Counseling Center
University of Maryland at
College Park
College Park, Maryland
Graduate Women In
Engineering
Julie L. Goldberg and
William E. Sedlacek
Research Report #18-95
This program was funded by
the A. James Clark School of Engineering, the University of Maryland, College
Park and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
2
Counseling Center
University of Maryland at
College Park
College Park, Maryland
Julie L. Goldberg and
William E. Sedlacek
Research Report # 18-95
Summary
There are several points along the
science pipeline that female students lose interest in pursuing engineering
degrees. The transition from undergraduate to graduate school is considered one
of the most severe (Widnall, 1988). As a result, there is a low percentage of
women enrolled in graduate engineering across the nation; in 1994, women made
up 16.9% of the students enrolled in master's programs and 14.8% of the
students enrolled in doctoral programs (Engineering Workforce Commission, 1994).
Similar to this national enrollment trend, the percentage of women enrolled in
engineering graduate degree programs at the A. James Clark School of
Engineering at the University of Maryland at College Park (UMCP) remains small
in comparison to that of males. Without a community of female peers, women
engineering students are at risk for experiencing feelings of isolation and
ultimately, may be at risk for departing from the engineering pipeline (Miller,
1993).
In order to mitigate the potential
isolation experienced by women in graduate engineering education, the Women in
Engineering Program at UMCP used funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to
establish a Graduate Committee for Women Engineers. The purpose of the Graduate
Committee for Women Engineers was to build a cohesive group of women graduate
students to mentor and assist each other in their professional development. To
identify how the Women in Engineering Program could facilitate and support the
formation of this Graduate Committee, a survey was distributed to all women
enrolled in engineering graduate studies at the A. James Clark School of
Engineering during the spring semester of 1995. In addition, a ninetyminute
focus group was conducted two weeks after the survey data were analyzed.
Results indicated strong support
among women engineering graduate students for a Graduate Committee for Women
Engineers. Respondents reported that they were interested in attending
workshops and programs that focus on career issues and provide opportunities to
receive support from female faculty and other graduate women students. In
addition, gaining information about career opportunities and developing
networks were identified as the most important reasons for joining the
Committee. The following report provides a summary of the results and serves as
a guide for initial implementation and progressive development of the Graduate
Committee for Women Engineers.
3
There
are several points along the science pipeline that female students lose
interest in pursuing engineering. The transition from undergraduate to graduate
education is noted as one of the most severe (Widnall, 1988). Barber (1995)
explained that "despite widespread changes in the status of women in
society between 1968 and 1990, there was no net gain in the percentage of
qualified women (those holding bachelor's degrees) who elected to pursue
advanced training in science and engineering" (p. 223). In the fall of
1994, for example, women made up 18.6% of the students enrolled in
undergraduate engineering programs across the nation. However, only 16.9% of
the students enrolled in a master's programs and 14.6% of the students enrolled
in a doctoral programs were women (Engineering Workforce Commission, 1994).
Similar
to the national engineering student enrollment trends, the percentage of women
enrolled in engineering graduate degree programs at the A. James Clark School
of Engineering at the University of Maryland at College Park (UMCP) remains
small in comparison to that of males. In the fall of 1994, 15% of the total
number of students enrolled in a graduate engineering program were women.
Furthermore, only 114 (16.9%) of the 675 students enrolled in master's
engineering programs and 75 (12.8%) of the 584 students enrolled in doctoral
engineering programs were women.
For
women, the probability of feeling isolation is greater in some engineering
disciplines since the individual disciplines have dramatic differences in the
percentage of women graduate engineering students enrolled. For example, at the
A. James Clark School of Engineering in the fall of 1994, 16 of the 61 students
enrolled in graduate programs in Chemical Engineering were women. Meanwhile, 37
of the 342 students enrolled in a graduate program in Electrical Engineering
were women. Furthermore, women made up 26.6% of the total number of
4
students pursuing an advanced degree in Chemical
Engineering and only 10.8% of the total number of students pursuing an advanced
degree in Electrical Engineering. Thus, there was a lower percentage of women
graduate students in Electrical Engineering in comparison to Chemical
Engineering. In addition to the differences among individual engineering
disciplines, in the fall of 1994, none of the disciplines had a "critical
mass" of female engineering graduate students: Aerospace (17.6%), Chemical
(26.2%), Civil (18.5%), Electrical (10.8%), Materials (14.3 %), Fire Protection
(15 .2%), Mechanical (11.1 %), Nuclear (23.7%). In conclusion, without a
"critical mass" of female peers, women engineering students are at
risk for experiencing feelings of isolation and ultimately, may be at risk for
departing from the engineering pipeline (Miller, 1993).
In
order to mitigate the potential isolation experienced by women in graduate
engineering education, the Women in Engineering Program at UMCP used funding
from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to establish a Graduate Committee for Women
Engineers. As delineated in the grant proposal, the purpose of the Graduate
Committee for Women Engineers was to build a cohesive group of women graduate
students to mentor and assist each other in their professional development.
To
identify how the Women in Engineering Program could effectively facilitate the
formation of a Graduate Committee, a survey was distributed to all women
enrolled in engineering graduate studies at the A. James Clark School of
Engineering during the spring semester of 1995. The survey assessed students'
attitudes about their experience at the School of Engineering as well as their
ideas about the development of a Graduate Committee for Women Engineers. In
addition, a ninety-minute focus group was conducted two weeks after the
survey data were collected. This qualitative method supplemented the survey by
allowing students to
5
provide more elaborate responses. The following
report provides an overall summary of the survey and focus group results and
will serve as a guide throughout the initial implementation and progressive
development of the Graduate Committee for Women Engineers.
The
28-item survey was designed specifically to assess the female engineering
students' attitudes about their experience at the School of Engineering as well
as their ideas for the development of a Graduate Committee for Women Engineers.
The four-part survey assessed demographic information, opinions about
being a female graduate student in the School of Engineering, and ideas about
the development of the Graduate Committee for Women Engineers. Finally, the
survey assessed respondents' perceptions about the most important issues for
women engineers during graduate school.
The
first section of the survey included 11 demographic questions (e.g.,
race/ethnicity, engineering department, family constellation). The second
section elicited respondents' opinions about being a graduate student in the
School of Engineering, including nine questions on the educational climate of
the School of Engineering. An example of a typical question assessing the
climate was: "All faculty members treat me with fairness and respect."
All of the questions were based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree). In addition, two questions assessed the respondents' level of
interest in joining and taking a leadership role in the Graduate Committee for
Women Engineers. The third part of the survey focused specifically on the
respondents' ideas for the Graduate Committee for Women Engineers and included
six questions. For example, respondents were asked to indicate all the reasons
they were interested in joining the Graduate Committee and then to indicate the
most important reason for their interest. Finally, the fourth
6
section included an open-ended question about
the most important issues for the Women in Engineering Program to address. The
final question invited the respondents to include any further comments or
suggestions.
The
survey was developed by the Program Evaluator of the Women In Engineering
Program at UMCP. All of the questions were developed specifically to assess the
women in the School of Engineering at UMCP; however, the nine questions
focusing on climate issues in engineering were adapted, with permission, from
on a survey originally developed and administered in 1992 to assess the climate
of the College of Engineering at the University of California at Davis (Henes
& Bland, 1992).
In
February 1995, a total of 180 surveys were distributed by mail to all of the
female engineering students enrolled in graduate studies at the School of
Engineering. A cover letter explaining the purpose of the study was included.
Seventy-six of the surveys were returned which resulted in a 42% return
rate.
Who are Graduate Women in Engineering?
In
identifying the racial and ethnic demographics of the respondents, the majority
(39%) were Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander. Thirty-four
percent identified themselves as White/Caucasian of European Descent, 9% as
African-American/Black, 5% as White/Caucasian of Middle Eastern Descent,
3% as Hispanic/Latina, 3% as Biracial/Multiracial, and 5% as other. In
addition, nearly half (45%) of the women were between the ages of 26 and 29.
Finally, when asked to describe their family constellation, slightly more than
half of the women reported being married (51 %). Forty-two percent of the
respondents were single, and 7% were living with a partner. In addition, the
majority of respondents reported that they did not have any children (79%)
while 21 % reported that they had one or more children.
7
In
assessing the respondents' undergraduate education, the overwhelming majority
attended a four-year institution (91 %). Seven percent reported that they
had transferred to a fouryear institution from a two-year institution to
complete their bachelor of science degree. The remaining 3% defined their
educational experience as "other." Regarding their current
educational program, 29% were completing a graduate degree in
Civil/Environmental engineering. Other students reported studying the following
engineering disciplines: Chemical (21%), Aerospace (18%), Materials and Nuclear
(9%), Mechanical (9%), Fire Protection (8%), Electrical (3%), and other (3%).
Fifty-nine percent of the women reported that they were enrolled in a
master's degree program, while 39% reported that they were enrolled in a
doctoral program.
Regarding
the climate and culture of engineering, participants were asked about their
experiences with faculty inside and outside of the classroom. Specifically,
participants were asked whether they experienced support from faculty, were
respected and treated fairly, received adequate advising, and felt encouraged
to approach faculty outside the classroom. Participants were also asked to
assess their experiences with peers in the classroom, including group work
during labs.
Based
on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly
Agree), the majority (69%) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that
faculty members were supportive, 21 % were neutral, and 10% disagreed (mean =
2.76; standard deviation = .92). When asked whether faculty members treated
students with fairness and respect, 59% reported that they agreed or strongly
agreed, 28% were neutral, and 13% disagreed (mean = 2.59, standard deviation =
1.00). In a similar pattern, 59% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed
that the
8
advising they received from faculty was adequate, 24% were neutral, and 17% disagreed (mean = 2.54; standard deviation = .95). Finally, 63% agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable approaching professors for help outside the classroom (i.e., advising, course work, careers, research ideas) while 22% of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement (mean = 3.58; standard deviation = 1.19).
Students
were asked to assess their experiences in the classroom and in labs with peers.
Seventy-three percent agreed or strongly agreed that they felt that they
were regarded as equal participants with male students in group work (i.e., lab
work and group projects), 16% were neutral, and 17% disagreed (mean = 2.98;
standard deviation = .95). Similarly, 62% agreed or strongly agreed that they
were comfortable asking questions among peers in the classroom, 21 were
neutral, and 17% disagreed (mean = 2.69; standard deviation = 1.13). Furthermore,
64% of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they have felt
discouraged about pursuing an engineering degree, 16% were neutral, and 20%
agreed or strongly agreed (mean = 1.33; standard deviation = 1.14). In
addition, 83% of all the participants agreed or strongly agreed that they
thought they would be an excellent engineer, 14% were neutral, and 1 %
disagreed (mean = 3.18; standard deviation = .73).
Finally,
respondents wrote comments about the most important issues for women engineers
during graduate school as well as the role the Women in Engineering Program
could play in improving women's educational experiences. The following list
provides a summary of the most salient issues: career development (i.e.,
identifying fellowships and job placement opportunities), sexual
discrimination, recruitment and support for minority women, assertiveness
skills, communication between faculty and students, family and child care,
support to reduce
9
feelings of isolation, and an opportunity to
exchange ideas and experiences with other graduate women in engineering.
Ideas About the Development of the Graduate
Committee for Women Engineers.
The
majority of respondents were interested in and supported the establishment of a
Graduate Committee for Women Engineers. Forty-five participants agreed or
strongly agreed that they were interested in becoming a member of the Committee
for Women Engineers (58%), 30% were neutral, and 10% disagreed (mean = 2.70;
standard deviation = .98). Fourteen women (18%) indicated that they would be
interested in taking on a leadership role in the Committee. In a similar
pattern, more than half of the respondents (54%) had already heard about the
student organization WAGSEM (Women Are Great In Science, Engineering, and Math)
which was established in the School of Computer, Math, and Physical Sciences at
UMCP in 1994. Thirteen respondents reported that they had attended one of the
WAGSEM meetings.
Participants
were asked to identify the reasons why they would be interested in joining the
Graduate Committee for Women Engineers as well as the types of workshops and
programs they would be interested in attending. The graduate women reported
that they wanted the Committee to provide opportunities to enhance their
career, to receive support, and to participate in social events. When asked to
indicate "all the reasons you are interested in joining the
Committee," participants reported the following: information about career
opportunities (71 %), networking (64%), support (51%), social (45%),
information about scholarships, fellowships, and assistantships (45%), building
relationships with faculty (36%), mentoring opportunities (31 %), information
about engineering degrees (27%), and information on community service (24%).
Furthermore, participants were most interested in the following three topics
for programs and workshops: how to succeed in working in industry (70%), career
development (68%), and
10
how to succeed in working in academia (47%). Other
interests included time management (41%), scholarship/fellowship information
(37%), stress management (37%), balancing work and family responsibilities
(36%), sexual harassment issues (15%), and brown bag lunches with faculty
(17%).
In
order to identify participants for the focus group, a postcard was sent with
the written survey explaining the purpose of the focus group and requesting
their participation. Eleven women returned the postcard and were contacted by
phone. Of the 11, 6 female engineering graduate students took part in the
ninety-minute focus group. Within the allotted ninety minutes, the
following topics were discussed: the purpose of a graduate organization for
women in engineering, the types of programs and workshops that would provide
assistance, and the collaborative relationship between the Women in Engineering
Program and the Graduate Committee for Women Engineers.
Participants
began the focus group by discussing how the Graduate Committee for Women
Engineers could be organized and the role it could play in the lives of
graduate women. Similar to the responses on the written survey, many suggested
that programs and workshops could provide opportunities to establish
professional networks with practicing engineers, to build mentoring
relationships with female faculty and other female graduate students, and to
enhance their career development. In addition, throughout the focus group,
students emphasized that summer would be an excellent time to offer programs.
They explained that most graduate students were still in the area to complete
their research and often had more flexible schedules than during the fall and
spring semesters.
11
Support
and networking. The committee could play a pivotal role in providing
opportunities for students to gain support from one another and from faculty.
First, it was suggested that the graduate organization inform the undergraduate
Society for Women Engineers of its development and progress which would enable
the two societies to establish a collaborative working relationship. Secondly,
the participants emphasized the importance of having a Graduate Women's study
room. Presently, graduate students without a graduate assistantship office do
not have access to a room on campus where they can meet other engineering
graduate students outside of class. In addition, all the female graduate
students commute to campus and as a result have time between classes available
for studying. Thus, a Graduate Women's study room could serve as a central area
for female graduate students to study between classes as well as to meet other
women students. Similar to many of the undergraduate committee lounges, this
could also be an area where students could store their food, establish a
homework file cabinet, interact with peers, and ultimately, develop a sense of
belonging.
Through the focus group discussion, two groups of students were identified as needing special attention: incoming first-year masters and doctoral students and international students. In order to provide a built-in network and support system for incoming students, a "buddy system" was suggested. Through this program, women students who had completed their first year of graduate school would pair up with incoming women students. This initial connection would provide the new students an opportunity to ask questions and become familiar with the transitions related to the experience of graduate school. A picnic for all women graduate students at the beginning of September could be organized to welcome the new students and provide an opportunity for them to meet their "buddy." In addition, as indicated by several
12
members of the focus group, international students
are challenged with the unique experience of adjusting to anew school and
living in a new country. In order to ensure that international students feel
welcome to use the services and programs provided, it is important to make a
special effort to contact them through electronic mail, flyers, and posters.
Participants
discussed the need to connect with faculty outside the classroom and to
establish mentoring relationships. In the past, informal brown bag lunches with
the women faculty, graduate students, staff, and administration have been
successful providing such a forum. Several participants suggested that this
tradition continue. This general topic also generated an in-depth
discussion of how difficult it can be to know which faculty members are
interested in supporting students through mentoring. There was an enthusiastic
response to the suggestion of creating a list of faculty who want to be mentors
to graduate students. This list would help students identify faculty with
similar interests and facilitate the process of fostering relationships with
professors.
Career
development programs and workshops. The women students expressed an
interest in a workshop locating jobs through the Internet. Participants
reported that it would be important that the instructions be simple and clear
since many students were unfamiliar with how to access the Internet.
Participants also indicated that they would like an opportunity to have a
workshop that would allow students to work individually with instructors in a
twenty-minute session. Finally, it was suggested that the workshop be
held in the AT&T Teaching Theater on the UMCP campus so that a large group
of people could have hands-on experience during the workshop. In
addition, students suggested that the newly formalized graduate organization
contact Society of Women Engineers professionals who presently work in industry
and are willing to come to talk
13
with them about their own career development. A
panel of women engineers to discuss working in both industry and academia was
also a point of interest.
Finally,
participants reported that the UMCP's Career Development Center focused
specifically on the career development and job placement of undergraduates,
often overlooking the unique experiences of graduate students. Thus, the
Graduate Committee for Women Engineers could work in collaboration with the
Career Development Center to define the needs of engineering graduate students
and to identify programs (job searching, interviewing skills, and internship
opportunities) to enhance their career development.
In
order to organize the Graduate Committee in a fashion that was practical for
the timelimited schedules of graduate students as well as productive,
participants suggested that a Task Force within the Committee be established to
organize meetings and prioritize issues addressed. Within this Task Force,
there would be a core group of leaders who would be the central mediators and
representatives of the Committee. Finally, the office of the Women in
Engineering Program would work with this core group to help organize mailings,
publicize events, and provide other assistance.
Based
on the results of the survey and focus group, it was apparent that there was a
keen interest among female graduate students in establishing a Graduate
Committee for Women Engineers. In addition, the graduate women reported that
the Committee could be a powerful force in establishing professional networks
with practicing engineers, building mentoring relationships with female faculty
and other female graduate students, and enhancing their career
14
development. Finally, in terms of the implementation
of programs and workshops, the Women in Engineering Program could work
collaboratively with a core group of leaders of the Committee to help organize
mailings and publicize events.
In
conclusion, the Graduate Committee for Women Engineers will serve as an
intervention to recruit and retain a greater number of women students in
graduate engineering programs. Establishing a community among female graduate
students would mitigate the isolation that can occur due to the small number of
women in each engineering discipline. Furthermore, the programs offered by the
Committee would foster a greater sense of belonging among graduate women and
thereby reduce the number of women who depart from the engineering pipeline.
15
Barber, L. A. (1995). U.S. women in
science and engineering, 1960-1990. Journal of Education, 66 (2), 213-234.
Berman, M. (1993). Sloan Grant
Proposal for Women in Engineering. College Park, Maryland: The University of
Maryland, The A. James Clark School of Engineering.
Engineering Workforce Commission
(1994). Engineering and Technology Degrees. Washington, DC: American
Association of Engineering Societies, Incorporated.
Henes, R. & Bland, M. (1992).
Student survey - college of engineering. Unpublished instrument.
University of California - Davis.
Miller, A. (1993). Introduction:
Gender equity in math and science. Initiatives, 55(2), 1 - 3.
Widnall,
S. (1988). AAAS presidential lecture: Voices from the pipeline. Science, 241,
1740-1745.