# 10/30/07

PRINCE-OMER AGBO

Mathematical Contest in Modeling 2007-08

I Diversity in the Choice of the Faculty i) ii) iii) II Recommendations

III Definition of diversity goals

1

On many Paths towards Diversity
As you know, diversity of the student population, staff and faculty is one of the top declared priorities at most universities in the United States. Yet, despite significant efforts & resources dedicated to that goal, many groups remain underrepresented – in specific disciplines & scientific fields, and also at leading universities in general.

PART I
Your goal is to design a comprehensive strategy for the University to improve diversity on all levels, both in the university at large and in one specific field (choose any department). Diversity in the choice of Faculty Plan We will present a strategy aiming at increasing the proportion of faculty, students and staff of underrepresented groups within the university in three parts i) ii) iii). i) The first part will show how to raise the level of faculty U as described above. ii) The second part will show how to bring the level of students U in the university choosing scientific majors up to a level that would allow the first part to unfold and work. (Level of faculty U increased) iii) The third part will show how to raise the level of participating staff in the University Life. First, for i)We will devise a plan that would assure that in an X year span from

t=0, today, the number of faculty in the University coming from
underrepresented groups will equal at least their representative percentage within the US population. For simplicity in the design here, we will not differentiate the group U in terms of the groups that it contains. We will also call the underrepresented group by group U or simply, U. We will be designing a project that would bring the percentage of faculty of group U in universities at a proportionate level with the representation of group U in the society. To do so, we notice first that to raise this percentage, we need that the percentage of students U that graduate from Universities increase. More U students graduating, leads to a greater number of U applicants to graduate programs leading to higher education. In turns it raises the number of faculty

2

from group U. In this paper, we will concentrate on the students that go directly to graduate programs and become faculty at the end of their program. Another simplification is that we will be concentrating on the scientific field at large in the University for this is particularly in the disciplines pertaining to that field that students U do not appear. Any generalization of this design to all the disciplines of the University is then possible. i) Calculating the percentage of faculty U in the scientific domain. Table *
Race/et hnicit y Am erican Sex Carnegie classificat ion Tot al All academ inst ut 35 0 ic it ions 7,9 0 Research universit 10 0 y I 5,1 0 Research universit II ,7 y 18 00 D orat g ing I 12 00 oct e rant ,1 D orat g ing II 14 00 oct e rant ,3 Com rehensive I p Com rehensive II p Lib eral art s 2-year inst ut it ions 40 00 ,1 3 00 ,2 18 00 ,1 1 00 ,1 Fem ale 11 00 0,3 30 00 ,2 4 00 ,3 3 00 ,4 3 00 ,7 11 00 ,6 1 00 ,0 5 00 ,4 2 00 1 00 ,0 44 00 ,7 Male 24 00 7,6 74 00 ,9 14 00 ,4 8 00 ,6 10 00 ,6 28 00 ,5 2 00 ,2 12 00 ,7 9 00 7 00 ,6 2 00 ,5 84 00 ,6 W e hit 2 ,2 70 00 81 0 ,80 14 0 ,60 9 0 ,40 11 0 ,40 31 0 ,70 2 0 ,80 15 0 ,80 90 0 9 0 ,10 2 0 ,70 90 0 ,00 Asian 55 0 ,10 16 0 ,10 2 0 ,80 1 0 ,70 1 0 ,70 4 0 ,00 20 0 1 0 ,00 S 2 0 ,10 50 0 24 0 ,70 Black 1 ,50 6 0 3 0 ,30 50 0 60 0 40 0 2 0 ,30 10 0 90 0 S 40 0 10 0 8 0 ,00 1 2,90 0 3,20 0 50 0 30 0 60 0 1,60 0 S 40 0 10 0 70 0 10 0 5,50 0 Ind ian/ H ispanic Alaska Nat ive 2,10 0 60 0 20 0 S 20 0 40 0 S S S S S 50 0

T ABLE H-2 . S& d ct rae h ld rs e p ye f ll t e inu ive ie a d4 a co g s, b Ca e ie cla icaio o a d m in it t n se ra /eh ic 1 E o o t o e m lo d u im n rsit s n -ye r lle e y rn g ssif t n f ca e ic st uio , x, ce t n

Medical schools and m ,3 cent 12 ical ed00 ers 4 00 ,7 Ot sp her ecialized inst ut 00 it3ions ,6 Missing 12 0 9,2 0

S =supp ressed because fewer t han 50 weig ed cases. ht

NOTES: Num ers rounded t nearest 10 D ail m not ad t t al because of round . Tot includes Nat H b o 0. et ay d o ot ing al ive awaiian/ot Pacific Islander and m iple ra her ult SOURCE: Nat ional Science Found ion, D at ivision of Science Resources St ist at ics, Scient s and Eng ist ineers St ist D a Syst (SESTAT). at ical at em

Even though, the Ethnic group called Asian is considered a minority in the US, we can see from this table that including group Asian in underrepresented groups U in Sciences would completely change the final estimation of the representation of underrepresented groups in the scientific field. We therefore calculate the percentage of faculty U only adding the groups Black, Hispanic, American Indian/ Alaska Native; persons with disability are already part of the various groups. We therefore get:16.500+12.900+2100= 31500. 31500*100/357900= 8.8% For the remaining of this work we will work with 100 Universities representing this distribution of scientific faculty among the groups U and R(Represented faculty) Therefore this represents a percentage of 8.8% of instructors U within 100 universities.

3

The goal is to bring that level 8.8% to the level of share of the US population of group U. We let group U represents 20% of the entire US population.* therefore we want to go from 8.8 to 20% in the representation of faculty U in the academia. We therefore have a (20-8.8) % = 11.2% gap to bridge in the academia. For simplicity, we will focus on what happens to one University in particular; where the strategy we will describe to bridge that gap will be used. We choose the University Comet University. Without loss of generality, and for simplicity, we can pick 7 departments of scientific studies: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Engineering, and Veterinary School. We assume that there are 50 faculties in each department. Therefore we have 50*7= 350. 350 Professors per University in Scientific Domain = 350 prof/univ. We therefore calculate that we have 350*.088 =30.8 ≈ 31 instructors U in Comet University. We therefore have 350-31=319 instructors R. (R standing for represented group). Now, the ideal situation as described above would be to have 20% of those 350 instructors being instructors U. 20% of 350 instructors = 70 instructors U instead of 31 at t = 0, today. That would leave 350-70=280 professors R. We see here a table ** showing the repartition of minority students in Engineering.
Figure B-1. Minority undergraduate engineering students, by race/ethnicity: 1995–2005
(Percent) Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Black 7.0 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.0 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.2 6.0 Hispanic 7.2 7.4 8.4 7.8 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.9 8.4 8.4 Native America n 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Asian 10.5 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.0 11.4 11.7 11.8 11.8 11.4 10.6

2005 5.9 8.6 0.6 NOTE: Race/ethnicity breakouts are for U.S. citizens and permanent residents only.

4

SOURCE: Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering & Technology Enrollments: Fall 2005 (Washington, DC, 2006).

5

those next X years. n) The percentage of retirees from scientific academia each year remains constant at 14% for both groups U and R.***** So, the plan will be to increase the level of faculty U over X years, arriving at a 20 percent share of academic positions for faculty U. The first idea that comes to mind is to design a plan that would reduce the number of instructors R from 319 to 280  a 14% decrease including retirement, while at the same time increasing the number of instructors U from 31to 70  a 225% increase over the next X years. But this would mean not accepting any new faculty R over those next X years, which is not conceivable. Therefore the idea would be to increase along time the acceptance rate of instructors U faster than the increase in acceptance rate of instructors R; that would result in a steady increase in shares of academic positions for faculty U along time X, and a redistribution of the faculty positions; the shorter the period X, the greater the ratio of the two rates [%(acceptance U)/ (% acceptance R)] uniformly along time, since we assume n) above and assume now: o) The plan would input an additional increment ad% on the rate of accepted faculty U. This increment would be applied uniformly over the X years that the plan would be running. The plan would apply a chipping off the rate of accepted faculty R dec% uniformly along the X years. In theory then, ad% = k*dec% for some real constant k to be determined. k is constant over time because both rates ad and dec are applied uniformly along time X. 31 U 70 U 319 R  X YEARS  ?R

Calculating ad%, dec% and k. Again, the plan is to increase along time the acceptance rate of instructors U faster than the increase in acceptance rate of instructors R, taking into account a), though n) above. We recall the numbers pertaining to this study: We take 100 Universities.

The first quantity to estimate is the number of group U applicants to faculty positions each year from t=0 to

t = X.

6

7

After X steps we have: At year X the added number of faculty is AX = 8( X√(.10))^X (1.1)^X Therefore the total number of a faculty U after year X is: TXu ’=

∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)}

+ 31

Now, to account for the retiring faculty every year, see n) we need to substract .14 ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31 from TXu’. We end up with

TXu = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31. We assume here that at t=0 the faculty that needs to retire already retired. Similarly, we get that the number of faculty from group R after X years is: TXr = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(Yr.grad*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 319. The formula is slightly different here because we do not count any multiplier. See h) Yr.grad is a real variable that represents the number of applicants R received in scientific programs in Co.U at t=j. Now after X years we want

TXu = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31= .2*(total number of scientific faculty at Co.U) (see page 2 for goal) TXr = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(Yr.grad*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 319 = .8*(total number of scientific faculty at Co.U) (see page 2 for goal) Now as we said in o) the way to perform that operation is to add an increment to the rate of acceptance of undergraduates from group U by ad%, and lower the rate of acceptance of undergraduates from group R by dec%. So, we have right now: The total number of scientific faculty after X years at = 385. (see page 3 and m) ) TXu = (1- .14) Co.U is 350*1.1

∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31= .2*385 TXr = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(Yr.grad*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 319 = .8*385
Now, we replace 8 with Ur.grad a real variable representing the number of graduates U that apply to graduate scientific programs and are accepted. Ur.grad = (Ur.grad)’*(.10 + ac%)*(0.24) <=> Ur.grad = (Ur.grad)’*(.10 + k*dec% )*(0.24) see o) and m)

8

9

A specific field I choose is the mathematic field. This strategy can be applied to maths by simply plugging into Ur.grad’ and Yr.grad’ the percentage of undergraduate students that apply to the Mathematics graduate program. The number of faculty at time t=0 will vary; but from page 3) taking 50 instructors in the math department works. The representative percentage doesn’t change; faculty U still represents 8.8% of the employed instructors and Faculty R 91.2%. the percentage 0.24 of graduate students going into academia doesn’t change since it was taken to be the same for all students from all scientific fields, therefore, in particular maths. see m). Conclusion The advantage of this strategy is that it doesn’t require the number or percentage of students of group U going towards scientific majors to rise. It only assumes that this quantity does not fall. It assumes that the quantity increases with the natural increase in the US population. This strategy also depends on the willingness of the University boards to apply it consistently and uniformly through a period X. This point one of the weaknesses of this strategy that requires a uniform increase in the growth of the US population, that is translated into a uniform increase in the number of students applying to undergraduate schools, and a following uniform increase in all points cited from e) to n) except k) and i). Moreover, this strategy does not count on the fact that an increase in faculty from group U could have a multiplier effect on the number of students from U taking scientific courses, and subsequently maybe going into scientific majors, because feeling more comfortable. Finally, this strategy is not the most recommendable because it does not really take into account the need of more representation of students U in the scientific student body . Lastly, this list of weaknesses is of course not exhaustive, but I need to go to part II now.  ii) The Model Number two aims to increase the number of students from underrepresented groups U in scientific fields. iii) The Model iii) increase the number of staff from underrepresented group U.

PART II
Looking at the same problem on a national scale, provide recommendations for the U.S. Department of Education on how its resources should be optimally used to facilitate the diversity and competitiveness of the educated workforce.

From Part I we have seen that a steady increase in the number of accepted application for an underrepresented group U and a proportional decrease of the number of accepted applications of 10

a represented group R can over time have a significant effect on the distribution of the workforce. It does not require so much additional resources; it only requires a different repartition of admitted candidates. However, following the second strategy explained in ii) to increase the number of students U into scientific careers; this is a strategy that would require funds; but those would be optimally used since they would be sunken back into the economy through the various social programs; those programs would raise the happiness levels of the students and the beneficiary of those services. From ii) Competitiveness would come from the awareness that people level of happiness and expectations depend on the quality of the work provided.

PART III Definition of diversity goals Diversity represents to me more than a diversity of bodies. It represents more than just having a distribution of people that satisfy quota. Diversity points to the uniqueness of an individual and his/her ability to bring his/her uniqueness to other people around. This then indicates a diversity of profiles, which is the very goal of a university. This is why we fill out applications form to get accepted and do not only provide grades. On the other hand, because of cultural groups, affiliations, physically different people nowadays often mean different ideas, and different stories. Quite often, both fortunately and unfortunately, many people of the same cultural heritage have the same stories, which in turn decreases the courage a student must have for the demonstration of his/her uniqueness My conclusion is that a University must be able to make this difficult choice which is to choose its body of students. Mathematics can help as we have just seen in Part I, but even a uniform distribution of different cultural groups cannot assure a diversity of minds. So, the solution is Open Mind, Open Doors, Open Heart!

11

* ** *** **** ***** http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figb-1.htm http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/race.htm#employ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/race.htm#employ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/tables/tabh-21.xls

12