Defining Academic “Quality”: The Gendered Effects of Admissions Criteria in Doctoral CS and CE Programs

Defining Academic “Quality”: The Gendered Effects of Admissions Criteria in Doctoral CS and CE Programs

Holly R. LordJ. McGrath Cohoon

Gender Diversity in Computing Workshop

Big Picture, Bottom Line, OverviewBig 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 studyData 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 ChoiceNotable 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 ModelRecruitment Model

Regression on Women's Representation in Graduate CSE Programs

 Beta for all

departmentsBeta for departments

where effort >=2.6

  n=46 n=34

Flexibility in program content 0.21* 0.18

Personal recruitment by men -0.49** -0.35*

Effort to enroll women 0.29* 0.36*

Adjusted R2 0.29** 0.29**

How do admissions criteria affect women’s representation?How do admissions criteria affect women’s representation?

Admissions criteria• formal index• ambiguous index• other criteria

Admissions-related attitudes

Dependent Variable: female proportion PhD studentsDependent Variable: female proportion PhD students

ControlsControls

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 qualityAmbiguous criteria are commonly used to assess applicant quality

#1 General quality of academic record

#2 Motivation

#4 Academic letters of recommendation

#6 Communication skills

Extensive & Intensive differ in emphasisExtensive & Intensive differ in emphasis

Grades in computing courses 85% 94%

Communication skills 73% 64%

Res. Exten. Res.Inten.

% of faculty rating criteria very or extremely important

Faculty want to increase diversityFaculty 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 InstitutionsWomen’s Representation is Lower in Research Extensive Institutions

Research extensive

Female proportion PhDs-

Formal index exhibited no effectFormal 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 affectAmbiguous 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 womenLife experience criterion favors women

Consider life experiences

Ambiguous criteria

Female Proportion ofPhDs

+

++

Diversity as a criterion favors womenDiversity as a criterion favors women

Membership in an underrepresented group

Gendered criteria has an affectGendered criteria has an affect

Computing work/volunteer experience negatively affects the gender balance

www.cptc.edu/.../Computer%20Work%20Station.jpg

Final ModelFinal ModelRegression 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 ns

Adjusted R-squared for model 0.46 0.00

Questions?Questions?