---
title: "Women in STEM"
chunk: 8/11
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:22:08.521064+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

==== Clustering and leaky pipeline ====
In the early 1980s, Rossiter put forth the concept of "territorial segregation" or occupational segregation, which is the idea that women "cluster" in certain fields of study. For example, "women are more likely to teach and do research in the humanities and social sciences than in the natural sciences and engineering", and the majority of college women tend to choose majors such as psychology, education, English, performing arts, and nursing.
Rossiter also used "hierarchical segregation" as an explanation for the low number of women in STEM fields. She describes "hierarchical segregation" as a decrease in the number of women as one "moves up the ladder of power and prestige." This is related to the leaky STEM pipeline concept. The metaphor of the leaky pipeline has been used to describe how women drop out of STEM fields at all stages of their careers. In the U.S., out of 2,000 high school aged persons, 1944 were enrolled in high school fall 2014. Assuming equal enrollment for boys and girls, 60 boys and 62 girls are considered "gifted." By comparing enrollment to the population of persons 20–24 years old, 880 of the 1,000 original women, and 654 of the original 1,000 men will enroll in college (2014). In freshman year 330 women and 320 men will express an intent to study science or engineering. Of these only 142 women and 135 men will actually obtain a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, and only 7 women and 10 men will obtain a PhD in science or engineering.

=== Psychological ===

==== Lack of interest ====
A meta-analysis concluded that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people. When interests were classified by RIASEC type (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional), men showed stronger Realistic and Investigative interests, and women showed stronger Artistic, Social, and Conventional interests. Sex differences were also found for more specific measures of interest in engineering, science, and mathematics, where men favored these interests.
In a 3-year interview study, Seymour and Hewitt (1997) found that perceptions that non-STEM academic majors offered better education options and better matched their interests was the most common (46%) reason provided by female students for switching majors from STEM areas to non-STEM areas. The second most frequently cited reason given for switching to non-STEM areas was a reported loss of interest in the women's chosen STEM majors. Additionally, 38% of female students who remained in STEM majors expressed concerns that there were other academic areas that might be a better fit for their interests. Preston's (2004) survey of 1,688 individuals who had left sciences also showed that 30 percent of the women endorsed "other fields more interesting" as their reason for leaving.
Advanced math skills do not often lead women to be interested in a STEM career. A Statistics Canada survey found that even young women of high mathematical ability are much less likely to enter a STEM field than young men of similar or even lesser ability.
A 2018 study originally claimed that countries with more gender equality had fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Some commentators argued that this was evidence of gender differences arising in more progressive countries, the so-called gender-equality paradox. However, a 2019 correction to the study outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women's share of STEM degrees". Harvard researchers were unable to independently recreate the data reported in the study. A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis.