What Would Patsy Mink Think?

ArticleinJAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 307(6):571-2 · February 2012with10 Reads
Impact Factor: 35.29 · DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.79 · Source: PubMed

In 1972, the Education Amendments of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were passed.1 Title IX of these amendments, among other things, prevented institutions of higher education from discriminating against women in admissions. Prior to Title IX, only about 10% of US medical students were women. Title IX had a personal impact on my life because I entered medical school in 1974. I recently asked separately several women students if they knew what Title IX was. None did.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Over the past 30 years, the number and type of academic faculty tracks have increased, and researchers have found differences in promotion rates between track types. The authors studied the gender distribution of medical school faculty on the traditional tenure track (TTT) and clinician-educator track (CET) types. The authors analyzed gender and academic track type distribution data from the March 31, 2011, snapshot of the Association of American Medical Colleges' Faculty Roster. Their final analysis included data from the 123 medical schools offering the TTT type and the 106 offering the CET type, which excluded any schools with 10 or fewer faculty on each track type. The original dataset included 134 medical schools representing 138,508 full-time faculty members, 50,376 (36%) of whom were women. Of the 134 medical schools, 128 reported at least one of four track types: TTT, CET, research track, and other. Of the 83 medical schools offering the CET type, 64 (77%) had a higher proportion of female than male faculty on that track type. Of the 102 medical schools offering the TTT type, only 20 (20%) had a higher proportion of female than male faculty on that track type. Medical schools offering the CET type reported higher proportions of female faculty on that track type. Given that faculty on the CET type lag behind their TTT colleagues in academic promotion, these findings may contribute to continued challenges in gaining academic and leadership parity for women in academic medicine.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2013 · Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
    0Comments 14Citations
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose: To evaluate trends in the prevalence of women authors in ophthalmology in recent years. Design: Cohort study. Participants: Authors listed in publications of 6 leading ophthalmology journals between January 2002 and December 2014. Methods: Using the PubMed search engine, we conducted an observational study of trends in gender distribution of all authors in 6 leading ophthalmology journals between January 2002 and December 2014. In multiauthored articles, the first listed author often is the lead investigator and the last author is the senior author. Therefore, the full names and positions (first, middle, or last) of all authors in every article were collected. A Google-based name identifier was used to assign the gender of authors. Main outcome measures: Proportion of women authors throughout the study period in all journals, general ophthalmology versus subspecialty journals, and basic science versus clinical research journals. Furthermore, we assessed the proportion of women in different authorship positions (first, middle, and last). Results: A total of 102 254 authors from 23 026 published articles were analyzed. There was a significant rise over time in the percentage of women authors, with a steeper slope for first authors than for last authors (P<0.001), although in 2014, women authors were less than the 50% mark in all categories of authorship. The rise in the percentage of women authors was similar in basic and clinical research, but was steeper for first authorship than for last authorship (P<0.001). In all 3 authorship positions (first, middle, or last), women's contributions consistently were higher in basic research publications. The rise in the percentage of women authors was significantly steeper for general journals than for subspecialty journals (P<0.001). There was no significant rise for last authorship in subspecialty journals. In all 3 authorship positions, the proportion of women was consistently higher in general ophthalmology journals than for subspecialty journals. Conclusions: Despite an overall increase in the contribution of women to the field of ophthalmology, contributions to articles published in subspecialty ophthalmology journals and the proportion of women listed as last authors on overall articles published in ophthalmology journals are still low.
    No preview · Article · May 2016 · Ophthalmology
    0Comments 0Citations