Progress in Faculty Gender Representationand Performance

Reasonable male faculty in the U.S., and I am sure else-where, recognize and treasure the many scientific contri-

butions of their female colleagues and maybe with some reluc-tance also recognize past personal biases in decisions onhiring, tenure, and promotion that may have dampened thesecontributions. Leveling the “playing field” has been a long-standing issue and objective in faculty decisions in higher edu-cational institutionsOand others. Here, I confine myself tothe higher education institutions, which have been the objectof an important recent National Research Council Study Re-port entitled Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in theCareers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty(ISBN 978-0-309-11463-9).

The report is based on two surveys of 89 research-intensiveuniversities that covered the disciplines of biology, chemistry,mathematics, civil engineering, electrical engineering, andphysics, plus committee interviews with representatives fromfederal agencies and professional societies and the literature onthe subject. Among the wide range of data gathered was infor-mation on hiring, tenure and promotion processes, facultygender composition and rank, search committee composi-tions, and the tenure-track pool, defined as those interviewed,offered positions, and hired. In the second round of the sur-vey, further details on the academic progress of female facultyand on their working experiences, including family leave, weregathered. While there are numerous caveats in the reports thatcould be attached to the word “comparable”, the enormouslyencouraging main result seems to be that, once hired, our fe-male academic colleagues experience a level of academic

progress and success comparable to that of their malecounterparts.

Perhaps the most striking disappointment in faculty genderrepresentation is that women graduate students and postdoc-torals do not apply for faculty appointments at the same rateat which they earn Ph.D. degrees. This was quite pronouncedin chemistry, where while the doctoral pool was 32% female,the tenure track applicant pool was only 18% female. This dis-crepancy was found throughout the disciplinessurveyedOwhich contributes to the continuing pervasive un-derrepresentation of women in science and engineering facultyranks. The reasons for this loss in faculty intellectual power arevery unclear and in my own mind represent an important un-answered issue. One can say, “well, not participating is theirchoice”, but the lower desire for an academic career surely hasorigins that deserve continued attempts at further understand-ing. I think of my own experiences as a faculty mentorOI al-ways push the prospect of an academic career at my students(analytical chemistry can never have enough good scholars andteachers!)Obut have I done that in a way designed to beevenly convincing to all students? It’s something to reflectupon, which I invite all of my maleOand femaleOacademiccolleagues to do as well.

e d i t o r i a l

1 0 . 1 0 2 1 / A C 1 0 2 8 7 9 A 2 0 1 0 A M E R I C A N C H E M I C A L S O C I E T Y 9593D E C E M B E R 1 , 2 0 1 0 / A N A L Y T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y

Published on Web 11/09/2010