increase in female faculty. From Figure 2 one can conclude that much
of the increase is the result of hiring
female assistant professors. Group
Public 1–36 2nd is the only one of the
four groups of rank 1–36 for which
assistant professors outnumber the
other ranks. Somewhat surprisingly,
for all three other panels representing institutions of rank 1–36, the average number of female full professors outnumbers the other ranks. In
the panels representing institutions
of rank 37+, differences in the averages for different rank are small, with
assistant professors generally having
the largest averages.
Not surprisingly, the majority of the
departments have increased the number of female faculty by hiring assistant
professors. The question of how the
pool of female Ph.D.’s has changed is
addressed in the next section.
the proportion
of Ph.D.’s awarded
to females exhibits
some similarities
with the trends seen
for female faculty.
ments in the groups 1–36 (solid) and
37+ (dashed). The data supports what
many departments have experienced:
since 2002, the number of new Ph.D.’s
seeking an academic position has dramatically increased while the number
of tenure-track faculty hired has decreased. The peak of the dashed purple
line in 2008 represents a hiring spurt in
group 37+; the full report shows that it
happened in Public 37+ Large.
trends in Ph.D. Production
The number of Ph.D.’s awarded in the
U.S. has seen a significant increase
since 2002. According to the Taulbee
Survey, U.S. Ph.D. production doubled
from 2002 to 2008, from about 700 to
1,400. The proportion of females receiving a Ph.D. has increased. For all
163 departments, the increase in proportion went from 15.28% in 1999 to
19.96% in 2009. Due to the increase in
overall number and proportion, the
number of females receiving a Ph.D.
has more than doubled since 2002. Figure 3 shows the proportion and the difference from the baseline average for
each of the eight groups.
The proportion of Ph.D.’s awarded
to females exhibits some similarities
with the trends seen for female fac-
ulty. In particular, the figure shows
an upward trend for all groups. Al-
though there are differences between
the groups, there does not appear to
be a group that does significantly bet-
ter (or worse) than the average. Not
surprisingly, the lines representing
the proportions are more irregular as
the number of Ph.D.’s generated each
year generally fluctuates. However, the
proportions in the two panel rows in
Figure 3 appear to exhibit higher pro-
portions for the groups in 37+. Indeed
this is the case. For example, in 2009,
the representation of females receiv-
ing a Ph.D. is 22% for departments in
group 37+ and 18% for departments in
group 1–36.
trends in Bachelor’s
Degree Production
Ph.D.-granting institutions in the U.S.
generate only a fraction (less than
20%) of the undergraduate degrees in
computer science; however, trends
found in the data for Ph.D.-granting
institutions are typically also present
in data for all bachelor’s degrees. Such
data is available from WebCASPAR
( https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/). Since
2003, there has been a drop in total
bachelor’s degree production, both
for both male and female students.
In addition, there has been a decline
in the proportion of females receiving
B.S. degrees: from 18% in 2000 to 10%
in 2008.
Figure 5 shows the total numbers
for undergraduate degree production for males and female students
for public versus private institutions.
The data suggests a peak in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded between 2003 (for females) and 2004 (for
males). The total number of degrees
awarded in the public schools is considerably larger than that in the private schools, but the average counts
figure 4. total number of Ph.D.’s awarded and total number of faculty hired for all
departments in group ranks 1–36 (solid) and ranks 37+ (dashed).
total Number of Ph.D.’s
awarded and total Number of faculty hired
Ph.d. awarded Faculty hired
700
600
Number
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000
2002 2004 2006
Ranks 1–36 (solid), Ranks 37+ (Dashed)
