As The Toast searches for its one true Gal Scientist, we will be running a ton of wonderful one-off pieces by female scientists of all shapes and sizes and fields and education levels, which we are sure you will enjoy. They’ll live here, so you can always find them. Most recently: Why We Study.
“You know about the drop-off between women who get PhDs and women who become faculty, right?”
It was my first interview for a neuroscience graduate program and I had spent the last twenty minutes explaining my honors thesis project and why exactly I never wanted to go near an electrophysiology table ever again. The question came out of left field. My college was a fairly typical liberal arts school, meaning there were more women than men, particularly in the biological sciences. But most of those students were planning to go on to medical school. I could count on one hand the number of people I knew going on to get a PhD in science.
I lied and said that I did. What followed was a discussion of why this gap between the number of female doctoral students and the number of female faculty existed and what did I think about it, and did I have plans about what I wanted to do with my PhD? At the time I was relieved to be talking about something that wasn’t over my head—I’d been terrified by tales of students being quizzed on neural circuits by their interviewers. But now, having been immersed in the intense world of academia, I am uneasy.
It is true that many, if not the majority of, those receiving PhDs in the biological sciences in this country are women. My own class is 60% women, and every one of my female classmates is brilliant and incredibly hard-working. But the fact is that statistically only one of us will end up as a full time professor. According to the latest data from the National Science Foundation, only one fourth of all full-time, full professors of science are women. Women with doctoral degrees in the STEM field are also significantly more likely to be unemployed or employed only part-time, and to cite family responsibilities as the reason for that unemployment.
While these statistics are fairly well-known and discussed within the science community, what is being done about them is less clear. For a scientist at any level, obtaining funding through the grant writing process is absolutely crucial for demonstrating success—and to pay for one’s research. The most sought-after grants come from the National Institutes of Health. They are particularly critical for post-doctoral students, scientists who have earned their doctorate but are continuing their intensive research to build up their credentials before applying for faculty positions. But here’s what I didn’t know until I got to graduate school and started talking to older students: if you stay at the same institution for your post-doctoral work as you did for your graduate work, your application for these NIH grants won’t even be considered.
The requirement is in place because the NIH wants to encourage young scientists to branch out from the influences of their doctoral program and university and be exposed to new ideas. This sounds well-intentioned, but packing up after over five years of study and moving to a new city for a few years isn’t always possible. The students I’ve spoken to who have been disproportionately affected by this unspoken rule are women with families. They are scientists who finished their doctoral degrees while having children and who cannot or will not pick up their families to move to a new city for what may be only a year or two of training before moving to the next lab. All of them are working on substantially different projects in new labs. But because they’ve remained at the same university, they are cut off from the grants that would be most helpful to their careers and their futures.
So what, you may ask, are all these women who have their PhDs but aren’t working at a university doing? They’re working in industry, at consulting firms, writing or editing scientific journals, shaping our nation’s science policy, or any number of other options open to those with their expertise. Many of these other career opportunities have more flexible work schedules and allow more time for women to spend with their families, if that’s what they choose. But it can be hard to go about getting on of these jobs once receiving your doctorate—the idea of not going into academia is still a kind of taboo in graduate school. Some students are afraid to even mention their interest in applying outside of the academic world to their advisors. And it’s often difficult to find these career opportunities without the support of mentors.
Some organizations are working towards change. In early November, the Society for Neuroscience held its annual meeting in San Diego. The meeting is five days of talks, poster sessions, committee meetings and socials bringing together over 30,000 neuroscientists from around the globe. This year, the program included a symposium on Gender Bias in Neuroscience, a three-hour series of talks by four speakers. These talks ranged from addressing the statistics (if we stay at the same promotion rate, we will have 50% female neuroscience faculty in 2117) to “benevolent sexism” in which women are given more positive feedback but less challenging assignments. Muriel Niederle, an economist at Stanford, addressed the drop-off, also called the “opt-out” phenomenon. She believes that competitiveness is an important factor, citing studies she’s performed in the Netherlands that suggest that high school girls’ level of competitiveness is indicative of their likelihood to enter “prestigious” academic tracks, including STEM fields.
I, sadly, was not able to attend this symposium. I was presenting a poster on my research at the same time, while receiving texts and Tweets from friends who were able to make it. I stood in the bathroom, fixing my make-up and changing into uncomfortable high heels with dozens of other women as my phone lit up with messages. “There’s barely anyone here,” read one. “The crowd is 95% women and the first person to ask a question is an old white man,” read another. The irony was not lost on me.
As a non-competitive female scientist, I worry about what will happen when I leave my cozy graduate cocoon. I’ve spent the last three years chipping away at my thesis project and realizing with each step that I’m increasingly unsure that I want to be a neuroscience professor. The statistics are scary, the culture is intimidating and I have come to realize that while my love of the field of neuroscience is unchanged, my skills and abilities lie outside of the lab. My drive to succeed does not seem to point in the direction of NRSA and R01 grants. That girl who sat in that interview and stated so confidently that she wouldn’t be part of the drop-off is suddenly looking for the door.
It’s both terrifying and a great relief to write these words. I don’t want to be another statistic, another PhD who didn’t live up to her potential. I don’t want my professors, the people who have taught me so much, to see this and be disappointed in me. I don’t want people to point to my choices and see them as representative of other female scientists. I want them to understand the factors that led me to this choice. But I also have to wonder how different I might feel as a man making this decision. I know I would never have spent that interview talking about the drop-off. Would I have noticed the way my female friends struggled to balance having a family and being a successful and competitive scientist? Would I feel the same fear to discuss my future with my advisor? Would I be more inclined to tough it out in academia if the statistics were in my favor?
I may never know. But I can’t regret any of the choices that led me to this point. I may be part of the problem, but I’m excited to be part of the conversation that ends it.
Tags: academia, feminism, gal science, science
My god! I can’t believe they’d ask you that at an interview. Besides the fact they wouldn’t ask a man that same question, it makes my blood boil that your acceptance – or any other lady’s acceptance to a science graduate program – might hinge on their promising not to “drop off.” Ugghhgrrr.
This also made my skin itch though I’m not quite sure why: She believes that competitiveness is an important factor, citing studies she’s performed in the Netherlands that suggest that high school girls’ level of competitiveness is indicative of their likelihood to enter “prestigious” academic tracks, including STEM fields.
I liked this piece a lot. Congrats and good for you for figuring out you want something outside a lab. It sounds like a hard choice to make, contrary to a lot of inside pressure, but knowing what you want to do? That rocks.
I had the same reaction to the part about competitiveness. For me, I think it was because it reads like it’s putting the onus on women – or even high school girls – to be more competitive in order to succeed, which to my mind is a huge oversimplification of the problem that minimizes the obstacles women face that men don’t have to think about. For one thing, when women ARE more competitive, they are often judged negatively for exhibiting the same qualities that are lauded in men – aggressiveness, ambition, a single-minded focus on their career, willingness to promote themselves, etc. Those women are seen as bitchy and unfeminine, while the men behaving like that are go-getters and leadership material.
For another thing, it completely ignores the question of the work/family life balance, which is still something primarily borne by women no matter what profession they’re in. That’s a structural problem, not a lack of competitiveness on an individual level. A woman can be as competitive as any man, but when she starts a family, odds are it’s her career that will suffer for it. Studies have shown that women’s earnings tend to decrease after having a child, while men’s earnings increase once they start families.
But it is much simpler to say that it’s mainly due to a lack of competitiveness on the women’s part. It may very well benefit women to some extent to be more competitive – ask for the raise, promote themselves, etc. But it’s the culture as a whole that needs to change, not the individual women trying to negotiate it while pursuing their chosen professions.
I read the part about the competitiveness a little differently. In my opinion, the reaction to that should not be to tell women to be more competitive, but to take a hard look on how competitive academic science has become. I’m biased here, because I’m one of the women who dropped out of the academic science world, and a large part of that was because it seemed that everyone I knew who “made it” was either a self-absorbed, smug asshole or seemed to become one after they got there. The competitive, adversarial atmosphere academia seems to promote isn’t intrinsic to science, and it hinders effective collaboration and hurts scientific process as well as (I suspect) putting off bright women and men who don’t like that work environment.
Unfortunately, you’re right, and it’ll probably mostly be interpreted as “Women, be more competitive!”
Oh, I completely agree. I can’t speak to the competitiveness of academic science, but I think that emphasis on competition is a problem in many professions, certainly in the corporate world (which is where I’m coming from). The competitive, adversarial approach puts the narcissistic assholes at the top, and puts off smart, capable people who don’t want to be part of that work environment. We definitely need to be taking a hard look at that in addition to the issues of institutional sexism.
I think what put me off about the study, at least as it’s described here, is the fact that Niederle, in conducting it, chose to focus on the “competitiveness” level of individual women before they had even completed their studies or entered the workplace (and how does one even define or measure competitiveness, anyway?), and looked at that as an indicator of future success. In all fairness, saying that “competitiveness is an important factor” is a fairly neutral statement, and how her study is interpreted isn’t her responsibility. Still, I do find it telling that she focused on individual girls’ competitiveness and how it affected their choices, vs. taking a look at the institutional/cultural forces in the academic world which reward competitiveness. With the focus on the individual’s choices and personal qualities, it’s inevitable that the takeaway for most people would be, “Women, be more competitive!” as you said.
It is such a perverse and awful reaction to the scarcity of grad student funding. When resources are scarce the pressure to use them wisely mounts and everyone reverts to terrible stereotypes.
Wow, I didn’t know that rule about post-doc funding. The nice thing about leaving academia is the fact that all those holier-than-thou taboos about a professorship versus other employment vanish like fog as soon as you get out. Basically, the gender issues suck, but on a personal level, kudos for doing what’s right for yourself.
WHATEVER, WHATEVER.
Love, a biology postdoc at a highly competitive research university who is slowly leveling up in DGAF.
As a scientist who happily left academia (albeit only with a MSc.) for the private sector, I appreciated that you noticed that those of us who leave academia are still often practicing science. Most articles on the lack of women faculty seem to imply that we have all either become stay-at-home moms or faded into the West or something. So I was a little disappointed that you described the prospect of becoming one of us as becoming “another PhD who didn’t live up to her potential.” It takes different skills and a different personality to practice non-traditional science, and it may not suit you, but it’s not being a failure to practice it.
I don’t think of myself leaving academia as not living up to my potential- it’s more the fear of being perceived as such because I chose to leave.
Yup, me too.
Seconded. I’m thinking of heading into public advocacy or federal science (hah, like there’s going to be any federal science left in Canada by the time I’m done), and this nonsense that only science done under the hallowed banners of academia is Actual And Proper Science makes me itchy. Tell that to all the people running the environmental monitoring, the industrial agriculture research, the nuclear reactor development, etc etc etc in Enviro Cda, DFO, the NRC, AECL….
However, I read the “not living up to her potential” bit as the perception of the author that profs/academics/the peanut gallery will have — not necessarily that the author (not to put words to your name) sees herself as inadequate. I know I’ve fretted longer than I’d like to admit about how other people will perceive me leaving academia eventually, and I’m not at ease with being a statistic either.
You got it exactly right! *high fives* I’m coming to terms with my decision as not being a failure but a choice that I should be proud of. How other people see it is always a concern, though.
Academia doesn’t deserve us ;).
This, to the nth…
I’m also a biology PhD student, growing more ambivalent about academia as the years pass.
I was recently at a conference with >80% female grad students, perhaps 50% female at the post-doc level, and hardly any female faculty (<10%).
When talking with a male faculty member, he mentioned that he thought academia had great work-life balance (he has a stay at home spouse to his three kids).
Every time I hear about how an institution (Congress, law firms, businesses) and its culture will change once enough women come through the pipeline and take leadership positions, I grimace. In biology, women have received at least half the PhDs since the 90s and are still tremendously underrepresented in faculty positions– the talent pool exists, yet nothing changes, and women dominate the low prestige, low pay teaching/ community college positions.
I think long, multiple postdoc positions contribute to the drop off (that, and the limitations of having children at such a critical career time), along with the costs (low pay, instability, frequent moves) associated with making it in academia– at some point, the slog is not worth it, and its ultimately women who leave at higher rates. (People often postdoc for 5 years, making perhaps $40K, well into their 30s, while working crazy hours, often with no maternity leave provisions).
If you think of any solutions, let me know– I think higher postdoc pay and some guarantee of maternity leave would help.
Oh, higher postdoctoral pay would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Child care is one of the highest costs that my female peed with kids have to deal with, and postdocs get paid ridiculously low wages considering their education and skill set.
I think the current extended nature of postdoctoral positions is a huge contributing factor, but I have no clue how that could be changed other than the culture itself shifting. You need all those years and publications to even have a chance at a job in academia at this point. Unless you luck into three Science/Nature/Cell papers in three years.
A++++++ I LOVE THE GIF THANK YOU FOR ADDING IT
Loved this! The culture in academia (in my program anyway) completely solidified that I want to practice as a psychologist and not mess with trying to become faculty. The graduate students in my program are about 10% cis male, but the faculty is 90% cis male. Watching the faculty swing their metaphorical dicks around for the past three years has been more than enough. I HAVE HAD MY FILL OF DICK SWINGING!
Yep. Just heard my first fellow-PhD-student friend confess that she is going to become a SAHM mom after she gets her PhDs. There are a lot of disillusioned female grad students at my school, and we have a reputation for actually having a pretty good work-life balance and friendly work environment– I imagine it is worse in other places. I admit that sometimes I read things like this and think “Great! More jobs for me!” That is probably not a super helpful perspective.
Also, I’m so curious to know more about the kind of work you do! If we end up at the same conferences we should obviously start a NeuroToast meetup group.
I study spatial memory and behavior. We should totes have a meet-up for SfN this year!
Hi, Bluebell.
“It will be easier for you to get a job when you graduate because you’re a girl and they have to fill a quota.”- said in earnest by my 25yo labmate. What has been bothering me most about academia lately (as a nth year PhD in STEM) is the subtle, implicit sexism. Every time a paper is reviewed, the reviewer is always assumed to be male. Every time a paper is discussed in lab meeting, the 1st author is assumed to be male (my NYE resolution is to stop doing this too). My advisor still asks me if I need help using a screwdriver, but never asks my male labmates. Submitting papers is not double-blind (which would be a little difficult to do, especially in small fields) but no one honestly thinks this is a problem. Solutions? I have no idea. I’m exhausted from it all. I’m ready to take to the sea wearing my “kill all men” tshirt.
Interesting papers:
“Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.” Moss-Racusin et al. PNAS. 2012. 109. 41.
“Sexist attitudes: Most of us are biased.” Raymond. Nature. 2013. 495.
Good luck to you, girl. I love female scientists who stay in science and fight the system! I ran screaming the second I got my PhD and never looked back. My reasons were less about sexism and more about not loving science enough to continue living on peanuts and being tired of crying over broken mouse necks. Three and a half years later I have a high-ranking (in my company) job making more than double a post-doc salary, and no one ever asks me to murder animals. I miss working in a lab a lot and I miss feeling like I’m contributing in some small way to the world, but I don’t miss ramen or not running the air conditioner because the electric bill would be to high. In Georgia in the summer.
Ladies, hello from the other side! I’m a first-year female assistant professor in psychology, and since no other profs have weighed in I want to share some thoughts. In no particular order:
1. This, by a female junior professor at MIT, should be required reading for all female PhDs: http://tinyurl.com/l57oqys. The title says it all: “How I learned to stop worrying and love the tenure-track faculty life”. It applies equally to PhD and postdoc life.
2. There is a lot of angst surrounding non-academic careers, but every single one of my PhD classmates who didn’t continue in academia is employed at a good job, and I’m pretty sure they’re all making more money than me. So try not to stress too much about it since the “worst case scenario” is pretty damned good.
3. I think that because most PhDs are trained at top-tier institutions (“R1s”), people forget that that’s not the only kind of academic job out there. I work at an “R2”, where there is more of a balance between teaching/research/life. There are also liberal arts colleges which can be a great life as well. If the pressure of life at an R1 isn’t for you, you don’t have to do it. But as the first link points out, pressures are what you make of them.
None of this is to downplay the very real structural problems in academia and especially for women in academia. But, I feel that women in grad school can sometimes psych themselves out of academia when their prospects aren’t really as bad as they seem. A long time ago a junior professor told me that he did academia his way, which didn’t involve working crazy hours. He said that he intended to keep going until someone else told him he had to stop. The point is don’t tell *yourself* to stop. At least not until things are really, really not working. I don’t agree with everything Cheryl Sandberg says, but she’s right to say don’t leave until you leave.
Good luck and take heart, fellow travelers – it can be done!
Thanks for this!
This was fascinating. I graduated with a liberal arts degree and sort of begrudgingly assumed that everyone who was studying “something real” (ie science or business or just NOT LIBERAL ARTS) had it made so it is interesting to hear the other side’s perspective and sort of a relief- in a weird way- to know that everyone feels pressure and stress. I hope I don’t sound horrible for saying this.
Fascinating post! Obvs I knew women get screwed over in the sciences, but I had no idea of the extent of the “drop-off.” You keep being an awesome science lady wherever and however you do science.
Fascinating post! Obvs I knew women get screwed over in the sciences, but I had no idea of the extent of the "drop-off." You keep being an awesome science lady wherever and however you do science.
Maya, thanks for an interesting essay. As a female scientist who left graduate school after getting a masters’, I have Thoughts on this topic. First of all, academia’s self-centered view that anyone wanting to pursue a non-academic career is a disappointment pisses me off. There are only so many professorships out there, and there are plenty of challenging and rewarding paths outside of the university. The most important thing in life is knowing your strengths and interests and pursuing them, and I’m glad the author is not allowing social pressure to prevent her from that.
This is not to say that the lack of female professors is a good thing, or that we don’t need to be trying to come up with solutions to the root causes. But I do wonder if part of the drop off is that women are not conditioned to be as ambitious and status obsessed, so when a woman realizes becoming a professor would conflict with something she cares more about (work/life balance, raising children, etc) or doesn’t line up with her personal talents, she is more willing to go “fuck that noise” instead of staying in the game for the social pressure and/or glory like a man would.
Just wanted to say that Adblock/Adblock Plus are a boon for things like this – you can right-click & hide gifs or pictures that make things difficult to read/mess with formatting. Highly recommended.
so actually this NIH rule is not a rule and it’s fine to stay at the same institution although it will look arguably better if you change labs (although the case could be made that if you stay in the same lab it indicates that your PI valued you enough to keep you on). my advisor graduated from my program 5 years ago, did a postdoc with another faculty in my department for 3 years, was hired as faculty and just received his first R01!