17 / 31
15
males over females, but tenure was given out fairly equally, with neither sex said to receive tenure significantly
more often than the other (Steinpreis et al., 1999, p. 520, 524). In addition, the résumés with a female name
were more likely to be hired at the assistant level while the male ones were likely to get hired at the higher level
of associate professor (Steinpreis et al., 1999, p. 522). Many people also wanted and asked for more evidence
of the females’ abilities but did not do the same with the male candidates (Steinpreis et al., 1999, p. 523). The
results support the statistical differences between the percentages of males and females in academia.
Reasons behind the Inequity
There are many ideas about why such variability in representation in academia exists. From ideas like the
“mommy track” and “pink collar” work to concepts like gender schema theory, there are many plausible
rationales for the lack of women in higher education positions (Curtis, 2011; Dinella et al., 2014, p. 493, 494).
Multiple, but not all, of these explanations will be explored below, as it is impossible to explore all plausible
explanations.
The “Mommy Track.”
Curtis (2011) offers the “mommy track” as a reason why women do not attain as many positions in higher
education as men do (p. 8). Women could be overrepresented in non-tenure positions simply because it is
easier for them to leave work and pursue a family rather than a career (Curtis, 2011, p. 8). It is also easier for
them to get everything done at home they are expected to if they obtain the less strenuous positions in aca-
demia, like the part-time jobs (Curtis, 2011, p. 8). Curtis (2011) also states that women have to delay having
children in order to further their careers (p. 8). Men’s careers, on the other hand, are not stagnated by having
children but are actually advanced after having children as they are now viewed as the breadwinners and are
given higher positions to match that title (Curtis, 2011, p. 8). Steinpreis et al. (1999) comments on this issue as
well by quoting Drago’s “motherhood norm” (p. 8). Drago states that “women should be mothers” according
to society, so they hit a “maternal wall” when trying to advance their careers (Steinpreis et al., 1999, p. 8). This
maternal wall forces them to meet more and higher standards in order to be hired and gain promotions, and
they are less likely to be hired because of it (Steinpreis et al., 1999, p. 8).
“Pink Collar” Jobs.
Similar to the “mommy track” of education, “pink collar” jobs also prohibit women from reaching careers
in academia (Dinella et al., 2014, p. 493). “Pink collar” jobs are those that require less time and effort than
other jobs, such as lower education jobs in elementary and high schools; they also typically involve working
closer with people, like nursing (Dinella et al., 2014, p. 494). These “pink collar” jobs could explain why more
women are present on community college campuses than any other higher education campuses and why they
have reached equity there. It is easier to take time off from a community college in order to have a family and
dedicate time to other feminized aspects of life than it is from a doctoral institution. Once women take these
lower jobs, they get pigeonholed by the stereotype of these “pink collar” jobs and are unable to advance.
Gender Schema Theory.
Dinella et al. (2014) also suggest the gender schema theory as a potential reason behind the inequities (p.
494). A schema is a type of mental organization used to categorize ideas. Therefore, gender schemas are those
categorizations that represent one’s understanding of the sexes and as such are very individualized. They assist
individuals in deciding whether an activity or aspect of life is for their gender (Dinella et al., 2014, 494). Gen-
der schemas could influence career decisions in both directions, affecting both the applicants and the employ-
ers. They influence who pursues certain careers and who gets hired for those positions, as careers are often
gendered as either suitable for males or suitable for females. This concept is very similar to that of personality
differences.
Personality Differences.
Overall personality differences between males and females are typically easy to discern, so it logically follows
that personality would affect who receives what jobs, especially since personality has been shown to be one of
the leading factors of hirability (Steinpreis et al., 2011, p. 525). Namely, women’s personalities affect which of
them receive what jobs. On one hand, women who are timid and not self-assured are more likely to be listened
to in groups, but this comes at the price of their ability to advocate for themselves and negotiate in interviews
(Steinpreis et al., 1999, p. 511). This inability to negotiate and refusal to advocate for themselves could explain
why they end up in lower positions. In addition, since these women are viewed as timid, they are not viewed as
competent, so that could affect their hirability as well (Curtis, 2011, p. 7). On the other hand, women who are
self-assured are not considered positively either (Steinpreis et al., 2011, p. 511). Men who are confident in their
abilities are seen as bosses, but women who are assured in themselves are regarded as bossy and too masculine
(Dinella et al., 2014, p. 494). As personality was considered one of the most important factors in the Steinpreis
et al. (2011) study, it is logical to conclude that women regarded as bossy are unlikely to get hired (p. 517).
Timid or bossy, neither type of woman is likely to get hired. This type of “gender identity” also influences what
careers men and women pursue in the first place. Men have been shown to go after more masculine careers
while women gravitate towards non-masculine careers in what is called gender typicality (Dinella et al., 2014,
p. 497-498). Gender typicality causes girls to internalize the pressure put on them to conform, to not be bossy