6967 Computing News March03

COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS A Publication of the Computing Research Association

March 2001 Vol. 13/No. 2 Microsoft Research By Daniel T. Ling in San Francisco, Cambridge (United of Asian languages. An exciting automatically to changing query Kingdom), and Beijing. The Bay research result to come out of Beijing workloads. The system uses the actual The seventh in a series of CRN Area Research Center (BARC) in is a fundamental understanding of the workload and the query optimizer to articles describing the activities of CRA’s San Francisco was started in 1995. perform “what-if” analysis on new industry laboratory members. An exciting project from BARC is configurations, suggests changes to In 1991, when Microsoft was TerraServer (see http://www. the user, and can implement them still a fairly small company and terraserver.microsoft.com), one of the automatically if desired. Our work many businesses were scaling back world’s largest online databases con- with the SQL Server team also their research efforts, Microsoft taining about 3TB of satellite, aerial resulted in new data-mining features made a strong commitment to basic photography, and topographic maps built into the database, including research in computer science by from around the world. This effort algorithms from MSR, a query lan- establishing the first research lab involved close cooperation with the guage for data-mining, and a pro- by a software company. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), gramming interface for third-party It reflected the recognition that which provided the majority of the components. the age of the microprocessor had data for the United States. For their We are also making significant only just begun and that improve- work, Jim Gray and Tom Barclay Daniel Ling contributions in the natural language ments in silicon, storage, and commu- were recognized by USGS with the area, working closely with our prod- nications technology, combined with John Wesley Powell award. sampling issues in the new image- uct group partners. This has resulted the right software, would continue to Two years later, in 1997, we based rendering approach to in the grammar-checking capabilities dramatically transform every aspect of started our lab in Cambridge, which computer graphics. that first appeared in Word95, as well our lives. Over the past ten years, the maintains close ties with Cambridge MSR has a goal to research tech- as new features in the upcoming ver- lab has grown substantially and has University. The Cambridge Lab con- nologies that we believe will drive sion of Office. Karen Jensen and contributed to almost every major ducts research in a number of areas, changes in computing over the next George Heidorn, who founded the product at Microsoft. We now have including programming languages, decade. As an industrial laboratory, Natural Language Processing group, more than 500 researchers working computer vision, learning, and sys- our key focus is to work closely with were among the earliest researchers to on a wide range of projects–from tems. Their work on information the Microsoft development groups join MSR, even before its official cre- quantum computing to operating retrieval has made important contri- and support the corporate vision of ation. The group is now undertaking systems, from programming languages butions to Microsoft products. “empowering people through great an ambitious project to create a rich and tools to signal-processing and In 1998 we founded the lab in software any time, any place, and on semantic network to support more speech recognition. Beijing, which collaborates with any device.” Over the past decade complex natural-language-under- Microsoft Research (MSR) main- many universities and research insti- we have made many contributions to standing tasks such as machine tains four laboratories scattered across tutions in China and elsewhere in Microsoft products and services. translation. the globe: our main facility near the Asia. The Beijing lab focuses on two Our research in data-mining and Two years ago, MSR started Microsoft corporate campus in main areas: multimedia, and making databases has resulted in a number of the Programmer Productivity Redmond, Washington, and facilities computers vastly simpler for speakers contributions to SQL Server, includ- Research Center led by Amitabh ing novel self-tuning components in Srivastava. We recognized the need Inside CRN SQL Server that allow SQL to adapt Microsoft Research Continued on Page 12 CRA Elects New Officers ...... 2 New CRA Members ...... 4 Mentoring Graduate Students...... 3 Taulbee Survey Results...... 5-11 Expanding the Pipeline ...... 4 Professional Opportunities...... 13-20 PAID U.S. POSTAGE

Transitions in Washington PERMIT NO. 993 NONPROFIT ORG. WASHINGTON, DC WASHINGTON, By Lisa Thompson On January 20, George W. Bush the Office of Science and Technology partly due to the outcome of the 2000 became the President of the United Policy. This is not altogether unusual, election, but also to the initial effects States, after a very short transition however. Although President Clinton of a rules change, made when the period—incoming presidents usually named a Science Adviser shortly after Republicans took over House have more than two months to make his first election, few chief executives leadership in 1995, that imposed a transition plans. In most cases, a tran- before him bothered to do so at an six-year term-limit on committee sition team is put together and mem- early point. chairmanships. bers fan out across the federal As expected, President Bush The most significant aspect of government, assembling briefing made education his first major initia- this change for the computing papers for every cabinet department tive. As we go to press, however, research community is that the term and independent agency. Tradition there is little information regarding of the long-time Chairman of the dictates that the outgoing Admin- what directions the President will Judiciary Committee expired. This istration be cooperative within take with respect to science and allowed the chairmanship to pass to reason. The briefing papers alert the research policy. Neither is there a the second-most-senior committee President and his new team to the long-term decision about who will member, who happens to have been major issues associated with each run the National Science the Chairman of the House Science executive function. Many transition Foundation. Current Director Rita Committee, James Sensenbrenner team members end up with jobs in Colwell is apparently staying on, at (R-WI). the new Administration. least until further notice. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert succeeds One of the side affects of Moreover, the regular budget Sensenbrenner as Chairman of the President Bush’s truncated transition cycle will be pushed back. The Science Committee. Boehlert is a is that fewer appointment decisions Presidential budget is usually released ten-term Congressman from New have been made as the President sits in early February, but it is likely to be York who has been an active member down in the Oval Office for the first March before we see a detailed fiscal of the Science Committee for many time. Most cabinet-level officials plan from the Bush Administration. years. have been named, but the process of Congress, too, has undergone In his first speech to the sub-cabinet appointments is further some significant changes, and the Washington science policy commu- behind. In particular, as of press time 107th Congress will look decidedly nity, Boehlert said, “I want to build no appointments had been made for different from its predecessor. This is Washington Continued on Page 20 CRA NW 1100 Seventeenth Street, Suite 507 DC 20036-4632 Washington, COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS March 2001

Computing Research CRA Elects New Officers to Two-Year Terms Association Effective July 1, 2001, James D. National Strategic Real-Time Board Officers Foley (Georgia Institute of Initiative; Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Edward Lazowska Chair Technology) will become board chair Transactions on Parallel and Distributed University of Washington of the Computing Research Systems, and Co-Editor-in-Chief and Mary Lou Soffa Association. Janice Cuny (University Co-Founder, International Journal on Vice Chair of Oregon) assumes the duties of Vice Real-Time Systems. His research inter- University of Pittsburgh Chair. The treasurer will be John ests include real-time computing; Leah Jamieson Stankovic (University of Virginia), operating systems; distributed com- Secretary and Kathleen McKeown (Columbia puting; and real-time databases. Purdue University University) will become secretary. Professor Stankovic was awarded a James Foley Officers serve two-year terms (July 1, Ph.D. in computer science from Treasurer 2001 to June 30, 2003). Brown University. Georgia Institute of Technology James D. Foley is Associate Janice Cuny Kathleen R. McKeown, Professor Board Members Dean, College of Computing; Awards, and has served on several and Chair of the Department of Sandra Johnson Baylor Professor, College of Computing and Computer Science at Columbia IBM Santa Teresa Laboratory panels at CRA Academic Careers in School of Electrical and Computer Computer Science Workshops. Jan University, has been a CRA board Randal Bryant Engineering; and Chair of the member since 1999. She currently Carnegie Mellon University Cuny has also been a mentor in Georgia Research Alliance; all at the CRA-W’s Distributed Mentoring co-chairs the External Awards Doris Carver Georgia Institute of Technology. A Committee, and co-chaired the New Louisiana State University Program. CRA board member since 1996 and a Jan Cuny received the National Chairs Workshop at Snowbird 2000. Lori Clarke member of the executive committee Professor McKeown is a Fellow of the University of Massachusetts Science Foundation Faculty Award and treasurer since 1998, Dr. Foley for Women and the IBM Faculty American Association of Artificial Janice Cuny has also served on the elections, University of Oregon Development Award, and was industry, and government affairs selected for the IEEE Distinguished Timothy Finin committees. He co-chaired the 1998 University of Maryland, Baltimore Visitor Program. She was a co- County Snowbird Conference, and served on founder of the University of Oregon Peter Freeman the program committee for Snowbird Computational Science Institute and Georgia Institute of Technology 2000. has served as its Co-Director. She was Ambuj Goyal previously a faculty member at IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Purdue and the University of Andrew Hume Massachusetts. Her research interests AT&T Labs - Research include parallel and distributed pro- Mary Jane Irwin gramming environments; debugging Pennsylvania State University and profiling tools; and domain-spe- Sidney Karin cific support for the geological sci- University of California, San Diego ences. Professor Cuny has a Ph.D. in Kathleen McKeown Nancy Leveson Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Michigan. John A. Stankovic is BP Intelligence. She was named Kathleen McKeown Outstanding Woman Scientist, Columbia University America Professor and Chair, Department of Computer Science, Association for Women in Science, David Patterson James Foley New York 2000. Professor McKeown University of California, Berkeley University of Virginia. Elected to the CRA board in 1996, he currently received the NSF Faculty Award for Guylaine M. Pollock Dr. Foley is a Fellow of IEEE and Women and the NSF Presidential Sandia National Laboratories chairs the Recruitment and ACM, and a member of Phi Beta Retention Committee. He has served Young Investigator Award. She also Daniel Reed Kappa, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu was an invited speaker at the Inter- University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign (Electrical Engineering), and Sigma national Joint Conference on Arti- Xi. His research interests include ficial Intelligence in Japan in 1997. Barbara Ryder Rutgers University computer graphics, information visu- Professor McKeown has served as alization, human-computer interac- President, Vice President, and Robert Schnabel University of Colorado at Boulder tion, and management of technology. Secretary/Treasurer of the Association Lawrence Snyder Previous positions include Executive for Computational Linguistics. She University of Washington Director and then CEO, Yamacraw has co-chaired the program commit- Eugene Spafford Economic Development Mission, tee, American Association for Purdue University State of Georgia; Chairman and Artificial Intelligence, and been an John Stankovic CEO, Mitsubishi Electric Information elected officer of the American University of Virginia Technology Center America; Association for Artificial Frank Tompa Director, MERL - Mitsubishi Electric Intelligence. Her research interests University of Waterloo Research Laboratory; Professor, John Stankovic include natural language processing; Jeffrey Vitter College of Computing and Director, as chair of both the Communications natural language generation; digital Duke University GVU Center, Georgia Tech; and Committee and the CRA libraries; text summarization; and David Waltz Chair, Department of CS&EE, Distinguished Service and the multimedia explanation. Professor NEC Research Institute George Washington University. Dr. Habermann Awards Committees. McKeown received a Ph.D. in com- Elaine Weyuker Foley earned a Ph.D. in computer, Professor Stankovic has been active puter science from the University of AT&T Labs - Research information and control engineering in CRA Snowbird Conferences, serv- Pennsylvania. William Woods from the University of Michigan. ing as program co-chair in 2000 and CRA heartily thanks the mem- Sun Microsystems Laboratories Janice Cuny, Associate Professor as a member of the program commit- bers of the current executive commit- Stuart Zweben of Computer and Information tee for their service during the period Ohio State University tee in 1998. In addition, he con- Science at the University of Oregon, ducted the New Chairs Workshop at July 1999 to June 2001—Ed Lazowska Executive Director joined the CRA board in 2000. She Snowbird in 1998. (University of Washington), chair; William Aspray chairs the Habermann Award Professor Stankovic is a Fellow of Mary Lou Soffa (University of Committee and the Recruitment and IEEE and ACM, and a winner of the Pittsburgh), vice chair; Jim Foley Affiliate Societies Retention Women’s Study Group, Outstanding Scholar Award, School (Georgia Institute of Technology), and was a member of the CRA of Engineering, University of treasurer; Leah Jamieson (Purdue Minority R&R Study Group. A Massachusetts. He also received the University), secretary; and Sid Karen CRA-W member since 1993, IEEE Computer Society’s Meritorious (UC San Diego), appointed member. Professor Cuny served a term as co- Service Award in 1991 and the IEEE chair of the committee. She has been Real-Time Systems Technical actively involved in CRA-W Faculty Committee 2000 Award for outstand- CRA Conference at Mentoring Workshops and currently ing technical contributions and lead- Snowbird works on CRA-W funding. For three ership. In addition, Professor years, she chaired the selection com- Stankovic is a Distinguished Member, July 14-16, 2002 mittee for CRA Undergraduate Scientific Advisory Board, Swedish Page 2 March 2001 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS

Mentoring Graduate Students By W. Brad Johnson Strong mentor relationships • Productivity—mentored stu- vant at specific times, and provide degree to which all students between graduate students and faculty dents are significantly more these functions in good measure. have access to mentors. Are members are essential for both the likely to present papers and men and women just as likely professional development and per- publish articles. Unique Ethical Concerns in to form productive mentor- sonal growth of graduate students in • Dissertation success—excellent Graduate School ships with faculty? What about computer science. mentors have a track record of Mentorships ethnic and racial minority stu- Mentor relationships, or “mentor- getting protégés graduated on Although tremendously impor- dents, gay and lesbian stu- ships,” are personal relationships in time. tant, and clearly linked to tangible dents, and mid-life (returning) which a more experienced faculty • Affirmed dreams—mentored outcome variables, mentor relation- students? member acts as a guide, role model, students appear to exit gradu- ships in graduate settings also pose 4. Exploitation: Considering the teacher, and sponsor of a less experi- ate school affirmed in their tal- some unique ethical quandaries for intimacy and mutuality char- enced graduate student. Good men- ents and encouraged to pursue students and faculty (Johnson & acteristic of mentoring, as well tors provide student protégés with career aspirations. Nelson, 1999). Research indicates as the clear power differential knowledge, advice, challenge, coun- • Program satisfaction— that the best mentorships are long- inherent in the relationship, it sel, and support in the protégé’s pur- mentored students consistently term, emotionally complex, and mul- is perhaps not surprising that suit of becoming a full member of the report greater satisfaction with tifaceted (the pair interact in faculty mentors occasionally profession. Although a great deal of their doctoral program. multiple settings over several years). exploit graduate students. educational outcome research shows Unfortunately, the mutuality and Exploitation can take many that mentorships lead to tangible Postdoctoral mentoring benefits intimacy fostered in these relation- forms. Protégés may be graduate school and career advan- include: ships may create conditions ripe for exploited sexually, emotionally tages, mentorships are not prevalent • Higher income. ethical violations—particularly in (faculty disclose inappropri- in all graduate departments, and not • More rapid promotion and cross-gender relationships. ately), and academically (fac- all faculty mentors are either skilled career mobility. Furthermore, the best mentor rela- ulty may take credit for a or ethical in the delivery of mentor • Career “eminence”—mentored tionships are informal, or formed protégé’s work, or demand that functions. students are more likely to gain without intervention from the gradu- a protégé work excessive hours In this short article, I summarize notoriety in their fields. ate department, and the factors con- in exchange for good recom- the main findings from outcome • Career satisfaction. tributing to mentorship formation mendations). research related to graduate student • Creative achievement—good have a great deal to do with attrac- 5. Multiple Relationships: Graduate mentoring, and highlight the key mentors foster and promote tion or “chemistry” (e.g., shared school mentorships are charac- behaviors of excellent mentors. I creative innovations. interests, interpersonal matching). In terized by multiple modes of then discuss several reasons why even • More collaboration with col- addition to factors such as attraction interaction between mentor excellent mentorships may pose real leagues. at the outset and increasing intimacy and protégé (e.g., classroom, ethical dilemmas, and I recommend • Learning to mentor—men- and complexity as a mentor relation- research lab, professional con- some strategies for graduate programs tored graduates are signifi- ship unfolds, mentorships seldom ference, staff room, social in the computer sciences relevant to cantly more likely to mentor have a clear termination point. There gathering). Faculty may also both accelerating the prevalence of others in the field themselves. is a perpetual quality to graduate be tempted to engage protégés mentorships between students and Finally, research suggests that school mentorships in that students in more than one kind of rela- faculty, and minimizing the risk of mentors having the greatest impact often rely on mentors for advice, tionship (e.g., graduate student poor or unethical mentoring. are well-cited and active scholars. counsel, support and a continuing and business partner or roman- Mentorships are also most helpful collegial relationship long after the tic interest). In general, multi- Outcomes of Mentoring in when they begin early in graduate degree is awarded. ple relationships pose serious Graduate School school, result in dissertation sponsor- These characteristics of graduate ethical risks. The first empirical data regarding ship, and continue after graduation school mentorships contribute to at the benefits of mentoring was a large- (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). least five salient ethical quandaries Some Recommendations: scale survey of successful executives faced by faculty who mentor and the What Graduate listed in The Wall Street Journal What Excellent Mentors Do graduate departments that support Departments Can Do (Roche 1977). Among 1,250 top Excellent graduate school men- them. There are clearly no quick solu- executives, two-thirds had enjoyed a tors are generally intentional about 1. Competence to Mentor: What tions to the ethical concerns outlined significant mentorship. Strikingly, the mentoring enterprise, that is, they makes a faculty member a suit- above. Still, graduate programs in the those who reported having a mentor carefully consider the needs of a able mentor for graduate stu- computer sciences can work to earned higher salaries, were more rap- prospective protégé, the potential dents? Rarely are faculty enhance the prevalence and quality idly promoted, and were significantly match between the two, and whether members trained to mentor of graduate student mentoring while more satisfied with their careers and or not they have the resources (e.g., graduate students, and frankly, simultaneously reducing the risk of their lives in general. In the last time, energy, grant funds) to success- some are not very good at it. adverse mentoring outcomes. Here decade, research bearing on graduate fully support a protégé through the Graduate faculty who are are four brief recommendations: school mentorships indicates that doctoral program. themselves immature, person- 1. Promote a Culture of Mentoring: graduate students who are mentored Excellent mentors provide two ality impaired, or who demon- Excellent graduate programs enjoy several clear advantages at both general categories of mentor func- strate poor interpersonal nurture a mentoring-rich envi- the predoctoral and postdoctoral tions (Kram, 1985). Career functions boundaries, are at risk of ronment when senior faculty stages of professional development. are those aspects of the relationship harming (or at the very least serve as exemplars of good that contribute to learning the ropes not helping) graduate stu- mentoring. These programs Predoctoral mentoring benefits and preparing for advancement. dents. also actively monitor and include: Career functions include sponsorship, 2. Truth in Advertising: assess prevalence and effec- • Professional skill develop- coaching, challenge, provision of Recognizing the attractiveness tiveness of mentorships, and ment—graduate students exposure/visibility (within the depart- of mentoring relationships to acknowledge and reward out- “learn the ropes” of the profes- ment and beyond), and (when prospective graduate students, standing mentors. At least sion by watching and being needed) protection. many doctoral programs now some of these rewards are directly coached by their men- Psychosocial functions are the claim explicitly (in glossy pro- explicit (awards, salary tors. mentoring strategies used to enhance motional brochures) or implic- increases, load credit, weight • Professional confidence and a protégé’s sense of self-esteem, pro- itly (during interviews with toward promotion). identity development— fessional identity, and sense of com- program applicants) that stu- 2. Attention to Faculty Selection: students overcome the imposter petence. Important psychosocial dents enjoy close mentoring Not all professors make good syndrome and begin to accept functions include role modeling, relationships with program mentors. Exceptional graduate an image of themselves as acceptance-and-confirmation, coun- faculty. Is this true? Is there programs are serious when it competent. seling and friendship or mutuality. program outcome data to sup- comes to evaluating a prospec- • Networking—mentored stu- Both career and psychosocial func- port such claims? tive faculty member’s mentor- dents enjoy more professional tions are essential components of 3. Equal Access to Mentoring: ing aptitude. That is, does he connections and opportunities good mentorships. Excellent mentors Given the clear benefits of or she have solid interpersonal both within and beyond their pay careful attention to protégés, mentoring in graduate school, skills, an understanding of own department. assess which functions are most rele- an obvious concern is the Mentoring Continued on Page 20

Page 3 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS March 2001

Expanding the Pipeline Reaching Out to Create Diversity in Science: San Diego Supercomputer Center By Nicole Batchelor Nationwide, there are numbers of sciences. Partly in response to NSF’s From 1994 to 1997, the Science and participation in programs of this programs designed to provide out- interest, Steckler and Bailey began Interest Group expanded to become high quality and focus, is helping reach to women and girls interested the Science Enrichment Program in the Science Scholars Program, tar- solve a serious problem in this coun- in scientific careers—some more suc- 1989. It was their hope that through geted to young girls of underrepre- try—the problem of ensuring that cessful than others. At the San Diego such a program, females and minori- sented groups. The program was so students of all backgrounds consider Supercomputer Center (SDSC), ties would begin to receive greater successful that the team began to see academic and career opportunities in Senior Staff Scientist Rozeanne exposure to the sciences. They part- a need to provide opportunities to science and engineering.” Steckler and Senior Principal nered with the San Diego-Imperial even more students. Initially designed Scientist Mike Bailey have spent Council of Girl Scouts, which pro- for the participation of 15 girls at the Middle School Program more than a decade mentoring and vided the ideal infrastructure for the junior and senior high-school level, Striving to expose young people teaching girls through a number of program and shared the mission of the program was expanded again by to the curiosities of science, the tailored programs, many of which encouraging girls to be come inter- partnering with the Girl Scouts, as Middle School Program provides edu- have been scaled to reach from ested in science. well as with San Diego City schools. cation and resources to San Diego hundreds to thousands of girls. The Science Enrichment Today, the program flourishes across County middle school teachers in “The world of science should Program (http://enrich.sdsc.edu/) has San Diego County. order to accomplish this goal. The reflect our diverse society,” Steckler grown over the past 12 years, but has teachers administer after-school sci- says. To see the scientific infrastruc- maintained a steady focus of provid- Girls Are GREAT ence enrichment programs to approx- ture become more integrated into this ing students with a hands-on study of Collaboration imately 250 male and female societal change, Steckler and Bailey science. The goal has been not only Steckler and Bailey later became minority students. Since attendance have created several educational out- to increase awareness and knowledge involved with the Girl Scouts’ Girls is optional, the program includes reach programs geared toward youth, of science in underrepresented are GREAT program. They added interesting activities within an engag- particularly those of underrepresented groups, but also to sustain interest by activities in science and engineering ing curriculum that is developed with groups such as females. making the activities accessible and to that program, which targets sec- input from teachers. Topics studied “The best time to get girls inter- enjoyable. Science Enrichment ond- to eighth-grade minority girls in include motion and forces, energy ested in science is early, in the sev- Programs have included several differ- the inner city and border communi- and energy transfer, electronics and enth grade, when they begin studying ent emphases over the past decade: ties of San Diego County. Approxi- electricity, optics, and rocketry. algebra,” Steckler says. “This is the • Girl Scout Science Interest mately 5,600 participants are learning The experiments performed by time when math is a little more Group and Science Scholars firsthand about science by creating the students are designed to approach abstract, and girls prefer learning Program their own projects. SDSC’s involve- science in a non-intimidating man- things that have relevance. Once we • Girls are GREAT ment includes developing curriculum, ner. For instance, students are intro- address this relevance, they are much Collaboration providing equipment, and training duced to electricity by allowing them more interested in math and science • Middle School Program the Girl Scout staff and volunteer to explore series and parallel circuits courses.” • Envision, Explore, Engage leaders. The staff members and lead- using a simple circuit kit. Students Steckler’s passion for inspiring ers have attended sessions to acquire receive invaluable practice in prob- scientific interest in females and Girl Scout Science Interest scientific knowledge in order to make lem solving, critical thinking, and minorities stems from her own inter- Group and Science the program self-supporting. The cur- teamwork—all of which are require- ests. “I didn’t grow up building Scholars Program riculum includes chemistry, computer ments for being successful in science. things,” she says. “But I was intrigued The first Science Enrichment science, Earth science, engineering, by the analytical nature of math and Program was the Girl Scout Science life science, and physics. Within Envision, Explore, Engage science. I always enjoyed problem Interest Group, created in 1989 for these disciplines, students learn about (E3) solving, particularly setting up proofs, San Diego girls in the 7th through such subjects as DNA, earthquakes, Inspired by the comments of a K- and solving puzzles and algebraic 10th grades who expressed an interest and solar energy. 12 educator, Steckler is now leading equations. Because I enjoyed it so in science. “In addition to regular The Girls are GREAT Family an effort to develop an interactive much and was able to succeed at it, I Girl Scout activities, I wanted the Science Night was started in 1998 to CD-Rom of lessons in molecular would like to get more girls involved San Diego-Imperial Girl Scout encourage family involvement in stu- science, computer science, neuro- in science so they can share the same Council to include science projects,” dents’ education and activities. science, Earth science, and engi- rewarding experience.” Steckler explains. “For a variety of Parents and siblings, as well as neering designed for teachers and The major funding agency for cultural, economic, and family rea- extended families and communities, students in grades 6 through 8. SDSC SDSC, the National Science sons, many girls—especially minority are invited to experience the girls’ is the lead institution in a nationwide Foundation (NSF), has long been girls—have a limited concept of what activities. “Studies have shown that partnership, the National Partnership committed to increasing female and being a scientist means and what it family support is very important to a for Advanced Computational minority participation in the takes to become one.” child’s success in school,” Steckler Infrastructure (NPACI). NPACI says. Each girl participating in the researchers are developing cutting- event receives a Science in a Bag kit, edge software and infrastructure for which includes an experiment activ- the scientific community—the goal New CRA Members ity she can share with her family. of E3 is to make this information 7/1/00 to 1/31/01 These kits also include science toys, available to the K-12 community. such as magnets, magnifying glasses, Under Steckler’s leadership, K-12 CRA is pleased to welcome the following departments as members: and slinkies. Attendance at the last educators Anna O’Neil and Danine Family Science Night event was 300. Ezell, along with a team of commu- Academic Members Steckler and Bailey have received nity college students, are crafting the Bradley University (CS) Rochester Institute of Technology (CS) numerous honors for their work, content of the CD-Rom. “Consid- Bryn Mawr College (MCS) University of California, Berkeley including the Girl Scout Council’s ering some of the textbooks that are California State Polytechnic University (IMS) Spirit Award twice, in 1992 and used to teach science, it’s no wonder (CS) University of Michigan (I) 2000. “Rozeanne Steckler has done young people are perplexed by the College of Charleston (CS) University of Minnesota, Duluth (CS) wonders with our members to bridge subject,” says O’Neil, an award-win- Colorado Technical University (CS) University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez the digital divide,” says Deb Baker, ning teacher who is leading the Georgia Institute of Technology (ECE) (ECE) director of communications for the development of the curriculum in the Grinnell College (MCS) University of Washington (I) Girl Scout San Diego-Imperial molecular-science portion of the proj- Harvey Mudd College (CS) University of Washington, Bothell (CS) Council. “She has contributed greatly ect. “Students are taught numbers Indiana University (I) University of West Florida (CS) to our goal of seeing successful girls and formulas, with no point of refer- Pennsylvania State University (IST) Wesleyan University (CS) become successful women.” ence. The material needs to be trans- Sid Karin, director of SDSC and lated into understandable terms.” Lab and Center Members a CRA board member, is very sup- Because the project is situated in an Institute for Human and Machine Cognition portive of these programs. “Reaching environment (the Internet) to which National Center for Atmospheric Research a large number of girls and young many of today’s youth can relate, the women, inspiring them to consider team expects this latest outreach scientific careers through exposure Expanding Pipeline Continued on Page 20 Page 4 March 2001 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS

1999-2000 Taulbee Survey Current and Future Ph.D. Output Will Not Satisfy Demand for Faculty By Randal E. Bryant and Mary Jane Irwin This article and the accompany- Figure 1. Number of Respondents to Faculty Salary Questions ing tables present the results of the th 1 30 CRA Taulbee Survey of Ph.D.- Year US CS Depts. US CE Depts. Canadian Total granting departments of computer science (CS) and computer engineer- 1995 110/133 (83%) 9/13 (69%) 11/16 (69%) 130/162 (80%) ing (CE) in the United States and 1996 98/131 (75%) 8/13 (62% 9/16 (56%) 115/160 (72%) Canada. This survey is conducted 1997 111/133 (83%) 6/13 (46%) 13/17 (76%) 130/163 (80%) annually by the Computing Research 1998 122/145 (84%) 7/19 (37%) 12/18 (67%) 141/182 (77%) Association to document trends in student enrollment, employment of 1999 132/156 (85%) 5/24 (21%) 19/23 (83%) 156/203 (77%) graduates, and faculty salaries. 2000 148/163 (91%) 6/28 (21%) 19/23 (83%) 173/214 (81%) Information is gathered during listed at the end of this article. Due the lowest number in more than 10 increase—Table 1); and the total the fall and early winter. The period to the low return rate for CE, we cau- years, and it reverses the trend of Ph.D. enrollments (Table 6) the data cover varies from table to tion against drawing strong conclu- moderate increases for the past sev- increased from 7,160 to 7,857 (10% table. Degree production (Ph.D., sions from the presented data for CE. eral years. increase). These statistics indicate an Master’s, and Bachelor’s) and total In our discussion, we will focus on The prediction from last year’s improving long-term supply, which is Ph.D. enrollments refer to the previ- the combined numbers for CS and survey that 1,167 Ph.D. degrees consistent with the study done by ous academic year (1999-2000). Data CE. Since a net of 17 more depart- would be awarded in 2000 was, as Zweben (CRN, September 1999) for new students in all categories and ments reported this year than last, usual, overly optimistic. In fact, it showing that one must look beyond total enrollments for Master’s and some of our statistics should be was more optimistic than usual. Last the annual production of Ph.D. Bachelor’s degrees refer to the current expected to rise. year there were 944 degrees awarded degrees to determine long-term Ph.D. academic year (2000-2001). This article presents the most sig- compared with the prediction from trends. Still, we can see that the pro- Projected student production and nificant results of the survey, with the prior year of 1,128, a ratio of duction of new Ph.D. degrees will, at information on faculty salaries and particular attention to those that dif- 0.84, whereas this year’s ratio is 0.75. best, increase only slightly over the demographics also refer to the current fer markedly from last year or that This range of “optimism ratios” next several years. academic year. Faculty salaries are appear to indicate long-term trends. means we would expect the number Table 4 shows area of specializa- those effective January 1, 2001. The continued low response rate for of degrees next year to be somewhere tion versus types of first appointments Responses received by January 14, CE departments (21% for the last between 860 and 965, based on the for Ph.D. recipients in 2000. These 2001 are included in the tables. two years) makes trend analysis for estimate for next year of 1,142. statistics are also very similar to those The survey results represent input CE risky. Overall, the set of schools As we will see later, this decrease from last year. The only significant from Ph.D.-granting departments that responded this year was very sim- is somewhat alarming when consid- change is the increase in the number only. A total of 214 departments were ilar to last with some additions. For ered in light of the high demand for of recipients in the area of OS/net- surveyed, compared with 203 depart- more details on how the faculty salary undergraduate and masters education working (from 107 to 141), with most ments last year. Overall, the response information is to be interpreted, see indicated in the survey, as well as the of the increased supply going to rate was 81% (173 departments), a the article in the January 2001, CRN faculty recruiting plans of the schools industry, but some to university slight improvement over the past sev- on Preliminary Taulbee Faculty that will provide these programs. research positions. In light of the eral years (Figure 1). The return rate Salary Data (http://www.cra.org/ of 6 out of 28 (21%) for CE programs CRN/issues/0101.pdf). [Note that in is once again very low. We attribute the printed version of this January Figure 2. Ph.D. Production this low response to two factors: 1) CRN article the labels in the left- many CE programs are part of an hand column of Table 7 were incor- 1150 ECE department, and they do not rect. These have been corrected in 1100 keep separate statistics for CE vs. EE, 1050 the online version of the January and 2) many of these departments are 1000 2001 article and in Table 30 of this not aware of the Taulbee Survey or its 950 current article.] importance. The response rates for 900 The survey form itself is modified US CS programs (148 of 163, or 850 slightly each year to ensure as high a Number of Degrees 91%), and for Canadian programs (19 800 rate of return as possible (by simplify- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 of 23, or 83%) were very good. ing and clarifying), while continuing We thank all respondents who Year to capture the data necessary to completed this year’s questionnaire. understand trends in the discipline Departments that participated are and also reflect changing concerns of The Ph.D. production picture is number of new Ph.Ds in both years’ the computing research community. not as gloomy if we consider the surveys whose areas and/or employ- CORRECTION: In the January This year the only changes were other statistics for Ph.D. programs. ment is “unknown,” we caution 2001 edition of CRN, p. 5, the minor rewordings of some questions. All other trends for future Ph.D. pro- against drawing any strong headings in Table 7 for the duction show increases. The number conclusions. Taulbee Survey were incorrect. Ph.D. Degree Production who entered Ph.D. programs (Table Most statistics on gender and eth- The correct headings under and Enrollments 5) increased from 1,890 to 2,062 (9% nicity for Ph.D. students (Tables 2, 3, “Faculty Rank” are: (1) Non- (Tables 1-8) increase); the number who passed 7, and 8) show remarkably little Tenure Teaching Faculty; As shown in Table 1, a total of qualifiers increased from 930 to 1,119 change from last year. White and (2) Assistant; (3) Associate; and 881 Ph.D. degrees were awarded in (20% increase—Table 1); the number nonresident-alien men continue to (4) Full. 2000 by the 173 responding depart- who passed their thesis proposal account for a very large fraction of ments. As Figure 2 indicates, this is exams increased from 770 to 788 (2% Taulbee Continued on Page 6

Table 1. Ph.D. Production by Type of Department and Rank Ph.D.s Ave. per Ph.D.s Next Ave. per Passed Ave. per Passed Ave. per Department, Rank Produced Dept. Year Dept. Qualifier Dept. Thesis Exam Dept. US CS 1-12 177 16.1 240 21.8 185 16.8 157 14.3 US CS 13-24 124 10.3 147 12.3 148 12.3 124 10.3 US CS 25-36 82 6.8 129 10.8 137 11.4 87 7.3 US CS Other 405 3.6 532 4.7 567 5.1 340 3.0 Canadian 79 4.2 76 4.0 59 3.1 53 2.8 US CE 14 2.3 20 3.3 23 3.8 27 4.5

Total 881 5.1 1,144 6.6 1,119 6.5 788 4.6

Page 5 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS March 2001

1999-2000 Taulbee Survey Taulbee from Page 5 Master’s and Bachelor’s 9%. If this trend continues, then engineering. next year’s projected production of Most demographics regarding Ph.D. production and enrollments. Degree Production and Enrollments (Tables 9-16) 15,988 Bachelor’s degrees (Table 11) gender and ethnicity for Bachelor’s Women constitute a significant and 6,300 Master’s degrees (Table 12) and Master’s students show remark- minority (18% of enrollments, 15% All statistics on Master’s and may be too low. able stability when compared with of graduates.) All other underrepre- Bachelor’s programs show major Large increases can be seen in the last year’s results. The only significant sented groups are very small minori- growth. A total of 6,562 students number of new undergraduate (11% change is that the fraction of Master’s ties. As Figure 3 illustrates, one received Master’s degrees, an increase increase) and Master’s (19% increase) degree recipients who are nonresident important threshold was reached for of 18%. The number of Bachelor’s students, and in the enrollments in aliens increased by 5% to 52%, with the first time this year–fully 50% of degrees increased to 14,822, an Bachelor’s (17% increase) and a corresponding decrease in the num- the enrolled Ph.D. students are non- increase of 17%. As Figure 4 indi- Master’s (21% increase) programs. ber classified as “White, nonresident aliens. This increase has cates, the number of students gradu- Figure 5 shows that new undergradu- Hispanic.” In fact, the number of come with a corresponding decrease ating with Bachelor’s degrees has ate enrollments continue to reach White, non-Hispanic students receiv- in the percentage who are “White, been increasing by approximately historic highs. Some of these appar- ing Master’s degrees actually non-Hispanic.” Of course, many 2,100 each year for the past 4 years. ent increases may be caused by the decreased by 6%. other fields of engineering have long This year’s Master’s production increased number of departments passed the 50% mark for foreign stu- exceeded the projection from last responding to our survey, but even Faculty Demographics dents, and so we see no cause for year’s survey by 14%, while Bachelor’s normalized statistics, such as the aver- (Tables 17-23) alarm. production exceeded projections by age number of new undergraduate The total number of faculty majors per department, grew by 11%. increased by 14% over the past year Table 2. Gender of Ph.D. Recipients by Type of Degree One interesting feature is that to a total of 4,939 (Table 17). This CS CE CS&CE most of the increased enrollments in increase was reflected in almost all Male 689 (85%) 48 (86%) 737 (85%) the United States have occurred in categories, except for the number of Female 123 (15%) 8 (14%) 131 (15%) departments ranked above 36. In post-docs that actually decreased by fact, the number of new undergradu- 42. Considering that 115 faculty are Total have ate enrollments in departments reported to have left academia (Table Gender ranked 1 through 24 actually declined 23), the survey indicates 775 new fac- Data for 812 56 868 slightly, while those ranked 25 and ulty this year. Some of these are due above had substantial growth. to the increased number of respon- Unknown 13 0 13 Schools classified as “US CS Other” dents to the survey. Our Ph.D. pro- Total 825 56 881 now have 59% of the undergraduate duction shows only 273 graduates students (up from 51% last year), and taking faculty positions (Table 4.) 71% of the Master’s students (up from Some of the new teaching faculty 66% last year.) For new enrollments, may not have Ph.D. degrees, and Table 3. Ethnicity of Ph.D. Recipients by Type of Degree they account for 56% of the under- some new faculty may have come CS CE CS&CE graduate students (up from 53%) and from nonacademic sources. Nonresident Alien 337 (45%) 32 (62%) 369 (47%) 65% of the Master’s students (up from This year’s faculty growth to African American, 57%). Apparently the “big name” 4,939 was significantly greater than Non-Hispanic 14 (2%) 0 (0%) 14 (2%) schools have not been scaling up to the prediction of 4,315 from last Native American or handle the influx of students wishing year’s survey. This growth is greater to pursue computer science and Alaskan Native 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Taulbee Continued on Page 7 Asian or Pacific Islander 73 (10%) 6 (12%) 79 (10%) Hispanic 16 (2%) 1 (2%) 17 (2%) White, Non-Hispanic 293 (40%) 13 (25%) 306 (39%) Figure 3. Nonresident Aliens as Fraction of Ph.D. Other/Not Listed 8 (1%) 0 (0%) 8 (1%) Enrollments

Total have Ethnicity 60 55 Data For 741 52 793 50 45 40 Ethnicity/Residency Percent 35 Unknown 84 4 88 30 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 Total 825 56 881 Year

Table 4. Employment of New Ph.D. Recipients by Specialty

New Ph.D.s in

Ph.D. Granting Depts. Artificial Intelligence/Robotics Hardware/Architecture Numerical Analysis/Scientific Computing Programming Languages/Compilers OS/Networks Engineering Software Theory/Algorithms Graphics/Human Interfaces Databases/Information Systems Other/Unknown Total Tenure-Track 35 9 3 15 24 16 17 16 10 13 158 (22%) Researcher 6914100757352 (7%) Postdoc 1020131855540 (6%) (38%) Teaching Faculty 520132322323 (3%) New Ph.D.s, Other Categories Other CS/CE Dept. 420160232222 (3%) Non-CS/CE Dept. 50001000107(1%) Industry 54 37 10 26 83 50 20 26 34 19 359 (50%) Government 215221401321 (3%) (62%) Self-Employed 20011100016(1%) Employed Abroad 550420142326 (4%) Unemployed 00100002003(0%)

Total have Employment Data for 128 67 20 55 135 71 62 63 64 52 717 100% 100%

Unknown 2870161522105157 Total 156 74 20 56 141 72 67 65 66 157 874

Page 6 March 2001 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS

1999-2000 Taulbee Survey Table 5. New Ph.D Students in Fall 2000 by Department Type and Rank

CS CE CS & CE ______MS to Ave. per MS to Ave. per Ave. per Department, Rank New Admit Ph.D. Total Dept. New Admit Ph.D. Total Dept. Total Dept. US CS 1-12 338 42 380 34.5 0 0 0 0.0 380 34.5 US CS 13-24 299 34 333 27.8 0 1 1 0.1 334 27.8 US CS 25-36 268 21 289 24.1 0 0 0 0.0 289 24.1 US CS Other 749 99 848 7.6 71 8 79 0.7 927 8.3 Canadian 85 22 107 5.6 3 0 3 0.2 110 5.8 US CE 0 0 0 0.0 22 0 22 3.7 22 3.7

Total 1,739 218 1,957 11.4 96 9 105 0.6 2,062 12.0

Taulbee from Page 6 growth over the next few years, it is male, 16% female) is very close to by 8% for non-tenure-track teaching difficult to see where departments the split for new Ph.D. recipients faculty, similar to the overall than can be accounted for by the will find these new faculty. (Table 2). However, the split is not increases for these categories. increased number of survey respon- Table 23 on faculty “losses” uniform across faculty categories. Average salaries for researchers and dents. For example, the number of showed that a large number took aca- New tenure-track faculty are slightly post-docs increased at much higher faculty in the U.S. CS departments demic positions elsewhere. Only 115 skewed toward males (88%), whereas rates (39% and 30%, respectively), ranked 1 through 36 grew by 11%, actually left academia (2.3% of the new teaching faculty are significantly but the total numbers in these cate- whereas these departments predicted total) through death, retirement, or skewed toward females (26%). gories are too small to draw strong a 9% growth. In fact, it appears that taking a nonacademic position. This It is interesting to compare the conclusions. many departments have established compares with 112 (2.6% of total) ethnicity data for new faculty (Table aggressive plans for recruiting over last year. These numbers counter the 20) to those for Ph.D. recipients Concluding Observations the next few years. Last year the sur- prevailing fear that many of our fac- (Table 3). Fully 58% of the new fac- The continuing rise in bachelor’s veyed departments predicted a 7% ulty are leaving academia and seeking ulty are White, non-Hispanic, even and master’s students is creating a faculty growth over two years; this their fortunes at start-up companies. though only 39% of the Ph.D. recipi- strong demand for faculty in com- year, they predict 21% over 2 years The demographic data for faculty ents are in this category. By contrast, puter science and engineering. On on top of last year’s actual growth. In (Tables 19–22) are very similar to only 17% of the new faculty are non- average, CS and CE departments light of our prediction that Ph.D. pro- those from last year. We see that the resident aliens, whereas fully 47% of want to grow by 21% over the next duction will show, at best, modest gender split of new faculty (84% the degree recipients are. Some new two years. Unfortunately, the pro- faculty could have become residents duction of new Ph.Ds is not rising to Table 6. Ph.D. Degree Total Enrollment by after receiving their Ph.D. degrees, meet this demand. Even worse, his- Department Type and Rank but it seems clear that proportion- toric demographics indicate that the Department, Rank CS CE CS & CE ately fewer foreign students take posi- fraction of graduating Ph.Ds who US CS 1-12 1,452 (20%) 0 (0%) 1,452 (18%) tions at U.S. universities. enter academia will decline as the US CS 13-24 1,180 (16%) 14 (3%) 1,194 (15%) proportion of Ph.D students who are Faculty Salaries nonresident aliens increases. Already US CS 25-36 914 (12%) 0 (0%) 914 (12%) (Tables 24-30) many faculty positions are being filled US CS Other 3,359 (45%) 331 (74%) 3,690 (47%) The U.S. average salaries have by hiring faculty from other universi- Canadian 505 (7%) 10 (2%) 515 (7%) increased by 7% for most categories ties. This year 127 people made such US CE 2 (0%) 90 (20%) 92 (1%) of U.S. faculty, except for full profes- a shift (Table 23), compared with 75 sor salaries that grew by 4%. These last year. We can expect more of this Total 7,412 445 7,857 increases are all higher than last “poaching” as demand outstrips sup- year’s numbers. Canadian salaries ply. This, plus greater competition increased by 4%, 8%, 7%, and 3% for for new graduates, will place upward non-tenure track, assistant, associate, pressure on junior faculty salaries and Table 7. Gender of Ph.D. Program Total Enrollment and full professors, respectively. startup packages. Universities will CS CE CS & CE These increases are somewhat lower need to look to sources beyond new Male 5,882 (82%) 372 (84%) 6,254 (82%) than last year’s. Ph.Ds and existing faculty to meet Female 1,319 (18%) 73 (16%) 1,392 (18%) Average salaries for new faculty their growth targets. increased by 7% for tenure-track and Taulbee Continued on Page 9 Total have Gender Data for 7,201 445 7,646 Figure 4. B.S. Production

Unknown 211 0 16000 Total 7,412 445 7,857 14000 12000

Table 8. Ethnicity of Ph.D. Program Total Enrollment 10000 CS CE CS&CE 8000 Number of Degrees Nonresident Alien 3,210 (49%) 299 (70%) 3,509 (50%) 6000 African American, 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 proj Non-Hispanic 110 (2%) 1 (0%) 111 (2%) Year Native American or Alaskan Native 4 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) Asian or Pacific Islander 657 (10%) 26 (6%) 683 (10%) Hispanic 81 (1%) 3 (1%) 84 (1%) Figure 5. Newly Declared CS/CE Undergraduate Majors White, Non-Hispanic 2,279 (35%) 79 (18%) 2,358 (34%) 24000 Other/Not Listed 192 (3%) 20 (5%) 212 (3%) 22000 20000 Total have Ethnicity 18000 16000 Data For 6,533 428 6,961 14000 12000 Ethnicity/Residency Number of Students 10000 Unknown 879 17 896 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total 7,412 445 7,857 Year

Page 7 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS March 2001

1999-2000 Taulbee Survey Table 9. Gender of Bachelor’s and Master’s Recipients

Bachelor’s Master’s ______CS CE CS & CE CS CE CS & CE Male 9,267 (80%) 1,824 (88%) 11,091 (81%) 4,254 (74%) 337 (80%) 4,591 (74%) Female 2,372 (20%) 258 (12%) 2,630 (19%) 1,507 (26%) 83 (20%) 1,590 (26%)

Total have Gender Data for 11,639 2,082 13,721 5,761 420 6,181

Unknown 1,021 80 1,101 339 42 381 Total 12,660 2,162 14,822 6,100 462 6,562

Table 10. Ethnicity of Bachelor’s and Master’s Recipients

Bachelor’s Master’s ______CS CE Total CS CE Total Nonresident Alien 747 (9%) 101 (5%) 848 (8%) 2,668 (51%) 256 (63%) 2,924 (52%) African American, Non-Hispanic 324 (4%) 72 (4%) 396 (4%) 104 (2%) 4 (1%) 108 (2%) Native American or Alaskan Native 31 (0%) 4 (0%) 35 (0%) 74 (1%) - (0%) 74 (1%) Asian or Pacific Islander 1,988 (23%) 319 (17%) 2,307 (22%) 906 (17%) 32 (8%) 938 (17%) Hispanic 292 (3%) 74 (4%) 366 (3%) 59 (1%) 4 (1%) 63 (1%) White, Non-Hispanic 4,744 (55%) 1,106 (59%) 5,850 (56%) 1,275 (24%) 100 (25%) 1,375 (24%) Other/Not Listed 524 (6%) 210 (11%) 734 (7%) 170 (3%) 8 (2%) 178 (3%)

Total have Ethnicity Data For 8,650 1,886 10,536 5,256 404 5,660

Ethnicity/Residency Unknown 4,010 276 4,286 844 58 902

Total 12,660 2,162 14,822 6,100 462 6,562

Table 11. Bachelor’s Degree Candidates for 2000-2001 by Table 12. Master’s Degree Candidates for 2000-2001 by Department Type and Rank Department Type and Rank Department, Rank CS CE CS & CE Department, Rank CS CE CS & CE US CS 1-12 1,794 (13%) 75 (3%) 1,869 (12%) US CS 1-12 730 (12%) 0 (0%) 730 (12%) US CS 13-24 1,286 (9%) 395 (18%) 1,681 (11%) US CS 13-24 565 (10%) 3 (1%) 568 (9%) US CS 25-36 1,626 (12%) 63 (3%) 1,689 (11%) US CS 25-36 431 (7%) 0 (0%) 431 (7%) US CS Other 6,429 (47%) 1,381 (61%) 7,810 (49%) US CS Other 3,773 (64%) 354 (84%) 4,127 (66%) Canadian 2,572 (19%) 210 (9%) 2,782 (17%) Canadian 381 (6%) 10 (2%) 391 (6%) US CE 30 (0%) 127 (6%) 157 (1%) US CE - (0%) 53 (13%) 53 (1%)

Total 13,737 2,251 15,988 Total 5,880 420 6,300

Table 13. New Master’s Students in Fall 2000 by Department Type and Rank

CS CE CS & CE ______Department, Rank Ave. per Dept. Ave. per Dept. Total Ave. per Dept. US CS 1-12 681 61.9 0 0.0 681 61.9 US CS 13-24 590 53.6 2 0.2 592 53.8 US CS 25-36 322 26.8 0 0.0 322 26.8 US CS Other 3,753 34.8 437 4.0 4,190 38.8 Canadian 565 29.7 15 0.8 580 30.5 US CE 0 38 7.6 38 7.6

Total 5,911 36.7 492 3.0 6,403 38.6

Table 14. New Undergraduate Students in Fall 2000 by Department Type and Rank

CS CE CS & CE Majors ______Average Average Average Major per Major per Major per Department, Rank Pre-Major Major Dept. Pre-Major Major Dept. Total Dept. US CS 1-12 750 1,504 136.7 0 65 5.9 1,569 142.6 US CS 13-24 182 1,440 120.0 0 426 35.5 1,866 155.5 US CS 25-36 717 1,816 151.3 26 58 4.8 1,874 156.2 US CS Other 4,171 11,198 103.7 0 2,027 18.8 13,225 122.5 Canadian 961 4,270 237.2 768 276 15.3 4,546 252.6 US CE - 31 6.2 0 305 61.0 336 67.2

Total 6,781 20,259 122.0 794 3,157 19.0 23,416 141.1

Page 8 March 2001 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS

1999-2000 Taulbee Survey

Taulbee from Page 7 Washington, University of Wisconsin CS departments ranked 25-36 Nova Southeastern, Oakland, Ohio at Madison, Harvard, and California are: University of Chicago, Purdue, State, Oklahoma State, Old Rankings Institute of Technology. All but one Rutgers, Duke, University of North Dominion, Oregon Graduate For tables that group computer school in this ranking participated in Carolina at Chapel Hill, University Institute, Oregon State, Pennsylvania science departments by rank, the the survey this year. of Rochester, State University of New State, Polytechnic, Portland State, rankings are based on information CS departments ranked 13-24 York at Stony Brook, Georgia Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, collected in the 1995 assessment of are: Brown, Yale, University of Institute of Technology, University of Southern Methodist, State University research and doctorate programs in California at Los Angeles, University Arizona, University of California at of New York (Albany and Buffalo), the United States conducted by the of Maryland at College Park, New Irvine, University of Virginia, and Stevens Institute, Syracuse, Temple, National Research Council. York University, University of Indiana. All schools in this ranking Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Tufts, The top twelve schools in this Massachusetts at Amherst, Rice, participated in the survey this year. Tulane, Washington State, and ranking are: Stanford, Massachusetts University of Southern California, CS departments that are ranked Washington (St. Louis). University Institute of Technology, University of University of Michigan, University of above 36 or are unranked that of: Alabama (Birmingham, California at Berkeley, Carnegie California at San Diego, Columbia, responded to the survey include: Huntsville, and Tuscaloosa), 2 Mellon, Cornell, Princeton, and University of Pennsylvania. All Arizona State, Auburn, Boston, Arkansas, California (Davis, University of Texas at Austin, schools in this ranking participated in Brandeis, Brigham Young, Case Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Santa University of Illinois at Urbana- the survey this year. Western Reserve, City University of Cruz), Central Florida, Cincinnati, Champaign, University of New York, Clemson, William and Colorado (Boulder and Colorado Mary, Colorado School of Mines, Springs), Georgia, Illinois (Chicago), Table 15. Master’s Degree Total Enrollment by Colorado State, Dartmouth, DePaul, Louisiana (Lafayette), Maryland Department Type and Rank Drexel, Florida Atlantic, Florida (Baltimore Co.), Massachusetts Department, Rank CS CE CS & CE Institute of Technology, Florida (Lowell), Missouri (Rolla and US CS 1-12 1,279 (8%) 0 1,279 International, Florida State, George Columbia), Nebraska (Lincoln), Mason, George Washington, Iowa Nevada (Las Vegas), Notre Dame, US CS 13-24 1,198 (8%) 12 1,210 State, Johns Hopkins, Kansas State, South Florida, Tennessee US CS 25-36 581 (4%) 0 581 Kent State, Lehigh, Louisiana State, (Knoxville), Texas (Arlington, US CS Other 10,880 (70%) 1,009 11,889 Michigan State, Michigan Dallas, and El Paso), Wisconsin Canadian 1,669 (11%) 30 1,699 Technological, Mississippi State, New (Milwaukee), Connecticut, Delaware, US CE - (0%) 79 79 Jersey Institute of Technology, New Denver, Florida, Hawaii, Houston, Mexico State University, New Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mexico Tech, North Carolina State, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Total 15,607 1,130 16,737 North Dakota State, Northeastern, Hampshire, New Mexico, North Taulbee Continued on Page 10

Table 16. Bachelor’s Degree Program Total Enrollment by Department Type and Rank

CS CE CS & CE Majors ______Average Average Average Major per Major per Major per Department, Rank Pre-Major Major Dept. Pre-Major Major Dept. Total Dept. US CS 1-12 107 6,716 610.5 0 151 13.7 6,867 624.3 US CS 13-24 333 5,686 473.8 41 1,569 130.8 7,255 604.6 US CS 25-36 1,912 5,659 471.6 0 112 9.3 5,771 480.9 US CS Other 8,905 38,170 353.4 1,270 8,359 77.4 46,529 430.8 Canadian 1,364 10,431 579.5 0 1,454 80.8 11,885 660.3 US CE 0 118 23.6 168 886 177.2 1,004 200.8

Total 12,621 66,780 402.3 1,479 12,531 72.9 79,311 477.8

Table 17. Actual and Anticipated Faculty Sizes by Position Actual Projected ______Expected Two-Year 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Growth

Tenure-Track 3,591 3,989 4,366 775 (22%) Researcher 345 347 348 3 (1%) Postdoc 208 263 316 108 (52%) Teaching Faculty 643 704 761 118 (18%) Other/Not Listed 152 162 175 23 (15%)

Total 4,939 5,465 5,966 1,027 21%

Table 18. Actual and Anticipated Faculty Sizes by Department Type and Rank Actual Projected ______Expected Two-Year Department Rank 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Growth

US CS 1-12 684 742 760 76 (11%) US CS 13-24 479 516 564 85 (18%) US CS 25-36 402 431 488 86 (21%) US CS Other 2,587 2,876 3,161 574 (22%) Canadian 677 777 859 182 (27%) US CE 110 123 134 24 (22%)

Total 4,939 5,465 5,966 1,027 (21%)

Page 9 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS March 2001

1999-2000 Taulbee Survey Table 19. Gender of Newly Hired Faculty Tenure-Track Researcher Postdoc Teaching Faculty Other Total

Male 300 (88%) 43 (93%) 63 (84%) 122 (74%) 10 (83%) 538 (84%) Female 39 (12%) 3 (7%) 12 (16%) 43 (26%) 2 (17%) 99 (16%)

Total 339 (53%) 46 (7%) 75 (12%) 165 (26%) 12 (2%) 637

Unknown 20010640

Table 20. Ethnicity of Newly Hired Faculty Tenure-Track Researcher Postdoc Teaching Faculty Other Total

Nonresident Alien 54 (17%) 7 (15%) 34 (50%) 11 (7%) 3 (25%) 109 African American, Non-Hispanic 2 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (2%) 0 (0%) 6 Native American or Alaskan Native 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 Asian or Pacific Islander 59 (19%) 6 (13%) 4 (6%) 14 (9%) 0 (0%) 83 Hispanic 6 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (4%) 0 (0%) 12 White, Non-Hispanic 182 (58%) 32 (70%) 26 (38%) 125 (78%) 9 (75%) 374 Other/Not Listed 9 (3%) 1 (2%) 4 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 14

Total have Ethnicity Data For 312 46 68 161 12 599

Ethnicity/Residency Unknown 290750 41 Total 341 46 75 166 12 640

Table 21. Gender of Current Faculty Full Associate Assistant Teaching Faculty Total

Male 1,470 (92%) 1,009 (87%) 781 (86%) 531 (74%) 3,791 (87%) Female 125 (8%) 148 (13%) 123 (14%) 190 (26%) 586 (13%)

Total have Gender Data for 1,595 (36%) 1,157 (26%) 904 (21%) 721 (16%) 4,377

Table 22. Ethnicity of Current Faculty Full Associate Assistant Teaching Faculty Total

Nonresident Alien 11 (1%) 18 (2%) 125 (15%) 35 (5%) 189 (5%) African American, Non-Hispanic 4 (0%) 4 (0%) 9 (1%) 11 (2%) 28 (1%) Native American or Alaskan Native 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 2 (0%) 3 (0%) Asian or Pacific Islander 266 (18%) 246 (23%) 149 (18%) 43 (6%) 704 (17%) Hispanic 36 (2%) 20 (2%) 23 (3%) 8 (1%) 87 (2%) White, Non-Hispanic 1,143 (77%) 753 (71%) 521 (62%) 574 (84%) 2,991 (73%) Other/Not Listed 28 (2%) 26 (2%) 18 (2%) 13 (2%) 85 (2%)

Total have Ethnicity Data For 1,488 1,067 846 686 4,087

Ethnicity/Residency Unknown121 96 63 36 316 Total 1,609 1,163 909 722 4,403

Taulbee from Page 9 Table 23. Faculty Losses Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pittsburgh, Acknowledgments Total South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming, Jean Smith, Jay Vegso, and Bill Died 4 Vanderbilt, Virginia Polytechnic, Aspray assisted with the data collec- Retired 54 Wayne State, West Virginia, Western tion, tabulation, and analysis for this Took Academic Position Elsewhere 127 Michigan, Worcester Polytechnic, survey. Stu Zweben provided valuable and Wright State. review comments and suggestions. Took Nonacademic Position 57 Computer Engineering depart- We thank them for their assistance. Remained, Changed to Part Time 15 ments participating in the survey this Other 13 year include: Carnegie Mellon, Endnotes Unknown 5 Northwestern, Ohio State, Oregon 1The title of the survey honors State, Rensselaer Polytechnic, and the late Orrin E. Taulbee of the Total 275 University of New Mexico. University of Pittsburgh who con- Canadian departments participat- ducted these surveys for the All tables with rankings: Statistics All ethnicity tables: Ethnic break- ing in the survey include: Concordia, Computer Science Board until 1984, sometimes are given according to downs are drawn from guidelines set Dalhousie, McGill, Memorial, with retrospective annual data going departmental rank. Schools are forth by the U.S. Department of Queen’s, Simon Fraser, and York. back to 1970. ranked only if they offer a CS degree Education. University of: Alberta, British 2Although the University of and according to the quality of their All faculty tables: The survey Columbia, Calgary, Montreal, Pennsylvania and the University of CS program as determined by reputa- makes no distinction between faculty Quebec (Montreal), Regina, Chicago were tied in the National tion. Those that only offer CE specializing in CS versus CE pro- Saskatchewan, Toronto CS, Toronto Research Council rankings, CRA degrees are not ranked, and statistics grams. Every effort is made to mini- ECE, Victoria, Waterloo, and made the arbitrary decision to place are given on a separate line, apart mize the inclusion of faculty in Western Ontario. Pennsylvania in the second tier of from the rankings. electrical engineering who are not schools. computer engineers. Taulbee Continued on Page 11 Page 10 March 2001 COMPUTING RESEARCH NEWS

1999-2000 Taulbee Survey Table 24. Nine-month Salaries, 142 Responses of 163 US CS Computer Science Departments