1 / 24

November 2, 2013 ACM Education Council Meeting San Francisco, CA

ACM-NDC: A Survey of Non-Doctoral Granting Departments in Computing Jane Prey, Yan Timanovsky, Jodi Tims, and Stuart Zweben Steering Committee. November 2, 2013 ACM Education Council Meeting San Francisco, CA. Background.

karma
Download Presentation

November 2, 2013 ACM Education Council Meeting San Francisco, CA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACM-NDC: A Survey of Non-Doctoral Granting Departments in ComputingJane Prey, Yan Timanovsky, Jodi Tims, and Stuart ZwebenSteering Committee November 2, 2013 ACM Education Council Meeting San Francisco, CA

  2. Background • Two pilot projects (TauRUs: Taulbee for the Rest of Us) were conducted with a similar goal of gathering data from non-doctoral-granting departments: • Goldweber, M. 2011. TauRUs: A "Taulbee survey" for the rest of us. ACM Inroads 2, 2 (June 2011), 38-42. • Tims, J. and Williams, S. The TauRUs project: a complement to the Taulbee report. ACM Inroads 3, 1 (March 2012), 62-73. • ACM adopted the project and the inaugural ACM-NDC survey was conducted during the winter and spring of 2013

  3. Expected Benefits • Timely, national-level statistics to • Help department leaders in discussions with faculty and administration • Help current and prospective faculty understand salary situation • Complement CRA Taulbee Survey to give more complete picture of computing workforce supply in colleges and universities • Provide useful information to media about trends and current workforce climate, making ACM and CRA the go-to sources of this information)

  4. Methodology • Qualifying schools were identified using Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System (IPEDS); i.e., the pool considered were all institutions who grant federal financial aid • Invitations to participate were sent by John White, ACM President, to 926 academic units from 767 institutions • The survey was conducted by Market Vision and summary statistics provided to the steering committee • A special report appears in the most recent Inroads(Sept. 2013, vol.4, no.3)

  5. Institutional Summary • 93 institutions responded (~12%) • 30 public, 63 private • 191 total programs -160 bachelor’s, 31 master’s • Note: the 160 bachelor’s programs is a response rate of 17.2% of known 926 academic units • 83 provided faculty information (81 giving salary information) • Geographic distribution a bit skewed • 30 Northeast, 34 Midwest, 20 South, 8 West • Almost exclusively co-ed (2 all-female)

  6. Summary of Data Requested • Information about programs offered • Type of program (CS, CE, IS, IT, SE) • Accreditation information • Demographic information on students enrolled in Bachelor’s and Master’s programs • Demographic and salary information on faculty • Salary information could be reported at the individual or aggregate level

  7. Bachelor’s Programs by Discipline • The majority of programs represented were CS (108) followed by CE/SE (12 each) and IT(10) • ABET accreditation was more common at public institutions and at those institutions that grant Master’s degrees • CS/CE/SE programs were more likely to be accredited than IS/IT programs

  8. Bachelor’s Enrollment Change By Institution Type • Overall enrollment in Bachelor’s programs saw an 11% increase between 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 • The Taulbee survey reported an 8.9% growth in bachelor’s enrollment for the same period • Enrollment growth was relatively even for public and private institutions • Master’s granting institutions saw double the enrollment growth in comparison to non-Master’s granting (14% vs. 7%)

  9. Bachelor’s Enrollment Change by Program Type • The largest enrollment growth was seen in IT (23.9%) • Growth in SE was 15.4% • Growth in CE was 14.6% • Growth in CS was 11.0% • Growth in IS was 1.6%

  10. Comparative Enrollment Data • In CS, NDC programs had 34.8% of their enrollment comprised of new majors compared to 30.3% in Taublee programs • Overall, NDC programs had 27.7% new major enrollment compared 30.4% in Taulbee programs • The average number of majors per department was 67.3 in NDC schools versus 389.9 in Taublee schools

  11. Bachelor’s Degree Production • NDC programs reported an expected 13.9% increase in degree production in 2012-2013 vs. 2011-2012 (cf. Taulbee reports 15.7% increase) • Anticipated increases were larger at public (18.1%) and Master’s granting (18.9%) than private (8.1%) and non-Master’s granting (10.2%) • IT/SE/CS programs predictincreases while IS appearstagnant and CE declining

  12. Bachelor’s Recipients Gender • NDC reports a higher percentage of female students (16.2%) than Taulbee (13.3%) • The percentage of females in CS programs at private institutions is significantly higher than at publics (21.7% vs. 11.0%) and at non-Master’s vs. Master’s granting schools (17.9% vs. 12.5%)

  13. Bachelor’s Recipient Ethnicity(all results include US Residents only) • NDC schools report higher percentages of Hispanic/Latino (+1%), American Indian/Alaska Native (+0.7%), and Black/African American (+2%)students than Taulbee schools • Asian students enrollment is significantly lower at NDC schools (8.1% vs. 16.7%)

  14. Master’s Overall Degrees and Enrollment • Degrees: 26.2% expected increase in master’s production in 2012-13 over 2011-12 • +19.4% in CS; +56.5% IT; +31.1% SE • Compare Taulbee: +9.8% overall; -10.3% in CS • Overall Enrollment: +14.9% (2011-12 to 2012-13) • CS +17.2%; IT +24.8%; SE +7.1%; IS +11.5%; CE -9.5%

  15. Master’s Gender and Ethnicity • Gender: 29.1% master’s grads female (very close to Taulbee) • In CS, 36.2% NDC vs. 22.6% in Taulbee • Ethnicity (NDC To Taulbee) • Asian-Amer: 13.4% v. 8%. • African-Amer: 7.9% v. 2.7% • Hispanic: 1.1% v. 2.5%; • White 27.1 v. 32.2%. • Non-res: 49.9% v. 53.8%

  16. Faculty Size • Average of 8.1 faculty (6.5 FTE) per dept(about ¼ the typical Taulbeedept) • Of these, average of 5 (4.9 FTE) are tenure-track (vs. 27.4 for Taulbeedepts) • About 25% female vs 17.8% for Taulbeedepts • Fraction of female faculty is higher than Taulbee for all faculty ranks • Over 80% white or Asian ethnicities (similar to Taulbee)

  17. Faculty Departures • 7% attrition rate for tenure-track faculty • NDC faculty more likely to leave for non-academic position, while Taulbee faculty are more likely to leave for another academic position

  18. Faculty Recruiting: 2011-2012 • About one opening for every two institutions • 83% (a total of 33 hires) were filled (vs 68% for Taulbeedepts); most at Asst Prof level, as expected • 30.3% of new hires were women (vs 22.4% in Taulbeedepts) • 3% of new hires from underrepresented ethnicities (vs 8.3% in Taulbeedepts)

  19. Degree Requirements for Faculty • Doctoral • for hiring at senior rank • for hiring at assistant professor level at over 80% of departments • For promotion at almost every department (though some depts could promote someone with a Master’s degree into a senior rank even if they couldn’t hire directly into a senior rank) • Master’s • For full-time non-tenure-track positions

  20. Faculty Salary Summary (from individual salary data) • Median 9-mo salaries of $76K for assistant, $89K for associate, $98K for full (lower than Taulbeedepts by over 17% at all ranks, and over 40% at full prof rank) • Higher medians at public institutions than at private institutions, and higher medians at institutions granting master’s degrees than at those that don’t grant master’s degrees

  21. What went right? • Our team worked very well together • Good support from Market Vision in turning data around quickly and responding to our questions • Great cooperation from John Impagliazzo and Inroads to get the report included in the September issue • Received and accepted and invitation from Huffington Post to blog about the study and its results

  22. What went not so right? • Response rate was disappointing • The format of data received from Market Vision made it difficult to analyze results • This issue has already been discussed with Market Vision

  23. What’s Next for ACM-NDC? • Building participation • More personal contact • Better job of articulating benefits of the study • Additional analysis of data involving participants from previous year to obtain more accurate trends ACM-NDC Links • http://www.acm.org/education/acm-ndc-study • jprey@nsf.gov; timanovsky@hq.acm.org; jltims@bw.edu; zweben.1@osu.edu

  24. Questions/Discussion

More Related