It's Complicated-In Fact, It's Complex: Explaining the Gender Gap in Academic Achievement in Science and Mathematics.

Abstract

Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, and Williams present a comprehensive and well-reasoned review of the theories and research specific to “gender gaps” in academic science and mathematics. They describe the large and diverse body of research that addresses this question as “contradictory,” but I think a better term is “confounded.” To their credit, these authors have helped to unconfound the many variables that contribute to gender gaps in academic careers. Ceci et al. have uncovered several important relationships that advance our understanding of why women and men tend to enter different fields of academic science. For readers who are wondering why they should care about gender gaps in academic science, I offer three reasons. First, there is a dwindling pool of mathematicians and scientists in the United States and many other countries. We are not attracting or are losing talented women who could be leaders in fields that will improve the economy, address pressing societal issues (e.g., problems of pollution), and advance development in health care, planetary science, and many other science and mathematics disciplines. Second, questions about gender gaps in academic science are intrinsically related to broader questions about why men and women predominate in different spheres of life. The way we answer questions about gender gaps in academic science has implications for a wide range of questions about the ways in which women and men are similar and different. Third, implications about numerous public-policy issues flow from our understanding of gender-achievement gaps, including the efficiency of affirmative-action programs based on gender, sex-segregated schooling, child-rearing practices, and family-friendly work policies.