TRACKING TENURE: A smaller percentage of women who get PhDs in math and science stay in academia than men. Why? That's still an unknown.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/CIMMERIAN
Women who apply for tenure-track positions at top-tier research universities in math and sciences these days have a slightly better chance of landing the job than their male colleagues, says a new study funded by the National Science Foundation.
But that's just for those who apply, which is a good tick lower than those who earn PhDs. In chemistry, for example, women made up 32 percent of newly minted PhDs from 1999 to 2003 but accounted for only 18 percent of applicants to tenure-track positions.
The recent report, commissioned by Congress, surveyed 89 institutions and examined PhD and faculty gender distribution in biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering, math and physics.
Despite being a minority of math and science faculty overall, the number of women in the academic ranks is on the rise. For example, in 1995, women made up 18.7 percent of assistant math professors and 7.6 percent of the full professors. By 2003, those numbers had increased modestly to 26.5 percent of assistant math professors and 9.7 percent of full professors.
The results also revealed that tenured female professors earned about 8 percent less than male colleagues. "There are still big problems facing women in the science, technology and engineering fields," says Phoebe Leboy, president of the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) and a biochemistry professor emerita at the University of Pennsylvania. Many women get a close look at the academic prospects ahead and say, "This job is not designed for me," Leboy says.
So what are they doing instead? The government study doesn't include definitive answers about whether women are dropping out of academia altogether or being held back the assistant professor level, says Sally Shaywitz, co-chair of the report committee and a professor of learning development and co-director of the Center for Dyslexia and Creativity at Yale. "It's a snapshot—it’s not a dynamic, longitudinal study," she says.
But drawing on AWIS research, Leboy notes that many women who earned science PhDs have ended up outside the ivory tower. Less than 1 percent were out of work entirely, she said, many having gone into industry jobs or work outside the lab as writers, editors or in public relations.
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentWhy are you making a big deal about the natural order?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe schools in the United States do not encourage scholarship.
Math and science are considered to be boring by most students.
Why would you want to lower the standards to balance the sexes in a particular industry? Why is there a need to do this.
As a woman with a PhD I can answer this--there are too many hoops to jump through in academia for what it pays. Most women will go to places where a balanced life is rewarded. It's also nice to work where there is a critical mass of other women scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy wife is a PhD in Organic Chemistry from one of the top faculties in another country. She did her post-doctoral fellowship with a leading scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and then a Nobel laureate in an US industry. But she could get anywhere beyond that; forget a tenure track position, she could not even get a post-doc fellowship when her stint with the Nobel laureate was coming to an end. There were also a few women professors who refused to entertain her, not even give the much pleaded-for feedback. Disappointed, she quit the field and went into IT. (It took her 2 years to emotionally "divorce" herself from the filed she was good at and invested a lot in). The fact seems to be that it's not just men, but also women who have undermined or shut down women in the sciences. It's not just white men - or white women - but this sort of "island consolidation" happens across all demographics. For instance, ask any Indian if other Indians help(ed) them in their careers or Chinese if other of their lot helped them. People who make it want to secure that high ground for themselves and deter anyone of their ilk from coming over. "Island consolidation". Now, does that justify social engineering? Break the walls first!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur society is increasingly Orwellian, Machiavellian, and authoritarian.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe state should ensure that "republican" principles (equal rights and equal responsibilities) for all citizens are promulgated in our society.
Instead of the same it has promulgated Orwellian, Machiavellian, and authoritarian principles which are inimical to the valid goals of education, scholarship and virtue.
Orwellian "political correctness" demands political preference for the "Orwellian Pigs" which are "good" while , at the same time, demands the political oppression of the "non-Orwellian Pigs" which are "bad".
"No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." George Orwell, the conclusion of Animal Farm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Just_Want_to_Have_Sums , Simpson's Lisa discouraged by both feeling women and agressive boys, says it all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have any evidence than that hiring women lowers standards? Where do you work and what have you published recently? Please let us know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow sad to hear! I have noticed that in academia there is a reward for throwing your family and anybody who might like to have a family under the bus. To get tenure you have to give up 7 years f your life right at the same time you might like to have a family. You can also see the "good old boy" mentality alive and well and the women who succeed need to prove that they are good old boys by stabbing other women in the back...much like blacks in the GOP. There is a new day coming but academia in the US and much of industry will find themselves left behind. I did get tenure in academia by the way but found people in the physical plant to be a huge network of good old boys who made keep a safe labs with operating hoods almost impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not say that hiring women lowers stadards.
I stated that standards should not be lowered to hire.
We hire equal numbers of men & wemen. And the women excel in our company. I am not going to lower may statdards to balance the sexes.
In Australia, academic positions are often seen as more family friendly because universities offer better maternity (and paternity) leave, greater flexibility in hours, guaranteed childcare places in university run facilities, and more career path options than Ph.D. positions in private industry. If US universities are serious about attracting female faculty, they should get serious about supporting working parents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Australia, academic positions are often seen as more family friendly because universities offer better maternity (and paternity) leave, greater flexibility in hours, guaranteed childcare places in university run facilities, and more career path options than Ph.D. positions in private industry. If US universities are serious about attracting female faculty, they should get serious about supporting working parents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am currently a woman in a PhD program. When I began the program three and a half years ago a tenure track position at a university was the thing I wanted most in life. I now have seen how most of the faculty feel about women with children and it has disheartened me! I have a 2yr old son and have absolutely no desire to go into academia. I had my child during my program and it has caused me considerable problems. I hope to have more children and have had several male and female faculty members tell me to think long and hard before I do!! I do not want to work in an environment where you have to choose between your family or your career. I work hard and get just as much done as most other graduate students, but because I have the stigma of a family I am seen as a lesser commodity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am currently a woman in a PhD program. When I began the program three and a half years ago a tenure track position at a university was the thing I wanted most in life. I now have seen how most of the faculty feel about women with children and it has disheartened me! I have a 2yr old son and have absolutely no desire to go into academia. I had my child during my program and it has caused me considerable problems. I hope to have more children and have had several male and female faculty members tell me to think long and hard before I do!! I do not want to work in an environment where you have to choose between your family or your career. I work hard and get just as much done as most other graduate students, but because I have the stigma of a family I am seen as a lesser commodity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are differences in mentality and the way that women are raised, the rest is details. The limited success of women in science, especially technology has nothing to do with funds, family friendly jobs, etc. I am a woman in science (physicist) and the problem sometimes lies in the way that female scientists perceive themselves. Look at the ones who are supposed to be succesful: which one could be a good example? At the same time read about Newton, Faraday, Einstein and all of these amazing personalities, they were imposing, stubborn and with a lot of confidence. Mention a female scientist who emits exactly these qualities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry getting married, having children and still participate in everything you did when you were single. There is an obvious reason why men, as you call it, dominate these fields, and any other field, for that matter. It's not them trying to put down women. It's simply that men don't get pregnant. And somebody has to watch the children. And in today's economy, it is possible that many parents choose not to send their children to day care because they feel a responsibility to raise their children and not leave that to someone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't let ignorance turn the world upside down. Get smart.
I am a post-doc working in a male dominated scientific field. I definitely see the "boys club" mentality and am shocked that the university I work at has a 3 year waiting list for childcare. I want to have a family but I don't know how I will manage to raise children, be a good wife and run a research lab while writing grants, teaching classes and participating in academic committees. Too much! There is very little support for women in science who wish to start families. I feel that I have to choose between my desires for a family and my desire to get ahead in academia. This is a decision no one should have to make. The women scientists that I know who do all this are stressed out and unhappy. I'm running for the hills after my post-doc ends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin answered this question in his 'The Descent of man and selection in relation to sex" (page 576)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* Remember, these are Darwins words, not mine.*
It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr Galton in his work on 'Hereditary Genius,' that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.
"Current recruiting strategies don't seem to be working, but chairing a search committee with a female faculty member is a simple step that often fills open jobs with women."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsnt that a bias against the males applying for the same job. Women wont raise their voices against that.
Excellent quote from Darwin. It was quite true in Darwins time but is becoming less and less true every year. I think what this show's is just how flawed, entrenched in the times, and human even some of the greatest scientific minds have been and can be. Try as we might, we can't escape being influenced by the culture(s) we're a part of and all the biases that come with them. Even the most gifted of us cannot we see in all directions or beyond all obstacles between us and the expanding horizon of knowledge. In western civilization opportunities for education and intellectual nourishment were very different between men and women during Darwin's time so the historical and (his) current day comparisons while not incorrect in "fact", are incorrect in retrospect if his assessment neglected to consider cultural and technological (i.e. birth control) influences....which this quote does neglect as a stand alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther quotes in the same vane could be:
There is not the slightest indication that energy will ever be obtainable from the atom Einstein
or
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.." Lord Kelvin
This topic is a no-brainer for myself (a female PhD holder in Genetics), academia has become an opressively long, low paying affair. (the average North American PhD is 8.33 years long http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/) This is followed by long PostDocs with more low pay and long hours.. all this..and spanning the reproductive years of most females. Most with good sense and social skills seek employment elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome good comments here. I'm a male student in a masters program and I can see from other students I meet, academia isn't always the end goal anymore (for both male and female students). Besides the hurdles that pregnancy holds for women, I generally find most wanting a research scientist position without the incredibly long hours (and associated years for a PhD). Many government institutions such as NOAA, USGS, DFW, offer positions such as this. They pay relatively well and depending on the position, you can get an equivalent to tenure tract position (Federal term employee) with all the job security and benefits associated with it. Again, you're not going to be making the big bucks, but you can live a comfortable life off it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think context is very important here. Since the 1970s at least, the majority of PhDs in the physical sciences, both male and female, have NOT gone into academia. PhDs are being minted at far above replacement levels (see http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html for a good discussion), and in the academic job market you have this systemic problem of oversupply. So who ends up sticking it out and getting those jobs? All other things being equal, it's the very focused individuals who love their field above all else, and cannot conceive of doing anything else with their lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know it's dangerous to generalize, but I will say that of the single-mindedly devoted people I've met in life -- those who are 100% dedicated to a single pursuit -- a disproportionate number are men. Women tend to be more balanced in their approach to life, finding happiness in many things. There may be genetic factors, or perhaps our culture more readily accepts single-mindedness in men, or both. In any case, if this effect is real then it could partially explain an excess of men in fields that are (a) highly competitive, and (b) highly specialized, where breadth of skill is not a competitive advantage.
I think context is very important here. Since the 1970s at least, the majority of PhDs in the physical sciences, both male and female, have NOT gone into academia. PhDs are being minted at far above replacement levels (see http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html for a good discussion), and in the academic job market you have this systemic problem of oversupply. So who ends up sticking it out and getting those jobs? All other things being equal, it's the very focused individuals who love their field above all else, and cannot conceive of doing anything else with their lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know it's dangerous to generalize, but I will say that of the single-mindedly devoted people I've met in life -- those who are 100% dedicated to a single pursuit -- a disproportionate number are men. Women tend to be more balanced in their approach to life, finding happiness in many things. There may be genetic factors, or perhaps our culture more readily accepts single-mindedness in men, or both. In any case, if this effect is real then it could partially explain an excess of men in fields that are (a) highly competitive, and (b) highly specialized, where breadth of skill is not a competitive advantage.
Articles like this one do a great deal of harm to the cause of recruiting women into the sciences. Why do we insist with trying to give young women the impression that their life will be more difficult as science faculty than in any other professional fields ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat fractions of women make it to law firm partners, CEOs, senators, syndicated columnists, film directors etc. ? Is it even meaningful to say that women are at a disadvantage in a particular field without any comparison with others ? What is the purpose of picking on academic science ?
Glass ceiling exists everywhere, not just in academic science, and there is pretty good evidence in the report upon which this article is based, that the situation for women in academic science is improving. Obviously, that is not to say that everything is perfect and that much does not remain to be done, but at the same time trying to paint a misleading picture which may result in more young women being turned off does not serve any purpose.
Articles like this one do a great deal of harm to the cause of recruiting women into the sciences. Why do we insist with trying to give young women the impression that their life will be more difficult as science faculty than in any other professional fields ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat fractions of women make it to law firm partners, CEOs, senators, syndicated columnists, film directors etc. ? Is it even meaningful to say that women are at a disadvantage in a particular field without any comparison with others ? What is the purpose of picking on academic science ?
Glass ceiling exists everywhere, not just in academic science, and there is pretty good evidence in the report upon which this article is based, that the situation for women in academic science is improving. Obviously, that is not to say that everything is perfect and that much does not remain to be done, but at the same time trying to paint a misleading picture which may result in more young women being turned off does not serve any purpose.
Just because he got evolution right doesn't mean he got everything right. Clearly, he is full of sh*t in this passage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting that you cite an oversupply of PhD's. Where else have I heard that we don't have enough scientists, so we must bring them in from all over the world. Which is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this