A Review and Study on Graduate Training and ... - ACS Publications

In the Classroom

A Review and Study on Graduate Training and Academic Hiring of Chemists Valerie J. Kuck* and Cecilia H. Marzabadi Center for Women’s Studies, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079; *[email protected] Janine P. Buckner and Susan A. Nolan Center for Women’s Studies, Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079

Since the 1970s there has been a steady increase in the percentage of doctorates in chemistry awarded to women, with women receiving one-third of the degrees in 2003 (1). However, this rise was not paralleled by a corresponding increase in the hiring of women by Ph.D.-granting institutions for tenured or tenure-track positions. In 1973, women held 3% of faculty positions at all Ph.D.-granting institutions, 4% in 1983, 8% in 1993, and 13% in 2000 (2, 3). At the top50 federally-funded schools change occurred more slowly, as women held only 10% of tenure-track positions in 2000 (4) and 13% in 2005 (5). Since these percentages reflect past hiring practices and years when the doctorate pool for women was small, a better judge of the hiring patterns of these institutions can be obtained by focusing on their most recent hires, the assistant professors. In 2005, at the top-50 federally funded chemistry departments, women held 21% of the assistant professor positions (5). In contrast to the under-representation of women on the faculties at the top-50 institutions, 42% of the assistant professors at bachelor degree-granting schools were women in 2000 (3). Many factors have contributed to the under-representation of women on research faculties. In this article we review the literature to identify experiences that may have contributed to the career choices of women. In addition, we identify the dissertation advisors who have had several of their graduate students go on to attain faculty positions at top-50 chemistry departments as ranked by the National Research Council (NRC-50) (6). Finally, we make recommendations as to how chemistry departments can improve graduate training, decrease the attrition rates for graduate students, and increase the number of women on their faculties. Background

Graduate School Training In 2003, we surveyed the 1988–1992 doctoral graduates from the top-10 NRC ranked chemistry departments (NRC-10). The goal of that effort was to elucidate differential patterns in female and male doctoral recipients’ perceptions of their training in order to understand why there were so few female faculty members at Research I universities, as defined in 1994 by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (institutions that offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, grant 50 or more doctoral degrees each year, place a high priority on research, and receive $40 million or more in federal support) (7). We found that both men and women felt that their graduate studies were deficient in training and career preparation, that they had poor-quality relawww.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

tionships with their advisors, and that the environment of their research laboratories was unsatisfactory. Comparing the responses of the participants by gender shows that women were more dissatisfied with their graduate experience, felt less included in their research groups, perceived that their relationships with their advisors were less satisfying, and that they had received less mentoring. Our findings are in agreement with those found by other researchers probing graduate school training. For example, in a survey of 32,600 graduate students and recent doctorates, female chemists were found to be less satisfied than the other respondents with the graduate program and the quality of the career guidance (8). Specifically, the women gave low marks to the breadth of the curriculum, the encouragement they received to broaden their education by taking courses outside the department and participating in workshops, the quantity of information that was offered on nonacademic careers, the support they got to explore a broad range of career options, the advice they received to improve their teaching skills, and the training they were given in professional ethics and professorial responsibilities. In another study, Golde and Dore surveyed over 4,200 doctoral students who were in their third year or later in graduate studies in eleven disciplines (9). In comparison to the other disciplines, students in chemistry expressed the lowest interest in pursuing a career in academe. Forty-one percent of the chemistry students reported that their interest in seeking a faculty career had declined after entering graduate school. Only 19.8% of the chemistry students indicated that they had a definite interest in pursuing an academic career and of that percentage only 34.2% had a preference for a position at a research university. Less than half of the students, 43.7%, believed that their training had prepared them to collaborate in interdisciplinary research. More than a third (34.6%) of the chemistry students felt that the length and quality of the time spent with their advisors was insufficient. Across all the disciplines, 55.5% of students reported participating in annual reviews where they received feedback from their advisors on their progress towards a degree, discussed their strengths and weaknesses, and set goals for the next year. Only 34.9% of the chemistry students reported participating in such annual reviews. Another area in which chemistry students reported deficiencies relates to the criteria for obtaining a doctorate. Only 24.4% of the chemists, far below the average of 45.4% for all disciplines, reported that they clearly understood the research goals they were expected to meet before attaining a degree. Forty-three percent of the chemistry graduate students, substantially below the

Vol. 84 No. 2 February 2007

•

Journal of Chemical Education

277

In the Classroom

59.4% found for all disciplines, reported that faculty members other than their advisors were available for mentoring. A number of researchers have examined reasons for the high attrition rates in graduate school, particularly that for women. Several studies found that GRE (Graduate Record Examination) scores and GPAs (grade point averages) were very poor predictors of Ph.D. attainment rates (10–14). Specific to chemistry, we found that the attrition rate for women was higher than that for men; however, there was a wide school-to-school variation, with the female students doing as well as the males in obtaining doctorates at some schools, while at others they did significantly poorer than the males (15). Others have found that on a proportional basis, fewer women than men leave graduate school for academic reasons (16). It appears that other factors are influencing the retention of women in graduate school. The socialization and rewarding of women to be collaborative, good consensus builders, distasteful of competition and non-aggressive (17) would have made them feel uncomfortable and out of place in graduate school. It was posited that the combative conversational styles and climate of individualism that prevail in academic scientific research pushes women to the sidelines (18). Additionally, the tendency of women to refrain from self-promotion could lead to the impression that they are not as dedicated to achieving career success as their male counterparts. Since graduate students in chemistry spend many hours in the laboratory, the environment fostered by members of a research group would affect retention. Women who are isolated would have difficulty in readily gaining knowledge in a number of critical areas, such as the latest findings in their subfield, ways for improving experimental techniques, resolution of instrumental problems, and proper data analysis. Coupled with being treated with little or no respect and the butt of cruel comments, it would be expected that many women would feel that graduate school is an overwhelming challenge. Lovitts has shown that the integration of students into a community is associated with lower attrition rates (10). While in graduate school, students face many challenges, not the least of which is maintaining self-confidence. Hobbs, Holland-Minkley, and Millet observed that women are conditioned to measure the value of their achievements by the quantity and nature of the feedback and attention they receive from others, whereas men are taught to require little support from others (19). These behaviors would make women more vulnerable to losing their self-confidence in situations where little praise is given, a common occurrence in graduate school (18). Other researchers reported that a loss in self-confidence negatively affected career plans and the determination to carry them out (16). In a recent study of graduate students in chemistry and biology, Ferreira reports that, in particular, the female chemistry students were the least comfortable in approaching other students for help (20). The female chemistry students noted that the males did not consider them to be serious scientists. Furthermore, the female students felt that their advisors had lower expectations for them than for the males in the group. Etkowitz, Kemelgor, and Uzzi found the isolation that women experienced in graduate school had led to a number of negative consequences, such as reducing women’s opportunity to compare experiences with others, or to seek help 278


•

without the fear of being judged as inadequate or lacking in intelligence, to receive affirmation of their evaluations of situations, to obtain advice on ways of addressing a problem, and to gain peer support and encouragement, as well as build a professional network (21). In group meetings, female students reported that often their remarks were barely recognized by other group members while the comments of their male peers were met with enthusiasm and support. Other studies reiterate this finding; that women are indeed “left out of informal networks” of communication (22).

Advisor–Student Relationships A dissertation advisor plays a significant role in a graduate student’s training and career opportunities. Difficulties encountered in this critical relationship can have an enormous impact on a student’s career and introduction into the scientific community. In addition to identifying the skills and techniques that must be mastered, faculty members influence a number of areas such as the way knowledge is acquired by students, methodology for approaching a problem, evaluating data, and establishing norms (23). When a breakdown in this critical relationship occurs, women often experience feelings of incompetence, along with self-blame, and a sense of isolation (21). In one recent study conducted at a large Research I institution, Kwong found that female graduate students not only had fewer interactions with their advisors than the male students, but also felt that the relationships were more distant and less satisfying (24). In general, both male and female students reported that their advisors seldom or never discussed career planning with them (53% of respondents), shared future research activities (45%), mentioned recent findings in their subdiscipline (39%), discussed the students’ academic progress (32%), or findings from their thesis research (23%). Similarly, Ferreira found that the female students were more likely than males to report that they were not given credit for their scientific contributions and were not included in professional activities (20). Kwong (24) and Fox (25) reported that women often felt that they had been overlooked, neglected, and unsupported by their professors. In still another study, Preston found many graduate students, especially women, felt that their advisors were indifferent or even antagonistic toward them (26). It appears that the female graduate student–advisor relationship, in particular, encounters a number of problems. Women related that their advisors discussed social issues with them and had discussions on scientific matters with the male students (20) and the faculty members viewed them as less promising scientists (16). Holmstrom and Holmstrom reported that 31% of the female graduate students thought that their professors did not take them seriously, which was higher than the 21% of the males who felt the same way (27). Hite found that in comparison to the female students, the male students thought that they received more support from their advisors (27). In another study, students having the same gender as their advisors were found to have closer professional relationships than students of the opposite sex (28). This latter finding renders these crucial student–advisor relationships more problematic for female graduate students than for the males owing to the relatively small number of female chemistry faculty members at most Research I institutions. In choosing an advisor with distinguished credentials, women were also


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom

at a disadvantage. Wong and Sanders reported that women with similar GPAs to those of men did not have equal access to join the research groups of prestigious professors (29). Most studies report that between 20% and 40% of female undergraduate and graduate students are sexually harassed (30); however, Schneider found that 60% of the graduate women had been the brunt of sexual joking and offensive comments about their bodies or sexuality and that these comments had been offered by male faculty members (31). Such behaviors would contribute to making women feel diminished and uncertain of the professor’s commitment to her scientific education. The paucity of female faculty members leaves female graduate students with a small number of role models. In 2005, at the NRC-50 schools, there were only ∼4 women兾33 faculty members in a given department (5). This lack of women on Research I faculties could have far ranging effects, as female students are more career-oriented and more selfconfident when there are role models (32). The gender of the student and the advisor appears to affect the relationship. Fox found that female advisors, in comparison to those that were male, placed greater emphasis on female protégés learning how to interact with faculty, as well as how to present seminars, publish articles, and participate in laboratory meetings (23). Etkowitz, Kemelgor, and Uzzi reported that a number of older female faculty members were disappointed with younger female students who wanted to discuss nonscientific matters (i.e., balancing a scientific career with family), which they thought was unprofessional (21). On the other hand, the female graduate students were critical of the senior female faculty members who were seen to have become very aggressive in order to succeed in the department. For these and other reasons, it is not surprising that Kwong found that the relationships between female students and female advisors often received the lowest ratings in comparison to the other student–advisor combinations (24). An explanation for the lower ratings given by female students with female advisors is that the students entered this relationship with high expectations (i.e., encounters with female advisors would be warmer and more supportive than with male advisors; ref 33) that were not met.

Career Choices A number of factors influence the career decisions of graduate students. Brennan reported that the number of women applying for faculty positions at Research I institutions, especially at the top ranked ones, was quite low (2). It was posited that the higher percentage of women at small or non-graduate type schools had resulted from women finding those faculty positions more attractive rather than their inability to obtain faculty positions at research institutions (2, 34). During their graduate training women can closely observe how the female faculty members are treated by other faculty members, staff, and students and the demands placed on them, both professionally and by family members. In exploring career options a number of the female students most likely would have had conversations with female faculty members on the positives and negatives of a career at a Research I institution. It would be expected that the students heard responses similar to those given by faculty women in a survey www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

of the 400 POWRE awardees (Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Engineering), a NSF initiative that operated from 1997 through 2000 (35). The POWRE awardees identified five major career challenges facing women in the mathematics and the physical sciences. Seventy-seven percent of the women found balancing work with family responsibilities, including taking care of children or elderly relatives, a barrier to their success. The other major problems were the “two-body” problem encountered in obtaining meaningful employment for both members of a domestic partnership (29%), gaining the credibility and respectability of peers and administrators (20%), managing the time demands of committee responsibilities with research and teaching (13%), and the low numbers of women on their faculties, which had led to a feeling of isolation, a lack of camaraderie, and few opportunities for mentoring (12%). In general, the female faculty felt that they had limited opportunities to participate in departmental or decision making processes, had heard their research trivialized and discounted by other faculty members, had received little guidance about departmental procedures, and were ill-informed about the tenure process. Upon learning of these issues, it would not be surprising if students paused to reconsider their decision to seek a faculty position at a Research I institution. Surveys of female faculty members further show the problems that women face in academe. Hollenshead reported that, in a survey of more than 1000 university faculty members, the female faculty members were more likely than were the males to feel that colleagues devalued their research, that they had fewer opportunities to participate in collaborative efforts, and that they were constantly being scrutinized (36). Similarly, Eagly, Makhijiani, and Klonsky found that men tended to devalue women’s contributions to an effort (37). In another study, exit interviews of faculty women who “voluntarily” left a large university indicated that one of the key reasons for their departure was the lack of respect that they had been given by their colleagues (38). Preston found that a majority of female professors perceived that they had not been respected or treated appropriately because of their gender (39). To increase the representation and advancement of women in academe in science and engineering careers, NSF initiated ADVANCE Institutional Transformation grants in 2001. Recipients of those grants have proposed a wide range of mechanisms for attracting, retaining, and advancing women at their schools (40). Those efforts include developing ways for increasing the percentage of women in the candidate pools, advising department chairs and search committees on gender-equitable hiring practices, and developing workshops to raise consciousness of gender discrimination and improve department collegiality. It is too early to determine the effectiveness of those efforts; however, it is hoped that the outcomes will be widely publicized. Currently, a large number of Research I institutions have prepared reports on gender equity and climate that can be viewed on the Web site of the National Academy (41). Present Study In order to identify the advisors who had trained the greatest number of faculty members, we ascertained the dis-


•


279

In the Classroom

sertation advisors of the 712 (590 men and 122 women) tenured and tenure-track faculty members in 2001 at the NRC50 chemistry departments who received a doctorate from a U.S. university and had been hired after 1978.

Resources The American Chemical Society’s online edition of the 2001 Directory of Graduate Research (DGR) (42) was used to identify the faculty members of the NRC-50 schools. Initially, we searched the University of Michigan’s Dissertation Abstracts online database (43) and Dissertation Abstracts on microfiche to ascertain the advisors of the faculty members. Unfortunately, less than forty percent could be identified from those resources. To obtain the remaining names of the advisors, we used several approaches. The University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign’s Chemical Genealogy Database (44) had information on some of the graduates from the top-10 NRC ranked departments. For the remainder of the advisors, we contacted members of the doctoral departments of the former students or the faculty members themselves. Ultimately, we were able to identify the advisors for all 712 tenured and tenure-track faculty members at the NRC-50 schools. In the few instances in which individuals listed two doctoral advisors, both professors were given credit for having trained that faculty member. Identification of Dissertation Advisors A fairly small group of professors was more successful than others in placing their former graduate students on NRC-50 faculties. Fifty-four advisors trained three or more future faculty members (Table 1); 87% (47兾54) of those professors were on a faculty of one of the top-10 departments that had trained the greatest number of future faculty members, a top-10 supplier (45). In considering professors with five or more former students holding faculty positions, ninety-one percent (21兾23) of the advisors had been on the faculty of a top-5 ranked supplier: UC Berkeley, Cal Tech, Harvard, Stanford, or MIT. Forty-six percent (25兾54) of the advisors did not have one former female student holding a NRC-50 faculty position. The strong preference by chemistry departments for students trained at a top-10 school is shown by the fact that only seven professors from all the remaining chemistry departments in the United States had trained more than two NRC-50 future faculty members. One professor trained far more future faculty members than any other. Yuan Lee, formerly of UC Berkeley, who later became the president of the Academia Sinica of the Republic of China in January of 1994, had 13 former students (11 men and 2 women) on NRC-50 faculties. The success of Lee’s students cannot be attributed solely to his having received a Nobel Prize. It should be noted that of the professors listed in the table Corey, Lipscomb, and Woodward had also received Nobel prizes. No professor trained more than two future female faculty members. The advisors with two former female students holding faculty positions are given in Table 2. Our research shows that female dissertation advisors had difficulty in having their former student obtain NRC-50 faculty positions. The female advisors with the most former students holding NRC-50 faculty positions were: Friend (Harvard), Ludwig 280


•

(previously at Michigan), Valentine (UCLA), and Stacy (UC Berkeley). The first three advisors each had trained 1 man and 1 woman who later became professors, whereas Stacy had 2 former male students on NRC-50 faculties. Discussion The perceived treatment of female graduate students and faculty members is of concern considering the age of many faculty members and the declining interest of male U.S. citizens to obtain a doctorate in chemistry. We have ascertained that approximately half of the 1,600 tenured and tenure-track faculty members at the top-50 ranked chemistry departments who are listed in the 2003 Directory of Graduate Research received their doctorate after 1981. Over a quarter of them received their doctoral degrees prior to 1970 and most likely will be considering retirement or significantly reducing their research efforts in the not too distant future. In filling those positions, departments will find it more difficult than in previous years to continue hiring males graduating from the preferred schools, the top-10 suppliers (46). Therefore, it is crucial for the field of chemistry to examine practices related to the graduate training of women and the hiring and retention of female faculty members. Although the percentage of doctorates in chemistry awarded to women has consistently risen over the past three decades, their proportion on faculties at Research I departments has not paralleled this growth. This low rate of hiring of women has occurred even though the pool of women obtaining doctorates from the “preferred” departments had become sizeable. Previously, we have shown that doctoral graduates from the University of California–Berkeley, California Institute of Technology, Harvard, Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cornell, Columbia, Wisconsin, the University of Chicago, and Yale had been preferentially hired by the top-50 chemistry departments (45). During the years 1990–1999, 788 women (25.6% of the doctorates) and 2,285 men were awarded doctorates in chemistry by the preferred departments according to the National Science Foundation (1). Using the 2001 Directory of Graduate Research (42), we determined that at the top-50 ranked chemistry departments there were 60 women and 262 men who had obtained their doctorate during the years 1990–1999. Of those women 35 (58.3%) had obtained their doctorate from one of the preferred schools, indicating that only 4.4% (35兾788) of the female graduates had obtained a tenure-track position at a top-50 ranked department. In comparison to the women, the male graduates from the preferred departments did better in obtaining faculty positions at the top-50 schools. Of the 262 male hires, 155 (59.2%) had graduated from a preferred department showing that 6.8% (155兾2,285) of those graduates had successfully attained a faculty position at a top50 institution. The low number of women hired by the top-50 departments coupled with the inability of advisors to train more than two female graduates who went on to a faculty position at a top-50 ranked department raises a number of questions. The degree to which the female graduate students were dissuaded from pursuing an academic research career by their perception of the difficulty that women had in balancing the demands of the position and family responsibilities, the competitiveness


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom Table 1. Dissertation Advisors Training the Greatest Number of NRC-50 Faculty Members Dissertation Advisor

Chemistry Research Area(s)

Current Institution

Yuan T. Lee

Physical

UC Berkeleya

Alexander Pines

Physical

UC Berkeley

Robert G. Bergman

Organic and inorganic

UC Berkeley

Barry Martin Trost

Organic synthesis

Stanford

Richard N. Zare

Physical and analytical

Stanford

John E. Bercaw

Inorganic and polymer

Cal Tech

Peter B. Dervan

Bioorganic and organic

Cal Tech

Harry B. Gray

Inorganic

Cal Tech

Robert Howard Grubbs

Organic and polymer

Cal Tech

Ronald Breslow

Organic

Columbia Stanford

James P. Collman

Inorganic and organic synthesis

David A. Evans

Organic synthesis

Harvard

Michael D. Fayer

Physical

Stanford

Stuart L. Schreiber

Chemical biology

Harvard

Samuel J. Danishefsky

Organic

Columbia

Charles B. Harris

Chemical physics

UC Berkeley

Richard H. Holm

Inorganic

Harvard

Stephen J. Lippard

Bioinorganic and inorganic

MIT

Peter G. Schultz

Biological

Scripps Res Inst

Herbert L. Strauss

Chemical physics and mat. science

UC Berkeley

Paul A. Wender

Medicinal and organic

Stanford

George M. Whitesides

Materials science and organic

Harvard

Mark S. Wrighton

Inorganic

Washington U

Richard A. Andersen

Inorganic

UC Berkeley

Steven G. Boxer

Biophysical and physical

Stanford

Sunney I. Chan

Biophysical

Cal Techb

Charles M. Lieber

Materials science and physical

Harvard

Kenneth H. Sauer

Physical

UC Berkeleya

Richard J. Saykally

Analytical and physical

UC Berkeley

Duward F. Shriver

Inorganic and materials science

Northwesterna

Robert B. Woodward

Organic

Harvardc UC Berkeley

Paul A. Bartlett

Organic

Jesse L. Beauchamp

Biochem. and chemical physics

Cal Tech

R. Graham Cooks

Analytical

Purdue

Elias J. Corey

Organic

Harvard

Francois N. Diederich

Organic

ETH, Zurich

Arthur B. Ellis

Inorganic

NSF

William A. Goddard III

Chemical physics and mat. science

Cal Tech

Martin Karplus

Biophysics and physical

Harvard

William A. Klemperer

Physical

Harvard

Fred Warren McLafferty

Analytical

Cornella

William N. Lipscomb

Biochem. and chemical physics

Harvarda

Koji Nakanishi

Bioorganic natural products

Columbia

Leo A. Paquette

Organic

Ohio State

Michell Joseph Sienko

Inorganic

Cornellc

Amos B. Smith III

Bioorganic and organic synthesis

Pennsylvania

Gabor A. Somorjai


UC Berkeley

Clark Still

Organic

Columbiab

Gilbert Stork

Organic synthesis

Columbiaa

Donald G. Truhlar

Physical and theoretical

Minnesota

K. Peter C. Vollhardt

Inorganic and organic

UC Berkeley

Daniel P. Weitekamp

Physical

Cal Tech

J. Michael White


Texas

Ahmed H. Zewail

Chemical physics and physical

Cal Tech

a

Emeritus.

b

Retired.

c

Graduate Students on NRC-50 Faculties Total 13 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Men 11 8 7 8 7 6 5 5 7 4 5 6 6 5 4 5 4 3 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3

Women 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Deceased.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•


•


281

In the Classroom Table 2. Dissertation Advisors Training Two Female Faculty Members Dissertation Advisor

Chemistry Research Area(s)

Paul A. Alivisatos

Materials science, physical

Current Institution UC Berkeley

Paul A. Bartlett

Organic

UC Berkeley

Ronald Breslow

Organic

Columbia

Peter B. Dervan

Bioorganic, organic

Cal Tech

Harry B. Gray

Inorganic

Cal Tech

Gordon G. Hammes

Biochemistry

Duke (School of Med.)

Yuan T. Lee

Physical

UC Berkeleya

Stephen J. Lippard

Bioinorganic, inorganic

MIT

Kenneth H. Sauer

Physical

UC Berkeleya

Peter G. Schultz

Biological

Scripps Res Inst

Michell Joseph Sienko

Inorganic

Cornellc

a

Emeritus.

b

Retired.

c

Deceased.

of the environment, and the treatment of women is not known. We recognize that if we had included postdoctoral advisors in this analysis, a number of names would have been added to the list of advisors who have positively affected the careers of women. However, the numbers speak clearly that in order to increase significantly the number of female faculty members a number of initiatives must be undertaken. All the predictions that raising the number of women receiving doctorates would result in the rapid change in the gender distribution of faculties at Research I institutions appears to have been a simplistic solution to the problem. The findings of other researchers and our own efforts show the existence of a number of barriers that women face in graduate school. The competitive environment makes many women feel isolated. Seeing their accomplishments devalued, having their ideas dismissed, being demeaned by their peers when they sought help, hearing sexist comments, and having their career aspirations taken lightly by their advisors certainly does not help their self-esteem. The paucity of female faculty members gives little encouragement to the students to consider teaching at a research institution as a career option. In contrast to the male graduate students who had a choice of advisors with a proven record of having students go on to academic positions at research institutions, women appear to not have had the same obvious selections. Recommendations We suggest that department chairs consider implementing a number of initiatives such as hold a series of meetings on issues dealing with graduate training and career opportunities, host informal gatherings for students to become better acquainted with faculty members, and present forums for students to ask questions and give feedback on their graduate school experience. Because of their small numbers in most research groups, there should be events especially held for female students that would allow them to hear talks on topics of special interest, attend lectures given by distin-

282


•

guished female scientists both from academe and industry, meet and socialize with other female students for networking, and have opportunities to present their research. A workshop might be presented by the department to improve communication between advisors and students. In addition, chairs are encouraged to identify an ombudsperson with whom the students can speak on a confidential basis and receive thoughtful advice. Since the selection of an advisor is so crucial, we encourage departments to urge students to consider a number of factors in addition to the advisor’s research area. For example, students should do a self-evaluation before making this selection to determine the kind of support and information they need from an advisor, the frequency and formality they want for those interactions, and the way they prefer to acquire new skills and techniques. Students also should ascertain the career paths of advisors’ previous students to determine if there is a good fit with their personal goals. Moreover, the students should observe the way members of a research group interact with each other and ascertain whether potential advisors have a reputation of being good mentors. Furthermore, department chairs should strongly encourage advisors to create in their research groups a supportive and respectful environment where harassment in any form is not tolerated. The advisors should consider holding both informal (i.e., brown bag lunches, picnics) and formal events (i.e., regularly scheduled group meetings and collaborative projects) that will increase collegiality and develop a sense of community. On an annual basis, students should receive in-depth appraisals of their progress, strengths, and weaknesses; advisors should address immediate research objectives and clearly communicate criteria for a doctorate. Women, as well as men, should be offered the opportunity to attend research conferences to meet other researchers in the field, have their achievements and contributions recognized in public, and have their ideas “heard” at research group meetings. In advising students on career choices, advisors should be careful to avoid societal stereotypes that limit women to supporting roles that offer little visibility and acclaim. The advocacy of the dissertation and postdoctoral advisors is crucial. Faculty members on search committees at other universities must be made aware of the skills and talents of female students. Students must be well prepared to present their research effectively and confidently. To increase the attractiveness of a faculty position at a Research I institution a number of changes will have to be made, including measures that allow faculty members to meet their family obligations without feeling marginalized. During those times when family responsibilities are at their zenith, women should have the opportunity to reduce their course loads and committee assignments and, if possible, be given nontraditional teaching assignments (e.g., online courses). Affordable, on-site day care centers should be made a university priority. There should be institutional support in helping spouses obtain appropriate employment. A cafeteria style benefit package should be offered that allows faculty to choose services that they need at a particular time (e.g., subsidization of child-care expenses, increased medical coverage). Some symposia or departmental meetings should


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom

be held at times convenient for faculty members with family responsibilities. Consideration should be given to holding regularly events such as departmental lunches. A feeling of inclusion and respect should permeate the department; comments to the contrary, especially those within hearing of students, should not be supported either by concurrence or apparent indifference. To attenuate the feelings of isolation felt by women, a number of actions are further suggested. A mentoring program should be established where mentors receive training and advisees are surveyed on the value of the advice that they received. The opinions of women should be sought on departmental practices and they should be appointed to influential committees. Women should have direct access to information on matters such as additional funding or resources, criteria for promotion, tenure policies, and space allocation. The efforts of female faculty serving on extra committees in order to meet gender diversity requirements should be recognized by tenure and promotion committees. Furthermore, the successful efforts of the recipients of the ADVANCE grants should be replicated. Additional ideas for assisting administrators in improving faculty interactions can be found on the AWIS (American Women in Science) Web site (47). Summary It appears it will take many decades before the percentage of women on faculties at the research universities mirrors that of the student population. To accelerate the process, chemistry departments need to take measures to improve graduate school training to make it more hospitable to women and to increase the attractiveness of careers at Research I institutions by addressing issues affecting the full acceptance of female faculty members as equal partners in the chemical enterprise. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the professors and administrative staff at many of the NRC-50 departments for supplying the names of dissertation advisors and to Anthony J. Ritacco, a recent graduate of Seton Hall University, who conducted the online and microfiche searches and made the initial contacts with the faculty members. We also thank the top-10 ranked chemistry departments and Purdue University for their participation in our survey of their doctoral graduates. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support for our survey that we received from the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences (SG02-072) and financial assistance from the Rohm & Haas Company. Literature Cited 1. NSF WebCASPAR. http://webcaspar.nsf.gov (accessed Aug 2006). 2. Brennan, Mairin B. Chem. Eng. News 1996, June 10, 8–15. 3. Women Chemists 2000: Analysis of the American Chemical Society’s Comprehensive 2000 Survey of the Salaries and Employment Status of Its Domestic Members; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2001; p 38. 4. Long, Janice R. Chem. Eng. News 2000, 78 (39), 56.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

5. Marasco, Corinne A. Chem. Eng. News 2005, 83 (44), 39. 6. The National Research Council. Research–Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1995; Table P-9; http:// books.nap.edu/html/researchdoc/appendix_p.html (accessed Aug 2006). 7. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers; Long, J. Scott, Ed.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2001; p 231. 8. National Association of Graduate–Professional Students. The 2000 National Doctoral Program Survey. http:// survey.nagps.org/compare.php (accessed Aug 2006). 9. (a) Golde, Chris M.; Dore, Timothy M. At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education. http://www.phd-survey.org/ (accessed Aug 2006). 10. Lovitts, Barbara E. Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, 2001. 11. The Path to the Ph.D: Measuring Graduate Attrition in the Sciences and Humanities; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996; p 31. 12. Lovitts, Barbara E.; Nelson, Cary. Academe 2000, 6, 44–50. http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2000/00nd/ ND00LOVI.HTM (accessed Aug 2006). 13. Siegel, Lewis. Ph.D. Completion at Duke University: Some Interventions and their Initial Effects, 2005. http://www. phdcompletion.org/news/stw05_siegel.ppt (accessed Aug 2006) 14. Smallwood, Scott. Chronicle Higher Educ. 2004, 50 (19), A10. 15. Kuck, Valerie J. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79 (47), 71–73. 16. Conefrey, Theresa. Women Minorities Sci. Eng. 2000, 6, 251. 17. Pfirman, Stephanie; Balsam, Peter. Women, Work and the Academy—Women and Interdisciplinary Science: Promise and Peril. http://www.barnard.edu/bcrw/womenandwork/pfirman. htm (accessed Aug 2006). 18. Trower, Cathy Ann. Women Without Tenure, Part 3: Why They Leave. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/ previous_issues/articles/1470/women_without_tenure_part_3_ why_they_leave/ (accessed Aug 2006). 19. Hobbs, Susanne V.; Holland-Minkley, Amanda M.; Millet, Lynette I. A Case for Building Inclusive Research Communities as an Integral Part of Science and Engineering Graduate Education. http://www.cs.cornell.edu (accessed Aug 2006). 20. Ferreira, Maria M. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25 (8), 969–898. 21. Etkowitz, Henry; Kemelgor, Carol; Uzzi, Brian. Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2000. 22. Kerlin, Scott P. Educ. Policy Anal. Archives 1995, 3 (16). http:/ /epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n16.html (accessed Aug 2006). 23. Fox, Mary F. Gender, Faculty and Doctoral Education in Science and Engineering. In Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities; Hornig, L. S., Ed.; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, 2003; p 91. 24. Kwong, Rica Lai-King. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1991. 25. Fox, Mary F. Gender, Faculty and Doctoral Education in Science and Engineering. In Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities; Hornig, L. S., Ed.; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, 2003; p 91. 26. Preston, Anne E. Leaving Science; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, 2004; p 101.


•


283

In the Classroom 27. Schroeder, Debra S.; Mynatt, Clifford R. J. Higher Educ. 1993, 64 (5), 555. 28. Berg, Helen M.; Berber, Marianne A. J. Higher Educ. 1983, 54 (6), 645. 29. Wong, Henry Y.; Sanders, Jimy M. Socio. Perspect. 1983, 26 (1), 29–50. 30. Kelley, Michelle L.; Parsons, Beth. J. Higher Educ. 2000, 71 (5), 549. 31. Schneider, Beth E. J. Higher Educ. 1987, 58 (1), 51. 32. Fox, Mary F. Women and Higher Education: Sex Differentials in the Status of Students. In Women: A Feminist Perspective; Freeman, J., Ed.; Mayfield Publishing: Palo Alto, CA, 1984; pp 240–247. 33. Bennett, S. K. J. Educ. Psych. 1982, 74 (2), 170–179. 34. Schneider, Allison. Chronicle of Higher Educ. 2000, 46 (50), A12. 35. Rosser, Sue V. The Science Glass Ceiling; Routledge: New York, 2004. 36. Astin, Helen S.; Sax, Linda J. Developing Scientific Talent in Undergraduate Women. In The Equity Equation: Fostering the Advancement of Women in the Sciences, Mathematics and Engineering; Davis, Cinda-Sue, Ginorio, Angela B., Hollenshead, Barbara B., Rayman, Paula M., Eds.; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco 1996; p 219. 37. Chliwniak, Luba. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 25, No. 4; ERIC Clearinghouse: Washingston, DC, 1997; ED 410 847.

284


•

38. Wenzel, Stacy A.; Hollenshead, Carole. ERIC Document Service, Washington, DC, 1998; ED 465 327. 39. Preston, Anne E. Leaving Science; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, 2004; p 139. 40. National Science Foundation. ADVANCE—Institutional Transformation Awardee Web sites. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/ advance/itwebsites.jsp (accessed Aug 2006). 41. The National Academy of Sciences. Gender Differences in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cwse/gender_faculty_ links.html (accessed Aug 2006). 42. ACS Directory of Graduate Research. http://www.chemistry.org (accessed Aug 2006). 43. UMI’s ProQuest Digital Dissertation Database. http:// www.umi.com/dissertations (accessed Aug 2006). 44. University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign’s Chemical Genealogy Database. http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mainzv/Web_ Genealogy (accessed Aug 2006). 45. Kuck, Valerie J.; Marzabadi, Cecilia H.; Nolan, Susan A.; Buckner, Janine P. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 356–363. 46. Kuck, Valerie J. Chem. Eng. News 2004, 82 (38), 64–65. 47. Association for Women in Sciences. Academic Climate— Addressing the Climate for Women in Academia. http:// academicclimate.org (accessed Aug 2006).


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

A Review and Study on Graduate Training and ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents