| The
objective of this report is to identify some goals and strategies for
improving faculty, staff and student diversity in the CEE Department.
The report first assesses where the CEE Department stands with respect
to diversity by comparison with national data, national trends and with
similar departments in other universities. Based on these comparisons,
a SWOT analysis identifies several strategies for emphasizing our strengths,
ameliorating our weaknesses and exploiting our opportunities while recognizing
our threats.
The results of the
diversity comparisons lead to the conclusion that diversity in the CEE
Department needs to be enhanced. Based on comparisons with peers and other
data, realistic but aggressive goals are set for gender and minority diversity
within the faculty and student body. The focus will be on effective strategies
to move the Department toward the goals..
Faculty Diversity:
Internal and National Comparison:
The data for the CEE Department are compared to the data for the College
of Engineering, University and Nationwide CEE data in the table below.
The National data were obtained from the ASEE Profiles of Engineering
Colleges for Fall 2003. The comparison indicates that the CEE Department
is clearly below the University and national percent minority values and
somewhat below the University and National values for women.
Table
I. Internal and National Comparison of Faculty Diversity.
| |
MTU
CEE Department |
College of Engr |
University |
National
CEE |
| Number
of Faculty |
24 |
129 |
327 |
3431 |
| Percent
Minority |
0 |
24 |
17 |
25.1 |
| Percent
Women |
8.3 |
10 |
22 |
11 |
Comparison with Peer Programs:
Table II below summarizes the faculty diversity for several CEE peer programs
selected based on their similarity to Michigan Tech’s CEE Department.
Criteria for selection included research emphasis, size, and location.
The National Data were obtained from the ASEE Profiles of Engineering
while the peer university data were estimated from the CEE faculty listings
on the various Departmental web pages.
Table II.Comparison
of Faculty Diversity with Peer Programs
| School |
Number
of Faculty |
%
Women |
%
Asian |
%
African American |
%
Hispanic |
%
Native American |
| U.S.
Engineering |
23,700 |
9.9 |
19.2 |
2.1 |
3.2 |
na |
| U.S.
Civil |
3320 |
10.9 |
16.9 |
2.1 |
6.1 |
na |
| U.S.
Environmental |
111 |
14.7 |
9.8 |
4.9 |
2.9 |
na |
| MTU
CEE |
23 |
8.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| UW
Madison CEE |
33 |
6.1 |
9.1 |
0 |
6.1 |
na |
| Michigan
State CEE |
21 |
4.8 |
14.3 |
0 |
4.8 |
na |
| Iowa
State CCEE |
40 |
2.5 |
12.5 |
0 |
2.5 |
na |
| Clarkson
CEE |
19 |
21 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
na |
| UM
Rolla CE |
23 |
0 |
4.3 |
0 |
13 |
na |
The data indicate that even though Michigan Tech CEE is clearly below
the national average in faculty gender diversity, it is somewhat better
than most of the peer departments with respect to faculty gender diversity.
However, with respect to overall faculty minority diversity Michigan Tech
CEE ranks below every one of the peer departments. While the African American,
Hispanic, and Native American minorities are under represented minorities
(i.e. their representation on faculties is less than their representation
in the general U.S. population), the Asian minority is well generally
well represented on CEE faculties.
The October 1, 2002
to September 30, 2003 AAP Report for Michigan Tech lists the number of
faculty in each department along with the numbers of women and minorities
on each departmental faculty. That report sets faculty hiring goals based
on the fraction of women and minorities estimated to be in the hiring
pool. For civil and environmental engineering the estimates for 2002-03
were: 12.6% minority and 24.5% women. It is interesting to note that part
time faculty hires count in the statistics and because we hired an Asian
part time faculty as one of three faculty hires for 2002-03, we technically
met the goals for hiring of minorities and women. In establishing realistic
goals for the future, it will be important to focus on regular tenure
track faculty. The AAP Report indicates that both gender and minority
balance needs to be improved in the CEE Department.
Student Body
Diversity:
Internal Gender Comparison:
Table III compares
the gender diversity of the CEE student body with the College of Engineering
and University. The gender data is broken down by graduate and undergraduate
and this makes it possible to separate these groups. This distinction
is of value because recruitment strategies for undergraduate students
differ from those used for graduate students.
Table III.CEE Student Body Gender Balance, Internal
Comparison
| |
Number,
Fall 2003 |
Number,
Fall 2004 |
Fall 2003, % Female |
Fall 2004, % Female |
| Civil
Undergrad |
425 |
457 |
19 |
19 |
| Env.
Undergrad |
104 |
81 |
53 |
54 |
| CEE
Undergrad |
529 |
538 |
26 |
24.5 |
| Civil
Graduate |
47 |
40 |
20 |
25 |
| Env.
Graduate |
55 |
54 |
42 |
44 |
| CEE
Graduate |
102 |
94 |
31 |
37 |
| CEE
Total |
631 |
633 |
27 |
26.4 |
| College
of Engr Total |
3713 |
3705 |
19.5 |
18 |
| University
Undergraduate & Post Degree |
5208 |
5285 |
23.9 |
22.6 |
| University
Graduate & Special |
1357 |
1251 |
29 |
29 |
| University
Total |
6565 |
6536 |
25 |
23.8 |
In keeping with national
trends (Engineering Trends, 2004), the Civil undergraduate enrollment
increased slightly while the Environmental undergraduate enrollment decreased
sharply from 2003 to 2004. The Environmental Engineering program continues
to enroll over 50% women and the decrease in Environmental undergrad enrollment
adversely affects the gender balance of the student body. National trends
(Engineering Trends, 2004) for engineering as a whole indicate that over
the past few years, fewer women are entering undergraduate engineering
programs and this also appears to apply to Michigan Tech. However, the
outlook is brighter at the graduate level. Again, in keeping with National
trends, the gender balance at the graduate level improved for both the
civil and environmental graduate programs.
Internal Minority Comparison
Table IV compares
the minority composition of the civil and environmental engineering student
body with that of the entire University for fall 2003 and fall 2004.
Table IV. Minority Composition of Student Body
| |
%
Asian American |
%
African American |
%Hispanic
American |
%
Native American |
%
Multi-Racial |
%
International |
| CEE
2003 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
0.5 |
7.7 |
| CEE
2004 |
0.5 |
0.8 |
1.3 |
1.4 |
0.5 |
6.6 |
| University
2003 |
1.2 |
2.0 |
1.1 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
10 |
| University
2004 |
1.1 |
1.9 |
1.3 |
0.9 |
0.5 |
9.3 |
| National
Engr 2004 |
11.8 |
6.1 |
8.0 |
0.6 |
nr |
nr |
Except for the fraction
of Native Americans, the CEE and total Michigan Tech student body is much
less diverse than the National Engineering student body.
External Comparison
to Peer Departments
Table V compares the gender and minority composition of the Michigan Tech
CEE graduating class with those for several CEE peer programs selected
based on their similarity to Michigan Tech’s CEE Department. Criteria
for selection included research emphasis, size, and location. The Data
were obtained from the ASEE Profiles of Engineering for 2002-03. Unfortunately,
minority composition was not found for specific specialties.
Table V. Gender and Minority Composition of CEE Graduates,
2002-03
| Program |
Number
of CEE Graduates |
%
Women |
%
Asian American |
%
African American |
%
Hispanic American |
%
Native American |
| Michigan Tech |
116 |
26 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
| Michigan State |
100 |
30 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
| Michigan |
59 |
28 |
8 |
25 |
8 |
0 |
| Wisconsin |
100 |
27 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Clarkson |
68 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Missouri-Rolla |
78 |
24 |
1.3 |
2.5 |
0 |
0 |
| Minnesota |
81 |
22 |
3.7 |
2.5 |
0 |
0 |
| Iowa State |
151 |
17 |
1.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| National
CE |
8250 |
23.4 |
nr |
nr |
nr |
nr |
| National
Env. Engr |
501 |
42 |
nr |
nr |
nr |
nr |
| National
Engineering |
71,000 |
20.4 |
14 |
5.1 |
5.4 |
nr |
While Michigan Tech’s
fractions of women and native American graduates are respectable, our
fractions of other minority graduates are very low. It is noteworthy that
our in-state competitors such as Michigan and Michigan State are doing
somewhat better than we are on gender balance and much better on minority
composition.
Observations based on Engineering Trends Data:
Three advance reports obtained through Dick Heckel at Engineering
Trends (www.engtrends.com) indicate that U.S. engineering undergraduate
enrollment is likely to become slightly less diverse in the next few years.
At the same time, engineering graduate enrollment is becoming more diverse.
• Total engineering enrollment is expected to peak in 2006-07 and
decline slowly after that; the extent of decline will depend on economic
conditions.
• After increasing for two decades, the fraction of women enrolled
in engineering programs began to decrease in 1999. This decrease continues
and is particularly evident among first year engineering students (drop
from 20% to 16%).
• After increasing for two decades, the fractions of Asian and African
Americans entering engineering programs are beginning to decrease slightly.
Although Hispanic fractions continue to grow slowly, Native American fractions
are stagnant.
• Engineering graduate program enrollment shows a continuing improvement
in both gender balance and minority diversity.
Diversity SWOT Analysis for Michigan Tech’s CEE Department
Strengths:
• Poised for enrollment growth in areas that can attract gender
balance and minority diversity:
- Nationally ranked environmental engineering program with over 50%
women; likely to continue to attract a high fraction of women
- Nationally ranked graduate programs, likely to have high fractions
of both women and minorities
• University administration supportive of diversity efforts
• Strong alumni support
• Favorable representation of native Americans
• Masters International and International Senior Design programs
attract diverse students
Weaknesses:
• Limited support for graduate students hampers recruiting
• Limited financial aid for undergraduate recruitment
• Relatively high tuition
• Poor startup packages for faculty
• Faculty workloads inhibit research effort
• Dillman facilities and Dow equipment
• No formal spousal accommodation program
Opportunities:
• Future faculty retirements may create openings for diverse replacements
• Enhanced recruitment in diverse metropolitan areas such as Milwaukee,
Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul as indicated in the July 6, 2004 Diversity
Workshop memo.
• Enhanced recruitment of native Americans
• Formalize Global Engineering minor to add diversity
Threats:
• Minimal growth in national CE enrollments, Decline in national
EnE enrollments may limit hiring diverse faculty and diverse recruitment
• Minimal University financial resources
Draft Diversity Goals:
Faculty:
17% minority, 30% women
Undergraduate
Student Body:
Civil Engineering: 30% women, 2% Asian, 2% African, 2% Hispanic, 4% Native
American
Environmental Engineering: 50% women, 2% Asian, 2% African, 2% Hispanic,
4% Nat. Am
Graduate Student Body:
Civil Engineering: 35% women, 4% Asian, 4% African, 4% Hispanic, 4% Native
American; 10% International
Environmental Engineering: 50% women, 4% Asian, 4% African, 4% Hispanic,
4% Native American, 10% International
Draft Strategies
1. Revise CEE Charter to establish a standing Diversity and Recruitment
Committee. This committee would consist of three faculty and
would be responsible for managing all faculty searches and for monitoring
progress toward our Diversity Goals. Specific searches would involve the
three Diversity Search Committee members plus an additional faculty member
representing the specialty area. This Committee would be knowledgeable
and adept in effective recruiting of minorities and women.
2. Support
minority and women student groups such as the Native American
Association in their efforts to increase the number of Native American
engineering students. For example, this support could consist of travel
support to national meetings of the American Indian Science and Engineering
Association to recruit Native American graduate students.
3. Promote
the development of a rapid and agile hiring path to facilitate
the recruitment of minority and women faculty. Abolishment of “position
control” would be a big step in this direction. In the current situation,
the department hiring process is “paralyzed” by the position
control system. We have lost several minority and women faculty prospects
by the inability to act rapidly.
4. Emphasize
our international engineering humanitarian activities such as
international senior design and Masters International through establishment
of a Global Engineering minor. Experience has shown that these
programs tend to attract a high fraction of women and minorities.
5. Promote
the development of spousal accommodation for hiring minority and women
faculty. Experience has shown that spousal accommodation is necessary
and effective in hiring and retaining women and minority faculty.
6. Work with
the Educational Opportunity office to develop a departmental
contact program for promising students.
7. Cooperate with
the College of Engineering on additional college-wide strategies.
10/25/2006
If you have comments, corrections or suggestions send them to: cee@mtu.edu
Copyright © 2006
Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering
Michigan Technological University
Michigan Technological University is an equal opportunity
educational institution/equal opportunity employer.
|