posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum Last week the National Academies reported that stereotypes affect women's academic performance. Their report, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering came out earlier this year concluding:
Women are underrepresented at higher levels of science and engineering academics because of the influence of gender bias and the disadvantages that such bias generates.
Another report, To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering, goes on to say female high school students are less likely to take higher levels of math and science, such as calculus, computer science, or physics. This brings to mind former Harvard President Lawrence Summers who got in heaps of trouble by suggesting intrinsic aptitude could explain why fewer women have excelled in science and math. While that's one, errr.. theory, psychologists tend to blame the trend on societal pressures and the influence of peer groups. Neuroscientists disagree, attributing differences to changes in hormonal levels during puberty. Even O magazine and Psychology Today chimed in on the topic last month with articles on the way chemicals in our body drive behaviors such as math and spatial ability - not to mention mate selection. Talk about sexed up science. Well just when you thought all the cards were dealt, an even more egregious culprit enters the line up. Yesterday, PZ told us about a study out of the University of Florida that now it's actually women's names influencing social expectations. Well isn't that just another convenient self-filling prophecy?
There are plenty of exceptions but, on average, people treat Isabellas differently to Alexes.
Have we really become a society relegated to scapegoating our shortcomings on the wrong name? In the spirit of fairness, why stop at names? Many redheads I know proudly acknowledge they are treated differently. What about people with symmetrical features or overly feminine attributes? It's not news that much of how we are are perceived is the result of nonverbal cues. Revlon and Dr. 90210 agree. But back to the research suggesting that girls with names that have a high femininity rating are less likely to excel in math and science. Call me a naysayer, but how could this study possibly not be culturally and personally biased? Though I'm sure the researchers made every attempt to maintain objectivity, keeping one's expectations out of the findings given you're looking for disparity seems near impossible. Remember Clever Hans? So with regard to the Guardian story, I'm torn between pointing out its complete absurdity or shrugging with 'uh huh, so what?' It seems rather ridiculous that we're now blaming poor academic performance on a series of syllables. In a country where Dr. Phil is a household name, it's past time to stop looking for reasons we ought not excel and instead let those very handicaps motivate us to achieve more than expectation. After all, who doesn't love a good underdog story? But that's merely my take and I'm just a girl who doesn't know the femininity rating of her name. by S-H-E-R-I-L
