How much does being a white female help in graduate school admissions?

[BlueRobin]

Thoughts on this? Is it true that women need lower GPAs/GREs than men need in order to be admitted to top schools because women are underrepresented in the STEM fields?

[ratlab]

Not to be rude, but it is really quite pathetic that this question is even being asked.  You are not going to be held to a lesser standard because you are a woman, and why would you want to be?

[Queen of Kale]

I think there are enough qualified women in STEM that the standards need not be lowered.  On the other hand, it may help when you apply for NSF funding, especially if you have tried to help other women get into STEM (which many of us STEM-ladies feel passionately about).

[Loric]

I think the whole women and STEM thing is fascinating, though a bit crappy in and of itself.

 

I do believe that if a man and a woman are equal in stats in a STEM field then they're more apt to take the female applicant. I dont think that's right. However, no one said life was fair. I come from theater where people are constantly denied work based on traits that have nothing to do with ability.

 

I do generally think of STEM as a "postive action" or "up with people" type buzzword that it's a bit funny people regard it so seriously. Like positive action and up with people, it'll be outdated in a few years and the people with te STEM t-shirts are going to feel a bit silly.. Why do you need an acronym that basically means "not arts/humanities" anyways?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Loric

[TakeruK]

I think the whole women and STEM thing is fascinating, though a bit crappy in and of itself.

 

I do believe that if a man and a woman are equal in stats in a STEM field then they're more apt to take the female applicant. I dont think that's right. However, no one said life was fair. I come from theater where people are constantly denied work based on traits that have nothing to do with ability.

 

If you think everyone who have the same stats should be treated equally (i.e. an ideal meritocracy), then I would suggest for you to read this post on the Women in Astronomy blog: http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-reverse-discrimination.html and think about if you think a meritocracy would actually work in the real world. I personally do not think so, but I think this is a topic that is of much debate in academia!

 

I think the key point of that essay is a powerful analogy, which I will paraphrase. Imagine you have a marathon race where everyone who is born in March gets a time penalty right off the bat. If you have two racers finishing with the same time, their stats would say that they are equally good racers. However, if you learn that one of the racers was born in March and thus accomplish the same thing with a disadvantage, would you still say they are equally good racers?

 

I do generally think of STEM as a "postive action" or "up with people" type buzzword that it's a bit funny people regard it so seriously. Like positive action and up with people, it'll be outdated in a few years and the people with te STEM t-shirts are going to feel a bit silly.. Why do you need an acronym that basically means "not arts/humanities" anyways?

I am not certain why you think STEM is "positive action" or "up with people". I agree that it is a "buzzword" in the sense that it is a manufactured acronym that is catchy and easy to say. But unlike most buzzwords, I do think "STEM" has a clear meaning to everyone who uses it. Until I learned "STEM", I found myself repeatedly having to find awkward phrases to mean all fields related to science and engineering (I would argue that technology and math counts as part of science and engineering, but I think they added the T and the M to make a nice sounding acronym). 

 

I feel like your last sentence is just trolling but I'll respond to it anyways. By that logic, why don't we just call the arts/humanities as "not science/engineering"? Also, not everything that is not arts/humanities would count under "STEM" (e.g. business? law? library sciences? education? some people would also consider social sciences separate from the arts and humanities too but they aren't traditional STEM fields). 

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

I do believe that if a man and a woman are equal in stats in a STEM field then they're more apt to take the female applicant. I dont think that's right. However, no one said life was fair. I come from theater where people are constantly denied work based on traits that have nothing to do with ability.

 

 

It's not that I don't sympathize with the opinion, but if all else is truly equal, why not make a decision in the pursuit of overcoming institutional oppression? It's not as though a less qualified woman is being chosen over a more qualified man in the scenario you propose.

[Queen of Kale]

I just wanted to give a vigorous head nod & a thumbs up to TakeMyCoffeeBlack - but of course I'd already hit my quota of positive votes for the day.  But since I'm already typing let me just add that I agree with both ideas that:

1) given the perceived equality of a man & a woman in science at any level it's likely the woman worked harder to get to the same place

2) if everything truly is equal there is still inequality in the system AND IT'S NOT BETTER YET, only ~24% of STEM workers are female

and now I'm just going to add this:

3) having more women in STEM fields isn't only good for women, it's good for everyone.  In the same way that having more male teachers for younger children isn't only good for men.