Cover Image


View/Hide Left Panel

for Education Statistics’ survey program, “Bachelor’s and Beyond,” is a longitudinal study with data on U.S. college graduates from all fields.

Discussion Following Crank Remarks

Catherine Didion from the National Academies asked whether professional associations and researchers count or define the presented disciplines differently across countries. Crank responded that the AMS probably counts differently than other countries, which can affect cross-national data analysis. He added that the statistics profession in the United States has been working hard and long to convince the public that they are not mathematicians. Crank explained that, in the United Kingdom, statistics is usually within a department of mathematics but that students in these countries go on to become research statisticians of some prominence.

Discussion Following Panel Discussion

Zakya Kafafi of NSF commented on the metrics cited during Daubechies’ presentation, in which she showed data from the Association for Women in Mathematics. Although the Institute for Advanced Study started in 1994, the data shown were only from 2000 and 2006; Kafafi added it would be interesting to follow the careers of women to best monitor their progress. Daubechies agreed and said the challenge is to prove that the Institute made a difference. She said that she needed comparative data that included career outcomes of those who completed and did not complete the Institute program. Kafafi suggested that progress alone would be good indicator. Frehill added that Daubechies should use the longitudinal data in the Survey of Doctorate Recipients from NSF.

Kaye Husbands Fealing, from the Committee on National Statistics at the National Academies, pointed out that there is some literature that follows cohorts over time, which could provide an appropriate model. She suggested that it is useful to think about what is coming down the road in terms of the demand for new areas of exploration in the sciences and then think about what should be the share of women in these areas. She observed that the previous presentations did not mention wage and salary. Fealing said that she is interested in examining critical degree-level transitions (B.S. to M.S. to Ph.D.), especially focusing on the ebbs and flows of percentages of women and men. This issue raises questions about the experimental side, the nominal impact of wage and salary, and how that affects women’s participation.

Lichter thanked Miller for raising the issue of evaluation. He explained that the measurement of impact is an undercurrent of the chemical sciences research team’s work. He argued that there is a tendency to confuse outputs with outcomes and called for more research on outcomes and impact.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement