Graduate Training and Early Career Choices of Chemistry Doctorates

1. Graduate Training and Early Career Choices of Chemistry Doctorates Supporting transitions from graduate school to work force in academia Cecilia H. Marzabadi, Susan A. Nolan, Janine P. Buckner & Valerie J. Kuck Seton Hall University

2. According to the National Science and Technology Council (2000) • Increasing demand for persons with scientific, technical, and engineering (STEM) expertise Yet… • Widening gap between the supply and demand. White males not pursuing degrees in these fields. marzabce@shu.edu

3. Possible Solutions to Scientific Workforce Problem • Women large part of the pool of candidates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields Female degree recipients in STEM fields: • ~ 50% of bachelor’s degrees • ~ 34% of doctorates But….they, don’t all make it into the workforce marzabce@shu.edu

4. In Academic Chemistry Percentage of Female, Full-Time Faculty Members marzabce@shu.edu ACS Women Chemists 2000

5. Why aren’t women making it into the scientific workforce? • Look at graduates from top ranked chemistry departments. • Graduates from these “prestigious” institutions should have the most opportunities available to them !!! J. Chem. Ed. 2004, 81, 356-363 • If disparities are seen at the top, how much greater is the disparity at less prestigious schools? marzabce@shu.edu

6. This Study….. • We surveyed the PERCEPTIONS of now-graduated Ph.D. recipients (1988-1992) from top chemistry departments • Views of education, training, preparation • Undergraduate, graduate, post-doctoral levels • Experiences at first place of employment marzabce@shu.edu

7. Demographics • Respondents (1,950 graduates): • 315men • 135 women (30.0%) • Gender: 28.2% female1 • Response rate: 27.3% marzabce@shu.edu 1 WebCASPAR

8. Doctoral Universities of Graduates Polled (by NRC Rank-Order) • Univ. of California, Berkeley • California Institute of Technology • Harvard Univ. • Stanford Univ. • Massachusetts Inst. of Technology • Cornell Univ. • Columbia Univ. • Univ. of Illinois • Univ. of Wisconsin • Chicago Univ. • Purdue Univ. marzabce@shu.edu

9. Types of Questions Used • Yes/No answer • Open-ended responses • A scale (1 through 7) was used for a number of questions: 1 = very little, worse than, not at all, minor 4 = neutral, same as, neither worse than nor better than 7 = a lot, better than, very much, very well, major marzabce@shu.edu

10. In Regards to Their Experiences in Graduate School…… • Graduate school selection • Choice of dissertation advisor • Help/support from dissertation advisor • Interactions with dissertation advisor marzabce@shu.edu

11. Graduate School Selection • No gender difference in chief criteria used: • Reputation of department/school • Perceived environment • Geographical location • 15% of the women and 8% of the men responded that they would not make the same choice of graduate school. marzabce@shu.edu

12. Graduate School Findings-Choice of Dissertation Advisor • In identifying criteria used in making their advisor choice, men more often cited receiving the help of others. • A higher percentage of women reported that they: • Would use different criteria in selecting their advisor • Decided to change advisors (14% women vs. 8% men) marzabce@shu.edu

13. Graduate School Experience- Support of Dissertation Advisor • Men rated higher the help that they received from their dissertation advisor in: • Knowing how to do independent research (5.0 vs 4.6) • Properly evaluating data (5.3 vs 4.9) • Knowing their research goals (5.3 vs 4.8) • Overcoming research difficulties (4.9 vs 4.4) • Understanding the balance between teaching and research (4.3 vs 3.8) • Working on a project that would have impact (4.9 vs 4.4) marzabce@shu.edu

14. Graduate Research- Interactions with their Dissertation Advisor • Men rated higher the help offered in: • Support of their careers goals (5.0 vs 4.6) • Assistance in finding a job (4.8 vs 4.3) • Men gave higher marks (4.8 vs 4.4) to the quality of the interactions with their dissertation advisor. marzabce@shu.edu

15. To Summarize… • Pronounced gender patterns in a variety of mentoring experiences • Similar gendered patterns were also observed at post-doctoral level. Men felt more suported. • How does this data translate into career outcomes? marzabce@shu.edu

16. With Respect to Employment in Academe……. • Percent applying for tenure-track positions at Ph.D.-granting institutions (~7 apps ea) • Men – 35.2% • Women – 25.9% (vs. 28.2% in pool) • Percent applying for tenure-track positions at non-Ph.D.-granting institutions • Men – 27.6% (3.1 apps ea) • Women – 34.1% (1.9 apps ea) marzabce@shu.edu

17. Furthermore… • Men (56.0%) more likely to accept a position at a doctoral “extensive” school than were women (53.7%) 1 • Conversely, women (23.8%) more likely than were men (17.8%) to accept a position at an “intensive” school • 22.5% of female respondents were offered positions at Ph.D-granting schools but declined the offers 1Carnegie classifications marzabce@shu.edu

18. Another way to look at academic job outcomes WOMEN wound up in… • Jobs at less prestigious Ph.D. granting programs • BA level schools • Non-tenure track jobs at Ph.D. extensive schools marzabce@shu.edu

19. Reasons Given for Not Applying for Tenure Track Position at Ph.D. Granting Schools • 51 responses (29 women, 22 men) • Pressure and lifestyle expectations (11 W, 9M) • Not enough teaching; want more interaction with students (10W, 4M) • Not qualified enough (2W, 2M) • Financial and other marzabce@shu.edu

20. Where to next? • Can our understanding of these differing training perceptions and career choices translate into action? • Do these patterns extend to other STEM fields? (our “new” survey study—NSF funded) marzabce@shu.edu

21. Acknowledgements • Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences (SG-02-072) • NSF (HRD- 0327904) • Rohm & Haas Company • Clare Boothe Luce Fund for a Professorship for CM marzabce@shu.edu