minorities in stem: what the data say
DESCRIPTION
Minorities in STEM: What the data say. Norman L. Fortenberry, Sc.D. Executive Director ASEE. URM grad degrees ’72-’09 As percent of all US degrees == 10 percentage point increase. NSF Data. ASEE and EWC Data. Underrepresented Minorities in the Engineering Workforce: 2009. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Minorities in STEM:What the data say
Norman L. Fortenberry, Sc.D.
Executive Director
ASEE
URM grad degrees ’72-’09As percent of all US degrees == 10 percentage point increase
ASEE and EWCData
NSF Data
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1980-81
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-090.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
All Grad URM S&E all NSFURM ENG BSURM ENG MSURM ENG PhD
Underrepresented Minorities in the Engineering Workforce: 2009
Civilian Labor Force
Engineering Managers
Engineers Engineering Technicians
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
26%
6% 10% 17%
74%
94% 90% 83%
Source: U.S. Census: American Community Survey, NACME
Tenured/Tenure-Track Engineering Faculty: 2001 and 2010
Women African-American Hispanic0%
200%
400%
600%
800%
1000%
1200%
1400%
20012010
Source: American Society for Engineering Education
S&E degrees as % of all degrees1966 - 2008
NSF dataAssoc includes ET
All S&E fields, not just natural science and engineering
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
%PhD S&E
%BS S&E
%MS S&E
% Assoc S&E
Associates DegreesDegrees in field as percentage of all degrees for given group
Engineering Natural Sciences
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
HispanicAsian/PacificWhiteNative AmericanBlack
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Native AmericanAsian/PacificBlackWhiteHispanic
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
Bachelors DegreesDegrees in field as percentage of all degrees for given group
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Asian/PacificWhiteHispanicNative AmericanBlack
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Asian/PacificWhiteNative AmericanHispanicBlack
Masters DegreesDegrees in field as percentage of all degrees for given group
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Asian/PacificWhiteHispanicNative AmericanBlack
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Asian/PacificWhiteNative AmericanHispanicBlack
Doctoral DegreesDegrees in field as percentage of all degrees for given group
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Asian/PacificWhiteNative AmericanHispanicBlack
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Asian/PacificWhiteHispanicNative AmericanBlack
Degrees to WhitesDegrees in field by level as percentage of all degrees to Whites at given
level
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
PhDBSMSAAS
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
AASBSMSPhD
Degrees to Asian/Pacific IslandersDegrees in field by level as percentage of all degrees to Asian/Pacific
Islanders at given level
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
PhDMSAASBS
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
AASBSMSPhD
Degrees to BlacksDegrees in field by level as percentage of all degrees to Blacks at given level
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
PhDBSMSAAS
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
PhDBSAASMS
Degrees to HispanicsDegrees in field by level as percentage of all degrees to Hispanics at given
level
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
PhDBSMSAAS
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
PhDBSAASMS
Degrees to Native AmericansDegrees in field by level as percentage of all degrees to Native Americans at
given level
Engineering Natural Sciences
Engineering excludes engineering technology to aid comparability. AAS challenge
ASEE analysis of NSF data.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
PhDBSMSAAS
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
PhDBSAASMS
The Engineering Case for Diversity:
“As a consequence of a lack of diversity, we pay an opportunity cost, a cost in designs not thought of, in solutions not produced.”
-- William A. Wulf, former president of NAE
ASEE Statement on Diversity
• . . . . ASEE is committed to increasing the participation of diverse individuals in all venues where engineering [and engineering technology] is taught, practiced and supported. These include pre-college, college and industry environments as well as within professional organizations that support engineering. . . .
• This statement is backed by specific participation goals (at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels) for women and each URM group.