Bayer and Wilcox summarise the differences in the proportions of students studying economics by gender and ethnic group at U.S. universities. If you believe that these proportions should be anywhere near similar, it makes for depressing reading:
Women and students from historically underrepresented race/ethnicity groups graduate with a major in economics at distinctly lower rates than do their counterparts. The pattern is observed both in aggregate and within gender and race/ethnicity categories. For example, among whites, 3.0 percent of men graduate with a major in economics, whereas only 0.8 percent of women do. Among underrepresented minorities, 2.2 percent of men graduate with a major in economics, compared with 0.6 percent of women. Similarly, among both men and women, whites major in economics at higher rates than do [underrepresented minority] students.Looking individual at each university, they find that:
At every institution in the nation where more than about 3 percent of white men graduate with a major in economics, white women graduate with a major in economics at a lower rate. URM women are similarly underrepresented at almost every institution. The underrepresentation of URM men is less stark than it is for either white women or URM women, but still notable.Bayer and Wilcox then present a measure of inclusion that they calculate for each institution. However, while their measure is intuitive, I don't believe that it stands up to much scrutiny. They would have been much better off using a proper diversity index like Shannon's evenness index. All of the data that they use is available for you to play with at the New York Fed website, so in principle anyone can go in and calculate a 'better' index based on the data.
Probably the best contribution of this article though, is the recommendations that Bayer and Wilcox make for teachers (to "recognize their sway over the situation"; and to "think intentionally about the implications for diversity and inclusion of the mentorship that they provide"), for textbook authors and publishers (to "commission critical reviews of their own materials, with the goal of identifying how those materials can be made more inclusive along gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic lines"), and for department chairs (to "give careful consideration to maximizing demographic balance among instructors, especially at the introductory level"; to "help recruit and train a diverse set of student teaching assistants"; and to "work actively to improve the culture of their departments, expressed both in formal policies and in the everyday practices of faculty and students"). They also make recommendations for university and college administrators, employers, foundations (e.g. those that fund scholarships), and for the American Economic Association.
Finally, in the conclusion they provide an interesting counterpoint to the argument that differences in choice of major by gender or ethnicity simply represents the optimising behaviour of rational students (including consideration that students act on the basis of comparative advantage):
It is counterproductive to hold an unexamined assumption that the choice of major in college or university is just an example of consumer sovereignty.It would be nice to see our assumptions about student choices examined in more detail. I don't think we have a very good understanding at all about why many capable students do not choose to follow through on an initial interest in economics.
Read more:
- The gender gap in reviewing and editing for top economics journals
- A sobering report on the culture in the economics profession
- Could closing the gender gap in economics be as simple as providing students with information?
- Why we should care about the gender gap in economics
- Justin Wolfers on why we should care about the gender gap in economics
- Female representation in economics
- CORE on 'missing women in economics'
- More on the gender gap in economics
- The gender gap in economics
Is it with the high maths requirement for graduate school in the USA, women were strong at maths are also strong in verbal and reading skills and qualify for other prestigious occupations than men who are good at maths.
ReplyDeleteI don't know exactly for graduate school, but that's definitely the argument at the undergraduate level.
DeleteAlex Tabarrok makes the point here: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/09/girls-comparative-advantage-in-reading-can-largely-explain-the-gender-gap-in-math-related-fields.html
In the USA, they have their weird arrangement where they go to college and study anything they like them get serious at graduate school.
DeleteIn countries that value the four years of life you have between 18 and 22, you actually study something useful as an undergraduate maybe do honours and masters and that's about it unless you want to be an academic.
When I was in Canberra in the 1980s, it was unusual to have more than an honours degree.
Americans don't regard you as a professional economist unless you've studied at the PhD level.
"If you believe that these proportions should be anywhere near similar"
ReplyDeleteAnd why would you believe that?
'"It is counterproductive to hold an unexamined assumption that the choice of major in college or university is just an example of consumer sovereignty."' is simply an assertion; not a counter-argument.