Women: Their Underrepresentation and Career Differentials in Science and Engineering: Proceedings of a Conference (1987)

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.

SUMMARY OF OPEN DISCUSSIONS In the open discussion period, Thomas Hilton asked about the use of minimum SAT scores for college admission when the scores have been shown to correlate weakly with retention and their use seems to dis- criminate against women. In response, Dr. LeBold said that he person- ally deplores the exclusive use of test scores for admissions, academic scholarships, and fellowships and views extensive use of test scores as a real barrier to women's participation. Anna Harrison spoke about rationales for increasing women's par- ticipation in science and engineering. One rationale is attainment of equity—equal opportunity for all to participate. Another is attaining parity—50 percent participation as a group. A final rationale is in serving the national need. She noted that at the time she made her decision regarding field of study, 50 years ago, equity was the only issue. She said she was excited by the progress of women during this period in terms of numbers, but even more so because the argument seems now to have moved beyond questions of equity and parity to that of serving the national need. Women must play an active role in the tech- nological society of which all are a part. This, she felt, was the image that children should meet. Discussion turned to the topic of women and role models. Judith Harris expressed concern about retention of female students in science and engineering: What can be done about the high attrition rate in the first two years of college? Dr. LeBold said that in his studies on retention, women seemed more ready to drop out if their averages were below "B" because they were accustomed to very high grades. Support groups and access to appropriate role models are needed. He said that role models were once all "stars," but now the support groups try to use someone who failed a test once or got a "C" in a course. Elizabeth Tidball said that her research showed repeatedly that sheer numbers of role models were as important a factor as the quality of the role models. She said she would choose to bring in three dozen ordinary women as role models for young women rather than one "star." Marsha Matyas reminded participants that role models do not have to be people who are mid-career and described a seminar conducted by Jane Kahle at Purdue University with women biology majors who were interested in re- solving family and career conflicts. In an assignment to work with high school biology students in the laboratory, high school students l7l

benefited from the presence of these women, but the biology majors benefited as much from being role models as from other aspects of the seminars. Use of role models not too distant in career levels can thus provide a double benefit. Robert McGinn is questioned Dr. Zuckerman's statement that there was no relationship between women's marital and parental status and their research productivity. This was contrary to what one would expect. Could Scott Long's suggestion that the research might be skewed by including only working women scientists be an explanation? Had others dropped out because of marital or parental demands? Dr. Zuckerman said that about 20 different publications, reporting data from various sources, consistently found that among working women scientists, married women and women with children were as productive as single women or more so. Her own research on women who had dropped out of scientific careers showed that the demands of marriage and families were a significant factor, but not the only one. She and Dr. Hornig stated that there was essentially no evidence that women with Ph.D.s drop out of the labor force in any significant numbers, and Betty Vetter added that women with Ph.D.s in science do not leave for significant periods when they have children and rarely leave the labor force completely. In fact, men sometimes interrupt their careers for longer periods than women. Alan Fechter cited a recent study by Gwendolyn Lewis concerning career interruptions of men and women Ph.D.s. In response to a question included in the l982 Survey of Doc- torate Recipients, l7 percent of female respondents indicated career interruptions of at least a year compared to 5 percent of male respon- dents. The effect on earnings—an average drop of 5 percent—was the same for men and women. Dr. Hornig noted that the study had not dif- ferentiated between voluntary and involuntary interruptions; research shows that women's career interruptions are more likely to be forced. Paula Stephan noted that many of the patterns in career differ- ences between men and women in science and engineering have been found by economists in other disciplines as well. Because the patterns, in fact, are fairly generalizable across fields, it would be useful to look at career differentials in that, context. Daryl Chubin commented on possible federal interventions. Could some major legislation at the federal level regarding affirmative ac- tion in various kinds of institutions produce effects that would show up in the factors mentioned by Dr. Hornig? Dr. LeBold recognized fed- eral policy aspects to this problem: (l) to become effective, affir- mative action should be accelerated, but instead it has decreased; (2) federal programs that were increasing the female pool in science and engineering have been cut from the budget; and (3) there are more federal dollars than ever at the precollege level, but none of the money is dedicated to increasing the pool. Alan Fechter concluded that there remains a very large gap between the products of research on disparities between males and females in science and engineering and the formulation of proper interventions to correct the disparities. This suggests that a strong evaluation com- ponent is needed in the development of models and demonstration pro- grams. There is a tendency to envision the locus of decision making l72

as a single source. There are, in reality, hundreds of decision makers involved and, particularly at the precollege level, unresolved ques- tions about the proper division of responsibility between federal, state, and local governments. Intervention strategies cannot be ef- fectively developed without taking this need structure into account. l73