Percentage of Women on Physics Faculty by Country
Remember, it’s all in the genes – culture has nothing to do with it!
Graphic comes from here, and via Sean at Preposterous Universe.
Sean also has a good post about the Summers controversy. I particularly liked the distinction Sean made between “discrimination” and “systematic bias.”
Obviously Hungarian women have some very good genes. Japanese women, though, are the most inferior of all.
I don’t think Summers was on to anything much, but this doesn’t demonstrate what you think it demonstrates.
This list approximates a rough ranking of countries by wealth per capita (with some outliers – Mexico isn’t really that high, nor Hungary that low. But in general, there’s a strong correlation between place on the list and wealth.)
Physicists tend to be brilliant. A person who can be a university physicist generally has a long list of other opportunities. Additionally, bozo studies aside, women of high intellectual caliber are obviously at an advantage in the competition for mates.
Women tend to be rational. A rational person follows the course of action that results in the best outcome.
An incredibly brilliant and talented woman in the Phillipines faces a different set of economic realities than a brilliant and talented woman in Canada. In Manila, for example, in the binary choice between get-married-and-be-a-homemaker and being a career woman (intermediate values are being ignored for the sake of narrative clarity, not because I am unaware they exist), being a homemaker is not a very attractive proposition compared to being a university physicist. If she’s a homemaker, it’s probably with a partner of no great means.
Whereas in Canada, a person of such human talents will be able to attract a very successful mate, and achieve a level of material success probably well superior to that available to the honored, but not terribly wealthy, university professoriat.
Obviously, there are cultural and historical influences, sometimes very strong ones. (I suspect that in Japan the issue is not much to do with differential economic outcomes. And in Hungary, the legacy of being a communist satellite with mandated equality has this happily positive side effect.)
But in the main I read this as a window into how personal choices vary as wealth changes. Things that are doable in Ontario might not work in Bangkok.
I faintly recall a survey from about fifteen years ago of why there were so few women at the big, prestigious, high-energy physics labs. The Japanese explanation was that women were innately too individual, couldn’t work in teams, therefore never made it to the top in science. The American explanation was that women were innately team players, not individualists, therefore never made it to the top in science. (I don’t know if there are enough American-raised women of Japanese ancestry to put that one completely away.)
All the arguments about mathematical achievement hold pretty well for achievement in classical music, and anyone paying attention knows that as soon as auditions were held behind screens (and barefoot) the great orchestras started hiring women. The jump was huge enough to indicate considerable bias, and there’s no reason to think the bias doesn’t exist all the way up to the audition, so the women who get there have probably already gotten less net support than the men they’re competing with.
My grad math classes – I have gone back after ten years working – are about a third female, where they were one-in-six or so. My cynical assumption is that wages will drop like rocks as soon as women make up numbers in the workforce.
Robert, do you actually have the odd belief that money is the goal of someone going into research science? Income maximizers go into business or law, or sales, or at least engineering. Science is a lot of money up front for a return that’s rarely even as reliable as marriage (which isn’t any too reliable).
Robert, your reasoning requires that physicists’ salaries remain constant across national borders, while the salaries of potential husbands remain static. I doubt this is true. I think that, while Filipino husbands are significantly poorer, on average, than Japanese husbands, Filipina physicists are also significantly worse paid than Japanese physicists.
Oops, I meant “while the salaries of potential husbands change tracking national wealth,” not “while the salaries of potential husbands remain static.”
I know this really isn’t the point of this thread (the point being “it isn’t genetic, you dumbass. stop saying dumbass things, dumbass.”), but what exactly is Hungary doing right? the next runner up, Portugal, seems to be trailing by about 15 percent, which sounds pretty likely to be outside any margin of error on statistical significance.
Is Hungary just weird about physics, and people there study physics the way we do english lit? Are they more aware of petty tyrrany against minorities and act out aggressively against it, breaking stereotypes just because they think it’s the right thing to do?
I have NO idea. I’m asking. I’d rather not focus on what we’re doing wrong, and spend more time thinking about what, specifically, needs to be done to fix it. The cultural roots are deep enough that simply saying “Women, you are mentally capible of such tasks. go out and try! it’s a worthwhile endeavor!” won’t be enough. I don’t think kicking Harvard Deans in the groin would even fix it, cathartic as it may be.
The only Hungarian I know oddly enough, immigrated to the US, because his father got a job teaching physics as a local community college. Haven’t seen him in years, and he left when he was two, so I don’t think he can help me on this.
What is Hungary doing right?!
Doesn’t Hungary also have a high concentration of world class female chess players?
Wow… this takes me back.
When I attempted my first undergraduate (long story), it was in physics, with a specialty in chemical physics. I didn’t make it past third year.
Lot of reasons… on my own at 19, insane (literally, not figuratively) roomates, no family (ie-no consistent emotional support, much less financial) and let’s not forget the learning disability in the area of symbol recognition… but the biggest reason I quit was that I was told flat out by more than one teacher that I wasn’t going to make it. Just not able to handle the mathematics. Only one took the time to orally quiz me (after getting 17% on his exam) and told me to get down to student services and get tested for a learning disability like dyslexia.
My favourite was the teacher who told me I was too stupid to breathe. I had an athsma attack in his class, I left to use my inhaler in the hallway so that I wouldn’t disrupt further, but since I was in the front row of a class of 20 people, it was disruptive anyway.
Oh yeah, and the time I was told the experiment wasn’t working because my ovaries were f-ing up the magnetic fields (side note: I do actually cause lights to go out when I pass them sometimes, it’s really weird). That was from a TA, who then had a strip ripped off of him by the faculty chair (which I thought was weird, I thought it was funny).
And in my final year, I had an older teacher for this class of 5 people. I guess I was about the same age and colouring as his daughter, because I raised my hand to ask a question once and he responded with “Yes dear?”. I didn’t even really notice, until he apologized for 10 minutes straight afterwards (he was scared I thought he was harassing me). Hey buddy, after being told you’re too stupid to breathe, being called “dear” is hardly a low point in my day.
We had one female on our faculty, and she came in in my 2nd year. Oddly enough, there were more female PH.D and post-doc students than there were undergrads in physics.
Ahhh memories. There were a lot of reasons I wasn’t going to make it in that field, but genetics wasn’t one of them :-)
The world-class chess players come from the same family, the Polgars, so it could well be genetic on that score.
I think Robert is right, though not in a way he realizes: There is a strong bias against women in physics everywhere, and being a homemaker is better or worse depending on the average per capita income. A brilliant woman might settle for being a homemaker more easily in the U.S., partly because of the pervasive bias against women academics.
In other words, the countries at the top of the list can afford their misogyny. It’s a shame that they can, though.
Jason’s insight is, um, insightful. Although I am sure that there are variations in the level of discrimination, it is probably true that there is a high level of anti-female discrimination in all these places. Wealthier countries in essence offer women a bigger bribe to “follow the script”.
The Japanese explanation was that women were innately too individual, couldn’t work in teams, therefore never made it to the top in science. The American explanation was that women were innately team players, not individualists, therefore never made it to the top in science.
Now that’s interesting. Obviously simple “innateness” is not the answer.* Is this just after-the-fact rationalization? A case of cultural categorization, where men believe that men have all the (culturally defined) + traits and women have all the – ‘s? (or more simply, whatever ability is valued for a male-dominated field, men say women can’t do it?). Or is it more complicated, involving specific processes of socialization in accordance with gender expectations, as a structuring force for society and individual life histories?
The classical music example is brought up in a NY Times op-ed by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson (author, “Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation, “), as well as a related example about grant evaluations.
And in Hungary, the legacy of being a communist satellite with mandated equality has this happily positive side effect
And look at the (old) East Germany vs. West Germany examples!
I wouldn’t dismiss economic aspects, but there does seem to be enormous historical and cultural influences. Notice that all the Anglo countries are on the lower end of the scale? Hmm . . .
*I’ve seen an argument that took the wide variety of male gender roles and claimed that what it meant was that since men were on average genetically driven to seek high-status positions, whatever the culture defined as high-status, men would fill it. No doubt someone could concoct a similar explanation for this.
That is my understanding–that the Soviet regime pushed for at least the appearance of equality, and did not keep women out of the sciences.
i have been told in the past that ‘women like me’ shouldnt attempt to use computers, apparently our long hair builds up static and could cause them to blow up. (the guy told me this while i had short hair too, what a twat)
Well, Hungarians, physics has noticed Hungarians before. During the Manhattan project or thereabouts, while worrying that there were no alien visitors from space because every race with the tech for space travel had instead destroyed itself with atomic bombs, someone (Dyson?) said wistfully, Why aren’t there any aliens here telling us the secrets? and someone else (Einstein?) replied, I think there are, and they’re speaking Hungarian.
They would have been speaking of, e.g., Szilard. I probably got all the details wrong.
You guys lack education. Yes, there are differences between male and female brains and average male and female aptitudes. As a male neurologist, I can tell you that less than 0.25% of brain mass is sexually dimorphic (hypothalamic preoptic area, ventromedial nucleus and supraoptic area) and that is hypothalamic, related, so far as we know, to chemical and hormonal regulation. It may be related to sexual partner preference although this is still uncertain. The average woman is smaller than the average man, although the difference is narrowing. When we correct for height and body surface area, other brain parts are not dimorphic in homo sapiens.
I don’t think that Larry Summers should be fired now, but if he keeps shooting off his mouth he should go. He and Howard Dean need to learn when to keep quiet and listen. The average female is significantly better on the Purdue Pegboard test ( a test of fine motor speed) than the average male at all ages- 4,24 and 84, i.e. when there is no estrogen in the system. Nobody disputes this. Does this mean that you should insist on a woman surgeon? I don’t think so. I think that we insist on an experienced surgeon who enjoys his or her work, and is careful, not a macho. Very few humans become professors of physics. Not many men or women want to do this or can do this. The problem is in role models and mentors. In another 100 years, the ratio of men to women as physics professors or chess grandmasters will be 1.1.
While looking up something entirely unrelated (something about abolitionism) on Wikipedia, I found an article on non-sexist language structures by going through a link to a link to a link.
I’ll quote the part I’m calling relevant in whole:
Hungarian does not have gender-specific pronouns and lacks grammatical gender: referring to a gender needs explicit statement of “the man” (he) or “the woman” (she). “Å?” means “he/she” and “Å‘k” means “they”. Hungarian distinguishes persons and things, as you refer to things as “az” (it) or “azok” (those).
curious. I don’t think Hungarian’s lack of gendered pronouns is the cause of such gender parity in science, but it really is an alien linguistic concept, and reflects something very different.
I knew it was a matter of time before they started measuring skull size again!
One hard-to-measure cultural difference is how much incentive there is in individual families to push girls like you push boys to succeed. There’s no way to tell off this chart if that would have any influence.
Amanda’s point is well taken, and, just stating the obvious, there’s also really no way that isn’t totally arbitrary, artificial, and most likely misleading of measuring parental encouragement to be ambitious for girls relative to boys.
to me, that seems much more likely to be a profound factor on success over IQ, let alone physical brain mass, on the potential for success.
And Bob, in 100 years, there will be no male grand chess masters.
or female chess masters.
because Chess will be played exclusively by supercomputers and androids, playing each other as a test of their computational abilities.
mere humans will be relegated to playing Texas hold ’em and writing Harlequin romance novels, both of which the computer overlords shall mock.
This whole episode was brilliantly summed up by George Will Sunday morning on “This Week”. I wish I had the exact quote, but I will look for it today if I have time. The “soviet style apology” comment during the round table was particularly apropos.
I’d be interested to see how both the men and women on those physics faculty compare in terms of research, publications, citations, and other measurements that can be (to some extent) standardized across the board. Comparing the percentage of physics faculty in universities in different countries doesn’t give any information other than how many women there are on the faculty. Would a male physicist who researches and publishes at the level of a typical physicist (whether male or female) from the Phillipines be admitted to the faculty of the University of Tokyo? I doubt it; Japan is a leader in physics, unlike the Phillipines. Actually, the chart makes me cringe, because the technological leaders are clustered around the top (modulo a few outliers). One could easily infer from the graph that hiring women is detrimental to achieving first-class standing in the physics/technology sphere! (In fact, Summers’ observation that male intelligence in such fields has a higher standard deviation than female intelligence is supported by the graph: the countries not known for their achievements in physics are more likely to have “average” physics departments, rather than “top” departments. A higher SD among men than women means that there should a higher F:M ratio of capable physicists than would be among brilliant ones.)
I work at a summer camp for mathematically gifted kids, and I’m familiar with our own admissions procedure. We go out of our way to encourage girls to attend our camp, and we provide girls-only scholarships for that purpose. We also admit girls who perform slightly lower on our entrance exam than the cut-off for the boys. (After more than a decade, by the way, it’s still the case that only 20% of our campers are girls.) Ironically, I think that our admissions process is only fuelling the perception of girls as being inferior at math: our female campers are, on balance, substantially weaker than our male campers. (No surprise; after all, we admit weaker females than males, and we shouldn’t be stunned when they don’t manage to catch up to their male peers in the five weeks they’re with us.)
My university went out of its way to attract (and pat itself on the back for attracting) female grad students and faculty. When I jumped ship after the (math) Master’s, I had a bevy of faculty pleading with me to stay. The most common reason they gave? “You contribute diversity to the department.” (In case it’s not clear at this point, I’m female, and, FWIW, a semi-visible minority.) They didn’t want me to stay because I was contributing, oh, math to the department. (I left for a variety of reasons, and I don’t think that discrimination/bias was really up there. I also resent being told that I have a duty to womankind to stay.) Simply trying to up the F:M ratio is a pretty low-effort and low-reward means of fighting discrimination. All you have to do is hire women. You don’t have to educate them properly, or even refrain from treating them like shit when they join your team.
I’ve written on this topic on my before (most notably in The Women In Math Screed. While I’m of the mind that yes, there is a genetic component to males’ and females’ relative achievement in math and physics (aside: there are also more men at the LOW end of the achievement spectrum, something else that Summers mentioned; curiously, I see no discussion surrounding that. Is THIS due to socialization? If so, what gives?); but I also know that both overt discrimination and systemic bias are at play. (I’ve definitely experienced the former, and I can’t really speak to the latter.) That said, I think it’s woefully misguided to focus so much on getting women who apply for tenure-track positions hired in tenure-track positions. The damage wrought by socialization is done at a much earlier age. Little girls are encouraged to write stories, not do math, and this doubtless contributes to the fact that there are far, far fewer GROWN WOMEN than grown men who are even in a position to THINK about working as mathematicians and physicists.
I have posted this elsewhere as well.
In biological sciences, women have made up about 50% of PhDs even at the top schools for about 20 + years. This argues against them being less able than the men. Moreover, it argues women should make up about 50% of the pool of faculty within that appropriate age cohort. they do not.
So, where are the women? Well, first, a lot of them say screw academe (which has its merits). So, that self selection reduces the pool. if you are on a search committee for biosciences (molecular, cell biology), about 30% of the pool of potential faculty applicants is female. Given this, you would expect about 30% faculty within the age cohort of looking for a faculty position in the last 2 decades.
While some universities achieve a representation equivalent to that pool, many do not. And yes, there can be rampant sexist reasons why women may not get off the short list (one of my favorites: “she doesn’t have a tough enough personality”. another: “what if she gets divorced?/has children?/her husband gets a job somewhere else?” All these I have heard as excuses not to hire women, never applied to men.). But beyond conscious sexism, studies have also shown that a woman’s CV is judged more negatively than the identical CV with a man’s name. The Swedes found that to win a prestigious fellowship, women had to publish on average 1-2 MORE big papers than men to have an equal chance. This is like the MIT study found: it’s not conscious, but subtle expectations against women.
This is very much like the auditions behind a screen.
This is the reality of the situation. And Summers’ remarks show little understanding, and a convenient umbrella for the neanderthals on the faculties, including his own, by saying that women can’t do the work. the same was said about women doing medicine, or even going to college. The point is, they are there. It’s not that we are discouraging them early on (as I see bright eyed female students in my undergrad and grad classes). It’s that they leave laater, either because the Jurassic academe is inhospitable, or because it simply will not let them in.
Truly remarkable women still scramble into tenured Research I universities. A lot don’t, either willingly or unwillingly. but truly average men have no problem.
So quite apart from whether women are equal or not in ability, INDIVIDUAL women who are certainly more than able, have a harder time succeeding merely because of gender.
And Summers recyling previously discredited arguments is not helping here.
But then Hahvahd’s rate of tenuring women has also plummeted, and maybe he is looking for excuses.
it wrote:
So, where are the women? Well, first, a lot of them say screw academe (which has its merits). So, that self selection reduces the pool.
Well, count me as one of them. I have degrees in physics (astrophysics) and sociology (social-pysch). I am currently finishing my doctorate in sociology, though I am more located in criminology.
I have had senior tenured women professors warn me off from going into academia and/or for tenure. These are STRONG, powerful, intelligent, capable women that are telling me that unless I have a huge drive to be a professor, it’s simply not worth it. What is thrown up in your path as a female tenure-track academic is insane.
I’ve actually just recently lost my female advisor as her tenure was denied. It came down to a departmental vote that basically was split between women and minorities yay, older white guys, nay. The older white guys _just_ won. And one of the reasons whispered was that she had had three kids, so this was an apparent statement about her lack of committment to academics.
Another quiet comment was that they knew that the demographic shift in sociology as a discipline was coming sooner or later, but that they would rather that it came later than sooner.
And the thing is, this isn’t isolated, its indicative.
But, my department aside, I’m hoping to get into research, or dreamily, law enforcement profiling. Academics can go hang itself. I know perhaps I am letting the side down and as a feminist I should be fighting for more representation … but honestly, I kinda want a life too.
Sarah in Chicago
From personal experience, I would say that Hungary is top for these reasons:
1) due to innate Hungarian-ness they produce vast numbers of highly capable physicists (see above remark on aliens, the Manhattan Project, etc).
2) lots of the male ones go abroad and are currently occupying the physics departments of every other country in Europe. It isn’t that German physics depts, for example, are 5% German women and 95% German men; they’re 5% German women, 8% German men and 87% Hungarian men.
3) Hungarian universities are no more egalitarian than any other, but faced with a preponderantly female pool of Hungarian physicists, they have no choice but to employ roughly 50:50 men and women.
Why do the Hungarians send their male physicists abroad? Simple. Hungary has the world’s highest suicide rate. Suicide is well known to be predominantly a male phenomenon. The Hungarians, wishing to preserve their brightest sons, send them abroad to less suicide-inducing countries. Their daughters, being less susceptible to suicide, can safely remain behind.
No source is cited for the chart. Can someone provide a source, if not a link, for the original data? At least a date and something about the methodology? Something about the absolute numbers, perhaps?
I recall a credible survey of this sort back in the early 1990s. It got quite a bit of attention because reliable data on the make-up of science faculties around the world had been scarce and largely unreliable. The survey I’m thinking about had a response rate of around 40% — maybe a bit better — and there were some problems with the sample due to small faculties reporting where larger faculties did not — in some of the countries which produced high female to male ratios. Data on American schools have generally been more reliable than, for example, survey data from EasternEuropean schools. If I can recall more — or if I can find that survey — I’ll return with a citation or a link. I’m drawing a blank at the moment.
—
Summers did not present an all-or-nothing hypothesis about innate abilities. He did not exclude other factors. And, if I’m not mistaken, his remarks were based on an invitation to an off-the-record forum in which he was asked to present a skeptical angle on the male-female ratio.
—
On a general note, apart from enhacing opportunities for talented and hardworking scientists regardless of gender, what benefits to Science itself is expected should quotas are eventually achieved in science faculties? At Harvard’s Physics department, for example? Are there departments that would benefit significantly with an increase in the proportion of men?
Nope, I have no sources other than the already-existing links.
In retrospect, I regret posting this – there are far better arguments supporting my beliefs than this chart. But too late now, alas.
Can you tellme where are you get the data? And can you give me a details of the data you’ve provide. I badly need it! Thanks.
Women tend to be rational. A rational person follows the course of action that results in the best outcome.
Please avoid broad generalizations about women. Your point was well-made, I think, without inserting sexist language.
Re. Batgirl:
Oh yes–it is soooooooo terrible to call women rational. Wow, how sexist!
the graph was orignally published in the Science Magazine article “Comparisons across cultures. Women in science 1994” and was duly mentioned on the last page (here) of the article that Ampersand took the graph from.
Just noticing this threadsurrection.
Iirc, my mother actually was on the physics faculty at her university back in ’94. I don’t recall her ever complaining of sexism, but she wasn’t type of person to complain much about anything. Well, there’s my horribly-biased and unclear sample of one.
Pingback: South African women on leadership in science, technology and innovation « Keet blog