Equity

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Higher Education, Matthew Lynch

Diverse Conversations: Finding a Mentor

Mentorship is a huge part of professional success in higher education. If nothing else, having a solid mentor helps higher education professionals to develop valuable contacts and integrate themselves into their employer institution.

Finding a mentor, though, can be a tricky thing. Some people are naturally good at formulating mentor-mentee relationships. Others simply don’t know where to start.
To get some insight into how higher education professionals can go about finding the right mentor for their career goals, I sat down with Dr. John Caron, senior associate dean, Academic and Faculty Affairs at Northeastern University College of Professional Studies, who has made mentorship a key area of his professional focus.

Q: Starting with a fairly obvious but important question, tell me some of the key benefits of having a mentor in a higher education professional setting?

A: I’ve found that having someone you can reach out to when you need advice or talk through an issue you’re dealing with is immensely valuable when working in a higher education professional setting. Throughout the course of my professional life, which spans about 25 years, I’ve been fortunate to have had many mentors at different points and times during my career.

One of the most influential mentors to me was a former supervisor who became a mentor to me for seven or eight years. As a first generation college graduate, I found myself wanting to pursue a doctorate degree while working full-time and I was trying to figure out how to make that goal happen. My mentor had actually gotten her doctorate while working full-time, so she was great at helping me map out the pathway and more importantly instill the confidence in me to make this happen. I don’t think that I would have done it without her – she was a role-model because she not only achieved it herself, but showed me how I could do it.

Q: What sort of mentorship has played a role in your career? What have been some of the key highlights for you?

A: One key role my mentors have provided me with is helping me navigate new positions in higher education that required a different level of leadership. For example, as you take on positions of increasing responsibilities, the leadership skills that worked in previous positions may not work. My mentors were very helpful in giving me advice about how to develop skills I needed to be an effective leader.

Q: Mentor-mentee relationships can be immensely valuable but they can also emerge in various different forms. What importance should higher education professionals place on finding a mentor who aligns to their professional goals? Is it important to choose a mentor who has, say, specific experience in the academic field you are targeting?

A: It definitely helps to have a mentor who aligns with your professional goals, but I’ve found that it’s not critical to choose a mentor with specific experience in the field you are targeting.

That being said, choosing a mentor in the field you are currently in or would like to pursue does help because he or she can help you prepare your CV properly, introduce you to key people and contacts and explain nuances of the field such as language, culture, expectations, etc. One of my mentors was in the same field as I am (higher education), so she knew about the experiences I was having and she could relate. There was a moment, however, when I decided to leave higher education and pursue an opportunity in the private sector. I asked my mentor what she thought about the move. She couldn’t really advise me about the private sector because she had always worked in higher education. She told me not to be risk averse and follow my instincts. If the fit wasn’t right for me, the experience would be valuable if I returned to higher education. It turned out that she was right. I use the insights I gained from my experience working in the private industry every day.

Q: Considering an example, if the goal was to transition from teaching to an administrative position, what type of mentor should a person seek out?

A: I would suggest that person seek someone who has made the transition herself or himself and can help that person navigate the differences and challenges.

Q: How do people in academia actually go about finding a mentor?

A: Some people find a mentor by working closely with someone and this can happen in a variety of ways such as through a faculty or teaching assistant relationship, a former supervisor, collaborating on a research endeavor or grant opportunity, or asking a professor to read an article and provide feedback and suggestions. I have found two of my most influential mentors by working closely with someone – they were former supervisors of mine.

My first supervisor and I became friends through work and then colleagues after I moved on from that job, yet we managed to stay in touch. A lot of advice was actually given to me on the tennis court because we both liked to play tennis. We would also see each other at conferences, make a point to have breakfast together or lunch, and I would just call her up when I needed to talk to her. I think that goes to an important point that having a mentor requires some work – you have to cultivate the relationship and you need to stay in touch. It doesn’t really work if you go two to three years without talking to each other; it really works best if you stay in touch on a regular basis.

This person mentored me for seven to eight years, but unfortunately passed away about 10 years ago. After that there was a long time when I didn’t have a mentor. I started to realize that something was missing – like my compass wasn’t working – and someone pointed out that I hadn’t had a mentor in about five years, and suggested I find another. I ended up getting a job at Brown University and my current supervisor at the time evolved into a mentor/friendship relationship.

I’ve found my mentors through close professional relationships, but for others it can also happen by chance. Conferences are a great way to meet colleagues and professionals. Additionally, if you are presenting at a conference, you may be approached by someone who has feedback on your topic of expertise, and an initial conversation can flourish into a mentorship.

Q: What are some of the best resources for finding a mentor?

A: I would start by looking beyond the obvious. If you’re only looking within your department to find a mentor, expand your search. Consider groups and organizations you’re a member of, or even reach out to individuals you are affiliated with through LinkedIn. You can approach someone in a leadership role in your organization to see if he or she can help you find a mentor, especially if you are looking to grow in a specific area within your organization or would like guidance in your field or even in another field you are interested in pursuing.

I believe finding a mentor is more often an individual experience; you need to be willing and able to seek out a mentor. No one is going to walk up to you and kindly offer to be your mentor. Therefore, it’s important that you take initiative to seek out the help and guidance that you need.

Right now I’m working with a consultant and over time I’ve found that he’s really become more of a mentor to me. I can imagine that when our consulting relationship ends, I will continue to seek him out as a mentor because we’ve just clicked. And that brings me to an important point: you know when you’ve found the right person when you both click. And if you find that you don’t have that click you should keep looking because sometimes it doesn’t work out.

Q: Have you found that some institutions actively cultivate mentorship and if so, how? What are some of the more effective strategies?

A: I have heard or have worked at companies or institutions in a consulting role where they have programs in place where you can request to shadow someone in a different department, or you can be paired with someone at a senior level to talk about career advice and aspirations.

Colleges and universities or companies that are intentional about this, especially for entry-level and even sometimes mid-level employees, can create a structure or pathway for their employees that can be enormously helpful.

Q: What advice would you give about utilizing a mentor relationship? What are some of the best ways to make use of this type of relationship in higher education?

A: It’s great if you can find a mentor who you trust and who stays with you throughout your professional career. Some people have more than one mentor, like I’ve had, to help them navigate different aspects of their personal and professional life.

I would suggest that once someone finds his or her mentor that they be flexible with that person; because many mentors are executives, they are by nature, very busy.

I would also recommend to be grateful. Your mentor is giving his or her time to you in exchange for the pleasure of watching your career unfold. He or she has no ulterior motive, make this person glad he or she signed on. Don’t just reach out to your mentor when things are not going well. Share your positive stories with your mentor as well.

For the most part, a good mentor knows you really well and that person will be honest and supportive. I trusted the feedback that one of my mentors gave me because she could give it to me in a way I could hear it. It was honest but supportive, but wasn’t harsh. It allowed me to reflect on our conversation and really contemplate her advice and recommendations.

And if you don’t find someone that you click with, keep looking. Eventually you will find someone that you not only click with, but who will offer you invaluable advice and guidance through hopefully many different career paths and changes as you navigate higher education. And as your relationship grows, you might even find that your roles may reverse and that you will become a mentor to that person!

My thanks to Dr. Caron. This concludes our interview.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Single-Sex Classrooms Making a Comeback for All the Wrong Reasons

There is a debate about equity in education that extends beyond zip codes, race and socioeconomic status and cuts right to the heart of something predetermined: sex. The controversy over whether or not single-sex schooling models actually make an academic difference is one that has raged for the better half of a century. Early reasons for separating young men and young women in their studies were simple enough – there was a cultural belief that removing the distraction of the opposite sex would lead to greater focus and higher academic gains. As the country moved away from the “separate but equal” mentality in all facets of life, the virtues of single-sex schooling faded too. In some eyes, separating young women and young men was not just pointless but was sexist.

The back-and-forth over single-sex schooling never completely faded from the educational landscape, though, and neither did all-girls or all-boys schools. In recent years, it seems that the argument FOR single-sex schooling is making a comeback for many of the same reasons it was born in the first place. Around 500 public schools in the U.S. now offer some form of all-girls or all-boys schooling, either in entirety or in individual classrooms. It is a fact that young women, even those who show strong propensities toward STEM topics, lose interest in math, science and affiliated fields around middle school. This is also a sensitive age where young women traditionally start to put more stock in what the opposite sex thinks about them. This is enough to make some people like former New York City mayoral hopeful

Christine Quinn spearhead campaigns to open public magnet middle schools for girls where they can pursue STEM topics without a loss of self-confidence around men.
But is the loss of interest in traditionally non-glamorous topics like engineering, science and math really related to the presence of the opposite sex? It seems that would be a simple answer but of course, nothing simple can ever be accepted at face value. This idea that young women are dropping non-feminine topics at an impressionable age because of the opposite sex is flawed.

It is possible that outside factors like parental influence weigh on what a young woman pursues as she gets older. This can be a direct effect when a parent steers a child in a certain direction, or it can be the indirect effect of seeing the roles a mother and father play in their own homes. If father is an engineer, and mother is a preschool teacher, it is possible that a young woman will relate more fully to her mother’s path, even if she has an interest like dad in engineering topics. A preschool teacher is a noble career, of course, but one that is also dominated by females. In 2011, only 2.3 percent of U.S. preschool teachers were male. In this example case, even a young woman who attends an all-girls STEM school may end up taking the young childhood education path for reasons that have nothing to do with her feelings about the opposite sex.

And what about LGBT students? The number of K-12 students who identify themselves as non-heterosexual in one way or another is rising. One of the arguments for single-sex schooling is that it takes away the tingly, budding attraction emotions in young people but it becomes irrelevant if a student has no interest in the opposite sex anyway.

The American Civil Liberties Union has even come out against single-sex schools, particularly in cases where those schools are public ones, in its “Teach Kids, Not Stereotypes” campaign. The ACLU believes that separating young women and young men is a slippery slope and one that could inadvertently bring unfair outcomes to the students. It seems that there must be a better way to encourage young women, and men, in their academic studies without implementing the archaic practice of total separation in classrooms.

Are you in favor of, or against, single-sex schooling models?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Parental Involvement, The Whole Truth

In kids, even low lead levels can cause lasting harm

Robert L. Fischer, Case Western Reserve University and Elizabeth Anthony, Case Western Reserve University

The recent firestorm over lead exposure from drinking water in Flint, Michigan is a reminder of the enduring risk posed by environmental lead. While we can all agree that it is unacceptable for children to be exposed to dangerously high levels of lead, there is less awareness of what this means.

Flint is just one of many cities in the country where lead exposure is a serious issue. For cities with an industrial past and much pre-1978 housing stock, like Cleveland, where we work, the risks to today’s children is of continuing concern. In recent years, we and our colleagues have been examining the incidence and effects of lead exposure on young children in Cleveland and its first-ring suburbs.

Even though lead paint was banned in 1978, many old homes still have it.
Thester11 via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Lead is a known neurotoxin that is associated with cognitive deficits in children – even at low levels of exposure. In fact, reports indicate that most of the harm may occur at levels of exposure well below current standards for concern. Though lead is no longer used in household paint and has been removed from gasoline, there is still plenty of it out there. Lead leaching into water pipes, in paint dust and chips, and soil remains a serious threat to children.

Children living in low-income neighborhoods, children of color and children whose families live in rental housing are statistically at the greatest risk of exposure to lead. That means the children most at risk of lead exposure also disproportionately face the effects of poverty, low-resource communities and trauma.

Lead’s effects never go away

Often attention is focused on the number of children who have an elevated lead test result in a given year. This is an important metric, but it can mask the cumulative role of lead exposure on child development.

For example, in Cuyahoga County, where nearly 25,000 children are tested each year, we have seen the number of children with an elevated blood lead level (above 5 micrograms per deciliter) drop from 35 percent in 2004 to 9 percent in 2013. This is a very encouraging trend showing success from public health efforts.

Despite the fact that the number of children with high lead level rates seems to be going down, it is important to think about the overall share of children that have ever had a positive lead test. These children carry those effects with them as they age.

In a recent unpublished analysis using integrated data from multiple sources, we found that fully 35 percent of children in a sample of preschool classrooms had an elevated blood lead level at some point in their lives.

The treatment options for children with elevated blood lead levels include dietary approaches and dealing with the effects of lead by managing sensory exposures. At greater exposures, chelation therapy – in which a synthetic compound is injected into the bloodstream which binds itself to the heavy metals – can be used. Though chelation has been shown to significantly reduce blood lead levels in the short term, there is evidence of a rebound in lead levels after therapy has concluded. Also, blood lead levels do not fully capture the retention of lead in bone and deep tissue.

Kids with lead exposure start behind nonexposed kids.
Children image via www.shutterstock.com.

Long-term consequences

Children exposed to lead are at elevated risk for learning delays and academic issues. We have also found that students with confirmed early childhood lead exposure have lower kindergarten readiness scores.

In tracking the experiences of children in our community, we find that lead-exposed children entering high-quality preschool start the year significantly behind their nonexposed peers.

In our ongoing research, we have found that on standardized measures these children score 10-30 percent below their peers on skills such as identifying letters, numbers and shapes. More sobering is the reality that while these children show significant progress during preschool they still finish the year, on average, below where their nonexposed peers start the preschool year.

This disparity is likely to grow as children age unless special efforts are made to address it. Results from Detroit show that these children are much more likely to experience academic challenges as they age.

And it looks like it doesn’t take much lead to cause harm. Other research has shown that blood levels well below the current standard for intervention can also cause negative effects on school readiness for young children.

There is no known safe level of lead exposure

Until a few years ago, the federal standard for action was 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood, and in 2012 it was lowered by half in recognition of evidence showing a lower threshold of concern.

But the truth is there is no known safe level of blood lead for children, and the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said as much.

The medical research community has documented negative impacts on children with even lower levels of lead exposure than the current 5 micrograms per deciliters standard. With that view, we might consider every child with a confirmed nonzero lead test as at-risk.

Based on our analysis of lead data in our county, we calculate that if this standard were adopted in the U.S., our lead exposure rate for kids younger than 6 in a single year would climb from 9 percent to 3-4 times this rate.

Short of ensuring that every housing structure has been certified as lead-safe, parents and caregivers should be the first line of defense in keeping children from this exposure. Testing lead blood levels in children is simply too late.

This is akin to the TSA searching for lethal weapons after the passengers have boarded the flight and the plan has taken off. Once the lead is in the bloodstream, the damage is real and lasting for these children, and the options for response are far fewer and less effective.

The Conversation

Robert L. Fischer, Co-Director of the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western Reserve University and Elizabeth Anthony, Research Assistant Professor, Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western Reserve University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Why do fewer black students get identified as gifted?

Jason A. Grissom, Vanderbilt University

Nationally, black and Hispanic students are underrepresented in gifted programs, which provide specialized instruction or other services to meet the needs of especially bright or talented students.

Data from the U.S. Department of Education show that black and Hispanic students make up 40 percent of public school students but make up only 26 percent of students enrolled in gifted programs.

So what are the reasons for this underrepresentation?

One possibility is that these disproportionately low rates simply reflect differences in academic achievement across demographic groups. Indeed, a large body of research demonstrates that black and Hispanic students lag behind their white and Asian peers even at kindergarten entry.

However, a recent study I coauthored with Christopher Redding, a doctoral student at Vanderbilt University, shows that differences in achievement are only part of the story.

The black-white gap in gifted identification

We based our research on an analysis of gifted placements in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, which tracked a nationally representative sample of kindergartners throughout elementary school. A nice feature of these data is that they contain standardized achievement measures in math and reading for every student.

When we took student achievement levels into account, we found different patterns for Hispanic and black students. Essentially all of the gifted assignment gap between Hispanic and white students can be explained by test score differences. In stark contrast, math and reading scores explained only a little of the black-white gap in gifted assignment. In fact, a black student with the same scores as a white student is still only half as likely to be assigned to a gifted program.

In other words, two students – one black and one white – with the same math and reading achievement could have very different likelihoods of being identified as gifted.

This is a startling finding.

And, as additional analysis in our study shows, it cannot be explained by other differences in student background, such as parental education and household income.

Our investigation of school and classroom factors, however, does point toward two contributors to the black-white gap.

The first is that black students are less likely than white students to attend schools that offer gifted programs.

A teacher’s race can influence who gets selected for gifted programs.
US Department of Education, CC BY

The second is that black students assigned to a white classroom teacher are much less likely to be assigned to gifted programs than those assigned to a black teacher.

The differences are big.

Black students in black teachers’ classrooms have almost the same probability of being assigned to gifted services as otherwise similar white students. However, black students in white teachers’ classrooms are identified for gifted services only about a third as often.

We find no similar evidence that having a same-race teacher matters for the gifted assignment of white, Hispanic or Asian students.

Black teachers vs. white teachers

Why would the teacher’s race matter for whether a black student is identified as gifted?

There are multiple possible explanations.

Perhaps black students respond differently to teachers who look like them in ways that make their giftedness more apparent. Perhaps parents feel more comfortable advocating for their child to be evaluated for giftedness when they share a common background with the child’s teacher.

More likely, however, is that black teachers and white teachers perform differently when it comes to identifying giftedness in black students. What a black teacher more attuned to a black child’s background, culture and language may recognize as evidence of exceptional aptitude or talent may go undetected by a white teacher.

Research also shows that white teachers tend to express lower expectations for the academic success of black students than do black teachers. Worth noting is that at last count, 83 percent of the teacher workforce is white.

How should students be screened?

To receive gifted services, students must go through an evaluation to be formally designated as gifted.

School districts’ gifted evaluation processes vary, but most begin with a referral for gifted evaluation from a classroom teacher. Students who are not referred by a teacher are unlikely to be evaluated. Teachers failing to recognize (or expect) giftedness in some students can be an important barrier to equal access.

One solution to the problem is to reduce the role of teacher discretion in gifted identification. Testing or evaluating all students for giftedness could ensure that high-aptitude students from traditionally disadvantaged groups get access to the services they need.

Indeed, school districts that have implemented so-called “universal screening” policies have seen dramatic increases in the numbers of black, Hispanic and low-income students (another group our analysis shows are underrepresented) identified as gifted.

Studies show that gifted youth benefit from gifted programs on such outcomes as achievement and motivation. And gifted youth from marginalized groups benefit even more than other students.

Gifted black students deserve the same opportunities as gifted white students to reach their academic potential. Whether the strategy is universal screening or better training of teachers to recognize giftedness among all students or another approach, our research suggests that school districts need to get serious about making sure that gifted services are accessible to all students who need them.

 

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

The Conversation

 

Jason A. Grissom, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Education, Vanderbilt University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, HBCU's, Higher Education

If a female president is good for the Ivy League, why not for the rest of us?

Cathy Sandeen, University of Wisconsin Colleges and the University of Wisconsin-Extension

On July 1, Elizabeth Garrett assumed the presidency of Cornell University.

With this, half of the eight-member Ivy League schools now have female presidents. Garrett joins an illustrious group: Christina Paxson (Brown University), Drew Faust (Harvard University) and Amy Gutmann (University of Pennsylvania).

But what about colleges and universities outside the Ivy League?

Women in academia

I am enormously proud to have been appointed recently as chancellor of University of Wisconsin Colleges and University of Wisconsin-Extension. Although I am the first woman to hold this position, I am not the only woman in a top job in our system.

Four other campuses now have women leaders, including our flagship research university, University of Wisconsin Madison. In addition, a woman was recently elected as president of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents (the governing body that oversees the UW system).

Women outnumber men at universities.
Jair Alcon, CC BY

It’s clear that there is a commitment to gender equity at Wisconsin. But national data show a different picture.

First, let’s look at how women have come to outnumber men on college campuses. The majority of degree earners in our colleges and universities are women. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, women began eclipsing men in terms of degree attainment beginning in 2000. By 2014, 37% of women between 25 and 29 years had earned a bachelor’s degree, compared to men at 31%.

Women are well-represented in education careers in general. For instance, 76% of K-12 teachers and 48% of college faculty in the US are women.

Based on this data, it might not be unreasonable to expect that now or in the near future, 50% of all colleges and university leaders would be women.

However, the latest figures indicate that only 26% of college presidents are women. How slowly it is changing becomes evident when we see that back in 2006, this number was at 23%.

Why women don’t make it

So why do women get left behind when it comes to leadership roles?

Here is where we need to see how college and university presidents are selected.

There is, as research shows, a tendency to play it safe and hire someone who fits the existing norm (ie, men). As an American Council on Education study put it:

In 1986, the first year of ACE’s college president study, the demographic profile of the typical campus leader was a white male in his 50s. He was married with children, Protestant, held a doctorate in education, and had served in his current position for six years. Twenty-five years later, with few exceptions, the profile has not changed.

The fact that there is often a dearth of women on search committees does not help.

There is higher bar for women in leadership roles.
The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, CC BY-NC

In addition, as research shows, there is often a higher bar set for women seeking leadership roles in terms of qualifications and prior experience. This applies not just to the higher education sector but to other fields as well.

Here in the US, a former football coach, a former military officer and an elected official were all recently appointed as college or university presidents over the last year. They were all male.

No doubt, they are all strong leaders. But they did not “check all the usual boxes” we usually expect in terms of broad higher education experience. Unlike women presidents, none of them had a significant amount academic leadership experience.

Now take a quick look at the stellar curriculum vitae of the female Ivy League leaders: We see multiple books (including national award winners), distinguished and endowed professorships, service as founding deans and directors of major departments and centers, appointments to chair presidential commissions, and numerous awards and honors.

Lack of ambition or confidence?

The trouble may not lie with the hiring process alone. Often, women do not even consider applying for such jobs.

Research shows that women may hold themselves back if they feel they do not have the required experience or because they fear failure.

Men, on the other hand, are more willing to throw their hats in the ring and compete for a higher-level position, even if they do not have all of the stated qualifications.

Much of this comes from women’s tendency to play down their accomplishments.

A recent study of high-ranking Israeli women leaders found that women were reluctant “to take credit for their accomplishments. They attributed them to circumstances or luck.”

Perhaps surprisingly, female Ivy League presidents are no different. For instance, at a gathering in 2007, the Ivy League’s female presidents played down their accomplishments saying “they wound up at the head of four of the world’s leading universities almost by accident.”

Balancing a demanding job and parenting responsibilities also play a role in women’s willingness to seek major leadership roles.

This “childrearing penalty” may be especially strong in higher ed. Most women presidents come from faculty ranks. Women with children have a disadvantage in academic career progression compared to men with children. Gender bias may play a role as well.

Making connections

There is another crucial fact here that we cannot ignore: the role of a powerful sponsor.

Having a powerful sponsor probably paves a smoother path to the top. It is hardly a coincidence that three former and current Ivy League women leaders, Shirley Tilghman (former president of Princeton), Ruth Simmons (former president of Brown) and Amy Gutmann also had something else in common: they were all supported by former Princeton president Harold Shapiro.

A mentor provides advice and support. A sponsor will open doors and make crucial introductions. Often, men are more likely than women to have that sponsor.

Who wants to be the last?

Culture and attitude are critical in driving change. And competition is part of the Ivy League culture.

As Ruth Simmons, the first black president of an Ivy League institution, pointed out in a 2007 forum,

When it starts to become the issue of being the last Ivy League school to have a woman president – who wants to do that? This is a league and this is a league based on competition.

As we strive for greater gender equity in college and university leadership, we need more institutions to think of women leaders as a competitive advantage.

Those of us who already hold these positions need to also be leaders in raising awareness and becoming mentors and sponsors. Perhaps more importantly, we need to encourage other women to see themselves as qualified to apply for these leadership positions.

If the Ivy League can do it, if Oxford University can do it, why not the rest of us? Indeed, who wants to be the last institution to appoint a woman as president?

The Conversation

Cathy Sandeen, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin Colleges and the University of Wisconsin-Extension

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, HBCU's, Higher Education

Let’s face it: gender bias in academia is for real

Cynthia Leifer, Cornell University; Hadas Kress-Gazit, Cornell University; Kim Weeden, Cornell University; Marjolein C H van der Meulen, Cornell University; Paulette Clancy, Cornell University, and Sharon Sassler, Cornell University

Cornell Professor Sara Pritchard recently made the argument in The Conversation that female professors should receive bonus points on their student evaluations because of the severe negative bias students have toward their female professors.

Commentators on FOX News attempted to discredit her argument as “insane,” ridiculed the idea that gender plays a role in evaluations and repeatedly mentioned a lack of data to support her claims. But the reality is women faculty are at a disadvantage.

Unfortunately, as we well know, for many women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), the path to academia ends long before they obtain a faculty position and are the “lucky” recipient of biased student evaluations.

We represent the success stories – women with careers at Ivy League universities. And yes, while we agree that there are more women in STEM fields today than ever before, bias still affects women in STEM, and not just in student evaluations.

Letters of recommendation and teaching evaluations

It starts right from the hiring process.

In the first stage of the hiring process, a candidate for an academic position must be selected from a pool of hundreds to give a job talk and on-site interview.

The decision of who to invite for a job talk is based on materials about the candidate including CVs, letters of recommendation from prominent figures in the field, samples of research, “buzz” about who’s a rising star and teaching evaluations.

A large body of research shows that many of these materials, and how they are evaluated by search committees, reflect bias in favor of male candidates.

Letters of recommendation, for example, tend to have a very different character for women than for men, and their tone and word choice can affect the impression that the hiring committee forms about candidates.

For example a 2008 study of 886 letters of recommendations for faculty positions in chemistry showed that these letters tended to include descriptors of ability for male applicants, such as “standout,” but refer to the work ethic of the women, rather than their ability, by using words such as “grindstone.”

It turns out that female candidates are seen as less hireable as well.
Mike Licht, CC BY

A similar study showed that female, but not male, students applying for a research grant had letters of recommendation emphasizing the wrong skills, such as the applicants’ ability to care for an elderly parent or to balance the demands of parenting and research.

Furthermore, a 2009 analysis of 194 applicants to research faculty positions in psychology found that letters of recommendation for women used more “communal” adjectives (like helpful, kind, warm and tactful), and letters of recommendation for men used more decisive adjectives (like confident, ambitious, daring and independent), even after statistically controlling for different measures of performance.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a follow-up experiment in the same paper found that these subtle differences in the language can result in female candidates being rated as less hireable than men.

Unfortunately, even when the same language is used to describe candidates or when the key objective criteria of productivity are used, evaluators rated female candidates lower than male candidates.

Teaching evaluations, as our colleague already pointed out, are also known to be biased.

Historian Benjamin Schmidt’s recent text analysis of 14 million rankings on the website ratemyprofessor.com showed substantial differences in the words students used to describe men and women faculty in the same field: men were more likely to be described as “knowledgeable” and “brilliant,” women as “bossy” or, if they were lucky, “helpful.”

If a female candidate makes it through the “on paper” process and is invited for an interview, the bias does not end.

What makes a ‘fit’?

Once a field of candidates is narrowed down from hundreds to a handful, very little distinguishes the top candidates, male or female. Final decisions often come down to intangible qualities and “fit.”

Although “fit” can mean many things to many people, it boils down to guesses about future trajectories, judgments about which hole in a department’s research profile or curriculum is most important to fill, and assessments about whether a person is going to be a colleague who contributes to mentoring, departmental service, and congeniality.

Research in social psychology and management shows that women are seen as competent or likable, but not both. The very traits that make them competent and successful (eg, being strong leaders) violate gender stereotypes about how women are “supposed to” act. Conversely, likable women are often perceived as being less likely to succeed in stereotypically male careers.

Despite all this information, FOX News isn’t alone in its view that women candidates for academic positions are not at a disadvantage.

In fact, one of the commentators in that segment cited a study from other researchers at Cornell that concluded the employment prospects for women seeking faculty positions in STEM disciplines have never been better.

The authors of that study go so far as to blame women’s underrepresentation in the sciences on “self-handicapping and opting out” of the hiring process.

Women doing better, but not better than men

The fact is at the current rate of increase in women faculty in tenure-track positions in STEM fields, it may be 2050 before women reach parity in hiring and, worse, 2115 before women constitute 50% of STEM faculty of all ranks.

This is supported by faculty data at Cornell itself. Between 2010 and 2014, there was only a modest 3%-4% increase in women tenure-line STEM faculty.

In contrast to these data, the study cited by FOX News argued women are preferred to men for tenure-track STEM academic positions. The authors of that study used a research method common in social sciences in which true randomized experiments are impossible to carry out in real-life contexts called an audit study.

In an audit study, people who make the relevant decisions, such as faculty or human resource managers, are sent information about two or more fake applicants for a position. The information is equivalent, except for a hint about the question of interest: for example, one CV may have a male name at the top, the other CV a female name.

The battle against sexism has yet to be won.
European Parliament, CC BY-NC-ND

Although the audit study design can be very useful, in the case of STEM faculty hiring it oversimplifies the complex hiring process, which typically involves many people, many stages and many pieces of information.

The authors sent out equivalent descriptions of “powerhouse” hypothetical male or female candidates applying for a hypothetical faculty opening to real professors. Among the respondents, more said that they would hire the woman than the man. However, the study in question “controlled for,” and thus eliminated, many of the sources of bias, including letters of recommendation and teaching evaluations that disadvantage women in the hiring process.

Furthermore, only one-third of faculty who were sent packets responded. Thus, the audit study captured only some of the voices that actually make hiring decisions. It is also hard to believe that participants didn’t guess that they were part of an audit study about hiring. Even if they didn’t know the exact research question, they may have been biased by the artificial research context.

The study by our Cornell colleagues has already generated a lot of conversation, on campus and off. The authors have entered this debate, which will undoubtedly continue. That’s how science works.

Contrary to what FOX News and some of our academic colleagues think, the battle against sexism in our fields has not been won, let alone reversed in favor of women. We must continue to educate hiring faculty, and even the society at large, about conscious and unconscious bias.

Paulette Clancy, Hadas Kress-Gazit, Cynthia Leifer, Marjolein van der Meulen, Sharon Sassler, and Kim Weeden are professors at Cornell University. Hadas Kress-Gazit, Cynthia Leifer and Kim Weeden are also Public Voices Fellows at The Op-Ed Project.

The Conversation

Cynthia Leifer, Associate Professor of Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University; Hadas Kress-Gazit, Associate Professor of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University; Kim Weeden, Professor of Sociology, Cornell University; Marjolein C H van der Meulen, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University; Paulette Clancy, Professor of Chemical Engineering, Cornell University, and Sharon Sassler, Professor of Policy Analysis and Management , Cornell University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, Parental Involvement, Policy & Reform

Cops in Washington believe that preschool leads to crime prevention

According tdn.com, police officers in Cowlitz County in Washington believe that by expanding preschool may help reduce or prevent crime.

Cops were visiting schools in the county to talk to students and to help push state lawmakers to “add 1,000 additional slots to the state-funded Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program.”

“A long-range study of Michigan’s Perry Preschool found that at-risk children who did not participate in a high-quality program were five times more likely to be chronic offenders by the age of 27 than those who did not attend. Another Chicago study found at-risk kids were 70 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent crime by the age of 18 if they missed out on quality preschool.”

If so, and if implemented in Washington, a move of this nature will eventually cut costs as it is much cheaper to educate kids than it is to jail an adult.

Additional statistics from the state show that “[t]here are 235 children enrolled in the state-funded Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program, plus an additional 300 clients in the federally funded Early Head Start serves pregnant moms and their kids up to 3 years old.”

That’s a lot of students, and if the program is extended to allow for more kids, it will certainly serve as a life changing event for many of the state’s low-income children.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity

Want to change perceptions of Muslims? Support students of all beliefs

Matthew Mayhew, New York University

In the wake of the recent terror attacks in Paris, Baghdad and Beirut, our national discourse has been full of conversations about Muslims in civic life.

Presidential candidates have offered up religious tests as potential barriers to entry for refugees seeking to flee conflict zones. State governors have proposed suspending accepting new refugees in the wake of the attacks.

Despite the recent surge of interest, skepticism about the trustworthiness of Muslims in America is anything but new.

National research data demonstrate that Muslims were ranked in the coldest third on a “feeling thermometer” by their fellow Americans of different faiths.

Even more troubling is the reality that religion-based violence against Muslims represented about 14% of hate crimes in 2013, despite the fact that Muslims comprise less than 1% of the US population.

The national attitude toward Muslims extends into the collegiate environment.

Our research on religious and spiritual campus climate has indicated that only 46% of students believe that Muslims are accepted on campus. But our data also point to ways in which college educators can make a real difference in the ways Muslims are perceived by Americans generally.

Prejudices on campus

Controversy around Muslims on campus has hit the headlines on a number of occasions.

Universities have faced criticism, for example, for providing worship space to Muslim students (most recently at Wichita State in Kansas). Earlier this year, Duke encountered an outcry from alumni after announcing plans to permit Muslim students to sound the call to prayer from the chapel bell tower. Similarly, in 2007 the University of Michigan-Dearborn faced a backlash after installing footbaths for Muslim students on campus.

These situations, unsurprisingly, have an impact on how Muslim students perceive their campus communities.

Bruce Speck’s study of Muslim college students demonstrates that they feel largely unsupported in their religious practices and subject to bias and disrespect both in and out of the classroom.

Incidents such as the murder of three Muslim students in North Carolina earlier this year continue to fuel fear in this community.

Students gather during a vigil on the campus of the University of North Carolina for Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad and Yusor’s sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, February 2015.
Chris Keane/Reuters

It is our belief that these prejudices and misperceptions damage the strength of our American democracy. Higher education has a role to play in beginning to address these challenges.

But what can campus leaders do?

Together with Alyssa Rockenbach at North Carolina State University, we have collaborated on research to answer precisely this question.

Data speak volumes

We developed a survey to examine the attitudes shown and values held by people on university campuses about religious diversity. From 2011-2014, we administered this survey at 52 colleges and universities.

The findings of our research point in some exciting directions for educators seeking to make a positive impact on negative perceptions of Muslims in higher education and beyond.

One of our key questions was related to the idea of how non-Muslim students perceive Islam and Muslims in the world. And following on from that, we wanted to know what experiences help non-Muslim students come to appreciate Islam and Muslims around the world.

We asked non-Muslim students to respond to a series of statements to gauge their level of appreciation for Muslims. These questions included, “Islam values service to others,” “Islam promotes peace,” and “In general, Muslims are moral and ethical people.”

Our subsequent data analysis revealed a variety of interesting trends.

Consistent with the literature on collegiate experiences, our analysis showed that the types of educational experiences students encounter within a campus community are critical in shaping their perceptions and attitudes.

Non-Muslim student appreciation for Islam and for Muslims around the world was associated with:

  • participating in interfaith experiences, such as an interfaith service activity or an interfaith dialogue
  • having uncomfortable conversations that moved non-Muslim students to examine their own prejudices, and
  • engaging in informal opportunities to interact across difference, like dining together or studying together.

However, opportunities to encounter difference did not always lead to greater appreciation of Muslims.

In fact, our research also showed that, among non-Muslim students, the following experiences were associated with a lack of appreciation of Islam:

  • attending their own or other formal religious services
  • being silenced and feeling unsafe to express their own faith freely on campus, often due to moments of conflict or tension around religion
  • feeling as though their college seems to favor certain worldviews above others
  • perceiving less support for their own religious or nonreligious identities.

A unique opportunity

What do these data points tell us? As the number of Muslim college students continues to grow, college educators have a unique opportunity to create and support productive meeting spaces that promote positive attitudes toward Muslims among non-Muslim college students.

As the number of international students from a variety of religious traditions increases on college campuses so will the opportunities for these students to return to their nations as leaders. Our work hopes to equip these future leaders with the tools needed to effectively and productively engage across religious differences.

However, increasing diversity on campus is only part of the solution.

Religious diversity needs support.
Pass a Method, CC BY-SA

In fact, the mere presence of diversity on campus may actually harm relations among communities, as diversity left unengaged and unsupported can lead to greater isolation and distrust.

Educators, we would argue, have the responsibility to appropriately design and thoughtfully support opportunities for interaction where students can genuinely learn and get to know one another.

Simply attending a religious service on or off campus or participating in a religious course is not enough.

Students are profoundly impacted by their own experiences of inclusion and exclusion. When they themselves feel safe and respected, they more readily extend a welcoming hand to others.

This suggests that educators must give greater attention to campus climate around religious identity and diversity as a whole.

Although students are less likely to formally identify with a religion over the course of their studies, there has been a notable increase of students who participate in voluntary religious activities since the 1990s.

Faculty, staff and other campus leaders play a critical role in shaping a community where all feel welcomed.

Let us be clear: we believe these data give us the opportunity to change the news headlines of the future. Our research indicates that creating thoughtful educational experiences and building a constructive campus climate for all around religion has the potential to change hearts and minds about all Muslims.

It’s worth noting that those benefits are not limited to Muslims. Jewish, atheist, Mormon students and more would all benefit from this type of collegiate experience.

If higher education were to prioritize this work, how might the world respond differently in the wake of major global events related to religion? We challenge educators to help us discover the answer to that question.

This piece was coauthored with Mary Ellen Giess from the Interfaith Youth Core.

The Conversation

Matthew Mayhew, Associate Professor of Higher Education, New York University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, Higher Education, list, Matthew Lynch

4 Fascinating Truths about First-Generation College Students

College attendance has become less of a privilege and more of a necessity in the contemporary workforce. This cultural shift is a reflection of President Obama’s goal of having the largest percentage of college graduates out of all the countries in the world by 2020. With this push has come an influx of students that may not have been part of the college scene as early as a decade ago. Availability of courses online and expansion of options at the community college level have paved the way for non-traditional students to earn degrees and a better living. A growing demographic in college attendance and graduation are first-generation students.

First-generation college students face a unique set of challenges, and some of them may just surprise you. Here are some fascinating truths about first-generation college students.

  1. Half of the college population consists of first-generation students. A 2010 study by the Department of Education found that 50 percent of the college population is made up of first-generation students, or those whose parents did not receive education beyond a high school diploma. The National Center for Education Statistics released numbers in 2010 that broke down the educational levels of parents of current college attendees. Minority groups made up the largest demographics of students with parents that had a high school education or less, with 48.5 percent of Latino and Hispanic students and 45 percent of Black or African-American students included. The parents of students of Asian descent came in at 32 percent with a high school diploma or less and Native Americans at 35 percent. Of students that identified themselves as Caucasian, only 28 percent were first-generation college students.

Though higher in minority groups, these numbers show the overarching trend of first-generation college attendance in all American demographics. While an education is viewed as an advantage in the job marketplace, the degree alone does not automatically lead to better opportunities and pay. In order to ensure optimal career success in the growing group of first-generation college students, the specific needs of these young people must be addressed – beyond what lies in textbooks.

  1. First-generation students are less prepared to make the most out of their education. The simple assumption is that a higher number of educated first-generation college students will translate to better jobs for these graduates and a better quality of life. The answer to the equation is just not that simple, however. Even with a college degree, first-generation students often come from low-income, minority or immigrant families and do not have the same set of life skills and personal capital of middle-to-high income bracket students.

Parents of first-generation students also do not have the life experience to adequately guide their children to the next step in succeeding in the college-educated workforce. A 2004 report in the Journal of Higher Education put it this way: “first-generation students… may be less prepared than similar students whose parents are highly educated, to make the kind of informed choices… that potentially maximize educational progression and benefits.”

The transition from a college setting to a full-time career is often bumpy for all college students, especially first-generation graduates. The things learned in a classroom simply cannot adequately translate to the real-world; in addition to “book smarts” colleges and universities have a responsibility to prepare attendees, particularly first-generation ones, for the challenges of the modern workforce.

  1. Mentorship and academic success programs go a long way in helping first-generation college students. There are some federally funded programs in place to address the specific issues that face first-generation college students, like the TRIO and Robert McNair programs that lend academic and tutoring services to this group. The problem with these programs, and others like them, is that they are not required for college graduation and are vastly underutilized. A better approach is proactive mentorship and advising that mandates interaction between students and professors or other staff members that can provide real-world guidance. These programs would focus on the translation of knowledge to marketplace settings from people that know the ropes.
  2. Some students may need to learn how to apply what they learn to the real world. Colleges and universities should place continued focus on developing skills and employability among students. Schools with especially high numbers of first-generation students, like California State University Dominquez Hills, have implemented workforce “101” courses to up the social and intellectual skills of future graduates. It is not enough to assume that students inherently know how to apply classroom skills to a real-world environment, particularly in the case of first-generation ones.

Researching the needs of these students should be a priority of all institutions of higher education as it would help them form a better-prepared student body and strong workforce.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Policy & Reform

Mississippi faces steep education cuts

K-12 education in Mississippi is under fire as the state faces budget cuts.

According to Clarionledger.com, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant plans to cut the state’s budget by 1.5 percent.

The cuts will result in a loss of $4 million for K-12. The silver lining is that the Mississippi Adequate Education Program, a program that determines the minimum needed for students to thrive based on the demographics of their school, is exempt from the cuts.

To pare it down further, the Schools for the Blind and Deaf stand to lose a total of $167,362 and Vocation and technical education $1,216,965.

That’s not a short loss.

Because it’s still early in the process, it is unclear if layoffs will be a part of the process. Last year when faced with budget issues, the state cut 35 positions.

Education Superintendent Carey Wright is trying to ensure that the reforms that have been put into place, such as literacy programs and the expansion of early childhood options, remain and aren’t slashed.

And Mississippi isn’t exactly climbing the walls of success. The state consistently ranks at the bottom (or dead last) in academic success and outlook for its K-12 students. When it comes to things like AP exams, just “5 percent of Mississippi students scored a 3 or higher on the exams compared to 21.6 nationally.”

It is still a slight wonder why states choose to cut money from education instead of finding relief in other areas. Mississippi in particular has no room for alleviation when it comes to education. Instead of taking money away from an educational system that desperately needs it, Mississippi should be finding ways to increase funding for K-12 schools, and publicly funded higher education. The cycle of poverty in the state won’t ever be broken if money continues to be pulled from where it is desperately needed: education.

  • no reactions
0
Share