omputing research news · national security, new transportation, education, and the smart grid....

On March 29, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) launched a federal Big Data Research and Development Initiative (BDRDI). By improving our ability to extract knowledge and insights from large and complex collections of digital data, this initiative promises to solve some of the Nation’s most pressing challenges—in science, education, government, medicine, commerce and national security—laying the foundations for U.S. competitiveness for many decades to come.

Across the U.S. government today, agencies recognize that research and education communities are undergoing a profound transformation with the use of large-scale, diverse, and high-resolution data sets that allow for data-intensive decision-making at a level never before imagined. This initiative will both help to accelerate discovery and innovation, as well as support their transition into practice to benefit society. As the recent President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2010 review of the Networking Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program notes, the pipeline of data to knowledge to action has

tremendous potential in transforming all areas of national priority.1

The cornerstone of this initiative is a joint NSF-NIH solicitation, Core Technologies and Techniques for Advancing Big Data Science & Engineering, or Big Data. It aims to advance the core scientific and technological means of managing, analyzing, visualizing, and extracting useful information from large, diverse, distributed and heterogeneous data sets. Specifically, the program will focus on foundational research in three areas:

• Data collection and management: Novel approaches and new tools are required to deal with massive amounts of often heterogeneous and complex data coming from multiple sources—such as those generated by observational systems in various sciences, simulations, and models across many scientific fields, as well as those created in transactional and longitudinal data systems in social and commercial domains.

• Data Analytics: Significant impacts will result from advances in analysis, simulation, modeling, visualization, and interpretation to facilitate discovery of phenomena,

to realize causality of events, to enable prediction and to recommend action.

• E-science collaboration environments: To allow for broad communities of scientists, engineers, and analysts to have access to diverse data and the best inferential and visualization tools, a comprehensive “big data” cyberinfrastructure is necessary.

The Big Data program creates enormous opportunities for creating new knowledge from large-scale data across all disciplines. It is one component in NSF’s long-term strategy to address national big data challenges, which include advances in foundational techniques and technologies to derive knowledge from data; cyberinfrastructure to manage, curate and serve data to science and engineering research and education communities; new approaches to education and workforce development; and a comprehensive program to support multi-disciplinary teams and communities to make advances in the complex grand challenge science and engineering problems of a computation- and data-intensive world.

The formulation of this initiative is the result of a thriving ecosystem that includes the research community, the private sector, and the science agencies in the federal government. The computing community significantly contributed to this initiative through a number of influential white papers,

many of which are included in the series Data Analytics: From Data to Knowledge to Action, posted on the Computing Community Consortium (CCC) website.2 This series highlights the importance of advances in big data to areas of national priority, including healthcare, new biology, science and engineering, cyber and national security, new transportation, education, and the smart grid. Several overview papers point out the challenges and opportunities as well as the path from inchoate data to discovery made possible through new methods and approaches.

Over a year ago, under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council, OSTP chartered an interagency Big Data Senior Steering Group to develop a research, education, and infrastructure agenda as well as a plan for how the agencies can cooperate to achieve our Nation’s long-term goals. The Big Data committee is co-chaired by NSF and NIH, with members from DARPA, DOD OSD, DHS, DOE-Science, HHS, NARA, NASA, NIST, NOAA, NSA, and USGS. The interagency initiative announced March 29 is the culmination of the first year of a multi-year effort.

To summarize, the Big Data initiative aims to accelerate the

Computing ReseaRCh newsComputing Research Association, Celebrating 40 Years of Service to the Computing Research Community

May 2012 Vol. 24/No. 3

NSF Leads Federal Big Data Initiative

Inside CRNExpanding the Pipeline...................... 2

Board Election Results ...................... 3

Service Awards ................................. 4

Snowbird Preliminary Program ......... 5

Taulbee Survey Results 2011-12 ...... 7

Professional Opportunities .............. 25

NO

NP

RO

FIT

OR

G.

U.S

. PO

STA

GE

PA

IDW

AS

HIN

GTO

N, D

CP

ER

MIT

NO

. 993

CR

A18

28 L

Str

eet,

NW

Sui

te 8

00W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C 2

0036

In a series of briefings dating back to last fall for Members of Congress and their staff, a set of high-profile speakers from the science community, including a Nobel Laureate, made the case for federal support of fundamental research by highlighting the role of federally supported research in the development of key technologies in Apple’s iPad, and what future benefits that support may bring.

The briefings—sponsored by CRA, in partnership with the Task Force on American Innovation, Association for Computing Machinery, American

Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, APS Physics, Materials Research Society, and Texas Instruments—examined three key enabling technologies in the popular device: the chips that power it, the sensors that allow it to know where it is and what it is looking at, and the innovative touchscreen and multi-touch gesture system. Speakers from academia, industry and government detailed the research that led to these technologies, but also focused on where current research in those areas might lead.

“These technologies have enabled game-changing capabilities,” said Luis von Ahn, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University and the event moderator, “and without exception, they all bear the stamp of federal support for research.” In opening the briefings, von

Ahn laid out the themes each speaker would reiterate: that federal investment supports long-term research that often does not pay for 5, 10, 15 years or more—but when it does, those payoffs are spectacular; that fundamental research often pays off in unexpected ways; that

university research does not supplant industry research, and vice versa; and that the research ecosystem in the U.S. is fueled by the flow of people and ideas back and forth from universities, national labs and industry, and this robust ecosystem has made the U.S. the world leader. As a case study, he noted a 2003 National Academies review of the development of 19 billion-dollar sub-sectors of the IT economy, all of which had at some point in their evolution received federal support for early stage scientific research, moving the area forward.

The same could be said of the technologies in the iPad. Focusing on the chips in the iPad, Martin Izzard, Vice President of Research at Texas Instruments, noted the differences between the original integrated circuit developed in 1958 at Texas Instruments and Fairchild and the modern ARM processor that powers the iPad. “The chip in the iPad has the same computing power as a Cray2 supercomputer from 1985—a computer that was as big as an industrial refrigerator, cost $40 million, and

CRA Helps Deconstruct an iPad for Congress

By Farnam Jahanian and Suzi Iacono

NSF Leads Federal Big Data Initiative - Continued on Page 3

By Peter Harsha

CRA Helps Deconstruct an iPad- Continued on Page 4

Luis von Ahn (left), Associate Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, explains the research roots of an iPad to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) as part of a series of briefings sponsored by CRA.

Computing ReseaRCh news may 2012

Computing Research Association

Board OfficersEric GrimsonChairMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyLaura HaasVice ChairIBM Almaden Research CenterMartha E. PollackSecretaryUniversity of MichiganRonald BrachmanTreasurerYahoo! Labs

Board MembersSarita AdveUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignAnnie I. Antón North Carolina State UniversityWilliam AsprayUniversity of Texas at AustinCarla BrodleyTufts UniversityAlva CouchTufts UniversityMary Czerwinski Microsoft ResearchSusan B. Davidson University of PennsylvaniaMary FernándezAT&T Labs ResearchLimor FixIntelEdward FoxVirginia TechJean-Luc GaudiotUniversity of California, IrvineBrent T. HailpernIBM Almaden Research CenterMary Jean HarroldGeorgia Institute of TechnologyH.V. JagadishUniversity of MichiganNorman JouppiHewlett PackardRangachar KasturiUniversity of South FloridaJames KuroseUniversity of MassachusettsMargaret MartonosiPrinceton UniversityJ Strother MooreUniversity of Texas at AustinPeter Norvig GoogleDavid NotkinUniversity of WashingtonM. Tamer ÖzsuUniversity of WaterlooFred B. Schneider Cornell UniversityRobert SchreiberHewlett PackardValerie TaylorTexas A&M UniversityJonathan TurnerWashington University in St. LouisJeannette M. WingCarnegie Mellon UniversityEllen W. ZeguraGeorgia Institute of Technology

Executive DirectorAndrew Bernat

CRN EditorJean Smith

Affiliate Societies

CACS/AIC

Expanding the Pipeline

Throughout the United States, many initiatives are underway to engage youth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). There are also a large number of organizations seeking to increase diversity and gender equity in STEM. The National Girls Collaborative Project (NGCP) occupies a unique role among these activities in that it facilitates collaboration with all stakeholders focused on increasing diversity and engagement in STEM, connects them to girl-serving STEM programs, and provides access to information and resources that enhance the impact and effectiveness of these initiatives.

The NGCP collaborative model includes in-person and online collaboration opportunities, mini-grants as an incentive for collaborative projects, and dissemination of research-based practices via an interactive Web site, Program Directory, live and archived webcasts, and in-person professional development events. Via key partners, NGCP disseminates high-quality content and resources to its extensive network. Project activities are designed to bring organizations together, facilitate connections, encourage and support collaborative projects, provide targeted professional development, and disseminate exemplary practices.

NGCP has developed Collaboratives in 36 states with the help of local convening organizations. These local Collaboratives vary in focus areas and populations served, but all have extensive networks of organizations and individuals engaged in pursuing the common goal of gender equity in STEM. Partially funded by the National Science Foundation, NGCP works to:•Maximizeaccesstosharedresources within projects and with both public and private organizations and institutions interested in expanding girls’ participation in STEM.

•Strengthencapacityof existing and evolving projects by sharing research-based exemplary practices and program models, outcomes and products.

•Usetheleverageofanetworkorcollaborationofindividualgirl-servingSTEMprograms to create the tipping point for gender equity in STEM.

Why it WorksNGCP helps organizations increase

their effectiveness in informing and encouraging girls to pursue STEM careers by using a distinctive model that creates a large-scale impact by combining:

• Championship by industry leaders• Collaboration at the grassroots

level• Events and professional

development opportunities• Mini-grant funding• Research and dissemination of

exemplary practices• Program information about

organizations engaged in promoting STEM

Champions BoardNGCP is ‘championed’ by a

prestigious group of professionals invested in closing the gender gap in STEM at all levels. These professionals, who are NGCP’s Champions Board, represent companies and organizations such as Microsoft, Society of Women Engineers, Google, National Center for Women & Information Technology, National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, Afterschool Alliance, and Association for Women in Science. Champions Board members connect NGCP on a national level to opportunities that benefit the project, spread the word about NGCP activities in their realms, and support the project within their own organizations.

CollaborationNumerous programs and initiatives

have focused on increasing gender equity in STEM fields; however, many of these programs and their staff are isolated from others doing similar work and do not benefit from the sharing of resources or exemplary practices necessary to have a large-scale impact. Additionally, programs often compete for resources and do not realize how collaboration can increase program impact. When competition is the norm, learning how to collaborate can be especially challenging. NGCP addresses these issues by bringing together girl-serving STEM organizations, K-12 and higher education, professional organizations and industry in a specific collaborative framework to provide more effective opportunities for girls in STEM. NGCP strategies enable programs to share resources, providing opportunities to interact

with other programs and encouraging collaboration rather than competition.

As a result of NGCP, 62 percent of respondents in a 2010 annual survey of programs registered in the NGCP program directory agreed or strongly agreed that they were more likely to share resources with another program, and 59 percent agreed or strongly agreed they were more likely to consider collaborating with another program or organization because of NGCP. In addition, 37 percent of respondents indicated that participating in the NGCP had a moderate or high impact on their level of collaboration with other programs. Seventy-seven percent of those attending a NGCP event followed up with somebody they met at the event, most commonly to discuss ideas for collaboration or share resources. Attendees specified that the most valuable aspects of these events were networking and meeting others in their area who were involved in similar work. The 2010 annual survey results indicated that those who attended at least one in-person NGCP event were significantly more likely to have higher mean levels of collaboration with other STEM-related groups, rate the impact of NGCP on their collaboration more highly, and have more knowledge and likelihood of collaborating with others.

Events and Professional Development Opportunities

Each Collaborative hosts in-person events, providing networking and professional development opportunities for participants invested in providing K-12 STEM programming for girls. NGCP Collaboratives have hosted more than 100 events across the United States serving more than 5,500 participants. Recently, new Collaboratives have been hosting information meetings to announce implementation. Since November 2011, community meetings have been held in Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and North Carolina. Participants who attend NGCP professional development and collaboration events report following up with people they meet, applying what they learned to their work, and increasing their awareness of and level of collaboration with other programs.

“My participation in Florida Girls Collaborative Project events has been tremendously beneficial. The information I’ve received is relevant and pertinent to my work goals related to STEM programming. Before working with the FGCP it was time-consuming and exhausting to navigate the glut of information out there regarding STEM and girls. Because STEM is only a portion of what I do in my job, I place great value and get a huge return on the time I invest attending Florida Girls Collaborative Project events.”

—Cari Holland, Girl Leadership Specialist,

Girl Scouts-Gateway Council

The National Girls Collaborative Project: Building the Capacity of STEM Practitioners to Develop a Diverse Workforce

Expanding the Pipeline - Continued on Page 6

Project Impact• 18,456,465 visits to the NGCP Web site in 5 years• 2480 programs in the online NGCP Program Directory• 19,710 participants served in 205 mini-grants

completing activities• 10,790 practitioners served through events and webinars• 5,313,811 girls are served indirectly by NGCP by having their

leaders trained in the philosophy, knowledge, and methods of NGCP

By Karen Peterson

may 2012 Computing ReseaRCh news

CRA recently elected five new members to its Board of Directors. They will begin three-year terms on July 1, 2012.

Corinna Cortes is the founder and head of Google Research, NY. She has spoken at numerous events organized by Women in CS,

Women in Machine Learning, and IEEE Women in Engineering (since 2003). She twice hosted a STEM program at Google, NY, Technovation challenge involving 50 high school girls over 10 evenings learning to program Android apps and competing against other teams from across the country (2011 and 2012). She was an NSF Panel Member in Information Technology and Datamining (2003-05). Cortes holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Rochester, NY. Her research work is well known in particular for the algorithms for support vector machines (SVMs) for which she, jointly with Vladimir Vapnik, received the 2008 Paris Kanellakis Theory and Practice Award.

Jeanne Ferrante is Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Associate Dean of Engineering and Associate

Vice Chancellor of Faculty Equity at the Jacobs School of Engineering at UC San Diego. She is a Fellow of IEEE (2005) and ACM (1996). Since 2003 she has been involved in a number of CRA-W activities. At UCSD Ferrante co-founded Teams

in Engineering Service, an academic program that pairs multidisciplinary teams of students with non-profits to solve their technical problems. Created in 2004, the program now has nearly 500 student enrollments per year. Her research interests include transforming computer programs to make better use of parallelism and memory; and increasing understanding of how academic careers unfold over time in ways that may affect career outcomes for under-represented faculty in science and engineering disciplines. Ferrante is a PhD graduate of MIT in Mathematics.

Lance Fortnow is Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Northwestern University. As of July 1, he

will become Chair of the School of Computer Science at Georgia Tech. He is an ACM Fellow (2007); NSF Presidential Faculty Fellow (1992-98); and was a Fulbright Scholar in the Netherlands in 1996-97. Fortnow is a member of the Computing Community Consortium Council (2010-present); co-chaired the Selection Committee for CI Fellows in 2011; and currently chairs the CCC Visioning Committee. He chairs ACM SIGACT (2009-12) and the Local Academic Advisory Committee of Toyota Technological Institute-Chicago (2003-present). He was Founding Editor in Chief, ACM Transactions on Computation Theory (2007-10), and served on the Executive Committee of DIMACS (2000-03). His research interests include: theoretical computer science; and computational complexity with applications to micro-economic

theory. Fortnow was awarded a PhD in Applied Mathematics from MIT.

Kathryn McKinley is a Principal Researcher at Microsoft and an Endowed Professor of Computer Science at the

University of Texas, Austin. A Fellow of both IEEE and ACM, she received the ACM SIGPLAN Distinguished Service Award 2011. Currently a co-chair of CRA-W, she served on its board since 2009 and has played an active role as a member. McKinley was a session panelist at the 2008 Conference at Snowbird. She was a member of the National Academies’ Study on Sustaining Growth in Computer Performance (2007-10); an Intellectual Leader for Programming Languages and Compilers, NSF CSR Future Directions Study (2010); and a committee member of DARPA’s study on Reliability in Extreme Scale Systems (2008-09). Her research interests include: compilers; virtual machines; memory management; security; reliability; architecture; measurement and benchmarking. McKinley graduated from Rice University with a PhD in computer science.

Greg Morrisett is a Professor in the School of Engineering & Applied Sciences at Harvard University where he served as Associate Dean

for Computer Science & Electrical Engineering from 2007-10. He is a member of the NSF CISE Advisory Committee (2008-present), was a

member of the ACM SIGPLAN Executive Committee (2007-10), and served on DARPA ISAT (2006-09). Currently Morrisett is Editor of JACM, CACM Research Highlights, Information Processor Letters, and previously was Editor of J. Functional Programming. Awards received include the Allen Newell Medal of Research Excellence (2001); Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists & Engineers (2000); National Science Foundation Career Award (1999); Alfred P. Sloan Fellow (1998); and 10-Year Best Papers for both PLDI (1996) and POPL (1998). His research interests include programming languages, compilers, type systems and type theory, formal methods, and software security. Morrisett received a PhD in computer science from Carnegie Mellon University.

Four current board members, EricGrimson (MIT), H.V.Jagadish (University of Michigan), MargaretMartonosi(Princeton) and SaritaAdve (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) were re-elected to three-year terms.

The terms of four board members will end June 30, 2012. BillAspray (University of Texas in Austin) will rotate off the board after serving the maximum three terms. Aspray previously was CRA’s Executive Director from 1996 to 2002. Completing two terms on the board is AnnieAnton(currently North Carolina State University; as of July 1, Chair of the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech). Two industry/lab members, LimorFix(Intel) and PeterNorvig (Google) were appointed to serve one-year terms in slots vacated when two members resigned. We acknowledge with thanks the contributions of all to CRA. ❚

CRA Election Results and Board Changes

progress of scientific discovery and innovation through advances in deriving knowledge from data; develop the next generation of big data scientists, engineers, and educators; facilitate scalable data infrastructure; and promote economic growth and improved health and quality of life.

We invite you to participate in this exciting new opportunity for the CISE community! ❚

FarnamJahanian is Assistant Director for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) at NSF. SuziIacono is Senior Science Advisor for CISE.

Notes:1 See Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking and Information Technology, Executive Office of the President, December 2010: http://www.nitrd.gov/pcast-2010/report/nitrd-program/pcast-nitrd-report-2010.pdf.2 See the Computing Community Consortium White Papers website: http://www.cra.org/ccc/whitepapers.php.

NSF Leads Federal Big Data Initiative from Page 1

THE BIG DATA R&D INITIATIVE

In addition to the $25 million joint NSF-NIH solicitation and CISE’s $10 million Expeditions in Computing award, participating agencies announced several new investments as part of the Big Data R&D Initiative.

The Department of Defense said that it is “placing a big bet on big data,” unveiling a $60 million “Data to Decisions” effort in support of new research projects across the full spectrum of data to decisions, autonomy, and human systems. The goal is to harness and utilize big data in new and unconventional ways, together with sensing, perception, and decision support, to make truly autonomous systems that “go well beyond tethered joysticks.” In addition to a funding opportunity announcement, the DoD plans to run several prize competitions in the coming months.

DARPA announced the XDATA program, providing $25 million for projects that develop computational techniques and tools for analyzing large volumes of structured as well as unstructured data. Central challenges to be addressed through XDATA projects include “scalable algorithms for processing imperfect data in distributed data stores and effective human-computer interaction tools that are rapidly customizable to facilitate visual reasoning for diverse missions.” The program envisions open source software toolkits for flexible software development and, ultimately, processing of large volumes of data for use in targeted defense applications.

Additionally:

• NIH made available through Amazon Web Services (AWS) 200 terabytes of data from the 1000 Genomes Project, constituting “the world’s largest set of data on human genetic variation.”

• The Department of Energy Office of Science launched a $25 million Scalable Data Management, Analysis, and Visualization Institute, spanning six national laboratories and seven universities, as part of its Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) Program. The institute’s objective is to develop new and improved tools to help scientists manage and visualize data.

• And the U.S. Geological Survey unveiled the latest awardees of its John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis. A total of eight projects are being funded with a focus on improving our understanding of earth system science through big data, including “species response to climate change, earthquake recurrence rates, and the next generation of ecological indicators.”

To learn more, visit http://tinyurl.com/bigdatainitiative.—Erwin P. Gianchandani


The CRA Board of Directors has selected SusanL.Graham, Pehong Chen Distinguished Professor Emerita at UC Berkeley, for the Computing

ResearchAssociationDistinguishedServiceAward2012.Graham was selected in recognition of the extraordinary contributions that she has made over more than three decades of dedicated and selfless service and leadership.

Graham has served on countless departmental review committees, editorial committees, award selection committees, advisory committees, program committees, and search committees for both the NSF Assistant Directorship for CISE and the Harvard Presidency. She served on the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) from 1997-2003; on the Working Group of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to assess the Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program in 2010; and has been Vice Chair of the Computing Community Consortium from 2006-present.

As a member of PITAC, in addition to providing important guidance on the “mainstream” work of the committee, Susan served as Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Open Source Software for High-End Computing, and as Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Learning and Education. These activities helped to establish the foundation for today’s view of computer science as an expansive discipline whose advancements are

essential to all aspects of our lives.As a member of a Working Group

of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to assess the Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program, Susan was instrumental in creating the outline of the report, assigning the sections, editing the member contributions into a coherent whole, writing the crucial Executive Summary, dealing with the politics of comments and revisions, and marketing the report in Washington. While many others made important contributions, the co-chair of the working group stated, “I can say with utter certainty that there would have been no PCAST report without Susan.”

A. Nico Habermann Award Winners 2012

The CRA Board of Directors has selectedLucySanders, CEO, National Center for Women & Information Technology; RobertSchnabel,Dean, School of Informatics, Indiana University; and TelleWhitney,CEO and President of the Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology to receive the 2012 A. Nico Habermann Award.

The award is given for their joint efforts to establish

and sustain NCWIT, a national resource dedicated to encouraging greater participation of women in the development of computing technology. Each of these individuals has played an essential role in NCWIT’s creation and success.

In 2003, Lucy, Bobby, and Telle had a vision of creating a national center that would bring together institutions, organizations, and individuals committed to the goal of increasing the participation of women and girls in information technology. The stakeholders of this center would span academia, industry, K-12 educators, and entrepreneurs. The center would facilitate sharing of promising practices among its members, incorporate social science research about the impact of gender in computing careers and the effectiveness of intervention strategies, and create a community of change agents challenging each other to amplify their efforts toward this goal. It would provide a forum for greater cooperation and communication among various organizations working in this space (e.g., ABI, CRA-W, MentorNet, ACM, and the Girl Scouts are all current NCWIT members).

NCWIT’s impact on the computing research community is especially evident in the activities of its Academic Alliance and Workforce Alliance. The Academic Alliance, comprised of nearly 200 colleges and universities, has focused on recruitment and retention of undergraduate and graduate women students, as well as making the overall climate within their CISE departments more supportive of women students and women faculty. The Workforce Alliance, whose members include corporations with the premier research

labs, is dedicated to recruiting and advancing technical women in corporate R&D. As one professor commented, “In a short time, Lucy, Bobby, and Telle raised the visibility of computing’s gender imbalance and distributed effective tools and practices for amplifying and quickening progress on this important issue.”

Awards for Service to CRAEric Grimson, CRA Board

Chair, has selected Phil Bernstein, Microsoft Research, and Carla Romero, Administrative Director at the McCune Charitable Foundation in Santa Fe, as recipients of Service to CRA Awards. The Service to CRA Award recognizes outstanding service to CRA as an organization. ❚

PhilBernstein is recognized for his work as CRA’s Treasurer; he was instrumental in putting CRA on a sound fiscal basis including working to install sound financial controls. CarlaRomero is recognized for her many years of superb service as CRA’s Director of Programs, working primarily

with CRA-W and CDC to create, implement and evaluate their programs.

All of the awards will be presented on July 23 at the 2012 CRA Conference at Snowbird.

CRA Announces Awards for Service

ranked among the world’s fastest until the early 1990s,” he said. Izzard noted that the path from that original IC to the ARM chip—those exponential increases in complexity and decreases in size—was only possible because of an amazingly vibrant university and industry research ecosystem that pushed the technology forward. He added that even the original semiconductor work in the late 1950s owed a huge debt to early-stage physics research supported by the federal government, often by the Department of Defense, in prior decades.

Detailing some of that physics work at the briefings was William Phillips, a Nobel Laureate for his work on atomic clocks and a scientist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Phillips told the story of the global positioning system (GPS) that allows the iPad to know where it is in the world to within a few feet. The innovations that enabled GPS had their roots in early research on magnetic resonance—work that led to both magnetic resonance imaging for health uses (MRI) and the development of

super-accurate atomic clocks. The development of atomic clocks accurate to one-billionth of a second enabled GPS, a network of clocks in space that constantly beam their position and time. According to Phillips, any GPS receiver on the ground that can see four satellites can determine its position to the nearest foot, a level of accuracy that enables not only turn-by-turn directions, but accurate missile targeting, precision farming, and a whole suite of applications that can use knowledge of your current location to tailor content to your needs.

More exciting for Phillips is where the technology is headed. Current work in his lab may help enable quantum computing—a paradigm shift in computing “as different from the iPad as the iPad is different from an abacus.”

In the fall briefings, the panelists were joined by Ben Bederson, a Professor of Computer Science at the University of Maryland, who detailed the story of the development of the touchscreen and multi-touch interface that makes the iPad so

revolutionary in its ease of use. Bederson noted that early research on touch-screens can be traced back at least as far as the late ‘60s and early ‘70s in work funded by the Defense Department, and then again in the ‘80s and ‘90s in work funded by the National Science Foundation. In fact, Bederson pointed out the clear transition of work performed at the University of Delaware and supported by NSF on multi-touch touchscreen technology (originally conceived to alleviate the risk of repetitive stress injuries), to a spin-off company called FingerWorks, to Apple’s purchase of the company and its use of the technology in the iPhone and iPad devices.

Von Ahn wrapped up each briefing by pointing out that the story of the iPad is just one example of how federal support for early stage research is truly an investment with a history of extraordinary payoff—in the explosion of new technologies that have touched nearly every aspect of our lives, and in economic terms in the creation of new industries and literally millions of new jobs.

He also took pains to point out to the standing-room-only crowds on both the House and Senate sides of the Hill that the iPad is not a culmination of technology—it is just a mile-marker on a continuum of innovation that is improving our quality of life, a continuum of innovation made possible by federal research. “The federally supported research of today,” he said, “will drive the innovations that will change our lives in the years and decades ahead.”

Von Ahn and the other speakers briefed nearly 70 congressional staffers in September 2011, along with a few key Members of Congress. He then spoke again in March to a standing-room-only crowd of Senate staffers, as well as a small briefing with current Chair of the House Judiciary Committee (and likely next Chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee), Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). The March briefing was videotaped and will be available for viewing on the website of the Task Force on American Innovation at: http://innovationtaskforce.org. ❚

CRA Helps Deconstruct an iPad for Congress from Page 1


CRA CONFERENCE AT SNOWBIRD 2012 u JULY 22 – 24CLIFF LODGE, SNOWBIRD RESORT, UTAH

The invitation-only flagship conference for chairs of Ph.D.-granting departments of CS, CE, and IT, and leaders from U.S. industrial and government computing research laboratories and centers interested in computing research issues.

CRA Conference at Snowbird 2012 Sponsors • Association for Computing Machinery • CA Labs • Facebook • Google • IBM Research • IEEE-Computer Society • Microsoft Research • Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs • NSA • USENIX Association

Sunday, July 22

CRA Board of Directors Meeting (begins Saturday 5pm) 8:30AM - 2:45PM

Conference Registration NOON - 7:30PM(C Level – Top of the Escalator)

Workshop for New Department Chairs 3:00PM - 5:45PM Co-Chairs: Mike Gennert (Worcester Polytechnic Institute)

Darrell Whitley (Colorado State University) Speakers: Peter Bloniarz (University at Albany)

John Paxton (Montana State University) Others: TBD

This workshop will give new CS Department Chairs some of the skills to lead their organizations and work with Deans, Provosts, and Advisory Boards—the stuff they never told you in graduate school.

Agenda: • Panels: Nuts & Bolts of Managing a Department

Dealing with Different StakeholdersStrategic Thinking

• Active, engaging, group-based, problem-solving exercises—putting theory into practice

• Group reports & discussion

Whether you’ve been department chair for one week or one year, there is more to the job than you think. Come join your fellow new chairs in this workshop!

Welcome Reception 6:00PM - 7:00PM

Dinner 7:00PM - 9:00PM

Welcome Eric Grimson, MIT (Academic Co-Chair)Dick Waters, MERL (Labs/Centers Co-Chair)

Speaker: John L. Hennessy (President, Stanford University) Chair:Eric Grimson (Chair, CRA Board of Directors)

Title: The Coming Tsunami in Educational Technology

Monday, July 23

Breakfast Buffet 7:00AM - 8:30AM

Registration 7:30AM - 6:00PM

Conference Co-Chairs Announcements 8:30AM -10:00AM

PLENARY SESSION I 8:40AM -10:00AM

PillarsofSocietalInnovation:TheGrowingImperativeofResearchandEducationinComputing Speaker: Dr. Farnham Jahanian (Assistant Director of NSF for CISE) Chair: Andrew Bernat (Executive Director, CRA)

Break 10:00AM -10:30AM

PLENARY SESSION II 10:30AM - Noon

ReflectionsonTeachingMassiveOnlineOpenCourses Chair:David Patterson (UC Berkeley) Speakers: Sal Khan (Founder of the Khan Academy)—Online Talk

Peter Norvig (Google)—Live Talk [Each speaker followed by Q&A]

Luncheon NOON -1:30PM

PLENARY SESSION III 1:30PM - 3:00PM

TheConvergenceofSocialandTechnologicalNetworks Chair:EricGrimson(CRABoardChair) Speaker: Jon Kleinberg (Cornell University)

Break 3:00PM - 3:30PM

Networking Events 3:30PM - 5:00PM


Award Presentations:CRA’s Distinguished Service, A. Nico Habermann, and Service to CRA awards

Research Futures Panel Chair: Ed Lazowska, CCC Chair Panelists: TBD

Tuesday, July 24Breakfast Buffet 7:00AM - 8:30AM

PLENARY SESSION IV 8:30AM - 10:00AM

EvolutionandFutureDirectionsofLarge-ScaleSystemsatGoogle Speaker: Jeffrey Dean (Google, Inc.) Chair: Alfred Spector (Google, Inc.)

Break 10:00AM - 10:30AM

Parallel Sessions I 10:30AM - NOON

HumanitarianComputing Chair: Ellen Zegura (Georgia Institute of Technology) Speakers: Michael Best (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Gaetano Borriello (University of Washington) Colin Maclay (Berkman Institute, Harvard University)Ralph Morelli (Trinity College) Leysia Palen (University of Colorado)

InstitutionalData:RevisedTaulbeeGroupings,NewDataandServices,DataBuddies,andMore Co-Chairs: Jim Kurose (UMass) and Carla Brodley (Tufts) Speakers: Tracy Camp (Colorado School of Mines)

Michael Goldweber (Xavier University)Stu Zweben (Ohio State University, Emeritus)

ANewFutureforK-12CSEducation:WhyYouShouldCare Chair: Bobby Schnabel (Indiana University) Speakers: Chris Stephenson (CSTA)

Lucy Sanders (NCWIT) Jan Cuny (NSF) Cameron Wilson (ACM)

PublicationModelsinComputingResearch:IsaChangeNeeded?AreWeReadyforaChange?

Chair: Moshe Y. Vardi (Rice University) Speakers: Carlo Ghezzi (Politecnico di Milano)

Jonathan Grudin (Microsoft Research) M. Tamer Özsu (University of Waterloo) Fred B. Schneider (Cornell University)

Luncheon NOON - 1:30PM

Parallel Sessions II 1:30PM - 3:00PM

TheBreadthofInterdisciplinaryComputingResearch Chair:JeffMacKie-Mason,SchoolofInformation,UniversityofMichigan Panelists: Kelly Dobson, Department of Digital + Media, Rhode Island

School of Design Chris Johnson, School of Computing, University of Utah Chris Raphael, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Paul Resnick, School of Information, University of Michigan

Industry/UniversityInteractions:WorkingOuttheKinks Chair:Ron Brachman (Yahoo! Labs) Speakers: TBD

ComputerScienceCurriculum2013(CS2013):GettingFeedbackonCSCurricularGuidelinesfortheNextDecade Chair: Mehran Sahami (Stanford) Speakers: Steve Roach (University of Texas, El Paso)

Dan Grossman (University of Washington) Rich LeBlanc (Seattle University) Remzi Seker (University of Arkansas at Little Rock)

Break 3:00PM - 3:30PM

PLENARY SESSION V 3:30PM - 5:00PM

Politics2012andWhatitMightMeanforComputingResearch Chair: Fred Schneider (Cornell University) Speaker: Peter Harsha (Director of Government Affairs, CRA)

Managing Up—Partnering with your Dean 5:00PM - 6:30PM Chair: Randy Bryant (Carnegie Mellon University) Speakers: Richard B. Brown (Dean, University of Utah)

Zvi Galil (Dean, Georgia Tech)Ronald L. Larsen (Dean, University of Pittsburgh)Robert B. Schnabel (Dean, Indiana University)Jeffrey S. Vitter (Provost, Kansas University)Others: TBD


CRA Government Affairs Committee


Meeting 7:30PM - 9:30PM

CRA Education Committee

Tuesday Dinner 6:30PM - 7:30PM

Wednesday Meeting 9:00AM - Noon

CRA-Deans Meeting 5:00PM - 6:30PM


Meeting Continues 7:30PM - 9:00PM

Wednesday, July 25 8:30AM - NOON

Preliminary Program

Snowbird Organizing Committee 2012

Co-Chairs: Eric Grimson (MIT) Academic Co-Chair; Dick Waters (MERL) Labs/Centers Co-Chair

Members: Annie Antón (North Carolina State University); Ron Brachman (Yahoo! Labs); Carla Brodley (Tufts University); Anne Condon (University of

British Columbia); Jim Kurose (University of Massachusetts Amherst); Peter Lee (Microsoft Research); Ran Libeskind-Hadas (Harvey Mudd College); Takis Metaxas (Wellesley College); Dave Patterson (UC Berkeley); Guri Sohi (University of Wisconsin, Madison); Alfred Spector (Google, Inc.); and Ellen Zegura (Georgia Institute of Technology).

Program with Session Descriptions at: http://cra.org/events/snowbird-2012/


Discipline-Specific Mentoring Workshops

Call for Proposals due June 15, 2012

CRA-W and CDC are jointly soliciting proposals for discipline-specific mentoring workshops within computing sub-fields. The goal of these workshops is to increase the participation of members of underrepresented groups within a specific research area by providing career-mentoring advice and discipline-specific overviews of past accomplishments and future research directions.

www.cra-w.org/discipline

Expanding the Pipeline from Page 2

Sharing Exemplary Practices NGCP partners with a variety of

organizations that provide expertise in specific content areas to disseminate exemplary practices through Collaborative events, webinars, and the NGCP website. Partner organizations include the Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (AWE) Project, the Education Development Center, Techbridge, Girl Scouts of the USA, SciGirls, and Engineer Your Life. NGCP aims to make exemplary practices accessible, building the capacity of girl-serving organizations to provide high-quality STEM opportunities to all girls.

NGCP webinars are one venue for making current research accessible to a national audience. All webinars are free and open to the public and are archived on the NGCP website. Presentations have included a workshop on assessing outreach activities, incorporating role models, best practices in collaboration, and current research on effective strategies for serving girls in STEM. In March

2012, more than 100 practitioners attended a webinar entitled “Effective Tools You Can Use to Change the Image of Computing among Girls.” This webinar is archived and available on the NGCP website for 24/7 viewing.

Program DirectoryA critical online collaboration tool,

developed in 2002, is the Program Directory. It has been significantly improved over the past eight years based on user feedback and ongoing analysis of functionality. Projects and organizations enter basic program data into the directory, providing brief descriptions of organizational goals, population served, geographic location and contact information. NGCP Program Directory entries also include needs and resources as a catalyst for collaboration. Users search by these variables finding potential partners to meet their needs and utilize their resources, resulting in a more effective use of resources among STEM projects. There are currently more than 2,300 programs listed in the Program Directory, representing more than 5

million girls. Practitioners who access the Program Directory find partners and network with other programs through it and benefit from the opportunity to publicize their program.

Mini-GrantsNGCP Collaboratives provide mini-

grants to organizations collaborating on a STEM project for girls in their region. The grants are $1,000 (or less) and serve as the catalyst for two or more organizations to work together on a project. To date, 205 mini-grants serving more than 19,000 participants have been awarded by NGCP Collaboratives. Mini-grant recipients rate their collaborations as effective, with 92 percent of respondents indicating the highest ratings of success. In 68 percent of the projects Partner organizations indicate they will continue the effort, and 72 percent of partners indicate that collaboration with their partner has extended to other activities.

“It was an amazing experience for all girls and women. I wished that such a forum had existed for me, when I was 10 years old. The presenters provided such vast insights into the world of Aerospace. But the most important message for our girls was clearly stated as—persevere, follow your dreams, and always, move forward towards your joy.”—Tracey Masterson, Girl Scout Leader,

and Mini-grant participantA very clear culture and philosophy

has developed within NGCP. There is common interest to maximize access to scarce shared resources across any kind of organization, and share resources in order to provide STEM programming to girls in informal settings. There is an emphasis on sharing experience and building knowledge of promising practices research and the basics of assessment. There is a

common goal of building critical mass in a national network that hopes to create “the tipping point” for gender equity in STEM. It is a culture of informal STEM practitioners trying to leverage resources to achieve their goals.

By creating partnerships with others that serve girls and women in STEM, organizations can generate and carry out creative solutions and strategies that maximize the benefit beyond what one project or organization could accomplish alone, reducing duplication of effort and organizational isolation while at the same time, increasing efficiencies and promoting sustainability of recruitment and retention efforts.

NGCP has developed and tested a comprehensive program of change that uses collaboration to expand and strengthen STEM-related opportunities for girls and women. The NGCP model accomplishes this by creating a network of professionals, researchers, and practitioners, facilitating collaboration within this network, and delivering high-quality research-based professional development.

• Project Website: www.ngcproject.org

• Facebook: www.facebook.com/ngcproject

• Twitter: @ngcproject• Linked In:

www.linkedin.com/groups/National-Girls-Collaborative-Project-4344096

• Online Program Directory: www.ngcproject.org/directory

KarenA.Peterson ([email protected]) is Chief Executive Officer, EdLab Group & Principal Investigator, National Girls Collaborative Project (www.edlabgroup.org)

NGCP Institute Attendees Celebrating Collaboration

NG

CP

U.S. computer science and engineering was well represented at January’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (http://www.weforum.org/). Several academic computer scientists were invited to participate in sessions known as Idea Labs, each of which was organized around a single theme and institution. Tomaso Poggio and Alex Pentland participated in a session titled “Worms, Machines and Brains with MIT”; Justine Cassell, Pradeep Khosla, Tom Mitchell and Manuela Veloso comprised a session on “Leveraging Human-Machine Collaboration with Carnegie-Mellon University”; and the author spoke in the session titled “Managing Complexity with the Santa Fe Institute.” Each 75-minute session consisted of a short introduction, usually by the university’s president, followed by (very) short talks from each presenter, and then breakout sessions following up on the talks.

Each talk was in the visual “Pecha Kucha” format — five minutes,

pictures only, slides automatically change every 20 seconds — a major challenge for those of us accustomed to giving 50 minute talks with graphs, proofs, and pseudo-code. In addition to the Idea Labs, many of the scientists spoke in specialized sessions and panels on related topics. For example, Poggio was one of two speakers in a session devoted to “The Mind and the Machine”; and I was a panelist in a session on “Risks in a Hyperconnected World” focusing on cybersecurity. My remarks on ”biological models for software security” elicited questions from an immunologist, the Chief of Europol (the European Police Office), a Vice President of the European Commission, and the CEO of a large multi-national corporation. The participants in these sessions were well acquainted with the economic and legal issues surrounding cybersecurity and cyberattacks, but there was little discussion of the increasing role played by cybersecurity issues in

international relations, the rise of Internet censorship, etc.

Attending the Forum was a refreshing change from academic computer science, and we all have entertaining stories of chance encounters with famous people we had never heard of, and some we had. A recent article in The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=1c)aptures the tone of the meeting nicely. Yes, the parties were awesome!

StephanieForrest is a professor of computer science at the University of New Mexico and, until recently, a member of the CCC Council. Stephanie attended the World Economic Forum’s 2012 Annual Meeting earlier this year and she writes about her experiences here. This contribution originally appeared on the CCC Blog on March 18, 2012 (http://www.cccblog.org/2012/03/18/computer-science-at-the-world-economic-forum/)

Computer Science at the World Economic ForumBy Stephanie Forrest


2010-2011 Taulbee Survey

Continued Increase in Undergraduate CS Degree Production; Slight Rise in Doctoral Production

The CRA Taulbee Survey1 is conducted annually by the Computing Research Association to document trends in student enrollment, degree production, employment of graduates, and faculty salaries in academic units in the United States and Canada that grant the Ph.D. in computer science (CS), computer engineering (CE) or information (I)2. Most of these academic units are departments, but some are colleges or schools of information or computing. In this report, we will use the term “department” to refer to the unit offering the program. This article and the accompanying figures and tables present the results from the 41st annual CRA Taulbee Survey.

Information is gathered during the fall. Responses received by January 23, 2012 are included in the analysis. The period covered by the data varies from table to table. Degree production and enrollment (Ph.D., Master’s, and Bachelor’s) refer to the previous academic year (2010-11). Data for new students in all categories refer to the current academic year (2011-12). Projected student production and information on faculty salaries are those effective January 1, 2012.

We surveyed a total of 267 Ph.D.-granting departments; 184 returned their survey forms, for a response rate of 69 percent. This is lower than last year’s 74 percent, due to lower response rates from the CS and Canadian departments (77 and 43 percent, respectively). The response rate from CE departments was 42 percent, and that from I departments was 76 percent, both slightly higher than last year. Figure 1 shows the history of response rates to the survey. Response rates are inexact because some departments provide only partial data, and some institutions provide a single joint response for multiple departments. Thus, in some tables the number of departments shown as reporting will not equal the overall total number of respondents for that category of department.

To account for the changes in response rate, we will comment not only on aggregate totals but also on averages per department reporting or data from those departments that responded to both this year’s and last year’s surveys. This will be a more accurate indication of the one-year changes affecting the data.

Departments that responded to the survey were sent preliminary results about faculty salaries in January 2012; these results included additional distributional information not contained in this report. The CRA Board views this as a benefit of participating in the survey.

This year, we modified the manner in which we report data for U.S. CS departments. Degree, enrollment and faculty salary data are stratified according to a) whether the institution is public or private, and b) the tenure-

track faculty size of the reporting department. The faculty size strata deliberately overlap, so that data from most departments affect multiple strata. This may be especially useful to departments near the boundary of one stratum. Salary data also are stratified according to the population of the locale in which the institution is located3. This will allow our readers to see multiple views of important data, and hopefully gain new insights from them. These stratification dimensions were recommended by the CRA Surveys Committee4

and approved by the CRA Board of Directors, following extensive discussion of various options. We no longer stratify the data according to any ranking of academic departments.

In addition to tabular presentations of data, we will use “box and whisker” diagrams to show medians, quartiles, and the range between the 10th and 90th percentile data points. The March 2012 CRN illustrated the use of these diagrams.

We thank all respondents to this year’s questionnaire. Departments that participated are listed at the end of this article.

Doctoral Degree Production, Enrollments and Employment (Tables D1-D8; Figures D1-D6)

Overall, total Ph.D. production in computing programs (Table D1, Figure D1) held steady in 2010-11, with 1,782 degrees granted compared with 1,772 last year with more departments reporting last year. Among departments reporting both this year and last year, the number of total doctoral degrees increased 5.2 percent.

Next year, the departments predict an increase of nearly 9 percent in

By Stuart Zweben and Betsy Bizot

Figure 1. Number of Respondents to the Taulbee Survey

Year US CS Depts. US CE Depts. Canadian US Information Total

1995 110/133 (83%) 9/13 (69%) 11/16 (69%) 130/162 (80%)

1996 98/131 (75%) 8/13 (62%) 9/16 (56%) 115/160 (72%)

1997 111/133 (83%) 6/13 (46%) 13/17 (76%) 130/163 (80%)

1998 122/145 (84%) 7/19 (37%) 12/18 (67%) 141/182 (77%)

1999 132/156 (85%) 5/24 (21%) 19/23 (83%) 156/203 (77%)

2000 148/163 (91%) 6/28 (21%) 19/23 (83%) 173/214 (81%)

2001 142/164 (87%) 8/28 (29%) 23/23 (100%) 173/215 (80%)

2002 150/170 (88%) 10/28 (36%) 22/27 (82%) 182/225 (80%)

2003 148/170 (87%) 6/28 (21%) 19/27 (70%) 173/225 (77%)

2004 158/172 (92%) 10/30 (33%) 21/27 (78%) 189/229 (83%)

2005 156/174 (90%) 10/31 (32%) 22/27 (81%) 188/232 (81%)

2006 156/175 (89%) 12/33 (36%) 20/28 (71%) 188/235 (80%)

2007 155/176 (88%) 10/30 (33%) 21/28 (75%) 186/234 (79%)

2008 151/181 (83%) 12/32 (38%) 20/30 (67%) 9/19 (47%) 192/264 (73%)

2009 147/184 (80%) 13/31 (42%) 16/30 (53.3%) 12/20 (60%) 188/265 (71%)

2010 150/184 (82%) 12/30 (40%) 18/29 (62%) 15/22 (68%) 195/265 (74%)

2011 142/185 (77%) 13/31 (42%) 13/30 (43%) 16/21 (76%) 184/267 (69%)

Figure D1. PhD ProductionCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Table D1. PhD Production and Pipeline by Department Type

Department Type

# Depts

PhDs Awarded PhDs Next Year Passed Qualifier Passed Thesis (if dept has)

# Avg/ Dept # Avg/

Dept # Avg/ Dept # #

DeptAvg/ Dept

US CS Public 104 1,062 10.2 1,260 12.1 1,367 13.1 899 87 10.3

US CS Private 36 395 11.0 426 11.8 360 10.0 278 26 10.7

US CS Total 140 1,457 10.4 1,686 12.0 1,727 12.3 1,177 113 10.4

US CE 12 80 6.7 55 4.6 89 7.4 58 9 6.4

US Info 13 80 6.2 86 6.6 95 7.3 55 10 5.5

Canadian 13 165 12.7 110 8.5 173 13.3 171 12 14.3

Grand Total 178 1,782 10.0 1,937 10.9 2,084 11.7 1,461 144 10.1


Table D4. Employment of New PhD Recipients By Specialty

North American PhD Granting Depts.

Tenure-track 14 1 5 6 2 10 1 2 5 9 2 6 2 3 3 1 4 7 6 13 102 7.1%

Researcher 6 1 4 6 1 1 0 6 2 0 2 7 2 2 2 3 1 3 7 17 73 5.1%

Postdoc 38 1 12 17 4 12 0 20 7 5 2 12 7 7 14 6 3 10 30 34 241 16.8%

Teaching Faculty 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 4 4 4 28 2.0%

North American, Other Academic

Other CS/CE/I Dept. 3 0 4 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 18 52 3.6%

Non-CS/CE/I Dept.

North American, Non-Academic

Industry 64 2 49 46 41 24 20 17 40 5 6 67 29 22 25 6 12 86 32 83 676 47.2%

Government 7 0 5 2 6 2 5 3 8 1 2 1 0 0 2 4 1 4 2 5 60 4.2%

Self-Employed 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 13 0.9%

Unemployed 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 23 1.6%

Other 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0.5%

Total Inside North America

138 6 83 80 57 54 32 53 67 22 23 106 44 35 48 20 26 118 85 178 1,275 89.0%

Outside North America

Ten-Track in PhD 5 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 6 1 0 0 0 1 4 3 2 35 2.4%

Researcher in PhD 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 11 0.8%

Postdoc in PhD 8 0 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 3 6 3 35 2.4%

Teaching in PhD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 9 0.6%

Other Academic 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 8 0.6%

Industry 0 0 4 5 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 13 1 1 1 0 1 4 2 7 45 3.1%

Government 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 0.5%

Other 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0.5%

Total Outside NA 16 0 14 9 7 2 3 8 8 3 5 20 3 2 5 2 3 14 12 21 157 11.0%

Total with Employment Data, Inside North America plus Outside North America

154 6 97 89 64 56 35 61 75 25 28 126 47 37 53 22 29 132 97 199 1,432

Employment Type & Location Unknown

39 0 9 22 6 13 2 7 7 5 11 14 8 11 7 5 2 15 22 145 350

Grand Total 193 6 106 111 70 69 37 68 82 30 39 140 55 48 60 27 31 147 119 344 1,782

Art

ifici

al In

telli

genc

e

Com

pute

r-S

uppo

rted

C

oope

rativ

e W

ork

Dat

abas

es /I

nfor

mat

ion

Ret

rieva

l

Gra

phic

s/V

isua

lizat

ion

Har

dwar

e/A

rchi

tect

ure

Hum

an-C

ompu

ter

Inte

ract

ion

Hig

h-P

erfo

rman

ce

Com

putin

gIn

form

atic

s: B

iom

edic

a/

Oth

er S

cien

ce

Info

rmat

ion

Ass

uran

ce/

Sec

urity

Info

rmat

ion

Sci

ence

Info

rmat

ion

Sys

tem

s

Net

wor

ks

Ope

ratin

g S

yste

ms

Pro

gram

min

g

Lang

uage

s/C

ompi

lers

Rob

otic

s/V

isio

n

Sci

entifi

c/ N

umer

ical

C

ompu

ting

Soc

ial C

ompu

ting/

S

ocia

l Inf

orm

atic

s

Sof

twar

e E

ngin

eerin

g

The

ory

and

Alg

orith

ms

Oth

er

Tota

l

Table D2. PhDs Awarded by Gender

CS

CE I Total

Male 1,154 81.6% 159 77.9% 81 67.5% 1,394 80.2%

Female 261 18.4% 45 22.1% 39 32.5% 345 19.8%

Total Known Gender 1,415 204 120 1,739

Gender Unknown 41 1 1 43

Grand Total 1,456 205 121 1,782

Table D3. PhDs Awarded by Ethnicity

CS CE I Total

Nonresident Alien 634 48.1% 130 67.4% 44 37.0% 808 49.6%

Amer Indian or Alaska Native 2 0.2% 0 0.0% 2 1.7% 4 0.2%

Asian 171 13.0% 16 8.3% 14 11.8% 201 12.3%

Black or African-American 16 1.2% 1 0.5% 6 5.0% 23 1.4%

Native Hawaiian/Pac Islander 4 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.2%

White 465 35.3% 42 21.8% 52 43.7% 559 34.3%

Multiracial, not Hispanic 3 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.2%

Hispanic, any race 22 1.7% 4 2.1% 1 0.8% 27 1.7%

Total Residency & Ethnicity Known 1,317 193 119 1,629

Resident, ethnicity unknown 43 4 2 49

Residency unknown 96 8 0 104

Grand Total 1,456 205 121 1,782



Table D5. New PhD Students by Department Type

CS CE I Total

Department Type New Admit

MS to PhD Total

Avg. per

Dept.

New Admit

MS to PhD Total

Avg. per

Dept.

New Admit

MS to PhD Total

Avg. per

Dept.Total

Avg. per

Dept

US CS Public 1,508 167 1,675 16.1 84 18 102 1.0 77 4 81 0.8 1,858 17.9

US CS Private 526 53 579 16.1 20 0 20 0.6 7 1 8 0.2 607 16.9

US CS Total 2,034 220 2,254 16.1 104 18 122 0.9 84 5 89 0.6 2,465 17.6

US CE 0 0 0 0.0 57 13 70 5.8 0 0 0 0.0 70 5.8

US Information 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 103 9 112 8.6 112 8.6

Canadian 126 21 147 11.3 18 0 18 1.4 0 0 0 0.0 165 12.7

Grand Total 2,160 241 2,401 13.5 179 31 210 1.2 187 14 201 1.1 2,812 15.8

Table D5a. New PhD Students from Outside North America

Department Type CS CE I

Total New

Outside

Total New

% outside North

America

US CS Public 1,041 58 30 1,129 1,858 60.8%

US CS Private 267 7 6 280 607 46.1%

Total US CS 1,308 65 36 1,409 2,465 57.2%

US CE 0 41 0 41 70 58.6%

US Info 0 0 47 47 112 42.0%

Canadian 73 5 9 87 165 52.7%

Grand Total 1,381 111 92 1,584 2,812 56.3%

Table D6. PhD Enrollment by Department Type

Department Type

# Depts CS CE I Total

US CS Public 104 8,358 70.0% 680 39.1% 378 38.0% 9,416 64.2%

US CS Private 36 2,514 21.1% 174 10.0% 10 1.0% 2,698 18.4%

Total US CS 140 10,872 91.1% 854 49.1% 388 39.0% 12,114 82.6%

US CE 12 0 0.0% 789 45.3% 0 0.0% 789 5.4%

US Info 13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 606 61.0% 606 4.1%

Canadian 13 1,065 8.9% 97 5.6% 0 0.0% 1,162 7.9%

Grand Total 178 11,937 1,740 994 14,671

Table D7. PhD Enrollment by Gender

CS CE I Total

Male 9,745 81.6% 1483 85.2% 604 60.8% 11,832 80.7%

Female 2,191 18.4% 257 14.8% 389 39.2% 2,837 19.3%

Total Known Gender 11,936 1,740 993 14,669


Grand Total 11,937 1,740 994 14,671

Table D8. PhD Enrollment by Ethnicity

CS CE I Total

Nonresident Alien 5,978 56.1% 1152 74.0% 402 42.9% 7,532 57.3%


Asian 897 8.4% 79 5.1% 85 9.1% 1,061 8.1%



White 3367 31.6% 278 17.9% 357 38.1% 4,002 30.4%



Total Known 10,655 1,556 938 13,149



Grand Total 11,937 1,740 994 14,671

doctoral degree production, but they notoriously over-predict the number of Ph.D. graduates. A more realistic forecast for next year’s production is one comparable to that for this year.

The number of new students per department passing qualifier and thesis candidacy exams in U.S. CS departments (most, but not

all, departments have such exams) increased this year. This suggests that the number of doctoral degrees produced will increase in the near term.

The number of new Ph.D. students overall (Table D5) is somewhat less than last year (2,812 this year vs. 2,962 last year). However, on a per department basis, this total is

comparable to that of last year. The number of new students in CE and I programs also are similar to last year’s figures. There was a slight decline in the proportion of new doctoral students from outside North America (Table D5a), from 56.8 percent last year to 56.3 percent this year. Total enrollment in computer science

doctoral programs (Table D6) is comparable to that of last year, after accounting for the decreased number of departments reporting this year. However, total enrollment by Non-resident Aliens is higher in all three computing areas, and the overall level is now at 57.3 percent vs. 51.0 percent last year (Table D8 and Figure D2).



Figure D4. PhD Enrollment Normalized by Tenure-Track SizeCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure D5. CS Pipeline corrected for year of entry

Approximately 73 percent of the doctoral degrees at U.S. CS departments are granted by public universities, though the average per department is similar at public and private universities. A similar fraction of new students (74 percent) are at public universities, while a larger fraction of new students from outside North America (approximately 80 percent) are at the public universities. At public universities, there are more students per tenure-track

offsets the graduation data by five years from the data for new students. These data have been useful in estimating the timing of changes in production rates.

Figure D6 shows the employment trend of new Ph.D.s in academia and industry, those taking employment outside of North America, and those going to academia who took positions in departments other than Ph.D.-granting CS/CE departments. Table D4 shows a more detailed breakdown of the employment data for new Ph.D.s. There was an increase in the fraction of new Ph.D.s who took positions in industry (to 47.2 percent vs. 44.7 percent in 2009-10). The 2010-11 level is about the same as that in 2008-09. A smaller fraction of graduates took academic jobs in 2010-11 as compared with 2009-10. The fraction taking tenure-track positions in doctoral-granting institutions dropped from 8.2 percent in 2009-10 to 7.1 percent in 2010-11; however, the fraction taking positions in non-Ph.D.-granting departments increased to 3.6 percent from 2.4 percent. The fraction taking postdoctoral positions also declined, to 16.8 percent from 19.5 percent, but the fraction taking researcher positions at doctoral-granting institutions increased from 3.4 percent to 5.1 percent.

The unemployment rate for new Ph.D.s rose somewhat this year, to 1.6 percent from 1.1 percent last year. The proportion of Ph.D. graduates who were reported taking positions outside of North America, among those whose employment is known, declined slightly to 11.0 percent from 11.8 percent in 2009-10.

This year, there was a larger fraction of new Ph.D.s whose employment status was unknown (19.6 percent vs. 15.1 percent last year). It is possible that this skews the

real overall percentages for certain employment categories.

Table D4 also indicates the areas of specialty of new Ph.D.s. Artificial intelligence, software engineering, and networking continue to be the most popular areas of specialization for doctoral graduates, though this year software engineering replaced networking as the number two area behind AI. Theory and algorithms, databases, and graphics/visualization remained the next three most popular areas.

A similar fraction of this year’s computer science graduates were women (18.4 percent vs. 18.8 percent in 2009-10), a smaller fraction of this year’s I graduates were women (32.5 percent vs. 40.2 percent in 2009-10) and a larger fraction of this year’s CE graduates were women (22.1 percent vs. 15.4 percent in 2009-10). A smaller fraction of this year’s graduates were White (34.3 percent vs. 36.7 percent in 2009-10). This change was largest in I departments, where there was a 7 percent smaller fraction of Whites and a 7 percent larger fraction of Non-resident Aliens, a reverse of what was experienced last year, but this may reflect differences in the specific departments reporting this year.5

Master’s and Bachelor’s Degree Production and Enrollments

This section reports data about enrollment and degree production for Master’s and Bachelor’s programs in the doctoral-granting departments. Although the absolute number of degrees and students enrolled reported herein only reflect departments that offer the doctoral degree, the trends observed in the master’s and bachelor’s data from

faculty and more degrees are given per tenure-track faculty member in larger departments, while at private universities there is less variability as department size increases (Figures D3 and D4.

Figure D5 shows a graphical view of the Ph.D. pipeline for computer science programs. The data in this graph are normalized by the number of departments reporting. The graph offsets the qualifier data by one year from the data for new students, and

Figure D2. Nonresident Aliens as Fraction of PhD EnrollmentsCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure D3. PhD Degrees Granted by Tenure-Track SizeCRA Taulbee Survey 2011


Figure D6. Employment of New PhD’s in US and Canada

60

55

50

45

40

35

30


Table M1. Master’s Degrees Awarded by Department Type

Department Type # Depts CS CE I Total

US CS Public 109 4,030 61.0% 526 44.5% 521 23.6% 5,077 50.8%

US CS Private 40 2,054 31.1% 137 11.6% 414 18.8% 2,605 26.1%

Total US CS 150 6,084 92.0% 663 56.0% 935 42.4% 7,682 76.8%

US CE 12 0 0.0% 428 36.2% 0 0.0% 428 4.3%

US Info 13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1271 57.6% 1,271 12.7%

Canadian 18 527 8.0% 92 7.8% 0 0.0% 619 6.2%

Grand Total 192 6,611 1,183 2,206 10,000

Table M2. Master’s Degrees Awarded by Gender

CS CE I Total

Male 4,968 75.4% 920 77.8% 1150 52.2% 7,038 70.5%

Female 1,623 24.6% 262 22.2% 1054 47.8% 2,939 29.5%

Total Known Gender 6,591 1,182 2,204 9,977


Grand Total 6,611 1,183 2,206 10,000

these departments tend to strongly reflect trends in the larger population of programs that offer such degrees.

Master’s (Tables M1-M6; Figures M1-M2)

Master’s degree production in CS was flat in 2010-11 after accounting for the decreased number of departments reporting. However, master’s degree production increased

sharply in CE and I departments, resulting in an overall increase in production of 5 percent even with fewer departments reporting overall.

The proportion of female graduates among master’s recipients increased from 27.2 percent in 2009-10 to 29.5 percent in 2010-11. In computer science, the increase was from 21.0 percent to 24.6 percent. A higher fraction of the master’s

recipients were Black, Hispanic or Asian this year compared with last year, while there was a somewhat smaller proportion of Whites and Non-resident Aliens receiving master’s degrees this year.

The number of new master’s students in CS programs this year is similar to last year on a per-department basis, though there is an increase in new master’s students among CE and

I programs. A larger proportion of new master’s students are from outside of North America this year compared with last year (56.2 percent vs. 51.2 percent last year).

Despite the neutral to increasing data for new master’s students, the number of master’s degrees expected next year is less in all three computing areas (CS, CE and I). Total enrollment in master’s programs is

Table M3. Master’s Degrees Awarded by Ethnicity

CS CE I Total

Nonresident Alien 3,332 56.7% 776 72.6% 389 19.6% 4,497 50.4%


Asian 753 12.8% 108 10.1% 245 12.3% 1,106 12.4%


Native Hawaiian/Pac Island 19 0.3% 0 0.0% 6 0.3% 25 0.3%

White 1533 26.1% 142 13.3% 1113 56.1% 2,788 31.2%



Total Residency & Ethnicity Known 5,872 1,069 1,984 8,925



Grand Total 6,611 1,183 2,206 10,000

Table M4. Master’s Degrees Expected Next Year by Department Type


US CS Public 104 3,491 60.8% 365 37.6% 423 20.6% 4,279 48.8%

US CS Private 37 1,918 33.4% 120 12.4% 327 15.9% 2,365 27.0%

Total US CS 141 5,409 94.3% 485 49.9% 750 36.5% 6,644 75.8%

US CE 12 0 0.0% 484 49.8% 0 0.0% 484 5.5%

US Info 13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1303 63.5% 1,303 14.9%

Canadian 13 329 5.7% 2 0.2% 0 0.0% 331 3.8%

Grand Total 179 5,738 971 2,053 8,762

Table M5. New Master’s Students by Department Type

Department TypeCS CE I Total Outside North

America

Total # Depts

Avg / Dept Total #

DeptsAvg / Dept Total #

DeptAvg / Dept Total #

DeptAvg / Dept Total %

US CS Public 3,028 99 30.6 246 22 11.2 299 10 29.9 3,573 99 36.1 2319 64.9%

US CS Private 2,229 35 63.7 110 6 18.3 284 4 71.0 2,623 35 74.9 1469 56.0%

Total US CS 5,257 134 39.2 356 28 12.7 583 14 41.6 6,196 134 46.2 3,788 61.1%

US CE 0 0 313 9 34.8 0 0 313 9 34.8 268 85.6%

US Info 0 0 0 0 1141 12 95.1 1,141 12 95.1 241 21.1%

Canadian 353 12 29.4 26 2 13.0 0 0 379 12 31.6 212 55.9%

Grand Total 5,610 146 38.4 695 39 17.8 1,724 26 66.3 8,029 167 48.1 4,509 56.2%



Figure M2. Master’s Enrollment Normalized by Tenure-Track SizeCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

down compared with last year, so the expectation for fewer degrees in the coming year is consistent with the total enrollment trend.

About two-thirds of the total master’s graduates from U.S. CS departments came from public institutions. A slightly smaller proportion of total master’s students (63 percent) attend public universities, and an even smaller proportion of new master’s students (about 58 percent) attend universities. These fractions are smaller than their doctoral level counterparts. There appears to be no strong correlation among U.S. CS departments, either public or private, between department size and master’s

enrollment or degree production per tenure-track faculty member (Figures M1 and M2).

Bachelor’s (Tables B1-B6; Figures B1-B4)

For the second straight year, there was a double-digit percentage increase in bachelor’s degree production. Among all departments reporting, the increase was 10.4 percent, but if only those departments that reported both years are counted, the increase was 12.9 percent. Similar increases hold in U.S. CS departments (10.5 percent overall and 12.9 percent among those departments who reported both years).

The number of new computing majors among U.S. CS departments rose 6.7 percent (7.4 percent among those departments reporting both this year and last year). This is the fourth straight year of increased enrollment in computing majors by new students. Total enrollment in computing majors among U.S. CS departments increased 5.9 percent in aggregate (9.6 percent among departments reporting both this year and last year).

The number of CE degrees also increased significantly this year, among U.S. CE departments and among U.S. CS departments who also give CE degrees. Degrees in the information area also increased significantly among U.S. departments offering information

degrees, but this may be affected by the categorization of several institutions whose computer science departments and schools of information report jointly. New student enrollment increased in aggregate among departments offering I programs but decreased among those offering CE programs (though it increased among CE departments that reported both years). Total enrollment in both CE and I programs increased in aggregate, though total enrollment decreased in I departments that reported both years. These data suggest increased interest in undergraduate computing degrees of all types within the U.S. It should be noted that the numbers for CE and I departments are more

Table B1. Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Department Type


US CS Public 99 6,358 68.5% 1301 61.8% 993 41.1% 8,652 62.7%

US CS Private 34 1,792 19.3% 180 8.6% 322 13.3% 2,294 16.6%

Total US CS 133 8,150 87.8% 1481 70.4% 1315 54.4% 10,946 79.3%

US CE 10 0 0.0% 561 26.7% 0 0.0% 561 4.1%

US Info 9 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1095 45.3% 1,095 7.9%

Canadian 13 1,136 12.2% 62 2.9% 6 0.2% 1,204 8.7%

Grand Total 165 9,286 2,104 2,416 13,806

Table B2. Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Gender

CS CE I Total

Male 7,983 88.3% 1,856 88.2% 1,993 82.5% 11,832 87.3%

Female 1,057 11.7% 248 11.8% 422 17.5% 1,727 12.7%

Total Known Gender 9,040 2,104 2,415 13,559


Grand Total 9,286 2,104 2,416 13,806

Table M6. Total Master’s Enrollment by Department Type

Department Type

CS CE I Total

Total # Depts

Avg / Dept

Total # Depts

Avg / Dept

Total # Dept Avg / Dept

Total # Dept Avg / Dept

US CS Public 8,048 98 82.1 895 22 40.7 1088 11 98.9 10,031 98 102.4

US CS Private 4,726 34 139.0 185 6 30.8 1495 4 373.8 6,406 34 188.4

Total US CS 12,774 132 96.8 1080 28 38.6 2583 15 172.2 16,437 132 124.5

US CE 0 0 950 9 105.6 0 0 950 9 105.6

US Info 0 0 0 0 2916 12 243.0 2,916 12 243.0

Canadian 1,114 12 92.8 98 2 49.0 0 0 1,212 12 101.0

Grand Total 13,888 144 96.4 2,128 39 54.6 5,499 27 203.7 21,515 165 130.4

Figure M1. Master’s Degrees Granted by Tenure-Track SizeCRA Taulbee Survey 2011



Table B3. Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Ethnicity

CS CE I Total

Nonresident Alien 524 7.0% 179 10.0% 78 3.6% 781 6.8%


Asian 1,115 14.8% 337 18.8% 302 13.9% 1,754 15.3%



White 5026 66.9% 981 54.7% 1432 65.8% 7,439 64.8%



Total Residency & Ethnicity Known 7,513 1,792 2,177 11,482

Resident, ethnicity unknown 741 200 99 1,040

Residency unknown 1032 112 140 1,284

Grand Total 9,286 2,104 2,416 13,806

Table B4. Bachelor’s Degrees Expected Next Year by Department Type


US CS Public 99 6,497 63.5% 1238 65.3% 780 33.6% 8,515 59.0%

US CS Private 34 2,104 20.6% 250 13.2% 387 16.7% 2,741 19.0%

Total US CS 133 8,601 84.1% 1488 78.5% 1167 50.3% 11,256 77.9%

US CE 10 0 0.0% 287 15.1% 0 0.0% 287 2.0%

US Info 9 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1126 48.6% 1,126 7.8%

Canadian 13 1,628 15.9% 121 6.4% 26 1.1% 1,775 12.3%

Grand Total 165 10,229 1,896 2,319 14,444

Table B5. New Bachelor’s Students by Department Type

CS CE I Total

Department Type Major Pre-major # Dept

Avg. Major

per Dept.

Major Pre-major # Dept

Avg. Major

per Dept.

Major Pre-major # Dept

Avg. Major

per Dept.

Total Major

Avg. Major

per Dept.

US CS Public 8,237 3080 98 84.1 1583 391 33 48.0 931 117 22 42.3 10,751 109.7

US CS Private 2073 303 34 61.0 219 5 9 24.3 357 6 5 71.4 2,649 77.9

US CS Total 10,310 3383 132 78.1 1802 396 42 42.9 1288 123 27 47.7 13,400 101.5

US CE 0 0 0 0.0 262 181 9 29.1 0 0 0 0.0 262 29.1

US Information 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 533 348 8 66.6 533 66.6

Canadian 2010 474 13 154.6 74 0 3 24.7 0 0 0 0.0 2,084 160.3

Grand Total 12,320 3,857 145 85.0 2,138 577 54 39.6 1,821 471 35 52.0 16,279 100.5

volatile due to the small number reporting in each of these areas.

Canadian statistics also are volatile due to the small number of departments reporting. In aggregate, they show slightly decreased degree production, but Canadian response to the survey was unusually low this year and among Canadian departments reporting both years, there was an 11 percent increase in bachelor’s degree production. New student enrollment among Canadian departments that reported both years increased by 3.6 percent, but total enrollment in these departments was down a little less than one percent.

The fraction of women among bachelor’s graduates decreased in CS this year, from 13.8 percent in 2009-10 to 11.7 percent in 2010-11. In CE and I, the fraction of female graduates increased, to 11.8 percent in CE and to 17.5 percent in I. This year there was a smaller percentage of Whites and greater percentages of Non-resident Alien, Black and Hispanic graduates in CE programs. CS programs, on the other hand, showed a slight increase in the proportion of Whites and a slight decrease in the proportion of Non-resident Alien graduates. I programs had a smaller fraction of Whites, Blacks and Non-resident Aliens, and

increased fractions of Asians and Hispanics. Overall, across the three degree areas, about 65 percent of the graduates were White, 15 percent Asian, 7 percent Non-resident Aliens, and 13 percent all other ethnicity categories combined.

Among U.S. CS departments, between 78 and 80 percent of the total bachelor’s degrees, new bachelor’s students and total bachelor’s students are from public universities. These levels are higher than their master’s and doctoral level counterparts in all cases except new bachelor’s students, where they are approximately the same as for new doctoral students.

Larger U.S. CS departments tend to grant more bachelor’s degrees per tenure-track faculty member, and public universities tend to grant more bachelor’s degrees per tenure-track faculty member than do private universities. While private universities also have higher enrollments per tenure-track faculty member in larger departments, public universities exhibit a less clear trend in enrollment per tenure-track faculty as department size increases (Figures B3 and B4).

Table B6. Total Bachelor’s Enrollment by Department Type

CS CE I Total

Department Type Major Pre-

major#

Depts

Avg. Major

per Dept.

Major Pre-major Total

Avg. Major

per Dept.

Major Pre-major Total

Avg. Major

per Dept.

Major

Avg. Major

per Dept.

US CS Public 29,163 5747 98 297.6 5398 987 33 163.6 3875 299 22 176.1 38,436 388.2

US CS Private 7852 248 34 230.9 725 9 9 80.6 248 0 5 49.6 8,825 259.6

US CS Total 37,015 5995 132 280.4 6123 996 42 145.8 5814 299 27 215.3 48,952 368.1

US CE 0 0 0 0.0 1603 235 9 178.1 0 0 0 0.0 1,603 160.3

US Information 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 3063 838 8 382.9 3,063 340.3

Canadian 6744 340 13 518.8 274 0 3 91.3 0 0 0 0.0 7,018 539.8

Grand Total 43,759 6,335 145 301.8 8,000 1,231 54 148.1 8,877 1,137 35 253.6 60,636 367.5



Figure B3. Bachelor’s Degrees Granted by Tenure-Track SizeCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure B4. Bachelor’s Enrollment Normalized by Tenure-Track SizeCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure B1. BS Production (CS & CE)

Figure B2. Newly Declared CS/CE Undergraduate Majors


CRA-W Graduate Cohort Meeting

Bellevue, Washington

April 13–14, 2012

POSTER SESSIONS

Top left: Pictured at the recent Grad Cohort meeting (l to r) are Piyali Dey (North Carolina State University), Grad Cohort Co-Chair Lori Clarke (UMass), and Bushra Anjum (North Carolina State University).

Top right: Wen Wang, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, discusses her poster with a Cohort attendee.

Bottom left: Karla Saur (left), University of Maryland-College Park, talks with conference speaker Kathryn McKinley from Microsoft Research during the poster session.

Bottom right: Rasna Walia, Iowa State University, in conversation with another Cohort attendee about her poster.


Faculty Demographics (Tables F1-F7)6

Table F1 shows the current and anticipated sizes, in FTE, for tenure-track, teaching and research faculty, and postdocs. In U.S. CS departments, the total tenure-track faculty count of 3,455 is about 6 percent lower than that of last year, but this is consistent with the decrease in the number of departments reporting this year. Canadian departments also showed a significant decrease in faculty numbers due to the decreased number of departments reporting. U.S. CE departments showed a decrease in total tenure-track faculty count despite a slight increase in the number of departments reporting, but this reflects a correction in some ECE departments to better

separate EE from CE faculty. U.S. I departments showed an overall increase in faculty numbers, consistent with their increased number of departments reporting. Total counts of teaching and research faculty and of postdocs are similar to those for last year despite the decreased number of departments reporting.

Among U.S. CS departments, the average tenure-track faculty size is slightly larger at private universities than at public universities. Canadian universities, on average, have more tenure-track faculty members per department than do U.S. universities, while on average U.S. I departments are smaller than U.S. CS departments and U.S. CE departments are smaller still. These last two may reflect the fact that we ask departments to report

only computing-related faculty, so departments with Library Science or EE programs may report only part of their faculty.

Private universities also tend to have more research faculty and postdocs than do public universities on average, though the teaching faculty per department is similar in public and private universities. Canadian departments have more teaching faculty than do U.S. departments, and have roughly the same number of postdocs per department as do private U.S. CS departments. U.S. I departments have slightly more teaching faculty as compared with U.S. CS departments, but have research faculty and postdoc averages more in line with U.S. CS departments at public universities. U.S. CE

departments are smaller than their U.S. CS departments in all categories.

Table F2 summarizes faculty hiring this past year. There were 245 tenure-track vacancies reported in 2010-11 vs. 211 in 2009-10 with more departments reporting in 2009-10. Of these vacant positions, 37.6 percent were reported unfilled, higher than the 29.9 percent in 2009-10. Public and private universities had similar success rates, but the overall U.S. CS success rate was only around 60 percent, while U.S. CE, U.S. I, and Canadian departments did much better. For the first time, we report in Table F2a the reasons why positions went unfilled. We will examine trends on this in subsequent survey reports.

The fraction of women hired into tenure-track positions (Table F3) fell

Table F1. Actual and Anticipated Faculty Size by Position and Department Type

Actual Projected Expected 2-Yr Growth2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

US CS Public Total Average Total Average Total Average # %

TenureTrack 2,485 24.9 2,530 25.3 2,608 26.1 123 4.9%

Teaching 375 3.8 349 3.5 361 3.6 -14 -3.7%

Research 249 2.5 279 2.8 299 3.0 50 20.1%

Postdoc 284 2.8 325 3.3 348 3.5 64 22.5%

Total 3,393 33.9 3,483 34.8 3,616 36.2 223 6.6%

US CS Private

TenureTrack 970 26.9 1,012 28.1 1,043 29.0 73 7.5%

Teaching 146 4.1 151 4.2 154 4.3 8 5.5%

Research 138 3.8 141 3.9 145 4.0 7 5.1%

Postdoc 238 6.6 267 7.4 282 7.8 44 18.5%

Total 1,492 41.4 1,571 43.6 1,624 45.1 132 8.8%

All US CS

TenureTrack 3,455 25.4 3,542 26.0 3,651 26.8 196 5.7%

Teaching 521 3.8 500 3.7 515 3.8 -6 -1.2%

Research 387 2.8 420 3.1 444 3.3 57 14.7%

Postdoc 522 3.8 592 4.4 630 4.6 108 20.7%

Total 4,885 35.9 5,054 37.2 5,240 38.5 355 7.3%

US CE

TenureTrack 157 14.3 162 14.7 165 15.0 8 5.1%

Teaching 16 1.5 17 1.5 19 1.7 3 18.8%

Research 13 1.2 15 1.4 17 1.5 4 30.8%

Postdoc 19 1.7 19 1.7 22 2.0 3 15.8%

Total 205 18.6 213 19.4 223 20.3 18 8.8%

US I

TenureTrack 267 20.5 288 22.2 301 23.2 34 12.7%

Teaching 60 4.6 63 4.8 64 4.9 4 6.7%

Research 33 2.5 36 2.8 39 3.0 6 18.2%

Postdoc 31 2.4 37 2.8 37 2.8 6 19.4%

Total 391 30.1 424 32.6 441 33.9 50 12.8%

Canadian

TenureTrack 487 37.5 497 38.2 502 38.6 15 3.1%

Teaching 72 5.5 73 5.6 73 5.6 1 1.4%

Research 14 1.1 14 1.1 14 1.1 0 0.0%

Postdoc 84 6.5 78 6.0 78 6.0 -6 -7.1%

Total 657 50.5 662 50.9 667 51.3 10 1.5%

Grand Total

TenureTrack 4,366 25.2 4,489 25.9 4,619 26.7 253 5.8%

Teaching 669 3.9 653 3.8 671 3.9 2 0.3%

Research 447 2.6 485 2.8 514 3.0 67 15.0%

Postdoc 656 3.8 726 4.2 767 4.4 111 16.9%

Total 6,138 35.5 6,353 36.7 6,571 38.0 433 7.1%



Table F5. Faculty Losses

Died 8

Retired 67

Took Academic Position Elsewhere 52

Took Nonacademic Position 34

Remained, but Changed to Part Time 12

Other 36

Unknown 4

Total 213

sharply in 2010-11, to 21.3 percent from 26.5 percent in 2009-10. The 2010-11 level is similar to that of 2007-08. However, this year’s fraction of new female hires still outpaces the 18.4 percent of new female Ph.D.s produced this past year. The fraction of women among new teaching faculty also fell this year compared with 2009-10. However, the fraction of women among new postdocs rose again this year, from 19.5 percent to 23.6 percent. This year there was a large increase in the percentage of new faculty members whose race/ethnicity is unknown (to 25.2 percent from 5.6 percent). This makes race/ethnicity comparisons with last year less reliable (Table F4).

There was a slight increase in the overall number of faculty losses this year, due to an increased number of persons taking positions elsewhere (either academic or nonacademic). No significant change in retirements is yet evident (Table F5).

This year there was an increase in the overall fraction of women at the

associate professor rank (Table F6), to 17.9 percent from 15.9 percent last year. The overall fraction of female assistant professors dropped slightly, from 25.8 percent to 25.3 percent, and the overall fraction of full professors held steady (12.7 percent). The overall fraction of women among teaching faculty is slightly lower this year (27.0 percent vs. 27.8 percent), while the fraction of women among both research faculty and postdocs is quite a bit higher this year (24.2 percent vs. 19.0 percent for research faculty and 21.1 percent vs. 15.8 percent for postdocs). For the second year in a row, there is a larger fraction of Whites and a smaller fraction of Asians and Non-resident Aliens among current assistant professors this year compared with last year (Table F7).

For next year, reporting departments forecast a 2.8 percent growth in tenure-track faculty, similar to what was forecast last year. The largest forecast growth is in U.S. I departments. Departments overall also forecast a large increase in postdocs

Table F2. Vacant Positions 2010-2011 by Position and Department Type

Tried to fill

Filled Unfilled % Unfilled

US CS Public

TenureTrack 120 70 50 41.7%

Teaching 81 72 9 11.1%

Research 92 83 9 9.8%

Postdoc 123 107 16 13.0%

Total 416 332 84 20.2%

US CS Private


Teaching 34 33 1 2.9%

Research 29 28 1 3.4%

Postdoc 75 74 1 1.3%

Total 222 187 35 15.8%

All US CS

TenureTrack 204 122 82 40.2%

Teaching 115 105 10 8.7%

Research 121 111 10 8.3%

Postdoc 198 181 17 8.6%

Total 638 519 119 18.7%

US CE


Teaching 11 11 0 0.0%

Research 10 10 0 0.0%

Postdoc 4 4 0 0.0%

Total 42 37 5 11.9%

US I


Teaching 5 5 0 0.0%

Research 27 26 1 3.7%

Postdoc 20 17 3 15.0%

Total 68 60 8 11.8%

Canadian


Teaching 1 0 1 100.0%

Research 0 0 0 0.0%

Postdoc 16 16 0 0.0%

Total 25 23 2 8.0%

Grand Total

TenureTrack 245 153 92 37.6%

Teaching 132 121 11 8.3%

Research 158 147 11 7.0%

Postdoc 238 218 20 8.4%Total 773 639 134 17.3%

Table F2a. Reasons Positions Left Unfilled

Reason # Reported

% of Reasons

Didn’t find a good fit 30 36.6%

Offers turned down 28 34.1%

Technically vacant, not filled for admin reasons 14 17.1%

Hiring in progress 8 9.8%

Other 2 2.4%

Total Reasons Provided 82

Table F3. Gender of Newly Hired Faculty

Tenure-Track Teaching Research Postdoc Total

Male 203 78.7% 61 75.3% 51 85.0% 110 76.4% 425 78.3%

Female 55 21.3% 20 24.7% 9 15.0% 34 23.6% 118 21.7%

Unknown 0 0 0 0 0Total 258 81 60 144 543

Table F4. Ethnicity of Newly Hired Faculty

Tenure-Track Teaching Research Postdoc Total

Nonresident Alien 34 13.6% 8 10.0% 11 18.3% 51 35.7% 104 19.5%

American Indian / Alaska Native 2 0.8% 2 2.5% 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 5 0.9%

Asian 40 16.0% 6 7.5% 8 13.3% 29 20.3% 83 15.6%

Black or African-American 6 2.4% 2 2.5% 1 1.7% 2 1.4% 11 2.1%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

White 98 39.2% 58 72.5% 31 51.7% 41 28.7% 228 42.8%

Multiracial, not Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Hispanic, any race 7 2.8% 1 1.3% 2 3.3% 8 5.6% 18 3.4%

Resident, race/ethnic unknown 63 25.2% 3 3.8% 6 10.0% 12 8.4% 84 15.8%

Total known residency 250 100.0% 80 100.0% 60 100.0% 143 100.0% 533 100.0%

Residency Unknown 8 1 0 1 10Total 258 81 60 144 543



Table F6. Gender of Current Faculty

Full Associate Assistant Teaching Research Postdoc Total

Male 1,837 87.3% 1,331 82.1% 602 74.7% 513 73.0% 373 75.8% 508 78.9% 5,164 81.0%

Female 268 12.7% 291 17.9% 204 25.3% 190 27.0% 119 24.2% 136 21.1% 1,208 19.0%

Unknown 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Total 2,105 1,622 806 703 493 645 6,374

Table F7. Ethnicity of Current Faculty

Full Associate Assistant Teaching Research Postdoc Total

Nonresident Alien 12 0.6% 37 2.5% 97 12.7% 14 2.1% 86 19.1% 205 35.8% 451 7.6%

American Indian / Alaska Native 2 0.1% 4 0.3% 3 0.4% 7 1.1% 0 0.0% 3 0.5% 19 0.3%

Asian 415 21.0% 415 27.8% 196 25.7% 50 7.6% 57 12.7% 111 19.4% 1,244 21.0%

Black or African-American 12 0.6% 21 1.4% 23 3.0% 22 3.3% 3 0.7% 2 0.3% 83 1.4%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1 0.1% 3 0.2% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 6 0.1%

White 1,446 73.2% 924 61.8% 393 51.5% 536 81.5% 262 58.2% 200 35.0% 3,761 63.6%

Multiracial, not Hispanic 3 0.2% 3 0.2% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 8 0.1%

Hispanic, any race 33 1.7% 35 2.3% 25 3.3% 16 2.4% 13 2.9% 15 2.6% 137 2.3%

Resident, race/ethnic unknown 51 2.6% 52 3.5% 25 3.3% 12 1.8% 27 6.0% 36 6.3% 203 3.4%

Total known residency 1,975 100% 1,494 100% 763 100% 658 100% 450 100% 572 100% 5,912 100%

Residency Unknown 130 128 43 45 43 73 462

Total 2,105 1,622 806 703 493 645 6,374

Table R1. Total Expenditure from External Sources for Computing Research

Percentile of Department Averages

Department Type

# Depts 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

US CS Public 89 $353,575 $1,589,069 $3,985,530 $8,742,962 $14,174,188

US CS Private 34 $679,354 $2,207,404 $3,961,312 $6,794,415 $13,652,591

US CE 6 $2,254,241

US Information 13 $672,550 $1,038,805 $3,418,272 $4,611,649 $10,886,456

Canadian 9 $1,268,200

Figure R1. Research Expenditures Normalized by Tenure-Track Size

CRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure R2. Research Expenditures Normalized by Tenure-Track + Research Faculty + Postdoctorates


(more than 10 percent), and a healthy 8.5 percent increase in research faculty for next year.

Research Expenditures (Table R1; Figures R1-R2)

Table R1 shows the department’s total expenditure (including indirect costs or “overhead” as stated on

project budgets) from external sources of support. Figures R1 and R2 show the per capita expenditure, where capitation is computed two ways. The first (Figure R1) is relative to the number of tenure-track faculty members. The second (Figure R2) is relative to researchers and postdocs as well as tenure-track faculty. Canadian

levels are shown in Canadian dollars. The U.S. CS data for public institutions indicate that the larger the department, the more external funding is received by the department (both in total and per capita). Average research expenditures at private institutions are much less affected by the size of the department. Though

the range at U.S. public universities is much greater than that at U.S. private universities, there is no difference in the median research expenditures overall among U.S. public and U.S. private universities.



Graduate Student Support (Tables G1-G2; Figures G1-G3)

Table G1 shows the number of graduate students supported as full-time students as of fall 2011, further categorized as teaching assistants (TAs), research assistants (RAs), and full-support fellows, and also shows the split between those on institutional vs. external funds. The number of TAs on institutional funds in CS departments decreased 3 percent this

year, but this is a lower rate than the decrease in number of departments reporting. A similar situation exists in total RA support; this is coupled with a significant increase in the fraction of RAs supported on external funds. The number of full-support fellows rose with respect to both institutional fund and external fund support. U.S. CE and U.S. I programs each show significant drops in the number of supported RAs, despite an increased number of departments reporting this

year. Canadian numbers are down as befits the decrease in number of departments reporting this year.

Table G2 shows the distribution of stipends for TAs, RAs, and full-support fellows. U.S. CS data are further broken down in this table by public and private institution, and the higher stipends at private institutions are evident. Figures G1-G3 further break down the U.S. CS data by the size of department and the geographic location of the university. Larger

departments tend to offer higher stipends, though for full-support fellows this difference doesn’t become very visible until the department size is above 20. Departments located in larger population centers also tend to pay higher stipends to TAs and RAs, as would be expected. The data for full-support fellows exhibit no clear trend relative to locale.

Table G1. Graduate Students Supported as Full-Time Students by Department Type

On Institutional Funds On External Funds Total

Department Type

# Dept

Teaching Assistants

Research Assistants

Full-Support Fellows

Teaching Assistants

Research Assistants


US CS Public 100 2,246 31.1% 753 10.4% 288 4.0% 7 0.1% 3,616 50.0% 319 4.4% 7,229

US CS Private 36 729 24.7% 286 9.7% 207 7.0% 17 0.6% 1,489 50.5% 223 7.6% 2,951

US CS Total 136 2,975 29.2% 1,039 10.2% 495 4.9% 24 0.2% 5,105 50.1% 542 5.3% 10,180

US CE 11 75 29.2% 12 4.7% 7 2.7% 0 0.0% 157 61.1% 6 2.3% 257

US I 13 82 28.1% 93 31.8% 16 5.5% 0 0.0% 76 26.0% 25 8.6% 292

Canadian 13 311 31.5% 210 21.3% 154 15.6% 0 0.0% 217 22.0% 95 9.6% 987

Grand Total 173 3,443 29.4% 1,354 11.6% 672 5.7% 24 0.2% 5,555 47.4% 668 5.7% 11,716

Table G2. Fall 2011 Academic-Year Graduate Stipends by Department Type and Support Type

Teaching Assistantships

Percentiles of Department Averages

Department Type # Depts 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

US CS Public 93 $10,528 $13,473 $15,751 $17,350 $20,026

US CS Private 28 $9,953 $17,426 $20,223 $24,255 $28,210

US CE 9 $16,015

US Information 9 $18,500

Canadian 9 $17,000

Research Assistantships



US CS Public 92 $12,000 $14,813 $16,401 $18,816 $21,313

US CS Private 33 $17,046 $18,133 $21,100 $25,095 $28,400

US CE 8 $16,737

US Information 10 $10,241 $16,379 $18,834 $21,850 $22,450

Canadian 9 $17,000




US CS Public 56 $13,974 $17,025 $20,251 $25,000 $30,000

US CS Private 24 $17,550 $20,355 $22,752 $28,396 $30,000

US CE 4 $25,000

US Information 8 $23,300

Canadian 3 $21,505



Figure G1. Teaching Assistantship StipendsCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure G2. Research Assistantship StipendsCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure G3. Full Support Fellows StipendsCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Faculty Salaries (Tables S1-S4; Figures S1-S9)

Each department was asked to report individual (but anonymous) faculty salaries if possible; otherwise, the department was requested to provide the minimum, median, mean, and maximum salaries for each rank (full, associate, and assistant professors and non-tenure-track teaching faculty including post-doctorates) and the number of persons at each rank. The salaries are those in effect on January 1, 2012. For U.S. departments, nine-month salaries are reported in U.S. dollars. For Canadian departments, twelve-month salaries are reported in Canadian dollars. Respondents were asked to include salary supplements such as salary monies from endowed positions.

U.S. CS data are reported via the box and whiskers diagrams. Data for CE, I, Canadian and new Ph.D.s are reported via tables. Additional salary tables (S5 to S15) for the U.S. CS departments are provided on pp. 22-24.

The tables and diagrams contain distributional data (first decile, quartiles, and ninth decile) computed from the department averages only. Thus, for example, a table row labeled “50” or the median line in a diagram is the median of the averages for the departments that reported within the stratum (the number of such departments reporting is shown in the “depts” row). It therefore is not a true median of all of the salaries. Those departments reporting individual salaries were provided more comprehensive distributional information based on individual salaries in January 2012. This year, 88 percent of those reporting salary data provided salaries at the individual level.

We also report salary data based on time in rank, for meaningful comparison of individual or departmental faculty salaries with national averages. We report associate professor salaries for time in rank of 7 years or less, and of more than 7 years. For full professors, we report time in rank of 7 years or less, 8 to 15 years, and more than 15 years.

Overall, the median of the reported U.S. CS average salaries increased between 1.3 and 6.6 percent, depending on tenure-track rank, and 3.3 percent for non-tenure-track teaching faculty. Full professor salaries had the widest variance, with 1.3 percent for full professors in rank 8-15 years and 6.6 percent for full professors in rank more than 15 years. Assistant professor salaries increased 2 percent and associate professor salary increases ranged from 2.4 to 3.3 percent. The median of average salaries in I departments increased 2 percent for assistant professors, 0 to 1 percent for associate professors, and 2 to 5 percent for full professors, depending on years in rank. For CE departments, assistant professor increases were 3.7 percent, associate professors in the 0 to 3 percent range, and full professors in the minus-2 to plus-2 percent range. Canadian salary



changes were 3.7 percent for assistant professors, 1 to 9 percent for associate professors, and 4 to 11 percent for full professors. The median of average salaries for new Ph.D.s in tenure-track positions at U.S. departments (CS, CE and I combined) increased 4 percent. Because of the small number of departments reporting, comparative salary comments for CE, I and Canadian departments should be viewed with caution.

In all faculty categories, salaries in U.S. CS departments at private institutions tend to be higher than their counterparts at public institutions. Larger departments also tend to have higher salaries than do smaller departments, though for

Associate Professors in rank more than 8 years the trend is less clear at both public and private institutions. For full professors at private institutions, the trend is less clear, and for postdocs there is little difference in either public or private institutions as a function of size.

Public universities in larger cities tend to have higher salaries for tenure-track faculty than do their counterparts in smaller locales, except for full professors in rank more than 15 years. It is difficult to make any statements about private universities relative to locale, since there are very few such departments not located in large cities that reported salary data.

Concluding ObservationsComputing enrollments at all

degree levels remain strong, and undergraduate enrollments continue to exhibit healthy increases. Within this context, the continued decline in the fraction of doctoral graduates who took tenure-track positions available at North American Ph.D.-granting departments, coupled with a significant increase in the fraction of such positions that went unfilled in U.S. CS departments, is worrisome. The somewhat improved U.S. economy appears to have made more industry positions available, putting further pressure on the ability to attract the best candidates. Hopefully the overall candidate pool

is sufficiently qualified to meet the collective needs of the community, but these hiring data will bear watching.

Participating DepartmentsU.S. CS Public (105

departments): Arizona State, Auburn, City University of New York, Graduate Center, Clemson, College of William & Mary, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado State, Florida International, George Mason, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kent State, LSU, Michigan State, Michigan Technological, Mississippi State, Montana State, Naval Postgraduate School, New Jersey Institute of Technology, New Mexico State, North Carolina State, North Dakota State,

Table S1. Nine-month Salaries, 8 Responses of 31 US Computer Engineering Departments, Percentiles from Department Averages

Full Professor Associate Assistant Non-Tenure Track

In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given Teach Research Postdoc

Depts 9 10 8 2 9 10 3 10 7 5 6

Indiv 42 30 16 9 30 36 8 34 23 20 14

10 $111,575 * $87,082 $82,225

25 $113,775 * $93,031 $82,353

50 $142,564 $132,902 $111,304 * $93,948 $97,426 $101,028 $88,945 $81,170 $71,230 $45,816

75 $142,781 * $108,090 $93,664

90 $167,598 * $121,024 $99,746

Table S2. Nine-month Salaries, 13 Responses of 23 US Information Departments, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 10 13 12 0 11 14 0 14 12 10 10

Indiv 23 46 50 0 42 76 0 86 82 43 36

10 $95,794 $106,740 $112,364 $76,498 $69,843 $72,241 $41,723 $35,974 $6,752

25 $117,330 $113,949 $122,944 $82,498 $85,078 $76,563 $60,639 $68,999 $40,749

50 $138,381 $141,355 $136,441 $101,355 $102,685 $89,279 $71,180 $86,463 $48,125

75 $180,858 $160,901 $142,724 $106,473 $107,445 $96,317 $85,065 $110,046 $55,083

90 $250,168 $166,344 $161,356 $126,364 $110,610 $99,562 $98,762 $126,344 $59,533

Table S3. Nine-month Salaries, 11 Responses of 30 Canadian Departments, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 11 10 10 1 11 11 1 10 9 3 7

Indiv 57 53 60 2 61 133 1 52 36 5 64

10 $132,106 $130,776 $114,076 * $111,197 $101,224 * $84,993

25 $148,464 $146,148 $136,334 * $115,734 $109,625 * $90,513

50 $166,042 $153,362 $153,530 * $127,752 $126,331 * $101,217 $84,089 $50,439 $47,325

75 $191,274 $164,121 $165,715 * $135,084 $133,559 * $110,763

90 $205,397 $178,105 $172,932 * $149,046 $139,857 * $114,313

Table S4. Nine-month Salaries for New PhDs

US (CS, CE, and Info Combined) Canadian

Tenure-Track

Non-ten Teaching

Non-ten Research Postdoc Tenure-

TrackNon-ten Teaching

Non-ten Research Postdoc

Depts 43 12 10 40 2 0 0 4

Indiv 70 16 14 124 2 0 0 23

10 $80,274 $14,643 $4,000 $36,174 *

25 $86,000 $51,250 $56,988 $42,215 *

50 $90,000 $65,296 $68,050 $49,699 * $48,905

75 $95,000 $71,500 $76,925 $59,427 *

90 $97,960 $91,140 $94,625 $68,641 *


See pp. 22-24 for additional salary tables (S5 - S15) covering U.S. CS departments.


Figure S1. US CS Department Average Salary, Full Professor in Rank 16+ years


2010-2011 Taulbee SurveyOhio State, Ohio, Old Dominion, Oregon State, Penn State, Portland State, Purdue, Rutgers, Southern Illinois Carbondale, Stony Brook (SUNY), Texas A&M, Texas Tech, the Universities at Albany and Buffalo (SUNY); Universities of Alabama (Birmingham and Tuscaloosa), Arizona, Arkansas at Little Rock, California (Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz), Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado (Boulder), Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois (Chicago and Urbana-Champaign), Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana at Lafayette, Maryland, Maryland Baltimore County, Massachusetts (Amherst, Boston), Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri (Columbia), Nebraska (Omaha, Lincoln), Nevada (Las Vegas, Reno), New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (Chapel Hill, Charlotte), North Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Florida, Tennessee (Knoxville), Texas (Arlington, Austin, Dallas), Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin (Madison), and Wyoming; Virginia Commonwealth, Virginia Tech, Washington State, Wayne State, Western Michigan, and Wright State.

U.S. CS Private (37 departments): Boston University, Brown University, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western Reserve, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, DePaul, Drexel, Duke, Florida Institute of Technology, Harvard, Illinois Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins, Lehigh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York, Northeastern, Northwestern, Pace, Polytechnic, Princeton, Rensselaer, Rice, Rochester Institute of Technology, Stanford, Stevens Institute of Technology, Toyota Technological Institute, Tufts; the Universities of Chicago, Notre Dame, Pennsylvania, Rochester, and Tulsa; Washington University in St. Louis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Yale.

U.S. Computer Engineering (13 departments): Boston University, Florida Institute of Technology, Mississippi State, North Carolina State, Northeastern, Ohio State, Santa Clara; Universities of California (Santa Cruz), Illinois (Urbana Champaign), Iowa, New Mexico, and Southern California; Virginia Tech.

U.S. Information Programs (16 departments): Cornell, Drexel, Indiana, Penn State, Syracuse, University at Albany (SUNY); Universities of California (Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz), Maryland Baltimore County, Michigan, North Carolina

(Chapel Hill), Pittsburgh, Texas (Austin), and Washington.

Canadian (13 departments): Concordia, McGill, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Simon Fraser; Universities of British Columbia, Calgary, Manitoba, Ottawa, Saskatchewan, Toronto, Waterloo, and Western Ontario; York.

1The title of the survey honors the late Orrin E. Taulbee of the University of Pittsburgh, who conducted these surveys for the Computer Science Board until 1984, with retrospective annual data going back to 1970.

2Information (I) programs included here are Information Science, Information Systems, Information Technology, Informatics, and related disciplines with a strong computing component. In fall 2008, the first year these programs were surveyed as part of Taulbee, surveys were sent to CRA members, the CRA Deans group members, and participants in the iSchools Caucus (www.ischools.org) that met the criteria of granting Ph.D.s and being located in North America. Other I-programs who meet these criteria and would like to participate in the survey in future

years are invited to contact [email protected] for inclusion.

3Classification of the population of an institution’s locale is in accordance with the Carnegie Classification database. Large cities are those with population >= 250,000. Mid-size cities have population between 100,000 and 250,000. Town/rural populations are less than 100,000.

4Carla Brodley, Susanne Hambrusch, Jim Kurose, CRA Executive Director Andy Bernat and the authors comprised the Surveys Committee that made the recommendations for the new stratifications.

5All ethnicity tables: Ethnic breakdowns are drawn from guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Education.

6All faculty tables: The survey makes no distinction between faculty specializing in CS vs. CE programs. Every effort is made to minimize the inclusion of faculty in electrical engineering who are not computer engineers.

Figure S3. US CS Department Average Salary, Full Professor in Rank 0-7 years







Figure S9. US CS Department Average Salary, PostdoctoratesCRA Taulbee Survey 2011


Figure S5. US CS Department Average Salary, Associate Professor in Rank 0-7 years


Figure S8. US CS Department Average Salary, Non-Tenure Track Research Facility


Figure S6. US CS Department Average Salary, Associate ProfessorCRA Taulbee Survey 2011

Figure S7. US CS Department Average Salary, Non-Tenure Track Teaching Facility


Table S5. Nine-month Salaries, 137 Responses of 184 US CS Departments, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 106 114 112 8 98 123 10 126 113 67 71Indiv 505 517 548 58 305 828 79 626 473 379 46010 117,072 115,636 102,415 87,097 91,945 94,557 81,956 51,596 47,766 39,98125 129,385 126,338 114,356 93,915 97,391 97,994 87,131 58,337 68,019 45,05050 149,576 140,096 131,337 142,907 100,241 104,999 104,289 91,793 68,713 86,865 49,97575 166,752 161,762 146,736 111,284 111,082 119,662 95,709 81,053 102,315 57,47590 183,279 177,714 160,674 118,262 119,551 159,143 101,029 96,895 118,755 61,651

THE CRA SURVEYS COMMITTEE WANTS TO HEAR FROM YOU!

FEEDBACK ON THE NEW TAULBEE

REPORTING IS WELCOME

LET US KNOW WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T

EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO:

[email protected]; [email protected]


Table S6. Nine-month Salaries, 102 Responses of 133 US CS Public (All Public), Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

Teach Research Postdoc

Depts 80 89 84 7 79 93 8 94 84 46 53

Indiv 349 376 403 54 234 578 69 465 334 255 260

10 $117,553 $115,471 $100,254 $87,143 $90,212 $81,113 $51,361 $41,974 $38,635

25 $128,294 $124,853 $111,525 $92,422 $95,494 $85,937 $56,439 $61,274 $44,625

50 $146,267 $138,124 $127,642 $145,650 $98,134 $102,280 $104,289 $89,978 $64,624 $80,666 $49,041

75 $158,543 $149,308 $140,699 $109,023 $108,981 $93,306 $79,050 $100,264 $54,504

90 $173,997 $170,364 $153,424 . $116,907 $115,137 . $99,658 $96,405 $116,820 $60,546

Table S7. Nine-month Salaries, 35 Responses of 51 US CS Private (All Private), Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 26 25 28 1 19 30 2 32 29 21 18

Indiv 156 141 145 4 71 250 10 161 139 124 200

10 $114,467 $115,132 $110,692 * $86,689 $96,825 * $88,498 $55,050 $70,234 $41,772

25 $139,295 $130,466 $131,611 * $95,665 $103,565 * $91,768 $66,857 $79,500 $47,439

50 $163,611 $165,674 $146,564 * $111,078 $110,461 * $95,694 $77,425 $94,225 $55,455

75 $188,736 $181,824 $158,555 * $118,796 $120,997 * $100,838 $90,533 $111,620 $61,194

90 $200,218 $194,790 $173,036 * $125,900 $138,759 * $103,306 $105,850 $129,802 $66,374

Table S8. Nine-month Salaries, 28 Responses of US CS Public With <=15 Tenure-Track Faculty, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 17 20 18 1 21 22 3 21 19 4 5

Indiv 38 39 32 4 55 67 13 66 51 7 7

10 $101,293 $103,480 $91,358 * $89,514 $83,196 $74,100 $43,000

25 $117,949 $116,815 $99,570 * $93,711 $92,139 $81,214 $52,653

50 $134,991 $126,961 $108,827 * $98,134 $98,702 $112,329 $87,024 $61,256 $87,650 $49,500

75 $149,732 $145,534 $126,650 * $113,329 $105,506 $90,633 $68,713

90 $173,706 $184,026 $143,480 * $117,777 $117,178 $97,029 $75,867

Table S9. Nine-month Salaries, 36 Responses of US CS Public With 10 < Tenure-Track Faculty <=20, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 29 32 27 1 30 33 3 33 27 9 10

Indiv 76 69 64 5 78 135 17 113 75 16 22

10 $115,531 $108,313 $99,495 * $89,103 $89,599 $81,458 $44,550 $27,525

25 $124,230 $117,469 $101,801 * $93,915 $94,643 $86,024 $51,739 $35,805

50 $135,811 $125,925 $114,000 * $98,017 $98,897 $97,169 $88,000 $59,442 $80,301 $48,838

75 $149,732 $145,055 $129,506 * $108,277 $105,191 $91,917 $68,713 $53,138

90 $174,038 $170,387 $147,472 * $116,631 $110,641 $93,465 $76,174 $85,338



In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 29 32 31 2 27 32 2 33 29 15 17

Indiv 88 96 100 16 74 168 18 126 101 72 47

10 $115,993 $111,343 $102,549 * $85,879 $89,845 * $81,654 $51,500 $43,459 $29,450

25 $125,934 $122,618 $110,649 * $89,623 $94,033 * $84,925 $54,260 $60,378 $40,382

50 $138,117 $134,838 $126,536 * $94,948 $99,518 * $88,722 $60,000 $65,700 $49,041

75 $158,446 $146,317 $135,039 * $102,700 $105,919 * $92,047 $71,492 $100,000 $57,455

90 $182,907 $150,491 $153,935 * $106,941 $110,512 * $96,562 $82,431 $117,667 $67,114




In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 27 29 27 2 26 30 1 31 27 18 22

Indiv 121 124 135 15 86 186 9 148 119 102 93

10 $121,302 $122,306 $103,004 * $84,456 $91,899 * $80,095 $52,544 $38,849 $38,668

25 $130,418 $128,574 $111,838 * $91,533 $93,928 * $83,389 $56,617 $47,708 $43,573

50 $150,563 $137,425 $129,014 * $98,612 $102,796 * $90,123 $71,015 $65,895 $49,211

75 $158,731 $150,511 $152,572 * $109,178 $110,837 * $93,211 $90,590 $99,586 $57,951

90 $177,200 $171,633 $165,933 * $113,951 $115,916 * $101,476 $102,471 $116,909 $60,147

Table S12. Nine-month Salaries, 29 Responses of US CS Public With Tenure-Track Faculty >30, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 25 27 27 4 22 28 3 29 27 21 23

Indiv 182 196 210 34 75 266 38 215 146 150 174

10 $140,956 $125,626 $120,011 $85,124 $97,424 $87,388 $57,791 $44,377 $41,286

25 $149,092 $135,300 $126,521 $96,967 $99,450 $90,740 $63,664 $70,412 $46,000

50 $154,632 $141,355 $134,655 $142,907 $105,224 $107,913 $103,636 $93,056 $74,043 $82,874 $49,381

75 $166,757 $163,325 $143,948 $112,237 $111,619 $97,570 $89,256 $101,160 $57,116

90 $174,658 $171,530 $153,637 $118,826 $118,960 $100,788 $98,481 $127,447 $64,657

Table S13. Nine-month Salaries, 19 Responses of US CS Private With <=20 Tenure-Track Faculty, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 11 11 13 1 9 16 2 18 15 10 9

Indiv 37 57 38 4 16 70 10 62 53 60 34

10 $111,619 $104,567 $106,653 * $95,598 * $88,080 $44,019 $71,575

25 $115,276 $131,040 $127,602 * $103,448 * $91,771 $62,668 $79,750

50 $161,272 $165,667 $149,250 * $112,747 $108,409 * $95,594 $74,000 $94,203 $55,243

75 $182,250 $189,771 $158,364 * $119,103 * $100,850 $82,046 $113,250

90 $190,791 $191,201 $169,862 * $142,775 * $108,143 $98,395 $140,779

Table S14. Nine-month Salaries, 17 Responses of US CS Private With 15 < Tenure-Track Faculty <=30, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 13 13 13 0 7 15 0 16 14 11 13

Indiv 65 70 53 0 15 80 0 65 47 59 91

10 $140,623 $130,320 $136,547 * $100,749 $90,142 $44,643 $80,774 $44,571

25 $155,070 $165,670 $140,235 * $105,604 $92,222 $66,643 $92,184 $51,625

50 $182,250 $171,255 $148,769 $114,357 $111,542 $98,025 $78,695 $103,635 $57,475

75 $194,014 $190,288 $163,250 * $121,096 $100,575 $92,947 $118,649 $62,781

90 $225,408 $196,535 $173,073 * $143,450 $102,318 $106,528 $140,716 $69,500

Table S15. Nine-month Salaries, 15 Responses of US CS Private With Tenure-Track Faculty >20, Percentiles from Department Averages


In rank 16+ yrs

In rank 8-15 yrs

In rank 0-7 years

Years not given

In rank 8+ years

In rank 0-7 years


Depts 15 14 15 0 10 14 0 14 14 11 9

Indiv 119 84 107 0 55 180 0 99 86 64 166

10 $127,910 $114,711 $113,132 $92,533 $92,246 $86,449 $65,866 $63,088

25 $140,381 $129,879 $133,496 $95,351 $105,098 $91,495 $74,561 $78,800

50 $164,583 $165,789 $146,482 $109,318 $114,761 $98,723 $85,635 $103,635 $57,475

75 $193,512 $180,519 $161,500 $124,111 $124,766 $101,288 $94,785 $111,789

90 $220,622 $220,013 $183,570 $131,961 $137,265 $103,166 $106,038 $129,802


Professional Opportunities

Illinois Wesleyan UniversityDepartment of Mathematics and Computer ScienceVisitingFacultyMember,ComputerScience

Pending final administrative approval, the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at Illinois Wesleyan University invites applications for a one-year faculty positions in Computer Science. Employment will begin in August 2012, and the teaching load will be six courses per year. A graduate degree in Computer Science or Computer Engineering is required; a PhD is preferred. Candidates must be able to teach in the core CS curriculum, including a course in software development, which is one of two writing courses in the major. Preference may be given to candidates who are able to teach informatics or human/computer interaction.

Illinois Wesleyan University is a highly selective undergraduate university of approximately 2,050 students located in Bloomington, Illinois, a community of about 120,000. The Department of Mathematics and Computer Science is located in the Center for Natural Science Learning and Research, a $25,000,000 facility opened in 1995.

Candidates for the position should submit a letter of application, curriculum vitae, teaching statement, and have three letters of recommendation sent separately to: [email protected]. Review of applications will begin on March 20, 2012 and will continue until the position is filled. Questions can be directed to Joerg Tiede, Program Coordinator, [email protected] is an Equal Opportunity Employer Committed to a Diverse Work Force.Please find further information at http://www.iwu.edu/iwujobs/

IMT Institute for Advanced Studies Lucca TenuredFacultyPosition

IMT Institute for Advanced Studies Lucca (www.imtlucca.it) has opened an international scouting procedure to recruit for a tenured faculty position in the following fields:

Computer Science and Engineering, Large Scale Data Mining, Graph Theory, Mathematical Statistics, Machine Learning

We will consider highly qualified candidates with a strong theoretical background in computer science, physics, statistics, information science, engineering, or mathematics, with an orientation towards research on processing huge amounts of complex data in the analysis of technical, socio economic or biological systems. Candidates must have an excellent record of high-impact international publications. They should have demonstrated remarkable ability in leading research groups, as well as experience in conducting/coordinating international projects.

Preference will be given to candidates performing research at the intersection between algorithms, theory and applications, and who are active in one or more of the following fields: analysis and modeling of massive data structures; graph theory and random structures; analysis and modeling of complex networks; machine learning; data mining; parallel and distributed computation.

Submit your confidential expression of interest at: http://www.imtlucca.it/faculty/positions/professors_positions/2012/application.php

Deadline is May 15th 2012Visit the Institute on YouTube (http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4gE-_2RrB8).

Lafayette CollegeDepartment of Computer ScienceTwoYearVisitingAssistantProfessor

The Computer Science Department invites applications for a two year visiting professor/instructor position starting in August 2012.

For more details about the position, please see:

http://www.cs.lafayette.edu/visitorLafayette College is a most competitive,

private liberal-arts college with excellent students and small classes. Nestled in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, the college is 70 miles north of Philadelphia and 70 miles west of New York City. Lafayette College is committed to creating a diverse community: one that is inclusive and responsive, and is supportive of each and all of its faculty, students, and staff.

All members of the College community share a responsibility for creating, maintaining, and developing a learning environment in which difference is valued, equity is sought, and inclusiveness is practiced. Lafayette College is an equal opportunity employer and encourages applications from women and minorities.

LogicBlox, Inc.ComputerScientist

To conduct research & development. To extend company’s high-performance deductive (Datalog) database systems to take advantage of parallel resources. Perform foundational research into methods supporting effective & efficient dynamic scale-out in the cloud-context using declarative programming techniques. Design & develop distributed software using:

• Datalog;• C++ & scripting languages including

Perl/Python; and• UNIX Shell programmingRequirement: Ph.D. degree in Comp

Science; Must have demonstrated ability to perform stated duties gained through academic coursework/previous work experience. Job opportunity may be performed remotely from any location within the U.S. Competitive salary.

Apply by resume to: HR, LogicBlox, Inc.1349 W. Peachtree St NW, Ste 1880Atlanta, GA 30309Attn: Job DZ

Northeastern University College of Computer and Information Science & College of Social Sciences and HumanitiesAssistant,Associateand/orFullProfessors

Northeastern University seeks outstanding faculty members for interdisciplinary positions in fields related to broad issues of critical importance to cybersecurity and cybercrime. In addition to individual applications, we welcome inquiries from candidates interested in proposing an interdisciplinary cluster hire in response to this opportunity. Applications are invited from any discipline that contributes to an understanding of the causes and impacts of cybercrime, particularly its social, economic, or political consequences.

Faculty members appointed in this area will be eligible for tenure in either the College of Computer and Information Science or the College of Social Sciences and Humanities, depending on the candidate’s specific field and background. The new colleagues are expected to work with faculty members across different colleges, in order to develop and enhance scholarship and interdisciplinary funding opportunities at the intersection of traditional disciplines.

Qualifications Candidates must have a PhD or

equivalent terminal degree at the beginning of the appointment and a record of

scholarship and teaching commensurate with rank.

Full or Associate professors with excellent track records of published work are preferred; exceptional Assistant Professors will also be considered.

Additional Information Northeastern University has a strong

international presence in the field of security studies and is committed to strengthening this position. Northeastern recently established the George J. Kostas Research Institute for Homeland Security, a secure, state-of-the-art research Center, designed to support private-public multidisciplinary research teams in the technical, legal, ethical, and policy-related issues associated with cybersecurity, resilience of critical systems and infrastructure, and community resilience. Northeastern is also one of the partner institutions for the International Secure Systems Laboratory. The university is a National Security Agency Center of Excellence in Information Assurance Research and Education. It hosts a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence for the Awareness and Location of Explosives Related Threats (ALERT), and has been awarded a multi-million dollar research grant (VOTERS) for developing critical infrastructure sensing technology.

Northeastern University is a nationally-ranked research university with a strong urban mission, a global perspective, and an emphasis on interdisciplinary scholarship. Its signature Cooperative Education Program, study-abroad opportunities and its “Dialogues of Civilization” program provide experiential learning opportunities for its 20,000 undergraduate and graduate students.

How to Apply. Submission is online via http://www.northeastern.edu/hrm/ (select “Careers at Northeastern”). Screening of applications will continue until the position is filled.

Rice UniversityMulti-Robot Systems LabPostdoctoralResearcher

The Multi-Robot Systems Lab at Rice University (http://mrsl.rice.edu) is looking to hire a postdoctoral researcher to enhance their research efforts in robotics. Any strong candidate is welcome to apply, but there are two profiles that would mesh well with our current projects:

1. A candidate who is strong in algorithmic robotics; ideally with a background in distributed algorithms, graph algorithms, and computational geometry. This person would still need to be interested in grounded robotic problems, and be able to write software in addition to proofs.

2. A candidate who is strong in experimental robotics, perhaps with an interest in manipulation. This person would be primarily responsible for developing algorithms and infrastructure for managing large-scale exploration experiments with at least 100 robots. This will require proficiency in high-level distributed algorithm design and analysis, low-level programming in C/C++, and even the occasional use of a soldering iron.

Either type of candidate will have a Ph.D. in Computer Science or a related field and a strong enthusiasm for robotics work. We require excellent analytical skills, software engineering experience, and excellent writing skills.

The Multi-Robot Systems Lab is directed by Prof. James McLurkin and provides a stimulating working environment. Rice University is consistently rated as one of the best places to work in academia. The duration of the position is one year and can be renewed for a second year.



Compensation is competitive and commensurate with experience.

To apply, send a resume to James McLurkin ([email protected]).

Samsung R&D, Computer Science LabOperatingSystemInternship

Samsung R&D, Computer Science Lab located in San Jose, CA, is currently recruiting summer interns in the area of parallel/scalable operating systems and runtimes.

Position: Intern for the Computer Science Lab

Summary: The Computer Science Lab, within

the Samsung R&D Computer Science Lab, is developing advanced software technologies for next generation many core and multiprocessor environments. Our current focus is on developing a highly scalable operating system for future many core (MIMD) platforms. Our approach is focused on leveraging state-of-the-art secure microkernel technology to provide a platform for a secure, robust and scalable solution that can meet the needs of future Samsung products.

This is an excellent opportunity for participation in state-of-the-art research and technology development with the world’s largest consumer electronics company—striving for technical excellence and thought leadership.

Duties and Responsibilities: As part of this internship we have a

number of work topics of interest. These include, but are not limited to research and development of the following technologies:

• Scalable NUMA-aware memory allocators for many core processors.

• Scalable file system and disk drivers.• Parallel (multithreaded) GUI and

windowing systems.• Scheduling algorithms for many

core that support partitioning and QoS for RT and non-RT tasks. Implementation of scheduling in microkernel and runtime layers.

• Parallel and scalable networking stacks.

• Architecture specific optimizations for AMD x86-based server platforms.

• Porting of Fiasco.OC microkernel to TILERA TILEPro64 many core platform.

• L4Linux virtualization and VMM design for proprietary Fiasco.OC user-land personality.

Necessary Skills/Attributes:• Currently enrolled in a relevant M.Sc.

or Ph.D.• Candidate should be conducting

research in one or more of these areas: operating systems, parallelizing compilers and runtimes.

• Hands-on experience with C/C++ and GNU/Linux-based development.

• Hands-on experience with multithreading and multiprocessing software development.

• A basic understanding of microkernels and monolithic OS designs.

Desirable Skills/Attributes:• Experience with MIMD and many

core (e.g., TILERA, Intel SCC) processors.

• Experience with L4 microkernels and/or general kernel development and low-level systems engineering.

Interested candidates should send their resumes and contact details to Dr. Daniel Waddington—[email protected]

Samsung R&DOperatingSystemsResearcher

Technical professionals are defined by what they create. Samsung has the risk taking corporate culture, strategic R&D investments and global know-how to imagine, develop and market products that

lead the industry. Samsung’s Computer Science Laboratory (CSL), located in the heart of Silicon Valley, San Jose, CA, is currently recruiting world-class researchers who share our “Innovation through Passion” philosophy and thrive in a fast-pace, results-driven environment. Get the best of both worlds - at Samsung’s CSL you will have the freedom and creative environment of corporate research support, coupled with the potential to see your inventions and technology translate to real products and real business needs.

Samsung R&D is recruiting full-time researchers in the area of Operating Systems (OS) for future cyber-physical systems. We are looking for individuals with a passion for systems research, and the desire to follow through from concept to pre-transition prototype.

Position: Full-time Researcher for the Omni-OS Project

Summary: The Systems Research Group is

developing new OS designs that can meet the needs of future computing platforms based on multicore, manycore and cloud technologies. We are currently developing a solution based on L4 microkernel technology that will readily scale from sensors-to-servers, whilst providing advanced support for transparent distributed processing, Quality-of-Service (QoS) guarantees for co-located real-time and best-effort applications, and the “first-class” integration of parallel programming technologies.

We are looking for highly motivated and creative individuals to join the San Jose research team and to augment existing system research expertise. This is an excellent opportunity to join a new team advancing state-of-the-art software technologies for Samsung’s current and future business.

Duties and Responsibilities: • Research and develop micro-kernel

based solutions for next generation products.

• Research and develop innovative technologies to directly address scalability limitations of existing solutions.

• Research and develop ideas around the single-system image concept.

• Research and develop new ideas in OS-level and language-level support for heterogeneous processor platforms.

• Develop ideas around the support of fine-grained resource management and QoS monitoring, policing and adaptation in the context of real-time cyber-physical applications.

• Build proof-of-concept prototypes.• Write research papers and technical

articles publishing work and results in top-tier conferences and journals.

Necessary Skills/Attributes:• Ph.D. in Computer Science or

related area with 0-5 years practical experience.

• A track record in OS research pertaining to the above areas of interest with high-quality publications in the field.

• Hands-on experience with low-level systems prototyping and development.

• Proficiency with C/C++ and Linux-based development including multi-threaded programming.

• Excellent communication and team working skills are required with a willingness to work with an international team to deliver an integrated solution.

• A willingness to learn new things and take on new challenges.

Desirable Skills/Attributes:• Experience with L4 or other similar

microkernel technology (e.g., QNX, Integrity)

• Experience with embedded systems development.

• Experience building OS sub-systems such as memory managers, and task schedulers.

• Experience with implementation of machine-learning algorithms (e.g., GA, simulated annealing, differential evolution) that drive system optimizations.

• Experience with distributed and parallel computing.

• Experience developing on TILE processors and programming with TILE assembly.

• Experience developing on ARM processors and programming with ARM assembly.

Samsung Information Systems America is an Equal Opportunity Employer

Email: [email protected]

Tufts University Computer Science DepartmentFull-TimeLecturer

The Department of Computer Science seeks applications for a full-time Lecturer to teach computer science courses beginning in September 2012.

A Lecturer is a full-time, non-tenure track, member of the faculty who is committed to teaching, advising, curriculum development and other departmental and university service and administration.

A Research I university, Tufts has extensive and highly regarded liberal arts, sciences, and engineering programs that draw outstanding students from around the world with the highest academic achievement and standing.

Tufts is widely respected for its excellent teaching and student-centered approach. The Lecturer position is a full-time partner in the Department of Computer Science’s educational process.

Candidates should hold a PhD and have an exceptional record of classroom instruction and curricular innovation with regard to computer science courses. Lecturers teach courses in the introductory sequence and higher level courses in their area of expertise. The initial appointment is for two years with possibility of longer contracts and the promotion to Senior Lecturer over time.

We request that applications include the following materials (a) letter of

intent (b) a curriculum vitae, (c) a statement of teaching philosophy, (d) names and affiliations of three potential references. All these should be submitted online though academicjobsonline.org

Review of applications will begin February 1, 2012 and continue until the position is filled.

For more information about the department, the position please visit http://www.cs.tufts.edu.



INSPIRE THE NEXT GENERATIONTO BUILD A BETTER WORLD.

The Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), established in collaboration with theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is seeking exceptional faculty members in the area of Information Systems Technology and Design for this new university slated to matriculate its first intake of students in April 2012.

SUTD, the first university in the world with a focuson design accomplished through an integratedmulti-disciplinary curriculum, has a mission to advance knowledge and nurture technically grounded leaders and innovators to serve societal needs. SUTD ischaracterised by a breadth of intellectual perspectives (the “university”), a focus on engineering foundations (“technology”) and an emphasis on innovation andcreativity (“design”). The University’s programmes are based on four pillars leading to separate degreeprogrammes in Architecture and Sustainable Design, Engineering Product Development, Engineering Systemsand Design, and Information Systems Technology and Design. Design, as an academic discipline, cuts across the curriculum and will be the framework for novelresearch and educational programmes.

MIT’s multi-faceted collaboration with SUTD includes the development of new courses and curricula,assistance with the early deployment of courses inSingapore, assistance with faculty and student recruiting, mentoring, and career development, andcollaborating on a major joint research projects, througha major new international design centre and student exchanges. Many of the newly hired SUTD faculty will spend up to year at MIT in a specially tailored programme for collaboration and professional development.

FACULTY MEMBERS (INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN) The qualifications for the faculty position include: an earned doctorate in Computer Science, ComputerEngineering or Information Systems, a strongcommitment to teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels, a demonstrated record of or potential for scholarly research, and excellent communication skills. SUTD invites applicants for tenure-track ortenured appointments in all areas of computer science, computer engineering, and information technology, with particular interest in candidates with expertise in operating systems, databases, networking, security, cryptography, information retrieval, embedded systems, and applied algorithms. Duties include teaching of graduate and undergraduate students, research, supervision of student research, advising undergraduate student projects, and service to SUTD and the community. Faculty will be expected to develop and sustain a strong research programme. Attractive research grant opportunities are also available. Successful candidates can look forward to internationally competitive remuneration, and assistance for relocation to Singapore.

If you want to be part of the founding faculty with a focus on Information Systems Technology and Design, please apply to SUTD at www.sutd.edu.sg

A BETTER WORLD BY DESIGN.

Leslie Pack Kaelbling

MIT’s Professor of Computer Science andEngineering Research Director of theComputer Science and Artificial IntelligenceLaboratory (CSAIL) Coordinator of SUTD’scurriculum development for InformationSystems Technology & Design Pillar

SUTD12033_Leslie BWW234.95 X H355.6mm ISO39L K

While every effort has been taken to carry out instruction to customers satisfactionNO RESPONSIBILITY liablilty will be accepted for errorsCUSTOMERSARE THEREFOREURGEDTO CHECKTHOROUGHLY BEFOREAUTHORISINGPRINT RUNS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OK

1CLC12-013CC288118 GP4 29.03.2012

SUTD12033_Leslie_14x9.25.indd 1 3/29/12 10:51 PM



To apply for the position go to:https://academicjobsonline.org/ajo/

jobs/1366

The United States-Israel Educational FoundationFulbrightIsraelPost-DoctoralFellowshipsforAmericanResearchersinAllAcademicDisciplines

The United States-Israel Educational Foundation (USIEF), the Fulbright commission for Israel, offers 8 fellowships to American post-doctoral researchers in support of work to be carried out at Israeli universities during the course of the 2013/2014-2014/2015 academic years.

The US Post-Doctoral Fellowship Program is open to candidates in all academic disciplines.

Program grants total $40,000, $20,000 per academic year.

Program fellows must be accepted as post-doctoral researchers by Israeli host institutions, which agree to provide them with a standard post-doctoral grant, which they will receive in addition to their Fulbright Fellowship. Thus, the total financial support received by Program Fellows is likely to be in the range of at least $35,000-$40,000 per year.

Applications for 2013/2014-2014/2015 Fulbright Post-Doctoral Fellowships must be submitted to the Council for International Exchange of Scholars by August 1, 2012.

Further details on the program and on application procedures may be found at:

http://www.fulbright.org.il/index.php?id=1317;

http://catalog.cies.org/viewAward.aspx?n=3400;

http://www.cies.org/us_scholars/us_awards/Application.htm.

Potential candidates should contact Ms. Judy Stavsky, Deputy Director, USIEF ([email protected]; +972-3-517-2392) for advice and assistance.

University of San FranciscoDepartment: Arts & SciencesM.S.inAnalytics-FullTimeTermPosition

Job Type: Full-TimeJob Summary: The University of San Francisco invites

applications for a new full-time faculty position in the MS in Analytics program to begin in fall 2012.

This is a new multidisciplinary program offered jointly by the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Management. It focuses on the mathematical, statistical, economic and computational techniques needed to make the data driven decisions that are central to effective business strategies. The faculty member is expected to teach a variety of topics in this program. The position is a one year term appointment, with the possibility of extension or conversion to a tenure track position starting in year two.

Job Responsibilities: The program covers techniques

and approaches from statistics, applied mathematics, data mining and machine learning, econometrics, risk analysis, and operations research. The ideal candidate has significant experience in statistics and machine learning, familiarity with one or more of the other areas, and has cross disciplinary interests in applying analytical techniques to real-world problems.

Minimum Qualifications: A Ph.D. in computer science,

mathematics, statistics, or operations research, or a closely related discipline is required. The successful candidate will demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching, and show excellent communication skills.

Applicants must submit a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and statement of teaching philosophy to [email protected]. In the subject line, please use your name and the specific material enclosed: e.g. “Gregor Samsa:CV” or “Gregor Samsa:Application Materials.” In addition, applicants should arrange for three letters of recommendation to be sent to the same email address. Review of applications will begin April 15 and continue until the position is filled.

EEO Policy:The University of San Francisco

is an equal opportunity institution of higher education. As a matter of policy, the University does not discriminate in employment, educational services and academic programs on the basis of an individual’s race, color, religion, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, age (except minors), sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, medical condition (cancer-related and genetic-related) and disability, and the other bases prohibited by law. The University reasonably accommodates qualified individuals with disabilities under the law.

Computing Research NewsIssue MayDeadline 4-1-121/4 pageEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTEViterbi School of Engineering

The University of Southern California (USC) is seeking an Executive Director (ED) to headthe Information Sciences Institute (ISI). This is an exceptional opportunity to lead adistinguished research institute to new levels of excellence and impact. ISI is a world leader in research and development of advanced information processing,communications, and electronic technologies. Known for innovative, translational researchthat spans basic research through to the prototype stage, the Institute serves a range offederal agencies and industry partners and conducts research in such diverse areas ashealth informatics, cyber security, integrated satellite/text information, biomimetics, energysystems, quantum computing, and space systems. ISI is based in Marina del Rey,California, with an East Coast campus in Arlington, Virginia, and employs over 300engineers, research scientists, graduate students, and staff.Being part of a rich academic environment in a university committed to excellence sets ISIapart from many other similar organizations. USC has steadily enhanced its academicexcellence and reputation over the past two decades. The University ranks 23rd amongpublic and private universities in the nation, and its graduate program in engineering isranked 12th according to the 2012 U.S. News & World Report listings. Reporting to the Dean of the Viterbi School, the ED is expected to be an exceptional leaderfrom academia, industry, or government with a national presence in interdisciplinaryresearch circles and demonstrated success in building excellence. The ED works with ISI’sscientists and engineers to expand research funding and identifies research priorities andopportunities. The ED serves as the chief scientific officer for ISI and recruits, develops,oversees, and inspires ISI’s talented cadre of world-class engineers and scientists. As theexternal representative of the Institute, the ED works with funding agencies, industrypartners, University leaders, and other constituencies to guide ISI’s strategic direction,promote its accomplishments, and advance its mission.The University has retained Isaacson, Miller to assist in the search. Nominations and lettersof application, including curriculum vitae should be sent to: Vivian Brocard, Vice PresidentIsaacson, Miller 263 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 http://www.imsearch.com, Email:[email protected]. Electronic Submissions Preferred.

The University of Southern California is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer,committed to the development of an inclusive and diverse community.

Candidates of all background are encouraged.

Vol. 24/No. 3

Computing Research News(ISSN 1069-384X) is published five times per year in January, March, May, September, and November. Copyright 2012 by the Computing Research Association (CRA), 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036; tel. 202-234-2111. All rights reserved. Material in CRN is not endorsed by CRA nor intended to reflect any official positions of CRA or its board.

Subscriptions: Call 202-234-2111, send e-mail to [email protected], or mail subscription inquiries to CRA, 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036. A free subscription is available to qualified subscribers. One-year paid subscriptions are $30 in the United States, $45 (U.S.) in Canada, and $54 (U.S.) elsewhere.

Change of Address: Note that a change of address must include the old and new addresses with ZIP+4. Please include a street address or PO Box number.

Postmaster: Send address changes to: CRA, 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036. Postage paid at Washington, DC.

Computing Research Association StaffAndrew Bernat, Executive DirectorBetsy Bizot, Director of Statistics and EvaluationSandra Corbett, Manager of Administrative SupportErwin Gianchandani, Director of the Computing Community ConsortiumPeter Harsha, Director of Government AffairsKenneth Hines, Research AnalystSabrina Jacob, Office AdministratorDelicia Mapp, Senior StatisticianMelissa Norr, Policy AnalystErik Russell, Director of ProgramsJean Smith, Sr. Communications Associate and CRN Editor

Computing Research News

Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing Conference

October 3-6, 2012 in Baltimore, MD.

Deadline for Scholarship Applications is May 15, 2012

http://gracehopper.org/2012/participate/scholarships/

Full and partial scholarships to this year’s conference are made possible by industry sponsors, grants, and individual contributions. Full scholarships cover conference registration, lodging for four nights, and travel expense reimbursement. Partial scholarships are also available. While the largest portion of scholarships are awarded to undergraduate and graduate students, junior faculty and members of non-governmental organizations and non-profits are also eligible to apply. Applications are only being accepted online. A scholarship committee consisting of women and men from industry and academia perform reviews of the applications and scores each one. Scholarships are awarded to the candidates with the highest scores from a diverse cross-section of schools and regions.

omputing research news · national security, new transportation, education, and the smart grid....

Documents