Using the National Science Foundation's broad definition of science and engineering (S&E), the total number of bachelor degrees earned by women in S&E has grown steadily to become equal to the number earned by men.
While these numbers suggest gender parity, consider that 37% more women than men receive bachelor's degrees of any sort in the U.S., but a women is 27% less likely than a man to earn a bachelor's degrees in any S&E field. Throw into the mix the two thirds of underrepresented minorities that earn non S&E degrees and we have a substantial underrepresented majority of college-educated U.S. citizens that will never join the S&E workforce.
If one delves into S&E and looks at technology-based fields, such as physical science and engineering, the gaps between men and women, and between minorities and non-minorities widens considerably. For example, the ratio of engineering to social science bachelor's degrees is one in two for men, is one in five for under-represented minorities, and is one in 10 for women. Ascribe these differences to nature, nurture, discrimination, ineffective policy, or just plain disinterest; but no matter the cause, it is a huge and undeniable loss of talent.
President Bush has pointed out belatedly what the science and engineering community has been screaming about for decades. Our global edge in science and technology will inevitably slip unless we attract more U.S. women and minorities into the field. Nor should we confuse Bush's comments with a veiled xenophobic rant. The foreign-born have a long and storied tradition in American science and it would be folly to undermine this. The challenge facing U.S. S&E is to develop domestic training strategies that mirror the very nature of science, which is by and large an egalitarian discipline based on results.
Colleges and universities need to determine whether the challenges placed at the feet of aspiring scientists more resemble a hurdle than a fence; either of which may be scaled, but one is intended to minimize access and the other is meant to be a challenge that can be surmounted with adequate training and enthusiasm.
While it is fashionable to rail about the lack of mathematical training at the primary school level, and we certainly could do better on this score, I would argue that we should place greater emphasis on attracting and retaining those who have matriculated into S&E college curricula.
At Duke, where overachievers abound, it is not a lack of facility with quantitative rigor that drives students away from technology-based S&E; more frequently it is the how these disciplines are taught at the introductory level. Science is traditionally taught from a foundations perspective similar to an introductory language class. The consequence is a loss of intellectual depth, similar to carrying on a conversation in elementary German. In contrast, one can dive into complex and fascinating issues on the very first day of class in political science, religion, history, anthropology and the social sciences.
Secondly, lecture-based teaching and cookbook lab exercises have their place but are self-limiting. Exposure of undergraduates to more open-ended research or group projects is frequently the capstone experience of an undergraduate S&E education; however, this experience is typically limited to upperclassmen and there is often a minimum GPA requirement that limits access. Extending these opportunities to underclassmen should positively affect the level of intellectual engagement.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, S&E undergraduates need to feel engaged in the S&E enterprise. Administrators can sprout policy and students can clamor for greater student involvement, but if the faculty that train them and the companies that hire them do not step forward to provide mentored opportunities then little will change. Linking underclassmen to upperclassmen or to graduate students would have a similar effect. I accomplish this on a small scale by associating each undergraduate in the lab with a specific graduate student or post doctorate mentor.
On Wednesday, the Samuel DuBois Cook Society at Duke University is sponsoring a colloquium titled "The Underrepresented Majority in Math, Science and Engineering" at 1-5 p.m. in the Griffith Theater of the Bryan Center. The purpose of this event is to examine factors that disengage women and minorities from S&E. The minimal participation of this underrepresented majority is likely more important beyond simply untapped potential; their disinterest also may be a crystallization of why the S&E field is making itself unattractive to a larger audience of bright and motivated students.
We look forward to an exciting afternoon on Feb. 22 and hope that the 2006 Cook Colloquium will provide Duke University faculty, staff, students, and administrators with motivation and insight into how they can make a difference.
For more information on this event, please consult the Cook Society webpage. Admission is free.