Let's look at two solutions that should be effective in addressing the gender issue in STEM. First, early intervention works. Scientific and mathematical learning can, and should, be integrated into early childhood learning and development. Miner et al. (Reference Miner, Walker, Bergman, Jean, Carter-Sowell, January and Kanaus2018) mention the potential of nurturing a child's interest in STEM through early education. The challenge is that it is segregated by gender biases (“early schooling differences, parental choices in encouraging child interests and hobbies, and other early reinforcement differences that are societally based”; Miner et al., Reference Miner, Walker, Bergman, Jean, Carter-Sowell, January and Kanaus2018, p. 270). According to Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, and Beilock (Reference Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine and Beilock2012) parents tend to expect that their boys are more gifted in STEM than their girls, even when their achievement levels do not differ objectively. The focus needs to shift from moving along with this gender bias to constructively using the gender difference.

Recognizing researched gender differences and incorporating them into early education can help understand how nurture can affect STEM learning and appetite. Henderlong and Lepper (Reference Henderlong Corpus and Lepper2007) find that for girls, praising the product or the process of learning may be more beneficial in boosting motivation than praising the person. A change in the approach to praise can make or break motivation. For instance, “That's a great chart” may work better than “You're so smart.” Doing the opposite can flatline motivation. Bronson and Merryman (Reference Bronson and Merryman2011) also seek out gender differences in nurturing and education. Dweck (Reference Dweck2000) highlights that an “emphasis on challenge, effort, and strategy is absolutely essential for girls” (pp. 124–125). This praise-style ties back into the authors’ referencing STEM as the discipline where “skill and merit solely determine success” (Miner et al., Reference Miner, Walker, Bergman, Jean, Carter-Sowell, January and Kanaus2018, p. 274).

Second, we should restructure higher education to welcome women's interest in STEM. At Harvey Mudd College (HMC), the ratio of women in computer science increased from 10% to 40% in 5 years (Xia, Reference Xia2017). As of January 2017, 55% of computer science graduates were women. These statistics shine in our efforts to attract more women to STEM. Maria Klawe, Harvey Mudd's president since 2006, provided insight into two ways she restructured STEM classes.

Her approach to STEM looks at the end product: problem solving in the real world. She reports that “If the way you teach your introductory computer science course is all about the intrinsics of programming language and algorithms and computer logic and those kinds of things, and if you focus just very much on one of the technical issues, it's going to be much less appealing to young women” (Seth & Kraft, Reference Seth and Kraft2017). Instead, she approaches class material as “writing a program to show how you would detect the spread of disease.” In addition to appealing to more women, this approach is also reflective of the real world applications of STEM and having a gender balance in global institutions that deploy these agendas. Further, Klawe revamped the introductory course at HMC by segregating students based on prior knowledge of the material in order to eliminate any sense of intimidation to new learners. In addressing this issue on a broader scale, we can test the feasibility and potential of these two ideas in middle school and high school education as well.

Addressing “our” problem calls for parents and educators to take action through an individual lens. The social-structural lens can shift to a more neutral gender balance as well, once steps such as these are put into action and scaled.