 'designed' (for lack of a better word), boys get bombarded with the message that they are welcome, simply by the sheer number of places that they observe male role models in those STEM fields - whether it be that 6 out of 7 crew members on a shuttle mission are men, that teachers of STEM subjects in secondary education and above are vastly dominated by males, or by the depictions in pop culture, from Phineas and Ferb to Big Bang Theory. The message girls get is that they are not welcome.

My question is why aren't you equally outraged by the message your DD is getting in nearly every exposure she has to STEM fields. That message is insidious and it's pervasive and it's abundantly clear that females (including her) are generally not included or welcome in those fields. Here is a chance to counterbalance that message and it doesn't take anything away from the boys - they still get the message that they are welcome from every other venue in the STEM fields.

Do you agree that it is valuable for a young girl interested in STEM to have a STEM mentor of the same gender? What other suggestions do you have to figure out how to connect this rare resource of female STEM mentors with young girls?

Should this rare and unique resource be monopolized by large numbers of boys, who have other STEM resources, to the point where access by girls is effectively swamped based on sheer numbers? That's what happens in many other places, only a few of which have been mentioned by other posters on this thread.

It's not really fair to object and tear down these types of programs without considering how to achieve the goal without the parts you find objectionable. If your objection is that you really don't believe that same-sex STEM mentors are valuable, particularly for girls, then nothing else I say will matter.

If you are concerned that your DS will get the wrong message from this program, NASA has other mentor programs that have no reference to gender and both your children would be welcome there. My guess is that most of those programs, though, are dominated by men and your DD may not find a mentor there, while your son most likely would.

This just ticked across my Facebook timeline and is quite timely to this discussion. Of the top 100 investors on the Midas List, how many do you think were women? A whopping 5, with the top on appearing as 42 on the list. There is a desperate need for mentoring and role modeling for girls in fields outside of teachers and moms. Not dissing teachers OR moms, seeing as I went to school to be the first and have been a practicing mom for 21 years. There just aren't a lot of women role models in the more male-dominated fields.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/03/women-midas-list/

I'm not outraged because I know it's illogical to judge a book by its cover. Just because an industry is male dominated doesn't imply that women aren't welcome. I am an engineer, and my experience is that women are more than welcome. If my daughter ever doubts that women are welcome, she has immediate access to a someone in a STEM field who will correct her. Spreading the message that women are welcome in those fields doesn't require discrimination, and it certainly doesn't require discrimination on the part of government funded entities.

I've re-read this comment several times and just can't get past the assumption that single moms and teachers are enough for girls and that viewing women in other powerful roles of leadership and in technology is not necessary or needed. I honestly cannot believe you think that and am now wondering if such posits as these are simply to stoke the fire.

I'm not sure why you think that what you know that's illogical has anything to do with young girls and their perceptions.

I remember when my niece's school had all the 2nd graders dress up as different presidents and give a brief biography. She told my sister after the presentations that she would like to be president but knew she couldn't be. When my sister asked why she said "Because you have to be a man!"

What kids see powerfully informs their perceptions about what is possible for them.

As Dude said, just because you know the message is illogical, doesn't mean that a young girl does and they're the ones receiving it - not you. Even if judging a book by its cover is illogical, it's a fact of life - everyone does it anyway. Otherwise why bother dressing up for job interviews or a blind date?

Not to be too personal, but how do you know whether or not your DD has doubts about whether women are welcome in STEM fields? She may not necessarily ever voice them to you. For that matter she may not ever realize that she has doubts because she doesn't even realize that it's an option worth discussing. That's my point here. The message that women are not welcome is insidious. No one ever says it straight out, but you just seldom see any women in STEM careers. To the point where many girls don't even think to try because by the age of 10 or 14 or 6 they've already internalized the message - they never even get to the pont where they ask themselves or any one else - "Could I do that?".

Even if you personally can convey the message that women are welcome in STEM fields, how much weight does that carry against the possibility that your DD is the only girl on the robotics team and she is one of only two girls in the Honors Algebra class in 7th grade or that she is the only girl from her school to submit a science fair project? Last I heard, most tweens and teenagers don't always have a lot of faith in what their parents say, especially if real life appears to contradict them.

Maybe this particular program isn't your preferred way to handle this - to each their own. So what exactly are you doing to actively spread the message that women are welcome in STEM fields? How many secondary school or college women or junior staff in you organziation are you mentoring in your field? If you aren't contributing to the solution then it's not entirely appropriate for you to be tearing down an organziation (government supported or not) that is trying. Constructive criticism is a different story.

As I mentioned earlier, if you've got another idea, or two or three, please share. Many of us who are currently women in STEM fields would love to figure out how to get and keep girls interested in these areas when so much else of what they see undercuts the message we want to send.

I guess I'm also a little stuck on what exactly you see is discriminatory about the program. The admission criteria do not appear to exclude boys. The message is clearly targeted at girls, because that's the intended audience being marketed, but that's the message, not the program. It's not generally considered discriminatory to market to a particular demographic.

I have read through all of the comments on this post and have a number of thoughts from the view point of 1) a mom of 2 girls interested in STEM stuff, 2) a teacher 3) a STEM professional (I am a physicist teacher) 4) lead mentor on a FIRST robotics team.

I can see this from all possible angles (DH is also a physicist, so from the male STEM side as well). The number of girls I have come across in my 20 years of teaching that have changed their minds about going into STEM fields because it is so masculine is unbelievable. These have been incredibly bright, imaginative, hard working girls who are not interested in being the 1% female in their classes, or having to learn science and math the same way boys do. No matter what the research says, from personal experience as a female physicist and as a teacher, girls and boys learn differently and excel in different environments while learning STEM subjects.
My daughters crave the attention of female scientists because they "get it" when DDs explain an idea or a reason for looking at a situation from a different view point that the males they have talked to look at and say huh?
I did not meet a female physicist until I was a graduate student! And it blew me away to actually meet another female who not only loved physics as much as I did (and do) but also was so much smarter than I am that I felt like a babbling idiot in-front of her. (And I am a very self-confident person). I thought long and hard about that and my reaction was absolutely based on the fact that my exposure to really smart, physicists had been limited to males only. I had long since figured out that females weren't supposed to be physicists because we obviously weren't smart enough - I'd never met one, so they must not be there.

My female students on my robotics team hang on every word from the female engineering mentor we have and shine under her mentoring, whereas these same girls are insecure and timid when they are dealing with some of the male mentors who are just as good at mentoring as the female is.

I not only see a need for programs like this, but wish there were more of them - girls in this country are constantly bombarded with messages that they are not supposed to be smart and not supposed to go into stem fields. I fight this battle everyday with my students, team members and now with my daughters.

And, as a last note, I am one who does not put Mrs. in front of my name when making contacts with STEM type places/people (including car repair shops, air conditioner repairs, and computer shops) because I want them to take me seriously for what I can do and know as well as answer my questions fully as opposed to patronizing me because I am a woman (and yes, it happens all the time.)

My PG SIL was actively discouraged by a college admissions director (at a well-known prestigious school) from majoring in science and pushed towards English. Thankfully she didn't listen (she also didn't go to that school!) She got her Phd in genetics in May. This was <10 yrs. ago.

Another point to consider: the alternative to encouraging more participation in STEM by American women is to import male talent from places like China, India, and Brazil.

I want to change the topic from women in STEM to STEM in general. STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine. What evidence is there for a shortage of college graduates with science degrees? Looking at the data in

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/the-college-majors-that-do-best-in-the-job-market/
The College Majors That Do Best in the Job Market
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
New York Times
May 19, 2011

"physical science" majors had middling job placement and low average salaries -- $21K for jobs that require a B.A. or B.S.
Maybe this number is depressed by science majors earning low salaries as graduate students / teaching assistants. The numbers look better for the other parts of "TEM".

Looking at compensation vs. required effort and ability, physical science majors don't look good. If someone wants to study physics or chemistry because he or she is fascinated by the subject, fine, but such students should not be misled about their career prospects by talk of a general "STEM" shortage.

http://press.manpower.com/press/201...ind-the-right-talent-for-open-positions/

Looking at the ten hardest to fill positions, you have the E in STEM at number 3, and the T at number 6. It's also worth pointing out the non-degree positions at 1 and 10 are generally considered boy jobs and are much more science-based today than your grandfather's factory job was (well, 10 is still the same, but it's also still machining).

STEM workers are typically imported via the H1B visa program, which is capped at 85,000 visas a year (with certain employers exempt from the cap). Here's a listing of job fields for H1B visa holders: http://www.h1base.com/content/h1boccupations

Did you miss the context of my statement? It was a comment on this:


This does not appear to be restricted in scope to STEM topics. With so many people lamenting the lack of positive same-sex role models for girls in one particular sector of industry, I felt compelled to point out that boys are at an even greater risk for being without significant interaction with positive same-sex role models in their lives. I did not mean to imply as you inferred that "viewing women in other powerful roles of leadership and in technology is not necessary or needed." However, it's clear to me that since finding success in STEM fields requires solid basic education, anyone who benefits from a mentor or role model who pushes them to obtain those basics finds themselves in a better position to pursue STEM fields than someone who does not.

Speaking generally about the topic now:

There are a lot of things that affect what children expect from themselves. I think the biggest contributor is what their parents expect from them. My daughter is 3, and I'm already convinced that she has great potential. Thus I will have high expectations for her, and hope to influence her to have high expectations for herself. There are many factors that contribute to children of both sexes lowering their expectations. They can be lazy. They can desire to fit in with their peers in a general sense. They can desire to spend time with particular individuals incapable of pursuing (or unwilling to pursue) intellectual topics at a challenging level. I don't think that anti-intellectualism hits girls any harder than it hits boys, but that has no bearing on my objection to this program.

In case anyone has come to the wrong conclusion: I am all for NASA employees mentoring middle school girls, and doing so in the most effective way possible, which probably necessitates trying to pair girls with female mentors. I can easily see myself trying to take advantage of such a program in a few years. If anyone tries to imply that I'm against this, then they are out of their minds, and I wont be responding to them.

My objection is solely to the fact that this program has been set up to cater exclusively to girls. While I'm excited about the positive effects that mentorship in STEM fields can have on girls, I'm also excited about the positive effects it can have on boys. I don't lament a missed opportunity for a girl any more than I lament a missed opportunity for a boy.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. What about encouraging more STEM participation by Americans in general? What about importing female talent from outside America's borders?

Also, do you mean to imply that American female engineers should be preferred over engineers from outside our borders? If so, why?

dad22 - to each his own. At this point, the conversation isn't going to bring better understanding or a more open dialogue, so I'm thinking for myself it is time to bow out.

I come here for support, advice, and help for my very challenging son and am grateful for all I've received from this community. I don't want to mar it with acerbic debate that isn't going to result in opening your eyes to what I'm trying to point out. I respect your right to believe as you do, but I don't agree with the opinions expressed, it is nice we both can agree that more opportunities are usually a good thing.

I prefer to use logic rather than discrimination to counter illogical conclusions. I hope others will do the same.


Are you seriously trying to convince me to keep my opinions to myself? It's absolutely appropriate for anyone to offer their opinions on this topic. You really have some nerve. Additionally, I have not been tearing down any organizations. I have simply been stating that I find one particular element of one particular program to be inappropriate: the exclusion of boys (officially or by implication) from NASA GIRLS.

As far as my involvement, I have mentioned that I sometimes recruit for an engineering firm. I discuss career options with male and female college students on a somewhat regular basis. I certainly make sure that everyone feels welcome. My company also offers an internship program, for which I perform interviews and mentoring. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to discuss who has been accepted into that program, however. I have a great interest in FIRST as well (my company sponsored a local high school robotics team), though volunteering doesn't really fit into my schedule at the moment, with two preschool children to take care of at home.

I've tried my best to not post anything further and stay non-involved on this post but fwiw, I want to add one final thought from me - and it's just that, one thought from me.


I agree that if we as parents have high expectations of our children, they will have high expectations of themselves. But one thing that we can't alter as parents is how the world sees our children, and that too will have an impact on our kids.

As an example, two of my children are Asian, and I'm Caucasian. I do not for one minute believe that color and/or race defines a person. I have no preconceived notions about the ability or lack of ability or where a person fits into society or the world or whatever based on the color of their skin. I believe that by sharing my values and showing by example that I *hope* my children will also believe the same things. HOWEVER, I can't take away beliefs from other people outside of our family who believe differently, and my children are going to (and already have) run into people who either inadvertently or directly let them know they are being judged based on the color of their skin and their ethnicity.

Taking that concept back into the talk about girls and STEM careers - my dh and I are both career STEM folks with STEM degrees who are passionate about math and science, so my kids have role models at home. But when they visit our offices... they are going to see mostly men. At school the secondary science teachers are mostly men. Most of the women adults they meet aren't scientists. No matter what I teach my girls at home the outside world at large is sending them a different message, and I have seen the impact in my two dds at very young ages.

So that's the last of my 2 cents.

To the OP, thanks for posting the link! I am going to sign my dd up. I am going to look for something similar for my ds. It's a great concept, and I'm glad the program is out there for girls

polarbear

Yes, it's much, much worse for girls. Why did Larry Summers feel comfortable making the remarks he did? You don't think that sends a message? Why do men make dumb blonde jokes? Etc.

Obviously, things today are better than they were when Marie Curie could only work in the lab because her husband hired her as his technician. But there is still a huge segment of the population in the United States that tells women to be quietly submissive to their husbands and to stay home and raise kids. It's not just men doing this; women contribute to the problem, too (e.g. Mommy Wars).

Just because YOU and your daughter aren't in that demographic doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that it doesn't affect a lot of girls. These girls desperately need to interact with women who aren't being quietly submissive. Not just see them on TV. INTERACT with them.

I'm curious about how many girls were on that HS robotics team? Was it pretty equal? Because if not, I wonder what's being lost without the girl-brains being part of the equation?

And when you're recruiting, do an equal number of men and women apply?

Anything less anecdotal to support your assertion?

Val is stereotyping much of the country. Where are these "quietly submissive" women she speaks of?

Larry Summers' speech

Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce
Lawrence H. Summers
Cambridge, Mass.
January 14, 2005

is at http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php . Here is an excerpt. What he said is debatable, but I don't see anything outrageous.

"It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paper-looked at the book, rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth-but 50% women, one woman for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates. From that, you can back out a difference in the implied standard deviations that works out to be about 20%. And from that, you can work out the difference out several standard deviations. If you do that calculation-and I have no reason to think that it couldn't be refined in a hundred ways-you get five to one, at the high end. Now, it's pointed out by one of the papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And that's absolutely right. But I don't think that resolves the issue at all. Because if my reading of the data is right-it's something people can argue about-that there are some systematic differences in variability in different populations, then whatever the set of attributes are that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem."

Try this:

But there is still a huge segment of the population in the United States that tells women to be quietly submissive to their husbands and to stay home and raise kids. This group includes millions of people. I had made a list of specific groups, but will leave it out to avoid appearing like I'm trying to bait people.

Any evidence that is provided to you gets dismissed.

You need to provide some evidence yourself.

I do not know if the statistics exist, but it would be interesting to see the demographics in China, where both girls and boys are pushed and they do not have the historical bias that women were not pushed into STEM.

Since women decided to pursue medicine more aggressively here, more than half the medical schools are populated by women. That is telling and not anecdotal.

That's some hardcore trolling right there.

DAD22,
I apologize that I came across too strong in my response to your comments. “Tearing down” was an overstatement and was inappropriate. What I understood from your several posts on this topic so far was that because this program appears discriminatory that you thought it shouldn’t happen at all and I went too far in describing my perspective. In retrospect I also apologize for coming across as too personal with the questions about your mentoring. I overreacted by questioning your actions when I perceived your criticisms as not constructive.

I really do not want you to keep your opinions to yourself, as I did honestly ask you in at least two posts for constructive suggestions. Rather than bickering amongst ourselves, it would be so much more useful to figure out either how to make a program like this achieve its goals while making suggestions to address discrimination, or otherwise propose an alternative plan to reach these goals that is not perceived as discriminatory. I can’t see that most who support this program would object to making it better, even if some of us like it the way it is. We may disagree on what ‘better’ actually is, but that shouldn’t stop the discussion.

Having said that I still respectfully disagree that the program is discriminatory because it has been set up to cater (not exclusively) to girls. The application page clearly states that it is open to “students”. They can market it to girls by calling it NASA Girls or they can call it NASA Mentors and paint it with pastel colors and add lots of hearts and flowers to the web site and the application page or they can find some other way to appeal primarily to girls (I’m exaggerating for effect based on the LEGOS for girls mentioned upthread). None of those things actually discriminates against boys, they simply seek to grab the attention of a particular audience.

I also want to clarify our side discussion about illogical conclusions – judging a book by its cover. I actually agree with you in principle that it is illogical, but as I said before just because it is illogical doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – it does – all the time, in nearly every aspect of our lives. And children are generally far more susceptible to that illogic than adults. They often can't get to the logical conclusion that appearances can be misleading, they draw their conclusions based on what they see and experience.

In an attempt to provide an admittedly poor analogy and maybe add a little levity, I'm curious how well logic works with your little ones in the midst of a tantrum. I will freely admit that it frequently didn't work well with mine as preschoolers (although it did sometimes) and it still has something of a tendency to go in one ear and out the other with my elementary school-agers even in a very calm discussion.

Thanks Prissy. There's a lot of good insight in what you just wrote.

I'm going to ignore Dude's antagonizing remarks. I love a good argument, but I have other outlets for that. I once wrote this in reply to someone who reached out to me in a positive and friendly way when I was very new to this forum:

"I've done my share of spreading and defending libertarian ideals on another forum, but here I intend to be much more passive, and more focused on the issues that brings us all together: gifted issues."

It looks like I forgot why I was here.

I think NASA Mentors would be a better program, especially if it was available in a version that wasn't pastel colored with hearts and flowers (assuming a pastel version existed, which would be fine by me) and didn't specifically say that it was "a project that offers a one-of-a-kind experience to middle school GIRLS across the country."