April 2001
As co-author with Patricia Hausman of the Independent Women’s Forum
analysis of the productivity of male and female biologists at MIT, I would
appreciate an opportunity to comment on The Crimson’s report on our work
(News, “MIT Study on Faculty Gender Bias Criticized,” Feb. 8).
The article quotes MIT professor Nancy Hopkins, who dismisses our findings
of greater male productivity by claiming that scientists who work outside
an institution cannot judge the performance of its faculty. Yet this is
precisely what committees that award research grants and Nobel Prizes do
all the time.
Relevant to her allegation of deliberate bias, I point out that in choosing
the senior males to include in the study, we considered only those who
received their doctorates in the same time frame (1970-76) as the senior
women. This resulted in the exclusion of some of the most distinguished
males, specifically two Nobel laureates who graduated in 1968 and 1969.
We also presented data for junior scientists. These data showed very encouraging
performance trends for junior women faculty. Contrary to Hopkins’ claims,
we did not tailor our methodology to a particular result; we simply followed
standards commonly used in universities throughout the U.S. and Canada.
If Hopkins believes our conclusions about the relative performance of
senior men and women biologists at MIT are wrong, I challenge her to present
(publicly) a superior methodology and the resulting data. This is precisely
the way a scientist who challenges the work of others is expected to proceed.
James H. Steiger Professor of Psychology, University
of British Columbia (and also a SAFS member). Published February 20, 2001.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
