Printer Friendly

Revisiting gender bias in doctoral programs in economics.


The percentage of doctorate degrees earned by women in economics increased from 5 percent in 1966 to 28.3 percent in 2001 (Source: American Sociological Association; In comparison to other disciplines, including sociology, political science, psychology, and biology economics has the smallest share of women earning doctoral degrees. Why is there such a low concentration of women in economics relative to other fields? Do women face an unfriendly environment in their doctoral programs? Do economics doctoral programs favor male learning styles and encourage male candidates more than females? Is there gender bias in doctoral programs? The purpose of this study is to find the answers to these questions by surveying persons earning doctoral degrees in economics.

This study follows up on an earlier study by Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995). It is designed to test and update work on gender bias in doctoral programs in economics. The authors extended Shelburn and Lewellyn's (1995) time period and obtained responses from a new set of subjects. In order to investigate the issue of bias in doctoral programs in economics, a survey instrument was mailed to individuals who hold a Ph.D. in economics. Based on the responses from the survey, this study tests several hypothesis and finds new issues that need to be addressed. In general, the findings of the current study support Shelburn and Lewellyn's findings and highlight the importance to further examines the issue of gender bias in doctoral programs in economics.


As stated earlier, this study is an extension of the 1995 research conducted by Shelburn and Lewellyn. Unfortunately, there is no extensive literature on gender bias in doctoral programs in economics; therefore, the authors relied on previous literature that dealt with the gender bias issue in general. Some of the earlier research suggests that a negative attitude toward female graduate students (Berg & Ferber, 1983) and problematic peer relations (Follett, Andberg & Hendel, 1982) result in fewer female students obtaining their post graduate degrees. Given that gender bias in doctoral programs results in fewer doctorate degrees earned by women in economics, this issue is essential to educators, as well as employers.

In addition, Jansen and Owen (2000) suggest that the mainstream economics curriculum excludes topics and methodology of interest to women. This particular study provides a basis for recommending improvements in doctoral programs in economics and in general. Furthermore, Colander and Holmes (2007) investigate the level of women's integration in their economic programs based on the quality of mentoring. They conclude that many women are discouraged from continuing in economics because of the schools' focus on theoretical studies in early core courses. Finally, several investigators addressed the issue of the sex gap in pay (England, 1992; Bellas, 1997). The results obtained by this study , as well as by England (1992) and Bellas (1997), might be useful to economists studying the labor market and wage differentials, given that fewer female students studying economics will directly result in less women economist and thus broaden the sex gap in pay.


For the current study, the authors emailed a survey instrument to persons with PhD's in economics (the Instrument will be provided upon a request). The survey was sent to every tenth member in the AEA listing of the American Economic Association, provided he or she had an email address. If not, the next person was selected as a subject. The current research reports gender-based differences suggested by the responses received from twenty percent of the overall sample (433 men and women with doctorates in economics).

SPSS was used to analyze the data, originally entered into an Excel spreadsheet. For ratio data, male-female differences are tested for statistical significance using the t-test. For ordinal data, male-female differences are tested using the Mann Whitney U test, where the sample size is large enough for U to be approximately normally distributed. Where the percentage of males giving a particular response is to be compared with the percentage of females giving that response, the Chi-squared test is used to determine whether the male-female discrepancy is statistically significant.

Background data provided by the respondents include date of entry into the doctoral program, date Ph.D. was granted, undergraduate and graduate grade point average, marital status during doctoral program, ages of children, and gender. The earliest entry into the doctoral program was in 1946 while the earliest data Ph.D. was granted was in 1948. The latest entry into the doctoral program was in 1999, while the latest date Ph.D. was granted was in 2003. Female graduate students had a higher undergraduate and graduate grade point average than men. Women's undergraduate grade point average was 3.64 (men's was 3.58) while graduate grade point average was 3.72 (men's was 3.53). With respect to their marital status, fewer women were married at the time of their entry into the doctoral program than men (37.5 percent versus 50 percent). This probably reflects a tendency for women to postpone marriage and family plans while in graduate program. On the other hand, a slightly higher percentage of women than men entering graduate school had dependent children.


Personal and Professional Relationships with Graduate Faculty

In the first section of the survey, the respondents are asked about their relationships with doctoral faculty and peers, about the personality characteristics related to success/failure in their doctoral programs, the support systems provided by their institutions to doctoral students, and the nature of their employment since receiving their degrees. The obtained data are separated by gender to identify differential gender impacts on the doctoral experience. Some of the survey questions are objective, simply asking the number of times that the graduate student went to professional meetings, worked with faculty on research grants/proposals, or participated in sporting/social events with faculty. Other questions are subjective, asking about the doctoral student's perceptions of his/her faculty relationships. The authors also included questions to investigate possible gender-based differences in relationships among graduate students themselves. That is, did female graduate students form equally as supportive peer relationships as did their male counterparts; why or why not? Based on the previous studies that investigate the level of women's integration in their economic programs based on the quality of mentoring (Colander & Holmes, 2007), this study also investigates the mentoring issue for both male and female students.

Table 1 reports responses regarding the Student-Faculty Relationship. In Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995), women respondents reported that 4.18 % of their teachers were female, while men reported that 2.68 % of their instructors were female. Women in this study did not report more female teachers (6 %) than did men (6.0 %). As for the structure of the faculty, both men and women reported that only a small percentage of the faculty were female. Females constituted 9% of the faculty according to males and 5% according to female students. These reports are consistent with the findings of Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) and with Jansen and Owen (2000) who suggest that the mainstream economics curriculum excludes topics and methodology of interest to women. Furthermore, on average, women in our study reported fewer friends on the faculty (1.96 percent) than did men (2.43 percent), but the discrepancy is not statistically significant. Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) found both women and men averaging approximately 2.6 percent friendships with faculty.)

Table 1 reports gives some highlight on the graduate economic environment that students face. Based on the obtained responses, male graduate economics student finds more support from the faculty than do female peers. Looking first at the significant gender-based differences, female students attended fewer professional meetings during graduate school. In particular, they used professional meetings less often for job hunting. The reasons for these gender-specific discrepancies are not entirely clear, but surely fewer dissertation-related papers with faculty contribute to fewer presentations by female students at conferences. In addition, one might suspect stricter financial constraints and lack of encouragement from a predominantly male faculty. Additional research might clarify the contributing factors. It is interesting that female students reporting similar levels of recognition for academic performance would still report fewer papers with faculty.

Question 11 reveals that the predominantly male faculty is significantly less likely to invite female students to parties. In a society where sexual harassment is sometimes alleged, it is hardly surprising that a male faculty member would exercise caution in inviting a female student to a party. Nonetheless, partying only with same-gender students results in a bias toward relationship-building between male students and the predominantly male faculty. Other gender-based discrepancies in responses to Question 11 are not statistically significant, but it is worth noting for future research purposes that females reported fewer invitations for every kind of faculty-student interaction listed. While such social interaction as dining or playing baseball is not directly relevant to success in a graduate program, such interactions certainly enhance a student's opportunities to build a relationship of mutual respect and concern with a professor.

University Policies, Procedures, and Support Services

Question 12 (Table 2) was designed to explore the extent of personal relationships with faculty. This question is closely related to the question regarding friendships between students and faculty, so the responses obtained for question 12 shed light on why women reported fewer friends on their faculty. Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) suggested that more women lacked a faculty member with whom they could comfortably discuss personal issues. In this study, 38.5% women answered "no" to this question versus 27.3% of men. Similarly, when asked whether they had a faculty member with whom they could discuss career goals, 19.2% of women answered "no" compared to 14.5% of men. Likewise, more women than men felt uncomfortable discussing unfair treatment from professors (31.0% versus 22.65), discrimination (30.8% versus 23.65), sexual harassment (34.6% versus 17.65) or an incompetent professor (30.85 versus 23.65%). The above results suggest that more female students felt uncomfortable discussing issues regarding their well-being with faculty members than the male students. This could be a reason for the previous finding which suggested that women averaged fewer friends among the faculty than men.

Furthermore, participants' responses to question 12 revealed important differences in perceived accessibility of faculty by women and men for various academic and professional purposes. When asked about discussing personal issues or inadequacy of facilities, more men than women were uncertain about their answers and replied "do not know" (31.0% versus 11.5% and 17.0% versus 8.0% respectively). This finding is consistent with Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) suggesting that the males' uncertainty about these issues may reflect their belief that it is inappropriate to discuss such emotional or "intangible" issues. Similarly, when asked about discrimination or unfair treatment from professors, more men were uncertain about these issues than women (52.7% versus 19.2% and 37.7% versus 19.2%, respectively). Once again, our results are consistent with Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) who suggested that men could not imagine that discrimination or unfair treatment from professors might arise or exist.

More men than women were questioned by faculty about marriage and family plans and their social life, but the difference was not significant. Similarly, only slightly more females reported comments from faculty about their appearance. This is a difference from the Shelburn and Lewellyn 1995 study. Furthermore, the questions regarding research, publishing and the number of consulting jobs conducted with graduate faculty reveal slightly different results than the ones obtained by Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995).

Relationships with Peers and Progress in the Graduate Program

When they examined personal and professional relationships with peers, Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) asked questions about the number of close friendships and satisfaction with various peer-related elements during the graduate school tenure. This study have closely followed Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) and examined the same issues. The responses to questions regarding the number of close friendships and satisfaction with peer-related experiences are reported in Table 3a and Table 3b.

What do we learn from Table 3a and Table 3b? The literature suggests that female graduate students are not so well satisfied with their peer relationships as male graduate students (Follett, Andberg, & Hendel, 1982). Part a of Table 3a produces no significant differences between the satisfaction levels reported by the two gender groups with the different aspects of their experiences. Nonetheless, male satisfaction levels are generally higher and larger sample sizes might produce significant differences. This is consistent with the fact that women also report more thought to dropping out of the graduate program; again large sample sizes might or might not render the gap significant.

However, there is a significant difference between the numbers of male friends that women and men students report among their peers. Yet, that difference does not hold for the numbers of female friends reported. While it is not clear why the significance does not hold for females, the result does indicate that the total number of friends reported by male students would be somewhat higher. This is consistent with Montgomery and Anderson (2007) who suggest that because of the unfriendly environment that women face in MBA programs, more of them are likely to drop-off from the graduate program.

Perhaps the most interesting findings from Table 3 are those related to the characteristics deemed necessary to succeed in the doctoral program. Before looking at the individual characteristics associated with success, it is interesting that males tended to assign lower importance scores to the listed characteristics overall. Is this because the men thought success was easier or more likely than did females? Or do men simply assign lower scores to the same degree of importance? This study cannot determine which explains the difference, but personal interviews with males versus females might investigate this further.

Looking at the individual characteristics, what is noteworthy is that women deem four characteristics significantly more essential (at a 5% a-level) to success than do males: being politically astute, motivated, enthusiastic, and assertive. Being attractive and extroverted would gain significance at a 10%a-level. These characteristics are personality attributes generally associated with moving forward in the face of opposition and obstacles. Intelligence is notably absent from the list. This suggests that women associate success with an ability to deal with the graduate school relationships or interpersonal communication rather than ability.

Stress Levels Caused by Factors from Out-of-Classroom

The data obtained by this study indicates no gender-based differences in the availability of financial support to graduate students. These results are consistent with Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) who reported a similar distribution of assistantships and fellowships to graduate students. As a result, respondent reported very similar living standards, whether male or female. Table 4 presents these results.

Table 4 shows only two significant differences in the responses of males and females. Both have to do with gender discrimination and both are consistent with the Shelburn and Lewellyn findings. Women were more likely than men to report the lack of a faculty member with whom they could discuss gender bias or harassment if the issue arose. Men were more likely to say they could find faculty to discuss it with or they didn't know if they could or not. These results probably reflect both the high percentage of male faculty and the lack of as many close faculty relationships among female students. Another interesting observation about Table 4 is that, for eight of the ten topics, a higher percentage of female (than male) students reported that they would have no faculty member to talk with. This is consistent with the perception that females are less likely to have mentors among graduate faculty than do their male peers. Future studies might investigate further the nature of mentoring roles among graduate students and the role of mentoring in student success.

The Academic Experience and Career

Differences in preparation during their doctoral program were perhaps responsible for differences in the jobs that men and women obtained after their graduate work. Consistent with Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995), our findings indicate that 51.9% of men work for Ph.D.-granting institutions versus 37.5% of women. Reskin (1998) suggested that gender bias in graduate programs resulted in gender bias in the labor force. The results obtained by the current study support Reskin's argument. Even though women were more likely than men to be at "other" granting institutions (such as Master's and Bachelor's) and even hold non-academic jobs, they were still earning less money than men. For instance, if they held nine-month positions men earned up to eleven percent more than women (Table 5). Similarly, if men held twelve-month positions, on average they earned thirty-nine percent more than women. These findings are consistent with England (1992) and Bellas (1997) who suggested that the earnings disparity between men and women results from discrimination against female in certain occupations, such as economics, that are disproportionately filled by men.

Furthermore, the female perception of poorer career preparation is consistent with the smaller number of proceedings (1.52% versus 6.40%) and refereed journals (5.84% versus 18.30%) for women relative to men. More homogeneous answers were obtained for men and women when they were asked about their workday. Both reported the desire to increase the percentage of their workday devoted to research--women would prefer 43% research to current 31%; men would prefer 57% to current 41%. Similarly, both men and women wanted to spend less time doing administrative work--women would prefer 15% instead of 25%; men would prefer 9% instead of 11.3%.

Therefore, gender differences in graduate economics programs are probably to blame for some of the career discrepancies indicated by the responses reported in Table 5. Females with Ph.D.'s in economics in this study did earn significantly less than their male counterparts and they have published significantly less. In these regards, the results from this study mirror both the facts of academic life for female economists and the results from Shelburn and Lewellyn(1995), Booth, Frank, and Blackaby (2002), Ginther and Kahn (2004).


For this study, a questionnaire was emailed to 433 individuals who

have successfully completed their graduate work in economics. The electronic approach was chosen with the aim of achieving a higher response rate than that of the Shelburn and Lewellyn (1995) study with its mailed instrument. However, the response rate was disappointing at 20%, so that the possibility of non-respondent bias still cannot be ruled out. Thus, the results reported here are suggestive rather than definitive.


This study can be extended in several ways. Given that gender bias in doctoral programs results in fewer doctorate degrees earned by women in economics, the issue is essential to educators. Analysis of survey results provides a basis for recommending improvements in doctoral programs in general. In addition, the results obtained by this study identify actions that would be particularly helpful in increasing female success in doctoral programs in economics. Therefore, the future research might be useful to economists studying the labor market and wage differentials, given that fewer female students studying economics will directly result in less women economist and thus broaden the sex gap in pay (England, 1992; Bellas, 1997).

This study shows no significant difference between the financial support provided to male and female graduate students, so the current study reaches no conclusions in that regard. Further investigation might look at gender differences in the nature of funding, as the survey responses suggest that females are perhaps more likely to be inadequately funded, more worried about their finances, and given teaching or research assistantships rather than fellowships requiring no work. What we can determine is that females indicate a significantly higher overall stress level than their male peers and that physical safety is one of the components of their stress. Given that large Ph.D. institutions are often in large cities that require students to commute or to park at significant distances from campus, this is hardly surprising. Studying and using library/computer facilities are areas where female respondents indicate that safety issues more strongly impact their graduate experiences.

Furthermore, it is worth noting, for future research purposes, that females reported fewer invitations for every kind of faculty-student interaction listed. While such social interaction as dining or playing baseball is not directly relevant to success in a graduate program, such interactions certainly enhance a student's opportunities to build a relationship of mutual respect and concern with a professor.


The reported responses support previous findings suggesting gender-based differences in graduate programs in economics. For instance, women reported fewer friends on the faculty with whom they could comfortably discuss personal issues, career goals, unfair treatment from professors, sexual harassment or incompetent professors. Men still played sports more often with graduate faculty than women. Professors' comments regarding marriage/family, physical appearance and social life were more addressed toward female than their male counterparts. Similarly, in terms of satisfaction with peer relationships, once again, women reported lower satisfactory level. With respect to their academic experience, women reported less satisfaction with their "readiness" to conduct or publish research. As a result, females tend to be at non-Ph.D. granting institutions and they are being paid less than their male counterparts. This deserves further investigation.

Even though women reported higher degree of research publications and consulting jobs, only few of them felt recognized as junior colleagues. Women also reported greater concerns about finances, job prospects, family/marital status and physical safety. At the same time, they knew more about the availability of childcare facilities and maternity/paternity leave policies.

Based on the current findings, as well as on Shelburn and Lewellyn's work, several relevant policies and programs can be implemented in order to improve gender-friendliness in graduate programs in economics. Both, male and female faculty should improve the learning environment in order to accommodate different learning styles of men and women. Programs that educate both students and faculty about the potential gender-biased should be implemented. Efforts should be made in order to make academic experience more satisfying for male and female students.


Berg, H. M., & Ferber, M. A. (1983). Men and Women Graduate Students" Journal of Higher Education, 54(6): 629-48.

Bellas, M. L. (1997). Disciplinary Differences in Faculty Salaries: Does Gender Bias Play a Role?" Journal of Higher Education, 68(3).

Booth, L. A., Frank, J., & Blackaby, D. (2002). Outside Offers and the General Pay Gap: Empirical Evidence from the UK Academic Labour Market. University of Essex Working Paper (16). Abstract Retrieved October 3, 2003.

Colander, D., & Holmes, J. (2007). Gender and Graduate Economics Education in the US. Feminist Economics, 13 (2): 95-116.

England, P. (1992). Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence Aldine De Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.

Follett, C., Andberg W., & Hendel, D. (1982). Perceptions of the College Environment by Men and Women Students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 525-31.

Ginther, D.K., & Shulamit, K. (2004). Women in Economics: Moving up or Falling off the Academic Ladder? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, (3): 193-214.

Jensen, E.J., & Owen, A.L. (2000). Why Are Women Such Reluctant Economists? Evidence from Liberal Arts Colleges. American Economic Review, 90 (2): 466-470.

Montgomery, M., & Anderson, K. (2007). Best laid plans: Gender and the MBA competition rates of GMAT registrants. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 47, 175-191

Reskin, B.F. (1998). Bringing the Men Back in: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women's Work. Gender and Society, 2, 58-81.

Shelburn, M., & Lewellyn, P. (1995). Gender Bias in Doctoral Programs in Economics" The Journal of Economic Literature, 26, (24)

About the Authors:

Sanela Porca is an associate professor of economics at the University of South Carolina Aiken. Her research interests are in economic development and state and local taxation. Dr. Porca strongly believes in power of education and she spends numerous hours working with her students.

Marsha R. Shelburn is retired professor of economics from the University of South Carolina Aiken. She spent three decades as an educator and faculty member of the University of South Carolina Aiken. These days she enjoys painting, swimming, and spending time with her family.

Sanela Porca

Marsha R. Shelburn

University of South Carolina Aiken
Table 1
Student-Faculty Relationship

(Answers in form of ratio data) Males Females t-statistic .05

1. Number of times faculty 1.37 0.93 1.35
 actively sought your
 involvement with research

2. Number of faculty who become 2.43 1.96 1.08
 your friends

3. Percentage of time you were 0.26 0.17 1.47
 treated as a junior colleague

4. Number of times traveled to
 professional meeting
 Total 3.47 1.59 2.96 Yes
 To job hunt 1.48 0.78 2.42 Yes
 To present paper with faculty 0.28 0.19 0.61
 To present paper alone or 0.67 0.33 1.83
 with peer

5. Percentage of graduate faculty 0.09 0.05 -1.80
 that were women

6. Percentage of your teachers 0.06 0.06
 who were women

7. Number of consulting jobs from 0.28 0.22 0.434
 faculty referrals during your
 doctoral program

8. Number of papers published
 with doctoral faculty
 Related to dissertation 0.39 0.04 2.91 Yes
 Unrelated to dissertation 0.44 0.41 0.116

9. Number of faculty who
 Your plans regarding 1.11 0.63 1.65
 Your physical appearance 0.25 0.33 0.42
 Your social life 0.71 0.44 1.01

10. How often did faculty recognize you as a good students?
(Mann Whitney Z = -1.26)

 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Total

Male 3 (5) 9 (15.8) 17 (29.8) 26 (45.6) 2 (3.5) 57
Female 0 (0) 2 (7.4) 12 (44.4) 8 (29.6) 5 (18.5) 27

 Mann Signif.
11. How often Whitney at 5%
did faculty Z [alpha]-
invite you Stat. level? Gender Never Rarely Often Total

To play a -0.87 M 36 14 5 55
sport? (66%) (26%) (9%)
 F 18 5 2 25
 (72%) (20%) (8%)

For a meal or -1.76 M 11 29 14 54
drink? (20%) (54%) (26%)
 F 11 10 5 26
 (42%) (38%) (19%)

To a party? -1.96 Yes M 8 39 7 54
 (15%) (72%) (13%)
 F 9 15 2 26
 (35%) (58%) (8%)

To visit in -1.60 M 8 41 6 55
faculty home? (15%) (75%) (11%)
 F 6 17 2 25
 (24%) (68%) (8%)

To visit -1.20 M 4 14 38 56
office? (7%) (25%) (68%)
 F 2 9 15 26
 (8%) (35%) (58%)

Table 2
University Policies, Procedures, and Support Services

 Yes % No % Know %

Childcare available? M 1.81 52.7 45.5
 F 3.8 30.8 61.5

Maternity/Paternity Leave? M 1.81 51 47.3
 F 3.8 27 69.2

Was there a faculty member with whom you could have discussed

Which courses to register for? M 87.3 3.6 9.1
 F 88.5 7.7 3.8

How to achieve career goals? M 80 14.5 3.6
 F 69.2 19.2 11.5

An incompetent professor? M 45.4 23.6 29
 F 57.7 30.8 11.5

Discrimination against you? M 35 7.3 52.7
 F 46.2 30.8 19.2

Sexual harassment by a professor? M 59 17.6 22.4
 F 42.3 34.6 23.1

Unreasonable delays by a comm. M 60.4 17 22.6
member? F 76 16 8

Problem forming dissertation M 81 7.7 11.5
committee? F 64 16 20

Inadequacy of facilities? M 60.4 22.6 17
 F 80 12 8

Unfair treatment from professor? M 39.6 22.6 37.7
 F 50 31 19.2

Personal issues? M 41.8 27.3 31
 F 50 38.5 11.5

 at 5%
 [X.sup.2] level?

Childcare available? M 5.89 0.053

Maternity/Paternity Leave? M 4.40 0.111

Was there a faculty member with whom you could have discussed

Which courses to register for? M 1.25 0.54

How to achieve career goals? M 2.14 0.34

An incompetent professor? M 3.92 0.14

Discrimination against you? M 8.06 0.045
 F Yes

Sexual harassment by a professor? M 13.52 0.004
 F Yes

Unreasonable delays by a comm. M 3.87 0.276
member? F

Problem forming dissertation M 2.92 0.405
committee? F

Inadequacy of facilities? M 3.91 0.27

Unfair treatment from professor? M 3.95 0.27

Personal issues? M 3.76 0.15

Table 3a and Table 3b (combined)
Relationships with Peers During Graduate School

 1 = very 2 =
a. Satisfaction Level dissatisfied Dissatisfied 3 = Neutral

'Intellectual contact M 2 2 7
 F 0 4 3

Social contact M 1 2 9
 F 0 4 6

Respect for your M 0 2 8
abilities F 1 0 4

Office space assigned M 5 6 8
 F 1 6 3

Oppor. to participate M 1 2 5
in class discuss. F 0 3 2

Oppor. to ask ques. M 0 0 5
in class F 0 1 5

Importance of
characteristic in
graduate program 1 = Not
success Important 2 3

a) Assertive M 4 6 18
 F 2 0 5

b) Aggressive M 12 14 13
 F 5 4 8

c) Honest M 7 15 14
 F 3 2 12

d) Intelligent M 0 0 6
 F 0 0 1

e) Politically M 13 13 13
Astute F 2 2 9

f) Intense M 6 14 17
 F 2 5 5

g) Motivated M 0 2 1
 F 1 0 0

h) Enthusiastic M 4 8 18
 F 2 0 7

i) Extroverted M 11 18 17
 F 6 4 7

j) Optimistic M 5 13 18
 F 2 4 11

k) Physically Fit M 36 (68%) 10 6
 F 15 (56%) 6 3

l) Attractive M 35 (67%) 11 6
 F 14 (54%) 7 2

Did you ever Never Occasionally
consider dropping M 37 (65%) 16
out? F 14 (51%) 10

 4 = 5 = Very
a. Satisfaction Level Satisfied Satisfied

'Intellectual contact M 21 25 (44%)
 F 9 10 (38%)

Social contact M 25 20 (35%)
 F 9 7 (27%)

Respect for your M 24 23 (40%)
abilities F 11 9 (36%)

Office space assigned M 23 13 (24%)
 F 6 11 (41%)

Oppor. to participate M 30 19 (33%)
in class discuss. F 9 13 (48%)

Oppor. to ask ques. M 30 22 (39%)
in class F 9 12 (44%)

Importance of
characteristic in
graduate program
success 4 5 = Crucial

a) Assertive M 18 5 (10%)
 F 10 10 (37%)

b) Aggressive M 10 2 (4%)
 F 3 6 (22%)

c) Honest M 11 8 (15%)
 F 4 6 (22%)

d) Intelligent M 19 28 (53%)
 F 9 17 (6%)

e) Politically M 10 3 (6%)
Astute F 6 8 (30%)

f) Intense M 10 6 (22%)
 F 9 5 (19%)

g) Motivated M 21 29 (54%)
 F 4 22 (82%)

h) Enthusiastic M 18 5 (9%)
 F 5 13 (52%)

i) Extroverted M 4 3 (6%)
 F 7 3 (11%)

j) Optimistic M 11 6 (11%)
 F 7 3 (11%)

k) Physically Fit M 1 0
 F 3 0

l) Attractive M 0 0
 F 3 0

Did you ever Frequently
consider dropping M 4
out? F 3

a. Satisfaction Level Z stat. Signif

'Intellectual contact M -0.713

Social contact M -1.441

Respect for your M -0.692
abilities F

Office space assigned M -1.172

Oppor. to participate M -0.751
in class discuss. F

Oppor. to ask ques. M -0.263
in class F

Importance of
characteristic in Mann
graduate program Whitney
success Z stat. Signif

a) Assertive M -3.18 Yes

b) Aggressive M -1.296

c) Honest M -1.19

d) Intelligent M -1.17

e) Politically M -3.37 Yes
Astute F

f) Intense M -1.43

g) Motivated M -2.35 Yes

h) Enthusiastic M -3.11 Yes

i) Extroverted M -1.69

j) Optimistic M -0.90

k) Physically Fit M -1.38

l) Attractive M -1.825

Did you ever
consider dropping M -1.15
out? F

Table 3b Relationships with Peers During Graduate School

 95% CI for
b. The number of ([[micro].sub.M]- Signif.
close friendships By Males By Females [[micro].sub.F]) at 5%?

With male peers 4 2.73 0.009 to 2.4 Yes
With female peers 1.27 2.23 -1.77 to 0.044
Total 5.27 4.96

Financial Support and Circumstances

 for difference
 between %'s
For what percentage of Mean (none is
doctoral studies did significant)
you receive M F

A teaching assistantship 37% 44% -0.79
A research assistantship 16% 19% -0.57
A fellowship 47% 39% 0.95
No university support 9% 7% 0 28

of living
graduate 1 = 4 = Mann Whitney
school impoverished 2 3 affluent Z Statistic

Males 2 (4%) 23 (40%) 32 (56%) 0 (0%)
Females 2 (7%) 12 (44%) 12 (44%) 1 (4%) -0.64

Your mental/
emotional 1 = 5 = Mann
state during never always Whitney
grad. school worried 2 3 4 worried Z

Overall M 7 (13%) 17 (30%) 24 (43%) 5 (9%) 3 -3.3
 F 3 (11%) 3 (11%) 14 (52%) 5 (19%) 2 Signif

Concern M 7 17 24 5 3 -1.71
about F 3 3 14 5 2

Concern re. M 36 (64%) 12 (21%) 6 (11%) 2 (4%) 0 -2.08
physical F 12 (44%) 6 (22%) 4 (15%) 5 (19%) 0 Signif

Concern M 7 5 24 16 4 -1.16
about job F 1 4 9 9 4

Concern re. M 22 16 10 6 2 -0.41
marital F 12 6 7 2 0

Concern M 26 16 10 3 1 -1.27
about family F 10 6 7 3 1

 [chi square]
 for difference
 in % of Males
Which of the following did and Females p-value Significance
your safety concerns dictate? responses

Hrs. of library/computer use 17.60 0.000 Yes
Places of study 14.18 0.000 Yes
Study schedule 7.85 0.005 Yes
Course schedule 2.22 0.136
Course location 1.81 0.179
Living quarters 1.33 0.249
No safety concerns 4.00 0.046 Yes

Table 5
Academic Experience and Career

 Interval for
 Male Female Males and
Career Mean Mean Females Significance

Current salary $100,166 $72,409 $5,174 to Yes
Number of

In proceedings 6.29 1.48 1.55 to 8.07 Yes

In refereed journals 14.69 5.76 2 to 15 Yes

 Men (%) Women (%)

Type of institution of current employer

Ph. D. granting 51.9 37.5
Master's granting 7.4 16.6
Bachelor's granting 16.6 20.8
Nonacademic 24.1 25

Percentage of workday for

Research 41 31
Teaching 27 32
Administration 20 25
Other 11.3 12

Percentage of your preferred workday

Research 57 43
Teaching 27 31
Administration 9 15
Other 6 10
COPYRIGHT 2010 International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Porca, Sanela; Shelburn, Marsha R.
Publication:International Journal of Education Research (IJER)
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2010
Previous Article:Some critical factors in student learning.
Next Article:Your team is in: a collaborative assessment and learning tool.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters