So, today, I came across this article about female-friendly science at DePaul in one of my many news updates. I feel a little mixed because while I know, know, know, KNOW that women have sparse representation in science, I often feel caught in the problem-solution paradox. Today fits nicely into that paradigm.
On one hand, I'm glad that certain universities step up to the plate and try to realize the ways they can shift the status quo in the STEM disciplines (and even this construction can be problematic because of the difference in the more physical sciences and the more life/behavioral sciences). I realize that the choice of where to do studies often requires access to critical information that (can be both socially and culturally difficult to obtain and) permits people to consider an array of factors important to them. I enjoy seeing traditionally liberal arts schools (like Smith College in MA) broaden their degree programs to include engineering. In hindsight, I would have loved to learn more about the nature of an engineering degree necessary to do the type of work I thought I wanted to do after graduation to have been able to broaden my search to include a different type of school.
YET, one aspect of the article really got to me, so I'll quote it:
Nationally, half of chemistry majors are female, but only 40 percent of graduate students are women. But at DePaul University, where Rizzo is about to graduate before heading off for advanced studies, 61 percent of chemistry students are women.
To me, half of chemistry majors being female strikes me as a good thing, 40% of graduate students strikes me as unfortunate. But why celebrate 61 percent at DePaul?
Do we celebrate DePaul because women increasingly enroll in college at higher rates so 61% at DePaul reflects the sex balance present? Do we celebrate DePaul because women transfer to DePaul at a high rate in order to be in the department after having some bad experiences in their early years at other schools? Do we celebrate DePaul because an uncharacterically high percentage of DePaul's female chemistry students go on to graduate school? Or, do we celebrate DePaul because it's at least a university willing to care about these sorts of issues so the school bends over backwards to try to recruit, encourage and mentor budding women scientists?
Is it just a numbers game with so few institutions willing? Do we need schools like Smith (100% women in their chemistry major) and DePaul to try to make up for programs where women might only make up a third of the classs?
Does DePaul use their new building in some way that brings uber-hot science to the forefront where the science advanced reflects the ideas of the population gathered? Moreover, the only thing we can tell about the program's composition from the article is its sex balance...is it truly diverse?
And so, these types of questions leave me in a space of paradox.
(No I'm not trying to knock DePaul's program in the slightest. The article launched me back into an ongoing conversation in my own head.)
On one hand, I'm glad that certain universities step up to the plate and try to realize the ways they can shift the status quo in the STEM disciplines (and even this construction can be problematic because of the difference in the more physical sciences and the more life/behavioral sciences). I realize that the choice of where to do studies often requires access to critical information that (can be both socially and culturally difficult to obtain and) permits people to consider an array of factors important to them. I enjoy seeing traditionally liberal arts schools (like Smith College in MA) broaden their degree programs to include engineering. In hindsight, I would have loved to learn more about the nature of an engineering degree necessary to do the type of work I thought I wanted to do after graduation to have been able to broaden my search to include a different type of school.
YET, one aspect of the article really got to me, so I'll quote it:
To me, half of chemistry majors being female strikes me as a good thing, 40% of graduate students strikes me as unfortunate. But why celebrate 61 percent at DePaul?
Do we celebrate DePaul because women increasingly enroll in college at higher rates so 61% at DePaul reflects the sex balance present? Do we celebrate DePaul because women transfer to DePaul at a high rate in order to be in the department after having some bad experiences in their early years at other schools? Do we celebrate DePaul because an uncharacterically high percentage of DePaul's female chemistry students go on to graduate school? Or, do we celebrate DePaul because it's at least a university willing to care about these sorts of issues so the school bends over backwards to try to recruit, encourage and mentor budding women scientists?
Is it just a numbers game with so few institutions willing? Do we need schools like Smith (100% women in their chemistry major) and DePaul to try to make up for programs where women might only make up a third of the classs?
Does DePaul use their new building in some way that brings uber-hot science to the forefront where the science advanced reflects the ideas of the population gathered? Moreover, the only thing we can tell about the program's composition from the article is its sex balance...is it truly diverse?
And so, these types of questions leave me in a space of paradox.
(No I'm not trying to knock DePaul's program in the slightest. The article launched me back into an ongoing conversation in my own head.)