How can we improve the number of women choosing to stay in science? Photo credit: Niamh Walker via The Oxford Scientist
Note: Throughout this article, I use the term ‘women’ to include anyone who identifies as ‘non-male’, due to distinct lack of data on other genders.
Over the last century, women have made immense progress in entering scientific fields. Yet, it is similarly undeniable that despite our progress, women are still limited in the opportunities available to them and experience more challenges compared to their male peers. Women are less likely to continue studying STEM at university, and progressively more unlikely to pursue STEM into industry and academia. The number of women in physical, mathematical, or computational sciences are still extremely low, and combined with unexpectedly poor attainment and career progression, it is clear that we still have a long way to go.
The STEM Women Foundation used data taken from HESA and the UK Government Census Data to highlight some of the most notable inequalities. Despite 60.5% of biology undergraduate degrees being awarded to women, this number remains at 44% for physical sciences, 37% in maths, 23% for computer sciences, and a shocking 20.9% for engineering. Only 31% of STEM students in the UK are women as of 2022/23, and 26% of the scientist workforce are women, with this number being as low as 12% for the engineering workforce. Unfortunately, in this case, the UK is leading the field, with only 17% of the STEM workforce in the EU being women, 16% in Japan, and 14% in India. The lack of women in STEM careers, academia, and industry, as well as being depressingly low, causes active harm and limits crucial research, opportunities, and ideas.
Only 31% of STEM students in the UK are women…
A particularly interesting paper by Wong et al., (2021), suggests that this gap is driven by a gendered hierarchy of difficulty within STEM. All too frequently, we see physics, maths, engineering and computer sciences as the “difficult” STEM subjects and biology, psychology, and increasingly medicine, as the “easier” STEM subjects. Different STEM disciplines are ascribed positions within a hierarchy based on their perceived traits of masculinity, difficulty, logic and objectivity, whilst more “feminine” sciences are seen as easier, softer, and less legitimate. I have heard too many times from my peers that ‘biology isn’t a real science’ and that we ‘do no work’. Even yesterday, I was told that my biology degree is a ‘joke’. This stereotype is certainly not perpetuated to my predominantly male, physics-studying counterparts. The more women in a scientific discipline, the easier we perceive this discipline to be.
This gendered hierarchy of different scientific disciplines is fuelled by outdated, misogynistic viewpoints. In 2006, Jacob Blickenstaff laid out a framework of nine key points that he argued fuel the lack of women in more “technical” STEM fields. This ranges from a “chilly climate” for young girls in science classes, to a science curriculum that is both male-dominated and uninteresting to young girls, to cultural pressure on adolescent girls to conform to more traditional gender roles and when choosing future pathways. One of the points of Blickenstaff’s framework refers to the common belief that there are fundamental biological differences between the sexes that drive them to different sciences. As illustrated, there is a common perception that men are technical, mathematical beings who think in cold, hard logic, so steer towards physics, maths, and engineering. Meanwhile, women are soft, maternal, and nurturing, so steer towards “gentle” sciences like biology. This form of logic is damaging, as it implies no action needs to be taken to resolve this issue because it is a key trait of humanity. This form of gendering of different scientific disciplines and their perceived difficulties is likely be a large factor that drives women out of more “technical” science subjects.
Not only are the number of women going into these STEM subjects limited, but when we do, our attainment will be continuously overshadowed.
Women who do break through these stereotypes to study STEM are met with a strong attainment gap, partly as a result of intrinsic bias in higher education institutes. Female Physics, Maths and Computer Science students are less likely to obtain firsts compared to their male counterparts—a problem visible here at Oxford. An article published by the Oxford Student in 2019 illustrated that, at the University of Oxford, male students are consistently more likely to obtain firsts in their finals than their female counterparts, particularly in these “technical” STEM subjects. In 2024 alone at Oxford, 5 firsts were awarded to female Physics students (17% of the female cohort), and 50 to their male counterparts (50% of the male cohort). For Engineering, 10 firsts went to female students (25% of the cohort), compared to 50 firsts to male students (43% of the cohort). Not only are the number of women going into these STEM subjects limited, but when we do, our attainment will be continuously overshadowed. This overshadowing is clearly not a product of intelligence or work ethic, because girls tend to out-perform boys at high school. Galos et al., 2024 illustrate that part of this attainment gap for women in technical STEM fields may be attributed to the ‘chilly climate’ in this field, a lack of inclusivity and active discrimination against exam adjustments and curricula that benefit women. Mental health and feelings of anxiety or isolation when adjusting to male-dominated STEM university courses may also play a large part in this gap.
Even after these progression and attainment gaps, women in STEM are faced with the so-called “leaky pipeline”.
Even after these progression and attainment gaps, women in STEM are faced with the so-called “leaky pipeline”. This describes the phenomenon that the further up the ‘pipeline’ of education one goes, the fewer and fewer women will be encountered—a progressive and depressingly persistent problem. In STEM, women receive 50.1% of bachelor’s degrees, but receive only 44.3% of Master’s degrees, 41% of doctorate degrees, 36% of postdoctoral fellowships, and comprise only 29% of permanent academic employees. For example, the Royal Society of Chemistry reports that 35% of Chemistry undergraduates are women, compared to a staggeringly low 9% of professors. A 2024 Forbes article also illustrates that 40-50% of women will leave their STEM careers within 5-7 years of starting. The Royal Society of Chemistry illustrated that they believe this to be due to various key factors, including the prevalence of unstable short-term contracts in academia, a lack of support, feelings of isolation, difficulty managing parental responsibilities, wider societal trends of inequality, and the long hours required. Alongside the other pressures society places on women – from childcare to cleaning, cooking and household chores – maintaining a high-powered STEM position holds a far higher burden for women than men. Reframing the leaky pipeline to retain women in STEM academia and careers requires prolonged, deep systemic change, ranging from A-Level students to tenured professors.
Thus, despite interest and success in STEM, women will often not progress further. When they do, they are far more likely to report feeling isolated, be treated as incompetent, and be passed over for promotions.Access to mathematical, physical and computational sciences is limited by persistent, prevalent misogyny that starts from childhood. These subjects are perceived as too masculine, too difficult, and inaccessible, and women are presented with an irrelevant, male-dominated, dry curriculum that lends itself to the leaky pipeline and attainment gaps we see. Verdugo-Castro et al., argue that to narrow this gender attainment gap and STEM respect, it is necessary to focus on the educational environment by promoting a more engaging and relevant curriculum for young girls, providing more inspirational female role models, and promoting self-confidence in young women in STEM.
**some ideas expressed in this article are opinion, and may not represent the opinion of The Oxford Scientist as a whole**
