Search News


Browse Archives

News

Diversity in Science

August 26, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Katie Lee, 22, loves surgery -- performing it, that is. Studying biology at Grinnell College, she discovered that the procedure gives her "intrinsic joy."

Yet she views the logical next step, a career as a surgeon, with uncertainty. As a woman, she's been told she lacks the "don't feel, just do" personality that seemingly characterizes the male-dominated field. As an Asian-American, she is considered a minority on campus but not, others have told her, in the sciences.

Lee, who graduated in May, spent four years confronting those obstacles as a member of the Grinnell Science Project, which has encouraged women and members of minority groups to pursue science and engineering since 1992. The Iowa liberal arts college has since seen double-digit leaps in the number of traditionally underrepresented students in those fields, which the project's directors attribute to their outreach programs, revamped curriculums and new laboratories.

An average of 45 women a year earned science degrees from Grinnell during 1990-2, according to data from the Office of Institutional Research. That average jumped to 71 a year during 2006-8, a rate that outpaced the growth in women enrolled overall. The increase means that nearly every year since 2000, the number of female science graduates has matched or surpassed that of their male counterparts.

While minority students who major in science are still relatively few -- there were 25 out of last year's class of 408 -- the number has steadily grown over the years. The average number of those students per year during 2006-8 was double the average per year during 1990-2. That growth slightly outpaced the 44 percent increase of minority students overall.

Starting in the late 1980s, some faculty noticed that women and members of all racial minority groups were strikingly absent from biology, physics, chemistry, computer science, math and related departments. "The problem was that many minority students were interested in careers in the sciences, particularly professional careers ... and they would come in with a lot of enthusiasm to try and major in these fields and then run into all sorts of [academic] difficulties in the first few years," said Mark Schneider, a physics professor and the first director of the Grinnell Science Project. "They ended up changing majors to something outside of the sciences and actually doing fine and graduating from Grinnell."

Several incidents, including sexual jokes made by male researchers in her lab, have caused Lee to question her surgery aspirations. "It's hard to become a female surgeon just because you're in this social environment where it's still male-dominated, it's still a field that is in many ways masculine," she said. "I've thought about that and whether I'd want to go through that. I don't know."

One of the Grinnell Science Project's major components is a pre-orientation week for incoming female or minority students with a demonstrated penchant for science. The campus invites 60 to 90 students to arrive before classes start in August, familiarize themselves with the campus, meet science faculty and attend mock courses. The week is meant to give them a head start on feeling at home, said Jim Swartz, a chemistry professor. "When the rest of the new students arrive on campus, rather than feeling like they are marginal here, [participants in the program] are actually the experts," he said.

Professors have also restructured introductory courses with the intention of making them more accessible generally, which they say has fostered a welcoming environment for women, minority and first-generation students as an effect. For Clark Lindgren, a biology professor and former director of the Grinnell Science Project, that course has been Biology 150. Officially introduced in fall 2000, the semester-long introductory course must be completed by aspiring biology majors before they advance. Students learn by employing research techniques -- from reading scientific literature to designing experiments -- in sessions that blend lecture and lab work. No course can substitute for Biology 150, not even AP Biology.

"For everybody, this is new and it provides a kind of leveling of the experience for all of the students," Lindgren said. "So it's not disenfranchising certain students who have had a certain background and didn't have the same opportunities to be exposed to more traditional biology."

Similarly, Schneider, the physics professor, departs from the traditional format of three one-hour lectures and a three-hour lab session per week. His version of introductory physics consists of three two-hour slots that combine lecture and labwork, with a focus on contemporary themes including quantum mechanics, thermal physics and relativity.

While he noted that it is "difficult to know for sure what is cause and what is effect," Schenider said he has observed a dramatic increase in the number of women and minority students studying physics. In the late 1980s, there would only be one or two women among the department's graduates every year, and a minority student every five years, he said. Now, he said, the graduates are 40 percent women and include a few minority students annually.

Looking across the nation, Grinnell's situation is hardly unique. Women earned 58 percent of bachelor's degrees in 2006, but only 21 percent of physics degrees and 20 percent of engineering degrees, according to the National Science Foundation. In addition, underrepresented minorities -- not including Asians -- earned just 16 percent of all bachelor's degrees in science and engineering in 2004.

Domestic minority students make up a little over 19 percent of Grinnell's student body overall. Daria Slick, director of intercultural affairs, said that while the college has not experienced racial tension, its rural location lacks the cultural diversity of cities such as Chicago. She added, "As a person of color myself, I know from my own experience -- and I believe this happens at whatever institution an individual attends -- of course there's a culture shock, there's just that initial transition period of being out of one's comfort zone."

Coming from Texas, Desi Romero, 19, adjusted to Grinnell by participating in the science orientation program. An aspiring chemistry major who wants to study soil preservation in China, he said he chose the college for its intimate class sizes: "You can have eight to 12 people at a table. That helps a lot in classroom discussion, where it's very engaging, almost like eating at a dinner table and discussing something."

Those lab tables were built during a $60.6 million-renovation of Grinnell's main science center, starting in 1997. The project made the laboratories smaller, added movable tables and chairs and created open lounge spaces -- all changes that Swartz, the director, said were intended to invite a diverse array of students to the sciences. "It's easier to sit down at a table and work in a corridor than having to open a door and work in a room where you feel like you might not belong," he said.

For women and minorities to feel at home in a classroom, they must be engaged in issues they can relate to and use their knowledge to help their communities, said Joan Lorden, a neuroscience professor and vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She chairs the campus's Council on University Community, charged with leading diversity efforts and promoting understanding of related issues among faculty, students and staff. In addition, she said, students tend to feel like they don't belong in science if they don't have mentors they can relate to: "They don't see as many women or underrepresented minorities running laboratories. To the extent that role models matter, that's a big issue."

Sandra King, a 2008 graduate of Grinnell who will begin a Ph.D. in chemistry at Yale University this fall, said she would not have double majored in chemistry and math had it not been for faculty support. "Having met a chemistry professor at the GSP barbeque, I felt comfortable making an appointment with him, and he helped me plan a course schedule that would allow me to keep on track for either the chemistry or physics major," she wrote in an e-mail. "I then became enthralled in chemistry, and four years later, I am currently a chemistry graduate student."

As for Lee, the biology student, the future is less clear. She is considering teaching English in China for a year; dreams of surgery hover in the back of her mind. But should she forgo the latter, she said, it doesn't mean that programs such as the Grinnell Science Project have no value for her or students like her. Quite the contrary -- they're more necessary than ever.

"I get upset when I run into people that don't see race as a problem, don't see that there's any point to a program like GSP," she said. "I've met people who are against this, like, 'Everything's equal now, everything's OK.' That frustrates me."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Diversity in Science

  • A couple of legal points
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on August 26, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • I am sure that others will point out why programs like this are dubious as a policy matter, so I’ll limit my comments to two legal points.

    First, if this program were racially exclusive -- that is, say, open only to members of “underrepresented” racial and ethnic groups -- it would clearly be illegal. The Supreme Court’s University of Michigan decisions said that, if race is weighed, there must still be “individualized consideration,” and a mechanical rule that awards points based on race, let alone one that bars some students from being considered at all because of race, is not giving “individualized consideration.” The fact that the Grinnell program is open to women of all races, and first-generation college students of all races and both sexes, makes it somewhat more legally defensible -- although, obviously, race still is being used quite mechanically, and there remains a host of policy objections.

    Second, toward the end of the article there is a quote that invokes the “role model” justification for racial preferences. You see this all the time, which is odd, because the Supreme Court rejected this justification a long time ago, in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986). And rightly so. As Justice Powell wrote there, “Carried to its logical extreme, the idea that black students are better off with black teachers could lead to the very system that the Court rejected in Brown v. Board of Education.”

  • Grinnell Program
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mthematgics (emeritus) at Gargantuan Statge U. on August 26, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Grinnell's program for encouraging women and certain minorities to major in the sciences may be well-intentioned, but it reposes, I think, on false hopes.

    There are some fields, notably mathematics and the intensely mathematical scientific disciplines, that simply require raw talent. Without wishing to speculate on where it arises, it is clearly something that those who have it manifest by the time they enter a college or university. I don't think it can be made to bloom overnight through cagey pedagogy. Those efforts, it seems to me, often simply amount to dumbing-down in disguise, especially when an implicit "quota" system is in place. To put it bluntly, I doubt one can teach quantum mechanics and relativity successfully merely by being a kindly and indulgent professor. One needs students who are capable of assimilating, rather rapidly, key ideas from linear algebra, differential geometry, partial differential equations, and the theory of operators on a Hilbert space. Likewise,, theoretical computer science demands some knowledge of combinatorics as well as the theory of computability and the like. Needless to say, requirements like this are even more exigent for a serious math major, that is to say, one who aspires to something beyond high school teaching.

    Crafting courses merely to augment the number of students bearing certain social tags who get to call themselves physics or math majors will not magically induce the intellectual qualities mentioned above, anymore than a user-friendly music course concentrating on a pop repertoire already familiar to students will bring forth serious musicologists or composers. Indeed, such an approach will probably, in the end, set students up for frustration and disappointment when, finally, they have to confront difficult ideas in undiluted form head-on. At that point "raw talent" makes itself felt most strongly.

    The ultimate point is to encourage more young people to become scientists, period! Ours is a culture whose K-12 system often has the opposite effect, especially in its reluctance to single out especially gifted students for an enriched curriculum and accellerated development. Prospective scientists with genuine talent and the glimmerings of enthusiasm must be given every kind of encouragement, programmatic and informal, without worrying overmuch about gender and racial nose-counts. It goes without saying that women and racial minorities should not have to face barriers created by social prejudice--but neither should male European-Americans. Unfortunately, the ethos lurking behind the Grinnell program is, however unintended, just such a barrier.

  • Learning
  • Posted by Not Quite So Fossilized , Libraries at Small Midwest College on August 26, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Observation (empirical data) supports the intuitive and savvy physics professor's choice of offering an alternative way to learn about the subject that he teaches. This is not kindly and indulgent, it is knowing about teaching and being motivated to do what is necessary to make sure everyone has the chance to learn and excel. It may not be how some professors are comfortable teaching, but that fact doesn't make it second rate, nor does it even begin to have anything to do with dumbing down. It is good practice. Teaching has changed continuously since Aristotle and Plato. If you take the time to look at the offereings of colleges even over a hundred year period--very little is as it once was. And that happened a long long time before the Grinnell Science Project was initiated. I'll also add, that the professo from Gargantuan University may be correct in some instances, but it isn't necessarily reluctance that prevents students having enriched science learning experiences in K-12, it has a lot to do with the way we do or do not fund our schools, the way we pay our teachers, and the incredibly inequitable public school options available to students across the country. It is not an even playing field within individual states or across this country or even with in individual cities. There are many advantages worked into the educational system, some are taking place before a student gets to college, some don't kick in until a student is fortunate enough to get into college. Colleges are places to learn and develop. If you are already ready to go as a scientist--move right on to graduate school

  • Purposes and inclusiveness of GSP
  • Posted by GSP Alum , Minnesota Attorney on August 26, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • I was invited to attend the GSP, then called the NSP, when I enrolled at Grinnell in the mid-nineties. I was tagged as someone interested in a career in science, but whose background suggested I might fail to carry through and earn a degree in a scientific field. I am a white male.

    As I understand it, I was invited because my parents were divorced and had never attended college. The program, unless it has changed, considers a number of factors besides gender and minority status, including socioeconomic need, that are markers of a student who might be deterred by a variety of traditional barriers to succeeding in the undergraduate study of science. It is not a program that exclusively benefits women and non-whites, and therefore does not resemble the straw-program Mr. Clegg describes in the first paragraph of his comment. Grinnell rightly prides itself on a diverse student population, and they are well beyond using "diversity" as a synonym for mere racial diversity.

    And there is no "quota" system, as suggested by Fossil. As it turns out, I did not earn a science-related degree. Fossil might say I lacked the "raw talent." But I would nevertheless credit the program with contributing to my success as an undergraduate generally, and therefore my ability to seek, obtain, and succeed in my graduate-level education. The psychological benefit of providing a subset of new students a coherent, diverse social network and a "sneek-preview" of campus life cannot be overstated—and it is not something that practically or logically could be provided to all new students, so Grinnell should be lauded for directing its efforts at those who stand the most to gain from the experience. Even the program's failure (to turn me, against my will and despite my lack of raw talent, into a research scientist?) produced a successful outcome for myself and for the school.

  • Missing Good Students
  • Posted by KimBruce , Prof, Computer Science at Pomona College on August 26, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • One of the frustrations of trying to increase the number of women in the sciences is that, at least in CS, we tend to get only those women who are at the very top of their class. We rarely get the average or below average student. What "Fossil" is missing is that we are losing talented students who either don't try our courses or start out and then get discouraged and move somewhere else. Some of this is misinterpreting average grades as telling them to go away and a general feeling of not being welcome. We won't have succeeded in developing equity until we have the same percentage of weak and average majors among women as we do among men (and then we'll get more attention by even more of the very bright women).

    An interesting phenomenon is that in Eastern Europe there seem to be a higher percentage of female science majors, and moreover we do much better with Eastern European women who come here. Puzzling and frustrating!

  • Rebuttal
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on August 26, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • "Not Quite So Fossilized" apparently accepts the Lake Wobegon theory of cognitive capacity--all the children are above average. However, in the real world it is impossible for everyone to "excel", almost by definition. In the mathematical sciences, in particular, if you haven't the knack for the subject going in, no amount of ingenious pedagogy will confer that gift on you. That's not to say that there are no "late bloomers", but merely that in those cases, we see instances of individuals hiding their light under a bushel for one idiosyncratic reason or another; the light was always there, however.

    For forty years, I taught at a large institution with, perhaps, 80 or 90 math majors per year; in that time I saw very few--around a dozen in all, I should say--go on to do graduate work with a doctorate in view and faair prospects of success. This, mind you, was at a fairly decent place where science majors typically scored around 700 on the math SATs. That, unfortunately, does not suggest real mathematical talent as mathematicians or theoretical physicists would define it.

    By way of contrast, I went to an "elite" university as an undergrad, where, as a first year student, I took a couple of graduate courses, plus a nominal "sophomore level" course for math majors that was harder, in fact, than those. (This course, which I took the first time it was given, is still famous/notorious for its intensity, as taught that year.) My three roommates were all math majors; all of them are now in the National Academy of Sciences (an honor to which I could never think of aspiring, since, although I have professonal level talent, I'm not a genius in their league.) Of course, this reflected the extreme selectivity of my school, which had its pick of students with obviously stellar ability in all sorts of fields, from mathematics to playwrighting to musical composition.

    NQSF, I suggest, doesn't really grasp the level of ability (I'm tempted to say "innate ability", but that opens up a can of worms) needed for success in intensely mathematical disciplines. I agree with NQSF that students in this country are poorly served by our K-12 system--but that means all students, including those in affluent school districts with a reputation for good schools. Those with average ability don't learn much; those with superior ability are, in various ways, discouraged from developing them to the full (unless they're excellent at football or basketball!)

    I agree with GSP that clever college teaching can awake intellectual curiosity and academic dilligence in students formerly indifferent to such things. It can prepare them for successful careers in any number of fields and awaken them to a lifelong appreciation for learning, art, and high culture. All praise to the teachers who succeed in doing this! But this is a matter quite apart from a program ostensibly designed to produce serious scientists. If a project nominally dedicated to that purpose succeeds, for the most part, in motivating students to take academics seriously, but does not really breed a generation of scientists, it has, in some strong sense, failed. One must ask, point blank, how many superstring theorists or algebraic geometers or experts in complexity of computation the Grinnell program has turned out. I suspect the number is quite small.

    KB asks for more (female) "average" students in his computer science program. Without wanting to be condescending, I note that comp sci is a field broad and varied enough to accommodate many levels of ability, from geniuses to journeymen. So, in fact, was the math program in which I taught, where the majority of students aspired merely to high-school teaching. But if we want creative, high-level scientists, we're not going to get them from the pool of "average" students, female, male, or anywhere in between.

    Why foreign-born women, even students of no great distinction, are more willing to become science majors than their American-born counterparts is an interesting question. Partly, I think, it's merely the superior science education, compared to that in the US, found even in relatively "backward" countries; this takes some of the mystery and anxiety out of the subject. But, to indulge in some off-the-cuff pop sociology, I think American women are still enmired in the idea that marriage will soon follow graduation, and that the establishment of an independent career still lies far in the future; why, then, make one's studies more intensive and difficult than they have to be?

  • Women in STEM fields
  • Posted by Thomas , Professor, Electrical Engineering at UD on August 26, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • My 2 daughters both graduated in STEM fields in June. The eldest got her masters degree in Chemistry from Ohio State (3.8 GPA), and has a great job as a Food Scientist. The youngest got her bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Cincinnatti (3.97 GPA, highest in her major), and is going for her MS and PHD in North Carolina. No favors needed, none granted. To me, diversity in STEM field admissions means we should set a quota for morons and imbeciles; obviously, they are all in politics or humanities departments.

  • Women in science
  • Posted by Shoshanna Coon , Associate Professor of Chemistry at University of Northern Iowa on August 26, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • I teach an accelerated general chemistry course and physical chemistry at a comprehensive university. Women are well-represented in my classes, and dominate some of them. For example, out of the 20 students in my accelerated general chemistry course this semester, only 6 are men. That's typical for that course, which is not just for chemistry majors, but is open to talented students of any major who have a good chemistry background. Usually a little less than half the students in our physical chemistry sequence, where virtually all the students are junior/senior chemistry majors, are women. About half of our graduating chemistry and biochemistry majors are women. And this is with no special program to encourage women in chemistry.

    From my advising of the incoming chemistry majors during summer orientation, this statistic: Out of about 25 incoming students interested in chemistry or biochemistry in summer 2009, 19 of them were women. Does it make a difference to their eventual academic career that the first chemistry professor many of them meet is a woman? I don't know.

    One last statistic: All the scholarships our department awarded to incoming freshmen this year went to women. Was that because our process was biased toward women? No, it came down to two things--most of the applicants were women, and none of the men we invited to interview responded to the email. But I can definitely say that the female applicants, as a group, were academically stronger on paper than the male applicants, as a group.

    Does it make a difference that there are 3 tenured/tenure-track women in our 14-member department? Or that there have been women chemistry professors and long-term instructors continually in our department since the late sixties? Maybe. But I know my male colleagues also do a fine job of mentoring all students, women and men alike. I attribute our high percentage of women students and graduates to three things: 1) A university, department and faculty culture that values undergraduate education. 2) Our department employs large numbers of our majors as lab assistants and encourages as many students as possible to do undergraduate research, so that our students feel part of the department. 3) Perhaps women self-select a comprehensive university for any number of reasons.

    The point I'm making, and I know this is not news, is that the women coming into college are academically just as strong as, if not stronger than, the men. And the women are more "on the ball" generally regarding applying for scholarships, study skills, and the maturity to not flake out with the new-found freedom of college. The pipeline is there--the high schools are doing a good job of not discouraging women from pursuing careers in science. So we in higher education have to look at ourselves. What are we are doing that may discourage women from continuing in science? How are we portraying science as a profession that may make it less attractive to women than to men? And finally, are we paying enough attention to all undergraduate students, women and men alike?

    The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by the University of Northern Iowa.

  • Fossil, you aren't allowed to say that!
  • Posted by DFS on August 27, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • (Just a minor point, Shoshanna Coon. It takes 30 or more to qualify for the Normal (Gaussian) distribution, not less than 30. If less than 30, as you probably know, one must look through the prism of the Student distribution.)

    Fossil, how dare you even think that your forty years of actual experience even begins to compare with various meta-analyseis of Whatever-We-Think-Is-Relevant data?

    Don't you know that the last forty years, or so, of your life is to be irrelevant? Mature, dude (or, dudette)!

    Of course you are right, and all other such proselytizations be damned!

  • What's the Goal Here?
  • Posted by Mike on August 28, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Fossil,

    You might be 100% correct in what you say about innate talent. You have far more experience and knowledge in this area than I do. But I don't see anywhere in the article that says that Grinnell is trying to create an elite cadre of future members of the National Academy of Sciences. It's strange to criticize this program by complaining that it will never produce the second coming of Paul Erdos.

    Then again, maybe they will. You underestimate Grinnell's quality. A study by the NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/) found that Grinnell ranks #8 in the proportion of its graduates who go on to earn PhDs. It's ranked above Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and many other higher-profile schools. It certainly fits that "elite" status that you grant your own alma mater.

    The academic world is a culture unto itself - a culture not shared by all America. Not every student with "raw talent" will be born into a family that values higher education and understands the academic culture. It's not a coincidence that Paul Erdos' parents were mathematicians, or that a strikingly high percentage of college faculty are the children of faculty. If our goal is to help each student reach his or her potential, and all students are coming from a diversity of backgrounds, then students will require different kinds of assistance.

  • Posted by Asha on August 28, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Thomas,

    You must realize that the environment (you being a professor, their contact and exposure to the importance of higher academic learning) that your daughters grew up with might have had a positive affect on their GPA, learning ability etc.

    Its great that your daughters are doing so well and they deserve to be praised (just like anybody with 3.7 GPA should be praised) but your statement "No favors needed, none granted" suggests that their background and exposure played no role in their the development of their ability to succeed well.

    Some students might have families that do not support their decision to go on to higher education, or from families that might be able to support them emotionally but do not have practical means of supporting them (helping with improving application essays, buying expensive GRE or SAT books, tips to improve learning skills). Its a little disheartening to think that you are so oblivious of the role privilege and advantage plays in entering and succeeding in higher education.

  • Posted by FL Resident on August 28, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I myself was an alum of the Grinnell Science Project last school years and I would like to point out the the main focus of the program is to serve as a pre-orientation program to students with similar interests. To be honest the program is not as diverse as they make it seem I valued the program more for the professor and student connections. A great experience, however it is not one I would deem critical for one to pursue an education in the sciences.

  • Why pressure women?
  • Posted by sg , Former at High School teacher on August 31, 2009 at 10:15pm EDT
  • Tell me again why we want more women in fields that women haven't exactly been racing to get into? I know many highly educated women, married to similar men who promptly dump the career that everyone assured them they wanted so they could stay home with their children. It seems as soon as they have dutifully met society's expectations, they then choose whether to stay in their career or be home with their family. I know women who hold all levels of professional credentials in traditionally male fields who have quit to be traditionally female and stay home with their kids. I don't think we need to discourage women from sciences, but there is no great imperative to encourage them either, unless we foresee some impending male talent shortage.