DOCUMENT RESUME SE 021 973 AUTHOR Baranger,
DOCUMENT RESUMEED 135 609AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTEEDES PRICEDESCRIETORSSE 021 973Baranger, Elizabeth UreyAdmission and Attrition of Women in GraduateSchool.Feb 7624p.; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the"American Association for the Advancement of Science(Boston, Massachusetts, February 22-23, 1976); Notavailable in hard copy due to marginal legibility oforiginal documentME- 0.83 Plus Postage. HC Not Available from EDRS.Doctoral Programs; *Females; *Graduate Study; HigherEducation; *Science Eoucation; Scientific Manpower;*Scientists; *Sex Discrimination; SpeechesABSTRACTReasons behind the fact that there are fewer womenscientists than men sciexasts are explored in this paper. Data onthe number of women Ph.D.'s :In each field of science for the years1966 through 1974 are presented and analyzed. Graduate schooladmissions policies and the greater attrition rate for women ingraduate school compared to men are discussed. Finally,recommendations are made for ways of combating and preventingdiscrimination in graduate programs. *************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ** reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the ******************************
'0 l'aper presented at AAAS Session: "Bicentennial Retrospectives an d Prospectives:(February 23, 1976)Science Education for Women"U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,.EDUCATION WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATIONAdmission and Attrition of Women in Graduate SchoolElizabeth Urey BarangerAssociate Dean and Professor of PhysicsUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN'.ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY,All of us in this room are very aware that there are fewerWoMen than men scientists.And we all know that this indicates alack of opportunity and freedom of choice for women.Furthermore,it means that a human resource of the nation ie'Untapped and under.,utilized.Others on this panel have addressed eE.rly education andsocialization and its contribution to this result.I will limitmyself in ehis talk to exploring what effect graduate educationhas on the final result:more men than women scientists.Before starting I would like to point out that projections ofemployment prospects for Ph.D.'s show that there will be a largeoversupply by 1985.The first slide shows the projections madeby the National Science Foundation and by the Bureau of LabOr Statistics [1].These differ markedly from each other but both painta dismal picture.However, the picture for scientists and engineersis much better than for graduates in the humanities and social sciences,or education, and there are uncertainties in the models making thepredictions.In this talk I stress the need to increase the percentageof women among doctoral recipients because I feel the small currentpercentages reflect a lack of opportunity for women in a choice of career.The number of women Ph.D.'s varies greatly with the field ofscience.And, more of interest, the percentage Of women among recipientsof the Ph.D. degree varies greatly between disciplines, being lowestea
2economics,in physics, and engineering, higher in chemistry, mathematics,political science and highest in the biological sciences, psychologyWhile the number of degrees awarded women each yearand sociology.the perclntagehas increased markedly since the 1920's in all fields,of women among doctoral recipients has not; it shows a decline afterthe 1920's which as the second slide shows haR been revemedThe upper part of the slide plots the average num-1960's [2] [3] [4].4in the.7ber of doctorates awarded to women per year, and the lower part shows""the percentage of women in the doctorates awarded in the life sciences,(including agriculture), social sciences (including psychology), naturalsciences (including mathematics and engineering.)This figure is takenfrom an article by Vera Kistiakowsky, and is compiled from data re-ported in the Summary Reports of Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities of the National Academy of Sciences.The variation betweendisciplines in both number and percentages is apparent and the curvesfor percentages show the decrease and then the increase of which Ispoke.In the last few years there has been a significant increase inthe percentage of women among doctoral recipients, due partly to adecrease in the number of men awarded doctorates, as shown in the nextslide (slide 3),[4], [5], and (slide 4), [2], [3], [4].For most fields of science, graduate departments draw theirentering graduate students from among students with bachelors degreesin that discipline.On the next slide (slide 5), I show percentagesdegreesof women among recipients of bachelors, masters and doctoralfor a number of specific fields.The data is from the Office ofEducation's Earned Degrees Conferred, 1971-72. [6].3The variation between
3fields is apparent; physics low; chemistry, mathematics, politicalscience and economics next; the biological sciences, sociology, andpsychology the largest in the percentage of women among recipients ofdoctoral degrees.For all fields, this percentage is considerablylower than the percentage among recipients of bachelors degrees, by afactor ranging between 1.5 and 2.7, except for mathematics for whichthe factor is 5.Of course, the number of doctorates awarded both menand women is always much less than the number of bachelors degrees.awarded.But it should be just as likely for a woman with a bachelorsdegree in a discipline to get a Ph.D. in that discipline as it is fora man; i.e. the percentage of women among recipients of the doctoraldegree should be equal to the percentage of women among recipients of the(Note that the percentage of women among mastersbachelors degree.degree recipients is much larger than that of the percentage of doctorates and for many disciplines is about the same as the percentageof bachelors or even larger.I will discuss this point later.)Weshould compare percentages of doctorates with those of bachelors atan earlier time, say six years earlier.Since the percentage of womenamong bachelor recipients was smaller in 1965-66 for most of these fields,the gap is slightly smaller than the figures show.the most recent available data forIn fact, if we usedoctoral degrees; i.e. 1973-74 [5]and compare the percentages of doctoral recipients with the percentage.of bachelor recipients in 1968-69 [6], then doctorates are reducedcompared to bachelors by a smaller factor in all of these fields, thefactor ranging between 1.3 and 2.1 with the.factor in mathematics44
4instead of 5.These figures, still greater than 1, show that graduateeducation presents a bigger barrier to women than to men.There are several possible reasons for this decrease in the percentage of women among doctoral recipiients.to apply. to graduate school1) Women are less likely2) Women are less likely to be admitted3) Women are less likely to finish to a Ph.D. once enrolled.To try to determine which factors are important I present morenational statistics in the next slide (slide 6).The first columnagain gives the percentage of women among bachelor degree recipients in1971-72 [6].; the second column gives the percentage of women amongfirst-year graduate students; i.e. students who have completed lessthan one year of graduate school by the fall term of 1972.The thirdgives the percentage of women among students who are beyond the firstyear in the fall of 1974.The last column gives the percentage of womenamong Ph.D.'s granted in 1973-74 [5].NSF data [7].The second and third columns areThe students were enrolled full-time in doctorate depart-ments, the 3785 departments were the same in 1972 and 1974, and thequestionnaires were filled out by chairpersons.We see that in thephysical sciences, the biological sciences and in the "hard socialsciences"(i.e. physics, chemistry, the biological sciences, economics,political science) the percentage of women enrolled as first-yearstudents in the fall of 1972 is essentially the same as the percentageamong recipients of bachelor degrees in 1971-72, so women seem to beapplying and being admitted to graduate school in these fields in thesame proportions,as men.The picture is very different in mathematics,
5psychology and sociology where the percentage of women among first-yeargraduate students is greatly decreased compared to the percentage amongbachelor recipients. Women with bachelors degrees in sociology havea greater tendency than men to go into social work rather than graduateschool [8].I believe that the high percentage of women with bachelorsdegrees in mathematics is due to men with comparable skills majoringin engineering, an option women do not choose.Comparison of columns two and three indicates Chat there is higherattrition of women than of men after enrollment in graduate school.Womenwho are "beyond the first year" in the fall of 1974 entered graduate schoolin the fall of 1973 or before.The percentage of women among studentsbeyond the first year in the fall of 1974 is smaller than the percentageof women among the first-year graduate students in the fall of 1972.There is also greater attrition of women in.the last years of graduateschool (compare columns 3 and 4) although, since the doctoraltages are increasing and since I should use degree data' .HEL 1,eratpercendate(not yet available) the attrition in the last years of graduate schoolis not as large as here indicated.I should mention that the Office ofEducation also collects statistics on the number of students enrolledat the first year and beyond the first year [9].Their definition offirst-year student differs from that of NSF and data are collected byquestionnaires to the institution not to chairpersons.While the numberof students in the first year differ from those presented by NSF, thepercentage of women are close to NSF's and this greater attrition ofwomen in later years of doctoral study is also borne out.6
6These national statisticsindicate that there is a greaterschool and that while forattrition of women after entering graduateschool as men theremany fields women are as likely to enter graduateI would like to examine adtrue.are some fields where this is notmission and attrition in somewhat more detail.if there is discrimiSome universities have tried to determineasking if the percentage ofnation against women in admissions bythe percentage among stuwomen among students admitted is the same asO'Connell reported in Science,dents applying. Bickel, Hammel andfall 1973 at the UniverFebruary 7, 1975, on such statistics for thesity of California Berkeley [10].graduate admissions wereagainst women.They found that if all data onaggregated, there seemed to be a clear biasintoBut if the data were properly pooled, takingaccount the autonomycorrectof departmental decision making, thusgraduate departments whereing for the tendency of women to apply tothere is a small but statisthe acceptance ra1 o. is lower for both sexes,tically significant bias in favor of women.Parenthetically, the grad-rate were those requiring moreuate departments with the higher accepanceThis does notmathematics and thus having fewer women applicants.relattve qualification of theaddress itself to the question of thewomen and men applying.haveWomen who are enrolled in graduate schoolthat more qualified womenhigher undergraduate QPA's, which indicatesbiasAnd, of course, statistics showing noare rejected than men [11].cases.do not rule out the bias in individualscientific fields which bias againstFor instancethere areolder students, many of whom arewomen, returning L) school after raising families.Married women may beanddiscriminated against, if not in admissions, then for fellowshipsthat they don't "need"teaching assistantships, the arguments being7
7it.application forms, and allIt is not illegal to request age onuniversities have such a question.It is illegal to ask marital statusfellowships (under Title. IX).on application forms for admission orapplicatian,forms from eleven Universities, and toI juSt collectedasking marital status andmy surprise I found that four are still.says ignore questionsnumber of dependents, three ask marital status, oneask or made the question optional.on marital status, and three did notis whether women areAnother question one can ask about admissionsbeingattendingadmitted into the best graduate schools or arelesser quality institutions.graduate schools and receiving Ph.D.'s from1975, [12], report on theMcCarthy and Wolfe in Science, September 12,members of the AssociationPh.D. production at the 46 universities who areof American Universities.These universities award 60% of the Ph.D's;departments rated as "distinguished"they include 89% of all graduatehaveRoose-Anderson survey. For the fields Ior "strong" in the 1969doctoral recipientsbeen discussing, the percentage of women amongof all Universitiesat these institutions is higher than the averageit is slightly smaller (slide 7).except in physics and mathematics whereat departments ratedNo difference was found between the percentagesthose for the whole"distinguished" or "strong" by Roose-Anderson andgroup of AAU members.greater attritionThe statistics I presented earlier indicate aof attrition of Woodrowof women in graduate school- A careful study[13],[14]. By 1966, 26% ofWilson Fellows of 1958-63 confirms this8
8had not obtainedthe men and 54% of the women in the natural sciencessciences the perdoctorates or were no longer enrolled; in the socialcentages were 46% for men and 64% for women.(slide 8)The attritionand much higher forof even this select group of students is very highwomen than men.in graduateWhat are the causes for greater attrition once women areschool?thanWomen may enter graduate school with lower aspirationsmen; i.e. they intend only to work for a master's degree.The fact thatdegree is muchthe percentage of women among recipients of the master'slikely thanhigher than for doctoral recipients indicates women are morerather than continuing to the Ph.D.men to stop with the master's degreethis as attrition.Graduate school should change aspirations, so I considergreater attrition.Less financial support for women than men could cause1973, and 1974 shows that a higherData collected by NSF [7] in 1972,doctorate uantingproportion of women full-time graduate students inpsychology, socialdepartments are self-supporting in the life sciences,disciplines.sciences, and mathematics than the men in these(slide 9)National Research CouncilThe survey of doctorate recipients made by theand men who attained[5] shows no difference in self-support for womenthe doctorate in 1974.The NSF data [7] shows somewhat greater institu-assistantships) for women in the physitional support (meaning teachingto U.S. Governmentcal sciences and the mathematical sciences comparedfellowships).support (graduate research assistantships,There is thusthan men.evidence that there is less support for womenmight be lackAnother cause for greater attrition of women than menof encouragement by faculty of women students.Closely connected toconfidence and motivation.this is the possibility that women students lackasked two questions designedThe ACE/Carnegie Commission Survey of 19699
to throw light on these questions [13], [11].(This survey was designedvery carefully for correct sPmpling; 33,000 graduate students and 60,000faculty members responded to the survey).were:Two of the questions askedDo you agree or disagree with th- statement "females are notas dedicated as males" and do you agree or disagree with the statement"professors in my department don't really take female graduate studentsseriously".To the second question, a range of 15-50% of the graduatestudents in the disciplines I have been discussing agreed with the statement (slide 10).To the first question 20-40% of the male faculty agreedwith the statement but only 4-24Zof the women.I think that these twoquestions pinpoint very well the attitudes which cause so much troublefor women in graduate school.the greater attrition of women.And they certainly must be a cause forWhat is so unfortunate is that theyIf a professor does not treat a female graduatefeed on each other.student seriously, this can have the effect of making her less seriousAnd then this behavior just reinforces the pro-or less dedicated.fessor's attitude. Marital and family responsibilities can clearly make it moredifficult for a woman than a man to stay in graduate school.A higherpercentage of women than men doctoral recipients are single.Women withchildren find it difficult to find inexpensive child care.Women aremore likely to feel they must quit graduate school to follow husbandsto another city.Women who wish to return to school after an absenceto raise children find the adjustment difficult; they find financialsupport hard to find.I think attrition of this particular group ofstudents is low.10
-Lk)The women's movement has clearly had an effect on increasingthe number of women doctorates.Women have more confidence in'theirabilities; they have a clearer set of career goals; their concepts ofthe opportunities which are open to them have broadened.The changingof attitudes is a long process and discrimination is very subtle.recommend the formation of caucuses of women graduate students as a moreeffective means to combat discrimination than grievance procedures whichare so hard on an individual student.The women graduate students in twoof our departments have formed women's causes, and these can have a positive effect on preventing disCrimination or alleged discrimination ingraduate departments and in providing psychological support for women involved.The most effective means.in the long run is the presence ofwomen faculty in science departments which helps prevent discriminationin individual cases and produces an atmosphere of equality between menand women which is of psychological benefit to all graduate students andwill decrease the attrition of women graduate students.11
1.Gina Bari Kolata, Science 191, 363 (1976)2.Vera Kistiakowsky, "Women Doctoral Scientist in the United States (1973)."3."Doctorates Awarded from 1920 to 1971 by Subfield of Doctorate, Sex,and Decade," National Academy of Sciences (1973).4.Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities,"National Academy of Sciences (1972).5."Summary Report 1974. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities,"National Academy of Sciences (1974).6."Earned Degrees Conferred, 1971-7 ," U.S. Office of Education.annual report).7."Summary Rctport 1972.(An"Graduate Science Education Student Support.and Postdoctorals Fall1974. Detailed Statistical Tab1es, Appendix III". National ScienceFoundation.8.Joseph Zelan in Teachers'and Students, Martin Trow (editor) McGrawHill Book Company, New York .(1975).9."Students Enrolled for Advanced Degrees, Fa11.1972," Office of Education.101.P.J. Bickel, E.A. Hammel, and J.W. O'Connell,'SCience 187, 398 (1975 ).11.Saul D.,Feldman, Escape*froM'theM)11's'House, Womenin Graduate andProfessional School Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1974).12.J.L. McCarthy and D. Wolfe, Science 189, 856 (1975).13."Opportunities for Women in Higher Education," The Carnegie Commissionon Higher Education, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1973).14.-M. Patterson and L. Sells in Academic Women on the Move, Russell SageFoundation, New York (1973).12
Comparisons of the National Science Foundation and the Bureau ofLabor Statistics of Employment Prospects for Ph7D's in 1985Number of nal Science 0018,30028.9Mathematics21,60016,0005,60025.9Life Social sciencesBureau of Labor ife sciences137,70073,10064,60046.9Social sciences153,70087,10066,60043.3Physical sciencesReference:Science 191, 363 (1976)Slide 113
'VI1000stu.SocialF.Sciences008000cu 600E QzcwtykEa0 0LiFeSciences400Physical.200 --.EngineerinMame Ommal.SocialSciences,weepaer 411.1011.LifeSciences0111111,N.000C1 '0Physicalqciences50.).0N.01920Reference:Slide 2H1930 1940 1950 ,1 960Engineering1970Decadeof Dcitt:drateKistiakowsky based en "Summary Report 1972.DoctorateUnpublished paper, Veraand DoctoratesNationalAcademyofSciencesRecipients from U.S. Universities"Decade," NationalAwarded from 1920 to 1971 by Subfield of Doctorate, Sex andAcademy of.Sciences14
Percentage of Women Among the Recipients of Doctoral emistryMathematicsBiological litical y Report 1974 Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities",National Academy of Sciences and same teport for'1972.Slide 315
1641.1%.01016110.14111101,419661968, -1,970.::? 1972."19681966,1974YEAR ;. OF ,.00C.11,,,.1111.1.111411111/.1.01 I I. .1me IvII.11,00 1.4I.n .19721370,,IIReferenceiUnpublished paper,,Vera Kistiakowsky and "Siii!mary. Report 1974. Doctorate liotipiens.fromU.S. Dniversitie8",'Nationi1,Academy of Sciencei.1974:Slide 4
:Percentage of Women Among all Recipients of Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral Degrees in 1971-72% Masters% .129.87.9Biological 11.812.87.6Political Science18.920.510.6Sociology57.038.821.4% BachelorsPhysicsReference:U.S. Office of Education:"Earned Degrees Conferred, 1971-72."Slide 518
LevelsPercentage of Women Among Students at Various EduCationalDoctoralFirst Yr. Grad.*(Fall 1972)Beyond First Yr.*(Fall 6.29.6Mathematics29.629.226.321.5Biological conomics18.921.419.914.8Political Physics*(1973-74)(matched departmentsFull-time graduate students enrolled in doctorate departmentsReferences:"Earned Degrees Conferred,-1971-72, U.S. Office of Education"Graduate Science Education Student Support and PostdoctoralsDetailed Statistical Tables; Appendix Irv". National.Fall 1974.Science Foundation"Summary Report 1974 Doctorate Recipientsi:from-U.S. Universities",National Academy of SciencesSlide 619
Percentage of Women Among the Recipients of Doctoral DegreesAAU Universities(1972-75)3.8PhysicsAll al 8Political nces:Sciencp 189, 856(1975)"Summ y Report 1974. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities",National Academy of Sciences (1974)Slide 720
Percentage of Woodrow Wilson Fellows Who Dropped Out"T,enWomenHumanities5266Social Sciences4664Natur7.1 Sciences26544464TotalSource:Reference:Slide8Sells (1973)"Opportunities for Women in .Higher Education", The Carnegie Commissionon Higher Education
Percentage of Men, and Women,Studgnts with BachSource of Support*Life SciSoc. SciliXMWMPsych,U.S. GovernmentInstitutionalSelf-support*Full-time 202127112211595767Other2417313214711students in doctoraldepartments Fall 1974 (NS1)"Groduate Science Education Student Support and PoStdoctoralsStatiatical Tables, Appendix III,. XSFSlide 922Fall, 1974.Detailed,
alAttitudes toward Women Graduate Students% Students whoagree with (2)% Faculty whoagree with y29.315.016.3MathematicsBiological 4.524.032.3Economics20.110,220.050.1Political Sci.25.03,621.850.5Sociology(1)Females are not as dedicated as males(2)Faculty does not take female students seriouslySource:Professional"Escap'fram the Doll's House, Women in Graduate andSchool Education" by Saul D, FeldmanSlide 1024
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 135 609 SE 021 973 AUTHOR Baranger, Elizabeth Urey TITLE Admission and Attrition of Women in Graduate. School. PUB DATE Feb 76 NOTE 24p.; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the" American Association for the Advancement of Science . graduate admissions were aggregate
Senior Director of Business Development: Toni Haggerty (973) 206-8979 thaggerty@frontlinemedcom.com Billing Coordinator: Debbie Bargfrede (973) 206-8022, FAX (973) 206-9378 Classified Sales: Heather Gentile (973) 290-8259, FAX (973) 206-9378 hgentile@frontlinemedcom.com Reprints: Sharon Finch (973) 206-8952, FAX (973) 206-9378 sfinch .
RAILWAY POLICE Philippi Cape Town Bellville Retreat 021 449 4336 021 370 1000 021 443 4325/7 0800 65 64 63 021 941 6800 021 710 5120/9 021 449 2041/3645 Always ensure that you have a valid train ticket, whether you’re travelling in Metro or Metro Plus. SAFETY CORNER EMERGENCY NUMBERS Safety is our Shariefa’s on patrol
Mr. Anwar Sayeed AVP/ Wing Head Ph: 021-34527427 Fax: 021-34527426 Culture Social Responsibility Wing Ms. Afshan Shakeel Assistant Vice President Ph: 021-35864610 Fax: 021-35867330 Mr. Gulfaraz Ahmad Khan VP/ Coordinator Ph: 021-34527427 Fax: 021-34527426 NBP Staff Welfare Foundation Mr. N.B. Soomro SEVP/Managing Director
OLE Number Description 035/021/024 UC Mast 152x152x23kg x 2.4m 035/021/030 UC Mast 152x152x23kg x 3.0m 035/021/036 UC Mast 152x152x23kg x 3.6m 035/021/042 UC Mast 152x152x23kg x 4.2m 035/021/048 UC Mast 152x152x23kg x 4.8m 035/021/054 UC Mast 152x152x23kg x 5.4m 035/203/060 UC Mast 157x153x30kg x 6.0m Conc Bolted Base 035/203/064 UC Mast 157x153x30kg
Dr. Shaukat Ali Mazari PhD (Chemical Engg) University of Malaya, Malaysia 021-34911080 021-99231195-8 Ext: 310 13 Director ORIC Dr. Ghulam Mujtaba PhD (Envoirment) South Korea 021-99231159-8 14 Director DILAA Dr. Pervez Ahmed PhD (Metallurgy) UK 021-34911080 15 Acting Librarian Mrs. Salma Javed MLS 021-99231195-8 Ext: 313
Illustration A 021, 023, 025 3. Triebwerk 021 Shortblock 021 Bloc moteur 021. Bild-Nr. Teile-Nr. St.-Zahl Benennung Part Name D
General Design Guidelines for Schools 020 Construction Standards for Schools 021 Guidance on the Specification of Windows 021.1 Guidelines and Standards for Sanitary Facilities in Primary Schools 021.2 Guidelines and Standards for Sanitary facilities in Post-primary Schools 021.3 Acoustic Performance in Schools 021.5
from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer MARK TWAIN In this famous selection from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), written by Mark Twain (born Samuel Langhorne Clemens, 1835–1910), Tom, burdened with the chore to whitewash his Aunt Polly’s fence as punishment for his having played hooky from school, comes up with an ingenious way to get out of his work: He convinces his friends that it’s .
