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

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

3. marzabce@shu.edu Possible Solutions to Scientific Workforce Problem Women large part of the pool of candidates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields Female degree recipients in STEM fields: ~ 50% of bachelors degrees ~ 34% of doctorates But….they, dont all make it into the workforce

4. marzabce@shu.edu In Academic Chemistry Institution-Type Terminal Degree Female Faculty (% Full Time) Ph.D.13.3 M.S.20.3 B.A./B.S.26.1 2-year31.7 ACS Women Chemists 2000 Percentage of Female, Full-Time Faculty Members

5. marzabce@shu.edu Why arent women making it into the scientific workforce? Look at graduates from top ranked chemistry departments. Graduates from these prestigious institutions should have the most opportunities available to them !!! J. Chem. Ed. 2004, 81, 356-363 If disparities are seen at the top, how much greater is the disparity at less prestigious schools?

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

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

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

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

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

11. marzabce@shu.edu Graduate School Selection No gender difference in chief criteria used: 1. Reputation of department/school 2. Perceived environment 3. Geographical location 15% of the women and 8% of the men responded that they would not make the same choice of graduate school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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