AAC&U Releases New Report on Women’s Status in Higher Education

In January 2009, the Association of American Colleges and Universities released A Measure of Equity: Women’s Progress in Higher Education, a monograph summarizing previously published data on gender equity in higher education. The report surveys women’s successes and continuing challenges at all points along the higher education pipeline, from high school completion through the college presidency.

The report was designed to make accessible in one place the research that has been collected and published by such entities as the American Council on Education (ACE), the American Association of University Professors, and the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. Like ACE’s last research brief on women’s status in 1995, A Measure of Equity aims to make available in a single document key statistics of interest to those concerned with gender equity in higher education.

In addition to highlighting essential statistical data, the report underscores areas of concern through short essays on pressing topics, referred to as “Hot Points.” These Hot Points emphasize the need for attention to several troubling trends: young men of color and socioeconomically disadvantaged students of both genders face significant barriers to educational success; women’s participation in certain fields, such as computer sciences and engineering, remains limited; women with children, as well as women in contingent faculty ranks, face barriers to advancement and are less likely to reach the highest rungs of positional leadership; and truly inclusive educational environments have yet to be realized.

The report identifies these Hot Points as pressing agenda items for the twenty-first century and concludes that although women have made many strides, much distance remains to be travelled. The report, written by Judy Touchton with Caryn McTighe Musil and Kathryn Peltier Campbell, is available for purchase at www.aacu.org.

New ACE Brief Asks: “Too Many Rungs on the Ladder?”

In September 2008, the American Council on Education (ACE) released an issue brief exploring the future of higher education leadership based on current faculty demographics. The brief identified several reasons for concern about the talent pool for future leadership at both four- and two-year colleges, particularly for men and women of color and white women. Highlights include:

• In 2006, 49 percent of all presidents were sixty-one or older—a significant increase since 1986, when 14 percent were in this age bracket. These presidents also have more experience, on average, than their predecessors. This suggests not only a pending wave of open positions in higher education leadership, but a longer path to leadership than had existed in the past.
• In contrast to the anticipated wave of retirements, the pool of faculty who are gaining the qualifications necessary to step into senior administrative positions is ominously small. At four-year institutions, only 3 percent of faculty are both aged thirty-four or younger and located in tenure-track positions—reflecting the growth of adjunct positions and the later age at which faculty receive doctorate degrees. At community colleges, only 3 percent of faculty are both thirty-four and younger and located in full-time positions, reflecting the tendency for community college professionals to begin their educational careers later in life.
• The talent pool for women and people of color is particularly limited. Only 5 percent of faculty at four-year institutions and 6 percent at community colleges are women aged forty-five and younger in permanent positions. Only 4 percent of faculty at four-year institutions and 6 percent at community colleges are people of color aged forty-five and younger in permanent positions.

The report suggests that given the limitations in the current model of leadership advancement, “higher education must find ways to bring more young people into the permanent faculty and advance them through the academic ranks more quickly, alter the career ladder so that people can skip rungs and rise to the presidency with fewer years of experience, or become more open to individuals from areas other than academic affairs.” To download the full report, written by Jacqueline E. King, visit www.acenet.edu.

Stanford Releases Brief on Dual-Career Academic Couples

In August 2008, Stanford University’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research released “Dual-Career Academic Couples: What Universities Need to Know,” a data-driven report intended to guide universities in optimizing their use of dual-couple hires. Noting that 36 percent of faculty members are part of an academic couple and that members of academic couples now constitute 13 percent of all hires, the report stresses the need for universities to be proactive in recruiting and supporting members of dual-career couples.

The report’s authors note that better dual-couple hiring practices will promote greater faculty diversity. Women constitute 52 percent of “first hires” and 74 percent of “second hires,” while 43 percent of faculty in same-sex partnerships and 31 percent of minority faculty have an academic partner. Thus dual-career hiring practices “may support institutional efforts to compete for the brightest talent across the widest spectrum” (5). In support of this and other goals, the report suggests a number of policy initiatives to help universities maximize the potential of dual-career hires, including developing a hiring protocol, coordinating hiring across the university, and raising the question of potential partner hires early in the hiring process.

The report was based on surveys at thirteen research universities and includes detailed data on level of hire, academic discipline, and partnering patterns. The full report, written by Londa Schiebinger, Andrea Davies Henderson, and Shannon K. Gilmartin, is available for download at www.stanford.edu/group/gender/ResearchPrograms/DualCareer/index.html.

Faculty Gender Equity Reports Indicate Progress, Ongoing Challenges

The University of Texas at Austin and Penn State University recently released reports on the status of women’s equity at their respective institutions. Both reports indicate progress and ongoing challenges for women faculty and staff.

The Penn State Report, issued by the university’s Commission for Women and intended to provide baseline data on women’s equity at the university, suggests progress in women’s representation among administrative, faculty, and staff employees between 1997 and 2007. However, women remain underrepresented in the upper levels of both administrative and faculty ranks. In 2007, only 18 percent of senior vice presidents were women (compared with 45 percent of campus chancellors). Similarly, only 18 percent of full professors were women (compared with 55 percent of instructors). The report also included information on staff salaries and the race and ethnicity of faculty by gender.

The University of Texas at Austin report, issued by the Gender Equity Task Force, found similar gaps in women’s representation, with women representing 19 percent of full professors and 39 percent of tenure-track professors. Women were found to have lower promotion rates and longer time to promotion than their male colleagues, and female professors earned an average of approximately $9,000 per year less than men. The committee found significant climate concerns for women and suggested issues about policy awareness and use (including some related to family-friendly policies). The report concluded with detailed recommendations to enhance gender equity at the university.

These snapshots of women’s status at two major universities are important pieces of the larger gender equity picture. To access the Penn State report, visit www.equity.psu.edu/cfw/docs/cfw_wm_report_07_08.pdf. To access the University of Texas report, visit www.utexas.edu/news/attach/2008/3133_Gender_Equity_Report.pdf.

New Study Links Gender Gap to Gender Role Orientation

A study published recently in the Journal of Applied Psychology suggests that wages are related not only to a person’s gender, but also to a person’s relative adherence to traditional beliefs about gender. The study also explored gender role orientation—defined as “attitudes toward the gendered separation of roles at work and at home”—in relation to a range of factors judged to be predictive of gender wage orientation. These factors included parental education levels, time spent living in a city, and religious orientation. Data was based on interviews conducted between 1979 and 2005 with participants in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.

Predictive Factors. Several factors were found to correlate with more egalitarian beliefs about men’s and women’s traditional roles, including gender, education, geography, and religion (women, more educated individuals, people living in cities, and those with less traditional religious outlooks all held more egalitarian views). An individual’s mother’s education did not affect gender role orientation, although those whose fathers had higher levels of education and whose mothers worked outside of the home had more egalitarian views.

Gender Role Orientation and Earnings. The study found that men with traditional gender role orientations tended to make significantly more money than men with more egalitarian views. For women, the opposite was true: women with more traditional views made slightly less than their more egalitarian counterparts. The authors hypothesize that “traditional men are rewarded in the workplace for seeking to preserve the social order” (1007).

While not directly applicable to academic careers, the study has broad implications in terms of educational outcomes and their effect on the outlook for gender equity. The paper, titled “Is the Gap More Than Gender? A Longitudinal Analysis of Gender, Gender Role Orientation, and Earnings” and written by Timothy A. Judge and Beth A. Livingston of the University of Florida, is available at www.apa.org/journals/releases/apl935994.pdf.