Women still struggling in US science - June 04, 2009
The US National Research Council put a pretty positive spin on its latest report on women in science, released earlier this week. Women in science and engineering jobs are “faring well” in hiring and tenure processes, according to the report, which was demanded by lawmakers in Congress.
Two surveys carried out by the NRC show that women who apply for tenure-track positions have a better chance of being interviewed and receiving job offers than male applicants.
“Overall the newly released data indicate important progress, and signal to both young men and especially to young women that what had been the status quo at research-intensive universities is changing,” says Sally Shaywitz, of Yale University School of Medicine (press release). “There is a movement toward more gender equity than noted in previous reports or often publicly appreciated.”
But then comes the caveat: “At the same time, the findings show that we are not there yet.”
While women have better chances of obtaining jobs when they apply for them, they are still not applying for tenure-track jobs at the same rate they are earning PhDs. In addition women are underrepresented among candidates for tenure relative to the number of faculty lower down the ladder. They are also paid less on average than male counterparts.
On the Inside Higher Ed website, Phoebe Leboy, president of the Association for Women in Science and professor emerita of biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania notes:
This focuses on those women survivors who can last long enough to come up for promotion, and says there are no statistically significant gender inequities. [The report] focuses on only that sub-population of women who have the nerve to apply for these positions. … It’s really distressing that they have ignored so many issues about women in STEM fields.
More coverage
Tenure-Track Jobs in Science and Math Are Open to Women, if They Want Them – Chronicle of Higher Education
Women Are Seen Bridging Gap in Science Opportunities – NY Times
Comments
I am continually peeved at articles that suggest that just because there is a drop off between PhD and applications for academic positions that females are somehow "struggling in science". I continue to receive looks and comments from respected scientists that either allude or directly suggest that I am a "failed scientist" because I have not pursued a career at the bench.
A well trained PhD scientist is trained for a wide variety of careers, with bench science being only one of a valuable set of challenges. For many reasons women may choose different "non-traditional" (another term I scoff at) path- in most cases, it has absolutely nothing to do with us not having the "nerve" that Dr. Leboy et al suggest we lack.
Studies like this fail to look at the contributions people who do not pursue bench science make to science. Do they continue on making contributions in other ways? Making policy? Communicating about science? Shaping the publishing landscape? Teaching?
I argue that the only people struggling in science are those who fail to see that people who actively pursue their passions and talents fully, at the bench or not, are the real success stories.
Posted by: Kenna | June 4, 2009 03:03 PM