Family obligations, and not necessarily discrimination, may explain why the number of women who pursue an academic career in science is lower than the number of men who do so
Almost half of the math graduates in US colleges are women and their achievements in standardized tests in this subject do not fall short of those of men. However, only 30% of Ph.D. degrees in mathematics, and even less than that in computer science, physics and engineering, are awarded to women each year. Also, the number of men who continue an academic career in science and mathematics is immeasurably greater than the number of women in US universities. why? For many years the researchers blamed it on gender discrimination and prejudice. But new research suggests that the main culprit today is a much less malevolent factor: motherhood.
Credit: Martin Braud, Getty Images
There is no debate that for decades women in the fields of science had to fight against gender discrimination. But Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci, a married pair of psychologists at Cornell University, recently reviewed the research literature to see if female scientists still have a harder time finding jobs, publishing papers, or winning research grants than their male counterparts. They found no evidence of such bias. "The problem is that women do not apply for jobs, and not that they are discriminated against after applying," explains Williams. She and her husband published a first article on the subject in 2011 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA and continued with another article in the March-April 2012 issue of the journal American Scientist.
A report by the American Academy of Sciences, which Williams and Ceci cite in their articles, states that 27% of doctoral degrees in mathematics are awarded to women, but only 20% of applicants for academic positions in mathematics are women. In chemistry, the gap is even greater: 32% of doctoral degrees are awarded to women, but only 18% of those applying for a position in this profession are women.
What is holding them back, says Williams, is the recognition that they are unable to keep up with the juggling act required to meet the many demands of an academic career and at the same time raise a family. The busiest years in a researcher's life are her 20s and 30s, the very years when her biological clock is ticking at full force. Men can postpone having children a little and are also able to cope more easily with the demands of career and family because women still carry most of the burden of raising children, says Sissy. A recent study by Adam Maltese, a science education researcher at Indiana University, shows that a man is 5% to 10% more likely to have children during his undergraduate degree than a woman.
But not everyone believes that this is the whole story. "Motherhood and family do have an impact on the career path in science, but it's too simplistic, in my opinion," says Shirley Malcom, head of the human resources education department at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Many successful scientists have families.
Still, Malcom, Williams, and Ceci agree that universities should allow women to choose part-time or flexible hours during the time they want to start a family and "stop the tenure clock" so they can progress more slowly. Many universities have begun to allow advanced degree students to go on family vacations, extend the scholarship period, enjoy benefits in medical treatments and postpone submission dates during pregnancy. Women should not have to choose between career and family, says Malcom. Institutions must "create a climate that allows them not to have to face this difficult and terrible choice," she concludes.
8 תגובות
Going to the reserve is a choice? Well it's new.
Regarding women and the full standard, from my experience in high-tech (many years and senior positions and even founding a startup and exit) women work just as hard as men and sometimes even more - in fewer hours.
Men who arrive at ten in the morning (and women too by the way, the behavior described here is true for people in general) and go for a half hour cigarette break every two hours, give much less output until six in the evening than a woman who is focused on work from eight in the morning until three thirty when she goes to pick up the children. And this is from experience and measurements.
Moms tend to be more focused and even complete more work from home and on weekends because they are sensitive to the opinion you present.
Measuring "deliver" by the number of hours a person is at work is a method that went bankrupt a long time ago.
I have no idea if this is also true for researchers, maybe it really depends on which field. As I said before, a pregnant woman who wants to be Chief of Staff needs to understand that there are limitations. Beyond that, with some adjustments, and today you can make a lot of adjustments to work from home part of the time, for example, mothers can manage very well and give the same output as non-mothers (men and women), if not more.
There is also some research done on companies managed by women compared to companies managed by men, those managed by women presented much better results over time because women tend to be more balanced and take fewer risks, perhaps because they are more inclined to cooperate, and play less ego.
To define mothers as ineligible for jobs that require specialization (of all kinds) because they are busy raising children, is much worse than the ridiculous figure they brought here about damage to scientific progress (is there any basis for this? Because it sounds like pure chauvinism). This is a loss of a considerable percentage of GDP per capita. If I have time I will look for the relevant studies.
If they allow women to hold the rank of a researcher
and work in a "mother's job" that is, 80% of the job
Instead of the 160% position that a researcher usually gives
This means that humanity will lose half of scientific progress
And this is a price that the company does not need and cannot afford.
I advocate freedom of choice
Those who want to both raise children and gain an academic position
She needs to find someone to raise the children for her
For example, her husband, her mother, a paid caregiver, an innovative robot
Or any other solution...
I may not have explained myself correctly.
I am not proposing a solution of limiting everyone's working hours. On the contrary, I claim that it is a very bad and pseudo-liberal solution but which is actually the ultimate intention of Malcolm and her ilk (the other pseudo-liberals who are blind to the brain and the eyes, and in particular the extreme feminists who take anti-humanist approaches in my understanding).
In my opinion, the free market should not be restricted in this respect and the existing situation should not be changed.
Those who can meet the job requirements will meet (and maybe succeed), and those who can't meet them or don't want to, that's their right.
From my experience, today there is no significant discrimination between women and men in the fields of high-tech and academia (at least in the fields of exact sciences and engineering. I take no responsibility for the clowns of the "social sciences and humanities")
Therefore, in my understanding, your last claim is wrong in terms of the claim that employers tend to punish women.
It has nothing to do with the fact that these are women. Even if it had been a man he would have received the same treatment and even more rigidly because he has no reasonable mitigating circumstances.
Employers (like me) are interested in workers who perform the tasks and deliver the produce (hereinafter referred to as: Delaware) If an employee does not come from Delaware because of his personal situation (if he is a woman who goes out to take care of the children at 3 in the afternoon or a reserve service or just someone who is stagnant or idle) then this His choice and this has direct consequences on his promotion and salary.
This is not a punishment. It's simply the parallel between Delaware and the rewards at work.
There is something in what you say but the solution you offer does not make sense.
It makes much more sense to allow women easier working conditions in places where it is possible to do so. Obviously, if a woman chose to be Chief of Staff (let's say) it would be difficult to allow her flexible hours...
Discrimination often manifests itself in the fact that as soon as a woman wants to start a family and divide her time (in a less extreme way than the CEO of Yahoo) even at the cost of a decrease in the scope of a job and perhaps even beyond the job that allows this, the price she will pay will be charged as soon as she wants to return to normal activities (after the children have reached an age that allows this). Employers tend to "punish" women who chose motherhood over a career even if it's for a short period of time, this usually manifests itself in promotion status and salary.
zero
I disagree with you and Malcom.
From my experience, success in the academic world, as in other workplaces for example in high-tech companies, usually requires a lot of hard work and many hours of work. Academic researchers stay in their labs and research sometimes long after standard working hours.
Just like the corresponding situation in the hi-tech companies, so is it in the industry: women make the decision to reduce the number of working hours in order to be with the children.
All the family vacations or the extension of scholarships and maternity leave are negligible compared to the time that has to be invested in practice.
As always, there are brilliant and successful women who are able to divide their time between work and children in a way that allows them a reasonable family life, but these are very few and in most cases it is simply not possible.
See the case of Yahoo CEOs. Very few women were ready for this.
The claim that it is about cultural reasons is wrong and inhumane in my understanding. The source of their urge to be with the children is biological.
The only possibility to compare the situation is to limit the working hours of men or women without children so that they are the same as those of women with children. This is the direct consequence of the things I referred to, and from here you can understand my claim that these are pseudo-liberal claims and reasonings.
open minded,
If you missed it, the intention in this paragraph was not to ignore the difference between men and women but rather to give it a place and adjust the academic requirements to allow it:
"Many universities have begun to allow advanced degree students to go on family vacations, extend the scholarship period, enjoy benefits in medical treatments and postpone submission dates during pregnancy."
"To create a climate that allows them not to have to face this difficult and terrible choice," ... the rant of a pseudo-liberal pseudo-feminist who reacts like a programmed automaton.
The extreme feminist concept that requires the same behavior and characteristics between women and men is simple and inhumane since it is not ready to recognize the innate difference between women and men and the effect of the difference in hormones and brain structure and their effect on the free choices made by academics.