|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
CHAPTER 4
WOMEN S CI ENT I S TS AND ENGI NEERS I N ACADEME
Rates of faculty growth have slowed considerably in the past
decade. Between 1977 and 1981, the number of full-time faculty in all
fields increased by only 1 percent a year, and for the eight preceding
years, by 3 percent a year compared with 10 percent annual growth in the
1960s.~ Even so, there has been a substantial increase in the number
of women on science and engineering faculties, an increase of 3,200 in
a recent 4-year period. 2 How this larger, somewhat younger population
of women scientists and engineers fared in terms of ladder appointments,
tenure, rank and salaries, will be examined in this section.
Academic vs. nonacademic employment
The majority of doctoral women scientists and engineers (59 percent)
continue to be employed in colleges and universities but the academic
fraction has dropped since 1977 when it was 65 percent. As a group,
women are still more likely than men to be in academe (Figure 4.1)i
when the comparison of men and women is controlled by field, however,
the sex difference nearly disappears. 3 Doctoral employment in business
and industry has increased for both women and men since 1977. Here
again, the much lower incidence of industrial employment for women
scientists is largely but not entirely a function of the different
field distributions, with very small proportions of women in engineering
and physics.
Overall, women scientists are twice as likely as men to be employed
in state and local government and hospitals or clinics, and much more
likely to be in nonprofit organizations, partly due to their different
field distributions. It is probable that some scientists, at least in
National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,
1982.
See Table 4.2, page 4.6.
3National Research Council, Science, Engineering, and Humanities
Doctorates: 1981 Profile- (in press).
4.1
OCR for page 42
FIGURE 4.1 Percent distribution of doctoral scientists and engineers
by employment sector and sex, 1981
WOMEN MEN
Nonprofit Nonprofit
Hospitalsl Organizations Hospitals/ Organizations
C inics 5.] o C Inics 3.4%
5 6% ~Other/ Other 2.5% Other/
Other \ ~' 0.3% Government \ ~0.5%
Government ~ ~~\ Federal~-l:
Federa 8 3°/O
'
5~/° ~Colleges/
Business/ ,7 Cal leges/ B / Universities
n Universities useless I 1.8%
dustry ~/ 59 1% 1 ~ 31.3%
\ // / \~ 11
Elementary:_
Secondary
Schoo Is
2.7%
_'
Elementary/
Secondary
Schools
0.5%
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Counci l
1
4 ~ 2
OCR for page 43
the physical sciences, took such positions only as a last resort in pre-
ference to being unemployed, and are then frequently unable to contribute
to the development of their fields in any substantial way.
Fuil-time and part-time employment
More than 90 percent of doctoral women in academe are full-time
employed (Table 4.13. The incidence of part-time employment among
academically employed women scientists varies widely by field: in
physics, chemistry, earth sciences, and biosciences one in seven women
Ph.D.s hold part-time positions while in several other fields, the
rate is only one in 20. Based on the total number of part-time faculty
in all fields, women are a minority, comprising 40 percent of the
part-timers at universities, 41 percent at 4-year institutions, and
37 percent at 2-year institutions, 4 but these proportions all exceed
women's representation in the total doctorate pool considerably.
-
~On Campus with Women, Project on the Status and Education of Women,
Association of American Colleges, No. 31, Summer 1981.
4.3
OCR for page 44
TABLE 4.1 Full-time and part-time employment of doctoral scientists and
engineers in academea by field and sex, 1981
Employment Number employedb % Full-time % Part-time
fieldWomenMen Women Men Women Men
All science and
engineering fields 11,902 96,697 90.3 98.69.8 1.3
Mathematics 623 7,845 88.9 99.311.1 0.7
Computer sciences 142 1,982 93.6 96.26.3 3.8
Physics 203 7,011 85.2 99.014.8 1.1
Chemistry 702 7,453 86.2 97.713.8 2.3
Earth sciences 283 4,746 85.9 97.914.1 2.1
Engineering 161 13,961 91.3 99.18.7 0.9
Agricultural sciences 178 7,728 94.3 99.35.6 0.6
Medical sciences 809 2,716 97.7 98.52.3 1.4
Biological sciences 2,590 13,447 86.4 98.913.6 1.0
Psychology 2,615 9,042 90.2 97.99.8 2.1
Economics 374 5,287 96.2 99.33.7 0.7
Sociology/anthropology 1,478 4,508 93.0 98.07.0 1.9
Other social sciences 1,744 10,971 91.3 98.58.8 1.5
aIncludes 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities.
excludes postdoctorals.
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council.
4.4
OCR for page 45
Numbers of women faculty5
As of 1981, there were approximately 13,500 doctoral women on U.S.
science and engineering faculties, accounting for 10.9 percent of the
total. Their representation is up from 9.3 percent in 1977 (Table 4. 2!
In terms of faculty growth, women represented 2-4 percent of the
increase over all science and engineering departments between 1977 and
1981. The major research universities as a group had the largest
change in percentage of women, despite the fact that the "other"
institutions showed more expansion during this period. The increase
in the major research institutions, however, occurred on a very much
smaller base, and the percentages of women faculty by field remain well
below the percentages of women scientists in the relevant fields and
Ph.D,. cohorts, except among assistant professors (see below).
One of the issues of concern to this Committee is the effect that such
increases may have on the climate within departments and particularly
on the important function of presenting to both women and men students
an image of women as effective scientists. In that regard, it is instructive
to n o te that a total increase of 865 women science faculty divided among a
minimum of 13 departments (see the fields listed in Table 4.1--a more realist
number is probably 15-18) in the 50 top universities results in adding
an average of 1.3 female faculty in four years to each department. It
is hardly necessary to stress that from the point of view of either
students or male faculty, this is not yet a startling change. In
doctorate-granting departments of both physics and chemistry, many
institutions still have no women faculty at all (APS, 1982; ACS, 1980)
Sex distribution of faculty appointments
Approximately 50 percent of all males in science and engineering
departments were full professors in 1981 (Figure 4.2), with the major
research universities more "top-heavy" than other institutions. And
although there were 3,000 doctoral women scientists employed in the
leading institutions, only 10 percent of the women were full professors;
43 percent were in off-ladder positions or are postdoctoral appointees.
Throughout this chapter, faculty statistics include four-year colleges
and universities only. The 1977 data presented here may differ from
1977 numbers in the Committee's first report due to the fact that
medical schools were formerly included in the totals.
4.5
OCR for page 46
TABLE 4.2 Increase in doctoral scientists and engineers in faculty positions
by R&D expenditures of institutions and sex, 1977-1981
Total
science & Number Women as %
engineering of of 1977-1981
faculty women increase
Total all inst. 1981 123,66013,471
1977 110,20110,231
4-yr. growth 13,4593,240 24.1%
Total first 50 inst. 1981 31,3282,754
1977 28,2571,889
4-yr. growth 3,071865 28.2%
Top 25 inst.1981 17,369 1,718
1977 15,401 1,160
4-yr. growth 1,968 558 28.4%
Second 25 inst. 1981 13,959 1,036
1977 12,856 729
4-yr. growth 1,103 307 27.8%
Other inst. 1981 92,332 10,717
1977 81,944 8,342
4-yr. growth 10,388 2,375 22.9%
a
Faculty includes professor, associate professor,
See Appendix
expenditures.
and assistant professor ranks.
for a description of ranking of institutions by federal R&D
CIncludes 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. Excluded are those
employed at medical schools and university-administered federal laboratories.
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council.
4.6
OCR for page 47
FIGURE 4.2 Faculty rank distribution of doctoral scientists and
engineers by R&D expenditures of institution* and sex, 1981
50
40
z 30
UJ
20
10
o
50
40
z 30
con
20
10
o
40
z 30
UJ
20
10
o
Top 25 Institutions
r
O Women
13 Men
Second 25 Institutions
r
I.,
Other Institutions
_
~I I.::~:~:.J
Professor Associate Assistant I nstructor/ Other/ Postdoctoral
Professor Professor Lecturer No Report
*See Appendix for a description of the ranking of institutions by
federal R&D expenditure s .
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council.
4.7
OCR for page 48
Looking at faculty rank from another perspective we find that in
the major research universities, women held 24 percent of the assistant
professorships, but only 3 percent of the full professorships in 1981
(Table 4.3~. At all ranks, there was some increase since 1977 in
the proportion of female faculty. It appears that the substantial
increases in women faculty at the assistant professor rank that took
place between 1973 and 1977 are now beginning to be evident at the
associate professor level.
The 1981 data also show that at the research universities, the
percent of women among junior faculty--10 percent in the physical
sciences, 26 percent in the life sciences, and 35 percent in the
social sciences--matches their share of recent doctorates.
In the physical sciences, the number of women who are full
professors at leading institutions is still very low--roughly one or
two women per institution for physics, chemistry, and mathematics
combined.
Off-ladder positions
Women scientists are still twice or three times as likely as men
to hold nonfaculty appointments (Table 4~4~. In most fields, the
disparity is greater in 1981 than in 1977. In chemistry departments,
both the number and the proportion of Ph.D. women in instructor/lecturer
positions have increased since 1977, while the figures for men have
dropped. Off-ladder appointments are most prevalent for women in
chemistry, physics, and mathematics.
This situation appears to hold true in both the major research
universities and in other institutions. In the group of colleges and
universities which are not among the top 50 in R&D expenditures, women
are 13 percent of all Ph.D. employees but as many as 32 percent of
those at instructor/lecturer rank (Table 4.5~.
Hiring and promotion of junior faculty
Hi,
In general r women scientists are found in junior faculty positions
in proportions exceeding their availability in the recent doctoral pool
(Table 4.6~. However, these figures do not indicate how many of the
female assistant professors are new hires and how many have held that
rank for several years. In other words, a relatively high proportion
of females currently at assistant professor rank may be symptomatic
of either aggressive hiring of recent women Ph.D.s or lack of upward
mobility of those hired in the mid 1970s.
This question is illuminated by promotion data which are available
for a longitudinal sample of doctorates who responded to the Survey of
Doctorate Recipients in both 1977 and 1981, reporting their rank. The
resulting statistics show wide sex differences (Figure 4.3~. In the
4.8
OCR for page 49
TABLE 4.3 Number and percent of women doctoral scientists and engineers in
faculty positions at 50 leading institutionsa by field, rank, and
sex, 1977 and 1981
Associate Assistant
Professor professor professor
19771981
1977198119771981
All science and engineering
fields
Total number14,30617,2537,4967,9956,4556,080
Number women3565434917831,0421,428
Women as % of total2.5%3.1%6.6%9.8%16.1%23.5%
Engineering, mathematics,
computer sciences, and
physical sciences
-
Total number6,6778,2583,1213,3372,3112,118
Number women467664138167212
Women as % of total1.0%1.0%2.0%4.1%7.2%10.0%
Life sciences
.
Total number3,9634,2872,2742,3391,8101,912
Number women169236169276310506
Women as % of total4 3%5 5%7.4%11.8%17.1%26.5%
Behavioral and
social sciences
Total number3,6664,7062,1012,3192,3342,050
Number women141231258369565710
Women as % of total3.8%4.9%12.3%15.9%24.2%34.6%
The top 50 institutions by federal R&D expenditures in FY 1980.
See Appendix for a listing of the institutions.
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council
4.9
OCR for page 50
TABLE 4.4 Number and percent of doctoral scientists and engineers in academea
at rank of instructor/lecturer, by field and sex, 1977-1981
1977
Women Men
1981
Women Men
Field No. ~No. % ~No. ~No. % ~
Mathematics 51 6.1 243 2.4 3.7 49 5.2 143 1.4 3.8
Physics/astronomy 13 4.8 104 1.1 3.7 17 6.3 111 1.2 5.1
Chemistry 59 5.3 290 2.6 2.7 93 7.0 247 2.1 4.9
Biological sci. 93 3.0 180 1.1 1.9 120 2.9 260 1.4 1.5
Psychology 58 2.1 164 1.6 0.5 115 3.0 204 1.8 1.2
Social sciences 67 1.8 190 1.0 0.8 110 2.2 202 1.0 1.2
aIncluded are 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. Those employed at
medical schools are excluded.
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council
4.10
. .
OCR for page 51
TABLE 4.5 Number and percent of women doctoral scientists and engineers
in selected positions in academic institutionsa by R&D
expenditures of institution,b 1977-1981
1977
Number Women as %
women of total
1981
Number Women as %
women of total
Top_25 institutions
Total employed in academe
c
Faculty
Instructors/lecturers
Postdoctorals
Other/rank not reported
Second g5 institutions
Total employed in academe
Faculty
Instructors/lecturers
Postdoctorals
Other/rank not reported
Other institutions
Total employed in academe
Faculty
Instructors/lecturers
Postdoctorals
Other/rank not reported
9,799
8,342
329
307
821
1,992
1,160
17
357
458
10.0
7.5
13.6
18.3
19.5
7.3
5.7
1,074
729
16 23.9
159
170
18.2
17.8
11.0
10.2
22.4
22.0
22.1
3,005
1,718
51
537
699
1,448
1,036
21
151
240
12,825
10,717
462
411
1,235
13.4
9.9
19.4
27.4
24.6
8.9
7.4
28.4
22.3
16.3
12.7
11.6
32.4
24.7
23.8
Includes 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities.
See Appendix
expenditures.
CIncludes full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors.
Excludes medical schools.
for a description of ranking of institutions by R&D
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council.
4.11
OCR for page 55
TABLE 4.6A Percent of assistant professorships that are off-ladder positions,
for male and female doctoral scientists and engineers, 1981
Number of
assistant professors
Women Men
% Who are
not tenure-trackb
Women Men
All 4-year colleges
and universities
5,826 20,882
22.5 13.7
Top 50 institutionsa 1,428 4,652 15.) 11.0
Other institutions 4,398 16,230 24.5 14.3
aSee Appendix C for a listing of institutions categorized by federal R&D
expenditures.
bBased on total reporting tenure status.
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council
4.15
OCR for page 56
Faculty rank
Number
Women Men
% Tenured
Women Men
TABLE 4.7 Tenure status of science and engineering faculty at 4-year
colleges and universitiesa by rank and sex, 1977 and 1981
b
Number and percent in tenured positions
1977 1981
Number
Women Men
% Tenured
Women Men
Professor2,31449,275 92.0 95.83,049 57,865 92.5 96.0
Associate professor2,63829,784 71.4 81.63,860 30,060 75.8 82.6
Assistant professor5933,458 10.0 12.6670 2,062 9.7 8.4
a
b
Includes medical schools.
Percent is based on the number who reported tenure stats
as .
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council.
4. 16
OCR for page 57
If we consider only those faculty who have already received tenure,
the median time-to-tenure is somewhat shorter for women than for men, 5.9
years versus 6.1 years overall (Table 4.8~. For both sexes time-to-
tenure, based on number of years since receipt of the doctorate, is
shortest in the behavioral and social sciences and in "other" institu-
tions. In the engineering, math, and physical science fields, the typical
awarding of tenure appears to lag for female scientists, one-fourth of
whom did not become tenured until 11 or more years after the doctorate.
Administrative positions
The term "administrator" represents a myriad of actual job titles,
which for faculty members can cut across all ranks. Academic scientists
and engineers who report "administration" as their primary activity may
include assistant deans as well as deans, directors of foreign student
affairs, affirmative action officers, and persons in other assorted positions.
Considering administration generally and controlling for years since
doctorate (Table 4.9), we find similar proportions of male and female
scientists so employed with one important exception: Relatively few
of the senior women in the large group of "other" institutions hold
administrative jobs.
Other sources indicate that the total number of women in adminis-
trative jobs at colleges and universities has shown modest gains in a
recent three-year period, increasing approximately 6 percent per year.
As of 1978-79, women administrators were being paid less than men in
the same positions, and their lower salaries could not be explained by
reasons frequently cited: shorter length of service, having been hired
from within the institution, or financial exigencies. And interestingly
enough, academic administrative positions with the highest rate of job
openings did not appear to be held by increasingly large percentages of
women or minority-group members.8
"Despite Gains, Women, Minority-Group Members Lag in College Jobs,
Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, 1982, and Women and
. . .
Minorities in Administration of Higher Education Institutions, College
and University Personnel Association, 1981. The figure of 5.7 percent
annual increase was calculated from data reprinted in the Chronicle article.
4.17
OCR for page 58
FIGURE 4.4 Tenure status of associate professors by sex, for selected
fields of s cience and engineering, 1981
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Biochemistry
Psychology
Economics
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT IN TENURED POSITIONS
4.18
OWomen
I::::::::::::: Men
80 90 100
OCR for page 59
TABLE 4.8 Elapsed time from Ph.D. to tenure for doctoral scientists and
engineers in faculty positions by R&D expenditures of institution,
field, and sex, 1981b
a
25th Percentile
Women Men
Both Percentile
Women Men
75th Percentile
Women Men
= .
All institutions
and fields 3.9 4.1 yes. 5.9 6O1 yrs. 8.8 8.6 yrs.
Top 25 institutions by R&D
Second 25 institutions by R&D
Other institutions
Engineering, mathematics,
computer sciences,
and physical
sciences
Life sciences
Behavioral and social
4.3 4.9
4.8 4.5
3.7 3.9
4.9
3.8
6.5
6.6
5.7
4.5 6.9
4.5 6.4
6.4
6.4
5.9
6.3
6.3
9.1
10.2
8.7
10.8
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.4
8.7
8.9
sciences 3.6 3.5 5.4 5.5 8.0 8.1
See Appendix C for a description of ranking of institutions by federal R&D
expenditures.
bIncludes only those who had been awarded tenure as of 1981. The percent of
faculty not yet tenured was 51 percent for women and 26 percent for men.
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council.
4.19
OCR for page 60
TABLE 4.9 Number of doctoral scientists and engineers in academic administra-
tion, by R&D expenditures of institution,a Ph. D. cohort, and sex,
1981
Pre-1960 Ph.D.s
Women Men
1960-1969 Ph.D.s 1970-1980 Ph.D.s
Women Men Women Men
Top 50 institutions
Total employedb 4419,704 88812,2352,84112,400
Number administrators 631,543 1101,686177846
Percent administrators 14.315.9 12.413.86.26.8
Other institutions
Total employed 1,30616,917 3,04433,7118,55640,400
Number administrators 85 2,481 399 4,562 575 2,314
Percent administrators 6.5 14.7 13.1 13.5 6.7 5.7
at
See Appendix C for a description of ranking of institutions by federal R&D
expenditures.
bExcludes postdoctorate
SOURCE: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council
4.20
OCR for page 61
Faculty salaries
. . .
Salaries of male and female faculty members have been the subject
of numerous studies by individual researchers, professional societies,
and education associations. There is wide agreement that women as a
group are paid less than men at the same rank. The results differ in
the magnitude of the pay differential, depending on how the salaries
are disaggregated by field, cohort, type of institution, etc. The
first report of this Committee concluded that sex differences in
salaries remain a serious problem in academic institutions. At the
full professor level, the differences as of 1977 amounted to at least
$2,500 between the median salaries paid to men and women, reaching a
dollar difference of $6,200 in chemistry.
A subsequent study was carried out to ascertain whether the salary
differences (and also rank and tenure differences) diminish or disappear
when the male and female faculty members are closely matched. In this
case, male-female pairs in a sample were matched by year of Ph.D.,
field of Ph.D., the granting institution, total full-time equivalent
years of professional experience, and race. At each rank and for each
cohort, the lower median salaries for women faculty members persisted.
In fact, the previously-mentioned salary deficit of $6,200 for female
chemistry professors was reduced only to $5,500.9
The median salaries shown in Table 4.10 are the most recent
available data on a national sample of Ph.D.s. For some field-rank
categories, there were too few sample individuals to provide meaningful
statistics; the median salaries are not provided in these cases.
After controlling for rank, salary differences for men and women
persist in most fields.9a At full professor rank, the differentials
amount to $1,000 to $6,000, depending on the field. The salary
deficits continue to be largest in chemistry and medical sciences,
and are of the same order of magnitude as they were in 1977. Economics
is the third field with large pay differences although we do not have
the earlier data for comparison.
Further examination of the data reveals that in chemistry, the salary
gap for full professors may be explained in part by the lack of women at
the top departments; this is not true to the same extent in medical sciences.
For associate professors, the sex difference in median salary
ranges up to $2,500 annually. At the assistant professor rank, male
and female scientists appear to receive comparable salaries, especially
in physics, computer sciences, and the social sciences.
c] _
Sheen and Scott, 1981.
9aRank may itself be subject to bias. The rank distributions of female
and male faculty are examined on pp 4.5-4.8.
4.21
OCR for page 62
:^
1
u]
o
-,1
u)
o
~ oo
~ a,
· - u,
u, ~
·- ,y
a
cn ~
rQ 0
·-
. -
u ~
~ 0
O ,1
0 ~
~ Q
~Q
O ~
,1 CO
U) ~
~ O
o
.
m
0
,!
a
c,
a
a
.,
u,
.-
0
3
a) ~ a~
Q~ ~
CQ tn
~ =
.-
R O a'
Q ~
~ ~ 0
z ~ 3
. -
o\° 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~) IC~) N I I I ·n I [- ~ ~ r- ·n ~ ~1 1 (9 ~I I 03 I LO I CO kD
1~1 1 1 1 ~1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O IO ~I I I N I ~S) N CO ~) O ~ ~I t- ~1 1 1 <9 1 m) ,~1 ~ ~
~1- - 1 1 1 ~1 - - ~ - ~1 - - 1 1 - 1 ~ - -
N I~1 ~I I I ~) I N ~ 1~ N N I ~ ~1 1 I N I ~1 N ,~1
~}
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
[- ~ O O vg N O ~ ~ N C-) a ~) O ~ r- ~ ~ ld1 (x) c~ C~ N r- k9 ~
- ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~- - - ~ - - ~ - - - - ~ - -
(S) ~ CD S) C~ ~ tS:) N O ~ ~- N ~- ~;) =) O ~ (;~ ~ N CiN N C;l CRJ r- N ~
~ CO -) C~) C~) ~ ~) ~ ~ C') ~ ~ C~) ~) N ~) N N N ~1 N C<1 N N N c~ N N
U}
o
o
1 - 1
- 1
~Q ~ 1
~;
O
cn
U)
O
P~
O O
O O
0 k9 1 1 1
- 1 1 1
~- ~1 1 1 1
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
~ 1 ~ L~J ~ ~
- 1 - _ ~ _ ~
·n 1 ~ ~ ~D
~C~
a: N C;1 ~ CiN ~;) N O a: N ~ ~ ~1
[- ~ O O d' 1~ n 0 oo 0 0
~) N N N N ~ ~1 ~D N ~1 ~I N
O r- ~- l~ cn N ~ ~ k9 [- O
o C ~1 ~d ~O ~ c~ ~-
~n
~O O O O
OO O O O
U)CO 00 1 0 ~1 1
~ ~1 - - 1 1
1- ~1 1 - 00 1 1
N N N N
o
~;
O C
O C
N I O
- 1
0 I r
o o
o o
o ~
~ -
~ oo
N N
E~
H
o
CQ
U] ~ N t- cn lr) ~ ~ CO Lr) ~ O N
r~, ~ ~ ~I N N N ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N ~1 ~1
Ln a: ~ ~D 00 ~ ~
N N ~ 01:) ~) ~1 ~I t- ~ m) ~ t- O
:^ ~
tn ~ u' tn ~ u,
O ~O
V
~O ~O
U] ~U] Q, ~Ql
O ~ ~O
V
V
a) ~a) ~a
~V ~ ~ ~--
U) V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~W--
>, ,1 - 1 ~ U) ~ O ~ tD ~ V ~i ~ - 1 - 1 ~ U] tn O ~ U) ~ O
O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O
) u] ~ u]C) ~1 ~1 ~ Q ~1 ~ 0 U) ~ 1) ~ ~ u] 0) ~ ~ ~ Q ~1 ~ 0
~ ~ v cn a) ~ ~ a) 0 ~ ~1 ~ ~ O U) O :~ ~ a
a) ~ -1 -,1 ,5:: ~ C) O ~ ~ ~ O O ~a) ~ -1 -1 ~ ~ V O ~ S~ ~ O O
Q~ U] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V
=) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O
~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
£ v ~ ~ r~ r~ ~ ~: m 0 ~ ~ u2 0 ~: ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m o ~ ~ cn 0
4.22
OCR for page 63
1
a)
o
u]
o
on
x
- u)
On ~
rid' ~
U) ~
On O
'A ~
Q.
. -
O
O '-
O
~ Q
I
O
~' -
U)
~ U]
V]
~'
~ ~2
- -
a' 0
~ U
o
.
~r ~
.
m 0
E~ -
a
0\
. -
a
UY ~
. -
U)
. -
~ 3
U] ~
.-
~ ~ O
2 ~ 3
. -
o\° ~
1 ~ C() ·n ~1 ~ 0 i U~ ~ i
1 ~l 1 1
1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 + 1 1
1 1
o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o
co r- ~ ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ CO 1
1~ 1
~1 ~1 ~1 ~1~ 1
1 1 1 1 + 1 1
1 + 1 1
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
\.9 C51 f~ ~ 00 t- (9 0 1 ~ <9 ~1 ~ ~
~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~1 ~ ~ ' ~ ~
r- c') ~ ~ [ - ~ o: 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1
~J ~ N
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
n ~- ~) ~1 ~) ~1 1 0 d ~1 t~o
U2 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~1 ~
~ [- ~ O ~ CO ~ l~ 1 ~ ~1 ~1
O
~Q
U:
o
~;
E~
z
E ~ ~n oo o ~ ~ cn ~ o: cn
u: ~ ~ vg ~ ~ ~ 0 vg ~ ~ oo ~ ln 0
H ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1
U)
~n
0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ·n 0 ~r 0 cn ~ o: co
cn ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ u~ ~ ~n ~ ~ \9 [~
U) t:P U)
O ~
C)
~O
Ul ~n ~ a
a) - - ~a) 0 --
V ~V
~V
CQ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V
V U] ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~\
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
a.
tJt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V
~ Er >1 Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O C) ~
~ 0 ,= ~ ~ s:: ~ a) -1 ~ U) c) O ~
m 0 ~ ~ cn 0
4.23
·
cn u ~ 0
.- .- o
.
o V
cn
o~ ~ ~ -~
U) ~ '= ~ ~O
O O ·
U)
~ V
.= ~-- ~ ~ ~
O
--
X
~ 3
Q ~ Q ~ ~
(0 ~ ~
U) . - _
3
, N ~ 4J ~ 42 0
O ~ ~ > ~ 0
O ~ ~O
U] ~ ~ ~
.o '= ~ ~ ,=
3 X ~ ~ ~ > ~O
O h
t~ ~t",
~ ~ ~O ~ x. ~
~O U]
·
-0 ~ ~ Q~ ~ O
O ~ ~U] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~O '- ~ ~ ~O
~ -> ~=, ~ ~'~ ~ ~
~ 0--V ~ ~ ~ O ~O
O ~ =) ~ -~1 X
O4 a ~a) ~ ~ ~ v ~
~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ,= O
~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~
H
.s ~ ~
· '-
1a
U) ,y ~ O
~ ~ ' - ' - ~
..
~1 ~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ ~V ~ O ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~X O ~ V O ~3
U) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O
Q
OCR for page 64
An attempt was made to examine the salary data in greater detail
according to type of institution, but with this additional break-out
the numbers of sample cases were too small to permit meaningful
statistics.
Geographic mobility
Only a small proportion (5 percent in 1978-79~° of all science
and engineering faculty members switch employers in a given year.
Still, career advancement among academics is believed to be tied to
the ability or willingness to relocate oneself and perhaps one's
family to accept a more desirable position at another institution.
It is also presumed that women faculty are more likely to be constrained
in geographic location because of a spouse's career, partially
explaining their slower career progress.
There is some evidence that geographic constraints are more frequently
acknowledged by married women than by married men. This was evident at
the earliest career stages, at the time of deciding whether to take a
postdoctoral position (see Chapter 3~. One study (Marwell, Rosenfeld,
and Spilerman, 1979) which unfortunately was based on 10-year old data,
indicated that academic women are less likely than men to change
geographic area when they change jobs. Other data from a 1974 survey
show male Ph.D.s with a higher "mobility index" based on actual moves
over a 10-15 year period (Ferber, 1978~.
In a recent sample of junior faculty, however, women were more likely
than their male counterparts to switch institution--whether by choice or
by necessity. And the female assistant professors who moved did not
materially improve their status while the men who moved did.
It is clear that there is little documentation on the value of
geographic mobility to one's long-term career attainment, whether
women scientists are in fact less mobile, and whether this makes a
difference.
Conclusion
The overall nature of the academic career differences between women
and men scientists and engineers has not changed significantly over the
1977-1981 period although the balance among the various factors that de-
fine these differences is somewhat altered. There has been marked im
~U''Fewer Recent Ph.D.s on Science Faculties," Chemical and Engineering
News, February 15, 1982, and Young and Senior Science and Engineering
Faculty, 1980 National Science Foundation, 1981.
11Ahern and Scott, 1981.
4.24
OCR for page 65
provement in initial hiring of women, who are now appropriately repre-
sented at the assistant professor level in line with their greatly in-
creased presence in the pool of recent doctorates. Counterbalancing this
finding is a marked trend toward increased occupational sex segregation
in academic science; the previous over-representation of women in post-
doctoral appointments and off-ladder ranks has increased markedly. In
addition,
far higher proportions of women than of men hold off-ladder
assistant professorships; these are the short-term or temporary replace
ment positions often characterized as "revolving-door appointments."
Promotion, tenure, and salary patterns continue to favor men when fac-
tors such as length of experience and institutional category are held
constant.
To what extent the relative improvement for women assistant pro-
fessors in terms of both representation and salaries will ultimately
be reflected among senior faculty ranks remains to be seen, but at cur-
rent promotion rates no significant equalization can be expected for a
number of years.
The exceptionally high overrepresentation of women in off-ladder
positions remains a matter of grave concern to this Committee. One
possible interpretation of this finding is that the situation occurs
as the result of women's own choices--unwillingness to relocate, or
a preference for a less demanding position while also raising children
others, however, are either that institutions are applying different
standards in hiring women faculty or that they continue to enforce
covert antinepotism rules
4.25
L ~
Representative terms from entire chapter:
women scientists
