Women and Math, the Gender Gap Bridged
Skip to content
Social Impact Jun 1, 2008

Women and Math, the Gen­der Gap Bridged

Social equal­i­ty frees women to match men

Friend and business connections require outreach.

Ani_Ka via iStock

Based on the research of

Luigi Guiso

Ferdinando Monte

Paola Sapienza

Luigi Zingales

Nine years before the 19th Amend­ment grant­ed Amer­i­can women the right to vote, a com­mit­tee of Swedish sci­en­tists in 1911 award­ed a sec­ond Nobel Prize to Marie Curie, a French Pole, in recog­ni­tion of her dis­cov­ery of the ele­ments radi­um and polo­ni­um. Nine years before Title IX cracked down on gen­der dis­crim­i­na­tion in Amer­i­can edu­ca­tion, Sovi­et cos­mo­naut Valenti­na Tereshko­va became the first woman to rock­et into space, pilot­ing Vos­tok 6 in 1963. Across gen­er­a­tions and cul­tures, women have reached remark­able lev­els of sci­en­tif­ic and social achievement. 

Add Insight
to your inbox.

We’ll send you one email a week with content you actually want to read, curated by the Insight team.

Yet five years into the 21st cen­tu­ry, the leader of one of the world’s most elite uni­ver­si­ties, in one of the old­est democ­ra­cies, opined upon the unfor­tu­nate truth” that women prob­a­bly are not as men­tal­ly equipped for work in math and sci­ence as men. So is it true? 

A recent study in the jour­nal Sci­ence shows that the so-called gen­der gap in math seems to be linked to envi­ron­men­tal fac­tors, which means it could be elim­i­nat­ed by edu­ca­tion or social pro­grams.” So said Kel­logg pro­fes­sor Pao­la Sapien­za, one of the authors, along with Lui­gi Guiso (Insti­tu­to Uni­ver­si­tario Europeo) and Fer­di­nan­do Monte and Lui­gi Zin­gales (both of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go). In fact, Sapien­za con­tin­ued, this gap doesn’t exist in coun­tries in which there is greater gen­der equality.”

Bet­ter Grades, Poor­er Scores

Amer­i­can girls, on aver­age, earn high­er grades than boys in most sub­jects in high school. Accord­ing to the Col­lege Board, which admin­is­ters the SAT col­lege entrance exams in the Unit­ed States, the aver­age SAT-tak­ing girl who grad­u­at­ed from high school in 2007 had a grade point aver­age of 3.40, high­er than the aver­age boy’s 3.24. Girls were bet­ter rep­re­sent­ed than boys among the best stu­dents, com­pris­ing 57 per­cent of the SAT-tak­ers who grad­u­at­ed among the top 10 per­cent of the class of 2007. Yet the girls’ aver­age score on the math por­tion of the SAT was 499 points, com­pared with 533 for boys, out of a pos­si­ble 800 (Col­lege Board 2007).

The math gen­der gap can be elim­i­nat­ed, and it is indeed elim­i­nat­ed in some coun­tries. Since such math gen­der dif­fer­ences typ­i­cal­ly do not emerge until high school (Gal­lagher and Kauf­man 2005), some argue that the tests them­selves are biased (Spelke 2005). Oth­ers con­tend that, over time, social forces dis­cour­age tal­ent­ed women from study­ing sci­ence and math (Lubin­s­ki and Ben­bow 1992). For exam­ple, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cal­ly Pre­co­cious Youth shows that math­e­mat­i­cal­ly tal­ent­ed men were like­ly to go into engi­neer­ing and the phys­i­cal sci­ences, while sim­i­lar­ly tal­ent­ed women tend­ed more toward careers in law, med­i­cine, and biol­o­gy,” said Sapienza.

With this evi­dence alone, it’s hard to tell whether girls’ and boys’ career choic­es are the result of social influ­ence, or whether they reflect innate abil­i­ties,” con­tin­ued Sapien­za. But there has been a trend — it’s very con­sis­tent with our sto­ry — show­ing that these dif­fer­ences in edu­ca­tion­al and pro­fes­sion­al choic­es are going away over time. So it must have some­thing to do with the way soci­ety is evolv­ing.” Sapien­za went on to cite a 2006 study by Clau­dia Goldin, a Har­vard econ­o­mist, and col­leagues on this topic.

Issues of Intrin­sic Aptitude

Oth­ers dis­pute the role of social influ­ences on male and female achieve­ment, cit­ing evi­dence that some basic men­tal attrib­ut­es that are valu­able for con­duct­ing math and sci­ence seem to be more devel­oped among men. In a notable 1995 study, Lar­ry Hedges and Amy Now­ell ana­lyzed data from six large stud­ies to pro­vide a com­pre­hen­sive look at men­tal test scores for men and women. They con­clud­ed that although aver­age sex dif­fer­ences have been gen­er­al­ly small and sta­ble over time, the test scores of males con­sis­tent­ly have larg­er vari­ance.” Said Hedges, The data show that there are sim­ply more men than women who score at both the high­est and low­est lev­els. This has impor­tant impli­ca­tions for achiev­ing gen­der equi­ty in soci­ety” (Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go 1995).

Are sci­en­tists the prod­ucts of their inher­it­ed genet­ic gen­der code, or are they shaped by the gen­der-biased envi­ron­ments in which they live?

This debate burst into pub­lic con­scious­ness in 2005 when Har­vard Pres­i­dent and for­mer Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury Lawrence Sum­mers, dis­cussing why women are under­rep­re­sent­ed in tenured posi­tions at top sci­ence and engi­neer­ing insti­tu­tions, sug­gest­ed that in the spe­cial case of sci­ence and engi­neer­ing, there are issues of intrin­sic apti­tude.” Although he added, I would like noth­ing bet­ter than to be proved wrong,” the fuse had been lit.

Thus, we find our­selves again debat­ing the roles of nature and nur­ture in human devel­op­ment. Are sci­en­tists the prod­ucts of their inher­it­ed genet­ic gen­der code, or are they shaped by the gen­der-biased envi­ron­ments in which they live? Three months after Sum­mers’ remarks, the Edge Foun­da­tion host­ed a debate between psy­chol­o­gy pro­fes­sors Steven Pinker and Eliz­a­beth Spelke on the sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence sur­round­ing this issue.

Sapien­za sum­ma­rized the debate: Pinker nev­er claims that there’s no envi­ron­men­tal fac­tor. Spelke is more emphat­ic, claim­ing that there’s no shred of evi­dence for biol­o­gy. As an econ­o­mist, I believe both of them may have an impact, but I am more inter­est­ed in under­stand­ing the rel­a­tive impor­tance of biol­o­gy and culture.”

She con­tin­ued, If you tell me that 80 per­cent of the effect is bio­log­i­cal, I know there’s lim­it­ed oppor­tu­ni­ty for edu­ca­tion pol­i­cy to change things. But that’s not what we find. The math gen­der gap can be elim­i­nat­ed, and it is indeed elim­i­nat­ed in some countries.”

Turkey, Ice­land, and PISA

In search of bridges across this gap, Sapien­za and col­leagues ana­lyzed data from over 276,000 chil­dren in forty coun­tries. The large num­ber of sub­jects and the broad range of social sys­tems rep­re­sent­ed were key to the valid­i­ty of the study. Devin Pope and Justin Syd­nor had the same idea,” said Sapien­za, refer­ring to their 2007 study. They’re look­ing at the gen­der gap in dif­fer­ent states in the U.S. The study is some­what lim­it­ed, how­ev­er, because there isn’t enough vari­abil­i­ty, for exam­ple, between Mass­a­chu­setts and Texas, com­pared to the dif­fer­ence between Ice­land and Turkey.”

Each child took the 2003 Pro­gramme for Inter­na­tion­al Stu­dent Assess­ment (PISA) at the age of fif­teen. Cre­at­ed by the Organ­i­sa­tion for Eco­nom­ic Co-oper­a­tion and Devel­op­ment, PISA is an inter­na­tion­al­ly stan­dard­ized assess­ment of math, read­ing, sci­ence, and prob­lem-solv­ing abil­i­ty. Every par­tic­i­pant got the same ques­tions at the same age, and every ques­tion was approved by every par­tic­i­pat­ing coun­try in order to elim­i­nate cul­tur­al bias.

PISA has been incred­i­bly use­ful for help­ing coun­tries under­stand how well stu­dents are pre­pared in var­i­ous dis­ci­plines,” said Sapien­za. When results of the first PISA came out in 2001, Ger­man scores were sur­pris­ing­ly low, spark­ing intense nation­al debate. Because U.S. stu­dents do par­tic­u­lar­ly poor­ly in math, Pres­i­dent Bush cre­at­ed a Nation­al Math­e­mat­ics Advi­so­ry Pan­el.” This pan­el, cre­at­ed in 2006, recent­ly released its rec­om­men­da­tions, declar­ing math edu­ca­tion in the U.S. bro­ken” and advo­cat­ing mas­tery of the fun­da­men­tal skills that under­pin suc­cess in high­er math (NMAP 2008, Glod 2008).

In their search for a math gen­der gap, Sapien­za and col­leagues did not have to look very hard. Despite the fact that girls spent 19.5 per­cent more time than boys on math home­work, their aver­age math scores were 2 per­cent low­er (a dif­fer­ence of 10.5 points in scores). This find­ing per­sist­ed even when account­ing for the fact that boys spent 2.3 per­cent more time in math class­es. Not only did the aver­age boy out­per­form the aver­age girl, but a gap also exist­ed between the best male and female stu­dents. Among those in the top 5 per­cent of test tak­ers, there were only six girls for every ten boys.

While the over­all glob­al pat­tern shows that boys tend­ed to out­per­form girls in math, the male advan­tage was not com­plete. In a few coun­tries girls topped boys. For exam­ple, the aver­age girl in Ice­land scored close to 3 per­cent high­er (14.5 points) than the aver­age boy. And in Indone­sia there were eleven girls for every ten boys in the top 5 per­cent of test tak­ers. The flip-flop of the gen­der gap in those coun­tries hint­ed to Sapien­za and her col­leagues that their meth­ods might lead them to some inter­est­ing discoveries.

Figure 1: Gender gaps in math and reading versus women emancipation, 2008

On mea­sures of read­ing, the gen­der gap was turned on its head. There was not a sin­gle coun­try in which boys out­per­formed girls. World­wide aver­age read­ing scores for girls were 6.6 per­cent bet­ter than for boys, rang­ing from 5.4 per­cent bet­ter in Turkey to 12.7 per­cent bet­ter in Ice­land for the sub­set of coun­tries shown in fig­ure 1. Among chil­dren who scored in the top 95 per­cent, there were 183 girls for every 100 boys, rang­ing from a bal­anced one-to-one ratio among Turks to 29 girls for every 10 boys in Iceland.

The shock­ing thing is how large the read­ing gap was. It’s almost more strik­ing than the math gap find­ings, to see how the read­ing gap moves from coun­try to coun­try,” said Sapienza.

More­over, the fluc­tu­a­tion in the read­ing gen­der gap across coun­tries mir­rors the fluc­tu­a­tion in the math gen­der gap. The two are sta­tis­ti­cal­ly cor­re­lat­ed (r = 0.59). Aca­d­e­m­ic excel­lence is not spe­cif­ic to a sin­gle top­ic; coun­tries that edu­cate girls well do so across the board.

Empow­ered Women and Van­ish­ing Gaps

Hav­ing rec­og­nized gen­der gaps that expand­ed and con­tract­ed from coun­try to coun­try, Sapien­za and col­leagues exam­ined social fea­tures that might explain the changes. Oth­er researchers had shown that social con­di­tion­ing and gen­der-biased envi­ron­ments can impact test per­for­mance, so Sapien­za and col­leagues used four tools to mea­sure how well women were inte­grat­ed into each soci­ety com­pared with men. The first mea­sure was the Gen­der Gap Index (GGI) devel­oped by the World Eco­nom­ic Forum (WEF; see Haus­mann et. al. 2006). There are a num­ber of vari­ables that go into the Gen­der Gap Index,” said Sapien­za. For exam­ple, it mea­sures resources giv­en to women who want to work, such as mater­ni­ty leave and child care facil­i­ties. Par­tic­i­pa­tion of women in labor is also a big fac­tor, as is their role in polit­i­cal leadership.”

A sec­ond mea­sure of gen­der equal­i­ty was the World Val­ues Sur­vey, in which peo­ple around the world were asked how much they agreed or dis­agreed with state­ments such as If a woman earns more mon­ey than her hus­band, it’s almost cer­tain to cause prob­lems” and A uni­ver­si­ty edu­ca­tion is more impor­tant for a boy than for a girl.”

The researchers also ana­lyzed the per­cent­age of women aged fif­teen or old­er who are avail­able to work in each country’s labor force and the WEF polit­i­cal empow­er­ment index, which mea­sures the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of women in government.

Regard­less of which mea­sure of gen­der equal­i­ty they used, Sapien­za and her col­leagues found that improved social con­di­tions for women were relat­ed to improved math per­for­mance by girls.

We pre­sent­ed this, and many peo­ple from the U.S. didn’t like it. The major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans are con­vinced that they’re at the top of the equal­i­ty index. But they’re not. On some mea­sures, the U.S. is below Esto­nia,” said Sapien­za. The top four coun­tries in the GGI rank­ing were Swe­den (0.81), Nor­way (0.80), Fin­land (0.80), and Ice­land (0.78). The U.S. is ranked 23rd (0.70). A GGI equal to 1 reflects full gen­der equal­i­ty, a lev­el none of the coun­tries reached. As a Euro­pean, I’m not sur­prised that the top coun­tries are the north­ern Euro­pean,” said Sapien­za, who hails from Italy, but many peo­ple are surprised.”

Regard­less of which mea­sure of gen­der equal­i­ty they used, Sapien­za and her col­leagues found that improved social con­di­tions for women were relat­ed to improved math per­for­mance by girls. For exam­ple, the math gen­der gap almost dis­ap­peared in Swe­den (GGI = 0.81), while girls scored near­ly 23 points below boys in math in Turkey (GGI = 0.59). Not only did aver­age girls’ scores improve as equal­i­ty improved, but the num­ber of girls reach­ing the high­est lev­els of per­for­mance also increased. In Ice­land, for exam­ple, there were 117 girls for every 100 boys among the top 1 per­cent of math students.

We estab­lish that in some coun­tries the gen­der gap in math dis­ap­pears. But there’s a big ten­sion. Is it eman­ci­pa­tion of women, or is it some­thing else?” said Sapien­za. One pos­si­ble expla­na­tion is wealth.”

To learn whether the math gen­der gap shrank as a result of girls in rich­er coun­tries per­form­ing bet­ter than those in poor­er coun­tries, the researchers incor­po­rat­ed each country’s gross domes­tic prod­uct (GDP) into their math­e­mat­i­cal mod­el. Regard­less of nation­al dif­fer­ences in per capi­ta GDP, the rela­tion­ship between gen­der equal­i­ty and the math gap remained. Improved roles for women in soci­ety, not sim­ply eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment, pre­dict­ed more gen­der-equal achieve­ment in math. For exam­ple, Sapien­za point­ed out, In some coun­tries like Philip­pines or Sri Lan­ka, which aren’t par­tic­u­lar­ly wealthy, women are fair­ly eman­ci­pat­ed. On the con­trary, some wealthy coun­tries, like Italy, are among the less gen­der equal societies.”

Social Equal­i­ty, or Just Biol­o­gy at Work? 

Hav­ing linked social struc­tures to the math gen­der gap from coun­try to coun­try, Sapien­za won­ders whether this result rules out bio­log­i­cal influ­ences entire­ly. The answer is no. The bio­log­i­cal hypoth­e­sis sug­gests that an aver­age boy would score high­er in math­e­mat­ics than in read­ing, while for girls the reverse is true. This pat­tern does not change in more gen­der equal soci­eties hint­ing that some aspects of aca­d­e­m­ic per­for­mance may be innate­ly dif­fer­ent between boys and girls.

Sapien­za and col­leagues found that boys, regard­less of the coun­try and social envi­ron­ment in which they live, typ­i­cal­ly do bet­ter in math than in read­ing. Sim­i­lar­ly, girls are usu­al­ly bet­ter in read­ing than in math, regard­less of the degree of gen­der equal­i­ty in their soci­ety. As a result, in more gen­der equal soci­eties, girls will gain an absolute advan­tage rel­a­tive to boys.

Some evi­dence of the influ­ence of biol­o­gy can be gained by look­ing at math­e­mat­ics sub-scores. Pre­vi­ous research had shown that boys’ advan­tage over girls in math is most pro­nounced in geom­e­try (e.g., Pythagore­an the­o­rem), while the gap is nar­row­est in arith­metic (e.g., 1+2=3). But no mat­ter how much girls nar­row the gen­der gaps in geom­e­try and arith­metic in more gen­der-equal coun­tries, boys always score high­er in geom­e­try than arith­metic, while the oppo­site is observed for girls. So the between gen­der dif­fer­ences in a sin­gle dis­ci­pline — read­ing or math — cer­tain­ly appear to be influ­enced by social fea­tures, but the with­in gen­der dif­fer­ences between read­ing and math, and between arith­metic and geom­e­try, appear to be much more sta­ble across envi­ron­ments, sug­gest­ing pos­si­ble bio­log­i­cal roots.

Mech­a­nism and consequences 

Though these find­ings are fas­ci­nat­ing and extreme­ly impor­tant, they raise as many ques­tions as they answer. It is not yet clear how impor­tant edu­ca­tion is com­pared with oth­er social fea­tures. The big, impor­tant ques­tion is, What’s the mech­a­nism?’ ” said Sapien­za. What are these north­ern Euro­pean coun­tries doing so that there is no gap? Is it hap­pen­ing through role mod­el­ing? The kinds of jobs women get? Is it more accept­able for a woman to be a physi­cist in Swe­den than in oth­er coun­tries? We sim­ply do not know.”

In the Unit­ed States, the num­ber of female physi­cists and oth­er sci­en­tists is increas­ing. The Nation­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion reports that in 2006, 30 per­cent of full-time sci­ence and engi­neer­ing fac­ul­ty in the Unit­ed States were women, up from 7 per­cent in 1973. In 2005, 39 per­cent of all U.S. sci­ence and engi­neer­ing doc­tor­ates were earned by women, up from 27 per­cent in 1985 (NSF 2008). But while oppor­tu­ni­ties for women in sci­ence have great­ly improved over recent decades, the words of Madame Curie writ­ten a cen­tu­ry ago still res­onate: One nev­er notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done.”

More­over, the con­se­quences of girls gain­ing an absolute advan­tage over boys are very inter­est­ing. In many of the coun­tries that we iden­ti­fied as more gen­der-equal, the per­cent­age of women going to col­lege out­num­bers the per­cent­age of men going to col­lege,” said Sapienza.

Giv­en that boys spend much less time on home­work and girls are catch­ing up with the scores, are we going to see affir­ma­tive action for boys in col­leges?” said Sapien­za. Some col­leges, even in the U.S., are dis­cussing these issues. If scores for girls go up and reach the lev­el of Ice­land or Swe­den and you don’t decrease the thresh­old for admit­ting boys to col­lege rel­a­tive to girls, you’ll reach a sit­u­a­tion with unbal­anced admissions.”

While full glob­al gen­der equi­ty and aca­d­e­m­ic achieve­ment equal­i­ty will not soon be reached, this work high­lights suc­cess­es and hints at some use­ful mod­els. It may even offer glimpses of bet­ter times to come, a prospect that cap­tures Sapienza’s imag­i­na­tion. She asked, How do we think about these results? Has Ice­land reached a lev­el of total eman­ci­pa­tion? Will it be the steady state, an equilibrium?”

She won­dered, Is this how soci­eties are going to be in the future?”

Fur­ther readings:

Cen­sus Bureau (2006). Facts for Fea­tures. Women’s His­to­ry Month: March 2006.” Cen­sus Bureau Web site, Feb­ru­ary 22 (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Col­lege Board (2007). 2007 Col­lege-Bound Seniors. Total Group Pro­file Report. Col­lege Board Web site (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Edge Foun­da­tion (2005). The Sci­ence of Gen­der and Sci­ence. Pinker vs. Spelke: A Debate. Edge Web site (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Gal­lagher, Ann M., and James C. Kauf­man (2005). Gen­der Dif­fer­ences in Math­e­mat­ics: An Inte­gra­tive Psy­cho­log­i­cal Approach. New York: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty Press.

Glod, Maria (2008). Pan­el Urges Schools to Empha­size Core Math Skills.” Wash­ing­ton Post, March 14, page A6.

Goldin, Clau­dia, Lawrence Katz and Ilyana Kuziemko (2006). The Home­com­ing of Amer­i­can Col­lege Women: The Rever­sal of the Col­lege Gen­der Gap,” Jour­nal of Eco­nom­ic Per­spec­tives, Fall, 20(4): 133 – 156.

Haus­mann, Ricar­do, Lau­ra D. Tyson and Saa­dia Zahi­di (2006). The Glob­al Gen­der Gap Report 2006. Gene­va: World Eco­nom­ic Forum (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Hedges, L., and A. Now­ell (1995) Sex Dif­fer­ences in Men­tal Test Scores, Vari­abil­i­ty, and Num­bers of High-Scor­ing Indi­vid­u­als. Sci­ence, 269(5220): 41 – 45.

Lubin­s­ki, D., and C. Ben­bow (1992). Gen­der Dif­fer­ences in Abil­i­ties and Pref­er­ences Among the Gift­ed: Impli­ca­tions for the Math/​Science Pipeline”, Cur­rent Direc­tions in Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sci­ence, 1: 61 – 66.

Pope, Devin, and Justin Syd­nor (2007). Nature, Nur­ture, and Sex Dif­fer­ences in Test Scores. Work­ing paper, Uni­ver­si­ty of Pennsylvania.

Nation­al Sci­ence Board (2008). Sci­ence and Engi­neer­ing Indi­ca­tors 2008. Nation­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion (NSF) (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Nation­al Math­e­mat­ics Advi­so­ry Pan­el (2008). Foun­da­tions for Suc­cess: Report of the Nation­al Math­e­mat­ics Advi­so­ry Pan­el, U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion Web site (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Spelke, Eliz­a­beth (2005). Sex Dif­fer­ences in Intrin­sic Apti­tude for Math­e­mat­ics and Sci­ence?” Amer­i­can Psy­chol­o­gist, Decem­ber, 60(9): 950 – 958.

Sum­mers, Lawrence H. (2005). Remarks at NBER Con­fer­ence on Diver­si­fy­ing the Sci­ence & Engi­neer­ing Work­force.” Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty Web site, Office of the Pres­i­dent, Jan­u­ary 14 (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go (1995). New Study on Sex Dif­fer­ence in Men­tal Test Scores.” Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go News Office, July 5, 1995 (vis­it site, accessed May 282008).

Featured Faculty

Paola Sapienza

Donald C. Clark/HSBC Chair in Consumer Finance, Professor of Finance, and Zell Center Faculty Fellow

About the Writer

Brad Wible is a Senior Program Associate with the Research Competitiveness Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC.

About the Research

Guiso, Luigi, Ferdinando Monte, Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales (2008). “Culture, Gender, and Math.” Science, 320(5880): 1164-1165

Read the original

Suggested For You

Most Popular

Organizations

How Are Black – White Bira­cial Peo­ple Per­ceived in Terms of Race?

Under­stand­ing the answer — and why black and white Amer­i­cans’ respons­es may dif­fer — is increas­ing­ly impor­tant in a mul­tira­cial society.

Careers

Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Advanc­ing Your Career

Here’s how to con­nect with head­hunters, deliv­er with data, and ensure you don’t plateau professionally.

Most Popular Podcasts

Careers

Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Improv­ing Rela­tion­ships with Colleagues

Cowork­ers can make us crazy. Here’s how to han­dle tough situations.

Social Impact

Pod­cast: How You and Your Com­pa­ny Can Lend Exper­tise to a Non­prof­it in Need

Plus: Four ques­tions to con­sid­er before becom­ing a social-impact entrepreneur.

Careers

Pod­cast: Attract Rock­star Employ­ees — or Devel­op Your Own

Find­ing and nur­tur­ing high per­form­ers isn’t easy, but it pays off.

Marketing

Pod­cast: How Music Can Change Our Mood

A Broad­way song­writer and a mar­ket­ing pro­fes­sor dis­cuss the con­nec­tion between our favorite tunes and how they make us feel.