Examining the gender breakdown of Georgetown’s administrative and academic leadership

In the past Vox has analyzed the gender breakdown of GUSA candidates, but we figured it was about time to take a look at the composition of a slightly more powerful group: Georgetown’s major administrators and academic program heads.

Although City Paper‘s The Sexist blog named us the Manliest of the Thinkers in its Manliest Workplace in D.C. competition (which took into account at the gender of the company’s top ten employees—nine of whom were male at Georgetown), we’re curious about how we look when you go a little bit beyond the top ten.

Here’s what we found:

Georgetown's Gender BreakdownClick on image to enlarge. You can also view the data as a series of pie charts.

Overall, it’s a much more balanced view than what you’d get from The Sexist’s analysis. Women hold a majority of positions in the administration of the College, the SFS and the NHS, and also constitute a majority of academic department leaders in NHS and in the College’s humanities programs.

There are some trouble spots for gender equality, though. Most notably, the College’s science departments are entirely male-run, and the MSB’s leadership is 87.5% male. The SFS’s academic programs are 80% male-run and 70% of Georgetown’s major administrators are men.

Interestingly, areas that are mostly female-run tend to be more equally divided, with between 48 and 37 percent of the positions filled by men; male-dominated areas are more polarized, with only 30 percent or less of the positions filled by women.

4 Comments on “Examining the gender breakdown of Georgetown’s administrative and academic leadership

  1. The prevalence of female leadership at Georgetown is an interesting question, but I’m not sure this graph is the best way of illustrating the current state of affairs. Two problems come to mind: first, although it states the size of each department, graphically it gives equal weight to the different departments, regardless of size. The large male dominance major administrators (32 males to 14 females), for example, looks it might be offset by the relatively insignificant female dominance of the NHS administration (3 females, 2 males).

    Secondly, it doesn’t really make sense to use a line graph, connecting each of the departments, as if it were some type of time series. The seemingly arbitrary order of the departments has a confusing effect, too.

    For a graphical illustration, a bar graph might be a better fit, which can better show the breakdown of each section as well as their relative sizes, and wouldn’t connect the sections. And graphics aside, I think the question of female leadership at Georgetown deserves a more qualitative examination as well. A lot of the questions on this topic which I’d be interested in could probably only be answered with interviews with top female administrators about their experiences as women at a male-dominated school and top Georgetown administrators about the University’s recruitment of women.

  2. Pingback: Georgetown University Not So Manly After All - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>