Written Evidence Submitted by
Gijsbert Stoet, Professor of Psychology, University of Essex
(DIV0065)
Short summary
Girls and women are less likely to choose STEM subjects in secondary and tertiary education. I discuss psychological reasons for this. One major reason is that girls and women are more interested in people-oriented occupations than things-oriented (including STEM) occupations. This is a phenomenon that has been observed for more than a century and relatively stable. The Gender Equality Paradox shows that the more empowered women become, the greated the male/female gap in STEM choices beomes, and this gap will likely grow. Some suggestions for governmental action are listed, including curricular changes.
Long Summary
• This evidence is only about the under-representation of girls and women in STEM education, which in and of itself is important for explaining the under-representation of women in STEM occupations.
• The under-representation of girls and young women in STEM education is universally observed, but we discovered that it becomes larger in *more* gender equal countries (especially those in Northwestern Europe) – this is known as the Gender Equality Paradox in STEM.
• There has been much research in regard to the interests of adolescent girls in STEM; there is strong and clear evidence that girls are less interested than boys in science and far fewer adolescent girls than boys aspire to an occupation in STEM, especially in the most gender equal countries.
• Gender differences in participation in eligible STEM education in secondary education is determined by multiple factors. Given the large gender differences in interest differences, there is little that can be done; even so, there are factors that can be influenced. It will be impossible to reach 50/50, and there is also no need to do so, given the general satisfaction of girls/women with the subjects they do choose.
• It makes *no* sense for the government to invest heavily in small annually returning programmes such as “Girls’ STEM Day”; the effectiveness of such programmes abroad has not been demonstrated in the many countries where they exist (such as Germany and The Netherlands)
• Instead, it makes most sense to strengthen STEM education for all students in primary and secondary education, such as compulsory training in computer science and mathematics in the GCSEs and the A-levels; this will increase the likelihood that girls will continue with STEM in tertiary education and later employment. This should, however, not come at a cost of non-STEM subjects, especially language subjects, which are highly predictive of enrolment in tertiary education.
• The narrow nature of three subjects of the UK A-levels is highly unusual in international comparisons; it makes sense to replace this with the broader baccalaureate such that students are more likely to engage with a wider array of subjects (including STEM) and such that student do not strategically de-select difficult STEM subjects (physics, maths, computing) before they move on to tertiary education (as many students do currently).
Introduction to author
I am a Dutch citizen who lives and works in the Colchester area. I studied psychology in The Netherlands and Germany. In 1998, I was awarded a Ph.D. summa cum laude for my training in psychology, philosophy, and linguistics from the University of Munich. Since then, I have published world-leading research in the fields of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, education, and gender differences. I moved to the UK in 2006. Since 2018, I have been employed as Professor of Psychology at the University of Essex. My work on gender differences in STEM has been covered on radio (including BBC Radio 4 programmes such as the “Today Programme” and “The World at One”), television (including programmes such as “News Night”), as well as in influential international newspapers, such as The New York Times.
In my answers, I will focus on the under-representation of females in STEM.
General note about the definition of STEM
This call does not provide a detailed definition of STEM, which will possibly make it more difficult to compare evidence provided for this call. In one of our recent studies, we have shown that current STEM-definitions used by various organisations and institutions is highly inconsistent (Stoet & Geary, 2022). STEM was originally defined in the United States in the early 1990s, and it was about natural non-organic sciences such as physics, electronics, and mathematics (Stoet and Geary, 2022). I still believe that it is worth sticking to the original “narrow” definition. The definition has seen inflation in some organisations/institutions, for example, by attempts to define psychology as a STEM subject. In my opinion, this type of inflation of the term STEM is mostly caused by strategic reasons made by those running higher-education (HE) institutions. STEM is often viewed as being more prestigious than social sciences or humanities. Some institutions may find a broad STEM definition financially attractive in regard to student-related income.
The downside of this inflation of the STEM definition is that it will be more difficult to monitor changes in the demographics of STEM students/workers over time; for example, increases of women in STEM might be attributable to changes in the widening STEM definition (e.g., including areas in which there are mostly women, such as psychology) rather than to a change in attitudes.
Answers to the specific topics highlighted in the calls
Topic 1: The nature or extent to which women are under-represented in STEM in academia and industry.
The extent of the under-representation of women in STEM cannot be seen independently from the under-representation of women and girls in STEM education. The reason women are under-represented in STEM occupations is to a large degree an issue of a lack of supply to the labour market. Below, I will describe in detail what the extent of this under-representation of girls and young women in STEM education looks like.
Topic 2: The reasons why girls/women are under-represented in STEM
There are multiple reasons why girls/women are under-represented in STEM education. In my answer, I will focus on the under-representation of girls in eligible STEM subjects in schools and young women in university. We and other researchers have studied these reasons in great detail (see references). There are multiple reasons.
A major factor is that adolescent girls express less interest and pleasure in engaging with STEM subjects. This has repeatedly been shown in the data of the OECD-funded Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA, Stoet and Geary, 2018). This difference starts already very early in the educational track. In the Early Years Foundation Stage (ages 0-5) girls typically do better than boys in all subjects, except technology, in which boys and girls scored equally (Stoet, 2019); in other words, girls’ relative advantage in education is less in technology than other subjects early on.
In every single country participating in the PISA programme, adolescent girls were less interested in STEM and things-oriented occupations (such as car mechanic or welder) than boys. Girls, on the other hand show considerably more interest than boys in people-oriented occupations (such as teacher, doctor, or nurse, Stoet & Geary, 2022). In the UK, there are 5 boys for every adolescent girl aspiring to work in STEM; equally, in the UK, there 4 girls for every adolescent boy aspiring to work in a people oriented occupation (Stoet & Geary, 2022). The gender differences in the people-oriented occupations (more women) vs things-oriented occupations (more men) has been observed in numerous studies (for a large review, see Su, Rounds, and Armstrong, 2009).
Interest differences have been studied extensively in psychology, and the gender differences in occupational interest are among the largest gender differences of all psychological traits (Lubinski, 2000) and have been reliably observed for well over a century (for an overview, see Stoet, 2022).
Finally, it should be pointed out that the more gender equal countries become, the larger the observed gaps in boys and girls choosing STEM or young men and women graduating in STEM (Stoet & Geary, 2018, 2022; Lippa et al, 2014). Thus, in less gender equal countries such as Turkey, Algeria, or Morocco, girls are more likely to choose STEM than in more gender equal countries such as the UK or Finland. This is a well-observed and studied phenomenon (Stoet & Geary, 2018, 2022). One of the reasons for this is that in less gender-equal (and often less wealthy) countries, there are greater financial incentives to study STEM (due to its prestige and associated job security).
Based on the above cited research, we can predict that with greater social equality in the UK, the STEM gap will only grow larger, not smaller. This is, as noted, not necessarily a bad thing as it is associated with many positives (such as gender/social equality) – there are good reasons to cherish that young British females are confident to choose subjects they like (such as the many people oriented non-STEM subjects in which females are over-represented).
Topic 3: The implications of girls/women being under-represented in STEM roles in academia and industry.
Not addressed.
Topic 4: What has been done to address under-representation of women in STEM roles.
Not addressed.
Topic 5: What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified.
I will discuss what should be done and what could be done to attract more women into STEM separately.
In this part about Topic 5, I will start with what should be done. The under-representation of women in STEM is not necessarily a problem from the point of view of individual women (for a discussion, see Stoet & Geary, 2022). What matters for individual women (and men) is that they can choose a study and career that matches their interests, their skills, and their general attitudes to issues such as work/life balance and income.
If it would the case that numerous current university students study topics against their will or that students are forbidden by their families to study STEM, then it would indeed be a major social problem for wider society and the government. I am, however, not aware of any evidence for such a situation. In this context, it is relevant to add that in countries which are far more socially conservative than the UK (e.g., Turkey, Algeria, or Morocco), more girls and women aspire and enrol in a STEM study than in Western Europe (Stoet & Geary, 2018, 2022). Thus, there is no good reason to believe that, for example, social conservative attitudes would lead to girls dropping out from STEM studies.
Another issue that should be considered in the context of whether something “should” be done is that the over-representation of females in many university subjects is often ignored out of convenience (subjects such as psychology); this matches adolescent girls’ interest in people-oriented occupations (Stoet & Geary, 2022). It is easy to focus on the topics where females are under-represented, but this makes little sense without considering the topics where they are overrepresented.
For example, around 80% of our psychology students are female (which is also the average percentage for other universities in the UK, as can be found in the data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency). Because there are so many more female than male psychology students, there will be a numerical necessity that there are far fewer women in other fields, especially given that female students are already overrepresented across all university subjects (around 56% of all university students are female, Stoet & Geary, 2020).
My main point here is that there is far too much focus on the fields where women students are under-represented (e.g., computer science) without realising that this under-representation is caused by an over-representation of females in other subjects they clearly enjoy. It makes little sense to only focus on subjects where women are under-represented without also asking why women are overrepresented in other subjects (such as psychology and medicine). Those who aim for an equal distribution of men and women in all university subjects should ask themselves if they are willing to discourage women from choosing subjects women obviously like a lot, such as psychology. It is hard to believe that people find it a problem that many more women than men like psychology – but if that is the case, people need to accept the logical implication that fewer women will be in subjects such as electronic engineering.
That said, the exact percentage of girls/women choosing to study STEM will be determined by many factors, not just interests (see my answers above). Even though no great changes can be made, it is possible that at least some change can be made by changing educational policy. I believe there are a number of weaknesses in the UK secondary education format that limit students’ opportunities to choose STEM in further- or higher education. This is where policy changes can make a difference and I will discuss these in the next session.
Now I will focus on what could be done:
Many European countries have invested considerably in enabling programmes to increase girls’ interests in STEM, but without any notable success. For example, many countries in Europe have had annual “Girl’s STEM days” for many years, but these did not seem to make breakthrough changes. The UN even has an International Day of Women and Girls in Science (https://www.un.org/en/observances/women-and-girls-in-science-day).
It is unrealistic to expect much from such targeted programmes which are restricted to a few days of additional attention to STEM in a girl’s educational pathway. Instead, it would make far more sense to work on including more sustained STEM education in the GCSE and A-level curriculum.
One problem with the UK pre-tertiary educational pathway is the very narrow specialisation, especially during the A levels and Scottish Highers. In the A levels, the large majority of students choose only three subjects. Their scores in these three subjects will determine whether they can enrol in their most desired university; therefore, students are encouraged to make strategic choices, rather than choose in accordance with the skills, interests, and still developing cognitive abilities. For many students, choosing physics or computer science will be seen as a much greater risk than taking psychology (for a review about A-level strategic choosing, see Dilnot, 2018).
There are several reasons and ways to prevent such an unfortunate choosing behaviour. One way would be to ask students to sit A-level exams in far more topics than currently is the case. We already have a working model of this, namely the International Baccalaureate; this model would be beneficial to all students. For female students this will likely mean more STEM and for male students more non-STEM subjects.
Another method is to make more STEM subjects compulsory in current secondary education systems (e.g., A-levels). This is already the case in other countries. For example, in the People’s Republic of China, students sitting the upper stage of secondary education must sit an exam in mathematics. This leads to a relatively high level of competence in maths among female Chinese students (Stoet 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018). My own experience of teaching to Chinese students in the UK is that, indeed, that (on average) these students are more confident and capable of dealing with STEM problems than their UK counterparts.
I would recommend to make both mathematics and computer programming compulsory in either the GCSEs or A-levels to ensure that our students are best prepared for a career in STEM. Increasing girls’ opportunities in STEM will increase the likelihood that they choose STEM and then continue this at university level.
It should be pointed out, though, that such a policy needs to be gradually introduced and should not come at the cost of language teaching; in fact, language comprehension skills are an important factor in determining whether or not students can continue with tertiary education (Stoet & Geary, 2020). The UK is already very unusual in that it is (to the best of my knowledge) the only country in the world where its own native language (English) is not a compulsory subject until the end of pre-tertiary education.
Further, the number of required teachers in the subjects or maths and computer science would unlikely be available. It should, however, be possible to do this in the longer term given that other nations have managed.
Additional relevant points to the call
The call states that “The importance of diversity amongst the research community has been acknowledged by UK Research and Innovation’s Chief Executive, Dame Ottoline Leyser, who said: “high-quality research and innovation needs diversity. You have to have people with different ideas and different backgrounds coming together to create the kind of environment where extraordinary things happen”.”
The claim makes the point that diversity in gender, race, of socio-economic background implies a greater diversity of ideas leading to a higher quality output. This is a point that has been made mainly in the popular media but is not backed up by any serious academic research that I am aware of.
References (alphabetical)
• Dilnot, C. (2018). The relationship between A-level subject choice and league table score of university attended: the ‘facilitating’, the ‘less suitable’, and the counter-intuitive. Oxford Review of Education, 44, 118-137.
• Lippa RA, Preston K, Penner J. Women’s Representation in 60 Occupations from 1972 to 2010: More Women in High-Status Jobs, Few Women in Things-Oriented Jobs. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e95960. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095960
• Lubinski D. Scientific and Social Significance of Assessing Individual Differences: “Sinking Shafts at a Few Critical Points.” Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;51: 405–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405
• Stoet, G. & Geary, D.C. (2022; in press). Sex Differences in Adolescents’ Occupational Aspirations: Variations Across Time and Place. PLOS ONE.
• Stoet, G. & Geary, D.C. (2020). Gender differences in the pathways to higher education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 117(25), 14073-14076. Open access link
• Stoet, G. & Geary, D.C. (2020). Sex-specific academic ability and attitude patterns in students across developed countries. Intelligence, 81, 101453. Open access link
• Stoet, G. & Geary, D.C. (2018). The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593. Open access link.
• Stoet, G. Bailey, D.H., Moore, A.M., & D.C. Geary (2016). Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls. _Plos One, 11(4), e0153857. Open access link
• Stoet, G. & Geary, D.C. (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48, 137-151. Open access link.
• Stoet, G. & Geary, D.C. (2013). Sex differences in mathematics and reading achievement are inversely related: Within- and across-nation assessment of 10 years of PISA data. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57988. Open access link.
• Stoet.G (2019). The Challenges for Boys and Men in Twenty-First-Century Education. J.A. Barry et al. (Eds). The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health.
• Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI. Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological bulletin. 2009;135: 859.
(January 2022)