Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:43:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CSWA Newsletter of 6/16/99
To: AASMAIL:;;
wellesley.edu
AAS Committee on the Status of Women
weekly issues of 6/16/99, ed. by Priscilla Benson
*** send email and addresses to aaswomenwellesley.edu ***
This week's issues:
1. A new Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering
2. Statistics on women in astronomy
------------------------------------------------------------
1. A new Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering
From: IN%"duncandei.uchicago.edu"
CALL FOR PAPERS -VOLUME 6, 2000
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University Carol J. Burger, Ph.D.,
Editor-in-Chief
Now welcoming submissions for Volume 6, the Journal of Women
and Minorities in Science and Engineering publishes
original, peer-reviewed papers that report innovative ideas
and programs, scientific studies, and formulation of
concepts related to the education, recruitment, and
retention of underrepresented groups in science and
engineering. Issues related to women and minorities in
science and engineering are consolidated to address the
entire professional and educational environment.
Subjects for papers submitted can include:
empirical studies of current qualitative or quantitative
research;
historical investigations of how minority status impacts
science and engineering;
original theoretical or conceptual analyses of science from
feminist, racial, and ethnic perspectives
reviews of literature to help develop new ideas and
directions for future research;
explorations of feminist teaching methods, minority
student/white teacher interactions;
cultural phenomena that affect the classroom climate.
To receive guidelines for manuscript preparation or to
submit a curriculum vita if you are interested in reviewing
papers for the journal contact:
Editorial Assistant
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Center for Interdisciplinary Studies
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0227
Phone: 540-231-6296 Fax: 540-231-7013
E-mail: JRLWMSEVT.EDU
Inquiries about SUBSCRIPTIONS, TABLE OF CONTENTS,
ADVERTISING and a SAMPLE COPY should be directed to the
publisher:
Begell House, Inc.
79 Madison Ave.,
New York, N.Y. 10016-7892;
E-mail: BEGELLHOUSEWORLDNET.ATT.NET.
PHONE: 212 725-1999.
FAX: 212 213-8368
Information available online at:
WWW.BEGELLHOUSE.COM/JWMSE/JWMSE.HTML
Sample Contents of Volume 5, 1999:
Race, Gender and the Baccalaureate Origins of PhD Chemists
by Willie Pearson, Jr., Craig Ness and Emily Hoban
Proportions of Women Faculty and Students in the
Mathematical Sciences; A Trend Analysis by Institutional
Group by Norean Radke Sharpe and Gerhard Sonnert
Feminism and Science Education: An Interdisciplinary
Knowledge and Practice Project by Maralee Mayberry , Leigh
Welling, Jaime Phillips, Cheryl Radeloff and Margaret Rees
Black Women in the Agronomic Sciences: Factors Influencing
Career Development by Diann Jordan
If I Knew Then What I Know Now: A Portable Mentor for Women
Beginning Professorial Careers in Science and Engineering by
Catherine Riordan, Linda M. Manning, AnneMarie Daniel, Susan
L. Murray, Philip B. Thompson and Elizabeth Cummins
Using Technology to Strengthen Mathematics and Science
Instruction in Elementary and Middle Schools by Sharon
Sherman and Robert Weber
Supporting Minority Mathematics Achievement; The Emerging
Scholars Program at the University of Texas at Austin by
Susan E. Moreno et al
Using Technology to Strengthen Mathematics and Science
Instruction in Elementary and Middle Schools by Sharon J.
Sherman and Robert Weber
The Effects of a Summer Mathematics Enrichment Program on
Hispanic Mathematical Achievement by Betsy McShea and
Maureen Yarnevich
Girls Summer Lab: An Intervention by Dale R. Baker, Robert
Lindsey and Colleen Blair.
------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statistics on women in astronomy
From: IN%"cmustsci.edu"
Dear CSWA members (and friends),
Here is the summary of the results from the STScI surveys on
women in astronomy. These are the only data covering faculty
for which astronomy is separated from other physical
sciences. The institutions surveyed are only a subset of the
field: all are academic organizations with graduate
students, and most have large (>=10) faculties.
The AAS has just completed a 4-5 times larger survey of
institutional members, which will be repeated on an annual
basis. Those data, like the STScI data, will be available
online for anyone to access and analyze further. Preliminary
results look quite consistent with the STScI results
described below.
Please feel free to circulate the attached summary to
interested parties. I am fully responsible for any errors or
miscalculations therein (and would appreciate being notified
if you find any).
Thanks,
Meg Urry
p.s. We will try to put the data and some summary numbers on
the Web within the next two weeks. The bar graph is in the
current issue of STATUS.
Summary of the STScI Surveys on Women in Astronomy: the new
1999 Survey, and Comparison to 1992 Survey
1. Description of Survey Data
We surveyed 32 departments of astronomy in U.S. universities
and 4 observatories with equivalent science faculties
(STScI, NOAO, CfA, and NRAO) --- essentially the top Ph.D.-
producing programs in the U.S., representing an elite but
relatively large part of the profession, ~1500 Ph.D.
astronomers in 1999.
The first survey was done in summer 1992 (Schreier 1992,
www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/WiA), the second in January
1999. Both had 100% response rates; they differed in one
university (U. New Mexico, 1992 only; U. Colorado, 1999
only), which might account for about 2% larger numbers in
1999 (41 Ph.D. astronomers at Colorado in 1999, of 1497
total sample, compared to 14 at New Mexico in 1992, of 1157
total sample).
Both surveys counted numbers of women and men in each of 5
professional levels: graduate student, postdoc, assistant
professor, associate professor, and full professor. The 1999
survey further separated each level into tenured/tenure-
track and research track (soft money) positions.
The seven-year interval is approximately the time required
for movement from one category to the next (give or take a
few years), making it possible to estimate the advancement
of women and men in astronomy.
2. First result -- more astronomers than ever
There has been huge growth in the field --- an overall 1/3
increase in the number of Ph.D. astronomers active in these
top institutions (1497 Ph.Ds in 1999 compared to 1157 in
1992). Thus these have been relatively good times for
astronomy, and perhaps contrary to popular impression, a
good time for getting jobs.
By far the largest increase is at the entry and middle
faculty levels: a 52% (+/- 5%) increase in the number of
assistant professors (169 in 1992 to 257 in 1999) and a 43%
(+/- 5%) increase in the number of associate professors
(180 to 257). Postdocs have increased by 21% (+/- 1.5%; 364
to 440) and full professors by 24 (+/- 1.5%; 444 to 550).
There are more women at all levels, both in absolute terms
and in the percentage of astronomers at each level. Thus the
"bulge" of women at entry levels is propagating through the
profession. The percentages of women are as follows:
1992 1999
grad stud 23% 26%
postdoc 17% 20%
asst prof 17% 18%
assoc prof 10% 14%
full prof 5% 7%
These numbers refer to tenure-track and research positions
collectively; we have no way to compare them separately
(because of the limitations of the 1992 data) and therefore
to assess whether the growth has occurred preferentially in
tenure-track or in soft money positions. We do know that
the percentage of women in astronomy is similar in the
tenure track (11+/-1%) and research track (13+/-2%) in the
1999 data.
3. Advancement from graduate school to postdoc -- still not
equal
The 1992 data, although only a snapshot in time, suggested
that either the percentage of women in graduate school was
evolving rapidly or that women were less successful than men
in making the transition from graduate school to postdoc.
Basically, the ratio of postdocs to graduate students was
1/2 for men (301 to 602) and 1/3 for women (63 to 176),
different at the three sigma level (50% +/- 4% vs. 36% +/-
5%).
In 1999, these ratios are higher for both women and men but
still not equal. The ratio for men is 359 postdocs to 616
graduate students (58% +/- 4%), compared to 90:217 (41% +/-
5%) for women. The differential is of similar magnitude,
significance, and sign.
Now that there are two epochs of data, one can ask a
different question: assuming all of the 1992 graduate
students are postdocs in 1999, how does the advancement of
women and men compare? Then 176 women advanced to 90 postdoc
positions (51% +/- 7% "success" rate), compared to 602 men
advancing to 359 postdocs (60% +/- 4%). Women lag behind but
the result is at lower significance.
4. Advancement from postdoc to assistant professor --
similar for men and women
The time scale for advancement from postdoc to assistant
professor is not very different from the 7 years between the
two surveys. Therefore it makes sense to compare the numbers
of postdocs in 1992 to the numbers of assistant professors
in 1999, and to see if that transition is different for
women and men. (As always, bear in mind that this is within
a limited corner of astronomy).
Women:
63 postdocs ---> 45 asst.prof. (all) or 18 asst. prof
(tenure-track)
71% +/- 14% 29% +/- 8%
Men:
301 postdocs ---> 212 asst.prof. (all) or 70 asst. prof
(tenure-track)
71% +/- 14% 23% +/- 3%
Here the rates are quite similar, suggesting that women,
once they have a postdoc in a top institution, are as likely
to get a junior faculty position as men.
5. Advancement from assistant to associate professor --
unclear result
Of all the estimates presented, this is the least
satisfactory because the category of associate professor is
open ended. Basically, for those institutions which tenure
at the associate level, faculty can remain there forever.
Further, there is movement into the associate level
(promotion of assistant professors) and out (promotion to
full professor), and with these few data (and only two
epochs) it's extremely difficult to assess the meaning.
The numbers show that people remain in the associate
position for longer than 7 years (more people move in than
move out):
1992 asst. 1999 assoc.
Women: 29 37
Men: 140 220
6. Advancement to full professor -- comparable? or not?
(small number statistics) -- either way, relatively few
senior women
Assessing this step, too, is confused by the indefinite
length of the associate professor stage. We therefore added
together assistant and associate professors, and compared
the sum to the number of *new* full professors. The latter
is the number in 1999, minus the number in 1992, minus the
number of retirements, which we assumed to be 10% of the
full professors in 1992. (This is based on data for
physicists, who retired at 1-2% per year in the period 1994-
1995. We assume the same rate for women and men, which is
conservative since women are generally younger and less
affected by retirement; if fewer women retire than we
assumed, then there are even fewer new women full
professors than the numbers given below.)
With those assumptions, the results are as follows:
tenure-track and research positions together
1992 asst+assoc 1999 new full
Women 47 26 (55+/-14%)
Men 302 124 (41+/-4%)
tenure-track only*
1992 asst+assoc 1999 new full
Women 23 16 (70+/-23%)
Men 109 108 (99+/-13%)
*number of tenure-track faculty in 1992 was estimated
assuming that the fraction in research, for women and for
men, was the same in 1992 and 1999; i.e., the value 23 for
women asst+assoc in 1992 comes from the ratio 40/81 in 1999
times 47 tt+res in 1992, and similarly for men, 109 is the
ratio of tt/total in 1999 (157/432) times the total
asst+assoc in 1992 (302).
The numbers are obviously uncertain, but we can conclude
that women and men may be advancing to full professor with
similar success; depending on assumptions, women may be
doing slightly better (1 sigma; tenure-track plus research),
or vice-versa (1 sigma; tenure track only).
The absolute numbers of tenured full professors bear
thinking about:
Tenured Full Prof in 1999
Women 30
Men 427
Each woman tenured at these elite and semi-elite
institutions increases the number of tenured women by
several percent. Conversely, each loss of a woman at this
level makes a significant difference.
One other note: men are preferentially at the top end of the
profession (73% of male faculty are full professors), while
the situation is reversed for women (43% of female faculty
are full professors). So the guiding forces for the junior
women are overwhelmingly men.
7. Some summary numbers: percentages of women graduate
students and faculty
1992 1999
grad students 23% 26%
faculty (all) 9% 12%
faculty (tenure-track) - 11%
faculty (research equiv) - 13%
8. Conclusions
The bar chart comparing astronomy statistics for 1992 and
1999 illustrates the basic trends. (The percentage of women
at each level is written in by hand.)
Summarizing, there is some good news and some less
encouraging news:
1. The numbers of women are up across the board --- so
there is improvement at all levels.
2. The numbers in category N+1, 1999 are similar to,
but slightly below, the numbers for category N in 1992 (the
statistical significance will be higher with the AAS survey
data), suggesting that women are advancing no faster than
men, and perhaps still a bit slower.
23% grad st 1992 --> 20% postdoc 1999
17% postdoc 1992 --> 18% asst prof 1999
17% asst.p 1992 --> 14% assoc prof 1999
10% assoc.p 1992 --> 7% full prof 1999 (pile-up effect)
------------------------------------------------------------
End of CSWA Newsletter of 6/16/99