patrick.net

+rep for danaseb & the forever alone references. Those image macros are hilarious.

Dan, to some extent I agree that there is discrimination by women against men in STIM. Sort of. The ones that do though, aren't really worth a moment's concern.

Back in college, I dated girls outside of STIM fields almost exclusively (the pickings were slim in STIM). They never cared that I was studying engineering, and most of them were impressed that I could do that AND have a social life. The few that I dated long enough to somehow see me working on homework were usually mystified by the material & impressed that I could do it. Honestly, any NICE girl will probably take an engineer over a fratty business major.

The girls that did make comments about "dorks" were bleached blonde sorority girls & an angry lesbian campus police officer (that was an awkward conversation lol). The sorority girls that I ran into at parties that thought that way were dumber than a bag of hammers and you couldn't make me have sex with them with YOUR dick because of how dumb they were. Cue jokes about the smartest bone in them...

Anyway, unless you are a "forever alone" with poor hygiene, smelly clothes and a total inability to hold a conversation abut something other than work, you will have perfectly reasonable chances with the ladies. I would bet that surveying women with, "Would you date an engineer" would get responses of "no" or "unsure" some portion of the time. Even so, unless you walk around with a shirt that says, "I am an ENGINEER!!!!!!" chances are that they aren't going to care what you do for a living if you know how to talk to them / act during a date.

If you are referring to high school & earlier, then I would agree that PEOPLE are dicks toward "nerds." I was always into science'y stuff as a kid and was brought up by strict parents. I got teased by the "jocks" and even had my ass kicked a few times since I was a little socially awkward. By the time I got to college though, that was largely over and nobody really cared who was studying what. Girls didn't mind me because:
a) I bathed regularly
b) I wore clean clothes, despite them not being super trendy
c) I treated them like people
d) I worked part-time at the fitness center & kept myself in very good shape

Hell, even the engineers that I work with that DO fit the "smelly nerd" stereotype are married in at least 50% of the cases.

An interesting thread to parallel this would be, "how many males in STIM are single & blame someone else for it?" I think that in most cases, people over 30 & single are single by their own doing (whether they know it or not). My fiancee's single female coworkers are all going nuts trying to find men now, but it is tough for them because:
a) their personalities are a big part of why they are single
b) all the guys that wanted to settle into a relationship mostly have

Rin says

Danaseb, when you're done with your 'Home Alone' bickering with Dan8227, do you have anything to say about the actual career paths of women, who did in fact, study science & engineering, to later pursue careers in business?

I know that this isn't directed to me, but I have some observations.

More than 90% of the girls that I went to engineering school with are still in engineering now, 5 years after graduating. Only one or two of them went for Master's degrees, and they were both in science/engineering.

The engineering staff in my workplace is maybe 25% women, and they are all 35+.

My fiancee got her degree in MechE and is in technical sales now. She never really liked engineering, but did it anyway since it seemed to have better job prospects than a business degree, and she at least found it interesting. Her uncle was a MechE and was sort of her role model at the time. None of the other ladies in her sales team have engineering degrees, and it is a mostly female sales group.

I absolutely fit the "toy lover" category, and loving to tinker with my car in high school is what made me choose mechanical engineering. Farting around with that car (roots of my username on here) has kept me interested in engineering and has led me to pursue a lot of EE & software knowledge as part of projects. Hell, I run a side-business selling embedded DSP modules for air flow sensors to interface them to engine controllers. I don't really give a shit about the money (it is good, for now anyway), I just want to learn & find cool new applications for my skills. It is a hobby as far as I am concerned.

bmwman91 says

Anyway, unless you are a "forever alone" with poor hygiene, smelly clothes and a total inability to hold a conversation abut something other than work

No one is like that. This is how the real world works. In high school and college, a select few popular guys have lots of sex and the rest of the guys struggle. After college that all changes. By the time I guy reaches his late 20s, men have as much power and choice as women when it comes to sex. Women depreciate with age and have to compete with more and more younger women. Men appreciate. They get better looking, more financially secure, and are considered more attractive.

During your teens and early 20s, every guy is competing with 3 other guys for the same girl. During your 30s, every guy has 3 opportunities for every competitor, and those opportunities are in their early 20s. Women, on the other hand, find themselves in a dearth of available men their age, coupled by the fact that the men their age don't date women their age. The power dynamics between the two sexes reverses. And for every year past 30, it just keeps getting better for men.

So, no. There is no such thing as a forever alone guy. Granted, I'd have appreciated all the sex more in my teens than in my 30s -- it's more of an ego boost than anything else today -- but the myth of forever alone is bullshit. Guys become more attractive, more confident, and have less competition the older they get.

That said, people like Danaseb actively discourage women from entering STIM by presenting the unfounded assertion that anyone who enters STIM must be a social pariah, and the only measure of a person's value is how many sexual partners they've had. That's a pretty juvenile attitude, and it certainly doesn't reflect reality. The fact is, it's been damn easy for guys in their 30s to get laid ever since the pill was invented. It's hard for teenage guys who aren't the alpha males, who have no car, no job, and no money. But once a guy is established in his career and no longer competing against so many other men -- and has the bonus of being in a small generation compared to the Millennials -- the odds are in his favor, especially if he's in a successful career.

And that's why you "know far more single women than men that are 28 & older".

bmwman91 says

I dated girls outside of STIM fields almost exclusively

I tended to date those inside of STIM, and there were plenty of hot and intelligent ones in college. Of course, most college age chicks are hot by virtual of being young. I've found that female STIMs aren't bigots, but yeah, those sorority chicks are.

In any case, talking about male STIMs love lives is a bit off topic. The real point in this discussion is that women have no one to blame but themselves for women not being represented in STIM as much as men are. And Danaseb perfectly illustrates why. So, to all those liberal-arts feminists who blame men for "making science anti-women", direct your rage towards Danaseb and women like her, and leave us guys alone.

bmwman91 says

More than 90% of the girls that I went to engineering school with are still in engineering now, 5 years after graduating. Only one or two of them went for Master's degrees, and they were both in science/engineering.

The engineering staff in my workplace is maybe 25% women, and they are all 35+.

My fiancee got her degree in MechE and is in technical sales now. She never really liked engineering, but did it anyway since it seemed to have better job prospects than a business degree, and she at least found it interesting.

This is quite a stark contrast to my experience. Albeit, perhaps part of it is that I'm sort of excluding the various Asian diasporas and mainly focusing on American women.

BTW, like a lot of folks, I've also been making a lateral move into finance/trading and what I've noticed is that a lot of women in finance, have strong educational backgrounds, many even tech educations from various science/engineering programs. So I guess I'm kinda bias here, because for one, I don't like being a 'techie', since it's a relatively under appreciated profession vs let's say being a trader.

thunderlips11 says

Word. The women who complain the loudest about the lack of Women in STEM jobs are sociologists, women's studies profs, journalists, etc. - those who did not choose STEM careers - or even a STEM-based education - for themselves.

pro womens rights groups back in the 60-70s wanted womens studies, minorities wanted minorities studies.. they got it ... today, they didnt do much for many...

Now they are complaining because they made a dreadful mistake decades ago... now they want hand outs... give us engineering jobs.... well honey.. go earn one!

thomas.wong1986 says

Now they are complaining because they made a dreadful mistake decades ago... now they want hand outs... give us engineering job

I think they're just complaining for the sake of complaining. No one wants an engineering job; one wants a stock analyst, sales, or consulting gig where one can drop names, ala "I represent Bain, Lazard, etc. Here's my business card; let's discuss some joint prospects."

In academia, folks in the humanities have a 'grass is greener' mentality against those in the biomed or physical sciences because the latter depts tend to attract govt or private sector grants whereas liberal arts is stuck waiting in the queue for some endowment of the arts via Gilded Age foundations like Rockefeller, Carnegie, or Vanderbilt.

Rin says

This is quite a stark contrast to my experience. Albeit, perhaps part of it is that I'm sort of excluding the various Asian diasporas and mainly focusing on American women.

BTW, like a lot of folks, I've also been making a lateral move into finance/trading and what I've noticed is that a lot of women in finance, have strong educational backgrounds, many even tech educations from various science/engineering programs. So I guess I'm kinda bias here, because for one, I don't like being a 'techie', since it's a relatively under appreciated profession vs let's say being a trader.

Nah, a lot of them are white. Most of the female engineers around here are Asian & Indian though.

And one's profession is a very personal choice. Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to go work on Wall Street. Nothing about that lifestyle appeals to me, despite the possibility of huge income (it doesn't help that SO many people are clamoring to get into that field in hopes of cashing in, making it very competitive and hard to attain said high incomes). I couldn't care less if tech jobs are under-appreciated. If anything, it helps me to keep a low profile so I can go out & live life! Different strokes for different folks, though.

Just out of curiosity, do you live in NYC? I get that sort of flavor from your perspective on which professions "people want."

Dan8267 says

So, no. There is no such thing as a forever alone guy.

LOL you can't be serious. There are a few real-life examples in my office. Their single'ness is a direct result of their lifestyle & personality, and they don't want to be single. Forever alone guys aren't exclusive to STIM jobs, but the nature of the work probably does appeal to those types and I bet that there is a slightly higher concentration in STIM than say, finance or sales.

bmwman91 says

Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to go work on Wall Street. Nothing about that lifestyle appeals to me, despite the possibility of huge income (it doesn't help that SO many people are clamoring to get into that field in hopes of cashing in, making it very competitive and hard to attain said high incomes). I couldn't care less if tech jobs are under-appreciated. If anything, it helps me to keep a low profile so I can go out & live life! Different strokes for different folks, though.

Just out of curiosity, do you live in NYC? I get that sort of flavor from your perspective on which professions "people want."

I'm still fortunate to not have to live in NYC. But from all my former tech buddies, who're now into finance/trading or even back office ops for banks, they still clamor that Manhattan is still the *place* to be.

I guess one of the key differentiators between the monied professions and STEM is that almost no one talks about taking a lower paying job, after the sort of 'break-in' period whereas in STEM, the idea that bonuses are less than 10% of one's income and that 0-2% raises are normal, is just a part of the work culture. From my own current limited exposure to trading, compensations from $100K to $500K are kinda normal and even expected. And then, everyone wants to be on a dealbook, where earning greater than $500K is completely normal.

If I'm earning $500K, I could be a self-financed engineer, like Maxwell, later on in retirement. I wouldn't have to spend my earning years in a venue where I may see my work move to Asia or South America before I need bi-focals :-)

Is it really that easy to pull so much money? It seems like everyone would be piling into that field if it was "easy" to make $500k. I know nothing about it though, so maybe I am wrong (which is why I am apparently not making $500k).

bmwman91 says

It seems like everyone would be piling into that field if it was "easy" to make $500k.

Here's the thing ... most persons are not on the team, which generates enough bank (hefty dealbook), so that the bonus pool averages from $100K to $500K, depending upon one's position in the trading company. And some top prop traders earn $1M to $5M per year. Usually, those types tend to later start their own hedge fund. Most companies, however, won't let just anyone touch that kind of money on their own.

In general. many persons are analysts, salespersons, underwriters, etc, earning some $90K to $150K, with a bonus program in place. I'd say that a vast number of Ivy League types are in this category, working the numbers at let's say Morgan & Stanley or one of the other IBs.

So yes, the $500K compensation exists but it's not like everyone can pile into it, like applying for a normal job. This is quite different from let's say the job market for Java programmers, nurses, and construction work.

Dan8267 says

Nobody raises their daughter to be a home maker.

Obviously you've never browsed the "girls" section of a toys R us ad. Do you have a daughter? I do, and I'm appalled at the kind of things that are designed for girls.

Dan8267 says

Give your son a barbie and he'll use his T-Rex figure to tear it limb from limb and eat it. Some things are biological. You can't turn boys into girls or girls into boys by giving them the right toys.

There's definitely a biological component to personality, but, sorry, not everything is genetic.

When I look at my daughter's friends, I see this pattern over and over again:

- Girls who are given books, video games, legos, etc. are interested in science and learning

- Girls who are given barbies, play kitchens, dolls, and dress up kits are interested in being princesses and talking about having babies.

If you want more people, particularly females, to enter science and engineering, then the following must be done.

1. Scientists and engineers should be respected in the same way that so-called "pillars of the community" are. They should be respected as much as doctors, lawyers, athletes, and the military. Who wants to go into a profession that is sneered at by society?

The only place this happens is in backwards bumfuck nowhere that matters. Live in a real city and scientists and engineers are just as respected as anybody else.

2. The stereotypes of socially inept math, science, and engineering nerds must be vanquished once and for all.

Sure, but that's up to us. There's certainly some truth to the idea that people who are particularly skilled at science and mathematics may be socially inept (plenty of ASD folks fall into this category), but there's *NO* gender bias here; men and women experience these things at the same rate.

3. Stop outsourcing. If there isn't a market for engineers, they will not be graduates in the field. No one wants to enter a field that is being relocated to China and India. That's why no one today goes into manufacturing. People choose their careers based on what they see as a sustainable job market.

Nobody goes into manufacturing because it's a shitty job that is physically taxing and not mentally rewarding.

Engineering going to china and india is a myth. There are more jobs for engineers in the united states than there have ever been. Yes, there are indian and chinese engineers. There are also indian and chinese doctors, lawyers, and business men. The only people still perpetuating the myth of outsourcing are bitter, under-qualified engineers whining that nobody wants to hire a 50 year programmer with the talent of a 20 year old for twice the 20 year old's expectations.

Why doesn't anyone blame the women? If women are suppose to be carrying their fair share of the scientific and engineering work, then who is deciding to keep them out of these fields? Only themselves. The women everyone complains aren't being engineers are the ones actively choosing not to be engineers. But I guess it's not politically correct to put the blame where it really belongs.

No, no, no, a thousand times no. I've seen so much blatant sexism, harassment, and simple ignorance (hey, why are all the T shirts in men's sizes?) on this in my career that it's plainly obvious why there's a repellant factor. Combine that with the vast difference in male and female youth culture and you have a combination that adds up to destroy female participation.

Either accept that women as a whole aren't as interested in math, science, and engineering as men are and that's ok, or blame the women themselves for not pursuing these fields because it's not ok.

Why, because you assert its this way? In the face of study after study from organizations like the Anita Borg foundation and SWE showing it to be untrue, that the factors that I've cited are exactly the reasons for low female enrollment in STEM? There are, like, scientists and stuff who, like, totally research this stuff! At least read the male-authored IEEE commissioned studies on the subject if you want unbiased opinion -- they say the same things though.

Women have been free to choose their careers for decades. It's a lie to blame anyone else for their career choices. Either accept the women's choice or bitch to them about it. Don't blame anyone else but the decision maker.

Oh, yes, a "choice" that just happens to target very specific demographic groups. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that there's such a disparity in STEM enrollment for women in different countries, or that similar patterns in ethnic groups are also just "choice". Never being exposed to a chemistry set or a programming language until you're an adult has nothing to do with it at all.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not women choose to enter one field or another. We aren't encouraging women to be coal miners even though that field is dominated by men. I say let women do for a living whatever they want, but don't bitch and moan when women tend to prefer some fields over others and those fields aren't the ones you want them to pick. They are adults and should decide for themselves what they are interested in doing for a living.

Nobody really decides what they want to do for a living. You don't get to be an adult and suddenly say "hey, I want to be a lawyer!" This is something that you fall into after two decades of living and learning.

We should be concerned about women in STEM because those are the most important occupations for the future. Nobody worries about coal mining because it's not a profession that anyone believes is going to improve society over the long term.

More importantly, we need to be concerned about whether we're creating environments where people can develop to be productive members of society. If someone grows up exposed to a culture that doesn't really work with how they are wired genetically, but is forced to conform to fit in (because that's what children do), they will not be successful in life.

A little girl who goes to school talking about video games and building lego models is not going to have very many friends, because we tell our little girls that they're supposed to like disney princesses and playing house.

This goes for how we raise our boys, too, of course.

A young woman who went through all of the difficulty of not being accepted by societal norms and then winds up finding out that STEM careers are filled with men who view them as inferior sex objects instead of respected colleagues is just going to turn to product management or something similarly non technical.

Kevin says

Why, because you assert its this way?

Those are the only two conclusions that are not hypocritical or contradicted by reality. Women have been able, in fact strongly encouraged, to enter STIM majors for over three decades. The fact that they haven't is due entirely to their own decision making, not a boy's club. I've majored in STIM. I've seen the environment first hand. I work in STIM. I see the environment every day. No men are discouraging women from entering STIM. The women simply aren't interested in it.

Of course there are a few exceptions, but we're not talking about exceptions, we're talking about percentage. And the majority of STIM graduates and workers will continue to be men until women decided they want to pursue a career in STIM.

So the only two possible non-bullshit conclusions are either:
1. Different strokes for different folks, it's ok that women are interested in pursuing different careers.
2. Women are not living up to their responsibilities to pursue STIM and it's their fault.

Either way, it's entirely women who are making the decision not to pursue STIM and it's entirely due to their perception that STIM is for losers. That's their bigotry, not ours. And I'm sick and damn tired of people shitting on male STIMers because females are bigoted against STIMers.

Kevin says

A young woman who went through all of the difficulty of not being accepted by societal norms and then winds up finding out that STEM careers are filled with men who view them as inferior sex objects instead of respected colleagues is just going to turn to product management or something similarly non technical.

That is total fucking bullshit. Have you actually been in an engineering school in college? STIM majors are the only majors that don't treat women as sex objects to be pumped and dumped. Compared to the horn dogs in business, liberal arts, and fine arts STIM majors are fucking Eunuchs.

I lived through college years as a STIM major and I know the difference in attitudes between engineering students and the rest of the college population. To assert that women are being harassed by math majors and electrical engineers is the biggest lie I've ever heard anyone tell. If anything, STIM majors are the few students going to college to start profession careers instead of getting laid by a different chick every day.

Kevin says

Oh, yes, a "choice" that just happens to target very specific demographic groups. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that there's such a disparity in STEM enrollment for women in different countries, or that similar patterns in ethnic groups are also just "choice". Never being exposed to a chemistry set or a programming language until you're an adult has nothing to do with it at all.

That's total bullshit. I taught myself how to program at the age of 7, and that was back when computers were hard to use and all text based. It's easy today with the Internet and all of humanity's knowledge at your fingertips. What, teenage girls don't have Internet access? Are their filters preventing teen girls from going to slashdot.org?

There are no barriers to entry in STIM for women. None. You are just making up excuses to avoid dealing with the fact that teenage girls look at STIM like it's bubonic plague. It's their bigotry, which has its root in all the crap Hollywood puts out in movies and tv shows. So don't make up b.s. stories about how horn-dog male engineers rape any female that shows up in their class. That doesn't happen, and that's not why women don't enter STIM.

And the thing is, it is so freaking obvious that nerd-bigotry is the real reason that women don't enter STIM, that you don't even have to know anything about STIM to know that this is true. It's an integrated part of our anti-intellectual, stupidity glorifying culture.

But don't worry, there are plenty of women entering STIM from non-US and non-Western European countries, from places where Hollywood doesn't dominate the culture.

Oh, and as for manufacturing, there are plenty of Americans that want manufacturing jobs and are actively lobbying to bring them back.

http://www.areadevelopment.com/siteSelection/dec09/united-states-manufacturing-insouring-costs1102.shtml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/manufacturing-small-business-revival_n_1205736.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devon-swezey/us-manufacturing-jobs_b_1237782.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0227/Five-steps-to-bring-back-American-manufacturing-jobs/Define-American-manufacturing-s-FUBO
http://www.pri.org/stories/business/obama-pledges-to-bring-manufacturing-back-to-the-u-s-but-is-it-possible-8148.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fight-lead-poisoning-and-unemployment-fire-china-hire-USA/

Personally, I think that manufacturing is a 20th century industry and we need to dominate in 21st century industries, but there are plenty of people on this site alone who've argued that manufacturing is needed in America. And NPR just last week had interviewed people trying to start manufacturing businesses in the United States. So, there are certainly people who want to enter that field.

Kevin says

The only people still perpetuating the myth of outsourcing are bitter, under-qualified engineers whining that nobody wants to hire a 50 year programmer

Kevin, age discrimination is real, not an imagined phenomena. This is in many fields, not just engineering.

Also, there are under-qualified 55+ yr old doctors who still have their jobs, despite being 'ordinary' & not the 2nd coming of Marcus Welby (if you recall that show from your parent's youth). The AMA keeps the number of doctors down and it's rather difficult to offshore day-to-day internal medicine & general surgery.

One of the reasons why I'm moving into trading over science/engineering is that the money potential is there, long term, not just in that ages 27 to 45 sweet spot, as in most STEM careers.

One should do science/engineering as a retirement hobby; remember, even Einstein was a Patent Agent.

Would you say I'm bitter? Sure, I'd love to do STEM and be secure till retirement but guess what? I'd instead, prefer to be earning a great & sustainable salary till retirement.

The story of David Reimer, the boy who was raised as a girl, Brenda, after a botched circumcision (due to equipment malfunction and NOT performed by a Mohel). He was given hormone therapy and genital changing surgery starting in infancy, while monitored throughout his childhood by a Blank-Slater Psychologist named Dr. Money.

It didn't succeed.

http://documentarystorm.com/dr-money-and-the-boy-with-no-penis/

There are only two TV shows I can think of with a prominent female character that does science.

My wife watches CSI and Bones, and both feature a female scientist. However, both characters are presented as very quirky, not as "Regular" Women. One is a goofy goth who has a very teenager-ish personality despite being a grown adult, and the other is socially-inept, almost autistic, woman who doesn't interpret social cues well.

Contrast this with Doctor shows with female MDs, who are "Regular" women and not socially inept or ultra-quirky and engaged in constant drama and romance with each other. Or Lawyer shows, ditto. These kinds of shows have been around for years. And surprise, Doctors and Lawyers have a higher female participation level than Science.

Edit: Another example. Big Bang Theory. The two female scientists are either very "little girly" (also like the forensic gal from CSI) or almost as socially inept as Sheldon.

Dan8267 says

Those are the only two conclusions that are not hypocritical or contradicted by reality. Women have been able, in fact strongly encouraged, to enter STIM majors for over three decades.

Please educate yourself. Read the studies from the sources I referenced.

I've been involved with this issue for over 15 years now. Professionally, as a father, and as a concerned member of the human race. You can assert all you want, but the actual SCIENCE says that you're wrong.

Rin says

One of the reasons why I'm moving into trading over science/engineering is that the money potential is there, long term, not just in that ages 27 to 45 sweet spot, as in most STEM careers.

True that.

Clean Room Technician: You know what they do with engineers when they turn forty?
[to Aaron, who shakes his head]
Clean Room Technician: They take them out and shoot them.

(Primer, 2004)

Vicente says

Clean Room Technician: They take them out and shoot them.

Yep, great scene in 'Primer'.

That movie's got two things right, that trading is better than engineering... the daytrading focus of the film, and that engineers have a short shelf life, as the tech had observed.

Too bad they didn't just stick to their original strategy, hiding their positions in the mid to large cap fund stocks. They would have been multi-millionaires within 2 years.

Kevin says

We should be concerned about women in STEM because those are the most important occupations for the future.

If they're so important, then why did DuPont send 2K R&D jobs to China? Or Applied Materials?

I had a few prior girlfriends ... one was in a science PhD program at Harvard, another in an engineering PhD program at MIT (FYI, these women weren't my classmates). Guess what happened, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, & Lazard wined and dined 'em to work for them, after graduation. Where was Applied Materials, DuPont, or Motorola during this time? They were happily sitting around, awaiting a flood of applicants, and expecting everyone's backgrounds to be an exact fit to the job descriptions.

The one, who took a STEM job, left w/o completing her PhD, as she'd discovered that the education wasn't all that important in the end, and that the Masters made her look less specialized. After a few years in STEM, she moved into financial services in Manhattan. The other started in management consulting, after completing her PhD, at a near six figure salary. In the end, the consensus was the same, STEM was a joke, the real careers were in finance and/or management consulting.

I'm not worried about women's career choices. If STEM was so great, they'd be in it on their own volition. And none of my tech girlfriends had soldering irons or circuit boards as girls. Like them, I was into drawing and writing short stories but instead of all of us becoming failed novelists, since we know the chances for another Ernest Hemingway or Jane Austen is slim, we decided to find real jobs.

Rin says

If they're so important, then why did DuPont send 2K R&D jobs to China? Or Applied Materials?

Because they found qualified people in China? There are qualified people in every country. Still plenty of jobs in the US though -- unemployment in STEM fields are lower than any other sector of the economy.

Rin says

I had a few prior girlfriends ... one was in a science PhD program at Harvard, another in an engineering PhD program at MIT (FYI, these women weren't my classmates). Guess what happened, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, & Lazard wined and dined 'em to work for them, after graduation. Where was Applied Materials, DuPont, or Motorola during this time? They were happily sitting around, awaiting a flood of applicants, and expecting everyone's backgrounds to be an exact fit to the job descriptions.

So a few shitty companies didn't offer them jobs and you take that as evidence of it not being valued? How about Genentech (biology, chemistry), Apple (EE, materials), Google (comp. sci, mathematics, statistics), or any other company that's actually concerned about science? AM is the only company on your list that still does actual science and engineering these days.

The average salary in STEM is $114,000. The average salary in financial services is $63,000. If you live in NYC or san francisco these numbers may be wildly skewed in either direction.

Kevin says

So a few shitty companies didn't offer them jobs and you take that as evidence of it not being valued? How about Genentech (biology, chemistry), Apple (EE, materials), Google (comp. sci, mathematics, statistics), or any other company that's actually concerned about science? AM is the only company on your list that still does actual science and engineering these days.

Genentech/Apple/Google get plenty of applicants from all over. And yes, the offshoring in biotech is now underway. The reason why Google is expanding in Cambridge MA is precisely because they've been losing applicants from Harvard/MIT/Tufts to finance careers.

And pharmacists start at $100K+ & they get to keep those jobs for life.

And the one above in management consulting started at $100K. Five years later, as a senior, she was at $175K+ w/ bonus structure. Her billing rate to clients are $250-300/hr, thus, she's quite valuable to her clients. If she makes junior partner, she'll be earning from $200-$350K/yr.

The one who went into financial services ... started at $90K. Then later, upon switching work, moved up to $150K+. She's taking it easy now, and have taken a pay cut to $120K to work 4 days per week. Is that even a possibility in STEM work, where overtime w/o pay is expected?

Kevin says

unemployment in STEM fields are lower than any other sector of the economy.

Well, because a smart person will leave the field for another job. That person is not counted as being unemployed. I know tons of persons who'd started in STEM and are now in health care, finance, consulting, patent law, etc. I'm also now one of them. Since I'm earning a nice salary and have no gaps in employment, my presence or lack of, doesn't get counted.

Kevin says

The average salary in financial services is $63,000.

This includes all ancillary services including bank tellers, telephone handlers, and loan managers. Those from top ten schools and engineering programs, do considerably better. In fact, right now, I don't know single person earning $63K in finance, and I'm including Boston, Philly, DC to the list, not just NYC. I was also offered a job above $63K but I didn't take it, as I'm making the transition on my own terms.

Rin says

I don't know single person earning $63K in finance

Ok, I made a mistake ... I know one person, earning $50K in Chicago, working for a Future's Trading house. He works from home, in metro Chicago, and answer calls for pesky traders, who're unhappy with the software and/or slippage parameters. He works Tues to Fri and takes Mondays off. So yes, it's not all roses but guess what, he's in his late 50s and has no complaints about being a telephone clerk. And yeah, if those edgy traders had their calls answered in the Philippines, like for a lot of IT companies, those traders would have a coronary.

Dan8267 says

Personally, I think that manufacturing is a 20th century industry and we need to dominate in 21st century industries, but there are plenty of people on this site alone who've argued that manufacturing is needed in America.

Hello Dan,

Instead of being a lone wolf, barking at the wind, and taking arrows from the propagandists about the impending shortage of S&Es or the "permafrost" lack of women, studying quantitative fields, how about simply leaving altogether?

I mean there's no point in waiting around, like a lot of NASA staff or contract members today, waiting for the axe to fall, while listening to the press that there are millions of STEM jobs paying high incomes with lifelong employment prospects.

A decent way to leave, if you're not into the whole finance/trading thing is to take the Patent Agent exam and then, either opt for the govt or a private sector job, supporting the analysis and filing of companies' proprietary properties.

Rin says

Kevin, age discrimination is real, not an imagined phenomena. This is in many fields, not just engineering.

I don't know about other fields, but I can assure everyone that age discrimination is rampant in IT. Absolutely no one hires a programmer in his 50s or 60s. I know many people in this age who have been out of work for a decade or more, forced into early retirement because of the perception that after a certain age, people can't program.

Luckily, I'm in the age range that actually benefits from this age discrimination. Companies love IT workers in their 30s. Those in their 20s don't have enough experience, and those in their 40s are pushing it. But they love the 30s.

thunderlips11 says

There are only two TV shows I can think of with a prominent female character that does science.

I don't even watch those kinds of shows, but even I know that there are like 14 different NCIS shows each having a female "scientist" doing Hollywood's pseudoscience crap. And I don't even watch those shows.

Rin says

Instead of being a lone wolf, barking at the wind, and taking arrows from the propagandists about the impending shortage of S&Es or the "permafrost" lack of women, studying quantitative fields, how about simply leaving altogether?

Because I'm one of the lucky ones who still makes a decent living doing what I love, software development. I have considered the patent lawyer route, but I wouldn't like it. Nevertheless, I don't think the future looks bright for the Millennials and the next generation in IT or STIM in general. In any case, I can always switch careers later.

Kevin says

Please educate yourself. Read the studies from the sources I referenced.

What studies? You provided no sources, no links, no references. Please pay attention to what you have actually written, not just the words you heard in your head as you were writing.

Kevin says

I've been involved with this issue for over 15 years now. Professionally, as a father, and as a concerned member of the human race. You can assert all you want, but the actual SCIENCE says that you're wrong.

Sorry to break this to you, but you are not science. You are just an anonymous poster asserting something with zero evidence to back it up. No matter how strongly you assert something, it does not make it a scientific fact.

Now, I personally have been in STIM professionally for 17 years, educationally for 30 years. My father was an electrical engineer going back to the days of mainframes. My brother graduated from MIT with a degree in mechanical engineering, but when into software professionally. My older sister is a biochemist and heads a lab. My younger sister and her husband are both doctors, and damn good ones having both done their residence in Mount Sinai Hospital, which is extremely competitive. All together, my nuclear family has about 112 years of STIM experience, and if you count overtime, it's probably double that. I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

I've lived through the experience of getting an undergraduate degree, taking internships, getting a graduate degree, and establishing a prosperous career. I know how people get hired, how they work, how they leave companies. And there has never, ever been a situation where women were treated as sex objects by STIM workers, ridiculed or laughed at for being female, discouraged in any way, or treated inferior by any male student, professor, or coworker. If anything, women have the advantage of an extensive support network that most male students lack.

Yet, even back in the 1990s, the political correct bullshitters have asserted without any evidence that the only reason women weren't entering STIM is because the big, bad, bullying males were forcibly keeping them out through harassment, intimidation, and overt sexism. This was bullshit in the 1970s; it was bullshit in the 1980s; it was certainly bullshit in the 1990s when I was in college; and it's bullshit today.

Mathematics, science, and engineering are the best fields in terms of equality ever to exist in all of history. STIM has united people from different races, nations, religions, genders, sexual orientation, cultures, languages, and politics. There's a plethora of examples from cold war scientists on opposite sides finding commodity over physics and the history of the universe to biologists from around the world building the extensive fossil and genetic record that proves evolution. When a white Anglo-Saxon talks about collapsing stars, he uses the same math and language that is used by his African colleague in Chad. No industry performed by man has been as much of a uniter of different people as math, science, and engineering. They are the universal disciplines in which it has never matter whether a person was royalty or a pauper. All that matters was could you bring good ideas to the table and prove them.

In contrast, music, art, politics, economics, and all those other revered liberal arts and fine arts disciplines have divided mankind. So don't give me this bullshit that male mathematicians, scientists, and engineers are fucking over women. Our fields have been the most welcoming fields in all of human history for all people. And I know this because I've lived through it first hand, every day of my adult life and most of my student life. You are telling me something that I know of from extensive first-hand experience is bullshit. And of course, you won't mention specific, verifiable facts like persons, places, and events because there are none to support the ridiculous accusation that sexism is rampant in STIM.

So I stand by my statement. The only persons to blame for women not entering STIM are the women who don't enter STIM. It is entirely their decision, based entirely on their blatant prejudices as clearly illustrated by Danaseb, and the only way to change the percent of women who enter STIM is to eliminate those prejudices. You have said nothing and presented no evidence to convince me otherwise. In fact, if anything, your false accusations against STIM would serve only to discourage women from entering those fields. So these false accusations actually magnify the problem.

Sorry, Rin, but anecdotes are not data. "I don't know anybody who" is not some sort of valid statistic. The fact remains that more people work in one segment of the economy than the other, and have higher salaries. Good for you that you know people with science backgrounds who went into finance. There are also people who studied law, medicine, journalism, and just about any other white collar profession who have done that.

Dan: SWE, IEEE. You want me to link to their websites for you? For someone who's been around as long as you say, you don't seem to know much about some of the most influential organizations in the industry.

I'm not currently (and have not previously) making the claim that it's all men's fault. I actually think that the sexual harassment issues (not sexual discrimination...that's a completely different thing) are minor compared to the overall societal issues around how we raise our daughters.

They're the same reasons why blacks and latinos also don't wind up in the fields. When you raise people to think that they're supposed to behave a certain way and do certain things, don't be surprised when that's exactly what happens.

My office currently has three female engineers and 9 males. They all have the same basic childhood experiences that the men have. Legos, video games, parental love of science and technology.

The fact of the matter is that we have *NOT* made any effort as a society to address the differences in how we raise our children. Our toys tell our girls to be princesses and mothers at worst, or doctors and business women at best. Our entertainment does the same. Yes, things people were saying about why there aren't more women in STEM in 1992 are true in 2012 because nothing has actually been done to address the problem.

The perpetual shortage of scientists story (I mean mythology) has been around since the NSF paper of 1988. There's already a website which tracks the alleged validity of this notion (http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/scientist-shortages/)

Also Kevin, if you don't want my anecdotes, here's one from the MIT class survey (http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/GSS2011.pdf). Realize, MIT is a top tier STEM focused college, not a liberal arts place like Dartmouth or Swarthmore. If you total up the number of recruits from Finance & Management Consulting positions (i.e. Morgan & Stanley, JP Morgan, McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Bain, Deloitte, Citigroup), you'll see that those careers make up 40+% of MIT graduates (not attending grad programs). You'll find similar results for the past number of years of surveys. Then, collate that with my personal anecdotes ... if STEM was so great then why is it that even from MIT, an engineering school, as oppose to Wharton or London School of Economics, the monied professions attract a serious volume of candidate placements?

Then, juxtapose that with the fact that women do communicate among one another and the fact that finance and consulting attract so much post-graduation attention, why wouldn't that be the preferred location for female graduates than in being in a dead-end STEM career path? In terms of image, think of working in an executive suite vs slaving under Dilbert's boss.

My conclusion is that there's no problem with women studying the sciences. It's just that they don't have any incentive to stay in it, whereas some guys may stay in it out of a 'labour of love' or the fact that management consulting and the whole faux culture of it, is just too much BS for them.

One more anecdote for both Kevin/Dan ...

I'd spoken with a female MIT grad this morning. She's three years out of college and is working in management consulting. I'd asked her why she chose MC over STEM and this was her response.

During college, she'd interned at Genentech, doing computer support work for one of the analytics groups. When she had her subsequent on-campus interviews with Google, Amazon, and other IT firms, the first thing they'd scrutinized was why she's CO-OPed in biotech vs an IT company. They appeared to spend more time trying to fess out a feasible incompatibility than in ascertaining value in having broad experiences in peer industries.

On the other hand, the MC recruiters like Cap, Deloitte, McKinsey, etc were interested in her background and the projects where she could fit into. In the end, she said that she felt that in STEM, people are 'pigeonholed' or 'typecasted' early in their careers, whereas in MC, most everyone is a generalist upon starting, until they find themselves a niche. Also, unlike STEM, MC management expects that their junior stars will go back to school for an MBA and perhaps return, in a management-to-partner track. There are also major opportunities to seek VP positions at client companies, since MCs tend to be on the strategy/operations side of the house. She didn't have a sense that STEM careers had sort of a career track, people in STEM were sort of seen as a 'helping hand' and then perhaps down the road, that person is then seen as a senior engineer. There didn't seem to be a sense of certainty there.

I guess my point here is that while STEM may not have an overt long term unemployment rate, like let's say for Steel Workers or Machinists, there's actually a reasonably high attrition rate, relative to other lines of work. And without sustaining a population of unemployed STEM folks, sitting around, waiting for their jobs to come back, it won't show up on the standard IEEE or ACM type of reports. People, esp women, simply leave after college or after a few years in, and then, they're just not heard from again.

Kevin says

They all have the same basic childhood experiences that the men have. Legos, video games, parental love of science and technology.

My parents simply told me to do my homework or else. I'd become a fan of Star Wars and other Sci-Fi films on my own.

I'd only transitioned from being a history/literature buff to science in high school because it was kinda obvious that one needed a science/math background for college.

Kevin says

Dan: SWE, IEEE. You want me to link to their websites for you?

I want you to link to the specific studies you are referring to and not make us guess and fill in your bullshit.

Actually, I really want you to name names and places where this overt sexism took place. Then I want to find the people involved, all the people involved, and gather them and you at a big ass round table. I'll tell them all about the shit you've been talking about them and then hear their side of the story. Somehow, I doubt you'll stand up to the cross examination.

False accusations of female hostility:
1. Are hurtful lies.
2. Add insult to injury to the people who actually experienced such bigotry from women in high school and college.
3. Actually discourages women from entering STIM.
4. Re-enforces negative, false stereotypes about STIM.
5. Ultimately would become a self-fulfilling prophecy by generating backlash.
6. Further contribute the largest brain drain in history, the ongoing brain drain of the U.S.
7. Compromises future generations of STIM.
8. Erodes the U.S.'s ability to compete with other nations in high tech industries.

In short, hostile lies about STIM are bad for everyone. So, yeah, I want to see you and the exact people you are accusing of sexism in a court where they can address you, their accuser. Short of that, I will trust my own experiences to yours.

Rin says

it was kinda obvious that one needed a science/math background for college.

I don't think that's true for most degrees. When you apply for graduate school, you have to take the GMAT, the college equivalent of the SAT. The math proportion of the SAT is way dumbed down so that students on the liberal arts track will have a cumulative score equal to students on the STIM path. That's why the math SATs are such a joke.

But the math GMAT is even easier than the math SAT. How the hell is that justified? Well, all those liberal arts students spent four years taking zero math classes and forgot everything from high school, so once again the writers of these test, who are all liberal arts professors not STIM, must dumb down the math part to make sure the liberal arts students don't look like retards compared to the STIM students. This is just another example of out-right prejudice against STIM.

And don't even get me started on how the verbal portion of SAT and GMAT are way biased towards liberal arts. If we included standard English words like recursion, quark, and gradient, STIM majors would way surpass liberal arts students in vocabulary. And our vocabulary is more useful. You don't need 500 different words that all mean noisy, but quark is the only word that means what it means.

Dan8267 says

When you apply for graduate school, you have to take the GMAT, the college equivalent of the SAT. The math proportion of the SAT is way dumbed down so that students on the liberal arts track will have a cumulative score equal to students on the STIM path.

Yes Dan, all of the above is true.

Where I was going to make an honorable mention was that a number of pre-professional undergrad programs do require some Calculus. At the same time, the high school SAT Subject Math II (originally named Math Achievement II) does have math all the way till trig. All my programs wanted those Math SAT IIs, some even wanted a recommendation letter from a Math teacher, if I took the AP Calculus section. Thus, despite being a prior history/literature buff, I knew that I needed to do well in the above if I was going to study Applied Chem/Chem Eng later on in college, even as a premed or pre-business type.

Now, with the above said and done, once a person finishes her undergrad requirements for Math at let's Wharton undergrad *finance*, she may never see a Math class again and thus, you're correct, the GMAT is then a walk in the park, before starting B-school. Also, those Calculus credits count, in terms of medical school applications as a part of the overall science (or physical sciences) GPA. And you already know about Patent Agent/Patent law.

One more site on management consulting salaries (http://careers-in-business.com/consulting/mcsal.htm) There's a huge upside in salaries from not choosing STEM, if one's qualified to be in MC.

When an engineer starts to hit ~$120K, management looks for reasons to downsize and replace one with either a younger person or someone, who'll work for less than a $100K. This has been going on, in STEM related areas, for ages. In contrast, MBA types have been able to sustain high salaries for a large percent of their careers. In fact, I was surprised to see in the web site above that MC Jr Partners were at ~$450K but that makes sense, if you consider that they're part of the team which books the revenue. My ex-GF, from Harvard Univ, always wanted to do the MBA at NYU, after she started work in the city.

I really don't understand why this is a mystery to folks like Kevin. Have you not been around the block in the past few decades? Do you actually know women, with a high level of quantitative education? Or are you mainly speculating?

Rin says

One more site on management consulting salaries (http://careers-in-business.com/consulting/mcsal.htm) There's a huge upside in salaries from not choosing STEM, if one's qualified to be in MC.

The equivalent to a senior partner at a MC place would be a VP or SVP at an engineering firm, and salaries are comparable (and higher at the top tier places).

MC places recruit top talent from all fields, not just STEM. Law and Medicine are also highly represented at such companies.

Rin says

When an engineer starts to hit ~$120K, management looks for reasons to downsize and replace one with either a younger person or someone, who'll work for less than a $100K.

This only happens at companies that aren't in the business of engineering. Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc. all pay well above this. My base salary alone is $200k, and I get another $150-200 a year in bonus and equity. That's for someone under 30 who doesn't even have a college degree, and who doesn't work in Silicon Valley even.

Rin says

I really don't understand why this is a mystery to folks like Kevin. Have you not been around the block in the past few decades? Do you actually know women, with a high level of quantitative education? Or are you mainly speculating?

Yes, I know (and work with) plenty of highly educated women. This isn't a "mystery", the assertions here are simply wrong.

There's definitely plenty of cases where people are grossly underpaid or overpaid relative to their contributions, but the evidence does not support the idea that STEM is a poor career choice relative to...anything else. I can cherry pick plenty of examples of people getting paid better in various specific jobs.

Kevin, I've lived in the northeast corridor for my entire life, Boston to DC, minus NYC. I've never seen a non-management STEM, in biopharma, in defense, in telecom, in chemicals with a base of $200K. This includes established companies like United Tech, General Electric, Genzyme, Wyeth, Raytheon, Lockheed, MITRE, DuPont, IBM, Unilever, AT&T/LU, Akamai, and a slew of other Fortune 1000s. Are you working for a dotcom enterprise? Because using Google or Facebook, as a primary STEM example, is cherry picking. Or is my list of Fortune 1000s, now suddenly no longer STEM?

The only persons in that starting $200K base category were in tax, underwriting/actuary, trading, medicine, patents, and law. I do know some of them at the above listed companies but those are not STEM careers.

As for MCs, my central argument was why that track was more attractive to women vs STEM. And if MIT, in itself, has a 40+% placement into MC or finance, that's really making a statement. That's not cherry picking, that's an established trend at a top engineering college. Unfortunately, not all schools have their surveys posted or I'd post some more but since I've visited them, I can observe that trend elsewhere on the east coast. Whether or not that individual placement eventually becomes a partner is not here or there; it's the fact that it's a good career choice vs being overspecialized in STEM and if MITers & Harvardians are having that conversation in their 20s, I can only see that women will leave the STEM fields quickly, after they get their degrees. And that's been my experience and thus, I don't worry about women's career choices. Likewise, in another year or so, I can also say that I'd left STEM for greener pastures.

Dan, do you want to add something to this?

Dan8267 says

The "nerd" bigotry you see in the U.S. simply does not happen in many other countries, particularly in Asia

Possibly related to this comment; in my experience, at least 90% of the female engineers I know in the US are immigrants from China, India, or elsewhere in Asia. Also, in China and other Asian countries, around 35% of engineers are women. (Japan is an exception). I do know a few US-born female engineers, but, they usually end up in sales, or dropping out of the workforce for family reasons.

So there's something different in the US vs in Asia.

Rin says

Here's my answer ... doctors earn six figure salaries and more importantly, have near lifetime job security. STEM jobs have low-to-ordinary pay, minimal job security, expected unpaid overtime, & constant threat of offshoring.

An MD has school and internship for several years after graduating with a BS. A general practitioner makes around $150k, but, no stocks, no options, no bonus, on-call at times. An engineer with 10 years experience in Silicon Valley will make around $100k, plus stock/options/bonus and at least won't get called in at 3 am. And there's potential for more, I know many people with 15-20 years experience making 200k including stock/options/bonus, and they didn't have to have 8 years of school/internship after getting a BS.

Surgeons and some specialists can make more, but they have more schooling. And engineering managers/directors can also make more.

So purely financially, getting an MD is not obviously better than engineering.

SiO2 says

So purely financially, getting an MD is not obviously better than engineering.

A lot of that has to do with the whole layoff cycles. If you recall the layoffs in petrochemicals (mid-80s Oil Patch Bust), defense (early 90s), telecom/dotcom (2000s), engineering has a boom/bust quality to it whereas most persons seldom hear of doctors losing their work. And then, many doctors do have the option to work into their mid-60s or longer. So true, the SV in-crowd at Facebook, Google, etc may have high flying careers but for the most part, it appears to the typical female students that engineering work is working under Dilbert's boss in a ratty cubicle.

The one downside to medicine is the student loans. That's really the main sticky point, since those follow one for life.

SiO2 says

I do know a few US-born female engineers, but, they usually end up in sales

Yep, this I've seen, more often than not.

Others go back for health care careers or b-school for management and/or sales executive tracks. And there's nothing wrong with that.