Do Babies Matter: Redefining Gender Equity in the Academy Mary Ann - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Do Babies Matter: Redefining Gender Equity in the Academy

Mary Ann Mason & Marc Goulden University of California Nick Wolfinger University of Utah

Presented by Marc Goulden at PAESMEM conference at Stanford, June 22, 2004

SLIDE 2

Problems in the Pipeline to Tenure

Assessing Family Formation Effects on the Tenure Rates of Men and Women PhDs

SLIDE 3

Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR)

• A national biennial longitudinal data set of PhD recipients’

post-degree employment experiences funded by the National Science Foundation and others, 1973 to present (NEH funded the Humanities 1977 to 1995).

• Includes roughly a 10% sub-sample of PhD recipients

drawn from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) each year and individuals are resurveyed until they reach age 76, leave the country, or refuse to participate (over 160,000 individuals have participated).

• Response data is weighted based on sampling design and

reweighted each survey cycle based on attrition (e.g. gender, ethnicity) to reflect US PhD population.

• Starting in 1979 and 1981, respondents were asked about

their marital status (1979) and the number of children (1981) living in their household (under 6, 6-18, etc.).

• Arguably the best employment dataset in the country.

SLIDE 4

Leaks in the Pipeline to Tenure*

PhD Receipt Entering a Tenure

Track Position

Achieving

Tenure Women PhDs Water Level Women PhDs Water Level

Married Women, Child under 6

(50% less likely to enter a Ten. Track

• Pos. than Married Men,

Child under 6)

Postdoc Years

Women (20% less likely to Achieve tenure than Men)

*Results are based on discrete-time event history analysis of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (a national biennial longitudinal data set funded by the National Science Foundation and others, 1979 to 1995) in the Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities. The analysis takes into account broad disciplinary differences, age, ethnicity, PhD calendar year, time-to-PhD degree, and National Research Council academic reputation rankings of PhD program effects. For each event (PhD to TT job procurement, or TT job to Tenure), data is limited to a maximum of 16 years. The waterline is an artistic rendering of the statistical effects of family and gender. Note: The use of NSF Data does not imply the endorsement of research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

SLIDE 5

Leaks in the Pipeline: PhD to Tenure Track Position

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% PhD Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Years out from PhD Receipt

Expected Probability of Entering a Ten. Track Job

Married Women, Child under 6 Married Men, Child under 6 Married Women, No Child under 6 Single Women, No Child under 6 For each year after the PhD, Married Men with Children under 6 are 50% more likely to enter a tenure track position than are Married Women with Children under 6

Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, Sciences and Humanities, 1981 to 1995. Note: The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

N=30,568

SLIDE 6

Leaks in the Pipeline: Tenure Track to Tenure

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years out from Tenure Track Start Date Expected Probability of Achieving Tenure

Women Men

For each year after securing a tenure track position, Men are 20% more likely to achieve tenure than are Women

Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, Sciences and Humanities, 1981 to 1995. Note: The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

N=10,845

SLIDE 7

Alone in the Ivory Tower

Assessing the Effect of Academic Careers on Family Formation of Men and Women PhDs

SLIDE 8

Married at Time of Career Formation*

76% 74% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Second-Tier Women** Ladder-Rank Men Ladder-Rank Women Probability of Being Married at Time of Career Formation*

*Time of career formation is defined as 0 to 3 years post-PhD. **Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working. Source: SDR Science and Humanities Survey, 1981-1995. PhD recipients 1978-1994.

SLIDE 9

Getting Married after Time of Career Formation*

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10 or more Years after Time of Career Formation* Probability of Getting Married Ladder-Rank Women Ladder-Rank Men Second-Tier Women**

*For individuals who were single at time of career formation, 0-3 years post-PhD. **Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working. Source: SDR Science and Humanities Survey, 1981-1995. PhD recipients 1978-1992 .

SLIDE 10

Child under 6 at Time of Career Formation*

38% 38% 17% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Second-Tier Women** Ladder-Rank Men Ladder-Rank Women

Probability of Child Under 6 in Household at Time of Career Formation*

*Time of career formation is defined as 0 to 3 years post-PhD. **Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working. Source: SDR Science and Humanities Survey, 1981-1995. PhD recipients 1978-1994.

SLIDE 11

Having a Child After Time of Career Formation*

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10 or more Years after Time of Career Formation* Probability of Child under 6 Entering the Household Ladder-Rank Women Ladder-Rank Men Second-Tier Women**

*For individuals who had no child under 6 in household at time of career formation, 0-3 years post-PhD. **Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working. Source: SDR Science and Humanities Survey, 1981-1995. PhD recipients 1978-1994.

SLIDE 12

Divorced at Time of Career Formation*

5% 3% 8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Second-Tier Women** Ladder-Rank Men Ladder-Rank Women Probability of Being Divorced at Time of Career Formation*

*Time of career formation is defined as 0 to 3 years post-PhD. **Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working. Source: SDR Science and Humanities Survey, 1981-1995. PhD recipients 1978-1994.

SLIDE 13

Getting Divorced after Time of Career Formation*

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10 or more Years after Time of Career Formation* Probability of Getting Divorced Ladder-Rank Women Ladder-Rank Men Second-Tier Women**

*For individuals who were married at time of career formation, 0-3 years post-PhD. **Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working. Source: SDR Science and Humanities Survey, 1981-1995. PhD recipients 1978-1992 .

SLIDE 14

Getting Remarried if Divorced at Time of Career Formation*

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10 or more Years after Time of Career Formation* Probability of Getting Remarried Ladder-Rank Women Ladder-Rank Men Second-Tier Women**

*For individuals who were divorced at time of career formation, 0-3 years post-PhD. **Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working. Source: SDR Science and Humanities Survey, 1981-1995. PhD recipients 1978-1992 .

SLIDE 15

Family Status Twelve Years out from PhD*

Married without Children 15%

Single without Children 11%

Single with Children** 5%

Married with Children** 69%

Married with Children** 41%

Single without Children 28% Married without Children 20%

Single with Children** 11%

Ladder- Rank Men Ladder- Rank Women

N=10,112 N=27,030

Married without Children 20%

Single without Children 14%

Single with Children** 6%

Married with Children** 60%

Second Tier Women***

N=7056

*PhDs from 1978-1984 Who Are Ladder-Rank Faculty 12 Years out from PhD. **Had a child in the household at any point post PhD to 12 years out. ***Non-Tenure Track, Part Time, or Not Working

Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, Science and Humanities, 1979-1995

SLIDE 16

UC Work and Family Survey: History and Response Rates

• The survey was designed to assess the effectiveness of UC’s

existing family friendly policies for ladder-rank faculty (implemented in July 1988). It was first conducted at UC Berkeley, Fall 2002, and was rolled-out in Spring-Summer 2003 to the other UC universities (except UCM), with President Atkinson serving as the first contact email signatory.

47% 998 472 San Diego 47% 802 374 Santa Barbara 55% 1351 743 Berkeley 59% 1385 820 Davis 49% 910 445 Irvine 45% 1758 788 Los Angeles 55% 663 367 Riverside 53% 357 188 San Francisco Response Rate # of Surveyed # of Responses University

51% 8705 4459 Total

54% 481 262 Santa Cruz

SLIDE 17

Everybody is Very Busy (UC Faculty, ages 30-50)

51.2 55.6 59.8 59.1 14.6 11.9 10.6 10.6 35.5 20.3 8.1 8.6

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Women with Children Men with Children Women without Children Men without Children

Total Hours per W eek Professional Housework Caregiving

N=338 701 248 505

SLIDE 18

The Baby Lag for UC Women Faculty in Pursuit of Tenure

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

• 2

t

• 1

8

• 1

8 t

• 1

6

• 1

6 t

• 1

4

• 1

4 t

• 1

2

• 1

2 t

• 1
• 1

t

• 8
• 8

t

• 6
• 6

t

• 4
• 4

t

• 2
• 2

t

• t
• 2

2 t

• 4

4 t

• 6

6 t

• 8

8 t

• 1

1 t

• 1

2 1 2 t

• 1

4 1 4 t

• 1

6 1 6 t

• 1

8 1 8 t

• 2

2

• r

m

• r

e

Years Before and After Assistant Professor Hire Date*

Percent of Faculty with New Biological Babies Entering the Household

Men Women

*Year 0 represents Assistant Professor Hire Date

Years Before Hire Date Years After Hire Date

Hire Date Hire Date N=2340 Men 982 Women

SLIDE 19

Biological Baby Births by Age of UC Faculty

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

<20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 40-42 42-44 44-46 46+

Age of UC Faculty

Percent of Faculty with a Biological Baby Birth

Men Women

N=2809 Men 1095 Women

SLIDE 20

Having Fewer Children Than They Wanted:

UC Faculty, Ages 40-60, by Gender and Number of Children

40% 24% 32% 64% 34% 20% 8% 13% 42% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All 3+ Children 2 Children 1 Child No Children

Percent who indicated "Yes," "I had fewer children than I wanted" Women Men

Men=424, Women=205 Men=239, Women=153 Men=514, Women=224 Men=236, Women=50 Men=1413, Women=632

SLIDE 21

Sloan Grant: Developing a Family Friendly Package for UC Ladder Rank Faculty

1. Fix existing family friendly policies: active service-modified duties, tenure clock extension. 2. Develop a flexible part-time option for ladder- rank faculty which can be used as life-course needs arise. 3. Increase family friendly resources: (a) child and infant care, day-to-day and emergency; (b) relocation assistance; (c) build necessary institutional mechanism to support policies. 4. Result—University of California will enjoy a competitive advantage in hiring and retaining the best and brightest faculty in the country, particularly women faculty.

Our Website: http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu