I completely agree with Ricardo Duchesne that the growing representation of women in undergraduate studies, now 58.1 per cent of total enrollment, is to be celebrated. And I also agree that we should be concerned about the scholarly achievement of young men. From secondary school onwards evidence is mounting that in many disciplines young women outperform men.
Where Duchesne and I differ is in our interpretation of the trends. While women are well represented in many undergraduate fields, the picture changes when you examine their participation in graduate studies and even more for their representation among academic staff. Here we find that as seniority increases the number of women falls substantially. In 2005, women received 61.4 per cent of undergraduate degrees, 51.7 per cent of master’s degrees and 44 per cent of doctorates. The contrast is even greater for the “harder” disciplines of science and engineering.
Post-secondary enrollment reflects mainly what is going on our high schools, which in recent decades, I believe, have become environments more accommodating to girls. But although many young women start out in science and engineering, a disproportionate number drop out and switch fields, suggesting that the climate remains problematic. Fair numbers of women obtain advanced degrees in some areas of science, but they are less likely than men to become professors, in part because of the difficulties of combining family life and a successful academic career.
My concern was to identify the gender gaps and to suggest some reasons for the lag in representation. Duchesne puts forward what is often called a “pipeline” theory — provided enough women enroll as undergraduates, eventually they will become full professors. But many scholars disagree with this proposition. In a 2007 report, researchers at the Barnard Center for Research on Women argue against the pipeline theory because, over many years and accounting for age, the number of women obtaining doctorates has far exceeded the current proportions of female faculty.
While age differentials and greater seniority account for part of the gap in women moving through the academic ranks, it does not account for the entire gap. A substantial body of literature suggests that even when age, and experience and research productivity are taken into account, female faculty progress through the ranks more slowly than their male peers.
Penni Stewart
President, CAUT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Letters to the Editor
Letters for publication are welcome. Letters should address a specific article, comment, or letter that recently appeared in the paper or be tied to recent events. Letters are limited to 300 words and may be edited for length and clarity. Include your name, address and phone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted. Submissions that are considered potentially libellous will not be published. We read every letter we receive and every letter gets equal consideration. Publication is at the sole discretion of CAUT. If your letter is accepted for publication, you will be contacted by phone, electronic mail, fax or return mail. Letters should be sent to
duhaime@caut.ca.