Click for next page ( 59


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



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 58
4 Women arid Minorities . . ~ . . in . ~ ngmeerl~g It is well known that women and ethnic minorities are underrepre- sented in engineering. Tables 15 through 17 show the following: women account for 13.2 percent of the bachelor's degrees in engineer- ing, but only 4.7 percent of the doctor's degrees; blacks and Hispanics each account for about 2.6 percent of the bachelor's degrees, but blacks account for only 0.6 percent of the doctor's degrees, and Hispanics for only 1.4 percent. Asi~n/Pacific graduates, on the other hand, receive 4.3 percent of the bachelor's degrees and 5.7 percent of the doctor's degrees. Similar trends are visible in the production of master's degrees. Conclusions cannot be drawn from the small numbers of Native American students. The falloff between bachelor's and doctor's degrees for women, blacks, and Hispanics may be explained in large part by the intense recruiting pressure to which these groups are subjected upon gradua- tion with the B.S. Another part of the explanation is that the "pipeline" is still being filled. Table 17 shows the production of bachelor's degrees among women and minorities between 1978 end 1982, and thus suggests trends in the graduate school "pipeline supply. " For every group the trend is up, both in absolute numbers and percentages of the total. The increase is espe- cially marked for women, although they are still far from their repre- sentation in society as a whole. The percentages for blacks and Hispanics leave these groups far underrepresented. It is difficult to draw national conclusions for the Asian /Pacific group because 50 percent of 58

OCR for page 58
WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING 59 TABLE 15 Engineering Doctor's Degrees-Women and Minorities, 1978-1983 1978 Total doctor's degrees 2,573 Women Blacks Hispanic Asian/Pacific Native American SOURCES: Engineenng and Technology Degrees {New York: Engineering Manpower Commission, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982~. Paul Doigan, "Engineering Degrees Granted, 1983," EngineenugEducanon, April 1984, PP.640-645. 1980 1981 1982 2,751 2,841 2,815 51 15 25 175 61 19 22 177 88 19 25 154 9o 16 20 148 1983 2,887 3,023 126 11 26 124 2 142 -19 41 173 o 1983 (onto) - 4.7 0.6 1.4 5.7 o.o TABLE 16 Engineering Master's Degrees Women and Minorities, 1978- 1983 1978 1979 1980 1981 16,941 17,643 Total master's degrees 15,736 15,624 1983 1982 1983 (/0) - 18,289 19J673 Women7948661,0831,2251,5391,7829.1 Blacks1991571631821842581.3 Hispanic2392142462762153061.6 Asian/Pacific7846758079598361,2836.5 Native American49471.:~< 0.1 SOURCES: Engineenng and Technology Degrees (New York: Engineering Manpower Commission, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982). Paul Doigan, "Engineering Degrees Granted, 1983, " Engineenng Education, April 1984, PP.640-645. TABLE 17 Engineering Bachelor's Degrees Women and Minorities, 1978-1983 1978 1979 1980 1978 1983 1981 1982 1983 1/0) 1/0) Total bachelor's degrees 46,091 52,598 58,742 62,935 66,990 72,471 Women3,2804,7165,6806,5578,1409,566 7.1 13.2 Blacks 894 1,076 1,320 1,445 1,644 1,8621.9 2.6 Hispanic 1,072 1,245 1,332 1,513 1,608 1,8832.3 2.6 Asian/Pacific 1, 195 1,332 1,922 2,267 2,577 3,0982.6 4.3 Native American 37 59 60 90 91 97< 0.1 0.1 - - SOURCES: Engineenng and Technology Degrees (New York: Engineering Manpower Commission, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 19821. Paul Doigan, "Engineering Degrees Granted, 1983," Engineenng Education, April 1984, PP.640-645.

OCR for page 58
60 ENGINEERING GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH these students are concentrated ~ just three states: California {32 per- cent1, New York t13 percent), and Hawaii t6 percent) .28 One can look back even farther ~ the pipeline and examine what has happened since 1978 In engineering freshman enrollments. Table 18 gives the figures. Again the trends are up, and again, notably so for women. The absolute number of women freshman students dropped 1983, but then so did the overall number of freshmen. The net result was that the percentage of women freshman students increased slightly in 1983 to 17.0 percent, from the 1982 level of 16.6 percent. A trouble- some factor is the falloff in 1982 for blacks and Hispanics, following several successive years of increases. A possible explanation is the condition of the economy in those years, which may have had an adverse impact upon the financial ability of persons in those groups to attend college. Also, many schools were lim~t~g undergraduate enroll- ment, which may have had an adverse impact on minority applicants. The ability of the system to produce representative numbers of women ~d ethnic minorities at the graduate level is dependent upon how many students from these groups enter engineering at the fresh- man level. Studies have shown that the pool from which future Ph.D.s in science or engineering will come has essentially been established by the conclusion of high school.29 In fact, from one-third to one-half of the future sc~ence-oriented students had selected science as their field of interest by as early as ninth grade. Therefore, it is clear that efforts to increase the representation of women and minorities in engineering must be concentrated in high school or earlier. The factors are both cultural and economic. Members of minority groups especially are likely to be disadvantaged economically, so the provision of financial TABLE 18 Engineering Freshman Enrollments Women and Minorities, 1978-1983 1978 1979 1980 1981 Total freshman enrollments 95,805 103,124 110,149 115,280 1978 1983 1982 1983 I%) (%) 115,303 109,638 Women11,78914,03116,00418,23819,15518,689 12.3 17.0 Blacks5,4936,3396,6617,0156,7156,342 5.7 5.8 Hispanic3,2963,7683,2084,7684,4214,760 3.4 4.3 Asian/Pacific2,1693,1332,8894,0354,0984,983 2.3 4.5 Native American225317365412371376 n 2 n .a . SOURCES: Engineenng and Technology Enrollments 1New York: Engineering Man- power Commission, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982). Paul Doigan, "Engineering Degrees Granted, 1983," Engireenng Education, April 1984, pp. 640-645.

OCR for page 58
WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING TABLE 19 Persistence Rates of Engineering Students Freshman B.S. Ratio: Enrollments Degrees "Persistence Fall, 1979 1982-83 Rate" All students 103,724 72,471 0.70 Women 14,031 9,566 0.68 Blacks 6,339 1,862 0.29 Hispanic 3,768 1,883 0.50 Asian/Pacific 3,133 3,098 0.99 Native American 317 97 0.31 61 support at all levels of education is vital. In addition, minorities are more likely than other groups to be disadvantaged educationally, so programs aimed at this problem are also vital. There is a tendency for minority high school students to be unaware of engineering as a possi- ble career even though engineering is the second largest profession after teaching. It has often been said that engineering is the "invisible profes- sion" as far as high school students are concemed. Thus, high school and junior high programs should be expanded, especially at inner-city schools, to expose students to the variety of opportunities in engineer- ing and to encourage them to take the courses in mathematics and science that are necessary for entering engineering school. These choices must usually be made at the sophomore and junior levels in high school, and may simply not be possible later. Thus, the principal efforts at "filling the pipeline" should be made at the high school level. A number of programs in various states focus on these objectives. A more concerted national effort is needed, under the guidance of the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering iNACME) . Another factor influencing the availability of women and ethnic minority students for graduate school admission is their "persistence rate" in undergraduate school.38 Table 19 provides some data on this, using 1979 and 1983 as the comparison years. Table 19 shows a "per- sistence rate" of 0.70 for all students, computed by taking the number of B.S. degrees nationally ~ 1982-1983, divided by the number of freshmen four years earlier. There are two things wrong with such a simple ratio. First, not all students graduate in four years; second, the "freshmen enrollments" figure does not include commodity college enrollments, so the computed ratio taken by itself is much too high. However, for rough comparisons between groups, these ratios are acceptable. The persistence rate for women is seen to be close to that for

OCR for page 58
62 ENGINEERING GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH all students. But, for all minority groups except Asi~n/Pacific, the persistence rates are markedly lower than for all students. {The ratio of 0.99 for Asian/Pacific students is probably misleading, since commu- nity college figures are not included in the freshman enrollments. For example, 32 percent of the Asian/Pacific students are in California, which has a very large community college system. ) It has been learned from experience that many minority students have academic difficul- ties in engineering school as a consequence of both educational and cultural disadvantages. Often, their inner-city schools have not pre- pared them well ~ mathematics and science. Then, as academic trou- ble begins to develop, they frequently do not know where to turn for help. For undergraduate students, and especially for freshmen, univer- sities generally look like massive, unresponsive monoliths, even though many counseling and teaching resources may in fact be avail- able. Thus, for minority students especially, active intervention by counselors who monitor progress and give sympathetic assistance is vital. Engineering schools need to develop "retention programs" for their minority students that will provide sympathetic, personal co~,n- seling for students to help them get started at the right places in their course work and to Aide them to learning-assist~nce services offered by their campuses. Financial aid should be made available to economi- cally disadvantaged students at all levels of engineering education. Since minority students frequently come from backgrounds of eco- nomic disadvantage, such aid programs are vital to making it possible for minority students to gain access to college and to remain there. Some evidence that, for women at least, the pipeline is being filled is given by the graphs of Figure 18. The percentage of women at every educational level increased between 1978 and 1983. If the curves con- tinue to rise, the percentage of women in engineering will reach overall representational proportions eventually, but it is impossible to predict at this point whether that will actually happen. It does appear, how- ever, that young women no longer perceive engineering as a field that is closed to them. Women in Academic Careers The pool of faculty women who are engineers is too small to have been investigated statistically in any of the studies that could be identi- fied as appropriate references for this report. For this reason, much of the material that follows is derivative in nature. For example, when a

OCR for page 58
WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING , , , , , , .t F If 0 _ an Lie Ct: _ o tR-CS~ ~ 8'CeEcOR'S BEGS C~Fe'S DEGREES 0eC7OR'S DEGREES 978 1979 1980 YEAR 63 1981 1982 1983 FIGURE 18 Women engineers as a percentage of year's class. SOURCE: Data from Engineering Manpower Commission. body of data concerns women in science and engineering, it is assumed that faculty women are included unless otherwise specified; when studies about academic women in science reveal features that appear to be discriminatory toward women, it is assumed that these features also describe the situation of academic women engineers; when a salary survey carried out for engineers in all areas of the workplace reveals generally lower salaries for female members of the profession, faculty women are presumed to be similarly affected; and when a body of sociological studies documents discriminatory forces that influence the situation of women in society in general, those same forces are presumed to influence the careers of faculty women ire colleges of engi- neering. Valuable material concerning perceptions and experiences can be found in the Proceedings of tee Engineering Educators Workshop the workshop was held ~ conjunction with the 1979 national conven- tion of the Society of Women Engineers30 and in the proceedings of a 1975 conference held at Comell University, Women ~ Engineenng Beyond Recruitment. 3i

OCR for page 58
64 ENGINEERING GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Women make up a very small percentage of the total number of engineering faculty members in this country less than 0.9 percent in 1979, according to the Scientific Manpower Commission. The talent pool from which faculty are hired is closely related to the number obtaining their doctorate in engineering. Table 15 shows a small but steady increase in the numbers of such women. It seems reasonable to suppose that the numbers will continue to increase over the years immediately ahead because of the increase in bachelor's degrees. How- ever, it cannot be automatically assumed that future faculty positions accepted by women will be directly proportional to these increases. In the fall of 1980, 49.4 percent of all undergraduates in U.S. institu- tions of higher education were women, and women comprised 42 per- cent of all graduate students. In the same academic term, 12.8 percent of all engineering undergraduate students were women, as were 8.8 percent of all engineering graduate students. The relatively low rate of continuation of women into engineering graduate school, compared with that of women in other disciplines, cannot be explained in tennis of a simple lack of interest in graduate studies on the part of the women. The attractive job offers available to engineering B.S. graduates must certainly be a factor, but other factors also appear to be at work.32 The 1980 reported figures on financial support of students ~ engi- neering graduate school show the following:32 Percent With Financial Support Total Institutional Federal Self Number Support Support Support UIlknown Men 38,399 30.0 27.0 28.4 14.6 Women 4,052 31.0 21.6 34.0 13.4 Women compare favorably with men ~ gaining support from their own institutions, but receive a substantially smaller proportion of fed- eral support. While the disparity carrot, of course, be proved to be attributable to discrimination, it also cannot automatically be assumed that these figures prove women less capable than men. Sug- gestive evidence that discrimination may indeed be a factor comes from a 1980 study of a profession other than engineering, but similar in employing mostly men. In this study, conducted by the Academy of Management Review, it was shown that male applicants for scholar- ships were judged "more intelligent" and "more likeable" than their female counterparts, and it was shown that mate applicants for a study- abroad program had been favored over female applicants.33 34 A series of

OCR for page 58
WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING 65 studies by Rosen and Jardee35 36 37 yielded similar results. Male appli- cants in several contexts were more likely to be regarded as acceptable for hire, evaluated more favorably with regard to potential, judged more suitable for promotion, more likely to be chosen to attend a profes- sional training conference, and more likely to have their recommenda- tions accepted regarding resolution of a supervisor-subordinate conflict. Moreover, the sex differences were larger with respect to eval- uations of candidates for demanding jobs than for undemanding jobs. Barriers to the full participation of women in merit awards and prize programs appear to fall into two categories: attitudinal barriers on the part of nominators, judges, and sometimes the women themselves; and procedural barriers such as letters of recommendation, interviewing techniques, and criteria statements, which, often inadvertently, exclude women disproportionately as competitors or winners, and exclude women as nominators or judges.33 Because of the perception of women as a group in society, women often face greater difficulty than men do in matters of fair evaluation, especially when the evaluators are male and are concerned with predicting future performance. Such might be the case when a male faculty member must decide which of several potential research students shows promise worthy of support on his grant, or when a male administrator decides which members of a pool of applicants for teaching assistantships are most likely to handle these responsibilities well.39 Male faculty are often likely to perceive women students as less capable and less professionally committed than men.33 The Scientific Manpower Commission has reported that there were 11,868 faculty members in engineering colleges in 1979, of which 102 were women.32 Of these, 100 women were in tenured or tenure-track positions. (See table below. J Engineering Faculty Members in U. S. Universities and Colleges Professor Assoc. Professor Ass't. Professor Other Men6,162 (52.4%)3,661 131.1%}1,644 (14.0%)294 (2.5%} Women15 |14.7%]27 (26.5%}58 156~9%)2 (1~9%} SOURCE: Scientific Manpower Commission. On the other hand, the National Research Council reported 17,100 engineering faculty members in 1979, of whom 200 were women. (See Table 20. 1 Since the total number of engineering faculty members in the United States is known from other sources to be approximately

OCR for page 58
66 ~4 o - ._ Cal C) _1 be Cal en CC ._ 4= v cn - o o c) - - C~ Cal _. o CC 4 - 4 - ~> o e~ X C~ ,~ o c ~ Cx ~ _ o~ Cx C ~ _ o o ~o o o~ 1- ~ O o ~. . . ~u, _ _ _ ~o o~ C~ _ ~ ~ Cx ~ oo oo ~ _ o o~ o r~ _ U ~ `) ~ ~ ~ o .O e~ c4' _ Uj ~ ~ ~ ~ _~_ CO "G eS~ C~ * - cn C) C-> o~ - O a~ o~ uj ~ ~ \0 _ o u) 10 ~ o _ ~' _ oo ei . , ~ _ . . . . ~ ~ o o ~ _ _ _ U. ~o C~ O oo as oo u? O C ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~_ O 0\ a~ =- C%' _ U O : ~_ _ _ ec O .= 1 ~ ~ C) ~ O O ~ ~ O Z 00 C) o - CC ec C) O ~O O O~ 0\ _ . ~ ~r ~ _ ~ _ ~O C O~ O ~ ~ U?. ~ ~ _ O ~O O O~ C~ ~ C _ . ~ _ _ ~ _ ~O O~ o O ~ e~ o O ~O t_ O~ 'D ~ ~ U _ ~ _ ;~ O ) ~- tG O .Q r: ~ c, =_ 5 o O ~ ~ ~ o Z - u) O o~ ~ O UOj o ~ ~ ~ _ _ Cx oo U? u) Cx - - C CC o ~ O - O uj x Oi ~ O4 C~ _ ~o C o~ 0 ~ c~ ~n _ I_ _ ~ ~ _ O O oo O C ~o o~ ~ oo . . . . U) ~ - C~ ~o o~ Cx ~ Cx O C C~ O - ~ ~ - . oo ~_ C~ u) O C . . u) ~ U? cx C ~o C~ X? ~ - , ~ ~ -- - -~ ~- o o o ~ ~ ~ c~. CN ~ e~ - - c o~o l - u) - ~c~ cN ~ - ~ . . . - . . . . ) e~ c c) - c) :` o ~ - ~ ~- e ~o ~ .o ~ 'e tc c~ ~ _ 5 o ~ ~ ~ Z Z 5 - O C~ C~ - e~ o ._ 4 - z : C: - o o~c . _ o Cs Cx - CC ~: cq ~ .~ 4 - .= o CC _ _ _ C oo ::5 - _ ._ t:5 5 ~0O ~ ~S '~ ~= 't0 ~ _ C) O ~ 7 C'' C.) ~ .O O ~ ~ cn

OCR for page 58
WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING 67 18,000,23 it is assumed the latter source is closer to the truth. In either case, the number of women faculty is small on the order of only 1 percent. Data in the table {"Engineering Faculty Members in U.S. Universi- ties and Colleges" ~ from the Scientific Manpower Commission show markedly different distributions in the academic ranks for men and women. To some degree this is due to the more recent entry of women faculty into engineering education, but another study, from the National Science Foundation, suggests that this is not the whole expla- nation. NSF reported in 1982 that women with doctorates in scientific and engineering fields were less likely than men to be tenured or in tenure-track positions {59 percent as opposed to 78 percent), and that of the tenured faculty, 53 percent of the ~ omen and 75 percent of the men held the rank of associate or full professor. These differences were found to persist after adjustments were made for field, year of receipt of doctorate, and quality of the institution from which the doctorate was granted.40 According to the same NSF study, a larger proportion of the women than of the men in the combined doctoral scientist and engineer pool are employed by educational institutions. Within universities, women were found to be less likely than men to be in research institutions. A study by the National Academy of Sciences found that almost 26 per- cent of doctoral men but only 21 percent of the doctoral women scien- tists were in the top 50 academic institutions, as measured by R&D expenditures.4i A larger proportion of the women than of the men were found in two-year colleges and in elementary and secondary schools. There is no obvious way to separate these combined scientist and engi- neer figures to isolate the case of women engineers, except to note that women engineers would more likely be found in industry than in sec- ondary and elementary schools. However, there is also no evident rea- son to suppose that the status of women engineers in academia is different from that of women scientists. Table 20 provides some comparative data on time to tenure for men and women in various academic pursuits, including engineering. Of the 200 women in the engineering category, 57.8 percent are listed as tenured or on the tenure track. Their years-to-tenure figure is 6.0; that for men is 5.3. Physics, astronomy, and chemistry show even greater differences, as do biology and environmental studies. Women appear to obtain tenure sooner than men do in agriculture, medicine, and social science. In the humanities fields {Table 21), the average time to tenure for women is slightly less than for men S.0 years, compared to 5.2. Thus, there are some academic fields, including engineering, in which

OCR for page 58
68 o ~ I', ~ 3 -c,0,4 3 X' of V) Cal . ~ V) ~a, U. ~ ._ E o ~ 3 .= o ~m U' Pa o CO 4= Cal 4 - C~ C) 5 _ Cal ED ~ ~\ - O ~ O ~ Cal CX) . . _ ~ ~ O ,` lo) \ ~- O ~ O ~ Cx O en C'4 et _ O ~ - 0 ~ US ~ it ~O ~ ~ ~ ~_ _ ~ ~- O ~O ~ At _ ~ _ _ Cx ~ _ g ~g ~ ~O 'A ~ O _ Cx ~ JO O ~ usCx ~ O ~ ~O l ~us O~ Oc~ ~ G~ ~ O oo' ' - _0 ~ ~ oo ~n _~ _ _ ~o o~ ~ CO ~ oo . . . . . oo _ _ O = O ~ U: O Cx C~ . ~ c~1 ~ <\ ~ ~ _ ~o o' ~ ~ C ~ ~ . . . . . O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~o o~ ~ ~ ~ r~ \ ~ C ~- ~ C~ _ CC - ~ < - O ~o C o' C~ ~ ~ O _ . . . . . ~ ~ O _ ,. _ _ g o= e~ Cx I~ ~ ~ ~ _ . . . . . _ ~ U~ _ _ =` O ~ ~ a ;` 4- 4- C) C. . ~ 5 ~ ~ O C ~1 O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ le_ ~ ~ C~ C~ ~ I O o~ 0 ~ ~ e~ ~ - eo d- C-) ~ ' _ ~ _ _ O ~ o ~ O U) ~ O U~ C _ _ ~o O o' O - ~ C~ \~) _ ~ ~ ~ U~ _ ~o O o~ O oo ~ ~ ~ C~ o:' _ C~ ~ _ _ ~o o~ o ~ O O <;N OY Lr~ \c, _ o O o~ O ~ ~ - , _ . . . . . i~ cN - ~ - o \o o ~ oo oo ~ o c~ o ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ - - =- s =- { - 1 c~C ~c ~ == 5 ~ e O ~ O C~ ~ Cx ~ 00 _ 00 0 _ _ ~O O~ O O O i~ ~ ~ d U~ U) ~i _ ~O O~ O ~ ~ C~ 00 ~ O 00 _ ~ ~ ,~) ~i _ ~O O~ O ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ . . . . . O ~ O U~ ~ _ ~O O~ O ~ ~ ~ 00 C~ O d - c~ _ ~O O~ O ~ ~ U) ~ ~ . . . .. O ~ ~ ~ Cx _ ~O O O~ O U~ _ ~ Ot:~ C'] ~ O U) _ ~ _ g ~ \0 ~ aN C~ _ O . . . .. O O O _ ~ C~ c~ _ - O :` _ _ ~ C ~ ~ =0 ~ ~ -O O O O O ;` C) tC CJ _ CC O Z o - . C~ - - ~o cs ~4 - ~: . o c) qO . = o cs oo ~ - ~ - - . - c: t ocO ~ ~ ~ - ~ .o O z c~ - ~ ct ~ - o c) v) c~

OCR for page 58
WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING 69 women typically wait longer for tenure then men do. Given the com- parative data about other fields, it does not seem reasonable to attribute this delay to the commitments of women to their homes, children, or personal lives or to any other factor intrinsic to women. In fact, a study reported in 1981 revealed that not only do marriage and family life fail to hamper the scientific productivity of academic women in pure sci- ence, they appear related to increases in the research performance on which academic advancement is typically based. "Women scientists who are married turn out to be significantly more prolific than those who are not; and women who are married with either one or two children are slightly more scientifically productive than unmarried women, and only slightly less so than those who are married without children."42 Salary studies related to the salaries of 250,000 members of the Insti- tute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers {IEEE), including electrical engineering faculty women, generally reveal lower salary structures for women, as do data related to the salaries of software workers In indus- try.42 43 44 Figure 19 gives the data from the IEEE and shows annual pay differentials ranging from $3,700 to $8,300. After the IEEE data were adjusted to account for such possible modifying features as later entry of women into the field, level of education and professional responsibil- ity, the differential remained at $2, 600. In the case of software workers, the authors of the survey concluded that it is a $5,000-a-year liability to be a woman in this field. {See Figure 20. ~ In spite of their low representation as engineering faculty members {approximately 1 percent), women submitted 5 percent of the research proposals received by the Engineering Directorate of the National Sci A~e 3Oo-239 F S25$3O2O,ioo~ 40- 49 i 37,600 ~45,900 50 ~40,700 ~ S4S, 800 a, Average I Female EE's Salary Male E's Salary FIGURE 19 Average yearly pay for male and female electrical engineers, according to age. SOURCE: The Institute, Vol. 8, No. 3, March 1984. ~ 1984 IEEE. Reprinted with permission.

OCR for page 58
70 ENGINEERING GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 50 40 u 1 M = Male F= Female _ 10 -30 < 100 499 F EMPLOYEES IN O RGANIZATION M > 500 77 FIGURE 20 Annual earnings by size of establishment. SOURCE: "Software worker's survey," Computerworld, Nov. 14, 1983. ~ 1983 by CW Communications/Inc., Framingham, Mass. 01701. Reprinted with permission. ence Foundation in 1981.4 This suggests a disproportionate effort on their part to obtain grant support for their research. However, women received only 1 percent of the awards made that year. In the following year, women submitted only 1.8 percent of the proposals received by the same funding unit, but they received 1.5 percent of the awards. Entering faculty women had more success with Research Initiation Grants in 1983, submitting 3.7 percent of the proposals that year and receiving 4.7 percent of the awards. The faculty member in a research-oriented institution who fails to attract grant support is seriously handicapped in pursuing a successful academic career. He or she is at a considerable disadvantage in attract- ing graduate students and hence in carrying out a viable research pro- gram. If women faculty have received less support, especially grant support, in the past than have their male colleagues, it should not be surprising to find them less productive in terms of the standard aca

OCR for page 58
WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING 71 demic measures. There can even be a certain prophetic aspect to this. In the words of the sociologist I. R. Cole with regard to scientists in gen- eral: "If the initial assessment of who is apt to be a star is based on functionally irrelevant criteria such as gender, then the process of accu- mulating advantage can begin to enhance the career possibilities of men, while diminishing the chances of women."42 Further, whey women are defined as being less mobile geographically, which is often the case since women are more often than male colleagues one-half of a two-career couple, then this may reinforce the accumulation of career disadvantage. The feelings of exclusion from informal collegial networks almost uniformly reported by faculty women in engineering and scientific fields suggest that women have not been accepted as colleagues with equal participatory rights in the informal activities associated with career success. This, too, can result in the continuing perception that academic opportunities are less than equal for women engineering fac- ulty. If more women and members of minority groups are to be attracted into graduate school and ultimately into academic careers, the current environment in the universities needs to be examined and changed where it is found that the system discriminates unfairly in favor of white males. Finding and Recommendation The representation of women in engineering seems to be increasing at all academic levels. However, the same cannot be said in the case of minority groups. The presence of minorities in graduate schools is perceived to be principally a "pipeline" problem. Major efforts are needed with respect to minority groups at the junior high and high school levels, and upgraded retention programs are needed at the colle- giate level. Efforts must be made to eliminate discrimination, real or perceived.