Is there still a glass ceiling in the JCR?

The “glass ceiling”: a popular media term for a disproportionate lack of women in senior positions. The phenomenon is seen in almost every profession and numerous explanations have have been offered by observers. Is society’s entrenched sexism to blame? Is the cycle self-perpetuating – a lack of senior role models prevents aspiration? Or are women themselves to blame? Is it taking time off work to care for children that hinders their promotion? Whatever the factors at work in the wider world, a desire to stay home and look after the kids is not keeping women from holding positions of seniority within the Peterhouse undergraduate community. And yet, as Andy Gilbert’s recent statistical study has shown, arguably something is.

For the last ten years, Peterhouse has admitted very near to equal numbers of male and female students at undergraduate level. Yet women have been consistently, if only a little, under-represented on the JCR committee throughout this period. Only 39% of committee positions have been filled by women in the last ten years – exclude the welfare officers’ positions (which are always filled by a man and woman respectively) and the number drops to 36%.

Before we draw any conclusions, there are some interesting nuances to this overall view. Co-opted positions are slightly more likely to be held by women than elected positions – 43% compared to 34%. Women are less likely to be re-elected than men: 19 men have been re-elected in the last 10 years, but only 6 women (either because women are less likely to run again, or simply less likely to be re-elected).

There is also a strong and stereotypical gender bias for certain positions. Stereotypically women are caring, conscientious and sociable. Women have dominated positions demanding these characteristics: 91% of Charities & Environment officers, 80% of Equal Access officers, 72.7% of the International Reps, and 63.6% of Ents officers have been female. (The exception to this is surely Freshers Rep, a “sociable” position filled three times out of four by men.) On the other end of the scale, the last ten years have not seen either a female Webmaster or External officer.

There is no need to be alarmist about these figures – it is certainly valid to read them as showing nearly equal engagement from both genders. Things have certainly come a long way in the last thirty years! Yet “nearly” is not “completely”. I would suggest that the most likely cause of the slight disparity is to be found in one of the arguments given above regarding glass ceilings in the workplace: a lack of women at the very top. The most visible and influential member of the JCR committee is surely the president, and in the whole eight-hundred-year history of Peterhouse only two women have taken on that role (including our current glorious leader, Johanna Ohlman). It is just possible that, utterly unconsciously, a long run of male presidents sends out the message that the JCR committee is a “man’s job” and discourages female undergraduates from considering applying. If this is the case, then we are already well on the way to redressing it, since the 2014 – 15 committee is 60% female. And the only time in the last ten years that another committee was close to being this full of women (55%), is also the only other time that the president was a woman.

– Rachel Lewis


One thought on “Is there still a glass ceiling in the JCR?

  1. While gender equality is undoubtedly an important issue, please ensure you are using statistics correctly to support your point.
    You mention “in the last ten years Peterhouse has admitted very near to equal numbers of male and female students at undergraduate level”. Do you have a precise number for this proportion? You seem to have numbers for everything else, yet this is suspiciously lacking. With a sample size of 100 (assuming 10 years, 10 positions per year), you need to be 10% (absolute) below your expected proportion for a statistically significant result at the 5% level. Dependent on the precise number for the proportion, and the precise number of committee positions, your claim of 39% may not be statistically significant
    Fourth year undergraduates may skew these numbers too – these tend to be dominated by male-heavy subjects such as engineering and mathematics. This may explain the bias towards men regarding re-election – freshers rarely get elected into positions, so most current committee members would have to be staying on for a fourth year in order to be eligible for re-election – but this is purely speculative.
    This article has other issues, but I shall keep this brief. The main problem is that you have not cited sources or released your data, so people, such as myself, cannot check that you have interpreted these data correctly. The data you are using to support your points may or may not be representative, and so the statistics you quote may or may not be valid. If you do not understand everything I have said about statistical significance, please do not write a blog post about statistics.

    – Fuji


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s