Slashdot Mirror


How To Increase the Number of Female Engineers

HughPickens.com writes: Lina Nilsson writes in an op-ed piece in the NY Times that she looks with despair at estimates that only about 14 percent of engineers in the work force are women. But there may be a solution to the disparity that is much simpler than targeted recruitment efforts. "An experience here at the University of California, Berkeley, where I teach, suggests that if the content of the work itself is made more societally meaningful, women will enroll in droves," writes Nilsson. "That applies not only to computer engineering but also to more traditional, equally male-dominated fields like mechanical and chemical engineering." Nilsson says that Blum Center for Developing Economies recently began a new program that, without any targeted outreach, achieved 50 percent female enrollment in just one academic year. In the fall of 2014, UC Berkeley began offering a new Ph.D. minor in development engineering for students doing thesis work on solutions for low-income communities. They are designing affordable solutions for clean drinking water, inventing medical diagnostic equipment for neglected tropical diseases and enabling local manufacturing in poor and remote regions.

According to Nilsson, women seem to be drawn to engineering projects that attempt to achieve societal good. She notes that MIT, the University of Minnesota, Penn State, Santa Clara University, Arizona State, and the University of Michigan have programs aimed at reducing global poverty and inequality that have achieved similar results. For example, at Princeton, the student chapter of Engineers Without Borders has an executive board that is nearly 70 percent female, reflecting the overall club composition. "It shows that the key to increasing the number of female engineers may not just be mentorship programs or child care centers, although those are important," concludes Nilsson. "It may be about reframing the goals of engineering research and curriculums to be more relevant to societal needs. It is not just about gender equity — it is about doing better engineering for us all."

45 of 634 comments (clear)

  1. But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, why do you need to forcefully increase it?
    Why?

    1. Re:But why? by danbuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the US has some insane fascination with everyone being equal, no matter their own personal interests.

    2. Re:But why? by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, are you claiming that universities shouldn't do courses which cater to different interests?

      Correct.

      I didn't refuse to go into Comp Sci because the school wouldn't teach the stuff I was interested it. It was/is my job to use and extend what the University taught so as to *then* do what I want.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re: But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Liberal arts departments already tried that. Now you can take classes like Erotica in Middle English or Grievance Studies, because that's what students want to take, when they would be much better served (and prepared for their future jobs) by Pulling An Espresso Like Pro or Passing Time While Flipping Burgers.

    4. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Because women only receive 2 degrees for every 1 that men get and that number needs to improve! Do you not understand feminism?

    5. Re: But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that the point is he adapted to the needs of the job market rather than require that the job market adapt to suit his interests.

    6. Re:But why? by Merk42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the best sign of variation is when it is the same?

    7. Re:But why? by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are different jobs with different characteristics. Some people like math, others enjoy pruning trees in the park. Some jobs involve dealing with people, other jobs involve dealing with mechanical objects. These jobs have different appeal to different people. The average interests of men differs from women. For instance, a larger percentage of men prefers to deal with mechanical objects, and a larger percentage of women prefer a job that involves social contact with other people. Naturally, these preferences will be reflected in the job ratios.

      Things aren't "fixed", but on average, you're going to see differences. To me, that sounds a lot better than having each job appeal equally to every person in the country.

    8. Re:But why? by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or perhaps universities should only offer courses that you have personally approved???

      You numb-nuts. Universities are *not* trade schools, which only teach what is popular.

      (Well, they should not be trade schools.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:But why? by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They made their course more attractive to women"

      Thus accepting that there is a man/woman inequality or else, you shouldn't need to purse gender-based interests.

      So, on one hand, it is politically incorrect to point that there exists gender inequality but, on the other, it is politically correct to address a gender inequality that you can't point at.

    10. Re:But why? by rioki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, fine, I will bite.

      Now let's say the university alters their courses to be more attractive to women. But the jobs that engineers will not change. You may want to change them, but if they want them to actually achieve something useful, they really can't change. It's like asking painters to be more like actors, so actors can also enter the field of painters; this will not create more painters, since the skill of painting, remains the skill of painting.

      "more societally meaningful" ?! And I don't get it either. My job does not get more societally meaningful; if I don't do my job (Software Engineer, Industrial Automation), you don't get any power to your home, don't drive a car, don't get air condition in the mall and many more things. Sure I am only a small cog in that bigger scheme of things, but without engineers modern society would not exist.

      I would like more women in engineering; many of the colleagues I like to work with are women. And talking with them, the content of their work is not what is holding them back. In some cases it may be social or cultural and in other cases just "math is hard".

      On that note, I demand more male nurses!

    11. Re:But why? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They just made the courses more interesting to female students and they signed up of their own free will.

      Hold the phone! Are you saying that women didn't previously sign up for this course because (gasp) they were not interested in engineering just for engineering's sake? That certainly puts paid to your previous unsubstantiated theories of sexism being responsible for the lower numbers of females in STEM.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    12. Re:But why? by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
      The US Declaration of Independence."

      Well, this article is about the very opposite: since men and women are *not* created equal, we need to act differently if we want to attract woman talent than we'd do to attract man talent.

      In the end, this action is not about egalitarism but about feminism.

    13. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whats mind blowing is you just admitted that the reason women were not joining the courses had nothing to do with sexism, they just weren't interested.

    14. Re:But why? by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [I]t does assert that inherently, no person should be favored over another in how they are treated by the government or, indeed by society in general.

      I don't get that at all. If you read John Locke, as Jefferson did, and as did just about every educated, politically-minded person of the time, you'd know in what sense "equal" is being used. It's a very narrow concept. "All men are created equal" means that there is no man or group of men on earth who can claim a right to be the political rulers of anyone else. It's an axiom against the idea of divine right. It's an axiom against the notion of absolute monarchy. In the context of English politics, it's an axiom against the political primacy of an un-elected monarchy or hereditary aristocracy; an argument for the primacy of Parliament. In the context of American politics, it's a political argument against kings and aristocracy; an argument for representative government.

      The concept is ante-government, or "meta" as we say (in this half-literate age). It comes before government. It's the rationale for what kind of government is right and just, and it's a strictly political concept—not a social one. It doesn't have anything to do with the egalitarianism that you allege. It has nothing to do with society, and certainly nothing to do with the modern concept that styles itself as "social justice."

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    15. Re: But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just had this /exact/ conversation with my wife. She said that the idea presented in this op-Ed is condescending (speaking a civil engineer herself). She said "what, women engineers just aren't getting enough hugs?"

      It sounds like the author is saying that the problem with women engineers is their lack of vision or creativity. If they can't extrapolate "chemical engineering" into "salinity reduction in east-African water sources" then why do we need to create a new major course of study with that name? It's the it obvious that (nearly) any type of engineering can be used to help (nearly) any group of people anywhere in the world?

    16. Re:But why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Equal" doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean "the same" or "identical", it means "equally valued". For example, everyone has basic rights, everyone is treated the same by the law, that sort of thing. It doesn't meant we are all clones or must wear the same clothes or like the same things or think the same way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: But why? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just had this /exact/ conversation with my wife. She said that the idea presented in this op-Ed is condescending (speaking a civil engineer herself). She said "what, women engineers just aren't getting enough hugs?"

      Indeed. I found the op's bit '"An experience here at the University of California, Berkeley, where I teach, suggests that if the content of the work itself is made more societally meaningful, women will enroll in droves," writes Nilsson.' to be incredibly sexist in a number of ways.
      1. Implies that women are more interested in 'socially meaningful' work
      2. Implies, by correlation, that men aren't.
      3. That the current engineering work isn't 'socially meaningful',
      Oh, and news lady, Berkeley isn't 'normal'.

      Oh, and it's not her fault, but remember that at this point men are highly outnumbered at most universities by women. They're the minority, not women.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re: But why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These are students looking to take an introductory course. That implies that they don't know much about engineering, and hence require an introductory course. So it isn't really clear how they would otherwise make the leap from "chemical engineering" to "salinity reduction" without first doing the course, or at least reading the advertising material that now points this fact out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:But why? by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, fine, I will bite.

      Now let's say the university alters their courses to be more attractive to women. But the jobs that engineers will not change. You may want to change them, but if they want them to actually achieve something useful, they really can't change. It's like asking painters to be more like actors, so actors can also enter the field of painters; this will not create more painters, since the skill of painting, remains the skill of painting.

      "more societally meaningful" ?! And I don't get it either. My job does not get more societally meaningful; if I don't do my job (Software Engineer, Industrial Automation), you don't get any power to your home, don't drive a car, don't get air condition in the mall and many more things. Sure I am only a small cog in that bigger scheme of things, but without engineers modern society would not exist.

      I would like more women in engineering; many of the colleagues I like to work with are women. And talking with them, the content of their work is not what is holding them back. In some cases it may be social or cultural and in other cases just "math is hard".

      On that note, I demand more male nurses!

      When a man doesn't want to be a nurse, that's OK because most men would prefer not be nurses.

      When a woman doesn't want to be an engineer, that's because the male dominated field is holding them back, and remedies must be made!

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    20. Re:But why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's nothing wrong with being inclusive, and in fact, any elements in STEM groups which are actively keeping women out or making things hard for them due to sexism should be addressed and punished if necessary. I really wish there were more smart engineering women out there; I would really prefer to work in a 50/50 environment with both male and female engineers (hell, I'd be happier working in an all-female-engineering workplace, with me as either the only or one of a few men; I'd probably have a much better sex life if nothing else, and have an easy time finding a really good marriage partner; lots of people meet their spouses at work, after all).

      The problem is that very, very few women seem to have any interest in the field, and those that do seem to all come from an Asian background. (Not that there's anything wrong with Asians, it shows there's something wrong with westerners actually.) You just can't make people interested in something they're not interested in.

      From what I can tell, this lack of interest comes from the way little girls are raised in our society; parents and schools just don't encourage them in these things, and traditionally these things are seen as "geeky" and derided by everyone. Boys want to be jocks and girls want to be cheerleaders early on. So the boys who are quiet and smart and not-jocks go into computers and engineering, while the girls who are smart go into something like medicine.

    21. Re: But why? by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm actually a-ok with my barista being able to discuss, intelligently, the evolution of literature, arts, and what not vs some kid who just wants to spit in my order, go back home, smoke pot and call me a racial epithet on xbox live.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  2. So its..... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Social engineering?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. So if we redefine STEM... by kick6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To include things that previously didn't fall under that banner, then women will pursue it. Well, ok then. If we redefine humanity to include things that previously didn't fall under that banner, I can marry my dog too. Doesn't make my dog human.

    1. Re:So if we redefine STEM... by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Redefining humanity to be genderless is pretty much the equivalent of social progress for some people.

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    2. Re:So if we redefine STEM... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm wondering what happens to these women AFTER their feel-good-engineering courses are over and they graduate. If the university taught them that engineering is all about saving the world, they're going to be in for a pretty rude awakening when they hit the job market and find out that there are very few jobs available that involve world-saving (and the few that do exist are mostly filled by volunteers or pay absolute shit). Not to mention that corporations and agencies are going to have to deal with an annoying influx of new engineers who think that any project that doesn't build wells in Africa is beneath them.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:So if we redefine STEM... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not so much redefining STEM as redefining societal good. Much of the things they mention are certainly forms of engineering and so fit firmly under STEM, but the problem is they're a tiny subset of engineering, and similarly a tiny subset of useful engineering that the world needs.

      The premise of the argument in the summary seems to be that medicine, healthcare and so forth are all in this arbitrary societal good category, but things like building houses, power grids, bridges, phones, video games, operating systems and so on and so forth are not.

      So the argument seems to be that if we give disproportionate focus to certain areas of engineering application we can increase the number of female engineers. I'm not terribly sure that that helps though as it means the majority of engineering areas are still woefully underfilled, and still have a woeful lack of gender balance.

      So what if we have an increase in the number of female engineers figuring out how to do large scale deployments of some new technology like low power computing devices and methods of charging them and connecting them into poor communities if we've done nothing to solve the electronic engineering shortage which is required to develop the low powered devices in the first place? Both things are necessary, but the summary seems to imply only the former does societal good even though the former necessarily depends on the latter. It's ill conceived nonsense.

      So yes you could do something like that and pretend you've fixed it, but all you've really done is fix it in a very contrived and niche circumstance without addressing any of the underlying reasons for trying to fix it in the first place, like trying to fix gender imbalance across all aspects of the field, trying to fix pay imbalance, or solve the STEM shortage in general. A bunch of females doing low paid engineering work for charities in Africa, isn't going to sort out the pay or gender imbalance when back in Silicon Valley you have a male dominated engineering industry holding all the money. So they've fudged the engineering graduate numbers to look slightly more fair, great, then what? what about the actual problems we're trying to solve in doing that in the first place? Do they not matter providing we've pulled off an adequate fudging of numbers to whitewash the problem?

  4. Replace demographic with "white male", racist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you replace the demographic with "white male" and it suddenly sounds racist or sexist, it always was.

  5. How to increase the number of male secretaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The key to increasing the number of male secretaries may not just be mentorship programs or child care centers, although those are important," concludes Nilsson. "It may be about reframing the goals of secretary research and curriculums to be more relevant to societal needs. It is not just about gender equity — it is about doing better secretarying for us all."

  6. But seriously now by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Insightful
    So all we have to do is get men to stop being pigs, selectively recruit women, completely chance the workplace, and for the coup de grace, only work on things that women might want to work on so we have more women to work on the things they want to work on because the things men will work on do not suit women?

    So what we're saying might be that while men will do what is needed, women might only do what they want to do.

    If you believe this article.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. Soooo.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Designing and building a dam that provides drinking water and electricity to millions is not "societally meaningful"?

    Likewise, designing a weathersat that improves predictions of hurricanes and such is not "societally meaningful"?

    Interesting that the argument being used is that "most of what engineers do does nothing for society, so women don't want to do that sort of thing"....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Soooo.... by fche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They offered no "data", only slurs that the work done by mainstream engineers is not as "relevant to societal needs", that "better engineering for all" is to be provided by female engineers.

    2. Re:Soooo.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These are students, who have a lot of options when deciding what to study. It's not that building weather satellites doesn't help people, it clearly does. All they are doing is framing the same basic engineering in a way that makes the social aspects more obvious and apparent. Focusing on the end, rather than the means.

      I remember seeing adverts for milk when I was a kid. Everyone knew it was good for them, but a lot of kids preferred fizzy drinks. The advert had a couple of boys in football kit drinking the stuff and talking about how it helped them be better players. Suddenly all the boys at my school were drinking milk. That's how life works; there are lots of things trying to get our attention, and messages need to be framed in the right way to have maximum effectiveness.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Soooo.... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes they are making an argument. The author of the article explicitly says:

      What does all this show? It shows that the key to increasing the number of female engineers may not just be mentorship programs or child care centers, although those are important. It may be about reframing the goals of engineering research and curriculums to be more relevant to societal needs. It is not just about gender equity — it is about doing better engineering for us all

      i.e. engineering that is "socially meaningful" is "better engineering" and by logical implication, the reason women were not signing up before is because engineering had no positive social impact and was somehow not good enough.

      This is a load of crap that's highly insulting to men, of course. They're seeing what they want to see in this data: that the reasons women don't do high paid engineering work is because of a fault with engineering rather than because of the choices of women. It's a fundamentally biased, feminist perspective.

      By the way, despite the name this "Development Engineering" course does not have any prerequisites, like actual training in engineering. Their website says students from any department can apply. So it sounds a lot like they've invented some entirely new course from scratch, called it engineering and are now marketing this as a success for getting women to study tough, high earning subjects. But I see no reason why an employer would desire people with such a qualification.

      So here's a different theory: it's just another example of men choosing higher paid work than women. Instead of studying an entirely new subject (specific to one university) which only focuses on very poor parts of the world and thus is likely to have far more constrained earning potential, men choose to do a PhD that has a better chance of letting them pay off their student debt faster (like an actual pure engineering PhD). With fewer men choosing to do the course, the proportion of women rises.

  8. Women in engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Female here. It's in our interest to attract more than half the educated U.S. population into the engineering field. Other countries have no problem doing so, and the engineering slots will go to them. That said, I work with computers because I find them interesting from a purely technological perspective. It seems as though curious people make the best engineers; perhaps if we identify those sorts of girls early on and steer them toward STEM, that would work better than overhauling the entire industry.

  9. Are you serious? by EmeraldBot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, are you really implying that woman will work on whatever they want to, that they don't have the willpower to work on what's needed? That is so masochistic I don't even know where to start. Woman don't want to work on engineering, so be it: as long as the ones that do want to have as equal an opportunity as a man who would want to do it, I don't see the issue here.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  10. Is math more societally meaningful? by jeti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We do have gender equity in math. Is that because math is more "societally meaningful" than CS or engineering?

  11. Re:Furthe proof that men and women think different by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And this is why we have sexism:

    You won't find a male engineer that...

    Apparently average diffrerences between genders mean you can make a generalization about every single member of a gender.

    I mean FFS, it only says in the summary that the society of engineers without borders is 70% female. That's 30% male. Which means those MEN are also doing something which they consider to be a societal good.

    So, please take your ill-formed opinions about me (just because I happen to be a man) and kindly shove them up your ass.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  12. Gender Gap by JerryLove · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For example, at Princeton, the student chapter of Engineers Without Borders has an executive board that is nearly 70 percent female

    This seems like a real problem. How can we get more men into Engineers Without Borders? We need a presidential comission and a lot of news articles !?!

    Or is it only a problem when women are the minority group?

  13. Solution by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Stop giving dolls to girls and cars to boys, it starts on the crib.

  14. Hostile environments by kria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am, gasp, a female software engineer. I work at a defense contractor, and I'm thankful to say that every year there are fewer fossils who think that women don't belong in software, let alone working on military software. The hostile environment is sometimes present in subtle ways, such as important discussions that occur spontaneously in the men's restroom or cubicle artwork that borders on inappropriate. Or, of course, trying to get projects assigned to other, male, engineers. Heck, I once heard a co-worker complain that he would have gotten his promotion if he's been a woman, with an obvious implication since I had gotten mine - ignoring that I've worked here three years longer, am considered more helpful and, oh yeah, _trained him_ when he got here. Nope, obviously, it's because I'm a woman.

    Anyway, Slashdot is a perfect example of said hostile environment, from the subtle ("You're joking, there aren't any women on the internet!") to the cesspit that the discussion turns into whenever the topic comes up. I'm sick of it, frankly, and I really should just stop bothering to read the comments on most stories, causing me to lose out on the occasional insightful nugget, but helping my blood pressure. Someday, it might even be bad enough to drive me away.

    Which was my point. Telling someone that they are imagining there is a problem is highly offensive, really, and tends to make people not want to be around you.

    1. Re:Hostile environments by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hostile environments are a problem, and we should do whatever we can to have those fixed. Having different interests and preferences in men/women for a certain education or a certain job is not a problem.

  15. Would this be published? by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would this be published?

    Ralph Jones writes in an op-ed piece in the YN Times that he looks with despair at estimates that only about 14 percent of teachers in elementary school are men. But there may be a solution to the disparity that is much simpler than targeted recruitment efforts. "An experience here at the university, where I teach, suggests that if the content of the work itself is made more objective and scientific, men will enroll in droves," writes Jones. "That applies not only to elementary school but also to more traditional, equally female-dominated fields like nursing and kindergarten."

    "It is not just about gender equity - it is about doing better teaching for us all."

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  16. "Societally meaningful"? by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An experience here at the University of California, Berkeley, where I teach, suggests that if the content of the work itself is made more societally meaningful, women will enroll in droves

    What truly is more "societally meaningful" than engineering? Engineers design almost literally every piece of technology used by human kind and we pretty much define ourselves by our ability to build tools. It doesn't get more societally meaningful than that.

  17. What, smug engineering jobs? by Tyr07 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Societal good? Like drinking wells? Well first that isn't very difficult.

    Look, we all want to do special cool little projects and make money. None of us want to do boring menial tasks that aren't fulfilling, don't allow us to be smug and feel like we're better than everyone else because we're charging the world.

    Men have been the provider for a long time, so they got used to "Tough shit, you need to make money, do it anyway"
    I'm glad we have equality or well, trying to reach that because women are just as capable as men.

    However some of them are getting a rude awakening I guess. Then they blame society for not having jobs that they want or some shit and it's mens fault. No, welcome to the real world, not all this shit is fun and fantastic like what you were raised to believe.

    I saw a TV show doing undercover boss for waste management. There were no time for breaks to go to the washroom, so you brought a pale for you.

    It was a big issue for a women to have to piss in a bucket or whatever they had to do.
    No one gave a shit at all that men had to do the same thing. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think /anyone/ should have to on a job like that.

    However apparently when women get the same shitty stick men do, it's a sexist thing or improper. Welcome to the world, you wanted an equal part of it. You don't get just lick the icing off and not eat the rest of the cake.