Search News


Browse Archives

News

Looking to the Source

August 17, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- Much of the discussion of women in science -- and their relative scarcity in faculty positions -- focuses on the hiring departments. A study presented here Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society reversed that focus. The research showed that among top chemistry departments, there is huge variation in how successful their female doctoral graduates and postdocs are at landing tenure-track positions.

That finding is important, said Valerie J. Kuck, because it establishes that there may be specific policies or environments at some but not all top programs that need to be identified and replicated. And those policies may go beyond the societal issues some offer as explanations/excuses for the failure of chemistry faculty positions to show the same progress seen for women in new Ph.D.'s.

Kuck noted, in response to an audience member asking about the desire of women to have children, that "the women at Berkeley have the same biological clocks as other women, but they are getting jobs." (Details will follow on the individual institutions, but the University of California at Berkeley bests all of its rivals in having its female Ph.D.'s in chemistry land top jobs, and women who want top positions may be advised to look West for postdocs, as Berkeley, the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University all do well for their women.)

Kuck's research also suggests that it is important for those focusing on gender equity to pay attention to a relatively small group of graduate departments and postdoc programs that are the dominant producers of faculty members at research universities. Kuck is an American Chemical Society board member whose career included industry (Bell Laboratories and Lucent Technologies) and teaching positions at the College of St. Elizabeth, Seton Hall University and other colleges.

For her study, Kuck examined the chemistry faculties of 94 universities that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching categorized as having a "very high research activity." She found that 23 percent of the tenure-track or tenured faculty in these departments had earned Ph.D.'s between 1994 and 2003, and focused on this group of recently hired faculty; then she found that 12 universities trained 54 percent of those hired by Carnegie's research university category.

Her next step was to find how many Ph.D.'s from these top universities had landed jobs at her group of top research universities. Here she found sharp differences. Berkeley, for instance, placed 31 men and 21 women in these highly coveted faculty jobs. Harvard University Ph.D.'s in chemistry did very well if they were men (32 were among those landing these jobs). But only 2 female Harvard Ph.D.'s in chemistry landed these jobs.

The following table shows the numbers of Ph.D.'s landing jobs at top research universities from the 12 graduate programs with the greatest number of graduates landing these jobs.

Ph.D. Graduates From Top 12 Universities With Faculty Jobs at Research Universities

University Male Female Total
Berkeley 31 21 52
MIT 30 6 36
Harvard 32 2 34
CalTech 22 7 29
Wisconsin, Madison 17 6 23
Stanford 20 3 23
Yale 12 6 18
Texas 13 1 14
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 11 3 14
Columbia 11 3 14
North Carolina, Chapel Hill 8 5 13
Cornell 13 0 13

 

Then Kuck went on to analyze the patterns in postdocs. Here she found that 94 percent of the recently hired faculty at research universities had a postdoc, which is consistent with other findings that the postdoc has become a de facto requirement for many science faculty jobs. At these universities, however, there is a postdoc gender gap in chemistry -- with women (31 percent of the pool of new Ph.D.'s) holding only 22 percent of the postdocs.

Here again, she found that a relatively small number of institutions train a disproportionate number of those landing top jobs. Only eight postdoc programs trained 65 percent of the recently hired faculty members at the research universities studied. And once again, she found that some postdoc programs were much more successful than others in terms of women. At three California institutions -- Stanford, Berkeley and CalTech -- the share of their participants who went on to a faculty job at a research university who were women were 41, 28, and 25 percent respectively. For other postdoc programs, the numbers were much lower.

Postdoc Program Participants Who Land Jobs at Research Universities

 

 

 

Postdocs who go on to faculty job at research university Fraction of hires who are women
Post-doc Inst. Males Females Total % Female
Harvard 52 8 60 13%
CalTech 30 10 40 25
MIT 33 6 39 15
Berkeley 26 10 36 28
Scripps 21 4 25 16
Columbia 17 2 19 11
Northwestern 15 2 17 12
Stanford 10 7 17 41

 

Kuck said that the findings, together, suggest that "something peculiar is happening to women" at most programs if just a few are having so much more success. For starters, she said that graduate programs need to encourage and assist women in getting the best postdocs.

As to why some programs are so much more successful with women, she said she wasn't sure. She tried to identify a correlation between number of female faculty members and the success of female graduates, but the share of female faculty members in these departments is so small across the board that there is no evidence for that theory, she said.

She noted that by focusing on the top universities, the talent of the men and women in these programs is outstanding, as anyone who wasn't would never get in or through such a graduate program or postdoc. "We're looking at our very best schools -- not East Podunk," she said.

So why are some universities better? "I don’t have direct evidence, but I have to believe that the environment is different at Berkeley and the advocacy for getting [graduates] positions is different. If we look at the top six schools, why is it that Berkeley all by itself can place almost half of the pool of women that got jobs. Something is going on."

Michael Marletta, chair of chemistry at Berkeley, was not at the presentation, but in a phone interview offered some of his thoughts on his department's success getting women on the fast track to faculty careers. Marletta said that while it is important that Berkeley has a range of policies and programs and organizations for women, he thinks the larger intellectual climate and environment also matter a lot.

For example, while Kuck noted a "pipeline leak" with women Ph.D.'s not seeking postdocs, Marletta said it is the absolute expectation at Berkeley that doctoral students -- male and female -- plan not only for a postdoc, but for "a top postdoc" and that they get them.

He also noted that Berkeley has success by having a critical mass of female graduate students (about 35 percent, less than he would like but better than many programs, Marletta said). They enter a program that has been designated tops in the nation by the National Research Council, and where "there is a tone about quality." Marletta also noted that many of the other top programs are at private institutions, and he thinks there is value in promoting diversity in the public mission of Berkeley as "a big, complicated public university."

Marletta said Berkeley faculty members believe that anyone admitted into the program can succeed and thrive in the field, and that they convey that to their graduate students -- and that attitude over time, Marletta said, is a key part to encouraging women.

He also predicted that approach would help Berkeley move beyond its "very average state" in having women on its chemistry faculty. The two most recent hires, he noted, are women -- one of whom earned her Ph.D. there and is returning after a postdoc at Yale.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Looking to the Source

  • offended
  • Posted by random thoughts at East Podunk U. on August 17, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • "'We're looking at our very best schools -- not East Podunk,' she said."

    All of us here at E.P.U. take offense at this scurrilous characterization!

  • Critical mass and assumption of success
  • Posted by Jennifer Sanborn , Director, The Women's Education and Leadership Fund at University of Hartford on August 17, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • I'm eager to read further analysis of this scenario of the unparalleled success of a few key institutions. As director of a foundation-style program working on a range of educational and leadership opportunities for women, I'm struck that the explanations offered by the Berkeley chair mirror what we see in many of our own programs--and the explanations are remarkably simple, yet seemingly difficult to create/replicate.

    A critical mass of women seems essential for women's success in a range of areas where they are underrepresented. There are clearly "trailblazers" who have moved forward in history without this, but to become known as an organization, institution, or department that advances women, there needs to be evidence of this to the outside world and to the women themselves--hence, the critical mass. Simple! But it obviously takes years to create, and sometimes we get caught in the weeds as we work to create practices and policies that will attract and retain women.

    Likewise, the chair mentions the notion that the faculty expect success from all admitted students and express this freely to them. In other words, it is in the air. Again, simple but seemingly not easy. I facilitate a leadership program for women staff and faculty in which highly accomplished women note that for the first time in their professional lives, they arrive at a table where others simply presume their value--presume they have something worthwhile to contribute--presume they will succeed at whatever they choose to pursue. I am regularly astonished by these remarks. This article reaffirmed for me how critical the environment--the cultural ethos--is for promoting women. I look forward to reading more!

  • hiring practices
  • Posted by Jeff Mervis at Science magazine on August 17, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Scott:
    Did the study indicate what percentage of the female Ph.D.s in the top programs go on for a postdoc? Ditto for the percentage of postdocs going into academia.
    Is the bigger problem, for example, that Harvard's Ph.D. classes have a tiny percentage of women compared with Berkeley's? Or is it that most of them choose not to pursue academic positions?

  • Weak Analysis
  • Posted by ACF on August 17, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Time and again, these types of "studies" fail to even search for the root of the issue. That is, if you are interested in knowing why certain individuals make certain decisions, then ASK them. If some women at Harvard made decisions that are different than some women elsewhere, then ask them why they made those decisions.

  • women need mentors focused on academic positions
  • Posted by Pamela Heckel , Postdoctoral fellow at University of Cincinnati on August 17, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • In 2007 as I was completing my PhD in environmental engineering, I began searching for a post doc position where I could learn to write grants. I was fortunate to be hired by Dr. Grace LeMasters in the Department of Environmental Health on a training grant (NIEHS ES10957). She has helped me focus on activities (peer-reviewed papers, grants, pilot studies) that position me for a tenure-track faculty position. Yes, as a graduate student, I was encouraged to write papers, apply for scholarships, create posters and make presentations, but the emphasis was completely different and the focus was scattered. Sadly, many talented students think they are being trained for a career in academia, when in fact they are being used as cheap labor in the laboratory with very little concern for their future after graduation.

  • an incomplete picture
  • Posted by BC on August 17, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I'm a little surprised that the article ignores a key aspect in the business of hiring faculty members: the search, interview and offer process. What you also really need to do is dig back to where these 400 or so individuals applied, where they got interviews, and where they got offers from (and who does not remember, exactly, all of these?). You might find some interesting selection bias based on the available bins as opposed to the chutes.

  • Critical Mass and Role Models
  • Posted by A Scientist on August 17, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I received my PhD from Harvard in the late 1990s. (For what it's worth, I got a tenure-track position not at a top research university, but at a second-tier state school, in part due to the limited nature of my particular subfield -- only a handful of TT positions open up each year, and you take what you can get). I think that, more than just having a certain number of women faculty in a department, it is the nature of those faculty that matter. Women who can model a successful balance between research, teaching and having a family / children, and who are thoughtful about how they interact with female graduate students will have an impact. Women who can't model that healthy balance will not be able to promote academia to their students. Also, amen to Jennifer Sanborn's point that an presumption of value is not something women students typically encounter. At Harvard, I regularly got the message that I wasn't good enough or hard-working enough as a researcher and that women students should end up at teaching colleges, not research universities.

  • Sending the Wrong Message to Berkeley
  • Posted by PhD @ Berkeley , Graduate Student Researcher at UC Berkeley on August 26, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • A key aspect of this study that seems glossed over and unfortunately stressed-- particularly in press releases-- is that Berkeley is one of, if not the largest, graduate program in chemistry. Berkeley has also been consistently ranked as a top school in chemistry. By sheer numbers and a talented pool you are likely to have a higher number of female graduate students go on to prestigious institutions.

    As a Berkeley female chemistry graduate student I feel this sends the wrong message to the faculty here. Marletta has already in the past claimed "to have fixed the problem with women in the department." Unfortunately, this will give the faculty ammunition to disregard any complaints about gender dynamics in the department. I could ennumerate the issues of the department or give anecdotal evidence of the fact that this department is riddled with inequities but that would seem to be sour grapes. Berkeley is a top program in chemistry, but to believe that it is doing something indescribable to lift up its women is fallacy. People here are just doing good science and women who want to do good science want to come here despite its environment not because of it.

  • Poorly done statistical test and misleading conlcusions
  • Posted by JH , Postdoctoral Scholar/CCB/SEAS at Harvard University on December 9, 2009 at 7:15pm EST
  • I really am getting upset by studies like this one, which misuse statistical analysis to create a message that the data does not support. The idea for this study is good, but none of the tables are significant. From a statistical point of view, this is a pretty bad study.

    For the number of students that go on into faculty positions, it is indeed interesting that Berkeley appears to take such a lead on that, but now: what is the total number of students for each department? Since Berkeley has one of the largest, the trend actually may be inverted: Smaller schools like Stanford or Harvard may offer much better statistical chances per candidate than Berkeley.

    Same problem for the statistics for women that go into academia: What is the percentage of female postdocs at each department? What is the total gender distribution of applications (from a test, that does not allow to "not disclose" your gender, i.e. avoids false positives and false negatives)? This study in itself is so meaningless, that it is quite easy to twist and turn the number in any way I want to present them, and use them to underline any message that I want to convey.

    It is sad that so few good statisticians take up this topic and perform detailed long term studies. Without which any present discussion is at best biased, or speculative. Many factors such as the higher risk aversion of women, the lower willingness to sacrifice family/life quality or friends for career progress, and possibly on average lesser ambitions, should receive some attention. This problem with women in science is not a specific issue, and it should be studied more broadly in all professional areas. The way it is treated presently is very artificial and induced inequality, and lastly leads to real discrimination.

    I don't experience that women nowadays are per se at a disadvantage to male candidates, nor are they intentionally "sorted out" by selection committees. But I can see that for many the question is whether they really want to sacrifice so much private life to compete with males, many of which even enjoy spending 70-80 hours a week in their new job. But honestly, whoever is willing to put up most effort has earned the job: think of your students homeworks: the ones, who invest most effort and return the best results are the ones that get the "biggest reward" -- no matter which gender. The true problem is that roots of the problem, and symptoms are mixed up in the present discussions.

    Importantly, I get the impression in recent years -- particularly in the US, not so much Europe or Canada -- that the conservative society (need to be married, have kids, and of course the women has to manage family and kids) plays a major role in discouraging femals to strive to play "hard" in the "top league". Would it be more supported through the US government, and more typical in society for men to do their part, their responsibility in raising the kids (i.e. have a 50% fraternity leave rate), this would be much more important than all those "female in science" pushing events, which to me appear to be treating not the source, but the symptom of the problems.

    Unfortunately this whole "females" discussion seems to have reached a "highly excited state". It is not so important to analyze the facts and find the root of the problems, but rather to create a certain sentiment simply in order to support the female gender. But I guess if I were a female, I would probably also use this trend to my best advantage.

    From a distance appears to induce just a new discrimination, and causality simply requires that it must backfire in a few years. Sad, isn't it?