Four Questions about Women and Minorities in Departments of Philosophy

Here are four questions that seem to deserve good answers[1]:

Apart from concerns about salary, does lack of familiarity with philosophy as a discipline make it less likely that women and minorities will major in philosophy?
Does the relative ‘religiosity’ of White American Protestant women and Black/African American Protestants make it less likely that they will major in philosophy than White American Protestant males?
What do the responses from Philosophy faculty and graduate students to the Leslie et al ‘brilliance bias’ survey say about the underrepresentation of women (and minorities) in Philosophy?
Does the misclassification of Philosophy by widely used career screening tools make it less likely that women and minorities will major in philosophy?

Perceived risk of failure to get a job?

Question #1: Does lack of familiarity with philosophy as a discipline make it less likely that women and minorities will major in philosophy, apart from concerns about salary?

In Cheshire Calhoun. “Precluded Interests,” Hypatia v30 n2 (Spring 2015) 475-485, the author writes:

There has been some speculation that students regard philosophy as an impractical major—which might explain why there aren’t large numbers of philosophy majors—but the recent AAUW report Graduating to a Pay Gap indicates that women are less concerned than men are with selecting majors that might lead to well-paying jobs (Corbet and Hill 2012). With the exception of the 18% of female students who choose business, female undergraduates tend to choose majors that lead to lower salaries than the majors male students choose. The AAUW report attributes women’s lower income one year out of college in part to gender differences in choice of major. (475)

In Dougherty, Tom; Baron, Samuel; and Miller, Kristie (2015) “Female Under-Representation Among Philosophy Majors: A Map of the Hypotheses and a Survey of the Evidence,” Feminist Philosophy Quarterly: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/fpq/vol1/iss1/4 the authors write:

We did not find any gendered differences with respect to how useful students considered studying philosophy for achieving their goals. This means that we found no evidence to support the Impractical Subject Hypothesis.

And in a recent study of college-bound high school seniors deciding where to attend college, the researchers “did not find evidence of significant demand for a new resource that provides data on labor market outcomes,” where the latter include “employment rates and average earnings.”[2]

Nonetheless a plausible hypothesis is that, because of the unfamiliarity of philosophy in pre-college education, and a reasonable risk-aversion among female (and minority) students and their parents, other relatives, guardians and advisors, the likelihood of actually securing any job at any salary level is believed to be lower for those seeking employment in philosophy as opposed to, for example, social work or elementary school teaching (lower paid occupations in which most are women). Most people will have heard of students getting jobs – perhaps even receiving multiple job-offers – in social work or pre-college teaching. Not many will have so much as heard of students getting jobs “in philosophy.”[3]

It is a commonplace in the literature on the economics of inequality that women are generally more risk-averse than men; one recent seemingly authoritative overview is in:

Iris Bohnet[4], What works: gender equality by design (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2016), pages 170-171. HD 6060 .B64 2016 ISBN 9780674089037

In a note to Chapter 8, “Adjusting Risk,” Bohnet says,

[n4] Literally hundreds of studies, with a very small number of exceptions, support the notion that women are more averse to risk than men. …

-where, as Bohnet indicates, the claim about relative risk-aversion has been questioned.[5]

But even if there is no general difference between men and women in degrees of risk-aversion, it might still be that philosophy is perceived by female students and those who are closest to them as less likely to yield a job at any salary. That perception might even reflect good judgment. Anyone who is a member of a group subject to systematic discrimination might reasonably be expected to be quite sensitive to the relative disadvantage of philosophy vs. say, social work or elementary school teaching.

Among other things, it is also consistent with the falsity of the Impractical Subject Hypothesis and with a relative lack of concern with earning a high salary that women have been socialized in ways that leads them to seek what they believe will be careers with greater social utility, and they may not see a career in philosophy as having such relative utility. It might also be that social utility carries less weight among women than the immediacy of feedback from those who’ve been helped. After all, among biomedical engineer those who design prosthetics some have almost no contact with prosthetic-users but the engineer engages in an occupation with high actual and perceived social utility; most social workers will however have much direct contact with the people they help.

Relative Religiosity of American Women and Black/African Americans

Question #2: Does the relative ‘religiosity’ of White American Protestant women and Black/African American Protestants make it less likely that they will major in philosophy than White American Protestant males?

It has been well-documented by sociologists of religion that among Christians in the US, women report more “religiosity” than do men. These differences are greater among US Protestants and the relevant data covers at least several past decades.[6] There are various relatively standard measures of religiosity. Multiple hypotheses have been offered to explain the differences measured. (One conjecture that seems reasonable is that members of a group historically subject to systematic discrimination are more likely to persist in beliefs and practices that secure their identities as members of what they regard as a supportive group. That’s consistent with the even greater religiosity found among African American Protestants.[7]) It has also been conjectured that greater risk-aversion is positively correlated with greater religiosity.

Here is a hypothesis that at least deserves a good refutation:

A larger percentage of American White Protestant female students and Protestant Black/African Americans than American White Protestant male students are disturbed by the expectation in philosophy that just about any belief can be questioned, including the most deeply held religious beliefs.

Here is some limited, relevant evidence from surveys I’ve done for the hypothesis that religious belief may be a factor in underrepresentation of women (and Black/African Americans) in philosophy in the US:

During each semester from Fall 2010 to Spring 2015 (summer sessions not included), all students (N > 2000) enrolled in a Philosophy of Science course at a large, STEM-oriented, public university in the southeastern US were surveyed at the beginning and at the end of semesters about topics covered by the course about which they would likely have an opinion. The surveys were called “Intuition Inventory 1” (II1) and “Intuition Inventory 2” (II2). The purpose of the surveys was explained to students several times both orally and in writing. If and only if s/he completed both surveys, a student received four points added to the course score. Students had two weeks to complete the surveys at semester’s beginning and one week to complete them at the end of the semester. Typical time to completion was less than fifteen minutes.

A five-point Likert scale was used for each of the items: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Survey response rates averaged close to 90%. The same survey items were presented in each survey in the same order (though a few items were added later), with the occasional addition of “control” items to assess attentiveness (e.g, “My birthday is February 32,” “The number 6 is an even number”) as recommended by psychometricians.

Response sets were checked for internal consistency and compared with all other contemporaneous and previous response sets to help detect satisficing (e.g., straight-lining) and dishonest response patterns; rushing was checked using course site logs. Less than a dozen outlier response sets were discarded as a result.

On average, there are 2 ± 1 pairs of logically inconsistent responses for both female and male respondents for each Intuition Inventory, and the inconsistencies involved mainly the items expressing naïve moral relativism. (Students seem anxious to be seen to be tolerant and to believe that naïve moral relativism is the best way to secure that result.) There is no statistically significant difference between the distributions of course grades for female and male respondents, despite the fact that females have (at the time they take the course) on average slightly higher Cumulative GPAs than male respondents.[8] (This does not apply to freshman who as yet have no usable cumulative GPAs.)

Differences ≥ 10% for Black/African American (B) vs White (W) and Female (F) vs Male (M) Respondents %Strongly Agree+Agree Fall 2010-Spring 2015 (N ~ 1936)

Item	F-M	B-W
During the last fifty years, some people have been shown to have some sort of ‘ESP’.-II1	10%	15%
During the last fifty years, some people have been shown to have some sort of ‘ESP’.-II2	15%	17%
Astrology often gives pretty accurate descriptions of peoples’ characters.-II1	20%	18%
Astrology often gives pretty accurate descriptions of peoples’ characters.-II2	12%	16%
Astrology can be used to give accurate predictions of daily events.-II1	10%	15%
Astrology can be used to give accurate predictions of daily events.-II2	4%	11%
Bacteria can think.-II1	-2%	12%
The Biblical story of creation ought to be taught, as a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory, in science courses that discuss the origins of life or the universe.-II1	11%	13%
The Biblical story of creation ought to be taught, as a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory, in science courses that discuss the origins of life or the universe.-II2	12%	17%
Someday, biology will be seen as applied physics – because living things are completely and accurately describable by the laws of physics.-II1	-11%	-3%
In addition to having a brain, I have a soul that takes up no space.-II1 (recent addition)	14%	9%
Someday, there could be machines that can think.-II1	-18%	-2%
Someday, there could be machines that can think.-II2	-13%	-1%
Good evidence for the existence of God is provided by the overall design of life’s evolution (from simpler chemical systems, as described by evolutionary theory).-II1	9%	10%
In order to be scientific, a statement must be capable of direct experimental test.-II2	7%	12%
Study of evolutionary theory leads inevitably to a breakdown of morality.-II1	1%	20%
Study of evolutionary theory leads inevitably to a breakdown of morality.-II2	2%	11%
In doing science, one never accepts things on faith or without proof.-II2	7%	13%
God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.-II1	7%	20%
God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.-II2	7%	11%
I have had some false beliefs.-II2	-11%	-26%
Living things are just machines composed wholly of organic components.-II1	-14%	0%
Unlike any machines, living things have goals or purposes of their own.-II1	16%	0%
Unlike any machines, living things have goals or purposes of their own.-II2	14%	3%
There are now machines that can think.-II2	-1%	13%
My brain is a ‘meat machine’ – a sophisticated computer that can think.-II1	-11%	6%
My brain is a ‘meat machine’ – a sophisticated computer that can think.-II2	-12%	9%
It is not possible for a thinking thing to be composed wholly of parts that cannot think – there must also be a ‘mental essence’.-II1	12%	6%
It is not possible for a thinking thing to be composed wholly of parts that cannot think – there must also be a ‘mental essence’.-II2	12%	4%
Miracles happen nowadays.-II1	20%	24%
Miracles happen nowadays.-II2	18%	24%
For any culture and any action: if a culture believes that an action is morally right then the action is morally right, and for any culture and any action: if a culture believes that the action is not morally right then the action is not morally right.-II2	5%	13%
There are moral facts about which actions are morally right and about which actions are not morally right and these moral facts are not determined by individual beliefs and these moral facts are not determined by cultural beliefs..-II2	5%	12%
Only science tries to meet high standards in giving explanations. -II1	-5%	10%
Oysters can think.-II1	1%	11%
Oysters have emotions.-II1	2%	15%
Religious doctrines cannot change.-II1	4%	11%
Someday, there could be a robot that has sensations (e.g., pain, pleasure) and emotions (e.g., joy, sadness).-II1	-15%	-5%
Someday, there could be a robot that has sensations (e.g., pain, pleasure) and emotions (e.g., joy, sadness).-II2	-15%	-3%
Religion and science can never come into conflict, since science is based on observation, but religion is based on faith.-II2	0%	12%
Religion and science can conflict, and religion can be wrong.-II1	-8%	-22%
Religion and science can conflict, and religion can be wrong.-II2	-12%	-16%
If wholly reliable, functionally perfect silicon replacements for brain cells were developed, then I might have some damaged cells in my brain replaced by them.-II1	-22%	-13%
If wholly reliable, functionally perfect silicon replacements for brain cells were developed, then I might have some damaged cells in my brain replaced by them.-II2	-18%	-18%
There is at least some evidence that the universe is the product of intelligent design.-II1	8%	10%
There is at least some evidence that the universe is the product of intelligent design.-II2	7%	12%
I have a soul that takes up no space in addition to having a body.-II2 (later addition, N~900)	15%	1%
I have a (non-physical) soul in addition to having a body.-II1	18%	18%
I have a (non-physical) soul in addition to having a body.-II2	17%	9%
As daily experience shows, non-physical souls can cause changes in bodies.-II1	12%	10%
As daily experience shows, non-physical souls can cause changes in bodies.-II2	11%	16%
It is not possible for a living thing to be composed wholly of parts that are not alive – there must also be a ‘vital essence’.-II1	15%	7%
It is not possible for a living thing to be composed wholly of parts that are not alive – there must also be a ‘vital essence’.-II2	15%	5%

Similar differences between female and male respondents hold irrespective of student major(s) or level (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). (The ratio of females to males was very close to ½.)

Thus, the evidence from their behavior in the course suggests that female students are in general more “religiously conservative,” less favorably disposed towards computer models of living and thinking things, and more persistent in believing in astrology and paranormal phenomena than male students. In light of the falsity and other weaknesses of astrology and the complete lack of good experimental evidence for paranormal phenomena despite over 130 years of seeking – topics of course discussion on which students are tested – the latter differences are troubling.

There is generally little change in expressed belief in astrology or paranormal phenomena from beginning to end of the course, despite presentation of serious methodological criticism and powerful experimental results; some survey items more obviously related to religious convictions show more movement.

There is some research that supports the claim that at some universities in the US and Europe, there is for undergraduates a weak to moderate, statistically significant negative correlation between expressed belief in astrology or belief in paranormal phenomena and critical thinking ability, with the effect of expressed belief in paranormal phenomena being more negative. And many have found that there are moderate to strong correlations between both sorts of expression of belief and expression of clearly religious beliefs. Some students say in effect that they have had, or have known people who have had, religious experiences that are paranormal experiences. It is reasonable then to conjecture that expressed religious convictions and expression of belief in astrology and paranormal phenomena are at least mutually reinforcing if not part of an indissoluble package deal.

Female students may have been able to follow the course advice to put aside some of these beliefs in answering test questions in the course; or, they may have had a compensatory advantage in resisting (what the course argues is) incorrect reductionist reasoning.

It has been hypothesized by some psychologists of religion that a preference for teleological (purpose-directed) explanation underlies all of these differences, and some have even suggested that the tendency is innate in human beings. It is not obvious why strength of such a preference or these differences would be gender-linked. Is membership in a religious community that much more important to these females? Purpose-directed explanation is of course practically speaking indispensable and its skillful use is essential to well-being. Are these females especially good at using it? Why then would they over-extend it? Is there some special feature of its skillful use in particular domains, e.g. social, biological, that would lead to a tendency to exaggerate its efficacy in other domains? What feature would that be? (Why “if you’re good with hammers, lots of things tend to look like nails” rather than, “if you’re good with hammers, then you know when not to use a hammer”?)

Black/African American respondents exhibit some of the same response patterns as do female respondents, favoring “conservative religious” views even more strongly, but there is not the same evidence for Black/African American respondents as for females generally that those religious views are associated with a preference for purpose-directed explanation or anti-reductionism. It might be that Black/African American respondents’ religiously associated views are more powerfully motivated by adherence to doctrines, where the adherence to the doctrines is taken by them to be required for membership in the relevant religious community. However, the number of Black/African Americans is relatively small and may not be accurately representative of the larger population. (The ratio of Black/African Americans to Whites was about 1/10.)

Further analysis of gender and race of respondents yields the following results. Abbreviations: FB – Black females (n=57), FW – White females (n=493), MB – Black males (n=98), MW – White Males (944). (Total 1592)

Item	FB-FW	MB-MW	FW-MW	FB-MB
During the last fifty years, some people have been shown to have some sort of ‘ESP’.-II1	17%	14%	10%	13%
During the last fifty years, some people have been shown to have some sort of ‘ESP’.-II2	16%	17%	16%	14%
Astrology often gives pretty accurate descriptions of peoples’ characters.-II1	25%	13%	19%	31%
Astrology often gives pretty accurate descriptions of peoples’ characters.-II2	11%	18%	16%	9%
Astrology can be used to give accurate predictions of daily events.-II1	12%	16%	11%	7%
Astrology can be used to give accurate predictions of daily events.-II2	-1%	18%	7%	-12%
Bacteria can think.-II1	9%	15%	-2%	-8%
Bacteria can think.-II2	3%	11%	2%	-6%
The Biblical story of creation ought to be taught, as a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory, in science courses that discuss the origins of life or the universe.-II1	11%	13%	12%	10%
The Biblical story of creation ought to be taught, as a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory, in science courses that discuss the origins of life or the universe.-II2	15%	18%	13%	10%
Someday, biology will be seen as applied physics – because living things are completely and accurately describable by the laws of physics.-II1	7%	-8%	-14%	2%
Someday, biology will be seen as applied physics – because living things are completely and accurately describable by the laws of physics.-II2	16%	3%	-9%	3%
Cats can think-II1	-4%	7%	6%	-6%
Cats can think-II2	-9%	5%	4%	-10%
Someday, there could be machines that can think.-II1	-4%	0%	-17%	-22%
Someday, there could be machines that can think.-II2	-3%	0%	-13%	-16%
Good evidence for the existence of God is provided by the overall design of life’s evolution (from simpler chemical systems, as described by evolutionary theory).-II1	14%	7%	9%	16%
Good evidence for the existence of God is provided by the overall design of life’s evolution (from simpler chemical systems, as described by evolutionary theory).-II2	6%	4%	7%	9%
In order to be scientific, a statement must be capable of direct experimental test.-II1	5%	8%	5%	2%
In order to be scientific, a statement must be capable of direct experimental test.-II2	6%	16%	9%	-1%
Every statement that I believe is true.-II1	1%	1%	-1%	-1%
Every statement that I believe is true.-II2	2%	-3%	3%	8%
Every statement that I believe about my mind is true.-II1	14%	1%	-1%	13%
Every statement that I believe about my mind is true.-II2	2%	-4%	6%	12%
There is no good evidence for the claim that there are non-physical souls; the claim that there are non-physical souls must be believed on faith if it is believed at all.-II1	-2%	0%	-7%	-8%
There is no good evidence for the claim that there are non-physical souls; the claim that there are non-physical souls must be believed on faith if it is believed at all.-II2	6%	1%	-6%	-1%
Study of evolutionary theory leads inevitably to a breakdown of morality.-II1	23%	18%	1%	6%
Study of evolutionary theory leads inevitably to a breakdown of morality.-II2	9%	13%	3%	-2%
The main/defining aim of science is to discover facts.-II1	6%	-4%	-3%	8%
The main/defining aim of science is to discover facts.-II2	1%	9%	3%	-5%
In doing science, one never accepts things on faith or without proof.-II1	1%	8%	5%	-2%
In doing science, one never accepts things on faith or without proof.-II2	12%	13%	9%	8%
Fish have emotions.-II1	-5%	18%	5%	-18%
Fish have emotions.-II2	1%	12%	8%	-3%
Fish can think.-II1	-7%	14%	4%	-16%
Fish can think.-II2	-8%	8%	7%	-10%
God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.-II1	22%	19%	8%	11%
God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.-II2	11%	10%	7%	9%
God created the universe 15-20 billion years ago by causing the ‘Big Bang’.-II1	-2%	6%	-3%	-10%
God created the universe 15-20 billion years ago by causing the ‘Big Bang’.-II2	-3%	4%	-3%	-10%
In addition to a body, I have a soul that takes up no space-II2	-9%	4%	19%	6%
I have had some false beliefs.-II2	-23%	-28%	-9%	-4%
Living things are just machines composed wholly of organic components.-II1	9%	-5%	-15%	-1%
Living things are just machines composed wholly of organic components.-II2	0%	0%	-9%	-9%
Unlike any machines, living things have goals or purposes of their own.-II1	-6%	3%	18%	9%
Unlike any machines, living things have goals or purposes of their own.-II2	2%	4%	16%	14%
There are now machines that can think.-II1	4%	12%	-5%	-13%
There are now machines that can think.-II2	3%	19%	2%	-14%
My brain is a ‘meat machine’ – a sophisticated computer that can think.-II1	11%	3%	-12%	-4%
My brain is a ‘meat machine’ – a sophisticated computer that can think.-II2	8%	10%	-13%	-15%
It is not possible for a thinking thing to be composed wholly of parts that cannot think – there must also be a ‘mental essence’.-II1	1%	8%	12%	5%
It is not possible for a thinking thing to be composed wholly of parts that cannot think – there must also be a ‘mental essence’.-II2	-7%	10%	15%	-2%
Miracles happen nowadays.-II1	22%	25%	21%	18%
Miracles happen nowadays.-II2	19%	26%	19%	12%
For any culture and any action: if a culture believes that an action is morally right then the action is morally right, and for any culture and any action: if a culture believes that the action is not morally right then the action is not morally right.-II1	5%	7%	-1%	-3%
For any culture and any action: if a culture believes that an action is morally right then the action is morally right, and for any culture and any action: if a culture believes that the action is not morally right then the action is not morally right.-II2	4%	18%	8%	-6%
For any person and any action: If a person believes that an action is morally right, then that action is morally right, and for any person and any action: if a person believes that the action is not morally right, then the action is not morally right.-II1	3%	9%	4%	-2%
For any person and any action: If a person believes that an action is morally right, then that action is morally right, and for any person and any action: if a person believes that the action is not morally right, then the action is not morally right.-II2	-1%	18%	5%	-15%
NOT In addition to a body, I have a soul that takes up no space -II1	-2%	-16%	-11%	3%
NOT In addition to a body, I have a soul that takes up no space -II2	1%	1%	-7%	-7%
There are moral facts about which actions are morally right and about which actions are not morally right and these moral facts are not determined by individual beliefs and these moral facts are not determined by cultural beliefs.-II1	14%	5%	6%	15%
There are moral facts about which actions are morally right and about which actions are not morally right and these moral facts are not determined by individual beliefs and these moral facts are not determined by cultural beliefs.-II2	-8%	-4%	7%	3%
The only religions are: the various kinds of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.-II1	3%	3%	0%	0%
The only religions are: the various kinds of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.-II2	4%	4%	-1%	-1%
Only something with a soul can think.-II1	6%	0%	6%	12%
Only something with a soul can think.-II2	-4%	7%	8%	-3%
Only science tries to meet high standards in giving explanations. -II1	8%	11%	-5%	-8%
Only science tries to meet high standards in giving explanations. -II2	0%	4%	-6%	-10%
Oysters can think.-II1	-1%	18%	2%	-18%
Oysters can think.-II2	-8%	16%	3%	-21%
Oysters have emotions.-II1	8%	19%	2%	-10%
Oysters have emotions.-II2	-4%	16%	5%	-15%
Religious doctrines cannot change.-II1	16%	8%	3%	11%
Religious doctrines cannot change.-II2	13%	5%	4%	12%
Religion and science can conflict, and religion cannot be wrong.-II1	8%	8%	3%	3%
Religion and science can conflict, and religion cannot be wrong.-II2	12%	5%	2%	10%
Someday, there could be a robot that has sensations (e.g., pain, pleasure) and emotions (e.g., joy, sadness).-II1	-4%	-4%	-17%	-16%
Someday, there could be a robot that has sensations (e.g., pain, pleasure) and emotions (e.g., joy, sadness).-II2	-6%	-1%	-17%	-22%
Religion and science can never come into conflict, since science is based on observation, but religion is based on faith.-II1	-1%	5%	1%	-5%
Religion and science can never come into conflict, since science is based on observation, but religion is based on faith.-II2	12%	12%	0%	0%
Religion and science can conflict, and religion can be wrong.-II1	-15%	-25%	-9%	2%
Religion and science can conflict, and religion can be wrong.-II2	-14%	-17%	-12%	-9%
If wholly reliable, functionally perfect silicon replacements for brain cells were developed, then I might have some damaged cells in my brain replaced by them.-II1	-1%	-18%	-25%	-8%
If wholly reliable, functionally perfect silicon replacements for brain cells were developed, then I might have some damaged cells in my brain replaced by them.-II2	-18%	-18%	-18%	-18%
There is at least some evidence that the universe is the product of intelligent design.-II1	6%	11%	11%	5%
There is at least some evidence that the universe is the product of intelligent design.-II2	10%	13%	9%	6%
I have a (non-physical) soul in addition to having a body.-II1	14%	19%	18%	13%
I have a (non-physical) soul in addition to having a body.-II2	8%	10%	17%	15%
As daily experience shows, non-physical souls can cause changes in bodies.-II1	19%	5%	11%	25%
As daily experience shows, non-physical souls can cause changes in bodies.-II2	17%	16%	12%	12%
Some cats worry about tax reform.-II1	1%	-1%	-3%	-1%
Some cats worry about tax reform.-II2	-1%	3%	-1%	-6%
All theories are false.-II1	2%	1%	0%	0%
All theories are false.-II2	1%	4%	0%	-2%
Anything (even a computer) that always behaved as intelligently as I do, would have to be intelligent.-II1	-6%	4%	-5%	-15%
Anything (even a computer) that always behaved as intelligently as I do, would have to be intelligent.-II2	-1%	11%	-3%	-15%
It is not possible for a living thing to be composed wholly of parts that are not alive – there must also be a ‘vital essence’.-II1	1%	9%	17%	9%
It is not possible for a living thing to be composed wholly of parts that are not alive – there must also be a ‘vital essence’.-II2	-1%	7%	18%	9%

On a longer-term trend for one item in this survey and in a nationwide US survey:

Abbreviation	Survey item	Data source
God-guided	Humans evolved and God guided the process.	Gallup poll US
Without God	Humans evolved but God had no part in process	Gallup poll US
God-10000	God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years	Gallup poll US
God-10000-II1	God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years	II1
Other	Other/No Opinion	Gallup poll US

Beginning Fall 2008, the previous 22 years’ T/F format was replaced with a five-point Likert scale. Survey response rates averaged over 80% (and were often over 95%). For almost all items percentages during 1986-1996 were very stable.

Year	God-guided	Without God	God-10000	God-10000-II1	Other
2017	38%	19%	38%	–	5%
2015	–	–	–	25%	–
2014	31%	19%	42%	20%	8%
2012	32%	15%	46%	18%	7%
2010	38%	16%	40%	28%	6%
2008	36%	14%	44%	24%	5%
2007	38%	14%	43%	36%	4%
2006	36%	13%	46%	36%	5%
2004	38%	13%	45%	36%	4%
2001	37%	12%	45%	29%	5%
1999	40%	9%	47%	34%	4%
1997	39%	10%	44%	42%	7%
1995	–	–	–	46%	–
1994	–	–	–	46%	–
1993	35%	11%	47%	49%	7%
1991	–	–	–	44%	–
1990	–	–	–	41%	–
1986	–	–	–	41%	–
1982	38%	9%	44%	–	9%

The chart below depicts the percentages in the table above.

See the discussion at https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/college-freshmen-are-less-religious-than-ever/ for data sources on the persistence in 2016 of gender and race gaps among US college freshmen despite a decline in their religiosity overall.

GPAs F2010-Sp2015

God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.-II1

Gender and Racial Grouping	N	Respondents Strongly Agree or Agree			All II1 Respondents
Gender and Racial Grouping	N	%SA+A	Cumulative GPA	Stdev	Cumulative GPA	Stdev
F, Asian	72	24%	2.76	1.20	3.06	0.91
F, Black/African American	66	47%	2.59	0.93	2.60	0.85
F, White	570	25%	2.72	0.97	2.73	1.09
M, Asian	166	22%	2.81	1.01	2.81	1.03
M, Black/African American	118	36%	2.37	0.79	2.51	0.72
M, White	1132	17%	2.57	0.91	2.55	1.12

(The population numbers are different in the table above because freshmen are excluded and not all of those who responded to II1 responded to II2. For the large table immediately preceding this one, only those non-freshmen who responded to both II1 and II2 are included.)

The majors of ‘Strongly Agree’ or ‘Agree’ respondents for this item:

F, Asian: Accounting, Biology, Business Administration, Business and Marketing Education, Economics, Fashion and Textile Management, General College, Horticultural Science, Polymer and Color Chemistry, Psychology, Sociology, Statistics, Zoology

M, Asian Accounting, Aerospace Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Biochemistry, Biology, Business Administration, Civil Engineering, Communication, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Engineering First Year, Environmental Sciences, Management, Marine Sciences, Mechanical Engineering, Political Science, Psychology, Sport Management, Statistics

F, Black/African American: Anthropology, Biology, Chemical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Criminology, English, General College, Fisheries & Wildlife Science, Horticultural Science, International Studies, Nutrition Science, Parks Recreation & Tourism Management, Political Science, Psychology, Science Technology & Society, Social Work, Spanish Language and Literature, Zoology

M, Black/African American: Accounting, Agricultural Business Management, Animal Science, Biochemistry, Biology, Business Administration, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Communication, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, English, Environmental Technology, General College, Middle Grades Education, Parks Recreation & Tourism Management, Political Science, Sport Management, Textile Technology, Wood Products

F, White: Agricultural Business Management, Agricultural Education, Agricultural Science, Animal Science, Applied Mathematics, Biochemistry, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, Business Administration, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Communication, Computer Engineering, Criminology, Education, Education, Elementary Education, Environmental Technology, Fashion and Textile Management, General College, Fisheries & Wildlife Science, Food Science, History, Horticultural Science, Leadership in Public Sector, Management, Marine Sciences, Mathematics Education, Mechanical Engineering, Meteorology, Microbiology, Middle Grades Education, Nutrition Science, Parks Recreation & Tourism Management, Political Science, Polymer and Color Chemistry, Psychology, Science Education, Science Technology & Society, Social Work, Zoology

M, White: Accounting, Aerospace Engineering, Agricultural & Environmental Technology, Agricultural Business Management, Animal Science, Applied Mathematics, Biochemistry, Biological Engineering, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, Business Administration, Business and Marketing Education, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Communication, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Construction Engineering & Management, Criminology, Economics, Electrical Engineering, Elementary Education, English, Environmental Technology, General College, Fisheries & Wildlife Science, History, Industrial Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Management, Marine Sciences, Mathematics Education, Mechanical Engineering, Meteorology, Microbiology, Natural Resources, Nuclear Engineering, Paper Science and Engineering, Parks Recreation & Tourism Management, Physics, Political Science, Polymer and Color, Psychology, Religious Studies, Science Education, Science Technology & Society, Social Work, Sport Management, Statistics, Textile Engineering, Textile Technology, Turfgrass Science.

There are no simple major-specific patterns in extent of agreement with God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years aside from the gender and race gaps. Contrary to what some might guess, many students who responded in “religiously conservative” ways are majors in life sciences or STEM disciplines. My conversations with some of the latter students, as well as reports in research literature, suggest that students either deny the relevance of discipline-justified beliefs to the jobs to which they aspire, or selectively quarantine those beliefs as relevant in only some domains. (There are for example, prominent, well-known neurosurgeons who deny that evolution occurs and who claim that it anyway has no bearing on their ability to perform well on the job. The evangelical Christian geneticist who directs the NIH differs from some other members of that broad religious grouping in limiting his reliance on the Bible, literally interpreted.) There is a difference of degree at least between the kinds of challenges to particular religious beliefs posed by, say, theories in biology, chemistry, geology or physics and the challenges to the practice of protective isolation of religious beliefs, which challenges are almost certain to occur when majoring in philosophy. Quarantining strategies are less likely to be available in the latter case.

The preceding provides some limited indirect evidence that there is a general tendency for female students to find the expectation that just about any belief can be questioned more disturbing than do male students (and perhaps similarly for Black/African-American vs white students). Any such difference is likely to create at least some resistance to majoring or taking (additional) courses in philosophy. It would be useful to discover the magnitude and nature of this resistance in colleges and universities across the US at least.[9] The persistence of similar patterns in relative religiosity during the past three or more decades in the US as reflected in larger, repeated national surveys provides additional reason to look for relevant effects. A small subset of the survey items above would suffice. No doubt there are ways to improve or augment the items.

Prevalent Expectations of Brilliance?

Question #3: What do the responses from Philosophy faculty and graduate students to the Leslie et al survey say about the underrepresentation of women and minorities in philosophy?

Sarah‐Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, Edward Freeland, “Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions Across Academic Disciplines,” Science v347 n6219 (16 Jan 2015) 262-265. DOI: 10.1126/science.1261375

Abstract: The gender imbalance in STEM subjects dominates current debates about women’s underrepresentation in academia. However, women are well represented at the Ph.D. level in some sciences and poorly represented in some humanities (e.g., in 2011, 54% of U.S. Ph.D.’s in molecular biology were women versus only 31% in philosophy). We hypothesize that, across the academic spectrum, women are underrepresented in fields whose practitioners believe that raw, innate talent is the main requirement for success, because women are stereotyped as not possessing such talent. This hypothesis extends to African Americans’ underrepresentation as well, as this group is subject to similar stereotypes. Results from a nationwide survey of academics support our hypothesis (termed the field-specific ability beliefs hypothesis) over three competing hypotheses.

The sample is described as follows:

We surveyed faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students (N = 1820) from 30 disciplines (12 STEM, 18 SocSci/Hum) (table S1) at geographically diverse high-profile public and private research universities across the United States. (264)

In the Supplement, the authors argue as follows that non-response bias is unlikely:

Next, the post‐stratification weights were calculated as the inverse of the response rate for each cell …. These weights were then used to re‐calculate the mean values of the key variables for each of the 30 academic fields. The weighted analyses reported in the main text … reflect the application of these weight adjustments for differential (non‐)response. Importantly, these weighted analyses perfectly replicated the results of the unweighted analyses, which is an indication that non‐ response bias is unlikely.

Finally, in addition to adjusting the mean values for key variables at the field level, we also analyzed both the weighted and unweighted aggregate data to see if any of the key variables were correlated with the absolute number of responses or the field‐level response rate. We found no such correlations. Furthermore, we examined whether the variances of the key dependent and independent variables were associated with the field‐level response rate or the absolute number of responses and again found no significant correlations beyond what would be expected purely by chance. The results of these meta‐analyses of the dataset, coupled with the near‐insignificant impact from the added post‐ stratification weights, indicate that the major findings of the present research are unlikely to have been affected by non‐response bias.

From Table S6: Response rates and post‐stratification weights for Philosophy
	male graduate students	female graduate students	post‐docs and faculty	All 3 groups
Respondent Count	28	9	21	58
Target Sample Estimate (Rounded)	236	108	265	609
Response Rate	11.90%	8.30%	7.90%	9.52%
Weight (=1/Response Rate)	8.43	12	12.62	10.50

Was the sample chosen in a way that made it representative of academics in Philosophy?

· What is the size of the sample as a percentage of the relevant population?

The APA had (2013-2014) 9190 members, of whom 4936 were regular and 2135 were student associates. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that for 2013, there were about 22,000 people in the US in Philosophy or Religious Studies. If one uses 10,000 as an estimate for the relevant population of those sampled in Philosophy, then the sample of 58is 0.6% of that total; if the total were 6,000, then 58 would still be less than 1%. Surveys were sent to about 609 graduate (PhD) students, postdocs or philosophy faculty, and about 10% of them responded. But it’s not clear how the 609 or so were selected.

[The data are in fact neither normally distributed nor interval; they are highly asymmetric – e.g., the median response on question Q14 is 1 on a scale of 1-7 – and ordinal. It is commonly held that 7-point ordinal scales (as in Leslie et al) can be treated as interval.[10] But reliance on this commonly held view needs to be justified in individual cases.[11] Put this aside.].

· Is the sample of 58 a representative sample of the population of US philosophers in academia generally? Are the responses of 20 of the 58 – 17 males and 3 females – who less than Strongly disagreed with Q14 (… Men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in Philosophy.) indicative of a relevant brilliance-bias in the wider population of 6,000 or more?

· In responding as they did to Q14, were the respondents indicating a prejudice about innate (or difficult to modify) ability (brilliance) or were they expressing doubts about encouraging women to compete in a difficult, shrinking job market where, they may also believe, women would face significant prejudice? (For example: “Men are socialized to be socially insensitive competitors, and women are socialized to be socially sensitive cooperators. Philosophy should not be more difficult for cooperators but that’s the way it is, so women had best go elsewhere, especially given that secure jobs worth having are so scarce.” Or perhaps, thinking parentally, “Three quarters of philosophers are males and many of them are clueless or worse. You’ve got to spend a lot of time with them to do work at any level in philosophy. I wouldn’t want my brilliant daughter to subject herself to that, and a decent job in philosophy is just about impossible to get. I hope that she does something else.”) Or did some respondents read Q14’s remark about political correctness and respond in ways that hid any less than correct biases they have?

Would the following summary distort the results?

“In a survey to which about 1% of those involved in graduate study or research in Philosophy responded, less than 10% agreed to any extent with, ‘Personally, I think that even though it’s not politically correct to say it, men are often more suited than women to do high level work in Philosophy.’ The median response was instead strong disagreement with this statement.”

Some of the co-authors have published other research[12] which together with the analyses of Google searches by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz[13] provide evidence that gender-related brilliance-biases are reflected in adult judgments about very young boys and girls. If there is such a bias, then the results of Leslie et al might be taken to show that some academics are better than most at resisting this bias.[14] This is not exactly a cause for rejoicing, but it may be somewhat encouraging.

If, however, even a significant minority of the respondents were reluctant to reveal their politically incorrect biases, then the responses may indicate very little about US philosophers.

The individual responses for Philosophy faculty and graduate students only are given in an Appendix and are summarized directly below.

From Table S4: Values of the variables for Philosophy
FEM = Women PhD recipients in 2011 (NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates)	31.4%
AFR = African American PhD recipients in 2011 (NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates)	2.7%
ASI = Asian American PhD recipients in 2011 (NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates)	3.8%
FAB = Field‐specific Ability Beliefs (Range: 1-7)	5.11
FAB‐W = Field‐specific Ability Beliefs from women participants ((Range: 1-7)	5.23
FAB‐M = Field‐specific Ability Beliefs from men participants (Range: 1-7)	5.07
HW‐OC = hours worked On‐campus (Range: 1 to 8, 1‐7 corresponding to 10‐hour increments, and 8 corresponding to >70 hours)	2.71
HW‐T = hours worked Total (Range: as above)	5.88
SEL‐A = Selectivity ratings from all participants (Range: 1 to 10, each number corresponding to a 10% increment; with two additional options for “don’t know” and “no Ph.D. program”)	9.71
SEL‐P = Selectivity ratings from participants in departments in the top 10% (Range: as above)	9.71
GRE = Composite GRE z‐score	1.35
SYS = whether the field requires systemizing (Range: 1-7)	6.66
EMP = whether field requires empathizing (Range: 1-7)	3.65
S vs E = System[at]izing minus empathizing (Range: 0-7)	3.01
SUIT = judgments of whether women are less well suited than men (Range: 1-7)	2.66
WEL = whether the field is welcoming to women (Range: 1-7)	3.10
CHAL = whether women face more challenges than men in the field. (Range: 1-7)	5.47

Q14: These items ask about your own beliefs regarding X. Please rate your agreement with the following: Personally, I think that even though it’s not politically correct to say it, men are often more suited than women to do high level work in X;

Q15: This item asks about beliefs generally held by other academics in the field of X. Please rate your agreement with the following: Other academics in X tend to think that even though it’s not politically correct to say it, men are often more suited than women to do high level work in X;

Q16: These items ask about your own beliefs regarding X. Please rate your agreement with the following: Personally, I think that women face more challenges than men if they pursue careers in X;

Q17: These items ask about your own beliefs regarding X. Please rate your agreement with thefollowing: Personally, Ithink that X as a discipline is welcoming to women

(Q14-Q17: 1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree). (X=Philosophy) (Supplement)

Distributions of Median Responses for All Thirty Disciplines (Philosophy highlighted)

Median(Q14: men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in X)

Median: 1 Range: 1 – 2.5 Mean: 1.1 Stdev: 0.3

Median(Q15: Others think men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in X)

Median: 2.5 Range: 1 – 4 Mean: 2.7 Stdev: 0.9

Median(Q16: women face more challenges than men in X)

Median: 5 Range: 4 – 6 Mean: 5.0 Stdev: 0.6

Median(Q17: X is welcoming to women)

Median: 5 Range: 3 – 6 Mean: 4.9 Stdev: 0.9

Distribution of Responses for Philosophy Only Q14-Q17

Q14: men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in Philosophy

SD D WD NAND WA A SA

Median: 1 Range: 1-7 Mean: 1.8 Stdev: 1.4

Q15: Others think men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in Philosophy

SD D WD NAND WA A SA

Median: 3.5 Range: 1-7 Mean: 3.5 Stdev: 1.6

Q16: women face more challenges than men in Philosophy

SD D WD NAND WA A SA

Median: 6 Range: 2-7 Mean: 5.5 Stdev: 1.5

Q17: Philosophy is welcoming to women

SD D WD NAND WA A SA

Median: 3 Range: 1-7 Mean: 3.1 Stdev: 1.6

Summarizing: 20 of the 58, 17 of them males, less than Strongly disagreed with Q14. 4 of the 58 agreed to some extent with Q14. The 3 females of the 20 were graduate students at private research universities and either Somewhat disagreed or Agreed (rather than Strongly Disagreed) with Q14.

			Q14 – … men are often more suited than women to do high-level work in Philosophy
Q25 Gender	Q20 institution	Q22 position	SA	A	WA	NAND	WD	D	SD	Total
female	private research university	graduate student	0	0	0	0	1	2	7	10
female	private research university	tenured	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4
female	private research university	TT	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
male	liberal arts college	graduate student	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
male	private research university	graduate student	1	1	2	1	1	3	10	19
male	private research university	NTT	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	2
male	private research university	post-doc	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
male	private research university	tenured	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	2
male	private research university	TT	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
male	public university	graduate student	0	0	0	0	1	2	4	7
male	public university	NTT	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
male	public university	tenured	0	0	0	1	0	1	3	5
male	public university	TT	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2
		Totals	1	1	2	4	3	9	38	58

Major and Career Choice

Question #4: Does the (stereotype-based?) misclassification of Philosophy by widely used career screening tools make it less likely that American women and minorities will major in philosophy?

To an extent difficult to quantify, students’ choice of majors is influenced by their career goals. Many students are or become uncertain about their career goals during their time in college. (At the large state university where I teach, undergraduates change majors three times on average before graduating.) They may seek career counseling of various sorts. Among the most commonly offered tools used in career counseling are John Holland’s career-and-personality inventories, based on his RIASEC model, which is, in the US, a de facto federal standard.

Realistic: prefers activities like working with animals, tools, machines, or electronic equipment; concerned about goods, money, and power; practical, mechanical, and realistic; and seeing the world in simple, traditional, concrete, direct ways. Examples: Crop Production, Aquaculture, Turf Management, Criminal Justice, Architectural Engineering Technology, Robotics Technology, Materials Engineering, Natural Resources Management.

Investigative: prefers activities like systematic observation, understanding and solving science and math problems; develop scientific, analytical, and mathematical skills and competencies; scholarship, intellectualism, academic and scientific rigor; precise, scientific, and intellectual; having mathematical, analytic, and scientific abilities; and see the world in complex, abstract, and original ways. Examples: Meteorology, Chemistry, Animal Sciences, Veterinary Medicine, Biotechnology, Ecology, Dentistry, Pharmacy. [Includes many of the highest paying occupations.]

Artistic: prefer activities like art, drama, crafts, dance, music, or creative writing; appreciate creativity, literature and the arts; expressive, original, and independent; see the world in complex, independent, unconventional, and flexible ways. Examples: Applied Linguistics, American Literature, Philosophy, Creative Writing, Architecture, Graphic Design, Fine Arts, Dance, Acting, Music, Conducting, Journalism.

Social: prefer activities like training, teaching, developing, curing, or counseling; agreeable, cooperative, friendly, helpful, responsible, empathic, tactful; people who like to help and understand others, work with others by being friendly, helpful, and cooperative. Examples: Counseling psychology, Child Development, Social Work, Deaf Studies, Clinical Nutrition, Physician Assistant, Nursing, Dance Therapy, Library Science, Teaching.

Enterprising: prefer activities like selling or leading others; leadership and speaking abilities; value e.g., money, power, status; assertive, popular, self-confident, sociable, adventurous, enthusiastic, extroverted, optimistic, forceful. Examples: Auctioneering, Real Estate, Hair Styling, Law/Legal Studies, Dispute Resolution, Music Management, Business Administration, Labor Studies, E-Commerce, Accounting, Public Policy Analysis, Public Administration, Advertising.

Conventional: prefer activities like recording and organizing data or records according to a set plan; operating business and data processing equipment; conforming, orderly; having clerical competencies; careful, conforming, conscientious, obedient, thrifty, practical, persistent, and orderly. Examples: Taxation, Accounting Technology, Air Traffic Controller, Agricultural Business Technology, Retailing and Retail Operations, Banking and Financial Support Services.

The inventories are available online (at no cost) and they generate recommendations in well under an hour.[15] While career counselors typically advise against relying solely on the results of such screening tools, many students will never consult such counselors and even if the students receive corrective advice they may continue to give the test results unwarranted weight. See the Appendix on Career Screening Tools, below, for sources.

There is good reason to believe that Holland’s scheme grossly misclassifies Philosophy by labeling it as primarily “Artistic” and secondarily “Social.” Any student with interests and abilities congenial to study in Philosophy will be directed elsewhere.[16] The mismatch occurs, I suspect, because a mid-1950’s view of those two disciplines was initially taken by Holland and a collaborator (associating philosophy with something then called “scholastic philosophy,” a major intended as preparation for future priests) and because the number of people who pursue the majors is so small that any samples studied by Holland would not be large enough to skew the analysis of larger, super-groupings in a readily detectable way.[17] Also, RIASEC classifications were based initially on surveys of incoming freshmen. (Additional historical detail available on request. The current purveyors of the related, widely used Strong Interest Inventory appear disinterested in investigating for likely bias.)

Another way in which standard approaches in career counseling are likely to result in bad advice is by reliance on a stereotype-corrupted and highly questionable distinction between “people-oriented” and “thing-oriented” occupations. It is very common to invoke a distinction between “thing-oriented” and “people-oriented” jobs, and to “observe” that women are drawn more to the latter than the former. The distinction itself is puzzling with no clear, principled basis and seems to reflect a grab bag of historical factors and biases.[18]

If something could be done to stop the skewed advice-giving offered by career counselors, it might have a positive effect on recruitment. This is a matter in which the APA[19] should be interested. It is surely no aid to recruiting women and minorities to have them misdirected by screening based on Holland’s scheme. If women and minorities perceive greater risk, the effect of this misdirection may be greater than for white male students. As one writer says,

Career centers at schools with largely affluent student bodies may see few young adults walk through their doors because people from middle- and upper-income backgrounds likely have family members and friends whom they can consult about employment opportunities instead. If a young man has a doctor or a writer in his family, for example, he can talk with that relative and even shadow her on the job to figure out if that’s the route he’d like to take. If it is, that family member can open up her professional network to the young man to help him land a job—precisely the kind of support that a career center would aim to provide.

It isn’t surprising, then, that blacks and Hispanics, as well as first-generation students and students who are older than the traditional college-going population, rated the help they received from their career services office and academic advisers more positively than did their white and more affluent counterparts. Especially for first-generation students, a career center might be the first source of job advice they’ve ever encountered. Obviously, not all black and Hispanic students are low-income, but in the United States they are far more likely[20] than whites to be poor, largely due to the country’s legacies of racism and discrimination, which determines how connected they are to the professional workforce.[21]

Given the relatively small size of philosophy major programs at many institutions (as percentage of students enrolled in all of the courses that they offer, which seems to be around five percent), the misclassification of philosophy should be of concern more generally. A small change in the number of majors can kill or save a degree program.

However, one large study[22] (covering 2005-2014, N = 1,283,110) found a small to moderate difference between men and women on Artistic and Social scales with women indicating greater interest. It would not of course be a good idea to misrepresent Philosophy so as to encourage more women to pursue studies in it, but it might be that the way in which it is done would benefit from greater emphasis on those aspects of it that appeal to those with higher Artistic and Social scale scores.

Some have suggested relying on the Big Five Model of Personality, but given that it might as well have been, say, the Big Six or Big Four Model, this might not be so helpful. It might nonetheless be an improvement over RIASEC (especially if the more fine-grained facets of the Big Five Model could be used[23]).

Appendix: Career Screening Tools [material quoted from indicated sources]

https://www.careeronestop.org/ Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor. A proud partner of the americanjobcenter network

Toolkit menu

Careers

Interest assessment

30 quick questions
About 5 minutes
Learn about careers that might be best for you

START ASSESSMENT button

The Interest Assessment is based on O*NET’s Interest Profiler. Occupation outlook, wage, and education data come from several U.S. Department of Labor data sources. Please visit the Help page https://www.careeronestop.org/Toolkit/Careers/interest-assessment-help.aspx to learn more.

How does the Interest Assessment come up with my career matches?

The Interest Assessment uses your answers to the 30 questions to make a profile of your interests. Your profile takes into account the activities you like as well as those you dislike. Then your profile is compared to the profiles of different careers, and the most similar matches are listed in your results. O*NET, https://www.onetcenter.org/IP.html?p=3 which powers the Interest Assessment, provides more details.

What is the Interest Assessment based on?

The Interest Assessment is based on O*NET’s Interest Profiler, https://www.onetcenter.org/IP.html which is based on Dr. John Holland’s theory that people’s interests and work environments can be loosely classified into six different groups, Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Download the RIASEC interest descriptions to learn more. https://www.careeronestop.org/TridionMultimedia/tcm24-26027_RIASECinterestdescriptions.doc By determining your interests, the assessment can identify the types of work environments most likely to match.

For most people, two or three interest groups are stronger than the others. For example, if your profile is Social, Artistic and Enterprising, you probably most closely resemble the Social work environment, next most closely the Artistic type, and not quite as much the Enterprising type. The other types, not in your profile, are the types you resemble least.

Like people, most careers reflect a combination of two or three of the Holland interest areas. People are usually most satisfied if their work environment and their interests share some aspects in common.

This system has been tested and used with a wide variety of people, and has been found to be consistently reliable, meaningful, and easy to use.

https://www.careeronestop.org/getmyfuture/toolkit/occupation-profile.aspx

Interest Profiler Overview: https://www.onetcenter.org/IP.html

The O*NET Interest Profiler measures six types of occupational interests:

Realistic
Investigative
Artistic
Social
Enterprising
Conventional

Formats

Interest Profiler Short Form — web-based, 60 questions
Mini-IP — mobile-friendly, 30 questions
Paper & Pencil — hand-scored, 180 questions [available as an Excel spreadsheet from me]
Computerized Interest Profiler — downloadable for Windows, 180 questions

Features

Compatible with Holland’s R-I-A-S-E-C Interest Structure (Holland, 1985)
- rich and extensive research history
- widely accepted and used by counselors
- easy to use and well received by clients
Interest items represent a broad variety of occupations and complexity levels
Extensive and thorough development effort
- client input during all stages
- construct validity and reliability evidence
Can be self-administered and self-interpreted
Can be used on a stand-alone basis or with other O*NET Career Exploration Tools or with privately developed instruments
Results can be directly linked to over 900 occupations in O*NET OnLine
Completion time approximately 10-30 minutes, depending on format

The GetMyFuture Interest Assessment is based on Dr. John Holland’s theory that people’s interests and work environments can be loosely classified into six different groups, Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional [RIASEC]. Read on for descriptions of each of the six interest types.

Realistic: Realistic people tend to have athletic interests, prefer to work with objects, machines, tools, plants or animals, and like to be outdoors.