This fall, there was “complete gender equity in all [science] courses,” but looking at the data over a five- to 10-year span, this would not be the case, according to Patricia Russell, Chair of the Natural Sciences Department. In the past, there has been notable gender disparity in upper-level science courses, defined as any course whose level is 500 or greater. No such disparity exists in lower-level science classes. Of the 359 students enrolled in upper-level science courses this fall, 52 percent were males while 48 percent were females. Both the chemistry and biology departments had a larger percentage of females enrolled in the upper level courses, containing 53 percent and 57 percent females, respectively. However, males dominated the totals in the upper-level physics courses, making up 77 percent in these classes. In terms of female enrollment in advanced physics classes, Clyfe Beckwith, Instructor in Physics, said, “If anything, we are ahead of the national average, but not by enough.” Beckwith added that females are just as capable as boys, but they just choose not to take the physics classes. He believes that all Phillips Academy can do is provide more encouragement for girls to take physics. Russell said that another part of the solution is having female “role models” teach the upper-level physics classes. In the fall, three of the six upper-level physics teachers were female. One theory as to why fewer females enroll in upper-level physics classes is the “self-perception of interest and ability on the part of females,” Russell said. The topic of gender balance in the math and science classrooms was raised during the science department’s departmental day on October 2. The meeting took several days of planning by the department chairs. One reason Russell chose to discuss this topic was because of the national attention that the issue is receiving. “As division head, it is important to me that we are proactive and not reactive,” she said. In the national circuits there have been various claims that males are inherently better than females at math and science because of brain differences. Leonard Sax, author of “Why Gender Matters,” made one such claim, writing, “Boys have a brain-based advantage when it comes to learning math.” However, Russell said, “I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there about the male and female brains – there are indeed brain differences in men and women – but none of them account for any difference in why girls or boys would be better at math or science.” Russell mentioned that it is very important for the science department to educate boys and girls about such stereotypes. During the departmental day, Russell presented science faculty members with a few articles to discuss concerning the topic of gender in science. One of these articles written for boston.com by Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barnett said, “We shouldn’t believe the increasingly popular claim that boys and girls think differently, learn differently and need to be treated differently.” This article sought to debunk the stereotypes about males increased aptitude in the math and science fields versus female’s increased ability in verbal skills.
