1. John Carey, Katie Clayton and Yusaku Horiuchi Dartmouth College
UNR Student and Faculty Attitudes Towards Diversity in Student Admissions and Faculty Appointments
John Carey, Katie Clayton and Yusaku Horiuchi Dartmouth College

2. Context
Growing demands from student communities for greater demographic diversity on campuses, e.g. more students from traditionally underrepresented race/ethnicity groups and with socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and more women and racial/ethnic minority faculty appointments. Some universities have responded by changing curricula, e.g. new resources for gender/race studies programs, or similar courses on existing degrees. More difficult demands to satisfy are increasing diversity in student admissions or faculty appointments, as these raise issues of whether positive discrimination can/should be used to achieve greater diversity. -> Question: What are students’ and faculty members’ preferences with respect to candidates and applicants?

3. What do we (think we) know?
Published scholarship
Primarily from medical/nursing-school populations in the US
Methods: interviews, focus groups, standard surveys
Student body and faculty surveys
Data often not available
And where surveys have been conducted, they suffer from several design problems, e.g. selection bias
priming effects
social desirability bias

4. An alternative design Extended during AY 2016-2017 to:
Conjoint analysis
Used in marketing research for many decades to measure multidimensional preferences underlying an individual’s choice
Based on a design used in US and international universities
Dartmouth College,
Extended during AY to:
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Mexico
University of California, San Diego
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
London School of Economics
United States Naval Academy (pending)

5. Student surveys: Split-sample
UNR students were randomly assigned to one of two groups:
Faculty appointments
Undergraduate admissions
N = 704 / 8,897 (8%)
February 15 – March 14, 2017
Choose between 10 pairs of hypothetical applicants for undergraduate admissions (with randomly generated composite attributes appearing in a random order)
N = 622 / 8,897 (7%)
February 15 – March 14, 2017
Choose between 10 pairs of hypothetical candidates for faculty positions (with randomly generated composite attributes appearing in a random order)

6. Faculty survey Faculty appointments N = 203 / 1,086 (19%)
All UNR faculty received the same survey on faculty appointments:
Faculty appointments
N = 203 / 1,086 (19%)
February 15 – March 14, 2017
Choose between 10 pairs of hypothetical candidates for faculty positions (with randomly generated composite attributes appearing in a random order)

7. Attributes Undergraduate admissions Faculty appointments
Demographics Race/ethnicity Gender State residence Socio-economic Background Annual family income in US dollars High school type Parents’ education Scholarly Record SAT score High school class rank Institutional Considerations Extra-curricular interest Recruited varsity athlete
Demographics Race/ethnicity Gender Scholarly Record Teaching record Research record PhD institution Undergraduate institution Institutional Considerations Academic department/program Faculty position being considered for Spouse/partner faculty status

8. Conjoint Table: Example 1
Which applicant do you think should be given priority in undergraduate admissions? Even if you are not entirely sure, please indicate which of the two you would be most likely to choose.
Applicant 1
Applicant 2
SAT score
1430
1760
Parents’ education
Neither parent attended college
Parent(s) attended UNR
Extra-curricular interest
Student Newspaper
Performing Arts
Gender
Woman
Man
High school type
Public
Parochial
Race/ethnicity
White
Asian
Annual family income in US dollars
$21,000
$157,000
State residence
Out-of-state applicant
In-state applicant
High school class rank
80th percentile
95th percentile
Recruited varsity athlete
Yes No
If you had to choose between them, which of these two applicants should be given priority to be admitted as an undergraduate student at UNR?
Applicant 1
Applicant 2

9. Conjoint Table: Example 2
Which candidate do you think should be given priority in faculty recruitment? Even if you are not entirely sure, please indicate which of the two you would be most likely to choose.
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
Teaching record
Good
Excellent
Received PhD from
University of Georgia
Yale University
Department/program
Gender, Race and Identity
Economics
Faculty position being considered for
Tenured Professor
Tenure-Track Assistant Professor
Research record
Fair
Received undergraduate degree from
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Columbia University
Spouse/partner is a current or potential faculty member No
Yes
Race/ethnicity
Black
White
Gender
Woman
Man
If you had to choose between them, which of these two candidates should be given priority to be hired as a new faculty member at UNR?
Candidate 1
Candidate 2

10. Post-conjoint survey
After the conjoint, we asked respondents questions about themselves…
For students:
Expected year of graduation
Main area of academic study
Extra-curricular interests
SAT score
Gender identity
Race/ethnicity
Partisanship
Did either or both parents attend college?
Did either or both parents attend UNR?
Family income
For faculty:
School/department
Faculty position/rank
Gender identity
Race/ethnicity

11. Post-conjoint survey
… and a question about their views on diversity:

12. Methodological advantages
Minimize priming effects All permutations randomly generated Order of attributes is fully randomized Minimize social desirability bias Our surveys neither prime particular diversity-related attributes nor mention diversity in any part of the study

13. Interpreting the results
Average Marginal Component Effect (AMCE) How much a respondent is more (or less) likely to choose a hypothetical candidate/applicant when a particular attribute-level is presented, compared to the base category? Estimated with OLS regression Example: Hypothetical candidate 1 is “white” (base) Hypothetical candidate 2 is “black” All else being equal

14. Differences by groups?
Are AMCEs different by groups? Race/ethnicity identification Gender identification Whether a respondent thinks race/ethnicity should be a consideration in admissions/appointments Political party preference (student respondents only) Faculty vs. student status (faculty recruitment survey only) Nb. The following results are shown compared to a “baseline” category The “wings” on each “airplane” represent the 95% confidence interval around the estimate

15. Student admissions: general results
slight preference for minority students; strongest for Native American
very slight preference for female and non-binary students
strong preference for high academic standards
strong preference for applicants from middle-class and lower-income families relative to top income percentiles

16. Faculty appointments: general results (student respondents)
slight preference for minority faculty
slight preference for female faculty
strong preference for excellent research and especially for excellent teaching records

17. Faculty appointments: general results (faculty respondents)
strong preference for minority faculty
moderate preference for female and non-binary faculty
strong preference for tenure-track assistant or tenured professors
slight preference for highly ranked universities
strong preference for excellent research and teaching records

18. Undergraduate admissions: race/ethnicity effects
Non-white students are more favorable towards Asian and Native American applicants than white students, and less favorable towards non-binary applicants. They place a lower weight on SAT score than do white students.

19. Faculty appointments: race/ethnicity effects (student respondents)
Non-white students are more favorable towards black and Hispanic faculty candidates than white students. There are no other differences between non-white and white students’ preferences.

20. Faculty appointments: race/ethnicity effects (faculty respondents)
There are very few differences between white and non-white faculty preferences. That said, the sample size for minority faculty respondents is relatively small.

21. Undergraduate admissions: gender effects
There are few differences between male and female students’ preferences. However, female students are more favorable towards non-binary students than male students.

22. Faculty appointments: gender effects (student respondents)
Conversely, male and female students show several differences in preference for faculty appointments. Female students are more favorable towards minorities (with the exception of Hispanic faculty), female and non-binary faculty, tenured professors, and faculty seeking positions in the English, Gender, and Political Science departments.

23. Faculty appointments: gender effects (faculty respondents)
Female faculty are more favorable towards black faculty candidates, female faculty candidates, and candidates seeking positions in the English, Gender, Journalism, and Psychology departments.

24. Undergraduate admissions: merit only vs. consider race
A large majority of students (78%) prefer student admissions to be based on “merit only.” Students who think race should be considered prefer minority applicants, non-binary applicants, and applicants from lower income families, and discount top SAT scores and class rank relative to students who prefer merit only.

25. Faculty appointments: merit only vs
Faculty appointments: merit only vs. consider race (student respondents)
A large majority of students (84%) prefer faculty appointments to be based on “merit only,” rather than any consideration of race. Students who think race should be considered prefer minority, female, and non-binary faculty, and discount teaching and research record.

26. Faculty appointments: merit only vs
Faculty appointments: merit only vs. consider race (faculty respondents)
Just over half of faculty respondents (53%) prefer faculty appointments to be based on “merit only,” rather than any consideration of race. Yet even these faculty show preferences for black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants. Faculty who say they think race should be considered favor such applicants, as well as female and non-binary applicants even more strongly, and discount teaching and research record.

27. Undergraduate admissions: partisanship differences
Students who are Democrats are more favorable towards black, Native American, and non-binary students. They are also much more favorable towards low-income students, and they place a lower weight on SAT score than Republicans.

28. Faculty appointments: partisanship differences
Students who are Democrats are more favorable towards black, Hispanic, and non-binary candidates.

29. Faculty appointments: Faculty vs. student status
Faculty have much higher preferences for minority candidates, tenure-track and tenured candidates, candidates who attended high-level undergraduate and PhD institutions, and candidates with strong research records. Students have higher preferences for candidates with strong teaching records.

30. Key findings
UNR students exhibit strong preferences for academic excellence in both student admissions and faculty appointments. Student Admissions Survey UNR students strongly favor high academic admissions standards (as measured by SAT score and somewhat by high school class rank). That said, there is also evidence that students strongly favor applicants from lower income families, and slightly favor minority, female, and non-binary applicants. Faculty Appointment Survey UNR students place their highest premium on “teaching excellence.” They also show preferences for considering race and gender in faculty appointments. In contrast, UNR faculty place a much higher weight on qualities such as race and ethnicity, tenure, research record, and undergraduate degree in faculty appointments.