The usual presentation of data about U.S. women's undergraduate degrees in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math) is based on the percentage of degrees in each field that are awarded to women. For years this by-discipline view of the data has been used to support claims of improvement in women's participation in these fields. Unfortunately, this perspective serves to inflate the extent of the improvement, and the actual situation of women in STEM fields is more serious than commonly believed. The by-discipline view can also suggest research questions about gender in STEM that turn out to be somewhat misguided.
By combining National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data for 1966-2012, we can construct the typical by-discipline view of women in STEM, with its indication of progress over time.
During the time period examined, each disciplinary area saw an increase in the proportion of degrees that were awarded to women. The categories used are NSF catch-alls as follows: engineering; physical sciences; earth, atmospheric and ocean sciences; mathematics; computer science; biological and agricultural sciences. The "All" category refers to the combination of these individual disciplines. This view of the data does not, however, tell a completely accurate story.
During the same time period, 1966-2012, there has been a seismic shift in the makeup of the undergraduate college-going population. First, that population has grown considerably. In 1966 there were 524,008 bachelors degrees awarded nationwide. By 2012 that number had more than tripled to 1,810,647. Second, the gender demographics changed quite dramatically, as shown below. In 1966 the graduating baccalaureate pool was 42.6% women, while the 2012 pool was 57.4% women.
With a change of this magnitude we would expect to see a larger number of women in every field, and it is easy to mischaracterize the resulting effects. Consequently, a different form of analysis is necessary to accurately gauge the extent of change in women's participation in the STEM disciplines. As a first step, breaking with the conventional by-discipline analysis, I examine women's STEM degrees as a percentage of women's bachelors degrees overall, again comparing 1966 and 2012.
This view of the data, supported by the table below, shows that women earned biology degrees in 2012 at about twice the rate they did in 1966. They also earned engineering degrees at a significantly higher rate. There was a slight increase in earth sciences, a decrease in physical sciences, a significant decrease in mathematics, and improvement in CS. In fact, driven by the positive shifts in Biology, Engineering, and CS, in 2012 women earned 11.22% of their degrees in STEM, compared to only 7.47% in 1966.
Once we view women's degree data this way, we should also consider a comparable view of men's degree data. This will give us a mechanism for gauging the degree of disparity in terms of the rate at which women are earning degrees in STEM disciplines. Analysis of men's STEM degrees as a percentage of men's total degrees gives the following:
This view of the data shows that, overall, men are pursing STEM fields at a lower rate today than they did in 1966. Men are earning a lower percentage of their degrees in every STEM discipline except for computer science. Overall, in 1966 men earned 28.68% of their degrees in a STEM field, which dropped to 24.06% by 2012.
Now we can do a true side-by-side comparison of the rate at which these two populations earn degrees in the STEM fields.
While the by-discipline view of STEM degrees is far from rosy, this by-gender view of the data facilitates a more accurate assessment of the situation for women in STEM, and we can build on this to understand the ways in which the by-discipline view can mislead. If there were parity between men and women in STEM disciplines then they would graduate with degrees in those fields at the same rate relative to the size of their respective pools. We see this only in Biology where the graduation rate is almost equal (7% of women's 2012 degrees were earned in Biology versus 6.77% of men's 2012 degrees). In all other STEM fields men earned degrees at a higher rate and women are far from parity. Below I have repeated the comparison of the rate at which men and women earn STEM degrees, including a "gender disparity ratio", the ratio of men's rate/women's rate, which serves as one measure of how much faster the rate is at which men are earning degrees in each discipline (except Biology).
This shows that men earned degrees at 5.7 times women's rate in the engineering disciplines, and at 6 times women's rate in computer science. We can extend this analysis by computing the gender disparity ratio for 1966 and comparing that to the ratio we computed for 2012, based on the rate at which men earned STEM degrees in 1966 as a percentage of men's degrees, and similarly for women. A comparison of the 1966 and 2012 data, given in the next table, shows that there has been improvement in each of the STEM disciplines except for math and CS. In 1966 men earned math degrees at 1.48 times the rate women did, and that increased to 1.8 times by 2012. In 1966, admittedly when CS was a new academic discipline, men earned CS degrees at 3 times the rate women did, and this increased to 6 times women's rate by 2012.
If we look at the by-discipline and by-gender views side by side, certainly both indicate that there is still much work to be done, even with the relatively more optimistic sense of progress presented in the by-discipline view. If we dig deeper, however, into the ramifications of these two perspectives, we see that the by-discipline view can mislead us about the degree of progress and about questions to consider as we continue to try to change the situation for women in STEM disciplines.
Certainly the by-discipline view on the left gives a sense of progress because in 2012 women earned a higher percentage of degrees in each discipline than they earned in 1966. Unfortunately this view, because it does not take into account the overall demographic change in the baccalaureate population, gives a false picture of the gender disparity. The by-gender view on the right gives a much more accurate picture of how far from parity women are in terms of the rate at which they earned STEM undergraduate degrees.
There are a few ways that we can demonstrate how the by-discipline perspective masks the effect of the changing demographics and the true gender disparity. One way to contrast the two perspectives on the data is to convert the by-discipline information to a gender disparity number. For example, in 2012 women earned 18% of all CS degrees, so we can say that the by-discipline view of the data yields a gender disparity ratio of 4.5 (82% / 18%), whereas the by-gender view gives a gender disparity ratio of 6 (men's rate of 5.08% divided by women's rate of 0.84%). A similar computation for all of the disciplines (next table) shows the extent to which the by-discipline perspective masks the full extent of the gender disparity. In other words, the by-gender analysis, taking into account the larger size pool of women students, indicates a more serious gender disparity than we see with the by-discipline data.
Focusing on two disciplines gives us another way to demonstrate that the by-discipline perspective can mask the effect of the demographic change in the baccalaureate population. The next graph shows both by-discipline and by-gender views of women's CS undergraduate degrees for the period 2002-2012. The blue line shows the by-discipline percentage of CS degrees earned by women, while the gold line shows the by-gender percentage of women's degrees earned in CS.
If we look only at CS, this graph does not tell us anything that we do not already know from the previous bar charts and tables. The difference between the two ways of viewing the data becomes clearer if we add to the picture information about women's math degrees. The by-discipline data shows women earning a significantly higher percentage of math degrees than CS degrees (43% vs 18% in 2012, for example). This might lead one to consider constructing studies to examine whether women approach these fields differently or whether the climate in one is significantly different than in the other. It turns out, however, that examining differences between these fields is completely unwarranted. We can see this by adding to the graph the two data views of math degrees. The graph below shows women's math and CS degrees as a percentage of degrees in those fields, as well as women's math and CS degrees as a percentage of all women's degrees.
The rate at which women earned math degrees in 2012 was basically identical to the rate at which women earned CS degrees. The by-discipline view, however, deceives us into thinking women are better represented in math than they are in CS. This is because of the combined effect of the larger number of women overall and the large decline in the rate at which men are earning degrees in math. In fact, in 2012 the raw number of men earning math degrees was lower than it was in 1966, even though more than twice as many men graduated from college in 2012 than in 1966. By contrast, the raw number of women earning math degrees was higher in 2012 than in 1966, and almost 5 times as many women graduated from college than in 1966. But the raw number of women's math degrees earned in 2012 (8536) is almost identical to the number of CS degrees (8730). In the by-discipline view, the overall shifts in the population graduating from college mask the fact that there is no difference in the rate at which women pursue math and CS.
This analysis supports an argument that the "percentage of women by discipline" approach should be abandoned, or at least used cautiously and in conjunction with a "by gender" analysis. Because the by-discipline approach does not take into account overall demographics at the undergraduate level, it is masking exactly how serious the situation is for women is in some disciplines.
A quick look at the graduate degree situation strengthens the argument for use of a by-gender analysis. The overall populations of Masters degree recipients and PhD recipients have changed substantially over time, calling into question the veracity of by-discipline analyses of those groups. The pool of Masters degree recipients was roughly 38% women in the late 1960s, and increased to 59.9% women in 2012. Similarly, the PhD recipient pool was 9.6% women in the late 1960s, up to 51.4% in 2012 (note that NSF and NCES data both show the same trend, although NSF includes fewer types of doctoral degrees in the summary data). By the same reasoning laid out above, any analysis that reports on percentage of total Masters or PhD degrees awarded to women in a discipline could be flawed and lead to incorrect conclusions about the participation of women in many fields.
A closer look at the PhD situation in CS reveals that, in the period 2002-2012, women consistently earned between 19% and 23% of all computer science PhDs. Yet the rate at which women earned those degrees as a proportion of all women's PhDs is less than 1/3 the rate at which men earned their CS PhDs as a proportion of all men's PhDs. The following figure compares women's and men's CS PhDs as a percentage of all women's or men's PhDs respectively.
We can see that women clearly are earning CS PhDs at a lower rate than do men, but the rate has been relatively consistent during the last decade, both as a percentage of women's degrees and as a percentage of total CS PhDs. A comparison, however, between the rate at which women have been earning undergraduate computer science degrees and the rate at which women have been earning CS PhDs may spell trouble ahead because of the slowing rate at which women are pursuing undergraduate CS degrees.
It is critical to ongoing analysis of women in STEM overall, and in computer science in particular, that we use a by-gender analysis in order to derive an accurate picture of the situation. The by-gender analysis will serve as a check against the inflated sense of progress that results from using only a by-discipline analysis, and the by-gender analysis can facilitate a more accurate identification of trends and research directions, helping us avoid spurious research efforts that are not supported by actual data.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2013. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13-304. Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2013. Digest of Education Statistics. Advanced release of selected 2013 digest tables. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2013menu_tables.asp.
I have discussed these ideas with various people over the course of many years. For assistance during development of this post, particular thanks go to Roger Hoerl (Union College) who helped me decide how to most clearly graph and contrast the data, and to Eshragh Motahar (Union College), Jodi Tims (Baldwin Wallace University), Elizabeth Hawthorne (Union County Community College), and Susan Yohn (Hofstra University) who provided valuable feedback.
Valerie - Your analysis was comprehensive, disturbing and a little sad. I am a 30 year petroleum engineer and have found my degree to be a valuable asset even though only a small percentage of my professional life was spent in "pure" engineering roles. Who is your ideal audience for this data?
Displaying 1 comment
Kwa mfano, takwimu za shahada za kwanza za wanawake nchini Marekani katika taaluma za STEM (sayansi, teknolojia, uhandisi, na hisabati) zinategemea asilimia ya shahada katika kila uwanja zinazopewa wanawake. Kwa miaka hii kwa taaluma mtazamo wa data imekuwa kutumika kuunga mkono madai ya kuboresha ushiriki wa wanawake katika nyanja hizi. Kwa bahati mbaya, mtazamo huu hutumika kuongeza kiwango cha uboreshaji, na hali halisi ya wanawake katika nyanja za STEM ni mbaya zaidi kuliko inavyoaminika kwa kawaida. Kwa upande mwingine, utafiti wa utafiti wa kijinsia katika STEM unaweza kuonekana kuwa na matokeo mabaya. Kwa kuchanganya takwimu za National Science Foundation (NSF) na National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) kwa mwaka wa 1966-2012, tunaweza kujenga mtazamo wa kawaida wa wanawake katika STEM, na dalili zake za maendeleo kwa muda. Katika kipindi cha muda kuchunguzwa, kila eneo la nidhamu aliona ongezeko katika uwiano wa digrii ambayo walikuwa tuzo kwa wanawake. "Kifungu cha ""Kufanya kazi"" ni ""Kufanya kazi"" katika sayansi ya sayari, sayansi ya fizikia, sayansi ya anga, sayansi ya bahari, sayansi ya kompyuta, sayansi ya biolojia na sayansi ya kilimo." Jamii ya "Wote" inahusu mchanganyiko wa taaluma hizi za mtu binafsi. Hata hivyo, maoni hayo hayapatani kabisa na mambo yaliyotukia. Katika kipindi hicho hicho cha miaka 1966 hadi 2012, kulikuwa na mabadiliko makubwa katika idadi ya wanafunzi wa chuo kikuu. Kwanza, idadi ya watu imeongezeka sana. Mwaka wa 1966, kulikuwa na digrii za shahada ya kwanza 524,008 zilizotolewa nchini kote. Kufikia mwaka wa 2012, idadi hiyo ilikuwa imeongezeka mara tatu hadi 1,810,647. Pili, idadi ya watu wa jinsia ilibadilika sana, kama inavyoonyeshwa hapa chini. Katika mwaka wa 1966, asilimia 42.6 ya wanafunzi waliohitimu shule ya sekondari walikuwa wanawake, wakati katika mwaka wa 2012 idadi hiyo iliongezeka hadi asilimia 57.4. """Kwa mabadiliko ya ukubwa huu, tungetarajia kuona idadi kubwa ya wanawake katika kila uwanja, na ni rahisi kuelezea madhara yanayotokana na mabadiliko hayo." Kwa hivyo, aina tofauti ya uchambuzi inahitajika ili kupima kwa usahihi kiwango cha mabadiliko katika ushiriki wa wanawake katika taaluma za STEM. Katika hatua ya kwanza, nikivunja na uchambuzi wa kawaida wa taaluma, ninachunguza digrii za STEM za wanawake kama asilimia ya digrii za wanawake za bachelor kwa ujumla, tena nikilinganisha 1966 na 2012. Kwa mujibu wa takwimu zilizotolewa na shirika la habari la BBC, idadi ya wanawake waliopata digrii za biolojia mwaka 2012 ilikuwa mara mbili ya idadi ya wanawake waliopata digrii hizo mwaka 1966. Pia walipata digrii za uhandisi kwa kiwango cha juu sana. Kulikuwa na ongezeko dogo katika sayansi ya dunia, kupungua katika sayansi ya fizikia, kupungua kwa kiasi kikubwa katika hisabati, na kuboresha katika CS. Kwa mfano, katika masomo ya Biolojia, Uhandisi na Sayansi ya Sayansi, wanawake walipata asilimia 11.22 ya digrii zao katika masomo ya STEM, ikilinganishwa na asilimia 7.47 tu katika mwaka wa 1966. Mara tu tunapoona data ya digrii ya wanawake kwa njia hii, tunapaswa pia kuzingatia mtazamo sawa wa data ya digrii ya wanaume. Hii itatupa utaratibu wa kupima kiwango cha tofauti katika suala la kiwango ambacho wanawake wanapata digrii katika taaluma za STEM. Kwa mfano, utafiti wa shahada za STEM za wanaume katika asilimia ya shahada zote za wanaume unaonyesha kwamba, kwa ujumla, wanaume wanafuatilia nyanja za STEM kwa kiwango cha chini leo kuliko walivyofanya mnamo 1966. Wanaume wanapata asilimia ya chini ya digrii zao katika kila taaluma ya STEM isipokuwa sayansi ya kompyuta. Kwa ujumla, katika mwaka wa 1966, wanaume walipata asilimia 28.68 ya digrii zao katika uwanja wa STEM, ambayo ilipungua hadi asilimia 24.06 mnamo 2012. Sasa tunaweza kufanya kulinganisha kwa upande wa kweli wa kiwango ambacho idadi hii ya watu wanapata digrii katika nyanja za STEM. Ingawa mtazamo wa taaluma ya digrii za STEM ni mbali na rangi ya waridi, mtazamo huu wa jinsia ya data unawezesha tathmini sahihi zaidi ya hali ya wanawake katika STEM, na tunaweza kujenga juu ya hii kuelewa njia ambazo mtazamo wa taaluma unaweza kupotosha. Kama kulikuwa na usawa kati ya wanaume na wanawake katika taaluma za STEM, basi wangehitimu na digrii katika nyanja hizo kwa kiwango sawa kulingana na ukubwa wa mabwawa yao. Hii ni kwa sababu katika masomo ya biolojia, asilimia ya wanawake waliohitimu katika masomo ya biolojia ni asilimia 7.7 na asilimia 6.77 ya wanaume wanaohitimu katika masomo ya biolojia. Katika nyanja nyingine zote za STEM wanaume walipata digrii kwa kiwango cha juu na wanawake ni mbali na usawa. "Hii ni kwa sababu ya ""kiwango cha tofauti ya jinsia"" (Gender Disparity Ratio) ambayo ni kipimo cha kiwango cha wanaume na wanawake katika kila taaluma isipokuwa biolojia." Wanaume walipata digrii mara 5.7 zaidi ya wanawake katika taaluma za uhandisi na mara 6 zaidi ya wanawake katika sayansi ya kompyuta. "Tunaweza kupanua uchambuzi huu kwa kuhesabu uwiano wa tofauti za kijinsia kwa mwaka 1966 na kulinganisha na uwiano tuliouhesabu kwa mwaka 2012, kulingana na kiwango ambacho wanaume walipata digrii za STEM mnamo 1966 kama asilimia ya digrii za wanaume, na kwa njia sawa kwa wanawake. """ Kwa kulinganisha takwimu za mwaka wa 1966 na 2012, tunaona kuwa maendeleo yameonekana katika kila moja ya masomo ya STEM isipokuwa katika hisabati na sayansi ya kompyuta. Katika mwaka wa 1966, wanaume walipata digrii za hisabati mara 1.48 kuliko wanawake, na hiyo iliongezeka hadi mara 1.8 kufikia mwaka wa 2012. Mwaka 1966, wakati CS ilikuwa taaluma mpya ya kitaaluma, wanaume walipata digrii za CS kwa kiwango cha mara tatu ya wanawake, na hii iliongezeka hadi mara sita ya kiwango cha wanawake mnamo 2012. Kama sisi kuangalia kwa by-discipline na kwa jinsia maoni sambamba, bila shaka wote wawili kuonyesha kwamba bado kuna kazi nyingi ya kufanyika, hata na hisia ya maendeleo ya kiasi zaidi ya matumaini iliyotolewa katika by-discipline mtazamo. Hata hivyo, tukichimba ndani zaidi katika athari za mtazamo huu, tunaona kwamba mtazamo wa taaluma inaweza kutudanganya kuhusu kiwango cha maendeleo na maswali ya kuzingatia tunapoendelea kujaribu kubadilisha hali ya wanawake katika taaluma za STEM. Kwa kweli, mtazamo wa taaluma kwa upande wa kushoto hutoa hisia ya maendeleo kwa sababu katika 2012 wanawake walipata asilimia ya juu ya digrii katika kila taaluma kuliko walivyofanya katika 1966. Kwa bahati mbaya mtazamo huu, kwa sababu haina kuzingatia mabadiliko ya jumla ya idadi ya watu wa baccalaureate, inatoa picha bandia ya utofauti wa jinsia. Kwa upande wa kulia, maoni ya jinsia hutoa picha sahihi zaidi ya jinsi wanawake walivyo mbali na usawa katika kiwango cha walichopata digrii za shahada ya kwanza za STEM. Kuna njia kadhaa ambazo tunaweza kuonyesha jinsi mtazamo wa taaluma ya kitaaluma unavyoficha athari ya mabadiliko ya idadi ya watu na utofauti wa kweli wa kijinsia. Njia moja ya kulinganisha mitazamo miwili juu ya data ni kubadilisha habari kwa taaluma kwa idadi ya utofauti wa kijinsia. Kwa mfano, katika mwaka wa 2012, wanawake walipata asilimia 18 ya digrii zote za sayansi, kwa hivyo tunaweza kusema kwamba mtazamo wa taaluma ya data hutoa uwiano wa tofauti ya kijinsia ya 4.5, wakati mtazamo wa kijinsia hutoa uwiano wa tofauti ya kijinsia ya 6.5, kiwango cha wanaume cha 5.8% kimegawanywa na kiwango cha wanawake cha 0.84%. Mahesabu ya kawaida ya taaluma zote (tabula inayofuata) inaonyesha kiwango ambacho mtazamo wa taaluma huficha kiwango kamili cha utofauti wa kijinsia. Kwa maneno mengine, uchambuzi wa jinsia, ukizingatia idadi kubwa ya wanafunzi wa kike, unaonyesha utofauti mkubwa wa jinsia kuliko tunavyoona na data ya taaluma. Kuangalia kwa makini masomo mawili hutupa njia nyingine ya kuonyesha kwamba mtazamo wa by-discipline unaweza kuficha athari ya mabadiliko ya idadi ya watu katika idadi ya baccalaureate. Grafu inayofuata inaonyesha maoni ya wanawake kwa taaluma na kwa jinsia ya digrii za shahada ya kwanza za CS kwa kipindi cha 2002-2012. Mstari wa bluu unaonyesha asilimia ya digrii za CS zilizopatikana na wanawake, wakati mstari wa dhahabu unaonyesha asilimia ya shahada za CS zilizopatikana na wanawake. Kwa mfano, ikiwa unaangalia CS, grafu hii haitoi chochote ambacho hatujui tayari kutoka kwa chati za bar na meza zilizopita. Tofauti kati ya njia mbili za kutazama data inakuwa wazi zaidi ikiwa tunaongeza picha habari kuhusu digrii za hisabati za wanawake. Kwa mfano, katika masomo ya masomo ya msingi, asilimia ya wanawake wanaopata digrii ya hisabati ni kubwa kuliko asilimia ya wanawake wanaopata digrii ya sayansi ya sayansi (kwa mfano, 43% dhidi ya 18% katika 2012). Hii inaweza kusababisha mtu kufikiria kujenga masomo ya kuchunguza kama wanawake kukabiliana na nyanja hizi tofauti au kama hali ya hewa katika moja ni tofauti sana kuliko katika nyingine. Hata hivyo, inatokea kwamba kuchunguza tofauti kati ya nyanja hizo si jambo la lazima kabisa. Tunaweza kuona hii kwa kuongeza kwa grafu mbili data maoni ya digrii ya hisabati. Grafu ya chini inaonyesha shahada za wanawake za hisabati na CS kama asilimia ya shahada katika nyanja hizo, na vile vile shahada za wanawake za hisabati na CS kama asilimia ya shahada zote za wanawake. Kiwango cha wanawake waliopata digrii za hisabati mwaka 2012 kilikuwa sawa na kiwango cha wanawake waliopata digrii za sayansi. Kwa upande mwingine, maoni ya kitaaluma yanatudanganya katika kufikiri kwamba wanawake wanawakilishwa vizuri katika hisabati kuliko wanavyofanya katika CS. Hii ni kwa sababu ya athari ya pamoja ya idadi kubwa ya wanawake kwa ujumla na kupungua kwa kiwango ambacho wanaume wanapata digrii katika hisabati. Kwa kweli, katika 2012, idadi ya wanaume waliopata digrii za hisabati ilikuwa chini kuliko ilivyokuwa mnamo 1966, ingawa zaidi ya mara mbili ya wanaume walihitimu kutoka chuo kikuu mnamo 2012 kuliko mnamo 1966. Kwa kulinganisha, idadi ya wanawake waliopata digrii za hisabati ilikuwa kubwa zaidi mwaka 2012 kuliko mwaka 1966, na karibu mara tano zaidi ya wanawake waliohitimu kutoka chuo kikuu kuliko mwaka 1966. Idadi ya wanawake waliopata digrii za hisabati katika mwaka 2012 ni sawa na idadi ya wanawake waliopata digrii za sayansi ya kompyuta. Katika mtazamo wa taaluma, mabadiliko ya jumla katika idadi ya watu wanaohitimu kutoka chuo kikuu huficha ukweli kwamba hakuna tofauti katika kiwango ambacho wanawake hufuata hisabati na CS. Uchambuzi huu inasaidia hoja kwamba "asilimia ya wanawake kwa taaluma" mbinu inapaswa kuachwa, au angalau kutumika kwa tahadhari na kwa kushirikiana na "kwa jinsia" uchambuzi. Kwa sababu mbinu ya by-discipline haizingatii idadi ya watu kwa ujumla katika ngazi ya shahada ya kwanza, ni kuficha hasa jinsi mbaya hali ni kwa ajili ya wanawake ni katika baadhi ya taaluma. Tazama haraka hali ya shahada ya kuhitimu inaimarisha hoja kwa ajili ya matumizi ya uchambuzi kwa jinsia. Idadi ya jumla ya watu waliopokea digrii ya uzamili na PhD wamebadilika sana kwa muda, na kuhoji ukweli wa uchambuzi wa taaluma za makundi hayo. Idadi ya wanawake waliopata digrii ya uzamili ilikuwa asilimia 38 mwishoni mwa miaka ya 1960, na iliongezeka hadi asilimia 59.9 mwaka 2012. Kwa mfano, idadi ya wanawake waliopata shahada ya udaktari ilikuwa asilimia 9.6 mwishoni mwa miaka ya 1960, na iliongezeka hadi asilimia 51.4 mwaka 2012 (tazama kwamba takwimu za NSF na NCES zote zinaonyesha mwelekeo sawa, ingawa NSF inajumuisha aina chache za digrii za udaktari katika takwimu za muhtasari). Kwa sababu hiyo hiyo iliyoelezwa hapo juu, uchambuzi wowote unaoripoti asilimia ya jumla ya digrii za uzamili au PhD zilizopewa wanawake katika taaluma inaweza kuwa na kasoro na kusababisha hitimisho lisilo sahihi juu ya ushiriki wa wanawake katika nyanja nyingi. Kwa kuzingatia hali ya PhD katika CS, inaonyesha kwamba katika kipindi cha 2002-2012, wanawake walipata kati ya 19% na 23% ya PhD zote za sayansi ya kompyuta. Hata hivyo, kiwango cha wanawake waliopata shahada hizo kama uwiano wa PhDs wote wa wanawake ni chini ya theluthi moja ya kiwango cha wanaume waliopata PhDs zao za CS kama uwiano wa PhDs zote za wanaume. Katika takwimu zifuatazo, wanawake na wanaume wanaoshiriki katika PhD ya Sayansi ya Sayansi (CS) ni asilimia ya wanawake na wanaume wanaoshiriki katika PhD. Wanawake wanafanya PhD katika sayansi ya sayansi kwa kiwango cha chini kuliko wanaume, lakini kiwango hicho kimekuwa sawa katika muongo uliopita, kama asilimia ya digrii za wanawake na kama asilimia ya jumla ya PhDs. Hata hivyo, kulinganisha kati ya kiwango ambacho wanawake wamekuwa wakipata digrii za shahada ya kwanza ya Sayansi ya Kompyuta na kiwango ambacho wanawake wamekuwa wakipata shahada ya PhD ya Sayansi ya Kompyuta kunaweza kuashiria shida mbele kwa sababu ya kiwango cha kupunguza ambacho wanawake wanafuatilia shahada ya kwanza ya Sayansi ya Kompyuta. Ni muhimu kwa uchambuzi wa wanawake katika STEM kwa ujumla, na katika sayansi ya kompyuta hasa, kwamba sisi kutumia uchambuzi kwa jinsia ili kupata picha sahihi ya hali. Uchambuzi wa jinsia kwa jinsia utatumika kama ukaguzi dhidi ya hisia ya maendeleo iliyoinuka ambayo hutokana na kutumia tu uchambuzi wa taaluma, na uchambuzi wa jinsia kwa jinsia unaweza kuwezesha utambulisho sahihi zaidi wa mwenendo na mwelekeo wa utafiti, kutusaidia kuepuka juhudi za utafiti zisizo na msingi ambazo hazitegemezwi na data halisi. National Science Foundation, Kituo cha Taifa cha Sayansi na Uhandisi Takwimu. Mwaka 2013 Wanawake, Wachache, na Watu wenye Ulemavu katika Sayansi na Uhandisi: 2013 Taarifa maalum NSF 13304 Arlington, VA. Inapatikana katika http: www.nlc.gov.au na katika tovuti ya www.nlc.au. Kituo cha Taifa cha Takwimu za Elimu. Mwaka 2013 Digest ya Takwimu za Elimu. Toleo la mapema la meza za muhtasari zilizochaguliwa za 2013 "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika ukurasa wa ""Makampuni ya Uuzaji"" (http: www.nces.edu.gov) na ""Makampuni ya Uuzaji"" (http: www.nces.edu.gov) na ""Makampuni ya Uuzaji"" (http: www.nces.edu.gov) na ""Makampuni ya Uuzaji"" (http: www.nces.edu.gov)." Nimekuwa nikizungumzia mawazo haya na watu mbalimbali kwa miaka mingi. Kwa msaada wakati wa maendeleo ya chapisho hili, shukrani maalum kwenda Roger Hoerle (Union College) ambaye alisaidia mimi kuamua jinsi ya wazi zaidi grafu na kulinganisha data, na kwa Eshragh Motahar (Union College), Jodi Timms (Baldwin Wallace Chuo Kikuu), Elizabeth Hawthorne (Union County Community College), na Susan Yohn (Hofstra Chuo Kikuu) ambao alitoa maoni muhimu. Valerie - Uchambuzi wako ulikuwa wa kina, wenye kusumbua na wenye kuhuzunisha kidogo. Mimi ni mhandisi wa mafuta wa miaka 30 na nimepata shahada yangu kuwa mali ya thamani hata ingawa asilimia ndogo tu ya maisha yangu ya kitaaluma ilitumika katika majukumu ya uhandisi "safi". Ni nani wasikilizaji wako bora kwa ajili ya data hii? Kuonyesha 1 maoni