And I used to think Title IX was all about sports

Back when I was in high school Title IX came along just in time for us to get our nascent lacrosse team bumped up from a club to a varsity sport. The new law also prompted one student, Jeff G. to join the women’s soft-ball team, claiming it worked both ways. Though our suburban school wasn’t known for great performances in sports (well, unless you count tennis) the softball team went to state finals that year. I’m all for fairness – but I wonder if Jeff G. has kids and if he does if he’s sharing equally in childcare and house work these days?

Title IX wasn’t just about sports, although apparently it was never really enforced in other aspects like academics or fields other than the green and grassy ones, like Science.

John Tierney explores this topic in his article, A New Frontier for Title IX: Science, published in today’s New York Times.

According to Tierney, “The members of Congress and women’s groups who have pushed for science to be “Title Nined” say there is evidence that women face discrimination in certain sciences, but the quality of that evidence is disputed. Critics say there is far better research showing that on average, women’s interest in some fields isn’t the same as men’s.”

No kidding? Although this is just a single sample, I’ve got a good college friend who’s an engineer working for a large military contractor who admits, she just doesn’t get a charge out of blowing things up like the guys do (but at this point after so many years invested, changing jobs just isn’t feasible with two kids in college.) Yes I know, there are likey plenty of women engineers out there who might feel otherwise.

But seriously, there is plenty of evidence as discussed in Motherhood the Elephant and elsewhere that at least in some sciences women now represent 50% or more of all graduate students.

Yet, as Tierney points out,

“They remain a minority in the physical sciences and engineering. Even though their annual share of doctorates in physics has tripled in recent decades, it’s less than 20 percent. Only 10 percent of physics faculty members are women, a ratio that helped prompt an investigation in 2005 by the American Institute of Physics into the possibility of bias.

But the institute found that women with physics degrees go on to doctorates, teaching jobs and tenure at the same rate that men do.”

Later in the article he refers to work by Susan Pinker, whose suggests that the disparity isn’t necessarily a question of opportunity but choice,

“Ms. Pinker says that universities and employers should do a better job helping women combine family responsibilities with careers in fields like physics. But she also points out that female physicists are a distinct minority even in Western European countries that offer day care and generous benefits to women.

“Creating equal opportunities for women does not mean that they’ll choose what men choose in equal numbers,” Ms. Pinker says. “The freedom to act on one’s preferences can create a more exaggerated gender split in some fields.””

Interestingly the greatest single field responding to the initial call for essays for Motherhood were physicists, so many that I feared if they all wrote, the book would be too slanted toward that one field!

It’d be interesting to hear their thoughts on Tierney’s article.

Brain drains and alternatives and women – oh my!

As many may know by now there’s a new report out, The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering and Technology, published as a Harvard Business Review research report. While I couldn’t get very far without shelling out $295, there are lots of snippets online. If you go to the Bean Chronicles , where I first found reference to the report you can click on a longer ABC article about the report, which found that:

“Even in the face of a worsening worldwide labor shortage of qualified professionals in the SET fields, 52% of our best and brightest female scientists, engineers and technologists are bailing on hard-earned careers and not looking back — precisely when they should be hitting their professional strides.”

With funding by several major corporations, the report then goes on to discuss details on programs designed to retain women scientists through

“several innovative corporate “antibody” initiatives being instituted by Alcoa, Pfizer and other private sector companies who are looking to reduce and reverse the costly “female brain drain” head on.”

What I tried to find, and couldn’t was where those women went – while there was some reference to men who also leave but who tend to “stay in the sciences” – there are some suggestions that women do not. Yet – without access to the full report it’s hard to tell what boundaries were set. Did “sticking with it” mean setting up the equivalent of a full-time 60-hr intense path – or did it include those who strike out into very different realms, like teaching – perhaps at Community colleges or high school? Or writing? Or part-time? I’d love to know (so if you’ve got access to the full report please let us know!)  Either way – it seems a primary goal of the report is to stanch the flow – or exodus – by providing details on corporate success stories.

Along these lines, the Bean Chronicles also directed me to another great blog, The Alternative Scientist, check it out.  Below is an excerpt from Alternative’s discussion on her own title (I chose this because the topic of wording came up at a recent Motherhood panel.  While I used Alternative to collectively describe the many different career paths described in some of the Motherhood essays – some felt there is a negative connotation to the word. )

“Is there resentment at having my career be labelled “alternative”? The word “alternative” does not bother me. In my experience, the people who are most likely to be bitter and resentful about that word are those who are in alternative positions because they tried and failed on the tenure track. As far as I am concerned, “alternative” is a convenient catch-all term for what I view to be choices that do not receive equal and fair coverage in discussions about career options among academics.

Of course, it would be better if there were no “traditional” or “alternative” career paths…just different career paths. But I think quibbling about semantics is a low-yield and impractical activity. For example, we could call this blog “The Everything-But-Academic-Tenure-Track Scientist” or “The Differently-Traditional Scientist” or all sorts of other names that do not include the word “alternative”. I don’t believe that that would change the minds of those who think that people with alternative careers are failures. A much more effective way of changing academic culture with regard to career options is to promote open discussion and to encourage people to make career choices based on what they want to do rather than what they think they are expected to do. And that is precisely what I hope this blog will accomplish.” – From http://alternative-scientist.blogspot.com/.

Alternative is definitely a site to keep track of, thanks Bean!

Topic of the Week: Ask for what you want, you’re worth it

One theme that came up several times throughout the book and in a recent comment (again by Andrea Kalfoglou) is that women need to ask for what they want. As an independent worker for years – I’ve got less experience with this one. The only two times I did ask – it was for long-shots. The first time, I asked for part-time while applying for a job described not only as full time but as 50-hrs of full-time.  But – just asking that question prompted the employer to consider moving the job to an office closer to my home. The other was while applying for a faculty job – although I’d been warned to get the interview and then negotiate if offered the job – I knew I couldn’t in all honesty apply for a full-time position when I knew my goal was part-time.

But, as several contributors suggest, when you ask for something reasonable the response is often reasonable.  One contributor to Motherhood negotiated four days a week in the lab/office and one at home. Another asked for, and got longer maternity leave.

Writes Andrea (elsewhere on this blog)

“Draw your line in the sand and stick to your guns. Ask for what you want whether it’s three months maternity leave, better pay, or part-time employment. I was able to get all three simply by asking. When I asked four mentors about negotiating for more pay, the two women told me “don’t rock the boat.” Guess what the men said? “You always negotiate!” You’re probably worth it.”

So, don’t be shy, speak up.

Topic of the week: Daycare, daycare, daycare

STILL?? Isn’t this beating an old topic to death? Day care seems to be the issue that just won’t go away AND it’s really one of the primary concerns for many mothers (and fathers) who wish to maintain part-time or full-time work.

Personally and naively I’d never thought much about it in advance. But once our son was born – it became a necessity. While my husband was there to pick up blocks of time, as the self-designated part-timer, if I was to maintain any sort of science going (at the time I was basically working independent of any one institution, part-time, with colleagues running field and laboratory studies) I needed day-care. And I needed a day-care where I felt comfortable leaving my then six-month old – so that I could concentrate on the day’s work.

Beginning with the industrial-sized Long Island day care – where Sam was consistently sick – to the local family day cares we found once moving to rural Western MA (one of which I not so affectionately referred to as the Militia Day-Care, after finding a large pile of guns-and-ammo boxes set out curbside on recycling day) it quickly became a matter-of-fact that there just weren’t satisfactory options, although there were options we could live with, at least for a while.

While I recognize that for those of us on our own, day-care really is ours to figure out. But, for those working at large institutions, particularly government institutions, it seems that the situation ought to be much better. Unfortunately, and as many readers know, this isn’t the case at all. In some cases its worse (without all the home day-care options, and with tighter working hours.)

Below is an excerpt from a comment left on this blog by Andrea Kalfoglou one of the contributors to Motherhood:

“Adequate daycare is essential. In my chapter in the book, I discuss how stunned I was to find out that there was a 2 year waiting list for children to attend the NIH onsite daycare — and the largest facility wasn’t even onsite, but was 3 miles north in Rockville. There are currently 1100 children on the waiting list. What is NIH’s alternative? A list of local centers that you can visit and evaluate yourself. When I was doing my postdoc at NIH three years ago, that’s exactly what I had to do. All of the centers I visited in the Bethesda area that had openings were substandard. I’m not fussing about a lack of the latest educational toys. They smelled like urine, they had infants trying to sleep in the same room with 10 rowdy 4 yr olds (the daycare provider’s “solution” was to cover the faces of the infants with blankets!) They had broken playground equipment on postage stamp sized yards, and women who all spoke different languages. I’m all for raising bilingual kids, but you have to be able to actually talk to your child’s teacher to find out how his day went. And, it would seem that it would be a difficult work environment if you couldn’t even speak with your coworkers. I eventually found a decent center, not through the referral center at NIH, but through the NIH parent’s list serve — an essential resource for any parent working for NIH.”

Success is how you define it…

“Success is how you define it,” is easier to write than to practice. I know. I’ve been struggling with this for years, and it’s a topic that came up several times during the Motherhood panels. Too often our gauge of success involves external validation – particularly for us working on our own, or without ties to any one particular job or institution – we wonder “what do they think of my work?” or we’re concerned that others might think our choice of a nontraditional career route meant we failed to make it along the traditional route. Additionally we often forget to include our lives in the “success” equation.

Below is a comment recently left on the post about the AAAS Panel, by Suzanne Epstein, immunologist, mother of two, musician and one of the contributors, writing about success:

“A happy and successful life, as a scientist-mother or in general, does not correlate with fame, fortune, prestige, or any other particular circumstance. People in quite varied situations that are not at all what they expected can end up quite happy and fulfilled. On the other hand, people who do exactly what they planned and expected, and are very successful, can end up happy or very unhappy. Depends on their attitudes, whether the plan really suited their natures, other events, and so on. Being an optimist helps.

I guess that’s small comfort to a young scientist who doesn’t know what will happen and is fearful. There is no shortcut, and many people go through painful experiences, even if things work out fine later. This is true for the other difficulties and transitions of life. But the improvements in scientific career conditions and institutional features we talked about might help. Also, maybe people could really learn to skip the apologizing and guilt, and just get on with it.”

Thanks for the reminder Suzanne.

Science, a powerful contraceptive?!

I wouldn’t suggest taking on a science career as a contraceptive (besides – there are at least 34 of us who can attest that it doesn’t work), but it was nice to see a review of Motherhood the Elephant in the recent issue of New Scientist Magazine:

“WOMEN trying to squeeze a career and family duties into one 24-hour day will gain much affirmation from this collection of essays. The writers, who all balance science careers and motherhood, provide a fascinating insight into a world too often kept hidden. For those without children it should come with a health warning: the juggling and compromises these women have learned to live with may add up to a sobering reality check for those who still think they can have it all. For some it may prove a powerful contraceptive.”

From issue 2659 of New Scientist magazine, 04 June 2008, page 49

Jezebel discusses women in science

For those interested, there’s a blog post on Jezebel Why are there so few women scientists? The post reviews an article by Sylvia Ann Hewlett author of a longer report, that’ll be available next month.

It’s a popular item with over 5,000 views (in two days!) and 200 interesting comments (no I didn’t read them all, but I did scan some.) In case you don’t make it to the site (or the comments,) I posted the following, which quotes Hewlett on the impact that family care may have on a career, and some potential solutions:

“Thank you for this post. As a toxicologist, mother of two kids and editor of the recently published Motherhood the Elephant in the Laboratory: women scientists speak out, I would suggest while some women do drop from science – many do not – but seek alternative careers. And while many make significant contributions to science in these different roles – they are not always “counted,” or worse, they are considered science drop-outs. Further, as discussed in a recent Motherhood the Elephant panel at Cornell University, employers would do well to consider creative ways to retain or attract this talented, educated pool of workers.

As Hewlett writes in her Financial Times article,
“Because women still bear the brunt of childcare and the care of elderly relatives, few are able to sustain these pressures. The cumulative result: women find themselves shunted to the sidelines into roles as executors or helpers, while men continue to occupy the more celebrated creator and producer roles.
So what to do? This research allows companies to pinpoint the “fight-or-flight” moment. Women experience a breaking point in their mid to late 30s because they hit career hurdles and encounter family pressures at the same time. Stepping in with targeted support before this happens could lower the female attrition rate significantly. Here are five ways employers can help women scientists and engineers stay on track in their careers….”

Motherhood, The Elephant Panel at Cornell University

For those of you in the Ithaca area, Cornell University is hosting an afternoon discussion devoted to Motherhood the Elephant on May 9. Participants will include a combination of contributors and Cornell faculty – see specifics below.

I hope you can join us!

Time: 12-5PM

Contributors: Joan Baizer, Emily Monosson, Gina Wesley-Hunt, Marilyn Merritt

Faculty: Shelley Correll, Melissa Thomas-Hunt, Lisa Fortier, Margaret Frey, and Barbara Knuth.

Co-Sponsored by: Cornell University Store, CUAdvance, and Cornell University Press

Women discuss the Elephant on Planetary Science Blog

I’m happy to see that in response to this project, some discussion about balancing science and kids has started!! For more, check out the discussion thread “Our Stories” on the Women in Planetary Science blog.

AAAS 2008: Aiming Higher: The How and Why of Advancing Women in Agricultural Sciences

AAAS: Friday February 15:

Aiming Higher: The How and Why of Advancing Women in Agricultural Sciences :

Organized by: Marla S. McIntosh, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Agricultural science is vital to our global economy and fundamental to the sustainability of the world. It also requires a highly educated and diverse workforce. However, agricultural science, relative to biological science, has a disproportionately low number of doctorates awarded to women, and women agricultural scientists are a distinct minority, especially in high-ranking or leadership positions. Although numerous reports and editorials have recently addressed issues related to women in science, this symposium adds a new and important dimension to this debate by critically assessing the effect of factors unique to agriculture on women’s careers and develops effective actions to improve gender diversity. Its intention is to present various perspectives and engage debate regarding agricultural science and the costs and benefits of advancing women, the unique factors influencing the retention and promotion of women, and proposed actions to increase gender diversity, fix leaks in the pipeline, and improve future agriculture to benefit the quality of life of people across the globe.

Moderator–Marla S. McIntosh, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Perspectives on Women in Agricultural and Biological Sciences–Mary Clutter, National Science Foundation (retired), Washington, DC

Perspectives on the Role of Professional Societies in Advancing Women in Sciences–Ronald Phillips, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Perspectives on Women Faculty in Colleges of Agriculture–Neal Van Alfen, University of California, Davis, CA

Perspectives on Women Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture–Phyllis Johnson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD

Perspectives on Women in Global Agricultural Corporations–Catherine Woteki, Mars Inc., McLean, VA

Perspectives on Global Leadership of Women in Agricultural Research–Vicki Wilde, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Rome, Italy

Discussant–Carolyn Brooks, Association of Research Directors, Princess Anne, MD

Session Type: 180-Minute Symposium
Number: 180-001
Title: Aiming Higher: The How and Why of Advancing Women in Agricultural Sciences
Session Start/End Time: Friday, Feb 15, 2008, 8:30 AM -11:30 AM
Hotel: Sheraton Boston, Second Floor
Room: Constitution B