Transcript Holly Lord
Defining Academic “Quality”: The Gendered Effects of Admissions Criteria in Doctoral CS and CE Programs Holly R. Lord J. McGrath Cohoon Gender Diversity in Computing Workshop Big Picture, Bottom Line, Overview Recruitment practices affect women’s representation Admission criteria affect women’s representation Institutional characteristics affect women’s representation Data are from a large study Three surveys in Fall 2003 Stratified random sample of 48 departments 775 faculty members 1976 students Master’s and PhD Response rates • 94% chair • 63% faculty • 55% grad students Notable Gender Differences in Program Choice Women more than men emphasized • Geographic preferences or constraints • Impression of faculty from campus visit • Department culture • Flexibility in program content Recruitment Model Regression on Women's Representation in Graduate CSE Programs Flexibility in program content Personal recruitment by men Effort to enroll women Adjusted R2 Beta for all departments Beta for departments where effort >=2.6 n=46 n=34 0.21* 0.18 -0.49** -0.35* 0.29* 0.36* 0.29** 0.29** How do admissions criteria affect women’s representation? Admissions criteria • formal index • ambiguous index • other criteria Admissions-related attitudes Dependent Variable: female proportion PhD students Controls Public/private 1993 National Research Council rank Program size Student/faculty ratio Proportion of female faculty Carnegie classification Ambiguous criteria are commonly used to assess applicant quality #1 #2 #4 #6 General quality of academic record Motivation Academic letters of recommendation Communication skills Extensive & Intensive differ in emphasis % of faculty rating criteria very or extremely important Res. Exten. Res.Inten. Grades in computing courses 85% 94% Communication skills 73% 64% Faculty want to increase diversity Most agree their department should actively recruit underrepresented groups (80%) Few faculty believe CSE is inherently unattractive to women (21%) Women’s Representation is Lower in Research Extensive Institutions Research extensive Female proportion PhDs Formal index exhibited no effect Formal index (functionally relevant, specific) • grades in computing courses • math background • GRE Score • reputation of undergraduate institution/program No measurable relationship with women’s representation Ambiguous criteria has a positive affect Ambiguity Index • general quality of academic record • motivation • communication skills • maturity • academic letters of recommendation + women’s representation Life experience criterion favors women + Consider life experiences Female Proportion of PhDs + Ambiguous criteria + Diversity as a criterion favors women Membership in an underrepresented group Gendered criteria has an affect Computing work/volunteer experience negatively affects the gender balance www.cptc.edu/.../Computer%20Work%20Station.jpg Final Model Regression Results for Women's Representation Beta t test Sig. Carnegie Classification -0.33 0.00 Member of underrepresented group 0.41 0.00 Computing work or volunteer experience -0.36 0.01 Consider life experience 0.44 0.00 Constant Adjusted R-squared for model ns 0.46 0.00 Questions?