User:Phuongcn92/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

11/21/2013

Equity Feminism and the Sciences[edit]

The Pipeline Model was a metaphor used back in the 1980s to describe the lack of women in the sciences. Statistician Betty Verner painted a picture of the pipeline model stating that for any 2000 group of high school boys and girls, in college, 143 boys will major in a science, while only 45 girls will do so. Once committed to a science degree, however, a greater percentage of girls will complete it: 44 of the original 143 men versus 20 of the original 45. As this group progresses to graduate school, the pipeline will yield a ratio of 5 men for every 1 woman with a doctorate's degree in the natural sciences.[1]

The National Science Foundation reported in their Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards that of all the Ph.D.'s granted, 37.6% were awarded to women. The lack of women participation is more severe as one progresses toward the physical sciences, with 42.2% of doctorates granted to women in biology, 28.2% in chemistry, and 13.0% in physics. Virtually no women were granted a doctorate in nuclear physics. [2] Revered physicist Evelyn Fox Keller and Stanford professor in philosopher of science, Helen Longino, "named physical sciences as one of two majors areas in need of further work" with respect to parity between men and women. [3]

Since there has been an increased awareness on the lack of female participation in the sciences, great efforts have been made in improving academic preparation of young girls in mathematics and science. The Pipeline Model, mentioned above, approached the problem from the bottom up, "predicting that if more girls entered the educational end of the pipeline, more women would be turned into credentialed specialists and empty into the science job pool." [4]. This model placed pressure on schools to improve their teaching of science and math so that more people, specifically girls, would become better equipped with the skill set to pursue degrees and jobs in these fields [5]. These concerns have led to the development of three national level plans for reforming science education at the K-12 levels: American Association for the Advancement of Science's Project 2061, the National Science Teachers Association's Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science project, and the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards project.[6].

Professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado, Margaret Eisenhart, however, does not believe the equity feminism method proposed in all 3 plans is the best way to approach the problem. She says "the changes are all compensatory strategies to provide access to science for previously underrepresented groups. Compensatory strategies treat disadvantaged persons ... but only with the aim of enabling them to measure up to a standard already set by the advantaged group" [7]. She believes efforts to increase the diversity of people in science should not depend on new curriculum plans or "outcome measures that focus on conventional science." [8]. In 1994, the National Research Council reported the Pipeline Model to be a flawed approach to the problem, seeing as how it does not provide "insight into how the structure of institutions or the current practices of science need to change before women can comfortably join the ranks of scientists.[9].

Peer editing[edit]

Eva Solorio • Suggestion- use hyperlinks • Suggest to avoid adding phrases and words that may sound opinion bias, look at the edit page for those words The Pipeline Model was a metaphor used back in the 1980s to describe the lack of women in the sciences. Statistician Betty Verner painted a picture of the pipeline model stating that for any 2000 group of high school boys and girls, in college, 143 boys will major in a science, while only 45 girls will do so. The lack of women participation is more severe as one progresses toward the physical sciences, with 42.2% of doctorates granted to women in biology, 28.2% in chemistry, and 13.0% in physics.(instead of using the phrase “ as one progresses” and “is more” I would suggest rephrasing to leave out the tone of opinion. Perhaps use the word increases when reaching a professional level.)Virtually no women were granted a doctorate in nuclear physics. [10] Revered physicist Evelyn Fox Keller and Stanford professor in philosopher of science, Helen Longino, "named physical sciences as one of two majors areas in need of further work" with respect to parity between men and women. [11]

Peer Edits by Gabriela Santana

Reword the first paragraph. It is too lengthy and a little repetitive. My suggestion: BEFORE: The Pipeline Model was a metaphor used back in the 1980s to describe the lack of women in the sciences. Statistician Betty Verner painted a picture of the pipeline model stating that for any 2000 group of high school boys and girls, in college, 143 boys will major in a science, while only 45 girls will do so. Once committed to a science degree, however, a greater percentage of girls will complete it: 44 of the original 143 men versus 20 of the original 45.

AFTER: The Pipeline Model was a metaphor used back in the 1980s to help describe the low account of women in the field of Science. Statistician Betty Verner used the pipeline model to help explain that for a group of 2000 high students, 143 boys will major in a science in college, while only 45 girls will do so. Hyperlink: Professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado, Margaret Eisenhart, however, does not believe the equity feminism method proposed in all 3 plans is the best way to approach the problem.

Less opinion, more book referencing. Example: Since there has been an increased awareness on the lack of female participation in the sciences (more facts needed)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Vetter, B. Professional Women and Minorities. Washington: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, Jan. 1994.
  2. ^ National Science Foundation. Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1995. Arlington, Va., 1997.
  3. ^ Schiebienger, L. Has Feminism Changed Science.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  4. ^ Schiebienger, L. Has Feminism Changed Science.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  5. ^ Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E. "Women (Still) Need Not Apply." The Gender and Science Reader. Ed Muriel Lederman, Ed. Ingrid Bartsch. New York: Routledge, 2001. 14-20. Print.
  6. ^ Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E. "Women (Still) Need Not Apply." The Gender and Science Reader. Ed Muriel Lederman, Ed. Ingrid Bartsch. New York: Routledge, 2001. 14-20. Print.
  7. ^ Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E. "Women (Still) Need Not Apply." The Gender and Science Reader. Ed Muriel Lederman, Ed. Ingrid Bartsch. New York: Routledge, 2001. 14-20. Print.
  8. ^ Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E. "Women (Still) Need Not Apply." The Gender and Science Reader. Ed Muriel Lederman, Ed. Ingrid Bartsch. New York: Routledge, 2001. 14-20. Print.
  9. ^ Schiebienger, L. Has Feminism Changed Science.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  10. ^ National Science Foundation. Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1995. Arlington, Va., 1997.
  11. ^ Schiebienger, L. Has Feminism Changed Science.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.