MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: Women In Science and Engineering Stymied By Institutional Bias (Or, F*** Off, Larry Summers!)

« Control of the Senate Now A Toss Up...(Could Come Down to Macaca!) | Blog Index | Military Coup in Thailand »


Advertisement
recent entries Condi Busted on Her Own Personal State of Denial Which Is Worse: The U.S. Torturing British Residents or Britain Not Taking Them Back? Salacious Exchanges With Underage Male Pages Foley Now In Deeper Trouble Environmental Damage: Another Reason Why a Border Fence is a Bad Idea Supreme Court Declines to Take Up Sex Toys Texas to DC: Don't Fence Me In Update--PERA Has Passed In the House of Representatives Woodward, Kissinger, Vietnam--Let's Do The Time Warp Again They've known about Foley for almost a YEAR?

Women In Science and Engineering Stymied By Institutional Bias (Or, F*** Off, Larry Summers!)

At a ASJA/Berkeley J-School editors' forum I participated in last weekend, a hotly debated topic was what biases do or do not hinder women in journalism, particularly in terms of the byline divide.

So I was shocked, shocked! to read that a report from the National Academy of Sciences has found that women in the science and engineering are hindered not by lack of ability but by bias and “outmoded institutional structures” in academia.

The NAS report found:

•Studies have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and leadership positions in S&T fields.

•Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors, and hold fewer leadership positions. These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures, the report says.

•Measures of success underlying performance-evaluation systems are often arbitrary and frequently applied in ways that place women at a disadvantage. "Assertiveness," for example, may be viewed as a socially unacceptable trait for women but suitable for men. Also, structural constraints and expectations built into academic institutions assume that faculty members have substantial support from their spouses. Anyone lacking the career and family support traditionally provided by a "wife" is at a serious disadvantage in academe, evidence shows. Today about 90 percent of the spouses of women science and engineering faculty are employed full time. For the spouses of male faculty, it is nearly half.

You can read the news release here.

And—for a hefty fee that really pisses me off seeing as the whole point of something like this is to challenge disinformation with easily accessible truth—download the full report here. (Should someone find a site where this is posted for free, let me know and I’ll pass it on.)

And you can read more about how women are stymied in other ways in “Limited Ambition: Why Women Can't Win for Trying” a set of stats I put together for Mother Jones earlier this year.

BTW: The NYT saw fit to run the story about the NAS report in the Science section, which is fine, except why do all those bullshitty (statistically and otherwise) stories about women "opting out" always run on page 1?

Posted by Clara Jeffery on 09/19/06 at 8:13 AM | E-mail | Print

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://161.58.185.225/mb/mb-backtracks.cgi/1752

Comments

I think the ultimate statement on this topic was made by a transgendered scientist who had seen it all from both sides: http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/07/12/hscout533761.html

Posted by: Diane on 09/19/06 at 9:36 AM

Would it have been more convincing, news worthy, effective, if the vast majority of the committee overseeing the study (18 to 1) had not been women? Could it be argued that women would, of course, side with their own agenda? In this instance the women are obviously asserting themselves, holding leadership roles, etc.... Just a thought...

Posted by: Robert on 09/19/06 at 10:02 AM

Use of bullshitty as an adjective. F-in brilliant.

Posted by: shaygets on 09/19/06 at 3:49 PM

I cannot believe this is even questioned. Here at university in Sweden we have measured this for near a hundred years by now.

Despite making up over 60% of the student population the amount of women who then go on to graduate are significantly lower and the percentage of women who later become proffessors are even lower still.

Talent have little to do with this as female students often outperform male students. It is generally acknowledged that structures and attitudes are to blame.

Male student are much more often informed about possible career paths within academia (and, presumably, without it as well). They are often mentored by older male proffessors - seeing themselves in the eager yong men and being careful not to look to closely at female students for fear of perving.

When it comes to judge the work of students research has found that papers by women generally has to be better written to get the same grade as those of men. Women are expected to, naturally, pay more attention to structure, sources, language and theory while presenting weaker arguments and being less innovative. In the study nearly every essay received a higher grade when the name on it indicated a male author!

Posted by: B on 09/22/06 at 12:15 AM

Correction - the amount of women who then go on to graduate studies. Women actually graduate at a higher percentage than men.

Posted by: B on 09/22/06 at 12:28 AM

actually, you can read the full report online for free at the above-linked URL. it's not that convenient to scroll through, but you can read the whole thing for free there on the web

Posted by: j on 09/22/06 at 2:29 PM

The link for "the Byline Divide" above is malformed. the right url is:

http://www.womentk.com/page2.html

Posted by: dejah on 09/23/06 at 4:50 PM