2011-2012 nacme scholars report...2 2011-12 nacme scholars report our mission to ensure american...

2011-2012

NACME Scholars Report

M. Amanda Lain, M.A., NACME Consultant

Christopher Smith, NACME Director of Research and Program Evaluation

2 2011-12 NACME Scholars Report

Our MissionTo ensure American competitiveness in a flat world by leading and supporting the national effort to expand U.S. capability through increasing the number of successful African American, American Indian, and Latino women and men in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and careers.

Our VisionAn engineering workforce that looks like America.

Our GoalWorking with our partners to produce an engineering graduating class that looks like America.

Our PurposeOur aim is to increase the proportion of African American, American Indian, and Latino graduates in STEM education and careers, our metric is parity in the workforce, and our methodology is connecting the network of like-minded individuals and organizations that share a commitment to these aims.

Our BeliefsWe believe in the concept of the “learning organization,” a community in which each member is encouraged and assisted to grow and develop. We support a NACME culture that is informed by our mission. We focus on the results—increasing the proportion of African American, American Indian and Latino graduates in STEM education and careers. We are active, optimistic and engaged. We are creative, innovative and disciplined in our approach. We strive to be effective team members who are committed to doing our best work and to delivering the best results for our partners along the continuum from middle school to workforce entry.

National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering 1

2011-12

NACME Scholars Report

The National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. (NACME) analyzes trends in education, enrollment, degree

completion and workforce participation for underrepresented minorities (URMs – those who are African American, Latino, and American Indian) in engineering. To further this mission, NACME conducts annual research at its partner universities, which produced 31 percent of the country’s total underrepresented minority engineering graduates in 2007. Annually, NACME surveys students who are in their first and final years of enroll-ment. This comprehensive report summarizes the results of the first-year NACME Scholar Orientation Survey from 2008-09 through 2011-12, and of the final-year Graduating Scholars Survey from 2011-12. The following key questions are explored:

> Why are underrepresented minority students entering the engineering fields?

> What characteristics are most commonly associated with interest in engineering?

> What are students’ expectations for their undergraduate engineering program upon enrollment, and what are their levels of satisfaction with instructional and support features upon graduation?

> What research and internship opportunities are students receiving in the NACME Partner Institutions?

> What are the post-graduate educational and employment plans for NACME Scholars?

Key findings and recommendations are provided to further enhance the NACME Scholars program, and to inform the research community at large. Among the highlights:

> Upon enrollment, almost all students (94 percent) reported that they had considered earning advanced degrees, including 95 percent of African American and 92 percent of Latino respon-dents. African American and Latino students were most interested in attaining a master’s degree in engineering. For graduating scholars, more than 25 percent planned to pursue a master’s degree within 12 months of graduation, and more than half indicated an interest in pursuing a doctoral degree in engineering over time.

> Interests and hobbies were the primary motivating source for students to major in engineering (48 percent of respondents), followed by participation in math, science, and/or engineering classes and programs (29 percent). Among graduating scholars, professional interests and compensation packages were the key factors cited as greatly influencing their post-graduate plans.

> Students who grew up with college-experienced adults were more likely to be interested in engineering through hobbies and from family members, while students who grew up without college-experienced adults were more likely to become interested in engineering from teachers and STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) class and program participation. Graduating scholars cited research experiences, internships and interactions with faculty as critical to their development and future planning.

Contents

NACME Scholar Orientation Survey Results 3 NACME Graduating Scholars Survey Results 9


A total of 363 surveys, across all four academic years, were coded, entered and analyzed to better understand, primarily,

the key factors for becoming interested in engineering and students’ expectations for engineering school. When appropri-ate, variables were cross-analyzed for further understanding of outcomes.

Key findings:

> Almost all students (94 percent) reported they had considered earning advanced degrees, including 95 percent of African Americans and 92 percent of Latinos. African American and Latino students were interested primarily in attaining a master’s degree in engineering, followed by earning both a master’s degree and Ph.D.

> Students who grew up with adults who had attended college were slightly more likely to express consideration of pursuing advanced degrees than students who did not grow up with college-experienced adults (94 percent vs. 88 percent). Furthermore, students who matured with college-experienced adults were more likely to report consideration of pursuing a Ph.D. (14 percent vs. 9 percent).

> Interests and hobbies were the primary motivating source for students to major in engineering (by 48 percent of respon-dents) followed by participation in math, science, and/or engineering classes and programs (by 29 percent).

> Students who grew up with college-experienced adults were more likely to have developed interest in engineering through hobbies and family members, while students who grew up with non-college-experienced adults were more likely to have become interested through teachers and by participating in STEM classes and programs.

> Through engineering school, students’ primary expectation was to be prepared with knowledge and skills for the job market and/or graduate school, followed by learning and understanding their field of study.

RecommendationsNACME is commended for organizing and disseminating the survey annually to increase the sample size as well as to allow for cross-year comparisons.

First, given the importance of family, teachers, and class and program participation in sparking students’ interest in engineering, NACME may consider increasing its outreach efforts in high schools and community colleges, as well as in middle schools to appeal to the younger demographic. Because role models were a primary source of influence among scholars, NACME can serve as a role model when sharing a message promoting engineering, and personal and professional advancement.

Second, students’ awareness of NACME has increased over the years, with 57 percent of students aware of NACME in 2011-12. To further improve students’ understanding of the funding company, the organization may consider requiring students to attend an orientation about NACME; bolstering its communication with students, including regular contact so that they are aware of NACME’s activities and services; and hosting events to get students’ buy-in for completing tasks such as annual surveys. Students are aware of their status as NACME Scholars; this status should be made prestigious, an accomplishment that students “advertise” to employers post-graduation.

Finally, in analyzing the data, it became apparent that a gender variable could have shed light on the relative importance of influential factors and expectations. NACME may consider adding a gender question to future surveys to permit analysis of this dynamic.

Executive SummaryAnnual distribution of the NACME Scholar Orientation Survey from the 2008-09 academic year through the 2011-12 academic year was implemented to understand:

> How scholars became interested in majoring in engineering

> Expectations for engineering school

> Consideration of earning a degree beyond scholars’ bachelor’s degree

> Level of knowledge of NACME activities

NACME Scholar Orientation Survey ResultsM. Amanda Lain, M.A., NACME ConsultantChristopher Smith, NACME Director of Research and Program Evaluation

Executive Summary 3 Research Methods 4 Data Collection 4 Analysis 4

Results 4 Respondent Characteristics 4 Interest in Engineering 4 Expectations for Engineering School 6 Knowledge of NACME 7Conclusions and Recommendations 8

Contents


On an annual basis, starting in the 2008-09 academic year, NACME Scholars completed an orientation survey to determine their original interest in engineering, expectations for engineering school, experience attending other colleges and anticipation of earning a degree beyond their bachelor’s degree. Students were also asked to provide basic demographic information, as well as contact information for follow-up from NACME.

Data CollectionBetween the academic years of 2008-09 and 2011-12, a total of 363 surveys have been received. The yearly totals are as follows:

> 2008-09: 104 surveys

> 2009-10: 60 surveys

> 2010-11: 122 surveys

> 2011-12: 77 surveys

The response rate cannot be computed, as it is unclear how many surveys were distributed versus how many were collected.

AnalysisThe NACME Scholar Orientation Surveys were collected for each institution, then coded and entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. The survey included five engineering interest and college experience questions, seven demographic/background questions, and one question about students’ familiarity with NACME. To analyze the textual data, Lain made a list of students’ responses, created themes, and carefully categorized and coded each answer thematically. The survey polled race/ethnicity, but not gender, and racial data are presented in the report when race/ethnicity appeared to have a strong relationship to outcomes. Because there were only four respondents in the American Indian/Alaska Native racial group, caution should be exercised in interpreting statistics for American Indians/Alaska Natives as results likely will be skewed compared with the more-represented demographic groups.

Surveys were collected from 363 students between the 2008-09 academic year and the 2011-12 academic year.

Respondent CharacteristicsTable 1a provides a demographic overview of the students who completed surveys, first aggregated, then separated by year. Most of the respondents were Latino (50 percent), followed by African American (39 percent). The average age of respondents was 20, and more than half (64 percent) reported that they had grown up with an adult who had attended college, including parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, and aunts and uncles. Additionally, the majority (96 percent) of students had never been married, and only six reported that they had children. Finally, fewer than 10 percent of students graduated from a high school outside of the U.S.

In addition to basic demographic information, students were asked if they had attended other colleges. Less than one-third (31 percent) reported attending another college; that percentage was consistently reflected across each underrepresented racial group (25 percent of American Indians/AK Natives, 30 percent of African Americans and 33 percent of Latino).

Students were also asked if they had considered earning a degree beyond their bachelor’s degree. Almost all (94 percent) reported they had considered earning advanced degrees, and all who graduated from a non-U.S. high school indicated consider-ation of an advanced degree. By race, more than 90 percent of African Americans and Latinos were interested in pursuing advanced degrees, as well as three of the four American Indian/Alaska Native respondents (see Figure 1). By degree, African American and Latino students were most interested in attaining a master’s degree in engineering, as illustrated in Figure 2, followed by earning both a master’s degree and Ph.D. Note in Figure 2 that, because of skewed visual representation, one each of the American Indians/Alaska Natives interested in an advanced degree was considering a master’s, a Ph.D., and both a master’s and Ph.D. The “other” category included consideration of advanced degrees in theater/drama, business, law and medicine. Finally, almost two-thirds (64 percent) of students grew up with an adult who attended college. Students who did not mature with an adult who attended college were somewhat less likely to indicate that they considered earning an advanced degree than students who did (88 percent vs. 94 percent). Further, students who did not grow up with a college-experienced adult were slightly less likely to consider a Ph.D. than students who did (9 percent vs. 14 percent). Interest in EngineeringStudents were asked “First, how did you get interested in majoring in engineering?” Responses were categorized according to four broad themes: teachers/professors, family members, class/program participation, and interest and hobbies. As seen in Figure 3, almost half of respondents (48 percent) mentioned interests and hobbies as the motivating reason they majored in engineering, followed by class/program participation (29 percent).

Research Methods Results


As far as interests and hobbies, many students shared anecdotes about having an interest in math, science, electronics or how things worked at an early age, which led to their desire to become engineers. Others shared that dissembling and reassembling objects when they were young was their initiation to the field.

Students who mentioned that classes and programs sparked their interest in engineering shared that they participated in various organized programs, such as Architecture, Construction, and Engineering (ACE) Mentoring Program; Project Lead The Way

(PLTW); Math, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA), and the FIRST Robotics Competition. Some students mentioned that that they had no interest or exposure to engineering until they took high school science and math courses.

When family influence was the motivating factor for their majoring in engineering, students mentioned parents, siblings, and extended family as providing advice and experience in a STEM field. Often, the family members were professionals in the field and suggested it to the student. Additionally, several students

Table 1a. Demographic Overview of Respondents

2008–12n=363

2008–09n=104

2009–10n=60

2010–11n=122

2011–12n=77

Race

American Indian/Alaska Native 4 (1%) 1 (1%) 1 (2%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)

African American 142 (39%) 48 (46%) 28 (47%) 48 (40%) 20 (26%)

Latino 182 (50%) 44 (42%) 26 (43%) 60 (50%) 50 (65%)

White or Asian 10 (3%) 3 (3%) 1 (2%) 3 (3%) 3 (4%)

Multiple Response 17 (5%) 4 (4%) 2 (3%) 8 (7%) 3 (4%)

No Response 8 (2%) 4 (4%) 2 (3%) 2 (2%) ––

Age

Minimum 16 17 17 18 16

Maximum 47 37 47 27 28

Mean 20 21 20 20 20

Std. Dev. 2.82 3.09 4.49 1.82 1.86

Marital Status

Never Married 348 (96%) 100 (96%) 56 (93%) 177 (96%) 75 (97%)

Married/Marriage-like 5 (1%) –– 2 (4%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%)

Divorced/Separated 2 (1%) –– –– 1 (1%) ––

No Response 8 (2%) 4 (4%) 1 (2%) –– 1 (1%)

Graduated from U.S. High School

94% 88% 87% 98% 99%

Number with Children

6 (2%) –– 4 (1%) 2 (1%) 1 (1%)Adult in Home When Growing Up Attended College (Grew up with college-experienced adult)

233 (64%) 71 (68%) 41 (68%) 71 (58%) 50 (65%)

Figure 1. NACME Scholars Interested in Earning Advanced Degree by Race (n=325)

100%

75%

American Indian/Alaska Native

African American Latino

95% 92%80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Figure 2. NACME Scholars’ Interest in Earning Advanced Degree by Race (n=285)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

60%

15% 17%

9%14%16%

9%

61%

Master’s Master’s & Ph.D.Ph.D. Other

African American Latino


shared that their relative’s work and accomplishments in the field were an inspiration.

Finally, teachers were credited with introducing students to engineering. Some teachers presented math and science classes in a way that encouraged students to seek out engineering; some recognized students’ skills in math and science and suggested engineering, and some served as mentors and worked with the students to define interests.

As seen in Figure 4, respondents of American Indian/Alaska Native heritage were most likely to report that a class or program initiated interest in engineering. African Americans and Latinos, however, were more likely to report interests and hobbies as the factor that influenced them to major in engineering, followed by class/program participation.

Students who did not grow up around a college-experienced adult were more likely to credit a teacher/professor with introduc-ing them to engineering than those who did grow up with a college-experienced adult (see Figure 5). Similarly, participating in a class/program was cited more often by students who did not

grow up with adults who had college exposure. Conversely, students who matured with an adult with college experience cited interests and hobbies and family members as influential factors.

Expectations for Engineering SchoolStudents were then asked, “What are your expectations for engineering school?” Responses were categorized according to six broad themes: learn about/understand field; gain hands-on experience; personal development; prepare with skills/knowl-edge for workforce or graduate school; school itself; and graduate with a bachelor’s degree. As seen in Figure 6, the categories have a fairly even distribution, with slightly more students expecting to be prepared to join the workforce and/or graduate school.

The most commonly cited expectation was to be prepared to join the workforce and/or go to graduate school. Students were looking forward to being taught knowledge and skills that could help them find and secure positions, either in the workforce or in graduate school. Students mentioned expecting to learn practical knowledge, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, software and hardware tools, and technology to make them

Figure 3. How Students Became Interested in Engineering (n=362)

7%

16%

29%

48%

Teacher/Professor

Family Member

Class/Program

Interest (Hobbies)

Figure 4. Students’ Interest in Engineering by Race (n=327)

American Indian/Alaska Native African American Latino

75%

50%

25%

0%

Teacher/Professor Class/ProgramFamily Member Interest (Hobbies)

25%

9% 7% 0%13%

17%

50%

31%29%25%

48%48%

Figure 5. Students’ Interest in Engineering Depending on Adult with College Experience (n=354)

With Collegiate Adult Without Collegiate Adult

75%

50%

25%

0%

Teacher/Professor Class/ProgramFamily Member Interest (Hobbies)

4%13%

17%12%

32%27%

51%43%

Figure 6. Students’ Expectations for Engineering School (n=360)

School Itself12%

Learn about field18%

Hands-on experience

12%

Prepare for job/school

36%

Personaldevelopment

9%

Graduate with BS

12%


competent and effective engineers. Finally, students wanted to be equipped to manage challenges and solve problems they would encounter in industry.

Second, students reportedly expected to better understand the engineering field they were enrolled in, as well as learn its fundamental aspects. In addition to basic principles, some students expected to expand their understanding of the field with theoretical and practical knowledge, mechanics, and develop-mental tools, as well as an overall strong foundation of science and technology.

Third, an equal proportion of students expected to gain hands-on experience, be challenged and rewarded through schooling, and graduate with a bachelor’s degree. Students mentioned the value of co-op programs and internships to prepare them for real-world situations. Furthermore, they expected that co-ops and internships would familiarize them with different employers, as well as employers’ expectations. The primary feedback on the school itself was that students expected the engineering program to be challenging and demanding, yet rewarding. Students expected math and science-intensive classes and passionate professors,

and to enjoy their experience. Finally, students expected to earn a bachelor’s degree applicable to their career goals.

Last, some students’ expectations revolved around personal development, such as achieving their full social, intellectual and physical potential, and to be equipped with skills that would aid in future personal and professional endeavors. Students also expected to become involved in campus organizations and activities to discover more about themselves.

As illustrated in Figure 7, African American and Latino students’ expectations varied very little; responses were almost identical in each category. African Americans had slightly higher representa-tion than Latinos in the expectation that engineering school would prepare them for a job and/or school, but the categories were otherwise within a couple of percentage points. Responses by American Indians/Alaska Natives fell exclusively into the “school itself” and “graduate with B.S.” categories, but that’s because of the small representation from that racial group and should be interpreted cautiously.

Additionally, as seen in Figure 8, there was very little variation in expectations between students who grew up with adults who went to college and those who did not. Students in the former group were slightly more likely to expect engineering school to prepare them for a career and/or graduate school, while those in the latter group were more likely to expect to learn about and gain fundamental understanding of their field.

Knowledge of NACMEThe final question on the survey asked students how they would characterize their level of knowledge about NACME. Figure 9 shows that just below half (42 percent) of students across all years were aware of NACME’s activities, and just over half (53 percent) had heard NACME’s name but were not familiar with its efforts. Only a small percentage (5 percent) were not aware of NACME. Students from the 2011-12 cohort were the most familiar with NACME—57 percent reported being aware of its activities. African American and Latino students were very close in their level of knowledge of NACME (40 percent vs. 42 percent aware, 56 percent vs. 53 percent heard the name, and 4 percent vs. 5 percent unaware, respectively).

Figure 9. Knowledge of NACME’s Activities (n=349)

75%

50%

25%

0%

2008–12 2009–102008–09 2010–11 2011–12

53%

5%

36% 35%40% 40%

42%

58% 58%

6% 7%

56% 57%

4% 4%

Am aware of NACME’s activities

Have heard the name, but not familiar with NACME’s efforts

Not aware of NACME

Figure 8. Expectations for Engineering Depending on Adult with College Experience (n=352)

75%

50%

25%

0%

Learn about field

16%22%

Hands-onexperience

10%16%

Personaldevelopment

7%9%


40%

31%

School itself

13%11%

Graduate with BS

11%13%

With Collegiate Adult Without Collegiate Adult

Figure 7. Students’ Expectations for Engineering School by Race (n=325)

American Indian/Alaska Native African American Latino

75%

50%

25%

0%

Learn about field

Personaldevelopment

Hands-onexperience


School itself Graduate with BS

17% 19%

0% 0% 0%0%12%12%

7% 10%

41%

50% 50%

12% 13% 13%10%

34%


Conclusions and Recommendations

Annual distribution of the NACME Scholar Orientation Survey from the 2008-09 academic year to the 2011-12 academic year has yielded a total of 363 surveys. Surveys were coded and entered to understand how students became interested in engineering and students’ expectations for engineering school.

Key findings:> Students who grew up with adults who attended college were

slightly more likely to express consideration of pursuing advanced degrees than students who did not grow up with college-experienced adults (94 percent vs. 88 percent). Furthermore, students who matured with college-experienced adults were more likely to report consideration of pursuing a Ph.D. (14 percent vs. 9 percent).

> Interests and hobbies were the primary motivating source for students to major in engineering (by 48 percent of respon-dents) followed by participation in math, science, and/or engineering classes and programs (by 29 percent).

> Students who grew up with college-experienced adults were more likely to be interested in engineering through hobbies and from family members, while students with non-college-experienced adults were more likely to become interested in engineering from teachers and STEM class and program participation.

> Through engineering school, students’ primary expectation was to be prepared with knowledge and skills for the job market and/or graduate school, followed by learning and understanding their field of study.

RecommendationsNACME is commended for organizing and disseminating the sur-vey annually to increase the sample size, as well as to allow for cross-year comparisons.

Given the importance of family, teachers, and class and program participation in sparking students’ interest in engineering, NACME may consider increasing its outreach efforts in high schools and community colleges, as well as in middle schools to appeal to the younger demographic. Since role models were one of the primary sources of influence among scholars, NACME can serve as a role model when sharing their message promoting engineering and personal and professional advancement.

Second, students’ awareness of NACME has risen over the years, peaking in 2011-12 with 57 percent of students aware of NACME. To further improve their understanding of the funding company, NACME may consider requiring students to attend an orientation about NACME; bolstering its communication with students, including regular contact so they are aware of its activities and services; and hosting events to get students’ buy-in for completing tasks such as annual surveys. Students are aware of their status as NACME Scholars; that status should be made prestigious—an accomplishment that students “advertise” to employers post-graduation.

Finally, in analyzing the data, it became apparent that a gender variable could have shed light on the relative importance of influential factors and expectations. NACME may consider adding a gender question to future surveys to permit analysis of this dynamic.


The survey incorporated two new items based on past surveys’ findings and further inquiry about Scholars’

experiences. The Minority Engineering Program Directors (MEPs) at each of the 26 NACME Partner Institutions were critical in garnering an 81 percent response rate (125 total respondents, 107 of which were underrepresented minorities), which is considered highly successful in online survey research.

Key findings:

> The NACME Scholarship was the most important funding source cited by students: 85 percent indicated that it was a “very important” funding source for their undergraduate education among 14 possible sources that were rated.

> More than half of the graduating scholars indicated an interest in pursuing a doctoral degree, which is on par with previous years.

> Just over one-quarter planned on pursuing a master’s degree in engineering within 12 months of graduation, which is a decline from previous years.

> “Professional interests” were a key factor in students’ post-graduation plans: 68 percent of males and 63 percent of females said this factor “greatly influenced” their plans.

> “Compensation package” was also critical to making plans: 43 percent of females and 42 percent of males said this factor “greatly influenced” their plans.

> Students reported 160 internship/co-ops at 115 different companies. These were critical experiences:

• 62 percent indicated that they “would work for the company based on their internship experience;”

• 52 percent indicated the internship “provided a lot of skills/knowledge applicable to coursework;”

• 21 percent stated that the internship provided them with hands-on experience in their field, which is critical in engineering; and

• 35 percent of students accepted their internships in order to gain hands-on experience.

> The majority of students—57 percent of females and 74 percent of males—indicated that their post-graduation job was “closely related” to their degree field.

> Undergraduate experiences with research and interactions with faculty were critical to students’ post-graduation educational planning. Students who had worked with faculty on research, attended conferences or presented research at conferences were more likely to express an interest in both enrolling in an engineering master’s program within the next 12 months and in eventually pursuing a Ph.D. in engineering.

RecommendationsNACME is commended for organizing and disseminating the 2011-12 survey earlier in the spring semester than the previous year and thereby securing a greater response rate.

The response rate for the current Graduating Scholars Survey (GSS) is highly satisfactory (81 percent overall) for online anonymous survey research. Because some students graduate in the fall, NACME may consider administering a fall and spring GSS to ensure participation by all graduating students. Additionally, NACME might

Executive SummaryA study of the NACME Scholars who graduated between September 2011 and August 2012 was conducted to determine:

> Scholars’ level of satisfaction with instructional and support features of their undergraduate engineering program

> Research and/or internship experiences acquired by scholars during their undergraduate degree program

> Post-graduation employment positions, locations and relatedness to their degree program

> Graduate education coursework and degree plans

> Level of knowledge and involvement with NACME resources

NACME Graduating Scholars Survey Results M. Amanda Lain, M.A., NACME ConsultantChristopher Smith, NACME Director of Research and Program Evaluation

Executive Summary 9

Research Methods 10

Data Collection and Response Rate Computation 10

Data Notes and Cautions 10

Analysis 11

Results 12

Assessing the Quality of the Undergraduate Experience 16

Evaluating Financial Sources for Funding Scholars’ Education 18

The Role of Research Experiences as Undergraduates 19

Internship and Co-Op Experiences 21

Advice Pertaining to Post-Graduation Plans 22

Post-Graduation Plans 25

Educational Plans 26

Use and Evaluation of NACME’s Services 28

Conclusions and Recommendations 29

Appendix A: 30

Internship Hosts Reported by NACME Graduating Scholars

Appendix B: 31

Employers Reported by NACME Graduating Scholars

Contents


consider more frequent surveys, from the time students are awarded the scholarship, to prepare them to complete surveys on a regular basis. To further improve the response rate, NACME may try incentivizing survey participation with a small gift for contribution and/or creating a competition that awards students for completing the survey within a specified timeframe.

NACME may consider requiring students to attend an orientation about NACME to improve students’ understanding of the funding company. Additionally, NACME should bolster its communication efforts with students, including regular contact with students directly so they are aware of NACME’s activities and services, as well as host events to get students’ buy-in for completing tasks such as annual surveys. Students are aware of their status as NACME Scholars; that status should be made prestigious—an accomplish-ment that students “advertise” to employers post-graduation. NACME, too, is encouraged to maintain contact with the students post-graduation.

NACME is encouraged to continue to work closely with the MEPs at its partner schools to continue to provide support to directors. Several schools had a transition in MEPs and may have benefited from an orientation with NACME staff about efforts, services and expectations. Additionally, some students were unaware of services on campus. MEPs are encouraged to research the services on their campus and share the information with students.

Conference participation can be critical to growing the next generation of engineering leaders and educators. Travel funding to attend conferences should be a topic for discussion with the MEPs because schools differed greatly in the support available and the sources of this support. At the “very high research activity” and “high research activity” institutions, faculty members or departments may have travel funds, so the MEPs are encouraged to discuss these opportunities with students, as well as to assist faculty in inviting students to participate and present research outcomes. At the “Sub-Ph.D.-granting” institutions, NACME may need to provide a separate source of funds for student travel to conferences. Students at all institutions should be informed of the importance of participat-ing in professional societies, including the merits of attending conferences. Furthermore, since research experiences provide a bridge to graduate school, NACME should work with MEPs, allied programs (e.g., Louis Stokes AMP and McNair) and faculty at partner institutions to enable more participation in research by NACME Scholars.

Finally, it might be advantageous in future surveys to ask students more specific questions to test their knowledge about graduate school—for example, if they were made aware of fellowship or graduate assistantship opportunities—because they may not have been provided full information about its affordability. Additionally, consider asking students at what class level they became NACME Scholars; that may shed light on responses pertaining to awareness and access of services, as well as on long-term educational goals.

NACME should also consider asking how scholars would prefer to be provided with the final report, including the opportunity to discuss its findings.

Research Methods

In the 2011-12 academic year, the invitation for students to participate in the GSS was provided to the MEPs at each NACME Partner Institution to then distribute to students. Because the MEPs were in regular contact with their students and knew or were able to determine their graduation dates, the MEPs were ideally positioned to successfully locate the appropri-ate students for the survey.

As in previous years, the MEPs were provided with a school-specific SurveyMonkey link to the survey with a request to forward the link to their graduating students. Many MEPs were able to contact students in a timely manner. NACME Consultant M. Amanda Lain maintained consistent contact with the MEPs and provided regular updates on response rates from their institutions. Follow-up requests to students were done solely through the MEPs, with direction from Lain and Melonia Simp-son, NACME Program Manager, Undergraduate Scholarships. The survey was considered open from March 12, 2012, until May 1, 2012. Data Collection and Response Rate ComputationThe method included an email to MEPs thanking them for their assistance, as well as an email for them to forward to students, which included the school-specific SurveyMonkey link to the online survey.

As of May 1, 2012, the following surveys were received:

> Surveys from 25 of the 25 schools (100 percent return rate)

> 125 total surveys

• Overall rate: 125/155 = 81 percent

> 107 surveys from the population of interest (graduated or expected to graduate during the 2011-12 academic year)

• Response rate for this population: 107/137 = 78 percent

Data Notes and Cautions The response rate on this year’s survey is considered highly successful in online survey research. The 20 percent improve-ment over the previous response rate (81 percent vs. 59 percent) is credited to the MEPs, both for providing initial graduation information, as well as for contacting and following up with students. NACME staff is credited for being proactive in soliciting lists of graduating seniors early in the spring semester. Finally, the survey was distributed in March, before most schools’ spring break, exams and end-of-year graduation responsibilities, which undoubtedly improved the response rate.

The survey had been reviewed, and it incorporated several new items based on findings from past surveys, but the process did not delay administration of the survey. The survey was again administered in the spring of the academic year, which may have precluded fall graduates from participating. Communication from several MEPs indicated that there were students who graduated in December but that they had difficulty contacting those students and, therefore, garnering participation in the survey.


As such, the survey may be administered in November to all students who plan to graduate, which is likely to increase accessibility of the survey for fall graduates and further improve response rates.

Finally, four institutions produced less than 50 percent of the expected response rate: Georgia Institute of Technology, Missouri University of Science & Technology, University of Central Florida and University of Texas-San Antonio. Two institutions, California State University-Los Angeles and Michigan Technologi-cal University, did not have any NACME Scholars graduating during this reporting period. As such, these institutions are encouraged to use caution when generalizing results.

The MEPs are commended for their dedication and care in encouraging students’ responses to the GSS. These profession-als are key NACME partners in determining the population frame and in securing student participation, and their commitment to NACME and the survey process are essential to continue the successful rate of response garnered for this reporting period.

AnalysisThe 2011-12 Graduating Scholar Survey data were collected using SurveyMonkey for each institution, then exported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. In addition to the data from the surveys, data from a spreadsheet obtained from the Carnegie Foundation were incorporated, to include data about the institutions the students attended. Most items in the GSS were “closed-ended,” meaning that there was no interpretation necessary to code the data. Two “closed-end-ed” items were added to the 2011-12 survey: “Were you offered

an internship, co-op or post-graduation job via the NACME Online Resume Directory corporate jobs links?” and “Did you attend an orientation session about NACME?”

In addition to the “closed-ended” items, there were a few “open-ended” items, which required greater care in coding and entering. One of the items asked students to indicate information about internships: employer, satisfaction, etc. For this, a spreadsheet was made of the internship/co-op employers listed by the students, but as few employers were reported by more than a handful of students, it was concluded that there would be no meaningful analysis by looking at differences across those employers.

Three other “open-ended” items asked: 1) “Why did you accept your most recent internship? What were the key factors for you in choosing your most recent internship?” 2) “Did any of these internships or co-ops assist you in the formulation of career options or choices? If so, briefly say how.” 3) “How could your internship experiences have been improved by the employers for whom you worked?” To analyze these textual data, Lain made a list of the responses, then read the list and developed a set of themes that could capture all the answers. Lain then coded each student’s answers using the coding scheme. Finally, she reviewed and refined the assigned codes so that there was no ambiguity on the meaning and applicability of each code to each response.

Finally, there were a few gender differences across variables, which are presented in the report when gender appeared to have a strong relationship to outcomes.

Table 1a. Demographic Overview of Respondents

Table 1b. Characteristics of Universities Attended by NACME Graduating Scholars

Number Percent

Carnegie Classification

Research University, Very High Research Activtity

33 31%

Research University, High Research Activity

48 45%

Master’s-Granting Institutions 17 16%

Baccalaureate Institutions 4 4%

Special Focus, Colleges of Engineering 5 5%

Institutional Control

Public 85 79%

Private 22 21%

Special Institutions

HBCU 13 12%

HSI 20 19%

MSI 44 41%

Number Percent

Gender

Female 33 30.8%

Male 68 63.6%

Unreported 6 5.6%

Race/Ethnicity

African American 51 51.5%

American Indian/Alaska Native 1 1.0%

Latino 44 44.4%

Multiple Responses 3 3.0%

Age

Minimum 22

Maximum 41

Mean 24

Standard Deviation 2.69

Graduated from High School in the United States 88 82.2%

Marital Status

Married or marriage-like relationship 8 7.5%

Divorced/Separated 1 0.9%

Never Married 91 85.0%

No Response 7 6.5%

Number with Children 5 4.7%

Adult in home when growing up had attended college 67 62.6%


Results

The NACME Graduating ScholarsTable 1a provides a demographic overview of the 107 respon-dents who reported that they planned to graduate or had graduated between September 2011 and August 2012. Whereas females tend to account for about 20 percent of all engineering graduates in a year nationwide, females accounted for 31 percent of the NACME GSS respondents. A majority of the students supported by the NACME program were African American (52 percent), followed by students of Latino descent (44 percent). The average age of respondents was 22, and more than half (63 percent) of the students reported that there was an adult they grew up with who had attended college, including parents (by 25 students), grandparents (by two students), siblings (by one student), cousins (by two students), and aunts or uncles (by two students). Additionally, the majority (85 percent) of students had never been married, and only five students (all male) reported having children. Finally, less than 20 percent of students graduated from a high school outside of the U.S.

Table 1b provides an overview of the institutions included in the NACME GSS using the 2005 Carnegie Classification scheme and reports the control of each school and whether the institu-tion is a historically black college or university (HBCU), a Hispanic serving institution (HSI) or a minority serving institution (MSI). The new Carnegie system departs from previous schemes from the

Table 1c. NACME Institutions’ 2005 Carnegie Category

Research University–Very High Research Activity Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus Purdue University, West Lafayette University of California- San Diego University of Colorado, Boulder University of Washington- Seattle Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Research University–High Research Activity Drexel University Florida International University Kansas State University New Jersey Insitute of Technology North Carolina A&T State University (HBCU, MSI) Northern Arizona State University Polytechnic Institute of New York University University of Central Florida University of Houston-University Park (MSI) University of Illinois, Chicago University of Missouri-Rolla University of Texas-El Paso (HSI, MSI) University of Texas-San Antonio (HSI)

Master’s–Granting Institutions California State University- Sacramento (MSI) Prairie View A & M University (HBCU, MSI) Rochester Institute of Technology CUNY City College (HSI, MSI)

Baccalaureate Institutions Tuskegee University (HBCU, MSI)

Special Focus–Engineering Kettering University

Figure 3a. Preparedness by Students’ High School to Pursue an Engineering Degree

Math-ematics

67

51 45 8 3

23 10 7

English/Writing

Chemistry 36

31

42 48 15 2

41 17 18

38 21 12

Physics

Overall

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very well-prepared

Moderately well-prepared Very unprepared

Somewhat unprepared

Figure 2. NACME Scholars’ Majors Compared to All U.S. URM BSE Recipients, 2010

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%NACME GSS(2011–2012)

(n=67)

Males Females

National(2010)

(n=67,235)

NACME GSS(2011–2012)

(n=33)

National(2010)

(n=15,494)

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

Aerospace Civil Industrial/Manufacturing

Biomedical Computer Mechanical

Chemical Electrical Other

Figure 1. NACME Scholars’ Majors by Gender

67 Males, 33 Females

Mechanical

Electrical

Chemical

Civil

Computer

Industrial/Manufacturing

Environmental

Biomedical

Aerospace

Other

15 7

18 3

8 8

8 1

4 2

2 4

3 1

3

5 4

1 3

Male Female

0 5 10 15 20 25


Figure 3b. Preparedness by Students’ High School to Pursue an Engineering Degree by Gender

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Males Males Males Males MalesFemales Females Females Females Females

Mathematics Physics Chemistry English/Writing Overall

16

10

3

4

25

26

8

9

5

10

9

9

9

12

4

8

10

15

7

1

23

25

16

4

29

31

5

3

28

31

8

1

18

12

3

46

12

7

3

Very well-prepared

Moderately well-prepared

Very unprepared

Somewhat unprepared

Figure 3c. Preparedness by Students’ High School to Pursue an Engineering Degree by Race/Ethnicity

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Af. Am. Af. Am. Af. Am. Af. Am. Af. Am.Latinos Latinos Latinos Latinos Latinos

Mathematics Physics Chemistry English/Writing Overall

27

9

5

3

20

15

6

10

10

18

10

6

10

18

11

5

15

21

8

21

16

9

5

24

21

4

2

23

22

5

1

22

19

3

33

12

4

2

Very well-prepared

Moderately well-prepared

Very unprepared

Somewhat unprepared


Carnegie Foundation in several ways, splitting the well-known category “Carnegie Research I” into “Research University-Very High Research Activity” and “Research University-High Research Activity.” A little more than three-fourths of the GSS respondents were at these two types of institutions.

Table 1c provides a list of the NACME institutions and their 2005 Carnegie classification. Six NACME Partner Institutions were in the “Very High Research” category with 33 survey respondents. Another 48 students were at the 13 “High Research Activity” institutions. The remaining 26 respondents were at six institutions at which the terminal degree is lower than the doctoral degree. In the analyses that follow, these students have been combined into one institutional type category called “Sub-Ph.D.,” denoted “< Ph.D.” in some graphs and charts. Five of the institutions are private (Drexel, Kettering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Rochester Institute of Technology and Tuskegee); all the others are public. There are three HBCUs, three HSIs and seven MSIs1. Because only 13 students were from HBCUs, care needs to be exercised in interpreting these results for this type of institution.

Figures 1 and 2 show the major fields for NACME Scholars and compared with U.S. underrepresented minority engineering bachelor’s degree recipients in 2010.

Figure 1 shows that female NACME GSS respondents were more evenly distributed than male respondents across the eight fields. Close to half of male respondents (33 of 67) were in electri-cal and mechanical engineering compared to 30 percent of

females (10 of 33). But females were more likely to report majors in industrial/manufacturing and biomedical than males.

Figure 2 shows that, generally, NACME male GSS respondents earned engineering bachelor’s degrees in fields similar to those of URMs nationwide. NACME male GSS respondents were more likely than their national counterparts to be in electrical and chemical engineering and slightly less likely to be in civil and industrial engineering. NACME female GSS respondents were more likely than female URM engineering bachelor’s degree recipients nationwide to earn degrees in mechanical, chemical, computer and industrial engineering, and less likely to earn a degree in biomedical, aerospace or “other” engineering.

Figure 3a captures students’ retrospective perceptions of how well high school prepared them for completing their engineering degrees, and Figures 3b and 3c explore preparedness by gender and race/ethnicity. The majority of students reported being well-prepared by their high schools to pursue their engineering degrees; students reported that they were “very well-prepared” or “moderately well-prepared” in mathematics (84 percent), physics (67 percent), chemistry (70 percent), English/writing (90 percent) and overall (84 percent).

As seen in Figure 3b, more males than females reported feeling “very well-prepared” across all subjects, with one exception: English/Writing (43 percent vs. 55 percent). Males and females both reported being the most prepared in mathematics, with males reporting they were “very well-prepared” at a higher rate than females (68 percent vs. 48 percent). And, twice as many males as females reported feeling “very-well prepared” in physics (37 percent vs. 15 percent).

As seen in Figure 3c, more African Americans than Latinos reported feeling “very well-prepared” across all subjects except for English/Writing (47 percent vs. 50 percent). Mathematics had the greatest proportion of both African Americans and Latinos reporting that they were “very well-prepared” (65 percent vs. 61 percent). However, African Americans were considerably more likely than Latinos to report being “very well-prepared” in physics (39 percent vs. 23 percent) and chemistry (41 percent vs. 23 percent).

Finally, Figure 4 shows all students’ experiences with community college, and then displays community college experience for students at each of the different types of NACME Block Grant Institutions. Most (66 percent) of the scholars did not have any experience with attending a community college. Of the scholars who had attended a community college, students from HSIs were the most likely to earn an associate’s degree and transfer to a four-year college or university. Community college is often a critical stepping stone for four-year college, particularly for URMs. In this

1. HBCUs are historically black colleges and universities; HSIs are Hispanic-serving iInstitutions, and MSIs are minority-serving institutions. Only HBCUs have a historical basis within the relevant ethnic community. HSIs and MSIs are defined as such due to having enrollments of students of Hispanic origin or from minority groups of 25 percent or higher.

Males and African Americans felt more prepared to pursue

engineering than females and Latinos in most subject areas.

Figure 4. Scholars’ Experiences with Attending Community College

HSI 12

13

4 1 2

HBCU

< Ph.D. 20

28

18

66

5

21

3

6

1

7

13 3 4

3 2

HR

VHR

Total

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Did not attend a community college

Took classes at community college while enrolled at four-year

Started at community college, earned associate’s, then transferred to a four-year

Took classes at community college and then transferred to a four-year


Table 2a. Student Services

Available Usage Satisfaction

Academic Advising 95% 70% 48%Supplementary Instruction 64% 55% 40%Tutoring 87% 37% 59%Mentoring 67% 57% 65%Two-Year Transfer Assistance 17% 33% 44%Peer Mentoring 59% 43% 44%Research Opportunities 86% 55% 71%Internship/Co-op Opportunities 90% 69% 68%Professional Association Membership 79% 69% 65%Travel Fund to Attend Conferences 44% 40% 44%

Available: Percentage of students who reported that a program or service was available. Usage: Among those who said their school had the program or service, percentage saying that they used it “Sometimes” or “Often.”Satisfaction: Among those who reported using the program or service, percentage who were “Very Satisfied.”

Table 2a. Student Services

Very High Research Activity High Research Activity High Degree Less Than Ph.D.

Avail. Usage Satis. Avail. Usage Satis. Avail. Usage Satis.

Academic Advising

94% 83% 54% 98% 61% 44% 92% 71% 48%

SupplementaryInstruction

65% 70% 55% 66% 45% 32% 62% 56% 33%

Tutoring 77% 33% 67% 91% 40% 53% 88% 35% 61% Mentoring 58% 56% 38% 70% 50% 77% 73% –– 59%

Two-Year Transfer Assistance

26% 13% 20% 19% 50% 75% 4% 100% 0%

Peer Mentoring 61% 28% 30% 64% 39% 64% 46% 75% 33%

Research Opportunities

81% 42% 67% 91% 59% 68% 81% 62% 80%

Internship/Co-op Opportunities

90% 58% 76% 91% –– 69% 88% –– 76%

Professional Association Membership

71% 59% 53% 83% 0% 75% 81% –– 69%

Travel Fund to Attend Conferences

39% 33% 56% 43% 32% 38% 54% 57% 43%

Available: Percentage of students who reported that a program or service was available. Usage: Among those who said their school had the program or service, percentage saying that they used it “Sometimes” or “Often.”Satisfaction: Among those who reported using the program or service, percentage who were “Very Satisfied.”

Table 2b. Student Services by Institutional Type


cohort, no African Americans reported taking coursework at a community college, but 37 percent of students who attended HSIs reported that they had attended a community college.

Assessing the Quality of the Undergraduate ExperienceThe NACME Block Grant Program is designed to leverage the provision of NACME-supported scholarships in partnership with universities that implement practices that have shown to increase the recruitment and retention of minority students in engineering. Such practices include mentoring, tutoring, supplemental instruction, and a number of other services that provide students who may have attended secondary schools with limited resourc-es with access to support helping them to successfully complete coursework in engineering school.

A list of survey items asked students about their use of services at their undergraduate institutions and their satisfaction with those services. Table 2a reports on the availability of services, the extent to which students used each type of service and their satisfaction with those services. Table 2b shows the same information broken out by the type of institution.

Academic advisement, internships/co-ops, tutoring and research opportunities were the most available services, but students’ use

and satisfaction levels varied. Academic advisement was among the most used service but received just middling satisfaction marks. Students were most satisfied with research and intern-ship/co-op opportunities, which will be addressed later in this report. Although not as highly used as other services, tutoring (37 percent) scored high in satisfaction, with 59 percent of students saying they were “very satisfied” with the tutoring services they used. Research opportunities were highly available (86 percent), used by more than half of the students (55 percent) and, when used, brought high levels of satisfaction: Seventy-one percent of scholars indicated they were “very satisfied” with research opportunities. Finally, travel funds for conferences were not readily available (44 percent) and were rarely used (40 percent), and had one of the lowest levels of satisfaction among users (44 percent).

Table 3a. Knowledge of Services’ Availability and Need

Academic advisement is the most available and highly used service,

regardless of institution.

Table 3a. Knowledge of Services’ Availability and Need

Don’t Know

Wish We Had No, Not Needed Number Percentage

Academic Advising 4 12 9 2%

Supplementary Instruction 14 51 119 23%

Tutoring 14 40 22 4%

Mentoring 27 58 97 18%

Two-Year Transfer Assistance 15 123 262 50%

Peer Mentoring 15 67 146 28%

Research Opportunities 17 16 43 8%

Internship/Co-op Opportunities 11 11 16 3%

Professional Association Membership 2 16 100 19%

Travel Fund to Attend Conferences 56 38 152 29%

Table 3b. Knowledge of Select Services’ Availability and Need, 2008–2012 GSS

2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011

Wish We Had

No, Not Needed

Don’t Know

Wish We Had

No, Not Needed

Don’t Know

Wish We Had

No, Not Needed

Don’t Know

Academic Advising 1 1 0 1 3 1

(14%) 2 1 2 (3%)

Supplementary Instruction 5 7 11

(11%) 3 10 12 (39%) 3 5 29

(36%)

Tutoring 6 8 0 3 4 2 (15%) 0 6 7

(9%)

2011–2012

Wish We Had

No, Not Needed

Don’t Know

0 2 3 (3%)

2 7 28(27%)

2 8 4 (4%)


Table 2b examines how students assessed services at different types of institutions. In several ways, the “high research activity” institutions appear to offer services that are on par with those at the (often) better-funded “very high research” universities. The general patterns are similar regardless of institution type, with services used at comparable rates and similar marks for

satisfaction on most services. There are some key differences, however. Tutoring, mentoring, and travel funds were reportedly more available at institutions with “high research activity” and without doctoral degrees than at “very high research activity” institutions. Two-year transfer assistance and peer mentoring services were considerably less available at institutions without

Table 4a. Number & Percentage Reporting Source as “Very Important” to Funding Education

Percentage Number

NACME Scholarship 85% 86

Fellowship or scholarships other than NACME 71% 72

Federal or state grant (e.g., Pell grants, Lottery Scholarships, etc.) 67% 68Student loans from the school you attended, or from the federal or state government (repayable after you leave school) 56% 57

Financial support from parents, spouse, relatives (not to be repaid) 53% 53

Earnings from internships/co-ops or other non-work-study employment 52% 52

Work-study 30% 30

Tuition waivers 22% 22

Financial assistance from your employer 18% 18

Credit cards 13% 13

Loans from banks that are not specifically student loans 9% 9

Loans from parents or other relatives (to be repaid) 8% 8

GI Bill benefits 7% 7

Armed forces reserves or ROTC funds 4% 4

n 101

Table 4b. Percent Reporting Source was “Very Important” to Funding Their Education

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

NACME Scholarship 77% 84% 88% 85%

Fellowship or scholarships other than NACME 69% 70% 82% 71%

Federal or state grant (e.g., Pell grants, Lottery Scholarships, etc.) 52% 63% 62% 67%Student loans from the school you attended, or from the federal or state government (repayable after you leave school) 48% 47% 43% 56%

Financial support from parents, spouse, relatives (not to be repaid) 44% 42% 42% 53%

Earnings from internships/co-ops or other non-work-study employment 46% 47% 56% 52%

Work-study 22% 21% 30% 30%

Tuition waivers 13% 17% 20% 22%

Financial assistance from your employer 12% 14% 10% 18%

Credit cards 14% 2% 17% 13%

Loans from banks that are not specifically student loans 11% 7% 9% 9%

Loans from parents or other relatives (to be repaid) 8% 6% 10% 8%

GI Bill benefits 3% 1% 4% 7%

Armed forces reserves or ROTC funds 2% 0% 3% 4%

Total Respondents 95 81 77 101


doctoral degrees. Research opportunities were not confined to “very high research” and “high research” institutions: Students at institutions without doctoral programs were as likely to indicate research opportunities as students at those that conferred doctoral degrees. More importantly, even though such opportuni-ties were abundant at “very high research activity” institutions, only 42 percent of students took advantage of them (and gave them moderate satisfaction scores). Proportionately more students at “lower-tier” schools participated in these opportuni-ties, with higher levels of satisfaction.

Students’ knowledge of the availability of travel funds to attend conferences differed across the three types of institutions. Students at “very high research activity” schools reported the lowest availability level (39 percent) in contrast to those at lower-tier institutions. Indeed, over 50 percent of students at the sub-doctoral-granting institutions and 43 percent of students at the “high research activity” institutions indicated that travel funds were available. Though it often may be assumed that faculty at the top research institutions (those ranked by Carnegie as “very high research” universities) would have ample funds to help students go to conferences, the availability of post-docs and graduate students in these faculty members’ labs make it possible that they receive travel funding ahead of undergraduates such as NACME Scholars. Students at the sub-doctoral-granting institutions were most likely to use available travel funds, and those enrolled in “very high research activity” institutions were most satisfied with these funds (56 percent). Students at “high research activity” institutions were the least satisfied with their travel funds experience.

Understanding the extent to which students know about services at their institutions and express a desire for additional ones is also important for NACME’s work with its partners. Table 3a illustrates for each of these services: the number of students who indicated they “wish” their institution had the service, the number who said that their institution did not have the service but did not need it, and the number and percentage who did not know whether their institution had the service. Most of the services were available to students, and most students were aware of their campus’ services. Half of the students reported not knowing if two-year transfer assistance was available--the only service to receive such a score. That makes sense, however, as students who had not transferred from two-year colleges probably would be unlikely to know about it. It is also notable, as shown in Table 2b, that two-year transfer assistance was seen as most available at the “high research activity” institutions. Supplementary instruction, peer mentoring and travel funds were the other services about which students lacked awareness.

Table 3b highlights three services—academic advising, supple-mentary instruction, and tutoring—across the past several years, 2008-2012, to assess students’ perceptions of availability and need. Similar to this year’s cohort, most previous students were aware of academic advising services, with slightly fewer aware of tutoring services. Finally, a considerable percentage of students were unaware of supplementary instruction services. In tutoring services only, a larger number said that they were not available and not needed. This variation emphasizes that knowledge and preferences related to these services differ greatly.

Evaluating Financial Sources for Funding Scholars’ EducationLike many students, NACME Scholars are charged with financing their educational endeavors. Tables 4a and 4b indicate the relative importance of various sources of funding, for the 2011-12 scholars and for each cohort. Scholars were asked to rate the relative importance of 14 possible sources of funding for their undergraduate programs. As seen in Table 4a, NACME funding was the source most often cited as “very important” to them. The high quality of the NACME Scholars is underscored by the finding that 71 percent also reported that other fellowships and

Across all cohorts, NACME funding was ranked “very important” more often than other sources in funding.

Across academic years, GSS females and males were fairly evenly matched

on most research experiences.

Figure 5a. NACME Scholars’ Research Experiences by Gender

Co-authored paper

Presented a paper

Presented a poster

Attended at least one conference

18

21

55

76

22

18

43

65

MaleFemale

0% 20% 30% 50% 70%10% 40% 60% 80%

Figure 5b. NACME Scholars’ Research Experiences by Gender,2008–12 GSS

19%

16%

43%

72%

17%

21%

44%

65%

0% 20% 30% 50% 70%10% 40% 60% 80%

MaleFemale

Co-authored paper

Presented a paper

Presented a poster

Attended at least one conference


scholarships were “very important” in funding their education. More than half of the GSS respondents reported that earnings from internships or co-ops were “very important,” indicating that these opportunities provide not only work experience for engineering students but funding for their educational expenses. In addition, these data suggest that students also rely on personal credit cards to fund their education, a potentially dangerous practice. Interestingly, students were slightly more likely to report that credit cards were “very important” as opposed to several other loan sources.

Table 4b examines the importance of sources of funding across cohorts. There was near-universal sentiment of the great importance of the NACME Scholarship in funding education. As seen in the table, the sources have stayed consistently important, with only minor fluctuations for most sources. Additionally, almost all forms of financial support have increased between 2008 and 2012, indicating that as the cost of education increases, students access more sources of financial support.

The Role of Research Experiences as UndergraduatesThe survey asked the NACME Scholars about their undergradu-ate research experiences. Figures 5a and 5b explore some of the ways in which scholars’ research experiences were related to

gender, for this cohort year and over the past four years. Table 5 explores how these experiences and gender appear to affect educational expectations post-bachelor’s degree. Figure 5a shows that males and females from the 2011-12 cohort were fairly comparable in experiencing each research milestone: attending a conference, presenting a poster and paper at a conference, and co-authoring a paper. Females were slightly more likely than males to indicate that they had attended a conference and presented a paper and poster, while males were slightly more likely than females to report co-authoring a paper with a professor.

Looking at scholars’ research experiences over 2008-12, Figure 5b illustrates that males and females were almost equally likely to report participation in each of the four activities. Females were only slightly more likely than males to report paper co-authorship and attendance at conferences.

Table 5 shows the number of students who had engaged in each of four research activities and how this relates to the expression of interest in a doctoral degree or in earning a master’s degree in engineering (MSE). In this case, coding was completed on the number and percentage of students who said they were “very

55% of students were employed by the same company where they

completed their internship.

Table 5. How Undergraduate Research Experiences Impact Graduate School Plans

Number and percentage of those with selected research experiences who expressed interest in entering an MSE program in the next 12 months or eventually pursuing a doctoral degree

Masters in Engineering Doctoral Study Females Males Total Females Males Total

Attended a conference6 16 22 11 27 38

24% 36% 32% 44% 61% 55%

Presented a poster at conference3 12 15 9 21 30

17% 41% 32% 50% 72% 64%

Presented a paper at conference1 5 6 4 11 15

14% 42% 32% 57% 92% 79%

Co-authored a paper with faculty1 7 8 4 11 15

17% 47% 38% 67% 73% 71%

n 33 68 101 33 68 101

Table 6. Student Internship Employers

Top Internship Companies

Rank Company Name Number

1 The Walt Disney Company 62 Chevron Corporation 5

General Electric Company 53 Newmont Mining Corporation 4

Rochester Institute of Technology 4


Table 7b. Reasons Why Students Accepted Internships

Females Males Total

n % n % n %Hands-on experience 8 32% 16 37% 24 35%

Career path/career focus 2 8% 9 21% 11 16%

Company attributes (size, prestige, culture, etc.) 5 20% 5 12% 10 15%

Location 3 12% 6 14% 9 13%

Network opportunity 2 8% 2 5% 4 6%

School-related requirement 3 12% 1 2% 4 6%

Benefits (salary, scholarship, etc.) 2 8% 1 2% 3 4%

Availability 0 0% 3 7% 3 4%

25 43 68

Why did you accept your MOST RECENT internship? What were the key factors for you in choosing your MOST RECENT internship?

Table 7a. Assessment of Internship/Co-op Experiences

Internship Impacts Females Males Total

Internship experience provided “a lot” of skills/knowledge applicable to your coursework

Would work for the company based on my internship experience

How did internships/co-ops assist in the formulation of career options or choices?

Career path/career focus 7 28% 9 24% 16 25%

Hands-on experience encouragement/motivation 6 24% 7 18% 13 21%

Advantage in looking for/getting jobs 4 16% 7 18% 11 17%

Industry focus 5 20% 6 16% 11 17%

Cultural preference for workplace 0 0% 5 13% 5 18%

Avoidance: learned about something I did NOT want 2 8% 2 5% 4 6%

Graduate school encouragement/motivation 1 4% 2 5% 3 5%

25 38 63

n % n % n %

21 37% 60 65% 81 52%

31 53% 62 67% 93 62%

n

n

Males Total


interested” or “somewhat interested” in pursuing a doctorate at some point in the future, as well as the number and percentage of scholars who said they planned to pursue an MSE within the next 12 months. Close to half of the males (47 percent) who had co-authored a paper with a professor indicated a desire to earn an MSE, and almost three-fourths (73 percent) indicated a desire to eventually earn a doctoral degree in engineering. The data here suggest that research experiences were related to stu-dents’ doctoral study educational plans. More than half of the students reporting research experience expressed an interest in pursuing a doctoral degree in engineering.

Internship and Co-Op ExperiencesThe students reported on 160 internship and co-op experiences at 115 different companies. The companies for which the most students reported internships are shown in Table 6. The Walt Disney Company hosted six internships among the graduating fellows. Chevron Corporation and General Electric Company hosted five each, and Newmont Mining Corporation and Roches-ter Institute of Technology hosted four each. The remaining companies hosted three or fewer internships (see the list of companies in Appendix A). Of the 44 students who reported on the companies where they had internships or employment, 24 reported accepting a full-time position at the same company where they had interned, a conversion rate of 55 percent.

Students were asked three questions to assess their internship experiences. These were generally paid—very few students reported unpaid internships—and as shown in Table 7a, more than half (52 percent) of students indicated that the experience provided them with “a lot” of skills/knowledge applicable to their engineering coursework. In addition, more than half of females and males indicated that they would work for the company with which they had the internship, an important indicator that these experiences often made a favorable impression on students. That is, if students had negative experiences, they would be unlikely to indicate that they would return to work for the employers.

Table 7a also shows the range of answers that students provided to one of the only “open-ended” items on the survey: “Did any of these internships or co-ops assist you in your formulation of career options or choices? If so, briefly say how.” Because some students had multiple internships, it is impossible to “match” these responses to specific experiences. Nor would it be useful, as very few students would have worked for the same employer. There are also too many other variables that could affect a student’s internship experience with an employer. But this can be formulated as a fixed-choice item for future surveys, including one that might be completed after each internship, which would enable better use of the data for planning purposes by companies that support NACME. The data here show that one-fourth of students said that their internships helped identify

Internships were critical for GSS respondents to see particular career paths and gain practical experience

in the engineering field.

Figure 8. Satisfaction with Assistance with Graduate School Application Process

HSI 3

4 2 1

10 3

HBCU

< Ph.D. 7

8

5

20

7

28

4

12

1

4

11 6 2

10 2 1

HR

VHR

Total

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied Unsatisfied

Somewhat unsatisfied

Figure 6. Satisfaction with Career and Placement Services

HSI 5

4 4 2 1 1

11 1 2

HBCU

< Ph.D. 6

19

9

34

14

43

3

7

1 4

8 10

17 2 26

12 2 1 4

HR

VHR

Total

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Received no advice; not interested in graduate school

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Unsatisfied


Figure 7. Satisfaction with Graduate School Advice

HSI 6

3 4 2 1

9 2

HBCU

< Ph.D. 9

8

8

25

14

47

2

11

3

7

22 6 3

11 3 1

HR

VHR

Total

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied Unsatisfied



and/or confirm their career path/career focus, followed closely (21 percent) by those who said internships provided them with hands-on experience in their field, which is critical in engineering. Additionally, almost a fifth of students reported that the internship provided an advantage in looking for and securing gainful employment. Finally, almost one-fifth (17 percent) of scholars cited that the internship allowed them to learn more about the industry and their particular engineering field. Employers that better manage problems that arise in interpersonal situations, in which interns experience negative bias—based on race/ethnicity, gender or any other factor—are more likely than employers who do little to foster a respect for diversity to be able to retain these highly qualified students post-graduation. Table 7b shows the range of answers that students provided to the “open-ended” questions: “Why did you accept your most recent internship? What were the key factors for you in choosing your most recent internship?” The majority of responses pertained to the experi-ence they expected to gain by working at that internship. As to be expected, many of the students’ reasons for choosing their most recent internship were similar to their responses on the previous question about how the experiences assisted in their career formulation.

Finally, students were asked, “How could your internship experi-ences have been improved by the employers for whom you worked?” Of the 61 students who responded to this question, many (38 percent) responded with suggestions pertaining to the project, including more responsibilities and tasks. Several students (16 percent) reported that their experience would have been improved with greater mentoring and guidance from the com-pany’s supervisors and experienced professionals. Other responses included diversity and integration into the workplace, more financial compensation and more networking with other students. Finally, a substantial proportion of scholars (25 percent) said the experience could not have been better.

Advice Pertaining to Post-Graduation Plans In making post-graduation decisions, many students access advice from campus services, programs, as well as professors, professionals and family. Ninety-two scholars reported accessing career and placement services, 90 received graduate school advice and 64 received assistance with the graduate school application process. As such, students were first asked three general questions: “How satisfied are you with the career and placement services office at your college/university?”; “How satisfied are you with the advisement you received related to

Table 8a. Advice Related to Post-Graduation Options

I sought out help

and received

it

I was approached

and was glad to receive the

advice

I was approached

but not interested in the advice

I learned about the

service too late

I was not interested in

help with post-

graduation planning

Not applicable/Not available

Faculty Member(s) in My Department

44% 23% 1% 5% 7% 21%

Department Head(s) 24% 14% 2% 3% 11% 47%

Dean(s) 11% 10% 2% 4% 10% 64%

Career Services Center on Campus

31% 25% 2% 6% 7% 29%

Office (MEP) 12% 19% 2% 7% 7% 54%

Women in Engineering Program Office (WIE)

5% 3% 3% 3% 6% 80%

Professional Society 21% 16% 6% 4% 9% 45%

Employer 39% 21% 2% 0% 3% 35%

Ethnic Programs Office on Campus

10% 12% 3% 8% 10% 57%

Family Member(s) 38% 26% 2% 1% 6% 28%


graduate school opportunities?”; and “How satisfied are you with the assistance you received with the graduate school application process?” Responses are shown in figures 6, 7 and 8, respectively.

Figure 6 shows the level of satisfaction with the career and placement services at the students’ campus for all of the respondents, and then separately for those at the different types of institutions. In general, students were satisfied with the assistance they had received. A majority at each type of institution said that they were “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” with career and placement services.

Figure 7 shows the level of satisfaction with the advice students received about graduate school for all of the respondents, and then displayed for each type of institution. In general, students were quite satisfied with the advice they had received, a majority at each type said that they were “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” with graduate school counsel. Only one student (gender not reported), from a “high research activity” institution, indicated not receiving advice as a result of not being interested in graduate school.

Figure 8 reports students’ answers to the question about their satisfaction with assistance with the graduate school application process. Thirty-seven students indicated that this assistance was not needed because they did not plan to pursue graduate studies. As with the previous items, students expressed high levels of satisfaction with the assistance they received. In the future, it might be helpful to ask students more specific ques-tions to test their knowledge about graduate school—for example, to determine if they were made aware of fellowship or graduate assistant opportunities—because they may not have been provided full information about the affordability of graduate education.

Following the satisfaction questions, students were asked to do the following:

“You may have had access to or have received advice from any number of sources about your post-graduation options. In the table below, we list several of the sources that some-times provide help to engineering students in identifying opportunities, clarifying goals, etc. Please circle the number that best represents the assistance you received from each of the possible sources.”

Table 8b. Faculty Advice Related to Post-Graduation Options by Institution Type

All VHR HR <Ph.D. HBCU HSI

I sought out help and received it 44% 48% 41% 44% 25% 47%

I was approached and was glad to receive the advice

23% 16% 22% 32% 50% 37%

I was approached but not interested in the advice

1% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5%

I learned about the service too late 5% 6% 0% 12% 17% 5%

I was not interested in help with post-graduation planning

7% 6% 11% 0% 8% 0%

Not applicable or not available 21% 23% 26% 8% 0% 5%

Figure 9b. NACME Scholars’ Immediate Post-Graduation Plans by Year

75%

50%

25%

0%

Actively seeking employment

Have accepted a full- time position

Pursue graduate coursework and/or

degree

34%28% 28%

30% 30% 30%30%30%36%

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

30% 30%34%

Figure 9a. NACME Scholars’ Post-Graduation Plans

Other, 7%

Pursue graduate coursework and/or

degree, 34%Actively seeking

employment, 29%

Have accepted a full-time

position, 30%


The responses to this item, which asked about 10 possible sources of advice, are shown in Tables 8a and 8b. Table 8a reports results associated with the sources from which students received post-graduation advice. Faculty, not surprisingly, were critical in this process. Close to half of students indicated that they sought the advice of faculty members and received help. Another 24 percent of students indicated that faculty ap-proached them with advice, of which 23 percent indicated that they welcomed this advice.

Students were less likely to access department heads and deans for advice, but it is important to note that these key academic administrators did in fact reach out to the students. Nearly 14 percent of students were approached by their department head with welcomed advice, while 10 percent were approached by the dean. Employers were also critical, with 39 percent of students seeking advice and another 21 percent having advice offered. The career services center on campus was also influential, with 31 percent of students seeking advice while 25 percent were approached by the center. The MEP office was a more important source of graduate school advice for the GSS respondents than was the WIE office (if available). Finally, family members were also important post-graduation advisers—38 percent of students asked family for counsel, and another 26 percent were offered advice by family members.

Table 9a.Factors That “Greatly Influenced” Post-Graduation Plans by Gender

Females MalesProfessional interests 67% 69%

Compensation package (pay, bonuses, etc.) 46% 41%

Working conditions (hours, equipment, working environment) 49% 37%

Job location 42% 31%

Promotion opportunities 33% 33%

Worked previously for the employer in an internship/co-op 33% 26%

Family-related reasons (children, spouse’s job, desire to be near relatives) 22% 25%

Job in field of study not available 12% 15%

Worked at a similar company as an intern/co-op 12% 13%

n 30 67

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 because respondents rated each factor separately.

Table 9b. Factors That “Greatly Influenced” Post-Graduation Plans by GSS Year

2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 Females Males Females Males Females Males

Professional interests 63% 65% 38% 62% 71% 58%

Compensation package 48% 51% 32% 68% 43% 44%

Working conditions 58% 56% 38% 63% 38% 49%

Job location 50% 45% 46% 54% 38% 42%

Promotion opportunities 50% 51% 38% 62% 33% 44%Worked for the employer as intern/co-op 28% 26% 32% 68% 5% 20%

Family-related reasons 33% 19% 69% 31% 19% 27%Job in field of study not available 11% 10% 38% 63% 10% 16%Worked at a similar company as intern/co-op

18% 16% 24% 77% 0% 4%

n 72 136 28 53 26 49

2011–2012Females Males

67% 69%

46% 41%

49% 37%

42% 31%

33% 33%

33% 26%

22% 25%12% 15%

12% 13%

30 67

Faculty members are an essential resource for students in making

post-graduation decisions.


Table 8b looks at the advice students received from faculty at different types of institutions. At the “very high research activity” schools, 48 percent of students sought out and received help from faculty members, while 16 percent were approached with welcomed advice by the faculty. Conversely, students at “high research activity” institutions were slightly more likely (22 percent) to be approached by the faculty with advice, and students at HBCUs, HSIs and institutions that did not award doctoral degrees were considerably more likely than students at research universities to report that the faculty had approached with welcomed advice about graduate school.

Post-Graduation Plans Many students accessed advice about post-graduation options from various sources, but Figure 9a indicates that most of the scholars plan to work in a job immediately after graduation, as is consistent with the general educational career pattern for engineers. Only 35 of the 102 students who answered this question planned to immediately enter graduate programs. Figure 9b shows this year’s NACME Scholars’ post-graduation plans in relation to previous years’.

Table 9a indicates that the factors that had the greatest influence on males’ and females’ post-graduation plans were similar. They reported almost equally that “professional interests” “greatly influenced” their plans (67 percent and 69 percent, respectively), and “compensation package” was indicated by more than 40 percent of females and males. “Working conditions” were also among the most influential factors, and one-third of males and females cited “promotional opportunities.” Interestingly, slightly more males than females reported their post-graduation plans were “greatly influenced” by “family-related reasons” (25 percent vs. 22 percent), “job in field of study not available” (15 percent vs. 12 percent), and “worked previously for the employer in an internship/co-op” (13 percent vs. 12 percent). Table 9b shows how the factors that influence students’ post-graduation plans have fluctuated across cohorts.

In addition to factors that “greatly influenced” post-graduation plans, students were asked specifically about the two most important factors that influenced their post-graduation plans. Forty-three percent of females and 65 percent of males cited “professional interests” as one of the two primary factors in their post-graduation plans. “Compensation” was also cited as one

Figure 10c. Field of Study and Post-Graduation Employment by Region of the U.S.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

25

5

6

3

2

16 10

Closely related Somewhat related Not related

West

East

South

Figure 10b. Field of Study and Post-Graduation Employment by GSS Year

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

47

29

45

13

21

19

7

2

2

65 14 3


2008–09

2009–10

2010–11

2011–12

Figure 10a. Relationship Between Field of Study and Post-Graduation Employment

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Females

Males

13 8 2

32 11


Figure 11a. NACME Scholars’ Educational Plans for the Next 12 Months

Pursue a master’s degree in

engineering28%

Do not plan to pursue additional courses/degree

42%

Pursue some graduate school

coursework14%

Pursue anMBA 11%

Other 6%


of the top factors by both females and males (50 percent and 35 percent, respectively).

Figure 10a shows that most graduating scholars are employed in fields that they believe are related to their degree field, with males more likely to report this than females (74 percent vs. 57 percent). The complete list of employers is in Appendix B.

Figure 10b shows how this year’s graduating scholars’ respons-es compare to those of previous years. Among those who completed degrees in 2008-09, these students were likely to state that their employment was closely related to their field of study (79 percent). That number dropped to 70 percent with the 2009-10 cohort, and dropped further still, to 56 percent, with the 2010-11 cohort. However, 68 percent of the 2011-12 cohort reported that their employment was closely related to their field of study, indicating that the economic downturn may be ending.

Finally, Figure 10c looks at the current cohort’s responses regarding job relatedness to field of study by U.S. region: South, East, and West. Students in the East (76 percent) were more

likely than those from the South (63 percent) and West (62 percent) to have jobs closely related to their field of study.

Educational PlansDespite joining, or planning to join, the workforce, NACME Scholars expressed an interest in pursuing graduate degrees. Figures 11a and 11b show their educational plans for the next 12 months, first for the current cohort and then in relation to previous years. Figure 11c shows students’ educational plans by gender for all years of GSS data. Figure 11d illustrates educational plans as they correlate to students’ perceived job relatedness of their current employment to their field of study. Finally, Figures 12a and 12b show students’ plans for post-bachelor’s study, first for this year and then in relation to previous years, respectively.

More than one-quarter (28 percent) of this year’s scholars indicated an interest in pursuing a master’s degree in engineering within the next 12 months, which is a lower percentage than previous years. In the 2011-12 GSS cohort, 53 percent reported post-bachelor’s study plans, while 42 scholars (42 percent) indicated that they had no plans for subsequent study.

Figure 11d. Educational Plans and Job Relatedness of Current Employment

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5 2

214

145

1920

21


Do not plan to pursue additional courses/degrees

Pursue graduate schoolcoursework

Pursue masters degreein engineering

Pursue MBA

Other

Figure 12a. NACME Scholars’ Interest in Doctoral Study

Not at all interested

32%

Very interested

18%

Somewhat interested

37%

Don’t know enough about the doctoral degree to say

14%

Figure 11b. NACME Scholars’ Educational Plans for the Next 12 Months by Year

75%

50%

25%

0%Not planning

to pursue addt’l courses/

degrees

Pursue some graduate

coursework

Pursue masters degree in

engineering

Pursue MBA Other

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

20%22%

20% 20%23%

20%14%

30%38%

40%

28%

10% 10% 10%6% 6%

Figure 11c. NACME Scholars’ Educational Plans for the Next 12 Months by Gender (2008-12)

75%

50%

25%

0%Not pursue

addt’l courses/degrees

Pursue graduate

coursework

Pursue masters degree in

engineering

Pursue MBA Other

Female Male

24%

15%

35%

14% 12%

28%

21%

34%

10% 8%10%11% 11%

42%


As seen in Figure 11b, the percentage of scholars who ex-pressed interest in pursuing a master’s degree in engineering within the next 12 months increased during the three years of GSS dissemination prior to the current year. However, the percentage of 2011-12 students with intentions to pursue a master’s of engineering degree is lower than 2008-09 levels. This finding is consistent with trends typically seen during times of economic variation: When the economy is improving, as it has been recently, individuals are less likely to continue with graduate school after completing a bachelor’s degree. Furthermore, because students graduating college have been largely success-ful at finding jobs closely related to their skills, as seen in Figure 10b, they are less likely to enroll in graduate school.

An analysis of educational plans by gender (Figure 11c) for the 2008-12 GSS found little difference between females’ and males’ educational plans for the 12 months after completing their bachelor’s degrees, with almost identical intentions of pursuing a master’s degree in engineering (34 percent of females vs. 35 percent of males).

Figure 11d shows that the students who are interested in pursuing master’s degrees are among the most likely to report that their jobs are “closely related” to their employment. Of the 16 students who expressed interest in pursuing a master’s in engineering within the next 12 months, 14 (88 percent) reported their jobs as being “closely related” to their field of study, while 50 percent of students interested in pursuing an MBA said that their jobs were “closely related.” Alternatively, 67 percent of students who did not plan to pursue additional coursework or degrees reported that their jobs were “closely related” to their field of study, and 3 percent reported their jobs were “not related”.

Similar to the findings on educational plans, Figures 12a and 12b show that more than half of this year’s scholars (n=55, 54 percent) indicated an interest in pursuing a doctoral degree at some point, which is on par with students’ interest in doctoral study in previous years.

Finally, Figure 13 shows that females (36 percent) are less likely than males (65 percent) to have either taken or to plan to take the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam, the first exam required to become a licensed professional engineer.

Fewer students have intentions of pursuing master’s degrees in

engineering in the 2011-12 cohort than in previous cohorts.

Figure 14. Knowledge of NACME’s Activities

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

33%

18%

29%

22%

0% 1% 1% 1%

67%

81%

70%77%

2008–2009

Am aware of NACME’s activities

Have heard the name, but not familiar with NACME’s efforts

Not aware of NACME

2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012

In the 2011-12 cohort, there was an increase in the number of students who reported their employment was closely related to their field of study.

Figure 13. The Fundamentals of Engineering Exam

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Females

Males

1 11 21

10 34 24

Yes Planned No

Figure 12b. NACME Scholars’ Interest in Doctoral Study

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

75%

50%

25%

0%Very interested Somewhat

interestedNot at allinterested

Don’t know enough about the doctoral degree

to say

20%

40%30%

20%16%

40%

24%20%

30% 30% 30%

10%

18%

37%32%

14%


Use and Evaluation of NACME’s Services The final portion of the survey asked students about their level of knowledge about NACME as well as their use and perceptions of usefulness of the NACME Online Resume Directory.

Figure 14 shows that 77 percent of this year’s students reported they were aware of NACME’s activities, with all but one of the remaining students stating they were not familiar with its efforts. The cohort’s reported knowledge of NACME showed an increase from 2010-11 but was lower than in 2009-10.

Finally, Table 10 shows that three-fourths of this year’s scholars have updated their resumes in the NACME resume database, which is a 10 percent increase over the previous cohort. Almost half (45 percent) of the students reported the resume database as “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful”. Additionally, five students (4 percent) reported they were offered an internship, or co-op or post-graduation job via the NACME Online Resume Directory, but none of the students were offered a position via the directory corporate link. Finally, 48 percent of students reported that they had attended an orientation session about NACME’s services and efforts.

Table 10. Utilization and Usefulness of NACME Resume Database

2010–2011 2011–2012 Number Percent Number PercentResume Up-to-Date in NACME Database

55 65% 78 77%

Helpfulness of NACME Resume Database

Very Helpful 11 13% 10 9%Somewhat Helpful 31 37% 38 36%

Not Very Helpful 18 21% 21 20%Not Helpful 8 9% 13 12%Not Applicable 7 8% 19 18% Offered intern-ship/co-op/post grad job via NACME online resume directory

8 9% 5 4%

Offered intern/co-op/job via online resume directory corporate link

–– –– 0 0%

Attended orientation session

–– –– 47 48%

Almost half of students reported attending a NACME

orientation session.


Administration of the 2011-12 GSS was highly successful. NACME personnel initiated the survey communication early in the spring and contacted the Minority Engineering Program Directors at each of the 25 NACME Partner Institutions to identify the population frame, which allowed ample time for student participa-tion before exams and year-end activities. The MEPs were critical for identifying, contacting and following up with graduating students. The MEPs’ efforts resulted in an 81 percent response rate overall, providing a strong basis for generalization. Additional strategies to further increase the response rate in the future are discussed below, including an annual survey, administration of a survey in the fall and spring, regular communication with students and events to increase students’ knowledge about NACME.

Key findings:> The NACME Scholarship was the most important funding

source cited by students: 85 percent of students indicated that the NACME Scholarship was a “very important” funding source for their undergraduate education among 14 possible sources that were rated.

> More than half of the graduating scholars indicated an interest in pursuing a doctoral degree, with over one-fourth planning to pursue a master’s degree in engineering within 12 months.

> Students reported 160 internships/co-ops at 115 companies. These were critical experiences:

• 62 percent indicated that they “would work for the company based on their internship experience;”

• 52 percent indicated the internship “provided a lot of skills/knowledge applicable to coursework.”

> The majority of students—57 percent of females and 74 percent of males—indicated that that their post-graduation job was “closely related” to their degree field.

> Undergraduate experiences with research and interactions with faculty were critical to students’ post-graduation educa-tional planning. Students who had worked with faculty on research, attended conferences or presented research at conferences were quite likely to express an interest in both enrolling in an engineering master’s program within the next 12 months and in eventually pursuing a Ph.D. in engineering.

RecommendationsNACME is commended for organizing and disseminating the 2011-12 survey earlier in the spring semester than the previous year, thereby securing a greater response rate.

The response rate for the current GSS is highly satisfactory (81 percent overall) for online anonymous survey research. As some students graduate in the fall, NACME may consider administering a fall and spring GSS to ensure all graduating students’ participation. Additionally, NACME might consider more frequent surveys, from the time students are awarded the scholarship, to prepare them to complete surveys on a regular basis. To further improve the response rate, NACME may try incentivizing survey participation with a small gift for contribution and/or creating a competition that awards students for complet-ing the survey within a specified timeframe.

NACME may consider requiring students to attend an orientation about NACME to improve students’ understanding of the funding company. Additionally, NACME should bolster its communication efforts with students, including regular contact with students directly so that they are aware of NACME’s activities and services, as well as host events to get students’ buy-in for completing tasks such as annual surveys. Students are aware of their status as NACME Scholars; this status should should be made presti-gious—an accomplishment that students “advertise” to employers post-graduation. NACME, too, is encouraged to maintain contact with the students post-graduation.

NACME is also urged to continue to work closely with the MEPs at its partner institutions to continue to provide support to these directors. Several schools had a transition in coordinators, who may have benefited from an orientation with NACME staff about efforts, services and expectations. Additionally, because some students were unaware of services on campus, MEPs are encouraged to research the services on their campus and share the information with students.

Conference participation can be critical to developing the next generation of engineering leaders and educators. Travel funding to attend conferences should be a topic for discussion with the MEPs because schools differed greatly in the support available and the sources of that support. At “very high research activity” and “high research activity” institutions, faculty members or departments may have travel funds, so MEPs are encouraged to discuss these opportunities with students, as well as to assist faculty in inviting students to participate and present research outcomes. At the “Sub-Ph.D.-granting” institutions, NACME may need to provide a separate source of funds for conference travel. Students at all institutions should be informed of the importance of participating in professional societies, including the merits of attending conferences. Furthermore, as research experiences provide a bridge to graduate school, NACME should work with MEPs, allied programs (e.g., Louis Stokes AMP and McNair) and faculty at partner institutions to enable increased participation in research by the NACME Scholars.

Finally, it might be advantageous in future surveys to ask students more specific questions to test their knowledge about graduate school—for example, to determine if they were made aware of fellowship or graduate assistantship opportunities— because they may not have been provided full information about the affordability of graduate education. Additionally, consider asking students what classmanship level they became NACME Scholars as that may shed light on responses pertaining to awareness and access of services as well as long-term educa-tional goals. Consider asking how they would prefer to be provided with the final report, including the opportunity to discuss the report’s findings.

Conclusions and Recommendations


Appendix A. Internship Hosts Reported by NACME Graduating Scholars

AAR Aircraft Component Services 1Air Liquide 1American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1Baker Hughes Inc. 1Bechtel Corporation 3Biomet Inc. 1The Boeing Company 2Bosch 1Boston Scientific Corporation 2Brookhaven National Laboratory 1CertainTeed 1Chevron Corporation 5Cigna 1The City College of New York 1The Clorox Company 1CNA Insurance 1Comcast Corporation 1Continental Corporation 1Cornell University 1Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 1Deere & Company 3Drexel University 2E.L. Robinson Engineering 1ECS Limited 1Eldre Corporation 1Eli Lilly and Company 1Environment One Corporation 1Envisage Consulting 1Exelon Corporation 1Exxon Mobil Corporation 3Florida International University 1Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. 1General Electric Company 5General Motors Company 2Georgia Tech Research Institute 1The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 1Green.Konnect.Me 1Hallmark Cards 1Harley-Davidson Inc. 1HD Supply, Inc. 1The Hoover Company 1HostDime.com, Inc. 1Innovative Technologies Corporation 1Jacobs ESTS Group 1Kettering University 1Kimberly- Clark Corporation 1Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1Lear Corporation 1Lockheed Martin Corporation 2Macy’s Inc. 1McNair Scholars Program 1Merck & Co., Inc. 3Michigan State University 1Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 3National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 1Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 1Navistar International Corporation 1Nestlé S.A. 1

New Jersey Institute of Technology BioMEMs Bioengineering Summer Institute 1New York City Law Department 1Newmont Mining Corporation 4Northrop Grumman Corporation 3Nuclear Research Corporation 1Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) 2Oracle Corporation 1Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 3Panasonic Corporation of North America 1Parker Hannifin Corporation 1PCC 1Philadelphia Streets Department 1PNY Technologies, Inc. 1PQ Corporation 1Pratt & Whitney 1PricewaterhouseCoopers 1The Procter & Gamble Company 3Purdue University 1Raytheon Company 1Razorfish Healthware 1REU Physics & Astronomy Program at Stony Brook University 1Rochester Institute of Technology 4Rockwell Collins, Inc. 1San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology 1Sandia National Laboratories 1Solaris Cybernetics, LLC 1Southern Company 1Spectra Energy Corporation 1Sunoco Inc. 1Tampa Armature Works, Inc. 1Tektronix, Inc. 1Texas A&M University 1Texas Department of Transportation 1TRW Automotive 1Tully Construction Co. Inc. 1U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2U.S. Forest Service 1UCSD California Alliance for Minority Participation in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Program 1Ultralife Corporation 1United States Air Force 1United States Coast Guard 2University City Science Center 2University of Arkansas at Fayetteville 1University of Colorado at Boulder 2University of Massachusetts Medical School 1University of Nebraska-Lincoln 1University of South Florida 1University of Texas at Austin 1University of Texas at El Paso 1University of Virginia 1University of Washington 1Vampire Labs, LLC 1Vertiblinds by Design 1Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. 1The Walt Disney Company 6

Company Name Number Company Name Number


Appendix B. Employers Reported by NACME Graduating Scholars

Employer Name

AAR Aircraft Component ServicesAir LiquideAthletes in ActionAtlantic ZeiserAvmatThe Boeing CompanyChevron CorporationCimationCNA InsuranceConsolidated Edison CompanyConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.Crane Aerospace & ElectronicsDaniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Deere & CompanyEli Lilly and CompanyEnergizer Holdings, Inc.Exxon Mobil CorporationGeorgia-Pacific LLCThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Hal’s Hobby WarehouseHalliburtonHallmark CardsLockheed Martin CorporationMerck & Co., Inc.Nestlé S.A.Oracle CorporationPrairie View A&M UniversityPratt & WhitneyRaytheon CompanySandia National LaboratoriesScripps Institution of OceanographySouthern CompanyTRW AutomotiveUnited States Air ForceUniversity of Texas at El PasoVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Mechatronics LaboratoryThe Walt Disney Company


NACME Partner Universities

NortheastWest

Southwest

Midwest

Southeast

Midwest

Illinois Institute of Technology

Kansas State University

Kettering University

Milwaukee School of Engineering

Missouri University of Science and Technology

Purdue University

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

University of Akron

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Missouri, Columbia

University of Missouri, Kansas City

University of Oklahoma

Northeast

Bucknell University

Cornell University

Drexel University

Fairfield University

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Polytechnic Institute of NYU

Rochester Institute of Technology

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Stevens Institute of Technology

Syracuse University

The City College of New York

University of Bridgeport

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Southeast

Florida A&M University

Florida International University

Georgia Institute of Technology

Louisiana State University

North Carolina A&T State University

Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico

Tennessee Technological University

Tuskegee University

University of Arkansas

University of Central Florida

University of Kentucky

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

West Virginia University

Southwest

Northern Arizona University

Prairie View A&M University

University of Houston

University of Texas, El Paso

University of Texas, San Antonio

West

California State University, Los Angeles

California State University, Sacramento

University of Alaska, Anchorage

University of California, San Diego

University of Colorado, Boulder

University of Southern California

University of Washington


Arthur P. BursonVice President, Global Engineering Services Merck & Co., Inc. Chairman, NACME, Inc.

Dr. Irving Pressley McPhailPresident and Chief Executive Officer NACME, Inc.

Mary AdamoVice President Human Resources Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Rodney C. AdkinsSenior Vice President IBM Systems and Technology Group IBM Corporation

Mark. W. AlbersSenior Vice President Exxon Mobil Corporation

Michael J. BarberVice President, Healthymagination General Electric

Sue BarsamianSenior Vice President & General Manager Global Sales & Operations Hewlett-Packard Company

James R. BlackwellExecutive Vice President Technology and Services Chevron Corporation

Curtis BrunsonExecutive Vice President Corporate Strategy & Development L-3 Communications Corporation

Eileen M. CampbellVice President, Public Policy Marathon Oil Company

E. Renae ConleyExecutive Vice President Human Resources and Administration Entergy Corporation

Carlos DominguezSenior Vice President Office of the Chairman & CEO Cisco Systems, Inc.

Howard D. EliasPresident and Chief Operating Officer EMC Global Enterprise Services EMC Corporation

Aamir FaridVice President, Manufacturing Americas Shell Oil Products U.S.

William GipsonVice President – R&D Procter & Gamble Company

William G. HofmannGlobal Vice President, Global Engineering Systems Johnson Controls, Inc.

Hon. Jerry M. HultinPresident Polytechnic Institute of New York University

Dr. Christopher T. JonesCorporate Vice President and President Northrop Grumman Technical ServicesNorthrop Grumman Corporation

Susan M. LewisVice President for Environment, Health & Safety The Dow Chemical Company

John T. LucasSenior Vice President Human Resources Lockheed Martin Corporation

Michele MacaudaSenior Vice President Enterprise, Information Technology AT&T Services Inc.

John A. MacDonald Senior Vice President and Manager Human Resources and EPC Functions Bechtel Corporation

Willie C. MartinPresident – U.S. Region Vice President Operations – North America DuPont

Roderick B. MitchellChief Financial Officer PenFed

David C. NagelExecutive Vice President BP America, Inc.

Tony Neal-GravesVice President, Intel Architecture Group & General Manager, China Intel Corporation

Douglas M. Owen, PE, DEEExecutive Vice President & Chief Technical Officer Malcolm Pirnie, The Water Division of ARCADIS

Ramanath I. RamakrishnanChief Technology Officer Eaton Corporation

Mark E. RussellCorporate Vice President Engineering, Technology and Mission Assurance Raytheon Company

Randy StashickVice President of Global Engineering United Parcel Service, Inc.

Mary E. StuttsVice President, Corporate Communications Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Terri TimbermanExecutive Vice President, Human Resources Broadcom Corporation

Frederiek ToneyPresident, Global Ford Customer Service Ford Motor Company

Dr. John J. TracyChief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President Engineering, Operations & Technology The Boeing Company

Dr. Charles M. VestPresident National Academy of Engineering

Gregory G. WeaverChairman and Chief Executive Officer Deloitte & Touche LLP

John K. WoodworthSenior Vice President 3M Corporate Supply Chain Operations 3M

James C. Vardell, IIIPartner Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

TBDRolls-Royce plc

Xerox Corporation

NACME Board of Directors(As of Oct 16, 2012)

4 NACME Graduating Scholars Survey Results

National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 302White Plains, N.Y. 10601(914) 539-4010/(914) 539-4032 Fax

Visit us online: nacme.org and nacmebacksme.org

Connect with us:

A PDF version of the 2011-2012 NACME Scholars Report can be found online at nacme.org/publications

2011-2012 nacme scholars report...2 2011-12 nacme scholars report our mission to ensure american...

Documents