Friday, April 13, 2007

Female Profs don't feel integrated

Speaking of campus culture, does UWO drive away female faculty members? A study of Cornell University showed lower levels of satisfaction for female faculty members and a higher likelihood of leaving the profession at every point in their career. The significant variable was integration. Women were much less likely to feel satisfied about their integration into their departments and the institution in general.

I don't know what our retention rates are like, but I know of many women who have left the university over the last few years. How about it, do we create an environment conducive to helping faculty engage with our institution?

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

maybe if one dept on this campus didn't hire profs just because there female even though there terrible incompatant teachers, they'd feel more integrated

Anonymous said...

wow.

lammers said...

I cannot speak for anyone else, certainly not for any female colleagues, but after eight years, I certainly feel as though I "belong," that I'm part of something bigger than myself. When I first started, a big part of that was my departmental and extra-departmental mentors; they both did a good job of clueing me in to how things work. Participating in things outside the department helped a lot, too. Even relatively small things like attending Dean's Symposium and University Club gave me a chance to meet folks elsewhere on capus. Come to think of it, I would definitely stress U-Club as a way for new faculty to feel more integrated here.

On the other hand, my experience may have been atypical compared to someone straihght out of grad school or a post-doc, as I had nearly a decade's experience elsewhere. My research career was up and running, and transfered here with a minimum of fuss. A true newbie might be a bit more stressed getting that part of his/her career going.

lammers said...

I meant to add that retention rate of professors here in Wisconsin at public universities, compared to Cornell, could be related to something other than their sense of integration. I'm thinking specifically of the disrespect shown us in so many ways by the state legislature. That surely must figure in the thinking of at least some who leave for jobs elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Some advice to the first anon:

I know third graders who are better at grammar and spelling.

My guess is that your female professors give you bad grades because you are an "incompatant" writer. This is simply your way of trying to get back.

Why any of my female colleagues put up with crap like this is beyond me

R.S. said...

This is boring...can we talk about the A-T again?

Working To Make A Living said...

Never,never respond to online flamers besides my spelling blows, and i get by being able to think critically and I am somewhat of a functional human being. I think why some women and men do not feel connected or as the article put it integrated into departments is because of what I would call institutional natural selection. I am sure someone else thought of it first, but here is what I perceive. Uwosh like many other institutions is a top down, patriarchal,highly competitive, non democratic institution. Therefore people ie women who have traits of compassion, cooperation, empathy, etc would be selected out, and maybe go on to other careers or find it hard to function in such an environment. I am not saying the people who stay and function well are ogers, but maybe they are a little more used to working in the aforementioned environment. Plus people who stay may not find empathy, cooperation, justice,and democratic institutions high on their list of desirable traits.
ps: Lammers your a white guy, of course you would have no problem integrating into this institution.

lammers said...

>>Lammers your a white guy<<

My apologies for the unpardonable sin of being who I am.

I guess that means I have no standing to question the numerous stereotypes and gross over-simplifications evinced by your post. So I won't.

Anonymous said...

>>I guess that means I have no standing to question the numerous stereotypes and gross over-simplifications evinced by your post. So I won't.<<

PRAISE THE LORD

Working To Make A Living said...

I am a white guy, and in this culture, things are easier for me. Yes it is that simple. I do like your logic Lammers, next time someone calls me opinionated and judgmental, I will announce to him that my character is much more nuanced and complicated. I will also let him know that the truth, rather then being simple, is always much more complicated then it seems. I have noticed one thing in academia and that is if a female prof is to be taken seriously she better put out 120% percent or get drowned out by all the male superegos in the room. hey if I notice it and i am a guy just think wha the average female thinks.

ps: Since I am not a female or a prof-much to lazy to become one-I would like to get a females point of view.

Anonymous said...

Working wrote: "I am a white guy, and in this culture, things are easier for me. Yes it is that simple."

No, it's not. Lots of white guys in this world have gotten the short end of the stick. Lots of fellows looking for work in the rural South or Appalachia would snort derisively at your view of how easy they have things, compared to, say, Paris Hilton or Oprah Winfrey. Lots of laid-off guys in the "Rust Belt" would join them. Guys whose jobs have been outsourced to India or Mexico would take little comfort in your simplistic view of how cushy they have it in life. Your attitude is an insult to everyone who has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, implying that the world has been handed to him.

I'm not taking a Pollyanna view here, denying that there are folks in this world who've been dealt off the bottom of the deck and have the cards stacked against them. There are. Plenty of them. What I am saying is that it is incredibly simplistic to imagine that a characteristic like race (or gender) will be more than very loosely correlated with that.

Folks are folks. Some succeed, some don't. I refuse to accept that race is more than the weakest of predicters for it. I'm no social scientist, but I would bet that things like economic status and certain personality traits would be much more accurate predictors of success in life than something as meaningless as race. Darn near ANYONE can succeed in life, if he or she gets the chance and has what it takes.

>>I do like your logic Lammers, next time someone calls me opinionated and judgmental, I will announce to him that my character is much more nuanced and complicated. I will also let him know that the truth, rather then being simple, is always much more complicated then it seems.<<

I assume that your intent is to hold me up to ridicule, but that is EXACTLY what I am saying. If ANYTHING in this world looks simple, odds are you have overlooked something. NOTHING is simple; there are endless shades of gray and the exceptions outnumber the rules. Many of the problems in this world are caused by the perception that there are simple answers to every problem. Anyone who thinks he has it all figured out obviously hasn't asked enough questions.

lammers said...

Not sure why my last post says "ananymous" -- I wrote it.

Working To Make A Living said...

The facts of a conversation often get lost in the details. Two opposing hypothesis the simpler one is often true, I think I learned that one in second grade maybe even in the womb. yes there are many shades of Grey, but for some issues adding complexity is merely avoiding the truth. the facts are, we live in a racist, white male dominated , class based society and no amount of mental gymnastics changes that fact.

ps:Cornell West in his book "democracy matters" and "race Matters" seems to share my views. In closing, economic and demographic data does not seem to support your position. there are some simple maps you can take a look at from the University of Chicago that will support everything I say.