Petra Schorat-Waly; Jutta Rump; Imke Buß; Janina Kaiser; Melanie Schiedhelm

Initial situation
Although women graduate from high school more often than men, have better grades in their qualifications for university entrance and make up half of the student body, there are still differences in the subject preferences of men and women: Men are still significantly more likely to study engineering or mathematics/natural sciences, while the proportion of women studying linguistics and cultural studies, medicine/health sciences and social sciences/social sciences/psychology/education remains significantly higher than for men (Middendorff et al. 2013). Men generally prefer fields in which there are particularly good professional and career prospects (Berthold and Leichsenring 2012) and the majority of top positions in the economy are still held by men. There is also a need for action with regard to gender equality in science and research. The proportion of women in science decreases from career level to career level in every subject and even in subjects with a high proportion of women, the majority of professors are still male (Ridder et al. 2013).

It remains to be seen that despite better educational qualifications and employment rates since the 1970s (Hofmeister and Hünefeld 2010), a number of qualified women are still being lost on their way "into the world of work and upwards" (Rump 2012). It is therefore important to support female students during their studies. 

Effects on the study situation
Gender equality is one of the central tasks of universities and is enshrined in the higher education laws of the federal states. According to the CHE Diversity Report, which examines the consequences of increasing diversity at German universities, the gender issue is still relevant in the university environment today (Berthold and Leichsenring 2012, p. 103). The report is primarily concerned with the framework conditions that exist in German universities and how students with their different starting situations (migration background, gender, socio-economic situation) can adapt and pursue a career (Berthold and Leichsenring 2012). Women are often confronted with different problems during and after their studies than men and therefore have worse starting conditions. On average, more women than men are exposed to burdens such as family care responsibilities. In addition, universities of applied sciences and universities are currently still characterized by "male patterns" such as frontal teaching, homosocial co-option, i.e. old boys' networks and the reproduction of the stereotypical gender hierarchy in everyday academic life (Blome et al. 2013, p. 55 ff.). This must be taken into account by universities when aligning their structures in order to improve the adaptation situation for women (Berthold and Leichsenring 2012, p. 100 ff.), because it is also striking that although the total number of students in Germany has a balanced gender ratio, women are strongly underrepresented in STEM degree programs at 36% (Berthold and Leichsenring 2012, p. 214). Stereotypes that are partly responsible for this ("girls can't do math") need to be dismantled and young people encouraged to pursue educational and career paths that seem to contradict their gender identity (Wentzel 2008).

It is therefore clear that gender is still an important and elementary social category that determines opportunities and non-opportunities. Stereotypical ideas about gender influence young people's career choices and women encounter "glass ceilings" both in their academic careers and in business. These are barriers that are not apparent at first glance, but are responsible for the underrepresentation of women at higher career levels (Beaufays 2012, p. 91). In Gardenswartz and Rowe's frequently cited "diversity dimensions" (Gardenswartz and Rowe 1995), gender is listed as an internal dimension along with age, skin color and sexual orientation, among others. The characteristics of the internal dimension are usually immediately perceptible in people and therefore structure our social reality. For this reason, the "gender" dimension must be considered constantly and everywhere in order to ensure real equality of opportunity (Degele et al. 2011).

Caring responsibilities
Female students are more often involved in family responsibilities than their male counterparts. This applies both in terms of responsibility for a child, be it their own or their partner's, and in terms of caring for relatives.

Table 1: Proportion of female students among students with family responsibilities
Note: The proportion of women in the overall survey is 58%
Source: Berthold and Leichsenring ( 2012, p. 105 ff.).

The greater involvement of women in family care may also have an impact on the health of female students. Students with care responsibilities state that they suffer from health restrictions more frequently than students without family responsibilities. The authors of the CHE study suspect a connection between the stated illnesses and the psychological pressure and physical strain of caring responsibilities (Berthold and Leichsenring 2012, p. 108).

Table 2: Proportion of students with family responsibilities and health restrictions
Source: Berthold and Leichsenring (2012, p. 173)

Proportion of women in subjects at the Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society
The proportion of female students at the Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society was 54% in the 2016 summer semester and has developed positively compared to previous years. Overall, female students are therefore slightly overrepresented at the Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society. However, there is still a clear gender-specific subject preference. A considerable under-representation, i.e. the proportion of women is less than 30%, is evident in the Bachelor's degree courses in Business Information Systems (23%) and Logistics (30%). In the degree programs Viticulture and Oenology, the proportion of women is 33%. The degree programs Nursing Education (85%), International Personnel Management and Organization (83%), Nursing, Social Work (79%) and Health Economics (74%) show a significant overrepresentation of women, i.e. the proportion of women is over 70%. The proportion of female students on consecutive Master's degree courses was 52% in the 2016 summer semester. In the transition to the Master's degree program, the proportion of women is increasing in the degree programs Controlling (+8%), Marketing (+7%) and Finance (+5%). The proportion of female students fell in the degree programs Business Information Systems (-9%), Social Work (-7%), Health Care Management (-5%) and Logistics (-4%). Female students are underrepresented in the Master's degree courses in Business Informatics (14%) and Logistics (26%). In contrast, they are overrepresented in the degree programs International Human Resource Management (81%), International Marketing Management (75%) and Social Work (72%).

Services offered by the Equal Opportunities Office
In 2014, the Equal Opportunities Officer took the above results as an opportunity to analyze the gender homogeneity of selected degree programs based on the AGFRA concept "Gender heterogeneity in degree programs" and to derive specific recommendations for action (Raum 2014). The Equal Opportunities Office of the Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society is thus pursuing targeted measures to promote gender heterogeneity in degree programs in which one gender is significantly under- or overrepresented. In addition, the Equal Opportunities Office provides various services for students: These include not only offers that specifically serve to promote women, such as study and career advice for women, but also non-gender-specific offers that are intended to promote diversity and equal opportunities at the university. The latter includes, for example, advisory services aimed at creating equal opportunities between students with and without family responsibilities.

Further information on the equal opportunities policy of the Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society can be found here:
www.hwg-lu.de/service/chancengleichheit-und-vielfalt/gleichstellung/
gleichstellungspolitik.html

Heinrich Böll Foundation's gender toolbox for methodology and didactics available at:
https://www.gwi-boell.de/de/2020/02/07/gender-toolbox-methodik-und-didaktik

Literature
Beaufays, S. (2012): Leadership positions in science - On the formation of male sociability regimes using the example of institutions of excellence. In: S. Beaufays, A. Engels and H. Kahlert (eds.): Einfach Spitze? New gender perspectives on careers in science: Campus Verlag.

Berthold, C.; Leichsenring, H. (eds.) (2012): CHE: Diversity Report: the overall report. Available online at www.che-consult.de/fileadmin/pdf/publikationen/CHE_Diversity_Report_Gesamtbericht_komprimiert.pdf, last checked on 25.04.2016.

Blome, E.; Gülcher, N.; Smykalla, S. (eds.) (2013): Handbuch zur Gleichstellungspolitik an Hochschulen: Von der Frauenförderung zum Diversitymanagement. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Degele, N.; Bethmann, S.; Heckemeyer, K. (2011): Why we take gender into account to understand society. A plea for an analytical perspective critical of heteronormativity. Available online at www.feministisches-institut.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/DegeleBethmann, last checked on 25.04.2016.

Gardenswartz, L.; Rowe, A. (1995): Diverse Teams at Work. Irwin.

Hofmeister, H.; Hünefeld, L. (2010): Women in leadership positions (25.04.2016). Available online at www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/gender/frauen-in-deutschland/
49400/fuehrungspositionen.

Middendorff, E.; Apolinarski, B.; Poskowsky, J.; Kandulla, M.; Netz, N. (2013): The economic and social situation of students in Germany 2012: 20th Social Survey of the Deutsches Studentenwerk conducted by the HIS Institute for Higher Education Research. Available online at www.sozialerhebung.de/download/20/
soz20_hauptbericht_gesamt.pdf, last checked on 25.04.2016.

Raum, E. (2014): Causes of gender homogeneity of degree programs at Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society. Available online at www.hwg-lu.de/service/studium-lehre/diversity/ursachen-der-genderhomogenitaet-von-studiengaengen-an-der-hochschule-ludwigshafen-am-rhein.html, last checked on 26.04.2016.

Ridder, D.; Giebisch, P.; Hachmeister, C.-D.; Leichsenring, H. (2013): Subject cultures and female academic careers: Making success factors of women's advancement visible. Key findings and recommendations for action. Available online at www.che.de/downloads/Handlungsempfehlungen_FADS_130218_1530.pdf, last checked on 25.04.2016.

Rump, J. (2012): Keynote speech: Megatrend women: Necessity or fad. Available online at de.slideshare.net/LeaderinnenOstschweiz/impuls-megatrend-frauen-profdr-jutta-rump-bei-leaderinnen-ostschweiz, last checked on 25.04.2016.

Wentzel, W. (2008): I want this and this is my path! - Young women on the path to a career in technology. Qualitative interviews with former Girls'Day participants in training and studies (Schriftenreihe, 7).

Citation
Schorat-Waly, Petra; Rump, Jutta; Buß, Imke; Kaiser, Janina; Schiedhelm, Melanie (2017): Profile: female students. In: Rump, Jutta; Buß, Imke; Kaiser, Janina; Schiedhelm, Melanie; Schorat-Waly, Petra: Toolbox for good education in a diverse student body. Working Papers of the Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society, No. 6. www. hwg-lu.de/arbeitspapiere

Use according to Creative Commons under attribution (please use the citation provided) and for non-commercial purposes.

back to overview 'Diversity Management & Student diversity'