<p>
[quote]
Our analysis reveals that the experiences of young and midcareer women in math-intensive fields are, for the most part, similar to those of their male counterparts: They are more likely to receive hiring offers, are paid roughly the same (in 14 of 16 comparisons across the eight fields), are generally tenured and promoted at the same rate (except in economics), remain in their fields at roughly the same rate, have their grants funded and articles accepted as often and are about as satisfied with their jobs. Articles published by women are cited as often as those by men. In sum, with a few exceptions, the world of academic science in math-based fields today reflects gender fairness, rather than gender bias.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find this is largely true observing for a man's perspective. I'm glad it is acknowledged. Thoughts anybody?</p>
<p>But, the most important thing here, the biggest biggest piece, is that Williams and Ceci are absolutely, positively not arguing that there is no more sexism in STEM fields. To argue so is to cherry pick their words.</p>
<p>Here’s a relevant part of a 2010 article by them in PNAS (as a psychologist myself, I have access to an academic library):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They take care to emphasize that gender differences in mathematical ability do not fully explain the different choices. They state that women tend to be more interested in research on living things and people than work with physical sciences and explain that these different preferences are likely due, in part, to socialization, stereotypes, and misinformation about careers in non-biological sciences STEM fields (and not innate differences).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They also acknowledge that the current system of tenure and promotion is more difficult on women than men because of gendered expectations about childrearing and family caretaking, and because of the unfortunate biological reality that the best childbearing years coincide with the grad school and tenure-track years.</p>
<p>Their point is not that sexism does not exist. Their point is that when women are afforded the same resources as men, they perform just as well or even better than their male counterparts. BUT women in the academy are not afforded the same resources as men, on the whole, in very large part because of the constraints of child-rearing and family commitments.</p>
<p>So basically, I don’t know if they were the ones who came up with the headline, but their headline is wrong. It’s not that academic science isn’t sexist; it’s just that the sexism has moved from being overt discrimination to more structural problems.</p>
<p>Juillet, I read your response twice. Thanks for responding by the way :). It would be great to see more women in engineering and science. No doubt early exposure is good way to raise interest.</p>
<p>The thing that bothers me about your response (bother as in not trying to pick a fight…just discussing), is it seemed like you called the tenure system sexist. I’ve read similar assessments of the tenure system before too. It is one thing to say that “the tenure system discourages woman from going into academia”. At some level this is likely true…I think. It is an entirely different thing to say “therefore, the tenure system is sexist”.</p>
<p>My concerns are…</p>
<ol>
<li>Tenure measures a professor’s contribution to a field. Journal papers are the most important part of this measure. If you delay a journal publication for a year for any reason (e.g. caring for a new child), it makes the journal paper less valuable and harder to get accepted because scientific and engineering fields change that quickly as other related journal papers are published. For a specific research focus a prof is not competing with other professors in their own university, they are competing against against profs from other universities across a world. This is the way it should be too…I think.</li>
</ol>
<p>Is it up to a specific university to compensate for this reality to encourage woman into academia? Should they change the criteria for tenure? I don’t think they should. To me, a person’s choice of how they want to raise a child, is “their choice”. A couple should make that choice about how they raise a child within the constraints of a competitive society and world. Yes, I agree that child care expectations tend to fall on woman in a couple, but I don’t think it is up to a university to compensate for this. </p>
<ol>
<li>How do you find a better alternative to the tenure system? One can certainly give more time to get tenure if you need to take leave for a new child. Universities do this today, and it is a good thing in my opinion. However, I’ve read some articles where some would suggest doing away with tenure system to get more woman in science and engineering. As an alternative these article suggest giving deans and dept heads loads or power to hire and fire. I think this would be a disaster, and, in the end, would not help women…it would just be another old boys club. Also, it would not focus on professors advancing the state of the art.</li>
</ol>