April 2002
I would like to thank the
many chairs and chairs’ assistants who responded to my recent survey on
the hiring rates of men and women faculty at Simon Fraser University and
the University of British Columbia. The survey asked how many applicants
of each sex had applied to the last 3 positions filled, as well as the
sex of the successful applicants. I received responses from over half of
the departments/schools polled, 17 from SFU and 19 from UBC. The respondents
represented all of the disciplines recognized by Statistics Canada, but
we did not poll Nursing.
From the respondent departments,
the total number of men applying to both institutions was 3,219, the number
of women, 1,306. Thus 71.1% of applicants was male, while 28.9% was female.
This ratio was identical for the two institutions, and is similar to that
reported for a 10-year period at the University of Western Ontario (Seligman,
SAFS Newsletter, April, 2001). Overall, this suggests that currently,
at least 70% of faculty job applicants to Canadian academic institutions
are male. The situation varies somewhat across disciplines. For example,
the proportion of male applicants is significantly higher in the Natural
Sciences than in the Humanities. However, across both BC institutions,
only one of the disciplines responding reported substantially more female
applicants. In the vast majority of departments, more men than women applied.
Of the 105 people from the survey actually hired, 43 (41%) were women,
and 62 (59%) were men. This discrepancy between the ratio of applicants
to the ratio of hirees is statistically significant, using a Chi-square
analysis in which the expected hiring rate is based on the applicant pool.
Again, this confirms findings from the UWO study, where women were hired
in proportions significantly higher than would be predicted from the number
of women applicants. An earlier Canada-wide report, estimating the applicant
pool from the number of PhD graduates, similarly found an over-representation
of women among new faculty, in the preceeding two decades (Irvine, Dialogue,
1996).
Assuming equivalent quality
ranges in men and women applicants, that is, the same proportion of “excellent”
to “average” candidates, it must follow that, when preferences are severe,
some women will be hired over better-qualified men. For example, in one
case all 3 hirees were female though the ratio of men to women applicants
was 2:1. It is clear that women are not being discriminated against in
hiring in any Canadian university to date on which we have information.
This holds true for Science disciplines: in both biological and physical
sciences, women were over-hired, though the sample size being smaller than
in the case of total applicants, the effect is not statistically significant.
However, one can state with certainty that there is no evidence of a bias
against hiring women in the sciences, subjective impressions notwithstanding.
Of course, some questions
remain. The findings do not rule out idiosyncratic cases of negative bias
against women at either a departmental or individual level. However, men
may suffer identical idiosyncratic bias, and the data show that they suffer
generalized negative bias as well. Some might contend that women are hired
preferentially because they are better qualified. This seems unlikely given
the generally lower productivity of women academics (e.g., Schneider, Chronicle
of Higher Education, 1998, Sept 11), but only access to vitae can answer
that question. It also seems unlikely that respondent bias was a significant
factor, since our data are consistent with previous studies cited, in which
no respondent bias could operate.
A letter
to the editor published in UBC Reports, January 10, 2002.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
