Published three times annually by the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women news in the Economics Profession. winter 2014

In Thiscswep Issue 2014 Business Meeting Feature Section CSWEP Celebrates Getting Research Done in Depart- ments without PhD Programs Introduction by Anne E. Winkler . . . 3 How I Get Research Done: A View from a Public Master’s Program by Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes . . . . 3 Getting Research Done at a Teaching- Intensive University: Advice from a Recently Tenured Associate Professor by Christina Peters ...... 5 Four Steps to Getting Research Done at an Institution without Graduate Programs by Lonnie Golden . . . . 6 (Left to right: Marjorie McElroy, Anna Mikusheva, Nancy Rose, Rachel McCulloch and Linda Goldberg.) Tips on How to be a Productive Scholar at a Liberal Arts College Excitement and joy permeated the from the colleagues, friends and fami- by Susan L. Averett ...... 8 CSWEP Annual Business Meeting at lies of Anna Mikusheva and Rachel Mc- the January 2014 AEA/ASSA Meeting Culloch, recipients of the 2012 Elaine From the CSWEP Chair in Philadelphia. Packed to overflowing, Bennett Research Prize and 2013 Caro- the room buzzed with congratulations lyn Shaw Bell Award, respectively. Chair’s Letter continues on page 26 by Marjorie B. McElroy ...... 2 2013 Annual Report by Marjorie B. McElroy . . . . . 1, 10 The 2013 Report of the Committee on the T ributes & Commendations Status of Women in the Economics Profession CWEP Celebrates by Marjorie B. McElroy . . . . 1, 26 Remembering Marianne A. Ferber Marjorie B. McElroy by Francine D. Blau and Anne E. The American Economic Association (chock full of articles and information Winkler ...... 25 (AEA) created the Committee on the Sta- for those at the beginning of their ca- CeMENT Mentor Gratitude . 26 tus of Women in the Economics Profes- reer), and celebrates the research ac- Brag Box ...... 28 sion (CSWEP) and charged it to monitor complishments of young female econ- the status of women in the profession omists by awarding the Elaine Bennett Calls & Announcements and to undertake professional activi- Research Prize, as well as the exception- ties to improve this status. In addition al mentoring and promotion of wom- Bell Award ...... 27 to surveying all U.S. economics depart- en’s careers by conferring the Carolyn Bennett Prize ...... 27 ments for its annual statistical report, Shaw Bell Award. CSWEP also con- Joan Haworth Mentoring Fund 27 CSWEP sponsors six competitive-entry ducts a variety of formal and informal 2014 EEA Sessions ...... 27 paper sessions at the annual AEA Meet- mentoring activities, most notably the 2014 MEA Sessions . . . . . 27 ing, publishes a thrice-yearly newsletter oversubscribed Mentoring Breakfasts 2014 SEA Call ...... 27 continues on page 10

Free Digital Subscriptions @ CSWEP.org Forward the CSWEP News to colleagues and graduate students. About the Authors From the Chair Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes is a Pro- fessor of Economics at San Diego State University, a Research Fellow at It was wonderful to see so many old and new friends of the Centre for Research and Analysis CSWEP gathered at our Mentoring Breakfasts, our Business of Migration (CReAM) and the Insti- Meeting, and lingering in the hospitality suite during the tute for the Study of Labor (IZA), and 2014 AEA Meeting. At the Business Meeting in particular, I the 2013–2014 recipient of the Garcia- was thrilled to see the outpouring of support for Rachel Mc- Robles Border Fulbright Scholarship. Culloch and Anna Mikusheva, recipients of the 2013 Carolyn Shaw Bell Award and the 2012 Elaine Bennett Research Prize, respectively. The celebration of the work of such outstanding Susan L. Averett is the Dana Profes- female economists is central to the mission of CSWEP. The sor of Economics at Lafayette College Board is thankful to all those who nominated and wrote in and an IZA Research Fellow. She is a support of the outstanding slate of candidates for each award. former member of the CSWEP Board. Please consider nominating your candidate for the 2014 Bell Award or Bennett Prize; see the calls and announcements in this CSWEP News and visit cswep.org for full details. Francine D. Blau is the Frances Per- The big news from CSWEP is that, with the generous sup- kins Professor of Industrial and Labor port of Executive Committee of the AEA, going forward the Relations and Professor of Economics CeMENT National Mentoring Workshops will be held annu- at Cornell University and a Research ally rather than biennially. Always over subscribed, this im- Associate of the National Bureau of portant change doubles their capacity. In addition, the Na- Economic Research (NBER). She is tional as well as the biennial Regional CeMENT Mentoring a former Chair of the CSWEP Board. Workshops have been funded through 2018. Look for the call for participants in the Spring/Summer CSWEP News. I invite you to learn about CSWEP activities in the “An- nual Report” featured in this issue. The first half covers the Lonnie Golden is a Professor of Eco- fruits of the labor of CSWEP’s hardworking Board, including nomics at Penn State University, the expansion of the Mentoring Workshops, Breakfasts, and Abington College. many other undertakings. Using data from CSWEP surveys from 1997-2013, the second half reports on the status of wom- en in the economics profession with a look to changes over the last 17 years. While there are many healthy developments, Marjorie McElroy is a Professor of Eco- it appears that the share of women baccalaureates going on nomics at Duke University and Chair for a PhD in economics is in decline and that one particular of the CSWEP Board. step on the academic ladder, promotion from untenured as- sistant to tenured associate, remains especially problematic. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the CSWEP Board for their continued outpouring of valuable ideas and follow-up with hard work. A special thanks goes to outgoing Board members, Terra McKinnish and Shelley White-Means. Terra directed the CeMENT National for two years and was Christina Peters is an Associate Pro- instrumental in launching the Mentoring Breakfasts; Shelley fessor of Economics at the Metropoli- served as the Southern Representative. Both will be missed. tan State University of Denver. Finally, a hearty welcome to the Board goes to Kosali Si- mon of Indiana University. She will serve as the new Director of the CeMENT National Mentoring Workshops. As always, I welcome your feedback on CSWEP activi- Anne E. Winkler is a Professor of ties as well as your ideas for the future: email me at cswep@ Economics and Public Policy Admin- econ.duke.edu. istration at the University of Mis- souri-St. Louis and an IZA Research Fellow. She is a current member of the CSWEP Board.

2 CSWEP News Getting Research Done in Departments Anne E. Winkler without PhD Programs

While the bulk of economic research institution with so many first-time col- terminal MA. Christina Peters is early produced at colleges and universities lege-goers and nontraditional students. in her career and was just recently pro- continues to be produced at PhD insti- Moreover, I am located in a department moted with tenure to associate profes- tutions, especially those in the top tier, that has a long history of being research sor at Metropolitan State University of research is also produced by faculty in active, and so I have many colleagues Denver (MSU). MSU is a large urban non-PhD programs. In fact, as my re- who similarly value and balance teach- public university with 23,000 students; search with Sharon G. Levin, Paula E. ing and research. Nonetheless, access to the economics department does not of- Stephan and Wolfgang Glänzel, recently sufficient resources to support research fer an MA. Lonnie Golden is a full pro- published in the Eastern Economic Jour- has remained a never-ending obstacle fessor in mid-career in the Division of nal shows, there is a good amount of over the 20+ years I have been here. Business and Social Science, Penn State overlap in the number of publications In this newsletter, four economists Abington. Penn State Abington is an ex- produced at lesser-ranked PhD and MA located in academic programs with- clusively undergraduate branch campus programs. There is also a high level of out PhDs share their experiences and, of Penn State with 3,500 students. Fi- publishing productivity at more selec- most importantly, offer tips on how to nally, Susan Averett is a full professor in tive liberal arts institutions, adjusting get research done. These authors dif- mid-career at Lafayette College, a selec- for smaller faculty size. fer in in their institutional context (e.g., tive undergraduate institution with just How do faculty located in depart- public/private, institutional size, termi- 2,400 students. For new PhDs, these ments without PhD students get re- nal MA or undergraduate only) and ca- essays show that, with strategizing, you search done? The constraints are ma- reer stage. Catalina Amuedeo-Doran- can be research-active at a non-PhD in- ny—a generally higher teaching load tes is a full professor in mid-career at stitution. For those of us at such institu- (and/or more course preps) and greater a large public institution, San Diego tions, the essays reaffirm what we have expectations for teaching quality, fewer State University (SDSU). SDSU has likely been doing and offer new ideas resources to support research (whether 31,000 students; the economics depart- about how to get research done. for travel to professional meetings, to ment offers a bachelor’s degree and a purchase software and data, or to spon- sor a seminar series that can pay travel expenses for speakers), and, typically, fewer in-house colleagues with whom to How I Get Research Done: collaborate. It seems reasonable to sus- A View from a Public Master’s Program pect that the rapid diffusion of Informa- tion Technology, which has increased opportunities for virtual networking, Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes sharing data and collaboration, might have somewhat levelled the playing Inevitably, I am looking at this title and to an increasingly large number of stu- field for those located at less-elite insti- wondering the same thing right at this dents in each class. We also have a fairly tutions. However, my coauthors and I very moment, yet I am supposed to ex- large teaching load consisting of three find that the story about trends in rela- plain how I face this challenge on a dai- courses per semester. Lastly, we do not tive publishing productivity from 1991 ly basis. Let me start humbly by saying have a PhD program. Our terminal de- to 2007 across elite and non-elite insti- that I wish I were actually much better gree is an MA in what I would consid- tutions is more one of constancy than at getting research done than I currently er Applied Economics. All these charac- of change. am! In other words, I am still searching teristics—limited funds, large number I know something about this topic for a better method myself. of students and no PhD program—cer- firsthand. I have been in the economics That said, let me give you my per- tainly pose a challenge when it comes department at University of Missouri-St. spective on this topic. I am a professor to getting research done. Nevertheless, I Louis (UMSL), a large urban public uni- in the department of economics at San have been fortunate in various regards. versity, since 1989. UMSL is part of the Diego State University (SDSU). SDSU In the area of teaching, I have ben- four-campus University of Missouri sys- is a large public university. Given recent efited from having a friendly depart- tem, which includes the flagship cam- funding challenges faced by the state of ment with a flexible department chair pus in Columbia. For me, it has been a California, our funding has been severe- who has managed to meet the faculty’s great fit. I very much like teaching at an ly reduced in recent years. This has led continues on page 4 wi nter 2014 3 Amuedo-Dorantes continued from page 3 teaching preferences whenever feasible. to conferences. In this regard, we have however, may not materialize if you That has enabled my colleagues and me also been relatively fortunate at San Di- choose the wrong coauthors. And by to focus on a number of courses within ego State. Due to other sources of fund- wrong, I mean wrong for you. For ex- our areas of expertise as well as to teach ing, we have been able to purchase ample, a coauthor can be wrong for you those courses over and over, thus reduc- data, computers and software when we because you have very different research ing the class preparation time. I have needed to, attend conferences or carry styles that do not work well together. In also been able to design new courses out other research related tasks, such those instances, you might have more focused on my ongoing research area, as using labs for experiments. I must research challenges than when work- immigration. While this did not reduce note, however, that, to that end, having ing alone. It may also become a strug- the time I have to dedicate to teaching, a flexible and understanding depart- gle to move research forward, and it can it has made it much more fun and en- ment chair, someone who does not get prove quite difficult to finish the proj- riching from a professional develop- bogged down in the details but rather ect you started. While what I am going ment point of view. It is also helpful that moves forward with research requests to say will sound obvious, choose your we all have research assistants who as- and finds a way to accommodate them, coauthors wisely. If you think like me, sist us with grading, tutoring and other is definitely crucial. In my experience, you might want to choose coauthors you related class work. Lastly, in some in- it can make a world of difference. If can learn with and, perhaps equally as stances, we have been able to merge two you do not have such a person, my ad- important, coauthors you can relate to. classes into one, reducing the number vice would be to try to collaborate with It makes a world of difference. Collabo- of classes we teach each semester to two rating with them becomes much easier in place of three. Still, we all have a simi- I have also been able to design and way more fun. Equally important, in my experience, is to have somewhat larly large number of students. new courses focused on my There are a couple of things I find of a division of tasks or contributions ongoing research area . . . it has particularly helpful when juggling that each of you will tackle or make. Be teaching and research responsibili- made it much more fun and willing to go the extra mile and be un- ties. First, I work much better if I can enriching from a professional derstanding. Your coauthor might get compartmentalize my time. There- development point of view. stuck on a particular task and you might fore, I normally try to delimit, as much be able to help. If so, do it. But also ex- as possible, my teaching and my re- colleagues who do in order to indirect- pect your coauthors to do their share of search time. Sometimes I can do that ly benefit from the data and resources work; otherwise, you run the danger of more successfully than other times, of available to them. This brings me to an cultivating bad habits in them—relying course. But, for example, I try to hold of- obvious point—the importance of coau- on you to finish or do most of the work fice hours on the same two days that I thors in getting research done. at the last minute. That is not a good col- teach, freeing three days a week for get- Many people have pointed out the laboration, and my advice would be to ting research done. Second, I take ad- benefits of coauthoring with others in avoid those situations if you can. vantage of the many online tools pub- the various issues of the CSWEP News. I should also go back to the impor- lishers offer nowadays to help with the Coauthoring helps us to learn from oth- tance of taking time to do your research. assignment and grading of homework, ers how people view different issues and I have learned that, sometimes, it helps projects and even tests. For some cours- how they approach research challeng- to disconnect from your email to get es, this is a bit more feasible than for es. It also helps us move research for- things done. If you need to do so, do it. I others, but I think these online tools ful- ward when we get stuck on a particular typically try to have a plan of what I want fill an important task—namely, to pro- question, and, in my experience, it can to tackle that day, and, even if I only get vide students with weekly assessments also make research much more enjoy- through the first couple of tasks, I try to and immediate feedback as well as to able. Finally, if your department lacks follow my plan the next day, the day af- free some of your teaching time to ac- a PhD program, it is possible that the ter, and so on, until I am done. While complish more important tasks, such as research focus might be a bit mellow- technology has made it much easier for enriching your lectures. er than when it has one. Exposure to all of us to do a lot of work on the go, In addition to the time and prepara- new research methods and approaches I would recommend against relegat- tion that teaching entails, there is the might also differ, although that depends ing research tasks or talking about im- question of resources. As noted above, on the composition of your department. portant points to your coauthors while these are not abundant in public uni- In any case, in those instances, hav- walking to your car or driving. While versities and yet they might be crucial ing coauthors at different institutions, you might think that you are transmit- in completing our research. Many of us some of them with PhD programs, can ting an image of a very busy and produc- need funds to purchase data or to travel help bridge that gap. All these things, tive person, they might take it to signal continues on page 5

4 CSWEP News Getting Research Done at a Teaching- Intensive University: Advice from a Christina Peters Recently Tenured Associate Professor

When I accepted a tenure-track position always feasible. At many teaching insti- advice from faculty mentors were right at an institution with a teaching load of tutions, serving on committees is an im- on target. For example, since the em- four courses per semester, I knew I was portant part of earning tenure. If that is phasis at my university is on the qual- taking a risk. I love doing academic re- the case for you, there are two strategies ity of teaching, I found that the tempta- search, and I was nervous about work- you can take: (1) Seek out service oppor- tion to continually revise course lectures ing in an environment where it might tunities on committees that do not in- and materials was always present, even become a low priority. My dissertation volve much work and do not meet very after the first heavy year of new course advisor warned me that most newly- often. Your colleagues can point you to- preparations. The advice I received and minted PhDs will rise or sink to the ward those committees; (2) If your in- religiously follow in this area is not to expectations of their first job. In other stitution offers reduced course loads to revise a course every single time I teach words, by taking a job at an institution encourage committee work, then seek it. We all strive to be the best teachers that places a high value on teaching, it out service opportunities on those spe- we can be, but spending a substantial was likely that I would soon stop valu- cific committees. This second strategy amount of time each semester making ing research. has worked well for me, allowing me to small changes to courses leaves little As I cautiously navigated my first fulfill my university’s expectations for time for research. Instead, choose to re- tenure-track year, I followed the re- service without taking on extra work. vise a course only once every few years. search advice I had gathered over the Instead, I simply supplant some of my I recently was awarded early ten- years from faculty mentors. The most teaching load with committee work. ure and promotion. As I move into the frequently repeated advice I had re- Thus, I have learned that some com- middle stages of my career, I have taken ceived was to schedule research days mon research strategies do not quite the opportunity to reflect on the time- into my week. If I taught on Monday work for me at my particular institu- honored advice I received at the start and Wednesday, then I should devote ev- tion. On the other hand, other pieces of continues on page 6 ery Tuesday and Thursday to research. I know this advice works for many of my colleagues. Unfortunately, I soon re- Amuedo-Dorantes continued from page 4 alized that if I thought about research quite the opposite, e.g., that you have no another manner that might be useful to only one or two days a week, I wasted time for the work you committed to and the person, committee or group seeking time each week reviewing where I left that you are not truly taking it serious- your help. off before I could start again. In addi- ly. Also avoid committing to too many We all face different challenges, and tion, even on my research days, my time research projects at once. I think it is what I just described might not make in the office inevitably ended up being easy to fall into that trap. But, if your any sense for you. So please take my ap- hijacked by students, administrators, or coauthors are also over committing, the proach to research and my advice with other faculty members. project might never see the light of day a grain of salt. Some of it might be rel- Another recommendation I heard and, if they are not, they might not be evant to you, some of it might not. I am was to negotiate a reduced course load very happy with the fact that you are not going to conclude by telling you some- for my first year. I followed this advice dedicating enough time to work on it. thing I was told a long time ago. At the and was able to obtain two course re- While setting time aside to do your time, it seemed pretty obvious to me, so leases. However, I did not anticipate research and thinking of your own pro- I did not place too much weight on it. that I would spend much of that year ductivity, it is also very important to re- The advice was, “If you don’t like some- preparing all the new courses I was main helpful to others in the profes- thing, get out of it.” With time, I have teaching. For this reason, a better strat- sion. Do not over commit in this arena discovered that was, indeed, great ad- egy for new faculty may be to negotiate either. But, at the same time, make sure vice! Life can be pretty simple. Choose course releases to come in their second you do your share of social and profes- projects that you enjoy working on and year, when the extra time can be used to sional service, e.g., committee work, ref- coauthors who will make the work an truly focus on research. ereeing papers, organizing conference enjoyable and enriching experience. A third piece of advice I received sessions or helping out in professional You will be more productive and, more was to avoid committee work as long organizations. If you cannot help in a importantly, happier while accomplish- as possible. This is great advice but not particular way or time, offer to do so in ing your research goals. wi nter 2014 5 Peters continued from page 5 of my career and on the strategies I believe that academics at teaching in- among students in the same course. have found to work best for me. By no stitutions have a comparative advantage This means I was able to collect the data means do I consider myself an expert in this line of research. In part, this is within the context of the teaching tasks on balancing research and teaching, but due to the incredible support that many I already had to do. After that, the data I hope I can offer a few additional tips teaching institutions give to the schol- analysis and write-up took only a few to junior faculty starting out at non-re- arship of teaching and learning; faculty weeks during the summer. It turned search institutions. and administrators outside of our own out to be the easiest paper I have writ- First, devote time to exploring new departments are interested in and val- ten so far! As a bonus, it provided key el- Alan research ideas during the summer. That ue this avenue of research. Moreover, ements for my tenure portfolio not only Greenspan period provides a large block of time economists are particularly well-posi- in the area of research but also in the and the freedom to delve into a few dif- tioned to be successful in this research area of teaching, by providing evidence ferent ideas. Several of them may not area. Much of the empirical literature that I had been innovative in analyzing pan out, but by the time fall semester on teaching, learning, and pedagogy has new pedagogies. begins, some good leads should be ev- been written by social scientists or ed- In the end, my advisor was right. ident. The key for me has been to set ucators in other fields. As economists, Given all the demands of teaching and aside half days or full days of uninter- we have a more sophisticated empirical service at my university, I did learn that rupted time to engage in the necessary toolkit with which to analyze the issues. I have to make compromises. My insti- creative thinking and exploratory anal- For example, a few years ago, af- tution will not support or even reward ysis that comes at the front end of a re- ter reading the literature on the effec- research to the extent that I had come to search project. During the academic tiveness of online courses, a colleague expect during graduate school. Howev- year itself, I focus on revising my work- and I realized that all the studies were er, over the past few years, I have found ing papers, giving conference presenta- simply comparing performance out- that the prospect of the joy of doing re- tions, and submitting to journals. Once comes of students in online courses to search has made me very efficient at get- a project is in working paper form, it is those of students enrolled in traditional ting my teaching and service tasks done, much easier to break up the research courses, ignoring the selection bias in- so that I can focus on what I love. Ulti- tasks into pieces that can be managed herent in that strategy. The next semes- mately, I have learned that it is still pos- in smaller blocks of time such as during ter, we obtained university approval to sible to do research that I value and that office hours or between classes. set up an experiment within my cours- excites and fulfills me, and that is why I Second, work with coauthors. They es that randomized the assignment of became an economist in the first place. keep you focused and force you to make online vs. pen-and-paper homework time for research. When possible, col- laborate with coauthors at more re- search-oriented institutions. They con- duct research on a faster timeline, have Four Steps to Getting Research Done at an larger networks, and can open doors Institution without Graduate Programs that can be hard to reach coming from a lower-ranked institution. They also often have access to greater resources, Lonnie Golden such as research assistants or funds that your own institution might not provide. So, how does one become, and stay, 3-3 teaching load, which is usually 7 Finally, make the time to have lunch research productive, when your facul- courses per year when summer supple- with your colleagues and talk about re- ty position is at a college with a heavy mental teaching is included. search ideas. This is especially impor- dose of teaching, and considerable ser- To answer, let’s begin the same way tant for faculty at institutions like mine, vice as well? I consider myself mid-ca- we start a course in Economics, dispas- which do not offer research seminars. reer and have pondered this question sionately, with the Production Possibil- On a day-to-day basis, conversations frequently. Being located at Penn State ities. There is the short run context— with colleagues may be the only way to University, Abington College, an exclu- how to produce up to one’s inherent generate ideas and keep your research sively undergraduate branch campus potential, given the constraints—trying mind sharp. within Pennsylvania’s public university to achieve productive efficiency, using Another unexpected strategy that system, presents significant but not in- all the resources at your disposal cur- has worked well for me has been to pur- surmountable challenges to producing rently, or “doing things right.” Then, sue an additional research agenda on and sustaining scholarly research activ- there is the medium term, allocative ef- the scholarship of teaching and learn- ity. Not the least of these is the standard ficiency, i.e., “doing the right things.” ing alongside my traditional agenda. I continues on page 7

6 CSWEP News Golden continued from page 6 Third, there is the long run, dynamic long and the chances of winning slim). what I preach….) Those of us at more efficiency. That is, sustained produc- Then, demonstrate that this was a good teaching-intensive institutions have a tivity growth by improving the quanti- investment by publishing the output, seemingly infinite amount of time-in- ty and quality of resources over time, even if that means delaying your un- tensive, mundane tasks and requests i.e., “doing things better.” I can’t claim sponsored projects. Seek out all avail- from students, advisees and even chairs to have ever accomplished all of these, able tools at your disposal—quiet office and deans who ought to be facilitating or that the same recipe works across all space, econometric software, IT consult- our research striving. institutions. For the grand prize of ten- ing, support staff, etc. Leave no available It is never too late to start your pro- ure, there is a rising floor of minimum fessional networking by going to con- expectations regarding economists’ Upgrading your courses every ferences, as long as they fit your stra- productivity levels. For the additional semester may be ideal, but tegic plan. There is still no substitute for showing up. Eventually, the smaller, prize of full professor rank, there may sometimes the marginal cost of that be an escalator. Non-elite colleges re- more intimate the conference the better. time exceeds the marginal benefit. quire ever more published scholarship They allow for longer interactions and even though resources remain dispro- opportunities for forming synergistic portionately concentrated, for the fore- travel funds on the table. Apply for ev- collaborations. Even if your plans nev- seeable future, at elite institutions. The erything in sight. I have the unique per- er make it out of your inbox, a call for last step is not to forget that productiv- spective in that I had the fortune to be- proposals for a grant, a special or sym- ity may be also instrumental for utility. come affiliated with a department at the posium issue of a journal might spark If all you have accomplished is greater University Park campus and have served it forward. The key is to find scholars output without realizing at least some as a University faculty senator, and so I who are at institutions with somewhat intrinsic rewards along the way—in- have seen the Promised Land, rich in re- greater access to resources than you cluding process utility—then the well- sources. While expectations of those “R- have, which means you might have to being benefits of your productivity spurt 1” university positions require such re- provide their missing resource—labor might not be as long lasting. source support, there are opportunities time—for the collaboration to be worth- First, some assumptions. It is diffi- within the university system if you turn while for them. There is no shame in cult to achieve your publishing output over every stone. A $10k grant I once reallocating your time and effort toward goal by skipping any of what I suggest received from one of the interdisciplin- conferences in emerging markets or hot below are four steps. This involves trad- ary research institutes was a godsend at topics where financial and intellectual eoffs with other desirable ends—which that time, the difference between hav- resources are moving, as long as there contribute positively to our current util- ing to take on summer courses or over- is a connective thread that relates to ity level—such as non-work time and loads and having more research time. your past or future planned work. For other sources of income. This time real- If you can leverage success at internal me, this meant branching out from my location is challenging and taxing (par- grants for securing external funds, you initial training and perspective as a la- ticularly for mothers and for egalitari- may be able, as I was, to then find grad- bor economist to the forming networks an-oriented fathers). Research in the uate student research assistants for hire in work-life and behavioral econom- field of happiness suggests that we de- to help you with your project at local in- ics. I can attribute any success I have rive more utility from family, social re- stitutions that have PhD-granting eco- had in landing external grants to taking lationships and leisure activities than nomics programs. this risk. I am now trying to parlay that from work. Happiness research also Step 2: Reallocate your available time into securing more medium-sized grant shows, however, that mastery of craft and effort resources wisely, including funding. and being engaged in your flow also in- some set aside toward your long run Disseminating knowledge, not just crease your well-being. Taking time off strategic goals, even if it must come at producing knowledge, is a goal of our regularly sufficient for recuperation and the expense of necessary short run op- profession. Most appearances in the reflection will feed both utility and pro- erations. Upgrading your courses every broadcast or print media should not ductivity growth. semester may be ideal, but sometimes be passed up. Not only do they get you So, step 1: Find the least costly meth- the marginal cost of that time exceeds public exposure, but they generally gar- ods of producing your output, either in the marginal benefit. There is only one ner as much kudos and credibility with the form of time or money. That means person who truly cares about whether your administrators and colleagues as first take advantage of all possible avail- your powerpoint slides and your read- the projects that take you literally years able internal opportunities for funds or ing list are up-to-date—YOU. Some- to complete. time off in your college, university, de- times we are forced to settle and focus Step 3: Between my early and mid- partment or region. No amount is too elsewhere if we aim to be doing the career stages, I was generously hosted small (unless the input time required is right things. (Oh, if I could just practice for a day by a very successful scholar in continues on page 8 wi nter 2014 7 Tips on How to be a Productive Scholar Susan L. Averett at a Liberal Arts College

When finishing graduate school in publication record—several dozen ref- belief that liberal arts colleges are anath- 1991, I was somewhat naïve about what ereed journal articles, eight invited book ema to active research and publication. it would be like to be an academic econ- chapters, a textbook in its second edi- Truth be told, I love my job, both the omist. I really wanted to be at a liberal tion and an appointment as a research teaching and the scholarship, and I am arts college because I wanted to teach fellow of the Institute for the Study of convinced that my ongoing engagement smaller classes and mentor students on Labor (IZA)—demonstrates that top in research makes me a much better an individual basis, but I was also very liberal arts colleges have high expecta- teacher. committed to my research. When I ac- tions for scholarship and provide am- At Lafayette College, the teaching cepted the job at Lafayette College many ple research support to their faculty. Yet load is five courses per year. Despite of my fellow graduate students and pro- many of my colleagues at research uni- this relatively high load, faculty mem- fessors were certain that this spelled the versities still tell me that I am under- bers are expected to conduct research end to a promising research agenda. My placed. There seems to be a pervasive and to publish in peer-reviewed jour- nals. Although the college clearly values research, the reality is that teaching and Golden continued from page 7 individualized undergraduate advising my area of interest who repeatedly char- who studies working time and advo- are an important and time-consuming acterized her colleagues in terms of how cates more flexible work options, I was part of my job. Carving out time for re- fast they were. So, how does one reduce acutely aware that I might be simply search is challenging. We do not have the start to finish time of a project, giv- self-transitioning from a state of over- any graduate students forcing us to keep en one’s inherent work speed? For one, employment to underemployment by up with the latest scholarship or working just as with production possibilities, one reducing my work hours for reduced for us as research assistants. We are also must be in continuous training on time- pay! Talk about research informing your expected to teach our own classes. This saving production processes, including teaching—in this case it informed my means that buying out a course because positive externalities from classroom work-life! However, I arranged in ad- you received funding from a grant is typ- and communication technologies. In- vance to make up some of the income ically not possible. And, although my in- deed, the most important technological gap and have never really regretted it. stitution is relatively generous when it input can be shifting the timing of work You might also have to consider tem- comes to computing support and funds itself. Productivity that involves think- porarily compromising your prior pref- for purchasing data, our travel allowance ing derives more from having contin- erence for a segmented rather than an has not appreciably increased in several uous blocks of time than from having integrated approach toward work and years. an equal amount of time split into non- non-work time and place, and cope with Given these constraints, how does continuous blocks. We seek a virtuous your boundaries between work and life one go about combining scholarship cycle—or more realistically, to avoid the being encroached upon. with teaching at a liberal arts school? vicious cycle—of finding time to find re- Step 4: Seek only the opportunities Reflecting back on my 22 years as a sources that would free up time. that would help feed your own fulfill- teacher/scholar, several strategies have As many job seekers at the AEA re- ment—the research questions in which worked well for me. First and foremost, alize, in the context of a highly creden- you are most motivated to generate a you have to be committed to scholarship tialed, often segmented labor market continual stream of scholarship. This because during the semester, it is often a between institutions, some initial jobs may generate some positive spillovers 70 hour work week. At the outset of my offer greater time and support for re- or even psychic income—choices which career, I received the invaluable advice search. Indeed, my times of highest pro- would enhance your overall utility de- that if I did not earn tenure at Lafayette ductivity were those following periods spite their apparently irrational high College, any other job I might apply for of temporarily reduced teaching loads cost. For me, one such fulfillment has would care primarily about my research or course release time, summers with- been staying part of a public universi- record. out teaching and, of course, my two sab- ty in an urban region, helping the all Building a network of collaborators batical leaves. Hard as it was, I chose too often resource-deprived, next gen- has been absolutely essential to my re- the sabbatical option of taking the full eration get the opportunities that I have search success. When I first arrived at year at a proportionately reduced pay found—which I hope I have also deliv- Lafayette, there was no one who did the rather than just one semester at full ered with this article! type of empirical work I did, and thus pay. Of course, as a labor economist continues on page 9 8 CSWEP News Averett continued from page 8 there were limited opportunities for col- sometimes, particularly when it also in- Break tasks on a particular paper into laboration. This obliged me to reach out volves the schedule of a coauthor. Papers manageable chunks—spend an hour to others, and I began to partner with which have a revise and resubmit or are writing up results for one paper and contemporaries from graduate school due to be presented at a conference nat- several hours doing data analysis for and soon expanded that to include col- urally come first in the queue, but every another. leagues I met at conferences. Building time a conference deadline rolls around, If it makes sense and your institu- my own research network has helped I strive to submit something new. tion supports it, try to work collabora- me keep abreast of developments in the Don’t be afraid to ask your institution tively with students. I have found that field and enhanced my knowledge of the for support. At a small institution, there undergraduates at Lafayette College are subject area and the latest econometric are usually pockets of money to support interested in working on research proj- techniques. Regular meetings with my faculty research, including summer sti- ects and they enjoy using Stata to manip- coauthors whether via phone or Skype or pends to support research and advanced ulate data to address research questions. occasionally in person keeps my work on study, particularly if the research can be On occasion, I have published articles track and helps me move papers toward tied broadly to pedagogic innovations or with students, and some of my former publication. if the research involves a student. students are in graduate school and we I have also found that conferences continue to collaborate. are the best commitment device. Be- It is important to design your teach- cause of my geographic location, I reg- Building a network of collaborators ing in an efficient manner so that it sup- ularly attend both the Southern and the has been absolutely essential ports your research agenda. For exam- ple, I save my most productive hours for Eastern Economic Association meet- to my research success. ings. These conferences are likely to ac- working on my research, and for me that cept your work and provide a friendly is the first part of the day. Thus, I tend venue to try out new papers. They also to schedule my classes in the afternoons, provide an invaluable time to network. If you are at a smaller school without and I do all of my grading in the evening. I set up meetings with collaborators and a seminar series, ask your department While I assign problem sets, I don’t usu- potential collaborators at the conferenc- head or dean if there is any money to ally collect or grade them. When I do es. Most conferences also welcome the support such a series. It need not be cost grade them, it is on a completed/not submission of entire sessions. Organiz- prohibitive. Just invite scholars who are completed basis. I also offer review ses- ing a session is a great way to ensure that within driving distance. This will help sions before exams—I find this to be you are on the program while getting to you to keep abreast of trends in research more efficient than seeing students one know others who work on similar topics. and aid in networking. By the same to- by one in office hours, although there Rarely have I been turned down when ken, ask colleagues at other universities is still plenty of that. Being at a liberal I’ve asked people to be part of a session. if you can come and give a research sem- arts college, I have great leeway in the Likewise, volunteer to be a discussant at inar. Trying out your ideas is an impor- electives I teach, and thus I offer elec- these conferences. It will allow you to tant part of the research process. tives in the area of my research—this meet others and exposes you to the work Consider breadth versus depth in helps me generate new research ideas of others. In addition to these general your projects. My own research inter- and also helps me recruit students who conferences, I find it is valuable to also ests are varied and have been somewhat might want to work with me on a re- try to attend at least one conference per driven by opportunities that have arisen search project. year that is focused more on my area of usually because someone contacts me Lastly, do not be afraid to outsource research, which for me usually means at- about working on a topic with them or household obligations. Consider the tending the health economics meetings I approach someone with an idea. Over money spent on a cleaning service to be (American Society of Health Economists the years, I have also built up specific an investment in your future earnings. or the International Health Economics human capital in several areas and this When my children were small, I hired Association) or the Population Associa- has paid off in many ways. For example, students as babysitters and chauffeurs. tion of America annual meetings. I have written many invited book chap- My children loved getting to know col- I always try to keep my “pipeline” ters related to economics and obesity be- lege students, and my students appre- stocked. At any given time, I have around cause of work I’ve done in this area. ciated the extra money. Overall, it is half a dozen papers in various stages of Work on your research all year long— possible to have a productive research progress. While it can be stressful at don’t wait until the summer to concen- program while teaching at a liberal arts times, not everything is active at once. trate your efforts. Set aside time to work college. Something may be under review while on your research every day if possible, another project is in the data phase. but a minimum of three days per week. Prioritizing the projects can get tricky Even an hour can make a big difference. wi nter 2014 9 Annual Report continued from page 1 during the AEA Meeting and the Ce- Held biennially up to this point, there was considerable sentiment to ex- MENT National and Regional Mentor- the internationally recognized1 Ce- pand the capacity of the national men- ing Workshops. MENT (previously CCOFFE) Mentor- toring program. The first part of this report covers ing Workshops target either the women Hence, pending the approval of new developments and CSWEP’s ongo- in departments where research accom- funding by the AEA Executive Commit- ing activities. The second part updates plishments determine promotion (the tee (in January 2014), CSWEP will move the annual statistical report on the sta- National Workshops) or women at from biennial to annual national men- tus of women in the economics profes- schools where teaching receives more toring workshops, thus doubling their sion. The third contains well-deserved weight (the Regional Workshops). The capacity. While a CSWEP committee acknowledgements. success of these workshops has been considered other ways to expand capaci- Before recounting CSWEP activities, rigorously documented2 and they are ty, moving to annual workshops seemed it is worth noting that there are likely now funded by the AEA on an ongoing the only practical way to preserve the many spillovers from CSWEP activi- basis. current format that lies at the heart of ties that are impossible to list or quan- This section reports on plans to ex- their success and feasibility. The main tify. CSWEP activities raise awareness pand the National Mentoring Work- alternative was to double the size (men- among men and women of the chal- shops, on the Regional Mentoring tors and mentees) of each workshop lenges that are unique to women’s ca- Workshops, and on the new Mentoring and keep the biennial schedule. How- reers and that can be addressed with Breakfasts. ever, those who have recruited mentors many types of actions—from inclusive CeMENT National Mentoring strongly felt that recruiting 32 at one searches to informal mentoring activi- Workshops: From Biennial to Annual time biennially would be a far more dif- ties. In addition, much of the informa- ficult task than recruiting 16 annually. tion and advice freely disseminated by Funded by the AEA and international- Even more importantly, moving from CSWEP can be of great value not only ly known for providing young women a biennial to an annual frequency bet- to female economists but to all econo- economists with know-how and net- ter enables junior women to time their mists, and especially to any junior econ- works that boost their careers, CSWEP’s workshop participation in the context of omist, whether male or female and biennial National Mentoring Work- pressing tenure clocks. whether minority or not. shops target junior women facing re- Past workshop participants have re- CSWEP Board members individu- search expectations commensurate ceived binders of professional develop- ally and collectively do the work of the with U.S. departments with PhD pro- ment materials relating to publishing, Board. In gratitude, this report high- grams in economics. Going back to the teaching, grants and other relevant top- lights their work by bolding their names first CCOFFE workshop in 1998 and ics. Starting last year, Terra McKinnish, as well as bolding the names of past morphing into the CeMENT National Director of the 2012 and 2014 Nation- board members. Also bolded are the Mentoring Workshops (in 2004, 06, al Mentoring Workshops, took the ini- names of the many others who have ad- 08, 10 and 12, with the next one Janu- tiative to make these materials publicly vanced CSWEP’s work, both male and ary 5-7, 2014) these national workshops available on CSWEP’s webpage.4 have been consistently oversubscribed.3 female and from new acquaintances to CeMENT Regional Mentoring Workshop, long-time stalwart supporters. Moreover, at the January 2013 meeting of the Executive Committee of the AEA November 2013, Tampa, Florida CSWEP Activities in 2013 Ann Owen of Hamilton College orga- 1 Using CeMENT as a model, the American Philosophical nized the Regional CeMENT Workshop Mentoring Programs Association and the Royal Economic Society’s Women’s immediately preceding the 2013 annual Committee have both run successful mentoring workshops; As success breeds success, the effec- WiNE (the European Economic Association’s women’s Southern Economic Association Meet- tive mentoring of young women econo- group) and economists in China, Japan and South Korea are ing. Seven senior and 31 junior wom- mists has become ever more central to working on similar workshops. en economists gathered for this two- CSWEP’s mission. While mentoring 2 Based on random assignment to participation and track- day event.5 Participants received advice ing the subsequent careers of both participants and those and creating professional networks is who were randomized out of participation, a rigorous evalu- an ongoing informal aspect of most ev- ation showed that “CeMENT increased top-tier publications, 4 http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/CSWEP/mentoring/ ery CSWEP activity, the CeMENT Men- the total number of publications, and the total number of reading.php. successful federal grants in treated women relative to con- 5 We are grateful to the mentors who volunteered their time toring Workshops hold center stage, trols,” Blau et al., “Can Mentoring Help Female Assistant for this workshop: Susan Averett (Lafayette College), Lisa and the new CSWEP Mentoring Break- Professors? Interim Results from a Randomized Trial” Daniels (Washington College), Betsy Jensen (Hamilton (American Economic Review, May 2010: 352). fasts have already proved their worth. College), Nicole Simpson (Colgate University), Sarah Stafford 3 With only 40 spots in each, both the 2012 and 2014 (College of William and Mary) and Tara Watson (Williams workshops received over 100 applicants (with justified dis- College). Jenny Minier (University of Kentucky and co-editor appointment on the part of qualified applicants who were of the Southern Economic Journal ) participated in a session randomized out). providing tips from an editor’s perspective. continues on page 11 10 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 10 about publishing, teaching, networking that avoided conflicts with job inter- of all of the highly competitive candi- and the tenure process as well as on jug- views and other events. CSWEP has dates for these awards as well as to the gling work and family. They also worked commitments from 60 senior mentors hard-working selection committees.8 together in small groups on goal setting and preregistration stands at 147 and AEA Summer Economics Fellows and provided feedback on research pa- counting. If these Mentoring Breakfasts Program pers to other group members. Overall, go as expected, going forward CSWEP the workshop was rated as extremely will sponsor two Mentoring Breakfasts Begun in 2006 with seed monies from helpful, with participants commenting annually at the AEA meetings. the National Science Foundation (NSF) and designed and administered by a on the quality of the tips they received Bennett Prize and Bell Award and the usefulness of the network that joint AEA-CSMGEP-CSWEP commit- The January 3, 2014, annual CSWEP they started at the workshop. Many of tee, the AEA Summer Economics Fel- Business Meeting will see the presen- the participants left the workshop with lows Program aims to enhance the ca- tation of both the Bennett Prize and important career goals and the plans to reers of underrepresented minorities the Bell Award to their most recent achieve them. and women during their years as se- recipients. nior graduate students or junior facul- Mentoring Breakfasts: Awarded biennially since 1998, the ty members. Fellowships vary from one From Experiment to Expansion Elaine Bennett Research Prize recogniz- institution to the next, but experienced In January 2013 at the AEA Meeting, es and honors outstanding research in economists mentor the fellows who, in CSWEP held its inaugural Mentor- any field of economics by a woman at turn, work on their own research and ing Breakfast. The brainchild of Board the beginning of her career. The 2012 have a valuable opportunity to present members Terra McKinnish and Linda prize went to Anna Mikusheva for her it. Selected from forty-six applicants, Goldberg, this event was originally con- work on econometric inference. Miku- Summer 2013 saw 11 summer fellows ceived as a stand-in for the biennial Ce- sheva is the Castle-Krob Associate Pro- immersed in research environments MENT National Mentoring Workshop fessor of Economics at the Massachu- at the Federal Reserve Banks in Atlan- during its off years. It is fair to say no setts Institute of Technology. The press ta, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas one had imagined just how successful release is available on line, as is the in- City, New York and Richmond. Valued this event would be. The first 120 junior sightful interview of Mikusheva by Nan- by the sponsors as well as Fellows, we applicants to apply were admitted and cy Rose in the Fall 2013 CSWEP News.6 owe thanks to these sponsors for their gathered with about forty senior men- Given annually, and also since 1998, active support of this program. Evalua- tors (mostly women, some men) for a the Carolyn Shaw Bell Award recogniz- tions from 2013 Fellows heaped praise modest breakfast and a rich networking es an individual for outstanding work on the program. In the works are efforts experience. Participants could pick a ta- that has furthered the status of wom- to increase the number of successful ble with a topic (such as research, han- en in the economics profession. The minority applicants and to smooth out dling referee reports, teaching, grants, 2013 award went to Rachel McCulloch, the number of applicants each year.9 work-life balance, and so forth) or an Rosen Family Professor Emerita of In- open-ended dialogue. Discussions con- ternational Finance at Brandeis Univer- 8 Many thanks to the 2013 Bell committee: Board member Linda Goldberg (Chair) and previous Bell recipients Elizabeth tinued long after the breakfast had of- sity and a leader in the field of interna- Hoffman (2010) and Sharon Oster (2011); and also to the ficially ended. Echoing the National tional trade. An inspiring role model for 2012 Bennett committee: former Board member Nancy Rose Mentoring Workshops, this Mentor- many women, McCulloch folded men- (Chair), Board member Petra Todd and former Bennett win- toring into all aspects of her of scholar- ner Monika Piazzesi (2006). Susan Athey, the 2000 Bennett ing Breakfast was oversubscribed, as winner, graciously pinch hit for Nancy Rose when she recused evidenced by a telltale waiting list and ship, teaching and service and has mo- herself from the final decision. For holding to high stan- still others who had to be turned away tivated innumerable individuals, both dards and spotlighting the extraordinary accomplishments of male and female, to pursue careers in women in economics, we owe an enormous debt to the each at the door. Clearly, this mentoring committee member on both of these committees. Finally, and networking experience served a the discipline. The press release is avail- while they must remain anonymous, this debt extends with need that went well beyond the original able on line.7 Kathryn Graddy will in- equal weight to all those who did the hard work of nominat- conception. terview McCulloch for the Spring/Sum- ing the highly competitive field of candidates for each award as well as to all those who wrote the thoughtful, detailed let- In response, CSWEP is experiment- mer 2014 CSWEP News. ters in support of each candidacy. ing with expansion here as well. Under Sincere thanks are due to those who 9 Many thanks to the 2013 committee for screening and the leadership of Board members Lin- nominated and wrote letters in support matching: Daniel Newlon from the AEA (Chair) whose ef- da Goldberg and Bevin Ashenmiller, the forts have undergirded this program from the get go in 2006, CSWEP Board member Cecilia Conrad, CSMGEP Board 6 2014 AEA Meeting will see two Mentor- http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/ member Gustavo Suarez and Lucia Foster of the Center for ing Breakfasts (January 3 and 4). Reg- PDFs/2012Bennett_Mikusheva.pdf; http://www.aeaweb.org/ Economic Studies at the U.S. Bureau of the Census. More in- . istrants have already welcomed this ex- committees/cswep/newsletters/CSWEP_nsltr_Fall_2013.pdf formation on the AEA Fellows Program is available at http:// pansion as they could select a morning 7 http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/ www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/summerfellows/his- PDFs/2013Bell_McCulloch-Rachel.pdf. tory.php. continues on page 12 wi nter 2014 11 Annual Report continued from page 11 CSWEP at the 2013 Annual American together a highly successful panel on and Anne Stevens (UC Davis) to George Economics Association Meeting “Flipping, Clicking and Other Contor- Washington University and Georgia Critical to CSWEP’s mission, CSWEP tions to Make Your Class Interactive;” Tech, respectively, for the purpose of sponsors six highly competitive paper this despite the difficulties getting pan- mentoring. The fund also defrayed the sessions at the annual AEA meeting. elists to travel to Seattle for these June travel expenses of multiple mentors to a The year 2013 saw three gender ses- 28–July 2 meetings. pre-conference junior mentoring work- sions, organized by Kevin Lang and Su- Finally, for the Midwest Econom- shop at the 2013 Meeting of the Mid- san Averett, as well as three health and ics Association Meeting (March in Co- west Econometrics Group, held at Indi- development economics sessions, or- lumbus, OH), Anne Winkler (CSWEP ana University. ganized by Frank Sloan (Duke Univer- Board Midwestern Representative) put CSWEP News in 2013 together two panels, “Academic Careers: sity) and Shelley White-Means. These Under the able direction of oversight ed- A CSWEP Panel on Opportunities and committees then selected eight papers itor, Madeline Zavodny,11 CSWEP pub- Challenges” and “Jobs for Economists: for two pseudo-sessions that were pub- lished three issues in 2013.12 With the A CSWEP Panel on the Employee-Em- lished in the May 2013 Papers & Proceed- intent of streamlining and modernizing ployer Match.” ings issue of the American Economic our publication, the newsletter under- As is the tradition, CSWEP hosted Review. went both a design change (now in two a reception at each regional meeting. The highly competitive submissions colors, no less) and a name change. The In line with expanding career develop- process encourages quality research, Fall 2013 issue was the first to sport the ment opportunities for young women particularly in the area of gender-relat- new design and the new name, CSWEP economists, these CSWEP receptions at ed topics. More generally, women con- News. For this transformation, credit the Regional Meetings are being trans- sistently report these sessions get their goes to the newsletter’s long-standing formed into mentoring and network- research before a profession-wide audi- graphic designer, Leda Black; to Mad- ing opportunities. Anne Winkler creat- ence and are instrumental in their suc- eline Zavodny, now in her fourth year ed a model that was quite effective. At cess as economists. as our oversight editor; and to Jennifer the Midwestern Meeting, she nestled a Socey, this Chair’s overqualified admin- CSWEP at the 2013 Regional Economics CSWEP Networking Lunch (similar in istrative assistant. Association Meetings form and enthusiastic reception to the In a long-standing tradition, each is- At the Eastern Economic Association Mentoring Breakfast at the 2013 AEA sue has featured a theme chosen and in- Meetings (May in NY, NY) Susan Aver- Meeting) in between the two panel dis- troduced by a guest editor who, in turn, ett (former CSWEP Board Eastern Rep- cussions. The eight panelists plus Win- enlists several authors to write the fea- resentative) organized a grand total of kler herself were there to mentor and tured articles. The quality of these arti- eight high-quality paper sessions. For network with the other participants, cles is consistently high, and many go the remaining Regional Meetings, the many of whom lingered after the first on to be long-lived career resources for focus of CSWEP has shifted from paper panel or arrived early for the second. junior economists13. On behalf of the sessions to panel discussions. The year All of these panels, receptions and CSWEP Board, the Chair, (who is the 2013 saw four such panels. paper sessions drew appreciative audi- For the Southern Economic Meeting ences and well served the missions of (November in Tampa, FL), Shelly White- CSWEP and the AEA more generally. 11 The contributions of Madeline Zavodny cannot be overstat- ed. Organizer par excellence, she helps guest editors match Means (outgoing CSWEP Board South- More details can be found in the last with a topic and generally facilitates their work, she makes ern Representative) organized a panel three issues of CSWEP News.10 sure that each issue covers the appropriate materials, writes discussion, “Securing External Funding up missing pieces, makes continued improvements, over- Haworth Mentoring Fund sees all of those boxes of announcements, coordinates with for Your Research: the Roles of Gender, CSWEP continues to administer the the Chair’s administrative assistant and drags the column Race and Ethnicity,” with panelists Don- “From the Chair” from its author. She is also a selfless, light- fund given by the late Joan Haworth, a na Ginther (University of Kansas), Lau- ning-quick copy editor and we are all in her debt. Last but not stalwart CSWEP supporter. Upon satis- least among her endless list of tasks, Jennifer Socey, CSWEP ra Razzolini (Virginia Commonwealth factory application, the Haworth Com- administrative assistant, formats the Newsletter, makes in- University and editor of the Southern mittee recommends small grants for novative suggestions and does substantive editing. She also Economic Journal) and Catherine Eckel puts up with the flow of last-minute changes from the Chair, recipients to piggy back mentoring ac- (Texas A&M University and 2012 win- coordinates with the printer and sees to distribution. tivities onto campus visits of external ner of the Carolyn Shaw Bell Award). 12 Current and past issues of the CSWEP News are archived seminar speakers and the like. This at http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/newsletters. For the Western Economic Associa- year the fund supported extended vis- php. For a free digital email subscription, visit http://cswep. tion Meetings, Jennifer Imazeki (out- org and click “Subscribe.” its of Marcelle Chauvet (UC Riverside) going CSWEP Board Western Repre- 13 The feature articles have provided the bulk of professional sentative and inveterate evangelist for development materials for the binder for CeMENT workshop updating our uses of the internet) put 10 http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/newsletters. participants, now online at: http://www.aeaweb.org/commit- php tees/CSWEP/mentoring/reading.php. continues on page 13 12 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 12 official editor but does almost none of memorial service for the late monetarist CSWEP Subchapters? the work), extends a warm thanks to all Anna J. Schwartz. Highlighting her life Under the leadership of former CSWEP these contributors. and accomplishments, NBER President Chair Barbara Fraumeni, CSWEP be- Petra Todd guest edited the Winter James Poterba opened and eight distin- gan an informal association with econ- 2013 issue featuring articles on “Navi- guished speakers (Michael Bordo, Mar- omists in the Washington, D.C., area. gating the Tenure Process.” Todd also tin Feldstein, Alan Greenspan, Allan The group came to be called CSWEP- contributed the article, The Tenure Pro- Meltzer, Edward Nelson, William Poole, DC. While a very good relationship be- cess at Research Universities; this ran Eloise Pasachoffand Christina Romer) tween CSWEP-DC and CSWEP was paired with Cecilia Conrad’s article, The described her life and remarkable con- established, in 2013 CSWEP consti- Tenure Process at Liberal Arts Colleges. tributions to economics. With the en- tuted an ad hoc Subchapters Commit- Also included was (former Board mem- couragement and support of NBER tee to think about how subchapters or ber) Rachel Croson’s advice, Tenure Let- President James Poterba, The CSWEP local groups might be formed, guide- ters, and (former Board member) Donna News was able to preserve these trib- lines created and so on. Chaired by Lin- Ginther’s, Should I Stay or Should I Go utes and thus the memory of an econ- da Goldberg and working with Kevin Now? Feedback on this issue was very omist who was ahead of her time and Lang and Anne Winkler, the Committee positive, with John Solow, Professor and under-recognized. asked, “Why is this needed and, if need- Departmental Executive Officer in the CSWEP Communications and ed, what is an appropriate structure?” Department of Economics at the Uni- Social Media In response to the first question, the versity of Iowa, writing in to say it “will Committee noted that while CSWEP be assigned reading for junior faculty.” To study CSWEP’s presence on the web via social media and our commu- has done a great job serving academic The Spring/Summer 2013 issue was women in liberal arts schools and re- born of a happy coincidence as Guest nications more generally, Anne Winkler (Chair), Jennifer Imazeki and Shelly search universities, CSWEP has not Editor Cecilia Conrad chose the topic been able to serve non-academic wom- “Where are the Women Economics Ma- White-Means comprised the ad hoc Committee on Communications and en who work in the public or private sec- jors?” and learned that, quite indepen- tors nearly as well. Thus, for the well dently, Claudia Goldin was working on Contacts. This year the Committee was instrumental in revising and streamlin- served, there is no need for subchapters, Notes on Women and the Economics Un- but subchapters may well be an appro- dergraduate Major, an effort to document ing the content on CSWEP’s AEA web 14 priate means to serve others. the gender gap and delve into causal fac- site. The work on the web site could not have been done without the excel- Given that a need is determined, tors as preliminary work to figuring out the Committee recommended two what can be done. The authors spanned lent assistance of Susan Houston and Michael Albert. In addition to making types of outreach efforts: (1) Unaffili- the discipline’s career phases. Maria ated Groups, and (2) Affiliated Groups Boya Zhu, winner of a NSF Graduate CSWEP’s activities more accessible to younger economists, an anticipated side to be called Subchapters. In the first in- Fellowship who took her Pomona BA stance, CSWEP does not have to take to Duke’s PhD program, wrote An Un- effect is the expansion of circulation of the CSWEP News. responsibility for the group, but could, dergraduate Major’s Perspective. Aman- upon appropriate application, provide da Griffith,Assistant Professor at Wake CSWEP is most interested in learn- ing more about the AEA’s plans to move minor funding for one-off events con- Forest University, shared her research sistent with CSWEP’s mission. In the on The Importance of Role Models. Su- forward with a new online subscription service where members can sign-up for second instance, CSWEP needs to ar- san Feigenbaum, Professor at the Uni- ticulate rules for operation, including versity of Missouri–St. Louis, contrib- email subscriptions to a variety of AEA committees and opportunities. We find a mission statement consistent with uted her experience on Attracting More CSWEP’s, and then work with the Sub- Women and Minorities into Economics, that with CSWEP no longer requiring membership dues, our “subscriber” da- chapter on sponsoring and possibly and Lisa Saunders, Professor at the funding events. University of Massachusetts Amherst, tabase does not stay as current as in the past. We believe an overall AEA sub- The committee report will be dis- wrote On Being the Other in the Class- cussed at the January 2014 CSWEP room. The authors asked difficult ques- scription service would help us to bet- ter communicate with CSWEP’s audi- Board Meeting and the expectation is tions and provided insights on a topic that a more formal proposal to the AEA of great, even grave import to the future ence for event notification and CSWEP News dissemination. Executive Committee will follow. of women in the economics profession. In the meantime, in 2013 CSWEP Newly formatted and renamed, the experimented with providing minor Fall 2013 CSWEP News broke with tra- funding to encourage two such out- dition by publishing the content of reach efforts. In both cases the returns the April 2013 NBER-sponsored NYC 14 http://cswep.org seemed large relative to the costs and continues on page 14 wi nter 2014 13 Annual Report continued from page 13 informed the work of the Subchapters to 27.8%, increased their representation Summary of Results Committee. at the associate level more than six fold This overview begins with an oft-ne- First, CSWEP provided supplemen- to 24.5% and increased their representa- glected group, teaching faculty outside tal funds (paired with a grant from the tion at the full professor level five-fold to of the tenure track. These faculty typical- Haworth Fund and also with direct 12.0%. This report presents the results ly hold multiyear rolling contracts and support of the host institution, Indiana of our 2013 survey, with emphasis on carry titles such as adjunct, instructor, University) to defray the travel expenses changes over the last 17 years as well as lecturer, visitor or professor of the prac- of multiple mentors to a pre-conference the progress of cohorts of new PhDs as tice. In doctoral departments, the repre- junior mentoring workshop at the 2013 they progressed through the academic sentation of women in these positions Meeting of the Midwest Econometrics ranks. runs high, currently standing at 36.1%, Group. The remainder of this section de- exceeding that not just of assistant pro- Second, CSWEP contributed to a scribes a change in the survey, summa- fessors but even that of new PhDs. In 15 Speed Mentoring event held in May rizes the main results, and offers key 2013 the share of women in these po- 2013 and organized by CSWEP-DC un- findings. Subsequent sections provide sitions was nearly double their share der the leadership of Susan Fleck (Bu- more detailed results. of all tenure track positions combined reau of Labor Statistics (BLS)), and The CSWEP Annual Surveys, 1972–2013 (19.4%), and this disparity is greater still event committee members Maureen In Fall 2013 CSWEP surveyed 124 doc- in the top 20 departments. Doherty (BLS), Judy Yang (World Bank) toral departments and 146 non-doctoral With regard to doctoral depart- and Xiaotong Niu (Congressional Bud- departments. The non-doctoral sample ments, with one exception, broadly get Office). The participants came from is based on the listing of “Baccalaureate speaking the last 17 years show some government, academia and interna- Colleges—Liberal Arts” from the Carn- growth in the representation of wom- tional and non-profit organizations and egie Classification of Institutions of High- en at each level of the academic hierar- praised the new format. In total, 27 er Learning (2000 Edition). Starting in chy. The exception is the representation graduate students and young profes- 2006 the survey was augmented to in- of women amongst first year PhD stu- sionals met with 16 mid-career and se- clude six departments in research uni- dents. For nearly two decades this has nior economist mentors. The event was versities that offer a Master’s degree but hovered around 33%. As noted in the very well received and afterwards par- not a PhD degree program in econom- 2006 Report and reinforced by Goldin ticipants continued conversations at a ics. This report uses the terms “non-doc- (CSWEP Newsletter, Spring/Summer more leisurely pace over lunch. toral and “liberal arts” interchangeably. 2013), since the share of baccalaureates This year a new question was add- going to women is rising, this constant The Status of Women in the ed to the non-doctoral survey and it re- 33% means the fraction of women bac- Economics Profession vealed that 18 hitherto would-be eco- calaureates pursing a PhD in econom- Introduction, the Survey and Summary nomics departments were in reality ics is actually shrinking. Two proverbial departments of business administra- truths continue to hold: (i) At every level In 1971 the AEA established CSWEP as tion and the like, departments in which of the academic hierarchy, from enter- a standing committee to monitor the economists comprise a small minori- ing PhD student to full professor, wom- status and promote the advancement of ty of the faculty. Phone calls to non-re- en have been and remain a minority. (ii) women in the economics profession. In sponding departments revealed another Moreover, within the tenure track, from 1972 CSWEP undertook a broad survey three. All 21 of these will be expunged new PhD to full professor, the higher of economics departments and found from future surveys, and the remainder the rank, the lower the representation that women represented 7.6% of new of this report treats the 2013 non-doctor- of women. In 2013 new doctorates were PhDs, 8.8% of assistant, 3.7% of asso- al base as if these business departments 35% female, falling to 27.8% for assis- ciate and 2.4% of full professors. Much had never been included. After expung- tant professors, to 24.5% for tenured has changed. This year marks the 40th ing these, of the 125 economics depart- associate professors and to 12% for full survey year. At doctoral institutions, ments remaining in the survey, 72% re- professors. This pattern has been char- women have more than quadrupled sponded [(108–18)/(146–21)]. This is the acterized as the “leaky pipeline.” their representation amongst new PhDs relevant response rate for the analysis Because the growth in women’s rep- to 35%, more than tripled their repre- that follows. It is a bit lower than the resentation has differed across ranks, sentation amongst assistant professors naïve rate in the previous paragraph be- the gaps in representation between ad- cause the 21 business departments actu- jacent ranks have changed. Thus, fol- 15 Speed mentoring is a variation on speed dating. It is a face- lowing some earlier convergence be- to-face venue of quick introductions to connect people who ally had a better response rate than the share similar interests. Mentees came prepared to share a economics departments.16 tween women’s representation at the two-three minute introduction with mentors and were provid- associate level to that at the assistant ed with guidelines on how to follow-up with the mentor who 16 All non-doctoral response rates recorded in earlier CSWEP most closely matched their interests. Reports are analogous to the naïve rate above. continues on page 15 14 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 14 level, convergence seems to have ceased of data on each rank we can track the decline is no doubt rooted in the analo- some 14 years ago and a 6.2 percentage gender composition of some relative- gous decline in the fraction of women point difference has stubbornly persist- ly young cohorts from entering gradu- undergraduates who major in econom- ed to the present. Thus the gap between ate school though the PhD and of other ics and may in part stem from the way women’s representation at the full and older cohorts from receipt of the degree we teach economics at the undergradu- associate levels has increased consider- though the assistant and associate pro- ate level, as stressed by Goldin (CSWEP ably over the last 17 years. It is worth fessor ranks. Unfortunately, these data Newsletter, Spring/Summer, 2013). This noting that the latter is not necessarily do not suffice to analyze the advance of is an issue for both doctoral and non-doc- an unwanted development. It is the re- cohorts from associate to full profes- toral departments. sult of relatively good growth in wom- sor. The analysis indicates that if recent With regard to the second juncture, en’s representation at the associate level trends continue, then 2001 marks the the advancement of women from un- as compared to the full level combined advent of policies in PhD programs that tenured assistant to tenured associate with the stock of full professors reflect- maintain women’s representation from professor is no doubt intertwined and ing something like a 25-year history of matriculation through graduation. In jointly determined with family-relat- promotions from associate to full. addition, the cohort analysis indicates ed decisions. Moreover, with rational Comparing non-doctoral with doc- little in the way of a serious loss of wom- expectations these decisions, in turn, toral departments, at every level in the en relative to men as cohorts advanced feed back to the decision to major in tenure track women’s representation in from earning the degree to becoming economics and to enter a PhD program liberal arts departments runs higher— assistant professors. in the first place. Here, the institution- roughly 10 percentage points higher— In contrast and as found in earli- al setting and expected institutional set- than in doctoral departments (see Fig- er studies, the data show a significant ting (length of the tenure clock, gender- ures 1 and 2). Similar to the trend in and persistent loss of women relative to neutral family leave, on site child care doctoral departments, women’s repre- men in the transition from assistant to and so forth) can play significant roles. sentation at the assistant professor lev- tenured associate professor. Of 26 co- Finally, it is worth recognizing the high el has mildly trended up and at the full horts of new PhDs (1974–1999), fully representation of women in non-tenure level somewhat more so. However, the 23 saw a drop in the representation of track teaching jobs and that the CSWEP liberal arts departments do not share women.17 The drop was usually greater data do not cover placement into these the strong upward trend at the associ- than 5 percentage points and shows no jobs, contracts, durations in such jobs ate level exhibited by doctoral depart- obvious improvement over time.18 or exits therefrom. The data also do not ments. For liberal arts departments for Key Findings cover non-academic jobs. the past 11 years the trend for women’s In another vein, the 42 years of Past intakes and subsequent advance- representation at the associate level is, CSWEP data on the evolution of facul- ments of women and men determine if anything, down. ty composition at the department lev- the contemporaneous distribution A consequence of this last fact is that el are unique in the social sciences and of men and women on the academic for the liberal arts departments, during beyond. It is time to document and main- economists’ ladder. This report points to the last 11 years, while the leak in the tain these data in a way that meets pro- two critical junctures: the failure to grow pipeline between associate and full pro- fessional standards, to put in place a sys- of the representation of women at the in- fessor has shown some tendency to less- tem for maintenance for future years and take; and, relative to men, the subsequent en, that between assistant and associate to make the descriptive statistics at group poorer chance of advancing from unten- seems to have grown. levels (e.g., doctoral, non-doctoral and oth- ured assistant to tenured associate profes- A further comparison of liberal arts ers) available online. This would be a ma- sor. With regard to the first, in the face to a trifurcation of doctoral programs jor undertaking and this comment is of the growing representation of wom- by rank shows that for all tenure track offered by way of getting a discussion en at the baccalaureate level, the stagna- ranks combined, the representation of going on how to do this. It is important tion of the share of women in entering women declines as the emphasis on re- to start now, before too many more of PhD classes means that entering PhD search increases, averaging 30.8% for the early creators of the database pass students represent a declining fraction non-doctoral departments, 18.6% for from the profession. of new baccalaureate women. This latter all doctoral departments, 12.9% for the Women’s Representation on the Rungs top-20 departments and 12.2% for the of the Academic Ladder top 10 departments. 17 Under our lock-step assumptions, the 1999 PhD cohort be- came seventh-year associate professors in 2013 (= 1999 + 14). With regard to the advance of co- Doctoral Departments, 1997–2013 18 While a proper adjustment for a presumed overrepresen- horts of academics through the ranks, tation of older men with extended years in rank as associate Before analyzing the women’s rep- we use a simple lock-step model of these professor would reduce the size of the drop, this adjustment resentation at various ranks in the advances. With a maximum of 40 years would grow smaller over time. Thus, it seems unlikely to ac- tenure track, it is worth noting their count for the persistence of this gap. continues on page 16 wi nter 2014 15 Annual Report continued from page 15 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

1st yr 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% 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% 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% 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% 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% 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% 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%

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% 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% tenure Track)

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

Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, respectively. representation outside of these ranks, two well-known relationships: (i) at ev- going to women is rising, this constant that is, amongst non-tenure track fac- ery level in the academic hierarchy, wom- 33% means the fraction of women bacca- ulty. These are typically teaching fac- en have been and remain a minority, and laureates pursing a PhD in economics is ulty who hold multiyear rolling con- (ii) the higher the rank, the lower is the actually shrinking (CSWEP Newsletter, tracts and carry titles such as adjunct, representation of women.19 This latter fact Spring/Summer 2013). Within the ten- instructor, lecturer, visitor or professor has been described as the “leaky” pipe- ure ranks, growth in the share of women of the practice. As shown in Table 1, for line. After first examining the trends in has been (b) lowest at the assistant pro- the universe of doctoral departments representation at the various ranks, we fessor rank, (c) highest at the new PhD in 2013, women’s representation amongst will see how the size of these leaks has and associate professor levels and (d) in non-tenure track faculty averaged almost changed over time. between at full rank.20 twice that in the tenure track. As of Fall Table 1 and Figure 1 show varied lev- Turning from trends in the various 2013, women constituted 36.1% of non-ten- els of growth in women’s representation levels to trends in the differences in the ure track teaching faculty but only 18.6% across the different ranks. For example, levels (the size of the “leaks”), we first of tenure track faculty. the first row of Table 1, as well as the compare the representation of wom- Turning to the tenure track, for the black line with squares in Figure 1, trace en in the untenured assistant and ten- universe of doctoral departments, Ta- the share of first-year PhD students ured associate ranks. Earlier CSWEP ble 1 and Figure 1 summarize women’s who are women over the most recent Reports21 showed a drop hovering close representation for years at each level of 17 years. As can be seen, over the last 17 to 11 percentage points in the five years the academic hierarchy, from first year years, the representation of women grew at preceding 1997, the earliest year shown PhD students to new PhD and then the different rates for different ranks.Despite in Table 1 and Figure 1. Hence, we can assistant, associate and full professor. two notable peaks (38.8% in 2000 and compare the differences between the With the exception of entering PhD stu- 35% in 2008) and one notable trough assistant and associate levels in the dents, broadly speaking the last 17 years last year (29.3% in 2012), (a) the share eight years preceding 2000 to the 14 show some growth in the representation of first-year PhD students who are wom- years beginning with 2000 and end- of women at each level of the hierarchy. en hovered around 33% with no obvious ing with 2013. The earlier differences Focusing on the gaps between levels trend. As President Goldin would likely (1992–1999) hovered around 11.6 per- this so-called “pipeline” representation note, since the share of baccalaureates centage points whereas the drop in the of women in the stock of economists at each rank (from first-year PhD stu- 19 At every stage subsequent to attaining the PhD, the per- 20 Simple comparisons of 2013 to 1997 show that over these dents to tenured full professor) empha- centage of women declines: roughly over the last six years, 17 years, women’s share of first-year PhD students, new PhDs, assistant professors, tenured associates and full pro- sizes the decline or “leaks” in the rep- over 5.5 percentage points between new PhDs and assistant professors, about 6.5 percentage points between assistant fessors grew 1.4, 10.0, 1.8, 11.1 and 5.5 percentage points, resentation of women with increased professors and tenured associates, and over 11 percentage respectively. in rank. Table 1 and Figure 1 document points between tenured associates and full. The sizes of these 21 E.g., Joan Haworth, “2002 Report on the Status of Women declines have been remarkably stable over time. in the Economics Profession.” continues on page 17 16 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 16 Figure 1: The Pipeline for Departments with Doctoral Programs: Percent of Doctoral Students and Faculty who are Women

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 First Year Students Assistant Professors (U) Full Professors (T)

New PhD’s Associate Professors (T) Note: T and U indicate tenured and untenured, respectively. representation of women from the as- from 6.9 in 1997 to 12.5 in 2013, averag- continuity with earlier reports, the re- sistant to the associate levels in the ing 10.6 percentage points over the most mainder of this report refers to all of 14 later years averaged 6.3 percentage recent 17 years.23 This divergence could these non-doctoral departments as the points with no trend. Thus, while there go on for a number of years as women “liberal arts” departments in the “liber- was a definite drop in the difference around become better represented in younger al arts” survey. the turn of the century, for the last 14 years cohorts and thus in the associate pro- With that caveat, Figure 2 shows the there has been no further convergence in fessor rank, but when promoted have representation of women amongst se- women’s representation at the associate lev- a small impact on the share of women niors in the major and amongst faculty el to women’s representation at the assis- at the full professor rank, a rank which in tenure track ranks for the liberal arts tant professor level; an average difference of contains disproportionately older, more departments over the last 11 years. Over 6.3 percentage points stubbornly persisted male cohorts. the first six years, representations at the 22 through 2013. Liberal Arts Departments, 2003–2013 assistant and associate levels track each Moving up one rung, we access the other closely, but a noticeable gap char- trend in the drop in women’s represen- As noted above, in Fall 2013, CSWEP acterizes the last five. In contrast, the tation between the associate and full lev- surveyed 125 non-doctoral economics gap in representation between the as- els. As a result of the considerably slow- departments (not counting the 21 busi- sociate and full levels began at over 20 er gain in women’s representation at the ness departments). Some of these may percentage points, declined fairly steadi- full as compared to the associate level not fit well under the liberal arts ter- ly to about 7 percentage points in 2011, noted above, the gap in women’s represen- minology. Nonetheless, for the sake of but has since widened to about 14. tation between the associate and full levels Table 6 details the responses for has increased. In percentage points it went 23 However tempting, the futility of focusing on short-term 2013 showing that for the tenure track trends is illustrated by the six years preceding 2013. In that in- faculty as a whole 30.8% were women. 22 In 2013, due to a sizable uptick (2.9 percentage points) in terval the percent of associate professors who are women was representation at the associate level and a downtick at the as- flat while the corresponding percent of full professors was A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 with sistant level, this 2013 gap was only 3.3 percentage points (= rising. Consequently the gap narrowed from the all-time re- Tables 1 and 6 shows that representa- 2.9 – (-0.4)). Only future years can reveal if 2013 reversed a corded high of 15.8 percentage points in 2006 to 10.0 in 2012. tion of women amongst seniors in the persistent gap or recorded a transient narrowing. As of 2012, one might have thought the gap was closing. continues on page 18 wi nter 2014 17 Annual Report continued from page 17

Figure 2: The Pipeline for Departments without Doctoral Programs: Percent of Students and Faculty who are Women (n = 108 Responding Departments) 45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

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

Associate Professors (T) Full Professors (T) major ran about three percentage points conditioning on years since degree and share of women is lost. Assume that higher in liberal arts departments than other observables, women have a low- movements through the ranks for in doctoral departments. Conversely, er probability of attaining tenure, take those who survived occurred as follows: the representation amongst faculty in longer to attain tenure and have a lower five years elapsed from matriculation the tenure ranks is more than ten per- probability of being promoted to full.25 through earning the PhD, assistant pro- centage points higher in liberal arts as To see how the annual CSWEP survey fessors were in rank for seven years and compared to doctoral departments. results fit with these past results, we then were either promoted to associate In sum, over the 11 years for which turn to tracking the progress of academ- or left the tenure track (within the uni- we have data, for liberal arts departments, ic cohorts over time. verse of doctoral departments) and asso- while the leak in the pipeline between as- Up the Academic Ladder: ciate professors were in rank for seven sociate and full professor has shown some A Lock-Step Model years and then were either promoted to tendency to lessen, that between assistant full or left the tenure track (within the and associate seems to have grown. In order to track the progress of academ- universe of doctoral departments). In ic cohorts over time we employ a bare- addition, assume that relative to men, Cohorts of Academics and their Advances bones model of lock-step progression Up the Ranks women in later cohorts had at least as through the ranks. At each step some good a chance at advancement as wom- The above picture of the general fall men and some women are lost. The fo- en in earlier cohorts. Under these as- in women’s representation with in- cus is on whether a disproportionate sumptions we can track the representa- crease in rank (the leaky pipeline) tells tion of women in a cohort that entered us where we have been and where we (percent female) of two stocks (associate and full professors) a PhD program in year t by looking at are now—it does not tell us how we got when the two stocks are comprised of individuals from dif- ferent cohorts. degree recipients in t+5, assistant pro- here or where improvement is most fessors in t+5+7 (by which time no as- critical.24 Past studies have found that, 25 Donna Ginther and Shulamit Kahn, “Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career sistant professors remain from cohorts Ladder?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 2004; older than the tth) and associate profes- 24 One could isolate earlier sentences and mistakenly inter- and Donna Ginther and Shulamit Kahn, “Women’s Careers in pret some as showing our profession is doing well and others Academic Social Science: Progress, Pitfalls, and Plateaus” in sors in t+5+7+7 (by which time no as- as it is doing poorly with regard to advancing the represen- The Economics of Economists, Alessandro Lanteri and Jack sociate professors remain from cohorts tation of women. This highlights the difficulty of assigning Vromen, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forth- older than the tth). meaningful interpretations to differences in a characteristic coming. continues on page 19 18 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 18

Figure 3: The Percentage of Women in the tth Cohort of First-year PhD Students When They Matriculated in t, When Cohort Survivors Graduated with PhDs in t+5, and When Continuing Survivors Became Last-Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors in t+5+7, t = 1997–2013 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 When Continuing Survivors Became Last- When they matriculated in t When Cohort Survivors Graduated with PhD’s in t+5 Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors in t+5+7, t = 1997–2013

Turning to deviations of the model on serial changes in the percentage of terminous, for each cohort of enter- from reality, some assistant professors females at the associate level. ing graduate students, the representa- get promoted in years four through Using this lock-step model, we cre- tion of women relative to men would six while others extend their tenure ate synthetic cohorts and graph their not then have changed between ma- clocks by taking leaves or making later- progress from newly matriculated, new triculation and graduation. Observe al moves from one doctoral department PhD students, to obtaining the degree, that the four oldest cohorts (matriculat- to another. As we exclude tenured as- to becoming seventh-year assistant pro- ed 1997–2000) experienced a drop in sistant professors, the seven-year ap- fessors and then to becoming seventh- the representation of women between proximation for assistant professors is year associate professors. In every graph entry and graduation from their PhD likely reasonable. More troublesome is we use all of the available data, which programs (brown line below black). In the assumption of seven years in rank necessarily means that we observe few- contrast, the younger cohorts (matricu- for associate professors. While some get er transitions for younger cohorts. The lated 2001–2008) experienced no such promoted earlier and others somewhat extreme case is the transition to full pro- decline. If this result continues to hold later, the real issue is small numbers of fessor. Unfortunately, even CSWEP’s for the 2009 and subsequent cohorts, then tenured associate professors in rank es- 40-year time series of departmental 2001 marks the advent of policies in PhD sentially until retirement. An overrep- data is insufficient to present a mean- programs that maintain women’s repre- resentation of men in this anomalous ingful number of cohort transitions to sentation from matriculation through group would drag down the percentage full professor. graduation. of female associate professors, a caveat The PhD Program: From Matriculation to The Tenure Track: From the PhD to 26 to bear in mind. However, because the Graduation Assistant and to Associate size of this anomalous group changes very slowly over time, an overrepresen- Figure 3 plots the percentage of Figure 4 graphs the representation of tation of men would have little impact women in cohorts of first year PhD women in 40 cohorts of new PhDs at classes (black with squares) and in their graduation (black with squares), when graduating class five years later (brown cohort survivors became seventh-year 26 This problem cannot be solved except with more infor- with circles).27 If these plots were co- assistant professors (brown with circles) mation on the distribution of time in rank or micro data. and when continuing survivors became Arbitrarily increasing the assumed time in rank of associate 27 CSWEP first collected data on entering PhD classes in professors to, say, 10 years would not work because some- 1997. In the model graduate students who enrolled in 2008 seventh-year associate professors (gray thing like 30-year lags would be required. For this we do not graduated in 2013 and so 2008 is the last cohort we can ob- have the data. serve. continues on page 20 wi nter 2014 19 Annual Report continued from page 19 Figure 4: The Percentage of Women in the tth Cohort of New PhDs When They Received Their Degrees in t, When Cohort Survivors Became Last-Year-in-Rank Assistant Professors in t+7, and When Continuing Survivors Became Last-Year-in-Rank Associate Professors in t+7+7, t = 1997–2013 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 = 1997–2013 with diamonds).28 Hence, for example, Among the 14 more recent cohorts likely provides the best available evi- the square, circle and diamond above (1993–2006), several experienced no- dence on the extent to which women fall 1999 depict the fall in the percentage ticeable drops. But overall these two off of the academic ladder at the point of women in the 1999 cohort of PhDs lines track each other reasonably well. where they would become tenured as- as survivors advanced from obtaining For the observable 33 cohorts, these data sociates. As found in other studies, the the PhD (square) to seventh-year as- reveal no worrisome drop in the representa- evidence shows a sizable and persistent sistant professors (circle) and then to tion of women in their transition from new fall in women’s representation in the tran- seventh-year associate professors (dia- PhD to assistant professor. sition from assistant to tenured associate mond). If these three points were coin- Turning to the transition from as- professor. cident, there would have been no drop sistant to tenured associate professor, Turning from the advance of co- in women’s representation as this 1999 the picture is less rosy. Cohorts that re- horts through the ranks, we return to cohort advanced through the ranks. ceived their PhDs in 2000 or later are the analysis of stocks of academic econ- As manifested in the truncations in still too young to have been seventh-year omists, this time breaking out the data the graphs, cohorts who received their associate professors by 2013. Thus, Fig- on top departments and also recording PhD in 2007 or later are too young to ure 4 depicts this transition for 26 co- the job placements of new PhDs in the have been seventh-year assistant pro- horts of new PhDs, 1974–1999. Fully 23 job market last year. fessors by 2013. Hence, Figure 4 de- of these cohorts saw a drop in the rep- The Top 10 and Top 20 Departments picts the representation of women in resentation of women.29 The drop was 33 cohorts as they progressed from new most often greater than 5 percentage Tables 2 and 3 break out survey results for the top 10 and the top 20 ranked doc- PhDs to seventh-year assistant profes- points and shows no obvious improve- 31 sors. For the oldest cohorts (PhDs dat- ment over time.30 This cohort analysis toral departments. As seen by compar- ed 1974–1992), women’s representation would grow smaller over time. Thus, if anything, over time most often rose between PhD receipt 29 Under our lock-step assumptions, the 1999 PhD cohort this effect would reduce the size of these drops in represen- and the last year as assistant professor. became seventh-year associate professors in 2013 (= 1999 tation. + 14). 31 The motive for using the top 20 rather than those ranked 28 Because these data go back to the first CSWEP survey in 30 While a proper adjustment for a presumed overrepresen- 11–20 is to have more individuals in the cells. The rankings 1974, Figure 4 permits a considerably longer look back than tation of older men with extended years in rank as associate are the 2013 rankings from US News and World Report. Due was the case in Figure 3. professor would reduce the size of the drop, this adjustment to a three-way tie for 19th, for the purposes of this report, continues on page 21 20 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 20 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 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012 2013 Faculty (Fall of year listed) Assistant Professor Percent 20.4% 22.0% 24.5% 20.6% 17.0% 18.8% 25.0% 23.4% 20.5% 18.7% Number 21.0 23.0 23.7 22.0 15.0 32.5 44.9 48.3 44.0 37.0 Associate Professor Percent 13.2% 16.0% 18.8% 23.3% 23.3% 14.6% 18.1% 22.4% 22.4% 19.1% Number 4.5 4.2 5.7 7.0 7.0 11.0 9.4 17.3 17.0 17.0 Full Professor Percent 5.9% 7.0% 8.7% 9.5% 9.6% 6.2% 7.6% 9.6% 8.7% 9.6% Number 12.0 17.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 26.0 32.1 43.5 41.0 49.0 All Tenured/Tenure Track Percent 11.0% 12.0% 13.5% 13.2% 12.2% 10.4% 13.2% 14.7% 13.4% 12.9% Number 37.5 44.2 51.3 57.0 50.0 69.5 86.4 109.2 102.0 103.0 Other (Non-tenure Track) Percent 34.8% 45.0% 31.6% 42.9% 43.4% 38.8% 42.3% 32.6% 39.4% 42.9% Number 4.0 13.0 19.8 21.0 23.0 9.5 23.4 40.0 50.0 48.0 All Faculty Percent 18.2% 25.0% 18.2% 16.3% 15.7% 17.5% 27.6% 19.2% 17.1% 16.6% Number 63.0 101.4 80.5 78.0 73.0 119.5 196.2 166.0 152.0 151.0 PhD Students First Year (Fall of year listed) Percent 26.7% 25.0% 25.9% 22.3% 27.9% 30.3% 29.3% 27.3% 27.0% 28.4% Number 61.5 65.6 61.7 66.0 65.0 147.0 125.5 124.7 126.0 121.0 ABD (Fall of year listed) Percent 12.2% 27.0% 25.9% 24.8% 30.4% 14.3% 28.0% 28.0% 28.3% 30.3% Number 165.5 216.8 206.0 246.0 255.0 269.0 380.8 393.5 430.0 444.0 PhD Granted (AY ending in year listed) Percent 24.5% 28.0% 26.4% 27.9% 31.3% 24.7% 24.7% 28.4% 27.2% 33.2% Number 49.5 54.4 49.2 60.0 67.0 85.0 94.0 97.5 97.0 124.0 Undergraduate Senior Majors (AY ending in year listed) Percent missing missing 38.0% 37.7% 31.7% missing missing 35.5% 35.9% 38.6% Number missing missing 898.50 1123.0 1505.0 missing missing 2019.0 2223.0 2000.0

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 faculty. ing Tables 1 and 2, at each rank in the lower than for all doctoral departments. shows 42.9/12.9 = 3.32 > 3). This ratio is tenure track and at each stage in the Note that for all tenure track ranks com- substantially higher than for all doctoral PhD program, the average representa- bined, the representation of women declines departments (Table 1 shows 36.1/18.6 = tion of women in top-20 departments is as the emphasis on research increases, aver- 1.94, or about 2). aging 30.8% for non-doctoral departments, Going back to 1997, Table 3 gives there are 21 departments in the “top 20.” The top 10 are 18.6% for all doctoral departments, 12.9% placements of PhD students from the Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, University of Chicago, Stanford for the top 20 departments and 12.2% for top 10 and the top 11–20 departments. University, University of California-Berkeley, Northwestern the top 10 departments. The number of women in any category University, Yale University, University of Pennsylvania and Of special note are the data for non- tends to be small. With this warning, Columbia University. The next 11 are New York University, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, University of Michigan- tenure track (rolling contract) teaching the reader is invited to assess these data. Ann Arbor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, California positions. For the top 20 departments, Placements of New PhDs Institute of Technology, University of California-Los Angeles, women’s representation in non-tenure track University of California-San Diego and Cornell University jobs was over three times as high as their Table 4 shows the types of jobs ob- at 18th with Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University tained by new PhDs in the 2012–13 job (Tepper) and Duke University all tied for 19th. representation in tenure track jobs (Table 2 continues on page 22 wi nter 2014 21 Annual Report continued from page 21

Table 3: Placements of Women from the Top 10 and Top 20 Economics Departments in the New PhD Job Market

Top 10 Top 20 Doctoral Departments 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012 2013 1997–2001 2002–2006 2007–2011 2012 2013 U.S. Based Job Obtained Percent 25.6% 24.8% 25.2% 28.5% 30.8% 25.9% 21.9% 32.7% 27.6% 26.6% Number 22.0 37.0 32.3 41.0 41.0 41.0 59.0 59.8 59.0 68.0 Doctoral Departments Percent 15.9% 30.3% 25.3% 26.4% 24.4% 17.6% 25.6% 27.2% 28.2% 28.5% Number 14.5 27.0 19.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 38.0 32.5 35.0 35.0 Academic Other Percent 38.9% 42.1% 41.9% 50.0% 66.7% 44.4% 30.7% 26.0% 25.0% 50.0% Number 3.5 3.0 2.2 3.0 4.0 8.0 7.0 5.5 3.0 8.0 Non Faculty, Any Academic Department Percent 66.7% 35.3% Number 4 6 Public Sector Percent 22.9% 26.2% 28.1% 36.8% 30.4% 30.1% 27.3% 30.5% 24.4% 28.0% Number 4.0 2.0 7.2 7.0 7.0 11.0 14.0 12.7 10.0 14.0 Private Sector Percent 40.3% 20.4% 26.4% 25.0% 26.7% 37.9% 31.3% 30.1% 24.4% 32.0% Number 9.5 5.8 8.2 8.0 8.0 12.5 12.8 13.5 11.0 16.0

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

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

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

Notes: The (2,4) cell shows that among PhD’s from top-10 schools in the 2011-12 job market, 23 women placed in U.S.-based doctoral departments and these women accounted for 26.4% of such placements. For five-year intervals, simple averages are reported. market. The first column shows that of departments found a job. Success in in placements in doctoral departments, the 58 women in the job market from the market was also high for other doc- a single year of data provides no reliable top-10 departments, 77.6% took a job in toral departments, with no job found for evidence. Indeed, looking over these the U.S. Of those who took a job in the women at 7.6% and no job found for same gender comparisons in this and in U.S., 48.9% landed jobs in doctoral de- men at 5.8%. the previous three CSWEP Reports, for partments and 8.9% in non-doctoral de- Focusing on U.S.-based jobs, as line departments ranked 21 and below male partments. The remaining 8.9%, 21.1% 2 shows, on average, and for women and new PhDs were slightly more likely to and 17.8% went to non-faculty jobs and men, the higher the rank of the depart- place into doctoral departments than the public and private sectors, respec- ment granting the PhD, the more like- their female counterparts. However, tively. As shown in the second to last ly the first job was in a doctoral depart- in the analogous comparisons for both line, virtually all graduates of top-20 ment. With regard to gender disparities top-10 and 11–20 ranked departments, continues on page 23 22 CSWEP News Annual Report continued from page 22

Table 4: Employment Shares for New Top 10 Top 11–20 All Others PhD’s in the 2012–2013 Job Market Women Men Women Men Women Men

U.S. Based Job (Share of all individuals by gender) 77.6% 75.3% 58.6% 62.6% 67.8% 61.4% Doctoral Departments 48.9% 61.8% 38.2% 29.9% 22.4% 23.6% Academic, Other 8.9% 1.8% 11.8% 9.0% 25.2% 31.6% Non Faculty Job 8.9% 1.8% 5.9% 13.4% 7.7% 12.7% Public Sector 15.6% 14.5% 20.6% 29.9% 14.7% 13.7% Private Sector 17.8% 20.0% 23.5% 17.9% 30.1% 18.4% Foreign Job Obtained (Share of all individuals by gender) 22.4% 23.3% 41.4% 37.4% 24.6% 32.8% Academic 61.5% 67.6% 70.8% 75.0% 75.0% 72.6% Nonacademic 38.5% 32.4% 29.2% 25.0% 25.0% 27.4% No Job Found (Share of all individuals by gender) 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 5.8% Total Number of Individuals 58 146 58 107 211 345

Table 5: Gender Composition of Faculty and Students: Economics Departments with Doctoral Programs about half of the comparisons show a male bias and the oth- Percent er half show a female bias. The only caveat here is that the Women Men Faculty Composition (Fall 2013) Female CSWEP data on placements of new PhDs into doctoral de- partments likely includes placements into non-tenure track Assistant Professor 196 515 27.6% teaching positions. Untenured 185 481 27.8% Turning to other types of placements, as lines four and five Tenured 11 34 24.4% show, the representation of women among new PhDs landing Associate Professor 142 436 24.6% in the public as opposed to the private sector varies with de- Untenured 7 20 25.9% partmental rank. With regard to foreign placements, overall, Tenured 135 416 24.5% those who take jobs outside the U.S. tend to take academic Full Professor 175 1288 12.0% jobs. In previous years, regardless of the rank of her graduate Untenured 1 14 6.7% school, a woman was more likely to take a job in the U.S. than Tenured 174 1274 12.0% her male counterpart. Table 4, lines 1 and 7 show an excep- All Tenured/Tenure Track 513 2239 18.6% tion in 2013—women graduates from departments ranked 11- Other (Non-tenure Track) 125 228 35.4% 20 were four percentage points more likely than their male All Other Full Time 52 85 38.0% counterparts to take jobs outside of the U.S. This pattern, as All Faculty 690 2552 21.3% well as others exhibited by the data on foreign placements, is difficult to interpret. As incomes and the quality of econom- Students and Job Market ics departments in foreign countries improve, so too may the Students representation of women both amongst foreign students in Undergraduate Senior Majors (2011–12 AY) 4175 9234 31.1% U.S. graduate schools and amongst new doctorates obtaining First-year PhD students (Fall 2012) 468 963 32.7% jobs in foreign countries. However, with no data on the preva- ABD Students (Fall 2012) 1179 2514 31.9% lence of foreign students in the CSWEP survey, meaningful PhD Granted (2011–2012 Academic Year) 370 687 35.0% interpretations of gender differences in foreign placements Job Market (2011–2012 Academic Year) are simply not possible. U.S. Based Job 222 389 36.3% On the whole the evidence from the 2013 Survey indicates Doctoral Departments 67 138 32.7% that our profession is doing well, finding jobs for nearly 96% Academic, Other 44 75 37.0% of its new PhDs and with men and women having an equal Non Faculty 17 38 30.9% chance at a first job in a doctoral department. Public Sector 35 65 35.0% 2013 Survey Details Private Sector 59 73 44.7% Tables 5 and 6 contain more details from the 2013 surveys of Foreign Job Obtained 89 187 32.2% doctoral and non-doctoral departments, respectively. This is Academic 64 135 32.2% the fifth year that CSWEP has asked departments to report Nonacademic 25 52 32.5% their numbers of male and female senior economics majors. No Job Found 16 22 42.1% Here we simply note that the combined total of seniors in the Number on Job Market 327 598 35.4% continues on page 24 wi nter 2014 23 Annual Report continued from page 23

Table 6: Gender Composition of Faculty and Students: Economics CSWEP is fully funded by the American Economic Asso- Departments without Doctoral Programs ciation. We are especially grateful to Peter Rousseau, Secre- Percent tary-Treasurer and his excellent staff: Regina H. Montgomery, Women Men Faculty Composition (Fall 2013) Female Barbara H. Fiser and Susan B. Houston as well as Michael P. Albert, Jenna Kensey, Gwyn Loftis, Linda Hardin and Ju- Assistant Professor 97 145 40.1% lia Merry. Untenured 89 129 40.8% The Committee is indebted to Duke University for the ad- Tenured 8 16 33.3% ministrative support of CSWEP’s activities, office space, IT Associate Professor 87 152 36.4% support, supplies and other resources. Untenured 3 6 33.3% Tenured 84 146 36.5% What is CSWEP? Full Professor 92 322 22.2% Untenured 5 13 27.8% CSWEP (the Committee on the Status of Women in the Eco- Tenured 87 309 22.0% nomics Profession) is a standing committee of the Ameri- All Tenured/Tenure Track 276 619 30.8% can Economic Association charged with serving profession- al women economists in academia, government agencies Other (Non-tenure Track) 54 86 38.6% and elsewhere by promoting their careers and monitoring All Faculty 330 705 31.9% their progress. Student Information (2012–2013 Academic Year) CSWEP activities endeavor to raise the awareness among men and women of the challenges that are unique to wom- Student Majors 1504 2835 34.7% en’s careers and can be addressed with a wide variety of ac- Completed Masters 60 98 38.0% tions, from inclusive searches to formal and informal men- Notes: N Departments: 108 toring activities. CSWEP freely disseminates information on how the profession works as well as advice to junior major for all departments responding to the 2013 CSWEP economists. We intend this information to be of value to survey was 17,748, of which 32% were women. all economists, male or female, minority or not. Annually, CSWEP Acknowledgements • Organizes mentoring workshops, paper presentations The terms of Board members Shelly White-Means and Terra sessions at the annual AEA Meetings, and professional McKinnish ended in January 2014. Both have made outstand- development sessions at the annual meetings of the four ing contributions. Terra McKinnish must be singled out for regional economics associations (the Eastern, Mid-West- her major contributions to greatly advancing CSWEP’s men- ern, Southern and Western); • Conducts a survey and compiles a report on the gender toring programs, including directing the National CeMENT composition of faculty and students in academic econom- Workshops in 2012 and 2014 and conceiving (jointly with ics departments in the United States; Linda Goldberg) the highly successful mentoring breakfasts • Publishes three editions of the CSWEP News, containing at the AEA Meetings. a feature section written by senior economists that high- Thanks are also due to new Board members Bevin Ashen- lights career advice or other topics of interest to the eco- miller (our new Western Representative) and Amalia Miller nomics profession; and (our new Eastern Representative). Both have already assumed • Awards the Carolyn Shaw Bell Award, given to a person important committee roles. Finally, the quality of the ideas for their outstanding work to promote the careers of wom- and the work of the continuing board members are remark- en economists as well as the Elaine Bennett Research able. Some of their contributions were noted above in Section Prize, given biennially to a young woman economist for I of this report, but it is impossible to report anything close fundamental contributions to academic economics. to all of their contributions. They enthusiastically advanced Our business meeting is held during the annual AEA the mission of CSWEP and it is my joy to work with them. Meetings and is open to all economists. It is a time for I thank Jennifer Socey, my Administrative Assistant. She us to recognize our award recipients, present the Annu- has embraced the mission of CSWEP, using her skills as or- al Report on Women in the Economics Profession and to ganizer, writer, editor, communicator and web-user to do the hear your input on CSWEP’s activities. The CSWEP Board mundane with precision and to take welcome initiatives to meets three times yearly and we encourage you to attend advance the mission of CSWEP and make my role as chair our business meeting or contact a Board Member directly enjoyable. I also thank Diadelfa O’Campo who produced the to convey your ideas for furthering CSWEP’s mission. figures and tables for this report gratis from her home in Mex- Visit cswep.org for more information. ico City under a tight deadline.

24 CSWEP News Remembering Francine D. Blau and Marianne A. Ferber Anne E. Winkler

Marianne Ferber, a collaborator, men- first-ever textbook on this topic. Anne tor, and friend to so many, passed away Winkler joined with the 3rd edition, and in May 2013. She was born in the for- the book is now in its 7th edition. Mari- mer Czechoslovakia in 1923, and in anne was clear to say that she was not 1938 she and her family fled to Cana- a neoclassical economist, and her re- da to escape the Nazis. After graduating search reflects this. With Bonnie Birn- from McMaster University, she went on baum, she offered a critique of Becker’s to the economics PhD program at Uni- model of the household in their 1977 versity of Chicago, where she met her paper, “The New Home Economics: beloved husband, Bob Ferber. Marianne Retrospects and Prospects.” With Ju- and Bob spent their academic careers at lie Nelson, she co-edited two seminal the University of Illinois (Bob, until his volumes on feminist economics, both untimely death in 1981). At first unable published by University of Chicago to find employment at all, from 1956– Press: Beyond Economic Man: Feminist 1971, Marianne was relegated to the po- Theory and Economics (1993) and Femi- sition of lecturer. In 1971, she became nist Economics Today: Beyond Economic an assistant professor. She was promot- Man (2003). Indeed, she was one of the ed to full professor in 1979. She began a founders of IAFFE. prolific research career at an age when Marianne Ferber was a very spe- Marianne Ferber, December 1978. many others were slowing down and re- cial person. Her career was marked Courtesy of the University of Illinois Archives. mained an active researcher until nearly by many fruitful collaborations, and it was our privilege to work with her and the end of her life. “[Young women] need to think Marianne had a long relationship share ideas. An added bonus was that, with CSWEP, including serving on the although not a native speaker, she wrote very carefully whether they are Board from 1978 to 1980. In 2001, beautifully and eloquently in English. willing to give up doing the work she (and co-recipient Francine Blau) She had strong views and didn’t hesi- they are really interested in, received CSWEP’s Carolyn Shaw Bell tate to express them forcefully. How- speaking up when they feel strongly ever, while people savored her wit and Award in recognition of a lifelong com- about a subject and, in general, mitment to improving the status of intelligence, her views were never ex- women through research and mentor- pressed at the expense of others. Her feeling free to be themselves, in ing. Among her many other profession- positive outlook and enormous persis- order to enhance their chances of al recognitions, she received the Distin- tence in the face of obstacles were an achieving greater status and more guished Alumna Award from McMaster inspiration to all who knew her. She recognition in the profession” University in 1996 and served as presi- also never failed to offer sage advice, dent of the International Association for such as, “[Young women] need to think Feminist Economics (IAFFE) and the very carefully whether they are willing Midwest Economics Association. to give up doing the work they are real- Related CSWEP Articles Marianne was a leading scholar in ly interested in, speaking up when they “An Interview with Marianne Ferber, 2001 Caro- feel strongly about a subject and, in gen- lyn Shaw Bell Co-Recipient,” Fall 2002 CSWEP the economics of gender. One hallmark Newsletter, http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/ of her research was its sheer breadth, eral, feeling free to be themselves, in or- cswep/newsletters/CSWEP_nsltr_FALL2002.pdf. from a study on workers’ preferences der to enhance their chances of achiev- “CSWEP Session Honoring Ferber a Huge Suc- for male bosses to the rise of the non- ing greater status and more recognition cess!” Spring/Summer 2011 CSWEP Newslet- standard workforce. Some of her re- in the profession,” (Fall 2002 CSWEP ter, http://www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/ search was on topics very close to her Newsletter). newsletters/CSWEP_nsltr_SprSum_2011.pdf. heart, such as work on academic cou- ples and women’s status in the Czech Republic. In the early 1980s, Marianne and Francine Blau collaborated on The Economics of Women, Men, and Work, the wi nter 2014 25 CSWEP Celebrates continued from page 1 Nancy Rose introduced Anna Mikusheva, the Castle-Krob I n Gratitude Associate Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology (MIT). She noted that the Bennett Com- mittee found that Mikusheva’s research combined a power- CSWEP thanks the following senior mentors for their dedicated service at CeMENT workshops at the 2013 SEA ful command of econometric theory with a keen interest in meetings or the 2014 AEA meetings. developing tools that will be useful for tackling problems in applied econometric practice—significantly advancing econo- Susan Averett, Lafayette College metric inference in time series and dynamic stochastic gen- Aimee Chin, University of Houston eral equilibrium models. Rose also noted Mikusheva’s awards Lisa Daniels, Washington College Linda Goldberg, Federal Reserve Bank of New York for outstanding teaching. A sizable contingent of the MIT Brit Grosskopf, University of Exeter economics department was present to show their apprecia- Justine Hastings, Brown University tion of Mikusheva’s work. The winner gave a brief, intuitive Judy Hellerstein, University of Maryland overview of some of her research on Econometric Inference in Betsy Jensen, Hamilton College Non-Standard Models; see her slides at http://economics.mit. Melissa Kearney, University of Maryland edu/faculty/amikushe/papers. Adriana Kugler, Georgetown University Linda Goldberg introduced Professor Rachel McCulloch, Adriana Lleras-Muney, University of California, the Rosen Family Professor Emerita of International Finance Los Angeles in the Department of Economics and International Business Amalia Miller, University of Virginia School at Brandeis University. Speaking for the Bell Commit- Muriele Niederle, Stanford University tee, Goldberg noted the many testimonials from mentees and Laura Schechter, University of Wisconsin Lucie Schmidt, Williams College colleagues that demonstrated how, over a 40-year career as Amy Schwartz, New York University a leader in international trade and economic policy, McCull- Nicole Simpson, Colgate University och folded mentoring into all aspects of her of scholarship, Sarah Stafford, College of William and Mary teaching and service to the economics profession. It is clear Linda Tesar, University of Michigan that she caused many to see the excitement in economics and Petra Todd, University of Pennsylvania she served as an inspiring role model for many women, and Tara Watson, Williams College also for many men. McCulloch’s talk was a delightful stroll Catherine Wolfram, University of California, Berkeley down memory lane depicting what it was like to be a wom- CSWEP also thanks the following special guests at the an when she went to graduate school and beyond. The audi- CeMENT workshops. ence responded to her droll-humored stories with laughter and heartfelt applause. Nancy Lutz, National Science Foundation Jenny Minier, University of Kentucky Marjorie McElroy concluded the meeting with a brief pre- sentation of CSWEP’s 2013 Annual Report. Elaine Bennett Research Prize Carolyn Shaw Bell Award Established in 1998 to recognize Named after the first Chair of CSWEP, the Carolyn Shaw Bell Award was cre- and honor outstanding research ated in January 1998 as part of the 25th Anniversary celebration of CSWEP’s in any field of economics by a founding and is given annually to an individual who has furthered the sta- woman at the beginning of her ca- tus of women in the economics profession through example, achievements, reer, the Elaine Bennett Research increasing our understanding of how women can advance in the economics Prize has been awarded to: profession and mentoring others. Prior recipients were: Erica Field (2010) Catherine C. Eckel (2012) Barbara Bergmann (2004) Amy Finkelstein (2008) Sharon Oster (2011) Robin L. Bartlett (2003) Elizabeth Hoffman (2010) Margaret Garritsen de Vries (2002) Monika Piazzesi (2006) Elizabeth E. Bailey (2009) Francine Blau (2001) Marianne Bertrand (2004) Anne Carter (2008) Marianne Ferber (2001) Esther Duflo (2002) Olivia S. Mitchell (2007) Eva Mueller (2000) Susan Athey (2000) and Barbara Fraumeni (2006) Sandra Ohrn Moose (1999) and Judith Chevalier (1998). Claudia Goldin (2005) Alice M. Rivlin (1998).

26 CSWEP News Saturday, March 8, 2014 8:15am–9:45am Calls & Announcements CSWEP Networking Breakfast 1:00pm–2:30pm Effects of US Policies on Low­Income Visit cswep.org for full details on each letter, updated CV and three or more sup- Populations of the below opportunities including porting letters, with preferably at least two submission guidelines for paper and from mentees. As this award celebrates 2:45pm–4:15pm application calls; as well as participant, mentoring, nomination letters should be Effects of US Industrial Regulation and panelist and paper titles for currently geared toward that activity, rather than to- Policy scheduled sessions. ward academic achievements. All nomina- Sunday, March 9, 2014 tions are automatically kept alive for con- 8:00am–9:30am CSWEP Call for Papers @ sideration by the Award Committee for a Child Health period of three years. 2014 Southern Economic 9:45am–11:15am Association Meeting Deadline: September 29, 2014. Risky Behavior and Health November 22–24, 2014, Atlanta, GA CSWEP Call for Applications 11:30am–1:00pm Individual papers or entire sessions or pro- Public Policy Effects on Labor and Health fessional development panel submissions for the Joan Haworth in Developing Countries in gender or any area of economics are Mentoring Fund welcome. CSWEP welcomes applications to the Joan CSWEP Sessions @ Deadline: April 1, 2014. Haworth Mentoring Fund, which was es- 2014 Midwest Economics tablished to encourage senior mentoring Association Meeting CSWEP Call for Nominations women and institutions to incorporate mentoring of junior professionals into their Evanston, IL. Chair: Anne E. Winkler, for the 2014 Elaine Bennett programs. The fund provides small grants University of Missouri-St. Louis Research Prize (typically less than $1K) to permit mentors Friday, March 21, 2014 The Elaine Bennett Research Prize is to either extend a visit to an institution for 10:00am–11:45am awarded every other year to recognize, the purpose of mentoring or to visit an in- Advice for Job Seekers support, and encourage outstanding con- stitution for that purpose alone. Applica- tributions by young women in the econom- tions for funds may be submitted by the Panelists: Maria Canon, Federal Reserve ics profession. Nominees have demonstrat- institution, junior women or the mentor Bank of St. Louis, Working for the Fed; ed exemplary research contributions in herself. The application must include cost- Marta Lachowska, Upjohn Institute, What their field at the beginning of their career sharing with the home institution and the Policy Institutes are Looking For; Amanda and within seven years of completing their mentoring must benefit more than an in- Felkey, Lake Forest College, A View from dissertation. Nominations should contain dividual faculty member. Mentoring does a Liberal Arts Institution; and Patricia the candidate’s CV, relevant publications, not need to be field specific and can also Smith, University of Michigan-Dearborn, a letter of nomination and two supporting include professional development advice. Teaching and Doing Research at a Branch letters. The letters of the nomination and Successful applicants will be asked to write Campus of a Public University. supporting letters should describe the can- a summary of what they have gained from 11:45am–1:15pm didate’s research and its significance. the mentoring effort. CSWEP Networking Luncheon Deadline: September 22, 2014. Deadline: Ongoing. 1:15pm–3:00pm Academic Careers CSWEP Call for Nominations CSWEP Sessions @ 2014 Eastern Economic Panelists: Debra Israel, Indiana State for the 2014 Carolyn Shaw Bell University, Children and the Tenure Clock; Award Association Conference Lonnie Golden, Penn State University The Carolyn Shaw Bell Award is given an- Boton, MA. Organizer: Amalia Miller, Abington, Being Proactive in Your Career; nually to an individual (male or female) University of Virginia Andrea Ziegert, Denison University, Fac- who has furthered the status of women in Friday, March 7, 2014 ing Administrative Overload; and Anne the economics profession, through example, Winkler, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 10:00am–11:30am achievements, increasing our understand- Moving Up the Academic Ladder. Factors Affecting Healthcare Utilization ing of how women can advance in the eco- nomics profession, and mentoring others. 12:30pm–2:00pm Questions? Nominations should include a nomination Career­Family Conflict Contact [email protected]. wi nter 2014 27 Directory of CSWEP Brag Box Board Members “We need every day to herald some woman’s Marjorie McElroy, Kevin Lang, at-large Petra Todd, at-large achievements . . . go ahead and boast!” Chair Professor of Economics Professor of Economics —Carolyn Shaw Bell Professor of Economics Boston University, Room University of Pennsylvania Duke University 302A 3718 Locust Walk, Durham, NC 27708-0097 Boston, MA 02215 McNeil 160 Luciana Echazu, Clarkson University, Shanti Gamper- (919) 660-1840 (617) 353-5694 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Rabindran, School of Public and International Affairs, Fax: (919) 684-8974 Fax: (617) 353-4449 (215) 898-4084 University of Pittsburgh, and Valerie Kepner, King’s [email protected] [email protected] Fax: (215) 573-2057 College, were awarded tenure and promoted to Bevin Ashenmiller, Amalia Miller, Eastern [email protected] Western Representative Associate Professor. Anne Winkler, Representative Associate Professor of Midwestern Ilyana Kuziemko and Emi Nakamura of Columbia Associate Professor of Economics Representative Economics P.O. Box 400182 University were both awarded Alfred P. Sloan Research Professor of Economics Occidental College Charlottesville, VA 22904- Fellowships. University of Missouri– 1600 Campus Road 4182 St. Louis Los Angeles, CA 90041 (434) 924-6750 Loretta J. Mester was appointed President and CEO of One University Boulevard (323) 259-2905 Fax: (434) 982-2904 the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. St. Louis, MO 63121 Fax: (323) 259-2704 [email protected] (314) 516-5563 Sandra Trejos, Professor of Economics at Clarion [email protected] Serena Ng, at-large Fax: (314) 516-5352 University of Pennsylvania, was awarded the Cecilia Conrad, at- Professor of Economics [email protected] large Columbia University Outstanding Latina Faculty in Higher Education Vice President, MacArthur 1012 International Affairs Madeline Zavodny, (Teaching Institutions) Award by the American Fellows Program Building Newsletter Oversight Association of Hispanics in Higher Education. 140 S. Dearborn Street 420 W. 118th Street Editor Chicago, IL 60603-5285 New York, NY 10027 Professor of Economics Janet Yellen was confirmed as the Chair of the Board of (312) 726-8000 (212) 854-5488 Agnes Scott College Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Fax: (312) 920-6258 Fax: (212) 854-8059 141 E. College Avenue [email protected] [email protected] Decatur, GA 30030 We want to hear from you! Linda Goldberg, Kosali Simon, (404) 471-6377 at-large CeMENT Organizer Fax: (404) 471-5478 Send announcements of honors, awards, grants received, Vice President of Professor, School of mzavodny@agnesscott. promotions, tenure decisions and new appointments to International Research, Public and Environmental edu [email protected]. It will be our pleasure to share International Research Affairs your good news with the CSWEP Community. Function Indiana University Federal Reserve Bank of Room 359, New York 1315 East Tenth Street 33 Liberty Street Bloomington, IN 47405 New York, NY 10045 (812) 856-3850 (212) 720-2836 Fax: (812) 855-7802 Upcoming Regional Meetings Fax: (212) 720-6831 [email protected] Eastern Economic Association [email protected] http://www.ramapo.edu/eea/conference/ 2014 Annual Meeting, newsletter Staff March 14–16, 2014 Marjorie McElroy, Editor Jennifer Socey, Assistant Editor Boston, MA: Boston Park Plaza Madeline Zavodny, Oversight Editor Leda Black, Graphic Designer Midwest Economics Association http://web.grinnell.edu/mea 2014 Annual Meeting, Call for CSWEP Contact Persons March 21–23, 2014 Evanston, IL: Hilton Orrington Dissemination of information—including notice of Western Economics Association International mentoring events, new editions of the CSWEP News http://www.weainternational.org and reporting requests for our Annual Survey and 89th Annual Conference, Questionnaire—is an important charge of CSWEP. June 27–July 1, 2014 For this key task, we need your help. CSWEP is seek- Denver, CO: Grand Hyatt Denver ing to identify individuals who would be willing to Southern Economics Association regularly forward CSWEP information to colleagues http://www.southerneconomic.org and other interested persons. If you would be willing 2014 Annual Conference, to serve in this capacity, please send an e-mail with November 22–24 2014 your contact information to [email protected]. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta Marriott Marquis