Today more and more parents and policymakers are concerned with the disproportionate ratio of males studying science relative to females. In my opinion, though there are likely social factors at play here that need addressing, there is little value enforcing this change.
The main reason that many are striving to remedy this imbalance is because they feel it is societal, not natural. For centuries, women have subjugated their careers and education to male siblings and husbands. This has led to a history of mostly male role models in scientific pursuits, with women like Mary Shelly and Frida more likely to shine in the arts. Even today, there is a widespread bias that men are better at science that may discourage girls. There have been a number of famous studies cataloging the gender imbalance in science, with most researchers attributing this to social, rather than genetic, factors.
Nonetheless, heavy-handed efforts to force change are detrimental to both men and women. Women who are helped or strongly encouraged to pursue science rather than the arts will be less self-reliant and more likely to develop self-esteem problems. A corollary example would be the failure of affirmative action to promote racial equality. Individuals prosper when societal barriers to success are removed and they are given the opportunity to help themselves. If overly strong measures are taken, such as a quota of female majors in a given subject, that might place less qualified candidates above more deserving ones and then later manifest itself in reduced self-confidence from the unfairly elevated and resentment from those who were passed over.
In conclusion, though I am in favour of all reforms to provide for equal educational opportunity for the sexes, attempts to reform a tendency rather than allow for its change will bring about more harm than good. Rather, parents and educators should encourage students to pursue their passions.
Today
more and more parents and policymakers
are concerned
with the disproportionate ratio of males studying
science
relative to females. In my opinion, though there are likely social factors at play here that need addressing, there is
little
value enforcing this
change
.
The main reason that
many
are striving to remedy this imbalance is
because
they feel it is societal, not natural. For centuries,
women
have subjugated their careers and education to male siblings and husbands. This has led to a history of
mostly
male role models in scientific pursuits, with
women
like Mary Shelly and
Frida
more likely to shine in the arts. Even
today
, there is a widespread bias that
men
are better at
science
that may discourage girls. There have been a number of
famous
studies cataloging the gender imbalance in
science
, with most researchers attributing this to social,
rather
than genetic, factors.
Nonetheless, heavy-handed efforts to force
change
are detrimental to both
men
and
women
.
Women
who are
helped
or
strongly
encouraged to pursue
science
rather
than the arts will be less self-reliant and more likely to develop self-esteem problems. A corollary example would be the failure of affirmative action to promote racial equality. Individuals prosper when societal barriers to success are
removed and
they are
given
the opportunity to
help
themselves. If
overly
strong measures
are taken
, such as a quota of female majors in a
given
subject, that might place less qualified candidates above more deserving ones and
then
later manifest itself in
reduced
self-confidence from the
unfairly
elevated and resentment from those who
were passed
over.
In conclusion
, though I am in
favour
of all reforms to provide for equal educational opportunity for the sexes, attempts to reform a tendency
rather
than
allow
for its
change
will bring about more harm than
good
.
Rather
, parents and educators should encourage students to pursue their passions.