How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM: Professors’ Biased Evaluations of Physics and Biology Post-Doctoral Candidates

• Evaluations of post-doctoral candidates in STEM were influenced by gender and racial biases, moderated by academic department. Male candidates were favored over female candidates, and Asian and White candidates were favored over Black and Latinx candidates. Overall, female candidates were rated as less competent than male candidates (6.66 vs. 7.18 on a 9-point-Likert scale), and less hirable (5.89 vs. 6.48). 
  • Physics faculty rated female candidates as less competent than male candidates (6.21 vs. 7.46), and less hirable (5.08 vs. 6.93).
  • Biology faculty rated male and female candidates as similarly competent and hirable.
• Across all departments, female candidates were rated as more likable than male candidates (6.29 vs. 5.88).
• Across all departments, Black and Latinx candidates were rated as less competent than Asian and White candidates (Black: 6.32; Latinx: 6.65; Asian: 7.29; White: 7.42).
• Overall, Black and Latinx candidates were rated as less hirable than Asian and White candidates (Black: 5.62; Latinx: 5.69; Asian: 7.04; White: 6.64). 
  • Biology faculty rated Black candidates as less hirable than Asian candidates (5.73 vs. 7.14).
  • Physics faculty rated Black and Latinx candidates as less hirable than Asian and White candidates (Black: 5.44; Latinx: 4.22; Asian: 6.86; White: 6.92).
• Physics faculty rated Black women, Latinx women, and Latinx men as the least hirable compared to all others (Black women: 4.29; Latinx women: 3.87; Latinx men: 4.67; all others: 5.93-7.42).  Professors’ evaluations of post-doctoral candidates exposed a gender bias in physics, a racial bias in both physics and biology, and compounded gender and racial biases in physics. These findings shed new light on the unique challenges faced by women of color pursuing careers in STEM.

Using a fully-crossed, between-subjects experimental design, this study was modeled after landmark studies done on job discrimination in evaluation of CVs, in which the applicant’s name on a single CV varied while all else was held constant. For this study, 635 professors from eight large, public U.S. research universities were mailed surveys and study materials, with a response rate of 39.37%. The 251 study participants, including 157 biology professors (35% female) and 94 physics professors (10% female), read one of eight identical CVs depicting a hypothetical ambiguously-qualified doctoral graduate applying for a post-doctoral position in their field, and rated the candidate for competence, hireability, and likeability. The candidate’s name on the CV was used to manipulate race (Asian, Black, Latinx, and White) and gender (female or male), with all other aspects of the CV held constant across conditions.