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.

OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATIONS The workshop papers focus on precollege, undergraduate, and grad- uate education and on career development. Each examines levels of women's participation and deals broadly with questions of ability, per- formance, and environment. In dealing with these questions, the au- thors discuss the adequacy of the research base in identifying the factors associated with less participation and differential achieve- ment. The Kahle/Matyas paper describes institutional and non-institu- tional environments at the precollege level that discourage female participation in science and engineering through male stereotypes and role models and through teacher, counselor, and parental expectations of greater achievement for males. Differences in parental expectations and the stereotyping of scientists as male are established by the time children enter kindergarten. Once in the school system, girls are confronted with an educational system that favors male learning styles (competitive) over female learning styles (cooperative), teachers who interact more with male students than with female students, and the use of sex-biased texts. Research indicates that girls lose confidence in their mathematical abilities in the first years of schooling, relative to boys of equivalent ability, and that this pattern persists. Lack of confidence influences the selection of advanced courses in mathematics and science, participation in extracurricular science activities, and achievement test scores. The LeBold paper finds that despite the enormous advances made by women in undergraduate science and engineering enrollments and degree attainment, women remain underrepresented in many fields—especially in the physical sciences and engineering. The paper examines possible causal factors. One is the number and proportion of women with the necessary quantitative and computer backgrounds to enter these fields. While the gender gap in this area may be narrowing, the LeBold paper indicates a growing disadvantage for women with regard to their computer backgrounds. Another causal factor is that career opportuni- ties in business and the professions are attracting women who might otherwise pursue science and engineering careers. Possible factors include the discontinuation of industrial, federal, and foundation programs to attract underrepresented groups to science and engineering

and the absence of a critical mass of peers at some institutions in selected physical science and and engineering fields. Field differences are also an important factor in patterns of stu- dent support at the graduate level. In her paper, Lilli Hornig ana- lyzes what is known about patterns of student financial support, how those patterns affect female and male graduate students differentially, and the large and critical data gaps that exist. Under the headings "ability," "access," and "motivation," Dr. Hornig reviews the factors affecting persistence of male and female graduate students in science and engineering. She notes that while some documented ability differ- ences favor women and some favor men, the apparent financial disadvan- tage in graduate support for women and the lack of equal incentive in the opportunity structure of science and engineering careers may be explanations for their continued underrep- resentation in these fields. Data on differential career achievements in science and engineer- ing, presented by Harriet Zuckerman, show that women lag relative to men in promotions, salaries, research performance, and receipt of awards and that women are more frequently under- or unemployed. In industry but not in academia, where men and women doctorates .are equally apt to become assistant professors, differences in career development begin with disparities in first jobs between males and fe- males of equal educational backgrounds and abilities. Later, differ- ences widen, always favoring males, as the careers of the men and women in any age group progress. There has, however, been some narrowing of the overall gap between men's and women's careers over the past several decades. Zuckerman describes four classes of possible reasons for the observed disparities: (l) differences in measured ability; (2) dif- ferences arising from social selection based on gender discrimination and role performance; (3) differences arising from self-selection based on family roles and extent of career commitment; and (4) differences that are the result of accumulation of advantage and disadvantage. She finds that the evidence documenting the validity of each of these classes of reasons is ambiguous—largely because of the complexity, incoherence, and partial nature of the available data—but favors the explanation emphasizing accumulation of advantage.