Communications of the ACM

Roger Scott

Where to begin with this article? In what strange world view is STEM a "single career"? "[I]n fact a majority of women quit STEM because the culture of poor work-life balance makes it too difficult to raise a family" -- I don't think "a majority" of women do _any_ one thing except share a common chromosomal structure. Even among women who quit STEM (again, how an we talk about "STEM" as a single monolithic thing?), I don't think there's any good evidence that a majority do it for _any_ one reason, let alone the reason the author cites.

"When the Girls in STEM culture pressures girls into careers they dont want..." -- this gets to one of my main problems with this article, namely the assumption that girls (or anyone) in high school or junior high have a clear, rational, well-defined notion of what career they want to pursue. As I see it, one of the main points of "the Girls in STEM culture" is to counteract the historically enormous bias _against_ girls going into these fields. Does the author really want us to stand idly by while those biases continue to influence the choices of thousands of girls?

"[R]ecruiting girls leaves less time to solve serious problems in the industry" -- this assumes that the same limited resources are available for both of these, which is very likely untrue. It also assumes, as elsewhere in the article the author pretty much comes right out and claims, that recruiting more women into these fields won't, itself, be an integral part of _solving_ these very problems. In reality, many of these problems can only persist as long as women are a significant minority, so simply increasing their numbers _will_, in many cases, make a real difference.

While it is true that the low representation of women (and other under-represented minorities) in STEM fields is not _entirely_ a "pipeline" problem, it certainly is to a significant degree. Ask any hiring manager what the gender ratio of their entry-level new hires is. On the other hand, the attrition part of the equation extends backward into colleges, high schools, and even junior high. Any point in the process where girls or women leave STEM fields (or a path toward them) for reasons primarily tied to their gender is a problem. It is bad when these reasons are real, but arguably even more tragic when they are misperceptions (fostered in any number of ways).

"The Girls in STEM movement should focus on fixing the issues that make women quit by changing workplace culture and policies and by training and supporting women already in the field instead of recruiting more girls." -- why must this be either/or? Both are important, and neither precludes the other.

"Its unfair to encourage girls to enter a field many grown women find unbearable." -- Many men find "the" field unbearable as well. Should we thus encourage no one? We should certainly be honest about the realities of the field -- both pros and cons -- but that's true of all fields.

"Feminists should encourage girls to pursue goals based on their dreams, not their abilities." -- Really? Presumably this advice isn't limited to feminists, or women at all. Don't we want to be honest with kids about the prospects of pursuing something you may love but aren't any good at? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with saying "You're really good at X, and even though right now you may not feel much enthusiasm for a career involving X you should really give it some consideration since it is much easier to be happy and satisfied with a career in something you're good at." Again, my faith in the ability of high school or junior high kids to rationally assess their career options is, shall we say, limited?

- Roger Scott