New NSF Report On Salaries Of Ph.D.'s Reveals Gender Gaps In All Categories

Editor's Note: This story, which discusses the salaries of men and women scientists, is the first of a two-part series on the National Science Foundation's Biennial Ph.D. Survey. The second part, which will focus on the salaries of scientists in various ethnic groups, will appear in the Sept. 16, 1991, issue of The Scientist. Reinforcing the widely held belief that women scientists face inequalities in compensation, a recent National Science Foundation survey reveals that female Ph.D. researchers earn less than their male colleagues in every field of endeavor and employment sector. NSF conducted the survey, scheduled for release later this year, in 1989. The agency surveyed 73,611 Ph.D. scientists with varying levels of experience, with an overall response rate of 55 percent. The findings show that the median annual salary for a female Ph.D. in chemistry was 19 percent less than what a man earned. Similarly, women biologists pulled in 22.4 percent less than men in the same field, while male physicists earned 21.4 percent more than their female counterparts. Moreover, NSF found that the median annual salary paid women Ph.D. scientists was between 20 percent and 25.2 percent less than what was paid men in a variety of employment settings: industry, government, hospitals, and colleges and universities. Other studies have found that this salary gap continues over a scientist's career. For those with between 15 and 20 years of experience, for instance, there remained differences of up to $10,000 between men and women, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This supports what the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., that tracks career issues and trends, has already noted: Pay for male scientists will often continue rising until age 65, while salaries for women can plateau or decline by age 55. No Surprises Women scientists interviewed for this article say such findings aren't surprising. They contend that the disparities have existed ever since women entered the sciences. Although the salary gaps are now receiving more attention in the science community, the women say, increased recognition alone is not sufficient to rectify the situation. With some bitterness, several women scientists contacted say the survey simply reflects what they have felt all along: that women aren't being paid what they deserve because men generally pull the levers of power, whether it's at a seminar, in prestigious journals, in a lab or a boardroom, or in the corridors of a university. "Science is very much a situation where you need the exposure of giving reports and publishing," says Catherine Didion, executive director of the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C. "If you go to seminars, you'll see that most of the speakers are men," says Didion. "Without that exposure and the contacts, it's hard to get recognition and, therefore, to get the final recognition, which is the pay. It's a vicious circle." And this circle has proved tough to break. Women scientists point out that if they have fewer articles accepted for publication, they will be given fewer opportunities for promotion, which means they will have fewer chances to generate opportunities for other women or encourage prot‚g‚s to enter the sciences. Most difficult to overcome, women scientists say, is the perception that younger women scientists shouldn't be regarded as seriously as their male colleagues because women may be apt to abandon their careers to start a family. Equally troublesome is the inevitability that a temporary shift to a part-time workload will slow salary growth. "It's an extra burden . . . having children did slow me down," says Penny J. Gilmer, associate professor of chemistry at Florida State University in Tallahassee. "Universities should stop the clock on tenure track for a year with each child." Others complain of outright sexism and fear that it won't be eradicated by a new generation if younger women are hesitant to enter the sciences knowing that the pay scales may be limited. "I still hear things like, `I had a woman physicist who didn't work out, so why should I try another?' " says Margaret Butler, a senior computer scientist at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. "They didn't think about the men who didn't work out." Unfortunately, some say, the outlook is uncertain at best, especially since the proportion of women earning bachelor's degrees in the sciences is no longer rising. As of 1989, for instance, women earned 46 percent of the life sciences degrees and comprised 37 percent of the undergraduates in math and computer science, leaving them in the minority. "The change is slow," says Betty Vetter, executive director of the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. "To gain parity, all women would have to go on strike for equal wages or all men would have decide to be fair." Some employers, however, are making a conscious effort to institute pay equity. George Brewster, for example, is trying to ensure that women scientists at his company--Corning Inc., the glass maker in Corning, N.Y.--are paid the same as male scientists. And he's got half a dozen ways to measure and balance salaries every quarter, such as merit raises, cash awards, and promotions. "I believe the disparity is closing over time," says Brewster, Corning's manager of university relations and external staffing, who notes that as many as 50 percent of each year's new science hires at Corning are women. "There will be change, but it won't be revolutionary. It's going to be evolutionary." Edward R. Silverman is a freelance writer based in Hoboken, N.J.

New NSF Report On Salaries Of Ph.D.'s Reveals Gender Gaps In All Categories

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of