Gender ratios at top PhD programs in economics

Hale, Galina; Regev, Tali

doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.007

Cited by 42 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference is quantitatively modest (with point estimates corresponding to a difference between 10% and 20%) and is more robust for male students than for female students. However, we find quantitatively large effects on placement 1 Hale and Regev (2014) find that the share of female faculty is correlated with the share of female students in top economics PhD programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 62%

An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science

Gaulé

Piacentini

2018

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. We investigate whether having an advisor of the same gender is correlated with the productivity of PhD science students and their propensity to stay in academic science. Terms of use: Documents inOur analysis is based on an original dataset covering nearly 20,000 PhD graduates and their advisors from U.S. chemistry departments. We find that students with an advisor of the same gender tend to be more productive during the PhD and more likely to become professors themselves. We suggest that the under-representation of women in science and engineering faculty positions may perpetuate itself through the lower availability of samegender advisors for female students. JEL Classification:J24, J16, I23, O31

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 62%

An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science

Gaulé

Piacentini

2018

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we show in Table 2, model 4 reduces L 2 by 171 (12 df) in the relative prestige array and by 109 points (9 df) in the absolute prestige array compared to the field segregation model (see model contrast 3, Table 2). For the relative prestige array, IPEDs, 2003-2014Absolute prestige N = 406,726. the value of BIC is smaller for model 4 than for model 2, meaning that model 4 is preferred by this test of model fit. For the absolute prestige array, however, BIC is slightly larger (6.8 points) for model 4, meaning the more parsimonious model 2 is preferred (Raftery 1995).…”

Section: How Much Field and Prestige Segregation Is There?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Degrees of Difference: Gender Segregation of U.S. Doctorates by Field and Program Prestige

Weeden¹,

Thébaud²,

Gelbgiser³

2017

SocScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women earn nearly half of doctoral degrees in research fields, yet doctoral education in the United States remains deeply segregated by gender. We argue that in addition to the oft-noted segregation of men and women by field of study, men and women may also be segregated across programs that differ in their prestige. Using data on all doctorates awarded in the United States from 2003 to 2014, field-specific program rankings, and field-level measures of math and verbal skills, we show that (1) "net" field segregation is very high and strongly associated with field-level math skills; (2) "net" prestige segregation is weaker than field segregation but still a nontrivial form of segregation in doctoral education; (3) women are underrepresented among graduates of the highest-and to a lesser extent, the lowest-prestige programs; and (4) the strength and pattern of prestige segregation varies substantially across fields, but little of this variation is associated with field skills.Keywords: gender segregation; prestige segregation; field segregation; gender inequality; higher education; women in STEM W OMEN earn 60 percent of baccalaureate degrees and 46 percent of doctoral degrees in research fields (National Science Foundation [NSF] 2015a), yet higher education in the United States remains deeply segregated by gender. To date, the literature on educational segregation has focused on the distribution of men and women across fields of study, how this distribution varies over time and space, and its consequences for gender inequality in career outcomes Bradley 2002, 2009;England and Li 2006;England et al. 2007;Barone 2011;Bobbitt-Zeher 2007; DiPrete 2013, 2016; NSF 2015b;Ransom 1990). We extend this line of research by offering a multidimensional analysis of segregation in doctoral education across fields of study and across PhD-granting programs that differ in their prestige.Our interest in prestige segregation stems from four sources. At the most basic level, prestige segregation, like field segregation, is an indicator of the extent to which men and women's educational outcomes are equal. However, the two types of segregation are conceptually and empirically distinct. Even in a hypothetical world in which every field graduates the same proportions of men and women, men may be overrepresented among degree recipients from the highest ranked programs and women among degree recipients from the lowest ranked programs. In this world, gender integration exists with respect to field, but not with respect to program prestige.Second, field and prestige segregation represent two qualitatively different forms of gender inequality in higher education. Prestige segregation is inherently vertical, meaning that segregation occurs across categories that are ordered from 123 Weeden, Thébaud, and Gelbgiser Degrees of Difference high to low. Field segregation, by contrast, is horizontal: the boundaries between fields define qualitatively different positions, but fields "represent distinctions more of kind than of grade" (Cha...

show abstract

“…There are several reasons for considering this hypothesis. First, there is evidence of gender segregation across different scientific subfields (Dolado, Felgueroso, and Almunia 2012;Hale and Regev 2014). If men and women tend to do research in different subfields and evaluators overrate the importance of their own types of research, the lack of female evaluators might be detrimental for female candidates PerezVilladoniga 2012, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%