Not good, and worse because I’m a woman.
Now, I’ve known that for a long time. But it’s not until today that I could see a number representing just how lousy my odds are. In a paper published in Current Biology, three scientists were able to take citation data from PubMed to calculate your odds of becoming a PI (Principal Investigator, or in layman’s terms, a professor who is the head of a research lab). They built a statistical model that took into account how various factors – number of publications, highest number of citations on a paper, gender – affected your chances, which you can figure out using their app.
My current odds of becoming a PI are 14%, but they’d be 26% if I were male. If I publish at least two first author papers before I graduate (a reasonable assumption), my odds go up to 23% (still not as much as a male scientist with my current status), while a man would have 34% chance.
Just to give these numbers some perspective, they’d be depressing even without the glaring gender differences. Most grad students nearing their defense are going to have odds around mine; some better, some worse. I have three papers (one first author), they’re in average journals and have almost no citations (hey, kangaroo rat copulatory plug genetics is a pretty niche field, ok?). I’m pretty average when it comes to the variables that affect your chances. And our odds are still crummy. Or at the Onion put it in “New STEM Education Initiative Inspires Girls To Earn Less Than Men In Scientific Career,”
“”Today’s girls have the potential to become the physicists and chemists of tomorrow, powerlessly watching as their male counterparts are promoted over them, their intellects are ignored, and their research is underrepresented in scientific journals. Our mission is to let every young woman know that such a future isn’t a fantasy; it’s a reality they can most certainly achieve.” Grant admitted, however, that such opportunities depended upon the slim chance that these girls even managed to be hired from a predominantly male applicant pool in the first place.”
5 comments
Matthew Smith says:
Jun 3, 2014
It does sound awfully daunting. Are these the odds of eventually becoming a PI, or becoming one right after getting your Ph.D.?
I recall the experience of a friend of mine who was a genetics post-doc at a lab in Princeton, NJ. He’s never been a PI, but he is doing research for a private biotech firm.
The sex discrimination disparity is depressing. You’d think after 50 years of Title IX that we’d be further along.
BadExampleMan says:
Jun 3, 2014
I don’t know why you’d think that. Look where we are after 150 years of Emancipation.
Erp says:
Jun 4, 2014
What were the odds 10 years ago and have they stayed the same, gotten worse, or improved? Remember this study has to be looking at historical data and rates almost certainly change over time.
On the flip side I see that Stanford has just appointed Persis Drell (Physics) as Dean of Engineering. Thirty years ago no university in the US had a woman as Dean of Engineering. Things are changing though have a long way to go.
Paul Bernhardt says:
Jun 5, 2014
First let me say that admire and am supportive of your efforts to open up the skeptical, atheist and science communities to be more welcoming and inclusive of diversity in all forms.
Behind all such statistical analyses are caveats that should be examined. The raw probabilities of becoming a PI may be low, but (based on scanning the paper) that percentage may be be an artificially low representation of likelihood of attaining that position for those who want the position. While they examined the records of over 25,000 scientists, what is not known is how many of those 25,000 scientists ever applied for a PI position. A large number of persons who get published in their graduate school years (and presumably become part of their 25,000 person database) do not have any interest in becoming PIs. Some want to work at regional state universities, community colleges, and small liberal arts schools at which undergraduate instruction is the primary focus and running a lab supported by grants is rare. Others are happy to be behind-the scenes workers, maybe directing research projects, but hate the hassles of budget management, grant-grovelling, and other non-research tasks associated with being a PI.
With those considerations taken into account: 1) The probabilities of becoming a PI (for those who seek that career) is probably substantially higher than indicated in the article; and 2) There may be differences between men and women in their orientation to seek PI positions.
A more nuanced study is needed to tease these factors out.
(I’m a Ph.D. psychologist [interests in psychophysiology, social psychology and measurement theory] who is not interested in being a PI, happily teaching undergraduates at a regional university and working with undergraduate research-curious students on the occasional study, some of which are publishable in low to mid-level journals.)
Kevin Kehres says:
Jul 9, 2014
I don’t know how it works in other disciplines, but in medical research, the “big gun” is often either third or sixth (because after that it’s “et al” in citation styles).
So, I’m not sure that measuring the first author in papers is the correct metric.
Plus, and probably more importantly, industry pays way better than academia. So, there’s that. I think a qualified geneticist would be highly sought after in a variety of non-academic settings.