Race & Sororities

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That's why there are still minority faculty and graduate student associations. Even PhDs with years of awards and recognitions know the deal. As for grad students, a large % may be nonwhite, but usually not Black.

Do you think this has anything to do with region or discipline, or even Masters programs over PhD programs? Granted, my individual graduate school (Architecture) was overwhelmingly majority white and Asian, but there were other schools (ex. Social Work and Public Health) within the University that had more blacks and Latinos than whites and Asians.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Do you think this has anything to do with region or discipline, or even Masters programs over PhD programs? Granted, my individual graduate school (Architecture) was overwhelmingly majority white and Asian, but there were other schools (ex. Social Work and Public Health) within the University that had more blacks and Latinos than whites and Asians.

The general pattern exists across region, discipline, and graduate program. General patterns aren't meant to apply to 100% of the cases.

Let's take disciplines like social work and the social sciences, in general, which had a sharp increase in minorities and women over the last 30 years. Social work, for example, is now considered a non-traditional field for men, which now translates to it being one of the lower paying specializations for women depending on the research, teaching, and practitioner base.

Even with the increase in women and minorities, there are (women and racial and ethnic) minority faculty and student organizations to serves as networking tools, and to address concerns. Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university. Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Even with the increase in women and minorities, there are (women and racial and ethnic) minority faculty and student organizations to serves as networking tools, and to address concerns. Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university. Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring.

Oh, this is absolutely true. I just wondered if it was a national trend. I know that I'm in an extremely white, extremely male-centered field (hi, 200 black female architects in the US!), so when I look at friends in B-school, law school, and especially PhD programs in the social sciences, their cohorts seem infinitely more diverse than any of my classes were. I guess it's all relative.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Oh, this is absolutely true. I just wondered if it was a national trend. I know that I'm in an extremely white, extremely male-centered field (hi, 200 black female architects in the US!).

Interesting, I didn't know that.

[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The general pattern exists across region, discipline, and graduate program. General patterns aren't meant to apply to 100% of the cases.

Let's take disciplines like social work and the social sciences, in general, which had a sharp increase in minorities and women over the last 30 years. Social work, for example, is now considered a non-traditional field for men, which now translates to it being one of the lower paying specializations for women depending on the research, teaching, and practitioner base.

Even with the increase in women and minorities, there are (women and racial and ethnic) minority faculty and student organizations to serves as networking tools, and to address concerns. Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university. Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring.

I'd beg to differ with you on this. Within the Social Work field when you state, "...which now translates to it being one of the lower paying specializations for women depending on the research, teaching, and practitioner base. " it's acutally very misleading to say such a statement. For the simple fact, that when you are within this field and a private practitioner base, you actually set your own prices as to what it is that you specialize in. Moreover, research within this field is done on a daily basis, particularly by minority men and women within this field. As far as teaching, it depends on where you go, if you are at a Liberal Arts school or if you are at a Private or Public School setting. Believe me, if you are at a school that specializes Social Work, you will see a variety of professors, from a variety of backgrounds teaching you your Social Work courses.

Furthermore, Social Work was never a high paying job in certain sectors of society to begin with. This was always considered a "woman's job" the same as let's say nursing or teaching. However, for those who got into Social Work, they know from the jump, expecting to make $100,000 a year really isn't a reliable way of thinking and you'll be surely dissapointed by your first paycheck. If you ask any Social Worker why they jumped into this type of job, and you'll have varying answers, however, the primary answer that you'll hear is "I love to help people."

Depending on what field you are working with in Social Work, it will determine what you are going to make. Depending on where you live, it will determine what you are going to make. Depending on what you are specializing in, it will again, determine what you are going to make. Depending on what you wanna do with your degree, what you're licensing is, etc., it will all determine what it is that you'll make. Further, the biggest dependence is if you are working for a NPO, FPO, State agency, Private agency, self. Things all depend.

Moreover, when you state, "Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university." again, it's not necessarily true.

Social Work was NEVER a field that was white and male dominated to begin with. It was started as a "Do-gooder Society" in the late 1900's by Jane Addams. It was started as a philothranthapy (?) service organization to specifically help those orphans that were in the NY, Boston, and Chicago sides that were stemming from immigrants that died and left children behind. Moreover, it was specifically started in order to help the children and either place them with families that would "take them in" or within an orphanage setting that would continue to aid the children while teaching them a vocation through apprenticeships (?) which was primarily based off of the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1608.

When you state, "Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university" it's hard to say that this is true or not unless you have specifically gone to schools that deal with Social Work or have Social Work within their cirriculum. Having seen this from both perspectives, believe me, when you are going to these schools, you don't care who is teaching you what, you're just trying to finish reading the ton of crap they give you, do your paper, and graduate before you blow something up. Yes, you know that you have crazy as hell professors that you just wanna slap the stuffing out of, but you always realize that this is true wherever you go.
And actually at a school of Social Work, again, you will see, tenured, non-tenured, full-time, adjunct faculty that are there within a diverse ethnical background. A lot depends on where you are going to school.

When you stated, "Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring" it's not necessarily true. I've seen department heads that were of all colors, races, and backgrounds. It wasn't necessarily to do "no other alternatives" but due to the fact that they had the expertise and that was what the school was looking for. Because Social Work is usually within a broader scope of the "Humanities Division" of some schools, those within the department do have to stick together. Of course, people will have disagreements, however, within such a small department, their voice can be heard and it usually is.

[DrPhil]

Woman, here's how you quote particular parts of a post without torturing everyone with in-text quotation marks.

Originally Posted by libramunoz

For the simple fact, that when you are within this field and a private practitioner base, you actually set your own prices as to what it is that you specialize in.

Yes, for private or practitioner base and it will be based on a "going rate," which can still be lower paying in relation to other more-male dominated fields. As you said later, it was never a high paying field and many were drawn to it to "help people."

Beyond that, the field of social work encompasses a wide range of overworked and overpaid occupations beyond private and practitioner base.

Originally Posted by libramunoz

As far as teaching, it depends on where you go, if you are at a Liberal Arts school or if you are at a Private or Public School setting. Believe me, if you are at a school that specializes Social Work, you will see a variety of professors, from a variety of backgrounds teaching you your Social Work courses.

I am talking about trends that aren't erased depending on where you go. As I said, general patterns aren't meant to apply 100%, but more often than not. Apply that to every instance that you consider makes my statements "not necessarily true" or "depends...."

Originally Posted by libramunoz

Furthermore, Social Work was never a high paying job in certain sectors of society to begin with.

So, it didn't become that way with the increase in women in various occupations that employ social workers. It was always that way. Gender implications for female dominated fields and certain job types, perhaps?

Originally Posted by libramunoz

This was always considered a "woman's job" the same as let's say nursing or teaching. However, for those who got into Social Work, they know from the jump, expecting to make $100,000 a year really isn't a reliable way of thinking and you'll be surely dissapointed by your first paycheck. If you ask any Social Worker why they jumped into this type of job, and you'll have varying answers, however, the primary answer that you'll hear is "I love to help people."

Regardless of whether you are a social worker, if you haven't done so, skim through "Women in Social Work" by Ronald Walton. The perceived need for a (insert minority group) book for a field means there's something to discuss even if a large % (and the more visible) social workers are women. Again, social work encompasses a lot of occupations and range of salaries. In many organizations that employ social workers, the higher ranking persons are male. That may be correlated with the disctinction between administrative capacities versus practitioners; academicians and researchers versus (insert occupation); or where you work, such as in a state prison versus in public school system (which can also have gender implications).

I don't feel that you really disagree with me. But, when all else fails, just remove "social work" from my post and see the general point regarding the social sciences.

[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Woman, here's how you quote particular parts of a post without torturing everyone with in-text quotation marks.



Yes, for private or practitioner base and it will be based on a "going rate," which can still be lower paying in relation to other more-male dominated fields. As you said later, it was never a high paying field and many were drawn to it to "help people."

Beyond that, the field of social work encompasses a wide range of overworked and overpaid occupations beyond private and practitioner base.




I am talking about trends that aren't erased depending on where you go. As I said, general patterns aren't meant to apply 100%, but more often than not. Apply that to every instance that you consider makes my statements "not necessarily true" or "depends...."



So, it didn't become that way with the increase in women in various occupations that employ social workers. It was always that way. Gender implications for female dominated fields and certain job types, perhaps?



Regardless of whether you are a social worker, if you haven't done so, skim through "Women in Social Work" by Ronald Walton. The perceived need for a (insert minority group) book for a field means there's something to discuss even if a large % (and the more visible) social workers are women. Again, social work encompasses a lot of occupations and range of salaries. In many organizations that employ social workers, the higher ranking persons are male. That may be correlated with the disctinction between administrative capacities versus practitioners; academicians and researchers versus (insert occupation); or where you work, such as in a state prison versus in public school system (which can also have gender implications).

I don't feel that you really disagree with me. But, when all else fails, just remove "social work" from my post and see the general point regarding the social sciences.

I only want to torture those I love!

However, in saying "Again, social work encompasses a lot of occupations and range of salaries. In many organizations that employ social workers, the higher ranking persons are male. That may be correlated with the disctinction between administrative capacities versus practitioners; academicians and researchers versus (insert occupation); or where you work, such as in a state prison versus in public school system (which can also have gender implications)." it's actually not the truth of the matter. Why, because this field is actually a female dominated to begin with. Therefore, within this field, those that are "higher ranking persons" are actually female. This is something that I have seen and know to be true more than once. There doesn't tend to be a distiction between what capacity they are working in, yet, it's just the way that it happens to be.

Yes, the stigma attached to doing Social Work for males is beginning to change (this change began in the late 1960s and early 1970s), it is still a stigma attached to it as far as being a male within this sector.
As far as skimming through "Women in Social Work" by Ronald Walton" I found it rather dry to my taste. I prefer Zastrow's work on many levels.

Again, the pay rate for Social Work does vary. However, within any job, you'll find people that are over worked and underpaid, it's just a factor of life. However, when you say, "Yes, for private or practitioner base and it will be based on a "going rate," which can still be lower paying in relation to other more-male dominated fields." you have to look at the fact of where you are and what that person is charging for their services. You can be within direct practice or as a consultant or as a director, it all depends on what that private practitioner is doing and what they specialize in. Specialization and licensing is the biggest factor in being able to determine the rate of pay. However, it's just not a comparison to "other more-male dominated fields" it has to do with the issue specialization of services, continuum of services, place of services, and time of services that are involved. It also has a lot to do with the types of therapy that are provided to the patient and the types of therapy that the clinician specializes in.

Just to let you know, "Beyond that, the field of social work encompasses a wide range of overworked and overpaid occupations beyond private and practitioner base." that private and practitioner are one in the same within the field of Social Work. Yes, this field does encompass a wide range of overworked and UNDERpaid positions within this field. However, so do MANY, MANY, MANY other fields of work, and this isn't just the lone dog out here wagging it's tail for the comforts of others.

However, when you say, "I am talking about trends that aren't erased depending on where you go. As I said, general patterns aren't meant to apply 100%, but more often than not. Apply that to every instance that you consider makes my statements "not necessarily true" or "depends...."" in regards to Social Work, you actually are. It is about where you go or have gone that determines what you will see and where. Ex: if you go to San Antonio and Our Lady of the Lake University, there is Worden School of Social Work, if you go to Byrn Mawer, it's specifically a school of Social Work, if you go to the University of Texas at Arlington, they have a specific school of Social Work, if you go to Clark-Atlanta University and Howard University, they have specific schools of Social Work. However, if you go to, let's say, LeMoyne-Owen College, their Social Work program is within their Humanities or Social Sciences Division, if you go to Tuskegee University or Talladega College, their Social Work program is within their Humanities Division, if you go to Trinity University, their Social Work program is within a Division of the college, it's not a separate entity from the school. Therefore, what I am saying is that depending on where you go, you will see a variety of faculty in a variety of positions.

Again, when you say, "So, it didn't become that way with the increase in women in various occupations that employ social workers. It was always that way. Gender implications for female dominated fields and certain job types, perhaps" it is that way, to a certain extent, but I didn't make the system. As the saying goes, "I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut in this world." This is a field that was started by women, I don't know what to tell you. Read Charles Zastrow's "Introduction to Social Work" or for those in this field, The Social Worker's Guide 101. It truly explains how this field got started and why it was started. Since this is a field that was started by women, women tend to be at the forefront of making and maintaining the changes within this field. Moreover, this isn't the ONLY field where there are "gender implications" for those that work it. If you looked in the construction field, you expect to see men, and yet, there are female constructions workers. The field of chemistry was thought to be "male dominated" until Madame Curie brought herself along. The field of psychology was thought to be "male dominated" due to Freud's crazy tail, that was until Satir, Hartman, and others came along and busted right through that ceiling. So the fact of the matter is that in many fields, "gender implications" are there from jump-street, you either learn to bust-through or cause others to move to make the room.

Well yes, there was some disagreement because I am within the field of Social Work and have been doing it over 12 years. I understand what Social Work is about and to apply something general within this field, if you have a limited background understanding of it, it's not an easy thing to compare. I cannot remove "Social Work" from the post and apply it to the general point of the Social Sciences because it doesn't work within this manner. Either you're talking about Social Work, Sociology, Gerontology, Behavioral Psychology, or Psychology within itself.

These are very different aspects of the Social Sciences in of themselves. It's like a guy who had a Sociology degree telling me that he understood what being a Social Worker was about because "we studied the same things." No we didn't, we studied SOME of the same things, but there is a vast difference from Social Work to Sociology. Again, you can't make a general statement about the field of Social Work and expect it to apply to an argument where it doesn't fit.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by libramunoz

I only want to torture those I love!

Clearly.

http://workforce.socialworkers.org/s...act_female.asp http://workforce.socialworkers.org/s...eet_female.pdf

http://workforce.socialworkers.org/s..._fact_male.asp http://workforce.socialworkers.org/s...sheet_male.pdf

(The sample of women licensed social workers was substantially larger than that for men. Yet....)