Published three times annually by the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women news in the Economics Profession. 2015 ISSUE I

In Thiscswep Issue 2015 Business Meeting Feature Section January Jubilance Associations of Women Economists Around the Globe Jubilation filled the room at the CSWEP Introduction Business Meeting held during the, Jan- by Madeline Zavodny . . . 3 uary 2015 at the AEA Meeting in Bos- Chinese Women Economists Network ton. This event has grown into a large by Xiaopeng Pang ...... 3 Left to right: Marjorie McElroy, JeffreyW illiamson, gathering with old and new CSWEP Hilary W. Hoynes and Nancy Williamson. Association for the Advancement of friends coming together to refresh con- African Women Economists nections, celebrate the new recipients of to show their appreciation. Living up to by Elizabeth Asideu ...... 5 Elaine Bennett Research Prize and the her introduction, Nakamura summa- Carolyn Shaw Bell Award, hear the An- rized her research in monetary and fis- From the CSWEP Chair nual Report and share ideas on the fu- cal policy in a beautifully accessible talk, ture of CSWEP. Positive Macroeconomics.* Chair’s Letter The 2014 Bennett Prize went to Emi The 2014 Bell Award went to Hil- by Marjorie B. McElroy ...... 2 Nakamura, Associate Professor of Business ary W. Hoynes, Professor of Economics 2014 Annual Report at Columbia University. Well known for and Public Policy and the Haas Distin- by Marjorie B. McElroy ...... 7 her work on five facts about prices, her guished Chair in Economic Disparities in department chair, David E. Weinstein, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman School Tributes & Commendations Carl S. Shoup Professor of the Japa- of Public Policy at the University of Cal- nese Economy, delighted the audience ifornia at Berkeley. Introduced by Di- January Jubilance ...... 1, 23 with his introduction of Nakamura ti- ane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Associ- Thanks to CeMENT Mentors . . 6 tled, “Five Facts About Emi Nakamura: ate Professor, School of Education and Brag Box ...... 24 A Re-evaluation of Her Contributions,” Social Policy at Northwestern Universi- a quintet of quintuples of Nakamura ty, Schanzenbach noted that Although Calls & Announcements facts. Weinstein first noted that she is Hoynes is well known for her rigorous one of five economists in her family and and relevant research at the intersec- Visit CSWEP.org listed her five accolades won prior to the tion of public and labor economics, she Bennett Prize. He then described her should also be well known for her tire- Note: To better reflect CSWEP’s five research areas (sticky prices, mone- less teaching and mentoring. In fact, fluctuating publication schedule, we tary policy, exchange-rate pass through, when Schanzenbach sought three sup- have changed naming conventions . fiscal stimulus and rare events and con- porting letters for the nomination, she In past years “Issue I” was known as sumption disasters) and observed that received 20! All spoke to Hoynes’ ener- the “Winter” issue . each of her five published papers gy, enthusiasm and efficacy as a men- has garnered over 100 citations. tor and of the gift of her advice— His fifth quintuple consisted of delivered with an equal mix of The 2014 Report on the Status her five current working papers, candor and tact. Current and for- of Women in the Economics auguring well for her bright mer colleagues from Berkeley and Profession begins on page 7. future. Many of Nakamu- U.C. Davis, as well as Hoynes’ ra’s current Columbia col- mentees, and family members leagues and former Har- joined in showing their sup- vard mentors turned out port. In her straightforward Emi Nakamura 2014 Bennett continues on page 23 Prize Recipient

Free Digital Subscriptions @ CSWEP.org Forward the CSWEP News to colleagues and graduate students. About the Authors

Elizabeth Asiedu, Marjorie B. McElroy From the Chair Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas and President and founder of the I note with sorrow the passing of Barbara committee of the American Finance As- Association for the Advancement Bergmann, Chair of CSWEP from 1983 sociation parallel to CSWEP. of African Women to 1985. In addition to well-known con- As always, this first issue of the year Economists. tributions to economics, Bergmann was also contains CSWEP’s Annual Report . a fundamental driver in the founding of Mandated by the AEA, Section I serves CSWEP. Her tireless, even abrasive, advo- as an introduction to the work of the Marjorie B. McElroy, cacy for women in the profession, both di- CSWEP Board and details CSWEP activi- Professor of Economics rectly and indirectly, benefited the careers ties in 2014. Based on CSWEP’s annual at Duke University and Chair of the CSWEP of women economists in her generation surveys, Section II contains the statistical Board. and all that followed. She raised the con- report on the status of women in the eco- sciousness of the profession. I have often nomics profession. thought that her advocacy for women, Using data from the most recent 18 an- everywhere and all the time, opened the nual CSWEP surveys, 1997–2014, the re- door to my first successful application to port identifies two critical junctures in the NSF. Her memorial service was held at careers of women: the declining fraction Xiaopeng Pang, American University on April 28, 2015. of baccalaureate women in the econom- Professor at the Bergmann’s obituary appeared in the New ics major (corroborating separate analy- School of Agricultural Economics and Rural York Times. The next issue of the CSWEP sis by Claudia Goldin, CSWEP Newsletter, Development, Renmin News will pay tribute to her. Spring/Summer 2013); and subsequently, University of China, Economists of all ages and stripes en- the poorer chance of women relative to and Secretary General of the Chinese Women gaged in multiple CSWEP events at the men in advancing from untenured assis- Economists Network. 2015 AEA Meeting. To the many mentors tant to tenured associate professor. and mentees who made our three mentor- In recognition of the expansion of our ing breakfasts a success; to the authors, activities, in January 2015 CSWEP pro- Madeline Zavodny, chairs and discussants in CSWEP’s six posed a restructuring of its Board. I am Professor of Economics excellent paper sessions; and to the col- pleased to report that the Executive Com- at Agnes Scott College and a member of the leagues, mentors, families and friends mittee of the AEA approved the restructur- CSWEP Board. who converged on the Business Meet- ing. Hence, Margaret Levenstein (Execu- ing to celebrate Emi Nakamura’s 2014 tive Director, Michigan Census Research Elaine Bennett Research Prize and Hilary Data Center and Adjunct Professor of Busi- Hoynes’ 2014 Carolyn Shaw Bell Award, ness Economics and Public Policy from thank you! Through sharing our achieve- Michigan’s Ross School of Business) will ments, stories, ideas and advice we create serve as our inaugural Associate Chair the community of support so central to and Director of the CSWEP Survey and CSWEP News Staff realizing CSWEP’s mission. Terra McKinnish (Associate Professor of This issue features a look at associa- Economics, University of Colorado-Boul- Marjorie McElroy, Editor tions of women economists around the der and Director of the CeMENT National Madeline Zavodny, Oversight Editor globe. Xiaopeng Pang, Secretary Gen- Workshops 2012–2014) will be our first As- Jennifer Socey, Assistant Editor eral of the Chinese Women Economists sociate Chair and Director of Mentoring. Leda Black, Graphic Designer Network, and Elizabeth Asiedu, founder I am also happy to report that Ceci- and President of the Association for the lia Conrad, Kevin Lang, Serena Ng, Petra Advancement of African Women Econo- Todd and Anne Winkler have all agreed to About CSWEP mists inform us on the work of their re- serve another term on the Board. It is my spective organizations. Parenthetically, it privilege to work with them. To each of the A standing committee of the American Economic is worth noting that under the auspices distinguished and engaged members of Association, the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) is of the American Political Science Associ- the Board, I extend my heartfelt gratitude. charged with serving professional women econo- ation, Jane Mansbridge of Harvard Uni- Finally, I have agreed to serve as chair mists by promoting their careers and monitoring versity, and Frances Rosenbluth, Yale Uni- of CSWEP for one more year. As always, their progress. CSWEP sponsors mentoring pro- grams, surveys economics departments and freely versity, are spearheading a best practices I welcome your feedback and your ideas disseminates information on professional opportu- proposal for hiring and retaining wom- for the future: please let us hear from you. nities, career development and how the profession en in academia. Similarly, Renee Adams, Contact board members directly (see back works, both on the web and via free digital subscrip- tions to the CSWEP News. University of New South Wales, is explor- cover) or me at: [email protected]. ing the formation of a women’s standing 2 CSWEP News Associations of Women Economists Madeline Zavodny Around the Globe

The number of associations of women And in many cases, these organizations, the 2013 AEA meeting, added a second economists around the world is grow- like CSWEP, also include men directly breakfast at the 2014 AEA meeting, and ing. All provide mentoring for econo- in their activities. a third for mid-career economists at the mists, organize conference sessions, This issue features Xiaopeng Pang 2015 AEA meeting. Come join us next promote research on gender issues, and of Renmin University of China, who year! raise awareness of issues of particular profiles the Chinese Women Econo- In addition to the organizations concern to women in the economics mists Network (CHWEN), and Eliza- profiled here, we know of the Canadi- profession. While these organizations beth Asiedu of the University of Kan- an Women Economists Network, the may focus on women, there are many sas, who profiles the Association for the Committee on Women in Agricultur- positive spillovers for men. Much of the Advancement of African Women Econ- al Economics, the Economic Society information and advice freely dissemi- omists (AAAWE). of Australia’s Committee for Women nated by these organizations can be of A key theme that emerges from these Economists, the Royal Economic Soci- value to all economists—especially to articles is the insatiable hunger on the ety’s Women’s Committee in the UK, any junior economist— whether male part of women economists for mentor- the Korean Women Economists Asso- or female, and whether minority or not. ing. As McElroy writes in the current ciation and the European Economics Annual Report, to help satisfy this ap- Association Committee on Women in petite, CSWEP has doubled the capac- Economics. Associations ity of the national CeMENT workshops This is almost certainly an incom- Association for the Advancement of African for economists at research-intensive in- plete list! Please help CSWEP expand Women Economists stitutions by moving them from a bi- this list so that we can help to publicize http://www.aaawe.org/ ennial to an annual basis. CSWEP has their activities and learn from each other. also increased the capacity of the bienni- In closing, it is worth noting that Canadian Women Economists Network al CeMENT workshops for economists other disciplines such as political sci- http://www.cwen-rfe.org/ at institutions that put more weight ence are beginning to see the value of Chinese Women Economists Network on teaching (the so-called “Regional” this work and have contacted CSWEP http://www.cwe.org.cn/ workshops). And there’s more: CSWEP to inquire about forming similar orga- Committee on Women in Agricultural held its first networking and mentor- nizations. This is indeed an exciting Economics ing breakfast for junior economists at development. http://www.aaea.org/membership/sections/ cwae Economic Society of Australia’s Committee C hinese Women Economists Network for Women Economists http://www.esaqld.org.au/ (CHWEN) European Economics Association Committee on Women in Economics http://www.eeassoc.org/ Xiaopeng Pang Royal Economic Society’s Women’s The Chinese Women Economists Net- CHWEN’s mission includes: (1) Committee in the UK work (CHWEN) is a nonprofit organiza- Build a professional network for Chi- http://www.res.org.uk/view/womensComm. tion that seeks to improve the research nese women economists, and enhance html capabilities of women economists in communication and cooperation be- Korean Women Economists Association universities and research institutes tween women economists both in Chi- http://www.e-kwea.or.kr/html/sub07_01.asp throughout China, promote econom- na and overseas; (2) Increase Chinese ic research on gender issues, and ad- women economists’ visibility in eco- For additional organizations, consult the: vance feminist inquiry of economic is- nomic research by improving their re- EDIRC Index of Economics Associations sues. CHWEN promotes collaboration search capabilities; and (3) Encourage and Societies and communication among female and research on women and gender issues, https://edirc.repec.org/assocs.html male economists, activists and policy- and bring a gender perspective to eco- makers in China and overseas. nomic research and policy analysis. continues on page 4 2015S IS UE I 3 Xiaopeng Pang continued from page 3 CHWEN was conceived as a result the U.S., the Canadian Women Econ- Australia, Canada, China, the U.K., and of small group discussions at the sym- omists Network (CWEN) in Canada, the U.S. have participated in providing posium celebrating the twentieth anni- the Royal Economic Society’s Women’s teaching and mentoring services for the versary of the launch of rural reform in Committee (RESCWE) in the U.K., and training program. China hosted by the Hong Kong Univer- the Economic Society of Australia’s 2. Conferences sity of Science and Technology in 2001. Committee for Women Economists (ES- An annual international conference on At this symposium, a group of interna- ACWE). Representatives of CSWEP and gender, development, and micro data tionally established economists noted CWEN participated in CHWEN’s inau- empirical research is held in the sum- for research on the Chinese economy guration ceremony. mer. The conference not only provides gave presentations. During the sympo- While the majority of CHWEN’s 357 a forum for women economists (both sium, six participants, including Pro- current members are women econo- trainees and non-trainees), but also in- fessors Dong Xiao-yuan, Zhao Yaohui, mists from universities, the group also vites male economists to participate. Song Lina, Denise Hare, Scott Rozelle includes scholars in other disciplines CHWEN also holds special sessions and James Kung, expressed their shared and institutions, students, activists and for women economists at national and concerns that women economists are policy makers. international conferences, such as the disadvantaged in Chinese academia, Annual activities of CHWEN Chinese Economics Annual Conference that a gap in research capacity exists be- include: (CEAC), and the annual conferences or- tween domestic and international econ- 1. Research Training and Mentoring ganized by the Chinese Economists So- omists, and that gender issues are rarely From 2002 to 2012, the network assist- ciety (CES) and International Associa- touched upon by Chinese economists. ed the Chinese Women Economists Re- tion for Feminist Economics (IAFFE), To address these issues, they pro- search and Training Program of CCER which help Chinese women economists posed to initiate a program for women at Peking University in an annual offer- disseminate research outcomes and de- economists in China that would include ing of a two-week long course to train velop academic contracts. training, mentoring and network build- junior female researchers from China’s ing. With financial support from the 3. Research Grant Applications universities and research institutes. Ford Foundation, the Chinese Women CHWEN provides members with pro- Emphasizing gender perspectives, the Economist (CWE) Research and Train- fessional assistance on research grant course systematically introduced eco- ing Program was launched at the China applications for domestic and inter- nomic theories on intra-household re- Center for Economic Research (CCER), national funding agencies such as the source allocation, human capital in- Peking University, in May 2002. The Ford Foundation, the International De- vestment, gender discrimination and directors of the program are Professor velopment and Research Center (IDRC) segregation in labor markets, decisions Xiao-yuan Dong, who is from the Uni- of Canada, the National Science Foun- of agricultural household production, versity of Winnipeg in Canada, and Pro- dation (NSF) of China and the Nation- rural land and credit markets, popula- fessor Yaohui Zhao from CCER. al Social Science Foundation (NSSF) of tion aging, unpaid care work, time use, As many program trainees start pre- China, with the goal of helping to close and program evaluation. With respect paring to raise families, with conflict- the gender gap in the accessibility of ac- to empirical methodology, advanced ing familial responsibilities and career ademic resources. econometrics using micro data were in- development, and face a “glass ceiling” cluded in the course for in-depth analy- 4. Publications in the workplace, they are in need of sis of the aforementioned topics. In ad- CHWEN emphasizes research outcome encouragement and support from one dition, the course also covered writing dissemination, having set up the CWE another and desire conversation with skills for paper submission to peer-re- working paper series online, provid- like-minded economists. A year-long viewed international journals and re- ing training on paper submissions to collaborative process yielded the net- search grant application. peer-reviewed journals and organizing work which now provides a commu- A total of 227 young researchers took book publications. Direct exposure to nication platform for Chinese women the training course; 94 trainees received the peer-review process helps trainees economists. one-to-one research mentoring; and 90 hone their research abilities and publi- CHWEN was formally founded in trainees have completed the research cations in domestic and internationally 2003 at the 3rd Chinese Economic As- projects and graduated from the train- highly regarded outlets contribute to in- sociation Conference in Shanghai in ing program. The outcomes of the com- creasing our women economists’ expo- December 2003, making it the fifth net- pleted projects have been published in sure and influence. work of feminist Economists, after the reputable refereed journals in China Committee for the Status of Women in and across the world. A total of 33 es- the Economic Profession (CSWEP) in tablished experts in China studies from continues on page 6

4 CSWEP News Association for the Advancement of African Women Economists (AAAWE) Elizabeth Asiedu

The Association for the Advancement of live in Africa (302 professionals and 227 are not only male-dominated but, in ad- African Women Economists (AAAWE) students), and the remaining 87 mem- dition, the female economists—few of is the first and only organization that bers (31 professionals and 56 students) whom have a PhD—are generally not as focuses on redressing the low repre- live outside Africa. well prepared for research as their male sentation of African women in the eco- Why AAAWE counterparts.” Indeed, the ratio of wom- nomics profession and building the en to men is extremely low in most Af- While women are generally under- capacity and skills of African women rican universities. The problem is more represented in the economics profes- economists. A nonprofit internation- pronounced in Francophone countries sion throughout the world, the prob- al professional association with 501(c) compared with Anglophone countries. lem is particularly pronounced among (3) status, AAAWE advances the schol- Moreover, the underrepresentation of African women. In particular, Afri- arship of its members by creating op- women in the profession worsens pro- can women face severe challenges in portunities for networking, mentoring, gressively from junior to senior profes- moving up the career ladder due to a and facilitating the creation and shar- sors—women who enter the profession number of structural and cultural con- ing of knowledge among members. have difficulties moving up the profes- straints, including: (1) Fewer African AAAWE’s activities include organizing sional career ladder. women than men pursue or complete paper presentations sessions, mentor- In addition to being a social equity graduate studies in economics; (2) Lack ing/technical workshops, professional issue, the systematic under-represen- of senior women economists to serve as development and networking sessions tation of African women in the eco- mentors and role models for junior fe- at international conferences. It also pro- nomics profession has profound im- male economists in Africa due to the vides scholarships for graduate studies plications for the responsiveness of male domination of the profession; (3) in Economics and sponsors a visiting economics research and policy making Women economists tend to be isolated, scholars program. to social and economic development is- which is a problem given that network- AAAWE is the sixth and newest sues faced by women. Given the lack of ing is crucial for professional develop- women’s network to focus on increas- adequate voice and representation of ment; (4) Due to pervasive cultural bias ing the number of women economists women, economic policies developed in against women involvement in math and facilitating their professional de- this context may not adequately focus and science, women tend to be relative- velopment. Four of the associations fo- on building strong and inclusive econo- ly less equipped than men in the kinds cus on women in developed countries, mies nor properly address the interests of technical skills needed to conduct rig- and the other one, on Chinese women: and needs of the largest segment of the orous research in economics; and (5) Af- CSWEP was formed in 1973; the Ca- population. There is therefore an urgent rican women economists have difficul- nadian Women Economists Network need to foster women’s representation ties in balancing family responsibilities in 1990; the Royal Economic Society’s in the profession through tailored pro- and work obligations, resulting in slow- Women’s Committee (U.K.) in 1996; grams that support training and profes- er professional advancement relative to the Committee for Women in Econom- sional development of African women their male counterparts, which perpet- ics (Australia) in 2002; and the Chinese economists. This view is well articulat- uates the systematic under-representa- Women Economists Network in 2003. ed in the 2010 AERC report which out- tion of African women in the echelons One difference between AAAWE and lines the following recommendations: of the economics profession. the other groups is that it serves wom- (1) More females can be initiated into The under-representation of African en in several countries. research through peer mentoring and women in the economics profession has Membership is open to everyone— with the help of research-oriented insti- been documented in several studies, any individual (male or female) inter- tutions; and (2) Economics departments such as Addressing Gender Bias: Grad- ested in the advancement of African must try harder to persuade female can- uate Training in Economics (1994) and women economists may join. AAAWE didates to apply to PhD programs. This Women in Economic Research and Grad- membership has increased from 320 in could be done as part of a strategy of uate Training in Southern Africa (2010), December 2012 to a current total of 840, identifying “high-flyer” females with a both published by the African Economic representing 57 countries (39 countries master’s degree, recruiting them as lec- Research Consortium (AERC), a think in Africa and 18 outside Africa); 616 of turers and later granting them study tank in Kenya. For example, the 2010 re- the members (about 73 percent) are Af- leave to pursue a PhD. port notes that “. . . The evidence clear- rican women economists. Furthermore, ly suggests that economics departments 529 of the African women economists continues on page 6 2015S IS UE I 5 Asiedu continued from page 5 Xiaopeng Pang continued from page 4 The above clearly provides a ratio- AAAWE Funding 5. Research Visits nale for establishing AAAWE. AAAWE’s activities so far have mainly The program facilitates outstanding AAAWE Activities been supported by a loan and private trainees to visit their mentors both in AAAWE has engaged in a number of contributions from within and out- China and overseas to collaborate on activities since its inception in March side Africa. It has received two grants: publications. These academic visits 2012, including: $25,000 from the African Capacity bring trainees to the forefront of eco- Building Foundation (ACBF) in Zim- nomic research and allow them to de- 1. Visiting Scholars Program babwe in 2012, and $75,000 from the velop contact with the international aca- Members spend 3–6 months at the Rockefeller Foundation in 2014. It has demic community. University of Kansas or at the Politi- also received financial support from 6. Networking Events cal Economy Research Institute (PERI) the Department of Economics at the CHWEN hosts a yearly luncheon at the at the University of Massachusetts at University of Kansas. AAAWE is a very CEAC to increase awareness of the or- Amherst. young organization that needs support ganization and its mission, and to give to execute its activities and grow its 2. Conferences members an opportunity to interact at membership, particularly among young AAAWE has sponsored members to at- the conference. African women economics graduates. tend conferences as observers and as pa- For more information on CHWEN, AAAWE needs your financial sup- pers presenters. AAAWE organized pa- visit: http://cwe.org.cn. port. Please join and donate to AAAWE. per sessions at the African Econometric To donate to AAAWE, go to http:// Society (AES) conference in Uganda in www.aaawe.org/donate/, and for mem- July 2012; at the AES in Ghana in July bership go to http://www.aaawe.org/ 2013; at the Western Economic Associa- membership/. tion International conference in Seattle For more information on the in June 2013; and at the African Devel- AAAWE, go to www.aaawe.org, or email opment Conference at Oxford Univer- questions to [email protected]. sity in March 2015. 3. Mentoring/Technical Workshop AAAWE organized two pre-conference mentoring workshops at the AES con- In Gratitude ferences in Ghana and Uganda. The workshop in Uganda brought togeth- Thanks to the following professors who generously gave three days er 26 African women economists from worth of their time to serve as mentors in the highly successful 2015 16 countries and six international se- CeMENT Mentoring Workshop. This annual workshop serves junior nior faculty mentors. The workshop in faculty in departments with doctoral programs or in institutions with Ghana was split into two parts. The first similar publication requirements. part was an informational session for members interested in pursuing gradu- Anna Aizer, Brown University Brit Grosskopf, University of ate studies in economics abroad. There Martha Bailey, University of Exeter were 30 participants. The second work- Michigan Rema Hanna, Harvard University, shop was modeled after the CSWEP Ce- Yoosoon Chang, Indiana Kennedy School MENT workshop. There were 12 junior University Kate Ho, Columbia University researchers and eight international se- nior faculty mentors. Shin-Yi Chou, Lehigh University Ginger Jin, University of Maryland 4. Scholarships Courtney Coile, Wellesley College Catherine Kling, Iowa State Catherine Eckel, Texas A&M University AAAWE funds four scholarships for Robin McKnight, Wellesley graduate studies in economics. Karen Fisher-Vanden, Pennsylva- College More information about AAAWE ac- nia State University tivities is available at http://www.aaawe. Gita Gopinath, Harvard University Kosali Simon, Indiana University org/aaawe-activities/. Shoshana Grossbard, San Diego State University CSWEP also thanks special guest Nancy Lutz, Program Director, Economics Program at the National Science Foundation.

6 CSWEP News The 2014 Report on the Status of Women Marjorie B. McElroy in the Economics Profession

The American Economic Association as well as those of past Board members. economists has become ever more cen- (AEA) created the Committee on the Also bolded are the names of the many tral to CSWEP’s mission. While men- Status of Women in the Economics others who have advanced CSWEP’s toring and creating professional net- Profession (CSWEP) and charged it to work, both male and female and from works is an ongoing informal aspect monitor the status of women in the pro- new acquaintances to long-time stalwart of most every CSWEP activity, the Ce- fession and to undertake professional supporters. MENT Mentoring Workshops hold cen- activities to improve this status. In ad- Section I reports on new develop- ter stage, and the new and expanding dition to surveying all U.S. economics ments as well as ongoing CSWEP activ- CSWEP Mentoring Breakfasts have al- departments for its annual statistical re- ities during the past year. These include: ready proved their worth. port, CSWEP sponsors six competitive- (1) restructuring the CSWEP Board, (2) Now held annually, the internation- entry paper sessions at the annual AEA five active mentoring programs, (3) priz- ally recognized1 CeMENT (previously Meeting, publishes a thrice-yearly news- es and awards, (4) CSWEP’s activities at CCOFFE) Mentoring Workshops target letter (chock full of articles and informa- the annual meeting of the AEA as well either women in departments where re- tion for those at the beginning of their as at the four regional meetings, (5) the search accomplishments carry a heavy career), and celebrates the research ac- CSWEP News, (6) the new CSWEP Li- weight in promotion (the National complishments of young female econ- aison Network and (7) the possibility Workshops) or women in departments omists by awarding the Elaine Ben- of CSWEP Chapters. Section II con- where teaching receives more weight nett Research Prize and the exceptional tains the statistical report on the sta- (the Regional Workshops). In addition mentoring and promotion of women’s tus of women in the economics profes- to the vital direct benefits of these work- careers by conferring the Carolyn Shaw sion, including an executive summary shops, participants typically emerge Bell Award. CSWEP also conducts a va- in II.A and the full analysis in II.B. Sec- with a network of peers and senior men- riety of formal and informal mentor- tion III concludes with well-deserved tors. Many of these networks are still go- ing activities, most notably the Mentor- acknowledgements. ing strong years after the workshop con- ing Breakfasts during the AEA Meeting cludes. The success of these workshops and the CeMENT National and Regional I. CSWEP Activities in 2014 has been rigorously documented,2 and Mentoring Workshops, all of which are they are now funded by the AEA on an consistently oversubscribed. A. CSWEP Board Restructuring ongoing basis. Before recounting CSWEP activities, This section reports on the Nation- As is evident in the above introduc- it is worth noting that there are likely al and Regional Mentoring Workshops tion, CSWEP activities are growing. many spillovers from CSWEP’s endeav- as well as the growing annual Mentor- In fact, CSWEP has outgrown its cur- ors that are impossible to list or quan- ing Breakfasts and other mentoring rent structure. In recognition of this, tify. CSWEP activities raise awareness activities. and pending approval by the AEA Ex- among men and women of the chal- ecutive Committee, the CSWEP Chair 1. CeMENT National Mentoring Workshop lenges that are unique to women’s ca- has proposed to substitute two execu- reers and that can be addressed with Funded by the AEA and international- tive positions for two at-large positions many types of actions—from inclusive ly known for providing young women on the Board. Both would be Associate searches to informal mentoring activi- Chairs, one serving as the Director of 1 Using CeMENT as a model, the American Philosophical ties. In addition, much of the informa- Association and the Royal Economic Society’s Women’s Mentoring and the other as the Direc- tion and advice freely disseminated by Committee have both run successful mentoring workshops; tor of the CSWEP Survey. This restruc- WiNE (the European Economic Association’s women’s CSWEP can be of great value not only turing would increase both the efficien- group) and economists in China, Japan and South Korea are to female economists but to all econo- working on similar workshops. cy, as well as the amount, of leadership mists, and especially to any junior econ- 2 Based on random assignment to participation and track- attention to all CSWEP functions, en- omist, whether male or female and ing the subsequent careers of both participants and those abling the committee to keep up with who were randomized out of participation, a rigorous evalu- whether minority or not. the demand for its activities. ation showed that “CeMENT increased top-tier publications, CSWEP Board members individu- the total number of publications, and the total number of ally and collectively do the work of the B. Mentoring Programs successful federal grants in treated women relative to con- Board. In gratitude, this report high- trols.” Blau et al., “Can Mentoring Help Female Assistant As success breeds success, the ef- Professors? Interim Results from a Randomized Trial” lights their work by bolding their names (American Economic Review, May 2010: 352). Future research fective mentoring of young women will track these women over their tenure clocks and beyond. continues on page 8 2015S IS UE I 7 Annual Report continued from page 7 It is hard, however, not to see this as yet more evidence of unmet demands for mentoring, underscoring the need to grapple with the big picture. The re- cent CSWEP proposal to restructure its Board speaks to this need. If adopted by the AEA Executive Committee, the new Associate Chair and Director of Mentor- ing, would be tasked, inter alia, with ac- cessing the big picture and determining how best to move forward. 2. Regional CeMENT Mentoring Workshop Patterned after the National Work- shops but targeted to junior women at institutions where teaching bears a relatively heavy weight in tenure deci- sions, the so-called “Regional” CeMENT Mentoring Workshops draw partici- pants without regard to geographic lo- Mentors and mentees converse at the 3rd Annual CSWEP Mentoring Breakfast for Junior Economists. cation.6 At the April 2014 meeting of economists with know-how and net- both dedicated team sessions and pre- the of the Executive Committee of the works that boost their careers, CSWEP’s sentations will cover topics that include AEA, members approved funding of the National Mentoring Workshops target research, grants, getting published, ef- CeMENT Regional Workshop in 2015 junior women facing research expecta- ficient and effective teaching, network- and 2017 that will put its size on par tions commensurate with U.S. depart- ing, tenure and work-life balance. The with that of the National Workshop (40 ments with PhD programs in econom- Boston Federal Reserve has graciously participants). ics. Going back to the first CCOFFE agreed to host the kick-off dinner. As be- The term of Director Ann Owen of workshop in 1998 and morphing into fore, all of the professional development Hamilton College covers the 2013 and the CeMENT National Mentoring Work- materials provided to participants are 2015 workshops with the upcoming shops (in 2004, 06, 08, 10, 12, 14, with available to all on the CSWEP Web site.4 “Regional” to be held November 19– the next one following the January 2015 For this upcoming workshop 21, immediately preceding the 2015 an- AEA Meeting), these national work- CSWEP received 110 applications for nual Southern Economic Association shops have been consistently and seri- the 40 participant seats, on par with pri- Meeting. ously oversubscribed. or years when the workshop was held 3. Mentoring Breakfasts: Further In response, in January 2014 the biennially.5 In response, next year prior- Expansion for Juniors and an Experiment Executive Committee of the AEA ap- ity will be given to qualified applicants for Mid-Career Economists proved moving the CeMENT National who were randomized out of the 2015 The 2013 AEA meeting saw CSWEP’s workshops from a biennial to an annual or earlier workshops. We had antici- inaugural Mentoring Breakfast for Ju- frequency, effectively doubling their ca- pated that in steady state doubling this nior Economists. Conceived by Board pacity. Funding was provided from 2015 workshop’s frequency would pretty well members Terra McKinnish and Linda through 2018.3 Importantly, the Execu- close the gap between qualified junior Goldberg as a stand-in for the then-bi- tive Committee also provided for con- economists wanting to participate and ennial CeMENT National Mentoring tinued funding for the ongoing scien- available slots. This has not (yet) hap- Workshop during its “off year,” this in- tific evaluation of their effectiveness. pened. In part this may be a temporary formal meet and greet event brought to- Led by CeMENT Director Kosali bulge in demand on the part of those gether senior economist mentors (pre- Simon of Indiana University, the up- who were randomized out in previous dominately senior women) and both coming 2015 workshop will serve 40 years. In part it may be due to better male and female junior economist participants joined by 16 mentors and publicity. The 2016 numbers will help several special guests as well as observ- to sort this out. 6 Currently a misnomer, the word “Regional” is a holdover ers from other organizations. As usual, from 1998, the year this workshop was first offered at each of 4 http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/CSWEP/mentoring/ the four regional association meetings. For practical reasons 3 Capacity aside, the annual frequency better enables junior reading.php. this workshop is now normally offered only just before the women to time their participation in the context of pressing 5 For example, in 2012 and 2014, applicants numbered 133 start of the Southern Economic Association Meeting, the larg- tenure clocks. and 108, respectively. est of the four regional association meetings. continues on page 9 8 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 8 participants (primarily faculty 6 years or of senior economists, including earlier visits of external speakers to include less post-PhD and graduate students on graduates of CeMENT workshops, ex- mentoring activities. This year Bevin the job market). The first 120 junior ap- pressed their desire for a parallel event Ashenmiller and Amalia Miller consti- plicants were admitted and met with 40 to address concerns relevant to mid-ca- tuted the committee and recommend- senior mentors. They gathered at tables reer women. In response, sandwiched ed funding extended visits of Kosali Si- to sort themselves by topic: research, in between the two breakfasts for ju- mon (Indiana University) and Hilary W. grants, publishing, teaching, promotion niors, the 2015 Meeting will see the in- Hoynes (University of California, Berke- and tenure, networking, job search, and augural Peer Mentoring Breakfast for ley) to the University of San Francisco work-life balance. Some conversations Mid-Career Economists on Sunday, and Montana State, respectively, for the went on long after the two-hour session January 4, 2015. Open to academics and purpose of mentoring. The Committee ended. Juniors as well as mentors ex- non-academics, this event will provide a may also recommend minor supple- pressed their appreciation. forum for female economists to explore mentary funding to cosponsor one-off So successful was this initial exper- Career Transitions for Mid-Career Wom- events in support of CSWEP’s mission imental breakfast that for 2014 Board en Economists . Participants are expected with other groups (see section G below). members Linda Goldberg and Bev- to be associate or full-rank tenured ac- 5. AEA Summer Economics Fellows in Ashenmiller added a second break- ademics or non-academics 10 or more Program fast. Despite wintry weather limiting years beyond the PhD travel, the 2014 breakfasts were attend- The mid-career breakfast will break Begun in 2006 with seed monies from ed by 180 juniors plus 60 senior men- into an 8:00–9:00AM session and the National Science Foundation (NSF) tors. This year will see a repeat of two a 9:00–10:00AM session, both with and designed and administered by a opening remarks from Adriana Kugler, joint AEA-CSMGEP-CSWEP commit- Vice-Provost for Faculty and Professor tee, the AEA Summer Economics Fel- at the McCourt School of Public Policy, lows Program aims to enhance the ca- Georgetown University.7 The 60 regis- reers of underrepresented minorities tered participants can then join themed and women during their years as se- tables for discussions on career transi- nior graduate students or junior facul- tions—from associate to full professor; ty members. Fellowships vary from one from tenured professor to administra- institution to the next, but senior econo- tive roles and back; between academ- mists mentor the fellows who, in turn, ic and non-academic institutions; and work on their own research and have a from academic or non-academic econo- valuable opportunity to present it. mist to policy or other leadership posi- The AEA Summer Economics Fel- tions. If this Peer Mentoring Breakfast lows Program had another banner year. for Mid-Career Economists proves its Drawing from 43 applicants, 2014 saw worth, CSWEP will consider expanding the placements of 11 fellows (into 13 fel- the event to a half- or full-day workshop lowships), of which four were from un- at the 2016 AEA Meeting.8 derrepresented minority groups—the most minority fellows ever placed. The 4. Haworth Mentoring Committee Adriana Kugler, opening speaker at CSWEP’s inaugural number of sponsors hiring summer fel- Peer Mentoring Breakfast for Mid-Career Economists Named in honor of the singular contri- lows increased from seven to 12, and the Mentoring Breakfasts for Junior Econ- butions of the late Joan Haworth, a long- program picked up a new sponsor, with omists, this time organized by Board time stalwart CSWEP supporter, this fellows immersed in research environ- members Bevin Ashenmiller, Ragan new standing committee makes recom- ments at the Urban Institute, the Fed- Petrie and Anne Winkler. In all, 65 se- mendations regarding one-off applica- eral Reserve Board and Reserve Banks nior economists will mentor 180 junior tions to cosponsor professional develop- in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, economists, a figure that includes an ment events and also administers the Dallas, Kansas City, Minnesota, New 9 increased demand from junior faculty, Haworth Fund given by Joan Haworth. York, Richmond and St. Louis. post-docs and non-academics as well as That fund, upon satisfactory applica- from male economists. The latter in- tion, can be used to augment campus 9 Gratitude to the 2014 committee for screening and match- ing: Daniel Newlon from the AEA (Chair), whose efforts have dicated that their male colleagues who undergirded this program from the get go in 2006, CSWEP 7 http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/ have previously attended spoke highly Board member Cecilia Conrad, CSMGEP Board member ak659/?PageTemplateID=364. of the breakfasts’ efficacy. Gustavo Suarez and Lucia Foster of the Center for Economic 8 Former Board member and CeMENT Director and Professor Studies at the U.S. Bureau of the Census. More informa- Provoked by the success of the ju- of Economics at the University of Kansas Donna Ginther has tion on the AEA Fellows Program is available at http://www. nior mentoring breakfasts, numbers drafted a proposal for this. aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/summerfellows/history.php. continues on page 10 2015S IS UE I 9 Annual Report continued from page 9 In the works are efforts to again in- coauthors describe her as an “equal op- must be authored by at least one junior crease the number of successful mi- portunity mentor” whose deep engage- female, while papers in the gender ses- nority applicants and to solicit appli- ment in daily academic work models sion may be authored by a junior male) cations from graduate students earlier the professional behaviors that spurred in 2015 these sessions still account for and more aggressively in an effort to in- their own professional growth and suc- a disproportionate share of women on crease the applicant pool for 2015. cess. The press release is available on- the AEA program. line.11 We expect to publish an interview Additional CSWEP activities (hospi- C. Bennett Prize and Bell Award with Professor Hoynes in the Spring/ tality suite, mentoring breakfasts, busi- Presentations of the Bennett Prize and Summer 2015 CSWEP News . ness meeting and award presentations) Bell Award will open the 2015 CSWEP Sincere thanks are due to those who at the 2014 AEA Meeting are reported Business Meeting and Luncheon on nominated and wrote letters in support elsewhere in this document. January 3 during the AEA Meeting in of all of the highly competitive candi- 2. Four 2014 Regional Economic Boston, and all are welcome to join the dates for these awards as well as to the Association Meetings celebration. hard-working selection committees.12 CSWEP maintains a strong presence at Awarded biennially since 1998, the all four of the Regional Economic As- Elaine Bennett Research Prize recogniz- D. CSWEP’s Presence at Annual sociation Meetings, offering up to 16 es and honors outstanding research in Association Meetings professional development panels and any field of economics by a woman at 1. The 2014 American Economic paper sessions. Additionally, following the beginning of her career. The 2014 Association Meeting a model developed by Anne Winkler prize goes to Emi Nakamura, Associate (CSWEP Board Midwestern Represen- Professor of Business and Economics Critical to CSWEP’s mission, CSWEP tative), in lieu of an evening reception, at Columbia University for her signifi- sponsors six highly competitive paper ses- CSWEP now hosts a networking meal. cant contributions to macroeconomics sions at the annual AEA Meeting. Last The events are well attended by men as and related fields. Her research, which year (2014) saw three gender sessions, well as women and provide an informal combines a powerful command of the- organized by Kevin Lang and Susan opportunity for the CSWEP representa- ory with detailed analyses of micro-level Averett, as well as three econometrics tive and development panelists to net- data, has made important contributions sessions, organized by Serena Ng and work and to mentor one-on-one. to the study of price rigidity, measures Petra Todd. These committees then se- 2014 kicked off with the Eastern of disaster risks and of long-run risks, lected eight papers published as two Economic Association Meetings (March, exchange rate pass-through, fiscal mul- pseudo-sessions in the May 2014 Papers Boston, MA) at which Amalia Miller tipliers, and monetary non-neutrality. & Proceedings of the American Economic (CSWEP Board Eastern Representative) The press release is available online, to Review . organized seven paper sessions and a be followed by an interview with Profes- The highly competitive submissions networking breakfast. The sessions in- sor Nakamura in the Spring/Summer process encourages quality research, cluded papers and prepared discussions 2015 CSWEP News 10. particularly in the area of gender-relat- by female PhD students and junior fac- Given annually, and also since 1998, ed topics. More generally, women con- ulty as well as senior faculty covering a the Carolyn Shaw Bell Award recogniz- sistently report that these sessions put range of topics in the area of applied mi- es an individual for outstanding work their research before a profession-wide croeconomics related to health, career- that has furthered the status of women audience and are instrumental in their family conflict, and public policy issues in the economics profession. The 2014 success as economists. It is worth not- in the U.S. and developing countries. award goes to Hilary W. Hoynes, Pro- ing that even with liberal requirements The networking breakfast also drew fessor of Economics and Public Policy (i.e., papers in the non-gender session a diverse group of economists, rang- and Haas Distinguished Chair in Eco- 11 https://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/ ing from a pair of undergraduate eco- nomic Disparities in the Richard & Rho- PDFs/2014Bell-Award_Hilary-Hoynes.pdf nomics majors to senior female faculty da Goldman School of Public Policy at 12 Many thanks to the 2014 Bell committee: Board member members who are leaders in the Associ- the University of California, Berkeley. Linda Goldberg (Chair) and previous Bell recipients Fran Blau ation and the profession. Conversations Professor Hoynes works at the inter- (2001) and Sharon Oster (2011); and also to the 2014 Bennett were lively, and many new connections section of public and labor economics committee: Board members Petra Todd (Chair) and Serena Ng and former Bennett winner Monika Piazzesi (2006). For were formed among participants. and is best known for her work on pov- holding to high standards and spotlighting the extraordinary The Midwest Economic Association erty. Economists from every walk of the accomplishments of women in economics, we owe an enor- Meeting quickly followed (March, Evan- profession, male and female, current mous debt to the each committee member on both of these committees. While they must remain anonymous, this debt ston, IL) with Anne Winkler organiz- and former students, colleagues and extends with equal weight to all those who did the hard work ing two panels with her traditional net- of nominating the entire highly-competitive field of candi- 10 https://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/ dates for each award as well as to all those who wrote the working lunch sandwiched in between. PDFs/2014bennett-prize_emi-nakamura.pdf thoughtful, detailed letters in support of each candidacy. continues on page 11 10 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 10 “Advice for Job Seekers” featured pan- All of these panels, receptions and from a Public Master’s Program; Christi- elists from a variety of work environ- paper sessions drew appreciative audi- na Peters, Metropolitan State Universi- ments, including the Federal Reserve, ences and well served the missions of ty of Denver, Getting Research Done at a policy institutes, and teaching and re- CSWEP and the AEA more generally. Teaching-Intensive University: Advice from search in liberal arts institutions and a Recently Tenured Associate Professor; branch campuses of public universi- E. CSWEP News: 2014 Features Lonnie Golden, Penn State University, ties. Panelists in the “Academic Ca- Interest Students and Faculty Abington College, Four Steps to Getting reers” session explored issues such as Under the able direction of oversight ed- Research Done at an Institution without children and the tenure clock, being itor Madeline Zavodny13 and the graphic Graduate Programs; and Susan L. Aver- proactive, facing administrative over- design expertise of Leda Black, CSWEP ett, Lafayette College, Tips on How to be load and moving up the academic lad- published three issues in 2014.14 In a a Productive Scholar at a Liberal Arts Col- der. All three events were well received long-standing tradition, each issue fea- lege . While targeted to economists work- by diverse audiences. tures a theme chosen and introduced by ing in departments with heavy teaching For the Western Economic Associa- a guest editor who, in turn, enlists sever- and service constraints, this feature sec- tion International Meetings (June, Den- al authors to write the featured articles. tion brims with tips and strategies appli- ver, CO) Bevin Ashenmiller (CSWEP The quality of these features is consis- cable to most anyone seeking research Board Western Representative) put to- tently high, and many go on to be long- productivity in an academic setting. gether panelists from government, ac- lived career resources for junior econo- 2. Getting into & Finishing a PhD Program ademia and private industry for two 15 mists. On behalf of the CSWEP Board, The feature in the Summer 2014 is- highly successful panels, “Using Gov- the Chair (who is the official editor but ernment Data” and “Jobs for Econo- sue proffers advice to undergraduates does almost none of the work) extends on “Getting into and Finishing a PhD mists: A Panel on the Pros and Cons of a warm thanks to all these contributors. Government, Academic, Research and Program.” Guest edited by Board mem- Private Sector Jobs.” She also organized 1. Getting Research Done in Departments ber Serena Ng of Columbia University, a networking breakfast and three paper without PhD Programs this feature followed up on the Sum- sessions on the topics of “Environmen- Board member Anne E. Winkler of the mer 2013 feature on the lack of wom- en in the undergraduate economics ma- tal Economics,” “Investments in Chil- University of Missouri-St. Louis guest 16 dren” and “Caregiving and Investment edited the Winter 2014 issue featuring jor. Authors John Bound, University of Choices for Older Americans.” articles on “Getting Research Done in Michigan; Susan Elmes, Columbia Uni- Finally, for the Southern Econom- Departments without PhD Programs.” versity; and Wendy A. Stock, Montana ic Association Meeting (November, At- Authors from a variety of institutions State University, cover every aspect— lanta, GA), Ragan Petrie (CSWEP and at varying career stages contrib- from whether a PhD is right for you, to Board Southern Representative) orga- uted their expertise: Catalina Ameu- preparing for, selecting and applying to nized “CSWEP Monday at the South- do-Dorantes, San Diego State Univer- PhD programs, to succeeding in your erns.” This full day of CSWEP events sity, How I Get Research Done: A View program and what to expect upon grad- began with a joint presentation with uation. The feature is capped by contri- butions from anonymous PhD students Gary Hoover of CSMGEP, “The Status 13 The contributions of Madeline Zavodny cannot be overstat- of Women and Minorities in the Eco- ed. Organizer par excellence, she helps guest editors match that capture salient highs and lows of nomics Profession.” A paper session, with a topic and generally facilitates their work, she makes life as a PhD student. sure that each issue covers the appropriate materials, writes “Women and Development,” a network- up missing pieces, makes continued improvements, over- 3. Navigating the Job Market 2.0 ing lunch and a professional develop- sees all of those boxes of announcements, coordinates with Guest edited by Board member Ceci- ment panel, “Research Publishing Chal- the Chair’s administrative assistant and drags the column “From the Chair” from its author. She is also a selfless, light- lia Conrad, MacArthur Foundation, the lenges and Strategies,” followed. When ning-quick copy editor and we are all in her debt. Last but not Fall 2014 CSWEP News presented “Nav- several panelists had to pull out at the least among her endless list of tasks, Jennifer Socey, CSWEP igating the Job Market 2.0,” an annotat- last minute, Jon Hamilton (University administrative assistant, formats the Newsletter, makes inno- vative suggestions and does substantial editing. She also puts ed, updated list of advice and resources of Florida) and Julie Hotchkiss (Federal up with the flow of last-minute changes from the Chair, coor- for the job market candidate. This fea- Reserve Bank of Atlanta) came forward dinates with the printer and sees to distribution. ture followed in the CSWEP tradition to help, joining original panelist Bill 14 Current and past issues of the CSWEP News are archived: of highlighting some topics given min- Neilson (University of Tennessee). De- http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/newsletters.php. imal attention in other guides. Along spite the last-minute panel change, the For a free digital email subscription, visit http://cswep.org and click “Subscribe.” with Conrad, authors Wendy A. Stock session was very successful, with ani- 15 The feature articles have provided the bulk of professional and Anne E. Winkler offer advice to new mated discussion between panelists and development materials for the binder for CeMENT workshop participants. participants, now online at: http://www.aeaweb.org/commit- 16 https://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/newsletters/ tees/CSWEP/mentoring/reading.php. CSWEP_nsltr_SprSum_2013.pdf. continues on page 12 2015S IS UE I 11 Annual Report continued from page 11 PhDs on the job market including the G. CSWEP Chapters? status and promote the advancement importance of the cover letter and how of women in the economics profession. In response to several requests to form to assess a campus’s commitment to In 1972 CSWEP undertook a broad CSWEP chapters, in 2014 CSWEP gender equity. It is capped with resourc- survey of economics department and adopted a policy that would govern es on topics such as applying to teach- found that women represented 7.6% of chapters in order to align them with ing focused institutions and preparing new PhDs, 8.8% of assistant, 3.7% of CSWEP’s mission and AEA policies the diversity statement now required by associate and 2.4% of full professors. (see the 2013 Annual Report).18 After some schools. Much has changed. This year marks “reading the rules” only one group, Uni- Plans are underway to make the pro- the 43rd survey year. At doctoral insti- versity of Washington Women in Eco- fessional development features of these tutions, women have about quadrupled nomics, continues to work on becom- and past issues of CSWEP News more their representation amongst new PhDs ing a chapter. easily accessible online. CSWEP is also to 32.9%, more than tripled their repre- Other groups preferred to have working with the AEA to streamline the sentation amongst assistant professors CSWEP cosponsor with them particu- subscription process and anticipates to almost 30%, increased their repre- lar ad hoc one-off events consistent with having a new subscription interface in sentation at the associate level more CSWEP’s mission, with CSWEP con- place by early-2015. Special thanks go to than six fold to 23.5% and increased tributing minor supplemental fund- Michael Albert, Jenna Kutz and Susan their representation at the full professor ing. For example, as detailed in last B. Houston of the AEA staff. level five-fold to 12.1%. This report pres- year’s report CSWEP provided supple- ents the results of the 2014 survey, with mental funds (paired with a grant from F. New CSWEP Liaison Network emphasis on changes over the last 18 the Haworth Fund and also with direct years and on the progress of cohorts of In an effort to increase awareness support of the host institution, Indiana new PhDs as they progressed through among economists about the work of University) to defray the travel expenses the academic ranks. CSWEP, to expand the distribution of of multiple mentors to a pre-conference This executive summary describes CSWEP opportunities and to stream- junior mentoring workshop at the Meet- the survey, summarizes the main re- line the yearly collection of departmen- ing of the Midwest Econometrics Group. sults, and concludes. Subsequent sec- tal gender data for the CSWEP survey, CSWEP also provided minor funding to tions provide more detailed results. the CSWEP Board created the CSWEP cosponsor a Speed Mentoring event or- Liaison Network. The goal is to have one ganized by DC-Women in the Econom- 1. The CSWEP Annual Surveys, 1972–2014 tenured faculty liaison in every depart- ics Profession. As of now CSWEP has In fall 2014 CSWEP surveyed 124 doc- ment of economics, including where regularized the process, with applica- toral departments and 125 non-doctor- appropriate, economics groups in busi- tions going through the newly consti- al departments.19 Of these, all 124 doc- ness, public policy and environmen- tuted Haworth committee and with toral and 106 non-doctoral departments tal schools as well as government and corresponding announcements of this responded, yielding response rates of private research units. To date over 150 opportunity in the CSWEP News . The 100% and 86%, respectively. CSWEP liaisons have signed up, with plans to Haworth Committee also administers also harvested faculty data from the double this number in 2015. The liai- the Haworth Fund (Section B.4 above). Web for an additional 11 non-doctoral son’s role is to: (1) ensure their depart- This report now turns to quantifying departments. The non-doctoral sample ment’s timely response to the annual the current status of women in the eco- is based on the listing of “Baccalaure- CSWEP Survey, thereby decentralizing nomics profession with an eye toward ate Colleges—Liberal Arts” from the the burden of reigning in responses for understanding how we got here. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of recalcitrant departments; (2) forward Higher Learning (2000 Edition). Start- the CSWEP News three times yearly to ing in 2006 the survey was augmented the target audience in their department II. Status of Women in the to include six departments in research and encourage individuals to subscribe Economics Profession universities that offer a Master’s degree directly; and (3) generally work to mak- but not a PhD degree program in eco- ing CSWEP opportunities well known A. Women’s Status in the nomics. As detailed in last year’s report, both informally and formally by for- Economics Profession: Executive because some of these departments do warding occasional emails to students Summary not comfortably fit under the termi- and colleagues.17 In 1971 the AEA established CSWEP as nology, “liberal arts,” that was used in 17 For example, the flyerDo You Know About CSWEP? a standing committee to monitor the 19 The 2014 survey pool for doctoral departments remained (https://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/PDFs/CSWEP- the same as in 2013. However, last year of the 146 non-doc- 18 https://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/annual_re- Informational-Flyer.pdf) sketches some of the opportunities toral departments surveyed, 21 turned out to be composed ports.php. provided by CSWEP, knowledge of which still seem to circu- mainly of business faculty and were therefore omitted from late mainly by word of mouth. the 2014 survey of non-doctoral departments. continues on page 13 12 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 12 Table 1. The Pipeline for Departments with Doctoral Programs: Percent of Doctoral Students and Faculty who are Women

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1st-year Students 31.3% 32.2% 35.6% 38.8% 31.9% 33.9% 34.0% 33.9% 31.9% 31.0% 32.7% 35.0% 33.5% 32.1% 32.4% 29.3% 32.7% 31.4% ABD 26.8% 28.2% 33.0% 32.3% 30.2% 30.6% 32.7% 33.1% 33.9% 33.6% 32.7% 33.7% 33.5% 34.2% 34.3% 32.5% 31.9% 32.0% New PhD 25.0% 29.9% 34.2% 28.0% 29.4% 27.2% 29.8% 27.9% 31.1% 32.7% 34.5% 34.8% 32.9% 33.3% 34.7% 32.5% 35.0% 32.9% Asst Prof (U) 26.0% 25.9% 27.8% 21.4% 22.5% 23.2% 26.1% 26.3% 29.4% 28.6% 27.5% 28.8% 28.4% 27.8% 28.7% 28.3% 27.8% 29.5% Assoc Prof (U) 11.1% 15.9% 27.3% 17.2% 10.0% 17.2% 24.0% 11.6% 31.2% 24.6% 20.0% 29.2% 25.0% 34.1% 30.8% 40.0% 25.9% 23.1% Assoc Prof (T) 13.4% 14.0% 15.1% 16.2% 15.3% 17.0% 19.9% 21.2% 19.2% 24.1% 21.0% 21.5% 21.8% 21.8% 21.9% 21.6% 24.5% 23.5% Full Prof (T) 6.5% 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 5.8% 8.9% 9.4% 8.4% 7.7% 8.3% 7.9% 8.8% 9.7% 10.7% 12.8% 11.6% 12.0% 12.1%

All Tenured/ 13.4% 11.9% missing missing 15.2% 15.2% 15.5% 15.0% 16.1% 16.3% 15.5% 16.9% 16.9% 17.5% 19.0% 20.9% 18.6% 15.4% Tenure Track Other (Non- 50.8% 31.8% missing missing 32.3% 38.4% 32.7% 32.3% 39.6% 34.4% 40.5% 33.5% 36.1% 33.0% 34.1% 39.5% 36.1% 39.8% tenure Track)

N Departments 120 118 120 120 120 120 128 122 122 124 124 123 119 121 122 122 124 124

Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, respectively. earlier reports, this report will hence- this disparity is greater still in the top the gaps in representation between ad- forth refer to this pool as “non-doctor- 20 departments. jacent ranks have changed. Thus, fol- al” departments. With regard to doctoral departments, lowing some convergence between Before proceeding, it is worth not- with one exception, broadly speaking women’s representation at the associate ing that while the observations be- the last 18 years show some growth in level to that at the assistant level around low catch the main features of various the representation of women at each the turn of the century, convergence trends in the representation of wom- level of the academic hierarchy. The ex- seems to have ceased, with a 6 to 7-per- en, they abstract from serial changes in ception is the representation of wom- centage point difference stubbornly per- the composition of the sample and of en amongst first year PhD students. sisting to the present. In addition, this respondents.20 For nearly two decades this has hov- implies that the gap between women’s 2. Summary of 2014 Results ered around 33%. As noted in the 2006 representation at the full and associate Annual Report and reinforced by Gold- levels has increased considerably over This overview begins with an oft- in (CSWEP Newsletter, Spring/Summer the last 18 years. It is worth noting that neglected group, teaching faculty outside 2013), given that the share of baccalau- the latter is not necessarily an unwanted of the tenure track . These faculty typically reates going to women is rising, this development. It is the result of relative- hold multiyear rolling contracts and car- constant 33% means that the fraction of ly good growth in women’s representa- ry titles such as adjunct, instructor, lec- women baccalaureates pursing a PhD tion at the associate level as compared to turer, visitor or professor of the practice. in economics is actually falling. the full level, where women’s represen- As seen in Table 1, in doctoral depart- Two proverbial truths continue to tation changes only slowly as the stock ments, the representation of women hold: (i) At every level of the academic of full professors at any given time re- in these positions runs high, currently hierarchy, from entering PhD student flects something like a 25-year history of standing at 39.8%, exceeding that not to full professor, women have been and promotions from associate to full. just of assistant professors but even that remain a minority. (ii) Moreover, within Turning to a comparison of non- of new PhDs by almost seven percent- the tenure track, from new PhD to full doctoral with doctoral departments, at ev- age points. In 2014 the share of non- professor, the higher the rank, the lower ery level in the tenure track, women’s tenure track women was over two and the representation of women. In 2014 representation in non-doctoral depart- one half times their share of all tenure new doctorates were 32.9% female, fall- ments runs higher—roughly 10 per- track positions combined (15.4%), and ing to 29.5% for assistant professors, to centage points higher—than in doctoral 23.1% for tenured associate professors departments (see Figures 1 and 2). Simi- and to 12.1% for full professors. This lar to the trend in doctoral departments, 20 For example, for reasons given in note 19, the data for 2012 and earlier would overstate the representation of wom- pattern has been characterized as the women’s representation at the assistant en in economics departments if, as compared to economics “leaky pipeline.” professor level has mildly trended up departments, business departments tended to have a higher Because the growth in women’s rep- and at the full level somewhat more so. representation. In addition, the response rates and composi- resentation has differed across ranks, tion of responding departments changed from year to year. continues on page 14 2015S IS UE I 13 Annual Report continued from page 13 Figure 1. The Pipeline for Departments with Doctoral Programs: Percent of Doctoral Students and Faculty who are Women In 2014, n = 124 responding departments of 124 surveyed 40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 First Year Students Assistant Professors (U) Full Professors (T)

New PhDs Associate Professors (T) Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, respectively.

Deserving of attention, the non-doctor- of all tenure track positions in non- women’s representation from matricu- al departments do not share the strong doctoral departments, 15.4% in all doc- lation through graduation. In addition, upward trend at the associate level ex- toral departments, 14.1% in the top- the cohort analysis indicates little in the hibited by doctoral departments. For 20 departments and 13.0% in the top way of a serious loss of women relative non-doctoral departments for the past 10 departments. This represents a re- to men as cohorts advanced from earn- 12 years the trend for women’s repre- markable decline in women’s represen- ing the degree to becoming assistant sentation at the associate level is, if any- tation as departmental research inten- professors. thing, down. sity increases. In contrast, the data show a signifi- One consequence of this last fact is With regard to the advance of cohorts cant and persistent loss of women rela- that for the non-doctoral departments, dur- of academics through the ranks, this re- tive to men in the transition from assis- ing the last 12 years, while the leak in port presents a simple lock-step model tant to tenured associate professor. Of the pipeline between associate and full of these advances. With a maximum of 26 cohorts of new PhDs (1974–1999), professor has shown some tendency to 41 years of data on each rank we can fully 23 saw a drop in the representa- lessen, that between assistant and asso- track the gender composition of some tion of women.21 The drop was usual- ciate has grown. relatively young cohorts from enter- ly greater than 5 percentage points and A further comparison of non-doctor- ing graduate school though the PhD shows no obvious improvement over al programs to a trifurcation of doctor- and of other older cohorts from receipt time.22 This result strongly corroborates al programs by rank shows that for all of the degree though the assistant and the findings in earlier studies and draws tenure track ranks combined, the rep- associate professor ranks. Unfortu- attention to the paramount importance resentation of women declines as the nately, these data do not suffice to an- emphasis on research increases, averag- alyze the advance of cohorts from as- 21 Under our lock-step assumptions, the 1999 PhD cohort be- ing 41.4% for non-tenure track teaching sociate to full professor. The analysis came seventh-year associate professors in 2013 (= 1999 + 14). positions in non-doctoral departments, indicates that if recent trends contin- 22 While a proper adjustment for a presumed overrepresen- tation of older men with extended years in rank as associate 39.8% of non-tenure track teaching po- ue, then 2001 marks the advent of pol- professor would reduce the size of the drop, this adjustment sitions in doctoral departments, 32.4% icies in PhD programs that maintain would grow smaller over time. Thus, it seems unlikely to ac- count for the persistence of this gap. continues on page 15 14 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 14

Figure 2. The Pipeline for Departments without Doctoral Programs: Percent of Students and Faculty who are Women In 2014 n = 117 (106 responding departments + 11 Web-harvested of 125 surveyed) 50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Senior Majors Assistant Professors (U)

Associate Professors (T) Full Professors (T)

of the tenure decision in women’s ad- undergraduates who major in econom- jobs, contracts, durations in such jobs vance, a characteristic of the economics ics and may in part stem from the way or exits therefrom. The data also do not profession but not shared by other ana- we teach economics at the undergradu- cover non-academic jobs. lytical disciplines such as physics and ate level, as stressed by Goldin (CSWEP In closing out this summary, it mathematics. Newsletter, Spring/Summer 2013). This is worth noting that the 43 years of 3. Summary Conclusions is an issue for both doctoral and non-doc- CSWEP data on the evolution of facul- toral departments . ty composition at the department lev- Past intakes and subsequent advance- With regard to the second juncture, el are unique in the social sciences and ments of women and men determine the advancement of women from un- beyond. It is time to document and main- the contemporaneous distribution tenured assistant to tenured associate tain these data in a way that meets pro- of men and women on the academic professor is no doubt intertwined and fessional standards, to put in place a sys- economists’ ladder. This report points to jointly determined with family-relat- tem for maintenance for future years and two critical junctures: the failure to grow ed decisions. Moreover, with rational to make the descriptive statistics at group of the representation of women at the in- expectations these decisions, in turn, levels (e .g ., doctoral, non-doctoral and oth- take; and, relative to men, the subsequent feed back to the decision to major in ers) available online . It is important to poorer chance of advancing from unten- economics and to enter a PhD program start now, before too many more of the ured assistant to tenured associate profes- in the first place. Here, the institution- early creators of the database pass from sor . With regard to the first, in the face al setting and expected institutional set- the profession. The recent CSWEP pro- of the growing representation of wom- ting (length of the tenure clock, gender- posal to restructure its Board speaks to en at the baccalaureate level, the stagna- neutral family leave, on-site child care this need. If adopted by the AEA Ex- tion of the share of women in entering and so forth) can play significant roles. ecutive Committee, the new Associate PhD classes means that entering PhD Finally, it is worth recognizing the high Chair and Director of the Survey, would students represent a declining fraction representation of women in non-tenure- be tasked, inter alia, with accessing the of new baccalaureate women. This latter track teaching jobs and that the CSWEP big picture and determining how best to decline is no doubt rooted in the analo- data do not cover placement into these move forward. gous decline in the fraction of women continues on page 16 2015S IS UE I 15 Annual Report continued from page 15

Figure 3. Lock-Step Model: The Percentage of Women in the 18 Cohorts of First-year PhD Students When They Matriculated, for 13 of these When They Graduated, and for 6 of these When They Became Last-Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors 40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5% 1997 199 8 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 When Continuing Survivors Became Last- When they matriculated in t When Cohort Survivors Graduated with PhDs in t+5 Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors in t+5+7, t = 1997–2014

B. Women’s Status in the academic hierarchy, from first year PhD “leaky pipeline.” After first examining Economics Profession: The Full students to new PhD and then the assis- the trends in representation at the vari- tant, associate and full professor. With ous ranks, we will see how the size of Findings the exception of entering PhD students, these leaks has changed over time. 1. Doctoral Departments, 1997–2014 broadly speaking the last 18 years show Table 1 and Figure 1 show varied lev- Before analyzing the women’s repre- some growth in the representation of wom- els of growth in women’s representation sentation at various ranks in the ten- en at each level of the hierarchy . Focusing across ranks. For example, the first row ure track, it is worth noting their repre- on the gaps between levels this so-called of Table 1, as well as the blue line with sentation outside of these ranks, that is, “pipeline” representation of women in squares in Figure 1, trace the share of amongst non-tenure track faculty . These the stock of economists at each rank first-year PhD students who are women are typically teaching faculty who hold (from first-year PhD students to tenured over the most recent 18 years. As can be multiyear rolling contracts and carry ti- full professor) emphasizes the decline seen, the representation of women grew at tles such as adjunct, instructor, lectur- or “leaks” in the representation of wom- different rates for different ranks . Despite er, visitor or professor of the practice. en with increased in rank. Table 1 and two notable peaks (38.8% in 2000 and As show in Table 1, for the universe of Figure 1 document two well-known rela- 35% in 2008) and one notable trough doctoral departments in 2013, women’s tionships: (i) at every level in the academ- (29.3% in 2012), (a) the share of n-year representation amongst non-tenure track ic hierarchy, women have been and remain PhD students who are women hovered faculty averaged almost twice that in the a minority, and (ii) the higher the rank, around 33% with no obvious trend . As for- tenure track . As of Fall 2014, women con- the lower is the representation of women .23 mer AEA President Goldin would likely stituted 39 8. % of non-tenure track teach- This latter fact has been described as the note, since the share of baccalaureates ing faculty but only 15 4%. of tenure track going to women is rising, this constant faculty . 23 At every stage subsequent to attaining the PhD, the per- 33% means that the fraction of women bac- Turning to the tenure track, for the centage of women declines: roughly over the last six years, calaureates pursing a PhD in economics universe of doctoral departments, Table over 5.5 percentage points between new PhDs and assistant is actually shrinking (CSWEP Newsletter, professors, about 6.5 percentage points between assistant 1 and Figure 1 summarize women’s rep- professors and tenured associates, and over 11 percentage Spring/Summer 2013). Within the ten- resentation for years at each level of the points between tenured associates and full. The sizes of these ure ranks, growth in the share of women declines have been remarkably stable over time. continues on page 17

16 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 16 Figure 4. Lock-Step Model: The Percentage of Women in 41 Cohorts When They Received Their PhDs, for 34 of These When They Became Last-Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors and for 27 of These When They Became Last Year-in-Rank Associate Professors

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%                                          When Cohort Survivors Became Last- When Continuing Survivors Became When They Received Their Degrees in t Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors Last-Year-in-Rank Associate Professors in in t+7 t+7+7, t = 1997–2014 has been (b) lowest at the assistant pro- the drop in the representation of wom- from 6 .9 in 1997 to 11 .4 in 2014, averaging fessor rank, (c) highest at the new PhD en from the assistant to the associate over 10 percentage points over the most re- and associate professor levels and (d) in levels in the 15 later years averaged just cent 18 years .27 This divergence could go between at full rank 24. over 6 percentage points with no trend. on for a number of years as women be- Turning from trends in the various Thus, while there was a definite drop in come better represented in younger co- levels to trends in the differences in the the difference around the turn of the cen- horts and thus in the associate professor levels (the size of the “leaks”), we first tury, for the last 15 years there has been no rank, but when promoted have a small compare the representation of women further convergence in women’s representa- impact on the share of women at the full in the untenured assistant and tenured tion at the associate level to women’s repre- professor rank, a rank which contains associate ranks. Earlier reports25 showed sentation at the assistant level; an average disproportionately older, more male co- a drop hovering close to 11 percentage difference of just over 6 percentage points horts and where composition changes points in the five years preceding 1997, stubbornly persists through 2014 26. only slowly. the earliest year shown in Table 1 and Moving up one rung, we access the 2. Non-Doctoral Departments, 2003–2014 Figure 1. Hence, we can compare the trend in the drop in women’s represen- differences between the assistant and tation between the associate and full lev- As noted above, in Fall 2014, CSWEP associate levels in the eight years pre- els. As a result of the considerably slow- surveyed 125 non-doctoral economics ceding 2000 to the 15 years beginning er gain in women’s representation at the departments. Figure 2 shows the rep- with 2000 and ending with 2014. The full as compared to the associate level resentation of women amongst seniors earlier differences (1992–1999) hovered noted above, the gap in women’s represen- in the major and amongst faculty in ten- around 11.6 percentage points whereas tation between the associate and full levels ure track ranks for non-doctoral depart- has increased . In percentage points it went ments over the last 12 years. Over the 24 Simple comparisons of 2014 to 1997 show that over these 27 However tempting, the futility of focusing on short-term 18 years, women’s share of first-year PhD students, new 26 In 2013, due to a sizable uptick (2.9 percentage points) trends is illustrated by the years 2006 to 2012. In that interval PhDs, assistant professors, tenured associates and full pro- in representation at the associate level and a downtick at the the percent of associate professors who are women was flat fessors grew 0.1, 7.9, 3.5, 10.1 and 5.6 percentage points, assistant level, this 2013 gap was only 3.3 percentage points while the corresponding percent of full professors was rising. respectively. (= 2.9 – (-0.4)). Only future years can reveal if 2013 began the Consequently the gap narrowed from the all-time recorded 25 E.g., Joan Haworth, “2002 Report on the Status of Women reversal of a persistent gap or recorded a transient narrowing. high of 15.8 percentage points in 2006 to 10.0 in 2012. As of in the Economics Profession.” The 2014 suggest the latter. 2012, one might have thought the gap was closing. continues on page 18 2015S IS UE I 17 Annual Report continued from page 17 Table 2. The Pipeline for the Top 10 and Top 20 Departments: Percent and Numbers of Faculty and Students Who are Women

Top 10 Top 20 Doctoral Departments 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012 2013 2014 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012 2013 2014 Faculty (Fall of year listed) Assistant Professor Percent 20.4% 22.0% 24.5% 20.6% 17.0% 20.0% 18.8% 25.0% 23.4% 20.5% 18.7% 21.3% Number 21.0 23.0 23.7 22.0 15.0 18.0 32.5 44.9 48.3 44.0 37.0 43.0 Associate Professor Percent 13.2% 16.0% 18.8% 23.3% 23.3% 21.9% 14.6% 18.1% 22.4% 22.4% 19.1% 20.4% Number 4.5 4.2 5.7 7.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 9.4 17.3 17.0 17.0 19.0 Full Professor Percent 5.9% 7.0% 8.7% 9.5% 9.6% 9.7% 6.2% 7.6% 9.6% 8.7% 9.6% 10.0% Number 12.0 17.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 27.0 26.0 32.1 43.5 41.0 49.0 49.0 All Tenured/Tenure Track Percent 11.0% 12.0% 13.5% 13.2% 12.2% 13.0% 10.4% 13.2% 14.7% 13.4% 12.9% 14.1% Number 37.5 44.2 51.3 57.0 50.0 52.0 69.5 86.4 109.2 102.0 103.0 111.0 Other (Non-tenure Track) Percent 34.8% 45.0% 31.6% 42.9% 43.4% 33.3% 38.8% 42.3% 32.6% 39.4% 33.8% 39.3% Number 4.0 13.0 19.8 21.0 13.0 8.0 9.5 23.4 40.0 50.0 27.0 33.0 All Other (Full Time Instructor) Percent ------50% 34.3% ------51.2% 40.0% Number ------10.0 12.0 ------21.0 24.0 All Faculty Percent 18.2% 25.0% 18.2% 16.3% 15.7% 15.7% 17.5% 27.6% 19.2% 17.1% 16.6% 18.1% Number 63.0 101.4 80.5 78.0 73.0 72.0 119.5 196.2 166.0 152.0 151.0 168.0 PhD Students First Year (Fall of year listed) Percent 26.7% 25.0% 25.9% 22.3% 27.9% 24.0% 30.3% 29.3% 27.3% 27.0% 28.4% 27.4% Number 61.5 65.6 61.7 66.0 65.0 62.0 147.0 125.5 124.7 126.0 121.0 123.0 ABD (Fall of year listed) Percent 12.2% 27.0% 25.9% 24.8% 30.4% 25.4% 14.3% 28.0% 28.0% 28.3% 30.3% 26.5% Number 165.5 216.8 206.0 246.0 255.0 217.0 269.0 380.8 393.5 430.0 444.0 427.0 PhD Granted (AY ending in year listed) Percent 24.5% 28.0% 26.4% 27.9% 31.3% 25.9% 24.7% 24.7% 28.4% 27.2% 33.2% 29.3% Number 49.5 54.4 49.2 60.0 67.0 51.0 85.0 94.0 97.5 97.0 124.0 102.0 Undergraduate Senior Majors (AY ending in year listed) Percent -- -- 38.0% 37.7% 31.7% 37.3% -- -- 35.5% 35.9% 37.6% 37.7% Number -- -- 898.50 1123.0 311.0 780.0 -- -- 2019.0 2223.0 1505.0 2319.0 Undergraduate Economics Majors Graduated (in previous AY listed) Percent ------39.6% 37.2% ------38.6% 37.4% Number ------866.0 849.0 ------2000.0 2290.0

Notes: For each category, the table gives women as a percentage of women plus men. For the five-year intervals, simple averages are reported. Due to missing data, the columns for the 1997– 2001 interval report averages over 1997, 1998 and 2001. The assistant, associate and full ranks all include both tenured and untenured. Prior to 2013, “All Other (Non-tenure Track)” included teaching faculty usually with multi-year contracts and carrying titles such as adjunct, instructor, lecturer, visitor, professor of the practice. Starting in 2013, the survey also asked for “All Other (Full Time Instructor),” any additional full-time instructors not counted by either tenure track or non-tenure track faculty. In 2013, the survey also began requesting “Undergraduate Economics Majors Graduated (in previous AY year listed)” in addition to “Undergraduate Senior Majors (AY ending in year listed).”

continues on page 19

18 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 18

Table 3. Percent of Women in Job Placements of New PhDs from the Top-10 and Top-20 Economics Departments, 1997–2014

Top 10 Top 20 Doctoral Departments 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012 2013 2014 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012 2013 2014 U.S. Based Job Obtained Percent 25.6% 24.8% 25.2% 28.5% 30.8% 25.0% 25.9% 21.9% 32.7% 27.6% 26.6% 26.9% Number 22.0 37.0 32.3 41.0 41.0 36.0 41.0 59.0 59.8 59.0 68.0 66.0 Doctoral Departments Percent 15.9% 30.3% 25.3% 26.4% 24.4% 25.3% 17.6% 25.6% 27.2% 28.2% 28.5% 24.6% Number 14.5 27.0 19.0 23.0 22.0 20.0 22.0 38.0 32.5 35.0 35.0 29.0 Academic Other Percent 38.9% 42.1% 41.9% 50.0% 66.7% 22.2% 44.4% 30.7% 26.0% 25.0% 50.0% 37.0% Number 3.5 3.0 2.2 3.0 4.0 2.0 8.0 7.0 5.5 3.0 8.0 10.0 Non Faculty, Any Academic Department Percent 66.7% 31.3% 35.3% 34.8% Number 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Public Sector Percent 22.9% 26.2% 28.1% 36.8% 30.4% 16.7% 30.1% 27.3% 30.5% 24.4% 28.0% 20.7% Number 4.0 2.0 7.2 7.0 7.0 2.0 11.0 14.0 12.7 10.0 14.0 6.0 Private Sector Percent 40.3% 20.4% 26.4% 25.0% 26.7% 25.0% 37.9% 31.3% 30.1% 24.4% 32.0% 27.1% Number 9.5 5.8 8.2 8.0 8.0 7.0 12.5 12.8 13.5 11.0 16.0 13.0

Foreign Based Job Obtained Percent 15.9% 26.1% 21.3% 22.0% 34.0% 25.6% 17.9% 17.2% 24.0% 21.4% 33.3% 26.3% Number 3.5 9.0 9.5 9.0 16.0 10.0 7.0 17.0 23.7 18.0 37.0 21.0 Academic Percent 60.0% 27.0% 20.4% 19.4% 25.8% 31.0% 20.0% 18.2% 23.0% 13.3% 32.1% 32.2% Number 1.5 7.0 6.7 6.0 8.0 9.0 3.5 12.0 15.8 8.0 25.0 19.0 Nonacademic Percent 5.9% 16.0% 26.9% 30.0% 25.8% 10.0% 6.3% 11.5% 28.8% 41.7% 36.4% 9.5% Number 1.5 2.0 2.8 3.0 8.0 1.0 2.5 4.0 7.8 10.0 12.0 2.0

No Job Obtained Percent 29.2% 22.6% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.3% 33.3% 21.9% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% Number 7.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 4.0 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0

Total On the Job Market Percent 20.6% 31.1% 26.3% 26.6% 27.9% 25.1% 21.9% 31.7% 28.8% 25.7% 28.6% 26.7% Number 32.5 59.0 46.2 50.0 57.0 46.0 69.0 100.0 90.3 78.0 105.0 87.0

Note: For five year intervals, simple averages are reported. first six years, representations at the as- faculty as a whole 32.4% were wom- In sum, over the 12 years for which sistant and associate levels track each en. A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 we have data, in sharp contrast to doctoral other closely, but a noticeable gap char- with Tables 1 and 6 shows that repre- departments, for non-doctoral departments acterizes the last six. In contrast, the gap sentation of women amongst seniors the leak in the pipeline between associate in representation between the associ- in the major ran higher in non-doctor- and full professor shows some tendency to ate and full levels began at over 20 per- al departments than in doctoral depart- have lessened while that between assistant centage points, declined fairly steadily ments. Conversely, the representation and associate seems to have grown . to about 7 percentage points as of 2011 amongst faculty in the tenure ranks is but has since widened to about 15. more than ten percentage points high- Table 6 details the responses for er in non-doctoral departments as com- 2014 showing that for the tenure-track pared to doctoral departments. continues on page 20

2015S IS UE I 19 Annual Report continued from page 19

Table 4. Employment Shares by Gender Top 10 Top 11–20 All Others and Department Rank for New PhDs in the 2013–14 Job Market Women Men Women Men Women Men

U.S. Based Job (Share of all individuals by gender) 78.3% 78.8% 73.2% 69.6% 68.6% 64.1% Doctoral Departments 55.6% 54.6% 30.0% 42.3% 17.5% 29.3% Academic, Other 5.6% 6.5% 26.7% 14.1% 27.1% 26.3% Non Faculty Job 13.9% 10.2% 10.0% 5.6% 11.4% 13.3% Public Sector 5.6% 9.3% 13.3% 18.3% 10.8% 13.3% Private Sector 19.4% 19.4% 20.0% 19.7% 33.1% 17.8% Foreign Job Obtained (Share of all individuals by gender) 21.7% 21.2% 26.8% 29.4% 24.8% 31.4% Academic 90.0% 69.0% 90.9% 66.7% 71.7% 66.7% Nonacademic 10.0% 31.0% 9.1% 33.3% 28.3% 33.3% No Job Found (Share of all individuals by gender) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 6.6% 4.5% Total Number of Individuals 46 137 41 102 242 421

3. Cohorts of Academics and Their bare-bones model of lock-step progres- to another. As we exclude tenured as- Advances Up the Ranks sion through the ranks. At each step sistant professors, the seven-year ap- The above picture of the general fall some men and some women are lost. proximation for assistant professors is in women’s representation with in- The focus is on whether a dispropor- likely reasonable. More troublesome is crease in rank (the leaky pipeline) tells tionate share of women is lost. Assume the assumption of seven years in rank us where we have been and where we that movements through the ranks for for associate professors. While some get are now—it does not tell us how we got those who survived occurred as follows: promoted earlier and others somewhat here or where improvement is most five years elapsed from matriculation later, the real issue is small numbers of critical.28 Past studies have found that, through earning the PhD, assistant pro- tenured associate professors in rank es- conditioning on years since degree and fessors were in rank for seven years and sentially until retirement. An overrep- other observables, as compared to men then were either promoted to associate resentation of men in this anomalous women in economics have a lower prob- or left the tenure track (within the uni- group would drag down the percentage ability of attaining tenure, take longer verse of doctoral departments) and asso- of female associate professors, a caveat 30 to attain tenure and have a lower prob- ciate professors were in rank for seven to bear in mind. However, because the ability of being promoted to full.29 To years and then were either promoted to size of this anomalous group changes see how the annual CSWEP survey re- full or left the tenure track (within the very slowly over time, an overrepresen- sults fit with these past results, we turn universe of doctoral departments). In tation of men would have little impact to tracking the progress of academic co- addition, assume that relative to men, on serial changes in the percentage of horts over time. women in later cohorts had at least as females at the associate level. good a chance at advancement as wom- Using this lock-step model, we cre- 3a. Up the Academic Ladder: en in earlier cohorts. Under these as- ate synthetic cohorts and graph their A Lock-Step Model sumptions we can track the representation progress from new PhD students, to In order to track the progress of aca- of women in a cohort that entered a PhD obtaining the degree, to becoming sev- demic cohorts over time we employ a program in year t by looking at degree re- enth-year assistant professors and then 28 One could isolate earlier sentences and mistakenly inter- cipients in t+5, assistant professors in t+5+7 to becoming seventh-year associate pro- pret some as showing our profession is doing well and others (by which time no assistant professors re- fessors. In every graph we use all of the as it is doing poorly with regard to advancing the represen- main from cohorts older than the tth) and available data, which necessarily means tation of women. This highlights the difficulty of assigning meaningful interpretations to differences in a characteristic associate professors in t+5+7+7 (by which that we observe fewer transitions for (percent female) of two stocks (associate and full professors) time no associate professors remain from younger cohorts. The extreme case is when the two stocks are comprised of individuals from dif- cohorts older than the tth) . the transition to full professor. Unfortu- ferent cohorts. Turning to deviations of the model nately, even CSWEP’s 41-year time series 29 Donna Ginther and Shulamit Kahn, “Women in from reality, some assistant professors Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career 30 This problem cannot be solved except with more infor- Ladder?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 2004; get promoted in years four through mation on the distribution of time in rank or micro data. and Donna Ginther and Shulamit Kahn, “Academc Women’s six while others extend their tenure Arbitrarily increasing the assumed time in rank of associate Careers in the Social Sciences” in The Economics of clocks by taking leaves or making later- professors to, say, 10 years would not work because some- Economists, Alessandro Lanteri and Jack Vromen, eds. thing like 30-year lags would be required. For this we do not Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. al moves from one doctoral department have the data. continues on page 21 20 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 20

Table 5: The Current Gender Composition of Faculty and Students: Table 6. Gender Composition of Faculty and Students: Economics Economics Departments with Doctoral Programs Departments without Doctoral Programs Percent Percent Women Men Women Men Faculty Composition (Fall 2014) Female Faculty Composition Female

Assistant Professor 224 551 28.9% Assistant Professor 131 171 43.4% Untenured 213 509 29.5% Untenured 124 163 43.2% Tenured 11 42 20.8% Tenured 7 8 46.7% Associate Professor 149 486 23.5% Associate Professor 110 189 36.8% Untenured 6 20 23.1% Untenured 4 13 23.5% Tenured 143 466 23.5% Tenured 106 176 37.6% Full Professor 187 1364.5 12.1% Full Professor 108.5 370 22.7% Untenured 1 10 9.1% Tenured 186 1354.5 12.1% Untenured 8 16 33.3% All Tenured/Tenure Track 560 2401.5 18.9% Tenured 100.5 354 22.1% Other (Non-tenure Track) 165 250 39.8% All Tenured/Tenure Track 349.5 730 32.4% All Other Full Time 55 111 33.1% Other (Non-tenure Track) 61 86.17 41.4% All Faculty 780 2762.5 22.0% All Other (full time) 25 64 28.1% Students and Job Market All Faculty 435.5 880.17 33.1%

Students Student Information (2013–2014 Academic Year) Undergraduate Senior Majors (2014–15 AY) 6019 12459 32.6% Undergraduate Seniors Expecting to Graduate Undergraduate Economics Majors Recently (2014–2015) 1943 3637 34.8% Graduated (2013–14, including Summer 2014) 6326 12690 33.3% Undergraduate Economics Majors Graduated First-year PhD Students (Fall 2014) 493 1075 31.4% in Previous Year (2013–2014) 1941 3494 35.7% ABD Students (Fall 2014) 1318 2800 32.0% Completed Masters 61 92 39.9% PhD Granted (2013–2014 Academic Year) 356 727 32.9% Total Number of Departments 117 of 125 Surveyed

Job Market (2013–2014 Academic Year) U.S. Based Job 232 449 34.1% that the four oldest cohorts (matriculated 1997–2000) ex- Doctoral Departments 58 168 25.7% perienced a drop in the representation of women between Academic, Other 55 88 38.5% entry and graduation from their PhD programs (red line be- Non Faculty 27 51 34.6% low blue). In contrast, the younger cohorts (matriculated Public Sector 24 59 28.9% 2001–2008) experienced no such decline. If this result con- Private Sector 68 83 45.0% tinues to hold for the 2009 and subsequent cohorts of first-year Foreign Job Obtained 81 191 29.8% PhD students, then 2001 marks the advent of policies in PhD pro- Academic 62 128 32.6% grams that maintain women’s representation from matriculation Nonacademic 19 63 23.2% through graduation . No Job Found 16 20 44.4% 3b. ii. The Tenure Track: From the PhD to Assistant and to Number on Job Market 329 660 33.3% Associate Total Number of Departments 124 of 124 Surveyed While the data on first-year PhD students only go back to 1997, the data for graduating PhDs goes back to 1974. Hence, of departmental data is insufficient to present a meaningful num- Figure 4 graphs the representation of women in 41 cohorts of ber of cohort transitions to full professor . new PhDs at graduation (red with circles), when cohort sur- vivors became seventh-year assistant professors (green with 3b. Up the Academic Ladder: Results for Economists diamonds) and when continuing survivors became seventh- 3b. i. The PhD Program: From Matriculation to Graduation year associate professors (purple with triangles).32 Thus, for Figure 3 plots the percentage of women in cohorts of first year example, the circle, diamond and triangle above 2000 de- PhD classes (blue with squares) and in their graduating class pict the fall in the percentage of women in the 2000 cohort 31 five years later (red with circles). If these plots were cotermi- of new PhDs as survivors advanced from obtaining the PhD nous, for each cohort of entering graduate students, the rep- (circle) to seventh-year assistant professors (diamond) and resentation of women relative to men would not then have then to seventh-year associate professors (triangle). If these changed between matriculation and graduation. Observe 32 Because these data go back to the first CSWEP survey in 1974, Figure 3 permits a consider- ably longer look back than was the case in Figure 2. 31 CSWEP first collected data on entering PhD classes in 1997. In the model graduate students continues on page 22 who enrolled in 2008 graduated in 2013 and so 2008 is the last cohort we can observe. 2015S IS UE I 21 Annual Report continued from page 21 three points were coincident, there associate professor. It is worth noting Going back to 1997, Table 3 gives would have been no drop in women’s that failure to climb at tenure time is placements of PhD students from the representation as this 2000 cohort of not found in other analytical disciplines top 10 and the top 11-20 departments. new PhDs advanced through the ranks. such as physics and mathematics. The number of placements outside of As manifested in the truncations in Turning from the advance of co- the U.S. about tripled. Note that the the graphs, cohorts who received their horts through the ranks, we return to number of women in any category tends PhD in 2008 or later are too young to the analysis of stocks of academic econ- to be small. With this warning, the read- have been seventh-year assistant pro- omists, this time breaking out the data er is invited to interpret these data. fessors by 2014. Hence, Figure 4 de- on top departments and also recording 5. Placements of New PhDs picts the representation of women in the job placements of new PhDs in the 34 cohorts as they progressed from new job market last year. Table 4 shows the types of jobs obtained PhDs to seventh-year assistant profes- by new PhDs in the 2013–14-job mar- 4. Departments by Type: Top-10, Top-20 ket. The first column shows that of the sors. For the oldest cohorts (PhDs dat- and All Doctoral Departments ed 1974–1992), women’s representation 46 women in the job market from top- most often rose between PhD receipt Tables 2 and 3 break out the survey re- 10 departments, 78.3% took a job in (red) and the last year as assistant pro- sults for the doctoral programs ranked the U.S. Of those who took a job in the 35 fessor (purple). Among the 15 more re- as top-10 and top-20. As seen by com- U.S., 55.6% landed jobs in doctoral de- cent cohorts (1993–2007), several ex- paring Tables 1 and 2, at each rank in partments and 5.6% in non-doctoral de- perienced noticeable drops. But overall the tenure track and at each stage in the partments. The remaining 13.9%, 5.6% these two lines track each other reason- PhD program, the average representa- and 19.4% went to non-faculty jobs, the ably well. For the observable 34 cohorts, tion of women in top-20 departments is public sector and private sectors, respec- these data reveal no worrisome drop in lower than for all doctoral departments. tively. As shown in the second to last the representation of women in their Moreover for all tenure track ranks com- line, virtually all graduates of top-20 de- transition from new PhD to assistant bined, the representation of women declines partments found a job. Success in the professor. as the emphasis on research increases, in market was also high for other doctor- Turning to the transition from as- 2014 averaging 32 .4% for non-doctoral de- al departments, with no job found by sistant to tenured associate professor, partments, 15 4%. for all doctoral depart- 6.6% of women and no job found 4.5% the picture is less rosy. Cohorts that re- ments, 14 1%. for the top-20 departments of men. ceived their PhDs in 2001 or later are and 13 .0% for the top 10 departments . Focusing on U.S.-based jobs, as line still too young to have been seventh-year Of special note are the data for non- 2 shows, on average, and for women associate professors by 2014. Thus, Fig- tenure track, rolling-contract teaching and men, the higher the rank of the de- ure 4 depicts this transition for 27 co- positions. For the top-20 departments, partment granting the PhD, the more horts of new PhDs graduating 1974– women’s representation in non-tenure track likely the first job was in a doctoral de- 2000. Fully 24 of these cohorts saw jobs was well over two and a half times as partment. With regard to gender dispar- a drop in the representation of wom- high as their representation in tenure track ities in placements into doctoral depart- en.33 The drop was most often greater jobs (Table 2 shows 39.3/14.1 = 2.78 > ments, a single year of data provides no than 5 percentage points and shows 2.5). This ratio is about the same as for reliable evidence. Indeed, looking over no obvious improvement over time.34 all doctoral departments (Table 1 shows these same gender comparisons in this Annual This cohort analysis likely provides the 39.8/15.4 = 2.58). and in the previous four CSWEP Reports, best available evidence on the extent to for departments ranked 21 and below the male new PhDs were slightly which in economics women fall off of 35 The motive for using the top 20 rather than those ranked the academic ladder at the point where 11-20 is to have more individuals in the cells. The rank- more likely to place into doctoral depart- ings are the 2013 rankings from US News and World Report they would become tenured associates. ments than their female counterparts. as at the time of this writing the 2014 rankings had not yet However, in the analogous compari- The evidence shows a sizable and per- been released. Due to a three-way tie for 19th, for the pur- sistent fall in women’s representation in poses of this report, there are 21 departments in the “top sons for both top-10 and 11-20 ranked the transition from assistant to tenured 20.” The top 10 are Harvard University, Massachusetts departments, about half of such com- Institute of Technology, Princeton University, University parisons show a male bias and the other of Chicago, Stanford University, University of California- 33 Under our lock-step assumptions, the 2000 PhD cohort Berkeley, Northwestern University, Yale University, University half show a female bias. The caveat here became seventh-year associate professors in 2014 (= 2000 of Pennsylvania and Columbia University. The next 11 are is that the CSWEP data on placements + 14). New York University, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, of new PhDs into doctoral departments 34 While a proper adjustment for a presumed overrepresen- University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, University of Wisconsin- tation of older men with extended years in rank as associate Madison, California Institute of Technology, University of likely includes placements into non- professor would reduce the size of the drop, this adjustment California-Los Angeles, University of California-San Diego and tenure track teaching positions and in would grow smaller over time. Thus, if anything, over time Cornell University at 18th with Brown University, Carnegie these women are overrepresented. this effect would increase the size of these drops in repre- Mellon University (Tepper) and Duke University all tied for sentation. 19th. continues on page 23 22 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 22 Turning to other types of place- responding to the 2013 CSWEP survey Duke University MA student, who gra- ments, as lines four and five show, the was 17,748, of which 32% were women. ciously produced the figures and tables representation of women among new In 2014 these numbers were 18,478 and for the 2014 statistical report. PhDs landing in the public as opposed 32.6%, respectively. This shows no growth CSWEP is fully funded by the Amer- to the private sector varies with depart- in the percent of females and, as the share ican Economic Association. We are es- mental rank. With regard to foreign of women in the undergraduate population pecially grateful to Peter Rousseau, sec- placements, overall, those who take jobs continues to grow, a continuing decline in retary-treasurer and his excellent staff: outside the U.S. (and especially wom- the share of women undergraduates who Regina H. Montgomery, Barbara H. en) tend to take academic jobs. In 2012 major in economics (see Goldin, CSWEP Fiser, Marlene V. Hight and Susan B. and earlier, regardless of the rank of her Newsletter, Spring/Summer 2013). Houston as well as Michael P. Albert, graduate school, a woman was more Jenna Kensey, Gwyn Loftis, Linda Har- likely to take a job in the U.S. than her III. Board Rotations and din and Julia Merry. male counterpart. Last year the pattern Acknowledgements Finally the Committee is indebted reversed as female graduates from de- to the Economics Department of Duke partments ranked 11-20 were four per- CSWEP members may serve more than University for the administrative sup- centage points more likely than their two terms on the Board as long as they port of CSWEP’s activities, office space, male counterparts to take jobs outside are not consecutive for more than two IT support, computer equipment, of- of the U.S., and in 2014 this gap grew terms. Given this I am thrilled to an- fice supplies and substantial additional to 6.6 percentage points. This pattern, nounce that, back by popular demand resources. as well as others exhibited by the data and starting a third term on the Board on foreign placements, is nonethe- is Cecilia Conrad! Starting second terms less difficult to interpret. As incomes on the Board are Kevin Lang, Serena Ng, January Jubilance continued from page 1 and the quality of economics depart- Petra Todd and Anne Winkler, all with and insightful acceptance, Hoynes ex- ments in foreign countries rise, so too contributions too long to list. Thanks plored the four chapters of her career— may the representation of women both are also due to new Board members growing up with economist parents, amongst foreign students in U.S. grad- Ragan Petrie (our new Southern Rep- graduate studies at Stanford University uate schools and amongst new doctor- resentative) and Kosali Simon (our new and academic appointments at Berke- ates obtaining jobs in foreign countries. CeMENT Director). Both have already ley and Davis. Given in her character- However, with no data in the CSWEP assumed important committee roles. Fi- istically relaxed style with warmth and survey on the prevalence of foreign stu- nally, plaudits for advancing CSWEP’s wit, Hoynes concluded her talk* by urg- dents, much less their countries of ori- mission to Linda Goldberg and Made- ing all of us to make mentoring an inte- gin, meaningful interpretations of gen- line Zavodny, in their second terms, and gral part of our professional lives. der differences in foreign placements Bevin Ashenmiller and Amalia Miller Economics (and humor) run deep in are simply not possible. in their first terms. The quality of the the families of both winners and a par- On the whole the evidence from ideas that bubble up from this Board, as ent of each recipient spoke—Hilary’s the 2014 Survey indicates that our pro- well as the willingness of Board mem- father, Professor Jeffrey Williamson of fession is doing well, finding jobs for bers to make the ideas work, is remark- Harvard University and Emi’s mother nearly 96% of its new PhDs. However, able. Contributions of individual mem- Professor Alice Nakamura, Universi- except for placements by the top-10 de- bers were noted above in Section I of ty of Alberta School of Business. Both partments, in 2014 women graduates this report, but it is impossible to report suggested the secret to nurturing chil- were more likely than men to find their anything close to all of them. All Board dren to become economists is two-fold. first job in a department without a doc- members enthusiastically advance the First, as they sleep, whisper the mantra, toral program mission of CSWEP and it is my privi- “supply and demand.” Second, engage lege and pleasure to work with them. 6. 2014 Survey Details them in conversation about economics: Special thanks go to Jennifer Socey, it can’t fail to entice! Tables 5 and 6 contain more details from my Administrative Assistant. She has Marjorie McElroy, CSWEP Chair, the 2014 surveys of doctoral and non- embraced the mission of CSWEP, us- concluded the meeting with brief over- doctoral departments, respectively. This ing her skills as organizer, writer, edi- view of the 2014 Report on the Status of is the fifth year that CSWEP has asked tor, communicator and web-expert to Women in the Economics Profession . The departments to report their numbers of handle everything from the mundane full report begins on page 7 of this issue. male and female senior economics ma- to substantive initiatives. She has made jors. Here we simply note that for doc- my role as chair possible and enjoyable. View the acceptance talks of Hilary Hoynes and Emi toral departments the combined total of I also thank Daniel Osuna Gomez, a Nakamura at https://www.aeaweb.org/home/committees/ seniors in the major for all departments CSWEP/videos.php.

2015S IS UE I 23 Directory of CSWEP Brag Box Board Members

Marjorie McElroy, 140 S. Dearborn Street 4400 University Drive, “We need every day to herald some woman’s Chair Chicago, IL 60603-5285 MSN 1B2 achievements . . . go ahead and boast!” Professor of Economics (312) 726-8000 Fairfax, VA 22030 —Carolyn Shaw Bell Duke University [email protected] (703) 993-4842 Durham, NC 27708-0097 Linda Goldberg, [email protected] (919) 660-1840 at-large Kosali Simon, Rebecca Judge, St. Olaf College, was promoted to [email protected] Vice President of CeMENT Director Full Professor. She is the first female economist at Margaret Levenstein, International Research, Professor, School of Public St. Olaf to attain this rank. Associate Chair, International Research and Environmental Affairs Survey Function Indiana University Amanda Kowalski, Yale University, received an NSF Executive Director, Federal Reserve Bank of Room 359, Michigan Census Research New York 1315 East Tenth Street CAREER Award for her proposal “Public Health Data Center 33 Liberty Street Bloomington, IN 47405 Insurance, Medical Expenditures, and Labor Market Adjunct Professor of New York, NY 10045 (812) 856-3850 Outcomes.” Business Economics and (212) 720-2836 [email protected] [email protected] Public Policy Petra Todd, at-large Susanne Schennach, Brown University, and Janet Ross School of Business Kevin Lang, at-large Professor of Economics Yellen, Federal Reserve Board, were elected as 2014 University of Michigan Professor of Economics University of Pennsylvania 3257 Institute for Social Boston University, Room 3718 Locust Walk, Fellows to the Econometric Society. Research 302A McNeil 160 426 Thompson Street Boston, MA 02215 Philadelphia, PA 19104 We want to hear from you! Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 (617) 353-5694 (215) 898-4084 (734) 615-9088 [email protected] [email protected] Send announcements of honors, awards, grants [email protected] Amalia Miller, Eastern Anne Winkler, received, promotions, tenure decisions and new ap- Terra McKinnish, Representative Midwestern pointments to [email protected]. It will be our Associate Chair, Associate Professor of Representative pleasure to share your good news with the CSWEP Mentoring Economics Professor of Economics Associate Professor of P.O. Box 400182 University of Missouri– Community . Economics Charlottesville, VA 22904- St. Louis University of Colorado 4182 One University Boulevard Boulder, CO 80309-0256 (434) 924-6750 St. Louis, MO 63121 (303) 492-6770 [email protected] (314) 516-5563 terra.mckinnish@colo- [email protected] rado.edu Serena Ng, at-large CSWEP @ the Regionals Professor of Economics Madeline Zavodny, Bevin Ashenmiller, Columbia University Newsletter Oversight Western 1012 International Affairs Editor Midwest Economics Association Representative Building Professor of Economics Anne Winkler, Midwestern Representative Associate Professor of 420 W. 118th Street Agnes Scott College Economics New York, NY 10027 141 E. College Avenue http://web.grinnell.edu/MEA/ Occidental College (212) 854-5488 Decatur, GA 30030 2015 Annual Conference, March 27–29, 2015 1600 Campus Road [email protected] (404) 471-6377 Minneapolis, MN: Hyatt Regency Minneapolis Los Angeles, CA 90041 Ragan Petrie, mzavodny@agnesscott. (323) 259-2905 edu [email protected] Southern Western Economics Association International Representative Bevin Ashenmiller, Western Representative Cecilia Conrad, Associate Professor of at-large Economics http://www.weainternational.org Vice President, MacArthur George Mason University 90th Annual Conference, June 28–July 2, 2015 Fellows Program Honolulu, HI: Hilton Hawaiian Village, Waikiki Join the CSWEP Liaison Network! Southern Economic Association Three cheers for the 150+ economists who have agreed to serve as Ragan Petrie, Southern Representative CSWEP Liaisons! We are already seeing the positive effects of your http://www.southerneconomic.org hard work with increased demand for CSWEP paper sessions, fel- 85th Annual Meeting, November 21–23, 2015 lowships and other opportunities. Thank you! New Orleans, LA: New Orleans Marriott Dissemination of information—including notice of mentoring events, new editions of the CSWEP News and reporting requests Eastern Economic Association for our Annual Survey and Questionnaire—is an important charge of CSWEP. For this key task, we need your help. Visit CSWEP.org Amalia Miller, Eastern Representative to see the list of current liaisons and departments for whom we’d http://www.quinnipiac.edu/eea/ like to identify a liaison. We are also seeking liaisons from outside 2016 Annual Conference, Dates TBA the academy. To indicate your willingness to serve, send an e-mail Washington, DC: Washington Marriott with your contact information to [email protected]. Wardman Park