Comments on: Jobs for the Girls?

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:20:10 +0000

(I meant to say that primary schools seem to suit girls more than boys of course.)

@short order cook – that sounds a very good model, certainly.

By: Short order cook

Short order cook — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:39:46 +0000

In science they’ve recently introduced something called PhD plus, which is a 6 month grant extendable to 1 year for small research proposals for immediately after your PhD. Maybe they could do something similar in the arts.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:23:34 +0000

Sarah – I’m not sure about the primary school points although I would agree, based on personal observation, that primary schools seem to suit boys more than girls.

I think I agree about grants – if there is some gender inequality (or imbalance which isn’t necessarily the same thing) then the precise causes, as far as possible, should be dealt with. Otherwise you may end up giving an unfair advantage to an individual woman without necessarily improving the overall picture. I agree that academia (at least in the Humanities) is a reasonably family friendly profession.

By: Sarah Correia

Sarah Correia — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:19:35 +0000

Boys’ underperformance at pre-university level (and as far as my experience tells me also, to a certain extent, at undergraduate level) is related to differences in development between boys and girls, part of which are explained by biology, and part by culture. Eventually the boys catch up. The solution: maybe boys should enrol in primary school later than the girls.

That could also be a solution for many cases of lack of performance at school, also for girls. It is clear to me that many children enrol in primary school before they are really ready for it, and start lagging behind from that point.

Regarding giving grants to female Phd students, in principle grants should be given with the quality of the project and candidate as only criteria. Problems of discrimination against women in academia should be dealt by other means, for instance by making it a more family-friendly environment (nurseries, kindergartens, special conditions for people who already have their own families). Many women delay maternity for so long for fear of hurting their career prospects at academic level that they end up end up effectively giving up on having children. This is nonsense. One of the greatest pioneers pf science, Marie Curie raised her two daughters quite well despite the very difficult conditions at the time.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:47:55 +0000

@short order cook – patterns do vary between disciplines. In Arts subjects JRFs generally immediately follow on from a PhD (more or less). They are massively beneficial, partly as an indicator of peer esteem, partly because they give you so much time to publish. Do they really *need* to be 3 years? Perhaps, in the sciences, they do – I can’t judge. But in my subject I think that spreading the money more thinly might rescue a few more people who would otherwise lose all chance of an academic career.

By: Short order cook

Short order cook — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:09:56 +0000

Ha, you can tell you’re all arts students, it’s pretty easy getting funding for a science PhD (woman or not).

In the sciences the woman only funding tends to be focussed on women returning to work after a “career break” (I don’t think they mean two years travelling round the world). This seems fair enough to me that there should be some as it is very competitive at this level and I imagine it is a struggle to keep up with literature, write a grant proposal and bring up a baby.

Incidentally I completely disagree that fellowship funding should be cut to one(!) or two years. For a start one year isn’t long enough to do anything, and after 3 years struggling on a PhD grant followed by 2, 3 or more years travelling from city to city postdoccing, is it really fair to then only hand out two year fellowships?

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:33:11 +0000

Thanks hasan – I overlooked that point. It’s *extremely* difficult to get funding – normally (for English) you need a strong first and a superb proposal. And I think the BFWG is particularly targeting students whose grants have run out – those who had funding but just need (like most PhD students) a bit more than 3 years.

By: hasan prishtina

hasan prishtina — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:06:04 +0000

i’m not sure why a phd student, of either gender, would require a grant in any case. the stipend you receive to do a phd is quite sufficient to live on.

In the UK, PhD students are not entitled to a stipend unless they have won an award from a research council or another funding body. As these awards are very few in number, most candidates find other means of finance, the funder often being themselves or their families.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:41:21 +0000

@Alec – I don’t know – it’s a good question but would then lead on to follow up questions. It might be demonstrated that those awarding places/funding were being admirably fair but that a smaller proportion of women undergrads in a certain subject applied than their male counterparts. This might lead to some wider questions about the culture of that department but shouldn’t, I think, lead to any special privileging of female grad students.
@S – the reference to primatology relates to my (mild and provisional) concern about the BFWG graduate grants. What is the rationale, if this is a female dominated subject, for giving special help to women grads? Should the BFWG just give money to women in male-dominated subjects? And if so what about men in female dominated subjects? Your point about childcare is very pertinent – I beieve a smaller proportion of female academics have children than their male counterparts. It’s important to make sure that comparatively brief and minor periods of leave don’t have a permanent negative impact on women – eg the RAE allowed people to submit fewer items if they had been on maternity leave. That was good.
@Nick – I can’t dispute that. I don’t work in that area but it seems possible that the feminisation of primary education may make things difficult for boys. But like so many gender division issues (in our *broadly* equal society) it can be turned round. It would be interesting to know what these female teachers’ brothers are doing – maybe something better paid? I mean – primary teaching could be seen as an acceptable but not hugely lucrative career path for women who want a family friendly career.
@Jon D – quite possible! I certainly have no pressing ambition to rise higher in the system.
@Graham – I know what you mean but those tiny little random grants may not irk those who aren’t eligible in the same ways these BFWG grants might irk men – though, as you imply, best to just chillax.
@naomi – I have no personal experience of feeling excluded – maybe in other disciplines? Yes – really important about publishing. By doing 10% more work than a woman (due to fewer child care responsibilities) a male academic may be doing 50% more research – assuming one spends 90% of normal working time on teaching and admin.
@Jon D – I quite agree – money could be targeted where it is needed in a more nuanced way – I don’t think (at the moment) that grad students are the right target. Maybe the science postdoc stage would be a good priority.
On a similar note – I’d like the many three year research fellowships cut to one or two years so the money was spread more widely between more deserving postdocs – that might help with the social class/money factor I mentioned.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:32:15 +0000

In 50 years time all GPs will be women too.