Does Pregnancy Prevent Women Getting MBAs?
Elissa Ellis-Sangster is one of those women who use phrases like "move the needle" – someone who talks about "putting value and importance on diverse leadership" when she could just say "promoting women". And so I wasn't sure what she was talking about when she was quoted in today's WSJ on the subject of female enrollment in MBA programmes:
When schools raised the work experience level to five years or more, it became a big issue for women who wanted to go back for their M.B.A. soon after college, before they started thinking about having a family.
Thankfully, Dana Cimilluca was there to translate:
One of the big challenges to increasing female enrollment in M.B.A. programs is pregnancy. The five years or so of experience that many business schools want their students to have before enrolling is a tall order for a woman planning a family.
Which is slightly clearer, even if it still doesn't make a huge amount of sense. Do they mean that women often have babies within the first five years of entering the workforce, and that therefore it takes them longer to get five years' experience? Or is it that women with small children are less likely to want to take an MBA, because at that point they have a child to support? In that case, women would be less likely to enroll in MBA programmes requiring five years' experience just because they're more likely to be mothers at that point. Or is it just that women don't want to be pregnant during their MBA, and that six years after joining the workforce is a time when they often are pregnant?
If it's the first, I think it's no big deal: it really doesn't matter if the women in an MBA programme are slighly older than the men. But if it's one of the latter two, then the problem isn't the five-years-experience rule, so much as it is the hesitance on the part of pregnant women and mothers to go to business school. Ellis-Sangster thinks the solution to the problem is for business schools to require less experience of their MBA students. Maybe it would be easier and more effective to simply make more of an effort to accommodate mothers, as well as the childless.
Update: Megan McArdle weighs in.
- Extra Credit, Tuesday Edition
- Aug 19 2008 6:32PM EDT
- The Crazy Lehman Share Price
- Aug 19 2008 1:50PM EDT
- Read Dylan
- Aug 19 2008 12:37PM EDT
- Why Greenspan Won't Shut Up
- Aug 19 2008 11:13AM EDT
- The Destroyer of Swedish Capitalism
- Aug 19 2008 10:48AM EDT
- Martin Wolf on Capitalism
- Aug 19 2008 7:11AM EDT
- When Savings Start to Rise
- Aug 19 2008 5:13AM EDT
- Gas Mileage: Overrated
- Aug 19 2008 4:26AM EDT
- Extra Credit, Monday Afternoon Edition
- Aug 18 2008 4:55PM EDT
- How Does Barrons Move the Market?
- Aug 18 2008 4:46PM EDT
- Another Reason to Ignore Earnings Estimates
- Aug 18 2008 2:20PM EDT
- New York Real Estate Datapoint of the Day
- Aug 18 2008 1:28PM EDT
- The Blitheness of the Art World
- Aug 18 2008 12:53PM EDT
- Hirst Announces the End of an Era
- Aug 18 2008 11:30AM EDT
- When Op-Ed Pages Turn Neutral
- Aug 18 2008 9:01AM EDT
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










