Evalyn Gates advocates a “scientific point of view” for what she calls the problem of too few women in physics. Yet the data she cites suggest gains that appear to exemplify vigorous affirmative action. Disparities in the number of women in the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics are easily explained by objective data. Due to biological differences, significantly more men than women are at the extremes of mental ability. Charles Darwin pointed out the greater variability of males in his The Descent of Man (1871). For example, the ratio of male to female math geniuses is 13 to 1.
Studies of mathematically gifted young women in special programs such as the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth reveal striking sex differences in values and interests. Most of the women preferred careers in law, medicine, and biology where they could work with people and living things rather than with inanimate objects. Even though mathematically capable young women are aware of their abilities and opportunities, they choose these fields far less frequently than do young men. Less than 1% of females in the top 1% of mathematical ability are pursuing doctorates in math, engineering, or physical sciences. Eight times as many similarly gifted males are doing so. The mathematically gifted woman’s first career choice is medicine, followed by law, humanities, and biology.
The relative lack of women in mathematics and certain science fields, then, is due to two factors: the far greater number of gifted males, and the propensity of gifted females to choose other fields.
Ideologies that portray gender differences as tantamount to gender discrimination are troubling because they ignore the facts and threaten freedom of choice. Radical proposals to solve the perceived discrimination would result in hiring and promoting less-qualified women over more-qualified men in mathematics, chemistry, engineering, physics, and computer science.
