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 4 WOMEN S CI ENT I S TS AND ENGI NEERS I N ACADEME Rates of faculty growth have slowed considerably in the past decade. Between 1977 and 1981, the number of full-time faculty in all fields increased by only 1 percent a year, and for the eight preceding years, by 3 percent a year compared with 10 percent annual growth in the 1960s.~ Even so, there has been a substantial increase in the number of women on science and engineering faculties, an increase of 3,200 in a recent 4-year period. 2 How this larger, somewhat younger population of women scientists and engineers fared in terms of ladder appointments, tenure, rank and salaries, will be examined in this section. Academic vs. nonacademic employment The majority of doctoral women scientists and engineers (59 percent) continue to be employed in colleges and universities but the academic fraction has dropped since 1977 when it was 65 percent. As a group, women are still more likely than men to be in academe (Figure 4.1)i when the comparison of men and women is controlled by field, however, the sex difference nearly disappears. 3 Doctoral employment in business and industry has increased for both women and men since 1977. Here again, the much lower incidence of industrial employment for women scientists is largely but not entirely a function of the different field distributions, with very small proportions of women in engineering and physics. Overall, women scientists are twice as likely as men to be employed in state and local government and hospitals or clinics, and much more likely to be in nonprofit organizations, partly due to their different field distributions. It is probable that some scientists, at least in National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1982. See Table 4.2, page 4.6. 3National Research Council, Science, Engineering, and Humanities Doctorates: 1981 Profile- (in press). 4.1
FIGURE 4.1 Percent distribution of doctoral scientists and engineers by employment sector and sex, 1981 WOMEN MEN Nonprofit Nonprofit Hospitalsl Organizations Hospitals/ Organizations C inics 5.] o C Inics 3.4% 5 6% ~Other/ Other 2.5% Other/ Other \ ~' 0.3% Government \ ~0.5% Government ~ ~~\ Federal~-l: Federa 8 3°/O ' 5~/° ~Colleges/ Business/ ,7 Cal leges/ B / Universities n Universities useless I 1.8% dustry ~/ 59 1% 1 ~ 31.3% \ // / \~ 11 Elementary:_ Secondary Schoo Is 2.7% _' Elementary/ Secondary Schools 0.5% SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Counci l 1 4 ~ 2
the physical sciences, took such positions only as a last resort in pre- ference to being unemployed, and are then frequently unable to contribute to the development of their fields in any substantial way. Fuil-time and part-time employment More than 90 percent of doctoral women in academe are full-time employed (Table 4.13. The incidence of part-time employment among academically employed women scientists varies widely by field: in physics, chemistry, earth sciences, and biosciences one in seven women Ph.D.s hold part-time positions while in several other fields, the rate is only one in 20. Based on the total number of part-time faculty in all fields, women are a minority, comprising 40 percent of the part-timers at universities, 41 percent at 4-year institutions, and 37 percent at 2-year institutions, 4 but these proportions all exceed women's representation in the total doctorate pool considerably. - ~On Campus with Women, Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges, No. 31, Summer 1981. 4.3
TABLE 4.1 Full-time and part-time employment of doctoral scientists and engineers in academea by field and sex, 1981 Employment Number employedb % Full-time % Part-time fieldWomenMen Women Men Women Men All science and engineering fields 11,902 96,697 90.3 98.69.8 1.3 Mathematics 623 7,845 88.9 99.311.1 0.7 Computer sciences 142 1,982 93.6 96.26.3 3.8 Physics 203 7,011 85.2 99.014.8 1.1 Chemistry 702 7,453 86.2 97.713.8 2.3 Earth sciences 283 4,746 85.9 97.914.1 2.1 Engineering 161 13,961 91.3 99.18.7 0.9 Agricultural sciences 178 7,728 94.3 99.35.6 0.6 Medical sciences 809 2,716 97.7 98.52.3 1.4 Biological sciences 2,590 13,447 86.4 98.913.6 1.0 Psychology 2,615 9,042 90.2 97.99.8 2.1 Economics 374 5,287 96.2 99.33.7 0.7 Sociology/anthropology 1,478 4,508 93.0 98.07.0 1.9 Other social sciences 1,744 10,971 91.3 98.58.8 1.5 aIncludes 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. excludes postdoctorals. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. 4.4
Numbers of women faculty5 As of 1981, there were approximately 13,500 doctoral women on U.S. science and engineering faculties, accounting for 10.9 percent of the total. Their representation is up from 9.3 percent in 1977 (Table 4. 2! In terms of faculty growth, women represented 2-4 percent of the increase over all science and engineering departments between 1977 and 1981. The major research universities as a group had the largest change in percentage of women, despite the fact that the "other" institutions showed more expansion during this period. The increase in the major research institutions, however, occurred on a very much smaller base, and the percentages of women faculty by field remain well below the percentages of women scientists in the relevant fields and Ph.D,. cohorts, except among assistant professors (see below). One of the issues of concern to this Committee is the effect that such increases may have on the climate within departments and particularly on the important function of presenting to both women and men students an image of women as effective scientists. In that regard, it is instructive to n o te that a total increase of 865 women science faculty divided among a minimum of 13 departments (see the fields listed in Table 4.1--a more realist number is probably 15-18) in the 50 top universities results in adding an average of 1.3 female faculty in four years to each department. It is hardly necessary to stress that from the point of view of either students or male faculty, this is not yet a startling change. In doctorate-granting departments of both physics and chemistry, many institutions still have no women faculty at all (APS, 1982; ACS, 1980) Sex distribution of faculty appointments Approximately 50 percent of all males in science and engineering departments were full professors in 1981 (Figure 4.2), with the major research universities more "top-heavy" than other institutions. And although there were 3,000 doctoral women scientists employed in the leading institutions, only 10 percent of the women were full professors; 43 percent were in off-ladder positions or are postdoctoral appointees. Throughout this chapter, faculty statistics include four-year colleges and universities only. The 1977 data presented here may differ from 1977 numbers in the Committee's first report due to the fact that medical schools were formerly included in the totals. 4.5
TABLE 4.2 Increase in doctoral scientists and engineers in faculty positions by R&D expenditures of institutions and sex, 1977-1981 Total science & Number Women as % engineering of of 1977-1981 faculty women increase Total all inst. 1981 123,66013,471 1977 110,20110,231 4-yr. growth 13,4593,240 24.1% Total first 50 inst. 1981 31,3282,754 1977 28,2571,889 4-yr. growth 3,071865 28.2% Top 25 inst.1981 17,369 1,718 1977 15,401 1,160 4-yr. growth 1,968 558 28.4% Second 25 inst. 1981 13,959 1,036 1977 12,856 729 4-yr. growth 1,103 307 27.8% Other inst. 1981 92,332 10,717 1977 81,944 8,342 4-yr. growth 10,388 2,375 22.9% a Faculty includes professor, associate professor, See Appendix expenditures. and assistant professor ranks. for a description of ranking of institutions by federal R&D CIncludes 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. Excluded are those employed at medical schools and university-administered federal laboratories. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. 4.6
FIGURE 4.2 Faculty rank distribution of doctoral scientists and engineers by R&D expenditures of institution* and sex, 1981 50 40 z 30 UJ 20 10 o 50 40 z 30 con 20 10 o 40 z 30 UJ 20 10 o Top 25 Institutions r O Women 13 Men Second 25 Institutions r I., Other Institutions _ ~I I.::~:~:.J Professor Associate Assistant I nstructor/ Other/ Postdoctoral Professor Professor Lecturer No Report *See Appendix for a description of the ranking of institutions by federal R&D expenditure s . SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. 4.7
Looking at faculty rank from another perspective we find that in the major research universities, women held 24 percent of the assistant professorships, but only 3 percent of the full professorships in 1981 (Table 4.3~. At all ranks, there was some increase since 1977 in the proportion of female faculty. It appears that the substantial increases in women faculty at the assistant professor rank that took place between 1973 and 1977 are now beginning to be evident at the associate professor level. The 1981 data also show that at the research universities, the percent of women among junior faculty--10 percent in the physical sciences, 26 percent in the life sciences, and 35 percent in the social sciences--matches their share of recent doctorates. In the physical sciences, the number of women who are full professors at leading institutions is still very low--roughly one or two women per institution for physics, chemistry, and mathematics combined. Off-ladder positions Women scientists are still twice or three times as likely as men to hold nonfaculty appointments (Table 4~4~. In most fields, the disparity is greater in 1981 than in 1977. In chemistry departments, both the number and the proportion of Ph.D. women in instructor/lecturer positions have increased since 1977, while the figures for men have dropped. Off-ladder appointments are most prevalent for women in chemistry, physics, and mathematics. This situation appears to hold true in both the major research universities and in other institutions. In the group of colleges and universities which are not among the top 50 in R&D expenditures, women are 13 percent of all Ph.D. employees but as many as 32 percent of those at instructor/lecturer rank (Table 4.5~. Hiring and promotion of junior faculty Hi, In general r women scientists are found in junior faculty positions in proportions exceeding their availability in the recent doctoral pool (Table 4.6~. However, these figures do not indicate how many of the female assistant professors are new hires and how many have held that rank for several years. In other words, a relatively high proportion of females currently at assistant professor rank may be symptomatic of either aggressive hiring of recent women Ph.D.s or lack of upward mobility of those hired in the mid 1970s. This question is illuminated by promotion data which are available for a longitudinal sample of doctorates who responded to the Survey of Doctorate Recipients in both 1977 and 1981, reporting their rank. The resulting statistics show wide sex differences (Figure 4.3~. In the 4.8
TABLE 4.3 Number and percent of women doctoral scientists and engineers in faculty positions at 50 leading institutionsa by field, rank, and sex, 1977 and 1981 Associate Assistant Professor professor professor 19771981 1977198119771981 All science and engineering fields Total number14,30617,2537,4967,9956,4556,080 Number women3565434917831,0421,428 Women as % of total2.5%3.1%6.6%9.8%16.1%23.5% Engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, and physical sciences - Total number6,6778,2583,1213,3372,3112,118 Number women467664138167212 Women as % of total1.0%1.0%2.0%4.1%7.2%10.0% Life sciences . Total number3,9634,2872,2742,3391,8101,912 Number women169236169276310506 Women as % of total4 3%5 5%7.4%11.8%17.1%26.5% Behavioral and social sciences Total number3,6664,7062,1012,3192,3342,050 Number women141231258369565710 Women as % of total3.8%4.9%12.3%15.9%24.2%34.6% The top 50 institutions by federal R&D expenditures in FY 1980. See Appendix for a listing of the institutions. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council 4.9
TABLE 4.4 Number and percent of doctoral scientists and engineers in academea at rank of instructor/lecturer, by field and sex, 1977-1981 1977 Women Men 1981 Women Men Field No. ~No. % ~No. ~No. % ~ Mathematics 51 6.1 243 2.4 3.7 49 5.2 143 1.4 3.8 Physics/astronomy 13 4.8 104 1.1 3.7 17 6.3 111 1.2 5.1 Chemistry 59 5.3 290 2.6 2.7 93 7.0 247 2.1 4.9 Biological sci. 93 3.0 180 1.1 1.9 120 2.9 260 1.4 1.5 Psychology 58 2.1 164 1.6 0.5 115 3.0 204 1.8 1.2 Social sciences 67 1.8 190 1.0 0.8 110 2.2 202 1.0 1.2 aIncluded are 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. Those employed at medical schools are excluded. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council 4.10 . .
TABLE 4.5 Number and percent of women doctoral scientists and engineers in selected positions in academic institutionsa by R&D expenditures of institution,b 1977-1981 1977 Number Women as % women of total 1981 Number Women as % women of total Top_25 institutions Total employed in academe c Faculty Instructors/lecturers Postdoctorals Other/rank not reported Second g5 institutions Total employed in academe Faculty Instructors/lecturers Postdoctorals Other/rank not reported Other institutions Total employed in academe Faculty Instructors/lecturers Postdoctorals Other/rank not reported 9,799 8,342 329 307 821 1,992 1,160 17 357 458 10.0 7.5 13.6 18.3 19.5 7.3 5.7 1,074 729 16 23.9 159 170 18.2 17.8 11.0 10.2 22.4 22.0 22.1 3,005 1,718 51 537 699 1,448 1,036 21 151 240 12,825 10,717 462 411 1,235 13.4 9.9 19.4 27.4 24.6 8.9 7.4 28.4 22.3 16.3 12.7 11.6 32.4 24.7 23.8 Includes 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. See Appendix expenditures. CIncludes full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. Excludes medical schools. for a description of ranking of institutions by R&D SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. 4.11
TABLE 4.6 Percent women among doctoral scientists and engineers in junior faculty positionsa by field, 1981 Percent women among Percent women among b Fieldassistant professors, 1981 supply of recent Ph.D.s Mathematics15.2% 13.4% Physics6.7 5.6 Chemistry16.0 13.3 Earth sciences11.2 9.3 Engineering3.4 2.6 Agricultural sciences5.5 7.8 Biological sciencesC26.1 25.3 Psychology41.6 37.9 Economics9.8 11.4 Sociology/anthropology40.2 36.9 Other social sciences23.9 21.4 aIncludes faculty at 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. Excludes medical school faculty. bBased on women as a percent of all 1976-1980 Ph . D . s who in 1981 were employed or seeking employment. The 1976-1980 Ph.D.s were selected as the appropriate pool since this cohort represents the majority ( percent) of doctoral scientists at the assistant professor rank. CSee footnote a. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. 4.12
FIGURE 4.3 Promotions of doctoral scientists and engineers in junior faculty positions between 1977 and 1981 % Promoted from assistant professor rank in 1977 to higher rank in 1981 80 ~Institutions 70 60 50 C: 40 LL 30 20 10 o | | WOMEN MEN Other I nstitutions See Appendix C for a description of ranking of institutions by federal R&D expenditures. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council NOTE: Based on survey responses in 1977 and 1981 from a common set of individuals . The s ample sizes for women and men who were assis tant professors in 1977 and who reported rank in 1981 are (a) in the top 50 institutions, 125 women and 200 men; and (b) in other institutions, 411 women and 60 1 men. For both men and women, the median year of receipt of the doctorate was 1973. 4.13
group of top 50 institutions (ranked by R&D expenditures), for example, three-fourths of the men, but only one-half of the women were promoted from assistant professor to a higher rank between 1977 and 1981. The differential in promotion rates is not as large for the group of "other" institutions but remains statistically significant. Sex differences in promotions of junior faculty remained even when males and females were closely matched by years since doctorate, subfield, and the prestige of the department from which they received their Ph.D. Women were also found to lag behind men in faculty promotions regard- less of marital status and presence of children and whether their work orientation was primarily research or primarily teaching. 6 Female assistant professors are also more likely to report that their positions are not tenure-track. The difference is 15 percent for women versus 11 percent for men in the leading universities but grows to 25 percent for women and 14 percent for men in other institutions (Table 4.6A). Tenure decisions Overall, female scientists in senior faculty positions are less likely than male faculty members to hold tenured positions. At the as- sociate professor rank, 76 percent of the women have received tenure com- pared with 83 percent of the men (Table 4.7~. The differential has nar- rowed since 1977, however, when the figures were 71 and 82 percent, respectively. A more detailed comparison of tenure status for associate professors is presented in Figure 4.4. Physics and biochemistry departments as a group show sizeable differentials in awarding of tenure. At the assistant professor rank, a slightly higher percent of the women have tenure (Table 4.7~. It should be noted, though, that achieving tenure at the assistant professor rank is institution-dependent; it is more common in other (not leading) institutions which employ proportion- ately more women. The male-female tenure comparisons shown here for science and engi- neering are similar to those for the total population of college and university faculty.7 . Where and Scott, 1981. 7Chronicle of Higher Education, September 30, 1981. Based on 1980-81 data from the National Center for Education Statistics for faculty in all fields (including non-Ph.D.s), the proportion with tenure was: associate professors, 83.2 percent for men and 81.9 percent for women; and assistant professors, 26.6 percent for men and 30.5 percent for women. 4.14
TABLE 4.6A Percent of assistant professorships that are off-ladder positions, for male and female doctoral scientists and engineers, 1981 Number of assistant professors Women Men % Who are not tenure-trackb Women Men All 4-year colleges and universities 5,826 20,882 22.5 13.7 Top 50 institutionsa 1,428 4,652 15.) 11.0 Other institutions 4,398 16,230 24.5 14.3 aSee Appendix C for a listing of institutions categorized by federal R&D expenditures. bBased on total reporting tenure status. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council 4.15
Faculty rank Number Women Men % Tenured Women Men TABLE 4.7 Tenure status of science and engineering faculty at 4-year colleges and universitiesa by rank and sex, 1977 and 1981 b Number and percent in tenured positions 1977 1981 Number Women Men % Tenured Women Men Professor2,31449,275 92.0 95.83,049 57,865 92.5 96.0 Associate professor2,63829,784 71.4 81.63,860 30,060 75.8 82.6 Assistant professor5933,458 10.0 12.6670 2,062 9.7 8.4 a b Includes medical schools. Percent is based on the number who reported tenure stats as . SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. 4. 16
If we consider only those faculty who have already received tenure, the median time-to-tenure is somewhat shorter for women than for men, 5.9 years versus 6.1 years overall (Table 4.8~. For both sexes time-to- tenure, based on number of years since receipt of the doctorate, is shortest in the behavioral and social sciences and in "other" institu- tions. In the engineering, math, and physical science fields, the typical awarding of tenure appears to lag for female scientists, one-fourth of whom did not become tenured until 11 or more years after the doctorate. Administrative positions The term "administrator" represents a myriad of actual job titles, which for faculty members can cut across all ranks. Academic scientists and engineers who report "administration" as their primary activity may include assistant deans as well as deans, directors of foreign student affairs, affirmative action officers, and persons in other assorted positions. Considering administration generally and controlling for years since doctorate (Table 4.9), we find similar proportions of male and female scientists so employed with one important exception: Relatively few of the senior women in the large group of "other" institutions hold administrative jobs. Other sources indicate that the total number of women in adminis- trative jobs at colleges and universities has shown modest gains in a recent three-year period, increasing approximately 6 percent per year. As of 1978-79, women administrators were being paid less than men in the same positions, and their lower salaries could not be explained by reasons frequently cited: shorter length of service, having been hired from within the institution, or financial exigencies. And interestingly enough, academic administrative positions with the highest rate of job openings did not appear to be held by increasingly large percentages of women or minority-group members.8 "Despite Gains, Women, Minority-Group Members Lag in College Jobs, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, 1982, and Women and . . . Minorities in Administration of Higher Education Institutions, College and University Personnel Association, 1981. The figure of 5.7 percent annual increase was calculated from data reprinted in the Chronicle article. 4.17
FIGURE 4.4 Tenure status of associate professors by sex, for selected fields of s cience and engineering, 1981 Mathematics Physics Chemistry Biochemistry Psychology Economics 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENT IN TENURED POSITIONS 4.18 OWomen I::::::::::::: Men 80 90 100
TABLE 4.8 Elapsed time from Ph.D. to tenure for doctoral scientists and engineers in faculty positions by R&D expenditures of institution, field, and sex, 1981b a 25th Percentile Women Men Both Percentile Women Men 75th Percentile Women Men = . All institutions and fields 3.9 4.1 yes. 5.9 6O1 yrs. 8.8 8.6 yrs. Top 25 institutions by R&D Second 25 institutions by R&D Other institutions Engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, and physical sciences Life sciences Behavioral and social 4.3 4.9 4.8 4.5 3.7 3.9 4.9 3.8 6.5 6.6 5.7 4.5 6.9 4.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.9 6.3 6.3 9.1 10.2 8.7 10.8 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.4 8.7 8.9 sciences 3.6 3.5 5.4 5.5 8.0 8.1 See Appendix C for a description of ranking of institutions by federal R&D expenditures. bIncludes only those who had been awarded tenure as of 1981. The percent of faculty not yet tenured was 51 percent for women and 26 percent for men. SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council. 4.19
TABLE 4.9 Number of doctoral scientists and engineers in academic administra- tion, by R&D expenditures of institution,a Ph. D. cohort, and sex, 1981 Pre-1960 Ph.D.s Women Men 1960-1969 Ph.D.s 1970-1980 Ph.D.s Women Men Women Men Top 50 institutions Total employedb 4419,704 88812,2352,84112,400 Number administrators 631,543 1101,686177846 Percent administrators 14.315.9 12.413.86.26.8 Other institutions Total employed 1,30616,917 3,04433,7118,55640,400 Number administrators 85 2,481 399 4,562 575 2,314 Percent administrators 6.5 14.7 13.1 13.5 6.7 5.7 at See Appendix C for a description of ranking of institutions by federal R&D expenditures. bExcludes postdoctorate SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council 4.20
Faculty salaries . . . Salaries of male and female faculty members have been the subject of numerous studies by individual researchers, professional societies, and education associations. There is wide agreement that women as a group are paid less than men at the same rank. The results differ in the magnitude of the pay differential, depending on how the salaries are disaggregated by field, cohort, type of institution, etc. The first report of this Committee concluded that sex differences in salaries remain a serious problem in academic institutions. At the full professor level, the differences as of 1977 amounted to at least $2,500 between the median salaries paid to men and women, reaching a dollar difference of $6,200 in chemistry. A subsequent study was carried out to ascertain whether the salary differences (and also rank and tenure differences) diminish or disappear when the male and female faculty members are closely matched. In this case, male-female pairs in a sample were matched by year of Ph.D., field of Ph.D., the granting institution, total full-time equivalent years of professional experience, and race. At each rank and for each cohort, the lower median salaries for women faculty members persisted. In fact, the previously-mentioned salary deficit of $6,200 for female chemistry professors was reduced only to $5,500.9 The median salaries shown in Table 4.10 are the most recent available data on a national sample of Ph.D.s. For some field-rank categories, there were too few sample individuals to provide meaningful statistics; the median salaries are not provided in these cases. After controlling for rank, salary differences for men and women persist in most fields.9a At full professor rank, the differentials amount to $1,000 to $6,000, depending on the field. The salary deficits continue to be largest in chemistry and medical sciences, and are of the same order of magnitude as they were in 1977. Economics is the third field with large pay differences although we do not have the earlier data for comparison. Further examination of the data reveals that in chemistry, the salary gap for full professors may be explained in part by the lack of women at the top departments; this is not true to the same extent in medical sciences. For associate professors, the sex difference in median salary ranges up to $2,500 annually. At the assistant professor rank, male and female scientists appear to receive comparable salaries, especially in physics, computer sciences, and the social sciences. c] _ Sheen and Scott, 1981. 9aRank may itself be subject to bias. The rank distributions of female and male faculty are examined on pp 4.5-4.8. 4.21
:^ 1 u] o -,1 u) o ~ oo ~ a, · - u, u, ~ ·- ,y a cn ~ rQ 0 ·- . - u ~ ~ 0 O ,1 0 ~ ~ Q ~Q O ~ ,1 CO U) ~ ~ O o . m 0 ,! a c, a a ., u, .- 0 3 a) ~ a~ Q~ ~ CQ tn ~ = .- R O a' Q ~ ~ ~ 0 z ~ 3 . - o\° 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~) IC~) N I I I ·n I [- ~ ~ r- ·n ~ ~1 1 (9 ~I I 03 I LO I CO kD 1~1 1 1 1 ~1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IO ~I I I N I ~S) N CO ~) O ~ ~I t- ~1 1 1 <9 1 m) ,~1 ~ ~ ~1- - 1 1 1 ~1 - - ~ - ~1 - - 1 1 - 1 ~ - - N I~1 ~I I I ~) I N ~ 1~ N N I ~ ~1 1 I N I ~1 N ,~1 ~} 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O [- ~ O O vg N O ~ ~ N C-) a ~) O ~ r- ~ ~ ld1 (x) c~ C~ N r- k9 ~ - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~- - - ~ - - ~ - - - - ~ - - (S) ~ CD S) C~ ~ tS:) N O ~ ~- N ~- ~;) =) O ~ (;~ ~ N CiN N C;l CRJ r- N ~ ~ CO -) C~) C~) ~ ~) ~ ~ C') ~ ~ C~) ~) N ~) N N N ~1 N C<1 N N N c~ N N U} o o 1 - 1 - 1 ~Q ~ 1 ~; O cn U) O P~ O O O O 0 k9 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 ~- ~1 1 1 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ 1 ~ L~J ~ ~ - 1 - _ ~ _ ~ ·n 1 ~ ~ ~D ~C~ a: N C;1 ~ CiN ~;) N O a: N ~ ~ ~1 [- ~ O O d' 1~ n 0 oo 0 0 ~) N N N N ~ ~1 ~D N ~1 ~I N O r- ~- l~ cn N ~ ~ k9 [- O o C ~1 ~d ~O ~ c~ ~- ~n ~O O O O OO O O O U)CO 00 1 0 ~1 1 ~ ~1 - - 1 1 1- ~1 1 - 00 1 1 N N N N o ~; O C O C N I O - 1 0 I r o o o o o ~ ~ - ~ oo N N E~ H o CQ U] ~ N t- cn lr) ~ ~ CO Lr) ~ O N r~, ~ ~ ~I N N N ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N ~1 ~1 Ln a: ~ ~D 00 ~ ~ N N ~ 01:) ~) ~1 ~I t- ~ m) ~ t- O :^ ~ tn ~ u' tn ~ u, O ~O V ~O ~O U] ~U] Q, ~Ql O ~ ~O V V a) ~a) ~a ~V ~ ~ ~-- U) V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~W-- >, ,1 - 1 ~ U) ~ O ~ tD ~ V ~i ~ - 1 - 1 ~ U] tn O ~ U) ~ O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ) u] ~ u]C) ~1 ~1 ~ Q ~1 ~ 0 U) ~ 1) ~ ~ u] 0) ~ ~ ~ Q ~1 ~ 0 ~ ~ v cn a) ~ ~ a) 0 ~ ~1 ~ ~ O U) O :~ ~ a a) ~ -1 -,1 ,5:: ~ C) O ~ ~ ~ O O ~a) ~ -1 -1 ~ ~ V O ~ S~ ~ O O Q~ U] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V =) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O £ v ~ ~ r~ r~ ~ ~: m 0 ~ ~ u2 0 ~: ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m o ~ ~ cn 0 4.22
1 a) o u] o on x - u) On ~ rid' ~ U) ~ On O 'A ~ Q. . - O O '- O ~ Q I O ~' - U) ~ U] V] ~' ~ ~2 - - a' 0 ~ U o . ~r ~ . m 0 E~ - a 0\ . - a UY ~ . - U) . - ~ 3 U] ~ .- ~ ~ O 2 ~ 3 . - o\° ~ 1 ~ C() ·n ~1 ~ 0 i U~ ~ i 1 ~l 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o co r- ~ ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ CO 1 1~ 1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1~ 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 + 1 1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o \.9 C51 f~ ~ 00 t- (9 0 1 ~ <9 ~1 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~1 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ r- c') ~ ~ [ - ~ o: 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~J ~ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n ~- ~) ~1 ~) ~1 1 0 d ~1 t~o U2 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~1 ~ ~ [- ~ O ~ CO ~ l~ 1 ~ ~1 ~1 O ~Q U: o ~; E~ z E ~ ~n oo o ~ ~ cn ~ o: cn u: ~ ~ vg ~ ~ ~ 0 vg ~ ~ oo ~ ln 0 H ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 U) ~n 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ·n 0 ~r 0 cn ~ o: co cn ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ u~ ~ ~n ~ ~ \9 [~ U) t:P U) O ~ C) ~O Ul ~n ~ a a) - - ~a) 0 -- V ~V ~V CQ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V V U] ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O a. tJt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ Er >1 Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O C) ~ ~ 0 ,= ~ ~ s:: ~ a) -1 ~ U) c) O ~ m 0 ~ ~ cn 0 4.23 · cn u ~ 0 .- .- o . o V cn o~ ~ ~ -~ U) ~ '= ~ ~O O O · U) ~ V .= ~-- ~ ~ ~ O -- X ~ 3 Q ~ Q ~ ~ (0 ~ ~ U) . - _ 3 , N ~ 4J ~ 42 0 O ~ ~ > ~ 0 O ~ ~O U] ~ ~ ~ .o '= ~ ~ ,= 3 X ~ ~ ~ > ~O O h t~ ~t", ~ ~ ~O ~ x. ~ ~O U] · -0 ~ ~ Q~ ~ O O ~ ~U] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O '- ~ ~ ~O ~ -> ~=, ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ 0--V ~ ~ ~ O ~O O ~ =) ~ -~1 X O4 a ~a) ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ,= O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ H .s ~ ~ · '- 1a U) ,y ~ O ~ ~ ' - ' - ~ .. ~1 ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~V ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~X O ~ V O ~3 U) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O Q
An attempt was made to examine the salary data in greater detail according to type of institution, but with this additional break-out the numbers of sample cases were too small to permit meaningful statistics. Geographic mobility Only a small proportion (5 percent in 1978-79~° of all science and engineering faculty members switch employers in a given year. Still, career advancement among academics is believed to be tied to the ability or willingness to relocate oneself and perhaps one's family to accept a more desirable position at another institution. It is also presumed that women faculty are more likely to be constrained in geographic location because of a spouse's career, partially explaining their slower career progress. There is some evidence that geographic constraints are more frequently acknowledged by married women than by married men. This was evident at the earliest career stages, at the time of deciding whether to take a postdoctoral position (see Chapter 3~. One study (Marwell, Rosenfeld, and Spilerman, 1979) which unfortunately was based on 10-year old data, indicated that academic women are less likely than men to change geographic area when they change jobs. Other data from a 1974 survey show male Ph.D.s with a higher "mobility index" based on actual moves over a 10-15 year period (Ferber, 1978~. In a recent sample of junior faculty, however, women were more likely than their male counterparts to switch institution--whether by choice or by necessity. And the female assistant professors who moved did not materially improve their status while the men who moved did. It is clear that there is little documentation on the value of geographic mobility to one's long-term career attainment, whether women scientists are in fact less mobile, and whether this makes a difference. Conclusion The overall nature of the academic career differences between women and men scientists and engineers has not changed significantly over the 1977-1981 period although the balance among the various factors that de- fine these differences is somewhat altered. There has been marked im ~U''Fewer Recent Ph.D.s on Science Faculties," Chemical and Engineering News, February 15, 1982, and Young and Senior Science and Engineering Faculty, 1980 National Science Foundation, 1981. 11Ahern and Scott, 1981. 4.24
provement in initial hiring of women, who are now appropriately repre- sented at the assistant professor level in line with their greatly in- creased presence in the pool of recent doctorates. Counterbalancing this finding is a marked trend toward increased occupational sex segregation in academic science; the previous over-representation of women in post- doctoral appointments and off-ladder ranks has increased markedly. In addition, far higher proportions of women than of men hold off-ladder assistant professorships; these are the short-term or temporary replace ment positions often characterized as "revolving-door appointments." Promotion, tenure, and salary patterns continue to favor men when fac- tors such as length of experience and institutional category are held constant. To what extent the relative improvement for women assistant pro- fessors in terms of both representation and salaries will ultimately be reflected among senior faculty ranks remains to be seen, but at cur- rent promotion rates no significant equalization can be expected for a number of years. The exceptionally high overrepresentation of women in off-ladder positions remains a matter of grave concern to this Committee. One possible interpretation of this finding is that the situation occurs as the result of women's own choices--unwillingness to relocate, or a preference for a less demanding position while also raising children others, however, are either that institutions are applying different standards in hiring women faculty or that they continue to enforce covert antinepotism rules 4.25 L ~
