PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Psychological Science· 2018Q1

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

Gijsbert Stoet, David C. Geary

Short summary

In countries with higher gender equality, the gap between male and female STEM degree enrollment widens, despite girls performing equally or better in science and having the capability for STEM study.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Girls perform similarly to or better than boys in science in 2/3 of countries.
  • More girls are capable of college-level STEM study than enroll in it.
  • The gap in STEM degree enrollment between men and women increases with national gender equality.
  • Girls' and boys' relative academic strengths (science vs. reading) correlate with the STEM graduation gap.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading ( N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys' science achievement and girls' reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls' and women's engagement with STEM subjects.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Psychological Science, 2018 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Safety Research

Safety ResearchSocial Sciences