Exaggerating negative claims creates a negative feedback leading to unintended consequences.

Hmmm. A glimmer of evidence regarding a speculation I have had. The the conversions of good intentions into good outcomes is strewn with failures (see Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails by Christopher J. Coyne for examples.) This is especially the case when the proposers of the altruistic initiative are separate from the purported beneficiaries and especially so when the proponents are isolated from any of the negative consequences of the proposed policy.

This happens all the time in education where one social ill is exacerbated by the attempt to solve another. See the work of Gail Heriot, one of many scholars who are beginning to quantify the grave burdens and negative outcomes the well intended policy of affirmative action has exacted on it supposed beneficiaries.

In the past decade, there has been a sustained and many-pronged effort to encourage more women into STEM fields. Historically women have tended towards degrees and professions which are academically easier but also less remunerative. Men have gravitated, on average, toward the harder STEM fields in disproportionate numbers (except for Biology where women are the majority). The higher remuneration for STEM fields is one of the prime drivers behind "wage gaps" between men and women.

The initial advocacy research proposed that women were being systematically discouraged from entering those fields owing to social forces, universities, the culture in those fields etc. They wanted the difference in participation to be due to straight up discrimination. However, over the years most of those propositions have been either knocked back or substantially reduced in their assumed predictive power. Most contemporary research has been trending towards the conclusion that much of the differential is a function of innate ability, personal choices, and differences in life goals.

This has been unwelcome news in some ideological quarters. We now have a whole industry that sustains itself on the belief that women are actively discriminated against entering STEM. That belief has spawned commercial programs all across the board in terms of culture moderation, training, special programs, etc.. All geared towards getting young women to make different choices than they otherwise might.

But I have wondered whether Women in STEM advocacy might similarly run into the same types of issues as have been encountered in Affirmative Action and academic mismatch. These include an eventual discounting of the "beneficiaries" - If you are a targeted population who has entered a field with special assistance and/or relaxed standards, then almost inevitably, absent personal knowledge, people will assume that if you are a member of that group, then you are less accomplished (independent of your actual accomplishments).

In affirmative action, we have seen that those programs get candidates into universities where they are otherwise unable to compete. This leads to an excessive rate of dropping out of university, transferring to a school where you are better matched to the capabilities of the other students, and switching from a hard degree in which you are interested into a less demanding degree. There have been numerous studies now, showing that someone interested in mechanical engineering admitted under affirmative action to a prestigious university has very high odds of dropping out (with an associated debt burden that cannot be discharged), transferring or switching to a lesser and less remunerative degree. Left to attend their local, less competitive school, they are much more likely to complete their education and complete it in their STEM field of interest. The good intentions of affirmative action are leading to bad outcomes for the supposed beneficiaries.

I have wondered, might the same dynamic exist in the policies trying to get more women into STEM? I see no reason why that might not be the case.

Which leads to - How promoting STEM fields to women can backfire by Rose Jacobs.

Educators, governments, and nonprofits have put considerable energy recently into pushing women toward the traditionally male, and higher-paying, fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). From T-shirts reading “Future Biologist” and “STEM girls rock” to federal lawmakers whose Inspire Act requires NASA to encourage women in aerospace-related careers, the message is clear: the US wants its daughters in STEM.

But this very message may be driving young women away, according to Georgetown’s Adriana D. Kugler, Catherine H. Tinsley, and Olga Ukhaneva.

The researchers analyzed seven years of detailed demographic and academic data from an unidentified top-tier private US university, examining what might compel students to swap one major for another, and comparing non-STEM majors to STEM majors. The factors included preparedness (as measured by high-school performance), grades, expected future earnings, and the gender composition of classes and faculty.

Of the potential causes in non-STEM majors, the researchers find that only poor grades in relevant courses appeared to sway students significantly. However, contrary to previous research suggesting that women respond more than men do to negative feedback, female students in the sample were no more likely than males to switch out of high-earning, male-dominated majors because of poor grades.

When it comes to the university’s STEM majors, the findings are starkly different. About one-third of the STEM majors were male dominated, one-third female dominated, and one-third evenly divided. The analysis demonstrates that in male-dominated STEM majors, women who underperformed academically were more likely to switch than men with similarly poor grades.

“It takes three concurrent signals for women to be dissuaded from majors more than men,” the researchers write. They argue that in many STEM fields, along with grades and lopsided classrooms, the composition and reputation of STEM as typically masculine sends a signal to women that they don’t belong. Public campaigns that emphasize how few women there are in STEM, plus the actual behaviors of men in these fields, may contribute to this reputation.

“While men may not have a natural ability advantage in STEM fields, the numerous government and other policy initiatives designed to get women interested in STEM fields may have the unintended effect of signaling to women an inherent lack of fit,” the researchers write.

This is early research and I have some skepticism about both the study and some aspects of the findings. Nevertheless, it is the first I have seen which indicates that Female STEM Advocacy might be plagued with the same issues and outcomes as has plagued Affirmative Action.