The last all-male college admitted women over twenty years ago. There's been plenty of turnover since then, let alone since the gender ratio at undergraduate level was more like 60:40 than 93:7 (pre-1914, I would imagine). Not that Oxford has any sort of obligation to recruit professors from the ranks of Oxford undergraduates.
If you'd care for a spread bet on what the gender ratio of professors is in ten years, I'm quite happy to have one. Or you might look at the newly appointed ones. If Professors don't persuade you, feel free to look at Lecturers - 77% are men. Or indeed at undergraduates - just under 53% are men, which will rise to just over 54% if Hilda's were to go 50/50.
The last Cambridge college to admit women was in 1988, the last Oxford college was in 1985 (which I will admit is over twenty years ago, but you might be overegging your use of the word "over")
You appear to be saying 93% of (educated a very long time ago) Professors are men, 77% of (slightly younger) lecturers are men, and 53% of students are men. This looks like the right trend from where I'm sitting, so I don't see how it supports your case at all.
If you had the stats for the average age of professors and lecturers, and stats for the gender balance of the university in their matric year that would be interesting.
Well I don't, and the college structure makes it quite tricky to collect, but as I said I'm more than happy to consider a spread bet of your choosing.
It is a pyramid, not a funnel. Women are less likely than men to be admitted as undergraduates, less likely again to be admitted for continuing study, less likely after that to be appointed to lectureships, and less likely still to be admitted to the fellowship.
However, the average age at appointment to the fellowship is currently 35, and early retirement is available at 55. Last week two fellows were appointed, both men. The previous week three were appointed, all men. None were appointed in the fortnight before that. The week before, three were appointed. Two men, and one woman.
So far this term then, that's seven men and one woman. Not a brilliant improvement.
Women are less likely than men to be admitted as undergraduates, less likely again to be admitted for continuing study, less likely after that to be appointed to lectureships, and less likely still to be admitted to the fellowship.
This is a very sweeping statement, and you have very little to back it up. Wikipedia claims that Cambridge's gender ratio is 54 - 46 women to men at the moment, which would make any given undergrad more likely to be female. And what do you mean by "less likely to be admitted"? Do you mean that there are fewer women than men admitted, or have you actually looked at the more meaningful comparision between number of women/men applying for places to number of women/men being offered places? And even that doesn't say very much - if 100 badly qualified women apply for a place, and 1 well qualified man does, it is not unfair if it goes to the man!
8 people is small number statistics, and if that is the best you can do it's fairly meaningless. Even so, without knowing the gender balance in the matriculating students 17 years ago it is impossible to tell if things have improved or become worse.
Hilary: 13 men and 1 woman. Michaelmas 2005: 14 men, 1 woman, 5 undeterminable.
So on the total available statistics (a one year sample) 34-39 men were appointed, and 3-8 women. The gender balance in matriculating students ten years ago was pretty close to parity (within 60:40 anyway), I'd be very surprised if it was significantly different seven years before that.
I have corrected the wikipedia article, at least assuming its sources are correct, though official figures from the University would be more useful..
I'd be very surprised if it was significantly different seven years before that.
We've already noted that the colleges went mixed in the 80s, with the last ones admitting women in 1988, it seems eminently likely to me that the gender balence in 1989 was radically different to the gender balence seven years later, as those were seven years of fairly interesting change. (I'm assuming your source of data for matriculating students ten years ago is that you were one, and you remember it being "about right", but if you have any better stats, that might help your cause)
Well, being one, and also reading the prospectus and not being struck by any particularly surprising figures. Also in 1989 there were two women's colleges, rather than one. The last men's college *in Oxford* admitted women in 1985, so by 1989 that would have worked through the system, though some Oriel departments are still rubbish (routinely one woman per year got admitted for History). Another good piece of anecdotal evidence for the gender balance being fairly close in the late 80s is that it didn't come up as an issue in student politics, nor was it the primary argument made around men's colleges admitting women (yes, I'm a sad man, but I have in my time read the entire back catalogue of the Cherwell newspaper, at least since the early 70s).
Oh, and I do personally believe that there are some subjects that the male mind is on average better suited to than the female mind. And I know there is no way to measure this as you can never get away from social conditioning and biases in the measuring technique, so I don't see any point in arguing about it, but still, it strikes me as obvious. There are gender differences. It seems naive to think these are all physical instead of mental. If we give everyone equality of opportunity (which yes, I'm aware we don't) and the men are better at a subject, I'm not unhappy at all with there being 13 male professors to every 1 female. I'd rather the people who are best at the subject are allowed to succeed, instead of weaker candidates being preferentially treated on a sexism card.
Oh, and I do personally believe that there are some subjects that the male mind is on average better suited to than the female mind.
So do I.
And vice-versa.
Are you suggesting the subjects men are suited to are the ones studied academically, and the way to address the imbalance is to have a reader in cookery studies?
No. Don't be ridiculous. Although given that the current UK university system was designed by men, it may well be centred around subjects they are naturally more talented at / find more interesting.
I was answering your question "Does it make you happy if we have 13 male professors to 1 female professor". If the professors are the 14 best people for the job, it doesn't make me unhappy at all. And I think there are some subjects where if you took the 14 best people it would not surprise me that there was that sort of gender imbalance.
Although given that the current UK university system was designed by men, it may well be centred around subjects they are naturally more talented at / find more interesting.
I'll just keep repeating myself, shout when you need my input :-)
But when I suggested Professors of Cooking you told me I was being ridiculous. What are these feminised academic disciplines which have no status in universities, then?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 08:45 am (UTC)If you'd care for a spread bet on what the gender ratio of professors is in ten years, I'm quite happy to have one. Or you might look at the newly appointed ones. If Professors don't persuade you, feel free to look at Lecturers - 77% are men. Or indeed at undergraduates - just under 53% are men, which will rise to just over 54% if Hilda's were to go 50/50.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:02 am (UTC)You appear to be saying 93% of (educated a very long time ago) Professors are men, 77% of (slightly younger) lecturers are men, and 53% of students are men. This looks like the right trend from where I'm sitting, so I don't see how it supports your case at all.
If you had the stats for the average age of professors and lecturers, and stats for the gender balance of the university in their matric year that would be interesting.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:17 am (UTC)It is a pyramid, not a funnel. Women are less likely than men to be admitted as undergraduates, less likely again to be admitted for continuing study, less likely after that to be appointed to lectureships, and less likely still to be admitted to the fellowship.
However, the average age at appointment to the fellowship is currently 35, and early retirement is available at 55. Last week two fellows were appointed, both men. The previous week three were appointed, all men. None were appointed in the fortnight before that. The week before, three were appointed. Two men, and one woman.
So far this term then, that's seven men and one woman. Not a brilliant improvement.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:28 am (UTC)This is a very sweeping statement, and you have very little to back it up. Wikipedia claims that Cambridge's gender ratio is 54 - 46 women to men at the moment, which would make any given undergrad more likely to be female. And what do you mean by "less likely to be admitted"? Do you mean that there are fewer women than men admitted, or have you actually looked at the more meaningful comparision between number of women/men applying for places to number of women/men being offered places? And even that doesn't say very much - if 100 badly qualified women apply for a place, and 1 well qualified man does, it is not unfair if it goes to the man!
8 people is small number statistics, and if that is the best you can do it's fairly meaningless. Even so, without knowing the gender balance in the matriculating students 17 years ago it is impossible to tell if things have improved or become worse.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:55 am (UTC)Michaelmas 2005: 14 men, 1 woman, 5 undeterminable.
So on the total available statistics (a one year sample) 34-39 men were appointed, and 3-8 women. The gender balance in matriculating students ten years ago was pretty close to parity (within 60:40 anyway), I'd be very surprised if it was significantly different seven years before that.
I have corrected the wikipedia article, at least assuming its sources are correct, though official figures from the University would be more useful..
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 10:00 am (UTC)I'd be very surprised if it was significantly different seven years before that.
We've already noted that the colleges went mixed in the 80s, with the last ones admitting women in 1988, it seems eminently likely to me that the gender balence in 1989 was radically different to the gender balence seven years later, as those were seven years of fairly interesting change. (I'm assuming your source of data for matriculating students ten years ago is that you were one, and you remember it being "about right", but if you have any better stats, that might help your cause)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 10:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:19 am (UTC)So do I.
And vice-versa.
Are you suggesting the subjects men are suited to are the ones studied academically, and the way to address the imbalance is to have a reader in cookery studies?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:30 am (UTC)I was answering your question "Does it make you happy if we have 13 male professors to 1 female professor". If the professors are the 14 best people for the job, it doesn't make me unhappy at all. And I think there are some subjects where if you took the 14 best people it would not surprise me that there was that sort of gender imbalance.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 10:01 am (UTC)I'll just keep repeating myself, shout when you need my input :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 10:06 am (UTC)