Search News


Browse Archives

News

New Numbers on Underrepresented Faculty Members

November 1, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A new survey of the top 100 departments in 15 science and engineering disciplines (including the social sciences) finds that "few science and engineering departments have more than a single [underrepresented minority] faculty member." Despite the increased representation of members of minority groups among bachelor's and Ph.D. degree recipients, the analysis finds that the proportion of black, Hispanic and Native American instructors generally drops at every point in the academic pipeline, with the majority of minority faculty members concentrated at the assistant professor level.

"A National Analysis of Minorities in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities," by Donna J. Nelson, an associate professor of chemistry at the University of Oklahoma, differs from previous studies in one key way. By surveying department chairs (and, in a limited number of cases when data were not available through chairs, scanning departmental Web sites and directories), Nelson collected information on the entire population of tenured and tenure-track faculty at every top 100 department in each of the 15 fields (as ranked by the National Science Foundation based on research expenditures), as opposed to just a sample.

"In some cases there are zero people from underrepresented groups" at particular faculty ranks in particular disciplines across all the departments surveyed, Nelson said at a press briefing in Washington Wednesday. Without the entire population represented, Nelson said, it would be impossible to pinpoint some of those prominent zeros. Astronomy, for instance, has no black or Native American assistant professors at any of the top departments (40 departments in astronomy's case because NSF only ranks the top 40 in the discipline). And there's not a single Native American professor at any rank in astronomy or civil engineering.

Among the other results:

  • The proportion of underrepresented minorities -- defined in the report as black, Hispanic and Native American -- together made up 28.7 percent of the U.S. population in 2006. But their representation among the faculty ranks at all levels in top departments in 2007 varied from 2.2 percent (astronomy) to 13.5 percent (sociology). Among the engineering disciplines, civil engineering, with 6.1 percent of the faculty identifying as members of the underrepresented minority groups, had the highest representation, and electrical engineering, with 3.3 percent, the lowest.
  • Only five of nine engineering and physical science disciplines increased their proportion of minority faculty from 2002 to 2007.
  • Nelson found a number of disparities between the number of minority Ph.D. recipients in the hiring pool and the racial distribution of assistant professors (the newly hired). In computer science, for instance, 3.2 percent of Ph.D. recipients between 1996 and 2005 were black, while blacks made up 1.8 percent of assistant professors at top 100 departments in 2007 (and 1.3 percent among the top 50).
  • Further up the ranks, the proportion of minorities tends to fall further. Among the top 50 departments, only three disciplines -- chemistry, math and electrical engineering -- had more minority associate rather than assistant professors. And none had a majority of their minority faculty at the full professor rank (Nelson writes that the opposite can be said for white males).
  • As for women, despite the fact that they make up more than 50 percent of bachelor's degree recipients in fields like chemistry and political science, in those fields they represent, respectively, 13.7 and 26.1 percent of all professors at top 100 departments.

The full report, including institution-level data, is available online.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on New Numbers on Underrepresented Faculty Members

  • Posted by Hans Gesund on November 1, 2007 at 7:30am EDT
  • Is it possible that industry is also looking for highly qualified minority people? Since the pool is small and industry can pay better than universities can, sensible minority people would go there. The large Asian representation among faculty members in these fields should be proof that race discrimination is not the problem. I wish people would stop insinuating that it is.

    The solution is to raise faculty salaries above those found in industry. Then see what happens.

  • What This Study Shows
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on November 1, 2007 at 8:00am EDT
  • This report on underrepresented groups and faculty positions is very interesting and useful because, unlike the conservative attacks on ideological exclusion, this study actually compares the numbers in the pipeline (Ph.D. recipients in the previous decade) with the number of assistant professors. For a long time, we’ve all been told that the “pipeline problem” is the reason why so few blacks and other minorities get academic jobs. This study shows that more blacks have Ph.D.s than get jobs in most science and technology fields. In 13 out of 15 fields studied, blacks are underrepresented among assistant professors compared to Ph.D.s; that’s a remarkable finding. It certainly tends to refute the impression of racial preferences for African Americans in academia. Sociology is just about the only field where blacks are overrepresented (9.5% of Ph.D.s vs. 11.7% of assistant professors), and that may simply reflect a growing market in certain subfields such as urban sociology. Interestingly, Hispanics don’t face similar disparities, and many fields where blacks are sharply underrepresented (such as economics and political science) have overrepresented numbers of Hispanics. For example, blacks are 3.9% of economics Ph.D.s and 1.7% of assistant professors, while Hispanics are 4.3% of Ph.D.s and 8.9% of assistant professors. This could reflect an “any minority will do” approach: if economics departments are under pressure to hire minorities but still discriminate vs. blacks, they can simply hire Hispanics to appease people.

    For women, the numbers are fairly equal, but women are sharply underrepresented in three of the fields where women are most heavily represented: chemistry (32.4% of Ph.D.s vs. 21.2% of assistant profs), psychology (67.8% vs. 48.5%), and biology (46.3% vs. 35%). Interestingly, the current level of female assistant professors in psychology and biology is lower than even the rate of female Ph.D.s in 1986-95, indicating a long-term problem. There may be a fear that “too many women” in a department is considered undesirable.

    On the flip side, tokenism may explain the unusual diversity of mechanical engineering departments, where blacks (1.5% of Ph.D.s, 3.0% of assistant profs), Hispanics (1.9% vs. 3.7%), and women (8.4% vs. 18.0%) are all heavily overrepresented, even though mechanical engineering has the least diverse Ph.D. recipients. A tendency to hire one (or a few) underrepresented minority in a department might cause this to happen.

    White males are slightly underrepresented in most fields (but sharply overrepresented in psychology); however, the key reason for this is not affirmative action, but the heavy overrepresentation of Asian faculty, who have very high numbers among assistant professors, far above their proportion of Ph.D.s. The exact reasons for this is unclear, and there are a number of possible options: 1) Asian Ph.D.s are superior in quality as researchers because only the best Asian students are admitted to graduate programs due to discrimination; 2) hiring committees think that Asians are smarter and therefore favor them in hiring; 3) Asians are already well represented in academia, and therefore provide a supportive environment; 4) Asians face discrimination in the corporate workplace, and therefore are not lured away by higher salaries; 5) Asians in academia come from well-off backgrounds or families where academia is highly valued, and therefore forsake higher corporate salaries.

    The underrepresentation of blacks could also be attributed to many factors: 1) minorities lack mentors who help them succeed and have connections to get them jobs; 2) minorities are lured to the corporate world and its higher salaries because they are recruited there or because they tend to be poorer and need to pay off student debts; 3) minorities face discrimination in academic hiring.

    The studies claiming to show systemic hiring discrimination against conservatives in academia haven’t even taken the first step in proving a disparity: comparing the number of conservatives who get Ph.D.s to the number hired in each field. Once we have these numbers, it’s not proof of discrimination, but it should lead us to look carefully at the factors causing it. The lack of black professors in many different fields is now proven to be real, and not solely a consequence of the pipeline problem. That indicates that universities need to take action to fix the problem.

  • Reality wrapped in a dead fish
  • Posted by E.R. Murrow on November 1, 2007 at 8:55am EDT
  • " .. The studies claiming to show systemic hiring discrimination against conservatives in academia .."

    As a former global news reporter now in academia, I'm amused by the "truth-seekers" in the Ivory Tower making opinionated (v. research-based) claims. Having been deceived by (and occasionally lied to) the very talented, I can say that the faculty class can be among the best.

    Why aren't there more non-Democrats on faculties? Because there aren't affirmative action programs for non-Democrats (e.g., Independents, Republicans, Libertarians)? And the lack of non-Democrats in academia causes non-Democrats to begin to withdraw financial support for academia?

    Industry pays more than academia, so just raise salaries to compete? In an era of over-inflated tuition, where would the money come from? And perhaps many just don't want to live in Middle-of-Nowhere? And to significantly raise salaries for one group would immediately bring class-action lawsuits? And those salaries are higher, anyway?

    Why are there so many Asians in academia? Perhaps their culture?

    If a hard-copy definition of reality and $1 million were wrapped in a dead fish and tossed into the academic personnel office -- would only the money and the fish be recognized?

  • "Underrepresented" minorities
  • Posted by Prof. Challenger on November 1, 2007 at 10:47am EDT
  • It never fails to amuse me when a study defines a minority group based on its "underrepresentation", and then comes to the shocking conclusion that the group is, well, underrepresented.

  • Test The Hypothesis
  • Posted by E. Moran on November 1, 2007 at 5:50pm EDT
  • Obviously, Blacks, as academics, and in most other areas of American life, are the victims of discrimination, which explains the disparities noted in the piece.

    Why not look elsewhere? Let’s examine a place where this discrimination is NOT a problem, a place where these awful hegemonies do not operate, where Blacks and women and other minorities have been permitted to flower to their potential. Then we could see how we could improve.

    Suggest a venue for this kind of study, and let’s get busy.

  • Underrepresentation
  • Posted by Fossil on November 1, 2007 at 9:20pm EDT
  • The article on underrepresented minorities amongst science faculties is, somewhat begs the question. The very term "underrepresented" is not neutral but subtly implies that some discriminatory practices must be involved. So, too, the comparison of the percentage of new faculty hires with the percentage of new Ph.D.'s.

    Speaking realistically, rather than polemically, one must face up to the reality of so-called "terminal Ph.D.'s", work done by students who are able to put together a dissertation with considerable help from their advisers but who do not show much promise of becoming original and independent researchers. Not all Ph.D.'s are created equal by a long shot, and science departments are generally very good in spotting the difference between a nominal credential and real research potential. The conclusion, then, is that certain minorities, for whatever reason, are not only producing few Ph.D.'s, but even fewer, proportionately, promising scientists.

    The reasons for this invite extensive study and debate, even if it threatens to touch on matters that are uncomfortable and sensitive. But what one should not do is to lazily resort to the default explanation that discrimination is the key and that equity is simply a matter of percentages.

  • Posted by Ben at Enormous State University on November 2, 2007 at 3:45am EDT
  • It's disappointing to me that the reaction to this item is mostly snark about what constitutes a minority and what constitutes underrepresented. (In case anyone cares, I think this is a valid distinction that keeps universities from resting easy when they have quite a few Asian science profs but have never worried about having no blacks or Hispanics.)

    Okay, back to the article. Let's back off the usual accusations about conservatives and affirmative action and so on. Aren't you people bothered that the percentages of profs are so low AND that it's partly because the retention is awful? I am.

    I work in one of these science fields, and it happens that many of the people in it are liberal to the point that even low-grade overt racial discrimination would be unacceptable. (Overt or near-overt sexism, on the other hand, is more common.) Nevertheless, there are clear problems both in getting and retaining minority grad students and faculty, even after you account for the unfortunate fact that there aren't as many black and Hispanic undergrads in the hard sciences. So why is that? I don't have a simple answer, but it bothers me.

    I think if it doesn't bother you, you're essentially saying that you're comfortable with the fact that the place where you work is not attracting and even driving away a certain group of people. Isn't that worrisome?

  • What is a minority?
  • Posted by Armitage , PhD at Regional State University on November 2, 2007 at 1:20pm EDT
  • I'm going to read the report here shortly, but one thing I would be interested in knowing about is the extent to which faculty actually identify themselves with a single race. We know that there is a large and growing portion of K-12 and college students who identify themselves as 'mixed' or decline to select a race. Moreover, we know that the national census tries to take this into account. Consequently, how did the authors of the study take into account someone who might be half lusitanic (i.e. Brazilian) and half Native American? Half black and half white? Half white, a quarter black and a quarter Pequot--and fully Pequot for purposes of joining the tribe?

  • Ben: one man’s Snark
  • Posted by E. Moran on November 2, 2007 at 9:35pm EDT
  • is another mans pertinent (though discomforting) question. You find low percentages of certain minority professors worrisome. So tell us why this is the case. Why do these conditions prevail?

    Here are some unhelpful suggestions and bogus reasons. Please don’t recycle these.

    1. Everybody but you and two or three of your friends are racists.

    2. Slavery

    3. Poverty and under-funding.

    4. Lack of focus on these issues.

    If we don’t know why and haven’t the courage to inquire and investigate - then nothing will change.

  • uncomfortable
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on November 8, 2007 at 5:25am EST
  • For the caucasian son of blue collar workers, college was not a really welcome place, but a few of us found each-other (outside Greek Row) and worked in the school cafeteria, helping custodial staff in the dorms, or working off campus.

    Graduate school was a little better, but some prof.s reminded some of us that we were out of our element, and remember, some of us were still working close to full time (especially those with families - GA & TA positions never have paid for much).

    So other studies find that women quit the hunt and take other options; friend of mine went into Industrial Psych - made a lot more money in industry that I've ever made teaching.

    Maybe the question is, why does ANYONE perservere into full-professor-hood? I had very few role models who'd also come up from the blue-collar neighborhoods - maybe their rough, pessimistic, angry humor helped keep some of us at the quest?

    Maybe it was some of our blue collar mommas, who didn't really know what we did, but damn they were sure proud of us? Maybe it was having guilt trips about younger siblings coming up who needed a role model or the guilt trips about papa who was working double shifts to pay for the new American dream?

    or just having a mama and papa at home waiting for the grade reports (no, FERPA didn't protect us back then) to see if we were wasting our golden opportunity in higher education?