III. Hiring Patterns
Fig. 3-C Applicants vs. Hires, for Positions starting in
2007 through 2011
Fig. 3-D:
[1] Distribution of BU Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty by
College/Rank, and Gender as of 2010-11;
[2] Number of Doctorates Granted in 1997, 2006, 2008, and 2010;
[3] Percentage Female in Tenured and Tenure-track Hires,
2006-07 through 2010-11
Overview
Success rates for male and female job applicantsThe numbers of male and female applicants for positions at each of the professorial ranks were considered in relation to the numbers hired over the last five years. The ratios of hires to applicants are shown, with breakdown by division, for males and females in Figure 3-C. Overall, a slightly higher percentage of female than male applicants ended up being hired, the one exceptional category being that of Full Professors, where the chances of females being hired were only 73.6% as high as for males. It is only in Engineering that there was a statistical disadvantage for female candidates.
Hiring at the senior levelThere were relatively few hires at the senior level, but women were poorly represented among those. There is one further concern: cases where senior positions (which are fewer in number, by far, than entry-level positions) are filled without a full search. There have been several exceptional cases of this kind in recent years, including “target of opportunity” hires. There is also a history of gender imbalance in hiring at senior levels (a concern raised by the BU Council for Faculty Diversity and Inclusion some years back).
We understand that the senior administration is working to standardize the “target of opportunity” hiring process. This can be expected to increase the likelihood that females will not be overlooked as potential targets for senior hiring, but a close eye should be kept on future senior appointments of this kind. It is particularly noteworthy in the CAS Natural Sciences, for example, that the female representation on the senior faculty has remained stagnant over many years. Although there is every hope and expectation that these numbers will improve through promotion of junior women (and attention should be paid to retaining junior women and men and ensuring all junior faculty equitable treatment in the promotion process), greater inclusion of women in senior hiring could, obviously, also contribute to improving the gender balance at the higher levels.
Department composition and hires in relation to the broader poolsThe charts in Figure 3-D provide some perspective on the broader pool of applicants for positions in different fields. Illustrated there are not only the female vs. male representation by unit and rank in AY 2010-11, but also the percentage of female hires between 2006-07 and 2010-11 and the percentage of female doctorates awarded in these fields in 1997, 2006, 2008, and 2010 (based on statistics from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES)).
Overall, BU seems to be doing well in hiring relative to the fields at large, although there are some exceptions. For example, in Biology and Biomedical Engineering—fields in which females are relatively well represented among recent PhD recipients—BU’s female representation is low in comparison to the broader pools. In Biology, the percentage of females hired between 2006-07 was 33.3%, which, although greater than our female representation in 2010-11 of 18.2% (down from 19.6% in 2006-07), is still considerably lower than the percentage of female PhD’s in Biology, which has ranged from 43.1% in 1997 to around 50% during the period between 2006 and 2010. In Engineering, although the overall rate of female hiring looks reasonable, in Biomedical Engineering in particular—where there have been 36.5% to 38.4% female PhD’s as of 2009 and 2010 (figures are not readily available for the earlier years, but it is unlikely that there was a precipitous increase)—females represented only 16.7% of the hires (less than half that percentage) between 2006-07 and 2010-11. As of 2010-11, females represented only 19.4% of the tenured and tenure- track faculty in Biomedical Engineering, up from 14.3% in 2006-07 (in large part because of the transfer of 2 faculty members into Biomedical Engineering from other departments at BU during this period). The percentage of female full-time faculty members in Biomedical Engineering had been declining steadily from 2000 to 2010.
ConclusionsIn conclusion, it seems that the university is very much on target to increase female representation on the tenure-track faculty in the natural sciences and engineering. However, it will be important to continue to monitor hiring going forward, particularly for senior positions, and at all levels in disciplines where females are currently underrepresented at BU and where the record shows that females have, in recent years, been hired at a lower rate than what might be expected based on female representation among recent PhD recipients. It is perhaps worth observing that BU seems to be doing better in increasing female representation in scientific fields (within CAS Natural Sciences and ENG) where women are scarce than in attaining appropriate representation in some areas where women should have a more substantial presence.
Fig. 3-C Applicants vs. Hires, for Positions starting in 2007 through 2011
Fig. 3-D:
[1] Distribution of BU Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty by College/Rank, and Gender as of 2010-11;
[2] Number of Doctorates Granted in 1997, 2006, 2008, and 2010;
[3] Percentage Female in Tenured and Tenure-track Hires, 2006-07 through 2010-11
Return to the main page for this Web report on the Status of Women in the Natural Sciences and Engineering at Boston University, Summer 2012 or jump to section:
<1> Female Representation among Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty: 1997 and 2007-2011
<2> Female Representation by Tenure Status
<3> Hiring Patterns
<4> Attrition
<5> Success in Tenure and Promotion
<6> Time at Rank
<7> Salaries
<8> Leadership Positions, 2010-11
<Conclusions>
