The ignorance of ‘Girls into STEM’

STEM schemes will not work without real systemic change.

Source: Unsplash

We know that there is a gender gap in attainment throughout education. Girls achieve better SATs, GCSEs and A Level results in almost every subject, and women are more likely to head to university than men. However, the percentage difference of women and men choosing to pursue the majority of STEM subjects is weighted conversely. There are countless schemes within schools and at national levels encouraging girls into STEM, but just how effective are they, and do they ignore a larger systemic issue?

Based upon the experiences of myself and friends at various schools across the country, the general story is as follows: a girl is identified as "academically very able” within her school and henceforth has STEM thrust upon her. She's advised to dedicate countless hours of her time to trips, clubs, meetings, conferences and programmes. And of course she should feel honoured for this privilege. However, the pressure for the “smart” ones to devote themselves to more “challenging” subjects can be overwhelming.

In many cases it has done more harm than good. Girls can feel forced into the subject area, which can then breed resentment and a greater reluctance to actually participate. Of course, there are some who relish the opportunities provided. But for those who prefer humanities and creative subjects (or are just yet to decide whether STEM is for them), it can often feel like they are being shamed for deviating from the prescribed STEM route.

I know perfect results from these schemes cannot immediately be expected. There is no quick fix for any scheme that aims to encourage more girls and women into STEM fields - it will have to be a long term commitment to progress. Yet, pushing STEM as the ultimate priority cannot be the way forward. Obviously, the gender imbalance within STEM-related university courses and occupations needs addressing. Girls should feel as though these pathways are accessible and feasible if that’s what they want to do, but they should not be coerced into it. And these opportunities certainly should not be reserved for those who are identified at 11 years old to be the “elite” few.

STEM subjects are by no means the only ones with a gender disparity in uptake at higher education and professional levels. They are, however, the ones that tend to be dominated by men. It is interesting then that STEM streams elicit closer scrutiny from the powers that be than other fields with similar gender imbalances. I’m yet to come across any scheme encouraging boys to study psychology, teaching, humanities or beauty. This seems to reveal greater systemic issues.

Firstly, scientific fields are considered superior to others: more challenging, more academically rigorous, holding some intangible higher value in society. Secondly, boys and men are therefore not expected to diminish their supposed higher worth by slumming it with the girls in the less highly valued and funded industries.

The stereotypes and internalized misogyny we learn as children - that being brought up in a patriarchal society can lead even devout, card-carrying feminists to have - seem to be at play here. On the surface, ‘girls into STEM’ schemes are in place to tackle stereotypes. In reality, they are often othering and promote stereotype stratification. Numerous studies show young girls to associate men as being more adept at maths than women, and yet considering themselves as on par with their male peers. Therefore, while an individual ‘smart’ girl may see an open door into STEM for herself, the underlying stereotype persists. Consequently, the perceptions of women that these schemes are allegedly tackling continue to thrive.

These are the perceptions that need to be targeted directly. How? Not through shaming alternate pathways and making girls feel obliged to pursue STEM, but through highlighting their potential for success. Drawing attention to successful women in the field and offering the chance to participate in extracurricular activities to all girls, not just those deemed ‘smart’ by some standardised test they took when they were 11. While “chosen” individuals may feel special, their shepherding into an exclusive environment separate from their peers can induce substantial guilt. Surely the whole point of encouraging girls and women to pursue STEM is to promote diversity in the industry. How can this be done if these promotional schemes themselves are not diverse and inclusive?

Time and time again we see “social change” initiatives targeting the symptom and not the cause: such ‘girls into STEM’ schemes are no different. Girls are still being taught that there is a limit to their worth as women - they can only be seen as successful when they pursue paths the patriarchy has determined worthwhile.

We need to teach all children that they can go into any field they choose. Their choices are valid. They can choose more than one stream. They can change their minds. Success is personal and subjective, regardless of gender.

We need to bridge the perceived value gap between STEM and creative industries. The past 18 months have revealed the importance of the creative sector in enjoying our day to day lives. Bridging this gap would mitigate gender gaps in all fields, not just STEM. So while I would love to see more girls taking an active interest in STEM, these schemes cannot and will not work without real systemic change.

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.