National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: CONSTRAINTS, BARRIERS AND POTENTIAL
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES." National Research Council. 1979. Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18469.
×
Page 40

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 2 THE SUPPLY OF WOMEN DOCTORATES An assessment, of the supply of women doctorates in the various fields of science is essential to an understanding of the career paths of women scientists and an analysis of their relative opportunities. It has long been evident that women constitute small fractions of those earning science doctorates though their numbers vary greatly by field (Table 2.1). Some of the factors associated with this have been indicated in Chapter 1. The proportion of women doctorates in science compared with the baccalaureate pool is actually much lower than has been recognized so far. The fact that the percentages of science doctorates granted to women have approached or exceeded the levels of the 1920's in the last few years has been widely regarded as a sign of considerable progress (Table 2.1); indeed it is much better than the dismal record just after World War II. However, the levels of the 1920- 1929 decade must be compared with the relative supply of baccalaureates then and now; during the earlier period only about half as many women as men completed college, while today their numbers are about equal. The ratio of women doctorates to women baccalaureates is still dramatically smaller than it used to be. Examination of the ratios for men and women in recent years (Table 2.2) shows that the proportion of women B.A.'s who complete Ph.D. *s is still less than half the proportion of men. Nevertheless, while the ratios have steadily declined for both sexes over the last five years, the ratio for men has declined at a much faster rate. The very low rate of participation in graduate study by women following World War II is largely a result of well- documented overt sex discrimination practiced for many years in some graduate science departments (see, for example, the essays by Evelyn Fox Keller and Naomi Weisstein in Working it Out). Conversely, the high growth rate since the late 1960's of women doctorates in science can be ascribed in large measure to the exposure and consequent easing of overt bias even before 1972, as well as to general changes in the social climate. 19

C-- f- ^r t-— O rH CO CO CO ON rH LfN ON O LT\-=TCMVO CO rH CD O Lf\ CO OOVO 00 0 00 t^-CMOO CO C— rH VO O ^T | P rH rHrHrHrHCMCNJrHCM CM H " r_l IfN LfNCM rH c— OO CM [ — OO CM rH OOOOVO ON rH CO O COrHC — OO CM r—i cMt— rH -^ rHOOi— |VO Lp\ rH z, OO -13" LfNON-3" -3- -3" CJ\ O-^ -3" ^ CM CM rH CM o> VD" VOrHCO CM rHrH^-rHCMrHrHcTv t- OO >H rH >~H f- LA -=T CMONCOLO CM O VOCMrH LfN ^TLfNOCO rH rr\ u ^ rH 00 t*- ONOOONLfN rH r>- O -3" ON CM CM VO CO OO O l rH rH CM rH CM OO CM rH OO £2. 6 ^T CO OOONONI^- rH LfN VO OOVO O C-- LfN O ON LfN ON Z LfN -^3" LfN -3" C — VO i — 1 OO C" — OO CM VO -^3" LfN —3" O ON C rH LfN O CO-3-^rCM OO VO OOrOCTv LfN CO OO LOCO ON 1 OOO rH VOLfN OrH LfN CM rH o 0 ON VO VO [--CM-=TO ^T VO rH^TLfN OO LfNLfNVOCM f— 4-J ON *% CM -=T LnrNJVOCM rH LfNrHON -=T rHf--3-CO O •u rH rH rH rH rH CM rH CM 0) O . \TN F— -=r ro i — i ON t^- co ON o ON -=r co CM LfN r>- -=T 4-J VO O OO t— VO rH OOVO t-- t-- OOOO LTN O rH -=T ^T LO VO 5 ON z OOLfN OOCMON O t—CMVO CM-^CMC\J CM H rH *. A tk 9( 9( A O CO rH 00 CM 00 CM co 01 4J ON M LfN r>- t~~ OO-3-ON OO rH COrHrH O OOCMCM^T CO O rH VO C10 LfNCM-3-rH ON rH rH CO rH ON -=T -3" LfN ^T 4_) (H rH ( — 1 I — t 1 — 1 O O . «s LTN ON ;§ OO LfN OOCOOOrH O CO -3" VO CO O O rH LO F>- rH OO °O rH ON^T OO CM rH t—OOO rH ON CM CM CO rH rH LT\VOrH^r OOrHrHLfN CMrH ON 00 * n n A C •H OO rH rH rH 2 ON <_n O t—CMCM^- LfN t— r— VO ON LfN CMCMrHCO rH C ON CO LfN O ^3" -=3" LfN CM LfN VO -=3" LfN t — t-— t— -=T rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CM •H l 00 o • ,^- Q rH VO ON CM OO CM t-- CO ONLfN-=T O CM ON OO LfN CM w ON *2 r-~ O CO VO CM OO OO ON OO CO CM ON CO -^ O rH t-_ ^r CM h- vb In ro C iH co <D r^. o o*\ f*^ ON OO <"T\ O VO OOOO^TLfN t— rH CO VO -3" CO ^T ON-3" LfN O C rH \J i rH VO ^T OOVO OO LTN C— rH CM LfN CM ONVOOO VO 0) l I rH rHrHrHrHCMrH CM •H O o • C J Csl ro §. LP CM LfNrH^TCM VO LTN COrHVO CM COONrHLfN O f^-3- rHLfNLfNCM VO ONrHLfNVO CM CO t—-3- ON VD O^ rH ON rH t—-3-rHCM f-VO LTN CM m • O •* 0) "" ON CM C\j VO LOONOOCO ON ON LfN CM ON rH CM ^T LfN O -3" Ctrl TO ON C\j t^- -3-LfNt— ^3- LfN ON CM O t— CMLfNOOON ON 0) C J rH O rH rH rHrHrHrHCMrH CM 2S ill ni CM ON & CM t— rHONrHVO CM CO rHCOON LTN COCMCMVO ON I(X ^T LfN 00^3- rH t— -=T CM CM OOLfNCM CO p i ^3 13 CO c rH O> CM rH OO OO OO rH S TJ '" ^S rH CL; r— ^ M OJ 0 W " 0) -H C £ w <u g ,g r*t -P CO W 0 ^H a « TJ !p w £""0 "^ ^ O.P ° "o53o'c3<o rH rH •-} OJO-PC/} f-l "H TLrHrH W C. O-HO rH ^ fli TO £ i y^ (\) Q f\n ^3 Crt O (~H P *t~\ , O CM •H ° ^w-d-C 0) W OOO rH £jOO•P.O.-C S ilrsl S ^ -i! ^ i^s12! w ^9 rH -C °" C -H O H < Q-, M j en 20

Table 2.2 Ratio of Ph.D.s Granted in Science and Engineering In 1973-1977 to B.A.'s Earned 7 Years Earlier, by Sex 1973 Year of Doctorate 1974 1975 1976 1977 Men No. Ph.D.'s No. B.A.'s 7 yrs earlier 10.23% 9.14% 8.11% 6.92% 6.14% Women No. Ph.D.'s No. B.A.'s 7 yrs earlier 3.69% 3.56% 3.34% -3.00% 2.85% Source: Data on Ph.D.'s 1n science and engineering are from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, National Research Council. Data on baccalaureates in science and engineering are from the series of reports, Earned Degrees Conferred, 1965-66 to 1969-70, National Center for Education Statistics. Figure 2.1 Ratio of Ph.D.'s Granted in Science and Engineering in 1973-1977 to BA's Earned 7 Years Earlier, by Sex 10.0 8.0 £ 6.0 0 <u Q. 4.0 2.0 1973 1974 1975 Men Women 1976 1977 21

A 1972 study found the ratio of graduate school acceptances to applications to be slightly greater for women than for men (Solmon, 1976, p. 43). It has been pointed out, however, that in some cases, basing admissions on the number of applications of each sex still produced acceptance of poorer male students while better women candidates were rejected (Cross, 1973, p. 41). Since the women applicants must therefore have been a better pool, this result suggests that they may have different perceptions of the standards for viable candidacy. At present we lack the data to tell us how such self-selection operates—the degree to which it is a relatively independent decision of the potential applicant, though reflecting earlier educational experience, and the extent to which it is mediated through advisers and others. A question of particular interest is whether significant changes took place in the graduate admissions patterns and practices of the distinguished universities whose undergraduate bodies were either exclusively or predominantly male before 1968. Similarly, the graduate education patterns of the new alumnae from these institutions should be followed closely; it is possible that they differ significantly from those of the past, when women had no general access to these undergraduate training opportunities. If that proved to be so, it would suggest accelerating the currently slow movement toward equal access to these universities. Another issue of importance in graduate training is equality of access to financial support. Aid in the form of fellowships appears to be comparable in amount for men and women but somewhat different in kind, with men more likely to receive research assistantships and women teaching fellowships (Survey of Earned Doctorates, 1977). Such a difference may have far-reaching effects in establishing patterns of interest and in actual quality of graduate training, and requires further investigation. Student loans were less accessible to women until the advent of recent state and Federal legislation prohibiting sex discrimination in credit. The relationship of the recent availability of loans to women to rates of initiation and completion of graduate studies requires further study. The relatively low proportion of women graduate students in the two decades before 1970 is currently reflected in their small representation on faculties (see Chapter 4) which may in turn create a less favorable learning environment for women students (Chapter 1). The need for maintenance of an adequately trained scientific work force, in view of declining enrollments (Table 2.2), suggests that more attention be devoted to the recruitment and retention of women graduate students. 22

Recruitment of women science students must also deal with the competition of professional training in law and medicine, which is attracting many of the ablest students, both women and men, but particularly women. The more limited job opportunities of the 1970"s in the sciences have led to increased competition and lower confidence in scientific career prospects. A greater likelihood of being able to combine career and family responsibilities successfully in an independent profession may also contribute substantially to women's heightened interest in these fields. Unless better career prospects in science can be made evident to outstanding women students, they will have little incentive to pursue graduate training. The possibility that job openings in science may not expand and the near certainty that academic opportunities will contract make it more important to seek all of the best possible talent, not less. In this chapter we look at the contenders at the start of their professional careers—young women and men just emerging from doctoral training—to see how evenly matched they are and whether they can fairly expect equal opportunities. 1. Comparative Quality of Women and Men at the Doctorate No standard has yet been devised by which to measure the scientific promise of young researchers. Failing that, we use certain commonly measured characteristics such as grades and test scores, rank of institution or department granting the Ph.D., length of time taken to complete the degree (or its close relative, age), and stated future aspirations. All of these characteristics are open to a variety of interpretations: high grades may connote intellectual brilliance or mere diligence, average ones an average mind or an exceptional but unchallenged one; rapid completion of a thesis may be the result of luck as much as high motivation or inspired solutions. Nonetheless, the combination of intellectual ability, short time lapse to the Ph.D. (more commonly thought of as youth), and training at an outstanding department is generally thought of as a promising one. A. Academic Ability To the extent that grades and test scores are indicators of academic ability, women doctorates are a more promising group than men. Harmon found that for those in every field the high school grades, class rank, and standardized test scores of doctorate women far outranked those of comparable men (1965, pp. 28-32). Harmon's results are reproduced here in Figure 2.2. 23

FIGURE 2.2 Profile of (A) Bioscientists and (B) Social Scientists by Sex and Marital Status at Doctorate, on Six High School Variables SOURCE: Harmon, 1965, pp. 31-32. 74 73 72 71 70 a <r 2 LLJ cc 0 IT a I GPA3 Math 69 68 67 66 66 64 63 62 GPA 1 GPA 2 Language Soc. Std. 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 GPA 4 Normalized Science Rank Test Score i 64 63 62 GPA 1 GPA 2 GPA 3 Language Soc. Std. Math GPA 4 Normalized Test Science Rank Score

In the period covered by his work, careers in science were considered especially inappropriate for married women; the fact that married women appear at the top of the ability rankings of doctorate recipients at the same time that scientific careers were considered inappropriate for them supports the hypothesis that they were determined to succeed in the face of major obstacles. The differences in mean ability between men and women doctorates that are illustrated here must be viewed in the context of the very different sizes of the two groups. Figure 2.2 shows that the distinctions are indeed less sharp among the social scientists, with larger ratios of women Ph.D.'s, than among biological scientists. As the number of all Ph.D.'s and the proportion of women Ph.D.'s has increased since the 1959-1962 period, a new study would indicate whether differences in ability patterns have narrowed. A large-scale national study, the 1969 Carnegie Survey of Higher Education, found similar sex differences in the undergraduate grades of the graduate students in the study. It was found that 52 percent of the women graduate students, but only 37 percent of the men, had undergraduate grade point averages of B* or better (Feldman, 1974, p. 18). The sex distribution of the GPA's is shown in Table 2.3. These findings are consistent with the greater degree of selectivity in women's admissions mentioned previously. B. Length of Study, and Age at Ph.D. Elapsed time from baccalaureate to doctoral degree is very similar for male and female scientists and the differences have changed direction over the last ten years (Table 2.4). In several fields, women now take less time than men. Only in the medical sciences do women take substantially longer. In social sciences, psychology, and mathematics, women in the 1977 cohort showed less elapsed time than those of the 1967 cohort in completing their degrees. The trend is reversed for women in physics/astronomy. Men, however, increased the time from the earlier to the later cohort in nearly every field. The only field in which men reduced their B.A.-to-Ph.D. time lapse was the medical sciences, and this reduction accounts for most of the present difference between the sexes. A similar pattern with respect to field differences and changes since the earlier period characterizes the median age of 1977 men and women doctorates (Table 2.5). In most fields, the differences in median age are small and favor women. The exceptions are psychology, in which the median age of women is slightly higher, and the medical sciences in which it is substantially higher. 25

^_, ^^ 1 •o CM ^^ C O) ro ^• 0 fO 4-> CO en CM c JZ i— • H +-> r^ Ol (TJ •r- 4-> co CO (O 3 01 "QJ •U CU O i« CM b 10 3 4J ^^ VM^ --—-. 3 • Q. -o (O CL•r- "3 •r- .C b <*- J= CO C3 pM pM r— 0 CO C t^m as • • c o CTV 0 r~ o ••- O £ CT> 0 4-> •1— +•> ffl I— •" Ol •(-> ID tO r— C o> CU r— 0) tj b CU S- b ^ b 01 S- 0 in to CO CU > O •— • • CU •(-> •t CU * 1— CU JZ 3 4J 4J o c S- CO ••— °I <*- CU -Q £ + CO o O) (O CU I ^ o pM 1 * o CM pM e s- o *X3 Ol 4J 0 (O t CO • b CU CU "~ CD L. d) CO pM 3 f~ if. 1 • • co •4-> O +J BO 0 [-^ 10 (0 CM ^- •11 « E 3 E ID 3 -o §E 2 (O •r— TO X cr> r^- to CO Ol rO 0l 00 ,^." co *'~ Oi •o r— e -C ra => E 0 •*- O CU o r~ ^^ • c + p^ r^. , O) Q. CO • • to •r- -r" o co CO vo CO .c x: tl •r- pM CM CM co vo 4J • 0> C r— 3 .1C x: o X) X II H- •r- • i- 01 S- CO co (O +J CO r— CU CO ^> i • • U CO CU •1 f- -Q |MM CO c CU S_ ^J- 0 p^ CU pM (*-^ CO b -Q 0 O) +•> -U CU (O C ss <*- b •1 OTJ a^ *rM it) O c J- 3 ^^ LO ^. •o > 0 ro CU 4-> + • • O. CO VO to X c ^3 CU a1 E ^~ I/I CU O Q) 2 t- U. ro If- 4-* 'I g o CU CM I/I .a co • • CU rO CU CU LU I/I pM fS a. o> £ i CO (O 1- C eg pM E HJ -C to 3 <£ (O CU to t. O !•• 2 Lu * CO 26

TABLE 2.4 Baccalaureate-to-Doctorate Time Lapse, by Field and Sex, 1967 and 1977 Science and Engineering Doctorates Field Men Women of Doctorate 1967 1977 1967 1977 MEDIAN TIME LAPSE Mathematics 6.0 yrs. 6.9 yrs. 7.6 yrs. 7.2 yrs. Physics/Astronomy 6.4 7.3 6.2 7.2 Chemistry 5.4 6.3 5.7 6.1 Earth Sciences 7.4 8.1 * 6.9 Engineering 7.2 7.5 * 6.4 Agriculture 8.0 8.2 * 8.0 Medical Sciences 8.4 7.0 8.8 8.9 Biological Sciences 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.1 Psychology 6.6 7.1 8.2 7.2 Social Sciences, including Psychology 7.5 8.1 9.1 7.9 25TH PERCENTILE Mathematics 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.7 Physics/Astronomy 5.2 5.8 5.3 6.0 Chemistry 4.4 5.0 4.7 5.0 Earth Sciences 5.6 6.2 * 5.4 Engineering 5.3 5.6 * 5.1 Agriculture 5.9 6.3 * 5.7 Medical Sciences 5.7 5.4 7.0 6.0 Biological Sciences 5.2 5.5 5.4 5.6 Psychology 5.0 5.4 5.7 5.4 Social Sciences 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.9 *Median not computed for fewer than 20 individuals. Source: Doctorate Records File, National Research Council. 27

TABLE 2.5 Median Age at Ph.D. by Field and Sex, 1967 and 1977 Science and Engineering Doctorates Field of Doctorate Men 1977 Women 1967 1967 1977 Mathematics 28.1 29.1 29.7 29.0 Physics/Astronomy 28.6 29.5 27.5 29.1 Chemistry 27.7 28.6 28.0 28.2 Earth Sciences 30.4 30.7 * 29.1 Engineering 29.9 30.0 * 28.2 Agriculture 31.9 31.4 * 30.1 Medical Sciences 31.7 30.1 32.0 32.4 Biological Sciences 29.8 29.5 29.4 29.3 Psychology 29.8 29.8 31.1 30.0 Social Sciences, including Psychology 30.9 31.0 32.4 30.7 Median not computed for fewer than 20 individuals reporting age. Source: Doctorate Records File, National Research Council. 28

C. Institutional Origins of Doctorates Male and female doctorates in each field are similarly distributed according to the institutions or departments in which they were trained. Table 2.6 compares the percentages of degrees granted to all doctorates and to women by all universities and by AAU universities1 in two recent three- year periods, by broad fields. During the period from 1970 to 1972, in the life sciences, and more noticeably in the social sciences, a higher proportion of women than of all doctorates received degrees from AAU universities. There was no difference in the field of engineering while in the physical sciences, a smaller percentage of women than of all doctorates received degrees from AAU universities. For the later period, the picture had changed. In every field, a larger proportion of women Ph.D.'s than of all Ph.D.'s received their degrees at AAU universities. The difference was particularly marked in the field of engineering despite the small numbers of women involved. A more detailed comparison of degrees granted in selected individual fields by departments rated highly by Roose-Andersen2 is given in Table 2.7. In the six fields examined, the highest-rated departments produce major fractions of women Ph.D.'s, ranging from about one-third to one-half of the total. Table 2.7 illustrates some interesting differences among disciplines, which we shall see reflected later in employment figures (Chapters 3 and 4), as well as trends over time. Before these differences and changes are described, it should be noted that with some variation, the percentages of both sexes trained by these highly rated departments dropped over the ten-year period, most notably in the case of psychology where graduate enrollments increased sharply in the decade. In mathematics, larger proportions of men than of women have been trained in highly rated departments and the difference has become slightly bigger as more women have gone into the field and pressures for equal access have mounted. With the exception of the initial period, highly rated physics departments have also trained larger percentages of male degree recipients. In contrast, prestigious microbiology and psychology departments have produced higher proportions of women than of men doctorates throughout the period, with the differences decreasing in recent years. High-ranking chemistry and sociology departments have fluctuated with both producing higher percentages of women than men Ph.D.'s for most of the ten- year period. In the aggregate, given the relative numbers of degree recipients in the different fields, more women than men among recent science Ph.D.'s have received degrees at prestigious institutions. A much more detailed analysis, 29

CO D D in m o O r-l ^ ''' '' m iH 5 rH vO ,H * ,O s CO 0) 4-1 in (U !S » i— i CM m o\ O rl ON in cn rl <J O 00 rH 01 Q CD -5 25 rH 1 •o in cn 0) 5 CD ON rl _j T> in Q) > 00 CM O CN VO O C 0> 0) Q -H C O co O id N A *• Cn rH CN OJ r\i O rH ^ Q cn r-l rH <c o ,H ON » H T3 C 0) •H •H •O TO D CO VO ^ CO 0) >1 B ^ t 4J X) 3 O iH rH __k 2 * vO m o in in 0) 0) in •H 0) co 00 ON ^ 0) 4-> rl P ON CM 00 cn « •H O> ^ri O Q ^ ^ rH O cn in M r4 o VO VD 00 O 01 rH 4J > rH P •H cd S c 4J D O 81 D H CM VO ^ o c 1C •H • o co ON •H (^ ti 0 ON •3- co M 3 Z ft •t * •t 0) 0) X! o H tn C rH rH iH rH •H t> c <ti tJ1 c co C u o w a •o 0) § •H o cn •P i) (U •H o CO ence M "O )H 0) 0) 4J c 0) U r C 0) U M in o> o 0) •H •H rd CO C c •H O C Vi •rH 0) y CO D U rH M •H CO cd 0) U vO U 0) f/i rH •H c (C • CM m •H 0) •H CN r^ t>-» 00 MH U ON H C •H o W i — I P-H _J CO H i rH OO O CM rH CO St vo r^ -* m -* co vo oo CO ON vO rH rH CM ON iH lO O vO CO OO ON rH rH VO CM rH CM <dr o m 00 vO ON m vD CM o ON m CO iH rH in fl ft m ON 00 o CM rH o vO ON ON ON iH ON c n 00 ON £ U CO m o PL, 60 a •H r< 0) CJ 3 60 5 CO 0) U C! CJ •H U CO co 0) U C 0) •H U CO CO •H U O CO ,O (U 4J SrH m rl 0) tu O id in -P • Q 0) of co m oi M 0) 0) Tt rl O •H 4J C Cn 4J 4J id I8 0) CJ •H rl T) CO O >i Q tU 4J XI C O 4-> O •O •H Q nJ Ifl S C = CJ -P S U id TJ C E Q H c O cfl rl • IM U O •H VO l-i 0) xl m ^ 0) ^ p1 OQ O 1 nJ 0) * in a. w o ^ '-M 0) rj » CO O •H in c 4-> >i r-- 0) •H ja ON o 01 iH 4J •rH rl = £ oo g -U 0) - • cd > in CN O • •H •H rl rH M a U £3 n . O ^ 00 6 4^ 0) C CO £3 w Pi rl 0 <c rf S 0) o) in 0) I^ (/} ft in 0) rl x; fcl tf » 0) > X! O ON •H >1 rl CD -P CO «M T3 O rH •H O 0) in ia i 1 ^.^ , ^i co C 4J rH Q) TJ rl 3 -H O > rl 0) rl rl > •H 0 _O Cn O C <4H S C - 3 rH B in -H 0) Q) 2 o rH O •H 0l C rH 0) rl T) 0) m c rl &> C -H -H cd 0) id O ^i 4J •O CO c XI *O 0) cfl c o> ^ ,O J3 X! O g 0) oi in 4-l O rH 4J -H Id s m C rH CO 0) •H 4J rH 2-§ •H So o 4-1 S CJ1 04 CO M M 0) 0) u r* H •H 3 C O 0 CO •K 30

a CO CO CO 00 rH O 00 rH O vO CTl 00 1 CN . CO oo • 10 CO • CN • 00 CTl r- CO o ^r o ro ro ro CN oo r» 3 01 ro ro 00 TT r- rH rH rH r~ CN 00 CTi o , CN • p^ • CTl • O • r^ • rH C in vo vO ^* CN ^H CTl in vo oo ^t 0) •<* ^f ro OO CN ^f s U) C 0 •H 4-1 vO c CO ^* CN in ,H CN CTi VO rH f- t-- CN 41 f^ cu ^r o • 00 • r^ • CO • OO • CO • •rH CTl £ CO rH f- r- rH OO vo ^r CTi 4J o "O ro ^r o ro OO U) 2 C (Jj r- r- m CN VO CM rH CTl O oo VO O •H H in i i^- • n • in . CTl • 00 • o • rrj o •» ro ^1r o rH CTl OO CTl O CO > CN rH en r- CU 4J rQ 0) CTl rH CN n co I rH rH IH 1 ey H rH *ri fn T) C ^ c fj% ^* CD •q- o ^r CN CO in CTI r- in •H r^ 0) *3* • in . CO • VO • r- , CTI • s: 0) Cf l CTi i ro ^H ^* ^ o rH r~ m r» rH u rH o ^ ^ ^r o 00 ^* 0) C X ic ,c flj flj CTi CO CN CN rH in vo m »» in TT O 4-l rorH CO 00 CO • CN • vO • r- . rH , CTl . IH U 0- c CN m *3* ro rH CO 00 rH rH iH as in o C/3 r*t 49 CTi 0) V ^« - ^i CN ^i • ro ^* rH £ rH rH rH tn 0) f t 4-l U) 4J CO •H U 4J rH oi e 0) HI CN C 9 rH CN CTl rH VO CN vO • ^* rH O CN CTl • OO CN Si CO 4-I i 0 m • O • CO • rH rH CTl 0 ^i rH CN 0 rH rH ^i rr oo ro •H C cd rH *T ^* ,o U •H D, a c c 0) m o O CN «di CN in r~ CTI 00 CTi vO OS 0 -a Q rH ro • ^Ji • r^ • CTl • CO • 00 CP u cu r^ c in i^ t-» in rH r~ ro O ^f O oo 0 T C 4J rH CTI 0) ^ ^* ^ ^* CN » 00 •H s: C rH rH s rH rH H ^H 4-l U cd < I, r4 M O O iw o CU CO co <D 0) 4-* O c ro ro CTl 00 in m f~ iH »» in ^* vO 4J a 4J 3 0) ro . m . r*^ • CTl • vo • m . IH rH cd o CTi g CTi rH 00 m vO ro CN o 0 03 On rH * ro in c 0 Jl ^ t3 o •H •*— ' ^f* ,tr rH VO rH O ^ r~ CTI co in CN in •H •P u co Ol in , CO . o • rH • 0 • fl O 4-l VO Ttf CO r~ vo CN CN OO 00 VO O vO . 00 O ^D S Z Q c CTl 0) « •* '4-I 3 0) rH 9B rH rH rH rH 10 * 0 5 rH U) a 0) X 4-l Cd 01 • fl C C^ r^. c i O OJ CJ f - U O CTi 00 vO T rH co in ro . in *r vO • m CN vo • CN CTl CTl • T 00 fd J-l rH CTl Q) m . X u cu -a i vo rH ro m CTi CN 00 VO u •H TO PL, 0) f>. rH o u h •a Sr* ^ II rl -0 T> a oi O O ro ro ro r- in CO • CN O in r- arne C 3 rH CTi • vO • CO 0 a. cd w vO CTi c ro CN • in rH in ro in CO rH m C l_l *L. r— i rH s rH rH •H 1 w <U rH O l i V U-l rQ rC -H B f t t t t S CO o g 60 M 3 -H 0) 8* 0 df 0 <»> OOP O of 0 <n> z Z c rZ EC P-l <u •a 0) r^ CO Oi ^_, ^, O^ X tn 0) H 3 1 — <U g 0 00 u ,a U-l CO IH 0 \ c o ^ rH ^, 0 •H c CM « CO 0 0 •H rH 4J U U IH •H 4J CO CO 4-I 0 O fl i M 0) M S •o o | rH 0 0i Q) 0 iH 4-I •H U U) cc 01 u •H ^•t o C V4 QJ 0 0 4J 0 3 g •H ft, s s: u •H 0 Ul (2 •H O <x in PL, * CO 31

well beyond the scope of this report, is needed to identify reasons for the divergent sex ratios in some fields among highly rated departments including, especially, evaluations of applications in relation to admissions, and analysis of retention patterns of graduate students. Such a study would be of general interest in establishing whether practices in certain fields are systematically sex-biased. 2. Plans for Postdoctoral Study Planning postdoctoral study has traditionally been a measure of high aspirations but may now also reflect realistic assessments of a tight job market. The fact that men and women plan to embark on postdoctoral training in comparable proportions, field by field, is therefore an indication of general similarity in their professional aspirations although they may pursue this training for different reasons. A more detailed analysis of this topic follows in Chapter 3. 3. Labor Force Participation and Unemployment We mentioned earlier that women account for 10.4 percent of all science and engineering doctorates awarded since 1920 (Table 2.1). How similar is their presence in the work force, the work force being the effective supply of women doctorates? Table 2.8 shows that in 1977, 9.7 percent of the doctoral work force were women. Their participation varies greatly by field, from nearly one fourth in psychology to less than one percent in engineering. While women comprised 10 percent of the doctoral work force in 1975, they accounted for nearly 30 percent of the Ph.D.'s who were unemployed involuntarily or who took part- time positions because full-time jobs were not available. Table 2.9 shows that women were three times more likely than men to be unemployed and seeking employment. The sex differences in unemployment rates were greatest among physicists. In all fields, the proportions of women who were unemployed and seeking work, or part-time employed and seeking full-time employment exceeded those for men (Maxfield, Ahern, and Spisak, 1976, p. 8). 4. Marital Status Certain factors which have no bearing on quality of doctorates and no intrinsic relationship to prospects for general professional success may nonetheless legitimately affect relative employment prospects. One of the factors most frequently cited to affect the education, employment status, and professional achievement 32

TABLE 2.8 Number and Percent of Women Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the Labor Force by Field, 1977 Field of Doctorate Number of Women Percent of Women All Science & Engineering Fields 27,282 9.7 Math/Computer Sciences 1,151 6.9 Physics /Astronomy 646 2.5 Chemistry 2,551 6.1 Earth Sciences 332 3.6 Engineering 231 0.5 Life Sciences Agricultural 261 2.0 Medical 1,018 13.3 Biological 7,742 15.6 Psychology 7,543 23.1 Social Sciences 5,807 14.0 Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. The statistics in this table are weighted estimates derived from a sample survey of 65,000 Ph.D.'s in science and engineering. The estimates are subject to two types of error — sampling and nonsampling, (e.g., nonrespcnse bias). A discussion of the survey is provided in Appendix D. 33

TABLE 2.9 1975 Employment Status by Field of Doctorate and Sex Employment Status Labor Force Unemployed, Seeking Work Full-Time Nonscience Employed Because Science Position Not Available + Percentage of Labor Force in Survey Year ^Includes those not Reporting Field of Ph.D. •Lets Than 0.1% SOURCE: Maxfield, Ahern, and Spisak, 1976, p. 8. Part-Time Employed and Seeking Full-Tinie riciu 01 Doctorate Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female All Fields* 1973 1975 N 211,343 242,346 N 18,049 23,188 % 0.9 0.8 % 3.9 % 0.3 0.3 % 0.3 % % 34 a? Mathematics 3.0 0.4 0.5 2.4 1973 12,132 777 1.4 1.9 0.2 A 04 24 1975 14.400 979 OS 1.9 0.4 0.5 0.6 2.2 Physics/ Astronomy 1973 20,878 453 1.4 6.8 0.6 JO 1.1 84 1975 23,494 546 14 7.3 0.6 0.9 0.8 2.7 Chemistry 1973 34,838 1,837 IA 64 04 0.2 0.8 33 1975 38,481 2.212 0.9 3.7 04 04 0.4 U Earth Sciences 1973 7,066 171 0.7 2.9 0.1 .0 0.6 94 1975 8,278 247 1.0 3.2 0.2 0.4 04 U Engineering 1973 33,872 114 0.8 6.1 0.2 U 04 44 1975 40,183 170 0.7 2.4 0.2 A 0.3 04 Biosciences 1973 50,594 6,071 0.6 44 0.2 04 04 3.2 1975 58,258 7,751 0.7 3.6 0.1 04 04 1.8 Psychology 1973 18,262 4,417 0.7 3.1 0.1 0.2 04 3.8 1975 22,218 6,062 0.6 1.7 0.2 04 04 24 Social Sciences 1973 26,704 3,053 0.7 2.8 0.3 04 0.9 34 1975 32,724 4,415 0.6 34 as 04 04 3.2 Nonsciences 1973 6,851 1,131 0.7 24 .0 A 04 13 1975 4,155 782 0.3 1.2 .0 .0 • 1.0 34

of women is marital status. Marriage-career incompatibility for women has been given as the explanation for the much smaller percentage of women than men doctorates who are married. The percentages, by field, for 1977 Ph.D.'s are displayed in Table 2.10. It is apparent that in most fields, more men than women Ph.D.'s are married at the time they receive the degree. The field of physics and astronomy is the exception with a higher proportion of married women, and the percentages of married men and women are almost identical in mathematics and engineering. The biggest sex differences are found in the medical and agricultural sciences which have high proportions of married men and low proportions of married women. It should be pointed out that answers to a question on marital status may not accurately describe informal arrangements that are now quite common in the graduate student population. It is known that the proportion of married men has been steadily dropping among U.S.-born doctorates in recent years, but not among new women Ph.D.'s (Gilford and Snyder, 1977, p. 36), but we do not know whether traditional marriages are being supplanted by such informal arrangements. Nor do we know how these commitments may affect the educational and career choices of Ph.D.'s of either sex. The data likewise do not reveal past marital ties of those receiving the doctorate. All studies have shown high rates of separation and divorce among women graduate students (e.g., Feldman, 1974, p. 19) and women doctorates (e.g.. Centra, 1974, p. 103) so that many who report themselves as single when they receive the degree may have been married earlier. Data on 1973-1976 women Ph.D.'s showed nearly 30 percent to have at least one dependent when they obtained the Ph.D. (Gilford and Snyder, 1977, p. 38). This requires consideration in the award of stipends for the postdoctoral training of women Ph.D.'s. Marital status has been identified as a crucial factor operating to reduce the retention of women in college (Astin, 1969, p. 18), the likelihood that they will attend graduate school (Cross, 1973, pp. 46-47), the time they spend on professional activity (Centra, 1974, p. 43), and their productivity as measured by number of publications (Centra, 1974, p. 77). Marriage is also assumed to act as a barrier to the geographical mobility required for professional advancement. There is some evidence to support this assumption. In the Centra comparison of men and women Ph.D.'s of different cohorts (1974), 49 percent of the women reported that the spouse's job had been a major deterrent to their 35

TABLE 2.10 Number and Percent of 1977 Science and Engineering Doctorate Recipients Who Were Married at Receipt of the Doctorate, by Field and Sex Men Women Field of Doctorate No. % No. % All Science/Engr. Fields 10,069 67.2 1,691 51.4 Physics & Astronomy 659 60.7 44 68.8 Chemistry 870 62.6 94 52.2 Earth Sciences 457 72.3 31 52.5 Mathematics 489 58.8 73 57.0 Engineering 1,738 67.7 49 66.2 Biological Sciences 1,665 68.2 365 50.1 Medical Sciences 365 72.1 80 48.5 Agriculture 684 79.4 27 42.9 Psychology 1,183 63.0 546 50.5 Social Sciences 3,142 67.2 928 50.7 Source: Survey of Earned Doctorates, National Research Council 36

consideration of a job that would require a move to another community, in comparison with 4 percent of the men. Among the women who reported having experienced periods of unemployment, 57 percent of the reasons they gave concerned marital status and family responsibilities, but none of the men who had been without work at some time after receipt of the degree gave such reasons. A 1976 survey of 1971-1975 Ph.D.'s in the biomedical and behavioral sciences found that married women in both fields were somewhat more likely than single men or women, or married men, to have spent time unemployed following the degree and to be seeking employment at the time of the survey (NRC, 1977, Vol. 2, pp. 133-134).3 Their higher unemployment rate might suggest that married women could afford to be more selective about the jobs they accepted, but other results of the study show that this is not the case. In the same study, married women were much more likely than the other groups to state that their degrees were irrelevant to their current employment (p. 139). In any event, many of the reported differences between married and single women with respect to professional employment and achievement are not large. In a number of studies, married women show some differences when compared with the members of the other categories but they are not at the present time very different from single men and women Ph.D.'s. The same may be said of the differences reported in Chapter 3 for their postdoctoral status, and for their tenure standing and salaries (Chapter 4). In fact, the group that displays major differences in these respects consists of married men. They are the ones least likely to plan or to hold postdoctoral appointments and the group most likely to achieve tenure or be in tenure-track positions early in their careers. In the Centra study, married men published at nearly double the rate of single men or women or married women (p. 77). It is probable that economic responsibilities of married men account for somewhat distinctive educational and employment patterns. For example, in the Carnegie survey, married male graduate students were more likely than single males, or single or married females, to list increased earning power as a motive for attending graduate school (Feldman, 1974, p. 129). If postdoctoral study has traditionally been a measure of high aspiration or the road for men to professional advancement (Reskin, 1976), it appears to be a luxury that many married men cannot afford. Family responsibilities may also help to explain the greater proportion of men than women doctorates who are employed in industry where salaries are higher than in other work sectors (Chapter 4). We also know from Astin's study of women doctorates (1969, p. 28) and Centra's comparison of men and women 37

Ph.D.'s that 63 percent of the husbands of married women Ph.D.'s had doctorates or professional degrees in comparison with 8.3 percent of the wives of the men doctorates. In the same survey, 90 percent of the husbands of the married women Ph.D.'s had been employed full time or almost full time since the marriage, as compared with 12 percent of the wives of the men Ph.D.'s. Ths would again indicate a greater burden of family support on the men Ph.D.'s. Several possible explanations for the greater "success rate" of married men suggest themselves. One is simply that they are better than other individuals, a deduction which finds little support in studies of ability patterns (see, for example. Figure 2.2 and Tables 2.3 and 2.4). Another is that the need to provide for a family provides added motivation; conversely, educational and career structures may also respond to this need. Finally, the supporting labor of a wife may free a man of other responsibilities and leave him more freedom to pursue work-related interests. Conclusions Men and women scientists at receipt of the doctorate are similar in average quality although women have an edge in academic ability as measured by college grades and high school test scores. In engineering and in most science fields, they receive their Ph.D. at the same age or younger than men, and have completed their training as fast or faster than men. Generally, similar proportions of both sexes are trained at highly-rated institutions. Based on the evidence presented here, one would expect the prospective opportunities for career development of young men and women doctorates to be essentially equal. Recommendations Three more detailed studies are recommended to assess the sex distribution in admissions to highly-rated graduate departments, differences in graduate training patterns depending on B.A. origins, and influence of marital status on employment prospects: 1. A detailed analysis of graduate admissions patterns, by field and sex, in prestigious departments; this should analyze trends over the last decade and establish a design for annual monitoring in the next few years. 2. A study of the graduate training patterns of women who earned baccalaureates from formerly all-male (or predominantly male) colleges and universities 38

to determine whether these patterns differ significantly from those of alumnae of other institutions. 3. A study of the relationship between marital status, geographic mobility, and postdoctoral employment status of women, using data from the Doctorate Records File. Analysis of the effect of marital status on professional employment during later career periods will require the addition of a question on marital status to the Survey of Doctorate Recipients. NOTES AAU universities are those belonging to the Association of American Universities. Membership includes most major research universities and is taken as a measure of quality although, for some universities, that rating may have changed since the period when membership was acquired. See Appendix B-2 for these ratings. A survey of recent Ph.D. recipients in the biomedical and behavioral fields conducted by the Committee on a Study of National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel of the Commission on Human Resources, National Research Council. 39

Next: POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING »
Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!