Showing posts with label academic pipeline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic pipeline. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Astronomy Without a PhD

Jessica leading a bike ride along the Neponset River
in Boston, educating fellow Bostonians about the
open space in their community on a Girlz Roll ride,
along one of her many alternate paths.
As much as the astronomical community is spending more time considering alternate paths for PhD astronomers, we, as a community dedicated to inclusiveness, should look at alternate paths that have been and can be taken into professional astronomy. For various reasons, some of which may be related to my personal gender issues and others due to the way my mind works (or doesn't), I was not a great candidate for a PhD. program when I was in my 20's.

In the process of organizing and attending the Inclusive Astronomy conference last summer, I started out representing transgender people in astronomy, but realized that I was part of another group which had been largely excluded from consideration during that conference, astronomers without doctorates.

The first conference on inclusive astronomy of which I am aware was a meeting called "Space for Women" held at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in 1975. Organized by the CfA's Women's Program Committee, headed by geologist Ursula Marvin and astronomer Martha Liller, it was held in celebration of the International Women's Year, drew more than 300 young women, and featured women speakers and panelists working in a variety of capacities.  Research scientists, editors, computer programmers, administrators, and engineers all discussed their experiences. A popular booklet, entitled "Space for Women: Perspectives on Careers in Science" grew out of the conference. In addition to suggestions on how to prepare for scientific or science-related careers, it detailed several of the major issues raised at the conference, juxtaposed with thoughts expressed by different participants.  I am old enough to have been peripherally involved in this conference as my then-spouse worked as a programmer at the Center and was very involved in organizing the conference.  My participation involved drinking too much champagne at the final reception and enjoying a drunken, rainy bike ride through Harvard Square and down the Charles River to our home in Brookline.

The point of this story is that the 1975 conference focused on the many ways which an under-represented group, women, could contribute to the astronomical enterprise, and that, not just making sure that the pipeline into academia (or the commercial world) is fairer, is what I feel that being inclusive is about.  Although I didn't know it at the time, when I was between astronomy jobs and writing software for a financial services company, I already had my terminal professional degree, a Masters degree from MIT. My  thesis, which I finished a year earlier, attempted unsuccessfully to map the composition of the surface of Mars, included developing a data reduction system for a very early imaging vidicon spectrograph, understanding map projection and writing software to figure out where on Mars we were looking, and learning computer graphics.  If that project had been successful, my career might have gone in an entirely different direction, but as it was, I gained some knowledge and skills which have been the basis of much of the scientific work I have done in the 40 years since.

Although I didn't get into Cornell for a PhD, my programmer-turned-ecologist spouse did, and we moved to Ithaca in 1976, where I soon got a job in the Laboratory for Planetary Studies writing software for Jim Elliot, the possibility for which was suggested by Carl Sagan in my rejection letter.  I was soon putting some of my knowledge of data reduction to work reducing and modelling time series data from occultations of stars by planets.  Six months later, I was flying on the Kuiper Airborne Observatory over the Indian Ocean helping discover the Uranian ring system.  Because I worked in a small group with a senior researcher who consistently included everybody who contributed to scientific results, my first publication was a significant paper in Nature.  When my job moved, it was back to MIT and Cambridge, where I had friends, and I put down roots. I got wrapped up in the occultation enterprise, and was soon putting my mapping skills to work forecasting future occultations and publishing papers of those predictions and analysis of events.  I also got involved in image processing and wrote display software in exchange for getting our group time on a new CCD detector. Doing science was so much fun that I didn't want to stop and take courses, which I had never been as good at as I needed to be.

When that job ended, I had enough skills (and helpful contacts) to land a job at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory across the city (and much closer to my apartment) working on the Space Shuttle Infrared Telescope under Giovanni Fazio.  When that project ended, I stayed on at SAO to work on spectroscopic data reduction. All of the skills and knowledge I accumulated along the way were useful in developing more image display software, a graphics terminal emulator for xterm, a radial velocity package, RVSAO, several more spectrograph pipelines, and a package of world coordinate, catalog, and image manipulation tasks, WCSTools.  I've also been a full member of the American Astronomical Society and its Division for Planetary Science and Division on Dynamical Astronomy for over 30 years, serving on organizing committees and the DDA committee, and running the DDA web site for 15 years.

I spent the extra time I would have spent doing my own research being a bicycle and open space activist in the Boston area, equally sharing the raising of a daughter (who is now in grad school working on what may or may not be a terminal Masters degree), and generally becoming involved in Boston, its history, its politics, and its arts.

When I occasionally regret not having done the extra work for the status of a PhD, I look at the work I have done and all of the people who have used my software or the results my pipelines have produced and feel like my life in astronomy has been successful after all.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Astro-Diversity: Post #1 – The Pipeline to Astronomy Degrees

 
Dr. Lisa M. Frehill [1] is an IPA at NSF in Strategic Human Capital Planning working as an Organizational Evaluation and Assessment Researcher.  Her home institution is Energetics Technology Center in St. Charles, MD, where she has completed science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce analysis and assessment and evaluation in support of the Office of Naval Research, the DoD STEM Development Office and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  A past NSF awardee, Dr. Frehill was the PI and Program Director of the ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation program when she was an associate professor of sociology at New Mexico State University. She is an expert on diversity in STEM and on program evaluation. A forthcoming volume (co-edited with Willie Pearson, Jr. and Connie L. McNeely) titled Advancing Women in Science: An International Perspective is due winter 2015 from Springer.  In her free time, Lisa enjoys hiking, yoga, visiting family and baking.

This is the first in a series of posts about diversity in astronomy. The idea for the series emerged from conversations with Dr. Joan Schmelz, who is serving as an NSF program officer in the Division of Astronomy on loan from the University of Memphis. Joan has been involved in issues for women in astronomy and is interested in being attentive to how to more generally increase the diversity of her field. 

This first post will provide a view of the pipeline into college and bachelor’s degree attainment in both astronomy and physics, which is an important “feeder field.” Future posts will look at U.S. astronomy degrees in greater detail.  This post relies on institutionally-reported data in the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) were accessed via the National Science Foundation WebCASPAR database tool. 

What does the STEM pipeline into college look like from a diversity standpoint?  The answer to this is a “glass half full/half empty.”  On the one hand, we have seen a significant narrowing of the sex gap in high school preparation in mathematics and sciences. Indeed, high school boys recently caught up with high school girls to earn an average of 7.4 credits in mathematics and science (Nord et al., 2011).  Girls (14 percent) and boys (12 percent) are equally likely to have taken a “rigorous” high school curriculum consisting of at least four years of English and mathematics (including pre-calculus or higher), and three years each of social studies, science (including biology, chemistry and physics), and foreign language.  These are important increases since 1990, when just 4 percent of girls and 5 percent of boys had taken a rigorous high school curriculum.  Science, not mathematics, continues to be a more important issue for girls.  An additional 15 percent of girls would have completed a rigorous curriculum by taking just one more science class, as compared to an additional 9 percent of boys.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Elite Male Faculty Employ Fewer Women

MIT 2011My title has removed the words "in the Life Sciences" from the title of an article published June 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  While I do not have statistics to demonstrate the universality of this conclusion, I do have some relevant experience and connections to the work to share.



In their article, MIT biology graduate student Jason Sheltzer and physics graduate Joan C. Smith showed that senior male professors in biology, especially those who have prestigious awards or are members of the National Academies, train a significantly smaller percentage of female graduate students and postdocs than their female or junior colleagues.  The most prestigious labs, led by men and offering many of the best career development opportunities, are the least likely to train women.  The data are convincing, and the effect is clear: women are less likely than men to get either the professional development opportunities or the top letters of recommendation from these prestigious labs.  It’s no wonder that only 36% of assistant professors in biology are women, even though half of the PhDs in biology go to women.

I have a very personal perspective on this study.  Joan C. Smith was an undergraduate physics major at MIT while I was the Physics Department Head.  We worked together to organize the 2011 Northeast Conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics, a national conference of great importance to our field (a photo of which is at the head of this blog entry).  She is also a superb experimental physicist, programmer and engineer.  I am thrilled that she turned her statistical and data analysis talents to shine such a clear light on a major problem of the professoriate.

It’s personal too

But it’s not just the biologists who should ask, “Have I done everything I can to identify, encourage and advance talented individuals applying to my research group?”  You see, Sheltzer and Smith were led to this study when they heard a physics graduate student at a dinner party mention she was the first female student her advisor had graduated in 20 years.  I couldn’t help but wonder, was it my graduate student they spoke with?  So I looked up my record and found an 18-year gap between my PhDs awarded to women, 2 out of 16 total.  Ouch.  As I spoke with pride of my students and their successes over the years, I never stopped to think about how I was shaping the future face of the profession.

In recent years my research group has been gender balanced; by including undergraduates, that is easy to achieve even in theoretical astrophysics at MIT.  However, we must ask not what is easy, but what is right.  Unless "elite male faculty" recruit, mentor and promote more women and others from underrepresented groups, science will suffer from our failure to adequately draw talent from more than half the population.

I encourage other faculty members, male and female, to take this matter personally, too.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Gender & Race Differences in NonAcademic Careers for STEM Ph.D.s


Nonacademic career trajectories are an important and often overlooked piece of the conversation about recruitment and retention of women and minorities in STEM. 

A new analysis by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) shows 61% of STEM Ph.D.s have careers outside of academia. This should come as no real surprise. What is of interest here is that there are statistically significant differences by race and gender. For example, Black, Hispanic, and White women with STEM Ph.D.s who went on to nonacademic careers are more likely to leave STEM compared with other groups in nonacademic careers. About 28% of these women work in non-STEM fields, compared with Asian men (16%), Asian women (18%), Hispanic men (18%), black men (21%) and white men (21%).

Furthermore, more than 57% of all male STEM Ph.D.s work in research and development, compared with 43% of all white female STEM Ph.D.s and 37% of black female STEM Ph.D.s. 

Monday, April 7, 2014

Cultural Change; Broadening the Metrics for Promotion

The UK's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recently released a set of recommendations for promoting "Women in Scientific Careers". The report includes numerous useful references to studies describing the range of obstacles to recruitment and retention, as well as useful references to studies providing remedies and solutions for these obstacles. 

However, many found the report 'weak', particularly in terms of failing to address the structural changes needed in academia to tackle inequality. For example, women faculty at the University of Cambridge published a letter in the Times Higher Education calling specifically for changes in how academics are assessed so that women do not face disadvantages for taking on tasks in teaching, administration and public engagement, rather than research. The letter says that a broader set of metrics should be used to evaluate performance and determine promotion.

Friday, March 7, 2014

AASWomen for March 7, 2014

AAS Committee on the Status of Women
Issue of March 7, 2014
eds: Michele M. Montgomery, Daryl Haggard, Nick Murphy, & Nicolle Zellner

This week's issues:

1. Sometimes Being Good Isn’t Enough
2. Part II Nail Salons: Appropriate Astronomy Women’s Group Venue? Survey Results
3. The 2013 CSWA Demographics Survey: Portrait of a Generation of Women in Astronomy
4. Childcare Available at Boston AAS Meeting
5. Career Profile: Astronomer to Director for the Centre of Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics
6. L’Oréal-UNESCO Women in Science Fellowships: UK and Ireland
7. How to Level the Playing Field for Women in Science
8. In Academia, Women Collaborate Less With Their Same-Sex Juniors
9. Sexism plagues major chemistry conference: Boycott emerges amid growing outrage
10. A Mighty Girl: Mighty Careers
11. Change sought in women's depiction in text books
12. How to Submit to the AASWomen Newsletter
13. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWomen Newsletter
14. Access to Past Issues of the AASWomen Newsletter

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Why are there so few female physics faculty?

Analysis by the American Institute of Physics Statistical Research Center this summer by Susan White & Rachel Ivie questions whether the low percentage of women faculty in physics departments, and their absence from many departments, is evidence of a lack of equity for women.  The authors point out that the main factor is the small percentage of women in physics overall.  Given the small fraction of women overall, the argument goes, departments may be equitable in appointing women despite their small representation on the faculty.

In a later report on Women among Physics & Astronomy Faculty, the authors point out that in Physics, women are hired as assistant professors at rates well above their availability rate among doctoral recipients.  In 2007, 18% of PhDs in physics were awarded to women.  In 2010, 29% of newly hired assistant professors of physics were women (based on a survey with 93% response rate from departments).  One possible conclusion is that physics departments are working hard to improve gender equity, and we should be pleased with the results.  I've even heard some argue that departments are going out of their way to recruit women.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Reverse discrimination?

This week I gave a talk about physics education that included a substantial discussion of the benefits of diversity in creating a successful university program.  I was presenting in a different country, where the culture is patriarchal although respectful of minorities.  Very few of the faculty or students in this physics audience were women.

At the end of the talk, a young man asked, "Why are you trying to recruit women?  Isn't that reverse discrimination?"  I smiled, glad to have an elephant in the room revealed.  Fortunately, I had been thinking about his question for a while, as it has come up in other settings.

I answered no, I didn't consider it reverse discrimination, it was merely rectifying an imbalance caused by discouragement and implicit bias.  He then asserted that perhaps women didn't want to pursue science careers and were making other choices.

I replied that the women I had spoken with definitely wanted to pursue science careers, and I concluded that no, I was definitely not practicing reverse discrimination.

It was a short exchange, I resisted the temptation to launch into a wider discussion about cultural stereotypes, bias, etc.  (Know one's audience -- that approach would likely have been ineffective in this country.)  This kind of question can be frustrating, but it also represents an excellent opportunity to present facts and to show the many benefits of improving the climate in our departments and workplaces.  We will never change the hearts and minds of everyone, but there are young men in such audiences who may become allies, and young women who will appreciate the encouragement.  At the very least, speaking out sets a good example for department leadership to do likewise.  It's also a good thing for men to be speaking on this issue, as it makes the charge of reverse discrimination less plausible to other men.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Family Leave - International Comparison


A friend (thanks Diego Fazi!) recently posted on facebook the image to the left, showing various national policies for the number of weeks provided for maternity leave. Click here for the raw data.

 Yes, men and women in other countries face other obstacles in achieving work-life balance. This figure is simply pointing out the reality that the Family Medical Leave Act falls short and didn't have to.

The most progressive and useful of the policies provide both maternity and paternity paid leave. Gender neutral policies reflect the reality within our community in which most early-career couples are dual career couples and child rearing is shared by both parents. Gender neutral policies reinforce the message that shared parenting is valued and respected within our community.

Here are a few of these 'best-practice' policies:

  • Canada: 55% up to $413/week for 50 weeks (15 weeks maternity + 35 weeks parental leave shared with father) 
  • Iceland: 90 days 80% up to a ceiling of 480,000 (€5,300, $6,700) monthly (minimum monthly payment 91,200 (€1000, $1,275) + 90 days to be shared between the parents 
  • Norway: 54 weeks (12.5 months) (80%) or 44 weeks (10 months) (100%) - mother must take at least 3 weeks immediately before birth and 6 weeks immediately after birth, father must take at least 6 weeks - the rest can be shared between mother and father. 
  • Sweden: 480 days (16 months) (80% up to a ceiling the first 390 days, 90 days at flat rate) - shared with father (minimum 60 days) 

Let's narrow the focus now to our small astronomy community. For a list of current family leave policies for astronomy graduate students and postdocs in astronomy departments in the U.S. (and to add your department's policy if it's not yet listed), please click here.

In terms of bringing change: Already, ~1100 astronomers have signed our petition, voicing their support for improving family leave policies for graduate students and postdocs. I encourage you to sign, and more importantly, find out what the policy is in your department.

Dave Charbonneau (CSWA member) is currently compiling responses to his survey of astronomy department chairs of current policies and practices with regards to family leave, adoption, and childcare for astronomy graduate students and postdocs. Once we have those results, we will share them with the community.

-Laura Trouille (CIERA Postdoctoral Fellow at Northwestern University)

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Posting of the Boston AAS Panel Discussion Video

In a previous post I provided a teaser of the information presented during our Boston AAS panel discussion on 'Transforming Cultural Norms: Mentoring and Networking Groups for Women and Minorities".

Thank you again to our panelists for their thoughtful responses. Our panelists were:
  • Marcel Agueros -- astronomy faculty and Director of Columbia University's Bridge to PhD program in the Natural Sciences
  • Ed Bertschinger -- Chair of the MIT Physics department and deeply involved in a number of mentoring, networking, and cultural change initiatives, member of the CSWA
  • Kim Coble -- physics/astronomy faculty at Chicago State University, a minority serving institution in Chicago, deeply involved in mentoring and pipeline issues
  • Meredith Danowski -- astronomy PhD student and co-founder of Boston University's women in STEM mentoring and networking program
  • Jim Ulvestad -- NSF-AST director, head of astro2010 demographics study group, and former member of the CSWA
Below is the videotape we made of this special session (thank you BU graduate student!), split into 3 parts.

I strongly recommend viewing the higher quality version, posted here.
(This blog site only supports very small file sizes.)




-L. Trouille

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Taking Advantage of Partnerships - The GWISE Example

Post by guest-blogger Meredith Danowski*, PhD student in Astronomy at Boston University.

There's a stack of papers to be graded, a grant proposal that needs some work, a paper that needs to be written, and a class that needs to be prepared. There are family commitments, all those half-deserted hobbies, and some laundry to do. Why on top of that, should you spend time active in a women in STEM organization?

Being "an activist" is often stigmatized. The time I spend planning events could instead go into my research, right? People might assume that because I spend time that is not directly related to my science, I've got misplaced priorities (or a time machine). But as with everything else in my life, my work for women in science is about being efficient and effective.

It makes me a more effective scientist in the long run, if I have a network of scientists I can turn to with questions, if I have a large pool of collaborators-in-the-making, if I have skills beyond data analysis. It makes me a more effective scientist if sometime down the road, I won't have to worry about needing more than twice the publications my male counterpart has, in order to be judged "competent". One of my undergrad professors once said, "you can't be a physics major by yourself." Science does not flourish in a vacuum-- collaborations are often the key to success, the best way to use our time and promote progress. And what works with science, works elsewhere—specifically, collaborative partnerships help one efficiently accomplish the goals of an organization.

For Boston University's GWISE, we are working to build partnerships with other women in science groups to best utilize the available (and scarce!) resources. We hold joint events with the faculty WISE group-- not only do both groups benefit individually, it encourages mentoring and networking and fosters a sense of community. We're also teaming up with the women's organizations in chemistry and biology to bring in speakers and to share not only monetary resources, but womanpower too!

Within the local community, we're harnessing even broader networks. We advertise the events of the women's groups at Harvard and other local institutions-- giving members access to more resources than we alone could provide. Most of our board members are also members of Massachusetts chapter of the Association for Women in Science and have participated in their Mentoring Circle Program. Designed to bring women in STEM together across disciplines and career-levels, the Mentoring Circles have helped us gain access to the wonderful community beyond the borders of our universities. This makes the work of planning events easier & more efficient-- we can draw from a broader network of contacts with diverse ideas and resources.

And finally, we're starting to grapple with the question raised about community and WISE at AAS- What can men do to help? Beyond supporting the cause or getting involved in advocacy, we can, as a first and fundamental step, share the work of helping each other become better scientists and professionals. To this effect, we recently co-hosted our first professional development event with the Student Association of Graduate Engineers. By sharing the work and costs, both groups benefit, and professionally we stand together as the future of the STEM community.

Utilizing networks and partnerships with other organizations is essential to our success. We benefit from collective knowledge and sharing the work, lightening the load on individuals. With a small commitment from many people, we can efficiently manage our time and resources to allow individuals to flourish scientifically and professionally, while achieving a broader impact.


*Meredith Danowski is a PhD student in Astronomy at Boston University and this is her third guest-post on the WIA blog describing her experiences with GWISE. In previous posts she discussed how to get an organization like GWISE started and how to find & utilize institutional support.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Women in STEM Organizations- Getting Started

Post by guest-blogger Meredith Danowski*, PhD student in Astronomy at Boston University.

The day-to-day work of science can be difficult. There are grant proposals to be written, courses to be taught, data to be analyzed. But that's the stuff we came for! That's what we do. It's when we encounter other roadblocks on our path--juggling family and work, finding adequate health care, fostering our own professional development-- that we realize we need friends, we need a community, and we need supportive institutions.

Many organizations dedicated to the cause of women in STEM are designed to address this need - not to ease one individual's struggles, rather to act as an incubator for a more diverse and supportive community. I have been lucky enough to have been involved in the founding years of two such groups-- the Society of Women in Physics (SWiP) at the University of Michigan, and most recently, the Graduate Women in Science and Engineering (GWISE) group at Boston University.

In a time when the numbers are improving, many people ask why these groups are necessary. I mean, we're aware that there's a lack of diversity in science, right? Outright discrimination might be rare, but unconscious bias is pervasive, family leave policies are lacking or inconsistent, and mentoring and community greatly improve one's chance for success. While things are definitely looking up, we still have work to do. So why not work to build a community that strives for these goals?

Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." GWISE at Boston University started in 2008 with a few people in a room and a conversation. It began with a small group of women concerned about their professional development, bias in their departments, and parental leave policies at the university. They were looking for a community, and there wasn't one, so they built it.

A few conversations led to a discussion with the dean. The group set up a luncheon and invited women in STEM from across the university to gauge interest. A few months later, they made a list of goals: a mission statement. They borrowed from other organizations and devised an executive board structure. They found an advisor.

Two years later, GWISE is thriving. With a board of graduate students across STEM disciplines, faculty and staff advisors, and a board of advisors from the Boston area, we work to provide professional development programming, opportunities for mentoring and networking, social events, outreach activities, and we work with the administration on policies and practices. Our events vary in size and reach anywhere from 10-100+ people. We brainstorm, borrow ideas, and partner with other organizations to effectively reach the community.

So if you're looking to start up a group for women in astronomy/physics/STEM at your institution, what should you do? Invite some allies for coffee. Discuss any issues you've encountered, discuss institutional policies, and determine if you have a critical mass of people who can devote the time necessary- maybe invite the biologists and engineers, too! Once you're there, make a list of goals and priorities. You might have great leave policies, but few chances for professional development, or a lack of a social community. Maybe you want to start an official mentoring program. Put together some information and make an appointment with a department chair or a dean and see if you can obtain some preliminary funding - showing your events/activities will improve the environment goes a long way.

And it all starts with just a small group of dedicated individuals.

*Meredith Danowski is a PhD student in Astronomy at Boston University and this is her first guest blog at the Women in Astronomy Blog. This is the first in a series where she describes her experiences with GWISE-- she'll be back to discuss how to find & utilize institutional and community support for your organization, and how to build partnerships to effectively provide unique programming.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Dr. Ms.

From the Washington Post: Report: More women than men in U.S. earned doctorates last year for first time

As the article notes, the gender ratio for undergraduate and masters degrees has been tipped toward women for a while now. So it was only matter of time before doctoral programs followed suit. But, how far up the pipeline can we go with this? As the article says:

But women who aspired to become college professors, a common path for those with doctorates, were hindered by the particular demands of faculty life. Studies have found that the tenure clock often collides with the biological clock: The busiest years of the academic career are the years that well-educated women tend to have children.

"Many women feel they have to choose between having a career in academics and having a family," said Catherine Hill, director of research at the American Association of University Women. "Of course, they shouldn't have to."
Emphasis is mine. Couple that with the difficulty of establishing a foothold in a department with overwhelmingly male senior faculty and you have a pretty tough glass ceiling to break.

It's also important to realize that most of the gains for women have been made in fields like health sciences, social & behavioral sciences, and education. As the article states, "Men retained the lead in doctoral degrees until 2008, largely through their dominance in engineering, mathematics and the physical sciences." That includes astronomy.

The sobering message of the article is that even when we do achieve parity in doctoral degrees awarded, retaining those women and getting them into the ranks of senior faculty will still be an uphill battle.