Logic, What Logic?

This week I attended the Elizabeth Johnson lecture at the Institute of Physics, given by Mary Curnock Cook, chief executive of UCAS.  Her topic was Gender Maps in Higher Education, and it explored the differences between male and female progression through the various key stages at school and subsequent admission to university. There were a lot of statistics, fascinating comparisons of different parameters, and because I didn’t take copious notes I can’t reproduce them all. Her starting point was the BIS report which demonstrated a significant difference in the ‘graduate premium’ – crudely the difference between lifetime income between those with degrees and those without – for men and women. This premium amounts to the tune of £121K for men and £82K for women. I think many of us in the audience were surprised the graduate premium is as small as it apparently is, only £2-3k per year, but the difference by gender is stark. When she had read those figures she had started questioning what lay beneath. There is of course the possibility that it is nothing less than women on average being more likely to take some time out for families, perhaps working a few years part time, and so falling behind, but there may be other more worrying causes for concern. So she started delving into the wealth of statistics both publicly available and within the 50 years of information the UCCA/UCAS files hold on admissions.

There have frequently been stories in the news about girls doing better at most subjects at most exams throughout schooling, but I certainly hadn’t known that when it came to university admissions men were slightly more likely to be made an offer than women, for a given ‘tariff’ from A levels etc. At first sight that sounds rather shocking, but there may be a perfectly innocent reason: men are more likely to be doing A levels in the sciences, certainly in the physical sciences, and more likely to be applying for a STEM degree course where offers are on average slightly lower than for arts and humanities courses (though the data also shows that maths and physics A levels are ‘tougher’ than say English and psychology).  So, it is always difficult to say one is comparing like with like.  The Royal Society has done a lot of analysis of A level choices, based on data gathered for their fourth State of the Nation report  published earlier this year. The choices boys and girls make are strikingly different at A levels around the 3 sciences, with far more boys opting for physics (singly or in combination with other sciences) and biology on its own being most popular with girls. It could be argued that the reason boys get lower offers is that they are systematically making pragmatic choices to optimise their admission to university. This argument has been put forward in the context of the David Lammy attack on Oxbridge regarding Afro-Caribbean admissions, or lack thereof, namely that black children may be applying for the most competitive courses such as medicine, whereas private schools know that if their (possibly not-top-of-the-class) pupils want to get into these universities without a real vocational pull, they should be encouraged to apply for ‘softer’, less competitive options such as Classics. Of course if you genuinely want to be a doctor such a course of action would be fairly futile.

So, to return to Mary Curnock Cook’s talk, her final point was that for the first time  median pay differences in the current 22-29 age group actually show women earning slightly more than men, something also shown in the  recent CMI survey of junior executives. Perhaps the gender pay gap really will vanish in the years ahead as that cohort of young women, whose academic credentials at school now exceed the males, progress through the system.  She furnished us with much food for thought, and far too many statistics to be digested in one sitting. But nevertheless, as she was the first to admit, it could only be a superficial skating over of the analyses that potentially could be done with the rich data in principle available for consideration.

The questions that followed the talk made clear just how many further issues were potentially of interest to the audience, and what sort of questions need to be explored if we are really to understand not only the graduate premium and any gender differences, but also how schooling, socio-economic and ethnic background come into play. One question regarding why women weren’t yet showing up amongst many prize winners she in essence left to me to answer: the answer I gave is very simple but worth remembering. Awards committees can only award prizes to those nominated and people must remember to do this. It is too easy to ‘forget the women’, so this is a plea to all Heads of Department or other senior researchers reading this article to remember to do so. Nevertheless, the numbers of women receiving prizes is increasing (this year’s recently announced IOP prizes only seem to feature 2 women amongst the 16 prize-winners; the Royal Society is doing rather better in 2011 with 28% of its winners being women, even excluding the Rosalind Franklin Prize, up from 12% in 2010).

However, there was one question that left her – and I would guess most of the rest of the audience – fairly gobsmacked. Maybe collectively we misunderstood what the questioner implied when he asked something along the lines of ‘had there been any research to study whether women wrote less logically than men?’ It was a rather rambling question but the implication was that he thought women progressed less well because they were incapable of logic. Mary answered very diplomatically, and a representative from WES (if I recall correctly) pointed out research showed that exams, for instance, were marked more harshly if they had a woman’s name attached than if they had a man’s. But I doubt the questioner felt he had been answered, whereas the rest of us probably felt he didn’t deserve an answer.

This entry was posted in Education, Equality, Women in Science and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Logic, What Logic?

  1. Laurence Cox says:

    Unfortunately, I couldn’t get your link to the BIS report to work, but here is the URL if anyone else has the same problem.


    The whole report is really worth reading. The average figures Athene quotes hide quite diverse outcomes, for example:
    Medicine/dentistry: £403k men, £340k women
    Creative arts and design: -£15k men, £27k women

    1st class Honours £144k men, £79k women
    2:1 Honours £128k men, £87k women
    2:2 Honours £80k men, £70k women

    I should also add that the Royal Astronomical Society have just published a survey on demographics in astronomy and geophysics. You can find it at:


    and there is a summary in the October edition of their house magazine “Astronomy & Geophysics”

  2. Irene Hames says:

    Many thanks, Athene, for the pointer to this data-rich BIS report. I look forward to reading it in full, but on a quick look at the Executive Summary a couple of things other than the stark gender differences in graduate premium stood out:

    First, the importance of higher-education qualifications to women: “The returns to undergraduate degrees for women are in almost all circumstances higher than the earnings returns achieved by men.” (page 12) and “As with undergraduate degrees, the employment return to women from possession of any form of postgraduate degree exceeds the returns posted by men.” (page 14)

    Second, and not so good: “In aggregate, the earnings premium associated with undergraduate degrees increases as the grade of honours increases, although the incremental premium by grade of degree is much steeper for men than for women. “(page 12). But this could be due to reasons you mention above, such as women taking time out for family reasons or working part-time, and maybe also choosing not to go into top jobs when back in the work place. I’ll be interested to see if this is covered in the report. The figures are highlighted by Lawrence above, and looking at the list it would be interesting to drill down into the data and see why for women a 1st class honours degree seems to bring less of a return than a 2:1.

    Yes, what a gobsmacking question about women and logic! Maybe the (rambling) questioner was just very bad at expressing himself and meant it more generally? (I’m being generous.) I know of one study that mentions a difference in the way women and men write in fellowship applications, nothing to do with logic, but rather with expression of achievements and levels of confidence.

    EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) is very committed to gender equality and, concerned that the success rate of women in obtaining fellowships was consistently lower than for men, tested in 2006 whether unconscious gender bias was influencing the decisions made by the selection committee (EMBO Reports (2007) http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n11/full/7401109.html). They gender-blinded the committee and removed all references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendation and interview reports. Despite these measures, the difference in gender-related success rate remained. The authors eliminated various possible explanations – e.g. differences in the way letters of recommendation are written for men and women, publication bibliographic data (although there seemed to be a difference in publication number) – and one of the authors speculated in the related editorial http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n11/full/7401100.html on “a gender difference related to how applicants described what they have achieved and what they hope to achieve in the next research project.”

    If this is right, it could be a real issue, but one that can be addressed.

    Another paper in the same issue of EMBO Reports (http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n11/full/7401110.html) reports a survey of NIH postdocs carried out to identify factors that might influence the decisions of female post docs to pursue a PI position. It found that the female postdocs had a tendency to express lower confidence in their skills and lower expectations of obtaining tenure (but maybe partly because of so few senior women ahead of them on this career track).

  3. More on Mary Curnock Cook’s talk has now been written up in the Independent.

  4. Irene Hames says:

    Many thanks, Athene, for the link to the article. I was quite shocked to see the nature of most of the >300 comments it’s generated – the discussion seems to have degenerated into a bitter slanging match, with people hurling insults at one another.

    • Laurence Cox says:


      Sadly, online comments bring out the worst in people. Of the newspapers I read online, the only one that I comment in is The Guardian’s “Comment is Free”. Most of the others do not have any moderation, which is essential in my opinion, even if it is post-moderation.

Comments are closed.