Promoting Equality and Inclusion in Graduate Education at US Research Universities: Structures and Practices in the Mathematical, Physical, Environmental Sciences & Engineering Colette Patt, PhD Asst. Dean, for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, UC Berkeley) Mark Richards (Provost and Executive Vice President, University of Washington) Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton (Professor of Psychology, Richard &Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor, UC Berkeley) and our colleagues at the UC Berkeley MPS Dean’s Diversity Office, The California Alliance Research Team, and the Research Exchange Supported by the National Science Foundation – Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate This material is based upon work supported by the grants: 1647273, 1742065, 1306595, 1306683, 1306747, 1306760. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Ensuring equitable access to academic careers in STEM is vital to the long term health of science and also is a matter of fairness, and justice • Research universities’ STEM doctoral programs produce most of the US’s advanced research workforce (FFRCs, industry, gvt) • STEM fields lead to some of the most lucrative careers in all sectors • At large research universities, such as University of California’s 10 campus system, more than 50% of all tenure and tenure-track faculty are in STEM, this influences academic culture • Among research universities, top research universities disproportionately produce the US professoriate – these institutions have an exponential impact on STEM. Clauset A, Arbesman S, Larremore D (2015) Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances 1:e1400005-e1400005. UCOP 2017 Accountability Report
US STEM faces a serio ious challenge: • At each level of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educational and career path, there is less representation of US minorities (URMS) -- Hispanics, Latinx, Chicanx, African Americans, Indigenous Peoples of the US. • Despite approx. $2.9 billion/year in federal funds, the situation has remained mostly stagnant for 50 years. • Most severe UR is in Mathematical, Physical, Environmental Science &Engineering (MPESE). Problem is most severe at major research universities. • Since 2000, URM share of MPESE PhDs has increased from 5% to 10%, but this has not yet resulted in diversification of the faculty, esp. the tenure-track faculty • URM share is~6%-7% domestic postdocs, ~2% of all US (domestic + international) postdocs. • Absolute number of postdoc & faculty positions has increased substantially, but URM share has not kept pace.
US Population ~30% URM
US Population ~30% URM US STEM BA/BS: ~20% URM
US Population ~30% URM US STEM BA/BS: Mathematical, ~20% URM Physical, Environmental Sciences and Engineering (MPESE) PhDs: ~10% URM
US Population ~30% URM US STEM BA/BS: ~20% URM MPESE Tenure/te MPESE PhDs: nure track ~10% URM MPESE Faculty: Postdocs: ~6% URM ~6-7% URM
Missing URM MPESE Faculty: US Population ~24% ~30% URM US STEM BA/BS: ~20% URM MPESE PhDs: ~10% URM MPESE Postdocs: ~6-7% URM
Missing URM MPESE Faculty: US Population ~24% ~30% URM US STEM BA/BS: ~20% URM MPESE PhDs: ~10% URM MPESE Postdocs: ~6-7% URM
Missing URM MPESE Faculty: US Population ~24% ~30% URM US STEM BA/BS: ~20% URM MPESE PhDs: ~10% URM MPESE Postdocs: ~6-7% URM
What accounts for the persistence of inequitable access from the doctoral to the postdoc level and the professoriate for URMs? What can we do to address this? The US population demographics are changing rapidly – so stagnation means we are actually losing ground. • Preparation? • Sense of belonging? • Advising? • Mentorship? • Bias? • Exclusion, intentional or unintentional? • Finances?
Berkeley Life in Science Survey (BLISS) Study Graduate Student Progress (Winter-Spring 2013) Survey of MPESE UC Berkeley doctoral students asked about wide range of experiences and perceptions at each stage of the path to the PhD
Participation rates (graduate students) Total Completers Percent Non-URM men 555 218 39% Women 383 204 53% URM 109 55 50% M&PS 398 165 41% EECS 234 88 38% Chemistry 381 199 52%
Won a fellowship or grant 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Urm Female Male, Non-URM
Passed Qualifying Exams 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Urm Female Male, Non-URM
Submitted a Paper for Publication 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% URM Female Male, non-URM
Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All EECS+MPS Chemistry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All EECS+MPS Chemistry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All EECS+MPS Chemistry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
PhD Exit Survey Findings
PhD Exit Survey (1998-2013)
Respondent Headcount: PhD Exit Survey Division Total Non-URM Men Women URM Bio 1,563 690 812 103 Chemistry 1,273 814 415 66 EECS 692 559 107 22 MPS 1,242 939 244 59 Mathematics 377 298 55 26 Physics 502 408 65 23 All 4,770 3,002 1,578 250
Respondent Headcount: PhD Exit Survey Division Total Non-URM Men Women URM Bio 1,563 690 812 103 Chemistry 1,273 814 415 66 EECS 692 559 107 22 MPS 1,242 939 244 59 Mathematics 377 298 55 26 Physics 502 408 65 23 All 4,770 3,002 1,578 250
PhD Exit Survey Questions • “Did you deliver any papers at national scholarly meetings?” • “Were you encouraged by faculty in your department to publish?” PhD Exit Survey Findings 24
Fig. 2 . Papers presented at national scholarly meetings (Ph.D. exit survey). Note: Error bars represent 1 SE. Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All MPS EECS Chemistry Bio Physics Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 2 . Papers presented at national scholarly meetings (Ph.D. exit survey). Note: Error bars represent 1 SE. Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All MPS EECS Chemistry Bio Physics Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 2 . Papers presented at national scholarly meetings (Ph.D. exit survey). Note: Error bars represent 1 SE. Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All MPS EECS Chemistry Bio Physics Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 2 . Papers presented at national scholarly meetings (Ph.D. exit survey). Note: Error bars represent 1 SE. Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All MPS EECS Chemistry Bio Physics Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 2 . Papers presented at national scholarly meetings (Ph.D. exit survey). Note: Error bars represent 1 SE. Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All MPS EECS Chemistry Bio Physics Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 2 . Papers presented at national scholarly meetings (Ph.D. exit survey). Note: Error bars represent 1 SE. Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All MPS EECS Chemistry Bio Physics Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 2 . Papers presented at national scholarly meetings (Ph.D. exit survey). Note: Error bars represent 1 SE. Underrepresented Minority Women Non-URM Men All MPS EECS Chemistry Bio Physics Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
We published the results: Mendoza-Denton, R., Patt, C., Fisher, A., Eppig, A., Young, I., Smith, A., & Richards, M. A. (2017). Differences in STEM doctoral publication by ethnicity, gender and academic field at a large public research university. PLoS One , 12(4), e0174296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174296. We wanted to understand: What’s happening in Chemistry at Berkeley?
NSF-California Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, Stanford) Fisher AJ, Mendoza-Denton R, Patt C, Young I, Eppig A, Garrell RL, et al. (2019) Structure and belonging: Pathways to success for underrepresented minority and women PhD students in STEM fields. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0209279.
NSF-California Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, Stanford) Cross-institutional study to: • Examine pathways to success among a larger group of students (Total: 435; URM: 232; Asian: 54; White:149) • Survey included: publication rates, subjective well-being and distress, student experience in PhD program, relationships with peers, progress in doctoral program, psychological factors. The selected measures enabled us to focus on our specific interest in sense of belonging and publication success. Chemistry did not stand out as it had at Berkeley, We found some of the same differences for women and minorities, especially African Americans.
Path Modeling Perceived Prepared for -.12 .39 Success Grad Classes (vs. peers) -.30 -.15 Feel Insignificant in STEM -.16 .24 .25 Female -.24 Students Clear Level of Expectations Distress -.30 -.17 .25 URM Students -.15 -.22 Feel Accepted in -.25 STEM .14 Clear Prepared for Perform. UG Classes Standards *Not pictured: direct effect of Female Students on Distress, β = .19
Recommend
More recommend
