The following is our article published in the FS26.1 issue of VAMP, written by Kenny Lay:
ETH Zürich attracts students from around the world who share a passion for mathematics, physics, and technology. But passion alone is not always enough. For some students — particularly women — the path through demanding STEM programs can bring additional challenges, from higher stress levels to doubts about belonging. Understanding these challenges is key to improving both student success and the learning environment.
In this article, I discuss common hurdles students may encounter—focusing in particular on gender differences and what may lie behind them. Although this field still requires further research, understanding these patterns can help illuminate some of the fundamental challenges of learning and persistence in STEM.
Unfortunately, proportionally more women who choose to study mathematics and physics fail their exams. Several factors may help explain why studying in these fields can create additional stress for female students. The following insights
draw on a recent study and an interview with Professor Emerita Elsbeth Stern. [2]
One important factor is belonging uncertainty. Self-doubt can undermine performance: if students feel they do not
belong, that belief can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Negative stereotypes suggesting that women perform worse in mathematics may create a psychological barrier that affects confidence and performance. [4] At the same time, the process can work in reverse—performing poorly may increase self-doubt.
Women also report significantly higher levels of stress than their male counterparts. Elevated distress can harm mental health and negatively affect academic performance. [4] But what causes this difference?
Professor Stern highlights a key factor: differences in conceptual knowledge at the start of university. Female students often begin their studies with less conceptual preparation in mathematics and physics. Once this factor is accounted for, many other differences diminish.
Conceptual knowledge is crucial for solving the analytical problems required in these subjects. Students who start be- hind must invest substantial effort just to catch up. This creates a feedback loop: falling behind increases stress, which in turn makes learning more difficult.
Reducing these initial knowledge gaps is therefore essential. One encouraging observation is that at ETH Zürich the gap often narrows over the course of the first semester. Bridge courses are available to help students strengthen their conceptual understanding. However, the challenge remains that many female students end the semester roughly where male students began, leaving limited time to fully close the gap.
Improving conceptual teaching dur- ing secondary school may help address this issue. A central challenge for social science research is identifying the under- lying causes of these differences. One possible explanation is that girls may be more hesitant to ask questions in class.
What can ETH Zürich do to support students more effectively? Teaching assistants have experimented with focus groups—smaller, slower-paced sessions designed to help struggling students. Yet, according to Professor Stern, slower instruction alone is not necessarily the solution. Instead, the emphasis should be on explaining concepts clearly and asking the right conceptual questions. A deeper understanding of underlying ideas ultimately improves problem-solving skills.
These findings tie into the broader issue known as the “leaky pipeline.” As a final reflection, it is worth considering how students can navigate such challenges.
Professor Stern herself serves as a powerful role model. She succeeded despite working in environments often described as having a “chilly climate”—spaces where women may feel unwelcome.
Gender stereotypes can still shape interactions in academia and the workplace. Some men, consciously or unconsciously, place themselves above women, leading to unequal attention and respect. [3][1] Professor Stern pointed out two behaviours that illustrate this dynamic. One is mansplaining—when a man explains something to a woman despite having less expertise on the topic. The other is hepeating, where a man repeats a woman’s idea and receives more recognition for it. In these situations, the identity of the speaker often matters more than the content itself.
How should such behaviour be addressed? Professor Stern recommends confronting it directly. Stepping back and discussing group dynamics openly can expose these power plays. They persist when individuals take inappropriate liberties and no one challenges them. Setting clear boundaries is therefore essential—and it can be done respectfully and constructively.
From my own perspective, persistence is key. Many obstacles are challenges to overcome rather than reasons to abandon a goal. Power dynamics can be frustrating, but they should not define one’s path.
I try to approach these situations with a stoic mindset: focus on what you can control, maintain courage, and do not get lost in adversity.
Or, to put it in more modern terms:
stay based.
[1] Pedro Bordalo et al. “Stereotypes”. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics 131.4 (2016), pp. 1753–1794. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjw029.
[2] Anne Deiglmayr et al. “Catching up? Sex differences in prior con- ceptual knowledge, socio-emotional experiences, and academic achievements among STEM undergraduates”. In: Learning and Individual Differences 122 (2025), p. 102762. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2025. 102762.
[3] Corinne A. Moss-Racusin et al. “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.41 (2012), pp. 16474–16479. doi: 10 . 1073 / pnas . 1211286109.
[4] Toni Schmader, Michael Johns, and Chad Forbes. “An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects on Performance”. In: Psychological Review 115.2 (2008), pp. 336–356. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336.
