### Annika Peter: More Facts

To continue my exploration of gender parity in astronomy, I have called on my friend and fellow astronomer Annika Peter to guest blog for me. Annika and I have had several illuminating discussions over coffee about academia in general and women in science in particular. Here's the second in a series of posts from Annika. The first can be found here. The data contained herein has informed a number of articles that I'll post soon.

Women scientists in academia and family structure:  A number of studies indicate that, at the faculty level, a large proportion of women physicists and astronomers are partnered with other academic scientists (especially other physicists!).  The exact numbers are hard to come by---a lot of the time, all physical scientists are lumped together in studies, even though there are hints that there are major differences across fields (with Stanford’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research finding that physicists have the most “endogamous” marriage habits).  I have found only one survey specific to physicists, and it is not especially recent (1998 to be specific).  Moreover, I have not yet been able to find cohort studies that examine family structures at a variety of career stages, or studies of the reasons why both men and women leave the academic track.  I am also interested to see if there is greater or lesser selection pressure on dual academic couples.  In my experience, a high percentage of women in physics and astronomy are coupled with other academic scientists at just about all career stages, but I would like to see some cold, hard numbers on this.

Nevertheless, if you lump all physical science faculty together, one finds large differences in the partnering and child-rearing patterns of men and women.  A study referenced in this article (PDF document) shows that women scientists are more than three times more likely than their male counterparts to be married to someone who also holds a science PhD.  Women science professors are far more likely than their male counterparts to be single or have no children.  When women science professors are partnered, they are far more likely than men to have a “two-body problem”.  The subject of the two-body problem is near and dear to my heart (as it is to many women scientists and the men or women they are partnered with), and I will be devoting some future blog space to this subject.

Women scientists still do far more housework than men, even in dual-academic-career households, as noted by Schiebinger & Gilmartin.  The difference in time devoted to household work is significant, especially compared with their additional finding that men and women in dual career couples have statistically almost indistinguishable distributions of hours worked (median of about 55 hours, the width of the distribution is 11 hours).  Thus, women scientists have a significantly higher work+housework time commitment than men scientists.  In addition, the authors of the study find that the average scientist spends 19 hours per week on housework.  There are a lot of illuminating figures in that paper, and I recommend you check it out.  Note that this study only considers work related to inanimate objects; child-related tasks are not included.

Efforts at top-tier PhD-granting universities to hire and retain women faculty: About a decade ago, some top-tier universities starting realizing that they were not hiring or retaining very many women faculty in their science and engineering departments.  MIT is particularly famous (or infamous) for having had so few women on its faculty as recently as the late 1990’s.  This realization is an indication that the AIP’s finding of a lower proportion of women at PhD granting institutions than colleges and universities as a whole is in part because they simply were not hiring and retaining women at rate one would have expected based on PhD completion rates.  Since then, these universities have undergone self-studies to identify concrete steps they can take to improve the retention of women faculty, and have implemented a number of changes.  Here are links to a few of those universities’ reports and findings:
-MIT:  1999 report; 2011 progress report (
-Princeton: 2003 report (
-The NSF funded ADVANCE (Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers) programs at a suite of universities. Information on UC Irvine’s ADVANCE Program can be found here: http://advance.uci.edu/.  Information about the NSF ADVANCE grant program can be found here: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383

### On the Height of J.J. Barea

Dallas Mavericks point guard J.J. Barea standing between two very tall people (from: Picassa user photoasisphoto).

Congrats to the Dallas Mavericks, who beat the Miami Heat tonight in game six to win the NBA championship.

Okay, with that out of the way, just how tall is the busy-footed Maverick point guard J.J. Barea? He's listed as 6-foot on NBA.com, but no one, not even the sports casters, believes that he can possibly be that tall. He looks like a super-fast Hobbit out there. But could that just be relative scaling, with him standing next to a bunch of extremely tall people? People on Yahoo! Answers think so---I know because I've been Google searching "J.J. Barea Height" for the past 15 minutes.

So I decided to find a photo and settle the issue once and for all.

I then used the basketball as my metric. Wikipedia states that an NBA basketball is 29.5 inches in circumfe…

### The Force is strong with this one...

Last night we were reviewing multiplication tables with Owen. The family fired off doublets of numbers and Owen confidently multiplied away. In the middle of the review Owen stopped and said, "I noticed something. 2 times 2 is 4. If you subtract 1 it's 3. That's equal to taking 2 and adding 1, and then taking 2 and subtracting 1, and multiplying. So 1 times 3 is 2 times 2 minus 1."

I have to admit, that I didn't quite get it at first. I asked him to repeat with another number and he did with six: "6 times 6 is 36. 36 minus 1 is 35. That's the same as 6-1 times 6+1, which is 35."

Ummmmm....wait. Huh? Lemme see...oh. OH! WOW! Owen figured out

x^2 - 1 = (x - 1) (x +1)

So $6 \times 8 = 7 \times 7 - 1 = (7-1) (7+1) = 48$. That's actually pretty handy!

You can see it in the image above. Look at the elements perpendicular to the diagonal. There's 48 bracketing 49, 35 bracketing 36, etc... After a bit more thought we…

### 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…