Why there aren't more women in science.

This is a very interesting article by Phil Greenspun from MIT on women in science or lack thereof on the premise of better paycheck opportunities.

The average trajectory for a successful scientist is the following:

(1) age 18-22: paying high tuition fees at an undergraduate college
(2) age 22-30: graduate school, possibly with a bit of work, living on a stipend of $1800 per month
(3) age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year
(4) age 36-43: professor at a good, but not great, university for $65,000 per year
(5) age 44: with young children at home (if lucky), fired by the university ("denied tenure" is the more polite term for the folks that universities discard), begins searching for a job in a market where employers primarily wish to hire folks in their early 30s.

This is how things are likely to go for the smartest kid you sat next to in college. He got into Stanford for graduate school. He got a postdoc at MIT. His experiment worked out and he was therefore fortunate to land a job at University of California, Irvine. But at the end of the day, his research wasn't quite interesting or topical enough that the university wanted to commit to paying him a salary for the rest of his life. He is now 44 years old, with a family to feed, and looking for job with a "second rate has-been" label on his forehead.[...]

Even a public schoolteacher actually does better than a scientist. Consider the person of unusual ability who takes that bachelor's in science and decides to become a schoolteacher instead of going to graduate school. At age 22, the schoolteacher is earning a living wage and can begin making plans to get married and have children. By age 30, when the scientist is forced to start moving around to those $35,000 per year postdocs, the schoolteacher is earning $50,000 per year. By age 44, when the scientist is desperately trying to switch careers, the schoolteacher is making more than $90,000 per year for working nine months (only the better school systems pay $90,000 per year, but remember that we posited a person with a high IQ and motivation sufficient to get through graduate school in science). Being a public employee and a member of a union, the schoolteacher cannot be fired but may at this point in his or her life begin thinking about a comfortable early retirement and some sort of second career.

(Hat tip from grrlscientist.)

I have a BS in Biology. When I chose my major, I didn't know how mch I'd be making in a career. I wasn't even exactly sure what I wanted to do as a career. With all the sh*tty stuff that's happening with me, I'm quite intrique with Mr. Greenspun observations. However, I do NOT have regrets of my choice. I have deep passion for environmental health. If I could get pay worrying about the environment, I'm cool with it. If I only make $30K a year for the rest of my life, I would be happy with it. I don't think it's all about the money. Hell, I know very well that my friends are out there with their B.A.s making $50-60K per year to start as consultants for credit card companies, or more as investment bankers (I'm happy for you, TL). Meanwhile, I make barely $20K as a technician.

At any rate, Greenspun's hypothesis suggest that women shouldn't major in science in the first place, because of lack of good-paying jobs compared to other potential majors. It's true to some degree, but if you look at it in the long run, who's happier for doing what they love even though the pay is crappy (I'm gonna cry after I finish this post :-) It's the lifestyle you lead that matters. Psychologists certainly suggest that money does not buy happiness. Sure, I've been teased and quietly been ridiculed by my Viet peeps, housemates and family because I've failed to become a success story. My defense mechanism is rational reasoning to myself cuz surely, they're not gonna listen and understand. Despite my professional/financial/personal setbacks, I truly want to see more women in science. We gotta improve the education and we gotta have an economic force that make science cool again. When young girls can look up and appreciate their elders as the wicked shmart people around, and doing science as an everyday job, we'll start making some progress. Here are some names of Women in Science (clockwise from photo: Rosalin E. Franklin, Dorothy C. Hodgkin, Admiral Grace M. Hopper, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Helen S. Hogg, Rozsa Peter, Roger A. Young, May N. Chin, Emmy Noether, Lise Meitner, Lillian M. Gilbreth, Annie J. Cannon, Rosa S. Eigenmann, Ada Byron--Countess of Lovelace, Mary Anning and Sophie Germain. My inspirations come from friends, secret admirers and peers in the science tracks (you know who you are). I don't stereotype.

"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it." -- Albert Einstein

It's a thought-provoking article. You should read all of it and dispute or agree with Mr. Greenspun's observations.