Paper ID #10322

When, Why, How, Who – Recruitment Lessons from First Year EngineeringStudents in the Millennial Generation

Dr. Jane L. Lehr, California Polytechnic State University

Jane Lehr is Associate Professor in Ethnic Studies and Women’s & Gender Studies at California Polytech-nic State University. She is also Faculty Director of the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation(LSAMP) in STEM Program at Cal Poly and Co-Director of the Liberal Arts and Engineering StudiesProgram. She previously served as elected co-chair of the Science & Technology Taskforce of the Na-tional Women’s Studies Association, and as a Post-Doctoral Research Officer at the Center for InformalLearning and Schools (CILS) at King’s College, University of London. Her graduate training is in Science& Technology Studies and Women’s Studies at Virginia Tech.

Ms. Helene Finger P.E., California Polytechnic State UniversityAlana Christine Snelling

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2014

When, Why, How, Who – Recruitment Lessons from First Year Engineering Students in the Millennial Generation

Today, an increasing number of women enter, remain, and succeed within science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields. However, women’s participation is still not proportionate. Women earned 18.4% of undergraduate degrees in engineering in 2010 according to the 2013 Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering report published by the NSF, with significant variance by subfield. In 2012, the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee affirmed that, “Women’s increased participation in the STEM workforce is essential to alleviating the shortage of STEM workers” in the United States. The ASEE Diversity Task Force has identified increasing the percentage of undergraduate female students to 25% by 2020 as a strategic goal. Explanations for the continued underrepresentation of women focus on the social structure of society, the social structure of STEM education and professions, and/or the content and application of STEM knowledge. This paper focuses on the pre-college experiences of first year female and male engineering students at Comprehensive Polytechnic State University (CPSU) in semi-rural California and offers lessons for recruitment based on comparative analysis of survey data collected in 2013 on 1) when the students decided to major in engineering, 2) why the students chose engineering as a major, 3) how the students made their decisions about education, and 4) who the students are and how their identities compare to dominant images of what it means to be an engineer. This paper builds on previous research by the authors, based on survey data collected in 2011, which showed that 88.29% of respondents did not make their personal decision to major in engineering until their sophomore, junior, or senior years in high school; that a higher proportion of 2011 respondents participated in English Language/English Literature AP courses and co-curricular activities such as athletics and non-STEM-related volunteer/service activities than in the “usual places” where we might expect to find future engineers (e.g., AP Physics, STEM programs/ internships); and that 38.7% of the 2011 respondents chose to major in engineering in order to make a difference, help, or serve as a role model for others. However, the previous 2011 survey did not include any male students. This raised the question of whether the patterns identified above – and their significant recruitment implications – could be explained by the sex/gender of the first year engineering students surveyed and/or by their Millennial Generation status (born between 1981-2000). Preliminary analysis of the 2013 data suggests that the answer may be both/and rather than either/or. In the 2013 survey, 89.8% of female respondents indicated that they did not make their personal decision to major in engineering until their sophomore, junior, or senior years in high school. However, 69.8% of the male students provided the same answer. Secondly, whereas 25.6% of the 2013 female respondents indicated that making a difference, helping, or serving as a role model for others was one of their top three reasons for entering engineering, this was also the case for 14.5% of male respondents. Implications for the recruitment of female and male students will be described. Introduction The Status of Women in STEM Fields Today Today, an increasing number of women enter, remain, and succeed within science, technology, engineering, and mathematical fields. There is a substantial research literature focused on this

topic. Broadly, a review of this research literature can be organized around three topics: 1) the status of women in STEM fields; 2) the retention of women who enter STEM fields at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels; and 3) the pre-collegiate recruitment of women to STEM fields (including exploration of reasons that pre-collegiate female students do not choose to undertake science or engineering majors at the same rate as their male peers). Altogether, these lines of inquiry largely focus on “critical transitions” in the STEM pipeline in order to identify and address “leaks.” In terms of the status of women in STEM fields, overall, women’s participation is still not proportionate. Patterns of territorial and hierarchical segregation are particularly apparent.1 For example, women’s participation in STEM fields – both inside and outside the academy – is highest in psychology and medical sciences and lowest in engineering and computer sciences. In fact, while the proportion of women earning masters and doctoral level degrees has increased in engineering, the proportion of women earning bachelor’s degrees has not. Within computer science, the rate of women earning bachelor’s degrees actually declined between 1989 and 2008.2 Within the academy, the percentage of women with science and engineering doctorates who are employed as full-time full professors has substantially increased between 1979 to 2008 (from 5% to 21%). However, the number and percentage of women at the rank of full professor remains smaller than the number and rank of female faculty at the assistant professor level.2 In the science and engineering workforce beyond the academy, NSF data indicates that men and women with science and engineering degrees differ significantly in full-time vs. part-time status. In 2006 (the most recent year for which national data is available), women made-up 69% of the scientists and engineers employed part-time in the United States (1,990,000 of 2,876,000 total). The two primary reasons provided for part-time status were 1) did not need/did not want to work full-time and 2) family responsibilities.2

Women of color are more underrepresented and more marginalized within STEM fields. Trower and Chair (2002) indicate that the proportion of tenured minority-group women in STEM fields actually declined between 1989-1997.3 Nelson (2005) found that there were no African American, Latina, or Native American/American Indian women in tenured or tenure-track faculty positions in the nation’s top 50 computer science departments in 2002, and that only one African American woman and no Native American women held a full professorship in the top 50 physical sciences and engineering departments.3 National Science Foundation also indicates that, overall, “women are less likely than men to have been supported by federal grants or contracts, and underrepresented minority women are the least likely to have had such support”.2

At the middle school and high school levels, it has become clear that female students can and do perform well in science and mathematics courses. As described by the National Center for Education Statistics (2004), “Overall, females’ high school academic programs in mathematics and science are at least as challenging as those taken by males.” For example, the 2000 High School Transcript Study showed that female students were more likely to take algebra II, biology, AP/honors biology and chemistry, whereas male students were more likely to take physics.4 The percentage of female graduates who had taken calculus in 2000 was 11%, and 12% for male students.4 The 2005 High School Transcript Study indicated that female students took an average of 7.1 credits in science and math during high school and male students took an average of 7.3 credits.5 In terms of Grade Point Average in math and science courses, graduating female

students had an average GPA of 2.76 in 2005, whereas male students had an average GPA of 2.56.5 As noted in the American Association of University Women’s 2010 report, Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, “On high-stakes math tests, however, boys continue to outscore girls, albeit by a small margin. A small gender gap persists on the mathematics section of the SAT and the ACT examinations (Halpern, Benbow, et al., 2007; AAUW, 2008).”5 Male students do remain more likely to take advanced placement (AP) exams than female students in calculus, physics, computer science and chemistry and “girls who take STEM AP exams earn lower scores than boys earn on average.”6 However, scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate that mathematics score gaps between male and female students are negligible, if they exist at all.4 This increase in female student attainment, however, has not significantly impacted middle school and high school female student interest in pursuing education and a career in science and engineering. As discussed by the AAUW (2010), “a 2009 poll of young people ages 8–17 by the American Society for Quality, 24 percent of boys but only 5 percent of girls said they were interested in an engineering career.”5 In 2006, just over 20% of first year male students planned to major in engineering, computer science, or the physical sciences. However, according to NSF data from 2009, only 5% of first year female students planned to major in these non-biological STEM fields.5 These developments have led to a renewed emphasis in exploring why middle school and high school girls “just aren’t interested” in fields like engineering, the physical sciences, and computer science. Little research focuses specifically on the experiences of women of color in science and engineering fields.6 However, the status and success of students from racially underrepresented groups has not improved as significantly as the status and success of women as a group in STEM fields over time. For example, data from the National Assessment of Education Progress exams points to a continued gap in scores at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grade levels between 1990 and 2007. Black 4thgraders were able to slightly close the gap.7 Too, students from racially underrepresented groups are underrepresented in institutions of higher education, overall, and in STEM fields, in particular. For example, “Blacks, Hispanics, and other underrepresented minorities together constitute 24% of the U.S. population, 13% of college graduates, and 10% of the college-degreed in S&E occupations.”7 The Status of Women in Undergraduate Engineering The most recent national data for bachelor’s degrees awarded to women by discipline is published in the 2010 edition of the Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges by ASEE (Figure 1). This data shows that undergraduate engineering is also impacted by patterns of territorial segregation, with high rates of bachelor’s degrees awarded to women in Environmental Engineering (43.1%), Biomedical Engineering (37%), Chemical Engineering (34.5%), and Industrial/Manufacturing Engineering (30.1%) and low rates in Aerospace Engineering (14.1%), Electrical Engineering (11.6%), Mechanical Engineering (11.5%), Electrical/Computer Engineering (11.3%), Computer Science (inside engineering) (11.1%), Computer Science (outside engineering) (10.2%), Computer Engineering (9.5%), and Mining

Engineering (9.4%). Overall, women earned 18.4% of bachelor’s degrees in engineering in 2010 according to the 2013 Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering report published by the NSF.8

Again, comparatively little research has focused on the experiences of women of color in engineering. The 2012 NSF Science & Engineering Indicators do indicate that intentions to major in engineering are smaller for women first-year students than males across racial groups. Recent analysis of data from the Project to Assess Climate in Engineering (PACE) Project also suggests that significant differences exist in the experiences of Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian-American and White women in engineering.9

Within engineering overall, White students earned 66.2% of undergraduate degrees in engineering in 2001 and 69.8% in 2010.10 The proportion of undergraduate degrees awarded to African American and Asian American students declined between 2001 and 2010 (Figure 2) (although Asian American students as a group remain proportionally overrepresented within engineering), while the proportion of degrees awarded to Hispanic/Latino/a students in engineering increased from 5.4% to 7%.10 African American students and Hispanic/Latino students leave engineering at a higher rate than their White and Asian American peers, as shown by a comparison between intention to major and undergraduate degrees awarded.11

Figure 1: Percentage of Bachelor's Degrees Awarded to Women by Discipline (ASEE, 2010)

Figure 2: Bachelor's Degrees by Ethnicity, 2010 (ASEE, 2010)

The Status of Women in Undergraduate Engineering at CPSU At Comprehensive Polytechnic State University (CPSU), the number and percentage of women in engineering varies from major to major (Figure 3). In Fall 2013, the CPSU incoming cohort had the following majors with the highest proportions of female students: Environmental Engineering (57%), Biomedical Engineering (49%), Architectural Engineering (46%), Industrial Engineering (29%), and Civil Engineering (28%). Those majors with the smallest percentage of female students as incoming students in Fall 2011 were Mechanical Engineering (16%), Aerospace Engineering (15%), Electrical Engineering (15%), and Computer Engineering (14%), This data generally follows the national trends with some areas where CPSU exceeds the national data for percent female (AERO, ARCE, BMED, CE, CPE, CSC, EE, ENVE, GENE, and ME) and some areas where more women are present in a discipline nationally than at CPSU (BRAE, IE/MFGE, and MATE). A comparison of incoming freshman shows increases in the proportion of women between 2010 and 2013 in Architectural Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, General Engineering, and Software Engineering. It is true that in smaller majors, the addition of a small number of female students recruited can significantly impact proportions. However, during a time period in which the proportion of women in computer science, computer engineering, and software engineering continues to decline, these increases in the actual number and proportion of women in these fields suggest that future research should examine whether this increase can be correlated with any recent efforts to change recruiting cultures and methods.

Figure 3: CPSU Freshman Engineering Students Fall 2013

The female students who enroll in engineering at CPSU tend to do as well or better than their male peers. For example, grade frequencies data from 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 for the College of Engineering show that the average and weighted average grades for female students is higher than those for male students each academic year. The five-year graduation rates for cohorts of students who matriculated to CPSU in 2000-08 show that female students graduated at a higher rate than their male peers for each cohort (Table 1).

Table 1: 5 year graduation rates for incoming students, CPSU College of Engineering, 2000-08

Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004

Fall 2005 Fall 2006

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

Men 40.9% 43.4% 49.5% 47.0% 44.3% 45.3% 47.7% 42.1% 54.3% Women 46.4% 53.3% 58.9% 64.7% 57.9% 60.6% 55.1% 50.9% 63.8% Between the 2004-05 academic year and 2012-13, women made up between 13.0-16.7% of each graduating class at the bachelor’s degree level. This is lower than the 18.4% national rate of bachelor’s degrees in engineering earned by women in 2009-10, which does not take into account variations in distribution of students in the different engineering disciplines. Explanations for the Status of Women in STEM Fields Today In terms of explanations for the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM fields, contemporary explanations can largely be grouped into two categories: 1) the social structure of society and 2) the social structure of STEM education and professions. For example, researchers focused on the social structure of society have highlighted the important role of early play experiences in shaping feelings of efficacy and interest in STEM disciplines. Those focused on

the social structure of STEM education and professions have focused on topics ranging from analysis of textbooks for images of scientists and classroom interactions for gender bias, to study of the tenure-track vs. baby-track phenomena, in which women who bear a child within five years of receiving their doctorate are 29% less likely than women who do not bear children to ever enter a tenure-track position, and in which men who have early babies are 38% more likely to earn tenure than women who do so.12, 13

Specific proposals for addressing the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM fields vary depending upon the age group targeted and the explanation adopted. The AAUW’s 2010 report, Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, combines attention to the social structure of society and the social structure of STEM education and professions in its recommendations, seeking to address the impacts of stereotypes and implicit bias on both individual female students and the social, educational, and professional norms in STEM disciplines. For example, the report focuses on mechanisms to reduce stereotype threat and identify implicit biases, and also addresses how changing student understandings of intelligence and spatial skills to emphasize that these skills can be learned leads to improved student performance. The report also points to research suggesting that the inclusion of real-world applications in coursework increases the retention of female students and calls for changes to the tenure, promotion, and mentoring systems in place at universities in the United States.5 Other researchers and educators have suggested a third explanation for the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM fields: the content and application of STEM knowledge. For example, these researchers have pointed to findings from the international questionnaire-based Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) study. In England, for example, the ROSE Study has shown that while both sexes have relatively similar levels of interest in science, there are “marked differences in the responses of boys and girls” in topic interest. For example, “girls’ priorities lie with topics related to the self and, more particularly, to health, mind and well-being. The responses of the boys reflect strong interests in destructive technologies and events.”14 These and similar findings, as well as research in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, have suggested the existence of “epistemic differences between men and women from their standpoint in life” and that these differences provide “differential interaction with the nature of science, and hence their participation in the field.”15

In response, some researchers and educators in this area call for re-evaluation of the “values and standards of science and science education”16 and the development of a more gender-inclusive science and science education. Margolis and Fisher (2002) identify significant differences in the reasons that female and male students choose to major in computer science, part of which include female students’ emphasis on “computing with a purpose”: 44% of women interviewed and 9% of men interviewed included making connections between computer science, other fields, and social context as part of what motivated their interest in the major.17 Riley, et al (2009) call for the integration of “some classic themes of feminism [into engineering education and practice] — asking who benefits and who is harmed, critically examining assumptions and presumptions that create injustice, and creatively and energetically working for our dreams of what could be” to produce both more socially responsible engineering and, potentially, increase the recruitment and retention of female students.18 Researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute have recently reported the results of a study in which female engineering graduates between 1974-2011

reported greater long-term impacts of project-based learning on their worldviews and personal and professional impacts than males in this cohort.19 In their discussion section, authors Vaz, et al (2013) indicate that these results “are consistent with Busch-Vishniak and Jarosz’s broad survey of the literature concluding that female students are more motivated by opportunities for social context and collaboration than males” (p. 15).19, 20

Research on the Status and Experiences of Men in STEM Fields Significantly less research has focused on the status and experiences of men in STEM fields. However, proposed changes to STEM education and work designed to improve the status and experiences of women may have similar positive benefits for men – for example, in the area of work/life balance.21 In 2010, the unemployment rates for men and women in underrepresented minority groups in the science and engineering workforce were basically equivalent (6.6% for men and 6.7% for women).8 The reasons for and rates of unemployment did vary by sex/gender and race/ethnicity (Figure 4) – with URM women reporting “family” at a greater rate and URM men reporting higher rates of layoff as reasons for unemployment. Underrepresented minority women actually achieve a greater percentage

Figure  4:  Reasons  for  not  working  among  scientists  and  engineers:  2010

of STEM undergraduate degrees than URM men in some fields. In 2010, black women earned 7.6% of all undergraduate engineering degrees earned by women, whereas black men only earned 4.8% of all undergraduate engineering degrees earned by men (although both rates are

disproportionate to the overall African American population of 12% in the U.S. in 2010).22 In 2011, The Association of Public and Land Grant Universities launched the M2 STEM initiative focused on increasing the number, graduation rates, and post-graduation success of minority males in STEM fields.23 When, Why, How, Who– Recruitment Lessons from First Year Engineering Students in the Millennial Generation This survey-based research project focuses on the pre-college experiences of first year female and male engineering students at Comprehensive Polytechnic State University (CPSU) in semi-rural California. The goal of this research is to offer lessons for recruitment of female and male students based on 1) when the students decided to major in engineering, 2) why the students chose engineering as a major, 3) how the students made their decisions about education, and 4) who the students are and how their identities compare to dominant images of what it means to be an engineer. This research is most immediately relevant to CPSU as an institution, however, the data allow for exploration of what attracts some students to engineering, and therefore may suggest strategies for recruitment of female and male undergraduate students in engineering at this and other institutions, as well as additional research questions focused on student motivations and understandings of engineering as a discipline in pre-collegiate contexts. This paper reports on two years of survey data (2011 and 2013). Methodology This research project is survey based and was conducted online using Survey Gizmo. Data was collected anonymously. The survey included closed and opened-ended questions and was designed to be completed in 20-30 minutes. The survey data discussed in this paper was collected in Fall 2011 and Fall 2013, within the first month of student arrival to CPSU. In 2011, all non-FERPA first-year female engineering students were contacted (296 students), and 113 completed the survey (a 38.2% response rate). Students were able to complete the survey in more than one-sitting due to Survey Gizmo’s mechanism to send each student contacted an individual URL. An additional 5 students abandoned the survey and 34 students started but did not complete it (meaning that 51.3% of students contacted clicked on the url provided in the emailed invitation to participate). Students were provided with a small incentive to complete the survey: entry via a separate data collection mechanism to a raffle to win a $50 gift card at the university bookstore. Students were sent two additional reminder emails over a period of 2 weeks if they had not yet completed the survey. In 2013, all non-FERPA first year engineering students were contacted. Of these 1501 students, 361 were female (24.05%). The female student response rate was 31.02% and the male student response rate was 12.8%. The female survey response rates of 38.2% (2011) and 31.02% (2013) are comparable to that of other surveys administered in higher education settings. For example, the overall response rate for the 2011 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was 31%.24 The surveys conducted by the Women’s Experiences in College Engineering (WECE) Project had a response rate of 33% in 1999, 41% in 2000, and 26% in 2001.25 The response rate to our survey, combined with data on the representativeness of the survey respondents compared to the student population as a

whole (discussed below) suggest that data collected is representative of the population of first year female undergraduate engineering majors at CPSU as a whole. For comparative purposes, a large number of the questions included in the survey are the same as questions asked in the 1999-2001 Women’s Experiences in College Engineering (WECE) survey conducted by the Goodman Research Group, in which 53 higher education institutions took part. This study was the “first cross-institutional, longitudinal examination of undergraduate women’s experiences and retention/persistence in engineering majors programs,” and was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Over 65,000 students were invited to participate in this survey over three years, and 25,156 students responded.25

In the next sections of the paper, we first report on the results of the 2011 survey, followed by a discussion of the 2013 survey. Representativeness of 2011 Survey Respondents CPSU has 15 engineering majors, which are housed in three colleges: the College of Engineering, College of Architecture and Environmental Design (Architectural Engineering), and the College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences (BioResource and Agricultural Engineering). Each major was represented by at least 2 students in the 112 survey responses received, and the minimum rate of response for each major was 21.9% (Civil Engineering) (Table 2).

Table 2: Response Rate by Major (Fall 2011)

Majors Responses

Number of Incoming Female Students

Response Rate

Biomedical Engineering 17 45 37.8% Mechanical Engineering 13 29 44.8% Computer Science 12 19 63.2% Architectural Engineering 11 32 34.4% Aerospace Engineering 10 13 76.9% Computer Engineering 9 23 39.1% Electrical Engineering 9 28 32.1% Civil Engineering 7 32 21.9% Environmental Engineering 6 23 26.1% General Engineering 5 13 38.5% Industrial Engineering 4 15 26.7% Materials Engineering 3 6 50.0% BioResource and Agricultural Engineering 2 7 28.6% Manufacturing Engineering 2 4 50.0% Software Engineering 2 7 28.6%

When the race and ethnicity characteristics of the survey respondents is compared to the racial demographics of the Fall 2011 incoming female students in the College of Engineering, the following relationships emerge: Multiracial students are overrepresented in the survey data and Hispanic/Latina students are underrepresented. The survey data does not include responses from students who self-identified as African American, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Native American/American Indian, and students from these racial/ethnic groups are also incredibly underrepresented in the incoming class overall. In addition, Hispanic/Latina students are also underrepresented, whereas white students are slightly overrepresented in the survey data. The Fall 2011 incoming female students and the survey respondents also have a significantly different race/ethnicity demographic pattern than the CENG student cohort who graduated in 2009-10 (male and female). As CPSU does not readily make data available about the simultaneous race and sex/gender breakdown of the student population, it is unclear at this point whether this difference between 2009-10 graduates and the incoming female students is an artifact of changing demographics in the College of Engineering or significant demographic differences between the male and female student populations.

Table 3: Race/Ethnicity of Respondents

Race/Ethnicity Responses (%) CENG Incoming Female Students (Fall 2011)

CPSU 2009-10 Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded (Male & Female Students)

African American 0 (0%) 0.4% 0.8% Asian American 28 (24.8%) 24.7% 9.5% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 (0%) 0.1% 0.1% Hispanic/Latino/a 7 (6.2%) 14.5% 10.2% Native American/American Indian

0 (0%) 1.2% 0.7%

White 58 (51.3%) 49.4% 67.3% Multiracial

• African American + Asian American + White (1)

• Asian American + White (5)

• Hawaiian/Pacific Islander + White (1)

• Hispanic/Latina + White (3)

• Native American + White (2)

12 (10.6%) 6.3% 1.0%

Non-residential Alien 0 (0%) 1.1% 0.8% Other/Declined to State 8 (7.1%) 3.5% 9.7% According to the 2010 CPSU Profile, 47% of CPSU students receive some type of financial aid: 26.8% awarded as federal, state, or CSU grants; 7.6% awarded as scholarships; 62.3% awarded as student loans; and 0.6% awarded as federal work study. Within the College of Engineering, financial aid in the 2011-12 academic year was awarded as follows: 32.4% awarded as federal, state, or CSU grants; 5.6% as scholarships; 60.8% as student loans; and 0.4% as work study. When survey respondents are compared to these statistics, the first year female CENG student

respondents appear to be slightly more economically affluent and academically supported through scholarships/grants (Table 4) than the CPSU or CENG student bodies as a whole.

Table 4: Sources of Current or Expected Financial Support

Sources of Support Yes Percent Family support/personal funds/savings 100 88.5% Scholarships/grants 79 69.9% Loans 54 47.8% Work-study employment during the school year 25 22.1% Non work-study employment during the school year 28 24.8% Summer or other employment 73 64.6%

The geographic origins pattern for our survey respondents roughly mirrors the pattern at CPSU as a whole, as well as the geographic origins of Fall 2011 incoming students in the College of Engineering.

Table 5: Geographic Origins

Geographic Origin Responses CPSU Fall 2010 Freshman

CENG Fall 2011 Freshman

San Francisco Bay Area 32 (28.3%) 28.4% 26.1% Los Angeles area 20 (17.7%) 21.4% 22.8% Other U.S. State 20 (17.7%) 10.3% 15.9% Other California 12 (10.6%) 6.3% 5.2% Sacramento area 8 (7.1%) 8.0% 7.8% San Diego area 8 (7.1%) 7.7% 9.4% San Joaquin Valley 6 (5.3%) 8.3% 5.7% Central Coast 3 (2.7%) 8.8% 6.3% Foreign Countries 0 (0%) 0.8% 0.8% Unknown/Declined to State 4 (3.5%) 0% (0)%

The above demographic data on the survey respondents suggests that the students surveyed are fairly representative of CPSU and the CPSU College of Engineering as a whole in terms of race, financial support, and geographic origins, allowing for limited generalization of our findings to CPSU first year female engineering students as a whole. Findings of the 2011 Survey This section of the paper reports on our 2011 findings: Why do female students select to major in engineering at CPSU? How and when did these female students make their decision to major in engineering (e.g., influences)? Who are these students and how does this compare to dominant images of what it means to be an engineer? . When did you make your personal decision to major in engineering?

While many existing models for recruitment focus largely on the importance of middle school as a time period in which “leaks” to the STEM pipeline occur, 43.24% of our 2011 respondents indicated that they did not make their personal decision to major in engineering until their senior year of high school, 36.04% indicated they made this decision their junior of high school, 9.01% indicated that they made this decision during their sophomore year, and 5.41% during their freshman year. Only 4 students made their decision in middle school (3.6%) and 3 students (2.7%) made this decision in elementary school. Data from an open-ended question – “How and when did you first become interested in engineer?” – highlights the impact and importance of two different time periods. One group of students learned about engineering very early in their life as one or both of their parents, or another family member, was an engineer. The majority of students, however, identified specific classes, curricular, or co-curricular activities as when they learned about engineering as a major/profession and most of these experiences occurred in high school rather than elementary or middle school time periods. Why Engineering? What are your three most important reasons for choosing to become an engineer? Students were asked to respond to three open-ended prompts to indicate their first, second, and third most important reasons for choosing to become an engineer. There were 269 responses provided total (93 first-most important, 91 second most important, and 85 third most important). Two researchers then independently worked with the qualitative data to develop discursive codes/themes based on the student responses.26, 27, 28 The researchers then met and compared the codes each had identified in the data, and collaboratively established a new coding guideline based on this discussion. The researchers then independently returned to the data set, and re-coded the student responses. Codes and code tallies were then compared and finalized via discussion. A small number of student responses included multiple reasons/answers (e.g., “Interest in math, science, and problem-solving” was coded twice: once as ‘liking/aptitude/good fit’ and once as ‘hands-on, creating, problem-solving, building’). A total of 95 code instances were established for the 93 responses indicated as first most important; 97 code instances for the 91 responses indicated as second most important; and 88 code instances for the 85 responses indicated as third most important, for a total of 280 codes instances (Figure 5). This analysis indicates that the first year female engineers who responded to our survey overwhelmingly chose engineering as a major, in part, because they like math or science, find math and science interesting and exciting, and/or believe that they have a high aptitude for math or science. The researchers identified 100 different instances in which the student responses fell into this category, which means that some students mentioned liking or having aptitude in mathematics and/or science multiple times in response to the three open-ended questions (100 code instances for 93 students total). The second most prevalent reason provided for choosing engineering as a major focused on qualities of engineering as a profession. A total of 85 responses (91.4% of students who responded) were coded in this category. Students mentioned money/financial stability, for example, 35 times. Other qualities of the profession included job security, a wide variety of career options and a wide variety of projects over time, respect, success, prestige, and the team-

focused nature of engineering work. Two students also identified as engineering as a profession that would allow for better work/life family balance.

Figure 5: Three Most Important Reasons for Choosing to Become an Engineer

The third most important reason provided focused on the work of engineers. In these 46 responses (49.5% of students of who responded), students focused on making, building, applying, creating, problem-solving, designing, innovating, and working with their hands. The fourth most important reason present in the student responses focused on ‘making a difference, helping, or serving a role model for others as a woman and/or minority’ in the field. The researchers coded 36 responses (38.7% of students who responded) in this category. Twelve of 93 students identified this as their most important reason for choosing to major in engineering; 14 as the second most important reason; and 10 as the third most important reason. The 12 first most important responses that were coded as ‘making a difference, helping, or serving as a role model’ were as follows:

Being able to make a practical difference in people's lives Contribute to society Haiti helping people helping the world

100  

85  

46  36  

12   2  0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

What are your three most important reasons for choosing to become an engineer?

1st  important  

2nd  important  

3rd  important  

Total  

num

ber o

f res

pons

es

I like the idea of bettering lives I want to be able to make a difference I want to benefit society I want to make a difference in the world I would be able to help people To contribute to society through research/projects To make a difference

As indicated above, 38.7% of the students who responded to this question identified ‘making a difference, helping, and/or being a role model’ as one of their three most important reasons for choosing engineering. This is far greater than the students who identified ‘help people / contribute to society’ in the 1999-2001 Women’s Experiences in College Engineering (WECE) survey,25 where only 6.6% of respondents identified this as one of their three most important reasons for choosing engineering.. This emphasis on making a difference, helping, and/or being a role model was confirmed in a separate question, in which respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the listed attributes encouraged or discouraged them in their pursuit of an engineering major: 93.3% identified “opportunity to make a difference in engineering” as slightly, moderately, or very greatly encouraging and 68.9% identified the “social relevance of engineering” ” as slightly, moderately, or very greatly encouraging (Figure 6). Data from this question also confirmed the importance of the top three reasons that students chose engineering as a major: 1) liking and/or having an aptitude for math and science; 2) job and financial security and prestige; and 3) a focus on making, building, applying, creating, problem-solving, designing, innovating, and working with their hands.

Figure 6: Encouragement from Attributes of Engineering

The remainder of the Findings section identifies additional influences on the survey respondents as they made their personal decision to major in engineering and provides more background information on the respondents.

10  10  14  5  14  23  17  10  15  15  21  20  22  18  21  

27  42  41  

29  24  

27  41  

28  28  32  23  

15  23  

23  28  

53  49  37  

71  63  40  36  

60  30  33  

59  43  

43  47  32  

Employment  opportunities  Salary  potential  

Status  of  engineers  in  society  Interest  in  the  subject  matter  in  engineering  Opportunities  to  be  creative  in  engineering  

Opportunity  to  work  collaboratively  in  Opportunity  to  work  on  interdisciplinary  

Opportunity  to  make  a  difference  in  engineering  Social  relevance  of  engineering  

Opportunity  to  be  a  leader  Opportunity  to  excel  

Opportunity  to  study  abroad  Opportunity  for  global  travel  as  an  engineer  Opportunity  to  work  with  people  who  are  Opportunity  to  work  with  people  who  are  

Encouragement  from  Attributes  slightly  encouraging   moderately  encouraging   very  greatly  encouraging  

How did students make their decision to major in engineering? Parents as Influencers Overall, 2011 survey respondents identified their parents as the persons who have had the greatest influence on their decisions about engineering: 44.6% (49 students) identified their father as the greatest influence and 35.45% (39 students) identified their mother (Table 6). An additional 8 students identified a different family member as their greatest influence (7.27%), whereas only 6 students identified a teacher (5.45%) and no students identified a guidance counselor as their greatest influence. Similar patterns existed when students were asked to identify their second greatest influence. This data mirrors the patterns in the 1999-2001 WECE survey – over 70% of respondents identified their mother and/or father as most influential in making decisions related to education.25

Table 6: Greatest Influences

1st greatest influence (%) n=110

2nd greatest influence (%) n=109

Chosen as either 1st or 2nd greatest influence

Chosen as either most or 2nd most influential (WECE)

Father 49 (44.6%) 28 (25.5%) 73.1% 71.7% Mother 39 (35.5%) 42 (38.2%) 73.7% 74.9% Another Relative 8 (7.2%) 16 (14.5%) 21.7% 29.4% Teacher 6 (5.5%) 11 (10%) 15.5% 13.1% Guidance Counselor

0 (0%) 2 (1.8%) 1.8% 1.8%

Other 8 (7.3%) 10 (9.2%) 16.5% 9.2% This data was supported by a second question on the survey. As shown below (Table 7), the female first-year engineering students who responded to this survey were overwhelming encouraged, in the last year, by their parents to pursue an engineering major (87.4% were slightly encouraged, moderately encouraged, or very greatly encouraged by their mothers and 83.6% were slightly encouraged, moderately encouraged, or very greatly encouraged by their fathers). Only 12 students (10.8%) indicated that they were discouraged from pursuing an engineering major by their mother, father, stepmother, or stepfather in the last year.

Table 7: Encouragement or Discouragement in the Last Year – Parents

very greatly discouraging

moderately discouraging

slightly discouraging

did not affect me

slightly encouraging

moderately encouraging

very greatly encouraging N/A Total

Mother 0.9% 1

2.7% 3

0.9% 1

8.1% 9

9.9% 11

20.7% 23

56.8% 63 111

Stepmother 0.9% 1

0.9% 1

0.9% 1

7.4% 8

0.9% 1

1.9% 2

0.9% 1

86.1% 93 108

Father 1.8% 2

0.9% 1

0.9% 1

10.0% 11

8.2% 9

14.5% 16

60.9% 67

2.7% 3 110

Stepfather 6.5% 7

1.9% 2

1.9% 2

2.8% 3

86.9% 93 107

Overall, the educational level of the students’ parents/greatest influences is high: 87.73% of the students’ greatest influencers had some college or technical school, an associate’s degree, or higher and 85.58% of the students’ second greatest influencers had some college or technical school, an associate’s degree, or higher (Table 8).

Table 8: Educational Attainment of Greatest Influences and Parents

1st greatest influence

2nd greatest influence

Mother Father

Did not receive a high school diploma or equivalent

4 (3.77%) 4 (3.85%) 8 (7.5%) 5 (5.2%)

High school diploma or equivalent

9 (8.49%) 11 (10.58%) 8 (7.5%) 8 (8.3%)

Some college or technical school, associates degree

14 (13.21%) 14 (13.46%) 22 (20.6%) 13 (13.5%)

Finished 4 year college or equivalent degree

39 (36.79%) 31 (29.81%) 35 (32.7%) 30 (31.3%)

Some graduate school but did not earn degree

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (2.8%) 0 (0%)

Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MAT, MPS)

29 (27.36%) 21 (20.9%) 21 (19.6%) 24 (25.0%)

Professional degree (e.g., MBA, JD)

9 (8.49%) 11 (10.58%) 6 (5.6%) 11 (11.5%)

Doctoral degree (PhD, EdD)

3 (2.83%) 3 (2.88%) 3 (2.8%) 4 (4.2%)

Medical doctor 1 (0.94%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) In terms of occupations, the students’ greatest influencers (as a reminder: over 75% of the students’ greatest influences are their parents) are strongly connected to STEM fields: 70% of students’ first greatest influences and 64.5% of the students’ second greatest influences currently or previously had worked in a STEM profession. In terms of parents’ occupations, specifically, 30 students indicated that their father or stepfather is or has worked as an engineer and 11 indicated that their mothers work or worked in engineering. Overall, 54.1% of mothers and 69.7% of fathers work or have worked in STEM occupations (Figure 7). Teachers and Guidance Counselors as Influencers The data provided above on the first and second greatest influences in student decisions related to education demonstrated that parents are the primary influencer for the majority of survey respondents. Teachers were identified as the greatest influence by 6 students and second greatest influence by 11 students. Guidance counselors were identified as the second greatest influence by 2 students. Students were separately asked to respond to the following question in a Likert scale: “In the past year, to what extent did each of the following people encourage or discourage you in your pursuit of an engineering major? If not applicable, please select N/A.” Here, we can see that pre-college science/math/engineering teachers were identified as encouraging by 79.2% of the respondents (Table 9). However, high school guidance counselors remain comparatively non-

Figure 7: Greatest Influences on Participation in STEM Professions (Count)

impactful, with 48.6% of the respondents indicating that the guidance counselor did not affect them and 5.4% of the respondents indicating that their guidance counselor was slightly discouraging. College instructors in engineering were identified as much more encouraging than guidance counselors by the respondents. Respondents were not asked in this iteration of the survey to indicate the specific ways in which college instructors in engineering acted in an encouraging manner in a pre-college time period. Future research will seek to determine whether this sense of encouragement by college of instructors in engineering during the pre-college time period is typical or if it is a result of changes to departmental recruitment efforts in the university.

Table 9: Encouragement or Discouragement in the Last Year – Teachers and Guidance Counselors

very greatly discouraging

moderately discouraging

slightly discouraging

did not affect me

slightly encouraging

moderately encouraging

very greatly encouraging N/A Total

Pre-college science/math/ engineering teachers

1.8% 2

2.7% 3

13.5% 15

16.2% 18

32.4% 36

30.6% 34

2.7% 3 111

Pre-college teachers in other fields (not science/math/ engineering)

3.6% 4

42.3% 47

17.1% 19

21.6% 24

9.9% 11

5.4% 6 111

Most influential pre-college teacher

0.9% 1

0.9% 1

20.7% 23

10.8% 12

22.5% 25

38.7% 43

5.4% 6 111

High School Guidance Counselor

5.4% 6

48.6% 54

9.0% 10

10.8% 12

17.1% 19

9.0% 10 111

33  19   15   13   11   8   7   1   0  

29  

4  

77  

25  8   5   8   12  

4   5   0   5  

40  

10  

71  

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  

1st  greatest  inIluence   2nd  greatest  inIluence  

College instructors in engineering

0.9% 1

22.7% 25

8.2% 9

11.8% 13

23.6% 26

32.7% 36

110

College instructors in departments outside College of Engineering

0.9% 1 41.8%

46 10.0% 11

3.6% 4

6.4% 7

37.3% 41

110

Who is a CPSU First Year Female Engineer? Due to CPSU’s highly competitive admissions process, the 2011 survey data indicate that first year female engineers at CPSU are smart – 93.75% of respondents had a high school GPA over 3.5. Based on the SAT Percentile Ranks of 2011 College-Bound Seniors, 92.1% of the students who took the SAT scored in the 75th percentile or better in the mathematics section (600 or better); 65.4% scored in the 86th percentile (650 or better); 46.1% scores in the 93rd percentile (700 or better); and 19.1% scored in the 97th percentile (750 or better).29 Of the students who took the ACT, 90% scored in the 87th percentile or higher (27 or higher), and 47.1% scored in the 95th percentile (30 or higher).30 Too, 49 students indicate that they were in an honors club in high school. The student respondents also took a substantial number of AP courses, and many received AP Credit at CPSU. Within STEM AP Courses (Table 10), Calculus AB was the most commonly completed AP course (71 students), and the one for which the most students received AP credit (60 students) at CPSU. Every student respondent had completed Calculus AB or Calculus BC in high school and 84.8% received AP credit. In comparison, in the 1999-2001 WECE survey, only 66.4% of respondents had taken high school calculus.25

Table 10: AP Courses, STEM-related

AP Course Took Course Received AP Credit Calculus AB 71 60 Calculus BC 41 35 Statistics 17 13 Physics B 27 16 Physics C 13 10 Biology 25 21 Chemistry 30 16 Environmental Science 9 6 Computer Science A 9 5 Psychology 13 13

However, a large number of the survey respondents also completed AP courses and received AP credit in non-STEM courses (Table 11). Those additional AP courses in which 20 or more respondents enrolled are listed below. The top 5 AP courses taken by the survey respondents are: Calculus AB (71), English Language (55), English Literature (52), U.S. History (46), and Calculus BC (41).

Table 11: AP Courses, Non-STEM-related

AP Course Took Course Received AP Credit European History 20 17 U.S. History 46 37 World History 22 12 U.S. Government & Politics 29 18 English Language 52 50 English Literature 55 44

In terms of co-curricular activities, 19 of 112 (17%) students indicated that they attended a summer science, math, or engineering program while in high school and 21 (18.75%) participated in academic competitions or contests. However, 77 (68.75%) competed athletically while in high school and 51 (45.5%) were student leaders (e.g., president, treasurer, etc.) in a class, club, or team during the same period. Additionally, while 17 students (15.2%) had a paid work experiences or internship in science, math, or engineering in high school and 15 students (13.4%) had volunteer work experience in a STEM field, 67 students (59.8%) participated in other, non-STEM volunteer or service activities.

Table 12: Co-Curricular Activities Participation

Activities Elementary School

Middle School

High School

Athletic teams or competition 57 72 77 Future Farmers of America (FFA) (N/A) (N/A) 3 4H 3 2 2 Girl Scouts 42 15 7 Big Brother, Big Sister 2 4 7 Class/Club/Team leadership (e.g., president, treasurer, captain) 15 26 51 Summer science, math, or engineering programs 6 14 19 Competitions or contests (e.g., Westinghouse) 7 11 21 Special academic programs or workshops (on weekends, after-school) 7 8 20

Teaching/tutoring science, math, or engineering 2 15 41 Being tutored in science, math, or engineering (N/A) 4 11 Research experience (N/A) 2 8 Paid work experience or internship in science, math, or engineering (N/A) (N/A) 17 Volunteer work experience or internship in science, math, or engineering (N/A) 3 15

Other volunteer or service activity 18 40 67 “Bring Your Daughter to Work” Day 17 12 6 Other shadow experience (N/A) 2 17

Discussion Summary of the 2011 Survey Data – Implications for Recruitment of Female Engineers When? Data from the 2011 survey indicate that a large majority (88.29%) of respondents did not make their personal decision to major in engineering until their sophomore, junior, or senior years in high school. Qualitatively, respondents identified curricular and co-curricular experiences, as well as familial relationships to engineering, as the contexts in which they learned about engineering as a major/profession and finalized their decision to pursue this major. This suggests that one way to recruit additional female students to engineering is to focus recruitment efforts on high-achieving female students following college-preparatory educational tracks in high school (e.g., calculus in or by senior year), who have not considered engineering as a major previously. Why? Student respondents identified multiple types of reasons for choosing engineering as a major. The top 3 reasons map onto dominant images of what it means to be an engineer and are emphasized in many existing recruitment materials and campaigns: 1) liking and/or having an aptitude for math and science; 2) job and financial security and prestige; and 3) a focus on making, building, applying, creating, problem-solving, designing, innovating, and working with their hands. However, the fourth most important reason present in the student responses focused on ‘making a difference, helping, or serving as a role model for others as a woman and/or minority’ in the field. The researchers coded 36 responses (38.7% of students who responded) in this category. This suggests that also highlighting the ways in which engineers can make a difference in the world or help others may be an important recruitment strategy. How? The data in the 2011 survey confirm the importance of parents in students’ educational decisions, and indicate that the educational background and occupation of parents (college-educated, STEM professionals) may be correlated to female students’ decisions to major in engineering. Overall, the educational attainment of students’ parents and greatest influences is high, and 70% of students’ first greatest influences and 64.5% of the students’ second greatest influences currently or previously had worked in a STEM profession, as had 54.1% of mothers and 69.7% of fathers. Nationally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies only 6% of overall U.S. employment (approximately 8 million jobs) as work within a STEM profession.31 Thus, the parents and greatest influences of the first year female engineering students at CPSU are vastly overrepresented within the STEM fields. On the other hand, the role of pre-college and college teachers and guidance counselors as greatest influences, overall, was small. However, preliminary analysis of the data on a major-by-major basis suggests that important differences may exist, perhaps speaking to specific institutional cultures and recruitment efforts currently occurring at CPSU at the department-level. Future research will explore department and disciplinary differences in greatest influences in more detail. Two distinct insights can be drawn from this 2011 data. First, increased direct outreach to parents as key participants in student educational decision-making processes as part of recruitment efforts may yield results. Second, the data indicate that students who are

unconnected to STEM professions and/or institutions of higher education through their parents and/or greatest influences remain underrepresented. It is unclear whether this absence is primarily a problem of recruitment or of a correlation between this disconnection and comparative underperformance in CPSU’s highly selective admissions process. However, it is possible that specifically targeting parents who do not work in STEM professions as part of recruitment efforts may be especially effective. Who? The students who responded to this survey are high academic achievers. They are also incredibly well-rounded, with high achievement in Calculus and fields such as English Language and English Literature (as represented by AP courses and credit). They have greater participation rates in co-curricular activities such as athletics and non-STEM-related volunteer experiences than in locations where one might typically look for future engineers – physics classrooms, after-school and summer science and engineering programs, and STEM internships. This suggests that recruitment efforts should focus on female students who are high academic achievers but do not identify as math/science/technology focused and extend to include a wider variety of entry points into the engineering pipeline. Further, demonstrating the continued ability for female students who are engineering majors to do and be more than engineers16 while at university (e.g., continued participation in non-STEM co-curricular and service activities) may be a key strategy for recruitment and retention efforts. Sex/Gender and/or Millennial Generation Status? As indicated above, the 2011 survey showed that 88.29% of respondents did not make their personal decision to major in engineering until their sophomore, junior, or senior years in high school; that a higher proportion of 2011 respondents participated in English Language/English Literature AP courses and co-curricular activities such as athletics and non-STEM-related volunteer/service activities than in the “usual places” where we might expect to find future engineers (e.g., AP Physics, STEM programs/ internships); and that 38.7% of the 2011 respondents chose to major in engineering in order to make a difference, help, or serve as a role model for others. However, the 2011 survey did not include any male students. This raised the question of whether the patterns identified above – and their significant recruitment implications – were correlated with the sex/gender of the first year engineering students surveyed and/or by their Millennial Generation status (born between 1981-2000). What is Millennial Generation status? The 2000 book by Neil Howe and William Strauss, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, suggested that the Millennial Generation “will correct what they will perceive to be the mistakes . . . of boomers, by placing positivism over negativism, trust over cynicism, science over spiritualism, team over self, duties over rights, honor over feeling, action over words.”32 Howe and Strauss argue that the Millennial Generation will be known for its hard work “on a grassroots reconstruction of community, teamwork, and civic spirit” in “the realms of community service, race, gender relations, politics and faith” (p. 214).32 In 2007, Thomas Friedman described this age group as “‘Generation Q’ — the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.”33 Greenberg and Weber (2008) describe this generation as “Generation We.” A 2010 report by the

Pew Research Center describes the characteristics of the Millennial Generation as “confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and receptive to new ideas and ways of living.”34 USA Today described the millennials as the “civic generation” in 2009, referencing an interview with Michael Hais (co-author of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics), in which he stated that the Millennial Generation, unlike previous generations, “has a willingness to put aside some of their own personal advancement to improve society.”35 A 2010 article in Forbes describes the Millennial Generation as wanting “to earn a good living while doing work that matters” – while noting that Millennials also want opportunities to collaborate, to have fun while doing work, and “freedom of choice in everything.”36 However, not all discussion of the Millennial Generation has identified or focused on these trends. A May 2013 Time magazine cover story recently described the Millennial Generation as the “Me Me Me Generation” – “lazy, entitled, selfish, and shallow.”37 Twenge, Campbell and Freeman (2012), drawing from analysis of two large-scale surveys focused on changes in community feeling, argue that U.S. high school seniors and entering college freshman from the Millennial Generation consider “goals related to extrinsic values (money, image, fame) more important and those related to intrinsic values (self-acceptance, affiliation, community) less important” than Baby Boomers and GenX’ers at the same age. They also found that “[c]oncern for others (e.g., empathy for outgroups, charity donations, the importance of having a job worthwhile to society) declined slightly,” as did “[c]ivic orientation (e.g., interest in social problems, political participation, trust in government, taking action to help the environment and save energy).” Twenge, Campbell and Freeman conclude that “Generation Me” may be a more apt description than “Generation We” – and that the often cited up-tick in community service amongst the Millennial Generation may be the result of changing high school requirements rather than a change in generational feeling.38 In order to explore whether the trends identified in the 2011 survey were correlated with sex/gender and/or Millennial Generation status, all non-FERPA male engineering students (1140) were included in the 2013 follow-up survey in addition to female students (361). The overall response rate to the 2013 survey was 17.19%, with the female student response rate at 31.02% and the male student response rate t 12.8%. Response rate for male and female students varied by major (Table 13).    

Table 13: Response Rate by Major (Fall 2013)

Majors Female Responses

Male Responses

Total Responses

Number of Incoming First Year Students

Response Rate

Computer Science 14 20 34 82 41.46% Civil Engineering 19 20 39 115 33.91% Electrical Engineering 9 20 29 98 29.6% Biomedical Engineering 12 4 16 55 29.09% Mechanical Engineering 11 31 42 153 27.45% Materials Engineering 6 2 8 31 25.81%

Aerospace Engineering 6 13 18 76 23.68% Software Engineering 3 5 8 34 23.53% Computer Engineering 6 13 18 91 19.78% Architectural Engineering 12 8 20 108 18.52% Environmental Engineering 4 2 6 34 17.65% Manufacturing Engineering 0 2 2 15 13.33% Industrial Engineering 4 5 9 70 12.86% General Engineering 3 1 4 46 8.7% BioResource and Agricultural Engineering 3 0 3 52 5.77% Analysis of the 2013 data suggests that the answer may be both/and rather than either/or. In the 2013 survey, 89.8% of female respondents indicated that they did not make their personal decision to major in engineering until their sophomore, junior, or senior years in high school – compared to 88.29% of female respondents in 2011. However, 69.8% of the male students provided the same answer in the 2013 survey. This data suggests that, at least for Comprehensive Polytechnic State University, maintaining strong recruitment efforts throughout high school – focused on both “Why CPSU?” AND “Why Engineering?” – may yield increased numbers of quality applicants in all sex/gender categories. In 2011, as discussed above, 38.7% of the (female) respondents chose to major in engineering in order to make a difference, help, or serve as a role model for others. This percentage decreased to 25.6% for female respondents in 2013. Earlier scholars, as described in the literature review, suggests that the ‘making a difference, helping, and/or being a role model’ reason may be connected to social constructions of gender, and thus we might expect that male students would identify this reason at a lower rate. However, 14.5% of the male respondents to the 2013 survey indicated that making a difference, helping, or serving as a role model for others was one of their top three reasons for entering engineering, as well – suggesting that the impact of feminine gender role construction is important but not sufficient to explain the prevalence of this motivation in our current students. Integration of data from other survey questions into this analysis provides further evidence that gender continues to shape the experiences and envisioned futures of CPSU first-year engineering students from the Millennial Generation. For example, in response to the question “How confident are you that engineering is the right major for you?”, male respondents were 17.2% more likely to select “completely confident” or “very confident” than their 2013 female peers (Table 14).

Table 14: How confident are you that engineering is the right major for you? (Fall 2011, Fall 2013)

Female (2011) (n=110)

Female (2013) (n=110)

Male (2013) (n=144)

Completely confident 27.3% (30) 17.3% (19) 32.6% (47) Very confident 40.9% (45) 39.1% (43) 41.0% (59) Moderately confident 23.7% (26) 27.3% (30) 20.1% (29) Slightly confident 6.4% (7) 15.5% (17) 5.6% (8) Not at all confident 1.8% (2) 0.9% (1) 0.7% (1)

In response to the question, “How likely is it that you will be working in an engineering field 7 years from now?” male respondents were 10.8% more likely to select “definitely will” than their 2013 female peers (Table 15).

Table 15: How likely is it that you will be working in an engineering field 7 years from now? (Fall 2011, Fall 2013)

Female (2011) (n=109)

Female (2013) (n=110)

Male (2013) (n=144)

Definitely will 22.0% (24) 21.8% (24) 32.6% (47) Almost definitely will 42.2% (46) 38.2% (42) 35.4% (51) Probably will 33.9% (37) 36.4% (40) 31.3% (45) Probably will not 1.8% (2) 2.7% (3) 0.7% (1) Almost definitely will not 0% 0.9% (1) 0% Definitely will not 0% 0% 0%

These distinctions in confidence of first-quarter engineering students by sex are not correlated with previous academic performance: 63.4% of female students in the 2013 sample finished with a high school GPA higher than 4.0, whereas only 50% of the male students entered CPSU with this achievement. Again, this data confirms that future research should continue to explore the impact of gender role construction on potential engineers. Analysis of these patterns by major, race/ethnicity, and first generation status within the existing survey data for both male and female engineering students is ongoing, and may offer additional insight into the salience of ‘making a difference, helping, and/or being a role model’ for CPSU students. Conclusions In the introduction to this paper, three different explanations were identified for the continued underrepresentation of women in engineering: 1) the social structure of society; 2) the social structure of STEM education; and 3) the content and application of STEM knowledge. The data analyzed in this paper suggests that these explanations overlap and intersect, pushing some women towards engineering and others away. Recruitment and retention efforts must continue to focus on the multiplicity of reasons for underrepresentation for women, underrepresented racial groups, and women of color in undergraduate engineering. More broadly, multiple lessons for recruitment described above suggest that efforts to recruit female students to engineering may yield increased success rates if female students are recruited differently than their male peers – for example, with different messages about what it means to be an engineer (e.g., make a difference) and/or from different locations (e.g., English Literature courses). Data from the 2013 survey at CPSU suggests that it is possible, of course, that additional male students may be recruited via these new messages and locations, as well. However, it is also possible that while some female students may become more attracted to engineering via these “gender-inclusive” shifts, other current or potential female engineers may be turned-off by a “difference” approach to recruitment. Various previous studies have identified what Ong (2005) refers to as “passing” (and others have referred to as assimilation) as one dominant coping strategy for members of underrepresented groups in STEM disciplines.6 While assimilation can have significant personal and professional costs, it also “works” for many

women in STEM fields. It is therefore possible that an increased attention to “difference” may have negative repercussions (e.g., the creation of experiences of stereotype threat29) for some women students and professionals. Thus, careful reflection and additional research may be warranted to explore possibilities for crafting and enacting recruitment strategies for female engineers that provide a both/and approach to the “sameness vs. difference” dilemma. For CPSU’s Women’s Engineering Program (WEP), an increased focus on high school students is a significant shift from the previous recruitment model that focuses largely on elementary and middle school girls. For example – prior to the findings from this survey research – four of the five pre-college outreach activities organized by the Women’s Engineering Program (in collaboration with the CPSU Society of Women Engineers) focused on elementary and/or middle school students, whereas only one program focused on high school students (Table 14). In addition, the existing pre-college program focused on high school students – the High School Shadow Program – was designed for high school students who a) already knew that they are interested in engineering, b) already knew that they are interested in CPSU, and d) have independently completed a web-based registration form to enter the program. The single existing outreach program designed for high school students was thus focused not on recruiting high-achieving female students following college-preparatory educational tracks who had not considered engineering to engineering as a major, but rather only on recruiting high school students who already thoughts of themselves as future engineers to CPSU. In part, both this emphasis on elementary and middle school students and lack of emphasis on recruiting high school students to the idea of engineering are premised on an assumption that the time period during which students choose to major in engineering occurs prior to high school. Data from these two years of survey data turn this assumption on its head.

Table 16: Women's Engineering Program Pre-College Programs, CPSU (2010-2012)

WEP Pre-College Programs

Pre-College Program Descriptions

4th Grade Days 4th Grade Days is an annual Society of Women Engineers (SWE) outreach event during National Engineers Week. Volunteers visit 4th grade classrooms around San Luis Obispo County and lead a one-hour, hands-on activity. The goal is to teach the students about engineering and gain their interest in it so that they may possibly consider it as a career choice in the future. During the 2011-12 academic year, it was held February 21st-24th. Students made newspaper tables out of recycled newspaper and masking tape. There were over 20 CENG student volunteers, 12 classrooms and a total of 420 student participants.

Learn by Doing Lab The Learn By Doing Lab (LBDL) at CPSU is an on-campus laboratory where elementary and middle school students from local schools can experience a real-world, standards-based, inquiry-driven science/technology curriculum taught by CPSU undergraduates. Over 4,000 students have participated in the Learn By Doing Lab (LBDL) at CPSU since its launch in 2008. The Women’s Engineering Program at CPSU participates in the LBDL by encouraging members of the Society of Women Engineers at CPSU to participate as undergraduate-educators. In the 2010-11 academic year, labs focused specifically on engineering design projects were added to the LBDL curriculum, and nearly 400 visiting elementary and middle school students participated in this lab. LBDL is a program of the Center for Excellence in STEM Education (CESAME) at CPSU.

Building an Engineer Workshop

The purpose of the Building an Engineer workshop is to introduce female middle school students to engineering as a career choice. The participants that attend these

workshops are introduced to a variety of engineering disciplines, provided a hands-on learning experience, and presented with female engineering role models. The workshop is generally a day-long event that includes lunch. The ultimate goal of the workshop is to increase enrollment of underrepresented students in college engineering programs. During the 2010 - 2011 academic year, this event was held twice with approximately 200 middle school students at each event

Girl Scout Engineering Day

Annually, SWE hosts a Girl Scout Engineering Day. Local Junior Girl Scouts are invited to CPSU to earn a “CPSU SWE Engineering Patch.” The Girl Scouts typically participate in 5 engineering projects that last 25 minutes each. For the 2010 - 2011 academic year, this event was held twice, once in the fall and once in the spring with close to 100 Girl Scouts at each event.

High School Shadow SWE hosts the High School Shadow (HSS) event biannually. This event is held in fall and spring quarters. HSS serves as an opportunity to preview student life at CPSU. During HSS, high school students attend and participate in various engineering labs, meet future professors, and even sign up to stay overnight in the Residence Halls with a current engineering student. In the 2010-11 academic year, 13 students participated in HSS in the fall quarter and 250 students who were conditionally admitted to CPSU participated in the spring quarter.

The results of the ongoing research described in this paper have informed some of the recent decisions on how to focus the recruitment efforts of the CPSU Women’s Engineering Program (WEP). Utilizing the insight that close to 90% of CPSU current female engineering students didn’t decide to study engineering until high school, WEP began to search for ways to expand outreach to high school students as the target audience.

When considering where to start these new efforts, WEP studied the survey question, “Did you participate in any of the following programs at CPSU prior to starting college?” The results directed WEP to begin by looking at campus tours, the top response (67%) for pre-college participation. WEP created a presentation that highlighted the relevant findings from our research and presented it in fall 2012 to the “CPSU Reps” tour guides who lead these campus tours. Since CPSU Open House was the second highest pre-college activity that high school students participated in, WEP also developed a presentation for the College of Engineering Department Chairs. This material was presented to the Department Chairs and College of Engineering Dean the month prior to Spring 2013 Open House so that faculty and staff would be knowledgeable about important strategies and messages to include.

Another update to WEP programming involved the High School Shadow program. By partnering with the Admissions office to contact academically qualified high school girls throughout the state (including those who had not previously self-identified as future STEM majors), the High School Shadow program was expanded from 32 students in Fall 2012 to close to 200 participants in Fall 2013. Also, in light of the findings that parents are the most significant influencers on the choice of major for our students, and that most CPSU female engineering students had at least one parent that worked in a STEM field, we enhanced the parent portion of this event so that all parents, but especially those not already connected to STEM, would have a better understanding of how an engineering career might be a good fit for their daughter and the opportunities that would then be open to them.

As a result of these and other efforts across the college and the university, the Fall 2013 percent of CPSU engineering students who are female is at an historical high of 24%, an increase from 21% 2012. The yield rate for female students (the percentage of female students admitted to Cal Poly who enrolled) in the College of Engineering increased from 28.3% for Fall 2012 to 33.1% for Fall 2013. Lastly, CPSU Society of Women Engineers (SWE) membership as of December 2013 was already 23% higher than membership was in the previous June. Finally, we wish to conclude by noting that if the purpose of our outreach and recruitment efforts is to support the achievement of true equality of opportunity for all students – rather than a more narrow focus on increasing the number of female engineering students at Cal Poly – we recognize that extending recruitment efforts to include high-achieving female (and male) students in high school who do not currently identify as future engineers will not be sufficient. Instead, organizations like the Women’s Engineering Program at CPSU, with on-campus and off-campus partners, should continue to also focus on ensuring that as few students as possible are voluntarily or involuntarily “turned off to” or “turned away from” engineering prior to high school. This will create the opportunity for as many students as possible to consider engineering as a major prior to and during high school – and for these students to have the real possibility of acceptance to schools and majors of their choice. Fully expanding our efforts in this direction, however, may require that university leaders at CPSU and elsewhere broaden meanings and measurements of what counts as outreach and recruitment success – turning our attention as a university community to the impacts of inequalities in pre-kindergarten, elementary, and secondary grade in-school and out-of-school educational experiences, alongside our efforts to recruit already high-achieving and high-performing female (and male) students to engineering as a discipline and CPSU as a university. References

1. Schiebinger, L., 1999, Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2011. Women, Minorities, and

Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2011. Special Report NSF 11-309. Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.

3. National Research Council. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11741

4. Freeman, C.E., 2004, Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women: 2004 (NCES 2005–016). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

5. Hill, Catherine, Christianne Corbett, Andresse St. Rose. (2010). Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: AAUW.

6. Ong, M., 2005, Body Projects of Young Women of Color in Physics: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Science. Social Problems, 52(4), 593-617.

7. National Science Board, 2010, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01).

8. National Science Board, 2013, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. (NSB 13-304)

9. Litzler, E., 2011, “How do gender and race/ethnicity intersect to impact students' perceptions of experiences in engineering?” The Global Marathon For, By and About Women in Engineering and Technology, March 7, 2011.

10. Gibbons, M., 2010, Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

11. National Science Board, 2012, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01).

12. Mason, M.A. and Goulden, M., 2002, Do Babies Matter? The Effect of Family Formation of the Lifelong Careers of Academic Men and Women. Academe 88(6): 21-27.

13. Hoopes, L.L.M., 2007, Family-Work Issues for Women Scientists: An Interview with Diane F. Halpern, Association for Women in Science, 16(3): 8-10.

14. Jenkins, E.W. and Pell, R.G., 2006, The Relevance of Science Education Project (ROSE) in England: a summary of findings. Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.

15. Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D. and Nichols, S., 1994. An Exploratory Attempt toward a Feminist Pedagogy for Science Education. Action in Teacher Education, 15(4): 36-46.

16. Barton, A. C., 1998, Feminist Science Education. New York: Teachers College Press. 17. Margolis, J. and Fisher, A., 2002, Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. 18. Riley, D., Pawley, A., Tucker, J., and Catalano, G.D., 2009, Feminisms in Engineering Education:

Transformative Possibilities. National Women's Studies Association Journal, 24(2): 21-40. 19. Vaz, R., Quinn, P., Heinricher, A., and Rissmiller, K., 2013, Gender differences in the long-term impacts of

project-based learning. Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exhibition, Atlanta, GA.

20. Busch-Vishniac, I., and Jarosz, J., 2004, Can Diversity in the Undergraduate Engineering Population Be Enhanced through Curricular Change? Journal of women and minorities in science and engineering, 10(3): 1072- 8325.

21. Bakst, D., Make, J. and Rankin, R., 2011, Beyond the Breadwinner: Professional Dads Speak Out on Work and Family. New York: A Better Balance: Work & Family Legal Center. Available at: http://www.abetterbalance.org/web/images/stories/Documents/valuecarework/Reports/ABB_Rep_BeyondBreadwinner.pdf

22. National Action Council on Minorities in Engineering, Inc., 2012, African Americans in Engineering, NACME Research & Policy, 2(4): 1-2.

23. Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, 2011, Minority-Male STEM Initiative: Dialogue and Deliverables for American Public and Land-Grant Universities. Available at: http://www.aplu.org/page.aspx?pid=1845

24. National Survey for Student Engagement, 2011, NSSE 2011 U.S. Response Rate Information by Key Institutional Characteristic. Available at: http://nsse.iub.edu/2011_Institutional_Report/pdf/2011ResponseRates.pdf

25. Goodman Research Group, 2002, Final Report on the Women’s Experiences in College Engineering (WECE) Project. Cambridge, MA.

26. Gee, J.P., 2005, An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge. 27. Miles, M.B., and Huberman. A.M., 1994, Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 28. Robson, C., 2002, Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. 2nd ed.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 29. College Board Educational Testing Service, 2011, SAT Percentile Ranks. 30. ACT, 2012, National Ranks for Test Scores and Composite Score, Available at:

http://www.actstudent.org/scores/norms1.html 31. Cover, J., Jones, J.I., and Watson, A. (2011, May). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

(STEM) Occupations: a visual essay. Monthly Labor Review: 3-15. 32. Howe, N., and Strauss, W., 2000, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Vintage. 33. Friedman, T., 10 Oct 2007, Generation Q, New York Times. Available at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10friedman.html. 34. PewResearch Social & Demographic Trends Center, 2010, The Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to

Social Change. Washington, DC: PewResearch Center.

35. Stone, A., 13 Apr 2010, ‘Civic generation’ rolls up sleeves in record numbers, USA Today. Available at: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sharing/2009-04-13-millenial_N.htm

36. Gross, T.S., 5 Jul 2012, The New Millennial Values, Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/prospernow/2012/07/05/the-new-millennial-values/.

37. Stein, J., 20 May 2013, Millennials: The Me, Me, Me Generation, Time. 38. Twenge, J.M., Campbell, W., and Freeman, E.C., 2012, Generational differences in young adults life goals,

concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966-2009, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5): 1045-1062.