Women in Engineering: Trend Analysis & Program Scan

(1)

In this report, Hanover Research discusses the educational and employment landscape for women in engineering. In addition to broadly evaluating the current status of women in engineering, Hanover also outlines several exemplar outreach programs for female engineers.

Women in Engineering:

Trend Analysis & Program Scan

(2)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I

NTRODUCTION

In this report, Hanover Research assesses the current landscape of women in engineering and examines several exemplar programs that combine outreach and academics. First, Hanover presents information on current challenges for female engineers, followed by practices for increasing retention of women in engineering and reasons that women leave the profession. Next, Hanover outlines current degree and employment trends for women in engineering, including the most preferred engineering degree fields and careers for women. Finally, Hanover profiles several exemplar outreach programs for women in engineering at institutions across the country.

K

EY

F

INDINGS



Despite some progress over the past decade, women are still highly underrepresented in engineering degree programs and engineering professions.

Recent statistics indicate that women account for just over 18 percent of engineering bachelor’s degrees conferred in the United States, and roughly 12 percent of all working engineers.



According to the American Society for Engineering Education, women are most underrepresented in computer engineering, and best represented in biomedical and civil engineering. Though men and women choose many of the same

engineering concentrations in high numbers, underrepresentation is still pervasive. For example, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, and industrial engineering are among the top 10 programs, in terms of total conferrals, for both genders, but women typically account for a small proportion of completions in these subfields.



Research suggests that effective methods of attracting and retaining female engineers include generating interest among younger girls and providing ongoing outreach and support in engineering programs. Effective methods of outreach

include mentoring, professional development activities, and providing role models that increase feelings of inclusion among female engineering students.



Institutional outreach to women is conducted primarily through voluntary membership student groups that focus on attracting and retaining female students, rather than through degrees targeted specifically toward women. Many of

these programs offer a one‐credit seminar course on women in engineering, and many offer residential groupings of female engineering students.



A common feature of exemplar undergraduate outreach programs, and a recognized best practice, is mentoring. Mentorship programs vary widely by

institution: the University of Pennsylvania has a fully‐online MentorNet program that pairs students with professionals; Purdue University offers both group and one‐ on‐one peer mentorship arrangements; and Ohio State University offers

(4)

mentorships in five different student interest areas with alumnae and local professionals.



All of the institutions profiled in this report conduct outreach aimed at K‐12 students as well as their own undergraduate populations. Common activities in K‐ 12 outreach vary by the age of the targeted students. High school students are often brought on campus for a taste of college engineering life. Outreach to elementary and middle school students may involve summer camp programs, “Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day” events, and hands‐on engineering or design activities.

(5)

WOMEN IN ENGINEERING: TREND OVERVIEW

This section examines the current landscape of women in engineering, discussing barriers to greater equity and inclusion of women in engineering, as well as practices for attracting and retaining women engineers. The section also examines common reasons that women leave the engineering profession.

C

URRENT

L

ANDSCAPE OF

W

OMEN IN

E

NGINEERING

The percentage of women enrolled in engineering disciplines in the United States was “almost negligible” up until the 1970s. By 1992, women accounted for 15 percent of bachelor’s degrees in engineering; this percentage has risen to approximately 20 percent today.1 Notably, however, according to the Society of Women Engineers (SWE), the percentage of women in engineering programs has decreased, even as the number of women in undergraduate education in general has increased.2

The gender gap in the engineering profession is also notable; as one scholar has noted, “women are still severely underrepresented in engineering.”3 In 1988, women represented only 4 percent of practicing engineers;4 by 2009, the proportion had only increased to 11 percent.5 In academia, women comprised roughly 14 percent

of tenure‐track engineering faculty as of fall 2011 – a relatively small increase over 2002, when the percentage stood around 9 percent.6 Given these trends, attracting and retaining women engineers has become an issue of central importance, as progress in improving female representation in the discipline has been relatively slow.

Figures 1.1 through 1.3 show 2011 undergraduate engineering enrollment and completions by discipline, as well as the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to women by 1 According to the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), women accounted for 18.4 percent of bachelor’s degrees in 2010‐2011, up .3 percent from 2010. See Yoder, B. L. 2011. “Engineering by the Numbers,” p. 1. ASEE. http://www.asee.org/papers‐and‐publications/publications/college‐profiles/2011‐profile‐engineering‐ statistics.pdf; Felder, R. et al. 1995. “A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. III. Gender Differences in Student Performance and Attributes,” p. 2. http://www.fatih.edu.tr/~hugur/self_confident/A%20longitudional%20study%20of%20engineering%20student% 20performance%20and%20retention.3.Gender%20differrences%20in%20student%20performance%20and%20att itudes.PDF 2 “Statistics on Women in Engineering,” p. 4. Society of Women Engineers. http://www.swe.org/swe/regiond/sections/sefl/templates/StatisticsonWomeninEngineering%5B1%5D.pdf 3 Layne, P. “The Role of Mentoring in the Careers of Women Engineering Deans,” p. 1. Advancing Women: Transforming Engineering Education. http://ocs.sfu.ca/wepan/index.php/wepan2011/wepan2011/paper/view/246 4 Felder, R. et al. Op. cit., p. 1. 5 Platt, J. “Stemming the Tide; New Study Examines Why Women Leave Engineering.” IEEE‐USA’s Today’s Engineer, May 2011. http://www.todaysengineer.org/2011/may/women‐in‐engineering.asp 6 Yoder, Op. cit., p. 1. Despite some progress over the past decade, “women are still severely underrepresented in engineering and engineering education.”

(6)

discipline. All data were compiled by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Figure 1.1: U.S. Engineering Undergraduate Enrollment by Discipline, AY 2010‐2011 Source: American Society for Engineering Education7 Note: Includes full‐time bachelor’s degree candidates in engineering.

According to these data, mechanical and electrical/computer engineering are the most

popular engineering subfields overall in terms of enrollment. These trends are generally

reflected in degree conferrals (Figure 1.2), though notably, trends in conferrals among female students diverge from these general patterns (Figure 1.3). ASEE data indicate that, in recent years, fields with the highest percentages of degrees awarded to women were biomedical and environmental engineering. 7 Ibid., p. 19. 101,476 80,607 53,215 44,647 36,983 36,499 27,159 23,403 18,909 15,429 5,273 5,102 4,788 4,291 3,381 3,163 2,650 2,529 1,114 1,112 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Mechanical Electrical/Computer Civil Other Computer Science (inside eng.) Chemical Engineering (general) Biomedical Aerospace Industrial/Manufacturing Metallurgical and Materials Petroleum Environmental Biological and Agricultural Architectural Civil/Environmental Eng. Science and Eng. Physics Nuclear Engineering Management Mining

(7)

Figure 1.2: Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Engineering Discipline, AY 2010‐2011 Source: American Society for Engineering Education8 8 Ibid., p. 12. 19,241 12,154 9,942 6,708 6,487 4,066 3,730 3,727 3,459 3,381 2,992 2,153 1,465 1,161 888 796 743 709 698 496 469 315 213 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Mechanical Civil Electrical Computer Science (inside eng.) Chemical Biomedical Other Industrial/Manufacturing Aerospace Computer Engineering Computer Science (outside eng.) Electrical/Computer Engineering (general) Metallurgical and Materials Petroleum Biological and Agricultural Architectural Civil/Environmental Environmental Eng. Science and Eng. Physics Nuclear Engineering Management Mining

(8)

Figure 1.3: Percentage of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded to Women, by Discipline, AY 2010‐2011 Source: American Society for Engineering Education9 According to a 2007 study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, women in science and engineering programs are just as likely to achieve a doctoral degree as men, but publish fewer papers on average than their male counterparts and rate their experience with lower satisfaction.10 Researchers generally agree that gender alone does not account for the underrepresentation of women in engineering: a multitude of social, cultural, and individual factors make it difficult to pinpoint the specific cause of female underrepresentation, though some research has

9 Ibid. 10 “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,” p. 50. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 2007. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11741&page=50 44.3% 39.1% 33.1% 31.9% 29.1% 28.4% 24.2% 24.1% 22.9% 22.3% 21.0% 20.1% 19.8% 16.8% 16.4% 14.6% 13.4% 11.7% 11.5% 11.2% 11.0% 10.9% 9.4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Environmental Biomedical Chemical Biological and Agricultural Industrial/Manufacturing Metallurgical and Materials Engineering (general) Engineering Management Architectural Civil/Environmental Civil Other Eng. Science and Eng. Physics Petroleum Nuclear Mining Aerospace Mechanical Electrical Computer Science (inside eng.) Electrical/Computer Computer Science (outside eng.) Computer Engineering

(9)

suggested that stereotypes can have a negative effect on women’s interest and performance in engineering.11

A 2011 literature review published by SWE noted that two recent longitudinal analyses (Maltese and Tai, 2011; Moses et al., 2011)12 that focused on academic preparation and technical skills did not find that gender was “a significant factor affecting persistence probabilities,” but that “a number of other studies did.” 13 Specifically, studies focusing on the experiences of women – as opposed to their academic achievement – may partly explain underrepresentation and persistence gaps. One 2011 study of 24 graduate students (Fabert et al.), 10 of whom were engineering students, found that women experienced “disparaging comments, an unpleasant competitive atmosphere, and generally were aware of feeling ‘different.’”14 Other recent studies have identified program “fit” – that is, program alignment with one’s personal and professional goals – as a factor in persistence, along with students’ confidence in their own skillsets.15

There is a persistent perception that fewer girls and young women exhibit interest in engineering, and that those who do become involved are pushed out of the field once they are working. For example, two recent studies found that Midwestern grade school children demonstrate a clear perception of engineers as male, “as evidenced by their drawings of engineers as male.”16 Another study examined students’ self‐evaluation of their potential for success in computer science programs. Women who had encountered male computer scientists rated their likelihood of success lower than those who had not, but women who encountered female computer scientists did not rate their likelihood of success higher.17 The question becomes: what can be done to attract and retain more women engineering students and engineers? 11 Ibid, p. 26. 12 See Maltese, A.V. and R.H. Tai. 2011. “Pipeline Persistence: Examining the Association of Educational Experiences with Earned Degrees in STEM among U.S. Students.” Science Education 95(5): 877‐907; Moses, L., et al. 2011. “Are Math Readiness and Personality Predictive of First‐Year Retention in Engineering?” The Journal of Psychology 145(3): 229‐245. 13 “2011 Literature Review,” pp. 202‐203. Society of Women Engineers. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/swe/litreview2010/#/204 14 See Fabert, N., M. Cabay, et al. “Exaggerating the Typical and Stereotyping the Differences: Isolation Experienced by Women in STEM Doctoral Programs.” 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 26‐29, 2011, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. 15 “2011 Literature Review,” Op. cit. 16 Ibid. See Karatas, F.O. et al. 2011. “Sixth‐Grade Students Views of the Nature of Engineering and Images of Engineers.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 20(2): 136‐145. & Capobiano, B.M. et al. 2011. “What is an Engineer? Implications of Elementary School Student Conceptions for Engineering Education.” Journal of Engineering Education 100(2): 304‐328. 17 “2011 Literature Review,” Op. cit. See Stout, J.G. et al. 2011. “STEMing the Tide: Using Ingroup Experts to Inoculate Women’s Self‐Concept in STEM.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(2): 255‐270.

(10)

R

ETENTION OF

W

OMEN IN

E

NGINEERING

Research suggests than an important aspect of attracting and retaining women in engineering programs is generating interest among young women in science and engineering careers. Research has shown that high school students who express interest in a STEM degree are more likely to earn that degree than those who do not indicate interest, suggesting that developing such an interest among female K‐12 and university students is a key step to increasing enrollment of female engineering students.18 However, ensuring that female students are prepared for the demands of an engineering curriculum is also important, as factors such as the number of math and science courses completed in high school are tied closely to enrollment and retention of female engineering students.19

In addition to developing interest among K‐12 and university students, studies have found that outreach is beneficial for retaining women in engineering. Holland et al. (2011), for instance, found that women supported and engaged in university activities, such as professional development opportunities, more than men, and felt that their participation in these activities solidified their commitment to their academic program.20

Another study surveyed 196 engineering students across five U.S. engineering schools and found that feelings of inclusion and self‐efficacy were, especially for women, tied to

retention. Other studies have shown that women who leave engineering programs do so

primarily due to a loss of academic confidence. Retention of women in engineering programs can be increased through encouraging feelings of inclusion. Helpful techniques include mentoring and providing role models who increase feelings of inclusion – strategies discussed in more detail in the final section of this report.21

R

EASONS

W

OMEN

L

EAVE THE

E

NGINEERING

P

ROFESSION

In addition to understanding strategies that may increase retention of women in engineering programs, it is also important to understand why women engineers leave the field once they are working. The SWE conducts periodic surveys asking individuals who have left engineering why they did so. Figure 1.4 presents a graph demonstrating the reasons that women and men left engineering between 1985 and 2005.

The most common reason for leaving engineering, for both women and men, is finding more interesting work in another field. This trend has remained constant from 1985 through 2005. However, 47.2 percent of all of the women surveyed since 1985 indicated that they left for this reason, compared with 37.2 percent of men. Men leave engineering for a better 18 “2011 Literature Review,” Op. cit. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. See Holland, J.M. et al. 2011. “Capitalizing on Opportunity Outside the Classroom: Exploring Supports and Barriers to the Professional Development Activities of Computer Science and Engineering Majors.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Engineering 17(2): 173‐192. 21 Groh, J. and Holloway, B. “Complementary Pair and Group Mentoring Programs for Undergraduate Women in Engineering.” Advancing Women: Transforming Engineering Education. 2011. http://ocs.sfu.ca/wepan/index.php/wepan2011/wepan2011/paper/view/198

(11)

salary in another field far more often than women, with 15.8 percent of male respondents listing this reason compared with 0.4 percent of women. Women also cite an inability to find an appropriate job as their reason for leaving engineering more often than men. Women listed this reason 11.6 percent of the time, compared with 9.7 percent of men.22

Figure 1.4: Factors Driving Decisions to Leave the Engineering Field

Source: Society of Women Engineers23

Note also that the reasons women decide to leave engineering have changed between

1985 and 2005. Women surveyed during the 1985 through 1992 period cited “more

interesting work,” “more family‐friendly work environment,” and “better opportunities for advancement” as the top three reasons for leaving. Women surveyed for the 2001 through 2005 period listed “more interesting work,” “can’t find appropriate job,” and “other” as their top three reasons for leaving. This may suggest an increase in opportunities and family‐friendly work environments since the 1980s.24

These data do not line up precisely with pervasive anecdotal evidence of women being “pushed out” of engineering. The SWE offers two potential explanations for this. First, SWE suggests that negative anecdotal evidence may represent a small number of women engineers, but that negative information travels quickly. Second, women may not feel pushed out of engineering so much as pulled into other fields that they find more engaging or lucrative.25 22 Ibid. 23 “The Society of Women Engineers National Survey about Engineering,” p. 8. Society of Women Engineers. http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/images/swemagazine/RetentionStudyCompilation.pdf 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid, pp. 9‐10. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Males (1985‐1992) n=99 Females (1985‐1992) n=58 Males (1993‐2000) n=89 Females (1993‐2000) n=64 Males (2001‐2005) n=27 Females (2001‐2005) n=24 Can't find appropriate job Better opportunities for advancement in another field Better salary in another field More interesting working in another field More family‐friendly work environment More comfortable work environment Other

(12)

DEGREE AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS FOR WOMEN

IN ENGINEERING

In this section, Hanover Research provides information on degree and employment trends relevant to women in engineering, using enrollment and completions data from several sources. Information is analyzed both through the specialties with the highest number of women as well as those with the highest percentages of women, which in many cases do not necessarily overlap.

D

EGREE

T

RENDS

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the most recent detailed enrollment and conferral data compiled by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF’s 2013 “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering” digest notes that, as of 2010, engineering is considered a “low participation field” for women, at all degree levels.26

Figure 2.1: Percentage of Bachelor’s Engineering Degrees Conferred to Women, 2000‐2010

YEAR % TREND LINE, 2000‐2010

2000 20.5 2001 20.1 2002 20.9 2003 20.3 2004 20.5 2005 20.0 2006 19.5 2007 18.5 2008 18.5 2009 18.1 2010 18.4 Source: NSF27

Figure 2.2 shows more detailed but somewhat less recent data (2009) from the NSF on undergraduate enrollment in engineering, segmented by gender, race, and citizenship. 26 “Field of Degree: Women.” NSF, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. 2013. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/digest/theme2_1.cfm#low_participation 27 Ibid.

(13)

Figure 2.2: Undergraduate Enrollment in Engineering, by Demographic (2009)

SEX AND

ENROLLMENT STATUS

ALL

UNDERGRADUATES WHITE ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC

NATIVE AMERICAN FOREIGN NATIONAL NUMBER All enrolled 468,139 315,240 50,293 25,189 47,219 2,850 27,348  Male 384,151 264,353 39,718 18,945 36,781 2,170 22,184  Female 83,988 50,887 10,575 6,244 10,438 680 5,164 Full time, first year 114,704 77,530 11,434 7,337 11,021 815 6,567  Male 94,362 64,826 9,022 5,600 8,975 615 5,324  Female 20,342 12,704 2,412 1,737 2,046 200 1,243 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION All enrolled 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  Male 82.1 83.9 79.0 75.2 77.9 76.1 81.1  Female 17.9 16.1 21.0 24.8 22.1 23.9 18.9 Full time, first year 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  Male 82.3 83.6 78.9 76.3 81.4 75.5 81.1  Female 17.7 16.4 21.1 23.7 18.6 24.5 18.9 Source: National Science Foundation28 NSF data indicate that, as of 2009, women represented slightly less than 18 percent of all undergraduate engineering students. Note that women of color made up 6 percent of all enrolled undergraduate engineering students, and African American women made up only 1.3 percent of all enrolled undergraduate engineering students.

To complement enrollment data, Figure 2.3 supplies information on degree completions, based on Hanover’s analysis of IPEDS data, which examined aggregated five‐year conferral data in detailed (six‐digit) engineering classifications within the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) taxonomy.

Figure 2.3: Top 10 Engineering Fields by Percentage of Women, 2007‐2011 (Conferrals)

MAJOR (CIP) TOTAL MEN* TOTAL WOMEN* GRAND TOTAL* % WOMEN

Textile Sciences and Engineering 337 616 953 64.64% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 39 60 99 60.61% Biochemical Engineering 33 28 61 45.90% Environmental/Environ. Health Engineering 1,676 1,303 2,979 43.74% Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering 4,905 3,054 7,959 38.37% Biomedical/Medical Engineering 6,450 3,964 10,414 38.06% Biological/Biosystems Engineering 98 54 152 35.53% Chemical Engineering 17,612 9,319 26,931 34.60% Agricultural/Biological Engineering and Bioengineering 1,485 673 2,158 31.19% Operations Research 1,341 603 1,944 31.02% Source: IPEDS29 *Total completions, 2007‐2011 28 “Data Tables.” NSF, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/tables.cfm 29 “Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).” National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

(14)

Figure 2.3 shows majors in which women are best represented, regardless of the relative

popularity of the program. Women make up the majority of engineering conferrals in only

two program classifications: “Textile Sciences and Engineering” and “Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.” In terms of the absolute number of conferrals, these programs are very small compared to more popular majors. However, “Chemical Engineering” has a high volume of five‐year completions and a relatively high representation of women, at 34.6 percent of degree conferrals, or 9,319 degrees. Note that women appear most underrepresented in programs classified as “Computer Engineering” (8.76 percent), “Electrical and Electronics Engineering” (11.37 percent), and “Mechanical Engineering” (11.53 percent) – trends generally consistent with the ASEE data presented in the previous section.

Figure 2.4 shows the top 10 engineering program classifications by absolute number of female conferrals over the period 2007‐2011.

Figure 2.4: Top 10 Engineering Fields by Number of Women, 2007‐2011 (Conferrals)

MAJOR (CIP) TOTAL WOMEN* TOTAL MEN* GRAND TOTAL* Civil Engineering‐ General 11,548 43,482 55,030 Mechanical Engineering 10,450 80,220 90,670 Chemical Engineering 9,319 17,612 26,931 Industrial Engineering 4,693 10,514 15,207 Electrical‐ Electronics and Communications Engineering 4,464 34,023 38,487 Biomedical/Medical Engineering 3,964 6,450 10,414 Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering 3,054 4,905 7,959 Electrical and Electronics Engineering 2,690 20,971 23,661 Engineering‐ General 2,110 8,065 10,175 Computer Engineering‐ General 1,837 19,131 20,968 Source: IPEDS30 *Total completions, 2007‐2011 A review of the IPEDS data indicates that men and women enroll in high numbers in many of the same concentrations. For example, programs classified as “Civil Engineering,” “Mechanical Engineering,” “Chemical Engineering,” “Industrial Engineering,” “Electrical‐ Electronics and Communications Engineering,” “Biomedical Engineering,” “General Engineering,” and “Computer Engineering” are among the top 10 programs, by absolute completions numbers, for both genders. However, the data overall nonetheless reflect a general underrepresentation of women: in “Civil Engineering” – the major with the highest overall number of female conferrals from 2007‐2011 – women still represent an extremely small proportion of total conferrals, and are outnumbered by men by nearly four to one.

30 Ibid.

(15)

E

MPLOYMENT

T

RENDS

As previously noted, the gender gap in engineering occupations – and in STEM fields more generally – is pervasive. A 2011 report by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) noted that “the relatively few women who receive

STEM degrees are concentrated in physical and life sciences, in contrast to men, who are concentrated primarily in engineering.”31 This disparity at the postsecondary level has thus clearly translated into the workforce. American Community Survey (ACS) Census data shows that, in 2009, women accounted for just 14 percent of engineering positions in the United States, a figure that appears to have held relatively constant up to the present (see Figure 2.7).32

The NSF offers the most comprehensive data available on engineering employment, segmented by degree level and gender. The most recent detailed data are from 2008 – one year behind, but generally aligned with, the 2009 ACS data cited by the ESA in its 2011 report. More general 2010 and 2011 occupational data are shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7, on the next page.

Figure 2.5: Employment by Degree Level and Sex (2008)

EDUCATION LEVEL BACHELOR'S MASTER'S DOCTORATE

Occupation Both

sexes Female Male

Both

Engineer 994,000 118,000 875,000 480,000 72,000 408,000 107,000 14,000 93,000 Aerospace engineer 57,000 5,000 52,000 37,000 5,000 31,000 7,000 ‐ 6,000 Chemical engineer 45,000 11,000 34,000 23,000 3,000 20,000 9,000 1,000 7,000 Civil engineer 176,000 24,000 152,000 76,000 12,000 63,000 6,000 1,000 5,000 Electrical engineer 240,000 24,000 217,000 133,000 17,000 116,000 25,000 3,000 22,000 Industrial engineer 68,000 8,000 60,000 23,000 4,000 19,000 2,000 ‐ 2,000 Mechanical engineer 198,000 13,000 185,000 91,000 9,000 82,000 11,000 1,000 11,000 Other engineer 204,000 32,000 172,000 90,000 21,000 69,000 27,000 4,000 22,000 Postsecondary teacher 6,000 1,000 4,000 8,000 1,000 7,000 21,000 3,000 18,000 Source: National Science Foundation33 According to NSF’s detailed 2008 data, females with bachelor’s degrees in engineering are employed most commonly in “other” engineering fields, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. Males with bachelor’s degrees are employed in the greatest numbers in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and “other” engineering fields. In the NSF’s 2008 data, women accounted for 12.9 percent of engineers across all concentrations, and were best represented in chemical engineering (19.9 percent). 31 “Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation,” p. 8. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. August 2011. http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf 32 Ibid., p. 3. 33 “Data Tables,” Op. cit.

(16)

Figure 2.6: Scientists and Engineers Working in Science and Engineering Occupations, 2010

Source: NSF34

The NSF notes that “women’s participation in science and engineering occupations is lower than it is in the U.S. workforce as a whole,” and is especially low “among mathematical/computer scientists and engineers.”35 Figure 2.7: Employed Women 16 and Older as a Percentage of Selected Occupations, 2011 Source: NSF36 34 Figure reproduced from: “Occupation.” NSF, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/digest/theme4.cfm 35 “Occupation: Women.” NSF. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/digest/theme4.cfm 46.9% 91.1% 90.2% 77.7% 76.6% 71.1% 64.5% 57.1% 55.5% 46.9% 46.1% 39.3% 33.8% 32.6% 25.0% 11.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All occupations Registered nurses Dietitians Therapists Teachers, except postsecondary Psychologists Social scientists All professional and related occupations Pharmacists Biological and life scientists Postsecondary teachers Physical scientists Physicians Lawyers and judges Mathematical/computer scientists Engineers

(17)

EXEMPLAR OUTREACH PROGRAMS

In this section, Hanover discusses engineering programs that incorporate structured outreach to women. Outreach strategies aimed at K‐12 students and undergraduates are outlined in detail. Programs were selected for inclusion in this section based on their use of recognized best practices in outreach, recruitment, and retention. Many programs selected incorporate a mentoring component, which scholars have noted “influences students’ decisions to pursue STEM degrees and occupations, especially for women and minorities.”37

U

NIVERSITY OF

M

ARYLAND

The University of Maryland’s Women in Engineering (WIE) Program was established in January 1995 through a grant from the Sloan Foundation. The program focuses on recruitment and retention of female engineering students at both the K‐12 and undergraduate level.38

K‐12

O

UTREACH

Outreach to K‐12 students reaches students from elementary to high school. There are many programs, including conferences, day‐long programs, short‐term and long‐term summer camps, mentoring, and a partnership with Girl Scouts for an engineering Girl Scout patch.39 There are several summer camp options, including a camp for rising fourth and fifth grade girls, another for rising seventh and eighth graders, and one for high school students. One‐day academies allow high school students to spend the day learning about a particular engineering discipline, such as materials science and engineering, aerospace engineering, and bioengineering.40

U

NDERGRADUATE

O

UTREACH

Undergraduate outreach efforts include a first year peer mentoring program, leadership opportunities in K‐12 outreach programs, a student advisory board, and teaching fellowship opportunities.41 All programs are elective and most require an application before students may begin to participate.

In addition, WIE offers a program called “Flexus: The Dr. Marilyn Berman Pollans Women in Engineering Living and Learning Community.” This program includes two components: a residential community specific to female engineering students with a lounge and

36 Ibid. 37 “STEM Education: Preparing for Jobs of the Future,” p. 8. A Report by the Joint Economic Committee Chairman’s Staff, April 2012. http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6aaa7e1f‐9586‐47be‐82e7‐ 326f47658320 38 “About Us.” Women in Engineering. http://www.wie.umd.edu/aboutus 39 “K‐12 Outreach.” Women in Engineering. http://www.wie.umd.edu/k12/ 40 “High School: WIE LEAD Academies.” Women in Engineering. http://www.wie.umd.edu/k12/lead‐academies 41 “Undergraduates.” Women in Engineering. http://www.wie.umd.edu/undergrad

(18)

community activities; and an academic component that includes a one‐credit seminar and clustering of Flexus students in other technical classes.42

Undergraduate enrollment at the University of Maryland demonstrates some positive results from the WIE program. Degree conferrals to women have vacillated between 13 percent and 20 percent, but reached a record high of 25 percent in 2011 – roughly 6 percent higher than the national average. Figure 3.1: University of Maryland Undergraduate BS in Engineering Degrees Awarded to Women, 2001‐2011 Source: University of Maryland43

O

HIO

S

TATE

U

NIVERSITY

Ohio State University created its Women in Engineering (WiE) Program in 1979 in order to “increase the participation of women within the engineering profession.” WiE lists its mission as working as a “change agent to increase the number of women pursuing engineering degrees and entering the workforce as engineering professionals.”44 Outreach programs include a “Women in Engineering” seminar course; several mentoring groups; professional development activities, including business etiquette lessons and mock interviews; and recreational activities such as yoga classes.45

K‐12

O

UTREACH

WiE engages in some K‐12 outreach. Program includes an “Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day” for elementary school students, summer camp for middle school students, and one‐ day and summer camp events for high school students.46 42 “Flexus.” Women in Engineering. http://www.wie.umd.edu/undergrad/flexus 43 “Female Statistics.” Women in Engineering. http://www.wie.umd.edu/aboutus/female‐stats 44 “Women in Engineering.” The Ohio State University. http://wie.osu.edu/ 45 “Undergraduate Programs.” WiE. http://wie.osu.edu/content/undergraduate‐programs 46 “K‐12 Programs.” WiE. http://wie.osu.edu/k‐12‐programs

(19)

U

NDERGRADUATE

O

UTREACH

WiE has two main undergraduate outreach programs: WiE Leap and WiE Connect. Leap is an early arrival program for incoming students that takes place the summer before students’ freshman year. Students take a one‐credit seminar course before the fall begins and live in a residence hall together through the end of their freshman year. Activities include team building, campus tours, picnics, and other social events. Students also receive free math and science tutoring during the school year.47

Connect incorporates mentorship, volunteering, and recruitment activities by sorting

students and local professionals into mentorship groups. Groups are based around themes: (1) Explore Engineering is a traditional mentor/mentee arrangement for students still exploring engineering; (2) Outreach and Community Service focuses on volunteering; (3) What's Next is for students looking for guidance about upcoming graduation; (4) E‐Connect is a mentor/mentee program that takes place primarily online; and (5) Casual Connect is an informal group focused on social gatherings. Students can enroll in up to three groups and receive points for attendance, activities, and volunteering. At the end of the year, students and professional mentors celebrate with a banquet.48

P

URDUE

U

NIVERSITY

The Purdue University Women in Engineering Program (WIEP) was established in 1969. WIEP focuses primarily on professional development and mentoring programs. WIEP also provides information about engineering to K‐12 girls in order to encourage them to consider a career in engineering.49

Women are 21 percent of the Engineering College enrolled at Purdue in 2011‐12, up from 19.8 percent in 2010‐11. Women have the highest representation in Interdisciplinary Engineering (50.0 percent), Agricultural and Biological Engineering (38.9 percent), Biomedical Engineering (35.3 percent), Multidisciplinary Engineering (32.4 percent), and Chemical Engineering (30.0 percent). They have the lowest representation in Electrical and Computer Engineering (9.0 percent) and Nuclear Engineering (12.2 percent).50

K‐12

O

UTREACH

WIEP has one significant outreach program for each level of K‐12 education. For elementary students, WIEP runs an after school program called Imagination, Innovation, Discovery, and Design (I2D2). This program introduces students to engineering through hands‐on activities. WIEP members have the opportunity to become leaders in the program as well as

47 “WiE Leap.” WiE. http://wie.osu.edu/wieleap 48 “WiE Connect.” WiE. http://wie.osu.edu/wieconnect 49 “About Us.” Purdue University Women in Engineering Program. https://engineering.purdue.edu/WIEP/AboutUs 50 “COE Student Enrollment Diversity—Quick Reference.” Purdue University Women in Engineering Program. https://engineering.purdue.edu/WIEP/AboutUs/Statistics/Fall11Enrollment.pdf

(20)

volunteers.51 WIEP also offers a similar program for middle school students called “Innovation 2 Reality” (I2R), which includes faculty guest speakers, lab tours, and hands‐on activities. I2R meets once per week for five weeks and focuses on a single theme such as climate change, diabetes, or water scarcity.52

Finally, WIEP recruits high school students through the Juniors Exploring Engineering at Purdue (JEEP) program, which is a free day‐long event at Purdue offered once a year for high school juniors and once for seniors. JEEP focuses on recruiting students to the first year engineering program through discussions of academics, student life, and the engineering profession.53

U

NDERGRADUATE

O

UTREACH

Purdue’s undergraduate outreach activities include free tutoring for first year students, a ‘women in engineering’ seminar, a women in engineering residential program, and leadership opportunities in WIEP.54

In addition, WIEP features two mentor programs, first developed 15 years ago. One program, the Mentees and Mentors (M&M) program, matches first‐ and second‐year students with third‐ and fourth‐year students pursuing a similar engineering focus. The second mentoring program offers group mentoring, as demand for mentors had outpaced the number of available mentors. Between these two programs, all interested students are placed into a mentoring program. Mentees and mentors meet once per month on a voluntary basis and are offered several networking and social events per year.55

Purdue conducted a study to measure the efficacy of its WIEP mentoring programs. Participants listed the most helpful aspects of the program as meeting others, hearing about different experiences, getting advice from upperclassmen, and networking. However, some participants felt that it was difficult to keep in contact with other participants outside monthly meetings, attendance was inconsistent, and that meetings were held in an inconvenient location. Overall, however, participants reported being pleased with the programs.56 51 “K‐12 Programs.” Purdue University Women in Engineering Program. https://engineering.purdue.edu/WIEP/Programs/K‐12/precollege.html 52 Ibid. 53 “Recruiting Activities.” Purdue University Women in Engineering Program. https://engineering.purdue.edu/WIEP/Programs/Recruiting/recruit.html 54 “WIEP Undergraduate Programs.” Purdue University Women in Engineering Program. https://engineering.purdue.edu/WIEP/Programs/Undergraduate/undergrad.html 55 Groh, J. and Holloway, B., Op. cit. 56 Ibid.

(21)

U

NIVERSITY OF

P

ENNSYLVANIA

The University of Pennsylvania created the Advancing Women in Engineering (AWE) program in 2007 using a donation from an engineering alumna. AWE is overseeing by a faculty committee and a student advisory board.57 AWE’s goals are:58



Developing and supporting initiatives to increase the number of women interested in studying engineering.



Enhancing the overall experience of female students in Penn Engineering through curricular development, research opportunities, and professional development.



Creating and supporting networking opportunities for women in engineering.

K‐12

O

UTREACH

AWE is involved in several outreach programs for K‐12 students. AWE operates a summer program for middle school children, called the Girls in Engineering Math and Science Camp (GEMS), which is one week long and provides girls with a hands‐on science experience. AWE also participates in the National Center for Women and IT’s day‐long program for guidance counselors and teachers, which allows instructors to learn about computer science so that they can better teach students these skills. Finally, AWE offers high school girls the chance to pair with Penn engineering students for a “sleeping bag weekend” to experience life as a female engineering student.59

U

NDERGRADUATE

O

UTREACH

Common events include social and networking gatherings, professional development activities, roundtable discussions, panels, guest speakers, and mentoring.60 AWE holds a yearly freshman pre‐orientation, at which incoming students can interact with faculty and upperclassmen. Additionally, students are invited to become involved in the student advisory board and take on a leadership role within AWE to plan programs and improve the landscape of women in engineering at Penn.61

AWE also participates in a larger mentorship program called MentorNet, which allows students to choose a mentor. Participants can specify that they would like a mentor in a particular job field, and AWE participants can choose a female mentor.62 MentorNet connects matched mentor/mentees over the Internet, allowing for matching based on more detailed information, as well as increased flexibility for un‐ and re‐matching.63 57 “Advancing Women in Engineering.” Penn Engineering. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/awe/ 58 Ibid. 59 “AWE Outreach Activities.” Penn Engineering. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/awe/outreach.php 60 “About AWE.” Penn Engineering. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/awe/about.php 61 “Advancing Women in Engineering,” p. 4. University of Pennsylvania. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/awe/pdf/AdvancingWomen_09.pdf 62 “MentorNet ‐ A Not‐To‐Be‐Missed Opportunity.” Penn Engineering. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/media/feature‐ mentornet.php 63 “FAQs.” MentorNet. http://www.mentornet.net/Protege.aspx

(22)

S

MITH

C

OLLEGE

Smith College does not have an institution‐run outreach program for women because Smith is an all‐female institution. In fact, Smith is the first all‐female institution to establish an engineering school. Students have the choice to join the Smith chapter of the Society of Women Engineers or Tau Beta Kappa. Nevertheless, Smith has been widely praised for its unique approach to educating women engineers.64 Furthermore, in addition to the B.S. degree in Engineering, Smith offers a B.A. degree in Engineering Arts.65

K‐12

O

UTREACH

Even without a formal women in engineering outreach program, Smith College engineering students conduct outreach in various ways. One program, TOYChallenge, is a national toy design competition for 5th to 8th graders. Smith College hosted the challenge in 2003 and has judged the competition on other occasions. Additionally, the Smith Chapter of the Society of Women Engineers and Tau Beta Kappa participated in “Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day,” which reaches out to fourth to eighth grade girls through basic engineering workshops. Smith’s SWE chapter and Tau Beta Kappa have also worked with students at the local Northampton JFK Middle School. 66

U

NDERGRADUATE

O

UTREACH

Smith notes that its engineering program is distinguished by an emphasis on hands‐on learning and extensive access to faculty. Over 50 percent of the faculty in Smith’s Picker Engineering program, including the director, is female, providing a large number of strong female role models for students. Students are encouraged to study abroad and develop their own summer internships, and are required to create a final design project that unites engineering with broad societal issues. Social responsibility is a key aspect of the program, and engineering students are encouraged to use projects to lower the environmental impact of the College’s activities.67 Many have lauded the program for this focus, suggesting that female students may be inspired by programs geared toward social change.68

Smith also launched a unique outreach program with Princeton’s School of Engineering and Applied Science in 2005. This program, an engineering student exchange, allows students from each institution who are in their junior year and rank in the top 20 percent of their class to spend a semester at the partner school. Students in the engineering exchange take a regular semester of classes at the host school while completing an independent project. Students are given accommodations at the host school.69

64 “Smith College Offers a Model for Attracting Women to Engineering.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Smith‐College‐Offers‐a‐Model/40459/ 65 “Picker Engineering Program.” Smith College. http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Engin/ 66 “How Else Can I Get Involved? Community Outreach.” Smith College. http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Engin/involved_outreach.php 67 “What’s Different at Smith?” Smith College. http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Engin/what.php 68 “How to reengineer an engineering major at a women’s college.” The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2008/0214/p13s01‐legn.html 69 “Princeton and Smith College launch engineering student exchange.” Princeton University. https://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/05/q1/0105‐smith.htm

(23)

PROJECT EVALUATION FORM

Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT

The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

(24)

1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20006 P 202.756.2971 F866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com

Women in Engineering: Trend Analysis & Program Scan