Much has been written in the past two decades about women in academic science careers, but this literature is contradictory. Many analyses have revealed a level playing field, with men and women faring equally, whereas other analyses have suggested numerous areas in which the playing field is not level. The only widely-agreed-upon conclusion is that women are underrepresented in college majors, graduate school programs, and the professoriate in those fields that are the most mathematically intensive, such as geoscience, engineering, economics, mathematics/computer science, and the physical sciences. In other scientific fields (psychology, life science, social science), women are found in much higher percentages. In this monograph, we undertake extensive life-course analyses comparing the trajectories of women and men in math-intensive fields with those of their counterparts in non-math-intensive fields in which women are close to parity with or even exceed the number of men. We begin by examining early-childhood differences in spatial processing and follow this through quantitative performance in middle childhood and adolescence, including high school coursework. We then focus on the transition of the sexes from high school to college major, then to graduate school, and, finally, to careers in academic science. The results of our myriad analyses reveal that early sex differences in spatial and mathematical reasoning need not stem from biological bases, that the gap between average female and male math ability is narrowing (suggesting strong environmental influences), and that sex differences in math ability at the right tail show variation over time and across nationalities, ethnicities, and other factors, indicating that the ratio of males to females at the right tail can and does change. We find that gender differences in attitudes toward and expectations about math careers and ability (controlling for actual ability) are evident by kindergarten and increase thereafter, leading to lower female propensities to major in math-intensive subjects in college but higher female propensities to major in non-math-intensive sciences, with overall science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors at 50% female for more than a decade. Post-college, although men with majors in math-intensive subjects have historically chosen and completed PhDs in these fields more often than women, the gap has recently narrowed by two thirds; among non-math-intensive STEM majors, women are more likely than men to go into health and other people-related occupations instead of pursuing PhDs. Importantly, of those who obtain doctorates in math-intensive fields, men and women entering the professoriate have equivalent access to tenure-track academic jobs in science, and they persist and are remunerated at comparable rates-with some caveats that we discuss. The transition from graduate programs to assistant professorships shows more pipeline leakage in the fields in which women are already very prevalent (psychology, life science, social science) than in the math-intensive fields in which they are underrepresented but in which the number of females holding assistant professorships is at least commensurate with (if not greater than) that of males. That is, invitations to interview for tenure-track positions in math-intensive fields-as well as actual employment offers-reveal that female PhD applicants fare at least as well as their male counterparts in math-intensive fields. Along these same lines, our analyses reveal that manuscript reviewing and grant funding are gender neutral: Male and female authors and principal investigators are equally likely to have their manuscripts accepted by journal editors and their grants funded, with only very occasional exceptions. There are no compelling sex differences in hours worked or average citations per publication, but there is an overall male advantage in productivity. We attempt to reconcile these results amid the disparate claims made regarding their causes, examining sex differences in citations, hours worked, and interests. We conclude by suggesting that although in the past, gender discrimination was an important cause of women's underrepresentation in scientific academic careers, this claim has continued to be invoked after it has ceased being a valid cause of women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields. Consequently, current barriers to women's full participation in mathematically intensive academic science fields are rooted in pre-college factors and the subsequent likelihood of majoring in these fields, and future research should focus on these barriers rather than misdirecting attention toward historical barriers that no longer account for women's underrepresentation in academic science.

中文翻译：

---

学术界的女性：不断变化的格局。

在过去的二十年中，有关女性从事学术科学工作的文章很多，但是这些文献是矛盾的。许多分析揭示了一个公平的竞争环境，而男性和女性的表现均等，而其他分析则表明了许多领域都没有公平竞争的领域。唯一得到广泛认可的结论是，在大学数学专业，研究生课程以及数学密集程度最高的领域，例如地球科学，工程学，经济学，数学/计算机科学和物理领域，教授中的女性人数不足科学。在其他科学领域（心理学，生命科学，社会科学）中，女性的比例更高。在这本专着中，我们进行了广泛的生命历程分析，比较了数学密集型领域的男女轨迹与非数学密集型领域的男女轨迹，在非数学密集型领域中，女性与男性的数量接近或什至超过男性。我们首先检查儿童早期在空间处理方面的差异，然后通过在儿童中期和青少年（包括高中课程）中的量化表现来跟踪这一差异。然后，我们将重点放在从高中到大学专业，再到研究生院，最后到学术科学职业的性别过渡。我们的大量分析结果表明，空间和数学推理中的早期性别差异不必来自生物学基础，男女平均数学能力之间的差距正在缩小（建议强烈的环境影响），并且右尾处数学能力的性别差异随时间以及民族，种族和其他因素的变化而变化，这表明右尾处的男女比例可以而且确实会发生变化。我们发现，幼儿园对数学职业和能力（控制实际能力）的态度和期望存在性别差异，并且此后有所增加，这导致女性在大学数学密集型专业中的专业倾向较低，而在数学专业中女性的专业倾向较高。非数学密集型科学，拥有十多年的总科学，技术，工程和数学（STEM）专业占50％的女性。大学后，尽管从历史上看，拥有数学密集型学科专业的男性比女性更经常选择和完成这些领域的博士学位，差距最近缩小了三分之二；在非数学密集型STEM专业的学生中，女性比男性更有可能从事健康和其他与人相关的职业，而不是追求博士学位。重要的是，那些在数学密集型领域获得博士学位的人中，进入教授级的男女都有同等的权属，可以从事科学领域的终身制学术工作，而且他们坚持不懈并获得可比的报酬，这与我们讨论的一些警告有关。从研究生课程向助理教授职位的过渡表明，在女性已经非常普遍的领域（心理学，生命科学，社会科学），与数学密集型领域（其人数不足，但女性人数众多）相比，流失率更高担任助理教授的职位至少与男性相称（如果不大于）。也就是说，在数学密集型领域中聘用面试职位邀请以及实际就业机会的邀请，表明女性博士学位申请者的学费至少与男性中数学密集型领域的应聘者一样。同样地，我们的分析表明，稿件审阅和赠款资金在性别上是中立的：男女作家和主要研究人员同样有可能使稿件被期刊编辑接受并获得资助，只有极少数情况例外。每份出版物的工作时间或平均引用率没有明显的性别差异，但在生产率方面男性总体上具有优势。我们试图就这些起因提出不同的主张，并检查引文，工作时间和兴趣方面的性别差异，以调和这些结果。我们的结论是，尽管过去，性别歧视是导致女性在科学学术职业中任职人数不足的一个重要原因，但在不再是数学密集型领域中妇女任职人数不足的有效原因之后，这一主张仍在继续被引用。因此，当前阻碍女性充分参与数学密集型学术科学领域的障碍源于大学预科因素以及其后主修这些领域的可能性，未来的研究应着重于这些障碍，而不应将注意力转移到不再引起关注的历史障碍上女性在学术领域的代表性不足。在不再是数学密集型领域女性任职人数不足的有效原因之后，这一主张仍在继续被援引。因此，当前阻碍女性充分参与数学密集型学术科学领域的障碍源于大学预科因素以及其后主修这些领域的可能性，未来的研究应着重于这些障碍，而不应将注意力转移到不再引起关注的历史障碍上女性在学术领域的代表性不足。在不再是数学密集型领域女性任职人数不足的有效原因之后，这一主张仍在继续被援引。因此，当前阻碍女性充分参与数学密集型学术科学领域的障碍源于大学预科因素以及其后主修这些领域的可能性，未来的研究应着重于这些障碍，而不应将注意力转移到不再考虑的历史障碍上女性在学术领域的代表性不足。