Saving Education for the Men

Higher Education: Save the males?

Should colleges and universities adopt affirmative action for men? By their own standards, the answer appears to be yes. Economist Mark Perry calls attention to a recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows that for every hundred men who have a bachelor's degree by age 24, a whopping 148 women of the same age do.

In every other academic realm, the existence of a statistical disparity — such as the fact that fewer men than women pursue advanced degrees in certain science and technology fields — is taken as definitive proof of gender discrimination.

For instance, in 2010 the American Association of University Women lamented the "striking disparity between the numbers of men and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics," and concluded that "we must take a hard look at the stereotypes and biases that still pervade our culture. Encouraging more girls and women to enter these vital fields will require careful attention to the environment in our classrooms and workplaces and throughout our culture."

We look forward to a robust debate on how institutions of higher learning can correct the discriminatory circumstances that are leading them to graduate nearly three women for every two men.

In my own field, somewhere on the borders of biology, chemistry and geology, men are still the majority at the upper levels.  But most them received their degrees 20 or more years ago.  While I have not seen a formal survey (nor would I know how to precisely quantify the field that I see), women are becoming more dominant at the junior faculty level.  At the undergraduate student level, I would say the vast majority of intern applications come from women.  And most of the best.

Will it affect how science is done?  I think so.  Women are more collaborative and less competitive.  I also suspect the way science is done is driven by the increased penetration of women in the scientific bureaucracy in the federal government that delivers most of the funding for science.  I think they tend to drive science towards larger collaborative projects, and away from the small, single or few investigator projects.

Is this good or bad for science as a whole?  Maybe we'll see in 20-30 years.