Men and Women at Promise for Scientific Excellence: Similarity Not Dissimilarity

Lubinski, David; Benbow, Camilla Persson; Shea, Daniel L.; Eftekhari-Sanjani, Hossain; Halvorson, Marcy Beth Jensen

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00357

Cited by 74 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although 77% of female and 81% of male graduate students believed a fulltime career is "important" or "extremely important" (51), sex differences emerged after additional questioning, with 31% of women (vs. only 9% of men) feeling that working part time for a period is "important" or "extremely important". For having a permanent part-time career, the respective proportions were 19% for women and 9% for men (51). Similarly, in the United Kingdom for 2006-2007, female academics were significantly more likely than males to work part-time, 41.8% vs. 26.8% (25).…”

Section: Discrimination Against Women In Hiringmentioning

confidence: 96%

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Ceci

Williams

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

857

695

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.women in science | gender bias | child penalty | peer review S ince 1970, women have made dramatic gains in science. Today, half of all MD degrees and 52% of PhDs in life sciences are awarded to women, as are 57% of PhDs in social sciences, 71% of PhDs to psychologists, and 77% of DVMs to veterinarians.* Forty years ago, women's presence in most of these fields was several orders of magnitude less; e.g., in 1970 only 13% of PhDs in life sciences went to women (1). In the most mathintensive fields, however, women's growth has been less pronounced (2-4). Among the top 100 US universities, only 8.8-15.8% of tenure-track positions in many math-intensive fields (combined across ranks) are held by women, and female full professors number ≤10%. (SI Text, S1)These figures reveal a problem, but what is its cause? Here, we consider one of the most common alleged causes-discrimination against women in the domains of: (i) manuscript reviewing, (ii) grant funding, and (iii) interviewing/hiring. We reprise the evidence for each and describe counterevidence. We conclude that past initiatives to combat discrimination against women in science appear to have been highly successful. Women's current underrepresentation in math-intensive fields is not caused by discrimin...

show abstract

Section: Discrimination Against Women In Hiringmentioning

confidence: 96%

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Ceci

Williams

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

857

695

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the past decade in particular, the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), a planned 50-year longitudinal study of over 5,000 intellectually precocious youth, which began in 1971 , has published a number of 10-, 20-, and 25? year longitudinal follow-ups (Benbow 1992;Benbow et al 2000;Bleske-Rechek et al 2004;Lubinski et al 2001aLubinski et al , 2001bPark et al 2007Park et al , 2008Shea et al 2001;Wai et al 2005;Webb et al 2002). And indeed, later in life, talent search age 12 SAT assessments are related to a variety of educational and occupational outcomes.…”

Section: Longitudinal Data On Talent Search Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exceptional Cognitive Ability: The Phenotype

Lubinski

2009

Behav Genet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characterizing the outcomes related to the phenotype of exceptional cognitive abilities has been feasible in recent years due to the availability of large samples of intellectually precocious adolescents identified by modern talent searches that have been followed-up longitudinally over multiple decades. The level and pattern of cognitive abilities, even among participants within the top 1% of general intellectual ability, are related to differential developmental trajectories and important life accomplishments: The likelihood of earning a doctorate, earning exceptional compensation, publishing novels, securing patents, and earning tenure at a top university (and the academic disciplines within which tenure is most likely to occur) all vary as a function of individual differences in cognitive abilities assessed decades earlier. Individual differences that distinguish the able (top 1 in 100) from the exceptionally able (top 1 in 10,000) during early adolescence matter in life, and, given the heritability of general intelligence, they suggest that understanding the genetic and environmental origins of exceptional abilities should be a high priority for behavior genetic research, especially because the results for extreme groups could differ from the rest of the population. In addition to enhancing our understanding of the etiology of general intelligence at the extreme, such inquiry may also reveal fundamental determinants of specific abilities, like mathematical versus verbal reasoning, and the distinctive phenotypes that contrasting ability patterns are most likely to eventuate in at extraordinary levels.

show abstract

“…Women may need more resources to balance their careers and have families. Both men and women show promise for scientific careers and distinction (Lubinski, Benbow, Shea, Eftekhari-Sanjani, & Halvorson, 2001). Scientific eminence requires personal attributes, challenging educational opportunities, and exposure to research opportunities which are similar for men and women (Lubinski et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Science: Women Nobel Laureates

Charyton¹,

Elliott²,

Rahman

et al. 2011

Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women and their creativity are underrepresented in science. To date, few women have been awarded the Nobel Prize in science. Eleven female Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and physiology/medicine between 1901 and 2006 were compared with 37 males who received the Nobel Prize in the same area one year prior and one year after the women. Data analyzed included birth order, marital status, children, awards (Fulbright, Rhodes, and number of honorary awards received), highest education level and Nobel mentor. Results indicated that female Nobel laureates were significantly less likely to marry and have children. When female laureates had children, they had significantly fewer children than male laureates. Female laureates also had fewer publications than their male counterparts. Our findings suggest that eminent women scientists tend to choose the pursuit of scientific discovery over starting families more often than eminent male scientists. More resources are needed in order to nurture and enhance the recruitment and retention of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

show abstract

Men and Women at Promise for Scientific Excellence: Similarity Not Dissimilarity

Cited by 74 publications

References 33 publications

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Exceptional Cognitive Ability: The Phenotype

Gender and Science: Women Nobel Laureates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About