Would you continue pursuing scientific curiosity if you had to constantly fight for your place at the bench? What if it were highly likely that your work would be overlooked, minimized, or even written out of history? For many women in science, this is a lived reality. Despite persistent barriers to training, recognition, and career advancement, women have persevered and played influential roles in scientific discovery. Their contributions live on, even when institutions failed to acknowledge them at the time of the breakthrough.
Today, many universities and research institutions are working to highlight these once-forgotten figures. While these retrospective celebrations give many scientists their overdue recognition, they remain a temporary fix. As the number of women in higher education continues to increase, it is arguably unethical for institutions to ignore structural barriers that limit who is fully supported, recognized, and allowed to thrive. Until there are robust and intentional efforts by academic institutions to address systemic barriers women still face, academia risks continuing to lose talented scientists and groundbreaking ideas.
Long Road to Eliminating Gender Discrimination in Education
Dismantling current gender biases in academic research requires acknowledging the long history of discrimination within higher education. For centuries, women’s first hurdle was simply gaining access to education and training. Although colleges were established in the American colonies as early as the 1630s, enrollment was limited to white men, often from elite social classes. White women of similar standing were subjected to the growing social ideology of separate spheres, demanding that women lead private, domestic lives centered on child-rearing.
It was through the abolitionist movement in the decades surrounding the U.S. Civil War that many women began to challenge restrictive social norms. Although the experiences of Euro-American women and enslaved Africans were vastly different, abolitionist feminists recognized parallels in the ways both groups were denied autonomy by societal structures. This growing political consciousness helped fuel broader demands for women’s education and public participation.
By the mid-1800s, a small number of co-educational U.S. colleges allowed women to enroll in degree-granting programs, but significant barriers remained: the financial burden of tuition and boarding, restrictive societal expectations, strict enrollment caps, and limitations on coursework. For example, despite Cornell University’s founding mission to create a learning environment open to all regardless of race or gender, women were not allowed to enroll in degree-granting programs during the first five years of Cornell’s existence. When Jennie Spencer was admitted in 1870 as Cornell’s first female student, she was forced to withdraw only a few weeks into her first semester due to a lack of lodging accommodations. For women of color, racial discrimination and prejudices further limited the already scarce opportunities to obtain a college-level education.
Many women found that the environment at co-educational colleges was not idyllic. They were often met with harassment and exclusion by male peers and professors without repercussions from the administration. Several women’s colleges emerged to provide rigorous academic training without the hostility that characterized many co-ed institutions. The prestigious Seven Sister schools—Mount Holyoke, Vassar College, Wellesley College, Smith College, Radcliffe College, Bryn Mawr College, and Barnard College—were viewed as the female equivalent of the male Ivy League institutions and played a crucial role in training early American female scientists. Notably, Florence Sabin and Rebecca Lancefield, who became pioneering researchers at Rockefeller, studied at Smith College and Wellesley College, respectively.
In the years following World War II, women made significant strides in shifting social norms and public policy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned sex-based discrimination in private employment and public accommodations, but its protections were not extended to women at federally funded institutions, including public colleges and universities. Title IX, passed almost a decade later, explicitly banned sex-based discrimination at public institutions and contributed to an increase in the percentage of college-educated women from 9% in 1972 to 40% in 2024.
Private colleges and universities, however, were not required to accept women in all degree programs. In 1983, Columbia University, despite its longstanding affiliation with Barnard, became the last Ivy League institution to admit female undergraduate students.
Lessons from Historically Women’s Colleges: An Incubator for Women Scientists
The U.S. science community has made strides in securing a seat at the table for women, but moving toward equity in science requires more than increasing the number of women in laboratories. Systemic changes are needed to ensure all scientists work in an environment where they can thrive. Despite earning the majority of doctoral degrees over the past two decades, women faculty members are outnumbered in nearly all academic fields. A study published by researchers at the University of Colorado analyzed retention and attrition trends among tenure-track and tenured faculty at U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions between 2011 and 2020. They found that not only are women more likely to leave academia—they often report feeling pushed out, rather than pulled by a more interesting position. Among the women in the study who left academia, workplace climate was a major factor. Many reports, across job sectors, have shown that male-dominated industries can harbor hostile environments for women and can negatively impact their self-confidence.
To gain insight into how female-dominated academic spaces can impact a scientist’s passion and career trajectory, I sat down with Lauren (Lola) Neal, a Ph.D. student at Rockefeller University. Before joining Rockefeller’s graduate program in 2020, Lola earned her B.S. in neuroscience at Agnes Scott, a women’s liberal arts college in Georgia.
Lola noted that the women-centered atmosphere at Agnes Scott was not an important factor early on in her college search—she became aware of historically women-serving institutions while looking for liberal arts colleges. “I wanted to find a smaller, more intimate learning environment . . . the big schools didn’t really speak to me.” Lola explained that, growing up, she attended Montessori and public schools. She preferred the “choose your own path” aspect of Montessori schools and wanted a similar option for her undergraduate education. She was drawn to Agnes Scott’s academic structure, which emphasized global learning and leadership skills throughout its coursework, in addition to offering a degree in neuroscience.
During our conversation, we discussed the root of her scientific passions, and Lola had difficulty pinpointing an exact time. “I feel like I have always been really curious about the natural world. I don’t have a spark moment like a lot of people do. I just had a natural attraction to asking questions and being really, really curious, and I knew science was awesome. But as a young person, I did not know what kind of science I wanted to do, so why not do it all?”
“Society instills this in us when we are really young, and you are socialized into a particular set of characteristics you are supposed to be.”
-Lola Neal
The majority of faculty at Agnes Scott are women, which Lola says increased her confidence in pursuing a scientific career. She mentioned that when she visited the school before attending, she was told that women are less likely to raise their hands in male-dominated classes. This parallels my own undergraduate experience at a public co-ed university. Although I was an active participant in my science courses, I was often discouraged by my Calculus III professor from asking questions, while my male peers could ask away without any repercussions; this was a pattern I noticed among the other four female students enrolled in the class. “[Women] are less likely to speak up or take charge of a classroom conversation, whereas a lot of the men would be fine doing so,” Lola explained. “It was very interesting being in an academic space where that factor is removed, and you just have to deal with regular shyness or being nervous about not saying the right answer.”
My discussion with Lola highlighted that an academic environment where women are not only included but actively encouraged to participate can have a positive impact on an individual’s confidence and career trajectory.
Institutional Changes Are Needed To Move Towards Equality in Academia
As a first-generation, female scientist, I have participated in many trainings, workshops and research programs that have allowed me to adapt to the world of academia and grow confident in myself. But advice can only go so far to help me thrive in a system that was not designed for me. Additionally, many inclusion initiatives are student-led or fall on the backs of minoritized individuals without compensation. It is time for institutions to practice what they preach and intentionally work toward creating an inclusive environment where all scientists can thrive at every career stage.
One way to level the playing field for academic research positions is by addressing issues facing early-stage scientists, including hiring biases and lack of support for parents. Two notable studies, published in 2012 and 2019, highlighted gender biases in hiring practices for laboratory managers and postdoctoral fellows, respectively. Both studies asked professors at research universities to evaluate CVs and indicate whether they would hire the candidate. The only difference between the CVs was the candidate’s name. Faculty, regardless of gender, chose to hire male candidates at a higher rate than female candidates. Additionally, the postdoc hiring study reported that faculty rated white and Asian candidates as more competent and hireable than Black and Hispanic candidates. For women who want to stay in academia, the effects of hiring biases are often compounded by additional personal stressors, such as carving out work-life balance and navigating parental responsibilities, which tend to weigh less heavily on their male counterparts.
The publication currency that is driving promotions in academia must be reevaluated on an institutional level, not only to reduce gender inequality but also for the betterment of science as a whole. While the tenure process is unique to each institution, a strong history of publications and funding is often used as a benchmark for scholarly achievement. Studies have shown that women face biases when submitting papers, which negatively impacts funding and career progression. Tenure-track professors who are not awarded tenure have two options if they want to stay in academia: 1) accept a non-tenure position or 2) look for a tenure-track position at a different institution. Women are more likely to stay in academia but are notably less likely to start or remain on the tenure track compared to their male colleagues. Additionally, studies have shown that women in academia are, on average, paid less than men, and it is in these non-tenure positions that the gender pay gap is greatest.
The road to true gender equality in science must be paved by institutions, not just individuals. If academia truly values diversity of thought and innovation, it must work to ensure that talented scientists, regardless of background, are not pushed out of the field by hostile environments, systemic biases, or lack of support. Despite these barriers, women have led and continue to lead key scientific discoveries. Their success demonstrates that the question is not whether women are resilient enough to stay in academia, but why institutions continue to uphold systemic barriers that make resilience necessary.