Ed chairs? To speculate, given that women are likely to encounter additional, non-discipline-specific obstacles as their careers progress (e.g., inadequate childcare support; [55]), it is possible that the relationship between a field’s focus on brilliance and its gender diversity might attenuate with time. Third, it is important to examine the developmental origins of the beliefs relevant to this phenomenon. When do children, for example, start believing that women’s intellectual abilities are inferior to men’s? What are the sources of this belief? Answers to these questions would be useful in part because they could inform interventions to encourage girls’ pursuit of “brilliance required” fields. Another interesting, though perhaps less tractable, question concerns the reasons for the variability among Roc-A chemical information fields in their beliefs about brilliance and genius. Why is it that some fields view these traits as essential for success and others do not? To what extent are these beliefs rooted in reality, and to what extent are they merely byproducts of a field’s history? Critically, however, even if these beliefs do track reality, they may nevertheless be discouraging for members of groups that are the targets of negative stereotypes about their intelligence.ConclusionTo conclude, the present study suggests that a focus on inherent intellectual abilities may discourage participation by groups who are stereotypically portrayed as lacking these abilities. In light of these data, it seems likely that turning the spotlight away from sheer brilliance–and toward the importance of sustained effort in achieving professional success [7, 8]–may bring about improvements in the diversity of many fields.Supporting InformationS1 File. Supporting Information for The Frequency of “Brilliant” and SART.S23506 “Genius” in Teaching Evaluations Predicts the Representation of Women and African Americans across Fields (PDF)AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported in part by NSF grant BCS-1530669 to Cimpian and Leslie. We are grateful to the members of the Cognitive Development Lab at the University of Illinois for helpful discussion and feedback.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments: DS ZH AC SJL. Performed the experiments: DS ZH. Analyzed the data: DS ZH. Wrote the paper: DS ZH AC SJL.
Reducing maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015 was endorsed as a major international development goal at the Millennium Summit in 2000 [1]. In 2013, sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 62 percent of global maternal deaths: Ethiopia’s Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) was estimated to be 420 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births with a lifetime risk of maternal death of one in 52 [2]. Other estimates include the 2011 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) where the MMR was estimated to be 676 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births [3]–almost the same level as the 2005 EDHS MMR level of 673 per 100,000 live births [4]. The target is to reduce the MMR to 267 deaths per 100,000 live births by the end of 2015 [5, 6]. While there has been international consensus about prioritizing maternal mortality reduction and improving maternal health, the strategies on how to go about it have not always been agreed on at a contextual level [7, 8]. Preventing maternal death is not as simple as it is for other conditions such as vaccine-preventable diseases, but most agree that functioning health systems are crucial. There have been disagreements about the complexity of the interve.