Summary

University of California: Some Campuses and Academic Departments Need to Take Additional Steps to Resolve Gender Disparities Among Professors May 2001 2000-131 rotiduA etatS ainrofilaC S T I D U A E T A T S F O U A E R U B The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-0255 or TDD (916) 445-0255 x 216 OR This report may also be available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/ Alternate format reports available upon request. Permission is granted to reproduce reports. C S A ALIFORNIA TATE UDITOR ELAINE M. HOWLE STEVEN M. HENDRICKSON STATE AUDITOR CHIEF DEPUTY STATE AUDITOR May 2, 2001 2000-131 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning the analysis of data related to the hiring of assistant, associate, and full professors (professors) by the University of California (UC) and the review of the practices used by UC’s campuses when hiring them. This report concludes that UC’s hiring data for the past 5 years show that a significant disparity appears to exist between the proportion of female professors hired by UC and the overall proportion of female doctorate recipients nationwide (the measure typically used as the comparable labor pool). Factors that contributed to this disparity include certain key types of decisions made by academic departments that limit the opportunity for UC to hire female professors. These decisions effectively reduce the proportions of women in the labor pool from 46 percent to an estimated 33 percent. UC hired only 29 percent female professors during our 5-year review period. These types of decisions include whether to hire at the more experienced, tenured levels rather than at the assistant professor level and whether to focus on specific fields of study where men predominantly hold degrees. UC has delegated responsibility for hiring professors to each of its nine campuses. Although academic departments on all UC campuses follow a similar hiring framework, not all of them make sufficient efforts to address issues related to the lack of gender parity when hiring professors. Weaknesses we observed include search committees with all-male or predominantly male memberships and not using data regarding the extent to which women are available in the labor pool when planning the search. Further, some departments did not obtain applications from women in proportions reflecting their availability in the labor pool. Finally, we found that the average starting salaries for female professors ranged from 90 percent to 92 percent of the starting salaries for male professors during the period we reviewed. However, our examination at selected departments suggests that factors other than gender may cause the difference. Nevertheless, the extent of discretion that exists in setting compensation warrants periodic monitoring to ensure that differences in compensation do not arise simply because of gender. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 445-0255 Fax: (916) 327-0019 www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa CONTENTS Summary 1 Introduction 7 Chapter 1 Decisions Concerning the University of California’s Recruiting Needs Can Reduce the Likelihood That It Will Hire Women as Professors 17 Chapter 2 Some Campuses and Departments Strive Harder Than Others Do to Address Gender Parity When Hiring Professors 33 Recommendations 58 Chapter 3 Factors Other Than Gender Appear to Cause Lower Average Salaries for Female Professors Than for Male Professors 63 Recommendations 72 Appendix A Statistics on the Gender of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors at the University of California 75 Appendix B Statistics on the Gender Composition and Compensation of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors Hired by the University of California 77 Response to the Audit University of California 107 SUMMARY RESULTS IN BRIEF T he University of California (UC), with its nine campuses, employs approximately 8,000 assistant, associate, and full Audit Highlights . . . professors (professors). A decline in the proportion of newly hired female professors has prompted concern about Regarding the University of employment opportunities for women, especially in light of UC’s California (UC) and its hiring expectation that it will need to hire about 7,000 new faculty over of assistant, associate, and full professors: the next 10 years. As a result, the Joint Legislative Audit Commit- tee asked the Bureau of State Audits to analyze data relevant to (cid:1) Hiring data for the past this concern and to review UC’s hiring process. We were also 5 years indicate that a significant disparity asked to determine if disparities exist between the salaries of appears to exist between newly hired female and male professors. the proportion of female professors hired and Summary-level analyses indicate that UC hires female professors the proportion of female doctorate in smaller proportions than are available for it to hire (the labor recipients nationwide. pool). The typical measure used to assess whether a university (cid:1) needs to address issues related to gender disparities in its hiring Certain types of decisions is the proportion of women earning doctorates nationwide. In made by academic departments effectively an ideal environment, gender parity is reached when the pro- reduced the proportion portions of men and women hired reflect the proportions of of women in the available men and women in the available labor pool. UC’s hiring data for labor pool from 46 percent to 33 percent. The UC the past 5 years show that a significant disparity appears to exist hired 29 percent female between the proportion of female professors it hired and the professors during that overall proportion of female doctorate recipients nationwide. same 5-year period. (cid:1) Analyses of the hiring Identifying the factors that contributed to this disparity required practices used on each UC us to go beyond the summary-level comparisons and consider campus reveal weaknesses the labor pool from which UC actually hires and how the gender such as using search distribution of that pool limits the opportunity for UC to hire committees that are either all male or predominantly female professors. We found that certain key decisions that male. departments at UC campuses make when they decide to hire (cid:1) professors effectively reduce the proportion of women in the Although the starting salaries for female labor pool. These decisions include focusing some searches on professors averaged from more experienced, tenured professors (associate and full profes- 90 percent to 92 percent of sors rather than assistant professors) and on specific fields of male professors’ salaries, study where men predominantly hold degrees, as well as opening more in-depth analyses point out that factors other positions to international candidates. For example, related to field than gender may be the of study, our benchmark data indicate that UC has a 1 in 5 cause. chance of hiring a female professor within ceramic engineering. However, it has a 1 in 8 chance of hiring a female professor in polymer engineering and only a 1 in 14 chance of hiring a female 1 professor in metallurgical engineering. These three subspecializations all exist within the materials engineering specialization. Therefore, selections of subspecialties within which departments decide to recruit may significantly affect the proportions of women who apply and, ultimately, the number of female professors hired. We acknowledge that departments can choose to hire professors at levels or in fields of study in which proportionately fewer women exist to meet reasonable organizational, research, or teaching goals. Although there is no indication that UC consciously makes decisions concerning level of professor, specialization, or the consideration of international candidates to reduce the likelihood that women will apply, the result is never- theless the same—each decision effectively reduces opportunities for women overall to be considered for professor positions. These decisions reduced the proportion of women in the labor pool from 46 percent to an estimated 33 percent; UC hired only 29 percent female professors during our 5-year review period. We believe that UC should be aware of the extent of the effect that all three factors have on addressing issues related to the lack of gender parity, although UC has the best opportunities to change its decisions regarding level of professor and field of study. Specifically, when flexibility exists, UC should be open to recruiting professors at the assistant level and in fields that will not decrease the likelihood of hiring female professors. Even considering the effect of UC’s recruiting decisions on the gender distribution of the available labor pool, it is clear that certain academic disciplines are doing better than others are in hiring women in proportions comparable to their availability. However, while such data analysis is useful as a starting point, the data alone do not indicate how and to what extent UC needs to improve its existing hiring process. It is necessary to analyze the process itself. When we examined the procedures in place at selected academic departments at the nine campuses, we found that not all UC campuses and departments make sufficient efforts to address gender parity issues when hiring professors. UC has delegated the responsibility of hiring professors to each of its nine campuses. In fact, the individual departments at the campuses bear the primary responsibility for the search and selection of new professors. Although individual campuses and departments have their own hiring procedures, they all follow a similar overall hiring framework. Because UC receives funds 2 under contract with the federal government, it must comply with federal affirmative action requirements. However, California’s Proposition 209 and a policy established by UC’s board of regents specifically prohibit UC from giving preferences to groups based on characteristics such as gender during the hiring process. Therefore, campuses and departments are limited in their ability to target women for job opportunities. Despite these constraints, some campuses and departments have developed and implemented more procedures intended to address issues related to the lack of gender parity in hiring than others have. For example, at the beginning of the hiring process, some departments are now considering the existing gender mix of their professors. However, departments sincerely trying to correct gender disparities in hiring will need to more fully consider the impact that level of professor and specialized field of study can have on gender parity. Also, these considerations should be part of the early stages of the hiring process. Further, we noted various weaknesses in the methods that departments use when planning and implementing searches to recruit new professors. For instance, search committees for some departments were either all male or predominantly male. Campus representatives told us that female professors can provide search committees with different perspectives when evaluating candidates. However, the search committees for 156—nearly two- thirds—of 242 professors whose hiring we reviewed included either no women or only one woman. Search committees aver- aged six members in size. In addition, while the searches for 83 professors—about one-third of those reviewed—had no women on the committee, only nine committees did not have any men. Another weakness was that the search committees for some departments did not use data regarding the proportion of women in the labor pool when they planned searches. To help them focus their efforts to achieve their goals, search committees on one campus included these data in their written search plans along with the steps they planned to take to achieve their hiring goals. However, some search committees for departments on other campuses did not include either the data or the related strategies for achieving the goals. Without formally considering data regarding the proportion of women in the labor pool while planning searches, search committees may not know how much effort they need to make to address issues related to the lack of gender parity within their departments. 3 Departments within some disciplines on some campuses also displayed an inability to obtain applications from women in proportions reflecting their availability in the labor pool. For example, women represent 20 percent of the labor pool in the mathematics discipline. However, while three campuses received an average of at least 18 percent of their applications from women for positions in this discipline, three other campuses could achieve no more than an average of 10 percent. Finally, our summary-level comparisons of starting salary data reveal that female professors at UC generally earn less on average than their male counterparts. The average starting salaries for female professors ranged, depending on level of professor, from 90 percent to 92 percent of male professors’ starting salaries. However, the results of our examinations at selected departments concerning why such differences in com- pensation occur suggest that factors other than gender may be the cause. Departments have a great deal of discretion in deter- mining the amount of salary for a newly hired professor. The demands for certain academic disciplines, specializations, and individuals play an important role in establishing the compensa- tion of a newly hired professor. Therefore, we found no basis to support a conclusion that UC’s practices result in female profes- sors being paid less than male professors simply because of their gender. However, the extent of discretion that exists in setting compensation warrants periodic monitoring to ensure that differ- ences in compensation do not exist simply because of gender. RECOMMENDATIONS To help address issues related to the lack of gender parity among its professors, UC should require its departments to more fully consider early in the hiring process how the levels and specialized fields of study for professors they are seeking affect employment opportunities for women overall and the resulting gender parity on campus. UC should also direct its deans to review the suffi- ciency of departments’ considerations before authorizing departments to proceed further with the hiring process. Additionally, UC should take several other actions to address issues related to the lack of gender parity. These actions include avoiding all-male or predominantly male search committees; requiring search committees to incorporate data in their search plans on the extent to which women are available in the labor 4 pool, along with strategies to help achieve recruiting goals; and considering additional outreach to identify broader applicant pools. Further, UC should periodically perform summary-level salary monitoring to identify patterns that may indicate that female professors are receiving lower salaries than their male counter- parts and investigate any such instances to ensure that inconsis- tent treatment does not occur. Finally, UC should report to the Legislature biennially on its progress in addressing issues related to the lack of gender parity in its hiring of professors. UC should also biennially report on the results of its salary monitoring to the Legislature. AGENCY COMMENTS UC concurs with our findings and states that it will make every effort to implement the recommendations in our report. (cid:1) 5 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 6 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND T he University of California (UC) is considered one of the premier institutions of higher education in the world. UC has a $12 billion budget and consists of 9 campuses located throughout the State, with a 10th campus scheduled to open in 2004. Academic programs at UC are consistently rated among the top 10 nationally. It also has five medical schools and teaching hospitals and three law schools. UC is governed by a 26-member board of regents. The UC system currently has 9 campuses: The board of regents has delegated authority in (cid:1) Berkeley academic matters to the academic senate, a governing body composed of UC faculty.1 The (cid:1) Davis senate determines academic policy as a whole; sets (cid:1) Irvine conditions for admission and granting of degrees; (cid:1) Los Angeles authorizes and supervises courses and curricula; (cid:1) Riverside and advises UC administration on faculty appoint- (cid:1) San Diego ments, promotions, and budgets. (cid:1) San Francisco The academic senate is half of a dual-track system (cid:1) Santa Barbara of authority and responsibility within UC. Known (cid:1) Santa Cruz as “shared governance,” this system presumes that, while administrators are competent to direct UC plans to open a 10th campus in Merced in 2004. its finances and organization, faculty members are best qualified to chart UC’s educational course. As of October 1999, UC reported employing approximately 8,000 assistant, associate, and full professors (professors). The assistant professor level is essentially the entry level for UC professors. They generally begin their academic careers after receiving their doctorate degree. In certain disciplines graduates may undertake a year or more of postdoctorate work before becoming assistant professors. Faculty can spend as long as 8 years at the assistant professor level. The first level at which faculty gain tenure is associate professor. Tenure implies a permanence of position that is guaranteed by UC. Faculty appointments at this level or above are continuous 1UC’s academic senate oversees academic matters of central importance to UC. In addition, the academic senate on each campus operates as a legislative body and as a system of committees run by and for its faculty. 7 until terminated by resignation, retirement, demotion, or dismissal for good cause. Faculty members normally serve 6 years at this level, but UC is not obligated to promote an associate professor. Full professor is the highest level of professor. As Figure 1 shows, full professors—nearly 5,200 individuals— make up the largest portion of the faculty at 65 percent. FIGURE 1 Distribution of UC Professors by Level as of October 1999 Assistant professors 15% (1,157) Full professors 65% Associate (5,189) professors 20% (1,560) Source: Extract from the October 1999 “Snapshot” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Note: Total UC professors = 7,906. STUDIES AROUND THE COUNTRY INDICATE THAT WOMEN ARE NOT EQUITABLY REPRESENTED AS FACULTY Studies conducted in the 1990s highlighted concerns that, in general, women are not well represented as faculty members at universities around the nation. A 1999 study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that as of 1994 the percentage of female faculty in its school of science (8 percent) had not changed significantly for at least 10 and probably 20 years despite increases in the number of women in the labor pool. A 1998 report from the American Association of University Professors stated that substantial disparities in salary, rank, and tenure between male and female faculty persisted, even though the proportion of women in the academic profession had increased. In 1999 a commission at Pennsylvania State University found that even in disciplines granting doctorates to far more women than men, women did not represent the majority of the faculty. 8 Although various discussions have been held within UC over the years regarding gender equity concerns in faculty hiring, this issue has gained prominence more recently as various campuses have begun to focus on it. For example, in 1998, because of concerns that it was not hiring a sufficiently diverse faculty, including women, the San Diego campus developed and distributed a list of “best practices” to help increase diversity in its faculty applicant pools and thus help resolve gender disparities. In 2000 the Davis and Berkeley campuses prepared reports concerning issues related to hiring female faculty. Additionally, UC has focused attention on the matter systemwide. For example, in 1999 UC’s Office of the President issued guidelines for recruiting faculty that provided information on both required and permissible hiring practices promoting equal opportunities. The president later initiated discussions with each campus chancellor to review faculty recruitment procedures. Data appear to signal the existence of gender parity issues among UC professors. Using the number of recent doctorate recipients nationwide as a benchmark—a measure commonly used when determining whether women are well represented among univer- sity faculty—we found that the proportion of doctorate recipients who are women increased from 36 percent to 43 percent over the past 10 years. Yet, as Figure 2 on the following page shows, as of October 1999, women made up only 23 percent of UC professors. Figure 2 also shows that the proportion of women differed by level of professor. At the full professor level, which comprises the majority of professors, women accounted for only 17 percent. Later in the report, we discuss the lower availability of women for the more senior levels of professor. The data for newly hired professors at UC also indicate that these concerns exist. The proportion of newly hired professors that were female was only 24 percent in fiscal year 1999-00 compared with 36 percent as recently as fiscal year 1995-96. The decline in this proportion has prompted concern, especially in light of UC’s expectation that it will need to hire roughly 7,000 new faculty over the next 10 years to address both its expected faculty replacement needs and the anticipated increase of 63,000 students. UC reports that this anticipated increase in student enrollment will equal UC’s total enrollment growth over the past 30 years. Given the immediacy of UC’s challenge in hiring new faculty, prompt action in addressing gender parity issues is critical. 9 FIGURE 2 Distribution of UC Professors by Level and Gender as of October 1999 100% Men Women 83% 80 (4,310) 77% (6,066) 65% 64% 60 (753) (1,003) 40 36% 35% (557) (404) 23% 20 17% (1,840) (879) 0 1,157 1,560 5,189 7,906 Assistant Associate Full All professors professors professors professors Source:Extract from the October 1999 “Snapshot” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. EACH CAMPUS HIRES ITS OWN FACULTY UC has no centralized faculty hiring office. Rather, hiring decisions are made at each campus. Although UC as a whole is governed by its board of regents, each campus has its own chancellor and various administrative officers who are respon- sible for the organization and operations of their campus. The campuses are divided into schools or colleges, each headed by a dean. Typically, these schools or colleges are further divided into departments, each headed by a department chair. In total UC has approximately 600 departments, and it is at this level that much of the process for hiring professors takes place. Departments typically follow a structured hiring process that includes a search to solicit applications and a systematic process for selecting the most qualified candidate. Although the overall process is similar among departments, some differences exist in the way departments carry out the process. For example, depart- ments may use different outreach methods to identify interested 10 tnecreP candidates. Additionally, under certain circumstances, a depart- ment can obtain a waiver that allows it to hire a professor without using the usual search process. These circumstances can include an instance when a candidate is an exceptional talent, such as a Nobel Prize winner. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The Joint Legislative Audit Committee requested the Bureau of State Audits to review UC’s practices for hiring professors to determine if those practices adversely affect employment opportunities for women. As part of our audit, we were asked to compile data, by campus and other pertinent characteristics, on the available candidate pool from which UC draws to hire professors and on the number of new UC professors hired. In addition, we were to determine the relevant information regard- ing starting salaries and any additional compensation for newly hired professors. From the data we were to provide an analysis of possible gender disparities in the hiring and salary determinations among professors. Finally, we were asked to review and evaluate UC’s hiring process to determine whether it is consistent for both male and female professors. Our audit focused on gender issues associated with the hiring of professors. It was not within the scope of the audit to examine gender issues associated with UC’s advancement or retention practices. Further, we limited our scope to professors at the nine campuses, five medical schools and teaching hospitals, and three law schools within UC. We did not examine faculty members who are not professors, nor did we review the hiring of staff for facilities such as UC’s national laboratories. To gain an understanding of gender issues in hiring, we reviewed relevant federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. We also talked about these issues with key personnel at UC’s Office of the President. To help determine whether there were gender disparities in the hiring of professors, we reviewed data from UC concerning the hiring of professors during the 10 fiscal years from 1990-91 through 1999-00. The data we received for fiscal year 1999-00 were as of January 2001 and, therefore, were not final. We also reviewed more detailed data on the professors hired in fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00. To ensure that the data UC provided were accurate, we performed analytical procedures. 11 These procedures disclosed certain inconsistencies, primarily in the salary amounts for professors in the medical and health sciences disciplines. Because of the extent of these inconsisten- cies, and because the UC Office of the President was not confi- dent of the data, we excluded salary data for professors in those two disciplines from further analyses. Other errors that came to our attention were not sufficient to cause us to doubt the overall relative accuracy of the remaining data. To determine the proportion of women in the labor pool available to be UC professors, we primarily used data on recipi- ents of doctorates throughout the United States. We used doctor- ate recipients as the comparable benchmark because, although it has certain limitations that we discuss in Chapter 1, it is generally regarded as the appropriate measure. We obtained information concerning doctorate recipients for most disciplines from the National Opinion Research Center (center). The center reports annually the results of its survey of earned doctorates conducted for a consortium of five federal agencies. Because doctorates are not the applicable advanced degrees for some disciplines, such as the medical discipline, we used other information sources. We calculated benchmarks for the medical discipline using informa- tion concerning medical school faculty from the American Association of Medical Colleges. We calculated the benchmarks for the remaining disciplines using data on graduates from the National Center for Education Statistics. Because doctorate recipients make up the largest proportion of degree recipients, we use the phrase “doctorate recipients nationwide” to describe the benchmarks we present in the tables included in this report. We used a multistage process to create the benchmarks for comparing the proportions of female professors hired by UC over the 5 fiscal years from 1995-96 through 1999-00. First, because men and women graduate at different proportions within different discipline groupings and disciplines, we assigned codes to all newly hired professors based on the specific disciplines and departments for which they had been hired. Then, to account for the fact that typical candidates for associate and full professors would have more years of experience than assistant professors and thus would have received their doctorates earlier, we developed a “lagged” approach. Lagging the data helps account for the fact that women are less well represented in 12 earlier years than in later ones. For assistant professors hired in fiscal year 1999-00, we used the center’s data from fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98.2 We used center data from fiscal years 1988-89 through 1992-93 for associate professors hired in fiscal year 1999-00. For full professors hired in fiscal year 1999-00, we used center data from fiscal years 1979-80 through 1987-88. We then calculated the available labor pools for each newly hired professor based on the assigned discipline code and the level at which the professor was hired. For professors hired in fiscal years earlier than 1999-00, we lagged the applicable pool data by an appropriate term. For example, for assistant professors hired in fiscal year 1997-98, we used center data from fiscal years 1991-92 through 1995-96. The discipline data we obtained from sources other than the center were not as complete as the center’s data. Consequently, we lagged the noncenter data only to the extent that we could, given its completeness. We then calculated a benchmark based on the proportion of women graduates in each pool. Although we assigned the nationwide benchmark data at the specific department level, we aggregated the information at a more summary level for presen- tation purposes; we used seven discipline groupings and various disciplines. For instance, as part of our analysis, we included the discipline of social sciences within the discipline grouping of humanities. Moreover, a discipline can contain various depart- ments. For example, the social sciences discipline includes departments such as anthropology and economics. However, our categorization of disciplines may not correspond with schools or colleges on any campus. Some of our tables include disciplines designated as “other” (for example, “other life sciences” and “other humanities”) and a discipline grouping called “other fields.” Included within these “other” categories are instances when professors received doctorates encompassing more than one discipline. In Chapter 1 we discuss the results of our comparison of the proportions of female professors hired by UC to the proportions of women available in comparable labor pools. We present summary tables showing the results of our comparisons in Appendix A (data concerning UC’s professors on staff as of October 1999) and in Appendix B (data concerning professors hired by UC in fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00). 2 Some UC departments expect their candidates to have postdoctorate experience before becoming professors. We lagged the center’s data by 2 years to generally account for this experience. 13 To determine whether UC’s hiring practices have weaknesses that contribute to apparent gender disparities, we visited each of the nine campuses to evaluate the processes used by selected departments within certain disciplines to hire professors. Using summaries indicating the level of gender disparities within discipline and campus, we selected seven disciplines to review overall: (cid:1) Biological sciences (cid:1) Business and management (cid:1) Health sciences (cid:1) Mathematics (cid:1) Physical sciences (cid:1) Psychology (cid:1) Social sciences For all these disciplines except mathematics, we narrowed the focus of our review further by selecting for each discipline one campus that appeared to be closer to gender parity than the other campuses appeared and one that appeared to be farther from parity. We reviewed the hiring practices for mathematics on each of the eight campuses at which it was present.3 We then discussed each campus’s hiring practices with its campus administrators, deans, and department chairs. We also reviewed the hiring files for more than 300 professors hired within these disciplines in fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00 to verify the use of the applicable hiring policies. The results of our visits and reviews are summarized in Chapter 2. To determine whether differences existed between the starting salaries for male and female professors and whether such differences were caused by gender, we performed a three-stage analysis. First, we performed a summary-level review of starting salary information provided by UC. In this analysis we included each professor hired in fiscal years 1995-96 through 1998-99.4 We analyzed this information by level, year, and discipline. For a subset of UC’s data, we then compared campus documents showing starting salary amounts with the data we received from the UC Office of the President. When major differences existed 3 Mathematics is not a separate discipline taught at the San Francisco campus. 4 UC was unable to provide salary information for fiscal year 1999-00. 14 between the two sets of salary data, we investigated why those differences occurred. Finally, for certain disciplines we selected for review, we identified the starting employment packages for male and female professors hired at the same level and salary step in the same department during the past 2 years. A starting employment package can consist of not only salary but also a budget for setting up a laboratory or an office, salary for the summer months, housing assistance, research support, funds for conference travel, or other components. After identifying the composition of the starting packages, we investigated the differences between the salary and start-up funding offered to these comparable groups. We discuss the results of our salary review in Chapter 3. (cid:1) 15 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 16 CHAPTER 1 Decisions Concerning the University of California’s Recruiting Needs Can Reduce the Likelihood That It Will Hire Women as Professors CHAPTER SUMMARY S ummary-level comparisons indicate that the University of California (UC) hires female assistant, associate, and full professors (professors) in smaller proportions than are available for hire (the labor pool). The typical measure used to assess whether a university needs to address issues related to the lack of gender parity in its hiring of professors is the proportion of women earning doctorates nationwide. In an ideal environment of gender parity, an employer’s hiring reflects the proportions of men and women that are available in the labor pool. Yet UC’s summary hiring data for the 5 fiscal years from 1995-96 through 1999-00 shows that a significant disparity appears to exist between the proportion of female professors it hired and the overall proportion of recent female doctorate recipients nationwide. To determine the factors that contributed to this apparent disparity, we looked beyond the summary-level comparisons to consider the labor pool from which UC actually hires and whether the gender distribution of that pool limits the opportu- nity for UC to hire female professors. We found that certain key decisions that departments make when they decide to hire professors effectively reduce the proportion of women in the labor pool. These decisions include, at times, focusing new appointments on more experienced, tenured professors and on specific fields of study in which men predominantly hold degrees, as well as opening the positions to international candidates. We acknowledge that departments can choose to hire professors at levels or in fields of study with proportionately fewer women to meet reasonable organizational, research, or teaching goals. There is no indication that UC consciously makes these decisions to reduce the opportunity for women to apply for positions as professors. Nevertheless, the result is the 17 same because each decision adversely affects employment opportunities by effectively decreasing the proportion of women in the labor pool that UC considers for hiring. Even accounting for the effect of UC’s decisions on the gender distribution of the available labor pool, certain academic disciplines are clearly doing better than others in hiring female professors in proportions comparable to their availability. Al- though such data analysis is useful as a starting point, the data alone do not indicate how and to what extent UC needs to improve its existing hiring process. Only a review of the process itself, which we discuss in Chapter 2, can do that. UC HAS NOT HIRED FEMALE PROFESSORS IN THE EXPECTED PROPORTIONS WHEN COMPARED WITH DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS NATIONWIDE The proportion of female professors hired by UC over the past 10 years is lower than the proportion of women who received doctorates nationwide. We began our review of UC’s hiring by comparing the proportion of female professors it hired to the The proportion of female proportion of female doctorate recipients throughout the nation professors hired by UC because that is the measure typically used when determining reached a 10-year low in whether women are represented proportionately among faculty at fiscal year 1999-00. universities such as UC. Focusing on the 5 fiscal years ending 1999-00, the data show not only that the proportion of female professors hired by UC varied by campus but also that all cam- puses hired a lower proportion of female professors than received doctorates on average. Finally, the proportion of female professors hired by UC varied by level of professor, with women being hired in the greatest proportion at the assistant professor level. Although the Availability of Female Doctorate Recipients Has Steadily Increased Over Time, the Proportion of Women Hired as UC Professors Has Recently Decreased Our analysis of data provided by UC shows that the proportion of women hired as professors by UC did not meet the proportion of women earning doctorates for any of the 10 years examined. In fact, the proportion of women receiving doctorates rose overall during that time, while the proportion of female professors hired by UC has recently dropped to its lowest point. 18 The proportion of female doctorate recipients is generally used as a measure, or benchmark, to estimate the proportion of women in the labor pool because universities such as UC typically re- quire that their professors hold doctorates. Figure 3 shows two different benchmarks for the proportion of doctorate recipients who are women. The first is the proportion of all doctorate recipients in the United States who are women. The second, higher benchmark—the measure UC’s campuses use in their affirmative action reporting required by the federal government— excludes doctorate recipients who are not United States citizens or permanent residents. For purposes of this report, we refer to the group consisting of citizens and permanent residents as “citizens.” We present both benchmarks in certain summary figures in this chapter. However, we believe that the larger pool of FIGURE 3 Proportion of Women Hired as UC Professors Compared With the Proportion of Female Doctorate Recipients Nationwide Fiscal Years 1990-91 Through 1999-00 Proportion of female doctorate recipients nationwide (U.S. citizens and permanent residents only) Proportion of female doctorate recipients nationwide 50% (all recipients) 40 36% 36% of of 285 33% 385 32% 32% 30 of of of 29% 29% 333 388 360 of of 26% 26% 526 488 of of 24% 20 370 356 of 358 10 0 1990-91 1991-92 1992-931993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-971997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Sources: UC’s proportions extracted from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Doctorate proportions extracted from a 1999 National Opinion Research Center report on doctorate recipients from universities in the United States. 19 tnecreP 46% 47% 47% 42% 43% 44% 44% 44% 44% 45% 41% 42% 43% 36% 37% 37% 38% 39% 39% 40% all doctorate recipients is the more appropriate benchmark when analyzing the hiring of professors because UC also considers individuals who are not citizens when it hires. (We discuss this later in the chapter.) Thus, on our more detailed presentations in the chapter and the appendices, only a benchmark reflecting the larger pool of all doctorate recipients is shown. The proportion of female professors hired by UC has fluctuated over the past 10 years. In addition, the gap between the propor- tion of women hired as UC professors and the proportion of The gap between the female doctorate recipients nationwide has varied during that proportion of female period. However, the gap has been greater in each of the past doctorate recipients and 4 years than in any of the prior 6 years. As shown in Figure 3, the proportion of female the proportion of female professors hired in fiscal year 1999-00— professors hired by UC is 24 percent—represents a 10-year low. In that same year the greater in the past 4 years proportion of female doctorate recipients increased to 43 percent than in the 6 years before after 10 years of steady growth. The proportion of new female then. professors at UC came closest to meeting the proportion of female doctorate recipients in fiscal year 1993-94, but still there was a slight gap. In that year UC hired 36 percent female professors while the proportion of female doctorate recipients was 38 percent. In addition, when we compare UC’s hiring of female professors to the proportion of female doctorate recipients who were citizens (47 percent in fiscal year 1999-00), its hiring of women appears more disproportionate. As discussed previously, this measure is the one that UC uses in its affirmative action reports required by the federal government. Figure 3 shows that during the 10-year period the availability of female doctorate recipients who were citizens ranged from 4 to 7 percentage points higher than the benchmark that reflects all female doctorate recipients nationwide. This benchmark is higher because the proportion of female doctorate recipients who were not citizens is lower than the proportion of women in the pool of doctorate recipients who were citizens. Each Campus Generally Hired a Lower Proportion of Women Than Exists Among Doctorate Recipients During the 5 fiscal years ending 1999-00, each campus hired a lower proportion of women as professors than were available in the nationwide pool of recent doctorate recipients. However, some campuses hired higher percentages of female professors than did others. 20 FIGURE 4 Proportion of Female Professors Hired by UC Campuses Compared With the Proportion of Female Doctorate Recipients Nationwide Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Average proportion of female doctorate recipients nationwide (U.S. citizens and permanent residents only) Average proportion of female doctorate recipients nationwide 50% (all recipients) 46% 41% 40 36% 36% 35% 33% of of of 30 30% of 59 151 108 of 222 26% 26% 311 25% of of 24% of 20 302 128 of 334 214 10 0 Berkeley Davis Irvi ne L os A n geles Riversi de Sa n Die g o Sa n Fra ncisc o Sa nta Bar bara Sa nta Cr uz Sources: UC’s proportions extracted from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Doctorate proportions extracted from a 1999 National Opinion Research Center report on doctorate recipients from universities in the United States. 21 tnecreP Our audit focused on the last 5 years of the 10-year period shown in Figure 3. UC hired more than 1,800 professors during that time. As shown in Figure 4, the campuses hiring the highest proportions of female professors during that period were the San Francisco and Santa Cruz campuses (36 percent), followed closely by the Santa Barbara campus (35 percent). The San Diego campus hired the lowest proportion of female professors (24 percent), followed by the Los Angeles campus (25 percent) and the Berkeley and Riverside campuses (26 percent). More detailed information regarding each campus’s hiring of female professors is shown in Appendix B, Tables 9 through 14. UC Hired Female Professors in the Greatest Proportion at the Assistant Professor Level The proportion of female professors hired varied by level of professor; UC hired women in the greatest proportion at the untenured assistant professor level. As shown in Figure 5, 33 percent of all assistant professors hired during the 5-year period we examined were women. UC hired about 1,100 assistant professors—61 percent of the more than 1,800 professors hired in that period. However, a significant percentage of new hires also occurred at the tenured levels (associate and full professors), and women were hired at lower proportions at those levels. Women comprised 27 percent of newly hired associate professors and 21 percent of full professors hired. Appendix B presents more detail on UC’s hiring by level. Later in this chapter, we discuss the lower availability of women for tenured positions. FIGURE 5 Proportion of Newly Hired UC Professors by Gender Within Levels Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 100% Men Women 80 79% (383) 73% 71% 67% (160) (1,299) 60 (756) 40 33% 29% (367) 27% (530) (59) 20 21% (104) 0 1,123 219 487 1,829 Assistant Associate Full All professors professors professors professors Source: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. 22 tnecreP The “Typical” Labor Pool Is Not What UC Generally Uses Although the labor pool typically used when analyzing the gender distribution of individuals hired at universities is women who earned doctorates, this measure is not fully reflective of how UC hires its professors. For example, UC states that it would like When deciding to hire its professors to have more than just a doctorate because it values professors, UC considers other experiences and qualifications, such as publications, other qualifications independent funding, and, for some fields, postdoctorate research including publications or teaching experience. Because data describing the gender and postdoctorate distribution for most of these requirements are not available, research or teaching neither we nor UC can quantitatively account for their potential experience. effect on the labor pool. UC also states that it only hires from a limited number of top research universities. Our review of UC’s data shows that 78 percent of newly hired professors possess doctorates from universities in the United States designated “Research Universi- ties I” by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Universities in this classification offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are “committed to graduate education through the doctorate,” have awarded at least 50 doctorates per year, and receive at least $40 million per year in federal support.5 Only 88 universities meet these criteria, including all UC campuses except Riverside and Santa Cruz. Our review of data on universities in the Research Universities I category revealed that 38 percent of their doctorate recipients during the applicable 5-year period were women, only 3 percentage points less than the benchmark for all doctorate recipients nationwide (see Figure 4). Thus, women are available at similar proportions using either measure. In addition, the data reveals that a significant percentage of newly hired professors—22 percent—received their doctorates from other United States universities or from foreign universities. Other factors that UC considers when recruiting and hiring its professors can also be analyzed to determine their effect on the proportion of women in the potential labor pool. We discuss the estimated effect of each of these factors in the following section. 5 In December 2000, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching revised the criteria used in its ranking system. Because our review focused on fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00, we used the ranking system in place from 1994. 23 RECRUITMENT DECISIONS NARROW THE PROPORTION OF WOMEN IN THE POOL UC CONSIDERS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY Decisions that campuses and departments make during the hiring process are a primary factor as to why a significant gap apparently exists between the proportion of female professors UC hired over the 5-year period and the proportion of women in the labor pool to which UC is “typically” compared. Departments decide how to define the positions for which they recruit through the hiring process. Although there is no indication that UC consciously makes these decisions to reduce the likelihood that women will apply, several types of decisions, in effect, reduce the proportion of women in the labor pool that UC actually consid- ers. These decisions include opening the positions to interna- tional candidates, focusing on a specific level of professors, and focusing on a specific field of study. Table 1 shows the incremen- tal effect that each of these decisions has on the availability of women to be hired as UC professors. TABLE 1 Incremental Effect of Certain UC Recruiting Decisions on the Proportion of Women in the Labor Pool Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Proportion of Women in the Labor Pool (Benchmark) Recent doctorate recipients nationwide (U.S. citizens and permanent residents only) 46% Recent doctorate recipients nationwide (all) 41 Doctorate recipients nationwide (all), adjusted by level to estimate differing years degrees were earned 38 Doctorate recipients nationwide (all), adjusted by level and specialty within discipline 33 Proportion of female professors hired by UC 29% Sources: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Doctorate proportions extracted from National Opinion Research Center reports on doctorate recipients from universities in the United States, and from reports by the American Association of Medical Colleges and the National Center for Education Statistics. 24 Table 1 shows that the departments’ decisions have effectively reduced the proportion of women available to be hired from 46 percent (the average estimated proportion of women in the labor pool for the 5-year period, considering only doctorate recipients who are citizens) to 33 percent. Thus, these decisions make it less likely that UC will hire a woman as a professor. We discuss the effect of each decision in the following sections. One might interpret our analysis as an explanation of limitations of the labor pool that, in turn, account for why UC has not met When flexibility exists, the 46 percent benchmark. We believe, however, that these departments should be factors are a signal to UC that its own decisions narrow the open to recruiting proportion of women available in the labor pool and may hinder professors at the assistant women’s opportunities for employment as professors at UC. We level and in fields that also believe that UC should be aware of the extent of the effect will not decrease the that all three factors have on addressing issues related to the lack likelihood of hiring of gender parity. However, UC has the best opportunity to influ- female professors. ence two of the factors: level of professor and specialized field of study. As discussed further in Chapter 2, UC should more fully consider the effect that these two factors have on gender parity when hiring professors. We recognize that departments can have legitimate academic reasons, including organizational, research, or teaching needs, for deciding to hire professors at levels above assistant professor or within certain disciplines or specializations. However, in those instances when alternatives or flexibility exist, departments should be open to the idea of recruiting new professors at the assistant level and from those disciplines or areas of specialization that will not decrease the likelihood of hiring female professors. Recruiting From a Labor Pool That Includes Noncitizens Decreases the Proportion of Women Available for Hire By recruiting from a labor pool that includes international candidates as well as citizens, UC is effectively reducing the proportion of women available in the labor pool. As discussed previously, although UC uses the proportion of female doctorate recipients who are citizens as its measure of available women for its affirmative action reporting, it also hires noncitizens. Our examination of UC’s hiring over the 5-year period ending fiscal year 1999-00 shows that more than 10 percent of new hires for which we have these data were not citizens. Under federal requirements, UC is allowed to employ professors who are not citizens if they possess the proper federal authorization. These individuals could have earned their degrees either in the 25 United States or abroad. As previously discussed, however, the benchmark UC uses excludes those who earn degrees in the United States who are not citizens. For purposes of our analysis, we considered that the gender distribution of those individuals earning degrees in the United States approximated that of the individuals who earned degrees outside the United States. Because the group excluded from UC’s benchmark includes a lower proportion of women than does the citizens group, the labor pool that UC compares itself to is a higher benchmark than that provided by the more inclusive doctorate recipients data. UC’s actual hiring data also illustrate that the noncitizens group has a low proportion of women. Specifically, of the 183 professors UC hired in our 5-year period who are not citizens for whom we had data, only 33 (18 percent) were women. As Table 1 shows, UC’s decision to include noncitizens in its recruitment pool in effect reduces the proportion of women in the labor pool from 46 percent to 41 percent over the 5-year period. Seeking Professors at Tenured Levels Decreases the Proportion of Women Likely to Apply UC’s decision to hire professors at tenured levels also decreases the proportion of women in the labor pool. Because the propor- tion of female doctorate recipients has increased over time, the proportion of women in the current labor pool is higher than the proportion of women in the labor pool that existed when today’s tenured faculty received their doctorates. As part of the hiring process, UC decides what levels of professors to recruit. When UC campuses and departments decide to recruit at the tenured Because the proportion of levels, they reduce employment opportunities for women female doctorate recipients overall because women make up a lower proportion of the has increased over time, available labor pools. UC’s decisions to hire tenured-level professors For example, full professors hired during fiscal year 1999-00, result in it being less likely for whom we have data, received their doctorates an average of to hire women. 19 years before being hired. The average proportion of female doctorate recipients 19 years ago was 32 percent compared with 43 percent in the labor pool in fiscal year 1999-00. To factor in that typical candidates for associate and full professor positions would have received their doctorates earlier than candidates for assistant professor did, we calculated the labor pool differently for each level of professor using nationwide doctorate recipient data from the range of past years that would have been most appropriate. As shown in Table 1, UC’s decisions to hire tenured 26 associate and full professors rather than assistant professors further decreased the proportion of women in the pool from which UC draws applicants from 41 percent to 38 percent. UC’s Selection of Predominantly Male Disciplines Decreases the Proportion of Women in the Labor Pool UC’s decision to hire professors in certain disciplines that are predominantly male further narrows the number of women The proportion of female potentially able to apply. The proportion of female doctorate doctorate recipients also recipients nationwide varies not only by discipline but also by varies by field of study, field of study within each discipline. UC hires faculty for certain and UC hires professors fields more often than it does others. To the extent that UC for certain fields more decides that it needs a professor for a particular field and that often than it does others. field has a labor pool that is predominantly men, it reduces the likelihood that women will apply. To account for the effect of field specialization, we adjusted the benchmark for the labor pool by focusing only on the individual labor pools for fields of study for which UC hired faculty during the 5-year period ending fiscal year 1999-00. Additionally, fields for which UC often hired professors received greater weight than fields for which professors were seldom hired. We used the department of hire recorded in UC’s database as a reasonable approximation of the academic field. Although not a perfect measure, these data provide a better indication of the effect of field specialization on the labor pool available to UC than is a benchmark based on higher-level information. An example illustrates how the weighting process works. Within the fine arts discipline, the data indicate that UC hired 31 faculty during the 5-year period to teach music and 13 faculty to teach art history. The national labor pool reflects a smaller proportion of women for music (37 percent) than does the pool for art history (69 percent). Because UC hired more professors for music than it did art history, the benchmark we computed for the fine arts discipline is weighted more heavily for music than art history, and the overall effect is to reflect a lower proportion of women available in the labor pool. Further, a department’s decision to hire within a specific area of specialization of a discipline can significantly affect the likelihood of being able to hire a female professor. For example, within engineering, the materials engineering specialty has subspecialties of ceramic, metallurgical, and polymer engineering. Our benchmark data indicate that UC has a 1 in 5 27 chance of hiring a female professor within ceramic engineering. However, it has a 1 in 8 chance of hiring a female professor in polymer engineering and only a 1 in 14 chance of hiring a female professor in metallurgical engineering. Therefore, the selection of the subspecialty within which a department decides to recruit may significantly affect the proportions of women who apply and ultimately the number of female professors hired. As shown in Table 1, UC’s decisions to hire faculty for certain fields within disciplines further reduced the proportion of women in the labor pool from 38 percent to 33 percent. In total, decisions In total, key UC hiring UC makes when it decides to hire its professors, in effect, decisions have effectively decrease the proportion of women available in the labor pool reduced the proportion from 46 percent to 33 percent. It should not be surprising then of women in the labor that, overall, UC has hired only 29 percent female professors over pool from 46 percent to the 5-year period because it has effectively reduced the applicable 33 percent. pool of women to nearly that percentage through its own decisions. As we noted earlier, departments can have legitimate academic reasons for deciding to hire at levels above assistant professor or within certain disciplines or fields of study that are predominantly male. We believe, however, that when defining its academic needs, UC should more fully consider how the two decisions they can best control—level of professor and field of study—adversely affect employment opportunities for women overall because they reduce the likelihood that women will apply. We discuss this further in Chapter 2. Some Levels of Professor and Disciplines Hired Female Professors in Proportions Closer to Their Availability Than Others Did Even when we considered the labor pool that UC actually hired from, it was apparent that some levels of professor and some disciplines hired female professors in proportions comparable to their availability, while others did not. After taking into account the different gender proportions among the three levels of professors, UC appears closer to gender parity for some levels than for others. For example, 33 percent of the assistant professors hired by UC were women while the benchmark for that level was 37 percent. Another way of stating this is that UC’s hiring of assistant professors was at 89 percent of gender parity (33 divided by 37). UC’s hiring of associate professors was at 96 percent of gender parity—27 percent of associate professors hired were women while the benchmark was 28 percent. However, for full professors, UC was at only 28 81 percent gender parity. Of the full professors hired by UC, 21 percent were women, while the benchmark was 26 percent. Further details are presented in Appendix B, Table 12. Not only do different gender parity rates exist among the levels, they also exist among the various disciplines. During the 5-year period ending fiscal year 1999-00, UC hired faculty for hundreds of departments. As discussed previously, we considered the department of hire when we calculated the adjusted benchmark. However, for presentation purposes, we grouped the information into general levels: seven discipline groupings and various disci- plines. For example, under the humanities discipline grouping, the social sciences discipline would contain various departments, including anthropology and economics. Table 2 on the following page presents the results of our comparison of the proportion of female professors hired by UC with the labor pool at the disci- pline grouping and discipline levels. Among the disciplines with the greatest difference between the availability of women and the actual hiring of female professors during this period were psychology, foreign languages and literature, and chemistry. The percentage point differences between the hiring rates and the benchmarks for these disciplines were 25, 24, and 19, respectively. While the psychology discipline For the 5-year period we was at 55 percent gender parity and the foreign languages and reviewed, UC would have literature discipline was at 60 percent gender parity, the chemistry had to hire 34 more discipline was at only 27 percent gender parity. To look at this women instead of men in disparity in another way, UC would have had to hire 34 more psychology, foreign women instead of men in these three disciplines for their hiring languages and literature, rate to approximate the benchmark for the labor pool. Specifi- and chemistry for their cally, in psychology, which hired 18 women of 59 professors hiring rate to approximate hired during the period, an additional 15 women would have the proportion of women been hired had the discipline hired women in proportion to the in the labor pool. labor pool. Additionally, in foreign languages and literature, which hired 15 women of 42 hires, an additional 10 women would have been hired. Finally, 3 of the 46 professors hired in chemistry were women, but 9 more of these 46 professors would need to have been women to bring the discipline into alignment with the labor pool. 29 TABLE 2 Proportion of Women Hired as UC Professors Compared With Recent Doctorate Recipients Nationwide by Discipline, Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Percent Female Number of Female Total Number of Percent Female Doctorate Recipients Percentage Point Professors Hired Professors Hired Professors Hired Nationwide Difference Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 6 24 25% 18% 7 Biological Sciences 46 165 28% 39% -11 Health Sciences 32 66 48% 53% -5 Medical 34 173 20% 22% -2 Other Life Sciences 6 33 18% 32% -14 Totals, Life Sciences 124 461 27% 33% -6 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 27 208 13% 8% 5 Computer and Information Science 9 31 29% 15% 14 Mathematics 5 76 7% 20% -13 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 21 0% 9% -9 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 41 336 12% 12% 0 Physical Sciences Chemistry 3 46 7% 26% -19 Geological and Related Sciences 7 25 28% 19% 9 Physics 6 42 14% 10% 4 Other Physical Sciences 11 58 19% 23% -4 Totals, Physical Sciences 27 171 16% 20% -4 Humanities Psychology 18 59 31% 56% -25 Social Sciences 52 189 28% 36% -8 History 29 56 52% 35% 17 Letters 43 82 52% 54% -2 Foreign Languages and Literature 15 42 36% 60% -24 Fine Arts 61 110 55% 56% -1 Other Humanities 51 109 47% 39% 8 Totals, Humanities 269 647 42% 46% -4 Education 20 40 50% 58% -8 Professional Fields Business and Management 15 71 21% 26% -5 Communications 7 17 41% 44% -3 Law 9 33 27% 41% -14 Other Professional Fields 4 7 57% 29% 28 Totals, Professional Fields 35 128 27% 33% -6 Other Fields 14 46 30% 37% -7 Totals, All Fields 530 1,829 29% 33% -4 Sources: Numerical information in the first two columns was extracted from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. “Percent Female Doctorate Recipients Nationwide” data is from National Opinion Research Center reports, with the exception of medical, dental, optometry, fine arts, and law disciplines. Medical percents are from the American Association of Medical Colleges. Dental, optometry, fine arts, and law percents are from the National Center for Education Statistics. Dental and optometry figures are combined within the Health Sciences discipline. 30 In some disciplines UC’s hiring rate either approximated or exceeded the benchmark for the labor pool. For example, in the medical discipline, in which UC hired a significant number of faculty, the gap between the hiring rate and the benchmark was only 2 percentage points. This indicates that the medical discipline was at 91 percent gender parity. The history discipline was at 149 percent gender parity, 17 percentage points above its 35 percent benchmark. The computer and information sciences discipline was at 193 percent gender parity, 14 percentage points above its 15 percent benchmark. Finally, we recognize that all existing measures of the labor pool, even our adjusted one, are imperfect. However, the existing benchmark data provide an indication of where problems may exist and where in the hiring process UC should focus its attention. We used the proportion of female doctorate recipients nationwide as a starting point in comparisons of campuses, disciplines, and departments across UC. Based on these compari- sons, we identified specific departments to examine more closely, selecting departments with hiring rates near their benchmarks and departments that were substantially below their benchmarks. However, it is important to recognize that the numbers alone do not indicate how and to what extent UC needs to improve its existing hiring process. Only a review of the process itself can reveal this information. We discuss the results of our review of the process used to hire UC faculty in Chapter 2. (cid:1) 31 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 32 CHAPTER 2 Some Campuses and Departments Strive Harder Than Others Do to Address Gender Parity When Hiring Professors CHAPTER SUMMARY N ot all campuses and academic departments of the Univer- sity of California (UC) make sufficient efforts to address gender parity issues in the hiring of assistant, associate, and full professors (professors). The practical effects of federal affirmative action regulations are that UC is required to make efforts geared toward enhancing the gender diversity of its workforce when necessary. Although California’s Proposition 209 and a policy established by UC’s board of regents specifically prohibit UC from giving preferences to women during the hiring process, these requirements coexist with federal affirmative action regulations and thus are not intended to limit employment opportunities for women. Despite their limited ability to target women for job opportunities, some campuses and departments have attempted to respond to gender parity concerns. UC has delegated the responsibility of hiring professors to each of its nine campuses. In fact, the individual departments at the campuses bear the primary responsibility for the search and selection of candidates. Although they all follow a similar overall hiring process, individual campuses and departments have developed and implemented their own hiring procedures. However, some campuses and departments have implemented procedures to help address gender parity issues, while others could do more. For example, at the beginning of the hiring process, some departments are now considering the existing gender mix of their professors. We acknowledge that departments can have legitimate academic reasons, including organizational, research, or teaching needs, for deciding to hire professors at levels above assistant professor or within certain disciplines or specialized fields of study. However, if departments truly wish to correct gender disparities, their hiring process must include full consideration of the effect that level of professor and specialized field of study can have on gender parity. 33 PROPOSITION 209, UC POLICY, AND FEDERAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS GOVERN UC’S PROCESS FOR HIRING PROFESSORS Both Proposition 209 and a policy established by UC’s board of regents prohibit UC from giving preferential treatment to candidates based on gender. However, because it receives funds under contract with the federal government, UC still must comply with federal affirmative action requirements. Under these requirements, if the proportion of female professors is less than the estimated proportion of women in the available labor pool, UC must make efforts to address the gap between the two proportions. In our report we refer to this gap as underutilization. Proposition 209, passed in November 1996 and effective in Proposition 209 and an August 1997, prohibits UC from discriminating against, or internal policy prohibit granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group UC from granting on the basis of gender, race, color, ethnicity, or national origin preferences to candidates in its operations. UC’s board of regents had already imposed based on gender. similar prohibitions when it established a policy effective in January 1996. Accordingly, UC cannot give preferential treatment to female candidates for professor positions. Before the implementation of Proposition 209 and the board of regents’ policy, UC operated its “Target of Opportunity for Diversity” program. This program permitted a campus to consider the gender or race of a candidate among other factors when departments requested a waiver of routine search requirements to take advantage of an exceptional hiring opportunity. A commit- tee on diversity at one campus recently commented that this program had been a major pathway for recruiting women. An exception to the prohibitions imposed by both Proposition 209 and the board of regents’ policy is an allowance for activities that UC must perform to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in UC losing federal funds. Because UC receives funds under contract with the federal government, it must comply with federal affirmative action requirements. Noncompliance could result in ineligibility to participate in federal programs and loss of federal funds. During the 5 years that we reviewed as a part of our audit, federal regulations required UC to consider gender in limited circum- stances, such as when analyzing campus workforces to determine whether hiring goals should be established. Under these federal regulations, each UC campus must develop a written affirmative 34 action program. An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to help ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise of affirmative action is that, absent discrimina- As a federal contractor, tion, a contractor’s workforce will, over time, generally reflect the UC must comply with gender, racial, and ethnic profiles of the labor pools from which federal affirmative action the contractor recruits and selects. requirements directing it to make efforts geared The affirmative action program must include an annual review toward enhancing the to determine whether women are underutilized among various gender diversity of its job classifications, including professors. This review includes workforce when necessary. comparing the proportion of female professors to the estimated proportion of women in a comparable labor pool. When calculat- ing the estimated proportion of women in a comparable labor pool, UC must consider factors such as the general availability of women having requisite skills in a geographic area where UC can reasonably recruit. If the annual review indicates that female professors are underutilized, UC must make good-faith efforts toward correcting the situation. These efforts include such steps as establishing goals for correcting the underutilization and conducting supplemental recruitment efforts to include women in the applicant pool in areas where they have been identified as being underutilized. Good-faith efforts also include revising selection procedures to ensure that applicants from a particular group are not unfairly excluded from further consideration. The federal regulations define goals as targets that are reasonably attainable by applying good-faith efforts to make the entire affirmative action program work, not as rigid quotas to be met. Therefore, UC is not required to hire any predetermined number of women or give female candidates any preferential treatment during the hiring process. Instead, UC must make good-faith efforts toward correcting the underutilization of women that exists in its workforce. Effective December 2000 the federal government issued new regulations concerning affirmative action. Under these new regulations, affirmative action plans must include an analysis of the employment hiring process to determine whether impediments to equal employment opportunity exist and where in the hiring process they occur. The analysis must include an evaluation of, among other things, recruitment and selection procedures and any other areas that might affect the success of the affirmative action program. The plans also must identify “action-oriented programs” to correct problem areas and to attain 35 established goals and objectives. The action-oriented programs must be designed to address underutilization and must consist of more than following the same procedures that previously produced inadequate results. THE FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS HIRE PROFESSORS IS THE SAME Despite the fact that each of the nine campuses hires its own professors, departments typically follow the same three-step framework: allocation of positions, search planning and implementation, and appointment. The search for and selection UC’s approximately of candidates is primarily the responsibility of the approximately 600 academic 600 academic departments at the nine campuses. This process departments have can involve all professors within a department. However, various primary responsibility for administrative personnel, such as chancellors, executive vice searching for and chancellors, deans, committees on academic personnel, and selecting new professors. personnel from the campuses’ human resources offices also play roles in monitoring the hiring process and approving the candidates for positions. Requests for New Positions Start the Hiring Process As shown in Figure 6, the hiring process typically begins when a campus’s executive vice chancellor issues a “call” for positions. The call letter directs colleges and departments to develop and submit requests to fill existing vacancies or new positions to be created. Although a college or department can retain positions that result from retirements or turnover, the college dean must request additional positions from the executive vice chancellor or other designated personnel on behalf of a department within the college. In response to the call letter, departments submit their requests through the college deans. These requests generally state the number of positions to be filled, the desired levels of the positions (that is, assistant, associate, or full professors), the area or specialized field of study in which they are needed, and justifi- cations for the requests. On approval, the executive vice chancel- lor can allocate positions to the college deans, who then allocate the positions to the departments. 36 FIGURE 6 Overview of the Typical Steps UC Campuses Follow to Hire Professors In response to the "call" letter from the campus's executive vice chancellor (EVC), departments submit requests for new positions. The EVC approves and releases positions to the departments. Departments form search committees that search for candidates, screen all applicants, and nominate a final candidate to a department. Faculty members vote and approve the final selection, the department negotiates the offer with the candidate, and the selection and the offer are subsequently approved. The campus's committee on academic personnel reviews the approved offer and recommends whether the offer should be made. The chancellor or the EVC makes the final decision to hire the candidate at the approved offer. Departments Assign the Recruitment Responsibility to Search Committees After receiving approval to fill a position, the departments begin the search process. In certain cases a department can hire a professor through a “waiver.” That is, the search process is waived or modified due to the nature of the professor to be hired. For example, a waiver can be used when a department is authorized to hire only one professor but the search identifies two superior candidates. In this case the campus could allow the department to hire the second candidate by waiving the need for another search. A waiver can also be used when the candidate is an exceptional talent—a Nobel Prize winner, for instance—and would have been the department’s first choice even if a search 37 had been conducted. It is UC’s intent to use waivers only in limited circumstances. According to the information provided by the campuses, they waived the search process for 178 professors hired in fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00. The 178 waivers represent roughly 10 percent of total professors hired for the 5-year period. In most cases a department forms a committee to search for Departments create search candidates to fill the position (search committee). The depart- committees that are ment chair selects search committee members based on a variety charged with identifying of criteria, including seniority and field of expertise. However, candidates for vacant in some small departments, all professors serve on the search professor positions. committee. The process for approving a search committee varies within a campus. At some departments, the dean must approve search committee members; other departments do not have this requirement. A search committee is typically responsible for creating the announcement to advertise the availability of a position. Often, a search committee also develops a search plan that outlines the outreach effort it will take to identify candidates. Outreach efforts can include advertising in professional journals and newsletters, contacting colleagues and counterparts at other universities, and posting the announcement on the campus Web site. A campus typically requires approvals from the academic human resources office before a search plan can be implemented. The academic human resources office provides staff support to the executive vice chancellor on academic personnel matters. The dean, the academic human resources office, or some other administrative entity may review a search plan to ensure that the announce- ment and the outreach are appropriate and broad enough to attract a diverse applicant pool. The Search Committee Is Responsible for Reviewing Applications and Selecting the Final Candidate The search committee is also responsible for evaluating applications and narrowing the applicant pool to candidates for serious consideration. UC typically accepts applications from candidates who earned doctorates or the equivalent in either the United States or abroad. Narrowing the pool of applicants is a multitier process. After the deadline passes for submitting applications, the search committee members typically review applications to identify those applicants meeting the minimum qualifications. The committee members, sometimes with the help of other professors in the department, perform a more detailed 38 review of the applicants who meet the minimum qualifications. The result is a “short list” of about three to five candidates to be interviewed. Some search committees reduce the qualified appli- cant pool to about 10 to 15 applicants for more in-depth review before selecting the short list of candidates. The department invites the candidates on the short list to the campus to interview and meet with various professors, students, and the dean. The candidates typically present a seminar to professors and students while on campus. After interviewing all A “short list” of about short-list candidates, the search committee generally nominates a three to five candidates is leading candidate to the department’s professors. The professors invited to the campus to, usually discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the various among other things, short-list candidates and vote to select the final candidate. interview for a position. The department then presents the final candidate to the dean for approval. Deans, Committees on Academic Personnel, and Others Must Approve Many Appointments While the dean is considering the appointment, the department chair usually notifies the candidate of the selection, makes an unofficial offer, and begins negotiating the terms of the offer with the candidate and the dean. The negotiations can include the starting level and the salary step;6 teaching load; the start-up package, which includes such items as laboratory space and additional funds needed to perform research work; and other benefits. As we discuss in Chapter 3, campuses can offer salaries that are “off scale,” for instance, to match competing offers candidates may be entertaining. At some campuses, the dean has the final authority to approve offers for some to all assistant professor positions. However, appointments of associate and full professors usually require approvals from the executive vice chancellor or the chancellor. The campus’s faculty-based committee on academic personnel (committee), or its equivalent, also reviews many proposed appointments. The committee is generally responsible for evalu- ating the offers proposed by the department and the dean. In light of the candidate’s academic and professional achievements, the committee evaluates the proposed level, salary step, and in some instances the off-scale salary amount. Based on its review, 6 Each level of professor has established levels of salary referred to as steps. During the period we reviewed, the number of possible steps ranged from five to eight, depending on the level of professor. 39 the committee reports its conclusion and recommendation to the chancellor or executive vice chancellor who exercises final authority over hiring decisions. CAMPUSES EXHIBIT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF GENDER PARITY AMONG PROFESSORS Delegation of hiring authority to UC’s nine campuses has led, as one would expect, to the development and implementation of different approaches for hiring professors. Our review of the hiring practices used by various academic departments on each campus revealed varying levels of effort exerted for resolving concerns about gender parity among professors. As indicated by the tables, figures, and text in Chapter 1, parity concerns exist within certain campuses and disciplines at UC. To gain a better understanding of why some campuses and disciplines appear to be closer to gender parity than others, we examined several aspects of the hiring process used by various departments within selected disciplines on each of UC’s nine campuses. At a high level, these aspects included allocating positions, search planning and implementation, and oversight and monitoring. Actions taken by UC’s campuses show that the lack of gender parity among professors that exists within some disciplines has not gone unnoticed. As we indicate in the following sections, UC campuses have made some attempts to correct gender disparities. However, despite following a similar high-level framework for hiring professors, campuses and departments exhibited Although actions taken strengths and weaknesses in implementing specific steps within by UC’s campuses show the hiring process. that the lack of gender parity among professors You will notice that as we discuss various components of UC’s has not gone unnoticed, hiring process in the following sections, we do not associate the some departments could number or proportion of female or male professors hired with any improve their hiring individual component. We intentionally left out this information practices. from both the text and the tables. Successes or failures in any one, or even a few, of the numerous components of the hiring process may not necessarily lead directly to changes in gender parity. Therefore, it would be misleading to show numbers or proportions of professors actually hired, implying that these outcomes were the result of any single component of the hiring process. 40 More Specific Consideration of Gender Parity During the Position Allocation Phase of the Hiring Process Is Necessary During the position allocation phase of the hiring process for professors, many UC campuses have recently begun considering gender parity concerns by taking steps such as reviewing the gender mix of professors within academic departments. However, a more complete consideration during this phase of the hiring process will be necessary if UC truly wishes to address issues related to the lack of gender parity among professors. As we indicated in Chapter 1, the likelihood of obtaining a male or female professor is strongly influenced by a department’s decision to fill a position at the more senior levels or from various disciplines or specialized fields of study within disciplines that tend to be predominantly male. Some campuses are now directing their departments to consider the existing gender mix of their professors early in the hiring process. In December 2000 the Irvine campus directed its colleges to “devote attention to enhancing the diversity of the faculty” as part of its position allocation phase. During this phase colleges must now describe how their plans “promise to enhance the diversity” of the campus’s professors and how these plans will affect any changes in diversity occurring in the past 5 years. Also, the Berkeley campus requires any department asking for new professor positions to provide an assessment of their record on recruiting women in the past 5 years. Although these overall efforts seem to be steps in the right The failure to fully direction, we believe that additional considerations during this consider the effects of level phase are critical if gender disparities in hiring are to be corrected. and specialization can Because UC professors can have careers that last 30 years or prolong efforts to address more, failure to fully consider during the position allocation gender disparities in phase the effect that level of professor and specialized field of campuses’ hiring of study can have on the likelihood of hiring a female professor professors. can unnecessarily prolong a department’s efforts to address gender disparities. One method for ensuring additional consideration of the effects of level and specialized field of study is to compare alternatives. A department could develop alternative selections for level and specialized field of study for each new position and identify the varying effects the alternatives have on gender parity. If neces- sary, it could then make its choice of level and specialized field of study while fully aware of potential effects that its decision may have on gender parity within the department. We acknowledge 41 that departments can choose to hire professors at levels or in specialized field of study in which proportionately fewer women exist to meet reasonable organizational, research, or teaching goals. However, departments that fail to consider the potential effects that level and specialized field of study have on the likelihood of hiring female professors virtually ignore these opportunities to help reduce gender disparities. Regarding the level of professor hired, some campuses already tend to hire assistant professors in greater proportions than others Some campuses tend to do. During the 5-year period of our review, UC overall hired hire at the assistant 61 percent of its professors at the assistant level. Four of the professor level where a campuses—Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz— greater proportion of hired at least 70 percent of their new professors at the assistant women is available in the level. Other campuses, however, hired assistant professors in labor pool. much smaller proportions. The Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco campuses, for instance, hired no more than 55 percent of their professors at the assistant level. When it comes to hiring new professors, some campuses emphasize the desire to hire at the more junior levels to, among other objectives, help reduce gender disparities. The Davis campus, for instance, has recently started targeting lower levels of professors to hire. Specifically, it aims to hire 80 percent of its professors at the assistant or early associate level. As we discuss in Chapter 1, a greater proportion of female doctorate recipients is currently available in the labor pool than in earlier years. Consequently, there is a greater proportion of female candidates available to fill assistant professor positions as opposed to the tenured positions. Therefore, by setting a goal to hire 80 percent of its professors at the more junior levels, the Davis campus increases its opportunities to receive applications from women and therefore hire female professors. As mentioned in Chapter 1, a department’s choice of level at which to fill a professor position and its choice of discipline and specialized field of study within a discipline can strongly affect the likelihood of having a sufficient proportion of female applicants from which to select. Unless reasonable alternatives are entirely absent, departments should strongly question whether they unconditionally need to hire a professor at a more senior level or from within a predominantly male discipline or specialized field of study. If campuses sincerely wish to bring the proportion of female professors more in line with the proportion 42 of women in the comparable labor pool, they will need to more fully consider the potential effects on gender parity that their decisions concerning these two factors may have. Campuses and Departments Perform Search Planning and Implementation Differently Some campuses and departments have also implemented procedures for the search planning and implementation phase to address issues related to the lack of gender parity. Examples include female professors serving on search committees whenever possible, using written search plans to help direct outreach to potential applicants, and having more than one search committee member review applications to ensure the integrity of the application review process. However, other departments have not implemented such procedures. Not All Departments Ensure That They Use Gender-Diverse Search Committees We found that some campuses and departments have recognized that women can bring different perspectives to the search process. However, not all departments ensure that they use gender-diverse search committees during the hiring process. Campus representatives told us that female professors can provide search committees with different perspectives when evaluating candidates. In fact, one said that part of the hiring process is evaluating how easily existing faculty will interact with the prospective professor and that people tend to feel more Of the 242 professors comfortable and communicate better with persons who are like whose hiring files we themselves. A gender-diverse search committee could help to reviewed, the search provide important perspectives that might otherwise be lacking. committees for 83 had no female members. As Table 3 indicates, men dominate the membership of the search committees, and women were frequently not included at all. Within the disciplines that we reviewed, the search commit- tees for half of the 242 professors hired in fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00 had, on average, either four or five men. The average size of a search committee was six members. However, the search committees for 156 new professors—nearly two-thirds of those hired—included either no women or only one woman. In addition, while the searches for 83 new professors—about one-third of those hired—had no women on the committees, only nine committees did not have any men. 43 TABLE 3 Gender Composition of Search Committees for Selected Disciplines on UC Campuses Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Number of Number of Number of Professors Hired Number of Professors Hired Women With This Search Men With This Search on Search Committee Percent of on Search Committee Percent of Committees Composition* Total Committees Composition* Total 0 83 34% 0 9 4% 1 73 30% 1 8 3% 2 56 23% 2 20 8% 3 17 7% 3 35 14% 4 11 5% 4 62 26% 5 0 0% 5 57 24% 6 or more 2 1% 6 or more 51 21% Totals 242 100% Totals 242 100% Source: Hiring files for professors within selected disciplines. * The number of professors hired reflects only those for which we were able to obtain search committee information at the selected disciplines. Our review of the gender split among search committee member- ship by campus and within each discipline also revealed troubling results. As summarized in Table 4, while search committees averaged six members, they only included one female member on average. Further, of the 20 disciplines we reviewed, only 6 (the Berkeley campus’s biological sciences, the Davis campus’s health sciences and psychology, the Los Angeles and Santa Cruz campuses’ social sciences, and the San Francisco campus’s health sciences) averaged two or more women on their search committees. The search committees for these 6 disciplines hired 117 professors during the 5 fiscal years we reviewed. Two of these 6 disciplines always included at least one woman on the search committees we reviewed. On the other hand, 5 disciplines averaged no women on the search committees. These 5 disciplines were mathematics at the Berkeley, Irvine, Riverside, and San Diego campuses and physical sciences at the Santa Barbara campus. 44 TABLE 4 Search Committee Composition by Campus and Selected Disciplines at UC Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Average Number Average Number of Number of of Women on Committee Committees With Professors Hired* Committee Size 0 or 1 Woman Berkeley Mathematics 12 0 6 12 Business and Management 3 1 3 3 Biological Sciences 21 2 6 10 Davis Mathematics 14 1 6 12 Health Sciences 19 2 7 5 Psychology 6 2 5 2 Irvine Mathematics 8 0 4 8 Business and Management 9 1 4 5 Los Angeles Mathematics 11 1 12 6 Social Sciences 42 2 7 20 Riverside Mathematics 4 0 6 4 Psychology 4 1 5 4 San Diego Mathematics 4 0 4 4 Physical Sciences 21 1 5 18 San Francisco Health Sciences 11 4 5 1 Santa Barbara Mathematics 7 1 4 7 Biological Sciences 8 1 5 5 Physical Sciences 12 0 5 11 Santa Cruz Mathematics 8 1 5 7 Social Sciences 18 2 4 12 Totals, Selected Disciplines 242 1 6 156 Source: Hiring files for professors within selected disciplines. * Number of professors hired reflects only those for which we were able to obtain search committee information at the selected disciplines. To help avoid all-male or predominantly male search committees, some departments look beyond their own professors. For example, the chairs of two departments, one in the health sciences discipline at the San Francisco campus and the other in the biological sciences discipline at the Berkeley campus, stated 45 that they would include female professors from other depart- ments to improve gender representation on a search committee. However, some departments we visited do not look outside their own departments to improve gender representation on search committees. A department within the social sciences discipline at the Santa Cruz campus and a department within the mathematics discipline at the Irvine campus each have two or fewer female professors. However, neither department includes professors from other departments to help increase gender representation on search committees. In fact, both departments used all-male search committees to select the 10 professors they hired during our 5-year review period. We recognize that conflicts can occur when attempting to avoid using an all-male or a predominantly male search committee; Because low numbers of low numbers of female professors exist in some departments. female professors exist in Given the current low numbers of female professors in some some departments, departments, requiring them to serve on search committees is increasing the likely to increase their workload. This could negatively affect representation of women their performance because the time these professors devote to on search committees can search committees is time they cannot spend teaching or create conflicts that conducting research. Departments with few female professors should be addressed. could ask women in related departments on campus to serve on their search committees. However, this step may not be enough to resolve the issue of the heavier burden that could fall on the female professors in these departments. To avoid the conflict that could result from increasing the representation of female professors on search committees, UC should consider developing alternatives to the standard search committee. One alternative would be to consider the creation of cross-campus applicant pools within disciplines. UC could decrease the number of professors, male and female, needed to serve on search committees if it grouped similar professor positions together and created a single search committee. This committee could evaluate and rank applicants on behalf of all campuses, campuses within a geographical region, or campuses that are able to compete effectively with each other for profes- sors. Because applicants may be applying to similar professor positions at multiple campuses, cross-campus pools also could decrease the total amount of work involved in the search process. The specific departments hiring at each campus could use the rankings to pursue candidates they view as relevant to their particular position openings. 46 This option may present implementation difficulties because of the autonomy of each campus within the system and the autonomy of academic departments on each campus with respect to hiring professors. UC believes that this autonomy and competition between departments may be a vital part of what has made UC excellent. However, this does not mean that departments may not find that it is to their mutual benefit to have cross-campus search committees. Although Some Departments Prepare Written Search Plans to Help Direct Search Efforts, Others Do Not Search committees on some campuses prepare a document called a search plan before beginning the search. A search plan details the steps the search committee will take, including the job announcement and the advertising media that the search committee plans to use to search for potential candidates. According to a representative from one campus, search plans help eliminate any subjectivity and allow search committees to solidify selection criteria. In addition, search plans allow departments to assess the effectiveness of their search procedures to promote gender parity in their search process. Search committees on the Davis campus generally include in The absence of written their search plans the names of search committee members, search plans can advertising channels they plan to use, positions to be announced, compromise the integrity selection criteria, and selection processes. The search plans also of search efforts and the detail how search committees will rank and select the candidates selection process. throughout search process. However, not all search committees include the same level of detail in their search plans. For example, search committees at departments we visited on the Santa Cruz and Riverside cam- puses include in their search plans the position announcements and the advertising media they plan to use; they do not identify the selection processes. Search committees at departments we visited on the Irvine and Los Angeles campuses do not submit written plans before conducting searches. Because the hiring process can be subjective, the lack of a search plan can compro- mise the integrity of search efforts and the selection process. 47 Some Search Committees We Reviewed Do Not Use Their Underutilization Data to Plan Searches We found that some search committees at the departments we visited use underutilization data in planning their searches, but others do not. To comply with federal affirmative action requirements, each UC campus prepares an annual report that shows the level of female underutilization within each division or department. This report compares the estimated proportion of women in the applicable labor pool and the proportion of women in the department. It also identifies a target number or percentage of women for the department or division to hire to achieve gender parity. Although this target is a goal, not a quota, the department is required to make good-faith efforts to address this goal. Some search committees receive this underutilization information and use it to plan the outreach efforts they will need to conduct searches. Search committees on the Davis campus incorporate underutilization data into search plans, together with strategies to Including underutilization help implement any recruitment goals of the department. The data and steps for achieving Davis campus requires that every search committee include an hiring goals in search plans affirmative action self-analysis in each search plan. This analysis helps search committees includes the identification of the department’s hiring goals for focus their efforts on women and minorities. Search committees are also required to reaching those goals. include the steps they plan to take to address these goals. This helps search committees focus their efforts to achieve their hiring goals. However, some departments on other campuses we visited, including Riverside and Santa Barbara, are not incorporating underutilization data and related strategies into their written search plans. Without formally considering the underutilization data while planning searches, search committees may not know how much effort they need to make to help address issues related to the lack of gender parity within their departments. Some Search Committees Do Not Effectively Use the Underutilization Data to Assess Their Success in Recruiting Women Search committees can also compare the estimated proportion of women in the labor pool to the proportion of female applicants to help determine whether outreach efforts were successful. However, not all search committees we reviewed performed the comparison, and certain others did not do so until well into the search process, increasing the risk that the hiring process could not be stopped or delayed while outreach efforts were supplemented. 48 As shown in Table 5 on the following page, some UC campuses receive a relatively smaller number of female applicants. Our Although women review of 20 disciplines at all nine campuses during a 5-year represent 20 percent of period revealed that while some disciplines at some campuses the labor pool for the were relatively successful in obtaining applications from women mathematics discipline, to reflect the labor pool, others fell short. For example, women only 9 percent of represent 20 percent of the labor pool for the mathematics disci- applicants for this pline. However, while at least 18 percent of all applicants for discipline at the Berkeley positions in the mathematics discipline at three campuses were and Irvine campuses were women, only 9 percent were women in the mathematics disci- women. pline at both the Berkeley and Irvine campuses. According to the chair of the mathematics department at the Irvine campus, search committees do not compare the proportion of women in the labor pool to the proportion of women in the applicant pool. Consequently, the department has not determined how success- ful it has been in reaching out to female applicants. In contrast, the chair of one department within the mathematics discipline at the Berkeley campus acknowledges the department’s apparent lack of success in obtaining female applicants. As a result, the department supports an on-campus organization devoted to strengthening the community of women in mathematics at the Berkeley campus. The chair hopes this effort will eventually increase the number of female applicants. Although strategic efforts such as that used by the department at the Berkeley campus may provide a long-term solution, depart- ments in similar situations should also be taking more actions to counter the problem in the near-term. When departments such as those within the mathematics discipline at the Berkeley and Irvine campuses encounter low response rates from female applicants, they need to examine and, if necessary, revise their search efforts to secure a more gender-diverse applicant pool. 49 TABLE 5 Gender Composition of Applicant Pools for New Professors for Selected Disciplines on UC Campuses, Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Average Number of Total Applicants Proportion of Percent Average for Which Average Female Applicants Female Total Number Number of Departments Number of Within Known Doctorate of Professors Female Knew or Total or Estimated Recipients Hired* Applicants Estimated Gender† Applicants Gender Pool Nationwide Berkeley Mathematics 12 9 102 102 9% 20% Business and Management 16 18 90 91 20% 26% Biological Sciences 25 30 114 118 26% 39% Davis Mathematics 12 16 88 142 18% 20% Health Sciences 19 5 21 21 24% 53% Psychology 6 24 67 71 36% 56% Irvine Mathematics 8 20 215 368 9% 20% Business and Management 14 21 79 83 27% 26% Los Angeles Mathematics 11 40 300 310 13% 20% Social Sciences 58 45 188 197 24% 36% Riverside Mathematics 4 31 166 193 19% 20% Psychology 2 10 35 61 29% 56% San Diego Mathematics 5 51 521 521 10% 20% Physical Sciences 21 20 124 124 16% 20% San Francisco Health Sciences 11 8 12 13 67% 53% Santa Barbara Mathematics 9 21 140 145 15% 20% Biological Sciences 9 29 127 132 23% 39% Physical Sciences 15 10 65 77 15% 20% Santa Cruz Mathematics 8 17 95 219 18% 20% Social Sciences 18 29 67 107 43% 36% Totals, Selected Disciplines 283 26 127 144 20% 31% Source: Hiring files for professors within selected disciplines. *The number of professors hired reflects only those for which we were able to obtain applicant pool information at the selected disciplines. † Some departments within disciplines estimate the gender of the applicants based on the person’s name. Other departments survey applicants to identify gender. 50 Further, although some campuses develop gender data for people applying for positions as professors, they either do not compare the data with the labor pool or they do not compare them until well into the search process. For example, the Santa Cruz and Irvine campuses develop gender distribution data for applicants. Some campuses either However, the Irvine campus does not compare the applicant data do not compare the with that of the labor pool at all, and the Santa Cruz campus does gender distribution of not compare the two sets of data until search committees have their applicant pools to selected short lists of serious candidates for the positions. Both that of the labor pools or the absence and the tardiness of data comparisons increase the they do so later in the risk that department chairs, deans, or others charged with over- search process, which sight of the hiring process will be unable or reluctant to stop or limits its effectiveness. delay the process to correct outreach inadequacies. In fact, an assistant vice chancellor at the Irvine campus acknowledged that the current goal of monitoring is not to stop ongoing searches but to correct future searches. However, she also indicated that the Irvine campus recognizes the importance of making these data comparisons at an early stage in the search process. Therefore, the campus is implementing a new tool to allow for contemporane- ous comparisons, allowing it to evaluate the gender mix of applicant pools before departments select interview pools. Some Search Committee Outreach Efforts Need to Be Expanded Although we found that search committees typically rely on outreach tools such as professional journals to advertise professor positions, they may need to go beyond those tools if they wish to increase the proportion of female applicants for these positions. As previously discussed, federal regulations require UC to make good-faith efforts to meet its affirmative action goals. One way to measure the effectiveness of its efforts is to determine how successful UC has been in reaching out to women in the labor pool. However, as indicated in Table 5, some search committees have not been successful in their outreach efforts as evidenced by deficiencies in obtaining a proportionate number of applica- tions for professor positions from women in the labor pool. We found that outreach efforts for the departments we reviewed generally include advertising in their respective professional journals. Some search committees go beyond the journals to advertise in such media as web pages, and some use their personal contacts in their outreach efforts. Further, some search committees we reviewed advertise in media that target potential female applicants, yet others do not. Several departments that have search committees that do not advertise in such media 51 indicated that all potential candidates would read the professional journals in which they advertise making targeted advertising unnecessary. Some departments indicated that advertising in this type of media in the past did not attract more female applicants and as a result, they discontinued it. Regardless of whether search committees advertise in targeted media, the fact remains that, although the goal of their outreach efforts has been to obtain a more gender-diverse appli- cant pool, some departments and search committees have been unsuccessful in that goal. Thus, we believe that it is important for departments and search committees to explore other methods Various opportunities to increase their effectiveness in reaching potential female exist for campuses to applicants in the labor pool. For example, departments might expand their outreach encourage search committee members to personally contact efforts. potential applicants at professional meetings, national conferences, and seminars to introduce their campus and inform possible female applicants about recruitment opportunities. In addition, departments could sponsor events likely to draw potential female applicants and make personal contacts at that time. Other outreach possibilities include contacting strong candidates from previous searches to determine if they would be interested in participating in the current search and surveying graduate students about what avenues they use to find positions. Finally, individual UC campuses should find ways to collaborate in their outreach efforts. An unsuccessful applicant at one campus may be a natural fit at another because of specialization, research, or teaching interests. Although we recognize that some departments and search committees may have already adopted some of these ideas, the lack of success that some have had in obtaining female applicants indicates that other alternatives are still needed. As departments identify and implement these alternatives, their outreach efforts should increase the number of female applicants obtained through the search process. More Than One Person Should Review Applications We also observed that some departments rely on only one mem- ber of a search committee to review applications to determine which candidates should be considered further. For some search committees, including those in the business and management discipline at the Berkeley campus and mathematics discipline at the Riverside campus, only one person reviews all applications to 52 narrow the field of candidates. Such a practice increases the risk that the reviewer’s own background, experiences, and biases When only one person may unfairly exclude an otherwise qualified individual, regardless reviews applications to of gender. narrow the field of candidates, it increases In contrast, we identified some departments, including several the risk that a qualified within the biological sciences discipline at the Berkeley campus individual could be and one department within the biological sciences discipline at unfairly excluded from the Santa Barbara campus, where all members of a search consideration. committee typically read all applications and then narrow the field through open discussion. Although having all members of a search committee review all applications may not be the optimal solution in every instance, having at least two members review applicants would better ensure that all candidates are fairly considered. Oversight and Monitoring of the Hiring Process Also Exhibit Strengths and Weaknesses Some campuses have better procedures in place than others to maintain the integrity of the hiring process and to assess the effectiveness of the efforts by the departments to address issues related to the lack of gender parity. For instance, we found that some departments at campuses we visited do not prepare documents summarizing the reasons why candidates did not advance further in selection processes. Additionally, UC’s lack of a common standard for calculating benchmarks makes comparing each campus’s relative success at addressing gender parity concerns impracticable. Finally, not all campuses evaluate deans and department chairs to determine their effort toward addressing gender parity concerns in their respective colleges and departments. Deselection Documents Provide Helpful Information for Monitoring Gender Parity in the Hiring Process A useful oversight tool used at the Berkeley, Davis, and Santa Cruz campuses and recently initiated at the San Diego campus is the so-called deselection document. A search commit- tee can prepare this document for all or some applicants (for example, women and ethnic minorities, applicants on the short list). Typically, a deselection document lists the gender and ethnicity of an applicant and the reason why the applicant did not advance further in the hiring process. A dean at the Davis campus told us that he reviews deselection documents and 53 supporting documentation such as application material to ensure equal employment opportunity. The deselection document is an added control to maintain the integrity of the hiring process. However, some campuses do not prepare deselection documents. Some campuses do not For example, the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara campuses do not prepare deselection require search committees to prepare deselection documents. documents outlining Although the Santa Barbara campus requires search committees reasons candidates were to detail the reasons for selecting seriously considered candidates, not selected, thus missing it does not require search committees to outline the reasons an opportunity to help candidates were not selected for further consideration. One dean ensure a fair process. we interviewed at the Santa Barbara campus reviews the files of certain candidates to help ensure a fair process, but this is not a campuswide requirement. Without deselection documents, campuses are less sure that otherwise qualified candidates were not unfairly excluded from the selection process. We do not believe that preparing deselection documents has to be a burdensome process, even when search committees receive large numbers of applications. If the initial reviewer of an applica- tion determines that a potential candidate should not proceed further in the process, the reviewer can log his or her conclusion about the applicant using a predetermined list of reasons for deselection. Search committee members who subsequently review the same application simply have to see whether they agree with the initial reviewer’s conclusions. When differences of opinion arise, search committees can use consensus to resolve them. Once the reviews are completed, the logs of the various search committee members can be consolidated into a single summary deselection document that can later be reviewed, if necessary. Central Analysis of Hiring Data Could Help Identify Hiring Concerns and Provide Other Benefits Lacking a common methodology for calculating benchmarks among its nine campuses, UC cannot compare each campus’s relative success at addressing gender parity issues. Consequently, UC cannot use data developed by the campuses to effectively target additional in-depth reviews or improvement efforts at campuses or disciplines furthest from uniform benchmarks. Each campus prepares an annual affirmative action report describing its benchmarking methods, which measure the availability of women in the labor pool. For instance, when calculating their 54 benchmarks, not all campuses attempt to account for the level of professor being hired or for the approximate length of time since candidates received their doctorates. The use of a common method for calculating benchmarks for specific specialties across campuses is based on the premise that the labor pool for a particular candidate is the same for all campuses. For example, the labor pool for candidates to be full professors in polymer engineering, art history, or any other specialty, is the same for each specialty regardless of campus or organizational placement of the candidate’s prospective depart- ment within a campus. The various methods campuses now use to calculate their benchmarks would only be necessary if this premise is not valid. One possibility for ensuring acceptance would be for UC’s Office of the President to collaborate with the campuses in the development of a common benchmarking method. Presuming the resulting method is consistent with federal affirmative action guidelines, campuses can also use it as a more efficient means of acquiring data for their federal affirma- tive action reports. As discussed in Chapter 1, the three disciplines furthest from the A periodic, centralized benchmark we established were psychology, foreign languages analysis could help UC and literature, and chemistry. If UC periodically performed develop approaches that centralized analyses using a standard benchmarking methodol- it can apply across ogy similar to the one we used, it could determine whether campuses to increase the additional, more detailed analyses should follow. If subsequent proportion of female analyses confirm that gender disparities exist, UC could then candidates for professor develop approaches to be applied across campuses that would aid positions. in increasing the proportion of female candidates for professor positions.7 Possible approaches include search committees and interviewing panels that cross campus lines and tracking women whose qualifications met UC standards but were not offered positions at the campuses to which they applied. In addition, these summary-level, cross-campus comparisons could aid in the identification of relevant data that UC could use to respond to concerns about the suitability of the benchmark used to determine gender parity. For example, UC indicated that 7 To calculate the benchmark we described in Chapter 1, we made certain assumptions regarding the inclusion of information about noncitizens, the applicable number of years to lag the data to account for the different level of professors hired, and the segregation of disciplines and specialized fields of study for the professors hired. Although UC may choose to make different assumptions for its benchmark, consistently applying reasonable assumptions across campus and discipline lines is key. 55 comparing its hiring of psychology professors to the national pool of psychology doctorate recipients was inappropriate because many females receive their doctorates in the clinical and counseling psychology fields, but UC mostly hires professors with doctorates in other psychology fields such as cognitive psychology. However, the benchmark we describe in Chapter 1 could not account for this difference because while the national doctorate data distinguished between these fields of study, the data provided by UC often did not. If UC were to centrally collect and analyze applicable data and related bench- marks in a manner that could account for the alleged disparities, it could then determine whether it needed to take action or if the discipline was truly at or near parity. This analysis would allow UC’s president to monitor campus progress in achieving the commitment described in his February 2001 memorandum to campus chancellors. The following are some of the president’s goals: (cid:1) “Establish a millennium goal at each campus for the number of ladder-rank women and minority faculty for defining the pool and achieving equity.” (cid:1) “Conduct an analysis at each campus of the future demand for faculty by discipline and subdiscipline and estimate the pool of candidates nationally who are expected to be available for faculty positions by sex and ethnicity.” (cid:1) “Establish accountability by providing an annual report detailing the campus plan and publishing the results of campus efforts to diversify faculty.” Unless UC monitors systemwide progress against a uniform standard, campus comparisons may not be meaningful and the president’s commitment to gender equity could be questioned. Some Campuses Do Not Evaluate Deans and Chairs for Addressing Issues Related to Gender Parity Including accountability for improving gender Despite guidelines issued in 1999 from UC’s president suggesting parity in its evaluations that deans and department chairs be evaluated on their contribu- of deans and department tions to affirmative action and diversity, campuses are not chairs communicates the uniformly doing so. By including accountability for addressing high priority associated issues related to gender parity as part of the evaluation process with the gender parity for its deans and department chairs, UC and its campuses are issue. communicating the high priority attached to the gender parity issue and are attempting to ensure that this message is passed on 56 to others. However, when campuses do not evaluate deans or department chairs at all, when they do not include efforts to address issues related to the lack of gender parity as a critical component of the evaluations, or when they infrequently perform them, evaluations of deans and department chairs are rendered ineffective as a tool for helping to address gender parity issues. Our review of the approaches to performing assessments of deans and department chairs disclosed that all campuses do not consis- tently comply with the guidelines issued by UC’s president. For instance, the Riverside campus does not systematically evaluate its deans and department chairs because, according to the campus’s executive vice chancellor, deans and department chairs tend not to serve in their positions very long. Similarly, the Los Angeles campus does not evaluate many of its department Long intervals between chairs because they serve for only 3 years. Further, although the evaluations of deans and Santa Barbara campus evaluates its deans, it does not always department chairs inhibit include addressing gender parity concerns as a component. the receipt of timely information concerning Finally, several campuses, including Berkeley, Irvine, efforts to address gender San Francisco, and Santa Barbara, evaluate their deans or parity issues. department chairs only once every 5 years. When long intervals between evaluations occur, deans and department chairs do not receive timely information about the results of their efforts to address gender parity issues. UC’s academic personnel manual states that performance reviews of deans will be conducted no later than the 5th year of service and at 5-year intervals thereafter. Also, although the academic personnel manual states that campus chancellors will establish policies regarding the review of department chairs at suitable intervals, it also states that department chairs will not serve longer than 5 consecutive years without review. When it comes to addressing gender parity issues, we believe that reviews only once every 5 years are too infrequent. Because deans and department chairs are integrally involved in the hiring process every year and their efforts can have tremendous effects on gender parity, we believe that assessments regarding hiring within their units should be performed more often. Including efforts to address gender parity concerns as a component of the evaluations of deans and department chairs helps to ensure that the issue remains a priority. 57 UC’s Concept of Excellence Does Not Always Incorporate the Values of Gender Parity Another weakness we observed was that some departments did Excellence is also defined not include the concept of gender parity within their definition of in terms of a department’s excellence. Department chairs told us that excellence is extremely national ranking. important to them; they want to hire the best person for the job. Some departments also spoke of the importance of excellence, not only in terms of their faculty members’ research and teach- ing, but also in terms of their departments’ placement in national ranking systems. Neither of the two national university ranking systems we inves- tigated—the National Research Council’s Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States and the rankings published annually by U.S. News & World Report—considered the proportion of female faculty as a criterion in ranking research-doctorate or graduate programs. Both these systems attempt to provide a measure of the quality of the programs. However, gender parity of professors is not a consideration in these ranking systems. Although the National Research Council includes the proportion of female students in a program as a criterion in its system, it does not include the proportion of female professors. Likewise, the U.S. News & World Report system does not consider gender parity among professors. A department that values these rankings has an incentive to hire professors who will improve its standings. Because gender parity among professors is not considered as a part of these ranking systems, a department is not likely to give the issue as much weight as if it were. Therefore, UC should attempt to redefine the concept of excellence so that it encom- passes a broader vision—one that recognizes that the full use of a larger talent pool can promote new ideas, new research areas, and productivity. RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid inadvertently contributing to further gender disparities among professors while still allowing the departments to meet their overall missions, UC should take the following actions: (cid:1) Direct academic departments to more fully consider during the position allocation phase of the hiring process how new positions being requested will affect employment opportuni- ties for women overall and the resulting gender parity of its professors, especially those positions above the assistant 58 professor level and those in disciplines and specializations in which women are underutilized. These considerations should be documented as part of departments’ responses to the call letters issued by the executive vice chancellors. (cid:1) Direct its deans to review the sufficiency of the departments’ considerations of the effects that level of professor and discipline or area of specialization have on gender parity before authorizing departments to proceed further with the process for filling the position. To take advantage of the differing perspectives that women can offer in the search for new professors, UC should take the following actions: (cid:1) Avoid using all-male or predominantly male search committees. (cid:1) Encourage departments to consider, whenever appropriate, participation by female professors from other departments on search committees. To address the conflict that can result from low numbers of women in some departments and the attempt to avoid all-male or predominantly male search committees, UC should develop alternatives to its current search committee methods. For example, it should consider whether any departments on any campuses are interested in participating in regional or statewide selection committees to conduct the preliminary selection of qualified candidates when such participation can result in mutual benefits to the various departments involved. Instances when benefits may be achieved include when various departments will be recruiting candidates possessing similar qualifications. If insufficient interest exists for this proposal to be efficient or effective, UC should identify other specific alternatives for avoiding all-male or predominantly male search committees. To help ensure that searches for professors are properly conducted, UC should take the following actions: (cid:1) Require search committees to prepare written search plans that describe, at a minimum, the advertising channels to be used, the position announcements to be used in adver- tising, and the criteria and processes to be used to select winning candidates. 59 (cid:1) Require search committees to incorporate underutilization data into their search plans, together with strategies to help achieve any department recruitment goals. To help assess the success of the outreach efforts by search committees in recruiting female applicants and in monitoring the inclusiveness of the hiring process, UC should compare the proportion of women in the total applicant pool to the proportion in the labor pool as soon as possible after departments have received applications. If the proportions are not comparable, UC should consider performing additional outreach to identify a broader applicant pool. To help increase the number of female applicants, UC should explore alternative methods of attracting female applicants when outreach methods prove ineffective. Such methods can include expanding efforts to make personal contacts at various functions both off and on campus and identifying ways to collaborate with other campuses in their outreach efforts. To help ensure that all applicants are fairly considered through- out the selection process, UC should require at least two members of each search committee to review application material submitted by candidates. To help ensure that otherwise qualified candidates are not unfairly excluded from further consideration during the hiring process, UC should require search committees to prepare deselection documents that describe the reasons for rejecting candidates. When necessary, deans or department chairs could then review these documents. To better enable it to identify potential gender parity issues across campus and discipline lines, UC should devise and implement a uniform method for calculating benchmark data. Additionally, UC should centrally collect applicable hiring data, compare the data with its benchmark data, and determine whether departments need to take action to address gender parity concerns. When determining the action to be taken, UC should consider developing approaches to be applied across campuses. 60 To ensure that addressing gender parity concerns remains a priority on campuses, UC should do the following: (cid:1) Include an assessment of the contributions of deans and department chairs to address issues related to the lack of gender parity as part of their evaluations. (cid:1) Evaluate all deans and department chairs on their efforts to address gender parity issues more frequently than every 5 years. To increase the level of excellence, UC should take the following actions: (cid:1) Redefine its concept of excellence to encompass a broader vision—one that recognizes that the full use of a talent pool that includes female professors can promote new ideas, research areas, and productivity. (cid:1) Consider working with university rating organizations to incorporate gender parity among professors into their definition of excellence. Finally, UC should report to the Legislature biennially on its progress in addressing gender parity issues in its hiring of professors. The report should include the results of UC’s analysis of hiring data relative to a systemwide benchmarking method as well as the efforts it has made relative to the issues described in this chapter. (cid:1) 61 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 62 CHAPTER 3 Factors Other Than Gender Appear to Cause Lower Average Salaries for Female Professors Than for Male Professors CHAPTER SUMMARY S ummary-level comparisons reveal that newly hired female assistant, associate, and full professors (professors) at the University of California (UC) generally earn less on average than male professors do. However, the results of our exploration at selected departments concerning why such differences in compensation occur suggests that factors other than gender may be the cause. Factors contributing to the salary disparities include higher salaries for some disciplines, for some specialties within disciplines, and for some professors who are in demand by competing universities. Therefore, we found no basis to conclude that UC’s practices result in female professors being paid less than male professors are paid simply because of their gender. However, because flexibility exists in setting salaries for professors, periodic summary-level reviews are necessary to identify patterns or inconsistencies among salaries for male and female professors that warrant further explanation. SUMMARY DATA INDICATE THAT FEMALE PROFESSORS ARE GENERALLY PAID LESS THAN MALE PROFESSORS Summary-level comparisons show that the average starting salaries for female professors were generally lower than the average starting salaries for male professors. However, our comparison of the “salary steps” at which female and male professors started did not provide meaningful information regarding differences in compensation between women and men. Each level of professor has established levels of salary referred to as steps. During the 4-year period we reviewed, the number of possible salary steps ranged from five to eight, depending on the level of professor. 63 Despite certain limitations, the salary data provided by UC provide a useful starting point to describe differences in the salaries of female and male professors. To gain an overall under- standing of the effect of gender on salary, we performed analyses using salary data provided by UC. These data contained the salary, level of professor, and salary step of each new professor, by campus, for the 4-year period from fiscal years 1995-96 through 1998-99. The data, however, had certain limitations. More than 10 percent of the appointments contained in the database were missing information on the starting salaries or the salary steps within levels held by the newly hired professors. Additionally, we excluded salaries of professors in the medical and health sciences disciplines; UC was not confident of these data because it believes they were inconsistently reported by the campuses. Further, when we reviewed selected data, we noted some inconsistencies in the way certain starting salaries were presented. Finally, the summary data do not reflect other financial components of an employment package that a professor might receive at hire. (We discuss these components later in the chapter.) Nevertheless, the data offer a place to start in determin- ing whether the starting salaries of male professors are different from those of female professors. Starting Salaries for Female UC Professors Were Generally Lower Than Those of Male Professors Although female and male professors were, on average, hired at similar salary steps within two of the three levels of professors, Differences in starting disparities in starting salary steps appear to be weak indicators of salary steps are weak disparities in salaries between genders. To determine whether indicators of salary female and male professors typically started their UC careers disparities between at different salary steps, we examined the average step at genders. which professors started. The difference in starting salary steps between female and male assistant and associate professors was insignificant. However, the difference in salary steps between women and men was greater at the full professor level, which had 8 salary steps during the period of our review. Specifically, the average starting salary step for female full professors was 3.2, while the average for male full professors was 3.9. Our compari- son of starting salary steps for full professors excluded “above scale” appointments. UC typically makes above-scale appoint- ments for professors who are internationally recognized and acclaimed and have excellent teaching performance. Our analysis of UC’s data indicates that a larger proportion of male professors 64 started at the above-scale step during the 4-year period than did female professors. In fact, nearly 90 percent of UC’s 49 above- scale appointments were men. However, a difference in salary steps does not necessarily equate to differences in salary because, as we discuss later, campuses have wide discretion in setting any off-scale salary amount for their professors. In fact, an associate professor at step 1 could earn more than another associate professor at step 3. Thus, we focused our comparisons between men and women at the summary level on salary alone. Our analysis of UC’s data shows that the average salaries of The average starting female professors were generally lower than the average salaries salaries for female of male professors. The summary comparisons shown in Table 6 professors ranged from consider the level of the newly hired professor as well as the fiscal 90 percent to 92 percent of year in which the hire occurred. Table 6 shows that the average male professors’ starting starting salaries for female professors ranged, depending on level, salaries for the 4-year from 90 percent to 92 percent of male professors’ average starting period we reviewed. salaries for the 4-year period combined. We present the average starting salaries for each level of professor by fiscal year and discipline in Appendix B, Tables 15 and 16. TABLE 6 Salaries of Newly Hired Female Professors at UC Expressed as a Proportion of Newly Hired Male Professors’ Salaries by Level Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1998-99 Fiscal Year Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor 1995-96 88% 95% 87% 1996-97 93% 90% 91% 1997-98 90% 100% 96% 1998-99 88% 85% 98% Average 90% 92% 92% Source: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Although the data shows that women’s average starting salaries are lower than men’s, as shown in the overall comparisons in Table 6, some of this difference is attributable to women’s concentration in lower-paying disciplines. In Table 6, average starting salaries are combined for all disciplines, excluding the medical and health 65 sciences disciplines. However, when we examine salaries within Some of the difference each discipline, the difference between men’s and women’s average between women’s and starting salaries is smaller for some disciplines. For example, as men’s average starting indicated by Table 16 in Appendix B, women are well represented salaries is attributable in the fine arts discipline, making up about 60 percent of the to female professors’ discipline’s new hires during the 4-year period examined. The concentration in average starting salary for female assistant professors in fine arts is lower-paying fields. $46,506—nearly equal to the average starting salary for male assistant professors in this discipline. However, fine arts is one of the lower paying disciplines. Thus, the relatively high percentage of women (nearly 17 percent of all female assistant professors hired) in this relatively low-paying discipline pulls down the average salary for all female assistant professors. Table 6 shows that the average starting salaries of female professors as a percentage of male salaries for each level varied over the 4-year period. For example, in fiscal year 1998-99, the average starting salary of newly hired female associate professors was 85 percent of the average starting salary of newly hired male professors. In the previous year, the average starting salary for newly hired female associate professors was 100 percent of the annual average starting salary for men at that level. However, it is important to recognize that some of these average salaries are based on the salaries of only a few hires. For example, the average starting salary mentioned above for female associate professors in fiscal year 1997-98 is based on the salaries of only eight women. Thus, a single high or low salary could skew the average starting salary. Further, because starting salaries vary within the departments that make up a discipline, starting salaries for hires within even a single discipline may not be similar. Thus, to determine what contributed to the disparity between the salaries of male and female professors at the summary level, we went beyond these summary comparisons and examined the extent to which differences in compensation occurred between genders and the reasons for those differences for like pairs of professors. We discuss this analysis later in this chapter. Use of Off-Scale Payments Obscures Salary Comparisons Among Campuses and Salary Steps Varying use of the off-scale component for professors’ salaries makes some salary comparisons less than ideal. All UC campuses share a common group of salary scales, so one would expect that two professors hired in the same department who started at the 66 same level and salary step and had the same amount of experi- ence would be paid the same starting salary. However, campuses have great discretion in setting off-scale amounts, which enable campuses to pay professors more than the amount listed on the salary scales. Some campus representatives contend that these payments are necessary to draw candidates of sufficient quality to the campuses, to compensate for high living expenses in some areas, and to compete with other universities and private industry for candidates. Currently, campus chancellors can approve combined on-scale and off-scale salaries exceeding $200,000 per year for professors in some disciplines. Campuses have wide discretion in their use of the off-scale salary The off-scale salary component. Further, the amount of the off-scale component can component for one be significant. For example, the Los Angeles campus hired one professor hired professor at an on-scale salary of about $54,000, but the addition at the Los Angeles of an off-scale component of $64,000 increased that salary by campus was nearly nearly 120 percent. Because the campuses, disciplines, and 120 percent of the departments have used these incentives to a differing extent, professor’s on-scale salary. comparisons of new hires at a specific salary step and professor level need to consider the extent of off-scale salaries. DEMAND FOR SOME DISCIPLINES, SPECIALIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS APPEARS TO CAUSE SALARY DIFFERENCES When reviewing starting salaries for newly hired professors within the same level and salary step at the same campus and the same department, several factors other than gender appear to have contributed to the salary differences between female and male professors. As discussed previously, we went beyond summary-level comparisons to determine why differences occur in starting salaries for women and men. The demand for a particular candidate, discipline, or specialty area appeared to drive compensation. Starting employment packages can include not only salary and other compensation but also funds to enable professors to start up their research and offices. These start-up funds may be set aside as money professors can use, for example, to purchase office furniture or computer equipment, renovate lab and offices for the professors’ use, or support research or conference travel. Starting employment packages may also include housing assis- tance and salary stipends to support professors who conduct research during the summer. 67 Mixed results occurred when we compared the starting salaries and start-up funding for six sets of professors, with each set consisting of female and male professors within the same department on a campus. We limited our comparison, as shown in Table 7, to salaries and start-up funding because these were the two areas in which we noticed the most significant differences for male and female candidates. The differences were evenly split. In three of six cases, the starting employment package was greater for women, while men received more in the other three instances. Additionally, we noted that in four of six instances, the start-up funding was greater for women, and in the remaining two instances, the start-up funding was the same. For example, department A hired a man at an annual salary of $62,000 and a woman at an annual salary of $51,200. However, the woman received start-up funds of $2,150,000 compared with the man’s $405,000. According to the department, she was able to negotiate for higher start-up funding because her research needs were greater. Departments identified several reasons for the differences in the starting salary and start-up funding between female and male professors. Typically, these reasons related to the department’s Reasons departments demand for the qualifications supplied by the new professors. cited for differences in Reasons cited by departments for higher demand included starting salaries and the candidate’s specific area of specialization, the candidate’s start-up packages level of experience, and competing offers to a candidate from typically relate to the other universities. departments’ “demand” for the new professors’ Although departments mentioned these three reasons to justify qualifications. the higher starting salaries given to certain candidates, they could not always provide written evidence to support their statements. For example, the departments for three of the six comparisons described in Table 7 cited competing salary offers as a reason for the candidate’s higher starting salaries. However, only one of the three was able to provide sufficient documentation of competing offers when asked. At another department we visited—one that was not part of the six comparisons we made—we observed that it included copies of competing offers from other universities in the candidates’ hiring files. As indicated by Table 7, starting employment packages can vary between disciplines and even between fields of specialization within disciplines. In general, campuses told us that discipline and field have a significant effect on starting compensation. For 68 TABLE 7 Comparison of Starting Salaries and Start-Up Funding for Selected UC Professors Hired at the Same Level and Salary Step at the Same Campus Department Department Salary Start-Up Funding Level and Step Man Woman Man Woman UC’s Comments on the Difference A Assistant 5 $62,000 $51,200 $405,000 $2,150,000 The male candidate had higher competing salary offers, and the female candidate was more interested in receiving support for her research. She had applied for a federal research grant that required matching funding to purchase a major piece of equipment. She negotiated with UC to provide the matching funds, as well as additional funds for necessary laboratory renovations and equipment. Assistant 4 $51,100 $51,100 $395,000 $480,000 The female candidate negotiated for more start-up funding because of the nature of her research, including money needed to set up a new facility. B Assistant 2 $108,000 $78,800 $5,000 $5,000 The median market salary for the female candidate’s area of expertise was less than the male’s. Also, the female candidate did not have higher competing salary offers. C Assistant 1 $90,000 1) $84,000 $6,500 1) $6,500 The male candidate had more experience than the 2) $87,500 2) $6,500 two female candidates, and his area of expertise was in greater demand. D Associate 1 $118,000 $97,500 $25,000 $30,000 The male candidate had recently published a book and a paper that received a lot of attention in academia, and he had received a national award. Therefore, his demand went up. Also, because UC wanted him, it had to raise its salary offer to match his current salary. Although UC matched the female candidate’s competing offers, these competing offers were not as high as the male candidate’s current salary. The start-up amounts were based on the negotiations by the candidates. E Assistant 3 $77,000 $74,400* $291,930 $390,925 The male candidate had higher competing salary offers and more experience. Although the female candidate also had two competing offers, they were not as high as what UC offered. Also, she was more interested in receiving a reduced workload and did not negotiate for a higher salary. The start-up funding was based on what each candidate requested and negotiated. * The female candidate received only a $1,600 off-scale salary adjustment; the male candidate received one for $9,300, a difference of $7,700. However, because the female candidate started more than 1 year after the male candidate started, her base salary was $5,100 more than the male candidate’s base salary. Thus, the net difference between the overall salaries was $2,600. 69 example, department B cited the female professor’s field of specialization as one reason for her lower starting salary. The department stated that her field was not in significant demand and therefore did not command a high salary. Table 7 also indicates that the qualifications and experiences that a candidate can potentially bring to a campus can increase the starting employment package. According to department D, it was willing to pay a certain male candidate a higher salary than it could offer the female candidate because the man was paid more at his current job, and he had recently published a book and a paper that received attention in academia. The department added that her competing offers from other universities were not as high as the man’s current salary. Thus, the department could not justify a higher salary for the woman. Although the comparisons presented in Table 7 focus on individuals at the same salary step, we recognize that inequitable treatment can also occur if one gender is consistently brought in at a lower salary step than is the other gender. We reviewed Because campuses have certain instances in which single departments hired both a man wide discretion in setting and woman at different salary steps within a level in a compa- starting salaries and can rable period. However, in each instance the apparent differences base salaries on a variety in experience of the new hires explained the differences in of factors, starting starting salary steps. salaries need to be monitored to detect Although several factors can contribute to the differences in gender-based differences. starting compensation between female and male professors, we found no indications that gender itself directly contributed. However, because campuses are able to exercise wide discretion in setting starting salaries based on competition from other employers and other factors, starting salaries need to be monitored to ensure that patterns of differences possibly attribut- able to gender can be identified and investigated. We found potentially effective tools employed at some UC campuses. SUMMARY-LEVEL SALARY REVIEWS CAN HELP AVOID IMPROPER SALARY DISPARITIES A practice we observed at the Irvine and San Francisco campuses was a summary-level review of professors’ salaries. We found that UC’s campuses generally perform some type of detail-level reviews that help ensure that the starting levels and salary steps for new professors are appropriate given their education and experience. The faculty-based committee on academic personnel, 70 or its equivalent, generally relies on the experience and profes- sional judgment of its members to make these assessments. On some campuses, the committee on academic personnel also reviews the starting salary negotiated by the dean and department chair. Although these detailed reviews serve their purpose, they can Summary-level reviews of also fail to identify patterns or inconsistencies in starting salaries starting salaries could that would warrant further exploration. As discussed previously, identify patterns or campuses and departments have a great deal of flexibility in inconsistencies that determining starting salaries for professors. By using summary- would be missed by more level salary reviews in conjunction with the detail-level reviews detailed reviews. that already occur, campuses can help ensure that salary disparities between newly hired female and male professors do not go unnoticed or unexplained. If campuses performed periodic summary-level reviews, they could identify patterns such as those indicating that female professors receive lower starting salaries than their male counter- parts. Campuses could then investigate further to identify the factors that contributed to the salary differences and determine whether appropriate and consistent decisions were made. During our campus visits, we noted that the Irvine campus and a department within the health sciences discipline at the San Francisco campus performed summary-level salary reviews using different models. For example, the review performed at the Irvine campus looked not only for individuals whose salaries were far above or below the norm but also for patterns showing that one gender was generally making lower salaries than the other was. According to the associate executive vice chancellor of the Irvine campus, it was just such a review that pointed out that 10 of the 12 female professors in one college were earning salaries that were below the expected value. The executive vice chancel- lor then requested the dean of the college to meet with the associate executive vice chancellor to discuss the salary trends. In addition to being useful on each campus, it is beneficial at a systemwide level to make similar comparisons within disciplines across campuses. As previously stated, the Irvine campus and a department at the San Francisco campus are using different models to perform summary-level salary reviews. For example, the method used at the Irvine campus was based on a salary evaluation model created by the American Association of University Professors. The model was reviewed by a faculty committee and found to be sufficiently valid for the purpose of identifying professors who may be underpaid so the cause of the 71 deviation from the norm could be explained and corrected, if necessary. Using degree indicator, age, degree year, and date of hire as the predictors of salary, this regression model had separate calculations for various schools or units, including arts, engineer- ing, biological sciences, management, humanities, and others. There is no reason to believe the four predictors of the salary evaluation model used at the Irvine campus would not be valid indicators for a systemwide comparison as well. However, we recognize, as did the Irvine campus, that continually analyzing the results of the model might identify other indicators that could improve the predictive capability of the model. For example, we might expect the initial results to show that a campus pays many of its professors above predicted values regardless of gender because of its extensive use of off-scale salary payments or its use of higher salary steps. If the systemwide office accepts that it is valid for some campuses to pay more than others do, it can control for this by adding a predictor identifying which campuses should appropriately have higher or lower pay rates when the other four predictors are the same. This periodic analysis of all professors could also be a primary tool The salary review tool in identifying the appropriateness of salary offers before they are could also be used to made. By having the models available when they review salary check the appropriateness offers, deans will be able to determine in advance if an offer is of salary offers. low relative to other salaries, and the person will show up on the low end of the statistics in a subsequent systemwide review. Also, to the extent that initial salary offers are not gender-neutral, this method will point out any disparities over time. RECOMMENDATIONS To help ensure that salary disparities between female and male professors do not go unnoticed or unjustified, UC should periodi- cally perform summary-level salary reviews at a systemwide and campus level to identify patterns indicating whether female professors are typically receiving lower or higher salaries than male professors receive when other salary predictors are the same. When it identifies apparent salary disparities, UC should identify the reasons why the disparities exist and, if necessary, take appropriate action to correct any inequities. 72 Additionally, to document progress on salary disparities between genders and address legislative concerns, UC should report the results of these studies biennially to the Legislature. We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of this report. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor Date: May 2, 2001 Staff: Karen L. McKenna, CPA, Audit Principal Dale A. Carlson, CGFM Dawn M. Beyer Helen Covey David Davenport Robert Graham Celina M. Knippling Susie Lackie, CPA Kris D. Patel Juan Perez Karen Peterson Wendy A. Stanek, CIA Ken L. Willis, CPA 73 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 74 APPENDIX A Statistics on the Gender of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors at the University of California T he University of California (UC) employs approximately 8,000 assistant, associate, and full professors. Table 8 on the following page shows the number and proportion of existing female faculty within each of the three professor levels at each campus as of October 1999. 75 76 TABLE 8 Number and Proportion of Female UC Professors by Level and Campus as of October 1999 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Number of Total Number Percent Number of Total Number Percent Number of Total Number Percent Number of Total Number Percent Female of Female Female of Female Female of Female Female of Female Campus Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Berkeley 59 178 33% 100 253 40% 146 919 16% 305 1,350 23% Davis 59 174 34% 85 220 39% 154 901 17% 298 1,295 23% Irvine 42 145 29% 63 171 37% 70 437 16% 175 753 23% Los Angeles 84 246 34% 102 295 35% 197 1,107 18% 383 1,648 23% Riverside 33 100 33% 35 117 30% 48 280 17% 116 497 23% San Diego 31 103 30% 43 175 25% 79 625 13% 153 903 17% San Francisco 15 35 43% 28 57 49% 58 274 21% 101 366 28% Santa Barbara 45 101 45% 56 161 35% 71 421 17% 172 683 25% Santa Cruz 36 75 48% 45 111 41% 56 225 25% 137 411 33% Totals, All Campuses 404 1,157 35% 557 1,560 36% 879 5,189 17% 1,840 7,906 23% Source: Extract from the October 1999 “Snapshot” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. APPENDIX B Statistics on the Gender Composition and Compensation of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors Hired by the University of California T ables 9 through 14 present information on the number and percentage of women hired as professors during the 5 fiscal years ending 1999-00. Tables 15 and 16 present information on the starting salaries for the 4 fiscal years ending 1998-99. We present summary and detail-level information for each group of tables because we were asked by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to compile data on the number of professors hired and salaries of new hires by level and gender as well as by campus, school, college, or department to the extent possible. Due to inconsistencies in department names and campus structures throughout UC, to increase comparability, we present information at the discipline level rather than for each department, college, or school. Disciplines may contain multiple departments, colleges, and schools and are categorized by subject area. Tables 9 and 10 provide a campus-level overview of the hiring that occurred during the 5-year period. Table 9 shows the number and proportion of female professors hired at each campus for each fiscal year. Table 10 presents the same information but aggregates all 5 years and organizes the information by discipline, including a discipline-specific benchmark. (The Introduction to this report explains how this benchmark was computed.) This table allows the reader to compare the proportion of women hired at each campus with the benchmark for a specific discipline. Tables 11 through 14 focus on the level of the new hire. Table 11 shows the number and proportion of female professors hired by level at each campus for a combined 5-year period. Table 12 presents the same information but provides details on the disci- plines rather than the campuses of the new hires. Table 13 shows discipline-level details for each fiscal year during the 5-year period. Table 14 shows campus and discipline-level detail for each fiscal year during the period. 77 The final two tables in this appendix provide information on the starting salaries of female professors hired in fiscal years 1995-96 through 1998-99. Each table presents women’s starting salaries as a percentage of men’s starting salaries. While Table 15 shows salary information for each level of professor by fiscal year, Table 16 provides details at the discipline level. 78 79 TABLE 9 Number and Proportion of Female Professors Hired at UC by Fiscal Year and Campus Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 1995-96 to 1999-00 Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Campus Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Berkeley 18 60 30% 18 65 28% 15 57 26% 16 60 27% 13 60 22% 80 302 26% Davis 31 68 46% 18 67 27% 22 63 35% 7 53 13% 16 60 27% 94 311 30% Irvine 18 40 45% 12 40 30% 13 41 32% 13 45 29% 18 56 32% 74 222 33% Los Angeles 24 69 35% 14 77 18% 21 76 28% 14 51 27% 11 61 18% 84 334 25% Riverside 9 31 29% 4 17 24% 5 20 25% 8 32 25% 7 28 25% 33 128 26% San Diego 8 39 21% 13 50 26% 12 40 30% 11 43 26% 8 42 19% 52 214 24% San Francisco 8 17 47% 1 11 9% 4 8 50% 6 18 33% 2 5 40% 21 59 36% Santa Barbara 15 40 38% 8 21 38% 12 33 36% 11 34 32% 7 23 30% 53 151 35% Santa Cruz 6 21 29% 10 22 45% 10 22 45% 8 20 40% 5 23 22% 39 108 36% Totals, All Campuses 137 385 36% 98 370 26% 114 360 32% 94 356 26% 87 358 24% 530 1,829 29% Source: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. 80 TABLE 10 Number and Proportion of Female Professors Hired at UC by Discipline and Campus Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside Percent Female Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Doctorate Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Recipients Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 18% 2 4 50% 4 20 20% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a Biological Sciences 39% 10 31 32% 9 34 26% 6 22 27% 6 14 43% 4 16 25% Health Sciences 53% 4 11 36% 6 24 25% 0 0 n/a 10 15 67% 0 0 n/a Medical 22% 0 0 n/a 7 44 16% 6 28 21% 10 38 26% 0 0 n/a Other Life Sciences 32% 0 0 n/a 1 4 25% 2 6 33% 0 7 0% 1 9 11% Totals, Life Sciences 33% 16 46 35% 27 126 21% 14 56 25% 26 74 35% 5 25 20% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 8% 11 64 17% 7 32 22% 2 15 13% 4 36 11% 0 9 0% Computer and Information Science 15% 2 3 67% 0 2 0% 4 13 31% 1 4 25% 0 3 0% Mathematics 20% 0 12 0% 1 15 7% 1 8 13% 0 11 0% 0 4 0% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 9% 0 0 n/a 0 4 0% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 5 0% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 12% 13 79 16% 8 53 15% 7 36 19% 5 51 10% 0 21 0% Physical Sciences Chemistry 26% 1 8 13% 0 8 0% 1 8 13% 0 0 n/a 1 6 17% Geological and Related Sciences 19% 2 4 50% 1 3 33% 2 4 50% 0 3 0% 0 2 0% Physics 10% 1 12 8% 1 6 17% 1 3 33% 0 0 n/a 0 2 0% Other Physical Sciences 23% 1 7 14% 3 10 30% 0 1 0% 0 9 0% 1 3 33% Totals, Physical Sciences 20% 5 31 16% 5 27 19% 4 16 25% 0 12 0% 2 13 15% Humanities Psychology 56% 2 10 20% 1 9 11% 0 6 0% 2 7 29% 3 5 60% Social Sciences 36% 4 16 25% 10 23 43% 8 31 26% 11 52 21% 3 15 20% History 35% 2 8 25% 5 10 50% 3 3 100% 5 13 38% 2 4 50% Letters 54% 6 14 43% 6 9 67% 11 15 73% 4 11 36% 3 6 50% Foreign Languages and Literature 60% 7 18 39% 1 1 100% 4 9 44% 2 7 29% 0 1 0% Fine Arts 56% 8 14 57% 6 11 55% 7 15 47% 12 27 44% 5 7 71% Other Humanities 39% 4 10 40% 14 24 58% 7 10 70% 3 14 21% 6 14 43% Totals, Humanities 46% 33 90 37% 43 87 49% 40 89 45% 39 131 30% 22 52 42% Education 58% 3 7 43% 2 3 67% 1 3 33% 3 8 38% 2 7 29% Professional Fields Business and Management 26% 2 18 11% 1 5 20% 5 15 33% 6 25 24% 1 8 13% Communications 44% 1 4 25% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a Law 41% 3 12 25% 4 5 80% 0 0 n/a 2 16 13% 0 0 n/a Other Professional Fields 29% 2 4 50% 2 2 100% 0 0 n/a 0 1 0% 0 0 n/a Totals, Professional Fields 33% 8 38 21% 7 12 58% 5 15 33% 8 42 19% 1 8 13% Other Fields 37% 2 11 18% 2 3 67% 3 7 43% 3 16 19% 1 2 50% Totals, All Fields 33% 80 302 26% 94 311 30% 74 222 33% 84 334 25% 33 128 26% Sources:Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Doctorate proportions extracted from National Opinion Research Center reports on doctorate recipients from universities in the United States, and from reports by the American Association of Medical Colleges and the National Center for Education Statistics. n/a = not applicable 81 TABLE 10 Continued San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Female Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Doctorate Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Recipients Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 18% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 6 24 25% Biological Sciences 39% 6 25 24% 1 3 33% 0 9 0% 4 11 36% 46 165 28% Health Sciences 53% 0 0 n/a 12 16 75% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 32 66 48% Medical 22% 5 31 16% 6 32 19% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 34 173 20% Other Life Sciences 32% 1 3 33% 1 4 25% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 6 33 18% Totals, Life Sciences 33% 12 59 20% 20 55 36% 0 9 0% 4 11 36% 124 461 27% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 8% 1 29 3% 0 0 n/a 1 17 6% 1 6 17% 27 208 13% Computer and Information Science 15% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 1 4 25% 1 2 50% 9 31 29% Mathematics 20% 2 6 33% 0 0 n/a 1 11 9% 0 9 0% 5 76 7% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 9% 0 12 0% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 21 0% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 12% 3 47 6% 0 0 n/a 3 32 9% 2 17 12% 41 336 12% Physical Sciences Chemistry 26% 0 9 0% 0 2 0% 0 3 0% 0 2 0% 3 46 7% Geological and Related Sciences 19% 0 2 0% 0 0 n/a 0 2 0% 2 5 40% 7 25 28% Physics 10% 0 8 0% 0 0 n/a 2 6 33% 1 5 20% 6 42 14% Other Physical Sciences 23% 1 9 11% 0 0 n/a 2 6 33% 3 13 23% 11 58 19% Totals, Physical Sciences 20% 1 28 4% 0 2 0% 4 17 24% 6 25 24% 27 171 16% Humanities Psychology 56% 5 12 42% 0 0 n/a 2 4 50% 3 6 50% 18 59 31% Social Sciences 36% 4 19 21% 1 1 100% 4 18 22% 7 14 50% 52 189 28% History 35% 6 8 75% 0 0 n/a 6 8 75% 0 2 0% 29 56 52% Letters 54% 5 11 45% 0 0 n/a 4 8 50% 4 8 50% 43 82 52% Foreign Languages and Literature 60% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 1 6 17% 0 0 n/a 15 42 36% Fine Arts 56% 7 12 58% 0 0 n/a 12 18 67% 4 6 67% 61 110 55% Other Humanities 39% 4 10 40% 0 0 n/a 9 16 56% 4 11 36% 51 109 47% Totals, Humanities 46% 31 72 43% 1 1 100% 38 78 49% 22 47 47% 269 647 42% Education 58% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 5 8 63% 4 4 100% 20 40 50% Professional Fields Business and Management 26% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 15 71 21% Communications 44% 5 8 63% 0 0 n/a 1 4 25% 0 1 0% 7 17 41% Law 41% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 9 33 27% Other Professional Fields 29% 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 4 7 57% Totals, Professional Fields 33% 5 8 63% 0 0 n/a 1 4 25% 0 1 0% 35 128 27% Other Fields 37% 0 0 n/a 0 1 0% 2 3 67% 1 3 33% 14 46 30% Totals, All Fields 33% 52 214 24% 21 59 36% 53 151 35% 39 108 36% 530 1,829 29% 82 TABLE 11 Number and Proportion of Female Professors Hired at UC by Level and Campus Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Female Number of Female Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Professors Campus Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Berkeley 51 175 29% 12 41 29% 17 86 20% 80 302 26% Davis 66 196 34% 8 36 22% 20 79 25% 94 311 30% Irvine 52 160 33% 9 22 41% 13 40 33% 74 222 33% Los Angeles 50 185 27% 9 47 19% 25 102 25% 84 334 25% Riverside 27 89 30% 2 9 22% 4 30 13% 33 128 26% San Diego 36 107 34% 5 30 17% 11 77 14% 52 214 24% San Francisco 10 25 40% 7 11 64% 4 23 17% 21 59 36% Santa Barbara 43 107 40% 4 12 33% 6 32 19% 53 151 35% Santa Cruz 32 79 41% 3 11 27% 4 18 22% 39 108 36% Totals, All Campuses 367 1,123 33% 59 219 27% 104 487 21% 530 1,829 29% Source: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. 83 TABLE 12 Number and Proportion of Female Professors Hired at UC by Discipline and Level Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Percent Percent Percent Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 3 15 20% 20% 1 3 33% 16% 2 6 33% 11% 6 24 25% 18% Biological Sciences 35 114 31% 42% 6 18 33% 34% 5 33 15% 31% 46 165 28% 39% Health Sciences 24 45 53% 55% 4 7 57% 53% 4 14 29% 48% 32 66 48% 53% Medical 20 71 28% 34% 6 25 24% 23% 8 77 10% 11% 34 173 20% 22% Other Life Sciences 1 18 6% 32% 2 4 50% 32% 3 11 27% 31% 6 33 18% 32% Totals, Life Sciences 83 263 32% 40% 19 57 33% 30% 22 141 16% 21% 124 461 27% 33% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 18 105 17% 11% 4 43 9% 7% 5 60 8% 5% 27 208 13% 8% Computer and Information Science 4 22 18% 16% 1 4 25% 14% 4 5 80% 11% 9 31 29% 15% Mathematics 4 48 8% 22% 0 14 0% 18% 1 14 7% 16% 5 76 7% 20% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 14 0% 11% 0 1 0% 7% 0 6 0% 6% 0 21 0% 9% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 26 189 14% 15% 5 62 8% 10% 10 85 12% 7% 41 336 12% 12% Physical Sciences Chemistry 3 36 8% 28% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 10 0% 18% 3 46 7% 26% Geological and Related Sciences 4 16 25% 21% 1 3 33% 20% 2 6 33% 15% 7 25 28% 19% Physics 6 24 25% 12% 0 6 0% 10% 0 12 0% 8% 6 42 14% 10% Other Physical Sciences 6 34 18% 27% 1 7 14% 24% 4 17 24% 16% 11 58 19% 23% Totals, Physical Sciences 19 110 17% 23% 2 16 13% 18% 6 45 13% 14% 27 171 16% 20% Humanities Psychology 14 40 35% 60% 0 2 0% 51% 4 17 24% 47% 18 59 31% 56% Social Sciences 39 135 29% 37% 8 19 42% 36% 5 35 14% 31% 52 189 28% 36% History 22 36 61% 37% 3 8 38% 35% 4 12 33% 31% 29 56 52% 35% Letters 27 50 54% 56% 9 13 69% 51% 7 19 37% 52% 43 82 52% 54% Foreign Languages and Literature 10 28 36% 60% 1 3 33% 59% 4 11 36% 58% 15 42 36% 60% Fine Arts 47 76 62% 57% 1 9 11% 57% 13 25 52% 52% 61 110 55% 56% Other Humanities 35 68 51% 42% 5 13 38% 39% 11 28 39% 32% 51 109 47% 39% Totals, Humanities 194 433 45% 47% 27 67 40% 44% 48 147 33% 41% 269 647 42% 46% Education 14 27 52% 61% 2 3 67% 56% 4 10 40% 49% 20 40 50% 58% Professional Fields Business and Management 12 58 21% 28% 1 3 33% 25% 2 10 20% 18% 15 71 21% 26% Communications 3 5 60% 49% 2 4 50% 45% 2 8 25% 40% 7 17 41% 44% Law 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 9 33 27% 41% 9 33 27% 41% Other Professional Fields 4 7 57% 29% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 4 7 57% 29% Totals, Professional Fields 19 70 27% 30% 3 7 43% 37% 13 51 25% 37% 35 128 27% 33% Other Fields 12 31 39% 39% 1 7 14% 28% 1 8 13% 35% 14 46 30% 37% Totals, All Fields 367 1,123 33% 37% 59 219 27% 28% 104 487 21% 26% 530 1,829 29% 33% Sources: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Doctorate proportions extracted from National Opinion Research Center reports on doctorate recipients from universities in the United States, and from reports by the American Association of Medical Colleges and the National Center for Education Statistics. n/a = not applicable 84 TABLE 13 Number and Proportion of Female Professors Hired at UC by Fiscal Year, Discipline, and Level Fiscal Year 1995-96 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Percent Percent Percent Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 1 5 20% 18% 1 1 100% 15% 2 2 100% 12% 4 8 50% 16% Biological Sciences 9 30 30% 38% 1 2 50% 29% 1 6 17% 29% 11 38 29% 36% Health Sciences 6 13 46% 53% 0 0 n/a n/a 2 3 67% 45% 8 16 50% 51% Medical 9 16 56% 34% 3 6 50% 23% 2 14 14% 11% 14 36 39% 23% Other Life Sciences 0 4 0% 30% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 4 0% 30% Totals, Life Sciences 25 68 37% 38% 5 9 56% 23% 7 25 28% 20% 37 102 36% 32% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 5 22 23% 11% 1 3 33% 6% 2 10 20% 3% 8 35 23% 9% Computer and Information Science 0 5 0% 14% 1 1 100% 11% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 6 17% 14% Mathematics 2 10 20% 20% 0 4 0% 17% 0 1 0% 18% 2 15 13% 19% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 4 0% 10% 0 1 0% 7% 0 1 0% 5% 0 6 0% 9% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 7 41 17% 14% 2 9 22% 11% 2 12 17% 4% 11 62 18% 12% Physical Sciences Chemistry 2 8 25% 26% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0% 17% 2 10 20% 24% Geological and Related Sciences 2 5 40% 20% 0 1 0% 20% 0 0 n/a n/a 2 6 33% 20% Physics 2 10 20% 11% 0 3 0% 9% 0 1 0% 7% 2 14 14% 11% Other Physical Sciences 3 6 50% 25% 1 1 100% 24% 0 2 0% 17% 4 9 44% 23% Totals, Physical Sciences 9 29 31% 20% 1 5 20% 14% 0 5 0% 15% 10 39 26% 18% Humanities Psychology 5 9 56% 60% 0 0 n/a n/a 2 4 50% 46% 7 13 54% 56% Social Sciences 8 21 38% 37% 0 1 0% 48% 0 8 0% 28% 8 30 27% 35% History 6 10 60% 36% 1 2 50% 34% 0 0 n/a n/a 7 12 58% 35% Letters 9 15 60% 55% 2 3 67% 49% 1 4 25% 53% 12 22 55% 54% Foreign Languages and Literature 0 5 0% 58% 0 2 0% 64% 1 3 33% 60% 1 10 10% 60% Fine Arts 8 16 50% 54% 0 1 0% 65% 4 7 57% 51% 12 24 50% 54% Other Humanities 9 16 56% 40% 1 5 20% 32% 2 5 40% 33% 12 26 46% 37% Totals, Humanities 45 92 49% 47% 4 14 29% 44% 10 31 32% 43% 59 137 43% 46% Education 3 4 75% 59% 1 1 100% 55% 0 2 0% 48% 4 7 57% 55% Professional Fields Business and Management 2 12 17% 26% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 4 25% 17% 3 16 19% 24% Communications 1 1 100% 47% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 1 100% 39% 2 2 100% 43% Law 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 5 7 71% 41% 5 7 71% 41% Other Professional Fields 3 5 60% 29% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 3 5 60% 29% Totals, Professional Fields 6 18 33% 28% 0 0 n/a n/a 7 12 58% 33% 13 30 43% 30% Other Fields 2 6 33% 40% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 2 50% 37% 3 8 38% 39% Totals, All Fields 97 258 38% 35% 13 38 34% 28% 27 89 30% 28% 137 385 36% 33% Sources:Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. Doctorate proportions extracted from National Opinion Research Center reports on doctorate recipients from universities in the United States, and from reports by the American Association of Medical Colleges and the National Center for Education Statistics. n/a = not applicable 85 TABLE 13 Continued Fiscal Year 1996-97 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Percent Percent Percent Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 4 0% 19% 0 1 0% 13% 0 2 0% 10% 0 7 0% 16% Biological Sciences 7 23 30% 42% 1 4 25% 28% 2 7 29% 29% 10 34 29% 38% Health Sciences 3 7 43% 44% 0 1 0% 30% 0 4 0% 41% 3 12 25% 41% Medical 1 8 13% 34% 0 1 0% 23% 3 17 18% 11% 4 26 15% 19% Other Life Sciences 1 5 20% 31% 1 2 50% 31% 1 3 33% 36% 3 10 30% 33% Totals, Life Sciences 12 47 26% 38% 2 9 22% 27% 6 33 18% 21% 20 89 22% 30% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 7 26 27% 11% 1 15 7% 5% 0 7 0% 4% 8 48 17% 8% Computer and Information Science 0 2 0% 16% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 1 100% 11% 1 3 33% 14% Mathematics 0 10 0% 22% 0 2 0% 17% 0 6 0% 15% 0 18 0% 19% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 4 0% 11% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 4 0% 11% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 7 42 17% 14% 1 17 6% 7% 1 14 7% 9% 9 73 12% 11% Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 6 0% 27% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 17% 0 7 0% 26% Geological and Related Sciences 0 3 0% 22% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0% 15% 0 5 0% 19% Physics 3 5 60% 12% 0 1 0% 10% 0 3 0% 7% 3 9 33% 10% Other Physical Sciences 0 6 0% 28% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 4 25% 16% 1 10 10% 23% Totals, Physical Sciences 3 20 15% 23% 0 1 0% 10% 1 10 10% 13% 4 31 13% 19% Humanities Psychology 1 8 13% 58% 0 1 0% 45% 0 3 0% 47% 1 12 8% 54% Social Sciences 10 37 27% 39% 3 3 100% 40% 2 7 29% 34% 15 47 32% 38% History 4 8 50% 36% 0 1 0% 34% 1 2 50% 30% 5 11 45% 35% Letters 5 7 71% 54% 2 3 67% 49% 2 5 40% 51% 9 15 60% 52% Foreign Languages and Literature 2 5 40% 66% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 56% 2 6 33% 64% Fine Arts 11 20 55% 54% 0 3 0% 59% 2 6 33% 58% 13 29 45% 55% Other Humanities 7 13 54% 44% 2 2 100% 40% 2 5 40% 29% 11 20 55% 40% Totals, Humanities 40 98 41% 46% 7 13 54% 46% 9 29 31% 43% 56 140 40% 46% Education 1 2 50% 60% 0 1 0% 56% 3 4 75% 49% 4 7 57% 53% Professional Fields Business and Management 1 10 10% 27% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 17% 1 11 9% 26% Communications 0 1 0% 49% 0 1 0% 44% 0 2 0% 40% 0 4 0% 43% Law 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 1 7 14% 41% 1 7 14% 41% Other Professional Fields 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a Totals, Professional Fields 1 11 9% 29% 0 1 0% 44% 1 10 10% 39% 2 22 9% 34% Other Fields 3 6 50% 31% 0 1 0% 12% 0 1 0% 56% 3 8 38% 32% Totals, All Fields 67 226 30% 35% 10 43 23% 25% 21 101 21% 28% 98 370 26% 32% 86 TABLE 13 Continued Fiscal Year 1997-98 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Percent Percent Percent Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 1 4 25% 23% 0 1 0% 19% 0 2 0% 11% 1 7 14% 19% Biological Sciences 8 25 32% 41% 0 2 0% 36% 1 4 25% 33% 9 31 29% 39% Health Sciences 3 6 50% 63% 1 3 33% 38% 0 2 0% 60% 4 11 36% 56% Medical 5 19 26% 34% 1 5 20% 23% 2 14 14% 11% 8 38 21% 24% Other Life Sciences 0 2 0% 32% 1 2 50% 33% 1 4 25% 24% 2 8 25% 28% Totals, Life Sciences 17 56 30% 39% 3 13 23% 30% 4 26 15% 20% 24 95 25% 33% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 1 12 8% 11% 2 8 25% 5% 2 14 14% 4% 5 34 15% 7% Computer and Information Science 1 4 25% 15% 0 1 0% 13% 1 1 100% 10% 2 6 33% 14% Mathematics 1 6 17% 23% 0 5 0% 19% 0 4 0% 16% 1 15 7% 20% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 1 0% 11% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 11% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 3 23 13% 15% 2 14 14% 11% 3 19 16% 7% 8 56 14% 11% Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 8 0% 28% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 18% 0 9 0% 27% Geological and Related Sciences 0 3 0% 20% 1 2 50% 20% 2 2 100% 12% 3 7 43% 18% Physics 0 3 0% 12% 0 1 0% 10% 0 2 0% 8% 0 6 0% 10% Other Physical Sciences 1 8 13% 26% 0 1 0% 28% 2 4 50% 15% 3 13 23% 23% Totals, Physical Sciences 1 22 5% 24% 1 4 25% 20% 4 9 44% 13% 6 35 17% 21% Humanities Psychology 2 9 22% 60% 0 1 0% 57% 1 3 33% 46% 3 13 23% 57% Social Sciences 11 25 44% 40% 1 2 50% 39% 3 8 38% 37% 15 35 43% 39% History 7 9 78% 37% 1 3 33% 35% 0 0 n/a n/a 8 12 67% 37% Letters 3 9 33% 56% 2 3 67% 55% 3 7 43% 51% 8 19 42% 54% Foreign Languages and Literature 4 8 50% 59% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0% 61% 4 10 40% 59% Fine Arts 16 19 84% 57% 0 3 0% 47% 3 4 75% 34% 19 26 73% 53% Other Humanities 6 13 46% 41% 0 1 0% 56% 4 6 67% 34% 10 20 50% 40% Totals, Humanities 49 92 53% 48% 4 13 31% 46% 14 30 47% 42% 67 135 50% 47% Education 2 6 33% 61% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 50% 2 7 29% 59% Professional Fields Business and Management 3 13 23% 28% 1 3 33% 25% 0 2 0% 18% 4 18 22% 26% Communications 1 1 100% 49% 0 1 0% 45% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 2 50% 47% Law 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 4 0% 41% 0 4 0% 41% Other Professional Fields 1 1 100% 29% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 1 1 100% 29% Totals, Professional Fields 5 15 33% 29% 1 4 25% 30% 0 6 0% 34% 6 25 24% 30% Other Fields 1 5 20% 36% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0% 21% 1 7 14% 32% Totals, All Fields 78 219 36% 39% 11 48 23% 28% 25 93 27% 25% 114 360 32% 34% 87 TABLE 13 Continued Fiscal Year 1998-99 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Percent Percent Percent Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number Total Percent Female Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 1 1 100% 28% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 1 1 100% 28% Biological Sciences 6 18 33% 44% 4 7 57% 38% 0 11 0% 35% 10 36 28% 40% Health Sciences 7 10 70% 72% 3 3 100% 75% 1 4 25% 41% 11 17 65% 65% Medical 1 16 6% 34% 2 10 20% 23% 0 23 0% 11% 3 49 6% 21% Other Life Sciences 0 1 0% 27% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 2 50% 48% 1 3 33% 41% Totals, Life Sciences 15 46 33% 46% 9 20 45% 36% 2 40 5% 22% 26 106 25% 35% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 2 21 10% 10% 0 5 0% 6% 1 12 8% 5% 3 38 8% 8% Computer and Information Science 2 5 40% 18% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 2 5 40% 18% Mathematics 1 10 10% 23% 0 2 0% 18% 1 3 33% 15% 2 15 13% 21% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 3 0% 12% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0% 6% 0 5 0% 9% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 5 39 13% 15% 0 7 0% 10% 2 17 12% 7% 7 63 11% 12% Physical Sciences Chemistry 1 11 9% 30% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 5 0% 18% 1 16 6% 26% Geological and Related Sciences 2 3 67% 20% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 16% 2 4 50% 19% Physics 1 2 50% 13% 0 1 0% 10% 0 1 0% 8% 1 4 25% 11% Other Physical Sciences 1 3 33% 30% 0 2 0% 26% 0 4 0% 17% 1 9 11% 23% Totals, Physical Sciences 5 19 26% 26% 0 3 0% 21% 0 11 0% 16% 5 33 15% 23% Humanities Psychology 3 5 60% 64% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 3 33% 48% 4 8 50% 58% Social Sciences 5 27 19% 40% 0 3 0% 32% 0 6 0% 30% 5 36 14% 37% History 3 5 60% 38% 1 1 100% 35% 2 4 50% 31% 6 10 60% 35% Letters 4 7 57% 57% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 4 7 57% 57% Foreign Languages and Literature 1 3 33% 63% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 2 50% 55% 2 5 40% 60% Fine Arts 8 15 53% 59% 1 1 100% 88% 2 3 67% 46% 11 19 58% 59% Other Humanities 9 18 50% 43% 0 1 0% 41% 1 5 20% 39% 10 24 42% 42% Totals, Humanities 33 80 41% 48% 2 6 33% 43% 7 23 30% 39% 42 109 39% 46% Education 4 8 50% 61% 1 1 100% 58% 0 2 0% 50% 5 11 45% 59% Professional Fields Business and Management 1 6 17% 27% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 1 100% 19% 2 7 29% 26% Communications 0 1 0% 50% 1 1 100% 45% 0 2 0% 41% 1 4 25% 44% Law 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 1 10 10% 41% 1 10 10% 41% Other Professional Fields 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a Totals, Professional Fields 1 7 14% 30% 1 1 100% 45% 2 13 15% 40% 4 21 19% 37% Other Fields 5 8 63% 46% 0 4 0% 34% 0 1 0% 28% 5 13 38% 41% Totals, All Fields 68 207 33% 39% 13 42 31% 32% 13 107 12% 26% 94 356 26% 34% 88 TABLE 13 Continued Fiscal Year 1999-00 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor All Professors Percent Percent Percent Percent Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Number of Total Percent Female Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Female Number of Female Doctorate Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Professors Professors Professors Recipients Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Hired Hired Hired Nationwide Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 1 0% 23% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 23% Biological Sciences 5 18 28% 46% 0 3 0% 34% 1 5 20% 29% 6 26 23% 41% Health Sciences 5 9 56% 42% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 1 100% 96% 6 10 60% 47% Medical 4 12 33% 34% 0 3 0% 23% 1 9 11% 11% 5 24 21% 24% Other Life Sciences 0 6 0% 33% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0% 22% 0 8 0% 31% Totals, Life Sciences 14 46 30% 40% 0 6 0% 28% 3 17 18% 23% 17 69 25% 35% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 3 24 13% 13% 0 12 0% 9% 0 17 0% 6% 3 53 6% 10% Computer and Information Science 1 6 17% 16% 0 2 0% 15% 2 3 67% 11% 3 11 27% 14% Mathematics 0 12 0% 23% 0 1 0% 19% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 13 0% 23% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 2 0% 13% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 3 0% 6% 0 5 0% 9% Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 4 44 9% 16% 0 15 0% 11% 2 23 9% 7% 6 82 7% 13% Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 3 0% 29% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 18% 0 4 0% 27% Geological and Related Sciences 0 2 0% 22% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 16% 0 3 0% 20% Physics 0 4 0% 13% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 5 0% 8% 0 9 0% 10% Other Physical Sciences 1 11 9% 27% 0 3 0% 21% 1 3 33% 17% 2 17 12% 24% Totals, Physical Sciences 1 20 5% 24% 0 3 0% 21% 1 10 10% 13% 2 33 6% 20% Humanities Psychology 3 9 33% 58% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 4 0% 49% 3 13 23% 55% Social Sciences 5 25 20% 32% 4 10 40% 34% 0 6 0% 26% 9 41 22% 31% History 2 4 50% 38% 0 1 0% 35% 1 6 17% 31% 3 11 27% 34% Letters 6 12 50% 56% 3 4 75% 52% 1 3 33% 53% 10 19 53% 55% Foreign Languages and Literature 3 7 43% 59% 1 1 100% 48% 2 3 67% 56% 6 11 55% 57% Fine Arts 4 6 67% 65% 0 1 0% 37% 2 5 40% 65% 6 12 50% 63% Other Humanities 4 8 50% 45% 2 4 50% 42% 2 7 29% 28% 8 19 42% 38% Totals, Humanities 27 71 38% 47% 10 21 48% 40% 8 34 24% 40% 45 126 36% 44% Education 4 7 57% 62% 0 0 n/a n/a 1 1 100% 51% 5 8 63% 61% Professional Fields Business and Management 5 17 29% 30% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0% 20% 5 19 26% 29% Communications 1 1 100% 52% 1 1 100% 47% 1 3 33% 41% 3 5 60% 44% Law 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 2 5 40% 41% 2 5 40% 41% Other Professional Fields 0 1 0% 31% 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 0% 31% Totals, Professional Fields 6 19 32% 31% 1 1 100% 47% 3 10 30% 37% 10 30 33% 34% Other Fields 1 6 17% 39% 1 2 50% 24% 0 2 0% 41% 2 10 20% 37% Totals, All Fields 57 213 27% 36% 12 48 25% 28% 18 97 19% 26% 87 358 24% 32% 89 TABLE 14 Number of Female Professors Hired at UC by Fiscal Year, Level, Campus, and Discipline, Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1999-00 Fiscal Year 1995-96 Assistant Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Biological Sciences 1 3 2 5 2 3 1 3 2 6 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 4 9 30 Health Sciences 1 1 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 6 13 Medical 0 0 3 5 1 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 16 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Totals, Life Sciences 2 5 6 21 3 4 6 11 2 8 0 4 5 10 0 1 1 4 25 68 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 3 11 1 5 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 22 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Mathematics 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 10 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 3 11 1 9 1 6 0 5 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 1 7 41 Physical Sciences Chemistry 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 Physics 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 10 Other Physical Sciences 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 6 Totals, Physical Sciences 1 7 1 2 3 5 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 3 6 9 29 Humanities Psychology 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 9 Social Sciences 1 3 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 8 21 History 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 6 10 Letters 1 4 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 3 0 1 9 15 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 Fine Arts 2 2 0 0 2 5 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 8 16 Other Humanities 0 0 2 5 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 2 9 16 Totals, Humanities 4 12 9 13 6 12 6 17 5 8 4 5 0 0 9 20 2 5 45 92 Education 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 4 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 Totals, Professional Fields 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 18 Other Fields 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 6 Totals, All Fields 11 39 20 48 14 30 15 46 8 22 6 16 5 11 12 30 6 16 97 258 Source: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. 90 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1995-96 Associate Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Biological Sciences 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Health Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medical 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 6 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Life Sciences 1 1 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 9 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mathematics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Physics 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Other Physical Sciences 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Totals, Physical Sciences 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Humanities Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 Letters 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Fine Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Humanities 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 Totals, Humanities 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 14 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, All Fields 3 4 3 5 1 2 3 10 0 3 0 8 1 2 2 3 0 1 13 38 91 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1995-96 Full Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Biological Sciences 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 Health Sciences 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 Medical 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 14 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Life Sciences 0 2 3 8 1 3 1 2 0 1 0 5 2 4 0 0 0 0 7 25 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 10 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mathematics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 12 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Physics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Other Physical Sciences 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 Humanities Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 4 Social Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Letters 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Fine Arts 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 Other Humanities 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 Totals, Humanities 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 8 1 3 1 5 0 0 1 3 0 3 10 31 Education 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Law 2 4 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 2 6 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 12 Other Fields 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Totals, All Fields 4 17 8 15 3 8 6 13 1 6 2 15 2 4 1 7 0 4 27 89 92 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1996-97 Assistant Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Biological Sciences 3 8 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 23 Health Sciences 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 7 Medical 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Totals, Life Sciences 3 9 3 8 0 6 2 8 2 3 1 7 1 4 0 1 0 1 12 47 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 3 10 3 5 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 26 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Mathematics 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 10 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 3 10 3 9 1 5 0 7 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 2 7 42 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 Geological and Related Sciences 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 Physics 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 5 Other Physical Sciences 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 Totals, Physical Sciences 1 4 1 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 3 20 Humanities Psychology 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 Social Sciences 1 1 2 4 1 6 2 11 0 1 2 9 0 0 0 2 2 3 10 37 History 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 Letters 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 7 Foreign Languages and Literature 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 Fine Arts 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 0 0 1 1 2 3 11 20 Other Humanities 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 13 Totals, Humanities 6 12 7 15 4 13 4 21 2 5 8 18 0 0 2 4 7 10 40 98 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 Professional Fields Business and Management 1 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 1 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 Other Fields 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6 Totals, All Fields 15 40 16 41 5 28 6 41 4 12 9 31 1 4 4 13 7 16 67 226 93 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1996-97 Associate Professors BBeerrkkeelleeyy DDaavviiss IIrrvviinnee LLooss AAnnggeelleess RRiivveerrssiiddee SSaann DDiieeggoo SSaann FFrraanncciissccoo SSaannttaa BBaarrbbaarraa SSaannttaa CCrruuzz AAllll CCaammppuusseess NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff TToottaall FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff FFeemmaallee NNuummbbeerr ooff PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrssPPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrssPPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrssPPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrssPPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrssPPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss PPrrooffeessssoorrss HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd HHiirreedd Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Biological Sciences 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Health Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Medical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Totals, Life Sciences 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 5 0 1 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 15 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mathematics 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 5 0 2 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 17 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Physics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Humanities Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Social Sciences 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Letters 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fine Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Other Humanities 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 Totals, Humanities 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 7 13 Education 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Fields 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, All Fields 1 8 0 6 4 6 1 10 0 1 1 8 0 0 1 2 2 2 10 43 94 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1996-97 Full Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Biological Sciences 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 7 Health Sciences 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Medical 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 17 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Totals, Life Sciences 0 3 1 10 1 3 1 4 0 1 2 2 0 7 0 2 1 1 6 33 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Computer and Information Science 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mathematics 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 1 4 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Physics 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 Humanities Psychology 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Social Sciences 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 7 History 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Letters 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Fine Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 6 Other Humanities 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 Totals, Humanities 0 3 1 4 2 2 4 11 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 0 2 9 29 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 4 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Communications 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Law 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 Other Fields 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, All Fields 2 17 2 20 3 6 7 26 0 4 3 11 0 7 3 6 1 4 21 101 95 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1997-98 Assistant Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Biological Sciences 2 4 0 6 1 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 8 25 Health Sciences 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 6 Medical 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 7 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 19 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Totals, Life Sciences 2 4 2 18 1 4 5 13 1 3 3 8 3 3 0 1 0 2 17 56 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 Computer and Information Science 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 Mathematics 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 6 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 2 9 1 3 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 23 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Physics 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 8 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 22 Humanities Psychology 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 9 Social Sciences 0 3 4 7 2 6 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 11 25 History 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 9 Letters 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 9 Foreign Languages and Literature 1 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 8 Fine Arts 2 3 2 3 0 0 5 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 4 1 1 16 19 Other Humanities 0 1 3 3 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 6 13 Totals, Humanities 3 12 11 17 6 15 7 14 3 5 6 8 0 0 8 12 5 9 49 92 Education 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 6 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 3 1 3 0 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Totals, Professional Fields 1 4 1 3 0 0 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 Other Fields 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 Totals, All Fields 8 32 15 42 7 26 14 40 5 14 10 23 3 3 10 23 6 16 78 219 96 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1997-98 Associate Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Biological Sciences 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Health Sciences 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Medical 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 Other Life Sciences 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Totals, Life Sciences 0 0 2 6 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 13 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 8 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mathematics 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 1 2 14 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Physics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 Humanities Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Social Sciences 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 History 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 Letters 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fine Arts 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Other Humanities 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, Humanities 1 2 0 1 3 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 13 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Communications 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Other Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, All Fields 2 5 3 9 3 7 1 13 0 2 0 3 1 1 0 5 1 3 11 48 97 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1997-98 Full Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Biological Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Health Sciences 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Medical 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 14 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Totals, Life Sciences 0 3 0 4 2 6 2 4 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 26 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 14 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Mathematics 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 5 0 2 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 19 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Geological and Related Sciences 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 Physics 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 Totals, Physical Sciences 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 9 Humanities Psychology 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Social Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Letters 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 7 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Fine Arts 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 4 Other Humanities 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 6 Totals, Humanities 4 6 3 5 1 1 2 7 0 2 2 5 0 0 1 3 1 1 14 30 Education 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Law 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Other Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Totals, All Fields 5 20 4 12 3 8 6 23 0 4 2 14 0 4 2 5 3 3 25 93 98 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1998-99 Assistant Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Biological Sciences 2 5 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 6 18 Health Sciences 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 10 Medical 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 16 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, Life Sciences 5 8 0 5 1 9 4 9 0 2 2 4 1 5 0 1 2 3 15 46 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 1 5 0 3 0 4 1 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 21 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 Mathematics 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 10 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 1 6 0 6 2 7 1 5 0 8 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 5 39 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 11 Geological and Related Sciences 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Physics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Totals, Physical Sciences 1 3 0 3 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 5 19 Humanities Psychology 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 Social Sciences 0 2 2 3 1 3 1 5 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 7 1 2 5 27 History 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 5 Letters 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 7 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Fine Arts 1 2 0 2 2 4 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 8 15 Other Humanities 0 1 2 3 1 2 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 2 9 18 Totals, Humanities 3 9 5 12 5 11 3 10 4 7 3 7 0 0 7 18 3 6 33 80 Education 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 8 Professional Fields Business and Management 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 Other Fields 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 5 8 Totals, All Fields 12 30 6 30 12 34 8 26 5 22 5 15 1 7 11 29 8 14 68 207 99 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1998-99 Associate Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biological Sciences 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 7 Health Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 Medical 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 10 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Life Sciences 2 4 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 4 4 6 0 0 0 0 9 20 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mathematics 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Physics 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Physical Sciences 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Humanities Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Sciences 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Letters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign Languages and Literature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fine Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Other Humanities 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, Humanities 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Other Fields 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Totals, All Fields 2 13 0 7 0 1 2 5 1 1 4 7 4 6 0 0 0 2 13 42 100 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1998-99 Full Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biological Sciences 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 Health Sciences 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Medical 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 23 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 Totals, Life Sciences 0 2 0 12 0 7 1 3 0 1 0 7 1 5 0 3 0 0 2 40 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 12 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mathematics 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 17 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Physics 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Physical Sciences 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 Humanities Psychology 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Social Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 History 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Letters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign Languages and Literature 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Fine Arts 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Other Humanities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 Totals, Humanities 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 6 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 23 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Law 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 Other Fields 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, All Fields 2 17 1 16 1 10 4 20 2 9 2 21 1 5 0 5 0 4 13 107 101 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1999-00 Assistant Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Biological Sciences 0 3 2 6 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 18 Health Sciences 1 1 3 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 Medical 0 0 1 3 2 4 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Totals, Life Sciences 1 4 6 17 3 8 2 8 0 2 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 46 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 8 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 24 Computer and Information Science 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 6 Mathematics 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 12 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 12 1 6 1 6 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 0 1 3 1 5 4 44 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Physics 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 11 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 2 0 5 0 2 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 20 Humanities Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 9 Social Sciences 1 4 0 3 2 7 1 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 5 25 History 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 Letters 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 12 Foreign Languages and Literature 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 7 Fine Arts 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 4 6 Other Humanities 0 0 2 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 Totals, Humanities 3 11 2 7 7 17 2 6 3 8 3 8 0 0 5 8 2 6 27 71 Education 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 7 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 1 0 0 3 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 17 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Totals, Professional Fields 0 2 0 0 3 9 2 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 19 Other Fields 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 Totals, All Fields 5 34 9 35 14 42 7 32 5 19 6 22 0 0 6 12 5 17 57 213 102 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1999-00 Associate Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biological Sciences 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Health Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medical 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Life Sciences 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Mathematics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 15 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Physics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Humanities Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Sciences 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 10 History 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Letters 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 4 Foreign Languages and Literature 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Fine Arts 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other Humanities 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Totals, Humanities 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 6 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10 21 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Other Fields 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Totals, All Fields 4 11 2 9 1 6 2 9 1 2 0 4 1 2 1 2 0 3 12 48 103 TABLE 14 Continued Fiscal Year 1999-00 Full Professors Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Cruz All Campuses Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Female Number of Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors ProfessorsProfessors Professors Professors Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Hired Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biological Sciences 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Health Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Medical 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 9 Other Life Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Totals, Life Sciences 0 1 1 5 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 17 Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 17 Computer and Information Science 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 Mathematics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 0 2 0 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 5 0 1 2 23 Physical Sciences Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Geological and Related Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Physics 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 Other Physical Sciences 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 Totals, Physical Sciences 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 10 Humanities Psychology 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Social Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 History 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 Letters 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Foreign Languages and Literature 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Fine Arts 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 Other Humanities 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 Totals, Humanities 3 8 1 4 1 5 1 9 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 34 Education 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Professional Fields Business and Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Law 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 Other Professional Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals, Professional Fields 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 10 Other Fields 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Totals, All Fields 4 15 5 16 3 8 2 20 1 7 2 16 1 3 0 9 0 3 18 97 TABLE 15 Newly Hired Female Professors’ Salaries at UC Compared With Newly Hired Male Professors’ Salaries, by Fiscal Year and Level Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1998-99 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Female Female Female Professors’ Professors’ Professors’ Average Average Salary as a Average Average Salary as a Average Average Salary as a Salary Salary Percentage of Salary Salary Percentage of Salary Salary Percentage of for Female for Male Male Professors’ for Female for Male Male Professors’ for Female for Male Male Professors’ Fiscal Year Professors Professors Salary Professors Professors Salary Professors Professors Salary 1995-96 $45,049 $51,066 88% $56,222 $59,190 95% $78,174 $89,395 87% 1996-97 $48,732 $52,205 93% $57,863 $64,465 90% $88,215 $96,457 91% 1997-98 $49,349 $54,767 90% $72,121 $72,169 100% $98,118 $102,621 96% 1998-99 $51,517 $58,328 88% $61,663 $72,468 85% $101,188 $103,647 98% Average $48,487 $53,939 90% $61,793 $67,437 92% $90,330 $98,686 92% Source: Extract from the “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. 104 105 TABLE 16 Newly Hired Female Professors’ Salaries at UC Compared With Newly Hired Male Professors’ Salaries by Level and Discipline Fiscal Years 1995-96 Through 1998-99 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Total Total Females’ Total Total Females’ Total Total Females’ Average Number of Average Number of Salary as a Average Number of Average Number of Salary as a Average Number of Average Number of Salary as a Salary, Male Salary, Female Percentage Salary, Male Salary, Female Percentage Salary, Male Salary, Female Percentage Male Professors Female Professors of Males’ Male Professors Female Professors of Males’ Male Professors Female Professors of Males’ Professors Hired Professors Hired Salary Professors Hired Professors Hired Salary Professors Hired Professors Hired Salary Life Sciences Agricultural Sciences $52,740 10 $51,800 3 98% $66,250 2 $54,800 1 83% $94,950 2 $79,791 2 84% Biological Sciences $50,934 63 $49,943 27 98% $74,975 9 $58,134 6 78% $92,663 22 $96,692 4 104% Other Life Sciences $46,296 11 $50,900 1 110% $63,150 2 $66,550 2 105% $89,149 6 $67,257 3 75% Totals, Life Sciences $50,541 84 $50,154 31 99% $71,814 13 $59,634 9 83% $92,113 30 $83,124 9 90% Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Engineering $59,923 63 $54,747 12 91% $72,223 26 $76,822 3 106% $100,346 35 $78,825 4 79% Computer and Information Science $66,008 13 $62,467 3 95% $73,600 1 $72,100 1 98% -- 0 $115,400 2 n/a Mathematics $53,188 26 $49,275 4 93% $66,177 13 -- 0 n/a $99,076 11 $135,900 1 137% Other Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering $81,577 12 -- 0 n/a $63,100 1 -- 0 n/a $118,700 3 -- 0 n/a Totals, Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering $61,360 114 $54,814 19 89% $70,117 41 $75,642 4 108% $101,184 49 $97,429 7 96% Physical Sciences Chemistry $47,391 27 $45,267 3 96% -- 0 -- 0 n/a $109,878 9 -- 0 n/a Geological and Related Sciences $46,267 9 $46,300 4 100% $54,000 2 $60,300 1 112% $110,100 1 -- 0 n/a Physics $49,305 13 $51,515 5 104% $67,360 5 -- 0 n/a $78,640 5 -- 0 n/a Other Physical Sciences $53,306 16 $47,725 4 90% $55,600 3 $56,700 1 102% $109,978 9 $110,900 2 101% Totals, Physical Sciences $49,074 65 $48,092 16 98% $61,160 10 $58,500 2 96% $103,417 24 $110,900 2 107% Humanities Psychology $47,435 18 $48,020 10 101% $57,350 2 -- 0 n/a $113,133 7 $85,278 3 75% Social Sciences $51,193 73 $47,762 31 93% $64,480 5 $61,067 3 95% $96,153 22 $89,675 4 93% History $44,292 12 $44,572 18 101% $62,200 4 $61,400 2 99% $109,467 3 $119,033 3 109% Letters $43,963 16 $44,294 17 101% $59,167 3 $52,950 6 89% $82,100 9 $102,689 6 125% Foreign Languages and Literature $44,107 14 $45,717 6 104% $58,775 2 -- 0 n/a $82,940 5 $81,000 2 98% Fine Arts $46,933 27 $46,506 42 99% $61,450 4 $65,000 1 106% $85,033 7 $80,221 8 94% Other Humanities $45,688 28 $45,124 29 99% $58,040 5 $57,600 2 99% $95,900 9 $82,962 7 87% Totals, Humanities $47,818 188 $46,093 153 96% $60,678 25 $57,421 14 95% $94,317 62 $90,069 33 95% Education $50,237 9 $47,250 10 94% $64,300 1 $57,300 2 89% $92,025 4 $77,200 2 84% Professional Fields Business and Management $84,112 33 $79,250 6 94% $133,700 1 $99,600 1 74% $118,280 5 $123,300 2 104% Communications $46,650 2 $43,600 2 93% $72,850 2 $64,800 1 89% $106,750 2 $62,700 1 59% Law -- 0 -- 0 n/a -- 0 -- 0 n/a $103,239 18 $86,129 7 83% Other Professional Fields $44,450 2 $46,250 4 104% -- 0 -- 0 n/a -- 0 -- 0 n/a Totals, Professional Fields $79,943 37 $62,308 12 78% $93,133 3 $82,200 2 88% $106,528 25 $91,220 10 86% Other Fields $52,210 13 $52,779 11 101% $65,640 5 -- 0 n/a $119,567 3 -- 0 n/a Totals, All Fields $53,939 510 $48,487 252 90% $67,437 98 $61,793 33 92% $98,686 197 $90,330 63 92% Source: Extract from “New Hires” database provided by UC’s Office of the President. n/a = not applicable Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. 106 Agency’s comments provided as text only. University of California Office of the President 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607-5200 April 23, 2001 Ms. Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft copy of your audit report entitled “University of California: Some Campuses and Academic Departments Need to Take Additional Steps to Resolve Gender Disparities Among Professors.” In conducting this audit, the Bureau of State Audits has highlighted issues of great importance to the University of California. The University appreciates the extensive work by your staff collecting information and analyzing the many complex factors that are part of the University’s faculty hiring practices. The University concurs with your findings and will make every effort to implement the sixteen recommendations in this report. In response to Chapter One of your report entitled “Decisions Concerning the University of California’s Recruiting Needs Can Reduce the Likelihood that it Will Hire Women as Professors,” I would like to emphasize that the decisions made with regard to hiring faculty are perhaps the single most important exercise of academic judgment by our faculty and academic administration. The excellence of our faculty defines the excellence of our institution. Each faculty appointment is the product of careful consideration of many factors, including teaching needs, faculty student ratios, curricular development, research agendas, graduate student support, and available funding. The fields in which hiring is done are matters of academic definition, reflecting the evolution of areas of study within a discipline and often the need for replacement of expertise in fields represented by departing faculty. As with many other areas of University administration, the faculty play a vital role, through a system of shared governance with the administration, in evaluating these factors to make decisions about faculty hiring that will further the academic mission of the University. The academic judgment of the faculty in determining the research and teaching needs that shape faculty hiring decisions has made the University of California a valuable state resource and “one of the premier institutions of higher education in the world.” 107 Ms. Elaine Howle April 23, 2001 Page 2 In all of its affairs, the University of California endeavors to express its commitment to equal employment opportunity. University academic personnel policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender in compliance with Section 31 of Article 1 of the California State Constitution which requires that the University shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. In addition, the University also complies with affirmative action regulations applying to federal contractors which require that, as an “affirmative action and equal opportunity employer,” the University provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, gender, color and national origin. In accordance with these laws, policies, and regulations, the goal of the University is to provide equal access to employment opportunities, rather than strict numerical parity or other requirements that may be interpreted as quotas or preferences that are impermissible under federal and state laws. The goal of equal opportunity recognizes that equal access may not always lead to numerical parity. There are many complex and immeasurable factors that influence any individual’s choices, whether these are choices regarding field of specialization or choices regarding academic or industrial career paths. The goal of the University in promoting equal opportunity for women in higher education is twofold: (1) to ensure that our own academic personnel practices do not directly or indirectly discriminate against women on the basis of gender, and (2) to make every effort to eliminate or minimize societal barriers that may prevent women from pursuing academic careers. In compliance with federal affirmative action regulations, the University of California campuses prepare annual reports comparing the number of women faculty members to the number of women that would be expected based on the available qualified labor pool. The purpose of this analysis is to establish a reasonable benchmark against which the demographic composition of the faculty can be compared in order to determine whether barriers to equal employment opportunities may exist within particular departments or organizational units. When the percentage of women in a particular academic job group is less than would reasonably be expected based on availability, the campus must establish a percentage annual placement goal equal to the availability figure derived for women and minorities, as appropriate, for that job group. According to the federal regulations, a determination that a placement goal is required constitutes neither a finding nor an admission of discrimination. Placement goals are not quotas, are not intended to achieve proportional representation or equal results, and do not provide a justification to extend a preference to any individual on the basis of their gender. The federal methodology for establishing benchmarks is intended to provide targets for measuring progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity, not to drive employment decisions. 108 Ms. Elaine Howle April 23, 2001 Page 3 In establishing and comparing benchmarks, it is important to compare the appropriate benchmarks with the appropriate University academic personnel data. For example, when analyzing the percentage of all women faculty at the University of California, the percentage of women among recent Ph.D. recipients may not be an appropriate benchmark without additional adjustments. Because the current faculty members were hired as early as the 1960s when the percentage of female doctoral recipients was significantly lower than it is now, the appropriate benchmark would be Ph.D. recipients going back in time, adjusted to reflect the availability of women Ph.D.s in the years the current faculty members were actually hired. Similarly, because the availability of women in various fields varies significantly, any reasonable benchmark data must be adjusted to reflect the particular mix of fields actually hired by the University, rather than the mix represented in national Ph.D. production. The report of the Bureau of State Audits confirms the University’s understanding that when the data are adjusted to reflect the percent of women in the actual pool from which the University hires, the apparent gender disparity noted at the beginning of the report diminished substantially. In response to Chapter Two of your report entitled “Some Campus Departments Strive Harder than Others Do to Address Gender Parity when Hiring Professors,” the University would like to reaffirm its commitment to providing equal employment opportunity for women faculty in all of its hiring and academic personnel practices. The University shares the concern expressed in the report regarding the diversity of faculty search committees and will take steps to ensure that departments appoint search committees that represent a diverse cross section of the faculty and include faculty members who will monitor the affirmative action efforts of the search committee. The University will take steps to ensure that women faculty have equal opportunity to serve on search committees, and ask Departments to consider the appointment of faculty outside the department to search committees or other strategies designed to broaden the perspective of the committee and increase the reach of the search. University of California affirmative action guidelines for faculty recruitment already recommend that campuses require departments to prepare written search plans, provide underutilization data to search committees, monitor the effectiveness of outreach activities, and evaluate academic administrators on their efforts to promote principles and practices of equal opportunity. However, the findings and recommendations of the audit support the University’s commitment to promote these practices and develop creative new strategies in all departments across all campuses. In response to Chapter Three of the audit report entitled “Factors Other Than Gender Appear to Cause Lower Average Salaries for Female Professors Than for Male Professors,” the University concurs with your conclusion that there is no basis to conclude that the University’s practices result in female professors being paid 109 Ms Elaine Howle April 23, 2001 Page 4 less than male professors simply because of their gender. Campuses are implementing procedures for faculty career reviews to ensure salary equity. In addition, the University will continue monitoring salaries in accordance with your recommendations to maintain gender equity in faculty salaries. In closing, I would like to thank the management and staff of the Bureau of State Audits for their efforts in conducting this audit and completing this audit report. Sincerely, (Signed by: Richard C. Atkinson) Richard C. Atkinson President 110 cc: Members of the Legislature Office of the Lieutenant Governor Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy Department of Finance Attorney General State Controller State Treasurer Legislative Analyst Senate Office of Research California Research Bureau Capitol Press 111