THE WELLESLEY NEWS STAFF EDITORIAL

According to a recent article by Christopher Drew in the New York Times titled "Where the Women Are: Biology," more women than ever as of 2011 are majoring in fields related to science and technology. Within this area, the highest concentration of women study life sciences, particularly in the field of biology. 

The article claims this trend exists because women have "historically been interested in subjects that were less math intensive and that had goals of helping people." In choosing these subjects, however, the article states that women are unknowingly limiting their job options and salary prospects. Jobs within this field are intensely competitive and (with the exception of the medical professions) not always highly compensated. While this information is certainly striking, it does not serve as grounds for women to reconsider their area of specialization. 

Nonetheless, these facts do bring up significant issues to consider. The first issue lies in the possibility of an existing correlation within the framework of disproportionate average earnings between women and their male counterparts. 

Even though one must look at men and women working in the same positions within the same fields in order to truly gauge an unfair gap in earnings, the possibility that it is a woman's fault for receiving a low salary is still a strongly circulated argument in the analysis of average unequal earnings between genders.

In fact, according to an article by Laura Fitzpatrick in Time magazine, the differences in salary are partly "because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. The most-educated swath of women, for example, gravitates toward the teaching and nursing fields." The life sciences are, according to this view, viewed as a stark example of that fact. The statement that women are, by nature, drawn to fields that help people and, by extension, pay less than others, lies at the true heart of the matter. One must consider how valid this statement is: are women naturally drawn to these fields, or do they flock to them because of a mistaken (but historically well-founded) belief that these career choices actually expand their possibilities for success? 

The expectations for women to engage in jobs that include nursing or teaching are still strong. So do these expectations in fact limit women from pursuing other career options that may provide a more solid living?

Yet even if a significant correlation between these two factors does indeed exist, should it affect a woman's choice of major or career path? In the end, the impact depends on each individual woman's priorities. 

For people choosing majors solely based on the expectation of a future high salary, the recent trend of articles about major and salary correlations might convince them to reconsider. But if the decision to major in biology or related fields is founded on a true passion for the subject, these facts, while important to consider, are not definitive. While the importance of salaries must not be disregarded, women must consider many more factors in their choice of career.

And ultimately, although competitiveness and low salaries undoubtedly narrow the field, in no way do they render it impossible to penetrate. These factors merely indicate that a woman must be prepared to work harder and face harsher competition for the ideal research or teaching jobs in biology than in any other of the sciences. Women must balance possible job uncertainty with their passion for the field before deciding to commit their lives to this purpose. But this is not a dilemma that pertains solely to women or even to majors in the life sciences.

According to U.S. News, for Wellesley students in particular, approximately 11 percent of the Wellesley population is majoring within this limited field of life sciences. Yet without a clear percentage of the number of pre-Med students within this 11 percent, it is difficult to say how many Wellesley students will ultimately be forced to face the challenges of this possibly confined career path. Still, even outside the life sciences, many, if not most, Wellesley women will eventually have to narrow their career prospects because of a desire to pursue a certain field. 

After all, the New York Times article is quick to point out that even these unlucky women will, on average, earn more than women in the humanities. While these types of statistics must inevitably influence major or career choices, we cannot allow for them to have significant impact on our decision-making process.