The never-ending discussion… Part 2

John Tierney’s second article on the gender gap in the sciences has appeared in the NY Times, and it’s as bothersome as the first.  He must have read my last post, because he’s now referencing Stephen Ceci and Wendy William’s book, The Mathematics of Sex, but without much acknowledgment of the nuance and complexity that Ceci and Williams emphasize.

Instead of responding directly to Tierney’s latest column, let me continue my previous post highlighting a few points from The Mathematics of Sex. As I mentioned in my last post, the book’s literature review relegates both biological differences in ability and bias to secondary roles in accounting for the under-representation of women in mathematically-intensive science fields. Rather, Ceci and Williams attribute the difference in representation to two significant factors: 1) women’s career preferences and 2) the impact of childbirth and child rearing on women’s careers.

“One clearly important factor explaining women’s underrepresentation is that math-capable women disproportionately choose non-mathematics fields, and such preferences are already visible among math-competent girls during adolescence…. [I]f each sex’s representation was primarily a function of math ability, there would be twice as many women in math-intensive careers are there now are….Clearly, non-ability factors such as women’s preferences must play an important role—math-talented women are choosing non-math careers far more frequently than are math-talented men.”

The guise of personal preference may hide the influence of environmental or biological factors on individual decisions.  When reading Ceci and William’s book, there were aspects of my experience as a woman in physics that were missing from the discussions, namely the feeling of “otherness” and the impact of micro-inequities, which likely can’t be measured in any statistically significant way.  Yet I would guess these intangibles impact personal decisions.

According to the Mathematics of Sex, the second significant factor contributing to the under-representation of women in mathematically-intensive fields is the impact of childbirth and childrearing on women’s careers. While this is not unique to STEM fields, with the increased rate at which STEM knowledge becomes dated as compared to other fields, career gaps and part-time work can be particularly damaging in these fields.  Ceci and Williams spend a significant amount of time considering the challenging decisions faced by women with regards to having both children and career, and they acknowledge that men are almost never required to make the same choices as women nor do they face the same career penalties as women for becoming a parent.

The discussion of child-rearing highlights that biological and sociocultural factors DO impact the STEM careers of women, but there is more to the issue than the simplistic biological and sociocultural discussion that Tierney wants to emphasize.  As acknowledged by Ceci and Williams, “The reasons women opt out of math-intensive fields—either when first choosing a career, or later—are complex. Reasons for preferring nonmath fields may be influenced by biological and sociocultural factors that either enable or limit women.”

It is not helpful to address this issue by trying to deny the considerable gray regions in favor of black and white scenarios. While I may grow tired of the debate at times, it’s also important to acknowledge there is value in the continuing discussion on the topic. As noted in the Mathematics of Sex, “Our society has much to contend with as we ponder the issues of group differences in access to and success at different careers, be they gender-group differences or racial/ethnic-group differences.”

A new approach to modern physics

A note from John Townsend, the author of “A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics” — that’s the only book I’ve used during my 5 year run at teaching quantum at Carleton. It is best described as an undergraduate version of Sakurai’s book (that is to say, it focused on Hilbert space through spin to get the point across), and worked really well for me and my students. It is very readable, has lots of useful worked examples, and good problems as well. I couldn’t endorse it more. Here’s what John said:

After more than thirty years of teaching physics at Harvey Mudd College, I have hit upon what I think are really good approaches to teaching quantum physics/quantum mechanics to undergraduates. I am now the author of two textbooks, A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics (for juniors and seniors) and Quantum Physics: A Fundamental Approach to Modern Physics (primarily for sophomores). This latter book, which was published just this past August, will I hope (somewhat immodestly) generate a sea change in the way many “modern physics” courses are taught in this country, judging from the textbooks for these courses that have preceded mine. Information about Quantum Physics, including the table of contents and the preface, where I spell out in some detail why I have written this book, is available at

http://www.uscibooks.com/townsend2.htm

I would very much appreciate your forwarding this email to the people who are teaching or are likely to teach the corresponding course at Carleton College so they are at least aware of the existence of the book. Faculty who would like to request an examination copy can go to www.uscibooks.com and click on Professor Resources.

Many thanks for your help,

John

John S. Townsend

Susan and Bruce Worster Professor of Physics

Chair, Department of Physics

Harvey Mudd College

PS I am also preparing a new edition of my junior-senior level textbook. I am adding new sections on entanglement and quantum teleportation, on the density operator, on coherent states, and on cavity quantum electrodynamics. I am also adding numerous worked examples to the book. Since I believe A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics has been used at Carleton, if any of your colleagues would be interested in giving me feedback on a draft of this additional material for the new edition of this book, I would very much welcome it.

Environmental Physics (“If I had a billion dollars”)

The year is done at Carleton,  the class of 2010 launched on their varied and interesting paths, and as I start to transition to the summer and my new life, a record for future reference of some thoughts on my first (and what will be my last for a few years) pass at the Environmental Physics course I taught this term.

We started this course a few years ago. When I say ‘we’ I mean that it was started by Joel Weisberg, as prototypical a liberal arts college scientist as you can imagine. He had the enthusiastic support of the Department, and of the Environmental Studies department at Carleton, and it was also supported with some funds from CISMI-HHMI.  I was pleased when it landed in my lap this year (although the timing was pretty terrible — I had it at the same time as my other new prep, Advanced Electricity and Magnetism). When I started thinking about how I would tinker with it, it became quickly clear that it one excellent way to do it was to focus on alternative energy sources.

This is how I structured this time’s run-through: a quick look at the relevant physics ideas of energy, electricity and magnetism, and thermodynamics, before focusing in on different ways of generating energy. I made very sure that we looked well beyond the physics of energy generation to consider environmental impact, and practical aspects including the human context. For that second section I was lucky enough to work with three guest lecturers: David Chapman (an intense committed geophysicist who was visiting the Geology Department at Carleton as a distinguished senior visitor and got shanghaied by my students into giving a lecture about his research on borehole temperature profiles, which are an alternate record of temperature changes over the last 500 years), J. Drake Hamilton of Fresh Energy on policy issues, and our very own Aaron Swoboda on how to think about transportation and energy issues. We finished with a group project where each group had to present on the energy source in which they would advocate investing; the class was then asked to divvy up a hypothetical $100 million between these various sources based on their own research as well as the persuasiveness of their classmates. I improvised this group project a couple of weeks into the course, and it worked: The students had to explain various different physics ideas to each other, ranging from nuclear power, through wind power, geothermal energy and solar power, had to understand what the practical (economic, governmental, engineering, etc) concerns were as well, and not least, had to be clear and persuasive about their thinking.

What would I do different in the future? Based on the feedback I got I would: (1) Make more clear that my version focuses on energy issues (with a nod to climate change issues) so there’s no confusion, (2) re-think my blitz through electricity and magnetism, (3) possibly focus the entire course on the last project, and have the final presentation a public debate on energy options. (Perhaps this could be by invitation only, but the idea is to raise the stakes slightly by asking the students to talk to an audience outside the class so they can’t rest on assumptions about what is known and what isn’t. That is the best way I know to see if someone truly understands a physics idea.)

I had a very interesting and rewarding time teaching the course, and given the student reactions, think that this course should stay on the books for a long time. And for the record, this is how the students split their hypothetical $1,900,000,000 (there were 19 students in the course) in research and development funds: 950 for Geothermal energy (exactly half), 460 for wind power, 440 for nuclear energy, and 50 for solar energy (almost none of this last for photovoltaics, but I didn’t ask them to separate it out). There were 5 graduating geology seniors in the course, which probably influenced the numbers significantly.

“From the Pearl of Africa, with gratitude”

As we race to graduation, email to the Department from a recent alum:

Physicists of Carleton,

Howdy! Somehow, a year has passed since I was last in Northfield. How
the hell did that happen? Anyway, as it comes on the first anniversary
of my graduation, I find my thoughts turning to my four happy years at
Carleton and to you, the wonderful Olinites that helped make them
happy.

I write this from Kikuube Health Centre, Hoima District, Uganda. No,
I’m not sick, but it just so happens that my friend here, Dr. Fred,
has the only wireless modem in the subcounty and he lets me use it for
free. The Health Centre is a 1-km bike ride down the most dangerous,
potholed dirt road you ever laid eyes on, from the small trading post
of Kiziranfumbi, where I serve as a volunteer secondary school math
and physics teacher in the U.S. Peace Corps. I’ve been at my post for
about a month and a half now, since completing 10 weeks of intensive
language, technical, and cross-cultural training in-country.

Uganda is wild. It’s the 21st most failed state in the world, and is
bordered by number 3 (Sudan) and number 5 (Democratic Republic of the
Congo). HIV/AIDS afflicts a whopping 6% of the population. Many people
live in mud huts and some go to witch doctors for medical treatment.
The disparities between here and the West are unimaginable. I don’t
think there’s running water in a 20-km radius from where I live (and
there are several thousand people living within those bounds). Believe
me, you get an appreciation for how much water you consume when you
have to haul 40 liters of it from a well every other week. It’s the
dry season now (Uganda has only two seasons,  wet and dry, given its
position on the equator; quite a far cry from Northfield’s sometimes
unpleasantly distinct four), so I get really excited whenever it
rains, and run outside with my bucket to collect rainwater for bathing
later. I’ve had to adjust to procuring of food by haggling with
outdoor market vendors in the Runyoro language, wide-eyed children
stroking my arm to see what white person skin feels like, vivid
nightmares (a side effect of my malaria prophylaxis), and obnoxiously
loud goat fights outside my house at 2 am.

There are some nice perks of living and working here: the tropical
climate, a lush landscape that includes the highest mountain range in
Africa (the Mountains of the Moon), 25¢ pineapples, giraffes, lions,
hippos, 1000+ bird species and a whole lot of primates, rock-solid
government health care, an amazing support network of Peace Corps
Volunteers and staff, and a country full of some of the friendliest
people imaginable (Minnesota nice has nothing on these folks – I can
hardly go for a walk without being offered gifts of avocados picked
straight off the tree). But the biggest perk of all is two years of
freedom to do basically whatever I want to initiate sustainable change
at the grassroots level.

I thank all of you for enabling me to do this. Without your patience,
understanding, knowledge, and undeniable abilities as educators, I
would not be here. You’ve instilled in me a passion for science that I
carry with me to the classroom every day, and pass on to the 120 faces
staring back at me when I climb up on a desk and drop hardcover
dictionaries to demonstrate gravitational to kinetic to sound energy
conversion. My thoughts are with you whenever I shade my shaved head
from the equatorial sun with my “hat”-hat or do problems from
Townsend’s A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics (you know, for fun).

Take care, be well, and enjoy the summer break!

- Lukas

P.S. – I’m doing the blog thing. http://iganda.blogspot.com/

The never-ending discussion: biology or bias?

Opening up the NY Times web page today and reading John Tierney’s latest column, “Daring to Discuss Women in Science”, brought out an intense need to respond despite the pile of grading in front of me. Before diving into what I find so irritating about Tierney’s column, I will briefly note that the legislative proposal he mentions in the beginning of his article sounds potentially problematic, providing a source of ridicule or animosity without doing much to change the situation faced by women in science. Since I’m not well-informed on the details of the legislation, I’m not going to try to discuss it.

What I want to comment on is the rest of the article, which contributes to my general frustration with the ad nauseam back-and-forth of whether it’s biology or bias that accounts for the under-representation of women in the mathematically-intensive sciences. I tire of hearing about how women aren’t as adept at math, aren’t as good at spatial reasoning, and aren’t as willing to work hard. These discussions seem to rehash the same old arguments, and they don’t acknowledge the complexity of the problem, nor do they do much to change people’s inherent biases (or their beliefs that they are unbiased in the evaluation of the situation).

What I find most frustrating is that there are myriads of studies, and everyone can cite their favorite study to support their viewpoint — be it that bias is the dominant factor keeping women out of sciences or that biology accounts for the paucity of women. This spring, thanks to my colleague Joel Weisberg, I found what may currently be the best, though still imperfect, antidote to the never-ending, go-nowhere discussion of this topic, namely Stephen Ceci and Wendy William’s book, The Mathematics of Sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. The book is built on an extensive literature review of more than 400 studies on the role of biological and sociocultural factors in accounting for the low representation of women in math-intensive science fields. If he took the time to read The Mathematics of Sex, Tierney would find much of his argument is insufficient to account for the level of sex disparities found in fields like physics and engineering.  Ceci and Williams review studies examining the male/female distribution at the extreme right tail of the distribution of math SAT scores, like the ones Tierney discusses, but they also acknowledge the importance of considering how the distribution varies with time period and with cultural geography, which shows flaws in using American student performance on the SAT as an indicator of why there aren’t more women in mathematically-intensive fields. While Tierney blithely contends, “Even when you consider only members of an elite group like the top percentile of the seventh graders on the SAT math test, someone at the 99.9 level is more likely than someone at the 99.1 level to get a doctorate in science or to win tenure at a top university,” Ceci and Williams admit that current studies don’t sufficiently determine how one’s exact location on the extreme right end of the mathematical testing distribution corresponds to future success.

On the flip side, supporters of women in science may be disappointed to find that, according to Ceci and Williams’ survey, environmental factors such as stereotype threat or bias are also not sufficient to account for the poor representation of women in the sciences. Ceci and Williams provide a balanced consideration of just what research needs to be done to provide convincing evidence that either biological or sociocultural factors play more than a secondary role in accounting for the low numbers of women in mathematically intensive fields. If The Mathematics of Sex doesn’t find bias or biological ability as being primary factors in accounting for the numbers of women in mathematically-intensive fields, what do they find? Their answer is complex, and I’ll try to write more after I’ve finished my grading.

Toc, toc, toc

The Asterix and Obelix comics I grew up on always had — at some point — the Gauls doubting the sanity of some other culture, and using the phrase ‘These [Romans, Brits, Germans ...] are crazy!” and a ‘Toc, toc, toc” of knuckles against the head to show exactly how insane.

Some bits of evidence that if confronted by Carls, they would say the same:

(1) There was the turning of Goodsell Observatory into R2-D2, complete with sound effects.

(2) The (annual?) silent dance party in the libe (everyone plays the same song on their headphones and dances together in — relative — silence).

(3) More than twenty-five percent of the entire student body turned up to spoon in a massive circle on the campus green.

(4) The major complaint about my Advanced E+M class was that I didn’t assign enough homework(only a couple of problems from each chapter of the book). Ok, fine, I agree that they would’ve learned more if I’d done that, and given the pace of the blitz through the material, I thought I was loading them enough anyway, but turns out not.

Advanced E+M redux

So, the Advanced E+M class wound to a close last night, with the bulk of us retreating to the local pub (the Contented Cow) for a post-class conversation. It was my first time teaching this class, and I tried something new in terms of structure, and this note is to report that I can’t speak highly enough of the results of this experiment.

Here’s why I think it went well: The preface of Pollack and Stump says something along the lines of ‘This would be ambitious for an instructor to cover even in 2 semesters.” However, by refusing to do any of the ‘covering’ myself, the students and I got through essentially the whole book this term (which lasts 9 1/2 weeks, in case you aren’t that Carleton-familiar). Last night’s discussion (before the pub) indicated that this wasn’t at the expense of sanity or actual comprehension:  They were happy with the pace (they didn’t think it was too rough) and what they got out of it (they feel far more ready to tackle Jackson than they had been, and that’s pretty much the intent of the course). In short, they learned a lot more than I could have possibly taught them (and I think I can happily report that many of them learned a lot more physics than I know myself). I’ve asked for written evaluations later, but I am reasonably secure that we trust each other enough in this class that I would probably know roughly where we stand if people were unhappy.

This is definitely one of those situations where I didn’t have to be ‘the sage on the stage’ but instead took full advantage of my resources (the remarkably sharp and talented students who enrolled) and my bag of tricks as a ‘guide on the side’ to create what ultimately turned out to be a good course. An alternate way of thinking about it would be to echo something we’ve recently talked about at Carleton’s Learning and Teaching Center events: That is, that thinking of ourselves as coaches for the young and athletic minds we have in our care is a very sensible way to teach, and allows us to play to our strengths, while allowing for the students to play to their strengths.

Satya

A link to a post by Satya Mohanty (with a bilingual pun in the title since ‘satya’ means ‘the truth’ in Oriya or Hindi). It’s a thoughtful, interesting survey of the ‘the future of diversity’ and also a plug for a book co-edited by him with precisely that title. Given the things I have been thinking about as team leader for Carleton’s campus task force on the ‘environment’ inside the classroom, a lot of what he says resonates strongly. In particular, for example, that we should “beyond our current – perfectly justified – concern with providing more students “access” to college [..] to think about what our campuses feel like to those who come to learn.”

Here’s a couple of summarizing quotes:

All these attempts to imagine a more genuinely diverse academic campus have an interesting implication: academic “excellence” can be achieved only if we recognize the social conditions in which learning takes place. Our efforts to promote excellence on our campuses are closely tied to our ideals of democracy and diversity, and these efforts cannot be successful if we do not question our deeper assumptions about what success is and what produces an effective culture for the work of scholarship and teaching. For such work is not done by abstract individuals but by socially embodied beings, with socially produced strengths and vulnerabilities, and any attempt to think about the educational culture of a campus must focus on the actual experiences of faculty and students from a variety of social backgrounds. This requires a rethinking of some of our most basic theoretical assumptions as well as a reexamination of our traditional habits and practices.

As well as

Social diversity is about more than just numbers. Most importantly, it is not a “problem” to be solved, but rather an enormous social and educational resource that is waiting to be tapped. From admissions to sports to the designing of the curriculum and of non-curricular interactions, the practical and theoretical challenges posed by a campus’s “diversity” are the gateways to a more democratic national future.