A Better Way to Get More Women in STEM

Ada Lovelace (1815-1852): English mathematician and
the first computer programmer

There is a lot of misinformation about why there are fewer women in STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Math) fields. To keep this post brief, I propose ONE solution: introduce social sciences sooner.

Women and men have different interests and those differences matter. In general, men are more interested in things (cars, rockets, guns); women are more interested in people (volunteer work, group fitness, social dance). (In improv theater, men tend to care more about object work and women are better at characters.) Some of these differences are innate, so let us accept them and work with the gifts nature endows.

Few women (even those strong in mathematics) are interested in LC circuits or nuclear fission, but many are interested in global poverty and adolescent development. Instead of requiring all women and men to study only Earth science, biology, chemistry, and physics, high schools should offer political science, psychology, sociology, and economics as well. In addition, high school research programs should include these social sciences.

Although the physical and social scientists strive to understand different phenomena, they must all know the basics of the following subjects:

1. Computer science
2. Linear algebra
3. Calculus (single & multivariable)
4. Probability
5. Statistics

(Studied in roughly that order)

Even if women with science backgrounds do not become academic researchers after their formal schooling, they will be attractive candidates for high-income positions such as software engineers, product managers, data scientists, machine learning engineers, financial analysts, actuaries, et cetera. They could even start their own companies by leveraging their technical skills.

The Problem With Healthcare Is Not Insurance. It's Doctors.

The primary problem with healthcare is the cost. No one talks about reducing healthcare costs.
Instead, we are infatuated with health insurance. However, we wouldn't be worried about health insurance if a doctor's visit cost $30 or if a surgery cost $400 (without insurance). If you wanted insurance, the premiums would be cheaper (e.g. $20/month).

We need to have more medical schools and to let foreign doctors practice in the States, so we can have more physicians to meet growing demand for medical services. The American Medical Association (AMA) is a labor union for maintaining a quota on how many people are allowed to practice medicine in the US. They limit the number of medical schools and prevent foreign doctors from practicing in our country. By limiting the supply of doctors, the AMA keeps physicians' and surgeons' incomes high (currently between $200,000-$400,000/year). They also keep them from advertising and competing against each other which also keeps salaries high.

If there were more doctors, they would not make as much money, but they would individually still make more than the average American household. At the same time, people would have access to more healthcare. The lower-cost healthcare options will be of lesser quality, but people should have the freedom to pick that option than either not having healthcare at all or pay an arm and leg for the expensive option.

We are not going to abolish the AMA because they have strong lobbyists, so we need to educate ourselves, adopt healthier lifestyles, and use artificial intelligence (AI). That means eating whole foods, exercising, avoiding drugs, and asking the Internet for health questions. Visit a doctor only when necessary. IBM's Watson provides medical consultation in South Korea. We won't wait long until we can do this in the US.

Additional thoughts and questions (more controversial):
The government should not force its citizens to purchase insurance. In New York City, if you make $15/hour, you make about $30,000/year. After taxes, you have about $23,000. After rent, utilities, phone bills, Internet, and computer expenses, commuting, you have about $9,000 left. After food, you may have nothing left. I'm not even including the debt you have or "going out". Should you be forced to pay an additional $4,000/year for health insurance?

Let's say the government or your employer offers you two annual options: $4,000-health insurance or $4,000 in cash? Which would you prefer given your circumstances and what you need? Which would give you more freedom or happiness?