WOMEN IN STEM - University of Cincinnati › ... › docs › StatusOfSTEMWomen2015FINAL.pdfWOMEN IN...

WOMEN IN STEM:A 25-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE

THE STATUS OF

UCLEAFLeadership, Empowerment and

Advancement for Women Faculty

Funded through a grant from the National Science Foundation’s ADVANCE

Institutional Transformation Program3110 Edwards I

uc.edu/orgs/UCLEAF@UCLEAFAdvance

Please cite as follows: Howe, S., Hardcastle, V.G., and Donovan, J. (2015). The Status of Women in STEM at UC. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for Women STEM Faculty (LEAF).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2

Terms .................................................................................................................................. 3

Overview ............................................................................................................................ 4

Challenges Facing Women and URM Faculty ..................................................................... 5

Declining Emphasis on STEM ........................................................................................... 5

Decreasing Percentage of Women Faculty in STEM ........................................................ 6

Percentage of STEM Women Faculty Varies by College .................................................. 7

Small Numbers of URM Faculty ....................................................................................... 8

Variable Promotion Rates .............................................................................................. 11

Time to Promotion is Longer for Women and URM Faculty ......................................... 14

Female Assistant Professors Leave UC at Higher Rates ................................................. 16

Positive Trends for STEM Faculty ..................................................................................... 21

No Difference in STEM Faculty Salaries ......................................................................... 21

No Difference in STEM Faculty Space Allocation ........................................................... 21

Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A Table 1 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Profile .................... 23

Appendix B Table 2 – Medical and West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Profile ............ 24

Appendix C Table 3 – Medical and West Campus Faculty Ethnic Profile ................... 25

Appendix D Table 4 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Ethnic Profile ......... 26

Appendix E Table 5 – Medical and West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Ethnic Profile .. 27

Appendix F Table 6 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Departures ............. 28

INTRODUCTION

In 1981, UC’s Institute for Policy Research published The Status of Women at the University of Cincinnati1 on behalf of the President’s Advisory Council on Women’s Issues. It detailed the major challenges facing women on campus at the time. Sexism, sexual harassment and racial discrimination topped the list, with 30% of all female employees experiencing some level of harassment and 57% of African-‐American employees experiencing discrimination. A 1990 follow-‐up study2 revealed progress. A smaller portion of women reported sexual discrimination (9%) and fewer African-‐American employees (22%) reported being discriminated against. Furthermore, 65% of main campus faculty were Very Satisfied or Somewhat Satisfied with UC, with no significant differences across gender, race, or ethnicity. However, climate-‐related concerns persist. A 2014 study of STEM faculty3 revealed that 4% of STEM women still experience some type of sexual harassment, and 43% do not believe sexual harassment is taken seriously on campus. STEM women faculty, as well as underrepresented STEM faculty of all genders, reported more workplace incivility and felt less supported overall. The study also found that STEM women faculty, when compared to their male counterparts, teach more undergraduate courses, are asked to serve on or chair fewer RPT committees, serve on more search committees, and hold fewer leadership positions on campus. While progress has clearly been made in eliminating the most overt types of discrimination and inequities at UC among its faculty, there is still room for improvement, particularly among the STEM disciplines. The University of Cincinnati has been committed to increasing diversity for decades. Recent strategic plans (UC2019 and UC|21) re-‐emphasized the importance of increasing the diversity of the faculty in order to facilitate constructive change. UC’s Diversity Plan 2011-‐2016 is more explicit, promising to diversify the faculty, create a supportive work environment, and hold the institution accountable for evaluating and assessing all diversity goals. How have we done? This report analyzes the status of women in STEM on UC’s main campus over the past 25 years and offers analysis of trends not previously examined, including time to promotion and rates of departure. By understanding where we have been, where we are now, and why, we can perhaps learn how to promote the success of all faculty at UC more effectively. UC LEAF LEAF is a university initiative funded by a National Science Foundation (NSF)’s ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Grant. The goal of NSF’s ADVANCE program is to develop systemic approaches to increasing the representation and advancement of women in academic STEM careers. UC LEAF’s mission is to ensure the university provides an environment that promotes the advancement of women and underrepresented minority faculty in the STEM disciplines on UC’s main campus.

1 Howe, S. and Tuchfarber, A. (1981). The Status of Women at the University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, OH: Institute for Policy Research. 2 Howe, S. and Tuchfarber, A. (1991). The 1990 Quality of Work Life Study. Cincinnati, OH: Institute for Policy Research. 3 Woodruff, S. B., Morio, K. L., Li, Y., & Bleikamp, G. M. (2014). Evaluation of Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati, Year 2 Report 2013-‐2014. Oxford, OH: Miami University, Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education.

TERMS

STEM Faculty This report includes data on all faculty represented by the AAUP in NSF-‐defined STEM departments. These include faculty in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences (A&S), Business (COB), Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS), and Medicine (COM). Data covering other faculty are also occasionally provided for comparison. A&S STEM units include: Anthropology, Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Communication, Geography, Geology, Mathematical Sciences, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology. COB STEM units include Economics and OBAIS (and all of its previous names). CEAS STEM units include all departments in the college. COM STEM units include: Cancer Biology; Environmental Health; Molecular and Cellular Physiology; Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry, and Microbiology; and Pharmacology and Cell Biophysics. In this report, Economics is treated as if it has been in COB since 1989, though it previously was in A&S; Computer Science is treated as if it has been in CEAS since 1989, though it too used to be in A&S; and Organization Leadership is treated as if it has always been in Psychology, though it used to be an independent center and before that was embedded in Economics. Faculty currently in any of these units but who were originally hired in University College and the College of Applied Science have been excluded from this analysis. Underrepresented Minority Faculty For the purpose of this report, “underrepresented minority (URM)” faculty refers to faculty who identify as African-‐American, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, or Native American. Although Asian and Asian-‐Americans are a statistical minority in the larger community, for a variety of complex reasons, Asian or Asian-‐American faculty are not underrepresented in the target STEM disciplines. We shall use “minority” faculty to refer to faculty who identify as Asian, Asian-‐American, African-‐American, Hispanic, Latino/Latina, or Native American, and “URM” to refer to African-‐American, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, or Native American faculty. We recognize that these distinctions are crude.

OVERVIEW

UC main campus currently employs 1,623 full-‐time represented faculty, of whom 43.4% are women. Despite the intention to establish a more diverse faculty, UC has had limited success. Currently, women faculty remain substantially underrepresented in STEM in Arts & Sciences (34.7%), Business (20%), Engineering & Applied Science (10.5%), and Medicine (26.3%). The numbers for minority faculty are still below reasonable targets, constituting only 21% of all faculty, despite nearly doubling in number over the past 25 years (142 in 1990, representing 11% of all faculty, to 345 in 2015). The most significant findings of this report include:

Over the past 25 years, there has been an 11% decrease in the number of represented STEM faculty overall.

The change in percentage for represented faculty in STEM departments who are women has been +12%, though individual colleges have had varied results, ranging from a low of +5% to a high of +16%.

However, the proportion of underrepresented minority faculty remains critically low. URM faculty comprise only 7% of the total represented faculty on main campus (a percentage change of +4% since 1990), and only 5% of STEM faculty (a percentage change of +3%). The percentage of URM female faculty is slightly higher at 9% of all represented female faculty (a percentage change of +4%) and 8% of all STEM women (a percentage change of +3%).

Female assistant STEM professors are promoted to associate at lower rates than their male counterparts. This is not true of non-‐STEM female and male faculty. Women who are URM faculty are promoted at greater rates than men, but male Asian or Asian-‐American faculty are promoted at greater rates than Asian or Asian-‐American women.

Time to promotion from assistant to associate professor is faster for STEM men than for non-‐STEM men, STEM women, or non-‐STEM women. Time to promotion is longest for STEM women.

Female assistant professors, especially those in STEM, are leaving the university at higher rates now than they were 20 years ago and at greater rates than their rates of employment. In contrast, retention does not appear to be an issue with minority faculty.

While female faculty continue to experience a negative campus climate, including incidents of sexual harassment, incivility, and feeling overall less support than their male counterparts, there is no evidence of salary disparities or inequitable space allocations based on gender or race/ethnicity.

CHALLENGES FACING WOMEN AND URM STEM FACULTY

Declining Emphasis on STEM While the total number of represented faculty has steadily increased over the past 25 years, from 1,309 in 1990 to 1,623 in 2015, the rate of increase for STEM hiring has not kept pace with the other departments.4 Indeed, the total number of STEM faculty at UC has decreased by 5%, from 627 to 598, while the number of non-‐STEM faculty has increased by 67%, from 682 to 1,025. Only 37% of represented faculty on main campus are appointed to a STEM department today, compared to 48% in 1990.

4 All references to the Bargaining Unit and its composition assume current definitions. In other words, clinical faculty in Medicine who were dropped from the Bargaining Unit several years ago are not included in analyses for earlier periods.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Number of Faculty

Non-‐STEM faculty

STEM faculty

Decreasing Percentage of Women Faculty in STEM UC has nearly doubled the number of represented women faculty on main campus over the past 25 years (from 362 to 705), but the women in non-‐STEM departments continue to significantly outnumber the women in STEM departments. STEM female faculty comprised 25% of all female faculty in 1990, but only 22% in 2015. However, it is important to note that STEM women are disproportionately less likely than men to be on the tenure track (71.2% versus 82.4% in 2015) although this discrepancy has improved slightly since 1990. Non-‐STEM women are also less likely than men to be in tenure track positions but for non-‐STEM women the gender discrepancy has worsened since 1990.

Because many of the faculty in COM are not in the bargaining unit, we also examined the gender representation in the full-‐time clinical faculty in COM. Unfortunately, we do not have employment data extending back 25 years. But currently, COM has 838 full-‐time clinical faculty, of whom 272 or 32% are women. We can compare COM with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center (CCHMC), which has 714 clinical faculty, of whom 319 or 45% are women.

-‐

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Number of Women Faculty

Non-‐STEM women

STEM women

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Men Women Men Women

1990 2015

Tenure-‐Track vs. Non Tenure-‐Track STEM Faculty

Non Tenure-‐Track

Tenure-‐Track/Tenured

Percentage of STEM Women Faculty Varies by College Between 1990 and 2015, the percentage of tenure-‐track and tenured STEM women faculty did increase by 11% on main campus, but colleges differed in rates of improvement. A&S increased the number of women STEM faculty from 39 to 90, bringing the percentage of women in STEM from 16% to 35%. COB increased the number of women STEM faculty from two to seven, bringing the percentage of women in STEM from 5% to 20%. In CEAS, the number of women STEM faculty rose from six to 15, bringing the percentage of women in STEM from 4% to 11%. In COM, the total number of STEM faculty has decreased since 1990, from 201 to 171. As a result, even though the college only increased the number women STEM faculty by one, from 44 to 45, the percentage of women in STEM rose from 22% to 26%. Importantly, as seen in the figure below, the increases across the colleges are not due solely to increases in the number of women faculty off the tenure track.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Women as a Percentage of STEM Faculty (Tenure-‐Track/Tenured Faculty Only)

A&S

COM

Total

COB

CEAS

Small Numbers of URM Faculty The percentage of African-‐American, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and Native American faculty remains extremely low, especially in STEM and clinical departments. In particular, the percentage of URM faculty at UC, both campus-‐wide and in the STEM disciplines, has remained virtually unchanged over the past 25 years. (UC has one Native American STEM faculty member on main campus.)

The increase in represented Asian or Asian-‐American faculty on UC’s main campus is probably indicative of more than one thing, including UC’s commitment to globalization and its improved research profile, as well as its commitment to diversity. However, there still remains a significant, though closing, gender disparity. While the number of Asian and Asian-‐American faculty increased 126% from 99 to 224 from 1990 to 2015, the percentage of those faculty who were women moved from 12% to only 32%. This contrasts with the changes in African-‐American and Hispanic/Latina faculty (the URM faculty). The number of African-‐American faculty also rose 126%, from 37 to 70, over the past 25 years, but the percentage of those faculty who were women grew from 46% to 53%. And the number of Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty grew from six to 51, while the percentage of Hispanic/Latina women faculty increased from 17% to 49%.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Percentage of Minority Faculty

Asian

African-‐American

Hispanic

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Percentage of Minority STEM Faculty

Asian

African-‐American

Hispanic

Comparable patterns emerge in the STEM departments. The number of Asian or Asian-‐American STEM faculty increased from 78 to 145 from 1990 to 2015, and the percentage of those faculty who were women moved from 8% to 21%. Similarly, the number of Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty grew from two to 15, and the percentage of Hispanic/Latina women faculty increased from 0% to 33%. This contrasts with the changes in African-‐American faculty. The number of African-‐American faculty rose from 9 to 15 over the past 25 years, but the percentage of those faculty who were women only moved from 56% to 53%, albeit with a significant dip between 2000 and 2005.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Percentage of Minority Faculty Who Are Women

Asian

African American

Hispanic

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Percentage of Minority STEM Faculty Who Are Women

Asian

African American

Hispanic

We do not have historical data regarding the diversity of non-‐bargaining unit faculty in COM or CCHMC. However, in 2015, COM had 130 Asian or Asian-‐American faculty, 34% of whom were women; 27 African-‐American faculty, 33% of whom were women; 23 Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty, 52% were women. CCHMC had 85 Asian or Asian-‐American faculty, 32% of whom were women; 19 African-‐American faculty, 68% of whom were women; 13 Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty, 38% of whom were women.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Asian African-‐American Hispanic

Percentage of Minority Faculty

COM

CCHMC

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Asian African-‐American Hispanic

Percentage of Minority Faculty Who Are Women

COM

CCHMC

Variable Promotion Rates There are large differences in the promotion rates of faculty at UC, by gender, race/ethnicity, and across disciplinary areas. Between 1990-‐2002, female assistant professors in STEM fields on west campus were promoted at rates slightly greater than those of male (68% versus 62%). However, this outcome reversed between 2003-‐2015. Promotion rates of female assistant professors in STEM on west campus now lag far behind those of males (50% versus 74%). The opposite effect is observed in promotion to full in STEM. Men used to be promoted at greater rates than women (56% versus 31%), but now women are promoted at significantly greater rates than men (70% versus 48%). In contrast, both male and female non-‐STEM assistant professors on west campus have experienced a decline in promotion rates, though they are now closer to parity than they were in 1990-‐2002. Promotion rates to full for non-‐STEM men have remained stable across time, while non-‐STEM women have seen a substantial increase; non-‐STEM women are now promoted at much greater rates to full than men (51% versus 42%).

STEM women in COM have seen great declines in their promotion rates. Between 1990-‐2002, women at both assistant and associate professor ranks were promoted at rates much higher than men (77% of

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

West Campus STEM Faculty Promo�on from

Assistant to Associate

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

West Campus STEM Faculty Promo�on from Associate to Full

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Promo�on

From Assistant to Associate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Promo�on

Associate to Full

women versus 44% of men were promoted to associate professor and 55% women versus 48% of men were promoted to full). Today, male assistant professors are promoted at rates more than double that of female assistant professors and male associate professors at more than triple that of female associate professors. Only 25% of women who were assistant professors and 18% of women who were associate professors were promoted in the past 12 years, compared to 56% of male assistant professors and 58% of male associate professors.

In the colleges of Nursing, Pharmacy, and Allied Health, assistant professors for both genders have experienced a decline in promotion rates. Similar to west campus non-‐STEM faculty, they are now closer to gender parity than in 1990-‐2002. Female associate professors are now promoted at a slightly greater rate than male.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

College of Medicine STEM Faculty Promo�on from


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

College of Medicine STEM Faculty Promo�on from Associate to Full

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

Nursing, Pharmacy, and Allied Health Sciences Faculty

Promo�on from Assistant to Associate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

Nursing, Pharmacy, and Allied Health Sciences Faculty

Promo�on from Associate to Full

Promotion rates for west and medical campus Asian/Asian-‐American faculty vary by rank and gender. Due to small numbers, we have combined the STEM and non-‐STEM faculty into one measure. Male assistant professors saw a slight increase in promotion rates while male associate professors saw a slight decrease. Conversely, female assistant professors saw a significant decrease in promotion rates and are now promoted less frequently than men (47% versus 61%). Female associate professors saw a noteworthy increase in promotion rates and are now promoted at a greater rate than men (53% versus 45%).

Promotion rates for URM male assistant and associate professors decreased over the past 25 years while they increased for URM female assistant and associate professors. Due to small numbers, we have combined the STEM and non-‐STEM faculty into one measure. Between 1990-‐2002, male URM assistant professors were promoted at greater rates than female URM assistant professors; however, URM female assistant professors are now promoted at greater rates than URM male (53% versus 42%). The reversal in promotion rate appears just as dramatic at the associate level; it too now strongly favors women (50% versus 39%). (It is important to keep in mind, however, that the small total number of URM faculty influences the percentage variability.)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

Asian/Asian-‐American Faculty Promo�on From


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

Asian/Asian-‐American Faculty Promo�on From Associate to Full

0%

20%

40%

60%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

URM Faculty Promo�on From Assistant to Associate

0%

20%

40%

60%

Men Women Men Women

1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015

URM Faculty Promo�on From Associate to Full

Time to Promotion is Longer for Women and URM Faculty Time to promotion to associate and tenure on main campus is faster for STEM men than non-‐STEM men, STEM women, and non-‐STEM women. Time to promotion is longest for STEM women. (Note that because only 43% of female assistant professors in STEM were promoted to associate by the 8th year after hire, this means that fully 57% of the STEM women either left UC or were denied tenure. Though this will be the subject of a future report, preliminary data indicate that female assistant professors in STEM leave UC at roughly three times the rate that male assistant professors in STEM.)

While time to promotion for Asian or Asian-‐American STEM men and non-‐STEM men and women are close to parity, we see relative delays for Asian or Asian-‐American STEM women. In particular, Asian or Asian-‐American STEM women do not seem to receive early tenure and promotion decisions, while other Asian or Asian-‐American faculty do.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Faculty

Promoted

Years Since Hire

Time to Promo�on: Assistant Professors

STEM men

Non-‐STEM Men

Non-‐STEM Women

STEM Women

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Faculty

Promoted

Years Since Hire

Asian STEM Men

Asian Non-‐STEM Men

Asian Non-‐STEM Women

Asian STEM Women

Time to Promotion: Asian/Asian-‐American Assistant Professors

Similarly for URM assistant professors: URM STEM women do not appear to receive early tenure and promotion, while URM non-‐STEM men appear to quite regularly.

Rates of promotion to full start out roughly comparable for male and female STEM and non-‐STEM faculty, though ultimately more men in STEM are promoted to full than women in STEM. One important difference is that STEM women effectively stop being promoted after 11 years in the associate rank, while STEM men, as well as non-‐STEM men and women, continue to be promoted until year 13.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Faculty

Promoted

Years Since Hire

Time to Promo�on: URM Assistant Professors

URM STEM Men

URM Non-‐STEM Men

URM Non-‐STEM Women

URM STEM Women

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Faculty

Promoted

Years Since Hire

Time to Promo�on: Associate Professors

STEM men

Non-‐STEM Women

Non-‐STEM Men

STEM Women

Similar patterns emerge when examining minority faculty, though rates for promotion to full lag at five years for URM men, relative to URM women and Asian or Asian-‐American men or women. In addition, URM women effectively stop being promoted after a decade as associate, while Asian or Asian-‐American women and URM men stop after 11 years and Asian or Asian-‐American men continue to receive promotions for 13 years. Due to small numbers, we have combined the STEM and non-‐STEM minority faculty into one measure.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Faculty

Promoted

Years Since Hire

Time to Promo�on: Asian/Asian-‐American and URM Associate Professors

Asian Women

Asian Men

URM Women

URM Men

Female Assistant Professors Leave UC at Higher Rates For the past 20 years, the percentage of both male and female faculty leaving UC has been roughly the same as the total percentage of both male and female faculty, respectively. For example, between 2010 and 2014, 42% of all represented faculty were women, and, of the faculty who left UC, 43% were women. Under perfectly equitable conditions, these percentages should equal one another.

However, even though the percentages of women faculty departing overall matched the percentage employed at UC, once we look more closely at the data, a more complex story appears. Since 2005, assistant professor women have been leaving UC at a higher rate than their employment. Over the past ten years, women have left at a rate 10% greater than their employment rate. The opposite trend occurs with male assistant professors.

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1990-‐ 1994

1995-‐ 1999

2000-‐ 2004

2005-‐ 2009

2010-‐ 2014

Percen

t of F

aculty

Faculty A�ri�on Rates

Men

A�ri�on in Men

Women

A�ri�on in Women

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1990-‐ 1994

1995-‐ 1999

2000-‐ 2004

2005-‐ 2009

2010-‐ 2014

Percen

t of F

aculty

Faculty A�ri�on Rates: Assistant Professors

Women


Men

A�ri�on in Men

Though associate and full professor women used to leave at higher rates, the differences between percentage employed and percentage departing for these two groups are now virtually the same. Similarly, though associate and full professor men used to leave at lower rates, the differences between percentage employed and percentage departing for these two groups are now virtually identical.

These trends become exaggerated if we restrict our category to STEM women who are assistant professors. By 2010-‐2014, only 34% of the STEM faculty were women, but 56% of the STEM faculty who departed UC were women.

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1990-‐ 1994

1995-‐ 1999

2000-‐ 2004

2005-‐ 2009

2010-‐ 2014

Percen

t of F

aculty

Faculty A�ri�on Rates: Associate and Full Professors

Men

A�ri�on in Men

Women


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1990-‐ 1994

1995-‐ 1999

2000-‐ 2004

2005-‐ 2009

2010-‐ 2014

PErcen

t of F

aculty

STEM Assistant Professor Faculty A�ri�on Rates

Assistant Women


In contrast, the percentage of Asian or Asian-‐American faculty who leave UC is comparable to the percentage of faculty at UC who identify as Asian or Asian American, both for men and women. In 2010-‐2014, 14% of represented faculty were Asian or Asian-‐American, and 12% of those who left were Asian or Asian-‐American. In 2010, they comprised 9% of all female faculty, and 7% of female faculty who left UC.

Currently, URM faculty also leave UC at parity. By 2015, URM faculty comprised 7% of represented faculty, and 7% of all faculty departures were URM.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1990-‐ 1994

1995-‐ 1999

2000-‐ 2004

2005-‐ 2009

2010-‐ 2014

Percen

t of F

aculty

Asian/Asian-‐American Faculty A�ri�on Rates

Men

A�ri�on in Men

Women


2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

1990-‐ 1994

1995-‐ 1999

2000-‐ 2004

2005-‐ 2009

2010-‐ 2014

Percen

t of F

aculty

URM Faculty A�ri�on Rates

URM Faculty

A�ri�on in URM Faculty

We find similar rates when looking at men and women URM faculty separately.

The recent gender disparity in retention for assistant professors on the tenure track in STEM units results from two different issues. Some STEM women have been recruited away by other schools. Some STEM women have failed to earn promotion and tenure. But while these appear to be so very different that it would be important to study gender discrepancies separately for these two kinds of attrition, both point to the same solutions: UC has to do better at recruiting good female candidates, ensuring that they have every opportunity to succeed, and making UC the kind of place where great women STEM scientists want to stay.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

1990-‐ 1994

1995-‐ 1999

2000-‐ 2004

2005-‐ 2009

2010-‐ 2014

Percen

t of F

aculty

URM Faculty A�ri�on Rates

Women


Men

A�ri�on in Men

POSITIVE TRENDS

No Difference in STEM Faculty Salaries The 1990 Quality of Work Life Study highlighted major challenges facing women faculty, including salary inequity. The study found that female faculty were less satisfied with merit pay than male. They found both the size and the distribution of the merit pay pool problematic. Quantitative analyses of salary and raises were not performed for this report, however. The 2014 LEAF external evaluation report found STEM women’s attitudes toward salary had improved: Salary inequity is no longer among major concerns reported by women and URM faculty. Importantly, there are no significant differences in salary for STEM faculty by gender, race/ethnicity, after controlling for title, years in rank, college, and years of prior experience. No Difference in STEM Faculty Space Allocation Faculty satisfaction with space has also improved over time. The Status of Women at the University of Cincinnati 1981 report found that while there were no significant differences in satisfaction with quantity and quality of lab space based on gender, there were significant differences based on rank and race. Assistant professors and African-‐American faculty in particular were more dissatisfied than other faculty. By 2014, however, there were no statistically significant differences in lab space allocation by gender or race/ethnicity, after controlling for title, college, years in rank, and years of prior experience. Over half of the women in STEM indicated they were Satisfied or Very Satisfied with their research/lab space.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Table 1 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Profile

Appendix B Table 2 – Medical and West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Profile

Appendix C Table 3 – Medical and West Campus Faculty Ethnic Profile

Appendix D Table 4 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Ethnic Profile

Appendix E Table 5 – Medical and West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Ethnic Profile

Appendix F Table 6 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Departures

Appendix A Table 1 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Profile

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Total 627 617 616 643 658 598

Men Men Total 536 513 504 499 499 442 Not Tenure Track 60 57 53 67 86 78 Tenured/Tenured Track 476 456 451 432 413 364

Assistant 106 62 57 64 56 47 Associate 121 135 125 105 107 107

Full 249 259 269 263 250 210

Women Women Total 91 104 112 144 159 156 Not Tenure Track 24 31 39 46 52 45 Tenured/Tenured Track 67 73 73 98 107 111


Full 16 22 26 33 41 36

% Women Women Total 14.5 16.9 18.2 22.4 24.2 26.1Not Tenure Track 28.6 35.2 42.4 40.7 37.7 36.6Tenured/Tenured Track 12.3 13.8 13.9 18.5 20.6 23.4

Assistant 16.5 21.5 18.6 32.6 34.1 47.2Associate 19.9 20.1 21.4 24.5 25.7 23.6

Full 6.0 7.8 8.8 11.1 14.1 14.6

Appendix B Table 2 – Medical and West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Profile

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Total 682 676 740 838 900 1,025

Men Men Total 411 394 396 415 404 476 Not Tenure Track 11 8 18 33 54 81 Tenured/Tenured Track 400 386 378 382 350 395


Full 161 170 164 171 152 145

Women Women Total 271 282 344 423 496 549 Not Tenure Track 26 27 53 88 143 170 Tenured/Tenured Track 245 255 291 335 353 379


Full 39 67 88 92 108 97

% Women Women Total 39.7 41.7 46.5 50.5 55.1 53.6Not Tenure Track 70.3 77.1 74.6 72.7 72.6 67.7Tenured/Tenured Track 38.0 39.8 43.5 46.7 50.2 49.0

Assistant 54.0 60.4 57.0 61.3 59.2 49.2Associate 39.7 38.8 42.0 47.5 52.1 56.3

Full 19.5 28.3 34.9 35.0 41.5 40.1

Appendix C

Table 3 – Medical and West Campus Faculty Ethnic Profile

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Asian N 99 110 153 185 211 224% of All Faculty 7.6 8.5 11.3 12.5 13.5 13.8Men N 87 99 131 142 155 152

% of All Men 9.2 10.9 14.6 15.5 17.2 16.6Not Tenure Track 15 11 17 20 27 19Tenured/Tenured Track 72 88 114 122 128 133

Assistant 21 21 27 27 27 31Associate 19 28 37 33 36 37Full 32 39 50 62 65 65

Women N 12 11 22 43 56 72% of All Women 3.3 2.8 4.8 7.6 8.5 10.2Not Tenure Track 2 3 6 11 11 12Tenured/Tenured Track 10 8 16 32 45 60


N 37 51 48 58 56 70% of All Faculty 2.8 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.6 4.3Men N 20 25 23 31 27 33





Hispanic N 6 8 14 30 46 51% of All Faculty 0.5 0.6 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1Men N 5 6 7 18 20 26





African American

Appendix D Table 4 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Ethnic Profile

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
















African American

Appendix E Table 5 – Medical and West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty Ethnic Profile

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
















African American

Appendix F Table 6 – Medical and West Campus STEM Faculty Departures

1990$1994

1995$1999

2000$2004

2005$2009

2010$2014

Total 135.............. 149.............. 191.............. 220.............. 236..............

Men Men.Total 109.............. 123.............. 161.............. 159.............. 171..............Not.Tenure.Track 29................ 35................ 33................ 53................ 56................Tenured/Tenured.Track 80................ 88................ 128.............. 106.............. 115..............

Assistant 26................ 14................ 31................ 16................ 8..................Associate 19................ 14................ 24................ 18................ 15................Full 35................ 60................ 73................ 72................ 92................

Women Women.Total 26................ 26................ 30................ 61................ 65................Not.Tenure.Track 12................ 8.................. 11................ 28................ 30................Tenured/Tenured.Track 14................ 18................ 19................ 33................ 35................

Assistant 6.................. 5.................. 6.................. 13................ 10................Associate 5.................. 8.................. 7.................. 12................ 8..................Full 3.................. 5.................. 6.................. 8.................. 17................

%.Women Women.Total 19.3 17.4 15.7 27.7 27.5Not.Tenure.Track 29.3 18.6 25.0 34.6 34.9Tenured/Tenured.Track 14.9 17.0 12.9 23.7 23.3

Assistant 18.8 26.3 16.2 44.8 55.6Associate 20.8 36.4 22.6 40.0 34.8Full 7.9 7.7 7.6 10.0 15.6

WOMEN IN STEM - University of Cincinnati › ... › docs › StatusOfSTEMWomen2015FINAL.pdfWOMEN IN...

Documents

Transcript of WOMEN IN STEM - University of Cincinnati › ... › docs › StatusOfSTEMWomen2015FINAL.pdfWOMEN IN...