Why So Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

1. [Introduce yourself][Introduce yourself]

2. Supporting women and girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics has been a part of AAUW�s mission since its founding in 1881. Throughout its history, AAUW has encouraged women to study and work in these traditionally male fields, investing millions of dollars in graduate fellowships and grants and engaging in research, programming, and advocacy to break through barriers for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. � Today, I am proud to share with you our latest report Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Supporting women and girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics has been a part of AAUW�s mission since its founding in 1881. Throughout its history, AAUW has encouraged women to study and work in these traditionally male fields, investing millions of dollars in graduate fellowships and grants and engaging in research, programming, and advocacy to break through barriers for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. � Today, I am proud to share with you our latest report Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

3. This report was made possible by the generous contributions of The National Science Foundation, Gender in Science and Engineering Division The Letitia Corum Memorial Fund, The Mooneen Lecce Giving Circle, and The Eleanor Roosevelt Fund which supports all AAUW research This report was made possible by the generous contributions of The National Science Foundation, Gender in Science and Engineering Division The Letitia Corum Memorial Fund, The Mooneen Lecce Giving Circle, and The Eleanor Roosevelt Fund which supports all AAUW research

4. First, I will briefly describe how girls� and women�s performance and participation in science, technology, engineering, and math (or STEM, as these fields are collectively referred to) have changed over time. As you know, women have made tremendous progress in education and the workplace during the past 50 years, including progress in scientific and engineering fields. Although, historically, boys outperformed girls in math and science, the gender gap has narrowed over time, and today girls are doing as well as boys in math in school by most measures. For example, in high school, girls� average performance and participation in math and science has improved over time and, in some cases, has surpassed that of boys. First, I will briefly describe how girls� and women�s performance and participation in science, technology, engineering, and math (or STEM, as these fields are collectively referred to) have changed over time. As you know, women have made tremendous progress in education and the workplace during the past 50 years, including progress in scientific and engineering fields. Although, historically, boys outperformed girls in math and science, the gender gap has narrowed over time, and today girls are doing as well as boys in math in school by most measures. For example, in high school, girls� average performance and participation in math and science has improved over time and, in some cases, has surpassed that of boys.

5. High School Credits Earned in Math and Science, by Gender, 1990�2005 [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] This graph shows the average number of high school credits earned in math and science combined, by gender, between 1990 and 2005 (the most recent year for which data were available). Girls are in green and boys are in purple. As you can see, over time all students, both boys and girls, are taking more math and science credits�both lines are going up. And girls now earn more credits in math and science than boys do. [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] This graph shows the average number of high school credits earned in math and science combined, by gender, between 1990 and 2005 (the most recent year for which data were available). Girls are in green and boys are in purple. As you can see, over time all students, both boys and girls, are taking more math and science credits�both lines are going up. And girls now earn more credits in math and science than boys do.

6. What math and science courses are high school students taking? [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] This figure shows the percentage of high school graduates who took selected math and science courses, by gender, in 2005. High school girls are more likely to take biology, chemistry, and pre-calculus compared with boys; however, girls are less likely to take physics compared with boys. [OPTIONAL] Although girls are also slightly less likely to take calculus and engineering courses in high school compared with boys, the gender difference is most likely not statistically significant. What math and science courses are high school students taking? [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] This figure shows the percentage of high school graduates who took selected math and science courses, by gender, in 2005. High school girls are more likely to take biology, chemistry, and pre-calculus compared with boys; however, girls are less likely to take physics compared with boys. [OPTIONAL] Although girls are also slightly less likely to take calculus and engineering courses in high school compared with boys, the gender difference is most likely not statistically significant.

7. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This graph shows students� average grade point average (GPA) in high school math and science combined over time, by gender. High school girls now also earn higher GPAs in math and science, on average, than their male peers do. [OPTIONAL] It is also important to note that average GPAs in math and science for all students are improving over time. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This graph shows students� average grade point average (GPA) in high school math and science combined over time, by gender. High school girls now also earn higher GPAs in math and science, on average, than their male peers do. [OPTIONAL] It is also important to note that average GPAs in math and science for all students are improving over time.

8. Girls� participation and performance on high-stakes tests in high school are also improving over time, although boys are more likely to take these tests and perform better than girls on average. Girls� participation and performance on high-stakes tests in high school are also improving over time, although boys are more likely to take these tests and perform better than girls on average.

9. For example, more students�both girls and boys�are taking Advanced Placement (AP) exams over time. Girls are less likely to take the Advanced Placement exams in STEM subjects such as calculus, physics, computer science, statistics, and chemistry, but high school girls are more likely to take the AP exam in biology and environmental science compared with boys. Additionally, as this graph shows, on average, boys perform better than girls do on Advanced Placement tests in math and science. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This graph shows the average scores on Advanced Placement tests in math and science subjects by gender in 2009.For example, more students�both girls and boys�are taking Advanced Placement (AP) exams over time. Girls are less likely to take the Advanced Placement exams in STEM subjects such as calculus, physics, computer science, statistics, and chemistry, but high school girls are more likely to take the AP exam in biology and environmental science compared with boys. Additionally, as this graph shows, on average, boys perform better than girls do on Advanced Placement tests in math and science. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This graph shows the average scores on Advanced Placement tests in math and science subjects by gender in 2009.

10. Despite the overall positive trends in high school, the transition from high school is a critical time for young women in STEM. Despite the overall positive trends in high school, the transition from high school is a critical time for young women in STEM.

11. Women are less likely than men are to plan to declare a STEM major in college. [Describe the graph] In 2006 (again, the most recent data available), only about 15% of first-year female college students compared with more than a quarter (25%) of first-year male college students planned to declare a major in the physical sciences, mathematics or statistics, engineering, computer science, or the biological/agricultural sciences. If, for a moment, we did not consider the biological/agricultural sciences�indicated here in blue and the STEM area women are most likely to major in�only about 5% of first-year female students intend to major in a STEM area in college. [OPTIONAL] The data shown here are for 2006, but this trend has been consistent for at least the past 15 years, according to the annual American Freshman Survey conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute. In 2006, only 0.4% of female first-year students planned to major in computer science, compared with 3.0% of males. Also in 2006, only about 3% of female first-year students planned to major in engineering compared with about 15% of their male peers. The physical sciences as listed here include astronomy, atmospheric science, chemistry, earth science, marine science/oceanography, or physics. Women are less likely than men are to plan to declare a STEM major in college. [Describe the graph] In 2006 (again, the most recent data available), only about 15% of first-year female college students compared with more than a quarter (25%) of first-year male college students planned to declare a major in the physical sciences, mathematics or statistics, engineering, computer science, or the biological/agricultural sciences. If, for a moment, we did not consider the biological/agricultural sciences�indicated here in blue and the STEM area women are most likely to major in�only about 5% of first-year female students intend to major in a STEM area in college. [OPTIONAL] The data shown here are for 2006, but this trend has been consistent for at least the past 15 years, according to the annual American Freshman Survey conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute. In 2006, only 0.4% of female first-year students planned to major in computer science, compared with 3.0% of males. Also in 2006, only about 3% of female first-year students planned to major in engineering compared with about 15% of their male peers. The physical sciences as listed here include astronomy, atmospheric science, chemistry, earth science, marine science/oceanography, or physics.

12. Bachelor's Degrees Conferred, by Gender,1971�72 to 2006�07 Women have earned the majority of bachelor�s degrees overall since 1982. In 2007, women earned 57% of bachelor�s degrees awarded. Women�s share of bachelor�s degrees varies by discipline. Women have earned the majority of bachelor�s degrees overall since 1982. In 2007, women earned 57% of bachelor�s degrees awarded. Women�s share of bachelor�s degrees varies by discipline.

13. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This graph shows the percentage of bachelor�s degrees earned by women in selected STEM fields over the last four decades. There are a couple of important things to note here: First, over the past four decades, the percentage of women receiving degrees in STEM has increased dramatically. For every field except computer science, the trend is upward. Second, although generally women have increased their share of STEM degrees overall, clearly women�s representation varies by field. In 2006, in the biological and agricultural sciences, women earned the majority of bachelor�s degrees. Women earned about half of the bachelor�s degrees in chemistry and math, But women earned a much smaller percentage of degrees in physics, engineering ,and computer science. In fact, women�s representation among computer science bachelor�s degree recipients is decreasing. Computer science is a stark reminder that we cannot take women�s progress for granted. In 1986, women earned a third, or one out of every three bachelor�s degrees awarded in computer science; by 2006, women�s share of computer science degrees had dropped to 21% or one out of every five degrees awarded. [OPTIONAL] Overall, trends in bachelor�s degree attainment for women by race mirror the overall pattern (i.e., increasing over time). However, in some cases the gender gap in degree attainment for African American men and women and Hispanic men and women is much smaller than we see overall. For example, in 2006, African American women earned 60% of physical sciences degrees awarded to African Americans. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This graph shows the percentage of bachelor�s degrees earned by women in selected STEM fields over the last four decades. There are a couple of important things to note here: First, over the past four decades, the percentage of women receiving degrees in STEM has increased dramatically. For every field except computer science, the trend is upward. Second, although generally women have increased their share of STEM degrees overall, clearly women�s representation varies by field. In 2006, in the biological and agricultural sciences, women earned the majority of bachelor�s degrees. Women earned about half of the bachelor�s degrees in chemistry and math, But women earned a much smaller percentage of degrees in physics, engineering ,and computer science. In fact, women�s representation among computer science bachelor�s degree recipients is decreasing. Computer science is a stark reminder that we cannot take women�s progress for granted. In 1986, women earned a third, or one out of every three bachelor�s degrees awarded in computer science; by 2006, women�s share of computer science degrees had dropped to 21% or one out of every five degrees awarded. [OPTIONAL] Overall, trends in bachelor�s degree attainment for women by race mirror the overall pattern (i.e., increasing over time). However, in some cases the gender gap in degree attainment for African American men and women and Hispanic men and women is much smaller than we see overall. For example, in 2006, African American women earned 60% of physical sciences degrees awarded to African Americans.

14. There has also been dramatic growth in women�s representation among Ph.D.s in STEM fields over the last four decades. But, again, women�s representation varies considerably by field. The Ph.D. is the �gatekeeper� credential needed to achieve leadership in academia, as well as for higher-level research positions in government and business, so this is a particularly important indicator. [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] Again, women are best represented among Ph.D. recipients in the biological and agricultural sciences and are significantly underrepresented in computer science, engineering, and physics. [OPTIONAL] Again, the trend for women from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds follows the overall trend for the most part. The total number of Ph.D.s earned by U.S. citizens in science and engineering in the decade between 1996 and 2006 actually decreased overall (15,639 to 14,912).There has also been dramatic growth in women�s representation among Ph.D.s in STEM fields over the last four decades. But, again, women�s representation varies considerably by field. The Ph.D. is the �gatekeeper� credential needed to achieve leadership in academia, as well as for higher-level research positions in government and business, so this is a particularly important indicator. [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] Again, women are best represented among Ph.D. recipients in the biological and agricultural sciences and are significantly underrepresented in computer science, engineering, and physics. [OPTIONAL] Again, the trend for women from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds follows the overall trend for the most part. The total number of Ph.D.s earned by U.S. citizens in science and engineering in the decade between 1996 and 2006 actually decreased overall (15,639 to 14,912).

15. Women�s representation in the STEM workforce is also uneven. Women�s representation in the STEM workforce is also uneven.

16. [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] Here you see the percentage of women in selected STEM occupations between 1960 and 2000. In general, women�s overall representation has increased in all these occupations since the 1960s; however, in 2000, although women were well represented among biological scientists, for instance, they made up a small minority of engineers. [OPTIONAL] These data come from the census, so the most recent data available are from 2000. Also, the definitions of the different occupations have changed slightly with each census. [EXPLAIN THE GRAPH] Here you see the percentage of women in selected STEM occupations between 1960 and 2000. In general, women�s overall representation has increased in all these occupations since the 1960s; however, in 2000, although women were well represented among biological scientists, for instance, they made up a small minority of engineers. [OPTIONAL] These data come from the census, so the most recent data available are from 2000. Also, the definitions of the different occupations have changed slightly with each census.

17. Women are underrepresented in many science and engineering occupations. More recent data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show a similar pattern. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This figure shows the percentage of employed STEM professionals who are women in selected fields. While women made up more than half of biological scientists in 2008, they accounted for less than 7% of mechanical engineers. So although the trends for girls� and women�s participation and performance in STEM fields are positive, women remain underrepresented in certain STEM fields, and it is important that we continue to pay attention to this issue. Why? For equity and innovation. With respect to equity: First, many STEM fields are high-growth fields. Many science and engineering occupations are predicted to grow faster than the average rate for all occupations over the next decade. Some of the largest increases will be in engineering- and computer-related fields�fields in which women currently hold one-quarter or less of the positions. When women aren�t in these fields, they lose out on the job and financial security that these high-growth, high-pay fields provide. Second, pay equity Occupational segregation accounts for the majority of the gender wage gap, and although women still earn less than men earn in science and engineering fields, the more women have access to jobs in these fields (many of which remain predominantly male), the greater the likelihood that the gender pay gap will shrink as occupational segregation decreases. And with respect to innovation, a more diverse workforce contributes to innovation. People from different backgrounds enhance the productivity of design and research teams by bringing together different viewpoints and experiences, and therefore, scientific and technological products, services, and solutions are likely to be better designed and more likely to represent all users. For example, when airbags were first introduced, they were designed by a predominantly male team, and although these airbags protected men in accidents, they resulted in avoidable deaths for women and children. Arguably, if more women had been on the team that designed these earliest airbags, they may have been better designed to protect women and children as well as men. More recent data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show a similar pattern. [EXPLAIN GRAPH] This figure shows the percentage of employed STEM professionals who are women in selected fields. While women made up more than half of biological scientists in 2008, they accounted for less than 7% of mechanical engineers. So although the trends for girls� and women�s participation and performance in STEM fields are positive, women remain underrepresented in certain STEM fields, and it is important that we continue to pay attention to this issue. Why? For equity and innovation. With respect to equity: First, many STEM fields are high-growth fields. Many science and engineering occupations are predicted to grow faster than the average rate for all occupations over the next decade. Some of the largest increases will be in engineering- and computer-related fields�fields in which women currently hold one-quarter or less of the positions. When women aren�t in these fields, they lose out on the job and financial security that these high-growth, high-pay fields provide. Second, pay equity Occupational segregation accounts for the majority of the gender wage gap, and although women still earn less than men earn in science and engineering fields, the more women have access to jobs in these fields (many of which remain predominantly male), the greater the likelihood that the gender pay gap will shrink as occupational segregation decreases. And with respect to innovation, a more diverse workforce contributes to innovation. People from different backgrounds enhance the productivity of design and research teams by bringing together different viewpoints and experiences, and therefore, scientific and technological products, services, and solutions are likely to be better designed and more likely to represent all users. For example, when airbags were first introduced, they were designed by a predominantly male team, and although these airbags protected men in accidents, they resulted in avoidable deaths for women and children. Arguably, if more women had been on the team that designed these earliest airbags, they may have been better designed to protect women and children as well as men.

18. AAUW drew on the large body of academic research on gender and science, and conducted interviews with top researchers and identified eight research findings that help to explain the underrepresentation of women and girls in STEM. AAUW drew on the large body of academic research on gender and science, and conducted interviews with top researchers and identified eight research findings that help to explain the underrepresentation of women and girls in STEM.

19. Why So Few? features research findings that provide evidence that social and environmental factors clearly contribute to the underrepresentation of women and girls in STEM fields. The research findings are organized into three areas: How social and environmental factors shape girls� achievements and interests in math and science; How the climate of university science and engineering departments affects women�s�both students and faculty�experience in STEM fields; and The continuing role of bias in limiting women�s success in STEM in education and the workplace. [OPTIONAL] We know that there are biological differences between men and women, but as yet, there is no clear link between any of these differences and the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering. In contrast, we have a lot of evidence that culture can make a difference. For example, an ongoing study of mathematically precocious youth finds that 30 years ago there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above 700 on the SAT math exam at age 13; today that ratio has shrunk to about 3:1. So that�s a shift from 13:1 boys to girls to 3:1 boys to girls in just 30 years. This rapid rise in the number of girls identified as �mathematically gifted� suggests that culture, specifically how we cultivate math and science achievement in girls, makes a difference in girls� achievement in these areas. Why So Few? features research findings that provide evidence that social and environmental factors clearly contribute to the underrepresentation of women and girls in STEM fields. The research findings are organized into three areas: How social and environmental factors shape girls� achievements and interests in math and science; How the climate of university science and engineering departments affects women�s�both students and faculty�experience in STEM fields; and The continuing role of bias in limiting women�s success in STEM in education and the workplace. [OPTIONAL] We know that there are biological differences between men and women, but as yet, there is no clear link between any of these differences and the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering. In contrast, we have a lot of evidence that culture can make a difference. For example, an ongoing study of mathematically precocious youth finds that 30 years ago there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above 700 on the SAT math exam at age 13; today that ratio has shrunk to about 3:1. So that�s a shift from 13:1 boys to girls to 3:1 boys to girls in just 30 years. This rapid rise in the number of girls identified as �mathematically gifted� suggests that culture, specifically how we cultivate math and science achievement in girls, makes a difference in girls� achievement in these areas.

20. In the report we profile four different research projects whose findings show how girls� achievements and interests in math and science are shaped by social and environmental factors. In the report we profile four different research projects whose findings show how girls� achievements and interests in math and science are shaped by social and environmental factors.

21. Our first finding comes from the research of Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Stanford University, who looks at beliefs about intelligence. She finds that believing in the potential for intellectual growth, in and of itself, improves outcomes. Our first finding comes from the research of Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Stanford University, who looks at beliefs about intelligence. She finds that believing in the potential for intellectual growth, in and of itself, improves outcomes.

22. In math and science, a growth mindset benefits girls. Teach children that intellectual skills can be acquired. Praise children for effort. Highlight the struggle. Gifted and talented programs should send the message that they value growth and learning. [This slide contains four �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and table are visible. Simply click the mouse like you would to advance to the next slide to cue the fly ins.] Dr. Dweck�s research provides evidence that a �growth mindset� as opposed to a �fixed mindset� benefits girls in math and science. [REFER TO THE TABLE] The table shown here lays out the differences between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. Individuals with a �fixed mindset� believe that intelligence is static. Because of this, they want to always �look smart� and therefore, tend to avoid challenges, give up easily when they encounter an obstacle, see effort as fruitless, ignore feedback, and can be threatened by others� success. In contrast, individuals with a �growth mindset� believe that intelligence can be developed. Because of this they want to learn more and, therefore, tend to embrace challenges, persist when they encounter obstacles, see effort as a path to mastery , learn from criticism, and be inspired by the success of others. Individuals with a fixed mindset are susceptible to a loss of confidence when they encounter challenges, because they believe that if they are truly �smart,� things will come easily to them. If they have to work hard at something, they tend to question their abilities and lose confidence, and they are likely to give up because they believe they are �not good� at the task and believe that because their intelligence is fixed, they will never be good at it. Individuals with a growth mindset, on the other hand, show a far greater belief in the power of effort, and in the face of difficulty, their confidence actually grows because they believe they are learning and getting smarter as a result of challenging themselves. These research findings are important for women in STEM, because encountering obstacles and challenging problems is in the nature of scientific work. When girls and women believe they have a fixed amount of intelligence, they are more likely to lose confidence and disengage from science and engineering when they inevitably encounter difficulties in their course work. This is true for all students, but it is particularly relevant for girls in math and science, where negative stereotypes persist about their abilities. Therefore, in math and science, a growth mindset benefits girls. So how can parents and teachers promote a growth mindset? We recommend the following: [Click mouse to cue first fly-in] Parents and teachers should teach children that intellectual skills can be acquired. When girls are taught that their intelligence can expand with experience and learning, they do better on math tests and are more likely to want to continue to study math in the future. [Click mouse to cue second fly-in] Praise children for effort. Rather than saying, �Oh, you�re so smart!� when children do something well, say �Wow, you worked really hard at that and you did it!� It is especially important to praise the most able students for their effort. These students have often coasted along, gotten good grades, and been praised for their intelligence and may be the very students who opt out when the work becomes more difficult. [Click mouse to cue third fly-in] Highlight the struggle. Parents and teachers can communicate to students that we value and admire effort and hard work. This will teach children the values that are at the heart of scientific and mathematical contributions: love of challenge, love of hard work, and the ability to embrace and learn from our inevitable mistakes. [Click mouse to cue fourth and final fly-in] Talented and gifted programs should send the message that they value growth and learning, not just being �gifted� with intelligence. [This slide contains four �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and table are visible. Simply click the mouse like you would to advance to the next slide to cue the fly ins.] Dr. Dweck�s research provides evidence that a �growth mindset� as opposed to a �fixed mindset� benefits girls in math and science. [REFER TO THE TABLE] The table shown here lays out the differences between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. Individuals with a �fixed mindset� believe that intelligence is static. Because of this, they want to always �look smart� and therefore, tend to avoid challenges, give up easily when they encounter an obstacle, see effort as fruitless, ignore feedback, and can be threatened by others� success. In contrast, individuals with a �growth mindset� believe that intelligence can be developed. Because of this they want to learn more and, therefore, tend to embrace challenges, persist when they encounter obstacles, see effort as a path to mastery , learn from criticism, and be inspired by the success of others. Individuals with a fixed mindset are susceptible to a loss of confidence when they encounter challenges, because they believe that if they are truly �smart,� things will come easily to them. If they have to work hard at something, they tend to question their abilities and lose confidence, and they are likely to give up because they believe they are �not good� at the task and believe that because their intelligence is fixed, they will never be good at it. Individuals with a growth mindset, on the other hand, show a far greater belief in the power of effort, and in the face of difficulty, their confidence actually grows because they believe they are learning and getting smarter as a result of challenging themselves. These research findings are important for women in STEM, because encountering obstacles and challenging problems is in the nature of scientific work. When girls and women believe they have a fixed amount of intelligence, they are more likely to lose confidence and disengage from science and engineering when they inevitably encounter difficulties in their course work. This is true for all students, but it is particularly relevant for girls in math and science, where negative stereotypes persist about their abilities. Therefore, in math and science, a growth mindset benefits girls. So how can parents and teachers promote a growth mindset? We recommend the following: [Click mouse to cue first fly-in] Parents and teachers should teach children that intellectual skills can be acquired. When girls are taught that their intelligence can expand with experience and learning, they do better on math tests and are more likely to want to continue to study math in the future. [Click mouse to cue second fly-in] Praise children for effort. Rather than saying, �Oh, you�re so smart!� when children do something well, say �Wow, you worked really hard at that and you did it!� It is especially important to praise the most able students for their effort. These students have often coasted along, gotten good grades, and been praised for their intelligence and may be the very students who opt out when the work becomes more difficult. [Click mouse to cue third fly-in] Highlight the struggle. Parents and teachers can communicate to students that we value and admire effort and hard work. This will teach children the values that are at the heart of scientific and mathematical contributions: love of challenge, love of hard work, and the ability to embrace and learn from our inevitable mistakes. [Click mouse to cue fourth and final fly-in] Talented and gifted programs should send the message that they value growth and learning, not just being �gifted� with intelligence.

23. We also profile research by Dr. Joshua Aronson, a psychologist at New York University, who shows that negative stereotypes about girls� and women�s abilities in math and science persist and can adversely affect their performance in these fields through a phenomenon known as stereotype threat. We also profile research by Dr. Joshua Aronson, a psychologist at New York University, who shows that negative stereotypes about girls� and women�s abilities in math and science persist and can adversely affect their performance in these fields through a phenomenon known as stereotype threat.

24. Negative stereotypes about girls� and women�s abilities in math and science adversely affect their performance in these fields. Expose girls to successful female role models in math and science. Teach students about stereotype threat. [This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide, only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse like you would to advance to the next slide to cue the fly ins.] Stereotype threat arises in situations where a person fears that her or his performance will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype. For example, a female student taking a difficult math test might experience an extra cognitive and emotional burden of worry that if she performed poorly, her performance would reinforce and confirm the stereotype that women are not good at math. This added burden of worry can have a negative effect on her performance. For example, in one experiment, researchers gave a math test to two groups of female and male college students with similar math abilities . One group was told that men perform better than women do on the test (the �stereotype threat� group), and the other group was told that there were no gender differences (the �no stereotype threat� group). [Please refer to the graph shown] The results are shown in the graph here. The researchers found that women did significantly worse than men did in the �stereotype threat� group. Women scored 5 on average and men scored 25 on average. But in the �no stereotype threat� group, women and men performed equally well. [Please note that although there is a small difference in scores in the no stereotype threat group, this is not a statistically significant difference.] The researchers concluded that because women�s performance improved when there was no �threat,� it must have been something about the testing situation rather than women�s ability that accounted for the difference in their performance in the threat group compared to the no threat group. � This result has been shown again and again in other experiments. But this finding also points to some good news, which is that �stereotype threat� is largely situational, and when the threat is removed girls� performance improves. Researchers recommend some simple suggestions that have been shown to lessen the impact of stereotype threat and improve girls� performance. They recommend: [Click mouse to cue first fly-in] Exposing girls to successful role models in math and science to combat the negative stereotypes about women in these fields, and [Click mouse for second fly in] Explicitly talking to students about stereotype threat, which has resulted in improved performance. [OPTIONAL] We chose to highlight this research because (1) it gets at a puzzling discrepancy between girls� grades, which are generally higher than boys� even in high school math and science, and their performance on high-stakes exams such as the SAT math or Advanced Placement calculus exams, where their performance still lags behind that of male students. And (2) the research also demonstrates the continuing power of gender stereotypes. [This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide, only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse like you would to advance to the next slide to cue the fly ins.] Stereotype threat arises in situations where a person fears that her or his performance will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype. For example, a female student taking a difficult math test might experience an extra cognitive and emotional burden of worry that if she performed poorly, her performance would reinforce and confirm the stereotype that women are not good at math. This added burden of worry can have a negative effect on her performance. For example, in one experiment, researchers gave a math test to two groups of female and male college students with similar math abilities . One group was told that men perform better than women do on the test (the �stereotype threat� group), and the other group was told that there were no gender differences (the �no stereotype threat� group). [Please refer to the graph shown] The results are shown in the graph here. The researchers found that women did significantly worse than men did in the �stereotype threat� group. Women scored 5 on average and men scored 25 on average. But in the �no stereotype threat� group, women and men performed equally well. [Please note that although there is a small difference in scores in the no stereotype threat group, this is not a statistically significant difference.] The researchers concluded that because women�s performance improved when there was no �threat,� it must have been something about the testing situation rather than women�s ability that accounted for the difference in their performance in the threat group compared to the no threat group. � This result has been shown again and again in other experiments. But this finding also points to some good news, which is that �stereotype threat� is largely situational, and when the threat is removed girls� performance improves. Researchers recommend some simple suggestions that have been shown to lessen the impact of stereotype threat and improve girls� performance. They recommend: [Click mouse to cue first fly-in] Exposing girls to successful role models in math and science to combat the negative stereotypes about women in these fields, and [Click mouse for second fly in] Explicitly talking to students about stereotype threat, which has resulted in improved performance. [OPTIONAL] We chose to highlight this research because (1) it gets at a puzzling discrepancy between girls� grades, which are generally higher than boys� even in high school math and science, and their performance on high-stakes exams such as the SAT math or Advanced Placement calculus exams, where their performance still lags behind that of male students. And (2) the research also demonstrates the continuing power of gender stereotypes.

25. We also profile research by Dr. Shelley Correll on gender differences in self-assessment, or how good you think you are at a particular activity or subject. Dr. Correll is a sociologist at Stanford University and finds that �boys do not pursue mathematical activities at a higher rate than girls do because they are better at math. They do so, at least partially, because they think they are better.� We also profile research by Dr. Shelley Correll on gender differences in self-assessment, or how good you think you are at a particular activity or subject. Dr. Correll is a sociologist at Stanford University and finds that �boys do not pursue mathematical activities at a higher rate than girls do because they are better at math. They do so, at least partially, because they think they are better.�

26. Women are �harder on themselves� when assessing their abilities in �male� fields like math and science. Does this rectangle have more black or more white? Dr. Correll first became interested in gender differences in self-assessment when she taught chemistry to high school students. She realized that no matter how well the girls in her classes did, she had trouble convincing them that they had any scientific ability. At the same time, she found that no matter how poorly the boys in her classes did, they continued to believe that they were very good at chemistry. Once she went to graduate school, she delved into this issue, analyzing a dataset from more than 16,000 high school students, and found that, in fact, among students with similar past math achievement girls assessed their mathematical abilities lower than boys did. In a lab experiment on gender differences in self-assessment, Dr. Correll found that women assess themselves as less competent in �male� fields, even when the �male� field is fictitious. [Refer to the figure] Here we have an example from this experiment. [Ask the question to the audience] Does this rectangle have more black or more white? [Pause] We won�t spend too much time here because it�s not actually important how much black or white there is, but what the results of the study showed. The answer is that there are equal amounts of black and white in the rectangle. In Dr. Correll�s experiment, she identified this fictitious ability to detect correct proportions of black and white as �contrast-sensitivity ability.� When participants were told that men were more likely to have high levels of �contrast-sensitivity ability,� women assessed their contrast-sensitivity ability lower than men did. When this ability was described as equally strong in men and women, gender differences in self-assessment were not found. Dr. Correll�s results support the idea that cultural beliefs about gender and not actual gender differences can influence self-assessments and lead to girls� and women�s lower assessment of their abilities in fields labeled �male.� This of course includes STEM fields. Dr. Correll first became interested in gender differences in self-assessment when she taught chemistry to high school students. She realized that no matter how well the girls in her classes did, she had trouble convincing them that they had any scientific ability. At the same time, she found that no matter how poorly the boys in her classes did, they continued to believe that they were very good at chemistry. Once she went to graduate school, she delved into this issue, analyzing a dataset from more than 16,000 high school students, and found that, in fact, among students with similar past math achievement girls assessed their mathematical abilities lower than boys did. In a lab experiment on gender differences in self-assessment, Dr. Correll found that women assess themselves as less competent in �male� fields, even when the �male� field is fictitious. [Refer to the figure] Here we have an example from this experiment. [Ask the question to the audience] Does this rectangle have more black or more white? [Pause] We won�t spend too much time here because it�s not actually important how much black or white there is, but what the results of the study showed. The answer is that there are equal amounts of black and white in the rectangle. In Dr. Correll�s experiment, she identified this fictitious ability to detect correct proportions of black and white as �contrast-sensitivity ability.� When participants were told that men were more likely to have high levels of �contrast-sensitivity ability,� women assessed their contrast-sensitivity ability lower than men did. When this ability was described as equally strong in men and women, gender differences in self-assessment were not found. Dr. Correll�s results support the idea that cultural beliefs about gender and not actual gender differences can influence self-assessments and lead to girls� and women�s lower assessment of their abilities in fields labeled �male.� This of course includes STEM fields.

27. Women hold themselves to a higher standard compared with men in �masculine� fields. [This slide contains two �fly ins.� When you first view the slide, only the heading and text are visible. Simply click the mouse like you would to advance to the next slide when it is time to cue the fly ins. Not only do women rate their abilities lower in so-called �male� fields, they also hold themselves to a higher standard compared with men in these so-called �male� fields. In the same fictitious skill of �contrast sensitivity,� students were asked, �How high would you have to score to be convinced that you have high ability in this task?� [REFER TO THE GRAPH] In the group where students were told that �men are better at this task,� women indicated that they would have to earn at least 89% to think they had high ability in that area. On the other hand, men thought that a score of 79% would indicate high ability. That is a difference of 10 points! However, in the group where students were told, �There is no gender difference in performance on this task,� men and women had a much more similar idea of what score would indicate high ability. If you think about this finding as it relates to math and science, fields in which men are considered to excel, it suggests that girls believe that they have to be better in math and science than boys believe they have to be in order to think of themselves as good in these fields. There are many elements to choosing a career, but researchers agree that one element is believing that you can be successful at it. Girls� lower self-assessment of their math ability, even in the face of good grades and test scores, along with their higher standard for performance in �masculine� fields, helps to explain why fewer girls than boys aspire to science and engineering careers. So what can we do to help girls to more accurately assess their abilities in math and science?: [Click mouse to cue first fly-in] Make performance standards and expectations clear. When students have clear information from teachers about what grade or score signifies good performance, they are less likely to rely on stereotypes to assess their abilities. [Click mouse to cue second fly-in] And second, girls are less likely than boys are to interpret their academic successes in math and science as an indication that they have the skills necessary to become a successful engineer or computer scientist. Encourage girls to see their success in high school math and science for what it is: not just a requirement for going to college but also an indication that they have the skills to succeed in a whole range of science and engineering professions. [This slide contains two �fly ins.� When you first view the slide, only the heading and text are visible. Simply click the mouse like you would to advance to the next slide when it is time to cue the fly ins. Not only do women rate their abilities lower in so-called �male� fields, they also hold themselves to a higher standard compared with men in these so-called �male� fields. In the same fictitious skill of �contrast sensitivity,� students were asked, �How high would you have to score to be convinced that you have high ability in this task?� [REFER TO THE GRAPH] In the group where students were told that �men are better at this task,� women indicated that they would have to earn at least 89% to think they had high ability in that area. On the other hand, men thought that a score of 79% would indicate high ability. That is a difference of 10 points! However, in the group where students were told, �There is no gender difference in performance on this task,� men and women had a much more similar idea of what score would indicate high ability. If you think about this finding as it relates to math and science, fields in which men are considered to excel, it suggests that girls believe that they have to be better in math and science than boys believe they have to be in order to think of themselves as good in these fields. There are many elements to choosing a career, but researchers agree that one element is believing that you can be successful at it. Girls� lower self-assessment of their math ability, even in the face of good grades and test scores, along with their higher standard for performance in �masculine� fields, helps to explain why fewer girls than boys aspire to science and engineering careers. So what can we do to help girls to more accurately assess their abilities in math and science?: [Click mouse to cue first fly-in] Make performance standards and expectations clear. When students have clear information from teachers about what grade or score signifies good performance, they are less likely to rely on stereotypes to assess their abilities. [Click mouse to cue second fly-in] And second, girls are less likely than boys are to interpret their academic successes in math and science as an indication that they have the skills necessary to become a successful engineer or computer scientist. Encourage girls to see their success in high school math and science for what it is: not just a requirement for going to college but also an indication that they have the skills to succeed in a whole range of science and engineering professions.

28. In the report, we also look at the area of spatial skills learning. One of the largest and most persistent gender gaps in cognitive skills is found in the area of spatial skills, where boys and men consistently outperform girls and women on average. Spatial skills are thought to be critically important for success in fields such as engineering, and many people believe that they are innate and, therefore, some believe that the gender difference in spatial skills explains why there are so few women in engineering, for example. In the report, we also look at the area of spatial skills learning. One of the largest and most persistent gender gaps in cognitive skills is found in the area of spatial skills, where boys and men consistently outperform girls and women on average. Spatial skills are thought to be critically important for success in fields such as engineering, and many people believe that they are innate and, therefore, some believe that the gender difference in spatial skills explains why there are so few women in engineering, for example.

29. Spatial skills are not innate and can be improved with training. [This slide contains two �fly ins.� When you first view the slide, only the heading and text are visible. Simply click the mouse (like you would to advance to the next slide) when it is time to cue the fly ins.] Research highlighted in the report, however, shows that spatial skills are not fixed and can improve dramatically in a short time with training. To give you an idea of what we mean by spatial skills, this slide shows a sample question on mental rotation, which is just one example of spatial skills. [Pose the question to the audience] Do you know the right answer? [Wait for people to respond. When you are ready to reveal the answer, click the mouse to bring in the fly-in, which will circle �D� as the right answer.] D. In the report, we profile research conducted by Dr. Sheryl Sorby with first-year engineering students at Michigan Tech, which shows that individuals� spatial skills can improve dramatically in a short time with a simple training course. Dr. Sorby found that when college students who failed a spatial visualization test took a 10-week training course that met just 4 hours a week, their scores improved from an average of 52% before the course to 82% after taking the course. This is a much bigger improvement than would be expected from just taking the test a second time with no training and bigger than the improvement seen for students who took the test after taking a course in engineering graphics, for example. Having good spatial skills can help to retain women in engineering and encourage girls to pursue their interest in science and math because we use spatial skills to interpret diagrams and drawings in math and science textbooks from as early as elementary school. So what can be done to help children, especially girls, develop their spatial skills, which can increase their interest in studying math and science subjects? [Click mouse to cue second fly in] Something as simple as playing with building toys�such as Legos or blocks�where they take things apart and put them together again, and drawing can help children develop spatial skills. [This slide contains two �fly ins.� When you first view the slide, only the heading and text are visible. Simply click the mouse (like you would to advance to the next slide) when it is time to cue the fly ins.] Research highlighted in the report, however, shows that spatial skills are not fixed and can improve dramatically in a short time with training. To give you an idea of what we mean by spatial skills, this slide shows a sample question on mental rotation, which is just one example of spatial skills. [Pose the question to the audience] Do you know the right answer? [Wait for people to respond. When you are ready to reveal the answer, click the mouse to bring in the fly-in, which will circle �D� as the right answer.] D. In the report, we profile research conducted by Dr. Sheryl Sorby with first-year engineering students at Michigan Tech, which shows that individuals� spatial skills can improve dramatically in a short time with a simple training course. Dr. Sorby found that when college students who failed a spatial visualization test took a 10-week training course that met just 4 hours a week, their scores improved from an average of 52% before the course to 82% after taking the course. This is a much bigger improvement than would be expected from just taking the test a second time with no training and bigger than the improvement seen for students who took the test after taking a course in engineering graphics, for example. Having good spatial skills can help to retain women in engineering and encourage girls to pursue their interest in science and math because we use spatial skills to interpret diagrams and drawings in math and science textbooks from as early as elementary school. So what can be done to help children, especially girls, develop their spatial skills, which can increase their interest in studying math and science subjects? [Click mouse to cue second fly in] Something as simple as playing with building toys�such as Legos or blocks�where they take things apart and put them together again, and drawing can help children develop spatial skills.

30. The second theme that comes out of our research is that the climate and culture in science and engineering departments at colleges and universities are especially important for women�both students and faculty. The second theme that comes out of our research is that the climate and culture in science and engineering departments at colleges and universities are especially important for women�both students and faculty.

31. At colleges and universities, small changes can make a big difference in attracting and retaining women in STEM. [This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse (as you would to advance to the next slide) when it is time to cue the fly ins below.] [Refer to graph] You saw this slide earlier and again you see that among first-year college students, women are less likely than men to say that they are interested in majoring in a STEM field. The difference is most pronounced in engineering (shown in green) and computer science (shown in red). However, women are more likely to major in the biological/agricultural sciences. Yet this does not mean that colleges and universities are off the hook when it comes to increasing the number of women in subjects like engineering and computer science where they are underrepresented. Although fewer women than men come to college with the intention of pursuing a STEM field, two different research projects profiled in the report find that small changes to improve the climate of STEM departments in colleges and universities can reap significant rewards. We profile research by Dr. Barbara Whitten comparing �successful� physics departments (those where women were 40% or more of graduates) to more �typical� physics departments (those where women were 20% or less of the graduates) along with research by Drs. Jane Margolis and Alan Fisher studying recruitment and retention of female students in computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. Both research projects found that small changes in recruitment, admissions, and the curriculum, for instance, can help to improve the climate and culture of departments, and therefore, help to attract and keep female students. What exactly are some of these small changes they recommend? [Click mouse to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] First, they recommend that departments actively recruit female students. This may seem obvious, but many departments don�t actively recruit students, they simply wait for students to come to them. [Click mouse to cue fly in for second recommendation] They also encourage departments to offer introductory courses that emphasize the broad applications of science and technology instead of focusing only on the technical aspects of the subjects. This approach has been found to be helpful for attracting both male and female students, but especially female students. [Click mouse to cue third and final recommendation] Third, they encourage departments to review their admissions policies to ensure that they are not unintentionally �weeding out� potentially successful students. For example, requiring experience that will be taught in the curriculum, such as , requiring computer science major applicants to have significant prior computer programming experience when computer programming will be taught to students once they are admitted, may weed out potentially successful students, especially women. [This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse (as you would to advance to the next slide) when it is time to cue the fly ins below.] [Refer to graph] You saw this slide earlier and again you see that among first-year college students, women are less likely than men to say that they are interested in majoring in a STEM field. The difference is most pronounced in engineering (shown in green) and computer science (shown in red). However, women are more likely to major in the biological/agricultural sciences. Yet this does not mean that colleges and universities are off the hook when it comes to increasing the number of women in subjects like engineering and computer science where they are underrepresented. Although fewer women than men come to college with the intention of pursuing a STEM field, two different research projects profiled in the report find that small changes to improve the climate of STEM departments in colleges and universities can reap significant rewards. We profile research by Dr. Barbara Whitten comparing �successful� physics departments (those where women were 40% or more of graduates) to more �typical� physics departments (those where women were 20% or less of the graduates) along with research by Drs. Jane Margolis and Alan Fisher studying recruitment and retention of female students in computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. Both research projects found that small changes in recruitment, admissions, and the curriculum, for instance, can help to improve the climate and culture of departments, and therefore, help to attract and keep female students. What exactly are some of these small changes they recommend? [Click mouse to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] First, they recommend that departments actively recruit female students. This may seem obvious, but many departments don�t actively recruit students, they simply wait for students to come to them. [Click mouse to cue fly in for second recommendation] They also encourage departments to offer introductory courses that emphasize the broad applications of science and technology instead of focusing only on the technical aspects of the subjects. This approach has been found to be helpful for attracting both male and female students, but especially female students. [Click mouse to cue third and final recommendation] Third, they encourage departments to review their admissions policies to ensure that they are not unintentionally �weeding out� potentially successful students. For example, requiring experience that will be taught in the curriculum, such as , requiring computer science major applicants to have significant prior computer programming experience when computer programming will be taught to students once they are admitted, may weed out potentially successful students, especially women.

32. [ This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse as you would to advance to the next slide when it is time to cue the teal fly ins.] The second finding on college climate in the report looks at female faculty in STEM. [EXPLAIN CHART] This chart shows the percentage of tenured and nontenured faculty who are women in selected STEM fields. First, we see that women make up a smaller share of faculty in engineering, the physical sciences, and computer and information sciences compared to the biological/life sciences (which is shown on the bottom of the graph). Second, we see that women make up a far smaller share of the tenured faculty in all these fields. This is significant because tenured positions are the more secure, higher-paying and higher-status positions in higher education. Overall, there are fewer women in tenured positions in STEM fields than one would expect given the number of women earning Ph.D.s in these fields. In the report we profile research by Dr. Cathy Trower and the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at Harvard University. The collaborative consists of over 130 colleges and universities that all participate in the Tenure Track Faculty Job Satisfaction survey. This survey is administered to all full-time, tenure-track faculty at the 130 collaborative member institutions. In the report, we describe Trower�s findings from the survey responses of faculty in STEM departments. She found that among tenure-track STEM faculty, women were significantly less satisfied than men with the departmental climate. Specifically, female faculty in STEM were less likely to feel like they �fit� or belonged in their departments compared to their male peers. Why is this important? Well if you don�t feel like you �fit� or don�t belong then you are more likely to leave, and �fitting in� is important for getting tenure Therefore, Trower recommends that STEM departments in colleges and universities focus on �fit� to improve female faculty satisfaction and improve retention . She recommends that departments do this by [Click mouse to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] Providing mentoring for all junior faculty. Mentoring promotes relationships between more senior faculty and junior faculty and can help junior faculty become more integrated into the department. [Click mouse to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] Trower also recommends that departments implement effective work-life policies to support all faculty, but especially women who often are responsible for the majority of care-taking and household duties. [ This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse as you would to advance to the next slide when it is time to cue the teal fly ins.] The second finding on college climate in the report looks at female faculty in STEM. [EXPLAIN CHART] This chart shows the percentage of tenured and nontenured faculty who are women in selected STEM fields. First, we see that women make up a smaller share of faculty in engineering, the physical sciences, and computer and information sciences compared to the biological/life sciences (which is shown on the bottom of the graph). Second, we see that women make up a far smaller share of the tenured faculty in all these fields. This is significant because tenured positions are the more secure, higher-paying and higher-status positions in higher education. Overall, there are fewer women in tenured positions in STEM fields than one would expect given the number of women earning Ph.D.s in these fields. In the report we profile research by Dr. Cathy Trower and the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at Harvard University. The collaborative consists of over 130 colleges and universities that all participate in the Tenure Track Faculty Job Satisfaction survey. This survey is administered to all full-time, tenure-track faculty at the 130 collaborative member institutions. In the report, we describe Trower�s findings from the survey responses of faculty in STEM departments. She found that among tenure-track STEM faculty, women were significantly less satisfied than men with the departmental climate. Specifically, female faculty in STEM were less likely to feel like they �fit� or belonged in their departments compared to their male peers. Why is this important? Well if you don�t feel like you �fit� or don�t belong then you are more likely to leave, and �fitting in� is important for getting tenure Therefore, Trower recommends that STEM departments in colleges and universities focus on �fit� to improve female faculty satisfaction and improve retention . She recommends that departments do this by [Click mouse to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] Providing mentoring for all junior faculty. Mentoring promotes relationships between more senior faculty and junior faculty and can help junior faculty become more integrated into the department. [Click mouse to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] Trower also recommends that departments implement effective work-life policies to support all faculty, but especially women who often are responsible for the majority of care-taking and household duties.

33. The third theme that comes out of our review of the literature is that bias, often unconscious, continues to limit women�s progress in scientific and engineering fields. The third theme that comes out of our review of the literature is that bias, often unconscious, continues to limit women�s progress in scientific and engineering fields.

34. Even people who consciously reject negative stereotypes about women in science can still hold those beliefs at an unconscious level.  [ This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse as you would to advance to the next slide when it is time to cue the teal fly ins.] Research by Dr. Mahzarin Banaji, a former AAUW fellow, and her colleagues at Harvard University shows that even individuals who consciously reject negative stereotypes about women in science often still believe that science is better suited to men than women at an unconscious level. These unconscious beliefs or implicit biases may be more powerful than explicitly held beliefs and values simply because we are not aware of them. Dr. Banaji is a co-developer of the implicit association test (IAT) which is basically a test that measures how we associate different concepts to determine attitudes about different groups. For example the gender-science implicit association test measures the degree to which people associate math and arts with male and female. [OPTIONAL] There are two rounds of categorization: In one round participants hit one key any time a word representing either male or arts is shown on the computer screen. And they hit a different key any time a word representing either female or science is shown. In the second round the pairings are switched and participants hit one key for words representing either male or science and a different key for words representing either female or arts. The difference in average response time when science is paired with male is compared to when science is paired with female to measure the degree of association. Since the gender-science implicit association test was established in 1998, more than a half million people from around the world have taken it, and more than 70 percent of test takers more readily associated �male� with science and �female� with arts than the reverse. Implicit bias may influence girls� likelihood of identifying with and participating in math and science and contributes to bias in science and engineering fields in education and the workplace�even among people who support gender equity. So what can be done to combat these biases? [Click mouse twice to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear.] First, you can learn more about your implicit bias by taking the tests at the website shown here. The test is anonymous and free for anyone to take. [Click mouse to cue fly in for second recommendation to appear.] Second, if you find that you do have biases (and most people do), you can take steps to address them. Simple steps such as actively learning more about female scientists and engineers�by reading, visiting a women in science exhibit, or even attending event like this one can help to give you more accurate information about women in science. Also, having positive images of women in science in your office, classrooms, and homes can help to �reset� your biases. [ This slide contains �fly ins.� When you first view the slide only the heading and graph are visible. Simply click the mouse as you would to advance to the next slide when it is time to cue the teal fly ins.] Research by Dr. Mahzarin Banaji, a former AAUW fellow, and her colleagues at Harvard University shows that even individuals who consciously reject negative stereotypes about women in science often still believe that science is better suited to men than women at an unconscious level. These unconscious beliefs or implicit biases may be more powerful than explicitly held beliefs and values simply because we are not aware of them. Dr. Banaji is a co-developer of the implicit association test (IAT) which is basically a test that measures how we associate different concepts to determine attitudes about different groups. For example the gender-science implicit association test measures the degree to which people associate math and arts with male and female. [OPTIONAL] There are two rounds of categorization: In one round participants hit one key any time a word representing either male or arts is shown on the computer screen. And they hit a different key any time a word representing either female or science is shown. In the second round the pairings are switched and participants hit one key for words representing either male or science and a different key for words representing either female or arts. The difference in average response time when science is paired with male is compared to when science is paired with female to measure the degree of association. Since the gender-science implicit association test was established in 1998, more than a half million people from around the world have taken it, and more than 70 percent of test takers more readily associated �male� with science and �female� with arts than the reverse. Implicit bias may influence girls� likelihood of identifying with and participating in math and science and contributes to bias in science and engineering fields in education and the workplace�even among people who support gender equity. So what can be done to combat these biases? [Click mouse twice to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear.] First, you can learn more about your implicit bias by taking the tests at the website shown here. The test is anonymous and free for anyone to take. [Click mouse to cue fly in for second recommendation to appear.] Second, if you find that you do have biases (and most people do), you can take steps to address them. Simple steps such as actively learning more about female scientists and engineers�by reading, visiting a women in science exhibit, or even attending event like this one can help to give you more accurate information about women in science. Also, having positive images of women in science in your office, classrooms, and homes can help to �reset� your biases.

35. The report also profiles research that indicates that women continue to experience more overt discrimination, as well as the more unconscious bias we just discussed, in science and engineering. This research by Dr. Madeline Heilman at New York University shows that women in so-called masculine jobs or nontraditional fields, which would include scientists and engineers, often find themselves in a double bind. First, women in so-called male jobs are often judged to be less competent than their male peers unless the women are clearly successful in their work. But when a woman is clearly competent in a �male� job or position, she is often judged to be less likable. Because both likability and competence are needed for success in the workplace, women in STEM fields can find themselves in a double bind. Therefore, the implications of these findings are enormous. Being seen as either less competent or less likable can affect relationships with peers, evaluations, and recommendations for promotion and salary increases. Recommendations to address and eliminate this kind of bias include [Click mouse twice to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] Raising awareness about bias against women in the STEM fields is one step we can take to counteract it. When men and women in science and engineering fields are aware that bias exists in these areas, they can work to interrupt the unconscious thought processes that lead to bias. For women in particular, knowing that gender bias exists in science and engineering fields can help them understand that if they encounter social disapproval, it is likely not personal. [Click mouse to cue fly in for second recommendation to appear] Second, employers/managers should ensure that there are objective measures for performance and clear criteria for success so that evaluation is less likely to be subject to ambiguous reasoning and biased beliefs. The report also profiles research that indicates that women continue to experience more overt discrimination, as well as the more unconscious bias we just discussed, in science and engineering. This research by Dr. Madeline Heilman at New York University shows that women in so-called masculine jobs or nontraditional fields, which would include scientists and engineers, often find themselves in a double bind. First, women in so-called male jobs are often judged to be less competent than their male peers unless the women are clearly successful in their work. But when a woman is clearly competent in a �male� job or position, she is often judged to be less likable. Because both likability and competence are needed for success in the workplace, women in STEM fields can find themselves in a double bind. Therefore, the implications of these findings are enormous. Being seen as either less competent or less likable can affect relationships with peers, evaluations, and recommendations for promotion and salary increases. Recommendations to address and eliminate this kind of bias include [Click mouse twice to cue fly in for first recommendation to appear] Raising awareness about bias against women in the STEM fields is one step we can take to counteract it. When men and women in science and engineering fields are aware that bias exists in these areas, they can work to interrupt the unconscious thought processes that lead to bias. For women in particular, knowing that gender bias exists in science and engineering fields can help them understand that if they encounter social disapproval, it is likely not personal. [Click mouse to cue fly in for second recommendation to appear] Second, employers/managers should ensure that there are objective measures for performance and clear criteria for success so that evaluation is less likely to be subject to ambiguous reasoning and biased beliefs.

36. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics So Why So Few? The answer is all around us. The research we profiled provides evidence that social and environmental factors at work in the home, at school, and in the workplace act as barriers to girls� and women�s performance and participation in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. The report also provides concrete recommendations for what each of us can do in our roles as parents, educators, employers, decision-makers, and leaders to effect positive change and more fully open opportunities for girls and women in science and engineering fields. Like all AAUW research reports, this report will be influential only if we all help spread the word. Please share these findings with Parents Teachers School administrators PTAs After-school groups College administrators and faculty Employers And others The report can be downloaded for free from our website; the address is shown here. You can also contact our research department at the e-mail address shown here if you have questions or comments. Thank you so much. [Indicate that you would be happy to take questions at this point if the event allows.] So Why So Few? The answer is all around us. The research we profiled provides evidence that social and environmental factors at work in the home, at school, and in the workplace act as barriers to girls� and women�s performance and participation in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. The report also provides concrete recommendations for what each of us can do in our roles as parents, educators, employers, decision-makers, and leaders to effect positive change and more fully open opportunities for girls and women in science and engineering fields. Like all AAUW research reports, this report will be influential only if we all help spread the word. Please share these findings with Parents Teachers School administrators PTAs After-school groups College administrators and faculty Employers And others The report can be downloaded for free from our website; the address is shown here. You can also contact our research department at the e-mail address shown here if you have questions or comments. Thank you so much. [Indicate that you would be happy to take questions at this point if the event allows.]