Skip to main content

Why are there so few women (and minority) professors?

From Dr. (and soon to be Prof) Cullen Blake:
I really liked your blog post about the Moss-Racusin PNAS discrimination paper. It's been really great to see how much attention this paper has generated for this super-important issue in our field. A few of these types of studies have been done before, including one by my wife Katy Milkman. The Moss-Racusin study had a very small sample, as well as non-representative participants who were informed that they were participating in a study, and the study considered discrimination by academics toward people applying for a non-academic position. Katy's study involves many thousands of representative faculty participants interacting naturally with prospective doctoral students, and it is able to look at relative rates of discrimination not only against women but also minorities across different departments and types of schools.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3079
I'm very interested! This is an amazing study based on the rate at which emails from prospective students are ignored, and requests for meetings are denied. You should read the writeup in the link above, but here's the summary table of the results:
[When emailed one week in advance of a proposed meeting (N=3,241), rates at which professors ignored or declined prospective PhD students’ requests to meet as a function of student race and gender.]
Surprisingly, the bias here breaks down along racial/ethnic lines, with the strongest bias against Indian and Chinese students. I can't really speak to that bias very well, but the bias against black and hispanic students is a real bummer!

This denial of entry compounds other problems that black students encounter. The biggest barrier, in my experience, is with black students facing strong, rigid hierarchies within science. Unlike students from affluent, college-educated families, students from poorer, underrepresented groups typically grow up learning not to question authority. "Don't talk back!" is the most likely response to a black child correcting an adult on factual knowledge, or even attempting to express what they know. This means that black students tend to be very quite, shy and reserved when confronted with a rigid hierarchy or when surrounded by elders.

Fortunately, I had a mentor in college who simultaneously taught me to take ownership of my education and to speak up when I feel I'm right. He taught me how to use my "physics voice" in order to assert myself, and how to not back down when I feel I am correct, even if people "above" me disagree. He taught me how to introduce myself to others with a clear voice while looking people in the eye.

This helped me once the door was open. Until reading this study by Milkman and collaborators, I don't think I recognized how hard it was to open doors in the first place!

Comments

AlphaCenBeebee said…
I wish I had your advisor :)

Just my personal opinion, but...when you're part of a minority (ethnic, gender, sexual, etc.) you have to be quite a bit more assertive and self-confident to overcome at least partially the worse hand you've been dealt. If you don't, and you're still internalizing years of being looked down upon because of you're differences, you're toast in science given the importance of networking and personality. Ideally, the strength of your ideas and your ability to communicate should be all that counts; unfortunately, judging by the times I've been talked over, interrupted, dismissed in the face of my being obviously right just this week, it is not nearly enough.

I guess I have no tricks up my sleeve left when you're looking in the eyes and explaining something, and the person you're speaking to starts to talk with someone else.

Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:


It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight

ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims.
I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to do was p…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…