Why is Engineering such a male-dominated field?

[Mr Rayon]

Anybody got any ideas?

 

What's the psychological reason for this?

 

Are men just better at building things than women or is there more to it?

[ajb]

I think is is due to a mixture of psychology due to our evolution and some practicalities.

 

I am convinced that the male and female brains are typically different. Men seem to be drawn towards science, engineering and similar more than women. I think this maybe to do with our early evolution and that men needed to understand the world and engineer better more effective ways of hunting. Don't misunderstand me, women can be great engineers, they seem to chose not to do it.

 

The other point is quasi-social and practical. Women take career breaks in order to raise a family. This I think can make it harder to reach high status. This is also true in sciences.

 

I hope I have not come across as sexist! That was not my intention at all.

[Mr Rayon]

 

The other point is quasi-social and practical. Women take career breaks in order to raise a family. This I think can make it harder to reach high status. This is also true in sciences.

 

 

Some people have speculated that this may be the reason why most primary school teachers are actually female and not male.

Becoming a teacher serves as practice for when they decide to raise a family for real.

Then again, correlation does not mean causation.

[ajb]

Some people have speculated that this may be the reason why most primary school teachers are actually female and not male.

Becoming a teacher serves as practice for when they decide to raise a family for real.

Then again, correlation does not mean causation.

 

Sounds plausible, even if the women do not realise this is what they are doing. I have no idea how you would prove such a conjecture.

[DrRocket]

Anybody got any ideas?

 

What's the psychological reason for this?

 

Are men just better at building things than women or is there more to it?

 

I have managed several science and engineering organizations. In my experience, on average, the female engineers were better than the male engineers. I suspect that this is because social factors mitigate against mediocre females entering the field.

[thinker_jeff]

Anybody got any ideas?

 

What's the psychological reason for this?

 

Are men just better at building things than women or is there more to it?

 

In the fields of Engineering and Science it seriously depends on the person's ability to resolve logical problems. There are countless data to show that in average men are more capable to do such job than women.

For example, amoung the top 100 chess players in the world, there is only one female so far in history. http://ratings.fide.....phtml?list=men

 

The other point is quasi-social and practical. Women take career breaks in order to raise a family. This I think can make it harder to reach high status. This is also true in sciences.

 

I hope I have not come across as sexist! That was not my intention at all.

 

If you look the juniors younger than 20 years old who are typically not responsible to raise a family, there is still only one female player amoung the top 20 players in the world. http://ratings.fide....ml?list=juniors

 

I believe you are not as a sexist, neither am I.

 

In my experience, on average, the female engineers were better than the male engineers.

 

Maybe it is because "the fewer, the better."

Edited September 14, 2011 by thinker_jeff

[PhDwannabe]

I am convinced that the male and female brains are typically different. Men seem to be drawn towards science, engineering and similar more than women. I think this maybe to do with our early evolution and that men needed to understand the world and engineer better more effective ways of hunting

 

Have any data to back up this particular conviction?

[LawfulBlade]

Hi Rayon,

 

Keep in mind, the field used to be all male, so if graduating classes were equal (50/50 split in the incoming workforce), it would take a substantial amount of time for gender equalization out in the field to present. Currently, about 20% of graduates of engineering at the bachelor's level are female. When broken by discipline, there's a different story being told. Although exact percentages differ by school, about half of biomedical engineer grads are female, about 40% of chemical engineering grads are female, and 30-35% of electrical engineers are female. It decreases from there. Women who choose to become engineers appear to be targeting the most lucrative of the engineering disciplines, with interest in biomedical engineering often arising from exposure in other science classes.

 

Concerning why it's only 20% in general, there's something to be said for ease-of-translocation data. That is to say, if you start college with a vague idea that you'd like to pursue science, you can direct your core coursework into any scientific discipline. And should you wish to switch departments in your 2nd or 3rd year, say from neuroscience into biochemistry, you don't need to redo any of the core classes, as there is overlap. This isn't the case with switching into engineering, however. If you started in any of the physical or biological sciences at most schools, and wished to switch into engineering, you'd have to redo physics, chemistry, and sometimes calculus. (Some colleges make all the BS students take the same core courses, but this is rare.) Statistically, about half of science graduates started in a different program; in contrast, 93% of engineering graduates started in engineering.

 

If we want to change the gender proportions of graduates, we need to convince girls of engineering's appeal in high school. Conversely, it could become a standard approach that only one course sequence is offered for calculus, physics, and chemistry, to allow for ease of switching programs.

 

This is a great question that's under debate. The British Cohort Study strongly argues for economic factors being the primary determinant.

 

On a side note, I'm a little stunned at some of the answers in this thread. Being a teacher has no connection to being a parent; it doesn't prepare you at all for what you're going to encounter. You can't chalk it up to a SAHM thing, either, given that the vast majority of current families have both parents working. Concerning the evolutionary speculation, you realize that you're tacking a speculation onto a speculation there, don't you? Check to see whether your first belief is correct. I'll give you a preview of coming attractions: it isn't, at least in terms of what's being discussed here (aptitude and career selection).

 

Most stunning of all were Jeff's comments. There aren't "countless data to show that in average men are more capable to do such job than women [sic]"...in fact, no data exist showing that men are more logical than women. At the average level of IQ needed to become an engineer, there's no difference in proportion of males and females having that IQ. In fact, graduates of math, sciences, and medicine all have higher average IQs than engineers, and they're all about half female. This sentence was particularly disturbing, as Jeff claims to have it backed by (countless) data. Jeff...in order for you to come to your conclusions, you had to ignore all available data, and manufacture your own. You're attempting to make a statement about the aptitude of women as it relates to their absence in a given profession...by looking at a totally unrelated proportion of female participants in a war game. Straw man, Jeff. Ridiculous. And totally irrational.

[John Cuthber]

Have any data to back up this particular conviction?

This is an assertion of personal opinion

"I am convinced that the male and female brains are typically different"

(while it is stated as a personal opinion, it is also backed up by research on the effects of testosterone (in particular) on brain form and function.)

So is this

"I think this maybe to do with our early evolution and that men needed to understand the world and engineer better more effective ways of hunting"

 

 

And, since the OP asks why there are lots of men and few women in engineering, this "Men seem to be drawn towards science, engineering and similar more than women." seems to be accepted as true. If you want some empirical evidence there were no women in my physics A level class at school. Only one of the 10 of my college mates who studied chemistry was female.

 

So, not really "just so" stories.

[matty]

Traditionally, we're hardly known for being groomed in the direction; it's the reason today a girl can still apply to colleges with more guaranteed success on a 'nontraditional' grant, which makes it more social than psychological at first glimpse but the social implication certainly has potential, then, to selfpropel, if entrench, what already culturally exists as the norm.--The reason it is difficult, I think, ever to make progress... We tend, I mean, to accept the positions we'd been pigeonholed into, by whatever the means, even laying plenty 'blame', then, in the direction of ourselves.

 

I do think men have an innate curiosity not generally akin to women, however, in regards to what makes things tick but most definitely nurtured from early on in a way that isn't usually seen in females, who're gently nudged in other directions more natural to our thinking in the past.

 

Some people have speculated that this may be the reason why most primary school teachers are actually female and not male.

Becoming a teacher serves as practice for when they decide to raise a family for real.

Then again, correlation does not mean causation.

 

Lol, I've thoughtso myself, there'r almost none--males, that is.

Edited October 8, 2011 by matty

[Appolinaria]

Well, it's been shown in studies that men's brains are more adept at visualizing shapes & measurements in their head...

 

We are naturally attracted to those different from us- from how they smell to how they act, what they look like... it's so when we reproduce we have a more diverse gene pool to make more improved babies.

 

I think naturally there will always have to be innate differences between women & men.

 

 

Men aren't any more advanced, they're just different.

 

I also think it's a social thing. You don't necessarily have to be raised in a family where you're told; "you're a woman. you must do this, not do that.." etc... but if you're raised in a family where gender is emphasized, you separate yourself from the opposite sex & their tendencies whether it's subconsciously or not (IMO).

 

The definitions of masculine & feminine are fueled by our natural urge to breed... a strong man can protect a family, a kind & maternal woman can nurture a family.... but I really think this is primitive. We all have ideas & thoughts separate of the influence of our gender.

 

But before I get way off topic, my point is that I think the reason men dominate the engineering field is based on physical differences & society's stereotypes.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Appolinaria

[matty]

Well, I do give a lot of credence to the idea engineering is very much a mathematical, mechanical beast, and therefore the same credence men are more privvied to it by nature, if we're to believe all the data; supposedly men are more mathematical creatures, prone, if drawn naturally to it, where, generally speaking, it's said we have to rise to the occasion of it, hard to dismiss an awful lot of good research has gone that direction.

[ewmon]

Women have a stronger immune system than do men. Men have a stronger ability to metabolize/detoxify toxins than do women (even pound per pound).

 

Women's stronger immune systems aid them during their reproductive years (and probably through their child rearing years as well as with socializing in general).

 

At least some of early human technology/engineering involving chemicals/materials (mining/smelting metals, leather tanning, etc), which suggests that men more than women are suitable to working in ancient "engineering". And ancient technology was more object-oriented work rather than people-oriented work, and it involved more strength (mining metals, blacksmithing, etc).

 

This suggests evolutionary interplay (both ways) between these gender-related tasks and this biological dichotomy.

[Dekan]

Anybody got any ideas?

 

What's the psychological reason for this?

 

Are men just better at building things than women or is there more to it?

 

Suppose we look at "engineering" done by other animals. Such as birds. Many bird species instinctively build nests. This nest-building must surely qualify as a kind of "engineering". So - is the nest usually engineered by the male bird - or by the female bird? I'd suspect that in most species, the nest comes from the male bird.

 

If so, then doesn't that suggest that engineering is a male speciality. The female's speciality, is to utilise the male's engineering product, not to create it.

 

Or to put it more succinctly - male psychology is creative, female psychology is utilitarian. Isn't that biologically sound?

[Appolinaria]

Suppose we look at "engineering" done by other animals. Such as birds. Many bird species instinctively build nests. This nest-building must surely qualify as a kind of "engineering". So - is the nest usually engineered by the male bird - or by the female bird? I'd suspect that in most species, the nest comes from the male bird.

 

If so, then doesn't that suggest that engineering is a male speciality. The female's speciality, is to utilise the male's engineering product, not to create it.

 

Or to put it more succinctly - male psychology is creative, female psychology is utilitarian. Isn't that biologically sound?

 

 

 

Someone just break up with their girlfriend?

[Dekan]

Someone just break up with their girlfriend?

 

Bloody women - aren't most of them just vacuous yadda-yadda-yadda. No wonder Newton stayed a life-long virgin. But you do find the occasional luminescent pearl.

[Appolinaria]

Bloody women - aren't most of them just vacuous yadda-yadda-yadda. No wonder Newton stayed a life-long virgin. But you do find the occasional luminescent pearl.

 

Haha, excellent.

[Scotchmana]

Anybody got any ideas?

 

What's the psychological reason for this?

 

Are men just better at building things than women or is there more to it?

 

Men psychologically have been subjected to heavier labor and so adopted a mentality that better computes physical elements. This phenomenon is not strictly limited to men or true of all men vs women. It is unique to individuals and is a relative explanation intended to help distinguish common differences between males and females.

 

The way it works is that a person (man or women) can be subjected to instances were strong perceptual influences can be driven into the person and produce a generally "male" mentality that becomes acquainted with things that impinge more on the senses. The person after a time begins to ignore any impingement on the senses that does not register strongly enough. Things like "thought", "feelings" and even the color pink for example do not always have a heavy impingement and so the "male" psyche tends to not be able to compute these. Yet a friendly fist into the shoulder is the perfect way to say "hi".

 

Again this applies to men and women. Thou it happens that men generally have been the ones doing the more psychical labor and hence the more male personality. On the other hand, something like an "IQ" test is more thought based. So women have been found to score higher when these two differences are distinct in a culture (men automatically get 5 additional points in IQ tests just for finishing the test so that they tend to score the same as their female counterpart).

 

So back to the original question about why males dominate Engineeing. Because it is a profession that requires a talent in working with physical elements and having an intimate grasp of solid laws. Mostly, men fit this bill. But never be cough believeing women are handicapped in this line of work because you will encounter females that can run circles around their lesser talented male counterparts were natural talent and/or hard work has pushed them to excel. male-dominated field?

Edited November 1, 2011 by Scotchmana

[PhDwannabe]

adopted a mentality that better computes physical elements

This is vague and poorly operationalized. What is a "mentality?" What are "physical elements?"

 

The way it works is that a person (man or women) can be subjected to instances were strong perceptual influences can be driven into the person and produce a generally "male" mentality that becomes acquainted with things that impinge more on the senses. The person after a time begins to ignore any impingement on the senses that does not register strongly enough. Things like "thought", "feelings" and even the color pink for example do not always have a heavy impingement and so the "male" psyche tends to not be able to compute these. Yet a friendly fist into the shoulder is the perfect way to say "hi".

Same story here. Also, would love to see some research to support some or any of this.

 

(men automatically get 5 additional points in IQ tests just for finishing the test so that they tend to score the same as their female counterpart).

I give them. Incorrect.

[Scotchmana]

This is vague and poorly operationalized. What is a "mentality?" What are "physical elements?"

 

There is nothing intended in these words that the meaning found in a dictionary does not address.

 

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/mentality

mentality [mɛnˈtælɪtɪ]n pl -ties1. (Psychology) the state or quality of mental or intellectual ability 2. a way of thinking; mental inclination or character his weird mentality

 

http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/physical

phys·i·cal (fz-kl)adj.

2. Of or relating to material things: our physical environment. 3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

 

http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/elements

elements 1. A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity.

 

Same story here. Also, would love to see some research to support some or any of this.

 

"is a relative explanation intended to help distinguish common differences between males and females."

 

The original poster asked for reasons and this post states one. As for research, it originates from my observations and so I have the research in my head of nearly 200 cases. Is it OK for me to proclaim something? If not, then I guess you can overlook my post.

 

I give them. Incorrect.

I guess you got me there. In the back of my mind as I posted that comment, I knew that many newer tests were being made that I could not account for... older tests yes, newer ones, no. I have removed the comment from my post as well as another line to make my post more acceptable.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Scotchmana

[PhDwannabe]

A dictionary definition is not a scientific operationalization. That is not how this process works. Do you think a physicist can explain the collapse of the wave function by providing dictionary definitions for "collapse," "wave," and "function?" No. Well, psych is a science too. It makes just as little sense here. Try again.

 

As for research, it originates from my observations and so I have the research in my head of nearly 200 cases

Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth. Emphatically, desperately, with every fiber of my being, I scream aloud: this is not research. This is not research. This is the opposite of research. Science is systematic and public. To make claims based on personal, unsystematic observation is to pontificate baselessly. "My observations... research in my head" is worse than worthless, because it deludes and misleads. No. A thousand times no.

 

older tests yes, newer ones, no

Incorrect. Tell me which valid, professionally used psychometric instruments, and which versions.

[mooeypoo]

I guess you got me there. In the back of my mind as I posted that comment, I knew that many newer tests were being made that I could not account for... older tests yes, newer ones, no. I have removed the comment from my post as well as another line to make my post more acceptable.

 

The reason he "got you" here is because you're making definitive statements without a shred of corroborating evidence. You seem to claim a lot about behavior of men vs women. You should be able to find the research that supports it.

 

Anecdotes, memory and interpretation of subjective events are not evidence, not even in psychology. (Jab intended)

Peer reviewed publications with the evidence you need to corroborate your statements is what you need. You can find quite a lot of research on google scholar and in the APA, I suggest you start there.

 

We *are* a science forum.

[PhDwannabe]

Anecdotes, memory and interpretation of subjective events are not evidence, not even in psychology. (Jab intended)

Cute. One or two standard deviations above the cute mean.

[Scotchmana]

A dictionary definition is not a scientific operationalization. That is not how this process works. Do you think a physicist can explain the collapse of the wave function by providing dictionary definitions for "collapse," "wave," and "function?" No. Well, psych is a science too. It makes just as little sense here. Try again.

Ok, that is just funny, this is a thread about "What do you think?". I was trying to avoid anything technical. Most people I come across want the simple version.

 

The formula is simple. A person has perceptions, these perceptions are not just the "five". They include perception of ones own thoughts. Thoughts have a value attached to each. The mind works by assigning a value based on 2 qualities. The first quality is the length of time the thought has occupied the person'a attention. The second is the size/density of the attention that is consumed by the thought. Examples of both are

 

1: A friend you have had for some time will be considered more important then a stranger. Even a old stump the person has known for years and used as a navigational point as a child will be important to the person in latter years.

2. Have you even seen a person that is consumed by an idea? they can't get it out of their head and so it is very important them. Have not seen this? How about a person with a strong chronic pain, again it consumes their attention and thus will be of great importance to them.

 

The person will, especially in youth, establish the importance of things based on these two factors. Take your car, if there is a loud squeal and a very small one you will tend to be more concerned about the loud one. Why? second rule applies.

 

Also anther equation to take into account is that a person will become accustomed to some perceptions and the intensity of the perception. The military uses this in their training. Take a loud explosion, it can be shocking. In a war, to keep troops performing, they do such things as yell loudly in your face, make you run till you are exhausted, anything else they can do to overwhelm you with perceptions so that when that bomb goes off, the soldier is not bothered by it. In training for many things, they subject you to the worst of things so that when it happens you will not be phased. This however has a side effect. The intensity and longevity of this intense training tends to "harden" a person. If you simply talk to these people about their experiences, they tend to use terms such as "intense", "hard" and even "solid". This is not in error, it is in fact perceived this way so it makes perfect sense that these would be described as such.

 

On the other hand, some things come across as "thin", "mild" or "weak". Take a simple question, thought itself and "feeling" tend to register as a low volume perception, "what do you think about what he/she thinks?" is asking a parson to compare two "soft" things.

 

If the person is conditioned to "strong" or "solid" things as being all that matter, he/she will have trouble thinking with something as vague as "feelings" because they are far below the intensity the person is accustomed to. So a person can get so accustomed to intense perceptions that weak ones are assigned the value of nothing. So the question "How do you feel about another person's feeling?" is like asking such a person "How do you (nothing) about someone's else's (nothing)?" Of course the person will get the answer (nothing)! But don't take my word for it, find a "hardened" guy and ask him "What do you think about how he/she feels?" And watch the answer you get! You asked him about nothings so he does not think anything, he does not even think you asked him a valid question! Hold up the color "light pink" and ask him what the color is. He will not want to answer the question. Why? because light pink is too soft a color and does not register at the intensity he is looking for before he considers he has something that has a value that he can think with. Hold up "dark red" and he will be happy to tell you.

 

THis gets into another topic that becomes clear as you examine this. Because the person is looking for things at a range of intensity that he is accustomed to, he will tend to ignore anything outside of this. Take a sign that does not stand out, ask people what it said. They will not be able to answer, many will not know what sign you are talking about. Why? They saw something that was below the intensity they were looking for and gave it a value of "no value". You can test this all you like, take microbes, ask people how they feel about microbes on Catalina island? Most people have never seen microbs and have never been to Catalina island. So you ask "How do you feel about (nothing) on (nothing)".

 

This also works in reverse, people accustomed to a low intensity will see the color "light pink" with vivid clarity. Ask "how do you feel about how someone else feels?" and they will gladly tell you all about it. Yell as loud as you can in their face and it will be very unwanted to the point that all they hear is "blah blah blah blah" because it is too intense. You need to tone it down before they will be able to think with it. Small children are cared for so much that they often can't handle a yelling mad parent until they get accustomed to it.

 

Now we get to an offshoot of research into this area. People that get accustomed to a level of intensity will get so accustomed to it they can have trouble with anything outside of that range. Ask these people to use their imagination to conceive of an object with 1 lbs, 10 lbs, 1000 lbs and so on and you will find people have trouble with objects outside of their range. Even more, they will tend to be uninterested in anything outside of their range.

 

Here we get into the subject of engineering. "Imagine how to hold back 300 millions lbs of water" can in fact be hard for some people to conceive of. To think with 300 million lbs, you need to know how things react at 1 lb, 1000 lbs, 1,000,000 lbs and so on. So if they are unfamiliar with the intensities of things at 300 million lbs, they may find it hard or entirely unable to think with.

 

Males have for some time been for some time exposed to the harder work of the day and so find it easier to think with "hard" concepts. While females have been given lighter work and so the tendency to be interested in "lighter" subjects.

 

... this is not research. This is not research. This is the opposite of research. Science is systematic and public. To make claims based on personal, unsystematic observation is to pontificate baselessly. "My observations... research in my head" is worse than worthless, because it deludes and misleads. No. A thousand times no.

You have a specialized idea of the word "research". It is simply the collection of information with the purpose of deriving an educated conclusion. The formality of the collection process is not what you state it to be. Yet I did a very extensive research into this and feel it is worthy of a post on this forum.

 

Incorrect. Tell me which valid, professionally used psychometric instruments, and which versions.

Oxford University IQ test of 1918. Harvard University IQ test of 1932. Prinston University IQ test of 1948. Yes, all of them are university IQ tests....

[PhDwannabe]

You have a specialized idea of the word "research". It is simply the collection of information with the purpose of deriving an educated conclusion. The formality of the collection process is not what you state it to be. Yet I did a very extensive research into this and feel it is worthy of a post on this forum.

What you're describing is not science. It's junk introspection. Period. It doesn't get us worthwhile therapies, or cancer drugs, or to the moon, or valid sociological observations. It doesn't get us anywhere. How should a layperson who might be reading this easily detect this fact? I'll show you:

 

The mind works by assigning a value based on 2 qualities. The first quality is the length of time the thought has occupied the person'a attention. The second is the size/density of the attention that is consumed by the thought.

Dear anyone who might be reading this: whenever anyone makes a pronouncement that begins with "The mind works by..." and then actually finishes the thought confidently with some short rubric or law... stop listening. Run in the other direction. You cannot, cannot, cannot express how the mind works in any such terms. You don't know how the mind works well enough to usefully sum it up in that manner. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. If anyone tries to, they're making it up. The end.

 

Oxford University IQ test of 1918. Harvard University IQ test of 1932. Prinston University IQ test of 1948. Yes, all of them are university IQ tests....

These are made up. These are not real psychometric instruments. That is not how psychometric instruments are named. Congratulations. You have made them up.