Valerie Lundy-Wagner

Preparing Underrepresented Students of Color for Doctoral Success: The Role of Undergraduate Institutions

Introduction Numerous education stakeholders have acknowledged the absence of minority faculty within the academy (Knowles & Harleston, 1997; Moody, 2004; Myers & Turner, 2004; Tierney & Sallee, 2008), an observation that has often been publicly attributed to the small number of doctoral degree recipients of color. Significantly, the number of doctoral degree recipients from American universities has increased by approximately 3.5 percent since 1958, when the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) first began collecting data (Hoffer et al., 2006). Commensurate with this overall growth are increases in the number of doctoral degrees conferred upon underrepresented minority (1) students (URM): according to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System [IPEDS] (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2009), the number of doctorates attained by Asian/Pacific Islanders, African Americans, Latina/os, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives doubled between the 1980s and 2005 (Schmitt, 2005). In this article, we explore the role of undergraduate institutions in preparing URM students for doctoral success and describe the baccalaureate origins of doctoral degree recipients of color in the United States. Aggregate descriptive data provide evidence that racial/ethnic diversification of the professoriate is in progress; however, gains by group vary considerably. In the past twenty years the increases in doctoral degree attainment for Asian/Pacific Islanders (2), Latina/os, African Americans, and Native American/American Indians between 1986 and 2006 were 194, 140, 101, and 19 percent, respectively (Hoffer, Hess, Welch, & Williams, 2007). Thus, while the overall gains seem favorable, it is important to note that certain minority populations are not gaining as quickly as others. Additionally, there remains a substantial gap between the number of URM and White doctoral degree recipients (Hoffer et al., 2007). In fact, although White doctoral degree attainment only increased by three percent between 1986 and 2006 (from 20,640 to 21,280), Whites still represent approximately 80 percent of all doctoral degrees conferred in the United States (Hoffer et al., 2007). Of note is the reality that the vast majority of doctoral degrees for all racial/ethnic groups are produced at a relatively small number of institutions. Although 417 institutions conferred at least one doctoral degree in 2006, the top ten institutions produced 47 percent of the 45,596 doctoral degree conferred that year (Hoffer et al., 2007). A similar trend exists for URM doctoral degree recipients. Between 2002 and 2006, 30 percent of all doctorates awarded to Asians/Pacific Islanders, 24 percent of doctorates awarded to all Native Americans/American Indians, 21 percent of doctorates awarded to Latina/os, and 18 percent of doctorates awarded to African Americans were granted by just 10 institutions, per ethnic/racial group relatively few (Hoffer et al., 2007). Along these lines, the gap in doctoral degree attainment between students of color and Whites attending highly selective doctoral degree-granting institutions is particularly wide (Brazziel & Brazziel, 1997; Hood & Freeman, 1995). For example, in 2007, African Americans and Latina/os each made up only three percent of doctoral degree recipients at Ivy League universities; Asian/Pacific Islanders comprised only six percent (NCES, 2009). This is especially important because research suggests that individuals attending highly selective graduate programs may be more likely to enter academe (Eide, Brewer, & Ehrenberg, 1998). In sum, the data suggest that the increase in URMs receiving doctoral degrees has improved the academys opportunities to diversify, making more URMs eligible for faculty positions than ever before. Yet despite the consistent, albeit small, progress in the number of URMs receiving doctoral degrees, challenges remain in converting those URM doctoral degree recipients into faculty members, which has implications for education as well as public policy. …

Gaining Access or Losing Ground?: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students in Undergraduate Engineering, 1994–2003

Expanding access to engineering for underrepresented groups has by and large focused on ethnicity/race and gender, with little understanding of socioeconomic disadvantages. In this study, we use economic, human, and cultural capital theories to frame and then describe access to undergraduate engineering degree programs and bachelor’s degrees. Using individual student-level data from 10 universities from the Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD) and aggregate school-level data (i.e., free-lunch status) from the Common Core of Data between 1994 and 2003, we first describe students who enter engineering programs by peer economic status (PES) with attention to gender, ethnicity/race, and SAT Math score. Second, a subset of the data is analyzed to describe access to bachelor’s degrees in engineering by PES using graduation rates. The findings show an increase in access to engineering degree programs by disadvantaged students, but that access to engineering bachelor’s degrees may be constrained, and especially for underrepresented ethnic/racial groups. The data highlight variable PES differences that accrue in engineering at entry and upon graduation (6 years later) across ethnic/racial groups; these differences have implications for broadening participation. Recommendations for future research and improving engineering access at the secondary and postsecondary levels are discussed.

Lessons from the Corridors of College Success Initiative: An Introduction

Years of effort along various lines have done little to alleviate disparities in educational and economic success in the United States. To be sure, some individual programs, interventions, and institutions have produced some small-scale improvements. But these have not translated into a systemic reduction in the gaps that exist in rates of college matriculation, postsecondary attainment, and family-sustaining employment across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

On Their Own Terms: Two-Year Minority Serving Institutions.

ing a community college in the United States free, with the federal government paying 75% of the costs and states paying 25% of two years of community college. To qualify for this benefit, students must maintain a 2.5 GPA, and community colleges must adopt evidence-based institutional reforms to improve student outcomes, including reforms to student services. President Obama’s plan to strengthen community colleges and bring education to more students has the potential to bolster and bring more attention to the value community colleges offer. But what about those community colleges that are also minority serving institutions and their students? Does the proposal adequately address their needs?

Collective Impact: Theory Versus Reality

Collective impact is an increasingly popular approach to addressing persistent social problems. It takes a place-based systems approach to social change and compared with other forms of collaboration is meant to be more structured and strategic. Such an approach is intuitively appealing, and it has the support of stakeholders at the local level, the state level, and even the White House.1 However, engaging in strategic, cross-sector collaboration is challenging. This brief draws on the experiences of five committed collective impact communities participating in the Ford Foundation’s Corridors to College Success initiative to expose some of the practical challenges of translating the theory of collective impact into action.2