Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Third Year Report for the web _08-34_


             SEPTEMBER 2004

                TABLE OF CONTENTS


RECRUITMENT                         5-12

RETENTION & ADVANCEMENT             13-31

DATA COLLECTION                     31-56


DISSEMINATION                       58-63

                     ADVANCE Program Third Year Report
                           September 30, 2004

The ADVANCE Program at the University of California Irvine, supported by an
NSF Institutional Transformation Award, has now completed three years. Our
goals remain the recruitment, retention and advancement of tenure-track women
faculty at UCI. Our Program includes all the Schools on the UCI campus, with the
funding for 8 of the 10 schools supported directly from the NSF award and 2 of the
Schools, Arts and Humanities, supported by the UCI cost share funding. Thus, the
UCI Advance Program extends across the entire campus with the goal of
transforming the culture within all disciplines and groups.

In June 2004, the NSF site visit team under the guidance of Alice Hogan, the
Director of Advance, critically evaluated our program and in a separate document,
we will describe the actions to be taken as required by the critique. We will,
however, include in this report, where appropriate, those measures that are to be
taken to better assess and evaluate the outcomes we have had during the three
years, as well as a description of a more intense and wide-spread dissemination of
our methods and findings.

Program Organization

The administration of the Advance Program has gone through some changes
following the NSF site visit. Priscilla Kehoe remains Director of the UCI
ADVANCE Program at 50% time with half her salary derived from the NSF grant.
Susan Bryant, Dean of the School of Biological Sciences, remains the Principal
Investigator, and Herb Killackey, Associate Executive Vice Chancellor, the Co-PI,
each committing 10% effort to the grant. At the suggestion of the Site Visit Team,
we have added another dean to the program administration and that is Debra
Richardson, Dean of the School of Information and Computer Sciences as a
second Co-PI to the grant. This was done for several reasons, first to avoid
any possible conflict of duties for the PI as Dean of Biological Sciences and
second to strengthen the presence of the Advance team within the
administrative structure of the University. We have found that having the
Deans of each of the schools on campus as advocates of the program leads to
greater success in each of our stated goals and in the end will assure greater
institutionalization of our methods.

Following the site visit, our Coordinator and her assistant moved on to other
positions and we are at this time recruiting for those positions which are
100% to the program. We have found that an administrative assistant was

absolutely necessary to assist the Coordinator with the increasingly number of
daily duties to be accomplished.

In addition to the administration of the program, we have senior faculty as Equity
Advisors (EQAs) carrying out the work of the program in each of the ten Schools
on campus. The Schools of Biological Sciences, College of Medicine (Basic
Sciences & Clinical), Engineering, Physical Sciences, Information & Computer
Sciences, Social Ecology, and Social Sciences each have two Equity Advisors to
carry out the functions necessary to achieve the recruitment, retention and
resolution of inequities that we have as our goals. The Schools of Arts, Humanities
and Graduate School of Management each have one Equity Advisor in each as
related to the actual needs of those particular schools. In addition to the faculty as
EQAs, we have 3 faculty from the social sciences and one faculty from the
Graduate School of Management as consultants within the program. In all, we
employ 23 faculty across the campus to actively carry out the work of the program.
In addition, we have selected two celebrated scholars committed to work toward
gender equity as ADVANCE Term Chairs to represent us both internally and
externally to the public. See Organizational Chart below.


The timeline for each project has varied depending on the complexity of the
particular goal and the processes required to carry them out. For example, selecting
the Term Chairs was delayed by more than a year, however, we now have the two
Advance Term Chairs in place and beginning to work towards our goals. The all-
faculty surveys that we proposed to be done annually have had to be reduced to
three, since we are just now at the end of our third year completing the second one.
Part of the delay with the surveys has been caused by the exacting nature of the
Institutional Review Board requiring absolute confidentiality. The external
evaluation that we proposed to be done this past spring has been delayed because
of the NSF site visit that took place at that time. We will now be doing a complete
and total assessment and outcome evaluation performed by both internal and
external social scientists per the conditions of the NSF site visit team. We will
proceed with these evaluations as soon as the external consultants are hired and
their proposed work is approved by the Director of the NSF Advance Program.

                                    Organizational Chart
                                          Susan Bryant
                                      Principal Investigator

                                         Herb Killackey
                                        Debra Richardson

                                         Priscilla Kehoe


                                        Chair) and
  Karen Rook      Nancy Da Silva       Ellen Druffel (Term     Frances Lesley    Tom Buchmueller
  Kristin Day      Scott Jordan               Chair)            Cris Kenney       Equity Advisor
Equity Advisors   Equity Advisors     Tammy Smecker- Hane      Equity Advisors        GSM
 Social Ecology    Engineering           Equity Advisors            COM
                                         Physical Sciences

   Alice Fahs     Teresa Caldeira        Magda El Zarki         Mary Corey         Diane O’Dowd
 Equity Advisor   Charlie Chubbs          Rick Lathrop         Equity Advisor     Andrea Tenner
  Humanities      Equity Advisor         Equity Advisors            Arts          Equity Advisors
                  Social Sciences             ICS                                Biological Sciences

 Judy Rosener     Matt Huffman         Judy Stepan-Norris      Kristen Monroe    Graduate Students
  Awareness       Social Science         Social Science           Interview       Research Asst.
  Workshop         Researcher             Researcher             Researcher

Equity Advisors

One of our significant methods that we have proposed and employed for the past
three years is the hiring of Equity Advisors to carry out the work necessary to
achieve our major goals. (See the organizational chart for Equity Advisor
information). While at this point our data show significant correlations
between the presence of Equity Advisors and positive changes in recruitment
and retention, we will carry out more extensive types of assessments and
analyses to ascertain the more important causal association between the

The Equity Advisors are senior faculty who are nominated by the individual deans
and approved by the PIs of the grant to serve as Faculty Assistant to the Dean of
that particular school. They are paid a stipend of $15,000 per year for the two year
stint and each school is given a $5000 budget for items and events that are needed
to accomplish the goals. Within the role of Faculty Advisor to the Dean, the Equity

Advisor works closely with their dean and may be privy to confidential material
with the dean’s approval. The purpose of hiring senior faculty to work on our
project is to have individuals that are colleagues and respected scholars be the ones
that promote awareness of the issues to be addressed and the Best Practices that
overcome difficulties. Importantly, they are familiar with the constituency and the
road to success in that discipline and should be familiar with the climate of the

In the first year of the program we hired one Equity Advisor per school, but soon
found that the workload was too heavy. Also, with the suggestion from Virginia
Valian, PI of the Hunter Advance Program and author of the book, “Why So Slow?
Advancing Women in Academia,” we increased the number of Equity Advisors to
two per most schools. The Equity Advisors themselves were very encouraged by
this increase and found that much more could be done with a colleague dividing
the workload either structurally or functionally, depending on the school’s
dynamics. Again we found that a school-based methodology works better than
prescribing a generic solution for all the schools on campus. So for instance, in
School of Social Sciences, the Equity Advisors have divided the work functionally,
that is one Equity Advisor handles the recruitment and inequities and the other one
all the orientation and mentoring programs for new faculty. In Biological Sciences,
the Equity Advisors have divided the work structurally, that is each Advisor has
taken two of the four departments to carry out their duties, participating in
recruitment, mentoring and working with individuals for inequities.

Most of the first group of Equity Advisors finished their two years in December
2003, although there had already been some turnover due to sabbaticals or
unexpected needs. We attempted to hire each one of the two from any one school
at different times so the overlap could help with transitioning to new Equity
Advisors. The training of new Equity Advisors is most important and taken
seriously. Minimally we meet as a committee once a month and more frequently as
necessary. During those two hour meetings, we provide many different types of
information. For example, information about the Council on Academic Personnel
(Appointments and Promotions Committee) is given and even an occasional
meeting with members of this important committee is arranged so that the Equity
Advisors can ask the questions necessary to advise their constituents. We provide
instruction by the Office of Equity Opportunity and Diversity and awareness
seminars by our Graduate School of Management consultant whose scholarship is
on gender differences in business and academia. We have had many workshops for
the Equity Advisors on the various models of mentoring, especially the one
recommended by our College of Medicine Associate Dean Duckles, namely the
Strategic Planning Program. The purpose of these meetings was to provide the
Equity Advisors with the knowledge and training to carry out their functions. Often

the most valuable aspect of the meeting is the sharing of their experiences and the
various methods of problem solving for the different types of situations that arise.

In addition to the committee meetings, the Director of the Program meets
frequently with each of the Equity Advisors from each school. These are important
meetings in which we scrutinize the events of the recent past, the status of
recruitments, mentoring programs and how problems of inequity have been or can
be handled. The purpose of these meetings is to assist in problem solving, to
facilitate the Equity Advisors’ functions and to pass on issues that should be
known by the PIs and those that should be handled by the administration.

Recruitment – Academic Planning Group:

One of the most important aspects of increasing the number of faculty at the
university is the assignment of FTE for each of the individual schools on campus.
At UCI the process is one in which the Executive Vice Chancellor decides what
general areas will gain faculty, with the advice from the Academic Planning Group
(APG). The membership of this committee is appointed by the Executive Vice
Chancellor as an advisory group for future planning and the Academic Senate
Planning and Budget Committee is a liaison to this University committee. As such,
the APG is an important group in that it advises the EVC on future FTE
assignments for the entire university. The process that our present EVC has set in
place is comprehensive, potentially leading to equity across the campus. The EVC
puts out a call for proposals from each of the Deans to convince him of their need
for more faculty in certain areas and programs. The call has many questions that
have to be addressed, significant among them are the ones asking about diversity
and equity for the future of that school. The Deans have to convince the EVC that
they have taken availability of women and people of color into consideration when
asking for FTE in certain areas. For better oversight of this process the EVC has
invited a member of the ADVANCE Program to join as a member of the APG, and
we have assigned one of our Equity Advisors to that committee.

One of the Equity Advisors from Engineering has been a member of the APG for
several years now and reports to the Advance Program committee on the process as
it occurs. She has stated that the other members of the committee have commented
that her presence is helpful to the process. Apparently if the FTE proposal does
not sufficiently address the Dean’s commitment to equity and diversity, the APG
members can ask for supplemental material from the Dean. Some of the questions
that must be answered are:
      How do your plans promise to enhance the diversity of the faculty?
      Has the diversity of your faculty increased or decreased over the past five years? How
      will your plans affect that trend? Provide specific data to support claims when possible.

      How diverse is the pool of applicants, and how will that affect the unit’s success/failure
      in recruitment of a diverse faculty?
      What recruitment strategies will be used?
      What programmatic objectives may enhance efforts along this line?
We are convinced that the EVC is committed to the cause of gender equity and
ethnic diversity for our institution and as such has put in place these types of
strategies that will eventually influence the faculty composition. It may not be
possible to assess the effectiveness of the presence of an Equity Advisor as a
member of the APG toward FTE awards and recruitment, but we are optimistic
that it is a valuable position for the Advance Program to hold.

Recruitment – Search Plan and Advertisement Form:

Once the FTE are assigned to each School by the EVC, the process in place for
recruitment begins. The departments are notified by the Dean in which areas they
may recruit and then the Department Chair and members begin the search process.
Once the decision of rank and sub-discipline are decided the Search Plan and
Advertisement form (UCI-AP-82) is completed and sent for signatures from the
administration. This step in the process now involves the Equity Advisor for that
school as described in the form below.

                                            Search Plan and Advertisement
                                       For Regular Ranks Faculty (FTE) Position

Part I. Information about the position:

    Recruiting School/Department:
    Proposed title(s)/level(s):                                                Salary Control #:
    Appointment Begin Date:                        Closing Date of Advertisement:
    Candidate PhD requirement/area(s) of expertise (from NORC/AAMC listing):

Part II. Search Committee:

    List chair and members of search committee (include both men and women):

Part III. Advertising plan:

    A.       Advertisement - Attach copy for approval.
    B.       Web sites - This advertisement will be placed on the following UCI web sites:

         •     UCI Employment Opportunities - (required)
         •                                                                                               (optional)
         •                                                                                               (optional)
    C.       Publications - If the advertisement will be published in professional journals or magazines, please list
             the name of the publication and the month that the ad is expected to appear.

         •                                                                              Month:
         •                                                                              Month:
         •                                                                              Month:
Part IV. Selection criteria: Briefly describe criteria to be used to select the final candidate.

Department Chair:                                                                       Date:

Equity Advisor’s Approval:                                                              Date:

Dean's Approval:                                                                        Date:

Academic Affairs:                                                                       Date:

Department Contact:                                           Phone:                    Email:

Dean's Office Contact:                                        Phone:                    Email:

Recruitment - Career Partners Program (FTE for Ladder-Rank Faculty

The Career Partners Program was formally initiated at UCI in 1997-98 in response
to the employment needs of dual-career academic partners. UCI recognizes the
importance of an environment in which frequently more than just a single faculty
appointment must be considered. The primary goal of the Career Partners Program
is to recruit excellent new faculty to join the regular professorial ranks. In
exceptional cases, this program may be used for the retention of current faculty.
The Career Partners Program using shared FTE is not the only avenue through
which a unit might pursue a partner hire. Deans may choose to set aside portions of
their resource allocations to be used exclusively for partner hires.

Funding for Career Partners is accomplished through a three-way partnership: the
recruiting unit of the primary appointee provides 1/3 FTE, the host unit of the
spouse/partner provides 1/3 FTE, the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor
provides 1/3 FTE. When the Career Partners Program involves collaboration with
the Medicine, the partial FTE provided by a general campus unit and by the EVC
must be filled in a general campus unit. Should a Career Partner recruitment prove
unsuccessful, or if a career partner incumbent leaves UCI, the partial FTE's
supporting the position will revert to their originating units.

After the primary recruiting unit and the partner's unit have agreed to pursue the
Career Partner hire, the Chair of the primary unit should submit a request to the
Executive Vice Chancellor for the final 1/3 FTE. This request should include an
explanation of the primary recruitment effort giving rise to the request for a Career
Partner position; statements of support for the proposal from the Chair and Dean of
the primary recruiting unit with commitment of 1/3 FTE; statements of support
from the Chair and Dean of the proposed host unit of the spouse/partner with
commitment of 1/3 FTE. Once the Executive Vice Chancellor has approved the
request for the final 1/3 FTE, the recruiting and co-sponsoring units will be
authorized to proceed with the Career Partner appointment according to existing
campus procedures.

The appointment process for a Career Partner hire will follow the normal
Academic Personnel procedures for faculty appointments, including review by the
Council on Academic Personnel. The required file documentation for the
appointment at the proposed rank should be assembled by the spouse/partner's

department and submitted through normal channels via the Dean's Office to
Academic Personnel.

In the last three years we have recruited 19 career partners, 7 men and 12 women.
This has been a win-win program for UCI because without these recruitment-
initiated positions, it appears probable that our searches would not have yielded the
desired outcomes. Seven women were recruited who might have not been able to
accept the position because of the need for the partner position and twelve women
were recruited who were quality scholars that passed the appointment and
promotion requirements at UCI. Our evaluators will examine this program closely
and with assessments from various constituents will determine the relative
influence of such a program on hiring women faculty.

Recruitment – the Southern California Higher Education Recruitment

As higher education continues to face an environment of shrinking budgets and
recruitment resources, it is more important than ever that college campuses
collaborate to develop the best information resources, technology, networking, and
outreach programs in order to be effective in recruiting and retaining a diverse and
qualified faculty and staff. Founded in August 2003, the Southern California
HERC is a collaborative response to the many challenges universities face in the
recruitment and retention of faculty and staff. One particular focus of HERC is to
find effective ways to assist the spouses and partners of faculty and staff in
securing area employment. The Southern California HERC has members from the
University of California, private colleges and universities, and community
colleges. Member representatives include staff and academic human resources
professionals and leaders, well as faculty relations experts.

As a member of the Southern California HERC, our campus benefits by:

Being featured prominently on the only comprehensive higher-education
employment Web site in Southern California; having unlimited access to posting
staff and faculty jobs on the HERC Web site; reaching job seekers directly with e-
mail job alerts based on user profiles; being included in all HERC press releases,
media events, and marketing and advertising efforts; networking with colleagues
regarding staff and faculty recruitment and retention issues; having a voice in
shaping the future of HERC, including its programs and projects; attending
member-only meetings and programs at member campuses throughout Southern

Recruitment - Advance Program Advertisement

The advertisements that are now being approved for new recruits contain the
following sentence:

The University of California, Irvine has an active Career Partner Program, is an
equal opportunity employer committed to excellence through diversity, and has a
National Science Foundation ADVANCE Program for faculty gender equity.

Again it will be important to ascertain from our new recruits the impact of the
wording of our advertisements. Did having knowledge of the Career Partner
Program make a difference to their selection? Did the fact that UCI has a faculty
gender equity program supported by the NSF influence the individual’s decision to

Recruitment – Best Practices

The Advance program has developed a recruitment brochure entitled “Best
Practices for Achieving Diversity in Faculty Recruitment”. This brochure contains
best practices that have been obtained from many different sources and they are
divided into the following categories: Search and Selection. On the back of the
brochure is recommended reading, each of which is obtainable on our web site
including the site for Equal Opportunity and Diversity Academic Availability

Additionally, we offer each member of the search committee a copy of the
brochure entitled “Guidelines for Search Committees” produced by the Office of
Equity Opportunity and Diversity. This document explains the affirmative action
obligations that we have as a federal contractor and details the nondiscrimination
and affirmative action policy that exists at our university. What many faculty have
commented on are the list of unacceptable interview questions mainly because of
the discussion that comes out of the awareness that it raises.

Recruitment - Equity Advisor’s Role and Participation in the Process:

The Chair must establish a plan as to how the recruitment will be carried out. This
plan is described in the previously discussed UCI form (AP- 82 Search activity
form) which describes the area of study, the rank of the position, the specific
membership of the search committee, the places where the advertisement will
appear, and the actual wording of the ad. The form must be signed by the Chair of
the department, Dean of the school, and then the Equity Advisor. If the information
is missing or questionable, the Equity Advisor can discuss the items with the Chair
or Dean and achieve some resolution. Following the Equity Advisor signature, the

Associate Executive Vice Chancellor, the Co-PI of our grant is the final signatory,
making certain that the process has been followed correctly. The Advance
program office receives a copy of the signed search form which is then sent on to
the Equity Advisors of that school. In this way, the Equity Advisors are well-
informed about all the searches that are to take place in their school.

Once the Equity Advisor knows of the search to be held, s/he informs the Chair of
the committee that they are to be scheduled to meet with the committee as early in
the process as possible. At that meeting, the Equity Advisor speaks to the
committee about the process that best yields equitable results. The Advance
brochure on Best Practices for recruitment and the Office of Equal Opportunity
and Diversity pamphlet for hiring do’s and don’ts are handed out and discussed
with the members of the committee. We are now also providing the members with
a copy of the article “Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for
female and male medical faculty. This has been well received thus far, perhaps
because of the objective methodology performed and described in the article. The
Equity Advisor also offers the committee current gender data for that school’s
tenure-track faculty and the availability data for possible assistant professor or
tenured professor recruits taken from the NSF data base.

The applicants are encouraged to fill out a survey on line so that we may determine
what their gender and ethnicity are. We are not receiving a high enough percentage
of applicants to truly use this method to determine the applicant pool
representation. We are currently advising the applicants that in order to “complete
the application process” they should fill out the survey. We are hoping to increase
the response rate. It has been somewhat difficult to ascertain the gender of the pool
with any confidence because of our unfamiliarity with the names of the applicants.
At present we are often relying on the letters of recommendation using pronouns,
etc., with some degree of success, however, ethnicity is more difficult to ascertain.
What we are aiming for is the matching of the applicant pool to the availability
data for that discipline and rank. There have been some complaints that the
availability data are often not sub-divided enough to match the areas for which the
recruitment is aimed. Given these caveats, we are asking the chairs of the search
committees to seriously consider extending the search until progress is made in
reaching availability numbers. Certainly we ask the members of the search
committee to actively pursue applicants that would make the pool more equitable
and diverse. With the Department Chairs and the Deans support, these methods
more often lead to success in the recruitment process.

At present, we have been requesting that the Deans require their search committees
to provide them with a short list of applicants that they would consider for an
interview. The Dean in turn will share this information with their Equity Advisors,

so that together they can determine if the short list resembles the applicant pool
and availability as best they can determine.

Most of the Equity Advisors report that the search committees have been receptive
to their participation and offerings. Some say that it is hard to ascertain how much
of what they offer is absorbed and taken seriously. The internal and external
assessors for our program will have to analyze the effectiveness of this
intervention by viewing the committee composition, the gender break- down
of the applicant pool and the short-list and the final candidate selected. It will
be important to assess whether or not the Advance Program in general, and
specifically, the Equity Advisors presence and performance has had any
influence on the recruitment process and the recruitment outcome. Once this
assessment and evaluation has been made, then we may alter some aspects of
the intervention and most importantly, determine how the process should be
managed in terms of the Equity Advisor position. Perhaps after the Advance
Program is no longer in place, each department chair or an assigned
committee could take on the role of Equity Advisor for recruitment. Another
possibility is a Faculty Equity Advisor could be assigned by each Dean to
oversee the recruitment process for the entire school. Having these positions
established and authorized by the administration will maintain many gains
made by the Advance Program and institutionalize an important part of the
process that leads to an equitable environment. The Advance Program
Advisory Committee is in the process of drawing up recommended actions
and processes that will initiate and maintain institutionalization of these
methods to continue striving toward gender equity.

Success in Our Recruitment Process: Across the Campus -

The UCI Advance Program has been successful in increasing the number of
women tenure-track faculty hired at the university. In our baseline year of 2001-
2002, 27.1% of the new recruits were women (23 of the 85). In 2002-2003, we
hired 33.8% women faculty (25 of the 74) and in 2003-02004, we reached 44%
women faculty hired (29 out of 66). This significant increase in the recruitment of
women was perhaps the result of a number of interventions, most importantly may
be the presence of the Equity Advisors during the recruitment process. However, it
seems most probable that the confluence of the Advance Program’s many activities
was responsible for raising awareness of the issues. Some of the methods that were
employed, such as having data available for search committees, providing
knowledge of options such as career partner positions and best practices to be used,
exposing faculty members to articles about unconscious discrimination and other
such activities has assisted us in changing the culture and removed some of the
barriers that impede the recruitment process.

Recruitment for each school on campus:

While the general recruitment of women has progressed satisfactorily, we find that
it differs within each school on campus. As can be seen on the graph below, we
have seen an increase in the percent of women faculty in several of the schools on
campus, namely Graduate School of Management, College of Medicine-Basic
Sciences and Clinical, Information & Computer Sciences, and Biological Sciences.
Increasing the number of women faculty is reliant on two aspects of our program,
first, recruitment which has been successful in many of the schools on campus, and
retention, which is dependent on a mentoring and equitable climate.

                                                                               Percent Women Faculty per School


                                       45.5                                                                                                  2001-02
  Percent Women Faculty

                          30                                                         27.7

                                                                                                   24.6         24           24.6



                                                                                                                                                        9.8             9.1

























Retention and Advancement - Exit Interviews

We have done two surveys to better understand the experiences of our faculty at
UCI, however, to understand the reasons that faculty leave, it is necessary to
question those faculty that have left as well. An ad hoc committee was formed
from members of the ADVANCE Program Committee, Office of Academic

Personnel and the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. The Director of the
Advance Program chaired the committee of 5 members to develop a process for
exit interviews of faculty that had separated from the UCI. After several meetings
in which we examined various forms and methods found in other universities for
exit interviews, we developed a process and questionnaire for UCI usage. We
decided to interview those faculty who had left most recently and work back in
time for as many as three. The Office of Academic Personnel provided us with the
names and location of the separated faculty. It was decided that we use an email
for the initial invitation for the exit interview. The following is the email used:
Dear Dr. [NAME],

I am contacting you in my capacity as the Director of the ADVANCE program at the University of
California, Irvine. This is a program supported by the National Science Foundation that seeks to
enhance the recruitment, retention, and advancement of a diverse faculty at UCI. In conjunction
with this program, I am contacting former faculty members who left UCI relatively recently in
order to learn about their experiences at UCI and the factors that entered into their decision to
leave. I would very much like to talk to you about your experiences while you were here. We hope
to use this information to identify ways that UCI can improve upon its efforts to retain faculty. If
you are willing, I would greatly appreciate an opportunity to conduct a brief telephone interview
with you at a time that is convenient for you. This should take only about 15 minutes of your time.
The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be used in very generalized
ways to help us learn how we can make UCI a better institution.

If you would be willing to speak with me briefly, please reply to this e-mail with some suggestions
about times when it would be convenient for me to contact you by telephone. Please provide the
telephone number where you would like to be contacted. If you would like to speak with me before
you make a decision about your participation, I will be happy to contact you for this purpose, or
you can contact me (please see my contact information below).

I greatly appreciate your willingness to consider helping the ADVANCE program with this effort. I
look forward to hearing from you.

Priscilla Kehoe
Contact information followed

When the recipient answered the email, it was forwarded to an assistant who then
set up a dialogue to calendar the actual interview. The interviewee was called at the
prescribed time and caller identified herself, asked if this was a good time and then
proceeded to again explain the purpose of the call and what the procedure would
be. It was explained that questions would be asked that required one of three
answers: generally satisfied, somewhat satisfied, generally dissatisfied. The
interviewee was told that for any question asked they could comment in any way
that they felt necessary. The identical questionnaire was used for all individuals
with each question scored as stated and all comments written as close to verbatim
as possible. The individuals were told that the information would be summarized
so that their identity would not be revealed. Many of the former faculty
commented that this did not matter. The questionnaire is as follows:

                                              EXIT INTERVIEW
                                           REGULAR-RANKS FACULTY
                                    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
           (Telephone Interviews Conducted under the Auspices of the UCI ADVANCE Program)


Hello, am I speaking to [NAME]? Thank you. This is Priscilla Kehoe, Director of the UCI ADVANCE Program at
UCI. I greatly appreciate your willingness to help us learn about you experiences at UCI, as part of our effort to
identify ways that UCI can improve upon its efforts to retain faculty. Is this still a convenient time for us to talk?
[IF NO, RESCHEDULE THE INTERVIEW.] [IF YES] Thank you. As I indicated in my e-mail message, the
information we discuss will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only in generalized, non-identifiable ways.
Do you have any questions before we begin?

                                                                                          Record Date and Time for up to 3 Call Attempts
                                                                                          0 = left message on machine
                                                                                          1 = left message with another person
                                                                                          2 = did not leave message
_____ Could not reach the individual
                                                                                          1.                         5.
      (record information)
                                                                                                     Date:                          Date:
                                                                                                     Time:                          Time:
_____ Individual prefers to be called back at a different time
      (Time and Date to call back: _______________)                                       2.                         6.
                                                                                                     Date:                          Date:
_____ Individual declined to participate                                                             Time:                          Time:
                                                                                          3                          7.
_____ Individual requested a self-administered survey                                                Date:                          Date:
                                                                                                     Time:                          Time:
_____ Other (Fill in reason: ___________________________)                                 4.                         8.
                                                                                                     Date:                          Date:
                                                                                                     Time:                          Time:

Interview Date: _____________ Start Time: _________ A.M. / P.M.



1. Period of Employment at UCI:

2. Rank/step at time of initial hire at UCI:

3. Rank/step at time of departure from UCI:

4. Department/academic unit at UCI:

5. Gender                                                                          Male          Female

6. Ethnicity (if available)                                                          American Indian
                                                                                     Other (_______)

     Thank you. I would like to begin by finding out how you felt about various aspects of your employment at UCI.
     For each area that we discuss, please let me know whether you felt generally satisfied, only somewhat satisfied, or
     generally dissatisfied. If I mention something that did not apply to you when you were at UCI, please let me know.

     Let’s begin with compensation and benefits. How did you feel about your [salary] at UCI? – would you say you
     were generally satisfied, only somewhat satisfied, or generally dissatisfied. [USE THIS QUESTION TEMPLATE
                                                                                                                Interviewer: Do not
                                                                                                                read these; record Not
                                                                                                                applicable or Don’t
                                                                                                                know/refused if
Salary                                Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.            Generally dissat.        NA
                                                                                                                  Don’t know/refused
Benefits (health care, retirement     Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.            Generally dissat.        NA
benefits, etc.)                                                                                                   Don’t know/refused

     (Record additional comments as needed):

     Departmental/School Atmosphere
Physical working conditions           Generally sat.           Somewhat sat.            Generally dissat.    NA
                                                                                                             Don’t know/reused
Performance of your Chair             Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
                                                                                                             Don’t know/refused
Performance of your Dean              Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
                                                                                                             Don’t know/refused
Interactions with your co-            Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
workers                                                                                                      Don’t know/refused
Opportunities for collaboration       Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
                                                                                                             Don’t know/refused
Clarity of expectations/feedback      Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
about your performance                                                                                       Don’t know/refused
Support for promotion and             Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
tenure                                                                                                       Don’t know/refused
Nature/amount of service you          Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
were asked to provide                                                                                        Don’t know/refused
Adequacy of faculty                   Generally sat.            Somewhat sat.           Generally dissat.    NA
mentoring/development                                                                                        Don’t know/refused
(Mentoring –cont’d)                                         [IF ONLY SOMEWHAT SAT. OR GENERALLY DISSAT. WITH
                                                            MENTORING] What was unsatisfying about the faculty mentoring in your
                                                                    Not available
                                                                    Not high quality
                                                                    Other (Fill in: _________________________________________)

     (Record additional comments as needed):

 Your teaching load                   Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Quality of undergraduates            Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Quality/availability of graduate     Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
 students in your research area                                                            Don’t know/refused

      (Record additional comments as needed):

Research Support
 Your research space/facilities       Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Research support services (e.g.,     Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
 lab, computing support services)                                                          Don’t know/refused

 Financial support for research       Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Departmental commitment to (or       Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
 appreciation of) your area of                                                             Don’t know/refused

      (Record additional comments as needed):

General atmosphere at UCI and surrounding community
 Geographic location               Generally sat.      Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Housing                              Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Social, recreational, and cultural   Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
 opportunities                                                                             Don’t know/refused
 Cultural and ethnic diversity        Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Local school system                  Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
 Child care                           Generally sat.   Somewhat sat.   Generally dissat.   NA
                                                                                           Don’t know/refused
      (Record additional comments as needed):


   Thank you. Now, I would like to make sure that I understand the key factors that influenced your decision to leave
   FACTORS THAT APPLY.] [IF NOT OBVIOUS: As you look back on your decision, what would you say were
   the key factors that influenced your decision?]

(Interviewer: Prompt if needed. Check all factors that apply. Record additional details, as needed.)

   Attractive job offer (indicate kind):
       _____ faculty position at another university                If so, which elements of the competitive offer were most
                                                                   appealing? (check all that apply)
       _____ non-faculty position                                         Salary: ____           Teaching load:_____
                                                                          Promotion: _____ Start-up package:_____
                                                                          Research resources: _____
                                                                          University/Department reputation: _____
                                                                          Other (fill in): _________________________

                                                                   Did UCI make a counter offer to retain you?   YES            NO
   Change of career direction                                      {IF YES] How did you feel about the counter offer?

   Unfavorable pre-tenure personnel review/anticipated                  Generally sat.    Somewhat sat.      Generally disat.
   negative tenure decision
                                                                  (Record additional comments as needed):
   Non-competitive salary at UCI

   Negative aspects of departmental/school atmosphere

   Academic interests incompatible with UCI position

   Insufficient time for research at UCI

   Too many clinical or service demands at UCI

   Insufficient career opportunities for spouse/partner
                                                                       Attractive offer/opportunity for him/her in new location
   High cost of housing

   Insufficient social/recreational/cultural opportunities

   Parental or other familial responsibilities

   Other (fill in): _________________________

(Record additional comments as needed):

     III. CONCLUDING QUESTIONS I have just two final questions before we conclude.

1.   Is there anything else about your experience at UCI that would be important for us to know? What advice do you
     have for UCI to become a better institution?

2. Do you have any feedback about this interview process, so that we can improve upon it in the future? (For example,
   who do you think should conduct these interviews in the future, after the ADVANCE program, which is funded by a
   grant from the National Science Foundation, concludes? [PROMPT IF NEEDED – SOMEONE FROM THE
   FROM ACADEMIC PERSONNEL?] Would you recommend that we continue to conduct interviews, or would you
   have preferred to receive a survey that you could complete on your own?)

                                  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
     Interview Stop Time: _________ A.M. / P.M.


The total number of faculty contacted was 36; of those contacted 20 were men (2
Assistant Professors, 5 Associate Professors and 13 Professors) and 16 women (6
Assistant Professors, 7 Associate Professors and 3 Professors). Only 6 faculty gave
no response to our email request (2 women and 4 men), while 7 faculty declined
the interview (4 women and 3 men). Thus, 23 faculty were interviewed as follows:

Gender          Assistant         Associate           Professor        Total
Women             2                  6                    2             10
Men               2                  4                    7             13
Percentage of completed interviews = 64%
Percentage of women completed =      63%
Percentage of men completed =        65%

The quantitative and qualitative data derived from the interviews are presently
being analyzed by Dr. Dara Sorkin in the School of Social Ecology. We hope to
derive a general score for each of the major areas that are a concern to faculty,
possibly noting any significant gender differences. Furthermore, the qualitative
information that was obtained from the interviewees will be categorized and
scored, allowing the Advance Program to utilize the data to inform the
administration on areas to be examined. These data will be utilized to establish a
baseline for faculty satisfaction levels in specific areas and then a comparison to be
made with future exit interviews. It is our contention that this type of data
collection will assist us in developing outcome measures and better evaluate the
Advance Program’s influence on faculty satisfaction. The Office of Academic
Personnel and Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity will take over the
function of faculty exit interviews within the next two years, so that
institutionalization of the process we have used becomes established. We also
recommend that a committee be formed between these two offices to make certain
that the data from exit interviews are analyzed and compared to previous ones with
the outcome assessments used to improve faculty conditions. One of the
measurements we hope to make from the exit interviews is the amount and kind of
mentoring or counseling the faculty have been given and whether this was a factor
in their progress at UCI.

Retention - Advance Program Mentoring

The Strategic Planning Program is the methodology that we have suggested to be
used by the Advance Program Equity Advisors to mentor their junior faculty
through tenure. UCI ADVANCE Program has developed a Strategic Planning
Program that incorporates orienting and mentoring assistant professors. Our goal is
to provide all assistant professors, both men and women, with immediate and
continued counseling and support necessary to guide them through the tenure

barrier. Wherever possible, we are trying to arrange welcoming opportunities,
social events and workshops to reduce the chilly climate and provide important
information necessary for the assistant professor to adapt in order to progress. The
Strategic Planning Program is divided into two parts, orientation and mentoring, to
accomplish our objectives.


The major goal of the orientation program is to ensure that assistant professors are
given a full overview of the school’s operations, from personnel offices to
computing centers. From hiring employees for the lab to finances and purchasing,
it is important that the new professor learns the mechanisms by which the day to
day functions take place. In addition to the information about the environment, the
orientation program aims to ensure that the assistant professor clearly understand
the process of academic personnel review, criteria for promotion and the timing of
reviews. For much of the general information, a group session is held while
individual meetings are scheduled with each assistant professor at various points:
shortly after arrival and in the summer before the mid-career review (third year at
rank). A handbook for assistant professors covers all the pertinent issues and is
distributed at the time of the first orientation session.

Topics covered in the orientation session may include a summary of the types of
academic appointments and the criteria for promotion. The process of academic
review is detailed, including the responsibility of the candidate to prepare specified
materials, preparation of the department letter and the department vote, review by
the Dean’s Office, review by the Committee on Academic Personnel and the final
decision by campus administration. This is followed by an individualized “time
table” indicating when each regularly scheduled review will take place, the usual
time for promotion, and when the “eight year rule” will take effect. The University
of California Access to Records and Childrearing policies may also be discussed.

 In the School of Social Sciences two annual orientations were held, one for
tenured and one for untenured faculty. The Orientation Booklet produced by the
Equity Advisor for new faculty in the School of Social Sciences follows:

                                               Faculty Handbook

                                         School of Social Sciences
                                       University of California, Irvine
                                                 Table of Contents

Letter from Dean to New Faculty

I. Introduction to the School of Social Sciences and to UCI
      A. Who's Who in the School of Social Sciences
      B. Relevant references across Campus
II. Advancement and Promotion at UCI
III. Strategic Planning
IV. Resources – Research
V. Resources – Teaching
VI. Appendixes

I. Introduction to the School of Social Sciences and to UCI
    Who's Who in the School of Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

ADVANCE Equity Advisors

Executive Committee Chair (Faculty Chair for the School of Social Sciences)

Departments, Research Centers, and Programs

Programs and Curricula
Accounting Office
Computing Services
Graduate Office
Personnel Office
Facilities Management
Development Office
    B. Relevant References Across Campus

Chancellor                                  Ralph J. Cicerone

Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC)             Michael R. Gottfredson

Office of Academic Personnel
The office of the Academic Personnel is the administrative unit responsible for making decisions on all
appointments, merits, and promotions. It operates under the authority of the Chancellor and the Executive Vice
Chancellor (EVC).
The most important reference is the webpage of the Office of Academic Personnel:
This webpage contains detailed information about appointment process, policies and procedures, academic review
cycle, and salary. It also contains relevant forms and the manuals that rule academic personnel actions.
         See more information in this Handbook under "Advancement and Promotion at UCI."

    Council on Academic Personnel (CAP) – Academic Senate, Irvine Division
         CAP is the Academic Senate unit that reviews personnel cases. As such, it is the Faculty body responsible
for making recommendations on appointments, some merits, and all promotion cases to the Office of Academic
CAP's links in the Academic Senate webpage ( address some of the most common
questions concerning advancement and promotion at Irvine.
See more information in this Handbook under "Advancement and Promotion at UCI" as well as CAP's documents
reproduced in the Appendix

Research and Graduate Studies (RGS)
The webpage of RGS is: It contains information about funding resources, integrity in
research, conference support, conflict of interest, research protection, etc.
         See more information in this Handbook under "Research"

    Human Research Protection Program
       Office of Research Administration (ORA)
       Institutional Review Board (IRB)

         University of California, Irvine
         300 University Tower
         Irvine, CA 92697-7600
         Telephone: (949) 824-4768
         Fax: (949) 824-1465

     The IRB is responsible for reviewing all human subjects research and ensuring compliance with federal
regulations. All the information about protocols and their submission as well as tutorials is online. A good place to
start is:
     See also more information in this Handbook under "Research"

    Instructional Resources Center

        The most relevant information is available at: It contains information on
classroom support services, teaching enhancement services, instructional technology, programs, workshops, etc.
        See also more information in this Handbook under "Teaching."

     Electronic Educational Environment (EEE)
The Electronic Educational Environment Web site, known as EEE, is a home-grown course management system
built to serve instructors and students at the University of California, Irvine.
     Through the website faculty have access to various tools, such as class rosters, schedule of
classes, course mailing lists, course Web sites, on-line NoteBoards, class DropBoxes, a GradeBook and much more.

     Office of the Registrar
One of the links in this site is FACNET, Faculty Access Network, an information system designed to give faculty
easy access to information resources offered by the Office of the Registrar. This information includes WebRosters
and WebGrades.
All grades at UCI are submitted electronically through WebGrades. On the FACNET webpage, faculty have access
to all the information and tutorials on how to submit grades electronically.


Social Sciences Research Librarians:

Course Reserves and Electronic Course Reserves

Interlibrary loans

Document Delivery
      Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD)
      The UCI Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is responsible for the University's compliance with federal
and state laws and University policies and procedures regarding discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment.
OEOD works to promote and integrate the principles of equal opportunity, affirmative action, nondiscrimination,
and excellence through diversity at UCI.
      The web page is: It contains the copy of the main Nondiscrimination Policies and the
list of services provided by OEOD.
      Inquiries regarding the University's nondiscrimination and affirmative action policies may be directed to:

Kirsten K. Quanbeck, Director
Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity
4500 Berkeley Place
Irvine, CA 92697-1130
Phone: (949) 824-5594

    ADVANCE Program

          ADVANCE is a NSF sponsored program aimed at increasing gender equity and diversity at UCI. Its goals
are: to increase the recruitment of women, provide a network of support and guidance through tenure, monitor
progress by collecting and analyzing data about equity, promote networking and mentoring activities for tenured
women to ensure that they develop to their fullest potential, including facilitating nominations for awards at the
local, national, and international levels. To accomplish these goals, the ADVANCE program has two Equity
Advisors at each School.
     At the School of Social Sciences, the Equity Advisors are Teresa Caldeira ( and Charlie
Chubb (
     Relevant information about the program and about gender issues for faculty, equity, off-scale salary
adjustments, resources, strategic planning, etc. can be found at:
     See also more information in this Handbook under "Strategic Planning."


    II. Advancement and Promotion at UCI

     The process of advancement and promotion at the University of California, Irvine is ruled by the Academic
Personnel Manual of the University of California. This and other relevant manuals and policies are available online
on the Office of Academic Personnel's webpage
     Publications and links of special interest available at this site are:
 1. Academic Personnel Manual (APM) of the University of California.
2. Academic Personnel Procedures Manual (APP) of the University of California, Irvine.

     The Academic Personnel Procedures manual (APP) contains campus procedures for implementing academic
personnel policies. These procedures are intended to supplement the policies set forth in the University of California
Academic Personnel Manual (APM), and they must always be used in conjunction with that manual. It is found at:

         3. CAP's Frequently Asked Questions and Responses (at

  The FAQs have been revised on July 2004 and are included as an Appendix of this Handbook.
       4. CAP's Notes on CAP's Evaluation Procedures (at

     The Notes have been revised on July 2004 and are included as an Appendix of this Handbook.
Another important reference is the publication Advancement and Promotion at Irvine – 2003. It describes the
process of advancement and promotion at the University of California, Irvine, and is intended to highlight more
informally than the Academic Personnel Manual key aspects of procedures. It includes summaries of University
policies and provides advice about strategies for advancement and promotion, especially for the tenure review. The
original version of this publication is from 1990. This 2003 revised and updated edition was prepared by Herb
Killackey, Associate Executive Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs and the Office of Academic Personnel with
special editorial contributions by the ADVANCE Equity Advisors.

    This publication accompanies this Handbook.

    It can also be found at the Resources link of the ADVANCE website (

   The most important form to be produced at every personnel review (either a merit or a promotion) is the
Addendum to the Biography (Form AP – 101). All information about faculty activities and production must be

included in the Addendum. This form will be made available in electronic format by departments to all faculty at
the time of reviews. It is also included in the Appendix of this Handbook.

    Childbearing exclusion and modified duties

     The University policies on childbearing and childrearing are described in the APM. These policies allow
natural mothers about six weeks of childbearing leave, which may be followed by several weeks of "modified
(University) duties." The "modified duties" option can also be exercised by natural fathers and adoptive parents of
either sex. ("Modified duties" is not a leave; the faculty remains in service to the University, but with modified
duties. For most appointees, this means a period in which the faculty member does not teach.)

     Another part of this policy permits a faculty member who has primary responsibility for the care of an infant or
newly adopted child under age five to request an extension of up to one year of the eight-year maximum service
allowed in those titles with limitations on service (APM Policy 133-17-h). Such requests must be made within two
years of the birth or adoption of the child. The policy allows an assistant professor who has recently become a parent
to continue working while stopping the "eight-year clock." These extensions may have the effect of lengthening the
amount of time in the "probationary period" during which they are candidates for promotions to tenure. This policy
attempts to take into account the difficulty junior faculty have in teaching and doing research while raising young
children. In 1998, APM133-17 was revised to allow for stopping the tenure clock more than once, provided the total
time off equals no more than two years.        The policies on childbearing leaves and exclusions and all relevant
definitions can be found at:

III. Strategic Planning
         The ADVANCE program is committed to promote the advancement of faculty at UCI, especially assistant
professors. To this end, the Equity Advisors of the School of Social Sciences, in consultation with Dean Barbara
Dosher and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Research Virginia Mann, are developing a program on
Strategic Planning. Its main purpose is to assist faculty in strategizing and planning their advancement in the UCI
system. At this moment, this program has three components.

          1. Orientation and Navigation
  The objective is to provide information that will assist faculty in planning their careers, facilitate their everyday
  tasks of teaching and researching, and assist in the preparation of personnel cases.
 This Handbook and the Orientation Meeting for new faculty are part of this initiative.
Periodically, the Equity Advisors will forward to faculty references of literature that they find may help to achieve
the goals mentioned above. In the Appendix of this Handbook is one article that we find especially helpful. It is
entitled "Collegial Advice for Assistant Professors" by Evelyn M. Silvia, a professor at UC Davis. It covers all the
relevant aspects of the process of advancement at a UC campus, including research, teaching, service, record
keeping etc.
          The School of Social Sciences is also committed to circulating information on grants and funding
opportunities. Periodically, all faculty receive email communications from Robin Baldauf (Contracts and Grants)
with fellowship and funding announcements.

         Assistant professors should note that one of the opportunities available to them is the Faculty Career
Development Award. These awards are given annually on a competitive basis to eligible tenure track faculty and
consist either of a course release or research funds. Deadlines for applications are announced each Fall. More
information is available at:

       The ADVANCE webpage ( is also an important source of information.                    In the
Appendix of this Handbook there is a list of readings posted on this webpage.

         2. Mentoring

          The goal is to enable faculty to go through tenure, promotion to professor, and promotion to professor 6 in
a timely manner. To this end, the Equity Advisors are initiating a mentoring program in consultation with
department chairs. This program aims at providing two mentors to all assistant professors and all other interested
faculty. One mentor should be from the faculty's department and one from another department. The mentors will
meet periodically with the individual faculty to assist in strategizing for their promotion, to address questions related
to the preparation of review files, and to discuss any other topic of interest. The idea is that the mentors become a
significant source of reference and information for the faculty.

         3. Workshops

         The School of Social Science is planning to hold a series of workshops to assist faculty in crucial areas of
research and teaching. These workshops should be flexible and may be created any time there is a demand/need.
Two workshops are planned for the 2004-2005 academic year:
         - Grant writing and researching for suitable grants
         - Teaching

IV. Resources – Research

    A. School Level
    At the School of Social Sciences, faculty have access to the following resources:

    Research & Travel funds (R&T funds).

           These funds are administered by the head of the School's Executive Committee. The current Faculty Chair
is Professor Mark Petracca from the Department of Political Science (
           Funds are available to support individual faculty research efforts. These funds are allocated to the School of
Social Sciences from COLCLR, the Academic Council on Research, Computing and Library Resources. Our policy
is to allot funds inversely related to faculty rank, so that Assistant Professors receive more than Full Professors. The
availability of R&T funds varies from year to year. In the past, Assistant professors have been able to draw around
$1000 per year, Associate professors around
$750 per year, and Full professors around $500 per year. Special requests for funds above the nominal allotments
will be considered.
           In the past, the most common use for these funds has been to pay for travel and lodging expenses incurred
in presenting research at professional meetings. (Please note that we do not pay for travel to attend a meeting
without making a presentation.) However, there are other admissible uses for Research and Travel Funds. For
example, funds may be used to pay for trips to conduct research activities of practically any sort (e.g., visits to
archives, conducting experiments, etc.). They can also be used to purchase special purpose hardward and/or software
necessary for your research.
       Requests for Research and Travel funds, with an appropriate justification for such, should
be addressed to the Faculty Chair for the School of Social Sciences.

         Assistance from Contract and Grants analysts:

         Please note that individual departments may have their own sources of funds and assistance.

    B. Campus level:

         Research and Graduate Studies (RGS)

        The webpage of RGS is: It contains information about:
funding resources, integrity in research, conference support, conflict of interest, research protection, etc.

    Integrity in Research:

     Funding Resources: This link will direct faculty to intramural and
extramural funding sources.
        Intramural Funding includes links to: Bridge Funding; Conference & Workshop Support; Council on
Research, Computing and Library Resources; School Research Committees' Funding; Multi-Investigator Faculty
Research Grants; Single Investigator Innovation Grants; Cultural Diversity Studies Faculty Research Grants.
        It also contains links to the Faculty Career Development Awards announcement, to the Faculty Desktop
Computing Initiative, to UC Funding, and to Research Units.
        Extramural Funding includes links to: Funding Agencies; Forms and Deadlines for UCI's Most Used
Funding Sources; Limited Submissions; NSF Custom News Service; NSF Proposal Preparation.

     RGS provides the service Fundopp. Faculty can subscribe to this list to receive funding opportunities by e-mail
or search the archive.
     RGS also offers grant proposal editing service

    Institutional Review Board (IRB)

         Federal regulations require that all proposed human research studies undergo review by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB). The IRB is responsible for reviewing all human subjects research and ensuring compliance
with federal regulations. The primary role of the IRB is to protect the safety and welfare of human subjects.

         Specifically, the IRB must assure that:

  * risks to subjects are minimized;
  * risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits;
  * selection of subjects is equitable;
  * informed consent is sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative;
  * informed consent is appropriately documented;
  * adequate provisions for monitoring data collection are in place to ensure the safety of subjects; and
  * when appropriate, adequate provisions are in place to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the
confidentiality of data.
    See more details at:

         There are three IRB committees at UCI: two review biomedical research and the third reviews
social/behavioral research. Each committee is composed of scientists, non-scientists, and community members with
varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of human subjects research conducted at UCI.

          All the information about how to submit protocols, as well as the required forms and mandatory tutorials
are online.
          The "How to Submit Protocols to the IRB" is at:
It provides information on the three levels of review (Exempt, Expedited, and Full Committee Review) as well as
links to definitions, forms, and tutorials. .

    The librarians will assist faculty in their researches. The list of librarians by field of specialization is found
above in this Handbook. They have prepared the following guidelines to assist new faculty:

[Anthropology & Sociology Research Librarian]

 How to Initiate Library Relations? Please go to the Library Loan desk, in person (at least once) to activate your UCI
ID, which becomes your library card. This can be done anytime, when you are ready to check out materials.
Establish a pin (4-digit password) via ANTPAC. The PIN is critical for accessing remote Library services, for

    o    renew or recall books online via ANTPAC;
    o    view your account of books checked out and
    o    to do express checkout

What Library Services support Faculty Teaching and Research?

Document Delivery Services Establish document delivery service to receive and schedule pickups of library
materials from your office. See the DDS FAQ brochure,

Course Reserves Select course-related (additional) readings in print and electronic formats, to place on reserve. The
materials include books; journal or newspaper articles; book chapters; and lecture notes. The Multimedia Resource
Center houses videos and multimedia reserves. For more information, visit:

Remote Access Services to the Library Activate your UCInetID. Faculty are pre-assigned a UCInetID after
they are given an Employee ID and entered into the Payroll Personnel System. The UCInetID gives access to e-mail,
EEE, the modem pool, library services, NACS computer labs, and many other electronic services on campus.
Configure your home computer browser to access all Library resources remotely – Questions/Problems? You can
also call 949-824-2222.

Carefully navigate the UCI Libraries web page to find resources in your discipline(s) of interest

Access Social Science databases to find journal articles and other resources,

Consult Subject guides which are skillfully prepared to support your library research needs.

Contact the Reference desk for personalized assistance; via phone, 824-4976 Email OR Chat. See,

Books, Videos, Dissertations. Loans & Interlibrary Loans
General Loan period for Library books for 365 days with renewals at anytime.

Set up and manage MY ANTPAC to monitor your checked out materials, including remote access. See the website
for more information,

Request interlibrary loan for materials sources that UCI does not own. These are supplied from other UC Libraries,
nationwide and international. See ILL FAQ’s,
For your DATA needs, see,
Contact Dan Tsang, data librarian, at OR fill out the form found at the above webpage, under
“requesting data.”
Contact the Multimedia Resources for all your video and non-print media needs, call (949) 824-7072 or see,

How Do Faculty Actively Contribute to the Library?
Contact the subject bibliographer in your field; see the Social Science list of Librarian specialists,
Suggest books, journals and videos to add to the UCI Libraries collection in your research and teaching areas
Request a Library Instruction session or tutorial for classes they teach. For additional information, contact your
subject librarian
Donate books to the Library; find out more about giving to the UCI Libraries,
Learn more about UC-system wide e-scholarship collaboration

IV. Resources – Teaching
     A. School Level
          TA (teaching assistant) allocation. Each quarter, she will distribute forms that faculty should use to
request TAs. She will also notify faculty about the allocations.
          When a class does not qualify for having a TA, it may qualify for having a Reader. The allocation of
readers is done by the office of the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies. Faculty should fill out a form
available at this office to apply to readers.
     B. Campus level:
     Instructional Resources Center
          As mentioned above, information on classroom support services, teaching enhancement services,
instructional technology, programs, workshops, etc is available at:
     IRC also makes available online a Teaching Resource Guide. It is found at: This
is a very detailed guide that provides information on: UCI Student Profile; Learning to Teach; Designing Courses
for Student Learning; Course Formats; Assignments, Syllabus, etc. What Does Good Teaching Look Like?; Using

Technology as an Instructional Resource; Grading; Giving Feedback: What Students Need to Know; Diversity: In
the Classroom and Campus Policies; Academic Dishonesty; Sexual Harassment; and more.
Additional information is found at the Electronic Educational Environment (EEE) website at:
     Relevant information is also provided in the Orientation Package that IRC and EEE prepared for new faculty
and that accompanies this Handbook.
1. CAP's Frequently Asked Questions and Responses
2. CAP's Notes on CAP's Evaluation Procedures
3. Addendum to the Biography (Form AP-101)
4. Article "Collegial Advice for Assistant Professors," by Evelyn M. Silvia
5. Titles of Readings posted at the ADVANCE webpage.


1. Handbook Advancement and Promotion at Irvine – 2003
2. EEE/IRC New Faculty Orientation Package

Panel Mentoring

In an effort to strengthen career development of assistant professors at the
individual school level, we have attempted to institute a program of “Strategic
Planning”. A small group of senior faculty meets every six months with each
assistant professor. Before each meeting, assistant professors are asked to
complete a set of goals in the areas of research, teaching and service, including
both short-term (6 months) and long-term (1-2 years) goals in each area. These
lists of goals form the basis for a half-hour meeting with a committee of senior
faculty (3-4). In order to relieve anxiety, assistant professors are reminded at each
meeting that the purpose is to assist them, that no records are kept, and the agenda
is theirs. Assistant professors are encouraged to focus their efforts and can be
reminded of institutional resources available to them. They are also encouraged to
seek further mentorship where appropriate. These meetings make it possible for
assistant professors to obtain independent advice, from senior faculty who are
familiar with University processes as well as the national research environment.
Some of the schools, thus far, have formed the senior faculty panel within the
department of the assistant professors, while other schools have developed school-
wide panels. In either case, the early feedback thus far, has been positive, even
though the assistant professors going into the review have had some doubts. In one
case the individual stated post review that it was “time well spent.” This is also an
opportunity for very busy young faculty to pause and assess their progress on a
regular basis, as well as set appropriate goals.

The College of Medicine has reviewed 12 professors in the last one and a half
years with generally positive feedback. The School of Information & Computer
Sciences has held strategic planning panels twice in the last year also with positive
feedback from the assistant professors involved. In fact, each of the faculty that
was mentored has asked to continue with this type of counseling.

Various Other Forms of Mentoring

Some of the schools on campus after consulting with their faculty have modified
the Strategic Planning Program to better suit their perceived needs. The School of
Biological Sciences has had departmental panels in two of the four departments in
lieu of using a panel that represents the entire school. At a recent luncheon for the
junior women faculty of the School of Biological Sciences, they were
enthusiastically asking for the panels to continue for those that had them and those
that did not were asking for them to be implemented. Certainly a positive sign that
they were providing the support and guidance that they were intended to have. The
Graduate School of Management will institute the panel with three tenured faculty
to meet the junior faculty this fall and spring quarters. In the School of
Engineering, each departmental chair has planned to institute panels within their
departments for the assistant professors starting this fall quarter. In the School of
Social Ecology meetings were held with 6 assistant professors participating and 7
senior faculty on the various panels. Panel members were given questions to
consider that would help prepare for the meetings.

Most of the schools are also utilizing the individual mentoring of faculty, some by
providing an intra-department mentor and one extra-department mentor. In the
School of Humanities, a field specific mentor or Chair of the department has been
assigned to each assistant professor and networking receptions were held for both
mentors and mentees with a very good turnout. In the School of Physical Sciences,
all assistant professors are assigned a mentor that they meet with once in 4 weeks,
entailing a mix of formal and informal advising. In the School of Arts, the Equity
Advisor has taken on the job of advising both junior and senior women faculty.

The Advance Program intends to investigate the usefulness of each of these types
of mentoring programs this spring by obtaining feedback surveys from all assistant
professors including the faculty that went through any of these mentoring
processes. The feedback should contain information about how well the program
responded to their needs and also the comfort level of the participants. We will also
follow promotional records and faculty separations, for faculty that did and did not
participate, to evaluate the success of the program.

Retention of Women Faculty across the Campus:

Women assistant professors who are reviewed by the Council for Academic
Personnel are as likely as men assistant professors to achieve tenure. In the last
three years, (from 2001-2004) 92% of the women who have undergone review
were promoted to associate professor, while the men are at 86%. While these
figures only speak to those individuals who have gone through the review process,

it does not address the issue of resigning the position prior to the tenure review. It
is therefore, very important that we address the number of men and women leaving
the institution as assistant professors.

In 2001-2002, 3 out of the 10 women faculty that left were assistant professors,
while only 3 of the 22 men who left were assistants. In 2002-2003 the number of
women assistant professors who left was 5 out of 8, while the men assistant
professors were 5 out of 15. Clearly, it was a cause for concern that a number of
men and women were leaving prior to undergoing tenure review and the question
was why. Certainly, the percentage of women assistants leaving was high, 30% and
63% respectively in those two years. This past academic year, 2003-2004 has seen
a reversal of those figures in that no woman assistant professor left the university
and only 3 men assistants.

Clearly, it is important that we assess the Advance Program’s mentoring structure
that we have attempted to put in place and analyze whether it is a significant
component to retain and promote the faculty that have been recruited at the
assistant professor level. It is also important that we examine the advancement of
women following the tenure process. At the present time, our internal assessors are
acquiring the data from Academic Personnel on all promotions throughout the
university divided by school, department and gender. Our goal is to ascertain the
faculty promotional profiles and how they may differ by certain factors such as
gender or discipline.

                          Gender Equity Indicators

Data Base Development – Survey of faculty and chairs

Our data base for the UCI Advance Program started with a Faculty Survey
completed and analyzed in 2002. Our second survey has recently been taken off
the server and is being analyzed by our social science consultants. They will
attempt to measure differences in a number of measures between the first survey
and the second one. Specifically, we will attend closely to the possible effects that
the Advance Program may have had on individual faculty. Several questions
directly addressed this issue. More generally, we will monitor the climate issues of
discrimination and also perceived inequities in the area of service and teaching
duties. The following is a sample of the survey used:

                                   General Faculty Survey for 2004


As a component of the NSF Advance Program on gender equity at UC Irvine, we are, for the
second time, soliciting information from all Academic Senate faculty members. This longitudinal
study will be followed up one more time after this. We ask that you, as an Academic Senate
Faculty member, complete this survey whether or not you completed the first survey. All
information provided by you will be held in strict confidence. Please answer the questions as
accurately as possible. Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may refuse to answer any
question or terminate your participation at any time.
Thank you.

Please note that the following questions refer to the period between JANUARY 2003 and the
present (the time period since the last survey). Please use this time frame when answering
the following questions.

1. Did you respond to the 2002-2003 NSF Advance Survey?

        Yes           No


In the time period since January 2003, how satisfied or unsatisfied have you been with each of the
following aspects of your employment at UC Irvine?

                                                 very             somewhat      somewhat
                                              very         don't
2. Departmental Support                       dissatisfied                   dissatisfied
                                                          satisfied          satisfied      know

a.      Support from colleagues

b.      Accessibility of department Chair

c. Feedback on your research, publication
   record, and/or teaching record
d.      Available equipment

e.      Available space

f.      Finding qualified Research
g.      Opportunities to teach courses of
your choice

3. Workload                                    very             somewhat      somewhat
                                            very          don't
                                            dissatisfied                   dissatisfied
                                                        satisfied          satisfied      know

a.      Managing your teaching load

b.     Serving on Departmental
c.     Serving on School committees

d.      Serving on University committees

e.      Advising graduate students

f.      Time available for your research

4. Work-family Issues                          very             somewhat      somewhat
                                            very         don't
                                            dissatisfied                   dissatisfied
                                                        satisfied          satisfied      know

a.      Balancing family obligations with
work    responsibilities
b.      Access to child care facilities

5. General Satisfaction                        very             somewhat      somewhat
                                            very         don't
                                            dissatisfied                   dissatisfied
                                                        satisfied          satisfied      know

a.      Job security

b.      Salary

c.     Spouse or partner employment
opportunities in geographic     area
d.     Your job at UC Irvine, generally

If you would like to add any additional comments about your job satisfaction at UCI,
please do so in the space below


6. Between January 2003 and the present, have you been provided with:

                                                                     YES                         NO
                                                                     not applicable

a.      Course release supplied by your department

b.      Committee relief from your department

c. Support for research or travel from your department or
d.     Extra space beyond the norm for your department

e.      Summer salary

If you would like to add any additional comments about the support you have received,
please do so in the space below.


In a typical week when school was in session (between January 2003 and the present), approximately how
many hours were you engaged in the following teaching activities (write the number of hours per week on
the line provided)? Also, please indicate whether you think this number is greater than, less than, or
about the same, compared to the time you spent in previous years.

7. Teaching Undergraduate Students (including teaching, grading papers, preparing lectures, developing

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number       greater than          about the same
is:                                        less than

8. Teaching Graduate Students (including teaching, grading papers, preparing lectures, developing

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number       greater than          about the same
is:                                        less than

In a typical week when school was in session (January 2003 – the present), approximately how many
hours did you spend engaged in the following supervising activities (write the number of hours per week
on the line provided)?

9. Supervising Undergraduate Students (include independent studies and paid students)

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number       greater than          about the same
is:                                        less than

10. Supervising Graduate Students (include independent studies and paid students)

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number      greater than         about the same
is:                                       less than

In a typical week when school was in session (January 2003- the present), approximately how many hours
did you spend engaged in committee service?

11. Departmental Service

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number      greater than         about the same
is:                                       less than

12. School Service

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number      greater than         about the same
is:                                       less than

13. University Service

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number      greater than         about the same
is:                                       less than

14. Service to your discipline

_________ hours per week

Compared to previous years, this number      greater than         about the same
is:                                       less than

If you would like to add any additional comments about your workload, please do so in
the space below.


15. Think about the scholarly articles you have published (or have been accepted for publication) since
January 2003 (include both sole-authored and co-authored articles). How many of these articles are, or will
be, published in…?
(write the number on line provided).

                                                             Number of articles

a. What you consider to be the top journal in your field     ______

b. What you consider to be the top three journals in your    ______

c. All scholarly journals                                    ______

16. Think about the scholarly books you have published (or have been accepted for publication). Not
including textbooks and edited volumes, how many books have you published …?
(write the number on line provided).

                                                             Number of books

Since January 2003                                           ______

If you would like to add any additional comments about your
publication record, please do so in the space below.


17. Have you received funding from any of the following sources since January 2003?

                                                                 YES                     NO

a.      UC Irvine

b.      Foundation or other nonprofit organization

c. For-profit business or industry in the private sector

d.      State or local government

e.      Federal government

f.       Other funding source (please list)

18. What is the total number of grant/contract dollars you received from all sources since January 2003?
Please write the number in the box below.


19. Please list the number of patents, computer software, creative works, or other such contributions you
have made since January 2003. Please write the number in the box below.

Outside Academic Activities

20.    How many invitations for off-campus lectures, panels or symposia have you received since
January 2003? _________________

21.       How many of these did you participate in since January 2003? __________________

Outside offers

22. Since January 2003, have you applied for one or more position(s) at another college or university?

YES       NO

23. If yes, were any of these applications the result of someone at another college or university asking you
to apply?



24. If at least one of these applications was the result of an invitation to apply, did you bring any of the
invitations to the attention of the Chairperson of your department?




25. Did you receive an offer as a result of any application you made for a position at another college or




26. Did you inform the Chairperson of your department about any offer you received?





27. Since January 2003, how many persons usually lived in your household including yourself? (write
number in the space below)


28. Please list the number of children living in your household, in each age category:

age              Number of children
5 or             _______________
6 to 12          _______________
13 to 17         _______________
18 or older      _______________

29. Are you currently living with a spouse or partner?

YES        NO

30. In the period between January 2003 and now, was your spouse or partner usually employed?

                  Yes, full-time
                  Yes, part-time
                  No, he/she is unemployed
                  No, he/she is not employed outside the household
                  Not applicable

31. Please indicate the approximate percentage of childcare duties you are responsible for:


 not applicable

32. Please indicate the approximate percentage of household duties (e.g. cooking, yard work, cleaning,
household repairs, shopping) you perform:

 not applicable

Since January 2003, approximately how many times, if ever, have you experienced any of the
following behavior from (a) students, (b) faculty, and/or (c) staff? By "students," we mean either
your own students or other students you have encountered on campus. Please count multiple
incidents involving the same person as separate incidents. Check the box that applies.

33.      Questions or disparaging remarks about your qualifications

                                  never         1-2 times          3-4 times   5 times or more

From STAFF >

34.      Inappropriate references to your personal life or appearance

                                  never         1-2 times          3-4 times   5 times or more

From STAFF >

35.      Overbearing, intimidating, or offensive verbal behavior

                                never           1-2 times          3-4 times    5 times or more

From STAFF >

36. Verbal or Physical intimidation

                                  never         1-2 times          3-4 times   5 times or more

from FACULTY >
from STAFF >

37. Any other type of harassment or assault

                                  never         1-2 times          3-4 times   5 times or more

from FACULTY >
from STAFF >

If ever, please list the types: _________________________________________________

If you would like to add any additional comments about your department, please do so in
the space below.


Since January 2003, how often were you:

38. Asked to take on additional responsibilities (e.g., teaching in place of absent colleagues, transporting
job candidates, proctoring others' exams)

                                              never            1-2 times       3-4 times 5 times or more

39. Excluded from key processes (e.g., policymaking or decision-making meetings or committees)

                                              never            1-2 times       3-4 times 5 times or more

40. Discouraged from participation at meetings (e.g., by ignoring, interrupting, being critical)

                                              never            1-2 times       3-4 times 5 times or more

During processes involving hiring, reappointment, tenure, or promotion in your department, have
you noted any of the following behaviors on the part of colleagues referring to an individual
under consideration? Please indicate whether any observed behaviors were based on the
GENDER or RACE/ETHNICITY of the individual under consideration.

                                              never            1-2 times       3-4 times 5 times or more
41. Inappropriate references to one's
  personal life or appearance


If you would like to add any additional comments about these issues, please do so in the
space below.


42. For the 2003 calendar year, please estimate your yearly gross income before taxes from
sources outside UCI (e.g. Employment at another academic institution, Speaking fees, Self-owned
business, Legal or medical services or psychological counseling, Outside consulting, Royalties or


43. Overall, do you think that women faculty at UCI have the same opportunities as male UCI

44. In your opinion, how high or low a priority should gender equity be at UCI?
  very high
  somewhat high
  somewhat low
  very low

45. How much contact have you had with the equity advisors in your School?
  weekly contact
  1-3 times per month
  about once per quarter
  I have not had any contact with my School's Equity Advisors

46. In general, how familiar would you say you are with the aims and goals of the NSF Advance
  very familiar
  somewhat familiar
  not very familiar
  not familiar at all

If you would like to comment on any of the issues addressed by this survey, please use the space below.

This concludes the survey. If you feel that you should contact someone about the issues raised by this
survey, you may contact the UCI Ombudsman (; 824-7256), or the NSF Equity
Advisor for your school (see
Thank you for your participation.
End of the 2004 Faculty Survey

Aside from the subjective reporting of teaching responsibilities addressed within
these surveys, our social science consultants have just begun an audit of all tenure-
track faculty teaching loads. This assessment will examine each individual faculty
member and analyze the number of courses, the type of courses, the number of
students enrolled and the number of credits given. The goal of this assessment is to
examine whether or not there is a gender disparity on any of these variables. Are
women teaching more undergraduates, larger classes, etc.? We look forward to
reporting and disseminating the results across the campus and to all the Advance

Part of our data base has been obtained by surveying the Chairs for their objective
and subjective views on a number of topics. The first Chairs’ survey was
completed for the academic year 2001- 2002, and we have just completed the
analysis of the second Chairs’ survey for the academic year 2002-2003. The
following is a brief report of the findings:


The overall response rate for the 2003 “Chairs’ List,” is 56% (41 of 73 Chairs/Directors
responded). The response rate by school is listed in Table 1.

Table 1: 2003 Response Rate for Chairs’ List by School

School        No. of Departments         No. Completed        Percent Completed
Medicine             26         10                             38
Social Sciences       8         5                              63
Social Ecology        4         3                              75
Humanities           14         7                              50
Arts                  4         4                             100
Biological Sciences 4           2                              50
Physical Sciences 4             3                              75
Engineering           5         2                              40
Management            1         1                             100
Computer Science 2              2                             100
Education             1         1                             100
Total                73        41                              56

The average responding department had a male chair (75%), (one department had
male and female co-chairs), a mean of 11.5 male faculty members and 3.9 female
faculty members. As expected, women are not distributed equally throughout the
responding departments. Twelve departments (29%) had a low percentage of female
faculty members (less than 20% female faculty), 19 departments (46%) had a moderate
percentage of female faculty (between 20% and 39% female faculty), and 10
departments (24%) had more than 40% female faculty members. The average
department granted 14.6 course releases in 2002-2003, which were spread over an

average of 8.6 faculty members per department. The average department teaching
course load was 4.1. Table 2 below displays the distribution of campus (excluding
College of Medicine) departments by teaching load.

Table 2: Distribution of Teaching Loads
Number of Courses Taught per year per Number of Departments
                1                  0
                 1                 2
                4                  3
                7                  4
                3                  4.5
                9                  5
                1                  6

The Gender Balance of Departments and the Departmental Environment

First, we examine how the balance of male and female faculty members in a
department and the gender of the chair impact the department. We consider the
teaching load (and its composition), the distribution of course releases and nominations
for awards. Because the College of Medicine is physically separated from the main
campus, and because the nature of the experiences there differs substantially from the
departments on campus, we present findings for the total sample (including the College
of Medicine) and for the departments of the main campus only (excluding the College of
Medicine). Below are ordinal level correlation coefficients (Spearman Correlations) for
each of these measures (percent female faculty members and gender of the chair) by
several outcome measures (graduate teaching load, undergraduate teaching load, total
teaching load, faculty with course releases, number of course releases, number of
nominees for awards, number of awards, number of hires, and percent of hires that are

Table 3: Spearman Correlations for Percent Female Faculty in a Department and
Gender of the Chair by Various Outcome Variables, Presented for Total Sample
and Main Campus Only
                  Percent Female Faculty         Gender of Chair
                                                (Male=1; Female=2)
Variable       Total Sample     Main Campus       Total Sample     Main
No. Grad
Classes        .262 (28)       .166    (20) .190     (28)    .035    (20)
Undergrad      .776** (25)     .747** (19) .563** (25)       .530* (19)

Total Classes    .787** (34)     .711**    (26)    .412*      (34)   .320   (26)
No. Faculty
with Course
Releases         .206   (36)     -.213     (29)   .353*       (36)   .221   (29)
No. of Course

Releases           .302+ (36)        -.057     (29)     .366*   (36)   .239   (29)
No. of
Nominations       -.284+ (41)        -.342     (31)     -.006   (41)   .020   (31)

No. of Awards     -.284+ (41)        -.342     ( 31)    -.006   (41)   .020   (31)

No. of Hires       -.138 (41)         -.293      (31)   .108    (41)   .103   (31)
Percent of
Female Hires        .049 (25)          .144      (21)   .035    (25)   .136   (21)
Participation       .178 (41)          .155      (31)   .181    (41)   .236   (31)
in Post Doc
       significant at the .1 level (two-tailed)
    * significant at the .5 level (two-tailed)
    ** significant at the .01 level (two-tailed)

These correlations reveal several significant differences in outcome variables by the
gender of the chair: the number of undergraduate classes (faculty members in
departments with female chairs teach more undergraduate courses), total course load
(faculty members in departments with female chairs teach more courses overall), the
number of faculty with course releases (departments with female chairs have more
faculty with course releases), and the number of course releases (departments with
female chairs have more course releases). There are also considerable differences by
percent female faculty members in departments. The higher the proportion of female
faculty in a department, the higher its undergraduate course load and the higher it’s
overall teaching load. Departments with a higher percentage of female faculty members
are more likely to have more course releases. And finally, departments with higher
percentages female faculty members nominate less faculty members for awards and
receive fewer awards.

These correlations differ somewhat from those reported for last academic year. These
differences may be due to real changes or to variations in the two samples. Sixteen of
the 2002/2003 reporting departments didn’t report for 2001/2002, and 12 departments
that responded in 2001/2002 failed to report in 2002/2003. We have 22 departments
that responded to both requests. To determine if actual change occurred, we also
compare 2001/2002 responses to 2002/2003 for those main campus departments that
responded to both requests. This procedure substantially reduces our sample size
considerably, and therefore does not represent the main analysis, but is reported as
additional evidence regarding change in patterns

The 2002/2003 correlations for course loads are significantly higher for both dependent
variables than are those for 2001/2002. When restricting analysis to only those campus
departments that participated in both surveys, we find a less drastic change: the
correlation between percent female and total classes is .602 for 2002/2003. This
indicates no significant change over the year. The difference is mainly due to the
different mix of departments that responded in the two years.

For 2001/2002, some of the correlations for number of hires were significant, whereas
this year, none is significant. When running correlations for only those departments that
were part of the earlier sample, we find, consistent with last year’s finding, a significant
positive correlation between chair’s gender and the number of new hires. This indicates
no change over the year.

Finally, the 2001/2002 correlation between percent female faculty and percent female
hires disappears this year, and similarly disappears when using only those departments
that answered both surveys (correlation for 2002/2003 = .096). This evidence suggests
a real change: the gender ratio of departments did not influence the gender ratio of hires
as much as it did last year.

Next, we move back to analyzing the 2003/2004 sample. In an attempt to arrive at a
more realistic estimate of teaching load, we factor teaching load, taking into account the
number of male and female course releases. We compute “male effective teaching
load” as ((department teaching load * number of male faculty)-number of male course
releases)/number of male faculty. This figure reveals the average number of courses
per male faculty member in each department. Likewise, we compute “female effective
teaching load” as ((department teaching load * number of female faculty)-number of
female course releases)/number of female faculty. Next, we compare effective teaching
loads for (main campus) departments with low, medium and high percent female faculty.

Table 4: Effective Teaching Loads for Male and Female Faculty Members by
Percent Female Faculty in the Department
                     Effective teaching   Effective Teaching Load

Percent Female Faculty      Load          Male Faculty         Female Faculty

Low (below 20%)             2.83 ( 6)     2.18 ( 6)            2.43 ( 5)
Medium (20% to 39%)         4.21 (13)     3.72 (12)            3.52 (12)
High (40% or above)         4.93 ( 7)     3.05 ( 6)            3.66 ( 7)

Total                       4.09 (26)     3.17 (24)            3.34 (24)

As shown in Table 4, female faculty members have a slightly higher effective teaching
load (3.34 vs. 3.17), but more importantly, the percent female faculty members in the
department significantly impacts both male and female course loads. Although the
pattern is not completely linear, males in departments with a high percent of female
faculty members have an effective teaching course load that is about 45% higher than
males in departments with a low percent female faculty members. Likewise, females in
departments with a high percent of female faculty members have effective teaching
loads about 38% higher than females in departments with a low percent female faculty.
This finding demonstrates an important correlate of gender segregation in departments.

The Distribution of Perks and Departmental Support How did male and female
faculty members fare in terms of perks and support from the campus departments? We
have a few measures that address this issue: course releases, retention efforts, and

nominations for awards. On average, chairs granted 33% of their female faculty
members and 48% of their male faculty members course releases in 2002/2003. This
represents a drop in the number of course releases going to female faculty over last
year. When restricting the analysis to those departments that participated in both
surveys, we find that this change appears here too: the average department granted
38% of the female faculty and 56% of its male faculty course release in 2002/2003.
Retention cases were rare: campus-wide, only 12 male and 7 female faculty members
were involved in retention cases (this rate is almost twice as large as last year’s rate).
This represents 4% of all female and 3% of all male faculty members in the sample.
Female faculty members were slightly more likely to be nominated for awards (14% of
female faculty and 12% of male faculty member were nominated for awards) and less
likely to win awards than their male counterparts (7% of female and 14 percent of male
faculty members won awards). These particular measures of support reveal a fairly
equitable environment.

When we look at movement up the UC step system, we see some differences in the
patterns of men and women. Although there is not much difference in the support from
their departments, men tend to self promote more often. Our measure of this issue is
how faculty members advance throughout their careers, and who initiates job actions.
With department level data, we can assess self-proposed vs. department proposed
accelerations and promotions. When comparing men and women on this dimension, it
is important to keep in mind the possible gender differences in career stages. This is
especially true for promotions. If the average male faculty member was hired earlier
than the average female faculty member, then the timing for promotions may account
for any differences we observe. The same is not true of accelerations (unless we were
to argue that accelerations are more likely at later stages of one’s career). What do
self-proposed job actions reflect? The UC has a step system that requires periodic
review. When a faculty member is up for review, the department must recommend an
action (movement to the next step, acceleration to a step above the next step, or no
action). Promotions have normal timelines, but departments and individual faculty
members may propose early movement up the steps and early promotion. We can
assume that most department-proposed promotions are on the regular timeline, and
that self proposed promotions are requests for early promotions. Some department
proposed promotions may recognize exceptional merit with a request for early
promotion. But all self proposed promotions reflect individual faculty members’ initiative
regarding merit not recognized by the department (if the department recognized the
exceptional merit, it would have initiated the promotion). So what do we find? Table 5
shows the percent of male and female faculty members with department-proposed and
self-proposed accelerations and promotions in 2002/2003.
Table 5: Percent Female and Male Department-Proposed and Self-Proposed
                     % Female Faculty        % Male Faculty
                      Self       Dept           Self       Dept
                      Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
No Action              2.1% (3)     - (0)                 .2% (1)
Promotion              6.3% (9)                          3.3%
                                   6.4%(9) 1.7%(7) (13)
Acceleration           3.5% (5)                 2% (8) 3.5%
                                   2.1%(3)              (14)

We find that in 2002/2003, there were very few no actions for male and female faculty
members. Departments proposed promotions for 6.4% of all female faculty members
and only 3.3% of all male faculty members. Self proposed promotions were more likely
to come from female faculty members (6.3% for females vs. 1.7% for males). Whereas
last academic year, male faculty members were more likely to self-promote, during
2002/2003, female faculty members were more aggressive in seeking promotions.
There is no overall gender difference in accelerations this year. While female faculty
members were more likely to propose accelerations than male faculty members,
departments were more likely to propose male faculty for acceleration. The number of
overall proposed accelerations is approximately equal. Although we don’t have
information on which cases were approved, we do know that all of the proposed cases
were brought to a department vote. Departments voted in favor of 95% of the female
promotion cases, and 87% of the male promotion cases.

When we consider only departments that participated in both surveys, we find that the
differences are smaller than reported above. This indicates that the differences are
partially accounted for by the different mix of responding departments and partially
explained by real change. For female faculty, the patterns among the departments
answering both surveys for last year and this year are very similar. For male faculty,
they are considerably different: in 2001/2001 11.3% of male faculty self proposed
promotion and 5.4% self proposed acceleration, in 2002/2003, the percents are 7% and
3% respectively. In 2001/2001, departments proposed promotions for 10% of male
faculty and accelerations for 6%; in 2002/2003 the percents are 5% and 8%. Overall,
the change since last year can be characterized as: more female self proposed actions
and fewer male proposed actions; and more department proposed female promotions
and fewer department proposed male promotions. Since the latter was balanced in the
opposite direction last year, it is likely that it is due to the timing of the UC step system,
rather that any difference in departmental treatment of male and female faculty
members (in other words, the two-year total percent male and female faculty members
that were reviewed for promotions and accelerations was approximately the same
(51.^% of female faculty and 55% of male faculty)). This leaves us with the one
probable real change: female faculty have been more aggressive with self proposed

The Quality of New Hires.
The UCI administration tends to be particularly responsive to one indication of the
quality of new hires: the extent to which proposed hires are sought after by other
institutions. Of the 49 new hires reported in the Chairs’ list, 47% of them were female.
Male and female hires do not differ significantly on the proportion that have other offers:
half of all male hires (50%) and 56% of female hires had other offers. This is very
similar to what we found last year.

The Pipeline.
Are departments recruiting female graduate students at different rates? Although the
pool of potential female candidates most likely differs by department, we can calculate
the average proportion of male and female applicants admitted to each department (this
measure controls for the size of the applicant pool). Traditionally, women have been

better represented in the Arts, Humanities and the Social Sciences. How are the
departments in UCI’s various schools doing in recruiting female graduate students?
Table 6 shows the averages by school, and Table 7 shows the averages by percent
female faculty.

Table 6: Mean Percentage of Male and Female Candidates Admitted to Graduate
Programs by School
                         Percent Female           Percent Male
School                   Candidates Admitted      Candidates Admitted
Arts                      .17 ( 4)                  .23 ( 4)
Biological Sciences       .42 ( 1)                  .44 ( 1)
College of Medicine       .31 ( 5)                  .25 ( 5)
Graduate School of
Management                .14 ( 1)                  .17 ( 1)
Humanities                .34 ( 5)                  .29 ( 5)
Information and
Computer Science          .11 ( 1)                  .11 ( 1)
Social Ecology            .64 ( 2)                  .62 ( 2)
Social Science            .26 ( 4)                  .39 ( 4)
Physical Sciences         .26 ( 4)                  .26 ( 4)
Total                     .30 (28)                  .30 (28)
*Numbers in parentheses are number of departments responding.

Table 7: Mean Percentage of Male and Female Candidates Admitted to Graduate
Programs by Percent Female Faculty

High or Low Percent        Percent Female             Percent Male
Female Faculty             Candidates Admitted        Candidates Admitted
Less Than 30% Female
Faculty                    .30 (14)                    .28 (14)
30% or More Female
Faculty                    .30 (28)                    .31 (14)

Departments with high and low percent female faculty are not significantly different in
their admission rates of male and female candidates. Last year, we found that
departments tended to admit higher percents of the gender least represented on their
faculty. This years figures moves away from that tendency. Using only those
departments that responded to both surveys, we find that departments with low percent
female faculty admitted an average of 18% of their female applicants and 23% of their
male applicants. Departments with a high percent of female faculty admitted an
average of 30% of their female applicants and 37% of their male applicants. So
whereas highly female departments admitted a slightly higher percentage of male
applicants, highly male departments admitted a slightly higher percentage of male
applicants this year.

This data has allowed us to examine some department level and campus level
phenomena. At the campus level, we find gender differences in course loads

(departments with a higher percentage of female faculty members have higher teaching
loads), course releases (female faculty were more likely to receive course releases) and
receiving awards (women were less likely to win them), and no differences in retention
cases and departments’ inclination to forward faculty members for promotion. We find
that an equal percentage of new male and female hires had outside offers, and that
departments admitted equal percentages of male and female candidates to their
graduate programs.

In our attempt to estimate the real or effective teaching load (taking into account course
releases), we find that women still teach slightly more courses, and that both male and
female faculty members in departments with high percentages of female faculty have
significantly higher teaching loads. This is consistent with the findings in the gender and
work literature that find that both men and women suffer negative wage consequences
of sex segregated occupations (occupations that have a higher percentage of female
employees have lower wages for both males and females).

At the department level, we find that the gender of the chair and the percentage of
female faculty both matter for gender equity. The most dramatic finding here is that the
teaching load is higher for departments that have a higher percentage of female faculty
members. We might speculate on the reason for this finding. One might argue that it is
due to the fact that the teaching load tends to be higher in the arts, humanities and the
“soft” sciences, and lower in the hard sciences where faculty members’ research
agenda warrants less teaching. This is in fact the case: the course loads for the schools
in the “hard” sciences are lower: Bioscience (3.4), College of Medicine (1.8),
Management (4), and Computer Science (2) than those in the “softer” fields: Arts (5),
Humanities (5.125), Social Ecology (4.67), and Social Science (4.375). But this begs the
question: why is research in the hard sciences thought to be worthy of a lower teaching
load? This pattern might reflect a resource issue. Do the “hard” sciences have more
resources available to hire lecturers to teach the undergrad courses, which lightens the
load for both male and females in the hard sciences? Or is it an issue of comparable
worth: Are skills that women tend to be better at devalued (in this case, thought to be
amenable to a higher teaching load)?

                              Gender Equity Indicators:
                                 Faculty Interviews

For the past three years Kristen Monroe, an Advance Program Consultant in the
Department of Political Science in the School of Social Sciences has been carrying
out individual women faculty interviews. Her annual report follows.
NSF Advance Interim Report on September 22, 2004: Update of Annual Report originally sent
April 26, 2004.

The following is an update of the interim progress report on the interview part of the UCI NSF
ADVANCE, conducted by the Monroe team. The team initially consisted of 5 trained students
plus Professor Monroe. For financial reasons, the team was cut back to one graduate student
plus Professor Monroe during the year. During the summer of 2004, we needed to hire a variety
of students to complete the interviews, transcribing, editing, and coding of the interviews so four
additional students were hired on part-time basis to work on the project.

Interview sample

We designed a survey questionnaire and obtained IRB approval in the 2002-3 academic year, as
reported in the previous interim report. We initially sent letters to all female members (229) of
the UCI faculty in March 2003. These names were obtained from Dina Jankowski, NSF
ADVANCE, and came from line faculty of the UCI Senate in the fall of 2002. Our letter asked
if the respondents would we willing to be interviewed and, if so, if they would respond to
Professor Monroe. Our letter was sent not from the NSF ADVANCE Office, but from Professor
Monroe and noted that this project was totally separate from the other parts of the NSF
ADVANCE and that no one but members of Professor Monroe’s team would have access to the
data. We believe this was an important reason we have had such a positive response since several
women wrote saying they would not have responded had the inquiry come from the central
administration. We added a note to any women who knew Professor Monroe personally,
suggesting that they were welcome to speak with another member of the Monroe team, if that
would make them more comfortable. Several women took this option; others did not. Protecting
confidentiality and privacy, then, seems critical in our enterprise.

We noted in our initial letter that we would do a follow up letter, since we knew people were
busy, but we were so overwhelmed by responses that we have not yet done so. Approximately
60-70 women said they would be willing to be interviewed. So far we have contacted and
interviewed 44 women. As of April 6, we had completed and transcribed 41 interviews (4
women declined to be interviewed or asked to be used only for “background”). Of these, 27 are
with full professors, 11 with associates, and 7 with assistant professors. (These statistics include
the 4 who decided not to complete the interview. Numbers AFTER we delete the 4 who declined
to be interviewed, the breakdown is 24 full professors, 11 associates, and 6 assistant). Breaking
these 41 (excluding the 4 who declined to be interviewed) by school, we interviewed 3 in the
Arts, 4 in Biological Sciences, 1 in Education, 6 in Humanities, 6 in Medicine, 1 in Physical
Sciences, 7 in Social Ecology, 10 in Social Sciences, and 3 in Management.


With rare exception, each subject was interviewed and the interview taped. Interviews were then
transcribed. Initially we tried to transcribe these ourselves but this became too time intensive and
we decided our efforts were better spent in conducting and analyzing the interviews. So the last
few interviews have been sent to outside agencies for transcription. Many of these require
additional listening to the tapes to make sure the transcription are accurate.

Once transcripts are checked for accuracy, a member of the Monroe team reads through the
interview to delete any extraneous material. Monroe then examines each interview and does a
simple editing, to correct spelling and grammatical mistakes. The minimally edited interview is
then sent to the subject for approval. After the subject receives the interview, she has the
opportunity to delete any material she feels is too personal or to add/clarify her answers. This
subject-edited transcript is then corrected, read by the Monroe team and returned to the subject
for final approval. Only at that point does the interview material begin the analysis part of the
process. One final reading then is done by Monroe to make sure there is no material too personal
to be included in the interview, which the subject later may regret. In a few instances, we have
caught something and asked if the subject had noticed it. (For example, one woman who had
asked to be anonymous had said, “In X [name of her department] we always do ….” We
suggested she might modify that to say, “For example, I know that in X [suggesting that X might
be another department], they do….” While this modifies the data a bit it seems worth it in order

to protect the subject confidentiality.) We realize this takes additional time but we believe it is
important for our own ethical involvement with the project and to make sure those interviewed
are completely comfortable with being involved in the research.

After subjects sign off on the interview, the material is entered into the N-Vivo computer
program for analysis. We have created the following categories (nodes) to detect the different
categories in our questionnaire:
       Socioeconomic/family background,
       relations with the community,
       educational background,
       socialization to gender roles, role models/mentors,
       gender discrimination in the academia,
       perception of self,
       personal life/situation and relation with significant other,
       culture for women at UCI and specific recommendations for the NSF Advance team.

Each of these general categories then has subsets, e.g., under socioeconomic/family background,
we include education, type of institution (public, private, religious, women’s college, etc.). All
the questions on our questionnaire fall into these general categories, although we do not
constrain interviewees and let them talk as they see fit since that process is critical for revealing
the cognitive connections made by various individuals.

We put the interview up on our computer screen, next to the N-Vivo categories. Using N-Vivo,
we then read the transcript on the computer screen, and highlight a passage whenever we find it
is relevant to one of our categories (for example, type of college attended or relations with
parents). We then click on the highlighted passage and insert it into one of the categories noted
above, along with the coders name. We then are left with a category that will include all passages
for all our speakers. For example, we have a category marked “relation with parents”. In this
category, we will have all the quotes that are relevant to this category listed with the speaker
identified. For example:
         “My father encouraged me.” Jane Doe, full professor in biology
         “My father never encouraged me.” Susan Doe, full professor in biology

We have these categories for each of the nodes (listed above) and divided into subsets. At this
point, we are working with the following categories.

Family background:
       Relation with parents
       Relation with siblings
       Socioeconomic status of your family
       Political affiliation of your family
       Critical events when growing up

     Community you grew up in
     Family’s position in the community
     Influential clubs, organizations and social networks in the community
     Critical institutions (i.e. church, school) when growing up

Educational background:

       Undergraduate experiences
       Defining moment that shaped future career choices
       Graduate school experiences
       Mentors in college and graduate school
       Perceptions of women in those institutions

Gender roles:
      Socialization to gender roles
      Cognitive perceptions of gender differences,
      Role models

Perception of self:
       Personal and social identity
       Significant characteristics

Gender discrimination in the academia:
      Experiences with gender discrimination as a student
      Experiences with gender discrimination as a faculty
      Social networks that help women cope with discrimination and inequality
      Thoughts on glass ceiling

Personal life:
       Relation with significant other,
       Affects of relation with significant other on career development,
       Factors that affected decision to have /not to have children,
       Distribution of responsibilities at home with significant other,

Culture for women at UCI:
       Culture for women at your department/school
       Your experiences as a female faculty at UCI
       How to improve situation for women at UCI
       Recommendations for the NSF Advance team

These nodes correspond to the general organizational structure of our questionnaire.

Our goal is to conduct as many interviews as possible. Several women have approached us
informally saying they intended to respond to the request to be interviewed but have not yet done
so. These informal requests need to be followed up. One problem is time. Faculty women are
extremely busy and it is often difficult to schedule appointments; furthermore, it is not
uncommon for appointments to get cancelled and need to be rescheduled. Our efforts to ensure
subject confidentiality – indeed, to be sure the people interviewed are happy with the process and
feel they have been treated as colleagues not research subjects – interject further time demands
but we believe they are necessary to ensure an interview process that reflects well on all

We had planned to complete at least 15 more interviews during the spring term and early
summer. We hoped to complete transcription in June and begin our analysis during the summer.
This schedule meant we would have initial results sometime in September, 2004, at least for a
subset of analyzed interviews. Our goal during the summer of 2004 was to “wrap up” the

interviewing, transcribing, and editing of all interviews and to be able to begin the computer
analysis in a systematic way.

As of September 22, 2004, we have completed 47 interviews. Breaking these 47 interviews by
school, we interviewed 4 in the Arts, 5 in Biological Sciences, 1 in Education, 8 in Humanities, 7
in Medicine, 1 in Physical Sciences, 7 in Social Ecology, 12 in Social Sciences, and 3 in

Out of these 47 interviews, 16 have gone through the final approved process and signed off on by
the interviewees. (That is, we have transcribed, done initial editing for grammar, privacy, etc.
and sent the interviews to the person being interviewed, asking if they would read them through
and approve the transcript. This often takes quite a bit of time because people are busy and do
not always get to the interviews immediately. Or there often are breaks in the conversation,
where the transcriber has not caught what was said properly. We have then had to meet with the
person and ask the question over again to determine the response. Occasionally issues of privacy
or protection of the interview subject have arisen. For example, one woman who wanted to be
anonymous had said something along the lines of “In X department, we do….” This meant it
easy to identify her. She did not catch this and approved the interview. When we reread it,
however, we thought this could be problematic so we asked her if she might be happier
rephrasing the response so it said, “For example, this problem could be addressed as I believe X
department has done it.” This provides the information the subject wanted to convey but
conceals her identity. All of these considerations take time.)

An additional 17 interviews have been transcribed and edited and mailed/e-mailed to the
interviewee. We are waiting for final approval. Ozyurt periodically emails to remind them, with
varying degrees of success.

5 interviews are still being edited. 3 new interviews are being transcribed. We have 13
interviewees to be contacted in the fall and winter because they didn't want to be interviewed in
the summer. (One person wanted to be interviewed by a minority so we had to arrange that and
she will be interviewed in December.) 4 people declined to participate and we have 6 inaudible
and/or lost interviews. (One member of our original team is going blind and we have had to work
around her health issues. She transcribed three of her interviews but we have not been able to
retrieve them from her computer.) An additional three of her interviews were too inaudible to be
transcribed fully. We are contacting them participants to reschedule interviews this fall.
Beyond this, 4 interviews have been analyzed and we are currently working to enter the rest of
the approved transcripts into the N-Vivo system.

As of September 22, 2004 then:
Total # of respondents who responded to our call for interviews: 64
Declined: 4
Remaining to be contacted on follow-up: 13
Total # of completed interviews: 47
Of the 47 completed interviews:
Signed off transcripts: 16
Transcribed, edited, e-mailed, waiting for response: 17
Being edited: 5
Being transcribed: 3
Inaudible/lost: 6

Preliminary Findings.

We have only begun our analysis so any picture of the results is highly preliminary and may be
skewed. Ordinarily, I would not present any conclusions at this point but the PIs for the NSF
ADVANCE have specifically requested them, so the following is offered with the above caveats
and with great qualification. As requested by Priscilla Kehoe, we offer a few general quotes to
illustrate these preliminary findings.

1. Women find a subtle pattern of discrimination at UCI. This in turn feeds back into a defensive
posture, and the feeling that one is in a somewhat hostile or chilling climate, especially
concerning family commitments.

…… it is the more subtle things I worry about, it’s more cultural issues. Someone here in an
administrative role always asks me how my kids are, every time he sees me. Which is fine, but he
never asked me about my research and he never asks other male faculty (about their kids); there
is one male faculty, we have kids the exact same ages, exact same ages. Our daughters are two
weeks apart in age, and that’s not a question that he would ask him ….and I think that is pretty
subtle you know, it’s also how I think about myself, I mean just in terms of who am I, you know?
So I’m a mother to him, right? And it makes it hard for me to convey the important work that I’m
doing and I think it’s, so it matters on both sides when people do that.

2. It is difficult to overcome this culture of discrimination via institutional mechanisms. The legal and the cultural
reality often do not correspond.

-How do you deal with the issue that somebody who has a ticking tenure clock and she has two kids but
she should still be able to do the same as someone who has more time, you know… I wish I had some
ideas (how to change this)…… There was an article in the New York Times maybe three years ago
called the Baby Bias and it was about what happens when people take extra years and the critical
consequences of that and there was someone from UCI quoted in it, that basically saying if you take an
extra year it’s political suicide. Because they just have higher standards for you. And, so, I, in a meeting
asked about this article and if this was the case and you know, an administrator said “oh, no, no, we don’t
hold you to higher standards, we don’t pay attention to how long you’ve been here we just know when
you come up you have to have the tenure. And (when I asked this to) the faculty members that were on
the committee, they’re the ones actually making the decisions, they said, “oh, come on, get real, of course
we look at, we look at when you got your degree and how many years it is and if you’ve taken more years
of course we expect more”. So, I would call that discrimination.

3. There is a distinction between having women in positions of power and having people in
power who consistently and conscientiously work to improve things for women.

- I think having women in positions of power is important, no doubt about that. Do I think having more
women in those positions is enough to simply change the way we think about gender and the production
of knowledge, no I don’t. I think it is very easy to have more patriarchal minded women running
institutions. May be it is when this next generation of women comes into positions of power who have
different ideas about what their job is and what it should be and what is valuable for spending their times
on. I also think that some things will change at UCI as the University gains some more confidence and is
around longer that it doesn’t feel like it is trying to prove itself. When the institution is secure that it is well
regarded, it will change its narrow definition of success and will be able to say “we are doing this research
because we want to do it”. So, may be some of it is just time. I am speculating.

4. There was widespread recognition that gender inequity issues are complex and that the
situation for women in the academy is related to issues in the broader culture, and hence cannot
easily be fixed. Given these limitations, then, how do women at UCI feel about the university’s
efforts to ameliorate or rectify discrimination? Again, results are highly preliminary and may
well be skewed. With that caveat, however, there was some concern that the current UCI

        administration is more concerned with producing statistics that make the university look good,
        rather than actually improving things for women. The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
        on campus was criticized for being more concerned to protect UCI than to protect the rights of
        women within UCI. The concern, then, is that there is too much emphasis on window dressing
        and not enough on substance. Having noted this, however, it is important to note that while this
        may have been the dominant view, others said the current administration was doing everything it
        could to improve the climate for women but that this was a slow process, and needed to focus at
        the undergraduate and graduate level to make sure women did not continue to subtly get shifted
        into what are viewed as traditional female roles.

         - The Advance project is very interesting, and from a little bit knowledge I have so far, it seems to me the
        issues are so much deeper than to simply pay equity. It is the whole notion of what counts as knowledge,
        what sorts of knowledge are valued, and that is bigger than this NSF project but it is so important. The
        whole notion of disparity in the valuing of science versus social sciences and the humanities and
        knowledge and the amounts of money that is available for each. In a way this is gender discrimination
        because if you look at the distribution the kinds of work women are doing, that matters very much. And
        that is not to disparage the focus on bringing women’s salaries up to par, making sure that people get an
        appropriate tenure clock, but it seems to me that is not challenging the box within which the academic
        work happens. The importance of grounded research, the importance of action research, the importance
        of social science and humanities as well as physical sciences and natural sciences research. So, is that
        something the NSF cares about? I doubt it very much. But to me, if they really want to address the issues
        of gender and the production of knowledge, they really need to be dealing with those questions.

        5. This was related to what might be characterized as a systemic problem with the merit and promotion process
        within the UC community. In particular, UCI was criticized as being too concerned with producing greater numbers
        of articles/books/grants and not enough with the quality of output. Several women suggested this reflected a concern
        for improved rankings, not a concern with improved quality. This was related to gender equity issues insofar as
        women felt they were rewarded for doing small pieces of research within existing scholarly paradigms, rather than
        taking the time to reflect deeply and thoughtfully about the big picture. It was argued that this reinforced the old-boy
        buddy system and that women’s experiences were not recognized as credible. (Medical experiments based
        exclusively on male subjects were cited as illustrations of this and as “bad” science)
        - I think of UCI as a young, up and coming campus, but I think of it as kind of this bastard
        stepchild. And accordingly it misbehaves. UCI is in, what I call, a “wanna be” mode. It wants to be
        UCLA, it wants to be Berkley. And it is competing. The problem is, it hasn’t accepted itself in
        certain ways, so there is this constant scrutiny for faculty. A constant second guessing.
        Personnel decisions are mean spirited. And I think the notion that you are subject to so many
        reviews so frequently –and I am a person who has profited from those reviews, so this is not a
        sour grape thing- it is a brutal system. And it is unlike any other system I am familiar with that
        there is this constant review at different levels. Scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, publish, publish,
        publish. I think this creates a culture of demoralization, and it shapes how people do their work.
        People are often more concerned about their next review, getting something published quickly
        than really producing good work. We probably -- myself included -- could publish less and say
        more. You know, if we weren’t in this meat grinder review system, we would probably behave
        differently. Back in the old days, the whole point of getting a tenure was to be relieved of all the
        political pressures, to be freed up to truly pursue ideas without constant scrutiny. And we kind of
        remove that with all those reviews. So, I think that is the worst part of the culture here.

Specific recommendations that can be done by the University:

            1. Institutionalize a mentoring system in each school/department. Organize a reception once
               every quarter where mentors and mentees meet in an informal setting, i.e. lunch or coffee
               at the Dean’s Conference Room. Minimal funds are needed to be provided for this. Such
               mentoring could be done at the faculty, graduate or even undergraduate level.

            2. Institutionalize peer mentoring programs among new faculty and grad students within
               each department. Each new graduate student and new faculty would be assigned one

      graduate student mentor and one faculty mentor according to their research interests.
      Extending this program into the undergraduate level was seen as valuable. Mentoring was
      believed to be a complex process, requiring much time and many resources, so it was
      suggested that mentoring be focused at critical points in one’s career, e.g., making the
      transition to tenure, learning how to get grants, set up laboratories, dealing with career-
      family issues that are associated with bulges in the pipeline, providing better networking
      for women as they advance into positions of administrative power, such as chairs, dean-
      ships or higher administrative positions.

   3. Funding for term chairs. Ask Advance to pursue named chairs, of $50,000 to last for 5
       years and to go to senior woman. The increased status would do much to prevent top
       women from being lured elsewhere and the additional money ($10,000 a year for
       professional travel, research assistance, course reduction) could make a difference at the
       margin for many women. During the 5 years of the term chair, the recipient should be
       encouraged to seek additional funding to extend the chair. There was strongly held
       opinion that this would be a more efficient use of the University’s Advance Office’s (as
       opposed to the NSF ADVANCE project) time than the pursuit of one or two named
       chairs, which take over $1 million to establish and which will reward only a very few
       women. Junior chairs were another possibility, as were some kind of Faculty Fellows
       Program. This money could be raised from local sources and would be dedicated to
       providing special research funding for work by women and minorities.

   4. Continue or expand family leave policies, including allowing women to pay for child care
      while at professional conferences.

   Further specific recommendations will be incorporated into our findings in the form of
   recommendations along the lines of “Best Practices” to avoid making criticism of specific

Advance Term Chairs

The Advance Program, through the work of the UCI Honors and Awards
Committee, has selected two distinguished professors to hold the Advance Term
Chairs. They have been selected on the basis of their scholarship and commitment
to gender equity. They are Professor Chuu-Lian Terng, a member of the
Mathematics Department and Professor Ellen Druffel, a member of the Earth
System Science Department. Each will hold the Chair for five years and act as an
ambassador of the program. They are now members of the Advance Program
Advisory Committee, assisting the program in setting up our mentoring programs
across the campus, serving as mentors for our women faculty in science, and
assisting us in fundraising for an endowment to fund future term chairs as well as
other aspects of our Advance Program.

At our first fundraising event, a luncheon held May, 2004, Professor Druffel spoke
to a group of philanthropic individuals about her experiences as a woman in
science and academia. The event went well and we hope to follow up with our

possible benefactors acting as ambassadors with other philanthropists that may
support us in our endeavors. We have just approved a brochure that will go to a
host of individuals that may be willing to finance aspects of our program so that we
may continue our goals when the grant funding has ended. The following funding
areas are outlined in the insert that accompanies our brochure:


       In order to ensure the long term stability of this program, we need to partner
with the community to identify essential funding from private sources to provide
an endowment and other infrastructure needs. The current government award will
expire in September 2006. New funding for an endowment must be in place prior
to that date for ADVANCE to continue.
Several important opportunities are available for visionary donors and
organizations to partner with UCI to achieve the goals outlined above. Priority
funding areas include:

      8 Endowed Chairs at $1 Million Each

Eventually, eight endowed term chairs (at least two initially) are needed at a
cost of $1 million per chair to expand the program university-wide. Each
named endowment will fund an ADVANCE Scholar in perpetuity. Named
Endowed Chairs are highly prestigious awards held by our most stellar faculty.
For the donor, Named Endowed Chairs forever link your family or foundation
name to the highest ideals of academic and research excellence and equity at the
University of California, Irvine.

      10 Equity Advisors at $100,000 per Year

A total of 10 school-based ADVANCE Equity Advisors are needed. These named
gifts will provide the funding necessary to further develop and maintain the
program in each school. Equity Advisors participate in the recruitment process and
in mentoring and awareness training. For the donor, you can leave a legacy of
activism in your school of choice by engaging in this vital program that will bring
women to full participation at all levels within UCI.

      Faculty Equity Center at $500,000 for 5 Years

Support of a small staff to provide a Faculty Equity Center will ensure that the
concerns and needs of faculty women are addressed through personnel and
programs designed specifically to serve them and provide guidance on equity
issues. A major role of this Center would be providing assistance and advising for

all new faculty, including both men and women, and assisting with minority issues
as well as one-on-one counseling and mentoring.
  This program would provide Faculty Mentoring and Networking Programs to
assist new members of the UCI faculty to adjust to the culture and community of
UCI and Orange County, and provide advice and support to ensure that the impacts
of relocation on the faculty member and family are mitigated. For the donor,
funding this Center will ensure that access to equity assistance is available to
UCI’s new faculty members, whether male or female, and that the first experience
at UCI is positive, leading to successful retention and future tenure.

      Emerging Leaders Workshops at $50,000

These innovative workshops would provide leadership skills for female faculty
department chairs and school deans to ensure that opportunities for leadership are
available to women and successfully attained. For the donor, funding this
program will ensure that women faculty are prepared for and compete successfully
for positions of leadership.

      Fellowship and Research Support at $250,000

For private donors, fellowships that are restricted to support the research of female
faculty provide a significant opportunity to make an impact in the life of a woman
and her scholarship. These fellowships allow the awardees to dedicate their time
exclusively to scholarship and creative endeavors, and thus contribute to the long-
term benefit of society as well as to the successful academic career of the recipient.


Within UCI we have had a number of awareness seminars, presentations, lunches,
and workshops to assist the Program in disseminating Best Practices, relevant data,
etc. as well as events in which we extract ideas from focus groups and various
committees that have an interest in gender equity. While the UCI Advance
Program website has been an important tool to disseminate our goals and plans,
data and reports, we have also supported and held many events across campus and
beyond to inform others about our program. Over the three year period, the PIs and
Director have given talks and seminars to a number of other University of
California campuses, including UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley
and UC Los Angeles, as well as the UC Office of the President. The Director gave
several presentations outside the UC system, including Yale University and the
Summer Institute for Women in Higher Education Administration at Bryn Mawr

To expand the audience to whom we have disseminated the information about our
program, we intend to produce a newsletter that can be sent electronically and by
mail to the many academic institutions across the United States, particularly the
other 18 Advance Program Institutions. In this newsletter, we intend to inform
others about our various methodologies that have proven successful in assisting us
in moving closer to our goals. We will provide data that speak to these goals
including those areas that have proven intransigent. Having short reports on
activities and the resultant progress from the Equity Advisors in each of the ten
schools on campus should provide the reader with an understanding of the nature
of the similarities in the various disciplines as well as the differences that must be
acknowledged. We hope to have the newsletter published by early Spring.

A list of many of the events held by the UCI Advance Program follows:


                                           Year 1
Date       Type                   Audience             Summary
11/1/01    Awareness              Administrative       Sue Bryant and Priscilla Kehoe
                                  Cabinet (Deans)      introduce the ADVANCE
1/8/02     Awareness              Chairs               Sue Bryant and Priscilla Kehoe
                                                       introduce the ADVANCE
2/8/02     Awareness/Training     Equity Advisors      Professor Judy Rosener
                                                       provided an awareness
                                                       workshop for the Equity
3/1/02     Training/Development   Equity Advisors      Professor Sue Duckles
                                                       presented the COM model for
                                                       mentoring faculty.
3/12/02    Awareness/Training     Equity Advisors      Kirsten Quanbeck, Dir. of
                                                       OEOD gave a workshop on
                                                       sexual harassment.
4/26/02    Awareness              Faculty, students,   Professor Nancy Hopkins gave
                                  staff                a talk on the MIT Report and
                                                       the progress to date.
5/6/02     Awareness              UCOP,                UC office of the President
                                  representatives      requested a presentation on
                                  from all UC          ADVANCE
5/10/02    Networking             CAFÉ                 ADVANCE presentation to
                                                       CAFÉ (California Academics
                                                       For Equity) which includes
                                                       representatives from most UC

9/18/02    Awareness             Yale Faculty         Priscilla Kehoe invited to Yale
                                                      University to discuss the
                                                      ADVANCE Program
9/27/02    Awareness             Deans, Chairs,       Professor Virginia Valian,
                                 Faculty, Grad        author of “Why So Slow”,
                                 Students from        invited to give a workshop to
                                 across campus        Deans and Chairs. Provided
                                                      an evaluation of the program.
                                                      Gave a talk to graduate
                                                      students and faculty.
                                    Year 2
11/5/02    Awareness             Administrative       Sue Bryant and Priscilla Kehoe
                                 Cabinet (Deans)      present an update on the
                                                      activities of the ADVANCE
11/12/02   Awareness             Open to all faculty, The Guerilla Girls
                                 staff and students
1/8/03     Awareness             Physical Sciences    Professor Judy Rosener gave a
                                 faculty and          presentation on gender
                                 students             differences and biases. This
                                                      was well attended by the Dean
                                                      of Physical Science, several
                                                      faculty and students.
1/10/03    Development           Faculty              Barbara Butterfield, University
           (Negotiations                              of Michigan and Jane Tucker,
           Workshop)                                  Duke university, contracted
                                                      frequently by COACH,
                                                      presented a negotiations
                                                      workshop for women faculty
                                                      across campus. Areas
                                                      discussed ranged from salary
                                                      to lab space.
1/21/03    Development (Grant    COM Faculty          Professor Sue Duckles
           writing Workshop)                          presented an in-depth
                                                      workshop on grant writing.
                                                      Areas discussed ranged from
                                                      deciding which grants to apply
                                                      for to submittal of proposal.
2/2/03     Development           Physical Sciences    Sex in the Physical Science
                                 Fac & Grad           with Dr. Judy Rosener
2/21/03    Awareness             Physical Sciences    Professor Ellen Druffel
                                 Grad Students        presented a lecture on being a
                                                      woman in the sciences,
                                                      managing a career and family.
2/19/03    Legislative Hearing   CA State             3rd visit before the oversight
                                 Legislation          committee of the State
2/27/03    Development           Associate            Mid-Level Transitions:
                                 Professors           Associate to Full Professor,

                                                       ADVANCE, David Notkin &
                                                       Eve Riskin
3/18/03    Development/Training   New Equity           Professor Sue Duckles
           (mentoring)            Advisors             presented the COM model for
                                                       mentoring faculty.
5/2/03     Development            Women Faculty        A team from Harvard, which
           (Strategic             and Post docs/grad   are frequently used by
           Performance)           students             COACH, were contracted to
                                                       give a workshop on
                                                       presentation skills. Two
                                                       workshops were offered
                                                       throughout the day.
6/2/03     Development            Biological           4 part series on job skills;
                                  Sciences Post docs   preparing your CV, applying to
                                  and grad students    a position, the interview, the
                                  (also open to        job talk. Extremely well
                                  everyone across      attended by Biological
                                  campus               Sciences post docs and grad
                                                       students. Dr. Andrea Tenner,
                                                       Dr. Lander, Dr Frank
                                                       Solomon, Dr. Thomas Carew
6/4/03     Awareness              UCSB Faculty         Invited to participate in an
                                                       Affirmative Action workshop
                                                       organized by faculty at UC
                                                       Santa Barbara
6/27/03    Awareness              Faculty, students    Sue Bryant presented the
                                                       ADVANCE Program at the
                                                       annual Society for Molecular
                                                       Biology & Evolution
7/15/03    Awareness              Women at Bryn        Priscilla Kehoe presented the
                                  Mawr College         UCI Advance Program at the
                                  Summer Institute     Institute for Women in Higher
                                                       Education Administration
7/31/03    Awareness              Faculty and staff    Sue Bryant and Priscilla Kehoe
                                                       invited to share ADVANCE
                                                       Program to faculty and staff at
                                                       UC San Diego
9/3/03     Fundraising            Orange County        Priscilla Kehoe and Dina
                                  Community            Jankowski gave a presentation
                                  Foundation           to OCCF
9/4/03     Awareness              Campus Personnel     ADVANCE presentation to
                                  Officers             Campus personnel officers

                                     Year 3
10/23/03   Awareness              Faculty Women’s      ADVANCE presentation
10/28/03   Awareness              Biological           Faculty Orientation

                                Sciences Faculty
1/15/04   Awareness             Faculty, staff,     Presentation by Professor
                                students            Diane Wara, UCSF
1/27/04   Development           College of          Grant Proposal Preparation,
                                Medicine Faculty    Guidance in Proposal
                                &                   Preparation (UCIMC)
1/28/04   Development           College of Med.     Grant Proposal Preparation,
                                Faculty &           Guidance in Proposal
                                                    Preparation (UC Irvine)
2/3/04    Development           College of          Grant Proposal Preparation,
                                Medicine Faculty    Guidance in Proposal
                                &                   Preparation (UCIMC)
2/4/04    Awareness             Biological          Jr. Faculty Awareness Meeting
                                Sciences Women      with ADVANCE
2/4/04    Development           College of Med.     Grant Proposal Preparation,
                                Faculty &           Guidance in Proposal
                                                    Preparation (UC Irvine)
2/10/04   Awareness             Biological          Sr. Faculty Awareness
                                Sciences Women      Meeting with ADVANCE
2/10/04   Development           College of         Grant Proposal Preparation,
                                Medicine Faculty   Guidance in Proposal
                                &                  Preparation (UCIMC)
2/11/04   Development           College of Med.    Grant Proposal Preparation,
                                Faculty &          Guidance in Proposal
                                                   Preparation (UC Irvine)
2/12/04   NSF PI Meeting        ADVANCE            Mini ADVANCE Conference,
                                                   Univ. of Washington, PK, DJ,
2/24/04   Awareness             Physical Sciences  Jr. & Sr. Women Faculty
                                                   Awareness meeting with
2/26/04   Awareness             Faculty, staff,    Awareness presentation by
                                students           Professor Judy Rosener to the
                                                   faculty, staff and students of
                                                   ICS and Engineering
3/1/04    Awareness             Social Ecology     Women Faculty Awareness
                                                   Meeting with ADVANCE
3/4/04    Awareness             ARTS Women         Jr. & Sr. Faculty Awareness
                                Faculty            Meeting with ADVANCE
4/13/04   Awareness             Social Science     Jr. & Sr. Faculty Awareness
                                Women Faculty      Meeting with ADVANCE
3/16/04   Awareness             Council on Faculty Presented ADVANCE to
                                Welfare            Council on Faculty Welfare
4/19/04   PI Meeting &                             Panel Discussions –
4/21/04   National Conference   NSF ADVANCE        Workshops, Atlanta, GA

4/26/04   Development           Women Faculty/       Negotiations workshop
                                EQA’s                provided by Professor Lisa
4/29/04   Awareness             Faculty Women’s      Invited to present ADVANCE
                                Association          program to FWA
5/11/04   Development           Assistant            Tenure Workshop – Dr.
                                Professors           Herbert Killackey, CO-PI, PK,
5/13/04   Fund Raising          By Invitation        Program Introduction, NSF
                                                     ADVANCE, Selected Invitees
5/24/04   Development           Women Faculty/       Negotiations workshop
                                EQA’s                provided by Professor Lisa
6/4/04    Awareness             Graduate Students    Equity Advisors served on a
                                                     panel for the AGEP program
6/14/04   Evaluation            UCI Advance          NSF site visit team led by
6/15/04                         Program site visit   Alice Hogan – Director of NSF
                                                     Advance Program
7/8/04    Leadership workshop   New chairs and       U. Washington’s Leadership
7/9/04                          advance programs     workshop training by Denton
9/17/04   Awareness             Jr. Biological     Equity Advisors, PI and
                                Sciences Women     Director of Advance met to
                                                   answer questions
9/22/04   Awareness             Sr. Biological     Equity Advisors, PI and
                                Sciences Women     Director of Advance met to
                                                   answer questions
9/23/04   Awareness             Faculty Women’s    Equity Advisors, PI and
                                Association        Director of Advance met to
                                                   answer questions
9/29/04   Training on           Equity Advisors    Denice Denton, PI University
Morning   recruitment and                          Washington Advance Program
          chairs’ workshops                        presentation
9/29/04   Training on           Deans and          Denice Denton, PI University
Afternoon recruitment and       Associate Deans of Washington Advance Program
          chairs’ workshops     UCI                presentation

                          Gender Equity Indicators

Table 1 – The number of faculty for the entire university followed by each
school on campus by rank and gender and then percent of women (first five
are the SMET schools) for the 2003-2004 year

Table 2 – The number of faculty for each department in each school on
campus by rank and gender and percent of women for the 2003-2004 year

Table 3 – The number of faculty campus-wide who left the institution and for
each school by rank and gender for the 2003-2004 year

Table 4 – The number of faculty recruited institution wide followed by each
school on campus by rank and gender for the 2003-2004 year

Table 5 – The average salary of faculty in each school by rank and step and
gender as well as the number of each group that are offscale for that step’s

Table 6 – Years in rank by gender for the SMET schools

Table 7 – Tenure promotion outcomes by gender for the last five years

Table 8 – Number and percent of women in administrative positions

Table 9 – Number of women in endowed or named chairs

Table 10 – Number and percent of women on promotion and tenure

Table 11 – Number of women (and %) and men faculty by rank across
campus with years at rank, average salary and differences from 2001-02 to the

               Table 1


  W             75             62              109          246
  M            155            126              416          697
 Total         230            188              525          943    26.1%

             BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

  W             12             2                9           23
  M             12            15                43          70
 Total          24            17                52          93     24.7%


  W             3              5                7           15
  M             4              4                38          46
 Total          7              9                45          61     24.6%

                ENGINEERING - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

  W              3             0                5           8
  M             17            14                49          80
 Total          20            14                54          88     9.1%

                     ICS - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

  W              5             3                4           12
  M             10             9                19          38
 Total          15            12                23          50     24.0%

                    Table 1 continued

           PHYSICAL SCIENCES - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

  W            2             2               7             11
  M           23            12               66           101
 Total        25            14               73           112    9.8%

             SCHOOL of ARTS - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

W              4             5               9            18
M              9             9               14           32
Total         13            14               23           50     36.0%

             COM - CLINICAL - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

W              5             3               11            19
M             21            18               55            94
Total         26            21               66           113    16.8%


W              5             2               7            12
M              8             4               15           27
Total         13             6               22           39     30.8%

               HUMANITIES - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

W             22            27               22            71
M             16            15               54            85
Total         38            42               76           156    45.5%

                  Table 1 continued
           SOCIAL ECOLOGY - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

W              6            7              12           25
M              6           10              20           36
Total         12           17              32           61     41.0%

           SOCIAL SCIENCES - FACULTY FOR 2003 - 2004

W                  8        7              16            31
M                 24       15              42            81
Total             32       22              58           112    27.7%

               TABLE 2
                         BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

                             DEVELOPMENTAL & CELL BIOLOGY
 GENDER    ASSISTANT         ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR           Total     %W
    W                    2               1                   2        5
    M                    4               3                  10       17
   Total                 6               4                  12       22     22.7%

                             ECOLOGY & EVOLUTIONARY
 GENDER    ASSISTANT         ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR           Total     %W
    W                    4                0                  4        8
    M                    2                4                 12       18
   Total                 6                4                 16       26     30.8%

                             NEUROBIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
 GENDER      ASSISTANT         ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR          Total    %W
    W                    2                1                 1          4
    M                    2                6                 8        16
   Total                 4                7                 9        20     20.0%

                             MOLECULAR BIO AND BIOCHEMISTRY
 GENDER      ASSISTANT         ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR         Total    %W
    W                    4                0                 2          6
    M                    5                2                13        20
   Total                 9                2                15        26     23.1%

                   COLLEGE OF MEDICINE - BASIC

                             ANATOMY AND NEUROBIOLOGY
GENDER     ASSISTANT         ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR            Total     %W
W                        1                1                  1        3
M                        1                1                  7        9
Total                    2                2                  8       12     25.0%

                             BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
GENDER     ASSISTANT         ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR          Total     %W
W                        1                 2                 2        5
M                        2                 1                 5        8
Total                    3                 3                 7       13     38.5%

                        Table 2 continued
GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR       Total           %W
W                       0               0               0        0
M                       0               0               3        3
Total                   0               0               3        3              0.0%

GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR       Total           %W
W                       0               1               1        2
M                       1               0               7        8
Total                   1               1               8      10               20.0%

                            PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOPHYSICS
GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR           Total       %W
W                       1               1                  1        3
M                       0               1                 10       11
Total                   1               2                 11       14           21.4%

GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR             Total       %W
W                       0              0                  2            2
M                       0              1                  6            7
Total                   0              1                  8            9        22.2%

                            BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
  GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR          Total       %W
     W                  0                0                0         0
     M                  4                3                3        10
    Total               4                3                3        10           0.0%

                            CHEM ENGR & MATERIAL SCIENCES
  GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR           Total       %W
     W                  2                0                2         4
     M                  2                0                7         9
    Total               4                0                9        13           30.8%

                            CIVIL & ENVIRON ENGINEERING
  GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR         Total       %W
     W                  1                 0               1         2
     M                  0                 3               8        11
    Total               1                 3               9        13           15.4%

                        Table 2 continued
                            ELECTRICAL ENGR & COMPUTER SCI
  GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR           Total    %W
     W                  0                 0              1            1
     M                  9                 6             15          30
    Total               9                 6             16          31         3.2%

                            MECHANICAL & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
  GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total         %W
     W                  0                 0              1       1
     M                  2                 2             16     20
    Total               2                 2             17     21              4.8%

                            CS- COMPUTING
GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE           PROFESSOR        Total    %W
W                       0                   1                2        3
M                       3                   3                9      15
Total                   3                   4               11      18         16.7%

GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE           PROFESSOR        Total    %W
W                       2                   2               1         5
M                       2                   2               3         7
Total                   4                   4               4       12         41.7%

                            CS- SYSTEMS

GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE           PROFESSOR        Total    %W
W                       3                   0               1         4
M                       5                   3               6       14
Total                   8                   3               7       18         22.2%


GENDER      ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE           PROFESSOR        Total    %W
W                       0                   0               0         0
M                       0                   1               1         2
Total                   0                   1               1         2        0.0%

                        Table 2 continued



  GENDER    ASSISTANT   ASSOCIATE                  PROFESSOR   Total   %W
     W              1                          0           1      2
     M              4                          3          21     28
    Total           5                          3          22     30          6.7%

                        EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE

  GENDER    ASSISTANT           ASSOCIATE          PROFESSOR   Total        %W
     W              1                          1           2      4
     M              5                          2           4     11
    Total           6                          3           6     15          26.7%


  GENDER    ASSISTANT           ASSOCIATE          PROFESSOR   Total    %W
     W              0                          0           2    2
     M              5                          5          17    27
    Total           5                          5          19    29               7%

                        PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY

  GENDER    ASSISTANT           ASSOCIATE          PROFESSOR   Total        %W
     W              0                          1           2      3
     M              9                          2          23     34
    Total           9                          3          25     37          8.1%

                         SCHOOL OF ARTS

GENDER      ASSISTANT   ASSOCIATE                  PROFESSOR   Total   %W
W                   2                          1           3      6
M                   2                          2           1      5
Total               4                          3           4     11          54.5%


GENDER      ASSISTANT   ASSOCIATE                  PROFESSOR   Total   %W
W                   1                          1           2      4
M                   3                          2           6     11
Total               4                          3           8     15          26.7%

                     Table 2 continued
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR       Total        %W
W                    0                 1               2            3
M                    1                 2               3            6
Total                1                 3               5            9         33.3%

                         STUDIO ART
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR       Total        %W
W                    1                 2               2            5
M                    3                 3               4           10
Total                4                 5               6           15         33.3%


GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR       Total        %W
W                    0                0                0           0
M                    1                1                0           2
Total                1                1                0           2          0.0%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR       Total        %W
W                    1                 3              3             7
M                    5                 6             16            27
Total                6                 9             19            34         20.6%

                         OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR        Total        %W
W                    1                 0            0               1
M                    1                 0            4               5
Total                2                 0            4               6         16.7%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR       Total        %W
W                    0               0                 1            1
M                    1               1                 1            3
Total                1               1                 1            3         33.3%

                         PHYSICAL MED & REHABILITATION
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR        Total        %W
W                    1                  0             0             1
M                    0                  0             1             1
Total                1                  0             1             2         50.0%

                     Table 2 continued
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR       Total            %W
W                    0                0               0           0
M                    1                1               1           3
Total                1                1               1           3              0.0%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR       Total            %W
W                    0                0               0           0
M                    0                2               6           8
Total                0                2               6           8              0.0%

                         RADIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE   PROFESSOR            Total            %W
W                    0             0           0                  0
M                    0             1           6                  7
Total                0             1           6                  7              0.0%

                         RADIATION ONCOLOGY
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR           Total            %W
W                    0             0            0                 0
M                    1                          1                 2
Total                1                          1                 2              0.0%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR       Total            %W
W                    1                0               4            5
M                    2                1               3            6
Total                3                1               7           11             45.5%

                         PSYCHIATRY & HUMAN BEHAVIOR
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR    Total                   %W
W                    1             0            0                 1
M                    1             0            5                 6
Total                2             0            5                 7               14%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE   PROFESSOR     Total                   %W
W                    0             0           1                  1
M                    2             2           3                  7
Total                2             2           4                  8               13%
                         ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR Total                     %W
W                    0                0          0                     0
M                    2                0          1                     3
Total                2                           1                     3               0%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR     Total            %W
W                    0                 0           1                 1
M                    3                 0           3                 6
Total                3                 0           4                 7            14%

                         FAMILY MEDICINE
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total            %W
W                    0                 0         1                   1
M                    0                 0         0                   0
Total                0                 0         1                   1           100%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR     Total            %W
W                    0                 0           0                 0
M                    0                 0           3                 3
Total                0                 0           3                 3               0%

               Graduate School of Management

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE         PROFESSOR    Total            %W
W                 5                    2           7             12
M                 8                    4          15             27
Total            13                    6          22             39               31%

                         FRENCH AND ITALIAN
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE        PROFESSOR      Total            %W
W                    1                 2          1               4
M                    1                 0          5               6
Total                2                 2          6              10             40.0%

                         AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR Total                   %W
W                    1                2            1                 4
M                    1                1            1                 3
Total                2                3            2                 7          57.1%
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE   PROFESSOR       Total               %W
W                    1             4             2               7
M                    1             1             0               2
Total                2             5             2               9             77.8%

                         ASIAN AMERICAN
GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR        Total             %W
W                    1             1            1                3
M                    1             0            0                1
Total                2             1            1                4             75.0%

GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total            %W
W                     1               0               1               2
M                     1               0               1               2
Total                 2               0               2               4          50.0%

                          EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES
GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR          Total            %W
W                     1             3            0                     4
M                     1             4            1                     6
Total                 2             7            1                    10         40.0%

GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR     Total                 %W
W                     7             6            7           20
M                     2             4           17           23
Total                 9            10           24           43                  46.5%

                          FILM AND MEDIA STUDIES
GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR          Total            %W
W                     1             0            0                    1
M                     0             1            0                    1
Total                 1             1            0                    2          50.0%

GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total            %W
W                     0               0               2               2
M                     1               0               3               4
Total                 1               0               5               6          33.3%
                          SOCIAL SCIENCES
GENDER   ASSISTANT        ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR              Total             %W
W                     1             2                     2                 5
M                     2             1                     4                 7
Total                 3             3                     6                12   41.67%

                             COGNITIVE STUDIES
GENDER   ASSISTANT        ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR            Total             %W
W                     0               0             4                       4
M                     3               4             9                      16
Total                 3               4            13                      20   20.00%

GENDER   ASSISTANT        ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR              Total             %W
W                     2              0            2                         4
M                     9              0            8                        17
Total                11              0           10                        21   19.05%

GENDER   ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE     PROFESSOR             Total             %W
W                     0              0               1                     1
M                     3              2               4                     9
Total                 3              2               5                    10     10.00%

                             POLITICAL SCIENCE
GENDER   ASSISTANT        ASSOCIATE      PROFESSOR           Total             %W
W                     0               3             5                      8
M                     3               4             9                     16
Total                 3               7            14                     24     33.33%

GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total           %W
W                     0              0                0               0
M                     0              0                1               1
Total                 0              0                1               1          0.00%

GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total           %W
W                     4             3                 2               9
M                     4             3                 5              12
Total                 8             6                 7              21          42.86%

                          SOCIAL SCIENCES
GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total           %W
W                     0               0               0               0
M                     0               1               2               3
Total                 0               1               2               3   0

                          CHICANO/LATINO STUDIES
GENDER    ASSISTANT       ASSOCIATE       PROFESSOR       Total           %W
W                     1               0               0               1
M                     0               0               0               0
Total                 1               0               0               1   100%

              TABLE 3

W              0         0         1                     1
M              0         1         2                     3
Total          0         1         3                     4     25.0%

               COM-BASIC - SEPARATIONS FOR 2003 - 2004

W              0         0         0                     0
M              0         0         2                     2
Total          0         0         2                     2     0.0%

              ENGINEERING - SEPARATIONS FOR 2003 - 2004

W              0         0         1                     1
M              0         0         0                     0
Total          0         0         1                     1     100.0%

                   ICS - SEPARATIONS FOR 2003 - 2004

W              0         0         0                     0
M              0         0         0                     0
Total          0         0         0                     0     0.0%


W              0         1         0                     1
M              0         0         3                     3
Total          0         1         3                     4     25.0%

             SCHOOL of ARTS - SEPARATIONS FOR 2003 - 2004

W              0         0         1                 1
M              0         1         0                 1
Total          0         1         1                 2          50.0%

                           COM - CLINICAL

W              0         0         0                 0
M              1         0         2                 3
Total          1         0         2                 3          0.0%

W              0          1          0         1
M              1          0          0         1
Total          1          1          0         2                50.0%

          SCHOOL of HUMANITIES - SEPARATIONS FOR 2003 - 2004

W              0         0         0                 0
M              0         2         5                 7
Total          0         2         5                 7          0.0%


W              0         0         0                 0
M              0         0         0                 0
Total          0         0         0                 0          0.0%


W                  0         0         1                    1
M                  1         1         1                    3
Total              1         1         2                    4    25.00%

              TABLE 4

W                      7                 0               0     7
M                      3                 1               1     5
Total                 10                 1               1   12    58.33%

          SCHOOL of COM-BASIC - NEW RECRUITS FOR 2003 - 2004

W                        1               0               0     1
M                        0               0               1     1
Total                    1               0               1     2   50.00%

              ENGINEERING - NEW RECRUITS FOR 2003 - 2004

W                        1               0               0     1
M                        1               0               2     3
Total                    2               0               2     4   25.00%

                   ICS - NEW RECRUITS FOR 2003 - 2004

W                        3               1               0     4
M                        5               1               0     6
Total                    8               2               0   10    40.00%


W                        0               0               1     1
M                        2               0               1     3
Total                    2               0               2     4   25.00%

                      Table 4 continued
          SCHOOL of ARTS - NEW RECRUITS FOR 2003 - 2004

W                     3               0               0     3
M                     1               0               0     1
Total                 4               0               0     4   75.00%

          COM - CLINICAL - NEW RECRUITS FOR 2003 - 2004

W                     0               2               0     2
M                     2               0               1     3
Total                 2               2               1     5   40.00%


W                     2               0               0     2
M                     0               1               0     1
Total                 2               1               0     3   66.67%


W                     1               2               2     5
M                     3               0               2     5
Total                 4               2               4   10    50.00%


W                     0               0               1     1
M                     1               0               1     2
Total                 1               0               2     3   33.33%


W                     1               0               0     1
M                     5               0               1     6
Total                 6               0               1     7   14.29%

              TABLE 5
               School of Biological Sciences
  RANK              Women                    Men
            STEP                          #W   # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III       $57,788       8        6        $53,350    2        1
            IV - VI         $62,450       2        1        $58,092    13       5
ASSOCIATE     I - III                     1        1        $68,844    9        8
              IV-V                        1        1        $71,850    4        1
PROFESSOR     I-V           $88,000       7        2        $86,382    17       6
            VI - VIII       $125,000      2        2        $118,073   15       5
             IX - A           $0          0        0        $146,991   11       2

                 College of Medicine - Basic
  RANK                Women                                  Men
             STEP                         #W   # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III                     1        1                   1        1
            IV - VI         $63,800       2        1        $67,400    3        2
ASSOCIATE     I - III       $74,233       3        2                   1        0
              IV-V          $78,400       2        0        $78,400    3        0
PROFESSOR     I-V           $107,400      3        0        $101,895   21       4
            VI - VIII       $121,525      4        0        $126,600   6        0
             IX - A     $             -   0        0        $155,150   12       0

                  Table 5 continued

  RANK                  Women                        Men
                                   #                            #
             STEP                  W    # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III   $71,000     3       1        $725900    10       9
            IV - VI       $0        0       0        $75,400    7        3
ASSOCIATE     I - III     $0        0       0        $81,708    12       5
              IV-V        $0        0       0        $84,100    2        0
PROFESSOR     I-V       $85,880     5       2        $90,684    31       6
            VI - VIII     $0        0       0        $140,463   8        4
             IX - A       $0        0       0        $158,360   10       0

  RANK                  Women                        Men
                                   #                            #
            STEP                   W    # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III   $73,260     5       5        $74,313    8        8
            IV - VI       $0        0       0        $76,700    2        2
ASSOCIATE     I - III   $81,200     2       1        $86,388    8        8
              IV-V                  1       1                   1        0
PROFESSOR     I-V       $92,875     4       3        $100,600   19      12
            VI - VIII     $0        0       0          $0       0        0
             IX - A       $0        0       0          $0       0        0

                  Table 5 continued
                        Physical Sciences
  RANK                  Women                           Men
                                      #                            #
             STEP                     W    # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III    $59,850      2        2        $60,960    5        5
            IV - VI        $0         0        0        $63,567    18      12
ASSOCIATE     I - III    $67,100      2        1        $68,460    10       6
              IV-V         $0         0        0        $74,400    2        0
PROFESSOR     I-V        $86,050      4        2        $92,357    28      15
            VI - VIII    $116,050     2        1        $104,125   8        6
             IX - A        $0         0        0        $137,467   18       4

  RANK                  Women                           Men
                                      #                            #
            STEP                      W    # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III    $56,033      2        0        $52,025    4        1
            IV - VI                   1        0        $54,600    5        0
ASSOCIATE     I - III    $59,750      3        1        $64,300    4        2
              IV-V       $70,800      3        1        $72,360    5        2
PROFESSOR     I-V        $87,600      9        5        $85,840    10       7
            VI - VIII      $0         0        0        $113,600   2        0
             IX - A        $0         0        0        $137,450   2        0

                        COM - CLINICAL
  RANK                  Women                           Men
                                      #                            #
            STEP                      W    # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III    $59,900      2        0        $60,344    9        1
            IV - VI      $63,200      3        0        $65,533    12       2
ASSOCIATE     I - III                 1        0        $71,858    12       0
              IV-V       $78,400      2        0        $84,883    6        2
PROFESSOR     I-V        $87,983      6        0        $88,907    14       1
            VI - VIII                 1        0        $136,050   8        1
             IX - A        $0         0        0        $157,150   8        0

                  Table 5 continued

              Graduate School of Management
  RANK              Women                 Men
                                   #                            #
            STEP                   W    # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III   $113,850   4        4        $109,088   8        8
            IV - VI                1        1          $0       0        0
ASSOCIATE     I - III              1        1        $113,200   4        4
              IV-V                 1        1          $0       0        0
PROFESSOR     I-V       $130,314   7        7        $133,950   10      10
            VI - VIII     $0       0        0        $132,250   4        4
             IX - A       $0       0        0                   1        0

  RANK                  Women                        Men
                                   #                            #
             STEP                  W    # OffScale              M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III   $52,407    14       6        $50,185    13       3
            IV - VI     $55,988    8        3        $56,200    3        1
ASSOCIATE     I - III   $65,819    16       9        $63,908    12       6
              IV-V      $71,982    11       5        $70,967    3        1
PROFESSOR     I-V       $88,756    18      10        $88,871    24      12
            VI - VIII   $116,367   3        1        $112,617   18       9
             IX - A                1        0          $0       0        0

                    Table 5 continued

                        SOCIAL ECOLOGY

  RANK                  Women                          Men
                                   #                              #
            STEP                   W     # OffScale               M    # OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III   $56,950    4         1         $53,500    5        1
            IV - VI     $69,833    2         0                    1        1
ASSOCIATE     I - III   $64,075    4         3         $61,483    6        1
              IV-V      $69,833    3         2         $70,875    4        3
PROFESSOR     I-V       $98,850    4         3         $77,171    14       6
            VI - VIII   $111,160   5         2         $117,833   6        1
             IX - A     $137,200   3         0           $0       0        0

                                   #                              #
             STEP       Women      W    # W OffScale   Men        M    #OffScale
ASSISTANT     I - III   $59,113    8         5         $61,700    18      11
            IV - VI        -       0         0         $64,483    6        2
ASSOCIATE     I - III   $66,780    4         3         $64,278    9        5
              IV-V      $67,400    3         0         $72,600    6        4
PROFESSOR     I-V       $96,700    10        7         $92,675    17      11
            VI - VIII   $111,850   5         3         $121,392   14       8
             IX - A                1         0         149,317    11       0

                                 TABLE 6

 2003-2004    WOMEN     MEN      WOMEN        MEN          WOMEN       Difference
                %        #         #       YRS @ RANK     YRS @ RANK      M-W
                                              (STD)          (STD)

PROFESSOR          17    43        9           14.3          12.7
                                              (±8.8)*        (±7.9)

ASSOCIATE          12    15        2           4.6            2.5
                                              (±4.3)         (±0.7)

ASSISTANT          50    12       12           3.7            1.5
                                              (±2.9)         (±0.7)
   AVERAGE     24.7     # 70      # 23


PROFESSOR          9     49        5            9             2.5
                                              (±6.9)         (±1)

ASSOCIATE          0     14        0           4.9             0
                                              (±3.8)         (±0)

ASSISTANT          15    17        3           2.9            2.5
                                              (±1.6)         (±0.7)
   AVERAGE     9.1      # 80      # 8


PROFESSOR          17    19        4           7.6            3.8
                                              (±5.5)         (±3.4)

ASSOCIATE          25    9         3           3.6            1.3
                                              (±2.7)         (±0.6)

ASSISTANT          33    10        5           2.3            2.2
                                              (±1.4)         (±2.2)
   AVERAGE         24   # 38      # 12


PROFESSOR          10    66        7           14.6            8
                                              (±9.5)         (±8)

ASSOCIATE          14    12        2           7.6            6.7
                                              (±10.9)        (±6.7)

ASSISTANT          8     23        2           3.7            1.5
                                              (±1.1)         (±0.7)
   AVERAGE     9.8      #101      # 11

                                            Table 7

                                  Tenure Review by Outcome
Year               Total #         Approved     Denied   Reappointment
                    M        F       M         F      M       F        M            F
2003-2004           22       7       19        7      0       0        3            0
2002-2003           20       9       17        9      1       0        2            0
2001-2002           10       9        9        8      0       1        1            0
2000-2001           19       6       13        3      2       2        4            1
1999-2000           20       5       14        5      3       0        3            0
1998-1999           13       8       12        8      0       0        1            0

                                          TABLE 8

                                            Women in Administrative Positions

                                                         Women       Women Chairs         Women
                                 Women Deans           Chairs 2001      2002            Chairs 2003

                        2001         2002      2003     #      %      #      %          #         %
Arts                     1            1         1       2      50     1      25         1         25
Biological Sciences      1            1         1       0      0      0      0          0          0
College of Medicine      0            0         0       4      16     4      16         3         12
Engineering              0            0         0       0      0      0      0          0          0
Graduate School of
Management               0            1         1
Humanities               1            1         1       6      43     6      43         5         36
Information &
Computer Science         1            1         1                                       0          0
Physical Science         0            0         0       0      0      0      0          0          0
Social Ecology           0            0         0       1      25     1      25         1         25
Social Science           0            1         1       3      38     2      29         2         29
        Total Campus:    4            6         6      16     25%     14    22%         12        18%

                            Table 9
                      Endowed/ Term Chairs
                          Women                    Men
     2001-2002              5                       30
     2002-2003              7                       32
     2003-2004              8                       38

 Table 10- Number and percent of women on promotion and tenure
 This year there are no women on the Council for Academic Personnel
(CAP- appointment and promotion committee). The Advance Program
Advisory Committee formed an ad hoc group to work on the issue of
increasing the number of women on CAP. We decided to work through
the Equity Advisors in the schools in which seats on the CAP would
open up in 2005. The Equity Advisors in those three schools that will
have openings are speaking to each of the eligible women and asking
them if they would be interested in being nominated. The Committee on
Committee will then work on developing a ballot of nominees. Having
women faculty appropriately represented on such an important
committee is a significant early step in promoting equity across the
campus and hopefully sets a precedent for the future.

Table 11 – Number of women (and %) and men faculty by rank
across campus with years at rank, average salary and differences
from 2001-02 to present

                       University of California, Irvine 2004-2005
  Rank        Number         %        Yrs at Rank                   Salary

            W      M         W        W        M         W             M       Difference

Assistant   89     163     35.3%     2.3      2.4      $63,452       65,867     -$2,415

Associate   67     128     34.4%     4.7      5.3      $70,321       74,243     -$3,922

Professor   114    434     20.8%     8.3      11.9    $102,542      113,888    -$11,346

  Total     270    725     27.1%

                       University of California, Irvine 2003-2004
  Rank        Number         %        Yrs at Rank                   Salary

            W      M         W        W        M         W             M       Difference

Assistant   75     155     32.6%     2.9      3.1      $62,541      $64,722     -$2,181

Associate   62     126     33.0%     5.2      6.1      $69,670      $73,671     -$4,001

Professor   109    416     20.8%     8.7      12.6    $100,592      $112,623   -$12,031

  Total     246    697     26.1%

                       University of California, Irvine 2002-2003
  Rank        Number         %        Yrs at Rank                   Salary

            W      M         W        W        M         W             M       Difference

Assistant   64     149     30.0%     3.3      3.3      $59,609      $63,659     -$4,050

Associate   62     120     34.1%     6.1       7       $70,023      $73,364     -$3,341

Professor   102    398     20.4%     9.2      13.1     $98,362      $111,127   -$12,765

  Total     228    667     25.5%

                       University of California, Irvine 2001-2002
  Rank        Number         %        Yrs at Rank                   Salary

            W      M         W        W        M         W             M       Difference

Assistant   56     132     29.8%     3.7       3       $61,442      $64,645     -$3,203

Associate   64     119     35.0%     6.1      6.6      $70,553      $73,593     -$3,040

Professor   92     392     19.0%     9.1      13       $99,763      $110,698   -$10,935

  Total     212    643     24.8%


To top