Women Are Earning Greater Share of STEM Degrees, but Doctorates Remain Gender-Skewed

Women are more likely than men to withdraw from science

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In 2008, for the first time, U.S. women earned more doctorates in biology than men did. But advanced degrees in other core disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) remain stubbornly gender-imbalanced. In chemistry, for instance, women now garner 49 percent of bachelor's degrees but only 39 percent of Ph.D.s. What dissuades so many from further study?

Possible explanations include gender bias, the prospect of short-term postdoctoral jobs that complicate child rearing, and a lack of role models. Female STEM professors are slowly increasing in number, however. “It seems like many of the indicators are pointing toward parity, but at different scales and different rates,” says science education professor Adam V. Maltese of Indiana University Bloomington, adding that fields such as engineering have a long way to go. “That's not going to happen overnight, not in the next decade, and maybe not for the next 20 or 25 years.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE
Read more about gender and science education at ScientificAmerican.com/may2013/graphic-science

John Matson is a former reporter and editor for Scientific American who has written extensively about astronomy and physics.

More by John Matson
Scientific American Magazine Vol 308 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Gender Gaps” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 308 No. 5 (), p. 88
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0513-88

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe