NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US), and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2007.

Cover of Beyond Bias and Barriers

Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering.

Show details

3Examining Persistence and Attrition

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS

Women who start out on the path toward a career in academic science and engineering leave it for other fields at higher rates than their male counterparts. While there are field differences in pattern of attrition, more women than men leave at nearly every stage of the career trajectory. Fewer high school senior girls than boys state a desire to major in science or engineering in college. Girls who state such an intention are likelier than comparable boys to change their plans before arriving at college. Once in college, women and men show a similar persistence to degree, but women science and engineering majors are less likely than men to enter graduate school.

Women who enter graduate school in science and engineering are as likely as men to earn doctorates, but give a poorer rating to faculty-student interactions and publish fewer research papers than men. Many women graduate students report feelings of isolation. More women than men report plans to seek postdoctoral positions. Among postdoctoral scholars, women report lower satisfaction with the experience, and women are proportionately underrepresented in the applicant pools for tenure-track faculty positions.

It appears that women and men faculty in most fields who are reviewed receive tenure at similar rates. There is substantial faculty mobility prior to the tenure case, when some tenure-track ladder faculty move between institutions and others leave academe. Mo bility patterns differ between women and men; men who move prior to tenure tend to leave academe, while women tend to enter adjunct positions. For women faculty members, feelings of isolation, lack of respect of colleagues, and difficulty in integrating family and professional responsibilities are major factors in attrition from university careers. For universities, faculty attrition presents a serious loss both economically and in morale.

FINDINGS

3-1. There is substantial attrition of both men and women along the science and engineering educational pathway to first academic position. The major differences between the patterns of attrition are at the transition points: fewer high school girls intend to major in science and engineering fields, more alter their intentions to major in science and engineering between high school and college, fewer women science and engineering graduates continue on to graduate school, and fewer women science and engineering PhDs are recruited into the applicant pools for tenure-track faculty positions.

3-2. Productivity does not differ between men and women science and engineering faculty, but it does between men and women graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. Differences in numbers of papers published, meetings attended, and grants written reflect the quality of faculty-student interactions.

3-3. There is substantial faculty mobility between initial appointment and tenure case. Faculty at Research I universities are half as likely as the overall population of faculty to move to other types of academic institutions. Men and women hired into tenure-track positions had a similar likelihood of changing jobs, but men were twice as likely to move from academia to other employment sectors (15.3% of men and 8.5% of women) and women were 40% more likely to move to an adjunct position (9.2% of men and 12.7% of women).

3-4. Overall, men and women science and engineering faculty who come up for tenure appear to receive it at similar rates. Differences in the rate at which men and women receive tenure vary substantially by field and by race or ethnicity. For example, in social sciences women are about 10% less likely than men to be awarded tenure. African American women science and engineering faculty were 10% less likely than men of all ethnicities to be awarded tenure.

3-5. As faculty move up in rank, differences between men and women become apparent in promotions, awards, and salary.

3-6. No organization addresses the concerns of minority-group women; scientific and professional society committees address either women or minorities; most data are collected and analyzed by sex or by race or ethnicity.

3-7 Policy analyses of the education, training, and employment of scientists and engineers are hampered by data collection inadequacies, including lack of data, inability to compare data among surveys, difficulty in constructing longitudinal cohorts, difficulty in examining sex and race or ethnicity, and lags in the reporting of data.

RECOMMENDATIONS

3-1. Efforts to increase the number of women in science and engineering should be focused on both recruiting and retention. Professional societies should work to recruit high school students to science and engineering careers. Colleges and universities should work to recruit women and minority students to science and engineering majors, to graduate school, and to faculty positions. University leaders and faculties need to work together to identify and remedy issues that address faculty retention.

3-2. Recruiting for faculty positions needs to be an active process that consciously develops and reaches out to women and minority-group scientists. Deans and department chairs and their tenured faculty should expand their faculty recruitment efforts to ensure that they reach adequately and proactively into the existing and ever-increasing pool of women candidates.

3-3. We need to understand more about faculty turnover. Universities should collect department data and scientific and professional societies should track discipline-wide turnover; the data should be collected annually and shared so that turnover dynamics can be understood and appropriate policies can be developed to retain faculty.

3-4. Changes should be made in the type of data that are collected on minority-group women and efforts should be made to ensure that the data are comparable across surveys and studies. Specifically, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Survey of Doctorate Recipients needs to be made more robust to allow for analysis of the small numbers of women of color. Other national surveys must collect data in a way that permits multiple demographic comparisons. Federal agencies and pro fessional societies must report data so that the particular experiences of minority-group women can be understood and tracked and appropriate policies can be developed.

3-5. Universities should collect data annually on education and employment of scientists and engineers by sex and race or ethnicity using a standard scorecard format ( Box 6-8 ). Data should include the number of students majoring in science and engineering disciplines; the number of students graduating with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in science and engineering fields; postgraduation plans; graduate school enrollment, attrition, and completion; postdoctoral plans; number of postdoctoral scholars; and data on faculty recruitment, hiring, turnover, tenure, promotion, salary, and allocation of institutional resources. The data should be made publicly available.

3-6. Scientific and professional societies should collect and disseminate field-wide education and workforce data with a similar scorecard.

Women who start on the path toward a career in academic science leave that path in favor of other fields at a higher rate than their male colleagues. In this chapter, we will analyze sex differences in science and engineering education and career trajectories and rates of departure from the academic science track in favor of careers in other sectors. The decision to pursue a particular career path is a choice, but certainly not an arbitrary one. Forces other than individual preference or scholastic aptitude and preparation affect choices about career paths and appear to be driving women into careers outside of academic research.

Not everyone who pursues a scientific education wants to be an academic scientist; 59% of science and mathematics, 55% of social science, and 28% of engineering graduate students say that they are preparing to become college or university faculty members or to seek postdoctoral research or academic appointments.1 In the United States, fewer than half of all people with PhDs in science and engineering are employed in the academic sector (Figure 3-1).

FIGURE 3-1. Occupations of science and engineering PhDs by sector, 2002.

FIGURE 3-1

Occupations of science and engineering PhDs by sector, 2002. SOURCE: National Science Foundation (2004).. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

As discussed in Chapter 2, social expectations and stereotypes regarding what it means to be a scientist or engineer influence career choices. Men benefit from a series of accumulated advantages: the implicit assumption that men can be academic scientists and engineers, the encouragement they receive to pursue academic careers, and role models provided by men who have successful academic careers. Women often suffer from a series of accumulated disadvantages, so when they make career choices, they choose from a set of options different from that of their male counterparts.2 Research shows that the more ways in which a person differs from the norm, the more social interactions affect choices; thus, the interlocking effects of sex and race can further restrict career options.3 An analysis by the Education Trust4 found that 93 of every 100 white kindergartners would graduate from high school, 65 would complete some college, and 33 would obtain a bachelor’s degree. The corresponding numbers for black kindergartners were 87, 50, and 18, respectively. Of 100 Hispanic and Native American kindergartners, only 11 and 7, respectively, would earn a bachelor’s degree.

There is no linear path to a degree. The default ‘pipeline’ metaphor … is wholly inadequate to describe student behavior [which] moves in starts and stops, sideways, down one path to another and perhaps circling back. Liquids move in pipes; people don’t.

—Cliff Adelman, in The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College (2006)5

The question is where are differences in decision making manifested between men and women? The cohort of high school graduates who are now of an age to be assistant professors (assuming a direct educational path and no stop-outs) would have been seniors in the mid-1980s (Box 3-1 for a description of lagged cohort analysis). For this cohort, specific differences exist between the rates at which men and women chose and persevered in science and engineering education and careers.6 In 1982, high school senior girls were half as likely as boys to plan a science or engineering major in college. This difference was compounded by girls’ rate—2.4 times higher than that of boys—of attrition from the science and engineering educational trajectory during the transition from high school to college. During college, women and men showed similar perseverance to degrees in science and engineering fields. The other substantial difference in education and career attrition or perseverance between men and women in the cohort occurred during the transition from graduate school to tenure-track positions (Figure 1-2).

Box Icon

BOX 3-1

Models of Faculty Representation. CONTROVERSIES Most analyses of career trajectories of women scientists and engineers use a pipeline analogy, positing that women are underrepresented at senior levels of academe because they are disproportionately “lost” (more...)

That type of analysis is useful for broad-brush policy development, but very specific differences by field must be acknowledged. Over the past decade, there have been significant changes, including increases in the numbers and proportion of girls taking high-level science and mathematics classes in high school and increases in graduate school enrollments and degrees. Research on underrepresentation in science and engineering focuses on the two categories of sex and race or ethnicity in large part because the data are collected by sex or race or ethnicity. As a consequence, minority-group women tend to disappear in analyses.7 Where possible, in the analysis of persistence and attrition in science and engineering education and academic careers, this report includes data on minority-group women broken out by race and ethnicity.8

COURSE SELECTION IN HIGH SCHOOL

Rigorous study in high school is the best predictor of persistence to a degree in college.9 Advanced mathematics study appears to be an additional important factor in preparing students for college and can substantially narrow differences between racial and ethnic groups.10 The gender gap in science and mathematics courses taken in high school has narrowed over the last decade (Table 3-1). Since 1994, girls have been as likely as boys to complete advanced mathematics courses, including Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate calculus.11 Also since 1994, girls have been more likely than boys to take advanced biology and chemistry. Physics is the only advanced science subject in which boys continue to complete courses at higher rates than girls, although the difference is small. African Americans and Hispanics were less likely than whites to complete advanced mathematics and science courses in high school.

TABLE 3-1. Percentage of High School Graduates Completing Advanced Coursework in Mathematics and Science, by Sex and Year of Graduation.

TABLE 3-1

Percentage of High School Graduates Completing Advanced Coursework in Mathematics and Science, by Sex and Year of Graduation.

In an analysis of the National Educational Longitudinal Survey, Hanson found variability in attitudes toward science among women.12 For example, African American girls expressed a greater interest in science than did white girls in both the 8th and 10th grades.

COLLEGE-GOING AND MAJORS

In the mid-1980s, about half of high school graduates enrolled in college immediately on graduation. In 2003, 65% of high school graduates enrolled in college on graduation, with 43% at 4-year colleges and 22% at 2-year colleges. The proportion entering college was higher among white students than among African American or Hispanic students. In addition, the rate of increase was higher among women than men at both 4- and 2-year colleges.13

A larger proportion of women than men high school seniors indicate an expectation to attend and complete college, but men are about 60% more likely to indicate an expectation to major in a science and engineering field.14 For at least 20 years, about one-third of all first-year college students have planned to study science and engineering.15 The proportion is similar among most racial and ethnic groups and, similar to high school intentions, is higher among men than women in many fields (Table 3-2). It should be noted that the percentages of Asian, African American, and Hispanic first-year college students who intend to pursue a science or engineering major are higher than that of their white counterparts.

TABLE 3-2. Percentages of First-Year College Students Intending to Major in Science and Engineering, by Sex and Race or Ethnicity, 2004.

TABLE 3-2

Percentages of First-Year College Students Intending to Major in Science and Engineering, by Sex and Race or Ethnicity, 2004.

Undergraduate Persistence to Degree

Women undergraduates have outnumbered men since 1982, and in 2002 they earned 58% of all bachelor’s degrees. The share and number of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to women and minority-group members has increased over the last 20 years, and women have earned at least half of all bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering since 2000.16 Much of the increase among minorities was fueled by an increase in science and engineering degrees awarded to women. A recent study17 suggests that those trends result from much longer term shifts in which women saw higher education as a way to gain entrance into the skilled labor market.

There are substantial variations in the demographics of degree recipients by field, sex, and race or ethnicity (Table 3-3). A larger proportion of Asian Americans earn science and engineering bachelor’s degrees than that of any other racial or ethnic group. African American women earn more science bachelor’s degrees than African American men. In all racial or ethnic categories, men earn more engineering bachelor’s degrees than women. It is also interesting to note that, although one-third of all first-year college students plan to study science and engineering, only half that proportion graduate with degrees in science and engineering. The most important factor for completing a bachelor’s degree for both men and women appears to be rigorous preparation in high school.18

TABLE 3-3. Number of Bachelor’s Degrees in Science and Engineering, by Sex and Race or Ethnicity, 2001.

TABLE 3-3

Number of Bachelor’s Degrees in Science and Engineering, by Sex and Race or Ethnicity, 2001.

Social Factors Influencing Undergraduate Attrition

Many students who enter college intending to obtain a science and engineering bachelor’s degree abandon their goal along the way. As shown above and in numerous other studies, it is not poor high school preparation, ability, or effort, but rather the educational climate of science and engineering departments that correlates with the high proportion of undergraduates who opt out of science and engineering.19 Although the gap between intention and attainment is large for all students, research shows that a lower proportion of women realize their high school intentions.20 In addition, more men college students make the transition into science and engineering fields from other fields.21

Data indicate that these climate issues affect decision making early on; once students enroll in college, the probability of completing a science and engineering major is similar for men and women. Xie and Shauman report that, for students who declare a major in science and engineering, 60% of women and 57% of men complete the major.22 Students’ expectations of their social roles strongly influence their educational and career goals. Applying Eagly and Karau’s role congruity theory to women in science suggests an incongruity between stereotypical female characteristics and the attributes that are thought to be required for success in academic science and engineering.23

Women and men appear to enter science and engineering majors for different reasons. Seymour and Hewitt suggest that women were almost twice as likely as men to have chosen a science and engineering major through the active influence of someone important to them, such as a relative, teacher, or close friend. In contrast, men were twice as likely as women to cite being good at mathematics or science in high school as a reason for declaring the major (whether or not they were actually better prepared than women).24 That suggests that more young men than women had the confidence to take higher-level mathematics and science courses in college.

Women and men also appear to leave science and engineering majors for different reasons (Table 3-4). Similar proportions of men and women cited losing interest in science, engineering, and mathematics (SEM) majors, poor teaching, and shifting to more appealing career options. More women felt that they could get a better education in a non-SEM major, rejected SEM careers and lifestyles, and felt that advising was inadequate. Men more frequently cited course overload, loss of confidence, financial problems, and issues with competition. A study on the retention of science and engineering undergraduates at the University of Washington also indicates that advising and a supportive community are important factors in the retention of women in SEM majors.25

TABLE 3-4. Top Reasons for Leaving Science, Engineering, or Mathematics Undergraduate Degree Program, by Sex.

TABLE 3-4

Top Reasons for Leaving Science, Engineering, or Mathematics Undergraduate Degree Program, by Sex.

The University of Washington study looked only at women who entered college with an interest in pursuing a science or engineering major. The sequencing of science and engineering courses is often strict, so it can be difficult to enter a science or engineering major from a nonscience or nonengineering field. Even so, men are twice as likely as women to move from a nonscience field into a science field during their first 2 years.26 Universities can institute programs to increase enrollment and reduce attrition (Box 3-2).

Box Icon

BOX 3-2

Carnegie Mellon’s Women in Computer Science Program. EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES Carnegie Mellon University brought female enrollment in its undergraduate computer science program up from 7% to 40% from 1995 to 2000 and significantly reduced (more...)

COLLEGE TO GRADUATE SCHOOL

A larger percentage of men than women who major in science and engineering enroll in graduate school in science and engineering fields (about 15% of men and 10% of women). An additional 8% of men and 12% of women enter graduate school in a nonscience or nonengineering field, and nearly 75% of those who earn science and engineering bachelor’s degrees enter the workforce directly.27

The proportion of women varies by field and personal factors:28

  • Women bachelor’s degree recipients in the physical sciences are more likely than men to attend graduate school in a non-science and engineering field (19% compared to 5%).
  • Women with an undergraduate degree in engineering are more likely than men to attend graduate school in engineering (20% compared to 15%). In contrast with science fields, a bachelor’s degree in engineering is often considered a terminal degree; many engineering graduates find satisfying and well-paying jobs in the private sector. To gain entry to these jobs, employers may require more credentials from women than men.29
  • Married women and women with children are far less likely than married men and men with children to attend graduate school.

Graduate School

The number of science and engineering doctoral degrees awarded in the United States has remained fairly constant over the last two decades, fluctuating between 12,000 to 14,000 degrees awarded each year. The major change has been in the percentage of PhD recipients who have been temporary residents, which has risen from 23% in 1966 to 39% in 2003.30 Among US citizens and permanent residents, the number of white men earning science and engineering PhDs has decreased from a peak of 11,000 in 1975 to about 7,000 in 2003. The number and proportion of science and engineering PhDs awarded to white women and to members of underrepresented minorities have increased over the past two decades; from 1983 to 2003, the number of science and engineering PhDs earned by African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans had more than doubled to 1,500, or 5% of all PhDs awarded (Table 3-5).

TABLE 3-5. Number of PhD Degrees Awarded In Science and Engineering, by Race or Ethnicity and Sex, 2003 .

TABLE 3-5

Number of PhD Degrees Awarded In Science and Engineering, by Race or Ethnicity and Sex, 2003 .

There are a few key differences in perseverance to degree by sex. In a recent longitudinal study of PhD completion, Nettles and Millett31 followed a cohort of graduate students to determine the significant factors affecting time to degree and degree completion. They found women and men to have similar completion rates and time to degree. All students ostensibly had access to a faculty adviser, but only a subset of students (69%) indicated they had a mentor.32

Research productivity is of concern for women in SEM. When several background and experience factors were adjusted for, men graduate students showed a significant advantage in paper presentations, publishing research articles, and consequently total research productivity. Overall, the most consistent contributions to productivity measures were having a mentor and being supported by a research assistantship during the course of one’s studies. Women were as likely as men to have mentors and assistantship support, so other factors besides the conventional departmental indicators underlie the sex differences in productivity. Nettles and Millett point to the sex difference in graduate students’ rating of their interactions with faculty. The fact that women gave low ratings to their interactions with faculty may be a consequence of the predominance of male faculty in science and engineering fields.33 Minority-group women face additional challenges in navigating student-faculty interactions in graduate school.34

Overall, the finding that men rated student-faculty social interactions higher than women is the most troubling observation, because it implies the continuing existence of the “old boys club” and possible sex discrimination.

Michael Nettles and Catherine Millett (2006) 35

For minority-group students, it appears that type of graduate funding support, although it does not impact time to degree, can have a significant effect on formation of peer connections, faculty interactions, and research productivity. In the sciences and mathematics, African Americans were more than three times less likely than whites to publish.36 Science and engineering teaching assistants appear to have fewer opportunities to publish articles, and those supported on research assistantships reported higher publication rates. Nettles and Millett suggest that fellowship support of minority-group students may separate them from both research obligations and opportunities. Other research supports the finding that type of graduate research support can affect faculty interaction and career outcomes; students on fellowships were less likely to continue in academic science and engineering careers.37

It is notable that there are substantial differences by field, sex, and race or ethnicity in the types of graduate research support received (Table 3-6). Biological sciences have a very low proportion of students using personal funds (12.4%) compared with computer science (25.0%) and social and behavioral sciences (41.8%). Teaching assistantships are 2.5 times more prevalent in mathematics (52.5%) than in any other field. Research assistantships are prevalent in physical sciences (47.2%), engineering (43.2%), and biological sciences (35.7%). Engineering and computer science have a higher proportion of students receiving employer assistance than science fields (8.3%, 9.1%, and 2.3%, respectively). More women support their graduate work with personal funds and more men receive employee reimbursement. More African Americans and Hispanics receive fellowship support, more whites receive teaching assistantships, and more Asian Americans receive research assistantships.

TABLE 3-6. Primary Source of Support (Percent) for US Citizen and Permanent Resident Science and Engineering Doctorate Recipients, by Sex and Race or Ethnicity, 1999-2003.

TABLE 3-6

Primary Source of Support (Percent) for US Citizen and Permanent Resident Science and Engineering Doctorate Recipients, by Sex and Race or Ethnicity, 1999-2003.

Single women without children appear to be equally likely as all men to complete a science and engineering graduate degree.38 Other research indicates that doctoral students who are married or who have children under the age of 18 years have experiences similar to those of their peers who are not married or do not have children. They report similar peer interactions, social and academic interactions with faculty, and levels of research productivity. The primary difference is that students with children were more likely to temporarily stop out of their graduate program, and, in engineering and social sciences (but not other sciences), students with children took longer to complete their PhDs.39 In 2006, both Stanford University and Dartmouth College announced specific graduate student childbirth policies to facilitate the retention of women graduate students (Box 6-6).

As discussed in the chemistry case study, one’s academic pedigree can affect the likelihood of landing a tenure-track position, particularly in a research university. Most men and women who earn science and engineering doctorates earned their baccalaureate degrees at research universities (Table 3-7); Gaughan and Robin found that obtaining an undergraduate degree at one of the Research I universities is highly predictive of entry into an academic career.40 There are differences by sex, race, and ethnicity in the baccalaureate origins of science and engineering doctorates.41 For example, historically black colleges and universities and women’s colleges have played a larger role in producing women African American science PhD students: 75% of the African American women who earned PhDs in biology from 1975-1992 earned their baccalaureate degrees from either Spelman College or Bennett College.42

TABLE 3-7. Top 10 US Baccalaureate Institutions of Science and Engineering Doctorate Recipients, 1999-2003.

TABLE 3-7

Top 10 US Baccalaureate Institutions of Science and Engineering Doctorate Recipients, 1999-2003.

Graduate School Attrition

A number of researchers have examined the factors involved in graduate school attrition. Graduate Record Examination scores and undergraduate grade point averages are poor predictors of PhD attainment rates.43 The social climate of graduate school plays a large role in whether a woman obtains a PhD in science or engineering.

While in graduate school, students face many challenges, not the least of which is maintaining self-confidence. Some have suggested that women are conditioned to measure the value of their achievements by the amount and nature of the feedback and attention they receive from others, but that men are taught to require little support from others.44 Those social expectations would make women more vulnerable to losing their self-confidence in situations where little praise is given—a common occurrence in graduate school.45 Other researchers reported that a loss in self-confidence adversely affected career plans and the determination to carry them out.46 The integration of students into a community is associated with lower attrition rates.47

The isolation that women experience in graduate school has led to a number of adverse consequences, such as reduced opportunities to compare experiences with others, to seek help without the fear of being judged as inadequate or lacking in intelligence, to receive affirmation of their evaluations of situations, to obtain advice on ways of addressing a problem, to gain peer support and encouragement, and to build a professional network. In group meetings, female students reported that often their remarks were barely recognized by other group members, while the comments of their male peers were met with enthusiasm and support. Other studies reiterate this finding—that women are indeed “left out of informal networks” of communication.48

POSTGRADUATE CAREER PLANS

A majority of students in the sciences and mathematics (59%) and the social sciences (55%), but only 28% of students in engineering, prepare to become postdoctoral scholars or college or university faculty. Among all science and engineering PhD recipients in 2003, more women than men reported plans to enter postdoctoral study, and substantially more men than women reported plans to enter industrial employment (Table 3-8).

TABLE 3-8. Location and Type of Planned Postgraduate Study for US Citizens and Permanent Resident Science and Engineering PhD Recipients, by Sex, 2003.

TABLE 3-8

Location and Type of Planned Postgraduate Study for US Citizens and Permanent Resident Science and Engineering PhD Recipients, by Sex, 2003.

POSTDOCTORAL APPOINTMENTS

Postdoctoral research is virtually required in the life sciences, and is becoming increasingly common in the physical sciences and engineering. In the life sciences, men and women PhDs obtain postdoctoral appointments at similar rates (70.7% of women and 72.5% of men)—nearly 6,400 women and 10,500 men. In the physical sciences, 42.7% of women and 47.4% of men obtain postdoctoral appointments —1,000 women and 5,100 men.49

Professional Development and Productivity

In a recent national survey, Davis50 reports that postdoctoral scholars with the highest levels of oversight and professional development are more satisfied, give their advisers higher ratings, report fewer conflicts with their advisers, and are more productive than those reporting the lowest levels of oversight. Although salaries and benefits were weakly linked to subjective success and positive adviser relations, higher salaries51 and increased structured oversight appear to be linked to paper production, both for all peer-reviewed papers and first-author papers. Perhaps most interesting is the role of planning. Davis found that postdoctoral scholars who had crafted explicit plans with their adviser at the outset of their appointments were more satisfied with their experience than those who had not. In addition to subjective measures of success, postdoctoral scholars with written plans submitted papers to peer-reviewed journals at a 23% higher rate, first-author papers at a 30% higher rate, and grant proposals at a 25% higher rate than those without written plans.

Research on the post-PhD employment of scientists and engineers has shown that men employed in the academic sector express significantly greater job satisfaction than women; members of underrepresented minority groups are far less satisfied.52 Similarly, Davis found that men postdoctoral scholars had higher levels of subjective success than women. Men had higher publication rates, although women submitted grant proposals at a higher rate; this suggests different resource allocation strategies. Underrepresented minority postdoctoral scholars submitted first-author papers at a lower rate than majority postdoctoral scholars. These data may reflect what has been reported in mentoring studies of graduate students (see above) and junior faculty, where men and women report substantially different mentoring relationships. One institution found that women faculty were less likely than men to have mentors who actively fostered their careers and more likely than male faculty to report having mentors who used the women faculty’s work for the mentor’s own benefit (Box 6-3).

Funding Source

Overall, postdoctoral funding source does not appear to have a differential effect on career outcome. Certainly, being awarded a prestigious fellowship appears to have a favorable effect on one’s chances of landing a tenure-track position,53 but is not clear whether the fellowships select those who are already destined to land such positions or provide an additional advantage in being hired.

Recognizing that the age at which researchers receive their first independent award has been increasing over the last 20 years, the National Institutes of Health created the Pathway to Independence Award.54 The award provides an opportunity for promising postdoctoral scientists to receive both mentored and independent research support from the same award. It remains to be seen how this award will affect the proportion of postdoctoral scholars who successfully transition to faculty positions or whether it will increase the proportion of women scientists who continue in academic careers.

Similarly, it is unclear whether there is a differential effect on career progression for women who receive a prestigious award such as the NSF Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) award. Each year NSF selects nominees for the Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) from among the most meritorious new CAREER awardees. The PECASE program recognizes outstanding scientists and engineers who early in their careers show exceptional potential for leadership at the frontiers of knowledge. PECASE is the highest honor bestowed by the US government on scientists and engineers beginning their independent careers.55 It is notable that the proportion of women CAREER and PECASE awardees in the last 10 years meets or exceeds the proportion of women in the PhD pool (Figure 3-2).

FIGURE 3-2. Proportion of women CAREER and PECASE awardees, 1995-2004.

FIGURE 3-2

Proportion of women CAREER and PECASE awardees, 1995-2004. NOTES: PhD pool was calculated as the average proportion of women earning PhDs in the 5-year period prior to the award. Physical sciences include mathematics and computer sciences. SOURCE: PhD (more...)

FACULTY POSITIONS

Gains in women’s representation among bachelor’s and doctoral degree recipients have not translated into representation among college and university faculty (Figure 1-2 and Table 3-9). Four times as many men as women with science and engineering doctorates hold full-time faculty positions.56 Data derived from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster show that less than 5% of medical school faculty identify themselves as African American, Hispanic, or Native American.57 Even though more African American women than African American men earn science and engineering degrees, African American women make up less than half of the total African American full-time faculty in colleges and universities.58 As discussed above, the underrepresentation of women on faculties can contribute to undergraduate and graduate students opting into career paths outside of academe.59 It can also contribute to feelings of isolation among female faculty.

TABLE 3-9. Bachelor’s Degree Recipients Compared with Faculty, by Sex and Field, 2002.

TABLE 3-9

Bachelor’s Degree Recipients Compared with Faculty, by Sex and Field, 2002.

Hiring New Doctorates into Faculty Positions

No data are available on the total number of science and engineering tenure-track positions available each year. It is well known, however, that there are not nearly enough faculty positions to accommodate the new PhD pool. In physics in 2003, for example, there were 679 new faculty recruitments (including tenured, tenure-track, temporary, and non-tenure-track positions) and 1,197 new PhDs.60 In mathematics in 2004, there were 1,081 doctoral recipients and 232 reported hires in all faculty departments (126 were tenure-track at Research I universities).61

Fields vary in the proportion of female faculty relative to the available pool. In physics in 2004, a higher percentage of women were hired as junior faculty than are represented in the recent PhD pool: 18% of new physics hires and 13% of recent physics PhDs.62 In mathematics in 2004, women made up 31% of doctoral recipients and 28.4% of new faculty hires.63 Paradoxically, fields with higher proportions of women in the PhD pool have lower proportions of women in the applicant pool (Figure 1-2a, b, and c).64 The same appears to be true in academic medicine (Box 3-3).

Box Icon

BOX 3-3

Academic Medicine. DEFINING THE ISSUES During the last 30 years the share of women graduating from medical colleges has nearly reached parity with the share of male graduates. However, as shown in Figure B3-1, while the share of women students and faculty (more...)

Usual department hiring processes often do not identify exceptional female candidates. That point is brought into sharp focus by a recent report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),65 in which the number of women science faculty is plotted over time (Figure 3-3).

FIGURE 3-3. Number of women faculty in the School of Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1963-2006.

FIGURE 3-3

Number of women faculty in the School of Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1963-2006. NOTES: The numbers of male faculty in several relevant years are shown along the top of the graph. ADAPTED FROM: N Hopkins (2006). Diversification (more...)

The increases in the representation of women and minorities don’t just “happen,” but result from specific pressures, policies, and positive initiatives designed to increase the hiring of women or minorities; and that when these pressures abate or expire, hiring progress stops or even reverses.

Nancy Hopkins, Diversification of a University Faculty (2006)

In 2006, there were 36 female faculty and 240 male faculty in the School of Science at MIT. The total number of tenured and untenured women faculty in the MIT science departments rose steeply twice: between 1972 and 1976 and between 1997 and 2000. Those rises do not reflect contemporaneous increases in the size of the faculty. The number of male faculty actually decreased (from 259 to 229) during the rise in female faculty between 1997 and 2000 because of an early retirement program. Instead, the first sharp rise in the number of women science faculty beginning in 1972 was the result of pressures associated with the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action regulations. In particular, Secretary of Labor George Schultz in 1971 ordered compliance reviews of hiring policies of women in universities. All institutions receiving federal funding were required to have such plans in effect as of that year. The second sharp rise between 1997 and 2000 resulted directly from the Dean of the School of Science’s response to the 1996 MIT Report on Women Faculty in the School of Science.

The “Pool”

As discussed in Box 3-1, one of the current controversies is how to define the available pool of talent. Some base their figures on the proportion of women who have recently graduated with a PhD or MD; others suggest it should be based on the average over several years. In some fields where postdoctoral appointments are common, “recent” may be 5 years prior to a search. Others suggest the appropriate pool should be the proportion of women in the postdoctorate pool. Still others argue that the pool should be based on the proportion of women earning PhDs in top-tier institutions. As discussed in Box 3-1, there is currently no consensus on how to measure the “pool” of qualified candidates.

At the University of California, Berkeley, “doctoral pool” is defined in a two-step process. First, the average proportion of US residents earning PhDs in the relevant field in the 5 years prior is obtained from the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, which publishes these figures annually. Second, the pool is narrowed by considering only those PhDs awarded at the 35 institutions producing the most PhDs at top-quartile-rated doctoral programs, based on the National Research Council’s Research Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change report.66 Indeed, research on hiring shows that faculty at Research I universities received their doctorate degrees from a very select group of institutions,67 and that narrowing the institutional filter further may provide a more realistic picture of actual hiring practice. This issue is discussed in more detail later in this chapter in the Chemistry Case Study section. Perception of career opportunities is another factor affecting the sex distribution of the academic job applicant pool; some research indicates that women mathematics and science graduate students perceive academic careers more negatively than do men.68

Applicant data on biology and the health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2001-2004 show that women made up 47% of recent biology and health sciences doctorates from the top-quartile of graduate schools, but only 29% of applicants for tenure-track faculty positions (Figure 3-4). In physical science, mathematics, computer science, and engineering disciplines, women made up 21% of recent PhDs from those top schools and 15% of applicants (Figure 3-5). Minority-group women, in contrast with white women, are present in the University of California, Berkeley, applicant pool in the same proportion as in the PhD pool, but are not represented proportionately among assistant professors.

FIGURE 3-4. Biological and health sciences applicant pool and faculty positions at the University of California, Berkeley, 2001-2004.

FIGURE 3-4

Biological and health sciences applicant pool and faculty positions at the University of California, Berkeley, 2001-2004. NOTES: Underrepresented minority (URM) includes African American, Hispanic American, and Native American. Chair/Dean figures are (more...)

FIGURE 3-5. Physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering applicant pool and faculty positions at the University of California, Berkeley, 2001-2004.

FIGURE 3-5

Physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering applicant pool and faculty positions at the University of California, Berkeley, 2001-2004. NOTES: Underrepresented minority (URM) includes African American, Hispanic American, and Native American. There (more...)

Faculty Mobility

Estimates of faculty attrition are hard to come by. Most available attrition data are on retirements, not on mobility between universities or other nonretirement attrition. There is very little information available on where faculty go who leave academe. In 1999, about 7.7% of full-time faculty left their positions, 2.2% for retirement and 5.5% for a variety of other reasons.69 The few sources of data for this type of analysis are the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster, which collects and reports data on medical college faculty; the American Chemical Society Directory of Graduate Research; and the American Institute of Physics Academic Workforce Survey (Box 3-4).

Box Icon

BOX 3-4

The Association of American Medical Colleges’ Faculty Roster, the American Chemical Society Directory of Graduate Research, and the American Institute of Physics Academic Workforce Survey. TRACKING AND EVALUATION The AAMC Faculty Roster was (more...)

To better understand faculty turnover and mobility, we used the NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR), a longitudinal survey of a sample of people who earned doctorates in the United States. We examined the sample of full-time, untenured but tenure-track science, engineering, and social science faculty in 1995 who were also part of the survey 6 years later, in 2001. We found that men and women faculty exhibit different mobility: more men receive tenure or seek positions outside of academe, and more women move to non-tenure-track positions within academe.

  • A slightly greater percentage of men than women moved from academe to other sectors of employment in 2001 (8.6% of women and 11.1% of men).
  • A greater percentage of women faculty than men were unemployed in 2001 (3.4% of women and 0.8% of men).
  • Men and women faculty had a similar likelihood of being employed at the same type of institution in 1995 and 2001 (68.5% of women and 70.1% of men).
  • Men and women faculty had a similar likelihood of moving to a different type of institution between 1995 and 2001 (18.7% of women and 17.5% of men).
  • Women faculty were significantly more likely than men to change jobs only in the social sciences.
  • Of tenure-track faculty in 1995 who were employed in the same type of institution in 2001, more men than women faculty had received tenure (54.5% of women and 59.2% of men).

Next, we looked at full-time, untenured, tenure-track science, engineering, and social science faculty employed at a Research I institution in 1995. We found that between 1995 and 2001:

  • Faculty at Research I universities were half as likely as the overall population of science, engineering, and social sciences faculty to move to other types of higher education institutions.
  • Men were almost twice as likely as women to move to jobs outside academe (8.5% of women and 15.3% of men).
  • Women who were employed as tenure-track faculty in 1995 were more likely than men not to be employed in 2001 (2.5% of women, 0.6% of men).
  • Women tenure-track faculty who were employed at a Research I institution in both 1995 and 2001 cohorts were less likely than men to have received tenure in 2001 than corresponding men (56.3% of women and 61.6% of men).

Exiting the Tenure Track70

We did an additional analysis to determine why tenure-track and tenured faculty changed jobs, using the 1995-2003 SDR. To be included in the sample, individuals must have had tenure or have had tenure-track jobs in 1995. Most individuals indicated multiple reasons for job changes. The single most important reason given was pay and promotion—this did not differ by field. Other reasons for changing jobs did differ by field, rank, and sex. Across fields, women faculty consistently ranked working conditions, family, and job location higher than men among their reasons for changing jobs (Table 3-10).71 Differences were most prevalent in life sciences, particularly among full professors.

TABLE 3-10. Reasons for Job Change by Sex, All Faculty Ranks, All Fields, 1995-2003.

TABLE 3-10

Reasons for Job Change by Sex, All Faculty Ranks, All Fields, 1995-2003.

There are sex differences in where women and men land after leaving tenure-track positions. A hazard analysis of the 1973-2001 longitudinal SDR sample shows that across science fields, men were significantly more likely to leave the tenure track for nonacademic employment. The overall hazard rate is 0.830 (p=0.05), which means that about 20% more men than women exited to nonacademic jobs. Where are the women going? Across all fields of science and engineering women are 40% more likely than men to exit the tenure track for an adjunct academic position (p=0.01). In addition to sex, the factors with the strongest correlation to this outcome were race or ethnicity, and employment at a private university or medical school. Women whose primary or secondary responsibility was teaching or those who had government funding were significantly less likely to exit to adjunct positions.

Tenure

Faculty mobility may be pushed by the expectation of a negative tenure decision. At MIT, for example, there is a 50% tenure rate in the science and engineering departments.72 This is similar to the overall tenure rate at Research I universities (see above and footnote 95). Our analysis showed a small 4% difference in tenure rates for men and women; a number of other reports have documented similar differential tenure rates for men and women.73 Others document differential tenure rates for minority faculty.74 Some researchers have broken out tenure rates by field;75 in this finer analysis, between 1973 and 2001, women were between 1-3% less likely than men to get tenure in physical sciences, 2-4% more likely than men to get tenure in life sciences and engineering, and 8% less likely than men to get tenure in social sciences.

In addition to the cohort analysis described above, another way t analyze tenure decisions is by examining faculty who are reviewed for tenure.76 This analysis excludes faculty who leave the tenure track, and does not address time to tenure. Compared to the cohort analysis, the “review” paradigm yields higher tenure rates that are similar for men and women faculty.77 For early tenure decisions—those made within 2 years of hiring—tenure rates are 96% to 100% for men, women, and minority faculty. For 4th- and 6th-year tenure review cases, the rates are also similar for men and women in, but are lower for, minority faculty: 85% to 90% of men and women are granted tenure, while 75% to 82% of minority faculty are granted tenure.

Promotion

Women faculty gain promotion more slowly than men and are less likely to reach the highest academic rank, especially in the Research I universities (see Chapter 4). At one university, for example (Figure 3-6), the most substantial difference between men and women is in the time it takes to reach the associate professor level, although there is also a difference in the timing between tenure and full professor.78 The pattern is not unique; it has also been shown at Duke University and at MIT, where women faculty are promoted more slowly than men. Race and ethnicity is an additional factor strongly correlated with reduced probability of promotion to full professor: between 1973 and 2001, African American women were almost 10% less likely than men to be promoted to full professor within 15 years of PhD.79

FIGURE 3-6. Advancing through the ranks: University of California, Berkeley, faculty, by sex and field.

FIGURE 3-6

Advancing through the ranks: University of California, Berkeley, faculty, by sex and field. NOTES: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments do not include biology. All Science is a composite of STEM, biology, and social science (more...)

The persistent effect of sex, even after controlling for a number of relevant variables, suggests that there is more to learn about the promotion process. Some researchers suggest that a reasonable explanation of women’s slower promotion and longer time in rank is that women are expected to meet higher standards for promotion, especially at Research I institutions.80 Another possibility is that women, particularly in the transition from achieving tenure to full professorship, are less likely to feel ready to apply. As discussed in Chapter 4, research shows that bias affects the judgments made about women scientists and engineers and often results in their research being less valued than research by men.

Faculty Retention

From a number of reports, projects, and task forces examining factors behind faculty retention and attrition a number of common threads emerge (Box 3-5).81

Box Icon

BOX 3-5

Factors Affecting Faculty Attrition. DEFINING THE ISSUES Tenure policies and practices

A key factor in retaining faculty of all types is the problem of differences in salaries between groups. A task force at the University of Colorado at Boulder (UC-Boulder) found that “non-competitive salaries represent the most-cited factor in faculty retention.”82 That concern was most prevalent among men; senior women faculty expressed more concern over salaries than junior women faculty. Other studies have found, however, that female faculty were less satisfied with their salaries than male faculty83 and studies at MIT84 and elsewhere have noted that women faculty are often underpaid relative to men.85

An important issue related to salary is how universities structure and explain their tenure policies and procedures. Rigid policies for attaining tenure can raise difficulties for women and for junior faculty in general. As discussed above, women are more likely than men to leave the university at early points in their career.86 Trower and Chait report that both men and women receive little guidance about tenure policies and that junior faculty are likely to view tenure practices as “outmoded.”87 The Study of New Scholars at Harvard University reports significant differences in men and women faculty views of the tenure process; men are found to have clearer views of tenure prospects and expectations.88 Annual reviews and effective mentoring programs have been shown to clarify expectations and improve faculty retention (Box 6-3).

Conflicts between personal and professional life, as in the case of tenure, are often important in retention of junior and women faculty. Several studies show that women faculty are less satisfied than men with the interaction between their personal and professional lives.89 A task force at Columbia University notes that family responsibilities disproportionately impact women. Women are in their childbearing years at the same time they are developing their careers, and the demands of career and family often conflict.90 Such policies as child-care options and spousal hiring programs that are cognizant of the conflict can play a significant role in faculty retention. The UC-Boulder task force notes that spouse or partner employment opportunities can be an especially prevalent concern among junior faculty.91

Within a given faculty member’s professional life department climate and the presence or absence of a supportive work environment have important influence on attrition and retention. A number of factors commonly cited in faculty retention and attrition studies are related to the environment that faculty encounter in their workplaces.92 Work done by Callister suggests that department climate is an important factor for universities to consider when attempting to improve faculty job satisfaction and intentions to quit.93 Callister reports that women faculty tend to be less satisfied than men in their jobs and more likely to quit. In a similar finding, the Study of New Scholars at Harvard reports that women faculty are less satisfied than men faculty with their workplace expectations and relationships, including availability of support, mentoring, and collaboration.94

The UC-Boulder task force noted a sense of “professional isolation” as the third-most common reason for faculty attrition for women and men faculty. Professional isolation may include a lack of support from colleagues, lack of inclusion in the department community, and rude or unsympathetic students. Furthermore, several studies, including ones at Colorado and Columbia, note that women (and junior faculty members) have fewer opportunities to serve on meaningful department and university committees.95 The 1999 MIT study expressed concern that women faculty were “excluded from any substantial power within the University.”96

A final issue related to the workplace environment was uncovered in a recent study at Rutgers University, which suggested that some women faculty’s outside offers are less likely than those of men to yield serious responses from university administrators, and it is more likely that those women will move to other universities.97

Surveys of female faculty members illuminate specific climate issues. In a national survey of more than 1,000 university faculty members carried out by the Higher Education Research Institute, women were more likely than men to feel that colleagues devalued their research, that they had fewer opportunities to participate in collaborative efforts, and that they were constantly being scrutinized.98 Other researchers found that men tended to devalue women’s contributions to an effort.99 In another study, exit interviews of faculty women who “voluntarily” left a large university indicated that one of the key reasons for their departure was the lack of respect that they had been given by their colleagues.100 Preston found that a majority of female professors perceived that because of their sex they had not been respected or treated appropriately.101 Similarly, in a survey of Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Education grant recipients, women faculty reported that they had limited opportunities to participate in department or decision-making processes, had heard their research trivialized and discounted by other faculty members, had received little guidance about department procedures, and were ill informed about the tenure process.102 The Yale Women Faculty Forum has developed a specific exit survey and interview process (Box 3-6) that can serve as a model for others; the survey has led to the creation of specific professional development courses for postdoctoral scholars and junior faculty.

Box Icon

BOX 3-6

Task Force on the Retention and Promotion of Junior Faculty, Yale Women Faculty Forum . EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES One way to determine the reasons for leaving an academic position is simply to ask. To a certain degree, this is done in the longitudinal (more...)

When asked why they left academic science and engineering, men overwhelmingly focus on low pay and the lack of career advancement, while women offered three main reasons: desire for more interesting work, lack of mentor or guidance, and difficulty shouldering family and career responsibilities.103 There is reason to believe that many women (and men) experience those discontents and do not leave the field, which can translate into lack of job satisfaction for more senior employees.

Departments vs. Centers

In light of the findings for faculty employed in university departments, it is interesting to note that participation in academic centers may offer different career opportunities for women scientists and engineers. In a nationally representative dataset on scientists and engineers working in research universities, Corley and Gaughan104 found that women were as likely as men to join centers and do so at a similar stage in their career. Most of the male-female differences observed in disciplinary settings, such as lower proportions of women in leadership positions, were sustained in centers, but women appeared to have greater research equality. Men and women in centers spend the same amount of time in writing grant proposals, conducting research, supervising graduate students, and administering grants. Corley and Gaughan suggest that centers may potentially serve as a leveling field for men and women academics, but much work remains to be done, particularly at the leadership level (Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5). Women in centers are younger on the average and less likely to be tenured than their male colleagues. There are also fewer women of color in centers than in university departments.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FACULTY ATTRITION

Even while turnover has its benefits in terms of bringing in new talent and ideas, replacing faculty members who leave can represent a substantial cost to universities, so it is worthwhile to invest in policies and practices that encourage faculty retention. Start-up costs associated with hiring new professors are often high. In addition to the costs incurred by a recruitment committee, average start-up costs for a new professor range from about $110,000 for an assistant professor in physics at a public nonresearch university to nearly $1.5 million for a senior faculty member in engineering at a private research institution.105 The Task Force on Faculty Recruitment and Retention at UC-Boulder reports that in general, replacement costs are much greater than retention costs.106 It estimates that it costs $200,000-$400,000 to replace a natural sciences or engineering faculty member at a public research university, whereas “only a fraction of these costs would go a long way” in programs to help retain existing faculty.107 Tables 3-11 and 3-12 provide detailed listings of estimated start-up costs for new faculty hires.

TABLE 3-11. Average Start-up Packages for Assistant Professors in Selected Fields Starting in 2000-2001 at Public Research I Universities.

TABLE 3-11

Average Start-up Packages for Assistant Professors in Selected Fields Starting in 2000-2001 at Public Research I Universities.

TABLE 3-12. Start-up Costs Associated with New Professors.

TABLE 3-12

Start-up Costs Associated with New Professors.

Costs associated with hiring new faculty fall into several categories. There are costs associated with establishing search and recruitment committees and costs associated with relocation allowances, infrastructure, and support (for example, for laboratory renovations, offices, and equipment that might be required in support of new faculty). Those costs are included in the estimates discussed previously (and detailed in Tables 3-11 and 3-12). In addition, there is a substantial secondary cost associated with the loss of faculty and hiring of new faculty: that of research and grant productivity. In many cases, new faculty do not immediately bring the type of research-grant award support that productive, established faculty might. Callister reports that “it can take 10 years for a new faculty member in science or engineering to develop enough of a positive revenue stream from grants and to recoup start-up costs. If a faculty member leaves before startup costs are recovered, the university loses money and must start over again.”108 In monetary terms, that can be substantial. The UC-Boulder task force estimated that a productive faculty member “may bring about $100K per year” in external support to the university, external support that would take a new faculty member several years to generate.109

Because science and engineering faculty incur costs continuously, some researchers have suggested that the aggregate costs required by new faculty (and not merely the initial start-up costs) should be considered in analyzing the cost of faculty turnover. Joiner110 has suggested an economic model for calculating the cost of turnover based on net present value (NPV). This model is commonly used in business to project the value of projects. It views faculty as long-term investments by considering all positive and negative cash flows for faculty members over time. Applying the model to faculty costs allows projections of the yearly costs of faculty salary, fringe and personal benefits, supplies and equipment, facility renovation, and other factors that are typically part of the costs accrued by universities in support of faculty (either new or existing). At the same time, the positive cash flows provided by a faculty member to the university (grant support, clinical revenues, and so on) are estimated. In concert, those two parts of the NPV model yield an estimate of the net cost (or financial yield) of a faculty member to a university.111

Using the NPV model, one could estimate the length of time a faculty member must remain at an institution for the institution to see a financial return on its investment. From a strictly economic perspective, if a faculty member leaves an institution prematurely (before the NPV model shows a positive yield), the institution loses money. In essence the NPV model dictates that “a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.”112 Existing faculty are likely to have a positive NPV, whereas new faculty are likely to show a negative net cost. Accordingly, this model suggests that it is in the best financial interest of the university to direct efforts at retaining faculty. Some effective retention practices are outlined in Box 3-7.

Box Icon

BOX 3-7

The University of Washington Faculty Retention Toolkit . EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES “Faculty retention is critical to the health of a university department both for morale reasons and also for economic reasons …”

CASE STUDY: CHEMISTRY113

To examine the issue of faculty recruitment in more detail, the committee focused on chemistry, a field with a relatively high proportion of women PhDs. Information on the age, sex, and training of chemistry faculty members was obtained from the American Chemical Society’s 2001 DGR. The study was limited to faculties in the departments of chemistry, chemistry and biochemistry, or chemical biology at 86 Research I institutions. Only data on persons holding the rank of assistant, associate, or full professor were ascertained. Persons for whom there was no biographical information on training or rank were excluded from the study.114 The hiring data clearly show that chemistry faculty who have done their graduate work at Research I universities are overwhelmingly preferred; in addition, women faculty are drawn from a smaller pool of institutions than men.

Of the 2,476 faculty members at the Research I institutions, 10.5% were female (Table 3-13). 12.3% of the faculty members earned their doctorates at a non-US institution; of these 6.9% were women—a smaller fraction than they were of all the faculty members. The top foreign institutions training the greatest number of future faculty members were Cambridge University, University College of London, and Oxford University.

TABLE 3-13. 2001 Chemistry Faculty Members, by Country of Doctorate.

TABLE 3-13

2001 Chemistry Faculty Members, by Country of Doctorate.

The median and average age of men faculty members were 49 years and 50 ± 11.8 years, respectively. The women faculty members were on average younger, with a median age of 42 years and an average age of 44 ± 9.2 years. It should be noted that a number of individuals did not give their date of birth (20 men and 11 females); therefore, they could not be included in these calculations.

Since 1981 there has been an increase in the hiring/retention of women. A comparison of the number of men and women faculty members who received their doctorates during the same years indicates that the growth in the number of women faculty members has mirrored that of men who received their doctorate in the same time interval (Figure 3-7).

FIGURE 3-7. Comparison of the number of men and women chemistry faculty members at RI institutions.

FIGURE 3-7

Comparison of the number of men and women chemistry faculty members at RI institutions. SOURCE: American Chemical Society (2001). Directory of Graduate Research. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

In 2001, women held 18.3% of the positions at the rank of assistant professor and 17.9% of associate professor (Table 3-14) at Research I universities. A much lower percentage, 6.4%, of the full professor positions were held by women.

TABLE 3-14. Chemistry Faculty, by Sex and Rank, 2001.

TABLE 3-14

Chemistry Faculty, by Sex and Rank, 2001.

Less than 4% of chemistry doctorates were found to hold faculty positions at Research I institutions. With the exception of the years 1971-1975, a higher percentage of men than women who earned chemistry PhDs ever were employed on Research I university faculties (Table 3-15). It appears that after all the efforts to increase the diversity of faculties, women with doctorates are still lagging behind men in attaining faculty positions at Research I institutions.

TABLE 3-15. Proportion of Chemistry Doctorates Who Obtain Chemistry Faculty Positions at Research I Institutions, by Sex and Year of PhD.

TABLE 3-15

Proportion of Chemistry Doctorates Who Obtain Chemistry Faculty Positions at Research I Institutions, by Sex and Year of PhD.

There is a strong preference by Research I chemistry departments to hire graduates from a small subset of universities. Ten of the top 11 institutions were common to both men and women faculty (Table 3-16). Eleven departments graduated 54.6% of the US-trained men future RI faculty; Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, trained by far the most. For women, 11 departments graduated 51.7% of the US-trained women future RI faculty members, and Berkeley trained by far the most.

TABLE 3-16. Institutions Training the Greatest Number of Chemistry Faculty at Research I Institutions, by Sex and Year of PhD.

TABLE 3-16

Institutions Training the Greatest Number of Chemistry Faculty at Research I Institutions, by Sex and Year of PhD.

During the years 1988-1997, women received 26.4% of the doctorates in chemistry. A lower proportion of women doctorates obtained faculty positions at Research I institutions than did men doctorates (Table 3-17). Of those Research I universities that hired more than 5 faculty, 4 hired above the pool, 7 hired at about the pool, and 19 hired substantially below the available pool of women chemistry PhD graduates.

TABLE 3-17. Number of Faculty Hired at Selected Research I Institutions, by Sex, 1988-1997.

TABLE 3-17

Number of Faculty Hired at Selected Research I Institutions, by Sex, 1988-1997.

Programs designed to increase the representation of women chemistry faculty need to take into account cuts in the number of full-time faculty slots at doctorate-granting institutions, as demonstrated by the larger proportion but smaller number of women faculty (Table 3-18). This shrinkage of the tenure track is a general phenomenon. The academic employment of science and engineering PhDs increased from 118,000 in 1973 to 258,300 in 2003, full-time faculty positions grew more slowly than postdoctoral and other full- and part-time positions, and growth was slower than in the government and business sectors.115

TABLE 3-18. Women PhD Chemists Working Full-Time at PhD-Granting Institutions, by Rank and Sex, 1990-2005.

TABLE 3-18

Women PhD Chemists Working Full-Time at PhD-Granting Institutions, by Rank and Sex, 1990-2005.

CONCLUSION

Individual efforts can have dramatic effects but sustained change is unlikely unless there is a transformation of the process by which students and faculty are educated, trained, recruited, and retained. To increase the numbers of women in science and engineering education and academic careers, policy action should focus on specific lever points: the transition to college, graduate school faculty interactions, application and recruitment to faculty positions, and retention of faculty.

Increasing the number of women and underrepresented minority-group faculty substantially will require assistance from faculty, individual departments, and schools; oversight and leadership from provosts and presidents; and sustained normative pressure, possibly from external sources. As dis cussed in the previous chapter, the first step is to understand that women are as capable as men of contributing to the science and engineering enterprise. As discussed in the next chapter, the science and engineering community needs to come to terms with the biases and structures that impede women from realizing their potential. The data show that policy changes are sustainable only if they create a “new normal,” a new way of doing things. The community needs to work together, across departments, through professional societies, and with funders and federal agencies, to bring about gender equity so that our nation can perform at its full potential.

Footnotes

1

MT Nettles and CM Millett (2006). Three Magic Letters: Getting to PhD. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. This study followed a sample of 9,036 graduate students from 21 of the major US doctorate-producing institutions from 1996 to 2001.

2

V Valian (1998). Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press; MA Mason and M Goulden (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 596 (1):86-103; D Ginther (2006). The economics of gender differences in employment outcomes in academia. In Biological, Social, and Organizational Components of Success for Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

3

CSV Turner (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality. Journal of Higher Education 73(1):74-93.

4

Education Trust, Inc. (2002). The Condition of Education, 2002. Data were from surveys conducted by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2001.

5

Available from the US Department of Education at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf.

6

Y Xie and KA Shauman (2003). Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

7

See, for example, CB Leggon (2006). Women in science: Racial and ethnic differences and the differences they make. Journal of Technology Transfer 31:325-333.

8

The committee acknowledges that there are different experiences within racial and ethnic groups. These are addressed in more detail in the National Science Foundation’s Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in S&E reports, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/; BEST reports, http://www.bestworkforce.org; NAS/NAE/IOM (2006). Biological, Social, and Organizational Components of Success for Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; G Campbell, R Denes, and C Morrison (1999). Access Denied: Race, Ethnicity and the Scientific Enterprise, New York: Oxford UniversityPress; National Research Council (1992). Science and Engineering Programs: On Target for Women? Washington, DC: National AcademyPress; National Research Council (1991). Women in Science and Engineering: Increasing Their Numbers in the 1990s: A Statement on Policy and Strategy. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress; National Research Council (1989). Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

9

LJ Horn and L Kojaku (2001). High School Academic Curriculum and the Persistence Path Through College: Persistence and Transfer Behavior of Undergraduates 3 Years after Entering 4-Year Institutions (NCES 2001-163). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

10

C Adelman (1999). Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment (PLLI 1999-8021). Washington, DC: US Department of Education; G Orfield (2005). Dropouts in America: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

11

National Science Board (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Appendix Table 1-17.

12

SL Hanson (2004). African American women in science: Experiences from high school through the post-secondary years and beyond. NWSA Journal 16(1):96.

13

National Science Board (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Figures 1-28 and 1-29.

14

Y Xie and KA Shauman (2003). Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Chapter 2.

15

HS Astin (2005). Annual Survey of the American Freshman, National Norms. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

16
17

C Goldin, LF Katz, and I Kuziemko (2006). The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap (NBER Working Paper No. 12139). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

18

C Adelman (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf.

19

E Seymour and NM Hewitt (1997). Talking about Leaving. Boulder, CO:Westview Press; S Laurich-McIntyre and SG Brainard (1995). Retaining Women Freshmen in Engineering and Science: A Success Story. Women in Engineering Conference Proceedings: Is Systemic Change Happening? Washington, DC, pp. 227-232; A Ginorio (1995). Warming the Climate for Women in Academic Science. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

20

SE Berryman (1983). Who Will Do Science? Minority and Female Attainment of Science and Mathematics Degrees: Trends and Causes. New York: Rockefeller Foundation; TL Hilton and VE Lee (1988). Student interest and persistence in science. Journal of Higher Education 59(5):510-526; J Oakes (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education 16:153-222; Y Xie (1996). A demographic approach to studying the process of becoming a scientist/engineer. In: Careers in Science and Technology: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; E Seymour and NM Hewitt (1997). Talking about Leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

21
22
23
24
25

SG Brainard and L Carlin (1997). A Longitudinal Study of Undergraduate Women in Engineering and Science, http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie97/papers/1252.pdf.

26

Xie and Shauman (2003) Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

27
28
29

C Goldin (2002). A Pollution Theory of Discrimination: Male and Female Differences in Occupations and Earnings (Working Paper 8985). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economics Research.

30

R Freeman, E Jin, and C-Y Shen (2004). Where Do New US-Trained Science-Engineering PhDs Come From? (NBER Working Paper 10554). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

31

MT Nettles and CM Millett (2006). Three Magic Letters: Getting to PhD. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. This study followed 9,036 students who completed their first year of graduate studies in 1996. Data are reported by sex or race or ethnicity; there are no specific data reported on minority women.

32

In their questionnaire, Nettles and Millet defined mentor as “someone on the faculty to whom students turned for advice, to review a paper, or for general support and encouragement.” This definition made it possible for the mentor and adviser to be the same person, but it did give the researchers a chance to examine mentorship separately from advising.

33

Nettles and Millett (2006), ibid; BR Sandler (1991). The Campus Climate Revisited: Chilly Climate for Women Faculty, Administrators, and Graduate Students. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

34

Y Moses (1989). Black Women in Academe: Issues and Strategies. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges; B Books (2000). Black and female: Reflections on graduate school. In Women in Higher Education, eds. J Glazer-Raymo, EM Bensimon, and BK Townsend, 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Publishing; S Nieves-Squires (1991). Hispanic Women: Making their Presence on Campus Less Tenuous. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

35
36
37

M Gaughan and S Robin (2004). National science training policy and early scientific careers in France and the United States. Research Policy 33:569-581.

38
39
40
41

DG Solorzano (1994). The baccalaureate origins of Chicana and Chicano doctorates in the physical, life, and engineering sciences: 1980-1990. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 1(4):253-272;NR Sharpe and CH Fuller (1995). Baccalaureate origins of women physical science doctorates: Relationship to institutional gender and science discipline. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 2(1):1-15; T Lintner (1996). The Forgotten Scholars: American Indian Doctorate Receipt, 1980-1990, http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/be/36.pdf; CB Leggon and W Pearson (1997). The baccalaureate origins of African American female PhD scientists. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3(4):213-224.

42

CB Leggon and W Pearson (1997). The baccalaureate origins of African American female PhD scientists. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3:213-224.

43

National Research Council (1996). The Path to the PhD. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

44

VJ Kuck, CH Marzabadi, SA Nolan, and J Buckner (2004). Analysis by gender of the doctoral and postdoctoral institutions of faculty members at the top-fifty ranked chemistry departments. Journal of Chemical Education 81(3):356-363, http://www.chem.indiana.edu/academics/ugrad/Courses/G307/documents/Genderanalysis.pdf.

45

CA Trower and JL Bleak (2004). Study of New Scholars. Gender: Statistical Report [Universities]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~newscholars/newscholars/downloads/genderreport.pdf.

46
47

BE Lovitts (2001). Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

48
49

National Science Foundation (2004). Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

50

G Davis (2005). Optimizing the Postdoctoral Experience: An Empirical Approach (Working Paper). Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.

51

One standard deviation in each (for salary, a 19% difference, or roughly $7,600) corresponds to a 6.5-7% increase in the rate of paper production.

52

P Moguerou (2002). Job Satisfaction among US PhDs: The Effects of Gender and Employment Sectors (Working Paper), http://www.rennes.inra.fr/jma2002/pdf/moguerou.pdf.

53

G Pion and M Ionescu-Pioggia (2003). Bridging postdoctoral training and a faculty position: Initial outcomes of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Awards in the Biomedical Sciences. Academic Medicine 78(2):177-186.

54
55
56

CPST (2002). Professional Women and Minorities: A Total Human Resources Data Compendium, 14th ed. Washington, DC: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology.

57

A Palepu, PL Carr, RH Friedman, H Amos, AS Ash, and MA Moskowitz (1998). Minority faculty in academic medicine. JAMA 280(9):767-771.

58

WB Harvey (2003). 20th Anniversary Minorities in Higher Education Annual Status Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; K Hamilton (2002). The state of the African American professoriate. Black Issues in Higher Education 19(7):30-31.

59

Discussed in ALW Sears (2003). Image problems deplete the number of women in academic applicant pools. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 9:169-181;MF Fox and PE Stephan (2001). Careers of young scientists: Preferences, prospects, and realities by gender and field. Social Studies of Science 31(1):109-122.

60

R Ivie and KN Ray (2005). Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2005 (AIP Publication Number R-430.02). College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics, http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/women05.pdf.

61

EE Kirkman, JW Maxwell, and CA Rose (2005). 2004 Annual Survey of the Mathematical Sciences. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, http://www.ams.org/employment/2004Survey-Third-Report.pdf.

62

R Ivie and KN Ray (2005). Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2005. American Institute of Physics.

63
64

Applications, interviews, and hiring decisions are discussed in the forthcoming report by the National Academies Committee on Women in Science and Engineering (Box 1-3).

65
66

National Research Council (1995). Research Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

67

For example, see VJ Kuck, CH Marzabadi, SA Nolan, and J Buckner (2004). Analysis by gender of the doctoral and postdoctoral institutions of faculty members at the top-fifty ranked chemistry departments. Journal of Chemical Education 81(3):356-363.

68

ALW Sears (2003). Image problems deplete the number of women in academic applicant pools. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 9:169-181; D Barbezat (1992). The market for new PhD economists. Journal of Economic Education 23:262-276.

69

Y Zhou and JF Volkwein (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure intentions: A comparison of tenured versus nontenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education 45(2):139-176.

70

The research described in this section was commissioned by the committee from Donna Ginther, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Kansas.

71

This finding corroborates earlier work on faculty intentions to leave.See LLB Barnes, MO Agago, and WT Coombs (1998). Effects of job-related stress on faculty intention to leave academia. Research in Higher Education 39(4):457-469; S Kulis, Y Chong, and H Shaw (1999). Discriminatory organizational contexts and black scientists on postsecondary faculties. Research in Higher Education 40(2):115-148;Y Zhou and JF Volkwein (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure intentions: A comparison of tenured versus untenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education 45(2):139-176; VJ Rosser (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education 45(3):285-309; RR Callister (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. Journal of Technology Transfer 31:367-375.

72

N Hopkins (2006). Diversification of a university faculty: Observations on hiring women faculty in the schools of science and engineering at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter 18(4):1, 16-23.

73

National Science Foundation (2004). Gender Differences in the Careers of Academic Scientists and Engineers (NSF 04-323). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; AS Ash, PL Carr, R Goldstein, and RH Friedman (2004). Compensation and advancement of women in academic medicine: Is there equity? Annals of Internal Medicine 141(3):205-212; D Ginther (2001). Does Science Discriminate Against Women? Evidence from Academia (Working Paper 2001-02). Atlanta, GA: Federal Reserve Bank ofAtlanta; National Research Council (2001). From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

74

MJ Dooris and M Guidos (2006). Tenure Achievement Rates at Research Universities. Presentation at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL, May 2006, http://www​.psu.edu/president​/pia//planning_research​/reports/AIR​_Tenure_Flow_Paper_06.pdf.

75

D Ginther and S Kahn (2006). Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001 (NBER SEWP Working Paper). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economics Research, http://www.nber.org/~sewp/GintherKahn_Sciences_promo_NBER.pdf.

76

This type of analysis is used by the National Academies Committee on Women in Science and Engineering in their 2006 workshop report (Box 1-3).

77
78

Additional data on time to promotion is provided by the National Academies Committee on Women in Science and Engineering in their 2006 workshop report (Box 1-3).

79

D Ginther, research commissioned by the committee.

80

J Long, P Allison, and R McGinnis (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and effects of productivity.” American Sociological Review 58(5):703-722; Ginther (2006), ibid.

81

See NAS/NAE/IOM (2006). Biological, Social, and Organizational Components of Success for Women in Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; Gender Faculty Studies at Research I Universities Web site, http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cwse/gender_faculty_links.html; and the NSF ADVANCE Web site, http://www.nsf.gov/advance.

82
83

M Hemmasi, LA Graf, and JA Lust (1992). Correlates of pay and benefit satisfaction: The unique case of public university faculty. Public Personnel Management 21(4):442-443;CA Trower and JL Bleak (2004). Study of New Scholars. Gender: Statistical Report [Universities]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~newscholars/newscholars/downloads/genderreport.pdf.

84

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999). A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT, http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html.

85

RR Callister (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. Journal of Technology Transfer 31:367-375.

86

Also see D Teodorescu (2002). Faculty Gender Equity at Emory: PCSW Study Finds Both Fairness and Imbalances, http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/2002/octnov/pcsw.html;MN Harrigan (1999). An Analysis of Faculty Turnover at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. University of Wisconsin-Madison, http://wiscweb3.wisc.edu/obpa/FacultyTurnover/FacultyTurnover2.html.

87

C Trower and R Chait (2002). Faculty diversity: Too little for too long. Harvard Magazine. March-April 2002.

88
89

S Bullers (1999). Selection effects in the relationship between women’s work/family status and perceived control. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies 48(2):181-188; LJ Sax, LS Hagedorn, M Arredondo, and FA Dicrisi (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education 43(4):423-446.

90
91
92

SPK Jena (1999). Job, life satisfaction, and occupational stress of women. Social Science International 15(1):75-80;JC Holder and A Vaux (1998). African American professionals: Coping with occupational stress in predominantly white environments. Journal of Vocational Behavior 53(3):315-333;YF Niemann and JF Dovidio (1998). Relationship of solo status, academic rank, and perceived distinctiveness to job satisfaction of racial/ethic minorities. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(1):55-71.

93
94
95
96
97

Rutgers University (2001). A Study of Gender Equity in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, http://fas.rutgers.edu/onlineforms/gender_report.pdf.

98

HS Astin and LJ Sax (1996). Developing scientific talent in undergraduate women. In The Equity Equation: Fostering the Advancement of Women in the Sciences, Mathematics and Engineering, eds. CS Davis, AB Ginorio, BB Hollenshead, and PM Rayman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

99

L Chliwniak (1997). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report ED 410 847. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.

100

SA Wenzel and C Hollenshead (1998). Former Women Faculty: Reasons for Leaving One Research University. Washington, DC: ERIC Document Service.

101

AE Preston (2004). Leaving Science: Occupational Exit from Scientific Careers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

102

SV Rosser (2004). The Science Glass Ceiling. New York: Routledge.

103

AE Preston (2004), ibid. See also P Moguerou (2002). Job Satisfaction among US PhDs: The Effects of Gender and Employment Sectors (Working Paper), http://www.rennes.inra.fr/jma2002/pdf/moguerou.pdf.

104

E Corley and M Gaughan (2005). Scientists’ participation in university research centers: What are the gender differences? Journal of Technology Transfer 30:371-381.

105

RG Ehrenberg, MJ Rizzo, and GH Jakubson (2003). Who bears the growing cost of science at universities? (Working Paper 9627). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w9627.

106
107
108

RR Callister (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. Journal of Technology Transfer 31:367-375.

109
110

KA Joiner (2005). A strategy for allocating central funds to support new faculty recruitment. Academic Medicine 80(3):218-224.

111
112
113

This section is based on research commissioned by the committee from Valerie J Kuck, Visiting Professor, Seton Hall University (Retired, Bell Labs).

114

The DGR contained the names of about 20 faculty members with no other information on their training or rank.

115

National Science Board (2004) Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Table 5-6.

Image p20012271g16001
Copyright © 2007, National Academy of Sciences.
Bookshelf ID: NBK9814

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (10M)

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...