Recruiting, Recruiting, Retaining, Retaining,

& & Mentoring Mentoring

Women Women FacultyFaculty11/1/0211/1/02

Who Teaches Who Teaches MattersMatters

“The most accurate predictor of subsequent success for female undergraduates is the percentage of women among faculty members at their college.”

Trowers and Chait; Harvard Magazine, 104:33, 2002.

Representation of Women Representation of Women inin

Graduate Professional Graduate Professional ProgramsPrograms

05

101520253035404550

% W

omen

Law SchoolMedical SchoolEngineering

Spectrum of Spectrum of ApproachesApproaches

Negative Neutral Supportive Pro-Active

OutlinOutlinee

History of UT EFWOReview Objective DataDiscussion:

– Set Measurable Goals– Process to Achieve Goals– Resources to Achieve Goals

UT UT EFWOEFWO http://www.engr.utexas.edu/bme

/faculty/richards-kortum/WomenInEng/

Child Care Survey & Report– Summer 01

Career Success Workshop– April 02

White Paper– Fall 02

White Paper: Areas of White Paper: Areas of ConcernConcern Attract & retain more women faculty

Improve recruitment and retention of women graduate students at UT

Provide mentoring for women graduate students & faculty

Increase # of women in leadership positions at UT

Focus of tonight’s Focus of tonight’s discussiondiscussion

Attract more women faculty

Where are Where are we?we?2002: 240 total tenure track faculty

– 21 women (9%)• 7 Assistant Professors• 7 Associate Professors• 7 Full Professors

– 219 men (91%)• 40 Assistant Professors• 34 Associate Professors• 145 Full Professors

How has this How has this changed?changed?# of Female UT CoE Faculty

2121

8

0

5

10

15

20

251

98

6

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

= Target of Opportunity Years

College of Engineering

02468

1012141618

86-'87

87-'88

88-'89

89-'90

90-'91

91-'92

92-'93

93-'94

94-'95

95-'96

96-'97

97-'98

98-'99

99-'00

00-'01

01-'02

02-'03

Year

Tota

l # o

f Fac

ulty

Hire

d

= Target of Opportunity Years

How do we compare to our How do we compare to our peers?peers?

College of Engineering

0

10

20

30

40

50

MIT

Stanfo

rd

Berke

ley

Georg

ia Tec

h

Illinois

Mich

igan

CalTech

Cornell

USCCM

U

UT-Austi

n

Purdue

Texas

A&M

% W

om

en F

acu

lty

2001 ASEE Data

% Women Faculty by % Women Faculty by Dept.Dept.

Aerospace

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

MIT

Sta

nfor

d

Geo

rgia

Tec

h

Illin

ois-

Urb

ana-

Mic

higa

n

Cal

Tec

h

UT

-Aus

tin

Pur

due

Tex

as A

&M

% W

om

en

BME

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

MIT

Ber

kele

y

Geo

rgia

Tec

h

Mic

higa

n

Cor

nell

US

C

CM

U

UT

-A

ustin

Pur

due

Tex

asA

&M

% W

om

en

Chemical Engineering

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

MIT

Sta

nfor

d

Ber

kele

y

Geo

rgia

Tec

h

Illin

ois-

Urb

ana-

Mic

higa

n

Cal

Tec

h

Cor

nell

US

C

CM

U

UT

-Aus

tin

Pur

due

Tex

as A

&M

% W

om

en

2001 ASEE Data

% Women Faculty by % Women Faculty by Dept.Dept.

Electrical Engineering

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

MIT

Sta

nfor

d

Ber

kele

y

Geo

rgia

Tec

h

Illin

ois-

Urb

ana-

Mic

higa

n

Cal

Tec

h

Cor

nell

US

C

CM

U

UT

-Aus

tin

Pur

due

Tex

as A

&M

% W

om

en

Mechanical Engineering

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

MIT

Sta

nfor

d

Ber

kele

y

Geo

rgia

Tec

h

Illin

ois-

Urb

ana-

Mic

higa

n

Cal

Tec

h

Cor

nell

US

C

CM

U

UT

-Aus

tin

Pur

due

Tex

as A

&M

% W

om

en

Civil Engineering

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

MIT

Sta

nfor

d

Ber

kele

y

Geo

rgia

Tec

h

Illin

ois-

Urb

ana-

Mic

higa

n

Cal

Tec

h

Cor

nell

US

C

CM

U

UT

-Aus

tin

Pur

due

Tex

as A

&M

% W

om

en

2001 ASEE Data

Are there qualified Are there qualified candidates?candidates?

UT College of Engineering

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

BS Degree MS Degree PhD Degree Total Faculty

% W

om

en

2001 ASEE Data

Do they apply to Do they apply to UT?UT?% of Peer School PhD's Awarded to Females ('98-'01) vs.

% of Female Applicants for UT CoE Faculty Positions ('94-'01)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

ASEChE CE

ECEM

EPE*

OVERALL

Peer School Female PhD's

Female Faculty Applicants

Why did our current Why did our current women women

faculty apply?faculty apply?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Contacted byUT Faculty

Responded toAd

AdvisorEncourgaged

Spousal Hire Unknown

Nu

mb

er o

f F

acu

lty

What should What should we do?we do?

GoalsAction ItemsResources

GoaGoalsls

Double the number of women faculty in five years– To reach this goal, we only need to

add 4 women faculty per year in the next five years

– Currently recruiting 14 positions

Actions: Spectrum of Actions: Spectrum of ApproachesApproaches

Negative Neutral Supportive Pro-Active

What PROACTIVE recruitment approaches are needed to DOUBLE the number of

FEMALE FACULTY?

Attract women Attract women facultyfaculty Monitor numbers/report progress

Incentives:– Targeted slots– Targeted recruiting $$

Share ‘best practices’ amongst recruiting committees

Evaluate interview process– Positive impression?– Work/family balance– Teaching/research balance

Retain women Retain women facultyfacultyMonitor numbers

Assess departmental climatesCritical massMentoring programCareer Success workshop

Mentor our Women PhD Mentor our Women PhD StudentsStudentsFaculty driven mentoring

activities for graduate students– F6: First Friday Forum for Future

Female Faculty

Women in leadership Women in leadership positionspositions

Monitor numbersRecruit externally

Target of Opportunity Target of Opportunity ProgramProgram 1987-1997

– 5th Circuit Opinion in Messer v. Meno– Racial preferences in hiring solely to achieve diversity are

unconstitutional.

Focus: black & Hispanic faculty– 50 minority faculty hired

During same time: – Provost provided 25 new eng. faculty lines– A fraction of these funds were allocated to recruit women

faculty

Where do the Where do the women go?women go?

Postgraduate Plans 1995 Chemistry PhDs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Post Doc AcademicEmployment

IndustrialEmployment

Per

cen

tag

e

Men

Women

NSF DataCourtesy: V. Kuck

Where do the Where do the women go?women go?

Postgraduate Plans 1995 Physics PhDs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Post Doc AcademicEmployment

IndustrialEmployment

Per

cen

tag

e

Men

Women

NSF DataCourtesy: V. Kuck

Where do the Where do the women go?women go?

Percent of Full Time Academic Engineers Who Are Women by Carnegie Type of Institution, 1995

02468

101214

Per

cen

tag

e

From Scarcity to VisibilityNational Academy Press

Where do the Where do the women go?women go?

Comparison of Academic Employment

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PhDGranting

MS Granting BA/BSGranting

2 yr Schools

Per

cen

tag

e

Physics

Chemistry

NSF DataCourtesy: V. Kuck