Years Between Starting Employment and Achieving Full. Professor Status, by Gender

Percentage breakdown of the number of years between full professor rank achieved and first faculty or instructional staff by gender, for full-time faculty at Research I institutions with instructional duties for credit, teaching biology, physi­cal sciences, engineering, mathematics or computer science, fall 2003.

Years Between Achieved Full Professor and First Started Employment at Postsecondary Institution

	0 years	1-5	6-10	11-15	16 or more
Estimates
Total	7.8 (1.13)	6.2 (1.21)	35.4 (2.54)	39.3 (2.33)	11.3 (1.29)
Men	8.4 (1.22)	6.7 (1.31)	36.3 (2.68)	39.4 (2.47)	9.3 (1.16)
Women	#	#	26.4 (7.54)	38.6 (6.26)	31.3 (7.61)

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent standard errors of each mean.

# — Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF):2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, March 30, 2006

Patterns of Nonresponse for Tenure Decisions

Field	Departments Reporting Tenure Cases	Departments Reporting No Cases	Responding Departments	Departments Surveyed
Biology	59	17	76	87
Chemistry	58	18	76	87
Civil engineering	46	9	55	69
Electrical engineering	44	15	59	77
Mathematics	57	17	74	86
Physics	60	17	77	86
Total	324	93	417	492

SOURCE: Departmental survey conducted by the Committee on Gender Differences in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.

Patterns of Nonresponse for Promotion Decisions

Field	Departments Reporting Promotion Cases	Departments Reporting No Cases	Responding Departments	Departments Surveyed
Biology	42	31	73	87
Chemistry	68	6	74	87
Civil engineering	41	14	55	69
Electrical engineering	43	16	59	77
Mathematics	46	27	73	86
Physics	49	28	77	86
Total	289	122	411	492

SOURCE: Departmental survey conducted by the Committee on Gender Differences in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.

[1] Cathleen Synge Morawetz, Professor Emerita, the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University and Yu Xie, Frederick G. L. Huetwell Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan resigned their committee appointments in 2004.

iV

[2] See Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999).

[3] National Science Foundation (2006); Figure A2-1 and Table A2-1 in Appendix 2-1.

[4] National Science Foundation, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 1995-2003; Figure A2-3 in Ap­pendix 2-1.

[5] See Tables 2-1 and 2-2.

[6] See also the four reasons suggested by NAS, NAE, and IOM (2007): global competitiveness, law, economics, and ethics.

[7] For a list of gender equity studies conducted by Research I institutions, see the CWSEM Web site at http://www. nas. edu/cwsem.

[8] The average annual support for a doctoral student is $50,000 according to a new study (NAS, NAE, and IOM, 2007). The average doctoral student takes 7 years to complete a Ph. D., suggesting support for a single student could be $350,000.

[9] Arden L. Bement, Jr., “Remarks, Setting the Agenda for 21st Century Science,” at the meeting of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, December 5, 2005. Available at http://www. nsf. gov/ news/speeches/bement/05/alb051205_societypres. jsp.

[10] See Statement of Senator Ron Wyden, Hearing on Title IX and Science, U. S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, October 3, 2002.

[11] In addition to this activity, the Government Accountability Office was asked to complete a study on Title IX (GAO, 2004), and the RAND Corporation conducted a study on gender differences in federal funding (Hosek et al., 2005).

[12] The term “sciences and engineering” is often defined as the academic disciplines of physical sciences (including astronomy, chemistry, and physics); earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; mathematical and computer sciences; biological and agricultural sciences; and engineering (in all its forms). Additionally, psychology and the social sciences (including economics, political science, and sociology) may also be treated as science fields. Non-S&E fields are defined to include the various arts and humanities. The natural sciences and engineering are defined in this study as agricultural sciences, biological sciences, health sciences, engineering, computer and information sciences, math­ematics, and physical sciences. Further gradations can be seen in the Survey of Earned Doctorates list of fields of study. Our definition includes Ph. D. fields coded as between 005 and 599, inclusive. Refer to the questionnaire, an example of which is found at http://www. nsf. gov/statistics/nsf06308/ pdf/nsf06308.pdf.

[13] Research I institutions are defined as institutions which offer, beyond baccalaureate programs, doctoral programs which award 50 or more doctoral degrees annually. In addition these institutions receive a substantial amount ($40 million or more) of federal support. Note that this definition is based on the 1994 classification devised by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The classification scheme was redone in 2000 and 2005. See “Carnegie Classifications” at http://www. carnegiefoundation. org/classifications/ for further details.

[14] The National Science Foundation (2002:2-3) notes: “Research universities enroll only 19 percent of the students in higher education, but they play the largest role in S&E degree production. They produce most of the engineering degrees and a large proportion of natural and social science degrees at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. In 1998, the nation’s 127 research universities awarded more than 42 percent of all S&E bachelor’s degrees and 52 percent of all S&E master’s degrees.” For example, of the 8,350 Ph. D.s granted in the life sciences in 2002, 2,608 Ph. D.s (31 percent) were granted by just 20 Research I institutions (Hoffer et al., 2003). These institutions “are also the most conducive organizational contexts for a prestigious research career” (NRC, 2001a:124). On federal academic S&E support, see Richard J. Bennof, Federal Science and Engineering Obligations to Academic and Nonprofit Institutions Reached Record Highs in FY 2002, NSF InfoBrief, June 2004, (NSF 04-324).

[15] The four science fields were chosen, partly because they represent the “standard” or well-known science fields. In addition, professional associations in the areas of chemistry, mathematics, and phys­ics collect data on their fields. Readers should note that “biological sciences” is a broad term, and may include agricultural or health sciences. Likewise, mathematics data sometimes include data for statistics or computer science. Finally, physics data may include astronomy.

Civil engineering was chosen as a middle ground among the various engineering fields. According to Gibbons (2004), during the 2002-2003 academic year, more than 8,000 students received civil engineering baccalaureate degrees—the fourth largest amount—and women received 23.4 percent of those degrees. This lies between a high for environmental engineering (42.1 percent of degrees went to women) and a low of 11.7 percent for engineering technology. About 3,600 students received master’s degrees—the fifth largest amount—and women received 25.2 percent of them, between 42.2 percent for environmental engineering and 9.0 percent for petroleum. The third largest amount— 631 doctoral degrees were awarded and women received 18.4 percent of them, between 33.3 percent for engineering management and zero percent in mining and in architectural engineering. Finally, for faculty, civil engineering had the third highest number of faculty members: 3,320, and 10.9 percent of tenured/ tenure-track teaching faculty were women. Fields with the lowest percentage of women were aero­space, petroleum, and mining (all at 5.0 percent); while the highest were biomedical (16.6 percent), industrial/manufacturing (15.4 percent), and environmental (14.7).

[16] National Research Council, 2001, From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[17] National Research Council, 2005, To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in U. S. Science and Engineering, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

[18] National Academies, 2007, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Aca­demic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

[19] Ibid, p. 2.

[20] Ibid, p. 3.

[21] Marschke et al. (2007), write, however, that progress for female faculty has been “glacial” and “excruciatingly slow.”

[22] Additional information on the surveys can be found at SRS Survey of Doctoral Recipients at http://www. nsf. gov/statistics/showsrvy. cfm? srvy_CatID=3&srvy_Seri=5, accessed on June 13, 2006; and National Study of Postsecondary Faculty—Overview at http://www. nces. ed. gov/surveys/nsopf/, accessed on June 13, 2006.

[23] See for example NSF (2004b).

[24] For further details on the AAAS surveys, see Chander and Mervis (2001) and Holden (2004).

[25] For further details see Byrum (2001), Ivie et al. (2003), Kirkman et al. (2006), Long (2000, 2002), Marasco (2003), and Vardi et al. (2003).

[26] The percentage of women participating in science and engineering education, however, is lower than the corresponding percentage of women in the U. S. population of 18- to 30-year-olds. See Kristen Olson, Despite Increases, Women and Minorities Still Underrepresented in Undergraduate and Graduate S&E Education, NSF Data Brief, January 15, 1999 (NSF 99-320).

[27] Note here S&E is defined as engineering, natural sciences, and the social and behavioral sciences.

[28] Data tabulated by staff, derived from National Science Foundation WebCASPAR database.

[29] Data tabulated by staff, derived from National Science Foundation WebCASPAR database.

[30] Other studies come to similar conclusions. For example, women comprised only 14 percent of all faculty in astronomy in 2003 (Ivie, 2004) and 13 percent of all faculty in physics in 2006 (Dresselhaus, 2007). In mathematics in 2005, only 11 percent of full-time, tenure-track or tenured faculty in doctoral departments were women, while 24 percent of non-tenure-track, full-time faculty were women (Kirkman et al., 2006). In engineering, only 11.3 percent of tenured or tenure-track faculty members were women in 2006 (Gibbons, 2007). It should be noted, though, that over time, these percentages are slowly rising.

[31] In 2006, all of the top 50 chemistry departments had at least one woman on faculty (Marasco, 2006). Continuing the examination of chemistry, for 30 Research I institutions that hired at least five faculty during 1988 and 1997, the percentage of women among hires ranged from 50 percent in one case to zero percent in 8 cases. Some departments hired a greater proportion of women than might be expected in comparison to the proportion of women in the doctoral pool, though in most cases, the proportion of women hired was lower (NAS, NAE, and IOM, 2007).

[32] Doctorate-granting institutions are defined as Groups I, II, III, IV, and V. See Kirkman et al. (2006) for complete definitions.

[33] Note these are small gains over 2001 data (compare with NSF, 2003b). The figures here do not agree with those in Table 1-1 due to differences in year of reference, sampling and nonsampling errors, and definitional differences.

[34] The exception was computer science: 10.8 percent of assistant professors, 14.4 percent of associ­ate professors, and 8.3 percent of full professors were women.

[35] Data for chemistry are from 2003; data for physics and civil engineering are from 2002. Newer

data are available in chemistry. See Marasco (2006) for percentage of female faculty at the nation’s top 50 chemistry departments from 2000 to 2006. See NAS, NAE, and IOM (2007) for numbers of male and female faculty in chemistry from 1966-1999.

[36] This is a general trend. According to data collected by the AAUP, about 40 percent of men were full professors, compared to about 20 percent of women. In addition, a greater percentage of women were instructors, lecturers, or had no rank (Curtis, 2004).

[37] Recent data have cast doubt on this position, suggesting significant differences might not occur (Ginther and Kahn, 2006).

[38] Perna’s (2002) analysis suggested that female faculty were less likely to receive supplemental earnings, such as from institutional sources or private consulting.

[39] Data were created using the Department of Education’s Data Analysis System (DAS), available online at http://www. nces. ed. gov/dasol/. Gender was used as the row variable. The column variables were mean percent time spent on research activities, mean percent time spent on instruction, and mean percent time spent on other unspecified activities. Filters were only Research I institutions, full-time employed, with faculty status, with instructional duties for credit, and with principal fields of teach­ing as agriculture and home economics, engineering, first-professional health sciences, nursing, other health sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, and computer sciences.

[40] Administrative and other activities are defined as those that occur at the respondent’s institution such as administration, professional growth, service, and other activities not related to teaching or research.

[41] As Nettles et al. (2000:8) noted: “Some researchers have argued that most faculty reward systems are based on research performance” (Hansen 1988), and existing research supports this assertion (e. g., Fairweather 1995, 1996; Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 1992; Ferber and Green 1982; Lewis and Becker 1979; Tuckman and Hageman 1976). See also Fairweather (2002).

[42] Although at least one study of 210 departments of computer science conducted in 2002 for the period 1995-2000 found that female faculty had lower turnover than men (Cohoon et al., 2003).

[43] See also Amey (1996).

[44] However, some institutions do release their analyses of hiring. An excellent example is the 2003 gender equity report undertaken at the University of Pennsylvania, which presents important data for consideration and evaluation while maintaining anonymity. See http://www. upenn. edu/almanac/v50/ n16/gender_equity. html. See also the report, University of California: Some Campuses and Academic Departments Need to Take Additional Steps to Resolve Gender Disparities among Professors, Report by the California State Auditor, 2001, available at http://www. bsa. ca. gov/pdfs/reports/2000-131.pdf. See also the report by the Commission on the Status of Women at Columbia University, Advance­ment of Women Through the Academic Ranks of the Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: Where Are the Leaks in the Pipeline?, available at http://www. columbia. edu/cu/senate/ annual_reports/01-02/Pipeline2a_as_dist. doc. pdf.

[45] The committee acknowledges that the p-values for all the data presented are unadjusted and that many of the data presented are interconnected.

[46] A limitation of the survey was that it did not ask for the gender of every candidate offered a particular position.

[47] Note that this analysis implies nothing about the quality of applicants. Some people apply for jobs for which they are not a very good fit. The committee did not assess whether male and female applicants would behave any differently in this regard.

[48] Recall that the committee’s survey was stratified in order to collect similar numbers of respon­dents in each of the six disciplinary areas, and therefore respondents from different disciplines have different survey weights.

[49] These estimates would be useful as national estimates only in situations in which the disciplines are relatively homogeneous with respect to a given characteristic and the nonresponse which occurred was such that nonrespondents did not differ in their characteristics from respondents.

[50] These figures are medians. The median was used because the data are skewed; there are a few positions that had hundreds of applicants. The mean number of applications for tenure-track jobs was 85 applications from men and 17 from women. The mean number of applications for tenured jobs was 78 from men and 17 from women.

[51] For a discussion of how to define the “pool of qualified candidates,” see NAS, NAE, and IOM (2007).

[52] The vast majority of both tenure-track (94 percent) and tenured (83.5 percent) positions had at least one female applicant.

[53] Note, however, that we do not know if the person first offered and the person hired are the same person, where the genders are the same. Nor do we know how many offers were made before some­one was eventually hired. Since men outnumber women in the offers made, one would expect that the proportion of times women turn down an offer, resulting in a man being ultimately hired, should be higher than the proportion of times that men turn down an offer, resulting in a woman ultimately being hired.

[54] However, analysis presented in this chapter does not find an effect of the number of family — friendly policies on the percentage of female applicants. The impact of such policies on applications may bear further study.

NOTE: Many of the 417 departments provided multiple answers to the open-ended survey question, and 71 departments that reported that they have taken steps other than those listed in the table. SOURCE: Survey of departments carried out by the Committee on Gender Differences in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.

advertising was the most frequently cited action, followed by general advertising. These were followed by recruiting at conferences, contacting women directly, and using personal contacts and assistance from on-campus diversity offices.

In addition, for most departments the total number of steps taken was not large. As shown in Table 3-10, 23 percent reported taking no specific action, and 43 percent reported taking just one. Only slightly more than 10 percent reported taking three or more steps.