Gender Influences Recommendations for Science Jobs

Female applicants to postdoctoral positions in geosciences were nearly half as likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, compared with their male counterparts. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As in many other fields, gender bias pervades the sciences. Men score higher starting salaries, have more mentoring, and have better odds of being hired. Studies show they’re also perceived as more competent than women in STEM fields. And new research reveals that men are more likely to receive excellent letters of recommendation, too. 

"Say, you know, this is the best student I've ever had." Kuheli Dutt [koo-HAY-lee], a social scientist and diversity officer at Columbia University's Lamont campus. Compare those excellent letters, she says, to a merely good letter: "The candidate was productive, or intelligent, or a solid scientist or something that's clearly solid praise," but nothing that singles out the candidate as exceptional or one of a kind. 

Dutt and her colleagues studied more than 1,200 letters of recommendation for postdoc positions in geoscience. They were all redacted for gender and other identifying information, so Dutt and her team could assign them a score without knowing the sex of the student. They found that female applicants were only half as likelyto snag superlative letters, compared to their male counterparts. That includes letters of rec from all over the world, and written by, yes, men and women. The findings are in the journal Nature Geoscience. [Kuheli Dutt et al., Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Dutt says they were not able to evaluate the actual scientific qualifications of the applicants using the archival data. But she says the results still suggest women in geoscience are at a potential disadvantage from the very beginning of their careers—starting with those less-than-outstanding letters of rec. 

"We're not trying to assign blame or criticize anyone or call anyone consciously sexist. Rather, the point is to use the results of this study to open up meaningful dialogues on implicit gender bias, be it at a departmental level or an institutional level or even a discipline level." Which may lead to some recommendations for the letter writers themselves. 

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe