Many of you have, I'm sure, heard of Khan Academy. (https://www.khanacademy.org/) Khan Academy sports the tagline "learn almost anything for free," and has over 3,900 lectures on mathematics, finance, physics, healthcare, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. (Read the wikipedia article for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Academy .) Khan Academy hires a class of interns every year, and this year, there was a moment* where Khan Academy had twice as many female interns as male ones. One of Y Combinator's founders, Jessica Livingston, blogged about Khan Academy's success at attracting women interns:
http://life.khanacademy.org/post/43028679096/girls-girls-girls
The top voted comment on Jessica's blog was from a bloke name Mark, who said, "Discrimination in action- sad to see." Luckily, Khan Academy developer Ben Kamens took Jessica's side; Ben posted a followup blog response:
http://bjk5.com/post/43249906199/meritocracy-and-discrimination-in-tech
Ben was rightly infuriated by Mark's comment about "discrimination in action." Because the status quo of more men than women was disrupted, Mark assumed that the women given offers somehow pushed out more-qualified men. Thankfully, Ben puts us straight. Ben talks about the grueling hiring process for Khan Academy internships, and specifically mentions the meritocracy of the organization. I agree: it is alarming that people seem to think that the women hired were put in place because they are women, and not because they are deserving engineers/developers. As a woman applying to physics graduate programs, I am acutely aware that some people might think I get accepted places because I'm a woman. Even if the fact that I'm a woman helped my applications, I'm still an extremely qualified woman, as are all the women who were offered positions at Khan Academy. I'll end with Jessica Livingston's wish, that soon, we won't find it an anomaly that there are twice as many female as male interns. But for now, I think it's definitely fair for us to celebrate the success of women in the tech workplace! And what better to celebrate than a disruption of the male to female ratio status quo.
* I say "a moment," because as more and more people are accepting their Khan Academy internship offers, the balance of women to men is receding towards what it normally is.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
A quick reflection on grad school admissions
So, as you all may know, I applied to graduate schools this winter. I've heard back from all but one school, and have some acceptances and some rejections. The rejections were really hard for me to accept, but I was lucky to have the support of friends and family. As the tally stands, I have my choice between five schools!
I'm really excited about the acceptances I've gotten, but it's amazing what the mind can do. I got accepted by a school I was certain would reject me, and vice versa. Of course, after I got accepted to the school I was certain would reject me, my mind started racing. "This must be a mistake," and "this school must actually not be very good" were two of the many thoughts I had. But one of my friends sent me this awesome two-minute video, which my friend describes as "a heavy dose of positivity from an awesome lady":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
The awesome lady is Amy Poehler. She talks about absorbing positivity as opposed to obsessing over negativity. Amy's main tip is to accept compliments by saying "thank you." Often, when we get compliments, we say things like, "thanks, but your shoes are nicer," or "thanks, but I don't feel that good today." Instead, we should just say "thank you!" and really let the compliment sink in.
So, thanks so much to the schools that accepted me! I promise, you chose well when you chose me.
I'm really excited about the acceptances I've gotten, but it's amazing what the mind can do. I got accepted by a school I was certain would reject me, and vice versa. Of course, after I got accepted to the school I was certain would reject me, my mind started racing. "This must be a mistake," and "this school must actually not be very good" were two of the many thoughts I had. But one of my friends sent me this awesome two-minute video, which my friend describes as "a heavy dose of positivity from an awesome lady":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
The awesome lady is Amy Poehler. She talks about absorbing positivity as opposed to obsessing over negativity. Amy's main tip is to accept compliments by saying "thank you." Often, when we get compliments, we say things like, "thanks, but your shoes are nicer," or "thanks, but I don't feel that good today." Instead, we should just say "thank you!" and really let the compliment sink in.
So, thanks so much to the schools that accepted me! I promise, you chose well when you chose me.
Monday, February 11, 2013
I found an interesting presentation!
I found a really interesting presentation by Columbia astronomy professor, Kathryn Johnston:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/kathryn_johnston.pdf
Professor Johnston starts her presentation by asking a question. She asks how she and her team hired 19 male scientists in a row at Wesleyan, when she and her team were committed to advancing women in science. The answer turns out not to be very straightforward.
Professor Johnston talks a lot about unconscious bias against women in science, from both women and men. One example she gives is of prestigious postdoctorate positions awarded in Sweden in the year 1995. 52 applicants were female and 62 were male. The awards were disproportionately given to four female applicants and sixteen males. Professor Johnston then looks deeper into the rating system used by the awarders of the postdoctorate positions. Applicants are rated on "scientific competence" and two other factors on a scale from 0 - 4. Prof Johnston found that women systematically scored lower than men in all three areas, especially in scientific competence. Another interesting example of unconscious bias is found outside of science; a woman's chances of getting past first round orchestra auditions increase by 50% when the orchestra uses blind auditions.
What I like the most about Prof Johnston's talk is that she offers concrete solutions to overcoming unconscious bias against women. All her suggestions are based on studies she analyzed, and the the suggestions seem easy enough to implement. Here are a select few of her solutions (all the studies I cite below are listed in her presentation):
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/kathryn_johnston.pdf
Professor Johnston starts her presentation by asking a question. She asks how she and her team hired 19 male scientists in a row at Wesleyan, when she and her team were committed to advancing women in science. The answer turns out not to be very straightforward.
Professor Johnston talks a lot about unconscious bias against women in science, from both women and men. One example she gives is of prestigious postdoctorate positions awarded in Sweden in the year 1995. 52 applicants were female and 62 were male. The awards were disproportionately given to four female applicants and sixteen males. Professor Johnston then looks deeper into the rating system used by the awarders of the postdoctorate positions. Applicants are rated on "scientific competence" and two other factors on a scale from 0 - 4. Prof Johnston found that women systematically scored lower than men in all three areas, especially in scientific competence. Another interesting example of unconscious bias is found outside of science; a woman's chances of getting past first round orchestra auditions increase by 50% when the orchestra uses blind auditions.
What I like the most about Prof Johnston's talk is that she offers concrete solutions to overcoming unconscious bias against women. All her suggestions are based on studies she analyzed, and the the suggestions seem easy enough to implement. Here are a select few of her solutions (all the studies I cite below are listed in her presentation):
- Reviewers of applicants to postdoc/graduate school/faculty should spend at least five minutes on every application.
- A 1991 study showed that reviewers gave systematically lower job performance scores to women if the review was done under time pressure.
- Reviewers should question their evaluations of candidates.
- A 1974 study asked both women and men reviewers to determine whether success at a task was "luck" or "skill." Both sexes of reviewers judged women participants to be far more "lucky" than the men participants, who were regarded as being more "skillful."
- Move to hiring two or more people at once, as opposed to the traditional hiring of one person at a time.
- A Yale study looked at covers of Time Magazine. When only one person was chosen to represent a topic, the one person was always the stereotype. But when there was a group of people chosen to represent the topic, a much wider diversity of representatives was found.
- Writers of letters of recommendation should reread their own letters to see if letters they write for women are shorter, raise more doubts, or talk about the applicant as a teacher/student rather than a researcher/professional.
- A 2003 study looks at letters of recommendation for 300 successful medical school applicants. The study found that letters written for women often were shorter, raised more doubts, or talked about the applicant as a teacher/student rather than a researcher/professional.
I think one of the most interesting things that Professor Johnston brings up is that women are as much of the issue as men. As in, we women also judge women more harshly than we judge men. Clearly, overcoming unconscious bias will not be straightforward. But leaders in our field like Professor Johnston will help us along the potentially bumpy road.
Happy February everyone!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Pay disparity between women and men
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/education/study-says-gender-gap-in-pay-starts-early.html?src=rechp&_r=0
Women get paid 82% of what men get paid, says the smallest article ever.
I wanted to find some sources to verify what the tiny article said, so I did a simple google search on "pay disparity women men." There is a lot of info to be gained! Apparently a study came out towards the end of October, and so a lot of news networks picked up the info to write sotries about the disparity.
- http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/
According to this article, women get paid less than their male colleagues in every field except for
bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks. I have no idea why that is.
- http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-25/wage-gap-for-u-dot-s-dot-women-endures-even-as-jobs-increase
"At the current rate of change, the average year-round, full-time female employee would reach pay
parity with the typical male working in 2063." Yikes! This article also goes through a lot of
different professions to look at the change in number of women and men entering the field in the
past years and then to describe any pay differences.
http://www.pay-equity.org/
There is, in fact, an organization that looks at pay disparity. Apparently pay disparity is inversely
proportional to the amount of education received; a women without a high school degree has to
work 57 years to earn as much as her male counterpart makes in 40 years, whereas a woman with
a high school degree has to work only an extra twelve years.
It is really alarming how much pay disparity still exists! I had no idea. My current job is protected under a union, so women and men make the same amount of money. But clearly this isn't the same with all unions in the nation. Do you make less than your male counterpart? How does one find out if she is paid less? Clearly the answer is not transparent, or the issue would have been solved. Food for thought.
Women get paid 82% of what men get paid, says the smallest article ever.
I wanted to find some sources to verify what the tiny article said, so I did a simple google search on "pay disparity women men." There is a lot of info to be gained! Apparently a study came out towards the end of October, and so a lot of news networks picked up the info to write sotries about the disparity.
- http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/
According to this article, women get paid less than their male colleagues in every field except for
bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks. I have no idea why that is.
- http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-25/wage-gap-for-u-dot-s-dot-women-endures-even-as-jobs-increase
"At the current rate of change, the average year-round, full-time female employee would reach pay
parity with the typical male working in 2063." Yikes! This article also goes through a lot of
different professions to look at the change in number of women and men entering the field in the
past years and then to describe any pay differences.
http://www.pay-equity.org/
There is, in fact, an organization that looks at pay disparity. Apparently pay disparity is inversely
proportional to the amount of education received; a women without a high school degree has to
work 57 years to earn as much as her male counterpart makes in 40 years, whereas a woman with
a high school degree has to work only an extra twelve years.
It is really alarming how much pay disparity still exists! I had no idea. My current job is protected under a union, so women and men make the same amount of money. But clearly this isn't the same with all unions in the nation. Do you make less than your male counterpart? How does one find out if she is paid less? Clearly the answer is not transparent, or the issue would have been solved. Food for thought.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Gender differences in standardized test performance
I found an amazing study on the differences between women's and men's performance on standardized tests. The APS published this study in 1996. I'll keep looking to find a newer study. But for now, I recommend reading this:
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199607/gender.cfm
The study makes several points that I find shocking.
First of all, the study talks about the differences between men's and women's raw scores on the SAT II physics subject test and the physics GRE. From 1994-1995, 28% of the SAT II physics test-takers were women. Women scored 50 points less than men, on average. Those same years, 16% of the physics GRE test-takers were women. Women's average scores were 150 points lower.
The study then tells of a study performed at UC Berkeley in 1995. Berkeley found that women with the same academic indices as men had higher grade point averages than men in every major on campus. Berkeley concluded that 140 points should be added to each woman's academic index to "compensate for the SAT's under-prediction." (The academic index is a score colleges use to evaluate applicants. The index is based on SAT I and II scores and on high school class rank.)
The reasons for the gender gaps in tests scores is also discussed. Studies by the College Board and the ETS show that men do better than women on multiple choice tests because men are more willing to guess when they don't know the answer. Men also do better than women on timed tests. An ETS study showed that when the time limit was removed on the SAT II subject tests, women's scores improved drastically, while men's scores barely changed.
There are many other interesting points discussed in the article. But I think the most interesting point is how the study concludes. A potential solution to the gender gap problem: cut the number of questions on the physics GRE in half, but still allow 170 minutes to complete the test.
What do you think?!
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199607/gender.cfm
The study makes several points that I find shocking.
First of all, the study talks about the differences between men's and women's raw scores on the SAT II physics subject test and the physics GRE. From 1994-1995, 28% of the SAT II physics test-takers were women. Women scored 50 points less than men, on average. Those same years, 16% of the physics GRE test-takers were women. Women's average scores were 150 points lower.
The study then tells of a study performed at UC Berkeley in 1995. Berkeley found that women with the same academic indices as men had higher grade point averages than men in every major on campus. Berkeley concluded that 140 points should be added to each woman's academic index to "compensate for the SAT's under-prediction." (The academic index is a score colleges use to evaluate applicants. The index is based on SAT I and II scores and on high school class rank.)
The reasons for the gender gaps in tests scores is also discussed. Studies by the College Board and the ETS show that men do better than women on multiple choice tests because men are more willing to guess when they don't know the answer. Men also do better than women on timed tests. An ETS study showed that when the time limit was removed on the SAT II subject tests, women's scores improved drastically, while men's scores barely changed.
There are many other interesting points discussed in the article. But I think the most interesting point is how the study concludes. A potential solution to the gender gap problem: cut the number of questions on the physics GRE in half, but still allow 170 minutes to complete the test.
What do you think?!
Friday, October 26, 2012
Happy Halloween!
I thought I would share with you my neat 'n nerdy costume prop idea. But first, a little bit of a back story behind my super villain costume.
"I used to be a student at a fairly well respected university. We students came in large numbers, so I was especially flattered when a young professor asked me to work with him. I found Prof. X's research fascinating. I came up with spin-off experiments to run, and the experiments were ones even Prof. X hadn't thought of! Prof. X supported me fully the whole time I worked in his lab. And because we worked in such close quarters so many days a week, I began to fall in love.
I'd been working with Prof. X for a year and a half at this point. My research was getting close to being able to be published, but we were waiting for the right time. Prof. X told me my research was revolutionary. I pictured a life with him. One day, I sat in my kitchen and turned on the TV. The evening news came on, and I saw Prof. X being interviewed. He was talking about the research he'd done, about his brilliance, about how his research was revolutionary. But he was talking about my research. I immediately ran to Prof. X's office, hoping there had been a mistake. I found him sitting at his desk with his back to the door. I called out and asked, 'What was that interview on TV?' He turned around from his desk with a steely look on his face. He said nothing. I said again, 'What was that interview?' He said, 'The interview was me talking about my revolutionary research.'
'But that's my research!'
'Not anymore.'
'I'll go tell the papers! I have proof that I worked on this, that these were my ideas.'
'And who do you think would believe you? You're a stupid little girl, in love with her professor,
upset that she didn't get any credit for her professor's hard work.'
The blood drained from my face. Prof. X added, 'You think you mean anything to me? I was using you the entire time. Now get out of my office.'
I turned and ran from his office, tears streaming down my face. I couldn't live with this pain, with this humiliation. I wasn't thinking clearly. I ran into a building with a clearly marked "radiation hazard zone." When I got in the building, I laid down, still sobbing. All of a sudden, I heard a loud alarm. 'Attention. Attention. The beam is about to come on. Please exit the area. Attention...' I frantically jumped up and started running for the door. On my way, I tripped, hit my head, and fainted.
There was blood streaming down my face when I awoke. By my blood wasn't red, it was black. I stood up. I felt strong. I felt angry. I felt focused. 'Why should I be the one who is humiliated,' I thought. 'Why should I be the one who suffers.' I walked calmly towards the building doors. The wound on my face healed immediately as I stepped into the moonlight.
The next day, Prof. X's disappearance was all over the news. I roared out of anger. He had disappeared before I got to him. The world immediately blamed me for his disappearance. I was his closest research assistant. They all said I was jealous, that I wanted to take credit for his work. They all said exactly what he said they would say. So I fled the scene and began my machinations. Now, people who see me on the streets avoid me, probably for the better. My very blood is radioactive. With a single touch, I can denature all the proteins in a human's body. I carry a weapon born out of my radio active exposure. The gun emits deadly ionizing radioactive energy. My anger powers my gun. I leave destruction everywhere I go. But my true mission is to track down Prof. X, and find him wherever me may be. I don't care who gets in my way, because he won't be in my way for long.
My name is Miasma."
Great, right? So of course I had to build a fluorescent ray gun (idea given to me by my coworker). Two UV LED's, highlighter ink dissolved in water, toilet paper tubes, basic electronics parts, and soldering equipment. Here is my gun:
.JPG)
Here is my gun when the lights are off and the LED's are on!
Thank you very much to another coworker for helping me make my gun! It has an on and off switch and a dimmer knob. I can't wait for my Halloween costume debut.
Happy Halloween everyone!
"I used to be a student at a fairly well respected university. We students came in large numbers, so I was especially flattered when a young professor asked me to work with him. I found Prof. X's research fascinating. I came up with spin-off experiments to run, and the experiments were ones even Prof. X hadn't thought of! Prof. X supported me fully the whole time I worked in his lab. And because we worked in such close quarters so many days a week, I began to fall in love.
I'd been working with Prof. X for a year and a half at this point. My research was getting close to being able to be published, but we were waiting for the right time. Prof. X told me my research was revolutionary. I pictured a life with him. One day, I sat in my kitchen and turned on the TV. The evening news came on, and I saw Prof. X being interviewed. He was talking about the research he'd done, about his brilliance, about how his research was revolutionary. But he was talking about my research. I immediately ran to Prof. X's office, hoping there had been a mistake. I found him sitting at his desk with his back to the door. I called out and asked, 'What was that interview on TV?' He turned around from his desk with a steely look on his face. He said nothing. I said again, 'What was that interview?' He said, 'The interview was me talking about my revolutionary research.'
'But that's my research!'
'Not anymore.'
'I'll go tell the papers! I have proof that I worked on this, that these were my ideas.'
'And who do you think would believe you? You're a stupid little girl, in love with her professor,
upset that she didn't get any credit for her professor's hard work.'
The blood drained from my face. Prof. X added, 'You think you mean anything to me? I was using you the entire time. Now get out of my office.'
I turned and ran from his office, tears streaming down my face. I couldn't live with this pain, with this humiliation. I wasn't thinking clearly. I ran into a building with a clearly marked "radiation hazard zone." When I got in the building, I laid down, still sobbing. All of a sudden, I heard a loud alarm. 'Attention. Attention. The beam is about to come on. Please exit the area. Attention...' I frantically jumped up and started running for the door. On my way, I tripped, hit my head, and fainted.
There was blood streaming down my face when I awoke. By my blood wasn't red, it was black. I stood up. I felt strong. I felt angry. I felt focused. 'Why should I be the one who is humiliated,' I thought. 'Why should I be the one who suffers.' I walked calmly towards the building doors. The wound on my face healed immediately as I stepped into the moonlight.
The next day, Prof. X's disappearance was all over the news. I roared out of anger. He had disappeared before I got to him. The world immediately blamed me for his disappearance. I was his closest research assistant. They all said I was jealous, that I wanted to take credit for his work. They all said exactly what he said they would say. So I fled the scene and began my machinations. Now, people who see me on the streets avoid me, probably for the better. My very blood is radioactive. With a single touch, I can denature all the proteins in a human's body. I carry a weapon born out of my radio active exposure. The gun emits deadly ionizing radioactive energy. My anger powers my gun. I leave destruction everywhere I go. But my true mission is to track down Prof. X, and find him wherever me may be. I don't care who gets in my way, because he won't be in my way for long.
My name is Miasma."
Great, right? So of course I had to build a fluorescent ray gun (idea given to me by my coworker). Two UV LED's, highlighter ink dissolved in water, toilet paper tubes, basic electronics parts, and soldering equipment. Here is my gun:
.JPG)
Here is my gun when the lights are off and the LED's are on!
Thank you very much to another coworker for helping me make my gun! It has an on and off switch and a dimmer knob. I can't wait for my Halloween costume debut.
Happy Halloween everyone!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
ETS Published Studies
The ETS actually publishes a lot of studies on what their test scores mean and predict: http://www.ets.org/gre/research/ . Most studies relate to the general test. I'm still looking for studies on the physics subject test, and I'm especially curious to know the differences in performance and test taking styles between women and men.
I found one really interesting study published in relatively "ancient" times: http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/greb-74-01sr (or a link to the PDF here: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/GREB-74-01SR.pdf ).
The article is titled, "Women, Men, and the Doctorate." The ETS published the study in 1974 and claims, "The major purpose of this study is to describe the current status and professional development of a sample of women doctorates and to compare them to a sample of men who have attained the same educational status" (p. 2). I found several points to be of particular interest.
I found one really interesting study published in relatively "ancient" times: http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/greb-74-01sr (or a link to the PDF here: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/GREB-74-01SR.pdf ).
The article is titled, "Women, Men, and the Doctorate." The ETS published the study in 1974 and claims, "The major purpose of this study is to describe the current status and professional development of a sample of women doctorates and to compare them to a sample of men who have attained the same educational status" (p. 2). I found several points to be of particular interest.
- "A major reservation about accepting women into doctoral programs has been that women do not remain professionally active long enough to justify the expenditure of talent and money necessary to train them" (p. 21). Luckily, this study seeks to invalidate the claim that training women isn't worth the cost. Apparently, a lot of women do continue in their professional careers.
- "The average number of years for women between the B.A. and doctorate was 13, while for men it was 11. There has been no noticeable decrease in the length of time between degrees: graduates in 1968 averaged about the same number of years as graduates in 1950" (p. 29). We can compare that number to today. In 2003, the average time between the baccalaureate degree and doctorate is 10.1 years, and has changed very little since 1978 (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/). I highly suggest looking at Table 1 in the NSF statistics link. It compares the average number of years to the doctorate between fields, much like the ETS study does.
- A quote from a woman the study interviewed: "My history should not be interpreted as reflecting the domination of 'male chauvinist pigs.' It was my desire to have interesting part-time work without the time consuming and energy sapping duties of more responsible positions, several of which I turned down over the years" (p. 39). HA! This page has a bunch of quotes from women describing why they like their part time employment positions. It's funny, because I can hear many of these statements being said today.
- "It is interesting to note that the majority of reasons given by women for unemployment deal with their marital status and family life responsibilities" (p. 47). Is this still true?
- Another quote from a woman the study interviewed: "I have not 'used' my professional education because I had 4 children and lived in suburbia and loved being a full-time housewife. Now I feel out of it and am." (p. 48). This is a comment by a women who was asked why she no longer is employed. Her claim that she is too far behind in the field kind of resonates with me, but on a much lesser scale. I'd only been out of school for 1.5 years when I started studying again for the GRE. At first, I was unable to solve any problems. So I can't imagine what it would be like to be out of the field for enough years to raise four children and then try to go back in.
- Page 85 has a table of the ranks women vs. men achieved on average in universities. The numbers are given in percentages, and the study polled about 1000 males and 1000 females with doctorates. I find the percentages interesting, because percentages totally normalize the numbers.
There are many other interesting parts of this article! My main fascination is with the quotes from women as to why they didn't continue in physics. It sounds like the issues back then were the same as they are now.
As always, I'd like to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)