2/02 mechanical engineering: editorial

editorial

Changing Old Stereotypes

By
John G. Falcioni, Editor-in-Chief

Used to be, when I was in school, that boys were good at math and girls were better at English.

At least that's what people told me.

Seems like since those days, everyone has gotten smarter, and you don't hear those things said as much anymore. However regrettable, some old stereotypes die hard—and not everyone has put those notions behind them.

Surprisingly, some studies claim that, in fact, girls may very well be better at language arts courses than boys and that boys score better in math. This rather odd trend is visible as early as grammar school, on through high school and then in college. At universities, males seem to rank better in subjects such as engineering, where math dominates the curriculum.

The reason certainly isn't tied to some special gender gene that makes one sex smarter at some things than others. It is attitudes that push social behaviors.

If girls are encouraged to write more creatively than boys, then it's not surprising that they'll feel most com-fortable around language. If girls have fewer female role models in areas such as engineering and science than they do in, say, teaching or liberal arts curricula, certainly they'll feel more kinship to those professions in which they are "supposed" to excel. No news flash here.

Fortunately, groups like ASME are doing a great deal to change these old stereotypes by ensuring that sufficient role models of both genders exist for female and male students. Other initiatives focus on ensuring that teachers in K-12 encourage all students to follow natural aptitudes in the areas of math, engineering, and science.

A recent article in Forbes bolsters the notion that, gender notwithstanding, those who excel in language skills
often don't do as well in math. And if you've ever edited the raw copy of some engineers, you'll agree that the converse is also true.

Liberal arts graduates control the media, which helps the prose, but generates endless faux pas, according to the article, "Why Journalists Can't Add." Scribes aren't whiz kids when it comes to simple equations, let alone understanding comprehensive technical principles.

"After many years of observing media colleagues at work, I would say most of them were standing behind the door when quantitative skills were handed out," said the author of the article, Dan Seligman.

He goes on to illustrate his argument with examples from some of the country's top publications, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Forbes magazine itself. Even William Safire, a bright and erudite Times columnist and guardian of the English language, has some trouble with numbers.

Certainly, no one is immune from making an occasional gaffe, whether an engineer, an accountant, or a writer. Forbes reminds us that it's not gender that's at issue, but interest and training. Many times just following a career path that interests you can make you stronger in some areas than in others.

Something as simple as teaching a little girl to be proud of how well she can add numbers is a great morale booster that can have a wonderful long-term outcome.

Yogi Berra, that old-time baseball great and king of the malaprop, further reminds us that not all men are great mathematicians. Yogi once remarked that baseball is 90 percent mental—the other half is physical. Then again, how many of us can hit a baseball over the Yankee Stadium fence?