« Welcome Richard Whitmire's New Blog on Gender and Education | Main | High Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind »

A Leonard Sax Fact Check: Are Women Worse Off in Science and Engineering Than They Were 20 Years Ago?

Leonard Sax, everyone's favorite advocate of gender-based education, has a commentary in this week's Ed Week, "Where the Girls Aren't: What the Media Missed in the AAUW's Report on Gender Equity." Here's the central argument:

"There is a real gender gap, and it’s growing rapidly, but that gap has little to do with graduation rates or college-entrance rates, parameters that are given great emphasis in the report. The real gender gap is not in ability but in motivation—not in what girls and boys can do, but in what girls and boys want to do: specifically, in what they want to learn, and how they want to learn it."

What's the evidence for his argument? "The absolute number of young women studying computer science and physics has fallen by more than 50 percent in the past 20 years. That drop may seem puzzling at first, since the past 20 years has been an era in which girls have been encouraged from kindergarten through grade 12 to be physicists, engineers, and the like," says Sax.

Is Sax right? Before looking specifically at physics, computer science, and engineering, let's check out trends in female BA attainment in science and engineering from 1966-2004. Over this time period, the percent of science and engineering degrees awarded to women has increased from 25% to 50%, according to data from the National Science Foundation.


But what about the "hardest sciences?" Women have made steady gains in every field over this time period. Women earn more than 60% of degrees in the biological sciences, half of the degrees in Chemistry, and almost half of the degrees in mathematics. The female share of degrees in physics, engineering, and computer science has also increased steadily over this time period. Less than 5% of degrees were awarded to women in physics and engineering in the 1960s, and now 1 in 5 degrees in these fields goes to women. (Thanks to the American Institute of Physics for the graph.)


However, the female share of computer science degrees in 1985 was greater than it is in 2004. Why might that be? Things have ramped up since the Commodore 64, and the number of degrees awarded in computer science has exploded. That growth has been faster for men than women. But if you look at counts of degrees - the meat of Sax's argument - the same number of women earned CS degrees in 2004 as did at the female CS peak in 1985. (See this graph.) In short, Sax's claim does not appear to be true - the same number of women earned degrees in CS in the mid-1980s, and the female share of physics degrees has increased even as overall physics enrollments have increased.

When I contacted Dr. Sax about these data, he argued that overall degree attainment is misleading because the increase in female science and engineering degrees is driven by temporary visa holders, not US citizens. He wrote, "Neither of your graphs takes into account the NATIONALITY of the women earning the degrees. Most of the rise in the number of women earning degrees in computer science since 1999 comes from women from other countries holding temporary US visas."

As far as I can tell, the BA attainment data are not available for citizens and non-citizens before 1995. Over that time period, female US citizens and permanent residents made amazing strides in science and engineering BA attainment. Between 1995 and 2004, there was a 30% increase in the number of science and engineering BAs awarded to female US citizens, which is 2.5 times the growth for male American citizens. Let's look at different disciplines:

*The number of physics BAs grew 36% for women, 8 times the increase for men.

* In engineering, the number of degrees grew 19% for women even as it dropped 1% for men.

* The number of electrical engineering degrees grew 35% for women, 1.6 times the growth rate for men.

* In computer science, there was a 102% increase for women, which was less than the increase for men. (And per Sax's specific claim above, the number of female US citizens earning CS degrees increased 36% (from 9,569 to 12,990) between 2000-2004; it increased from 905 to 1416 (56%) for female non-US citizens.)

Sure, you can find some fields where there have not been increases for women. For example, there's been a 4% decrease in female BA attainment in mathematics. But when we look at the whole picture, rather than cherry pick one or two subfields, it's hard to see evidence here that gender-mixed math and science classes in K-12 have slowed female American citizens' rate of progress in earning science and engineering BAs.

Unsatisfied with the fact that women have made quite substantial gains at the undergraduate level in science and engineering, Sax suggested that I look at graduate school. But again, female US citizens have made enormous gains at the graduate level as well. There were 135,431 female US citizen graduate students in science and engineering in 1999 and 163,820 in 2006: a 21% increase. At the same time, the number of male US citizen graduate students in science and engineering has only increased by 8%. To be sure, the rate of increase for non-US citizen women is greater than the rate of increase for US citizens - but there is that globalization phenomenon to consider.

In sum, Leonard Sax's commentary did not provide an accurate portrait of trends in women's attainment in science and engineering. Women still have a way to go before achieving parity in computer science, physics, and engineering, but there's little evidence that gender-based education a la Sax is going to get us there.

Thanks for digging into this. I read Sax's article and had a hard time reconciling his numbers with what I see around me.

I received a physics BA in 1978 and a physics PhD in 1984 and currently teach undergraduates. At least in my institution there are a LOT more women doing physics both as undergraduates and graduate students than was my experience 25 years ago.

In 1986, 15,126 women in the United States earned a bachelor's degree in computer science. By 1998, the number was down to 7,439 -- more than a 50% reduction. These numbers come from the National Science Foundation: the link is http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab34.pdf.
In the past five years, the numbers have recovered significantly (although they still have not yet returned to 1986 levels); and, some of that growth appears to be due to women from other countries with temporary visas.

Hi Dr. Sax,

Thanks for the link to that file. For other readers, the CS BA degrees awarded to women in 1986 were 15126; in 2004 the number was 14,406. Between 1995 and 2004, there was a 102% increase in CS BA attainment for American citizens.

If the problem is about science education for women, how would you explain that CS degree attainment also declines significantly for men over this time period?

1986: 27,069
1990: 19,321
1995: 17,706
1996: 17,773
1997: 18,490
1998: 20,235

I followed the link Dr. Sax gave, and before I found the CS statistics, I found a listing of the total science and engineering degrees (bachelors, masters, PhDs) broken down by year (from 1966-2004) and by sex.

For each level of degree, there is a steady rise in the percentage given to women over the 35 year period, from 24.8% in 1966 to 50.4% in 2004. During that time the absolute number of women earing science and engineering bachelors increased by more than a factor of 5, from 45,634 in 1966, to 229,412 in 2004.

Much of this growth may be attributable to the biological sciences, so I dug a bit further and looked at the statistics for engineering degrees. The total numbers are smaller, but the growth is even more dramatic. In 1966, 146 engineering bachelors were awarded to women, 0.4% of the total; in 2004, 13,257 engineering bachelors were awarded to women, more than 20% of the total.

There are certainly still challenges for women in science, and looking for more ways of interesting young women in science is important. But the scientist in me believes it in looking at data for insights, and not mining it selectively for talking points.

Oops: In my comment above "from 24.8% in 1966 to 50.4% in 2004" refers to bachelors in science and engineering. There was a similar steady increase in the fraction of women earning masters and PhDs: in 1966, women earned 13.3% of science and engineering masters and 8.0% of science and engineering PhDs, in 2004 the respective numbers were 43.6% and 37.4%.

So... one of them graduated?

Eduwonkette's blog appears to boil down to a semantic quibble, missing the forest for the trees. Sax states that the number of women studying computer science and physics "has fallen by more than 50 percent in the past 20 years." Eduwonkette interprets that to mean that the number of women studying computer science in 2008 must be at least 50% lower than in 1988, which is not the case. In fact, Sax should have said: "the number of women earning college degrees in computer science fell by more than 50 percent between 1987 and 2000, but has recovered significantly since that time."

Eduwonkette does not dispute Sax's central point, which is that there is a substantial gender gap in choice of subjects. For example, Sax states that "more than 80 percent of students who take the AP Spanish exam are girls, while more than 75 percent of students taking the physics AP exam are boys." Eduwonkette does not contest this point, which is central to Sax's claim that the education community in general, and the AAUW in particular, are ignoring the question of WHY girls and boys continue to choose to study such different subjects, despite decades of preaching about gender equity.

As an aspiring teacher... but why does everyone talk about women in engineering, but we don't talk about men in Elementary teaching, men in nursing, etc... Is it more important to have women engineers and programmers than to have men elementary school teachers and male nurses?

The point is well explained in "Boys Adrift". The comparison must be made with boys for those same periods: It is not so much that girls are better off in science, they account for a larger percentage only inasmuch are boys' percentages have dropped due to school desertion.

Comments are now closed for this post.


Recent Comments

  • V.: The point is well explained in "Boys Adrift". The comparison read more
  • rory: As an aspiring teacher... but why does everyone talk about read more
  • LouV: Eduwonkette's blog appears to boil down to a semantic quibble, read more
  • web design company: So... one of them graduated? read more
  • Rachel: Oops: In my comment above "from 24.8% in 1966 to read more




Technorati search

» Blogs that link here


8th grade retention
Fordham Foundation
The New Teacher Project
Tim Daly
absent teacher reserve
absent teacher reserve

accountability in Texas
accountability systems in education
achievement gap
achievement gap in New York City
acting white
AERA annual meetings
AERA conference
Alexander Russo
Algebra II
American Association of University Women
American Education Research Associatio
American Education Research Association
American Educational Research Journal
American Federation of Teachers
Andrew Ho
Art Siebens
Baltimore City Public Schools
Barack Obama
Bill Ayers
black-white achievement gap
books on educational research
boy crisis
brain-based education
Brian Jacob
bubble kids
Building on the Basics
Cambridge Education
carnival of education
Caroline Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby charter schools
cell phone plan
charter schools
Checker Finn
Chicago shooting
Chicago violence
Chris Cerf
class size
Coby Loup
college access
cool people you should know
credit recovery
curriculum narrowing
Dan Willingham
data driven
data-driven decision making
data-driven decision-making
David Cantor
Dean Millot
demographics of schoolchildren
Department of Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education budget
Diplomas Count
disadvantages of elite education
do schools matter
Doug Ready
Doug Staiger
dropout factories
dropout rate
education books
education policy
education policy thinktanks
educational equity
educational research
educational triage
effects of neighborhoods on education
effects of No Child Left Behind
effects of schools
effects of Teach for America
elite education
Everyday Antiracism
excessed teachers
exit exams
experienced teachers
Fordham and Ogbu
Fordham Foundation
Frederick Douglass High School
Gates Foundation
gender and education
gender and math
gender and science and mathematics
gifted and talented
gifted and talented admissions
gifted and talented program
gifted and talented programs in New York City
girls and math
good schools
graduate student union
graduation rate
graduation rates
guns in Chicago
health benefits for teachers
High Achievers
high school
high school dropouts
high school exit exams
high school graduates
high school graduation rate
high-stakes testing
high-stakes tests and science
higher ed
higher education
highly effective teachers
Houston Independent School District
how to choose a school
incentives in education
Institute for Education Sciences
is teaching a profession?
is the No Child Left Behind Act working
Jay Greene
Jim Liebman
Joel Klein
John Merrow
Jonah Rockoff
Kevin Carey
KIPP and boys
KIPP and gender
Lake Woebegon
Lars Lefgren
leaving teaching
Leonard Sax
Liam Julian

Marcus Winters
math achievement for girls
meaning of high school diploma
Mica Pollock
Michael Bloomberg
Michelle Rhee
Michelle Rhee teacher contract
Mike Bloomberg
Mike Klonsky
Mike Petrilli
narrowing the curriculum
National Center for Education Statistics Condition of Education
new teachers
New York City
New York City bonuses for principals
New York City budget
New York City budget cuts
New York City Budget cuts
New York City Department of Education
New York City Department of Education Truth Squad
New York City ELA and Math Results 2008
New York City gifted and talented
New York City Progress Report
New York City Quality Review
New York City school budget cuts
New York City school closing
New York City schools
New York City small schools
New York City social promotion
New York City teacher experiment
New York City teacher salaries
New York City teacher tenure
New York City Test scores 2008
New York City value-added
New York State ELA and Math 2008
New York State ELA and Math Results 2008
New York State ELA and Math Scores 2008
New York State ELA Exam
New York state ELA test
New York State Test scores
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind Act
passing rates
picking a school
press office
principal bonuses
proficiency scores
push outs
qualitative educational research
qualitative research in education
quitting teaching
race and education
racial segregation in schools
Randall Reback
Randi Weingarten
Randy Reback
recovering credits in high school
Rick Hess
Robert Balfanz
Robert Pondiscio
Roland Fryer
Russ Whitehurst
Sarah Reckhow
school budget cuts in New York City
school choice
school effects
school integration
single sex education
small schools
small schools in New York City
social justice teaching
Sol Stern
Stefanie DeLuca
stereotype threat
talented and gifted
talking about race
talking about race in schools
Teach for America
teacher effectiveness
teacher effects
teacher quailty
teacher quality
teacher tenure
teachers and obesity
Teachers College
teachers versus doctors
teaching as career
teaching for social justice
teaching profession
test score inflation
test scores
test scores in New York City
testing and accountability
Texas accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act
The Persistence of Teacher-Induced Learning Gains
thinktanks in educational research
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Tom Kane
University of Iowa
Urban Institute study of Teach for America
Urban Institute Teach for America
value-added assessment
Wendy Kopp
women and graduate school science and engineering
women and science
women in math and science
Woodrow Wilson High School