The Mancunion

Britain's biggest student newspaper

Are universities sexist?

Recent studies have found that only 22% of professors are female. Does this mean that universities are inherently sexist?

By

In 2016, gender equality in higher education institutions should no longer have to be discussed. However, after examining the current data on male-to-female ratios at universities, it’s clear that gender parity is far from being a reality in academics.

A recent BBC article asked: ‘Are universities secretly sexist?’

The answer; they very well could be.

The history of women in higher education is sadly brief and little-publicised. Although the first university in the world was set up by a woman (and a Muslim woman, no less), most universities did not accept female students for centuries. Oxford and Cambridge were reluctant to take on female undergraduates and even after establishing colleges specifically for them in the early 20th century, they did not give them the freedom to pursue their studies—students had to obtain permission to attend lectures and were not allowed to take degrees.

A century or so on, some things have thankfully changed for the better with most undergraduate degrees across the UK seeing an equal number of male and female students taking up places. Of course, some courses see a gender skew; psychology, English literature, and nursing attract far more female than male students, while physics and engineering are male-dominated courses. However, the number of female students and academics drastically decreases as you ascend the academic career ladder.

Life Sciences often sees more women than men in undergraduate and masters courses. Yet at doctoral and post-doctoral level these women seem to be disappearing, with many of the bioscience departments across the UK still being heavily dominated by male professors, senior lecturers, researchers, and vice chancellors. Half of lecturers are women, but only 24 per cent of professors are women. If there are clearly qualified women in universities, why are not we seeing them in more prominent roles?

Dame Athene Donald, a professor at Cambridge University, blames a ‘subtle blend of cultural expectations’.

There are a whole host of factors that she includes in this ‘blend’. For example, women are not encouraged to aim for doctoral research or post-doctoral positions at universities, nor are they often given adequate support from mentors at universities when expressing interest in moving up in academia.

Women also face both conscious and unconscious bias. Studies have shown that when sending the same application to jobs using both male and female names, employers are often more likely to contact a male candidate, despite there being no differences between the two applications but the supposed gender of the applicant.

It is also well known that women are more likely to take career breaks if starting a family and this can hinder their chances of being promoted within universities.

Some argue that the recent appointment of women to the heads of world-renowned universities such as Oxford and Harvard signals a change in the male-dominated trend. That, slowly but surely, higher education is making steps towards parity. Others argue that single steps like these are not enough. To that effect, initiatives like the Athena SWAN Charter have been established to encourage universities to give women more opportunities and support their progress within academia, with awards and funding opportunities as incentives.

Until gender equality is reached throughout higher education, the question will remain: are universities doing enough for women?

  • Abc

    Every woman who wallows in writing and thinking about this stuff and not getting on with her life is at a disadvantage to every man who simply puts up and shuts up about his disadvantages and keeps going. No wonder men get paid more.

  • Manchestester student

    “many of the bioscience departments across the UK still being heavily dominated by male professors, senior lecturers, researchers, and vice chancellors”

    This might be to do with the fact that 20-30 years ago, more men than women were at university, and thus more men went into postdoctoral research and are thus today’s lecturers. Now that women have overtaken men in terms of numbers in medicine, bioscience, life sciences etc, it will be women in 20-30 years time that are the dominant gender in university teaching.

    The author of this article does not seem to understand this concept. One does not simply become a professor by doing a Phd. It requires years and years of experience – decades even. Hence the reason why men dominate. Now that more women are getting postgraduate qualifications, moving into research and/ or industry, this will change.

    “Studies have shown that when sending the same application to jobs using both male and female names, employers are often more likely to contact a male candidate”

    What studies? For which jobs? What methods did these studies use? How many people were used in these studies?

    “Until gender equality is reached throughout higher education, the question will remain: are universities doing enough for women?”
    So you did not come to the conclusion then? And define what you mean by ‘equality’? Are people supposed to be employed on the basis of their gender, or their individual merits? Women are more likely to go to university, have greater financial independence and have the means to follow postgraduate level study. Gender equality has been achieved, what more can universities possibly do?

  • Manchester student

    Also, you should not write a question as the article title and not some to a clear conclusion. It’s poor journalism. If you are writing to answer a question, which I think is what this article is doing, I want to be persuaded of the answer. I do not want to be given a cliff hanger, which is what this article has done.

  • Pingback: Online Articles of Interest to WIAReport Readers : Women In Academia Report()

  • Pingback: 'Blame your MPs, not labour migrants' | The Mancunion()