If you reply to this long (15kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
*****************************************
ABSTRACT: Some of the extensive data in Donna Nelson's 2005 Diversity
Survey of the "top fifty" research universities is indicated for the
fields BioScience, Chemistry, Economics, Math, Mechanical
Engineering, Physics, and Psychology for:
(a) %'s of female and male faculty vs. %'s obtaining BS degrees,
showing that the (1) the leak in the BS to faculty pipeline is much
larger for females than for males and largest of all for females in
math, and (2) psychology has by far the largest % of males on the
faculty in proportion to males obtaining undergraduate degrees; and
(b) % of female Assistant Professors compared with the % of females
attaining PhD's (1993-2002), showing that that ratio r =
%Asst.Profs/%PhD's is about 0.7, except for physics (0.84) and
MechEng (1.51). Practices in Mechanical Engineering departments would
seem to merit further study.
Nelson concludes that "in most science disciplines studied, qualified
female candidates exist, but they are not achieving assistant
professorships. Whether hiring and work practices at the nation's top
universities actively discriminate cannot be answered by this study.
However, the numbers clearly indicate a grave national problem that
must be aggressively addressed now."
*****************************************
My post "Re: Women Earn 46% of Undergraduate Math Degrees but
Represent Only 8% of Math Professors ??" [Hake (2006a)] of 1 June has
stimulated a spirited 30-post thread (as of 4 Jun 2006 07:25:00-0700)
on Phys-L with archives at
<https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives>, as well as private
communications from diversity surveyor Donna Nelson
<http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu/faculty/djn/djn.html>, and Cathy Kessel,
President-Elect of the Association for Women in Mathematics
<http://www.awm-math.org/>.
Cathy Kessel informs me that, according to NSF (2004), the correct %
of women obtaining undergraduate degrees in mathematics is 48%, not
the 46% indicated earlier as given by Londa Schiebinger as reported
by Lisa Trei (2006).
The 48% number is consistent with the data of Table 1, Gender
Distribution of BS Recipients vs. Role Models" in "A National
Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at
Research Universities" [Nelson (2005)]. Some of the data in that
table are [my 4th column r = ratio of %'s =
(%onFac/ (%obtainBS)]
FROM TABLE 1 OF NELSON (2005)
*************************************************
Discipline........%FEMALES
...........On Faculty...Obtaining BS...r*
The above data indicates that the leak in the BS to faculty pipeline
is much larger for females than for males and largest of all for
females in math. Nelson has emphasized the fact that this disparity
results in a dearth of role models for women aspiring to faculty
positions. Psychology has by far the largest % of males on the
faculty in proportion to males obtaining undergraduate degrees.
The Irascible Professor Mark Shapiro
<http://www.irascibleprofessor.com/>, in his Phys-L post of 3 Jun
wrote [my insert at ". . . [.....] . . .":
". . . . I think that comparing the number of female math professors
to the number of women who earn undergraduate math degrees is not a
valid comparison . . .[but IMHO it's certainly valid in demonstrating
a gender disparity in the BS to faculty pipeline leak]. . . . The
correct. . .[better said "an interesting" ??]. . . . comparison would
be between the number of female math professors and the number of
women who obtain advanced degrees in math. Most colleges and
universities require a Ph.D. for appointment to professorial ranks."
That a comparison of the number of female math professors with
females who obtain advanced degrees is useful was appreciated by
diversity surveyor Donna Nelson. In Column 3 of Table 2 of "A
National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties
at Research Universities" [Nelson (2005)], Nelson shows the % of
female Assistant Professors compared with the % of females attaining
PhD's (1993-2002) in various science and engineering fields. Some of
the data is as follows [my 4th column r = ratio of %'s =
(%Asst.Profs) / (%PhD's)]:
FROM TABLE 2 OF NELSON (2005)
Field.....%Asst.Profs....%PhD's.....r*
Math.........19.6..........27.2....0.72
Physics......11.2..........13.3....0.84
Chem.........21.5..........31.3....0.69
Mech.Eng.....15.7..........10.4....1.51
Econ.........19.0..........29.3....0.65
Psych........45.4..........66.1....0.69
BioSciences..30.2..........44.7....0.68
*r = ratio of %'s = (%Asst.Profs) / (%PhD's)
The ratio r = %Asst.Profs/%PhD's is about 0.7, except for physics
(0.84) and MechEng (1.51). Practices in Mechanical Engineering
departments would seem to merit further study.
Donna Nelson, in the "Conclusions" section of "A National Analysis of
Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research
Universities" [Nelson (2005)] has summarized the results of her
diversity surveys as follows [bracketed by lines "NNNNNNNN. . . ."]:
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Disparities in hiring and retention between male and female science
and engineering faculty place women at a distinct disadvantage at all
levels, from undergraduate to full professor. Women faculty are
poorly represented in
science and engineering departments of research universities. This
has grave repercussions for undergraduate and graduate students who
are bereft of female role models and mentors and contributes to the
attrition rate of
women studying science and engineering.
In most science disciplines studied, qualified female candidates
exist, but they are not achieving assistant professorships. Whether
hiring and work practices at the nation's top universities actively
discriminate cannot be answered by this study. However, the numbers
clearly indicate a grave national problem that must be aggressively
addressed now.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
"Who can look at these numbers [Nelson Diversity Surveys] and not say
that we as a faculty have failed - failed our students, our
institution, and most of all, failed our nation?"
Nancy Hopkins, MIT Biology Professor
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Physics: For Women, the Last Frontier," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0207&L=pod&P=R12856&I=-3>.
Post of 23 Jul 2002 08:51:04-0700 to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
EvalTalk, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physhare, POD. & STLHE-L.
Hake, R.R. 2006a. "Re: Women Earn 46% of Undergraduate Math Degrees
but Represent Only 8% of Math Professors ??," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0606&L=pod&O=D&P=1209>. Post
of 1 Jun 2006 15:10:13-0700 to Math-Learn, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, POD,
RUME, WIPHYS. The abstract reads: "Lisa Trie in the 'Stanford Report'
of 15 February 2006 wrote: "ACCORDING TO [LONDA] SCHIEBINGER, WOMEN
EARN 46 PERCENT OF UNDERGRADUATE MATH DEGREES IN THIS COUNTRY BUT
REPRESENT ONLY 8 PERCENT OF MATH PROFESSORS." The puzzle at to what
Schiebinger meant, discussed on the RUME list, may now have been
solved by Marjorie Olmstead, who pointed out that Donna Nelson's
"Diversity Surveys" show that at the "Top 50" departments, as ranked
by the NSF based on total research expenditures in mathematics, women
comprised 8.3% of the mathematics faculty in 2002." See also Hake
(2002, 2006b) and Mallow & Hake (2002).
Hake, R.R. 2006b."Proof and Prejudice: Women in Mathematics and
Physics," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0604&L=pod&O=D&P=15426>.
Post of 23 Apr 2006 16:23:26-0700 to AERA-A, AERA-B, AERA-C, AERA-D,
AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, ASSESS, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L,
PhysLrnR,
POD, PsychTeacher (rejected), RUME, STLHE-L, TeachingEdPsych, & TIPS.
POD, and RUME.