A gender equality paradox

The following link comes from Tyler Cowen who suggests that the last sentence is the most important.

The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading (N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.

There are a number of things worthy of comment.

First excerpt:

...we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries ...

That should be qualified with "at school".  Girls do better at school than boys. As a consequence, they tend to do better in subjects while at school. That doesn't necessarily tell us they will continue to do better at those subjects in real life.

Second excerpt,

Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality.  

That's the supposed paradox. But is there really anything paradoxical about it? It seems to me that it is telling us something pretty straightforward and something that should be pretty obvious to anyone who pays attention to common sex characteristics. That is that most girls don't want to do science or technology. When they are given a choice, they drop out.

Now we can get to that last sentence.

A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.

Here is how I'd say that: when life is hard, when there is less opportunity for women to get ahead, they are more likely to consider working in a field that does not appeal to them.

Cowen concludes with a question: "So what is the implied prediction for our future?" That skips another question though. Do you want to force women to do things they don't want to do "for their own good"?