I was glad to see that two of the most prominent links on the National Engineers Week Foundation website were directed towards women. One of their events, occurring this Thursday, is “Introduce a Girl to Engineering” which features events at corporations, universities, high schools, and engineering clubs around the country. If you have a daughter, it might not be too late to get them involved in one of these activities.

The other link covers a topic I’ve written about before on this site, which is the dearth of women in engineering as a career, and the low numbers of young girls who enter engineering programs at universities.  Equipped with a snappy tag line “A New Message for Girls:  Dream Big. Love What You Do,” the link Engineer Your Life discuss “a national messaging campaign designed to reposition engineering as an exciting, rewarding career choice for young women. Anchored by an award-winning multimedia website, EYL features 10 great reasons to become an engineer, streaming video of inspiring women engineers, descriptions of dream engineering jobs, and advice for parents, counselors, and engineers on how to talk to young women about this career.”

Less than 10% of practicing engineers are women, and the report states that less than 20% of the enrollments in engineering schools are women.  This is actually higher than my personal experience, and higher than that experience by my summer intern, who is about to graduate in mechanical engineering.

If you know a young woman who is deciding her career, pointing her to some of the resources will give her additional tools for her choices.  Engineering can be a rewarding, well-paid, secure career.

Society of Women Engineers

=======
This post, Engineer Your Life!, originally appeared on She Thought on February 22, 2011.
=======

Flowtown – Social Media Marketing Application

So many choices!! If you are male.

But do not feel left out ladies, you also have options!!! Online marketer WPromote created “Which Female Tech Influencer Are You?”

Via: Wpromote

Do women really need fashion, celebrities, handbags, and lollipop headed cartoon figures to be inspired to achieve? Are we truly taking successful adult women and turning them into “Bratz Dolls – Silicon Valley Edition?” Do we think so little of teen girls that we think showing them a full variety of successful women will scare them away?

Can you imagine an infographic with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel (Paypal), and Jack Dorsey (Twitter) that includes categorizes them according to their “Favorite Wallet”, “Dream Woman”, “Favorite Hairstyle”, and “Favorite Shoes”??

=======
This post, Oh, The Places You’ll Go . . . As Long as You Are White, Pretty, Thin, and Feminine, originally appeared on She Thought on January 22, 2011.
=======

Donna Mugavero - Ms. Information

How many people have a song written about their awesomeness? Donna Mugavero does. She is Ms. Information. As an alternative to using her name on the internet (“Who could pronounce that!?” she says), George Hrab of the Geologic Podcast (and cohort in the so-called Geologic Universe) suggested she use “Ms. Information.” Donna found this name “hilarious”. It stuck because it fits.

George records his weekly Geologic Podcast (which typically has little to nothing to do with geology but with Geo(rge)-Logic. Get it?) in Donna’s Sheer Brick Studio located in a commercial area of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Donna may be on the scene during the recording but ultimately, she puts up the podcast audio feed as well as offering her suggestions on content and bestowing her artistic expertise to market George’s work.

As I entered the Sheer Brick studio, known as “Geologic HQ”, I noticed the space has no clutter, which is how I suspect Donna manages her day to day world. While her namesake tune refers to her as “So solid, you can mistake her for granite,” make no mistake about the person – she is friendly, warm, genuine, compassionate and someone you want on your team. While she considers herself tenacious, loyal and honest, Ms. Info is the epitome of the totally put together professional.

Getting into the Skeptiverse

The Geologic Podcast began in 2007. It was the beginning of Donna’s involvement in actively advancing skeptical thought to the masses. She notes she was not aware of skeptical genre until they started the podcast. “There’s this whole thing out there and I feel connected to it. Since the podcast started, things have really progressed.”

Even organizations that already existed have benefited. “I wonder where it would be without the Net. It’s the primary reason why people have connected, shared information, and learned that there are others out there who think like they do,” she said.

It may seem odd that the once troubled, industrially dead, steel town of Bethlehem, PA can attract modern, forward-thinking people like Donna and George. But, there must be something here that is attractive to development of many kinds. The town has a vibrant arts community, specialized boutiques and clubs, parks and higher education opportunities. In 1993, Donna opened her own studio, Sheer Brick, in the city to offer design services to large and small companies and organizations.

Upstairs from the first floor studio is her living space. I got to sit on the famous “red couch” to chat with her about her work and ideas about marketing a specific viewpoint to the public. Joining us intermittently was new resident podcat, Linkovitch. Link expressed no hesitation in reclining and allowing his new mom to rub his chest and stroke his feet – an exhibition of trust that I would not attempt on a cat with claws. [For the story of the red couch, check out Geologic Podcast episodes # 148 and 149 from January 2010.]

Getting it done

In addition to Sheer Brick Studio, Donna also designs book interiors for Dark ∅verlord Media, a publishing house created to produce books and other properties for established online personalities. More than that, Donna devotes part of her year to working for local causes. “I try to do pro bono work in my year. So, I have done various projects related to disease or literacy [awareness]”, she says.

As I could guess, having one’s own business takes a huge amount of focus and time. Still, her personal interests include time spent spreading a rational worldview. “[Promotion of ] skepticism and critical thinking is a huge part of my week — making sure that communication is open here at Geologic central”.

A new cause this past year or so has been advocacy for the Bethlehem Mounted Patrol. Yes. Good, old-fashioned policemen on horseback! This is the second incarnation of the type of patrol which was at one time more frequent around cities. “Being a very big supporter of the local police dept and the president of my local condo association, I became aware of the formation of the Bethlehem Mounted Unit not long after they started,” she begins.

“Since my studio is right near the [Fraternal Order of Police] hall, I saw the policemen occasionally and they know of my studio. They approached me and asked if I would do a brochure for them and I did. I’m not quick to say people should have an online presence with different components but I said if you really want to get the word out about what you’re doing, the best thing to do would be to have an online identity that includes a Facebook page, possibly a blog.”

The Patrol’s Facebook page launched in late spring of 2010. In less than 2 months, it had 500 fans. Now, it’s crested 1100 fans. This medium effectively gets out their message about what they do – regular police work (like issuing citations), but there is something more. Donna recognizes, “They are a vehicle of good will. Oftentimes, they are the first meetup that some people have with law enforcement, especially children.” She adds, “I enjoy working with them. They have a shoestring budget. So, I feel I make a difference.”

In December, as cities felt the economic squeeze, the mounted patrol was in danger of being axed from the city budget. To secure support of the unit, she explains, “We started to ask people to write letters to city council.”

At 8:30 one morning, supporters got word that later that night, city council was going to vote on certain aspects of the budget. The mounted unit could be cut. “So we snapped into action. The mounties and I worked all day: they went door to door downtown seeking support.”

Donna spearheaded what the local newspaper called “an aggressive online campaign” that day. She temporarily put her clients on hold in order to spread the word via online forums, posts and notices. She and other supporters mobilized the unit’s “fan base” to appeal to city council members. By that afternoon the local paper reported that the city council took the mounties off the chopping block, citing that officials had gathered stats on the effectiveness of the unit. Donna knew otherwise: “We know that the fanbase maxed out the email boxes of city council.”

This story serves as an example of what local groups can accomplish if they organize, plan and mobilize. “It really was a matter of pointing the way for people to have a voice. It was their choice. The people wanted their mounted unit and they did it.”

I asked her about her work. What is the job that she does for her clients?

“I feel like what I do as a designer is mainly making the message clear, whether it’s a client or an nonprofit organization,” she says. “It’s conveying a message in a clear and appropriate manner.”

Channeling her inner scientist, she explains the initial communication with clients, “If I don’t have any data, if I don’t have any input, I don’t have any output.” So, she asks questions about what they do, what their goals are and finds out things they like. This gives her an idea of where they are coming from. Then, she says, “I give them what they think they want, and show them what they might want.”

In speaking about her studio and career, she says, “It’s part of who I am.”

Ms. Information serves as a conduit for the message. “That’s my job. If you can tell what I’m doing, then I’m not doing the job right.”

As a critical thinker, what does she do about philosophical differences over a client’s message? What if they aim to promote a dubious idea or product? Donna says, “I don’t work on projects where the client is someone with whom I have a philosophical problem. I won’t provide design services for someone who I think is a charlatan. If I found that something I was working on was ‘woo’, forget it, I’m out.”

Critical thinking is for everybody

We talked about the evolution of the skeptical-themed web presence. Skeptical sites have been moving away from the homegrown, old Internet look, to become more sophisticated in the past few years. We both agree that a polished image is important for credibility. Donna observes that an organic, do-it-yourself image no longer automatically translates to “pure and good” or “sincere”. People expect to see information delivered in a professional way, with an intelligent layout, especially if you appeal to facts and rationality for understanding.

A sensitive subject in mixed company of skeptics is the gender issue. She surmises that gender inequality seems to be selective. Gender issues exist, but one is not necessarily going to notice in certain career areas or locations. Relating to our own Skeptiverse she notes, “It’s possible we’re just not hearing from a lot of women. I think there are a lot of women out there who are skeptics; we are hearing from more of them; just not from all of them.”

An important focus might be to not work exclusively on drawing in women but use a tailored message that appeals to a broad audience to become involved. Groups would best consider welcoming people of various skill sets, regardless of sex.

Well, what about personalities? I sarcastically mentioned one might notice some strong personalities in our common circle of who’s who. Does having an outgoing, or potentially abrasive, personality detract from delivering the important message or can it be a positive?

There is a place for everyone, she thinks. “If one has a charismatic persona, it’s part of the attraction.” Yet, a “talent like that needs to be used for the forces of good,” she cautions. “There has to be strong personalities because you need powerful speakers, performers that can mobilize people to action. There is room for people who are charismatic and there is room for those with quiet personalities but have other talents.”

For those that might get wrapped up in their own public relations (such as those in the entertainment industry), Donna suspects such issue will work themselves out. “I think it will be self-correcting. If people become overbearing, their audience will change. If you have any sort of fan base, you have to keep close to you good friends that will call bullshit on you. You can’t have ‘yes’ people but those who will keep you real.”

Skeptics seem to have no problem speaking out. And, we are pretty open when dealing with criticism as long as it’s not destructive. She described how she enjoys when conferences have a diversity of panelists. “Peoples’ approaches, personalities and ways of delivering their message are different. I appreciate when the tone is variegated.”

On the same subject, Donna advises, “I think we have to be inclusive. The message of critical thought is for everybody.”

As one who carefully thinks through her approaches, she advocates giving deliberate thought to both audience and message. “You have to know who you are talking to, why are you talking to them, and what you want to say.”

We came back to this important theme more than once. We both agreed that Desiree Schell’s Skeptically Speaking radio show is a perfect example of inclusiveness. “She asks people to think critically. Yet, what she is doing is inclusive. There is a diverse listener base, but she does not move away from her mission statement. Anyone can listen and find something of value.” And, they are unlikely to be put off by Desiree’s non-confrontational tone.

For most audiences, Donna advocates the now infamous DBAD (don’t be a dick) approach. For example, when speaking to a group that contains parents concerned whether the anti-vaxxer argument has merit, she observes, “There needs to be some gentleness. Don’t ride in there with the flaming sword of knowledge” and expect results.

Audiences value and are affected by emotion. “If we are going to use emotion, we should have science underneath it. But, the science should be tempered in consideration of the message conveyed”. That is, the presentation need not be dry and textbook. That will turn people off.

Ms. Information’s marketing background seemed ideal in which to pose the pressing question ‘How do we deliver our message?’ People might think skeptics are boring and cynical, just out to unweave the rainbow. That’s a mistake. It’s clear to those of us who subscribe to this way of thinking that the rational viewpoint is by no means boring.

Donna’s opinion is, “It’s far more exciting to think for yourself. In some cases, a lightbulb will go on where someone decides, ‘Wait, this is not what I think’. Some people find it liberating. But it could be disconcerting, an initial disenfranchisement, then liberating. This is a wonderful planet. It’s not boring, depressing, dry or fatalistic – it’s quite the opposite. We are able to make the planet a better place. Someone else is not in the drivers seat, we are. It’s scary and exciting.”

Think for yourself

Branding and labeling: the image of modern skepticism

I was interested in comparing what she calls “branding” of a organization or product to what the public sees as “labeling” of people with a rational, skeptical viewpoint. “Branding is defining what the entity or product is and being able to communicate the message that way. The look, feel, message and tone is consistent.”

“Do we repackage ourselves with a different name? I don’t think changing the name ‘skeptic’ to something else is a constructive use of our time. I don’t think ‘skeptic’ has a negative connotation – most people don’t know what it means.”

On the other hand, she says, “I think the word atheist is incendiary. I’m not saying we shouldn’t use it. It is what it is. I’m careful about what words I use to describe things depending on who I’m talking to.” People naturally arrive with an idea of what something is or is not. “It’s impossible for people not to categorize and label.”

To combat this, she tries to be thoughtful. “I’m not out to change what people think or believe. What I ask is that they give some thought to what they think. I might use a gentle nudge or speak quite plainly.”

She nudges people toward critical thought in everyday life. “My mother now checks Snopes” before sending that chain email about an unverified claim.

Ms. Information admits she is a collection of opposite qualities – outspoken and thoughtful, empathic and opinionated, hard-working and indulgent. Each in its place in its time. She encourages us to recognize the value in being creative, charitable, inclusive and focused. She reminds us of the power of the people and a positive image. How fortunate are we to be receipients of her talents and support.

Follow Donna Mugavero on Twitter @MsInformation
Her blog is at http://brickgrrl.blogspot.com

———–

Sharon Hill is a geologist (ironic, isn’t it?) in Pennsylvania who specializes in public understanding of science. She blogs at Doubtful and organizes the Keystone Society for Rational Inquiry Twitter: @idoubtit and @keystoneinquiry

=======
This post, Ms. Information – Communicating the Message in the Skeptiverse, originally appeared on She Thought on January 19, 2011.
=======

This reminded me of related sentiments expressed frequently at critical thinking gatherings of late. Do the work. Get yourself out there. Speak up. Express (politely) the voice of reason. Be the example.

Episode 76 of Desiree Schell’s outstanding radio show/podcast Skeptically Speaking, featured women who served as examples. The audio was taken from the Women in Skepticism panel at Dragon*Con. But, it could have been titled Women in Science, Women in Sports, or Women in Engineering – all historically male-dominated areas. Desiree volunteered some prudent advice: “Ignore the obstacles”. When you focus on the things that stand in your way, they loom too large. It becomes an excuse for inaction.

The demographics of the skeptics community have changed dramatically in the past 10 years. I have been witness to that change. In 2002, I was in the small percentage of women under 40 at the World Skeptics’ Conference in Burbank, CA. But, I remembered how much I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the few distinguished women who were there tell stories of their accomplished lives and research. They had achieved much and I appreciates that.

Personally, I’ve found, both in science and skepticism, that your sex isn’t a hindrance if you produce quality work. You can gain respect based on merit – one is praised and rewarded for worthy contributions.

At my workplace, I’ve often been the only woman in the room at meetings. I choose to be an active participant rather than simply an observer. If there is a task or need, I’m not usually content to wait around for someone else to address it. I’m going to do it myself. That means I speak up, volunteer, and do the work. I aim to apply that attitude outside of work as well. I have to be the change I want to see.

I am reminded of Madeline Albright, who, as the Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton, wrote in her memoirs that she “learned the strength of her voice.” She ends her book by saying that she will perhaps be remembered as one who “helped teach a generation of … young women not to be afraid to interrupt”. This also exemplifies the women on that Dragon*Con panel and many others have stepped up to challenge an idea or claim – to be the change they wished to see in the world.

So, those obstacles? They are still there, for sure. Yet, if enough of us show they can be jumped or sidestepped, we cause them to diminish and we make a difference.

=======
This post, Overlook the obstacles. Women in skepticism, originally appeared on She Thought on September 28, 2010.
=======

Can I rant?

What in the hell is up with women’s clothing? And I don’t even mean the usual rants about how they cost a lot more than men’s or that the Fashion Dictators change the hems and colors every year and we women follow like sheeple.

No. It’s more basic. Why the hell can’t I find any thing to wear?

I’m 50-something, and I work as the director of an energy company in Texas. Our partners and clients are typically oil companies. It’s a conservative industry, and over the many years I’ve been working, I’ve developed a certain style and comfort level.  I like to look professional and tailored – simple cut suits in neutral colors with interesting shirts, or clean-lined dresses. (If I wore cocktail dresses to work, I’d be the simple black spaghetti-strap black in heavy silk, but with a hint of sequins on the hem.  At the beach, I’d be in linen.  Think Audrey Hepburn, if I were a size 1). I also need to look polished to make up for my boss. I mean, he’s a brilliant guy, but before I started working with him, he must have kept his clothes in the dryer until he got ready to wear them, and still never puts a crease in his pants or polishes his shoes. I figure one of us needs to look like we don’t wear our clothes several days in a row, when we’re trying to close multi-million dollar deals.

I don’t like: broomstick or flowing big skirts that make my very pear shape look like the Pyramid of Giza. I am large-breasted, so I don’t want these flowing jacket/sweater/wrap things that were hanging on every mannequin. Can you say “dumpy”? Busy prints give me a flashback to these weird purple bell-bottoms I had in the 60s. I like natural fabrics – linen, cotton, wool, silk. Now, everything is made of plastic. It’s hot and humid in Houston, and wrapping yourself in plastic is unpleasant. Because I’m bumpy, I like structured, fully lined slightly fitted jackets, skirts, and pants, and play them up with jewelry and snazzy stylish shirts.  I love long-sleeved fitted snowy white shirts.

I tend to buy solid neutral suits and then mix them around. I don’t mind spending quite a bit for a simple, good quality item. Last week, I wore my red Austin Reed suit that I got about 1996. I paid $400 for it (at least) but I’m wearing it 14 years later, and it just now looks a bit shiny around the collar. I also have it in black and in navy. I’m able to find suitable suits, but quite often they are sold as sets. Since my top and my bottom are about two sizes different, that doesn’t work, either. For that reason, I also can’t find many one-piece dresses that fit, unless they are gathered or full on the bottom. Again, dumpy and frumpy. And most of them are black or a combination of black. Nearly everything in my closet is either black, some shade of black/gray, navy, or red.  Working a hot-pink-and-green striped jackets into my wardrobe several times a month is a bit harder than working in a black jacket.  At work, when I’m not meeting people, I can wear the equivalent of a guy’s pressed khakis and golf shirt in the summer, slacks and Brooks Brother dress shirt in the winter. But I don’t know what that is, and it certainly isn’t for sale at Dillards. In any department.

From John T. Molloy's 1977 Classic "Dress for Success for Women"

A college student, whose name I won’t mention but she’s a PhD candidate in geology at MIT and her mother blogs on Shethought, told me at TAM this year that I looked very nice and that WHEN SHE GETS OLDER SHE WILL PROBABLY DRESS LIKE ME. Meanwhile, my closet shrinks as I gradually wear out, stain, or use up what I have.

Why can’t women just have a standard ‘business garb’ like men do?

=======
This post, The Empress Has No Clothes, originally appeared on She Thought on September 15, 2010.
=======

As I was reading Naomi’s Engineering Equality post a while ago, I found myself nodding along. Things have changed in the 25 years between her graduation and mine, but many of the issues that come along with being the odd gender out are still around. I figured I would write a post about the reasons women are more likely to leave engineering than men.

So, I went to the University of Alberta (U of A) statistics publications for the past 17 years and crunched some numbers. And now you’re reading a different post.

Based on the published information from the U of A between 1993 and 2009, the women who enroll in the engineering department seem to be as likely, or possibly less likely, than their male counterparts to drop out or leave the engineering department before graduation.  Since 1995, the ratio of women in first year engineering has been about 20%. In second year, the total number of students increases, as some of the smaller universities and colleges in the province funnel their students to the U of A, but the ratio of women drops to 19%. However, after that dip, the ratio of women increases, and women graduating from engineering at the U of A has averaged 22% of the total graduates since 1995.

Now, it’s likely that the change in the percentage of women from year to year is not large enough to be statistically significant. I didn’t get into that analysis. But, there are a few things I would draw from this:

• The dip between first and second year could be because the smaller schools have even fewer women than the U of A, and/or that women leave at higher rates than men between first and second year.
• After second year, women are not more likely to leave the engineering program than men.

Around the same time, I caught up on some back issues of the magazine published by my provincial regulatory body, the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA). The June issue included an Editor’s Reply discussing some of the member statistics surrounding gender. Particularly interesting was that of the women on the member register, only 26% are inactive (voluntary resignation, struck for non-payment of dues, membership expiry, death or transfers, etc). Of the men, 32% are inactive. This difference was mostly accounted for by the different rates of voluntary resignations, and non-payment of dues.

Do women leave engineering more frequently than men? I’m not sure any more. Maybe the women who do decide on engineering have a pretty good idea what they’re getting into, or maybe Alberta just does a good job at keeping them. Women still only make up 14% of the active members of APEGGA, and it’s entirely possible that there’s a huge attrition rate between graduation and professional registration.

Instead of a sweeping article calling for change, I leave you with some general statistics, and a lot less certainty than I had a week ago. But I’m okay with that. That’s skepticism in action.

=======
This post, Engineering Dropouts…maybe?, originally appeared on She Thought on September 8, 2010.
=======

Today’s seven year olds like TV shows featured on Nick, like iCarly and Big Time Rush, about tweens and teens acting goofy and having silly experiences. But, they are fans of artists like Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and the like that have lyrics and videos with sexual references. I still don’t think they really get the adult parts. Some parents disagree (and have apparently forgotten what it was like to be 7).

My seven year old daughter has a best friend that lives across the street. Their favorite activities were making up dances to songs and watching TV together. Unlike ours, her family is heavily involved in their church and are not big pop culture consumers. Recently, this friend told my daughter she was no longer allowed to watch TV shows, listen to pop artists and watch videos (except for Taylor Swift) at our house. My child told this friend that they probably aren’t going to play anymore since they weren’t able to share these things together. Afterwards, she was pretty upset about it and curled into my arms, crying.

This followed an episode where the same parents pointed out other behaviors they found concerning, such as her tendency to exaggerate stories a bit (which they likely considered “lying”) and what I saw as rather innocent versions of “playing doctor”. Whenever these issues arise, I make my best effort to address them with the parents and my daughter. Sometimes she gets punished for behavior she knows is wrong, sometimes it’s just a discussion to help her understand.

I’ve had a growing sense that these parents did not agree with our parenting style. My ultimate aim is to raise independent, knowledgeable, free-thinking children. This is quite clearly NOT their main goal. We let our kids make choices about who they are and set limits we feel are reasonable and socially proper. For example, I don’t allow my child to jump all over the furniture, climb on the kitchen counters and not sit politely for meals. Oddly enough, these neighbor parents don’t peep about that stuff. Yet, they will “interrogate” (their word) their child about situations and freak out over words and innocent actions they feel are not socially proper. Sure, I could have agreed that I would supervise the girls at our house constantly and make sure nothing age-inappropriate occurred, but an “overseer” sort of kills the fun of playing with your friends and limits their creativity, doesn’t it?

Of the four houses on our block with school-age children, only we send our kids to public school. All the rest are sent to religious-based private schools. Of these same households, I am the only mother who works full time. We are the only family that does not go to church. These disparities seemed a bit old-fashioned to me but their choices are their own. Frankly, this has not been as much of a problem as just a nagging feeling that we are simply the odd ones out. I frequently must explain to my kids how other families are different than ours.

Now, it seems to have grown into a bigger issue affecting us and the children. Incidents like this suggest to me that other parents are distrustful of our children and of us. Even though we have tried to smooth things over, I get the feeling they think we are a bad influence. I describe to other parents that I think the kids are experimenting with trying to find out who and how to deal with life’s realities. I try not to inhibit that but, instead, provide them with guidance on what is appropriate. Occasionally, I take a stand and my kids respect that even if they don’t like it.

This latest event has starkly revealed how very different our family is. It makes me sad – sad for the other children who are restricted from real life and all its diversity. Kids seem interested and confused about sex, relationships, race, gender issues, divorce, violence and world events. What kind of parent would I be if I just said, “That’s not appropriate for you to see or talk about,” and then punish them. I’d be irresponsible, I think. So, I chose not to be that. I choose to be upfront and open about all issues from drugs to sex, giving them as much information as they wish to receive. If not now, when will those conversations ever take place?

But, at the end of the day, it can be a lonely feeling being the most liberal parent on the block.

=======
This post, (Conservative) Parents Just Don’t Understand, originally appeared on She Thought on August 17, 2010.
=======

Scientific American asked the question, “Does the US Produce Too Many Scientists” back in February, just after many young astronomers heard the disheartening news on our own field’s job prospects during a special employment session of the American Astronomical Society meeting in January. Basically, there are more new PhDs coming out of grad school every year than there are jobs in academia or other research institutes. Yet, those are specifically the types of jobs that grad school grooms us for.

In addition, a person can go through up to six or seven years after graduate school in a post-doctoral position, where you often help with your advisor’s research, and get paid more than you did as a graduate student… but not much more in the grand scheme of things. In astronomy specifically, it is estimated that for every 4 graduate students coming out with a PhD, there is one faculty job, one job that is outside of the university, but still in astronomy, and… that’s about it. There is no clear answer to this problem, as it likely lies deep within the structure of academia and how research is carried out.

Well… frak.

Things get a bit more interesting if you are a woman. Oh yes, if you are a lady in a STEM* field, you’ve heard of it… the “leaky pipeline.” This is the idea that more women than men drop out of the race on the way to a faculty position. For each sub-field, it is not clear where the leaks lie. In a 2005 report “Women in Physics,” the American Institute of Physics seemed to find a leak somewhere between high school and college/grad school, as summarized by Pamela Gay. A study of geoscientists noted that there is a significant drop somewhere between graduate school and the hiring of professors, and that attitudes towards family and career may be an important factor. The Center for American Progress at UC Berkeley explores the phenomenon extensively, citing that family pressures are important factors for both men and women on the academic track, but more so for women. Once again, the structure of academia is partly to blame for being to competitive and rigidly time-dependent, though solutions are not easy.

Something is going on, but it is not clear exactly what. If many are leaving the tenure-track rat-race for personal reasons, and not due to some obvious discrimination, is it still a problem we should worry about? The academic track is not pretty or easy for most people, regardless of gender. Significant attention needs to be paid to that issue lest we end up with a generation of disgruntled scientists who trained for over a decade for a job that wasn’t there. Surely, there is a way to make use of and properly reward those with something to offer to the sciences, be it research and/or teaching and/or outreach at any level. And if we’re going to do that, then paying particular attention to the concerns of young women in the sciences wouldn’t hurt either.

I’m not going to up and quit in the face of iffy job prospects. Despite what I’ve been told in the past, I think that successful completion of a PhD thesis is a goal in its own right. You learn a heck of a lot about the true nature of science, and yourself, as you slog along through a demanding research project. Whether I eventually get that faculty position or not, or even if I decide it is not for me, I know that I’ve come away with some good skills and insights that I can use. Nor will I ever discourage teaching science to kids and adults of all ages! I’m sure I’ll argue in a future post why a basic knowledge of science is important for every person, but those with a special passion for it should not be dissuaded, because the system is going to evolve, one way or another.

And, finally, ladies, don’t be discouraged if you don’t see as many women faculty as you would like to see. Since the “leaky pipeline” is so elusive, awareness of the situation is probably a good first defense. In this case, I think that mentors will play a significant role in helping we youngsters climb the ladder. So, who wants to adopt me! I’m paper-trained…

*STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

=======
This post, To the Young Ladies, and Men, in Science, originally appeared on She Thought on August 3, 2010.
=======

I was selected by my supervisors to participate in this program. Completion of the program is a plus for future career advancement. Many other women are apparently clamoring to get in. So, I felt I was in no position to decline. I was game for an enlightening adventure and rather curious about it. Why do women need an exclusive program to develop leadership? What are we going to learn? What other people would be there? As we went along, I have learned the answer to those questions (they have been surprising). I also observed how the skeptical attitude that I (naturally) brought to the sessions both benefited and hindered me.

Prior to the start of the program, we were instructed to take the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment. I had done this before on the internet for fun and knew my “type”. The first meeting of our group was about our personal results from this instrument. To their credit, the instructors underscored the value of science in support of this tool and made valid attempts to describe the scientific support. But, they REALLY loved this assessment. Perhaps too much. My profile did sound a lot like me but was I succumbing to the Forer effect or selectively recalling behaviors? I had to dig more.

It turned out the Myers Briggs instrument is a fairly well validated, somewhat reliable measurement of your personality traits. Traits are not “moods” but an enduring pattern that remains stable over time and influences your behaviors. Taken together, your traits make up your personality which, according to Jung, is the collection of preferred ways of thinking/acting that you are born with or develop.

The MBTI was developed by a pair of women researchers in the World War II era. It’s likely the most widely used personality assessment in the world. It is still controversial, especially regarding end uses. This leadership program did not use the instrument in an outwardly inappropriate way.

My icky feeling about the MBTI waned a bit as I got to know the other women in the group. They were obviously VERY different than me in thought, speech, action, values and attention. While the MBTI categorizes personality into 16 different types (which unfortunately can too easily be used as labels), people are more complicated than that. We can’t be put into tiny, lettered boxes. As I spoke to my fellow participants, several times I expressed my opinion that these types seem more like guidelines to help us learn to understand ourselves and others. I’m OK with that as long as it is kept in perspective.

Another week was spent on the “Color Q” system whereby we derive one of four dominant colors and a secondary color depending upon another personal assessment. These colors correlate with the MBTI types. We had a great fun listening to the stories from the founder of the Color Q, doing activities together and having discussions. But, it felt even more “soft” and subjective than the MBTI, like pop psychology or cold readings. Plus, there was more labeling. Oh well, you take out of it what you can. It was a entertaining day getting to know other people.

Last week, we were assessed for our Emotional Intelligence (EI) quotient. Apparently, I’m pretty ignorant on this whole EI thing because I scored low. If this is simply a way to characterize maturity, I’m in trouble. I’m not sure what to think of EI but I’m not feeling it.  After some reflection, it might make sense why my scores are low. Assuming there is something to this (perhaps just interpersonal skills), EI isn’t static – you can develop it through time. I grew up an only child and didn’t interact with a large group of family or friends early on. That pattern remained as I grew older; I felt comfortable with only a small group of friends and did not attempt to socialize much. It’s been a long trek out of that pattern and I credit for this my interest in the science, skeptic and freethinker communities. Attending conferences, talking online and meeting up at the bar have all allowed me to practice skills I never had a chance to try out before. The skills that benefit you in your non-work environment, cross over quite well to career situations as well.

The entire session on EI resonated with me because of Phil Plait’s “Don’t be a Dick” talk at TAM8. There is a solid basis to support acting in a non-dickish way – to be cognizant of your own and others’ emotions and to control potentially harmful impulses. Regardless if this EI assessment was valid, it gave me a reason to reflect on my own behaviors. I could have discarded it as pop psychology but, instead, I set a goal to really work on those skills that have value. If feedback comes your way, why not use it.

At the start of this program, I promised myself I would not be negative. After the first session, I was looking for a way out. I persisted for complicated reasons. Now, I have a few more sessions to go before I “graduate”. I accepted that no matter what you get from your day, no matter what form it comes in, extract whatever meaning from it that you can and apply it appropriately. So, is this an incredible journey? Quite possibly. It can be if that’s what one wishes to make of it.

Thanks to fellow SheThought contributor Barbara Drescher for assistance with this piece.

Sharon Hill is a geologist specializing in policy and regulations (which advance on a geologic time scale). She is a married mother of two daughters and is continually distracted by cryptozoology, the paranormal and anomalous natural phenomena. Currently, she is working on a Ed.M.  in Science and the Public and is interested those who use sciencey paraphernalia to look credible.

=======
This post, Incredible Journey of Self-Discovery?Or Skeptical Red Flag?, originally appeared on She Thought on August 2, 2010.
=======

Funnily enough, it was through the Australian writer John Marsden’s series Tomorrow, When the War Began that I was introduced to the notion of an “Ellie”. Ellie the warrior. Ellie the resistance-fighter. Ellie the sensitive, a leader, resilient in the face of enormous odds.

Ellie in that series is a bold character, determined from the start. She is the leader of a group of disparate country-town teenagers, who take upon themselves the horrific task of becoming freedom fighters and the series details the eventual fallout of occupation and integration by the original invaders and coming to terms with loss. By the conclusion of the series (and the sequence that follows, the Ellie Chronicles) Ellie shows that she faced not only the outcome of a war that changes her life and her whole country but also the realisation that independence and dedication is what it boils down to in the end, no matter if you are a winner or a loser of battles. The war goes on.

Eleanor “Ellie” Arroway in Contact can be seen to be many ways the source of this modern, Australian Ellie. But for her, the war isn’t another country taking over her own. It’s the war to find affinity in others. Dismay upon realising that a girl would have not sensitive men like her father and the sympathetic Billy Horstman around her forever but a majority of ‘real jerks’ and ‘mean and babyish boys’ who fail to share her enthusiasm for the world, both as a child and as an adult. Not a single similar-aged female foil or echo for Ellie in those formative years. Teachers who say ‘Miss Arroway, this is a stupid question. You’re wasting the class’s time.’ Her mother remarries, a man who disdains her ambitions and views her politics as a joke. She leaves to find her ‘Camelot’, in academia.

It’s the war to find acceptance of your work, despite gender stereotypes. ‘Sorry, Miss Arroway, but I think of you as one of the boys.’ It’s the war against science. The challenge to funding, to trust her professionalism and even her dedication by Drumlin, a fellow representative in the search for truth. It’s the continual war to encourage seeking for certainty in a world full of fear, such as that touted by religious fundamentalism:

Look, we all have a thirst for wonder. It’s a deeply human quality. Science and religion are both bound up with it. What I’m saying is, you don’t have to make stories up, you don’t have to exaggerate. There’s wonder and awe enough in the real world. Nature’s a lot better at inventing wonders than we are.

I know that many people who enjoy Contact boldly proclaim Ellie as a role model for any woman considering the sciences. But I also know that I don’t find this novel easy to locate on the shelves anymore. Sagan isn’t on teen’s recommended reading lists, or at least if you do find a relevant study site, it’s for the film. The copy I have, here with me now on my shelf, is second-hand.

If a girl I meet knows of ‘Ellie’, it’s the modern Australian one by Marsden. Maybe they’ve heard of someone called ‘Jodie Foster’ – wasn’t she hunting serial killers in a movie or something? Or she was the actress who had aliens steal her kid from an airplane in that B-grade flick? Whatever.

For me, the desire to write this reminds me that Ellie is in danger of having her message lost; a figure whose story isn’t maintained in modern literature. No, it’s not that woman in science aren’t still fighting real-life battles – thankfully, despite the reams of research into women and science careers that paint a dismal picture at times, I know that the war to have everyone contribute equally will still continue.

But I worry about the potential death of ‘Ellie’s’ as a sympathetic and iconic figure in fiction. The dearth of science heroines in the same mold. As an English teacher, I sought and continue to seek for texts that will keep her and similar characters alive for young women. I find Lyra. I find Hermione. I find Nell. I find Buffy, Trinity, Polgara, Aviendha, hundreds of thousands of peppy side-kicks, sharp-tongued vampire slayers (and lovers) and science fiction and fantasy heroines… but you know they’re not the same. They’re not listening to the stars in quite the same way.

I still seek Ellie. I wonder how many teens still do. For me, the anniversary of Sagan’s death is the anniversary of Ellie’s continuing war. For all of the reasons I give above – because they were clearly Sagan’s war too.

=======
This post, A Girl Called Ellie – Carl Sagan’s Ellie Arroway, originally appeared on She Thought on March 31, 2010.
=======