Talk:Women in engineering

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hewentao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bsimm1. Peer reviewers: Bsimm1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dragonroll. Peer reviewers: Tt1887, LuChen2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Araceli.magana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lrodriguez14. Peer reviewers: Stschnell16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

History section of this page vs. "History of women in engineering"
This page has substantial similarities to the History of women in engineering page. The History page has a truncated version of the Statistics section on this page, which seems fine. But the History section of this page is copied almost exactly from the introduction of the other page. It reads like a timeline instead of a summary of the history of women in engineering. Can this be changed to summarize the other page, instead of copying a list of notable women engineers verbatim? Thoughts?


 * I agree!! I am currently (April 2019) on the Wikipedia Communicating Science programme and I think I am going to try to review the various women in STEM pages (including this and the History of women in engineering page) to see if I can improve on the structures and number of pages, and first step would be looking to reduce duplication by cross-referencing. I will put a proposal and share before I do anything! Peepsys (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding to "See Also" list
The See Also section of this page is thin, and does not link to many other pages related to women/diversity in STEM - I am going to add to the list! Thanks. Hlt703 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit of "Factors contributing to lower female participation" section
I noticed that the “Factors contributing to lower female participation” only includes one factor (incentives in higher education), and furthermore the information under that factor does not actually pertain to how incentives in higher education contribute to lower female participation. Also, the final paragraph is poorly written and pertains to other factors, like stereotype threat, which are not listed. Maggie e (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

[Untitled]
Why is there no mention of Goldieblox? Also, the main reason Goldieblox even exists is because too often girls are influenced away from math and science before even reaching middle school.

155.101.8.211 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Are these stats correct?
The ref in the table: Franzway, Suzanne; Sharp, Rhonda; Mills, Julie E; Gill, Judith (2009). "Engineering Ignorance: The Problem of Gender Equity in Engineering". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 30 is quoted to support e.g. the % women to men as e.g. 14.1% in Australia. This is a strange statistic: the normal stat to be used in this sort of comparison would be the % of women in the total. 14.1% women to men if true would be 12.1% women of the total. My guess is that the number should be 14.1% of the total, and the complier of the table has made a mistake. Could someone with access to this source please check? Gravuritas (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I just checked and it looks like poor wording - probably my own doing. The paper reads: "Higher education enrollment statistics for engineering in Australian universities show that engineering, as compared to other broad areas of study, continues to have the lowest rate of female participation at 14.1 percent in 2005.8 In the United States, women made up 19.3 percent of total undergraduate engineering degree completions in 2005–06;9 in the United Kingdom, the total was 9.5 percent in 2005–06;10 and in Canada, 18.5 percent in 2004.11" I renamed the table, hopefully this clarifies things. :) Yaminator  talk 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Women in engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120206161725/http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cwse/S_E_stats.pdf to http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cwse/S_E_stats.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Satistics Section
The data for United States is not very current. https://alltogether.swe.org/2018/09/swe-research-update-women-in-engineering-by-the-numbers/ The data in this link might be helpful as a reference.Dragonroll (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Dragonroll (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Intro
I think the intro is terribly written.

> however many females have contributed to the diverse fields of engineering historically and currently.

This is defenitely true, but I don't see how it could be related to the topic at hand, since it is under-representation, not complete lack of representation.

> A number of organizations and programs have been created to understand and overcome this tradition of gender disparity.

The word "tradition" suggests it is intentional.

> Some have decried this gender gap, saying that it indicates the absence of potential talent.

Is decrying a good way to put it, though? A lack of talent would in no way mean there is no gender gap. It would explain the gender gap.

Of course it might also imply that the gender gap is justified, but it being justified would in no way decry its existence.

> Though the gender gap as a whole is narrowing,

I think this should be sourced in the intro.

> there is still a growing gap with **minority** women compared to their white counterparts.

HOW are non-white women a minority? A minority where?

America and Europe are not the whole word. White people are very far from being the majority.

> Gender stereotypes, low rates of female engineering students, and engineering culture are factors

Again, this should be sourced in the intro.

> that contribute to the current situation where men are dominated in the engineering field.

What does "dominating" mean here?

Because it can have at least three different meanings: men could be the majority, men could produce better results or men could have more power. Although the first one is the topic of the articla, actually all three interpretations make sense to a potential reader, as they would help to explain the gender gap.

--Mago Mercurio (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lopsidedness
I have a hard time not reading someone's opinion all throughout this article. It is taken as fact that women are oppressed in their decision due to stereotyping, and the "supposedly masculine jobs" (from the article, again, not really neutral wording for an encyclopedia, if you ask me), gender roles, more stereotyping, more stereotyping, more stereotyping. There is a very different narrative out there, evenly backed by studies: that women do have a choice (it'd be quite offensive to say they don't), and that the disparity in gender in STEM fields is due to the preferences of both genders. One such study can be found here: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/eaas9899. I'll copy over the conclusion of the publically available structured abstract here:

"CONCLUSION The reported evidence indicates that higher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences in preferences across countries. Our results highlight the critical role of availability of material and social resources, as well as gender-equal access to these resources, in facilitating the independent formation and expression of gender-specific preferences."

The fact that there is no mention of "preference" in the Wikipedia article as of writing, should seriously be reconsidered. ---MewTheEditor (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I read that paper and it has zero mention of gender difference or preferences in careers/jobs. and zero mention of engineering. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Because it doesn't mention "engineering," it can't be relevant to engineering? Doesn't sound like something an engineer would say....
 * 128.189.151.20 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)