National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5: Sector of Employment and Work Activity
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

6
The Academic Career

Faculty, Unfaculty, and Changes in the Academy

…the classic profile of the academic career is cut to the image of the traditional man with his traditional wife.

—Arlie Russell Hochschild, Inside the Clockwork of Male Careers, 19751

Academic science is the model for professional science. To rise in this system, one must climb an extraordinarily narrow ladder: from graduate student to postdoctoral fellow to research associate to assistant professor (or principal investigator). The majority of women in science have never completed that rise. They have remained research associates attached to the principal investigator for most or all of their working lives. The cause of arrest is multiple and it has a history.

—Vivian Gornick, Women in Science, 19902

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we examine the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers in academia. Our analysis of the academic sector is far more detailed than those of other sectors for several reasons. First, doctoral scientists and engineers are traditionally trained to work in academia. Although the proportion of scientists and engineers working in academia has been declining since 1970, the academic sector remains the single largest employer of doctoral scientists and engineers. Second, the conduct of basic scientific research in the United States is intertwined with the higher education system. Institutions of higher education traditionally attract the best scientists and provide them with the most resources and rewards (Clark 1995; Wolfle 1972). As documented by Fox (1996), the evolution of science and the evolution of higher education have been reciprocal developments in the United States. In Wolfle’s words, academia is “the home of

1  

Hochschild (1975).

2  

Gornick (1990:81).

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

science” (Wolfle 1972). Third, indicators of career attainment and rewards are more public and more uniformly defined in academia than in other sectors, allowing researchers to more readily collect detailed data on career outcomes.

The position of women in the academic sector is also critical because it is within academia that future generations of scientists and engineers are trained. Frieze and Hanusa (1984) discuss a variety of reasons why female faculty may be especially important as role models and mentors for female graduate students. The presence of more than a token number of women on the faculty of graduate programs may be important both for recruiting new generations of women to graduate programs and for retaining them once they enroll in graduate education. Accordingly, in the analyses that follow we give special attention to scientists and engineers working in Research I universities and medical schools. Not only do these locations provide the majority of doctoral and postdoctoral training, but they are also the most conducive organizational contexts for a prestigious research career. For women to have an equal standing with men in science and engineering, it is essential that they gain parity within the most prestigious academic locations.

While our focus in this chapter is on scientists and engineers with full-time employment in academia, it is important to keep in mind that a greater proportion of women than men are part time employees in academia, as shown in Chapter 4. In the rest of this chapter, unless otherwise noted, we restrict our analysis to the full-time labor force.

FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT IN ACADEMIA3

From 1973 to 1995, the percent of the combined male and female doctoral labor force that worked in academia decreased from 51 percent of all scientists and engineers to 40 percent. In 1973, 5 percentage points more men than women were working full time in academia, as shown by the two sets of bars on the left hand side of Figure 6–1. The relative decline in academic employment that occurred after 1973 was more rapid for men than for women, so that by 1995 three percentage points more women than men held full-time academic jobs. While our findings may appear to contradict past research that found women to be over-represented in academia (Zuckerman and Cole 1975 and the literature cited therein), keep in mind that we are considering men and women as a percent of the entire labor force, not as a percent of those working full time. If we consider only those in the full-time labor force (i.e., excluding those who are

3  

See Appendix Tables D-1-D-2 for further information.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–1 Percent of the doctoral labor force that is working full time in academia and percent of the full-time labor force that is working in academia, by sex and year of survey.

part time, unemployed, retired, or out of the labor force), women are substantially more likely to be in academic positions, as shown by the bar graphs on the right. In 1973, 68 percent of women in the full-time labor force held academic jobs, compared to only 56 percent of the men. By 1995, this 12 point difference decreased to 7 points. Thus, over this 22 year period, full-time employment decreased 18 points for men and 38 points for women.

The net effect of the increasing proportion of Ph.D.s who are women and the greater proportion of women than men in academic jobs is a steady increase in the percent of all full-time academic jobs that are held by women. The gray circles in Figure 6–2 show that 8 percent of all full-time academics were women in 1973, increasing to 23 percent in 1995. While this increase is driven largely by increasing numbers of women in science and engineering, the increase of 15 percentage points exceeded the growth of women as a percent of all Ph.D.s (shown by squares) and as a percent of all scientists and engineers who are working full time (shown by triangles). This reflects a combination of an increasing proportion of women working in academia and the possibility that the attrition of women from academic jobs has decreased.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–2 Women as a percent of all Ph.D.s, as percent of all full-time scientists and engineers, and as percent of all full-time academic scientists and engineers, by year of survey.

Field Differences in Full-Time Academic Employment

Women are proportionally more likely than men to be in academic jobs in all fields except the social and behavioral sciences. This is shown in Figure 6–3, which plots differences between the percent of men with academic jobs Ph.D.s (as a percent of men who are working full time) and the corresponding percent of women. Positive values indicate a greater proportion of full-time women than full-time men are working in academia. In 1973 for all fields combined, 12 percentage points more women than men in the full-time labor force were employed in academia. By 1995 the difference was reduced to 6.5 points. Within fields, we find that even though the largest proportion of female Ph.D.s are found in the social and behavioral sciences, this is the only field with a greater proportion of men than women in academic jobs. Women in engineering and the life sciences are the most likely to be academic, with little change over time. In mathematics and the physical sciences, gender differences in full-time academic employment have nearly disappeared by 1995.

While there is an increasing representation of women in each field, substantial variation exists across fields in the proportions, numbers, and

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–3 Gender difference in the percent of Ph.D.s working full time who have academic jobs, by year of survey. NOTE: Positive values indicate women are proportionally more likely to have academic positions.

rates of increase of female academics, as shown by Figures 6–4 and 6–5. In the life and social/behavioral sciences, the percent of full-time academics who are women increased by nearly 20 percentage points from 1973 to 1995. As a result of the greater overall increase in the number of life scientists during this period, by 1995 there were more women in the life sciences than the social and behavioral sciences. In other fields, the increase in the percent of women was only between 6 and 7 points. Even by 1995, women were only 6 percent of the full-time academic work force in engineering, with less than 2,000 full-time female engineers. In mathematics and the physical sciences, women’s representation exceeded 10 percent by 1995, but in mathematics the number reached only 2,000 and in the physical sciences just over 4,000. In the life sciences, the percent of women approached 30 percent by 1995.

The rapid change in the percent of academic positions held by women is largely the result of increases in the proportion of new Ph.D.s who are women. The effects of the more recent entry of women are seen by comparing Figure 6–6, which plots the percent women among those who re-

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–4 Percent of the full-time academic labor force that is female, by field and year of survey.

FIGURE 6–5 Number of women working full time in academia, by field and year of survey.

ceived their Ph.D.s 11 or more years ago, to Figure 6–7 for those with doctorates within 10 years of the survey. While there were increases in the percent of women among those with older degrees, these changes are substantially smaller than for those with more recent degrees. Among older academics, the presence of women grew most rapidly in the social and behavioral sciences, but in 1995 women still represented less than 25 percent of the total among older social and behavioral scientists. When we consider more recent Ph.D.s, the increases and overall levels are much

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–6 Percent of the full-time academic labor force that is female for those who received their Ph.D.s more than 10 years ago, by field and year of survey.

FIGURE 6–7 Percent of the full-time academic labor force that is female for those who received their Ph.D.s in the last 10 years, by field and year of survey.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

larger. By 1995, nearly 40 percent of the younger academics in the life and social/behavioral sciences were women. An important implication of the more recent entry of women than men is that women are concentrated among the younger members of the faculty and research staffs. This has important consequences for understanding the presence of women among those who are tenured and have higher ranks, a topic which is discussed in detail below. Consequently, it is useful to consider the age distribution of men and women in academia more thoroughly.

THE AGE STRUCTURE IN ACADEMIA

The average academic woman received her degree more recently than the average academic man. Moreover, the difference between the average career age (i.e., years since the Ph.D. was received) for men and women is increasing. In 1973, the mean career age for women was 9.5 years and 11.1 years for men; in 1979, 8.9 years for women and 12.7 years for men; in 1989, 10.6 years for women and 15.9 years for men; and in 1995, 11.2 years and 17.0 years. The effects of changes in the growth of academia and the entry of women can be seen with a population pyramid (see Shyrock and Siegel 1973:236–245 for details). A population pyramid is a pair of horizontal histograms, one for men and one for women, with each bar representing the percent in an age group. Typically, the length of the bars corresponds to the percent in a given age-sex group (e.g., women aged between 1 and 3) relative to the size of the total population. Alternatively, a within sex pyramid can be used in which percentages for men are computed on the basis of the number of men in the population and the percentages for women are based on the number of women. A within sex pyramid is useful when there are large differences in the overall number of men and women, such as in academia. The shape of a pyramid reflects the number of each sex entering the population (e.g., new Ph.D.s) and the number leaving the population through death or retirement. For example, if the same number of new Ph.D.s were hired each year and there was no attrition until the age of retirement, the pyramid would be a rectangle. Or, if the size of new cohorts is increasing with increasing attrition among older members of the population, the pyramid would be triangular.

Figure 6–8 contains within sex population pyramids for academic scientists in 1973 and 1995. Consider the age profile for women in 1973 (Panel A). Nearly 30 percent of female academics were within 3 years of their Ph.D. and over half were within 6 years. A substantially smaller number of women were found between ages 7 and 21, with 9 percent more men than women at these ages. The dark half of the pyramid for men has a narrower base and more area at the top, reflecting the greater proportion of men who are older. By 1995 (Panel B), the age structure of

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–8 Sex specific distribution of career ages of scientists in the full-time academic labor force. NOTE: Percentages are sex specific. For example, in 1973, 20 percent of the men were 1–3 years from the Ph.D.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

academia had changed dramatically as a result of the rapid entry of women and the end of growth in the size of new cohorts of men. For men, the age pyramid from age 1 to 27 is nearly uniform with roughly 3 percent of the male academics at each year from the Ph.D. The slight narrowing of the pyramid between ages 7 and 22 corresponds to the contraction of the academic labor market between 1973 and 1995. For women, the continuing increase in the entry of women is shown by the triangular shape of the distribution. Given that tenure and rank are time dependent, it is clear that women in 1995 must be found less frequently in advanced ranks, a topic considered below. Finally, it is interesting to note that the age structure for women in 1995 is very similar to the age structure for men in 1973.

Since Figure 6–8 computes percentages within each sex, it does not reflect differences in the relative numbers of men and women. That is, it reflects rates of entry and exit from academia, but does not reflect the number. Since it is also important to understand how many women are at each age relative to men, Figure 6–9 computes percentages based on the entire population. For example, in Panel A we see that in 1973 women with Ph.D.s within the last 3 years represented 2.5 percent of all academic scientists (in Figure 6–8 we saw that these women represented nearly 30 percent of female academics). In 1973, the youngest group of men represented nearly 20 percent of all academics, while the youngest group of women represented less than 3 percent. By 1995, new female Ph.D.s grew to 4 percent of academics, while new men dropped to less than 8 percent. Overall, the slowed growth of academia is shown by young Ph.D.s dropping from over 20 percent in 1973 to 12 percent in 1995.

Even with the rapid increase in the percent of women receiving Ph.D.s and entering academia, women are far from being half of the academic labor force, as shown by the much smaller area of the light gray bars compared to the dark gray bars. While new cohorts of Ph.D.s entering the academic marketplace are increasingly female, each new cohort is only a small proportion of those currently employed. Consequently, the move towards parity in the representation of women must occur slowly.

While there has been a substantial increase in women with academic jobs, it remains to be determined whether there is a correspondingly large increase in the presence of women among all types of positions, ranging from full professors at elite research universities to visiting lecturers at two-year colleges. To this end, we begin by examining variations in the types of institutions in which men and women are employed. We then extend these analyses to consider variation in the types of jobs held by men and women in academia.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–9 Distribution of career ages of scientists in the full-time academic labor force. NOTES: Panels A and B show the percent of the total population in a given age/sex category. For example, in 1973 18 percent of all scientists were men 1–3 years from the Ph.D.; 2.5 percent of all scientists were women 1–3 years from the Ph.D.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TYPES OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS4

The over 3,000 institutions of higher education in the United States vary greatly in their prestige, facilities, resources, job expectations, and salaries. The Carnegie Classification is the standard way to classify institutions to reflect these differences (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1973, 1976, 1987, 1994). Here we use the simplified classification that was discussed in Chapter 2:

  • Research I institutions are committed to graduate education through the Ph.D., give high priority to research, and receive substantial federal support. Research I universities along with medical schools are generally considered to be the most prestigious academic locations.

  • Medical institutions include medical and health related universities. While medical schools may not have graduate programs, they are similar to Research I in their prestige and research orientation, and are important in the life sciences for postdoctoral training.

  • Research II institutions are similar to Research I institutions, but are smaller, award fewer degrees, and receive less research funding.

  • Doctoral institutions produce a smaller number of Ph.D.s in fewer areas and receive less funding than Research I and II schools.

  • Master’s/Comprehensive institutions offer baccalaureate programs and usually have graduate education only through the master’s degree. We will refer to this combined category as Master’s institutions. Many of these schools evolved from teachers’ colleges and are of low prestige (Clark 1987:115).

  • Baccalaureate institutions are smaller, primarily undergraduate colleges with a majority of degrees in the arts and sciences. The prestige of these institutions varies greatly with the selectivity of admissions and the quality of the faculty.

  • Research institutions. In later analyses, we sometimes combine Research I, Research II, and Doctoral institutions with Medical schools and refer to this group as research institutions.

Our analyses exclude 4.5 percent of the male academics and 3.5 percent of the female academics who did not provide sufficient information about their employer to determine the Carnegie type. We also exclude those who work in miscellaneous institutions, including theological seminaries, schools of art, and teachers’ colleges. These account for less than 1 percent of the sample, and are evenly distributed between men and women.

4  

See Appendix Table D-3 for detailed information.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

Enrollments in Carnegie Types of Institutions

Comparing the number of students enrolled at different Carnegie types of institutions to the number of full-time doctoral employees at these institutions illustrates the differing missions across the institutions. Figure 6–10 plots the percent of all students who are enrolled in various types of institutions; for a given year, the percentages across types of institutions sum to 100.5Figure 6–11 provides corresponding information on the percent of full-time doctoral employees at these institutions. The most dramatic difference is seen by comparing Research I universities to Master’s universities. Research I institutions have over twice the doctoral employees relative to the proportion of students, with an increasing difference as the proportion of students in Research I institutions declined while enrollments in Master’s schools increased. Master’s institutions enroll proportionally twice as many students as they have full-time doctoral employees. These differences reflect the much greater emphasis on research at Research I institutions, where teaching loads are lighter and more scientists and engineers are full-time researchers.

FIGURE 6–10 Student enrollment in higher education, by Carnegie type of institution and year of survey. SOURCE: National Science Board 1998: Appendix Table 2–8.

5  

We excluded those enrolled in 2-year or specialized institutions.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–11 Employment of full-time academics, by Carnegie type of institution and year of survey.

The Distribution of Academics among Types of Institutions

In their review of the literature on the scientific career, Long and Fox (1995) concluded that the less prestigious the type of institution, the more likely the employment of women and minorities. Our data confirm this generalization, with two qualifications. First, a substantial number of women are working at medical schools, which are generally considered to be prestigious locations. Keep in mind, however, that this does not imply that men and women had the same types of positions within these institutions. This critical issue is discussed below. Second, gender differences in the institutional distribution of employment have declined substantially since 1973, with women being relatively more likely to be in the more prestigious Research and Medical institutions. Table 6–1 presents the distribution of men and women among types of institutions over time. While Research I universities are by far the largest employer, their share of full-time academics has decreased from 1973 to 1995. The percent of men in Research I institutions dropped by 7 percentage points, while the percent of women dropped only 1 point. As a result, the over-representation of men in this important class of institutions has declined from an 11 point differential in 1973 to 5 points in 1995. Women are found proportionally more often in medical schools, which have shown the largest growth in employment since 1973. While the proportion of men employed in other types of institutions has been nearly constant since 1973, for

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–1 Distribution of Full-Time Academic Positions Among Carnegie Types of Institutions, by Sex and Year of Survey

 

1973

1979

1989

1995

Change from 1973 to 1995

Research I

Men

46.8

42.9

41.5

39.6

–7.2

Women

36.2

36.9

37.4

34.8

–1.4

Difference

10.6

6.0

4.1

4.9

–5.7

Medical

Men

5.1

10.5

11.3

12.6

7.5

Women

11.1

16.9

18.8

20.4

9.3

Difference

–6.0

–6.4

–7.6

–7.8

–1.8

Research II

Men

10.8

9.7

9.6

9.1

–1.7

Women

6.3

5.9

7.4

7.0

0.8

Difference

4.5

3.8

2.2

2.1

–2.4

Doctoral

Men

12.4

11.9

11.6

12.1

–0.3

Women

10.3

11.1

9.6

10.2

–0.1

Difference

2.1

0.8

2.0

1.9

–0.2

Master’s

Men

17.5

17.6

18.5

19.0

1.6

Women

25.0

19.3

18.1

19.0

–6.1

Difference

–7.6

–1.7

0.4

0.0

7.6

Baccalaureate

Men

7.5

7.5

7.6

7.5

0.0

Women

11.2

10.0

8.8

8.6

–2.5

Difference

–3.7

–2.5

–1.2

–1.1

2.6

N

Men

100,284 1

123,796

158,800

153,593

 

Women

8,557

15,957

34,267

45,324

NOTE: For example, 46.8 indicates that 46.8 percent of male academics in 1973 were working at Research I institutions.

women there has been a 6 point decrease in Master’s universities and a 3 point decrease in Baccalaureate colleges. The net effect of these changes is that men and women have become increasingly similar in their distribution among types of institutions. And, among Research I and Medical institutions combined, the 5 point over-representation of men in 1973 turned into a 3 point under-representation in 1995. Among research institutions,6 the 11 point advantage for men in 1973 is reduced to a single point advantage in 1995. During this period, there was a corresponding de-

6  

These include Research I, Research II, Doctoral, and Medical institutions.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

crease in the over-representation of women in both Master’s and Baccalaureate institutions.

There are, however, important differences among fields in the percent who are employed in research institutions. Engineers, who require extensive research funding and sophisticated laboratories to do their research, are much more likely to work at research institutions than are Ph.D.s in other fields. In 1973, 90 percent of all academic engineers worked in research institutions (almost all engineering schools are in research universities), declining only slightly to 86 percent in 1995. Employment in research institutions is next most common in the life sciences, where the percent has increased slightly to just over 80 percent. Employment in research institutions is least common in mathematics and the social/behavioral sciences, fields where research facilities are less critical, where there has been a steady decline to 62 percent in 1995.

While there are differences among fields in the representation of women among research institutions, there are increasing similarities since 1973. The largest changes occurred in the social and behavioral sciences. From 1973 to 1995, women went from being 10 points under-represented to 5 points over-represented in research institutions; in Research I and Medical institutions, the change was from women being 5 points underrepresented to 9 points over-represented relative to the rates for men (Table 6–2). In other fields, while the changes generally lead to increased similarities, the convergence was less dramatic. In mathematics, women were significantly under-represented until a sudden decrease in the proportion of men and an increase in the proportion of women in 1995. There was rapid growth in employment in medical schools, with an increase from 13 percent to 28 percent in the proportion of male life scientists working in medical schools. During this same period, the proportion of women in medical schools increased more slowly, from 21 percent in 1973 to 31 percent in 1995. As a consequence, the overrepresentation of women in medical schools decreased from 9 points in 1973 to 3 points in 1995.7

The Proportion of Academics Who Are Women

As a result of the increasing proportion of new Ph.D.s who are women and the greater tendency of women to enter academia, the percentage of full-time doctoral employees who are women has increased steadily in all types of institutions, as shown by Figure 6–12. As shown in Table 6–2 by 1995, women were most represented in Medical schools, with a large

7  

Keep in mind that we are only considering scientists in medical schools that have a Ph.D. Those with an M.D. but without a Ph.D. are not included in the SDR or SED.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–12 Percent of full-time academics who are women, by Carnegie type and year of survey.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–2 Gender Difference in Percent of Full-Time Academics in Ph.D. Granting/Medical Institutions and in Research I/Medical Institutions, by Year of Survey

 

Ph.D. or Medical Institutionsa

1973

1979

1989

1995

Change

Engineering

Total

89.9

90.7

89.2

86.2

–3.7

Men

90.0

90.7

89.4

86.5

–3.5

Women

82.2

82.4

0.2

Difference

7.2

4.1

–3.1

Mathematics

Total

67.2

67.6

64.4

60.9

–6.3

Men

68.4

68.3

65.6

61

–7.4

Women

57.2

53.6

60.8

3.6

Difference

11.1

12.0

0.2

–10.9

Physical Sciences

Total

70.0

69.9

69.1

70.9

0.9

Men

70.5

70.1

69.0

71.4

0.9

Women

58.7

66.6

69.9

66.7

8.0

Difference

11.8

3.5

–0.9

4.7

–7.1

Life Sciences (Research I)

Total

80.9

82.2

84.5

82.5

1.6

Men

81.6

82.8

84.7

83.3

1.7

Women

75.1

78.7

83.8

80.6

5.5

Difference

6.5

4.1

0.9

2.7

–3.8

Life Sciences (Medical)

Total

 

Men

Women

Difference

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Total

66.8

66.2

62.8

62.2

–4.6

Men

68.0

66.1

61.8

60.8

–7.2

Women

57.6

66.6

65.7

65.3

7.7

Difference

10.4

–0.5

–3.9

–4.5

–14.9

NOTE:—indicates too few women in category to estimate percentage.

aResearch institutions include Research I, Research II, Doctoral, and Medical institutions,

bFor life sciences, Medical and Research I institutions are described separately.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

Research I or Medicalb

1973

1979

1989

1995

Change

59.7

60.6

60.6

58.7

–1.0

59.7

60.6

60.6

58.7

–1.0

65.7

55.5

–10.2

–5.1

3.2

8.3

43.7

45.3

41.8

37.7

–6.0

43.7

45.3

41.8

37.7

–6.0

37.7

33.2

38.1

0.4

7.6

8.6

–0.4

–8.0

47.9

49.5

50.1

50.7

2.8

47.9

49.5

50.1

50.7

2.8

43.4

49.8

53.7

51.4

8.0

4.5

–0.3

–3.6

–0.7

–5.2

46.8

38.5

38.8

35.1

–11.7

47.9

39.1

39.2

36.4

–11.7

37.5

34.8

37.2

31.8

–5.7

10.4

4.3

2.0

4.6

–5.8

13.7

25.1

28

28.9

15.2

12.8

24.6

26.9

28.0

15.2

21.4

28.7

31.5

31.1

9.7

–8.6

–4.1

–4.6

–3.1

5.5

43.0

41.2

39.1

36.9

–6.1

43.0

41.2

39.1

36.9

–6.1

38.1

45.9

46.1

46.0

7.9

4.9

–4.7

–7.0

–9.1

–14.0

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–3 Percent of Full-Time Academics Who Are Female, by Carnegie Type of Institution, Field, and Year of Survey

 

Research I

Medical

Research II

Engineering

1973

0.2

 

0.1

1979

1.0

0.4

1989

3.3

1.6

1995

5.9

4.7

Change

5.7

4.6

Mathematics

1973

3.8

3.7

1979

5.8

5.3

1989

7.9

7.0

1995

11.7

12.5

Change

7.9

8.8

Physical Sciences

1973

4.0

2.5

1979

5.6

5.5

1989

8.9

7.4

1995

11.4

11.0

Change

7.4

8.5

Life Sciences

1973

8.2

16.0

6.6

1979

12.2

15.5

6.7

1989

21.5

25.4

15.7

1995

26.3

31.2

22.1

Change

18.1

15.2

15.5

Social/Behavioral Sciences

1973

10.2

 

7.0

1979

18.6

12.7

1989

27.8

24.8

1995

36.5

27.5

Change

26.3

20.5

increase between 1979 and 1989. Smaller increases were found in Baccalaureate and Master’s institutions. The smallest representation of women was the Ph.D. granting institutions: Research I, Research II, and Doctoral institutions.

The increase in the percentage of women occurred in all fields, as shown in Table 6–3, with engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences showing the least growth. Among these fields, the only increase greater than 10 percentage points in the proportion of women was in the very small number of engineers at Baccalaureate institutions. By 1995, the proportion of women in engineering was just above 5 percent, while women’s representation in mathematics and the physical sciences was

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

Doctoral

Master’s

Baccalaureate

Total

0.5

0.6

0.0

0.3

1.1

1.0

1.3

0.9

1.9

5.1

4.7

3.0

7.0

7.3

13.3

6.3

6.5

6.7

13.3

6.0

4.9

8.9

10.4

5.7

6.2

8.9

9.4

6.9

9.6

12.4

13.5

9.8

10.6

10.0

16.5

11.6

5.7

1.1

6.1

5.9

3.4

5.6

6.8

4.4

3.9

5.6

6.9

5.5

7.0

7.4

9.2

8.3

7.2

13.1

12.4

11.3

3.8

7.5

5.6

6.9

8.5

12.7

14.7

10.2

15.7

15.1

19.0

13.6

22.9

23.2

24.3

22.5

32.7

32.4

31.4

28.9

24.2

19.7

16.7

18.7

10.7

14.9

13.6

11.4

15.7

15.8

19.5

17.0

20.4

21.3

25.9

24.6

27.0

27.8

31.6

31.6

16.3

12.9

18.0

20.2

just over 10 percent. The largest increases were in the life and social/ behavioral sciences, where women increased their proportion by nearly 20 points. Within the social and behavioral sciences, the greatest proportions of women are found in Research I and Baccalaureate institutions. In the life sciences, women are working most often in Medical, Doctoral, Master’s, and Baccalaureate institutions, where in 1995 they were nearly one-third of the full-time academics. Still, even with the rapid increase, women do not make up 40 percent of the doctoral scientists and engineers in any field or type of institution. The greatest proportion of women is 37 percent, found in Research I universities in the social and behavioral sciences.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

THE ACADEMIC LADDER

While the number and proportion of women has increased steadily in all fields and types of institutions, it is also critical that women hold positions of similar status to those of men within these institutions. In this section we examine differences in the types of academic positions held by men and women. Our analytic approach is to explore gender differences at each rung of the academic ladder. First, we examine differences in having tenure-track positions (i.e., faculty) compared to less prestigious and secure off-track positions. For those who are faculty, we consider who has tenure and who does not. Next, we consider advancement to the highest rank, that of full professor. While there is evidence of improvement in the success of women in obtaining positions comparable to those of men, women continue to be less successful in advancing up the ladder of academic success.

Tenure-Track and Off-Track Positions8

Female research associates represented a good investment. They were skilled, low cost, and grateful for the work.

—Mary Frank Fox, The Outer Circle, 19919

The most fundamental distinction among academic positions is between tenure-track positions and off-track positions. Scientists with tenure-track positions have the possibility of advancing through the faculty ranks from assistant professor to full professor. Accordingly, we refer to those on tenure-track positions as faculty. As a result of achievements in teaching, research, and service, faculty can be rewarded with the job security provided by tenure. In comparison, off-track positions have lower pay, fewer resources, and less security. They include temporary teaching positions, research positions funded by soft money, visiting scholars, adjunct faculty without tenure-track appointments elsewhere, postdoctoral fellows, and lower level administrative positions. The second class status of off-track positions is reflected in Kerr’s (1963) characterization of these academics as the “unfaculty.” Off-track positions greatly benefit the university by providing an elastic, highly trained labor force at a low cost. These marginal positions can be used by the university to respond quickly

8  

The 1973 SDR did not collect information on whether a position was on a tenure track. Accordingly, data in this section are limited to 1979, 1989, and 1995. See Appendix Table D-4 for detailed tables.

9  

Fox (1991).

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

and cheaply to fluctuations in enrollments, external funding, and faculty leaves (Hornig 1987). Not surprisingly, these positions are less advantageous for the incumbent since they limit access to the resources, such as grants, sabbaticals, secretarial support, and office space, that are needed to establish a successful career (Fox 1996; Hurlbert and Rosenfeld 1992). Consequently, upward mobility from off-track positions to faculty positions is often impossible.

The greater likelihood of women being in off-track positions is well known (Ahern and Scott 1981; Haley-Oliphant 1985; Reskin 1978:1239; Zuckerman 1987:133). Rossiter’s (1982, 1995) two volume history of women in science documents the many barriers that women faced in their attempt to obtain full participation through tenure-track positions.10 In the 1920s and 1930s, the access by women to the academy was often through off-track, research positions, where they were willing to work “harder for lower salaries than were men.” With the explosion of research funding in the 1950s and 1960s, women entered research universities in increasing numbers, but as members of the research staff rather than as faculty. The typical experience of female Ph.D.s is aptly summarized by the title of Rossiter’s chapter about this period of history of higher education: “Resentful Research Associates: Marriage and Marginality.” Since female scientists who are married are often married to other scientists, antinepotism rules kept many faculty wives from becoming faculty (Rossiter 1995; Simon, Clark, and Tifft 1966). While these rules were suspended during World War II, they were often reinstated in the postwar “adjustment.” The implications of these changes are painfully illustrated by the case of a woman who was tenured in mathematics, only to find that her contract was not renewed after she married an untenured member of the department; his contract, however, was renewed (Rossiter 1995:125). While the blatantly discriminatory antinepotism polices have been outlawed, women continue to be less likely to obtain tenure-track positions.

From 1979 to 1995, the percent of all full-time academic jobs that were on-track decreased from 84 percent to 79 percent, as shown in Figure 6–13. Throughout this decline, men had a steady 14 percentage point advantage over women in obtaining faculty positions. While this suggests that there has been little progress for women in becoming members of the faculty, these overall figures mask broad differences in the availability of faculty positions by field, type of institution, in different historical periods, and at different stages of the career. To see the progress that has been

10  

The information in this section is from Rossiter (1982:203–217; 1995:149–164).

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–13 Percent of all academics, of men, and of women who have tenure-track positions, by year of survey. NOTE: Data were not available in 1973.

made, we must adjust for gender differences in background characteristics and changes over time.

Figures 6–14 and 6–15 show the distribution across fields and types of institutions in the availability of faculty positions. Among fields, employment as a faculty member is least common in the life sciences, especially in medical schools (see also National Research Council 1998, Chapter 3). In medical schools, there was an 11 point drop since 1979 which left only 57 percent of the full-time positions being faculty. Across Carnegie types, tenure-track positions were least common in Medical and Research I institutions, which reflects the large amount of research funding used to hire off-track researchers at these institutions. Research II, Doctoral, and Baccalaureate institutions were the most similar in 1995, with about 85 percent of the jobs on-track. In Master’s universities, 90 percent of the full-time doctoral employees were faculty.

Since 1979, the proportion of academic jobs that are tenure track has declined, especially in Medical and Research I institutions. To understand this decrease, it is necessary to consider both the movement of scientists from off-track positions to faculty positions early in their careers and historical decreases in the availability of faculty positions. These two changes are reflected in Figure 6–16. Using data from 1979, the thin line plots the percent of academic scientists who are faculty by how many years have elapsed since the Ph.D. For example, in 1979 those in the first year of the career received their degree in 1978; those in the fifth year in 1974 and so on. Over the first 11 years of the career, there is a steady

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–14 Percent of full-time academics with faculty positions, by field and year of survey. NOTE: Data were not available in 1973.

FIGURE 6–15 Percent of full-time academics with faculty positions, by Carnegie type and year of survey. NOTE: Data were not available in 1973.

increase of 2.5 points per year in the percent who are faculty. This is likely to reflect the movement of scientists with postdoctoral fellowships or short-term research positions into full-time positions as faculty. By the eleventh career year (those with degrees in 1968), the proportion levels off around 90 percent.

Data from 1989 are shown by the heavy dark line. For example, in

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–16 Percent of academic scientists with faculty positions, by years since the Ph.D. and year of survey. NOTES: Percentages are based on 5-year moving averages. Data were not available in 1973.

1989 those in the first year of the career received their degree in 1988; those in the fifth year in 1984 and so on. The increase over time in the percent with tenure-track jobs is slower, around 1.7 points a year. But, while the trend is more gradual, it continues until the nineteenth year, where it levels off at 90 percent. Comparing the heavy line for 1989 to the thin line for 1979 shows differences over a 10-year period in the proportion of doctoral scientists and engineers who have faculty positions. The biggest change is the decrease in the proportion who have tenure-track faculty positions in years 10 through 20 of the career. In 1979, 93 percent of those 15 years from the Ph.D. were faculty compared to 86 percent in 1989. Similar trends continued in 1995 as shown by the gray line: in all years since the Ph.D., a smaller percent of academics have tenure-track positions. For example, in the fifteenth year, 8 percent fewer academics were on tenure track in 1995 than 1989, and 15 percent fewer than in 1979. Overall, we find a historical decrease in the proportion of scientists who have faculty positions. Over time an increasingly smaller percent of each new cohort find themselves hired as faculty with the possibility of future tenure. Thus, women entered academia in increasing numbers at a time

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

when opportunities for obtaining more permanent and prestigious faculty positions had begun to decline.

Consistent with past research, we find that academically employed men are substantially more likely than women to have faculty positions. Combining fields and types of institutions, men were 14 points more likely to be appointed as faculty in 1979 and 1989, and 13 points more likely in 1995. While these aggregate figures show no overall improvement for women, they correspond to scientists and engineers at all stages in their career. Figure 6–17 plots the percent of men (dark line) and the percent of women (dashed line) with faculty positions in 1995 by the number of years since the Ph.D. During the first 5 years of the career (corresponding to those with degrees from 1991 to 1994), the proportions for men and women are indistinguishable. From year 6 on, men are over 10 points more likely to hold faculty positions. Unfortunately, we cannot tell from these data whether the similarities between men and women among the youngest cohorts will continue as they age or whether the men in these cohorts will become over-represented in faculty positions over time. There is, however, some reason to believe that women have im-

FIGURE 6–17 Percent with tenure-track positions in 1995, by sex and years since the Ph.D.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

proved their ability to secure tenure-track positions throughout the career. First, in a similar plot for 1989 (not shown), men were over-represented by about 10 points beginning at the first year of the career and continuing through year 30. Second, the multivariate analyses that we now consider show increasing similarities over time after controlling for background characteristics and, most importantly, professional age.

Logit Analyses of Tenure Track Status11

There are too few women in some fields to construct tables that control simultaneously for all of the variables that we believe are important. As an alternative, discussed more fully in Chapter 2, we use logit analysis to predict the proportion of scientists and engineers with tenure-track positions after controlling for characteristics such as field, career year, Ph.D. origin, job type, citizenship status, and family. We refer to the predictions from the logit model as adjusted proportions since they are estimates of the proportion of academic scientists and engineers who are faculty after adjusting for (i.e., controlling for) the levels of the variables included in the model. Since the logit model is nonlinear, gender differences in the adjusted proportion with faculty positions depend on the specific values of each control variable. To summarize our findings, we present results for a hypothetical individual in the fifthteenth year of the career.

The dark bars in Figure 6–18 show the observed differences in the proportion of men and the proportion of women who have faculty jobs. The unadjusted data show that there was no improvement since 1979 in the over-representation of men. However, these differences do not control for gender differences in scientific age. To adjust for age differences we estimated logit models that predict being in a faculty position after controlling for career age.12 Separate models were estimated for men and women for each year of the survey. Differences in the adjusted proportions of men and women in their fifthteenth career year are shown by the lighter bars. In 1979, there was only a small decrease from the observed to the adjusted difference. That is, the observed gender difference in the percent with tenure-track positions cannot be explained by the younger age of female academics. By 1989, however, the observed difference was substantially reduced by adjusting for age, with a somewhat smaller reduction in 1995. Our results suggest that much, but not all, of the differ-

11  

See Appendix Table D-5 for detailed results.

12  

Age is included as the number of years since the Ph.D. and the square of the number of years. The square allows for a decreasing effect of career age over time.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–18 Difference between men and women in the observed proportions with faculty positions and the adjusted predictions after controlling only for years since the Ph.D. NOTES: Predictions are for the fifthteenth year of the career. Data were not available in 1973.

ence between men and women in their success in becoming faculty is due to differences in the stage of the career. The recent entry of women into science and engineering has contributed to the smaller percent of women who are faculty. Accordingly, if current trends in Ph.D. production and the job market for faculty continue, we expect that there will be increases in the percent of women with faculty positions in the next decade.

While the most important factor affecting gender differences in faculty status is the age of a scientist or engineer, there are also important differences related to field, type of institution, and other variables. Figures 6–19 and 6–20 show that the over-representation of men on the faculty differs substantially by type of institution and field, even after adjusting for field differences in age and other variables. Further, these figures demonstrate that women have made significant improvements in becoming faculty in all types of institutions and in most fields. Across institutions, gender differences are largest in Medical, Research I, and Research II institutions, but these institutions also showed the greatest improvement since 1979. By 1995, differences were reduced to 6 points or less in all except Medical institutions. Across fields, the differences were greatest in the life sciences (due to the large number of life scientists in medical schools), but this difference was cut to 8 points by 1995. Differences were

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–19 Gender difference in adjusted proportions with tenure-track positions, by Carnegie type of institution and year of survey. NOTES: Predictions are for career year 15 with other variables held at their means. Data were not available in 1973.

FIGURE 6–20 Gender difference in adjusted proportions with tenure-track positions, by field and year of survey. NOTES: Predictions are for career year 15 with other variables held at their means. There are too few women in engineering in 1979 to estimate the difference. Data were not available in 1973.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–4 Effects of Citizenship, Being at a Private Institution, Prestige of Doctoral Program, and Time from Baccalaureate to Ph.D. on Adjusted Proportions in Tenure-Track Positions, by Sex and Year of Survey

 

Women

Men

1979

1989

1995

1979

1989

1995

Being a foreign citizen

–8.9

–2.5

–7.4

–5.6

–3.2

–3.2

Working at a private institution

–10.8

–10.1

–7.6

–5.3

–7.3

–9.4

Increase in Ph.D. prestige

1.2

2.8

4.4

0.4

3.0

4.1

More than 10 years from bachelor’s to Ph.D.

4.2

0.6

2.1

0.9

–3.3

–6.3

NOTES: Predictions are for career year 15 with other variables held at their means. Data were not available in 1973.

eliminated in mathematics, reduced in the physical and social/behavioral sciences, but showed small increases in engineering.

Other factors are also associated with obtaining a faculty position and some of these factors affect men and women differently. Table 6–4 presents differences in the predicted proportion of academics with faculty positions as we change one variable, holding other variables constant. For example, the value of −8.9 for being a foreign citizen in 1979 for women means that the logit model predicted that 8.9 percentage points fewer women were in faculty positions if they were foreign citizens compared to being an American citizen. The key findings are as follows.

Being a U.S. citizen increases the chances of being a faculty member. There is a larger effect for women and a slight decrease in the effect over time. Being at a private college or university decreases the predicted proportion of scientists with faculty positions by nearly 10 points. This effect decreased for women in 1995, while the effect increased for men since 1979. The proportion of scientists and engineers with faculty positions is slightly higher for those who come from more prestigious doctoral programs. By 1995, the effects were similar for men and women: those from Ph.D. departments that were 1 point more prestigious on a five-point scale were 4 percentage points more likely to be in faculty positions. While Reskin and Hargens (1979) found an insignificant effect of doctoral origins on whether the first job was tenure track, Reskin (1979) found that scientists with postdoctoral fellowships in more prestigious institutions and with more visible mentors were more likely to obtain tenure-track positions.

Recall from our discussion in Chapter 4 that taking longer than 10 years suggests that there was an interruption between the baccalaureate and the Ph.D., perhaps for predoctoral employment or family obligations.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–21 Differences in the adjusted proportion having tenure-track positions between: a) those with young children and those who are single; and b) those who are married without young children and those who are single, by sex and survey year. NOTES: Predictions are for career year 15 with other variables held at their mean. Data were not available in 1973.

Women with interruptions before receiving the Ph.D. are more likely to become faculty, while men who take longer are increasingly less likely. While we do not have sufficient information to explain these differences, they could reflect the different reasons that men and women interrupt their education. Women who interrupt their career for family before the doctorate might be less likely to do so after the Ph.D. and consequently would advance more rapidly through the career. This conclusion is consistent with our earlier findings on the effects of marriage and family.

For men, being married with young children compared to being single increases the chances of holding a faculty position (Figure 6–21). The effect is stronger in more recent years. For women, the effects are in the opposite direction, but have largely disappeared by 1995. Given the limitations of our data, it is difficult to interpret the effects of marriage and family on the career, since it is also possible that career outcomes affect familial status. For example, a woman with young children might find it difficult to accept a faculty position, but it is also possible that women who cannot find a suitable faculty position are more likely to start a family. Nonetheless, our findings show that until recently family obligations were important for women in the process of obtaining a faculty positions. This is consistent with Rosenfeld and Jones’s (1986:213) interpretation: “… departments might assume that all women (single or married) are inhibited by family responsibilities and offer them nontenure-track positions

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

more often than men.” Encouragingly, our results suggest that the adverse effects of family for women are declining.

The Representation of Women Among the Faculty and the Unfaculty

The net effect of the increase in women in academia along with the smaller changes in their access to faculty positions are shown in Figure 6–22. This plot shows the percent of faculty positions held by women (Panel A) and the percent of off-track positions held by women (Panel B). As a point of reference, the set of bars at the far right of each panel shows the percent of all full-time academics who are women, regardless of tenure-track status. The set of bars at the far left of each panel combines academics in all Carnegie types of institutions. Our data show that women account for a larger portion of off-track academics than of faculty, and prior research indicates that this has been true at least since World War II. While there has been a steady increase in the percent of faculty who are women, their rate of increase among off-track scientists and engineers has lessened, resulting in a more even distribution of women across types of positions. Still, in 1995 women made up one-third of those with off-track positions, but only one-fifth of the tenure-track faculty. There is also significant variation across types of institutions. Women are least represented among the faculty at Research I and Research II institutions, which is critical since these institutions train most of the new Ph.D.s. (see Frieze and Hanusa 1984 for further discussion of this issue). If women are not fully represented on the faculty of these schools, their influence in training future generations of women (and men) will be limited. Finally, women are most represented among tenure-track faculty at Baccalaureate and Medical institutions.

Work Activities of Off-Track Academics

Off-track academic scientists and engineers are employed in a variety of jobs, which we break into five categories. Teaching jobs are temporary positions, often renewed on a yearly basis, that do not have the security of or potential for tenure. Research positions have titles such as lab assistant and research associate, but exclude tenured research positions such as Research Scientists at agricultural schools. Management includes lower level positions such as Assistant Dean or Assistant Registrar. Professional services includes jobs such as clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy; these positions are normally held by social/behavioral and life scientists in medical schools. Finally, we combine a variety of miscellaneous positions into an Other category.

The primary work activities of off-track academics differ greatly by

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–22 Percent of those in faculty positions and those with off-track positions who are women, by Carnegie type and year of survey. NOTES: The last set of bars is the percent of all full-time academics who are women. Data were not available in 1973.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

the type of the institution in which a scientist or engineer is working. There is a gradual shifting of activities as we move along the continuum from Baccalaureate institutions, through Master’s, Doctoral, Research II, Research I, and Medical institutions. The four panels of Figure 6–23 show the distribution of jobs for four groups of institutions. The darkest region at the bottom of each bar corresponds to teaching positions that are not on a tenure track.13 Teaching is the primary activity in Baccalaureate institutions, with steadily falling proportions as we move to Research I and Medical institutions. Correspondingly, there is an increasing proportion of off-track academics who hold research positions. The proportion doing research has decreased slightly over time in Research I and Medical schools, and has increased in other types of institutions. The last notable change is the increasing proportion working in professional services, an area in which women are more likely to work.

Men and women differ in the types of off-track positions that they hold and these differences have changed over time. In 1979, men were 5 to 10 percentage points more likely than women to be teaching in Ph.D. granting and Medical institutions. By 1995 this trend had reversed with women being about 5 points more likely to be teaching in these institutions. Conversely, a greater proportion of women were in research jobs in 1979, changing to a greater proportion of men in these positions by 1995. In Baccalaureate institutions, women were 8 points less likely to be teaching in 1995 and 6 points more likely to be doing research.

Tenure14

At its best, tenure is a rigorous test of scholarly achievement that brings great rewards: lifetime job security, better pay and prestige. At its worst, however, tenure is criticized for being a secretive, cabalistic ritual with little accountability for how or why decisions are made.

—Debbie Goldberg, The Washington Post, 199715

While the idea of tenure has a long history in the academy (see

13  

This does not include part time teaching faculty.

14  

See Appendix Tables D-6 for detailed data. The 1973 SDR did not include the tenure track status of a job, so it was not possible to determine whether a person without tenure held a tenure-track positions without tenure or was not on-track. Accordingly, data from 1973 was not used. We also exclude 0.3 percent of the sample where academic rank was missing.

15  

Goldberg (1997).

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–23 Distribution of non-tenure track academics among work activities, by sex, Carnegie type of institution, and year of survey.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

Metzger 1973 for details), tenure as it is known today has it roots in the 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure drafted jointly by the Association of American Colleges and The American Association of University Professors (Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education 1973:ix). The essence of this statement is that when a faculty member is granted tenure after meeting requirements of a probationary period, he or she should be terminated “only for adequate cause, except in the case of retirement for age or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies (Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education 1973:3).” By 1970, the principles of this document had been endorsed by nearly every university and college in America.

While the process of granting tenure has varied over time and there are some differences across types of institutions, the granting of tenure normally occurs as follows. A person enters academia upon completion of the doctorate or a postdoctoral fellowship with the initial rank of assistant professor without tenure. During the sixth year as an assistant professor, a faculty member is reviewed for tenure based on criteria established by the college or university. In research universities, research productivity is the main criterion, while in baccalaureate institutions teaching is normally the most important activity. While a tenure review usually occurs in the sixth year (the 1940 statement specified a probationary period of no more than seven years), there is variation among institutions, with private universities and medical schools often having longer probationary periods. If tenure is granted, dismissal occurs only under extraordinary circumstances of financial exigency or personal malfeasance. If tenure is denied, a faculty member is given another year of employment to look for another faculty position at some other (often less prestigious) institution, to accept an off-track position (perhaps at the same institution), or to leave academia entirely.

From 1979 to 1995 there was little change in the percent of tenure-track faculty who had received tenure. For men a nearly constant 80 percent had tenure in each year of the survey, while for women the number increased slightly from 56 percent in 1979 to 62 percent in 1989, dropping to 60 percent in 1995. Throughout this period, a nearly constant 20 percentage points more men than women were tenured. This appearance of a lack of progress for women is due to the shifting age structure for women. In all but cases of exceptional genius, years of employment are critical for receipt of tenure (Ahern and Scott 1981; Hurlbert and Rosenfeld 1992; Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993). Consequently, when comparing tenure for men and women we must take into account the lower average professional age of women among tenure-track faculty.

The association between professional age and being tenured is shown

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–24 Percent of tenure-track academic scientists with tenure, by professional age and year of survey. NOTES: Percentages are based on 5-year moving aveages. Data were not available in 1973.

in Figure 6–24 for the survey years 1979, 1989, and 1995.16 For each year, the proportion of faculty with tenure is quite low immediately after the degree and increases rapidly between years 6 and 10. Keep in mind that while most schools grant tenure after the sixth year in rank, this corresponds to different professional ages for individual faculty depending on the amount of time the person held postdoctoral fellowships or off-track positions before the initial faculty appointment.

Gender differences in age at tenure are show in in Figures 6–25 and 6–26. In 1979, beginning in year 5 male faculty have a 5 point advantage in the percent who are tenured at a given professional age. In 1995, female faculty begin with a 5 point advantage during the first 5 years of the career. This is due to the greater proportion of women with early tenure at Doctoral institutions (5 percent for men; 10 percent for women), Master’s institutions (4 percent for men; 21 percent for women), and Baccalaureate institutions (9 percent for men; 16 percent for women). By year 15, a 4 point advantage for men has emerged. Thus, from 1979 to 1995 there is only a small decrease in the age-adjusted advantage for men, while at the

16  

For 1979 and 1989 information was collected on the years of work experience. Plots using experience rather than years since the Ph.D. were very similar. The correlation between experience and years since the Ph.D. is .99.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6.25 Percent with tenure in 1979, by gender and year since Ph.D. NOTE: Percentages are based on 5-year moving averages.

FIGURE 6.26 Percent with tenure in 1995, by gender and year since Ph.D. NOTE: Percentages are based on 5-year moving averages.

same time the percent with tenure at a given stage of the career has decreased.

An important limitation in our analysis of the effects of career age on tenure is that we do not have information on years of experience in off-track positions. For example, we do not know if the average woman in the

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–27 The percent tenured by mean career age, by field and sex in 1995.

KEY: •=Women;+=Men; Eng=Engineering; Mth=Mathematics; Phy=Physical sciences; Lif=Life sciences excluding medical schools; Med=Life sciences in medical schools; SB=Social/behavioral sciences. NOTE: Data points have been adjusted slighlty to avoid overlap in the plotted points.

seventh year of the career has spent more time as an off-track, postdoctoral fellow than the average man. Unfortunately, the SDR provides information on scientists only at a single point in time, namely, the year of the survey. Given the critical importance of tenure for the academic career, further research and more detailed data are clearly called for.17

While field differences exist in the percent of faculty who are tenured and in gender differences in rates of tenure, this is largely due to differences in the age structures among fields. Figure 6–27 plots the mean career age in a field by the percent tenured in 1995 for men (shown by +’s) and women (shown by •’s). With the exception of life scientists in medical schools (see +Med and oMed), there is a nearly perfect linear relationship between the percent tenured and the mean age in the field (r2=.96). The percentage tenured in medical schools, however, is nearly 13 points below what would be expected given the age of those in medical schools.

17  

The curves for each year converge to 100 percent since those who did not receive tenure in earlier years will no longer have tenure-track positions.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–28 Percent tenured by mean career age, by sex and Carnegie type in 1995. KEY; •=Women;+=Men; R1=Research I; R2=Research II; Med= Medical; Doc=Doctoral; Mast=Master’s; Ba c=Baccalaureate. NOTE: Data points have been adjusted slighlty to avoid overlap in the plotted points.

Keep in mind, that for medical schools our sample does not include faculty with M.D.s but no doctorate. Further, those in medical schools may require more years after the Ph.D. to obtain tenure in order to meet requirements for residencies and other postdoctoral, off-track activities.

There is a weaker relationship between mean age and the percent tenured across Carnegie types of institutions, as shown in Figure 6–28. This reflects the different career paths (e.g., more or less likelihood of having a postdoctoral fellowship) and policies regarding tenure among different types of institutions (Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education 1973:215–226). Tenure is least likely in Medical institutions, followed by Doctoral, Baccalaureate, Research I, Master’s, and finally Research II institutions. Since men and women have different proportional representation by Carnegie type of institution, it is important to take this into account when examining gender differences in receiving tenure.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–29 Difference between men and women in the observed proportion with tenure and the adjusted prediction after controlling for field, career age, and Carnegie type of employer, by year of survey. NOTES: Predictions are for the tenth year after the Ph.D. Data were not available in 1973.

Logit Analyses of Tenure18

There was only a 4 percentage point decrease, down from 24 to 20 points, in the observed over-representation of men in tenured positions between 1979 and 1995, as shown by the dark bars in Figure 6–29. However, since male and female faculty differ in average career age and type of institution, it is essential to take these factors into account when comparing the proportion who are tenured. This is done by using logit analysis to predict the proportion of scientists and engineers with tenure after adjusting simultaneously for characteristics such as field, career year, sex, and type of employing institution.19 To summarize our results, we look at the adjusted proportions of men and women predicted to have tenure in the 10th year after the Ph.D., assuming that all other variables are at the mean. In effect, we are comparing a statistically average male faculty member to a statistically average female faculty member. These controls substantially reduce the differences between men and women in receiving tenure as shown by the gray bars. In 1979, the observed difference was

18  

See Appendix Table D-7 for the complete results.

19  

The model includes years since the Ph.D. and the square of the years since the Ph.D. to allow for the nonlinear effect of career age.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

reduced from 24 points to an adjusted difference of 17 points; in 1989 the observed difference of 19 points was reduced to 6 points, dropping to 4 points in 1995. Overall, by 1995 gender differences in being tenured are largely the result of differences in career age and to a lesser extent the result of differences in types of employing institutions. However, even after these controls, men continue to be tenured with greateer likelihood.

To examine the effects of other factors on tenure, we next estimated models that added variables such as prestige of the Ph.D. and marital status. Based on these results, Figures 6–30 and 6–31 plot differences in the adjusted proportion of men and women with tenure according to field, Carnegie type, and year of survey. In 1979, gender differences were 20 percentage points in Research I, Medical, and Baccalaureate institutions. Differences were 10 points smaller in other types of institutions. In 1995, there were large decreases, especially for Medical and Baccalaureate institutions. Still, differences of over 8 points remained in Research I, Research II, and Doctoral institutions even after controlling for professional age and other factors. This important result is explored further in the next section. Among fields, we find that the statistical over-representation of men is eliminated or reversed in the physical sciences and the life sciences. Differences of nearly 10 points remain in engineering, mathematics, and the social/behavioral sciences. Note, however, that the figures for

FIGURE 6–30 Difference between men and women in adjusted proportions with tenure, by Carnegie type of institution and year of survey. NOTES: Predictions are for career year 10 with other variables held at their means. The difference is 0 for Medical and Master’s institutions in 1995. Data were not available in 1973.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–31 Difference between men and women in adjusted proportions with tenure, by field and years of survey. NOTES: Predictions are for career year 10 with other variables held at their mean. There are too few women in engineering in 1979 to estimate the difference. Data were not available in 1973.

engineering in 1989 and mathematics in 1979 are based on small sample sizes and may not be reliable estimates.

To assess the effects of other variables, we computed the change in the adjusted proportion with tenure before and after a change in one variable, holding all other variables constant. The results are given in Table 6–5. Both men and women who are foreign citizens are less likely to be tenured, with slightly larger effects for women. Being in a private university or college reduces the proportion with tenure by over 10 points, with increases in more recent years, especially for men. This is consistent with the generally longer probationary periods found in elite, private institutions (e.g., Ivy League schools). Once again, the effects of marriage and children operate in different directions for men and women. Men with young children are more likely to be tenured compared to single men, while for women there is a negative effect in 1979 and no effect in the other years. This result is consistent with findings by Bayer and Astin (1975) and illustrates the recommendation of a female faculty member interviewed by Cole and Zuckerman (1987): “My ideal scenario is to get a tenured position, and then have a child or two.” Comparing those who

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–5 Effects of Changes in Citizenship, Being at a Private Institution, and Familial Status on Adjusted Proportions with Tenure, by Sex and Year of Survey

 

Women

Men

1979

1989

1995

1979

1989

1995

Being a foreign citizen

5.8

–10.6

–6.3

1.4

–7.9

–5.3

Working at a private institution

–11.5

–11.8

–12.5

–9.4

–12.6

–17.8

Having Young Children versus Being Single

–5.8

0.3

1.4

0.3

7.9

7.5

Being Married versus Being Single

–6.3

–0.6

3.8

1.7

7.0

9.4

NOTES: Predictions are for career year 10 with other variables held at their means. Data were not available in 1973.

are married to those who are single, married men are more likely to be tenured, while married women were less likely to be tenured in 1979 and 1989, with a smaller positive effect in 1995. We found only a trivial effect of the prestige of the doctoral program, a result that is consistent with prior research (Ahern and Scott 1981; Allison and Long 1987; Hurlbert and Rosenfeld 1992; Long, Allison and McGinnis 1993; Rosenfeld and Jones 1986; Rosenfeld and Jones 1987). Reskin and Hargens (1979), however, found some effect of the prestige of the postdoctoral fellowship; this variable was not available in the SDR.

While there has been dramatic improvement in the percent of women with tenure after controlling for age, field, and institution type, it is important to keep in mind the limitations of our data. Specifically, we do not know anything about those who were denied tenure. For example, it is possible that a larger proportion of women than men are denied tenure after their sixth year. These women may show up in our statistics on the proportion of women who remained in academia. Among those remaining in tenure-track positions, however, a larger proportion may be tenured. We can gain some insights into this possibility by examining scientists who responded to both the 1979 and 1989 SDR or both the 1989 and 1995 surveys.20 Using these data, Table 6–6 shows changes from tenure-track positions in 1979 to positions in 1989 and from 1989 to 1995. We restricted

20  

There were 1,640 women and 4,062 men with academic positions in 1979 who were in the 1989 SDR; there were 1,217 women and 4,326 men who were in academia in 1989 who were in the 1995 SDR. The smaller size in 1989 is due to changes in sampling for that year of the SDR and does not necessarily indicate any change in the population.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–6 Mobility Between 5 and 15 Years After the Ph.D. from Tenure-Track Positions to Off -Track, Untenured Faculty, Tenured Faculty, and Nonacademic Positions Between 5 and 15 Years After the Ph.D., by Sex and Year of Survey.

 

Percent Moving from Tenure Track to:

Mobility from Year:

 

Off-track

Untenured Faculty

Tenured Faculty

Non-Academic

1979 to 1989

Men

3.2

2.8

87.7

6.3

Women

7.7

2.9

85.9

3.5

1989 to 1995

Men

7.3

9.8

82.6

0.3

Women

9.4

14.9

75.4

0.3

the sample to those between years 5 and 15 after the Ph.D. in order to keep the average ages of men and women similar and to highlight the period during which most tenure decisions are made.

The mobility data provide some evidence that women are less successful in attaining tenure. During the 10 years between 1979 and 1989, women were 4 points more likely to move from tenure-track faculty positions to off-track positions and 2 points less likely to gain tenure. During the 6 years from 1989 to 1995, women were 2 points more likely to move from faculty positions to off-track positions, and 7 points less likely to gain tenure. Note, however, that in both periods women were slightly younger than men, which may account for some of the observed gender differences. In 1979 the average career age of women was 9.0 and of men was 10.0 years; in 1989 the figures were 10.2 and 9.6, respectively.

Tenure in Research I Universities and Medical Schools

Research I universities employ the largest number of faculty, conduct the most influential research, and train the majority of Ph.D.s. Medical schools have an equally central and prestigious position for research and postdoctoral training in the life sciences. Accordingly, it is important to understand the success of women in obtaining tenure in these locations. The three sets of bars on the left of Figure 6–32 plot the observed differences between men and women in the percent who are tenured. In 1979 the largest over-representation of men was over 30 points in Research I institutions, with advantages of about 20 points in both Medical institutions and all other Carnegie types combined. In 1989 there was a 10 point

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–32 Differences in the percent of men and the percent of women with tenure, using observed proportions and adjusted proportions, controlling for professional age, field, and type of institution. NOTES: “Other types” combines all Carnegie types except Research I and Medical institutions. Data were not available in 1973.

improvement in Research I schools with only small changes in other types of institutions; there were similar results for 1995. The right hand set of bars show gender differences in adjusted proportions after controlling for age and field; the differences for other types of institutions also control for the Carnegie type of institution in which a person was working. The adjusted differences are substantially smaller than the observed differences. In Research I institutions there was a drop from 13 points in 1979 to 3 points in 1989, with an increase to 10 point advantage for men in 1995. In institutions other than Medical and Research I, the difference was nearly eliminated by 1995. In Medical schools an advantage of over 10 points emerged by 1995. Overall, the under-representation of women among the tenured faculty is largest in Research I universities, even after controlling for differences in age and field.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

Academic Rank21

Gerty Cori was not promoted to a full professorship until the year she received the Nobel prize.

—Harriet Zuckerman and Jonathan R.Cole, Minerva, 197522

Progress in the academic career is marked by advancement in rank and it is in this outcome that past research has provided the strongest evidence for the unequal treatment of women in academia. This is a central problem since with rank advancement comes the prestige, resources, and authority that are critical for a successful career in science. In this section we consider the distribution of men and women among academic ranks. Our focus is on the rank of full professor since advancement to associate professor is most often accompanied by the receipt of tenure.23

Across fields and types of institutions there are substantial differences between male and female faculty in their academic rank, as shown in Table 6–7. Corresponding to our results for tenure, proportionally more women are assistant professors than are men. In 1979, this difference was 26 points, decreasing to 20 points in 1995. While there is some over-representation of women as associate professors, men are much more likely to be full professors. In 1979 nearly 50 percent of the men but only 22 percent of the women held this rank. Since then, the proportion of full professors increased for men and women as the mean age of the faculty rose. By 1995, 54 percent of the men and 28 percent of the women were full professors, showing a slight improvement from 1979 in the representation of women as full professors.

Before concluding that there has been little progress in rank advancement for women during the past 18 years, it is essential to keep in mind that academic rank, like tenure, is highly dependent upon career age. Controlling for differences in the age structures for male and female faculty shows that there has been limited progress for women in becoming full professors. The strong relationship between professional age and rank is shown in Figure 6–33, which plots the percentage of faculty who are associate and full professors by year of the career. The plot for assistant

21  

See Table D-8 for detailed data. Data from 1973 was not used since information on tenure track status was not collected, making it impossible to distinguish between an adjunct associate professor and a tenured faculty member. For 1989 and 1995, rank was unknown in 0.28 percent of the cases; these were dropped. Less than 1 percent of the cases were instructors; these were combined with the rank of assistant professor.

22  

Zuckerman and Cole (1975).

23  

In our data, 18 percent of those without tenure held the rank of associate professor or full professor.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–7 Percent of Tenure-Track Faculty in Each Rank for Combined Fields and Carnegie Types of Institutions, by Sex and Year of Survey

 

1979

1989

1995

Assistant Professors

Men

19.5

17.2

17.9

Women

45.4

37.1

37.9

Difference

–25.9

–20.0

–20.0

Associate Professors

Men

30.8

27.4

27.7

Women

32.4

35.9

34.6

Difference

–1.5

–8.5

–6.9

Full Professors

Men

49.7

55.4

54.4

Women

22.3

27.0

27.5

Difference

27.4

28.5

26.9

NOTE: Data were not available in 1973.

professors is not shown since it provides almost identical information to Figure 6–24 for tenure. In both panels, changes from 1979 (thin line) to 1989 (dashed line) and then to 1995 (gray line) show that there has been a steady increase in the age of promotion to associate professor and then to full professor. For example, in 1979, 30 percent of faculty were full professors in the tenth year, 69 percent in the fifth year, and 85 percent in the twentieth year. By 1995, the corresponding numbers dropped to 11 percent, 42 percent, and 71 percent, with similar changes in the percent who are associate professors. While our data do not allow us to determine the cause of the later dates of promotion, these changes are consistent with our earlier discussion of the changing academic labor market.

Even though much of the greater representation of men in advanced ranks is due to the average female faculty member being younger, Figure 6–34 on pages 174–175 shows that at any given career age men are more likely to be in a higher rank.24 For example, in 1979 (Panel C), 31 percent of the men and only 19 percent of the women were full professors in the tenth year; in the fifthteenth year, the gap increased with 70 percent of the men being full professors and 54 percent of the women; and by the twentieth year, the percentages increased to 67 percent and 86 percent. By 1995 (Panel D), the proportion of full professors is much smaller in a given year of the career. In the tenth year 8 percent of the women and 12 percent of the men were full professors; in the fifthteenth, 33 percent and 45 percent;

24  

The variability in the lines for women is due to the smaller number of women with higher ranks.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–33 Percent of faculty who are associate or full professors, by year since the Ph.D. and year of the survey. NOTES: Estimates are based on 5-year moving averages. Data were not available in 1973.

and in the twentieth year, 64 percent and 73 percent. As the career age for becoming a full professor increased from 1979 to 1995, there was some narrowing in the advantage for men, but some gender differences remained. While there is substantial variation across fields and types of institutions in the percent of faculty at a given rank (see Appendix Tables

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–34 Percent of faculty with a given rank in 1979 and 1995, by sex and years since the Ph.D.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

D-9 and D-10 for detailed information), these differences are largely due to differences in age structures across fields and types of institutions, with a strong correlation between the mean age of a particular group (e.g., women in engineering) and the percent in that group who are full professors.

Logit Analyses of Academic Rank

A multinomial logit was used to predict the proportion of men and women at each rank after adjusting for differences in field, type of institution, and, most importantly, age (Figure 6–35). While the full results of these analyses are given in Appendix Table D-12, our discussion focuses on the proportion of full professors, since results for assistant and associate professors duplicate the information in the section on tenure. As shown by the dark bars in Figure 6–36, there has been little change since 1979 in the observed over-representation of men among full professors. The age-adjusted differences, shown by the gray bars, show a decrease in the over-representation of men from 20 points in 1979 to under 10 points in 1995. Still, even after controlling for gender differences in career age, field of employment, and type of institution, men continue to have an almost 10 percentage point advantage in being full professors.

The improved representation of women occurred in most types of

FIGURE 6–35 Difference between men and women in the observed proportion of full professors and the adjusted proportions controlling for field, career age, and Carnegie type of institution, by year of survey. NOTES: Adjusted proportions are for 20 years after the Ph.D. Data were not available in 1973.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–36 Differences between men and women in the adjusted proportion who are full professors, by Carnegie type of institution and year of survey. NOTES: The difference was 0 in Medical institutions in 1995. Data were not available in 1973.

institutions, as shown in Figure 6–37. Most importantly, because of its implications for training future generations of scientists and engineers, the 25 point over-representation of men among full professors in Research I institutions in 1979 was reduced to 8 points by 1995, and the 35 point advantage in Medical institutions in 1979 was eliminated. Surprisingly, given the historical presence of women in undergraduate institutions, the over-representation of men in Baccalaureate institutions returned to 15 points after dropping in 1989.

To examine the effects of having children, we included a variable indicating whether a scientist had children under the age of 18. The age of 18 was used since delays in promotion may result from the accumulated effects of children over the entire career. Figure 6–37 plots the difference in the adjusted percent of married female faculty who are full professors and the adjusted percent of full professors among those with children. Again we see that the effects of family differ for men and women. In 1979 women with young children were 12 points less likely to be full professors. The effect decreased to 5 points in 1989, where it remained in 1995. The lower probability of being a full professor for women with children may reflect a cost in productivity, delays in beginning their first faculty position, or an assumption on the part of the university or department that women with children are a poor risk. Unfortunately, the SDR does not provide information on when faculty began their current job; while

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–37 Effects of being married compared to having children on the probability of being a full professor, by sex and year of survey. NOTES: Negative values indicate children make being a full professor less likely. Data were not available in 1973.

we have information on possible interruptions before the Ph.D., we do not have information on career interruptions after the degree. For men, the small negative effects of having children in 1979 and 1989 became larger and positive in 1995.

Table 6–8 shows that having an interruption between the baccalaureate and the Ph.D. had a large positive effect for women, over 10 percentage points, with a smaller effect for men. Without additional information, we can only speculate on why this substantial effect occurs. One possibility is that interruptions for women are due to family obligations and that having these interruptions before the Ph.D. decreases the number of interruptions later in the career. For both men and women, these interruptions may also correspond to predoctoral research experience that makes postdoctoral fellowships less likely, thus speeding up the movement into faculty positions and eventually into more advanced academic ranks. Bayer and Astin (1975) found that career interruptions had a negative effect for women, but these were interruptions after the Ph.D. Zuckerman and Cole (Zuckerman and Cole 1975) suggested that these interruptions are due to familial obligations, which is consistent with our findings on the effect of having children. The table also shows a modest positive effect for both men and women for obtaining a degree from a more prestigious graduate program. While several studies have found that the effects of doctoral origins are insignificant for rank (Cole 1979:411; Hurlbert and Rosenfeld

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

TABLE 6–8 Effects of Time from Baccalaureate to Ph.D. and Prestige of Ph.D. on Adjusted Proportion Who Are Full Professors in the Twentieth Year of their Career

 

Women

Men

1979

1989

1995

1979

1989

1995

More than 10 Years from Bachelor’s to Ph.D.

13.2

9.9

13.2

7.1

2.1

5.3

Prestige of Ph.D.

–0.6

3.5

3.7

0.2

2.0

2.0

NOTE: Data were not available in 1973.

1992), Long, Allison, and McGinnis (1993) found a positive effect of doctoral origins on promotion to full professor.

Summary on Academic Rank

Many studies across many fields at different times using a myriad of control variables found evidence of substantial gender differences in academic rank (Ahern and Scott 1981; Astin and Bayer 1979; Cole 1979; Hurlbert and Rosenfeld 1992; Long, Allison and McGinnis 1993; Perrucci, O’Flaherty and Marshall 1983; Rosenfeld and Jones 1986, 1987; Sonnert 1990; Szafran 1984). Our results are consistent with these findings and provide evidence that gender differences in rank are found across fields and types of institutions. While overall percentages that do not control for any variables affecting rank show no improvement since 1979, controlling for age and other factors provides evidence of substantial improvement. However, gender differences still persist in this critical outcome for the academic career.

A possible explanation for the remaining gender differences in rank attainment is that our analyses do not include controls for variables that past research has shown to affect rank. Rosenfeld and her colleagues (Hurlbert and Rosenfeld 1992; Rosenfeld and Jones 1986) found that rank advancement is related to institutional mobility and that women may have more constraints on their opportunities to change institutions. Bayer and Astin (1975) found a negative effect of time devoted to teaching, which is likely to more severely affect women than men. Last, and most importantly, we do not include measures of productivity. The information on productivity that we do have, which is discussed in the next section, is too aggregated over time to be used in predicting promotion.25

25  

Since attaining rank leads to resources that enhance productivity, it is essential that publication data be for the period immediately before the decision for promotion or tenure is made.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

However, past research suggests that productivity differences do not explain gender differences in promotion. Based on his own results and a review of the literature, J.Cole (Cole 1979:246) concluded: “Historically, productivity patterns simply will not explain the gender differences in academic rank. Other social and economic variables might explain these associations, of course, but in the absence of adequate data to test alternative hypotheses I tentatively conclude that there has been extensive sex discrimination in promotion opportunities over the past 40 years.” Later analyses by Long et al. (1993) included detailed, over time data on productivity and found that gender differences persisted after controls for productivity and many other variables. They concluded: “While these differences [in the rates of promotion for men and women] may be due to the exclusion of other variables, it is unclear what these variables might be. We believe that a more reasonable explanation is that women are expected to meet higher standards for promotion.”

RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

More than 50 studies in various fields show that women publish less than men. Moreover, correlations between gender and productivity have been roughly constant since the 1920s. The existence and stability of gender differences in productivity continue to be puzzling.

—Jonathan R.Cole and Harriet Zuckerman, Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 198426

In a review article on gender differences in scientific productivity, Cole and Zuckerman (1984) estimated that men published 40 percent to 50 percent more than women. While our data are inadequate for a full analysis of factors determining gender differences in scientific productivity, we can provide some information that helps us to explain why the overall rate of productivity is greater for men than women. Past research has examined a large number of factors that may be determining the lesser productivity of women. These factors include ability, marriage and family, career interruptions, doctoral and postdoctoral training, the type and prestige of the academic employer, the organizational context of employment, processes of reinforcement, and discrimination. For detailed reviews, see Cole and Zuckerman (1984), Fox (1983), Long (1992), and Xie and Shauman (1998).

The key to understanding the large observed gender differences in productivity is to control for the many differences between men and

26  

Cole and Zuckerman (1984).

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

women in the types of positions and resources that they have. This approach was taken recently by Xie and Shauman (1998) who analyzed scientific productivity using national surveys from 1969, 1973, 1988, and 1993. Their first conclusion was that gender differences in productivity have declined. Second, they conclude that “gender differences in research productivity stem from gender differences in structural locations and as such respond to the secular improvement of women’s position in science.” That is, gender differences in productivity reflect differences in positions women have held, rather than differences in abilities or motivation. Given evidence of the larger effect of work context on productivity than of productivity on attaining a given position (see Allison and Long 1990 and the literature cited therein), the increasing entry of women into faculty positions in all types of institutions should lead to future decreases in gender differences in scientific productivity. Still, to the extent that differences in employment persist, differences in productivity can be expected to continue, albeit to a lesser degree.

Figure 6–38 illustrates the degree to which gender differences in scientific productivity are associated with differences in the positions held by male and female scientists and engineers. Each bar indicates the percent more publications by the average male academic than the average female academic. The first bar considers all academic scientists and engineers in 1995 and shows that men have about 30 percent more publications than women. As we move to the right, we increasingly restrict the group of academics to make their characteristics more similar. Among those in Research I institutions, men are just under 25 percent more productive. However, earlier we showed that women were much more likely to have off-track positions which we would expect to be associated with lesser productivity. Restricting our comparison to only faculty we find that men are 13 percent more productive; among tenured faculty in Research I institutions, 8 percent more productive, and when comparing full professors in the life sciences, men are less than 5 percent more productive. Even with the limitations of our data, it seems clear that differences in structural position are a key factor in the lesser productivity of women in science and engineering.

THE PRESENCE OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC POSITIONS

In prior sections we focused on changes in the relative proportions of men and women who have advanced to more secure and prestigious positions. By comparing the percent of all women who obtained a given status to the corresponding percent of all men, we are able to determine whether men and women have equal success in attaining each type of position. To the degree that such equity occurs, differences in the repre-

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–38 Percent more publications by the average man compared to the average woman in increasingly similar groups of academic scientists in 1995. NOTES: Moving from left to right, each group is a subset of the prior group. For example, “Tenure-Track Faculty” are full time in Research I institutions.

sentation of men and women are a function of the smaller number of women in academia. As a way to summarize our findings, as well as to show the growing presence of women in the academy, we consider the changing percent of academics who are women. Overall, we find that while there have been dramatic increases in the presence of women in all types of academic positions, women remain well below half of the total in all categories of positions with academia.

Figure 6–39 displays the percent of academic scientists and engineers who are women for various employment statuses within academia. Panel A shows the results for those employed in Research I universities; Panel B presents the results for all non-Research I institutions combined; and Panel C plots the difference in the percent female in non-Research I universities compared to Research I institutions, where positive values indicate a greater presence of women in non-Research institutions. There has been an increase in the percent of women in all categories of academic employment, ranging from off-track positions to being full professors. This trend is driven by the increasing number of women with Ph.D.s and the corresponding increase in the number of women in academia. This is shown by the leftmost set of bars, which gives the percent of all full-time academic scientists and engineers who are women, combining all types of full-time employment. In 1995 women were nearly 20 percent of all academics in Research I universities and nearly 25 percent of those in all other types of

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–39 Percent of academic scientists who are women, by type of institutions, type of jobs, and year of survey.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

institutions. As we move to the right, we see that women are found in varying proportions among different types of academic positions. Women are found most often in the least prestigious, least secure, and most poorly paid off-track positions, such as research associates and temporary instructors. Among tenure-track faculty, women are found most often among assistant professors. At the critical rank of full professor, women in 1995 are still less than 10 percent of the full professors in Research I universities and just 12 percent in other types of schools. Panel C shows that the advance in the representation of women in academia has occurred more slowly in Research I universities than in other types of institutions.

The five panels of Figure 6–40 show that women make up very different proportions of the academic labor force in different fields. The first set of bars in each column is the percent of all full time academics who are women. Across fields in 1995, the percent women among all full time academics ranges from 6 percent female in engineering to 31 percent in the social and behavioral sciences. These overall differences across fields are also found when we examine the proportion of women in specific types of positions, such as off-track or tenured positions. In large part, as would be expected, the representation of women within fields of academia is largely dependent on the number of women obtaining degrees in those fields.

Overall, there has been substantial improvement in the presence of women in academia. In all fields, women made up a substantially larger proportion of the academic labor force in 1995 than in 1973. Large field differences persist, with women found least frequently in engineering and most often in the life sciences and the social/behavioral sciences.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

FIGURE 6–40 Percent of scientists in given types of positions who are female, by field and year of survey. NOTE: See Appendix Table D-11 for further details.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×

Still, at most, women make up only about 33 percent of the academic labor force in any field. With the proportionally greater entry of women than men into academia in recent years, the average career age of women is less than that of men. This accounts for a substantial amount of the greater representation of men among those with tenure and those with the rank of full professor. However, controls for gender differences in age and field do not eliminate the greater presence of men among those on the tenure track, with tenure, or promoted to full professor. While the presence of women in academia has shown notable improvements, women remain underrepresented in academic science and engineering.

Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"6: The Academic Career." National Research Council. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5363.
×
Page 186
Next: 7: Gender Differences in Salary »
From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $61.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Although women have made important inroads in science and engineering since the early 1970s, their progress in these fields has stalled over the past several years. This study looks at women in science and engineering careers in the 1970s and 1980s, documenting differences in career outcomes between men and women and between women of different races and ethnic backgrounds.

The panel presents what is known about the following questions and explores their policy implications: In what sectors are female Ph.D.s employed? What salary disparities exist between men and women in these fields? How is marital status associated with career attainment? Does it help a career to have a postdoctoral appointment? How well are female scientists and engineers represented in management?

Within the broader context of education and the labor market, the book provides detailed comparisons between men and women Ph.D.s in a number of measures: financial support for education, academic rank achieved, salary, and others. The study covers engineering; the mathematical, physical, life, and social and behavioral sciences; medical school faculty; and recipients of National Institutes of Health grants.

Findings and recommendations in this volume will be of interest to practitioners, faculty, and students in science and engineering as well as education administrators, employers, and researchers in these fields.

  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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!