The glass ceiling of academia.

A new report published by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), called “Why So Few”, does a good job summarizing the information known to date about the under-representation of women in science and math. The report is an in-depth study (134pages) that examines the cognitive attitudes and achievements of girls vs. boys in maths and sciences at the high school level. It also re-iterates that the unconscious gender biases and climate within universities still impede women’s participation and success in STEM areas. Although there is little that is new, it does actually offer a few solutions. And part of the value of the report comes because it is a reminder of how far we have to go in order to get gender parity in academia.

I've highlighted some facts that I think are relevant.

The report finds that the number of women who have earned bachelor degrees in biological and agricultural sciences has more than doubled. In 1966 25% of women earned B.Sc and that number is now ~60%. And if you look at the earned doctorates in the biological sciences, the numbers have quadrupled. In all fields women are doing better with the exception of computer science where in fact the numbers appear to be declining.


At first glance this looks great.

But as we all are aware, if women are earning more and more doctorates in the biological and other STEM sciences then where are they?

The reason this report really interested me, is because over my morning porridge, I’ve been collecting a little data of my own. Mostly just out of curiosity. I’ve been visiting the webpages of various biological departments in universities across Canada and the US to find out what proportion of faculty are women. But what I want to know specifically is if the proportion of female faculty is inversely proportional to the research income of a school or total graduate student population. Furthermore, I decided to see what proportion of postdocs were female. For this data, I didn’t count lecturers or emeritus professors so it makes it a conservative estimate. Because I’m still collecting the data, the sample sizes are pretty low (N_Canada=12, N_USA=10), I think the story emerges is one that is corroborated with the data from this recent report. Below is the result:

Where are we? Well, many of us are doing postdocs. On average, across North America ~42% of postdocs are women. The numbers are not really different between Canada and the US - 40% and 44% respectively. But the clear pattern that emerges is that there is a 50% attrition rate of women from the postdoctoral level.

In Canada and the US, female faculty representation in biology departments is atrocious. If you look at the black dots, on the graph above, it is clear that there are no significant differences between the proportion of women faculty members in a biology department at a Canadian (0.220± 0.012) or a US university (0.230±0.018).

Then I read a proclamation in the NYTimes about how “Women making gains on faculty at Harvard.”

Here is another excerpt from the article,

"University-wide, slightly more than a quarter of Harvard faculty members are women, an all-time high, with the senior faculty accounting for most of the increase. "

And according to my data, Harvard has a better female faculty representation than the national average with 27% of its biology faculty being female.
Later in the article,

“Different departments are at different points,” said Elena M. Kramer, a biology professor. “In biology, where women earn half the Ph.D.’s, it’s not so hard to hire women. You don’t need any hand-wringing; if you’re doing a good search, you’ll get women. ”

So if it's not so hard to hire women then why are only 23% of biology faculty across the United States and Canada women? And according to NSF stats in the last few years only 25-30% of new hires in the biological and life sciences were women .

Apparently, Why So Few re-iterates research suggesting that there is bias in peer review, evaluation, and hiring. Here is an excerpt from the report,

"Research has also pointed to bias in peer review (Wenneras & Wold, 1997) and hiring (Stein- preis et al., 1999; Trix & Psenka, 2003). For example, Wenneras and Wold found that a female postdoctoral applicant had to be significantly more productive than a male applicant to receive the same peer review score. This meant that she either had to publish at least three more papers in a prestigious science journal or an additional 20 papers in lesser-known specialty journals to be judged as productive as a male applicant. The authors concluded that the systematic underrating of female applicants could help explain the lower success rate of female scientists in achieving high academic rank compared with their male counterparts.

Trix and Psenka (2003) found systematic differences in letters of recommendation for academic faculty positions for female and male applicants. The researchers concluded that recommenders (the majority of whom were men) rely on accepted gender schema in which, for example, women are not expected to have significant accomplishments in a field like academic medicine. Letters written for women are more likely to refer to their compassion, teaching, and effort as opposed to their achievements, research, and ability, which are the characteristics highlighted for male applicants. While nothing is wrong with being compassionate, trying hard, and being a good teacher, arguably these traits are less valued than achievements, research, and ability for success in academic medicine. The authors concluded, “Recommenders unknowingly used selective categorization and perception, also known as stereotyping, in choosing what features to include in their profiles of the female applicants.”

Furthermore even when they do make it to t-t faculty positions, Why So Few suggests that women are less satisfied with the academic workplace and thus are more likely to leave it earlier in careers. Yet another excerpt,

"Women cited feelings of isolation, an unsupportive work environment, extreme work schedules, and unclear rules about advancement and success as major factors in their decision to leave. In a recent study on attrition among STEM faculty, Xu (2008) showed that female and male faculty leave at similar rates; however, women are more likely than men to consider changing jobs within academia. Women’s higher turnover intention in academia (which is the best predictor of actual turnover) is mainly due to dissatisfaction with departmental culture, advancement opportunities, faculty leadership, and research support."

So what solutions does this report offer? It suggests that departments conduct internal reviews to assess the climate for female faculty, cultivate an inclusive environment by providing an opportunity for all junior faculty to collaborate with senior faculty, providing accountable mentorship, and implement policies like stopping the tenure clock for parental leave that support a faculty work-life balance.

While all this is a step forward toward the retention of junior female faculty, it doesn't address a major issue. We are losing women at the transition stage from postdoctoral to faculty level. My preliminary data support this. As far as I could tell the only suggestion the report makes is to raise awareness of implicit biases.

You know, I'm pretty tired of people saying that raising awareness is the solution. Frankly, all it does is make people pissed off that they have to waste time in some politically correct workshop to make them a better human being. I think of one particular faculty member I know that could benefit from this. But he would scoff at the idea that he holds any biases against women. Yet it is clear to all, both in terms of his language and actions, that he does in fact believe that women can't do science on their own. And even if these workshops were mandatory, the very people who obviously need it will find a way out.

One idea that might help recruit female postdocs into faculty level jobs is getting women postdocs into an active mentorship program. I don't mean the kind where you meet once a week for a cafe. There's a place for that, but I mean active participation in hiring committees, grant review committees, etc. From what I hear, some grant review panels at NSF have started to include a postdoc. This is a great idea. it will make the system less oblique and offer a postdoc a view into what makes a successful grant and what doesn't before jumping into the snake pit.

It's a step. A small one.

I could think of a more drastic way to break the glass ceiling in academia. For the next five years make the majority of the hires in biology departments - women. I think that is what it will take.

And I know many of you are thinking "yes, but that's reverse discrimination." Yes, yes it is. And not that I advocate this, but imagine a scenario where we’ve achieved this marvelous state of gender parity in terms of representation, do you think that the workplace will remain dissatisfying?

Think again.

Change comes from demand. As it stands, there is no demand for change because women only make up a small proportion of the workplace. This kind of change will not only make things better for women but also for men.

But you know what? It's only a dream and the small steps that are occurring are not going to happen to make a difference in my academic career. Given the latest reports of economic gloom and the contraction of universities such that departments across the US closing and laying off tenured professors, I doubt that women will make many gains. Economic hardship tends to make people conservative in their choices. This means that glass ceiling is probably going to get thicker.

So as I sit here with my tea and porridge and calculate my probability of getting a tenure-track position given that I'm a woman and there is an economic depression. And I couple this with the possibility that to even get that t-t position it may take oh another 3-5 years of postdocing. And let's say I actually get that t-t position, but when the time comes for me to go up for tenure after 3-5 years because I can't secure funding (i.e. 7-12% success rates at NIH), I end up with my ass on the curb. That's 6-10 years before I am looking at the very narrow possibility of a tenured professorship at a university.

If I were 21 years old it might not matter. But like many in my cohort, I'm not. I understand that I'm important as a role model and that I should carry on to be present in the system.

But at what personal cost?

Frankly, alternative career paths are starting to look more and more attractive.