On Women In Math

• The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published its Annual Report: Women in STEM (FY2019) which states “Overall, women accounted for 29.3 percent of STEM federal workers. Science occupations had the most (49,546), while math occupations in the federal sector had the fewest number of women (6,469). There were significantly fewer women in Technology and Engineering than expected.”
• Changing the Curve: Women in Computing provides a timeline of women’s achievements in computing and computer science, addresses the gender gaps in education and the workforce, and includes additional resources for women and specifically for women of color. Berkeley School of Information.
• National Center for Women in Technology “brings the proven tools, evidence-based methodologies, and collaborative peer communities that help build possibility, develop potential, and create lasting change.”
• Catalyst.org’s Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics has international data.
• The Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine “collects and disseminates data and information on the education and employment of women scientists, engineers, and health care professionals, and ways to increase the participation and advancement of women in all fields of science, engineering, and medicine.”
• National Science Foundation’s statistics website offers data including how many women earn baccalaureates in mathematics each year. These and other information are published biennially in two reports: Science and Engineering Indicators and Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering.
• The Status of Women in the States, provides data on women’s progress in 50 states, DC and the US overall.  Published by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
• Stanford’s Clayman Instutite for Gender Research Research Publications includes reports on gender bias, dual-career couples, and women in technology.

Technical Reports

• 2020 International Science Council Report: A Global Approach to the Gender Gap in Mathematical, Computing, and Natural Sciences: How to Measure It, How to Reduce It? We present methodologies, insights, and tools that have been developed throughout the project, as well as a set of recommendations for different audiences: instructors and parents; educational institutions; scientific unions and other organizations responsible for science policy.
• The Situation of Gender Equality in Mathematics in Japan by Makiko Sasada（U. Tokyo）Kenichi Bannai（Keio U.), 2020. “As shown in this current report, the percentage of women in mathematics in Japan is low compared both with other countries in the world and with other research areas in Japan. In particular, unlike other fields in Japan, gender equality appears to be receding. The decline in the percentage of female students in graduate school is particularly alarming, especially for the long-term prospect for the field of mathematics.”
• Gender Differences in First Jobs for New US PhDs in the Mathematical Sciences by Marie A. Vitulli 2017. “In this study we investigate employment patterns for new PhDs in mathematics between 1991 and 2015 with an eye toward gender, citizenship and gender × citizenship differences in unemployment rates, patterns of job types, and comparable employment rates”
• Gender Representation on Journal Editorial Boards in the Mathematical Sciences by Chad Topaz, Shilad Sen 2016. “Our findings provide the first measure of gender distribution on editorial boards in the mathematical sciences, offer insights that suggest future studies in the mathematical sciences, and introduce new methods that enable large-scale studies of gender distribution in other fields.”

The leaky pipeline problem. The leaky pipeline refers to decreasing representation by women in increasing academic ranks. For example, as of 2015, women are 41% of undergraduate math majors, 28% of new math PhD’s in the US, 25% of postdoctoral fellows in mathematics, 24% of tenure or tenure-track faculty in math and only 11% of full professors in math (womendomath.org). This trend has been persistent over time. For example, over the last 15 years, the percent of women in the US earning doctoral degrees in math has remained steady (around 30%), while the number of full professors at PhD-granting institutions has been much smaller (around 10-15%) (AMS annual surveys 2003 – 2017). Further evidence of this problem might be presented as rates of hiring amongst women vs. men (for example, see “An update: are women getting all the jobs?” AMS Notices September 2010) or other information about retention rates of women vs. men. 

Underrepresentation in leadership positions. Women are still underrepresented in positions which highly impact decision- and policy-making in the profession. For example, 20% of the membership of AMS editorial committees is female (AMS Notices October 2017), while a 2016 study found that only about 9% of editors on the editorial boards of 435 journals in the mathematical sciences were women (Gender Representation on Journal Editorial Boards in the Mathematical Sciences). Since the 1990’s, many have questioned whether or not it is more difficult for women to obtain tenure are “top” research institutions. In June 1991, only 4 of the 303 tenured faculty in the “top ten” mathematics departments in the US were women. In 2004, the number of tenured women in these same departments had grown to 16 (“Has the women-in-mathematics problem been solved?” AMS Notices August 2004).

The gender pay gap. In addition to the leaky pipeline problem, which may pertain to difficulties with women being advanced or promoted, a disparity in pay between men and women persists, with women earning 80% of men’s salaries, on average (“The simple truth about the gender pay gap” AAUW 2018).

Environmental and social barriers. Women still face stereotypes, gender bias and other climate issues in math and other STEM fields which impede advancement at all stages (see “Why so Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics”, AAUW 2010).