SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2308.13750

Quantifying and Documenting Inequity in PhD-granting Mathematical Sciences Departments in the United States

Abstract

We provide an example of the application of quantitative techniques, tools, and topics from mathematics and data science to analyze the mathematics community itself in order to quantify and document inequity in our discipline. This work is a contribution to the new and growing interdisciplinary field recently termed "mathematics of Mathematics," or "MetaMath." Using data about PhD-granting institutions in the United States and publicly available funding data from the National Science Foundation, we highlight inequalities in departments at U.S. institutions of higher education that produce PhDs in the mathematical sciences. Specifically, we determine that a small fraction of mathematical sciences departments receive a large majority of federal funding awarded to support mathematics in the United States. Additionally, we identify the extent to which women faculty members are underrepresented in mathematical sciences PhD-granting institutions in the United States. We also show that this underrepresentation of women faculty is even more pronounced in departments that received more federal grant funding.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ron Buckmire, Carrie Diaz Eaton, Joseph E. Hibdon, Jr., Jakini Kauba, Drew Lewis, Omayra Ortega, José L. Pabón, Rachel Roca, Andrés R. Vindas-Meléndez. 2023-08-26. Quantifying and Documenting Inequity in PhD-granting Mathematical Sciences Departments in the United States. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.13750

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Perspectives on the unit distance problem

This is a survey on an old open problem in combinatorics called the unit distance problem, and the field of mathematics around it, called incidence geometry. What do we know about the problem? Why is it difficult? How does it connect with other parts of math?

math.HO

A Categorical Approach to Euclidean Ratios and Proportions

A categorial approach to the non-metric geometry in Books V and VI of Euclid's \textit{Elements} is presented. Specifically, we introduce a diagrammatic syntax that can be overlaid immediately on his diagrams, thus bridging intuitive presentation with fidelity to Euclid's arguments. This syntax makes complicated definitions like V.5, and indeed the arguments throughout books V and VI, including arguments about similar figures, intuitively clear. We show in an appendix that this syntax can be used to solve a puzzle regarding ancient mathematics. Finally, we offer evidence that this approach to Euclidean diagrams is rooted in the Aristotelian tradition itself, and that a similar syntax was utilized, in antiquity, for related questions of numeric and proportions. Thus the syntax is plausibly faithful to Euclid's own thought-world, and not an outside-imposition.

math.HO

Some Early Results by Tutte Regarding the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture in 1948

OpenAI recently announced a proof of the Cycle Double Cover (CDC) Conjecture. Most media reports have characterized it as a 50-year-old open problem. In reality, according to a 1987 letter from Tutte to Fleischner, the Cycle Double Cover Problem has been open for at least 80 years. Two early results regarding the CDC conjecture were established in one of Tutte's 1949 publications.

math.HO