Female Retention in Undergraduate Computing:
Comparisons with a Women’s College
J. McGrath Cohoon
Research Assistant Professor
Curry School of Education
University of Virginia
Katherine Cook
Graduate Student
Curry School of Education
University of Virginia
2/17/2016
ABSTRACT
We consider evidence of environmental effects on female retention in
science, mathematics, and engineering disciplines, with a particular focus on
computer science. We then compare the relevant features of one women’s college
with features of the average coed institution located in one state. These
observations contribute to the debate about female representation in the
predominantly male discipline of computer science and the role women’s colleges
can play in increasing female participation.
INTRODUCTION
Men and women are often segregated by academic discipline in college.
For example, education and nursing are predominantly female, whereas
engineering and technology are predominantly male. The degree and nature of
this segregation changes over time (Jacobs, 1995). Some historically maledominated fields such as mathematics and biology/life sciences (BLS) now
graduate approximately equal numbers of men and women with baccalaureate
degrees. In contrast, women’s representation in the predominantly male discipline
of computer science (CS) decreased in recent years. Data from the National
Council on Education Statistics show that the percentage of bachelor’s degrees
awarded to women in CS decreased from 37.1% in the mid-1980s to just 26.7% in
1997-98. This decline came at a time when other science, mathematics, and
engineering (SME) disciplines were increasing their female representation, as
shown in Figure 1.
1
Concern about female under-representation in collegiate computing
majors has motivated investigations into how the situation can be affected by
academic institutions and departments. This research has identified several factors
in the educational environment that are associated with the equality of outcomes
for male and female students. The current investigation asks whether the
environment in women’s colleges helps retain women in SME disciplines.
To explore this issue, we relate prior research on women’s colleges to the
results from a recent inquiry into the disproportionate loss of women from the
computer science major. The results we discuss were obtained from a study of CS
and BLS departments at 24 institutions in the state of Virginia.1 Our interest here
is whether the departmental characteristics and practices identified in the
statewide study are likely to be prevalent in women’s colleges, and whether this
prevalence promotes retention of computing majors at women’s colleges. The
limitations of our data prevent us from reaching any conclusions, but they raise
interesting issues worthy of further discussion.
ATTRITION FROM THE MAJOR
Female under-representation in certain SME disciplines is exacerbated by
the disproportionate loss of those relatively few women who express an initial
interest. Not only do fewer women than men declare SME majors, but in some
disciplines, women switch out at higher rates than men. For example, 20 percent
of Virginia’s undergraduate women who declared CS majors eventually switched
1
These 24 institutions were all the institutions in Virginia that awarded CS baccalaureate
degrees for at least three of the years between 1992 and 1997.
2
to some other discipline between 1992 and 1997. In comparison, just 10 percent
of male CS majors switched out.
Numerous explanations for the disproportionate loss of women have been
put forth. Some of these explanations rest upon gender differences, and some rest
upon environmental factors. We stipulate gender differences but focus primarily
on environmental factors. Our reason for this choice is that inherent or deeply
ingrained gender differences are not very tractable, but the environment can affect
behaviors that may stem from gender differences.
The influence of environmental factors on female attrition
Women’s low self-confidence when it comes to computing is frequently
noted, and it is suspected of contributing to the disproportionate loss of women
from the CS major (Astin and Astin, 1993 Strenta et.al., 1994; Fisher, Margolis,
Miller, 1997; Brainard, Metz, and Gillmore, 1999). Yet, women are not inherently
less confident than men. Their self-ratings are higher than men’s for traditionally
female tasks and lower for tasks they believe are “male” (Beyer, 1990).
Furthermore, women have been shown to internalize the low expectations of their
instructors (Ancis and Phillips, 1996). Thus, environmental factors such as low
faculty expectations or the gendered image of computing may lead female
students to quit the CS major.
At least two additional environmental factors contribute to the loss of
initially interested students of both sexes from SME. They are pedagogy and
peers (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Astin and Astin, 1993). The environment in
SME has been described as a competitive academic culture that discourages or
3
forbids students from working together; assigns grades on a curve; and offers little
access to help and tutoring (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). Both male and female
SME majors at multiple institutions criticized teaching in the sciences and said
that it contributed to the decision to switch. These students reported dealing with
faculty who were dismissive or openly insulting, advisors who gave incorrect
information, curricula that had no room for one bad semester, and “weed-out”
courses. They described an environment in which both faculty and students
assumed attrition to be not only a given, but desirable. According to Seymour and
Hewitt’s findings, the sciences harbor a culture in which it is assumed that those
who drop out are deficient in some way and that those who persist and succeed do
so because they are the fittest and most able students. Furthermore, Astin and
Astin (1992) found that female and minority faculty were likely to use retentionpromoting pedagogy, but the dominant culture in SME encouraged student
attrition.
Peers can have a critical influence on the retention of students in SME. A
massive empirical study of American undergraduates in the latter 1980s found
“Student interest in pursuing science majors and careers can be affected both by
the characteristics of the peer group as well as by the type of pedagogy the
institution employs. The clearest and most consistent pattern of environmental
effects on student choice outcomes is associated with the concentration of student
peers in various fields of study” (Astin and Astin, 1992). In other words, SME
students with many socially similar comrades in their program are more likely to
persist. Conversely, those students who are in a minority are less likely to persist.
4
These pedagogical practices and demographic characteristics can have
differential effects that lead to the disproportionate loss of women. In support of
this finding, female students in an all-female computer science course reported
higher self-confidence in the subject area, higher levels of intrinsic interest, higher
future academic ambition in the subject, and more favorable perceptions of their
teachers’ support than their female counterparts in a mixed-gender class (Crombie
and Armstrong, 1999). The students in the all-female class also reported having
fewer gender-stereotyped attitudes towards computing. A likely explanation for
this finding is that when women are in the majority, they have access to same-sex
peers who can support and encourage them.
The reason that pedagogical practices could have differential effects is less
apparent. Seymour and Hewitt (1997) speculated that early socialization caused
women to be more adversely affected by the negative aspects of their learning
environment than were white men. However, we offer an alternative explanation.
We believe that the reason women may be more vulnerable than men to the
negative effects of an inhospitable environment is that women frequently have
access to fewer resources for overcoming them.
Evidence in support of our proposition comes from a statewide study of
undergraduate programs in two SME disciplines: CS and BLS. This research
showed that women were retained at equivalent rates to men in the average BLS
department, but not in the average CS department. In CS departments, women
were retained comparably to men in those programs that had higher proportions of
female students, a focus on teaching, female faculty members, faculty with
5
favorable attitudes toward women’s abilities, and other supportive features (Xxxx,
2001). Thus, not all SME disciplines and not all CS programs lost women at
higher rates than they lost men. Some disciplines and some departments retained
men and women at equal rates.
The results of this statewide study and previous research indicate the
importance of environmental conditions in the retention of women, particularly in
computer science. We now consider whether women’s colleges provide the kind
of environment that helps retain female CS majors.
FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTS AT WOMEN’S COLLEGES?
Are women’s colleges more likely than coed colleges to provide the type
of environment that retains women in computing majors? Some well-known, but
often disputed research about women’s colleges and their education in SME
disciplines suggests that they do.
Descriptions of the environment in women’s colleges contrast sharply
with descriptions of coed SME programs. Instead of the unhelpful, sink-or-swim
type approach, descriptions of women’s colleges report supportive, encouraging
environments. For example, Bryn Mawr College and Bennet College are
described as follows.
“During the first two years at Bryn Mawr, it appears that faculty and
administrators concentrate on convincing women that they are capable students
and encouraging them to pursue topics that interest them, particularly in
nontraditional fields. The focus for upper-class women is on preparing them to
handle graduate-level work and encouraging them to see themselves as scholars”
(Tidball et al, 1999)
There appears to be both an assumption and a commitment to the belief that
women in general, and individual students in particular, are capable of academic
success in any field of their choosing. Students at women’s colleges are given the
6
clear message that they “matter” (Tidball et al, 1999). Faculty actively mentor
their students, encouraging them to fulfill their potential and even reach beyond
what the students themselves thought they were capable of doing. Students report
that their professors are very accessible and willing to advise them on academic,
professional and personal issues while they are students and after they have
graduated. (Tidball et al, 1999) A professor from Bennet College offers an
example of this attitude:
“To be ‘Benettized’ is really to believe in more than the potential of
students…You believe that these students can learn, can be the best, and are
expected to be the best, and you do whatever it takes to get them where they
need to be.” (Tidball et al., 1999)
For the Bennet professor, teaching undergraduates is more than a matter of
presenting the students with material and waiting to see which students rise to the
top. The professor begins with the assumption that all of the students are capable
of learning the material. Furthermore, the professor feels a responsibility to do
“whatever it takes” to assure that the students learn the material presented.
The pedagogical environment at women’s colleges may be one reason
their students highly rate their own academic ability. The academic selfconfidence of women’s college students was significantly higher than the
academic self-confidence of women at coed colleges, and it was related to having
faculty take a personal interest in them (Kim and Alvarez, 1995). These findings
suggest that if low self-confidence is related to dropping a computing major,
women may be retained at higher rates in women’s colleges.
If the favorable environment in women’s colleges extends to the SME
disciplines, the scenarios presented by Tidball et al, suggest that it should promote
female retention in the CS major. The student-centered pedagogical approach and
7
the explicitly supportive attitude toward the female students in women’s colleges
are two features that the research indicates would help retain women in computing
majors. In addition, women’s colleges meet a third criterion for retaining women:
demographic composition. By definition, there are numerous same-sex peers for
women in the CS major at a women’s college. Furthermore, there are likely to be
many more female faculty than are common in coed CS programs.i
These descriptions of the environment depict favorable conditions for
female retention in women’s colleges, but the outcomes they report offer mixed
support for the hypothesis that the environment in women’s colleges could be
conducive to female retention in computing majors. For example, there is much
research that shows the graduates of women’s colleges have more selfconfidence, achieve more, and are more likely to major in non-traditional fields
and less likely to work in female-dominated professions (Wolf-Wendel, 1999).
However, there is also research that shows no differences in outcomes for
women’s and coed institutions (see Levit, 1999 for an extensive discussion).
Tidball’s work is criticized for not taking into consideration the selectivity
of women’s colleges and the relatively privileged socio-economic status of the
students who attend (or attended) them. When factors such as family socioeconomic status, pre-college aspirations and achievement, institutional size,
prestige, selectivity and gender, college major and experiences and postcollege
achievement are taken into account, there is “little to indicate that attending a
women’s college has more than a trivial net influence on women’s postcollege
educational, occupational and economic attainments” (Stoecker and Pascarella,
8
1991). Thus, rather than being a product of the environment in women’s colleges,
the achievement of their graduates may be due to recruitment factors.
The findings on selection and retention in non-traditional majors are also
mixed. One comparison of coed and women’s colleges showed that changes in
academic majors among students in women’s colleges resulted in less graduates
in female-dominated disciplines and more graduates in male-dominated
disciplines than did coed colleges (Solnick, 1995). However, this effect was not
brought about by positive influences on women in non-traditional disciplines.
Initially, women at both types of institutions were about equally unlikely to intend
a male-dominated major. Only 4 to 5% of the more than 2000 students studied in
the class of 1992 had planned to major in Mathematics, Engineering, or Computer
Science. As this group progressed through their undergraduate studies, retention
in male-dominated disciplines was actually slightly lower among women’s
college students than among students at coeducational institutions. Women’s
college students who declared a Mathematics, Engineering, or Computer Science
major, were no more likely than those who attended coed colleges to graduate in
that major. Instead, Solnick’s finding that the distribution of women at graduation
was greater in male-dominated fields at women’s colleges was attributable to the
number of students who switched out of traditionally female majors.
Returning to the question that began this section, “Are women’s colleges
more likely than coed colleges to provide the kind of environment that retains
women in computing majors?” The answer is, “Perhaps.” Levit’s (1999) review
of the literature on single-sex education stresses the inconclusiveness of findings
9
to date. Further research is needed before we can give a definitive answer. The
next section reports on a small contribution toward this end.
COMPARISON OF VIRGINIA’S INSTITUTIONS
One of the institutions participating in the Virginia study of gendered
attrition was a women’s college. We will call it VAW for “Virginia Women’s.”
The data collected from this private, liberal arts institution provides us with an
opportunity to compare its characteristics, practices, and outcomes with those of
Virginia’s coed institutions. This comparison is not intended as a generalization
regarding women’s colleges and their relative ability to recruit or retain women in
particular SME majors. Rather, the data from this single institution are offered as
one set of observations on an issue that begs further explanation.
Our first observation is that between 1992 and 1997, CS was a more
popular major among the women at VAW than it was among women at Virginia’s
coed institutions. All three institutional groupings shown in Table 1 indicate that
VAW educated a higher proportion of its female students in CS than did coed
departments in Virginia. The proportion of female graduates who had a CS major
from VAW was small, only 1.7%, but it was significantly higher than at the
average coed institution (1.2%), the average coed Liberal Arts (LA) institution
(1.0%), or the average moderately selective coed LA institution (0.7%).
We also observe that VAW retained a higher proportion of its upper-level
female CS majors than did the average coed institution.2 As the second row in
Table 1 shows, the attrition from VAW’s CS program was lower than at
10
Virginia’s coed institutions. It was significantly lower (at the .10 level) when
compared with all coed departments, but the difference between VAW and the
two groups of LA institutions was not significant. The non-significant result was
likely due to extreme variation within the LA group. At one institution, there was
only one upper-level woman in CS during only one of the study years, and she
switched to a different major before completing her degree. This action resulted in
a 100% attrition rate for that department. At another LA institution, none of the
women left during the two years the department had any upper-level women.
These two extreme situations within the small groups of LA departments made
the apparent difference with VAW’s attrition rate insignificant.
These observations of choice and persistence at VAW and the coed
institutions in Virginia appear to contradict Solnick’s results. Solnick, (1995)
found that women in single-sex colleges were not more likely to intend a
mathematics, engineering, or computer science major than were women at a coed
college; they switched out of these male dominated majors at slightly higher rates
than did women in coed colleges. The difference between our results and
Solnick’s may stem from a variety of factors: differences in the disciplines
considered, differences in the status of students considered, atypicality of the
single women’s institution being described here, or a greater tendency among
women’s college students to switch majors regardless of their discipline.
2
Most switching of majors occurs during the first two years of college. However, VAW,
like many other institutions, has its students formally declare their major in their third year. To
make our comparisons fair, we only show attrition rates for upper-level students.
11
Departmental Factors
The Virginia study of gendered attrition found that CS departments that
supported their female students through peers, faculty, the institution, and
community resources retained women at comparable rates to men. The single
factor with the strongest impact was the availability of same-sex peer support as
measured by the relative numbers of women enrolled in the major.
Based on these results and the observation that VAW retained a higher
proportion of its female CS majors than did the coed institutions, we expect that
VAW would differ from coed institutions on the support features. Of course, the
first feature, gender composition of the CS program, differs by definition. The
quantitative differences in gender composition between the CS program at VAW
and the other Virginia programs are shown in the first row of Table 2 where you
can see that the average coed CS department in Virginia was 28.3% female. The
female proportion was lower still in LA departments.
Students explained why same sex peers are so important during interviews
conducted at five Virginia institutions. Both male and female students emphasized
the necessity of having friends they could go to for help in their CS classes. In
departments where women had few, if any other women to work with, they were
at a disadvantage. The interview data suggest that only those women who could
tolerate the teasing and the embarrassment of appearing to fit gender stereotypes
were able to get the help they needed from their male peers. In this way, the
gender composition of a department seriously impacted women’s access to an
essential resource for success in the CS major. The comparison of VAW with
12
coed institutions indicates that VAW had a considerable advantage on this
characteristic.
Faculty were the next significant source of support identified by the
Virginia gendered attrition study. Analyses showed that departments’ gender gaps
in attrition rates were affected by their rate of faculty turnover, the satisfaction
faculty derived from teaching undergraduates, the responsibility faculty took onto
themselves for their students’ success, the scope of mentoring, and the presence of
female faculty in the department. Comparison data for VAW were available for
only 4 of these factors – satisfaction from teaching, responsibility for students’
success, hours devoted to mentoring, and presence of female faculty.
Departments where faculty reported that they derived personal satisfaction
from teaching undergraduates were likely to have small gender gaps in their
attrition rates. This intrinsic motivation for teaching was measured on a 5-point
scale of self-reported satisfaction. There was no significant difference between
VAW and the average coed institution. Generally, CS faculty at Virginia
institutions highly rated the personal satisfaction they felt from teaching or
preparing to teach undergraduates. VAW faculty were no exception to this
sentiment.
Departments where faculty felt that they contributed to students’ success
were more likely to retain women at comparable rates to men. The fewer faculty
who agreed with the statement, “Student success required innate ability,” the
smaller the gender gap in attrition rates. On a 5-point scale of agreement in our
survey of faculty, VAW had lower average agreement than did the coed
13
institutions, significantly lower compared with both the average coed institution
and the moderately selective coed LA institutions. These results indicated that CS
faculty at VAW were more likely to emphasize the their own teaching as an
important factor in students’ success.
Departments where the average faculty member devoted more time to
mentoring retained female students at comparable rates to men. This faculty
mentoring appeared to be particularly effective during the early stage of a
student’s college career. Comparing VAW with the coed institutions on this
variable showed no significant difference in the number of hours per week faculty
typically spent mentoring students. Thus, the significant difference between
faculty behaviors at VAW and the coed institutions appears to be with respect to
teaching as opposed to mentoring.
The importance of same-sex faculty role models for female students has
long been debated. Contrary to Tidball, but confirming Kim and Alvarez (1995),
the Virginia gendered attrition study found that although the female proportion of
faculty was not significant, the simple presence of women on the faculty was
significant. Comparing this feature of VAW with coed institutions shows that
unlike VAW, there were coed departments in each group with no women on their
CS faculty. (VAW’s CS faculty was 40% female. The range in coed departments
was from 0 to 100 % with an average of 27% female faculty.) Thus, the coed
departments were more likely than VAW to offer no same-sex faculty role models
to female students.
14
Perceived support from the institution and community were the final
factors linked to female retention. The statewide study found that where
chairpersons reported above average institutional support relative to other
departments, the department retained women at comparable rates to men. This
factor may be a matter of having the necessary resources in support of
undergraduate education. Communities affected gendered attrition by supporting
computing careers. Departments located in geographic areas that offered many
computing career opportunities had small gender gaps in attrition rates.
Unfortunately, data measuring these variables for VAW were not available for
comparison with the coed institutions.
DISCUSSION
Of the factors we were able to compare between VAW and the coed study
institutions in Virginia, the female proportion of enrollment, faculty attitudes
toward their role in student success, and the presence of female faculty could be
important differences. The first of these factors is clearly an advantage that
women’s colleges in general have over coed institutions. Computing classes in
women’s colleges offer female peers, a feature that coed colleges do not always
offer. Thus, CS majors at women’s colleges are spared the type of experience
reported by students in coed colleges, as described by one woman, “Everyone
looks at you strangely because you’re the girl in CS.” In women’s colleges, no
one is alone as “the girl” in CS. They have the support that comes from the simple
presence of other women in class.
15
In addition to the benefit of not seeming strange, female CS majors at
women’s colleges have access to women classmates for academic help. And, as
students explained over and over, this form of peer support is crucial. One woman
spoke for most CS students when she said, “If I didn't have people here that I
could come to and say, ‘What does this mean?’ I don't think I would have stayed
at all.” Students depend on each other to make it through the rigors of an
undergraduate computing program.
The help of classmates is essential, but male classmates can give this help;
it does not have to come from other women. In fact, most women in coed
institutions go to their male classmates for help. Many women explained this as a
simple matter of numbers, “[In] the majority of the Computer Science classes,
there's mostly males.” Rather than search out one of the very few women in their
program these women simply ask whoever is at hand, and this is likely to be a
man. Some women also noted that they have always had a preference for male
friends, “all through high school, all through college, guys are my friends.”
Female CS majors’ reliance on men for their academic peer support might be a
necessary skill for completing the program in coed departments. However, this
cross-sex behavior is not the norm; homophily is the norm (although less so
among young adults). Similar people, people of the same sex, race, etc., tend to
form social networks at higher rates than dissimilar people (McPherson, SmithLovin, and Cook, 2001; Lazarsfeld and Merton, 1954). Women who attend CS
programs in women’s colleges have the opportunity to keep within the norm
16
because there are other female students at hand. In this way, the women’s colleges
open their CS program to a broader range of female students.
The second important difference between VAW and the average coed
institution was a single item measuring emphasis on teaching – faculty investment
in student success. Although the evidence was thin that VAW differed
considerably from coed institutions when it came to teaching, on this particular
teaching item, VAW’s result for its computing program was in keeping with
reports from other research on teaching in women’s colleges. These published
reports contrast sharply with reports of SME teaching in coed institutions. Further
research is needed to determine if the difference observed here is representative of
a general difference between women’s and coed computing programs.
The third important difference between VAW and the average coed
institution was the presence of female faculty. The value of role models is well
accepted, but the particular requirements are still disputed. Tidball (1973) found
that the ratio of women faculty to women students affected women’s
achievement. However, Kim and Alvarez (1995) found that the percent of female
faculty did “not account for the extraordinary achievement of graduates from
women-only colleges.” Xxxx (2001) found no significant relationship between
either the proportion of female faculty or the ratio of women faculty to women
students and a CS department’s gendered attrition rate, but she did find that the
simple presence or absence of female faculty was a significant factor.
This latter finding may explain the difference between the results obtained
by Tidball and Kim-Alvarez. Tidball’s original research focused on women who
17
achieved doctoral degrees between 1910 and 1970- before female faculty were
common in academic departments. The number of coed departments with at least
one woman on the faculty has increased during the years between the Tidball and
the Kim-Alvarez studies. Tidball’s data may have represented a time when it was
the exceptional coed SME department that had a woman on the faculty. Thus, a
measure of female proportion may have been equivalent to an indication of the
presence of female faculty. By the time Kim and Alvarez did their research,
women were more commonly members of SME faculty, making the two measures
more distinct.
There is also a possibility that being an effective role model requires more
than just being a woman computer scientist. Women who follow a “male
professional model” may not have the positive effect expected of role models for
female students. For example, physics, chemistry, electrical engineering and
computer science departments lost women graduate students in part from a lack of
suitable role models (Etzkowitz et al., 1994). According to this research, female
students prefer to model themselves only after those women who balance their
work and personal lives.
Further research is needed on the influence of role models on retention in
undergraduate computing. This research should address the issue of which
measure of role models is appropriate – presence, proportion of the faculty, ratio
to female students, or each of these considering “suitability.” It should also
distinguish between effects on recruitment and retention (Canes and Rosen (1995)
18
showed that role models did not increase female enrollment in a variety of majors
at 3 institutions.)
VAW’s relative success with retaining women in the CS major was likely
due to the presence of same-sex peers and faculty, and to faculty who were
personally invested in their students’ success. These features could also be
reasons why CS programs in women’s colleges might have more success than
their coed counterparts in graduating female students with a computing
baccalaureate.
CONCLUSION
The observations described here are not to be interpreted as advocacy of
sex-segregated education. Certainly, the evidence presented is insufficient to
support such a position. Furthermore, the departmental characteristics and
practices associated with gendered attrition were linked with equality of
outcomes, not necessarily high retention of women. We offered no evidence that
excluding men would improve female retention in computing majors, only that
including more women has a favorable effect on retention.
However, this paper contributes to the debate by drawing attention to the
potential for women’s colleges to increase female retention in a particular maledominated discipline. The evidence presented suggests the possibility that at the
present time, the environment in women’s colleges might support women’s
retention in computing majors.
This retentive environment need not be an exclusive feature of women’s
colleges. Coed institutions could recruit more female students and faculty, and
19
they could adopt more student-centered pedagogical practices. The decision is
theirs. Yet, considering the need for qualified computer professionals and
demographic trends toward high proportions of women in higher education and a
more diverse workforce, the choice to increase female participation seems like a
wise one.
20
APPENDIX
Virginia Statewide Study Methodology
The Virginia gendered attrition study employed multiple methodologies to
form a consensus of findings. The methods employed were: qualitative analysis of
interview data; discipline comparisons of quantitative data; and statistical
analyses of CS survey data and official institutional data on student outcomes.
Conclusions were based on results produced with at least two types of analyses
that related these data to the gendered attrition rates we calculated from official
statistics on declared majors and their eventual outcomes.
Qualitative data was collected through 34 face-to-face interviews at five of
the CS study departments. The five interview departments were of varying size,
geographic location, institutional selectivity, and gendered attrition rates.
Interviews were conducted with the chairperson, all faculty in small departments
and up to five faculty in larger departments, and with an average of eleven
students per department. Most students were interviewed in gender-segregated
groups. The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and two hours during which the
realities of undergraduate computer science education and potential explanations
for disproportionate female attrition were explored.
Quantitative data were obtained from a mail survey and from a state
agency that collects institutional data from all colleges and universities in
Virginia. The survey was constructed based on the interview results and on
hypotheses from the literature. Up to 10 faculty members plus the chairperson at
CS and BLS departments in 24 institutions were sent this written survey. A total
21
of 255 completed questionnaires were returned. The overall response rate for all
questionnaires was 68%, with a breakdown of 90% of chairpersons responding
and 65% of faculty responding.
The quantitative data were statistically analyzed to determine which
factors had the strongest, most consistent effects on gendered attrition. First,
descriptive data from computer science and biology/life sciences were compared.
Second, measures of CS department characteristics and practices were correlated
with the departments’ gendered attrition rates. Third, the characteristics and
practices that were significantly correlated with gendered attrition were entered
into multiple regressions that compensated for differences in the size of study
departments. The results of these analyses identified the factors we will discuss
below in relation to the one women’s college included in the study.
WORKS CITED
Ancis, Julie R. Phillips, Susan D. “Academic Gender Bias and Women's
Behavioral
Agency
Self-Efficacy.”
Journal
of
Counseling
&
Development. v75 n2 p131-37 Nov-Dec 1996.
Astin, Alexander W. Astin, Helen S. Undergraduate Science Education: The
Impact of Different College Environments on the Educational Pipeline in
the Sciences. Final Report. University of California, Los Angeles. Higher
Education Research Institute November 1992
22
Astin, Helen S, Milem, Jeffrey F. “The Changing Composition of the Faculty:
What Does It Really Mean for Diversity?” in: Change. v25 n2 p21-27
Mar-Apr 1993.
Beyer, Sylvia. “Gender Differences in the Accuracy of Self-evaluations of
Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. v99 (5).
p960-970. 1990.
Brainard, Suzanne G, Susan Staffin Metz, Gerald M Gillmore. “WEPAN Pilot
Climate
Survey:
Exploring
the
Environment
for
Undergraduate
Engineering Students” Women in Engineering Programs & Advocates
Network. 1999.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. News release. “Table 1: Labor force status of 2000
high school graduates and 1999-2000 high school dropouts 16 to 24 years
old by school enrollment, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, October 2000”
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. April 13,
2001.
Canes, Brandice and Harvey Rosen. “Following in her footsteps? Faculty Gender
Composition and Women’s Choices of College Major” Industrial and
Labor Relations Review. Vol. 48, No. 3, April, 1995.
Xxxx, Xxxx. “Toward Improving Female Retention in the Computer Science
Major” Communications of the ACM. May, 2001.
23
Crombie, Gail and Patrick Ian Armstrong. “Effects of Classroom Gender
composition on Adolescents’ Computer-related Attitudes and Future
Intentions.” Journal of Educational Computing Research. 20(4). 1999.
Etzkowitz, Henry, Carol Kemelgor, Michael Neuschatz, Brian Uzzi. “Barriers to
Women in Academic Science and Engineering” Who Will Do Science:
Educating the Next Generation. Edited by Willie Pearson Jr. and Irwin
Fechter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fisher, Alan, Jane Margolis, Faye Miller. “Undergraduate Women in Computer
Science: Experience, Motivation and Culture.” SIGCSE ’97 The
Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education. ACM. 1997
Jacobs, Jerry A. “Gender and Academic Specialties: Trends among Recipients of
College Degrees in the 1980s.” Sociology of Education. v68 (April): p8198. 1995.
Kim, Mikyong, Rodolfo Alvarez. “Women-Only Colleges: Some Unanticipated
Consequences.” Journal of Higher Education. V66 (6). p641-668. 1995
Levit, Nancy. “Separating Equals: Educational Research and the Long-Term
Consequences of Sex Segregation.” The George Washington Law Review.
v67 (3) p451-526. 1999.
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. “Birds of a Feather:
Homophily in Social Networks” Annual Review of Sociology. 2001.
27:415-44.
24
Riordan, Cornelius. “Single and Mixed Gender Colleges for Women: Educational,
Attitudinal, and Occupational Outcomes.” In: The Review of Higher
Education. Spring 1992, Volume 15, Number 3. 327-346.
Seymour, Elaine and Nancy M. Hewitt. Talking About Leaving: Why
Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
Solnick, Sara J. “Changes in Women’s Majors from Entrance to Graduation at
Women’s and Coeducational Colleges.” In: Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, v48, Number 3 (April 1995) 505-514.
Stoecker, Judith L. and Ernest T. Pascarella. “Women’s Colleges and Women’s
Career Attainments Revisited.” In: Journal of Higher Education, v62,
Issue 4(Jul-Aug., 1991) 394-406.
Strenta, A Christopher. “Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective
Institutions.” Research in Higher Education. v35 n5 p513-47 Oct 1994.
Tidball, Elizabeth M. “Comment on ‘Women’s Colleges and Women’s Career
Attainments Revisited.’” In: Journal of Higher Education, v62, Issue
4(Jul-Aug., 1991) 406-409.
Tidball, Elizabeth, M. “Baccalaureate Origins of Recent Natural Science
Doctorates.” In: Journal of Higher Education. v57, Issue 6 (Nov.-Dec.,
1986), 606-620
Tidball, Elizabeth, M. and Vera Kistiakowsky. “Baccalaureate Origins of
American Scientists and Scholars. In: Science, New Series, v193, Issue
4254 (Aug. 20, 1976), 646-652
25
Tidball, Elizabeth, M., Daryl G. Smith, Charles S. Tidball, and Lisa E. WolfWendel. Taking Women Seriously: Lessons and Legacies for Education
the Majority. Phoenix, AZ: The American Council on Education and the
Oryx Press, 1999.
Wolf-Wendel, Lisa E. “Research Issues on Women’s Colleges.” A Closer Look at
Women’s
Colleges.
July
1999.
Available
on
the
Internet
at
http://ed.gov/pubs/WomensColleges/chap3fin.html. National Institute on
Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning. Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. U.S. Department of Education.
Irene B. Harwarth (editor.)
26
27
Table 1
Undergraduate Women in CS, 1992 - 1997
All VA Coed
Insitutions
Liberal Arts VA
Coed
Institutions
Moderately
Selective LA
Coed
Institutions
VAW
n=23
n=8
n=4
n=1
female
representation
1.2%**
1.0%**
0.7%**
1.7%
upper-level
female attrition
14.4%*
26.7%
34.4%
6.3%
* sig at .10 level
** sig at .05 level
28
Table 2
Departmental Factors, 1992 - 1997
All VA Coed
Insitutions
% female
Moderately
Liberal Arts VA
Selective LA
Coed
Coed
Institutions
Institutions
VAW
28.3%**
23.6%**
22.0%**
100.0%
satisfaction from teaching
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
4.7%
responsibility for success
3.3%**
3.3%
4.2%**
3.0%
mentoring hrs/wk
4.2
3.5
4.7
3.3
dpts w/o female faculty
3/23
2/8
1/4
0/1
* sig at .10 level
** sig at .05 level
29