In an effort to voice her opinion that science careers should be more achievable for women
who want to raise families, Meredith Wadman writes her essay "How to increase the number
of women winning Nobel Prizes." Not only does she point out the harsh truth of women
struggling in science areas, but she also addresses ways to solve the current problem. Through
the use of solid evidence, a coherent structure and persuasive elements, Wadman shows a good
understanding of writing a persuasive essay.
A perfect essay can't afford the lack of evidence. Realizing the significance of evidence,
Wadman uses facts and statistics to show the scarcity of women entering science fields. She
lists the number of women winning academic prizes --"four of the 165 winners have been women"
in chemistry, only "two physics laureates have been women" in 1901, and "women have won 5
percent of the coveted awards in physiology or medicine." Seeing these extremely small number
and percentage of academic awards won by women, readers may get shocked by the female
scientists' trivial engagement in science. They will tend to understand this "dark age" of women
and feel pitiful since the few opportunities the scientists have do not match their due status in
modern society. The audience will also be dissatisfied with the revelation of current unequal
conditions and hope to find ways to bridge the gap. This is how the author uses undeniable
facts, backed up by precise statistics, to infiltrate reader's independent minds. Through the use
of statistics , she effectively catches her reader's attention and alerts everyone to the severity
of the problem. These statistics make readers aware of the serious circumstances for women
but they may still feel perplexed about why this happens. To address the reasons, Wadman
lists examples, which substantially illustrate why women have not been doing as good as men
in science -- Francoise Barre-Sinoussi's father "thought a women's place was in home." And
Barbara McClintock "was afraid higher education would make her daughter unmarriageable."
As the audience read through the examples, they can understand that the traditional attitudes
held families toward these two famous female scientists are exactly the causes. They may
further recall the attitude of their own families toward women entering academic fields, which
could likely be the same unpleasant. Having realized that their families probably make the same
decision to avoid daughters from gaining high education, the readers can understand the author's
indignation and urge profoundly. They will also realize the importance of getting rid of gender
prejudice and giving women equal opportunities. Therefore, the author uses facts and exxamples to
explain in details why women are not encouraged to study science and advocate readers to make
these careers more achievable for women.
A perfect essay can't be supported by mere evidence; it needs to be backed up by a coherent
structure so that its argument is made more compelling and smoother. In the 7th and 8th
paragragh, Wadman classifies various solutions to the inequality of women's careers into
two categories: those which can be achieved be universities and by federal agencies.
As a result of such classification, Wadman is able to make her points more understandable in
a more recognizable thread. Also, readers are able to follow the author's ideas more quickly,
understanding that universities and federal agencies can both help make a difference, and both
should. In this way, they will realize the great possibility and practicality to solve this problem
and be willing to take actions. Without this classification, it would take them a longer time to
realize the rich variety of ways to transform current conditions. Therefore, the author's
classification advocates her ideas more effectively and persuades her audience to render science
careers more accessible to women.
Wadman also takes a grasp of the readers' emotions with her adept presentation of stylistic
elements. In the opening paragragh, she uses a story to introduce the topic of women's career --
a mother of tweens "folding laundry at 5 am before going to an early spinning class" and
hearing "a voice from Stockholm" which told her that she "had won that year's Nobel Prize in
medicine..." The story could remind readers of similar scenarios of receiving a call and hearing
a great news themselves. In this way, they would be attracted by this story and be more inclined
to read through the essay, which is built right in this spot. They will also be interested in the
issue about Nobel Prizes won by women as they feel more connected by chores and glories
of a mother. In this way, the author uses an anecdote to catch reader's attention and show the
seemly contradicted roles of women--doing housework at home and winning Nobel Prizes--
to effectively introduce her essay. Additionally, Wadman uses diction to describe women's hard
conditions in science careers: she describes as "a rarity in the pantheon of Nobel scientists" in
Paragraph 2; she complains that "the result in the rarefied reaches of Stockholm couldn't help
but be dismal..." in Paragraph 3; she notices that "paid maternity and parental leave" is something
that's woefully lacking" for female scientists. These heart-trenching expressions would arouse
great sympathy towards the scientists among the audience so that they would be more willing to
change this existing condition. Without these carefully chosen stylistic elements, the audience
would not be so deeply moved as to confirm their determination to help women achieve more
career glories.
In a nutshell, the utilization of solid evidence, a logical structure, and stylistic
elements helps set stages for the author to persuade her audience to give more opportunities in
science careers to women.