Skip to content

Study: Gee, if only we didn’t expect scientists to be smart, we’d have more women scientists

January 17, 2015

New research has found that women tend to be underrepresented in disciplines whose practitioners think innate talent or “brilliance” is required to succeed. According to the findings, that’s true across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the STEM fields; humanities; and the social sciences.

The research—led by Sarah-Jane Leslie, a philosophy professor at Princeton University, and Andrei Cimpian, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign—was published on Thursday in the journal Science.

Ms. Leslie and Mr. Cimpian surveyed more than 1,800 graduate students, professors, and postdoctoral fellows in 30 academic disciplines across the country. The survey included a series of statements and asked participants to rate the extent of their agreement with each one. The statements included: “Being a top scholar of [discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught,” and “Even though it’s not politically correct to say it, men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in [discipline].”

In many fields with a relatively small proportion of female Ph.D. students, survey respondents placed greater emphasis on brilliance as a prerequisite to success.

One prominent example was philosophy, in which only 31 percent of Ph.D. students are female.

The same phenomenon held true in STEM disciplines like math and physics, each of which have student bodies that are less than 30 percent female.


Meanwhile, in disciplines that don’t place such emphasis on innate brilliance—like education, psychology, and molecular biology—a majority of Ph.D. students are women.

“Pervasive cultural associations link men but do not link women with raw intellectual brilliance,” Ms. Leslie said in an interview with reporters on Wednesday.

For examples, she cited pop culture. It’s easy to find portrayals of men with a “special spark of innate, unschooled genius,” like various incarnations of Sherlock Holmes or television’s House, M.D. But accomplished and smart women—think Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series—are typically depicted as simply hard-working, Ms. Leslie said.

The study’s authors suggested several reasons women could be underrepresented in fields that value raw talent. There could be bias, often unconscious, among the discipline’s practitioners. Women might also self-select out of those fields, either because they have internalized the stereotype that they are not as innately talented as men or because they anticipate a difficult work atmosphere in which they constantly must prove their worth.

Or maybe, um, fewer women than men happen to be brilliant.

Actually, it’s well-known that at the high end of the IQ curve, there are simply more men than women.

Posted by Charlotte Allen


From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. MIT publishes the gender composition of its online MOOC courses: as courses become more technical, fewer women enroll and all courses have mostly male students, even introductory biology. No reason for this is hypothesized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: