In 1999, while there existed ongoing strides towards gender equality, such as hiring more female professors at Colby College, significant issues remained to be studied and addressed including women faculty retention, student evaluations, and gender biases.
Student evaluations were lower, on average, for female faculty in introductory chemistry, biology and physics classes on a scale from “Excellent’ to “Very Poor” (81). What this report uncovers is that female professors in the Natural Sciences are rated a full measure lower than their male counterparts of similar rank who teach similar courses. Table 6 from the report presents the course evaluation summaries for women science faculty, all science faculty, and all Colby faculty from 1990-1996. The table reveals that female faculty in science were given lower ratings relative to both science and all Colby faculty with the lowest percentage of “Excellent” evaluations (6%) and the greatest number of just “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” and “Very Poor” evaluations. Further, what is shocking is that this report also claims that these poor evaluations are not supported by fact: peer reviews suggest that these evaluations are a direct result of gender biases. However, a completely conclusive analysis cannot be made because there is missing data that is needed to fully explore this trend.
Further, the report references a paper that studies the interaction between the gender of an instructor and their rating that finds that female faculty will earn the same rating as men conditional on the fact that they act “stereotypically feminine,” i.e., gentle, kind, and warm (82). So when women are not stereotypically feminine, they are viewed as the opposite: aggressive, unkind, and cold, thus resulting in lower ratings than their male colleagues even if their actual teaching skills and abilities are the same.
As a result of these staggering differences, Colby College hosted two workshops for faculty and staff members to gather and discuss the gender biases that may exist in the Natural Sciences. What they concluded was that it was actually student treatment of female professors rather than actual male-female faculty interactions that were at the root of Colby’s gender issues: “students prefer male professors in the sciences” (82).
So how should Colby combat these biases? The report suggests (amongst other things): introducing workshops for students to discuss the apparent biases against female faculty, reducing the importance of student evaluations on “professor tenure, merit, and promotion processes,” and exploring more deeply the source of gender bias in student evals. The Forum for Women in Science also suggested the addition of an advisor of sorts who would help female professors work through difficult situations related to gender issues. There are many routes to improvement.
This report revealed that there did exist a group on campus advocating for gender progress in the sciences. In addition, the hiring of three tenure-track positions in 1999, Andrea Tilden, Judy Stone, and Catherine Bevier, two of which we have already interviewed, was a significant step forward. Prior to their arrival, Miriam Bennett was the only tenured female biologist. Today, we see that there are many more female faculty members in science, and many more female students enrolling in science courses. However, gender biases still remain.
Curated by Sofia Oliveira