IN 1957 two anthropologists, Margaret Mead and Rhoda Metraux, surveyed
schoolchildren on their ideas about scientists. Boys were asked what kind
of scientist they could imagine themselves becoming. Girls addressed themselves
to what kind of scientist they wanted to marry. . .
Any consideration of women’s increased participation in science has
to keep in mind that educational context, in which the mothers and fathers
of the forthcoming generation of scientists grew up. If such a division
seems unthinkable now, it is at least partly because girls and women are
now expected to answer the call of their country and go into science. Women,
particularly young women, have been identified as a rich source of scientific
recruitment because their actual participation in science is so far below
their potential. At every level of education, to doctorate and beyond, women
now comprise one third or more of total numbers. But not in science.
In 1987/88, similar numbers of young women and men left British schools
with two or more A-levels, the qualification for entry to higher education.
But while 26 per cent of the young men passed two or more science and maths
A-levels, only 11 per cent of the young women did so.
The 103 000 women at university made up 44 per cent of all university
undergraduates in 1988/89, according to the Universities’ Statistical Record.
But women accounted for only 27 per cent of all physical science students,
25 per cent of maths students, and 11 per cent of students reading engineering
and technology (see Figure 1). The postgraduate figures are the same. The
number of …