What was said:

1. Gender Equity in Higher Education: What the President of Harvard Doesn’t Know…OR How Molehills Become Mountains of Inequity

2. “Hey! Did you hear we’re all getting weekly deliveries of flowers from President Summers for the next 20 years?”

3. What was said: • "The high-powered job hypothesis" -- women don't like the "80-hour work-weeks" that Summers said were necessary for top-flight science. • "The different availability of aptitude at the high end" -- in other words, small differences in average math or science aptitude translate into a large disparity at the intellectual level needed to do world-class science. • "Different socialization and patterns of discrimination" -- girls and young women are guided away from science and engineering, and those who do enter the field suffer discrimination while trying to advance their careers.

4. What could he have said? • Many other provocative – or useful - statements could have been made such as…

5. Women obtain more than 50% of the degrees and make up more than 50% of the employees in higher education – so why don’t we have 50% of the: (fill in the blank)____________?

6. Although women have made significant strides on campus there continues to be a gender gap related to: pay, status, security, etc…Why?

7. Why are Women Overrepresented in… • Non tenure track positions? • Biology only STEM discipline? • Support/clerical staff? • Part time positions? • Low and mid tier administration?

8. And… • Why don’t we see more gender equity throughout the academy? • Why haven’t women made more progress? • What factors contribute to progress and what are the barriers to gender equity? • What is it about our institutions that allows inequities to persist?

9. What can we do to ensure talented women are recruited, retained, and succeed in higher education? • How to create change at academic institutions? • What would help expand academic career options? • How can we “fix” institutions versus “fixing” women?

10. What exactly happens on that long and winding road we take to school then work?

11. What fields of study are women selecting?

12. Women As a Percentage of Doctoral and Professional Degree Recipients in the US, 1966-2000 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, "IPEDS Completions Survey," taken from WebCaspar (IPEDS includes Doctorate Records File Data).

13. Fields of study by women earning PhDs

14. National Science Foundation Reports from the ADVANCE Program: Demographics: • More women majoring in S&E • More women earning S&E doctorates But • <20% women faculty at 4-year schools • Many fewer at highest ranks (all fields)

15. Doctoral Scientists and Engineers Employed in Universities and 4-Year Colleges – 2001 by Gender and Academic Rank NOTE: Totals include Adjunct Faculty, Other Faculty, and Does not Apply positions, not shown separately on this chart

16. National Science Foundation Reports from the ADVANCE Program: • Loss of highly trained talent • Diminished intellectual diversity • Few women role models • Chilly climate for women • Little influence of women on institutional/departmental decisions • Fewer women pursuing S&E careers

17. Career course for women in academia: We need much more information • What happens to women in the pipeline? • Where do the women go? And Why? • What are the “choices”?

18. Leaks in the Pipeline to Tenure* PhD Receipt Entering a Tenure Track Position Achieving Tenure Women PhDs Water Level Women PhDs Water Level Women with Babies (29% less likely than women without babies to enter a tenure-track position) Women (23% less likely than men to become an Associate Prof - 25% less likely than men to become a Full Professor within a maximum of 16 years) Women, Married (20% less likely than single women to enter tenure-track) *Results are based on Survival Analysis of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (a national biennial longitudinal data set funded by the National Science Foundation and others, 1979 to 1995). The analysis takes into account disciplinary, 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.

19. PhDs from 1978-1984 Who Are Working in Academia 12 to 14 Years Out from PhD Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients. Sciences, 1979-1999. Mary Ann Mason & Marc Goulden

20. Leaks in the Pipeline: PhD to Tenure Track Position 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.

21. Leaks in the Pipeline: Tenure Track to Tenure 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.

22. Manifestations of disadvantage:Small differences can compound over time, creating major impact on career progression and satisfaction ( and by extension, potentially affecting retention). • Resource and space distribution • Salaries • Teaching assignments • Time in rank • Participation in departmental decision making

23. 2004 UW System Staff (FTE)

24. UWS Trend in Non Tenure Academic Staff and Tenure Track Faculty Positions

25. What do these numbers tell us about the experiences of people seeking academic careers? • “Tired of being permanently temporary” • “One size does not fit all when it comes to pursuing tenure” • “Not enough real choices and not enough transparency re: decisions” • “Family-friendly policies are one thing - but we need to be able to track what happens – are we jeopardizing people’s careers? Do W/L programs make a difference? Do they reinforce gender bias?” • “Sick of being the budget shock absorbers”

26. How do we change this picture of academic life???

27. Barriers to change identified by UWS Sloan Project sites: • Rankism • Decentralized decision making • Not experienced w/ change, have not had to change, do not want to change • Academic leaders not skilled “managers” • Training is a dirty word • Inadequate preparation for leadership jobs • Competition b/w and varying perceptions of needs • Not enough support for women’s work and lives

28. Specifically, how do we change the all or none nature of academiccareers? • Career path options: Jobs = flexibility, careers = not so much • What is done to support the work of the growing numbers of non tenure track staff? • How are resources divided to support everyone’s work?

29. Specific to tenured and tenure track faculty • Part-time appointment, both pre- and post-tenure; • Penalty-free tenure-clock adjustments; • Better between teaching research and service responsibilities; • Well defined and clearly articulated tenure criteria and review process; and • Enter/exit/re-enter options throughout career. • MORE FLEXIBILTY in pursuing career

30. Specific to non tenure instructional staff • Appointment status and review commensurate with responsibilities • Integration into department/unit/school • Workload/assignments/clarification of job description and expectations • Regular review of appointment length, title, responsibilities, contract and continuity status • Promotion and/or conversion to tenure track for those who qualify • MORE FLEXIBILITY IN DEFINING CAREER

31. Flexibility = Give faculty and staff more control over their time

32. Flexibility = Change the all or none approach to careers in higher education

33. Flexibility = Create more equity, fairness, and support for all faculty and staff members throughout their academic careers by distributing resources more evenly.

34. What we have learned?

35. WE HAVE LEARNED: UW System Sloan Project for Academic Career Advancement • Flexibility must be achieved through simultaneous changes in structure and culture • Flexibility must be positioned as a means to an institutional end: excellence • Flexibility must be embraced by the top, but driven by chairs, and pursued without fear by faculty • Flexibility must be made available at all stages of career

36. STAGE APPROPRIATE MODELS FOR FLEXIBLE CAREERS • Temporary Part Time (including mobility between part time and full time) • Delayed entry • On and off ramps, through leaves • Extended time to tenure • Fellowships following life events deleterious to work performance • Phased retirement • Support for caregivers (childcare, lactation rooms, work/life programming)

37. HOW TO ACHIEVE FLEXIBLE CAREERS? • Improve existing policies and practices re: flexibility • Create new career flexibility policies • Increase utilization so it becomes the norm • Change norms and culture so that use is transparent, automatic, and equitable • Educate and convert chairs and deans • Calculate costs and benefits • Craft imaginative workforce plans yoking phased retirement to part time in early and mid career.

38. Actions identified by UW System Sloan Project campus pilot sites: • Orientation for faculty and staff • Department chair preparation • Consistent implementation of policies • Technology applications for info share • Need more face-to-face time • Inclusion, transparency re: decisions

39. To create more equity in academic career paths we need: • Models - there is a lack of real life examples for constructive and affordable institutional change. • Strategies - for change must be connected to the realities of people’s work and lives. • Action Research – needs to be integrated w/ policies and practice. • Leadership – must be involved and prepared to incorporate ideas and discoveries; to translate into budgetary realities. • People with time, money, and support to get the job done – not ad hoc or as an add on.

40. How to bring about these changes? Academic leaders need to be educated and supported to create organizations that are responsive and flexible. THESE ARE NOT JUST WOMEN’S ISSUES! These are issues of organizational effectiveness and making optimal use of our available resources.

41. How to bring about these changes? DIALOGUE not just talk We are all in this together. We need to create more opportunities for dialogue, meaningful discussion of the issues, to share ideas for what would make things better for everyone, and what will get support.

42. Include everyone who should to be involved. • Determine who is accountable. • Establish rewards and incentives. • Know how you will gauge success. • Carry the message forward to the people who have the authority to make changes – set priorities – allocate resources. • LEADERSHIP, LEADERSHIP, LEADERSHIP

43. Be Informed… • Men and women apply the same bias to men and women," so simply putting more women on search committees won't ensure equal treatment for women in university hiring (Jo Handelsman) • Bias avoidance (The Mapping Project:Bob Drago) • Bias against caregiving • Joan Williams & New glass ceiling • Bias avoidance • Productive BA • Unproductive BA • Gender – first women & now kids?

44. Stereotype Threat • Women's performance suffers when they believe they are being compared to men. Knowing Is Half the Battle: Teaching Stereotype Threat as a Means of Improving Women's Math Performance, Michael Johns, Toni Schmader, and Andy Marten, Psychological Science, V. 16, #3, 2005.

45. Virginia Valian: Why So Slow? • “Mountains *are* molehills, piled one on top of the other. Success comes from parlaying smaller gains into bigger gains. If you don't get the smaller gains that your performance merits, if you don't get credit for your ideas, it will take you longer to obtain larger gains."

46. Title IX: Not just about athletics • No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance • If Federal funds are accepted, women (and men) must be treated equitably.

47. There are many other ways we should be applying Title IX – Lets figure out how - NOW! • Imagine if we could see the similar gains in academics as we have seen with athletics. • Lets think creatively and work together to fix those “leaks in the pipeline.”

48. Resources • UW System Women’s Issues: www.uwsa.edu – go Academic Affairs menu and scroll (Status of Women Initiative; Women’s Studies Consortium; Women and Science; Women’s Studies Librarian) • UW-Madison Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute: wiseli.engr.wisc.edu (Check for more information re: events on April 9 and 14, 2005

49. Resources continued • Virginia Valian's webcasts: http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/psych/faculty/valian/valian.htm#webcasts • A talk by Deborah Rolison about using Title IX to address inequities for women in Science & Engineering: http://www.barnard.edu/bcrw/womenandwork/rolison.htm and http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0503/050312.cfm • A webpage for press related to GAO report on Title IX compliance: http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu/faculty/djn/diversity/GAO_Press_Release/22Jul04GAOreport.html • To get on Rolison's listserv (she sends messages related to Title IX about once a month) email her directly to get on the list: rolison@nrl.navy.mil