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).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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)