Latinos in Science Trends and Opportunities
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education Volume 6 Number 4 October 2007 305-355 © 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/1538192707306552 http://jhh.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com
Refugio I. Rochin University of California, Davis University of California, Santa Cruz
Stephen F. Mello University of California, Santa Cruz
Abstract: In U.S. coverage of leadership in science and engineering (S&E), Latinos are generally dismissed from consideration. The pipeline metaphor tends to ignore advances made by Latinos in completing doctoral degrees in S&E. New data suggest a better metaphor, the pyramid of higher education, for understanding the progress of Latinos in S&E. Questions addressed include, what fields are pursued? What is the citizenship of Latino doctorates? What are the baccalaureate origins of Latina/o doctorates? What roles do community colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions play in serving Latinas/os? Resumen: En los Estados Unidos de América cuando se habla del liderazgo en ciencia e ingeniería (C & I) generalmente no se incluyen individuos latinos. La metáfora de una tubería tiende a ignorar los avances hechos por latinos que han terminado doctorados en C & I. Nueva información sugiere una metáfora superior para entender el progreso de Latinos en C & I: la pirámide de educación superior. Se añaden estas preguntas: ¿Cuáles son los campos que se estudian? ¿Cuál es la ciudadanía de doctores Latinos? ¿Cuáles son los orígenes de pre-grado de doctores latina/os? ¿Qué papeles juegan las preparatorias y las instituciones que sirven poblaciones hispanas cuando le dan servicio a latina/os? Keywords: Latina/o; higher education; science; technology; engineering; mathematics; educational pipeline
Authors’ Note: We thank Susan T. Hill, senior science resources analyst, Science and Engineering Education and Human Resources Program of the Division of Science Resources Studies for her sources of data. For the interested researcher, be forewarned that there are hundreds of tables, graphs, and charts online at National Science Foundation. It’s easy to get lost in the trees without seeing the forest. Dr. Hill has been a helpful guide to both forest and trees. In addition, we thank Susan Athey for references to data and information at the National Institute for General Medical Science, which also coordinates the Minority Access to Research Careers, Minority Biomedical Research Support, and Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement programs for underrepresented minority students. We also thank the president of the American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education, Dr. Loui Olivas. Also, we extend our appreciation to Dr. Alfredo G. de los Santos, Jr. for several references. 305
306
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Part I: The National Scene If there is a drive and a push for Latinos in science and engineering (S&E; see Appendix A for definitions of science and engineering), then where are Latinos in terms of the national scene? Who cares and who supports? What are the prevailing interests and concerns in supporting Latinas/os in S&E?1 Since September 11, 2001, interest in American capabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has risen. The National Science Board (NSB, 2004), in particular, emphasized the need to sustain impetus toward a knowledgebased economy, “one in which research, its commercial exploitation, and other intellectual work play a growing role in driving economic growth.” According to the NSB, The attacks of September 2001 have given increased urgency and a new focus to the changing strategic role of S&T in the post–Cold War era. The role of foreign students, scientists, and engineers in the U.S. S&E system; the appropriate balance between security and openness in scientific communication; the direction of certain Federal R&D initiatives; and the contributions that R&D can make in the domestic security arena are all issues of concern.
In addition to the NSB (with oversight of the National Science Foundation [NSF]), numerous corporate leaders and institutions of higher education have responded to the call for securing America’s leadership in S&E. Table 1 includes our summation of six major issues and concerns being addressed nationally by NSB, NSF, the President’s Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (2006), the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS, 2006a), the National Research Council (2007), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Workforce/Education Subcommittee (PCAST, 2004), the U.S. Department of Education (2005, 2006b), and a number of organizations, including the American Council on Education (ACE, 2006b, 2007), Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST, 2004a), the National Bureau of Economic Research (2005), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Sigma Xi, the American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education, and others. Leaders such as Bill Gates of Microsoft and Matthews of the Lumina Foundation have also voiced their concern with maintaining America’s competitive edge in STEM. Within this milieu, we get mixed signals about Latinos and traditionally underrepresented minorities (URMs). In general, most of our references know that Latinas/os are a growing part of the American community but tend to say very little of their potential as scientists and engineers. We also find limited research on and documentation for promoting Latinas/os in S&E. Instead, we find reluctant support, couched in terms of the general perception that Latinas/os cannot advance through the “pipeline” of higher education.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
307
Table 1 The Domestic and Global Interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) American Issues Following 9/11 Issues
Low Concern
Moderate Concern
Major Interest
1. Slow growth in enrollment in science and engineering (S&E) 2. Reliance on foreign nationals in S&E 3. Global competition
Students in STEM
NIH, college leaders
NSB, NSF, COSEPUP
Science organizations Students in STEM
NSB, NIH-NIGMS, NIMH Science organizations, PCAST, college leaders U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce College leaders, students in STEM
BEST, ACE, URM organizations NSB, Lumina
4. U.S. needs for skilled workers
College leaders
5. Promoting job opportunities in S&E
Science organizations
Corporate leaders, students in STEM Corporate leaders, NSF, and NIH
Note: NIH = National Institutes of Health; NSB = National Science Board; NSF = National Science Foundation; COSEPUP = Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; NIGMS = National Institute of General Medical Science; NIMH = National Institute of Mental Health; BEST = Building Engineering and Science Talent; ACE = American Council on Education; URM = under-represented minority; PCAST = President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Federal Concern With Student Enrollment in S&E Following 9/11, the NSB (2004, 2006) reported that the United States had maintained its edge in science and technology know-how and creativity but also noted that the United States faces a period of growing retirements among its S&E workforce. The NSB (2004) stated, “Barring changes in current retirement, degree production, and immigration trends, the growth of the S&E workforce will slow down, leading to a rising average age” (p. O-19). The NSB (2004) also pointed out that the college-age population will increasingly be made up of minority group members such as Hispanics, blacks, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives, whose current participation rates in S&E are half or less those of white non-Hispanic students. As lower proportions of white non-Hispanic men obtain S&E degrees, the importance of women and minorities pursuing degrees in these fields rises. (p. O-19)
NSF (2004, CEOSE 04-01) introduced some programs to broaden participation of URMs in STEM. However, the NSF’s report on “broadening participation” started with serious data limitations: The study team interviewed NSF staff about the possible limitations inherent in the data. . . . The trend analysis of underrepresented minority-grant applicants and
308
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
awardees was limited by the unavailability of data disaggregated by race and ethnicity. . . . Disaggregated data by gender and minority-group were also not available for analyzing the composition of NSF’s STEM workforce. (NSF, 2004, CEOSE 04-01, p. 52)
We ask, if NSF does not have adequate data on URMs, then how much attention is the NSF and the NSB giving to Latinas/os in S&E? To date, the NSF has not answered this question with conclusive findings. Latinas/os are basically clustered into the pool of URMs in higher education.
U.S. Reliance on Foreign Nationals in S&E According to the NSB (2004), the United States relies on foreign talent to maintain its position in S&E: “This reliance has grown in both absolute numbers and relative share of foreign-born individuals in the workforce, especially during the 1990s” (p. O-12). Related to this reliance, some national leaders advocate for greater numbers of H-1B visas. The U.S. government introduced the H-1B visa to offer and enable highly skilled international professionals and/or international students from all over the world the opportunity to live and work in the United States. The H-1B is the most sought after U.S. work visa, and U.S. Homeland Security requires “every” foreign national to obtain a visa to legally work in America. The annual report of the CGS (2006b) provides a breakdown of graduate enrollment by field and citizenship. To date, U.S. citizens and permanent residents are the majority enrolled in S&E. However, enrollments of temporary resident non–U.S. citizen in some fields are relatively high, namely in engineering (48%), physical sciences (40%), and biological sciences (27%) (see Table 2). Interestingly, within the pool of professional foreign talent, there is little attention to the possibility that H-1B holders could include significant numbers of Latino scientists from Latin America. Most observers consider H-1B foreigners as Asian and European in origin. Without knowledge of what constitutes the H-1B, foreign-skilled Latinas/os are at loss for judging their own importance in S&E. Consider this: If Latinas/os in S&E are primarily H-1Bs, then efforts might be taken to see what abets their education and training abroad. Likewise, we might ask what prevents domestic Latinas/os from becoming scientists and engineers vis-à-vis their foreign cohorts. If Latino-sending nations can produce scientists and engineers, then why cannot the United States produce more domestic Latino scientists and engineers?
Global Competition in S&E The NSB (2004, 2006) has noted that many other nations have advanced their own technological capacity and are challenging U.S. prominence in a number of areas.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
309
Table 2 U.S. University or College Graduate Enrollment by Field and Citizenship in 2005 Total Major Field Biological sciences Engineering Health sciences Physical sciences
U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
Non–U.S. Citizens and Temporary Residents
n
n
%
n
%
68,952 108,086 111,846 105,170
48,373 53,642 92,477 59,365
73 52 91 60
17,711 48,649 9,577 40,188
27 48 9 40
Source: Council of Graduate Schools (2006b).
A report from the National Bureau of Economic Research (2005) finds that growth in China’s S&E enrollment has been very impressive at the doctoral level, increasing from 8,139 in 1995 to 48,740 in 2003. India, too, has been a rising star in graduate growth in computer programming and information technology. According to Dewayne Matthews (cited in Van Der Werf, 2007), senior research director at the Lumina Foundation for Education, the United States ranks first among the largest modern democracies in attainment of bachelor’s degrees by those ages 55 to 64, at 35%. But the country drops to eighth in the rankings of bachelor’s degrees by those ages 25 to 34. Matthews also noted, The country’s fastest-growing minority group is Hispanic Americans, and they have traditionally gone to college at lower rates than all other segments of the population. (cited in Van Der Werf, 2007)
Gates (2007), chairman of Microsoft Corp. and cochairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, published an op-ed in the Washington Post stating that the growing economic importance of countries such as China and India is not bad. On the contrary, the world benefits as more people acquire the skills needed to foster innovation. Gates’s (2007) proposal for global competition stated, Two steps are critical. First, we must demand strong schools so that young Americans enter the workforce with the math, science and problem-solving skills they need to succeed in the knowledge economy. We must also make it easier for foreign-born scientists and engineers to work for U.S. companies. . . . American competitiveness also requires immigration reforms that reflect the importance of highly skilled foreign-born employees. Demand for specialized technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with advanced degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill this gap. (p. B7)
310
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
America’s Needs for Skilled Workers Can America generate sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled scientists and engineers? Several U.S. firms outsourced jobs to other countries for skills in telecom, biomedical research, and computer engineering. Shirley Ann Jackson (2004), scientist and president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, refers to this labor market as a quiet crisis: There is a quiet crisis building in the United States—a crisis that could jeopardize the nation’s pre-eminence and well-being. The crisis has been mounting gradually, but inexorably, over several decades. If permitted to continue unmitigated, it could reverse the global leadership Americans currently enjoy. The crisis stems from the gap between the nation’s growing need for scientists, engineers, and other technically skilled workers, and its production of them. As the generation educated in the 1950s and 1960s prepares to retire, our colleges and universities are not graduating enough scientific and technical talent to step into research laboratories, software and other design centers, refineries, defense installations, science policy offices, manufacturing shop floors and high-tech start-ups. This “gap” represents a shortfall in our national scientific and technical capabilities. (p. 4)
What shows up nationally is considerable support for expanding America’s H-1B visa program. This program is designed for skilled workers from abroad, allowing them to fill jobs where there is supposedly a domestic shortage. Critics say that H-1B workers come for less pay and fill positions that exclude URMs. To date, the Latino community has not taken a clear opposition to the issue of H-1B visas. The question not addressed is, if U.S. corporations increasingly rely on H-1B scientists and engineers, then how will that affect the current and future status of U.S. Latinas/os in STEM?
Promoting Job Opportunities in S&E America needs increasing numbers scientists and engineers in two primary areas of employment, higher education and corporate America. There is also growing need for scientists to work on federally funded programs of R&D. U.S. employers readily note the difficulty in domestically filling positions with skilled, professional workers. The concern of many is how to promote and inspire enthusiasm for Americans to work in new and advancing areas of S&E. Academic positions. It is recognized that universities and colleges play a unique role in the U.S. system of research and development. According to the NSB (2004, p. O-14), these institutions conduct about half of the nation’s basic research and, in so doing, train successive generations of scientists and engineers. The slow growth in PhDs in S&E and the aging of current faculty is a big concern, raising the specter of large shortfalls in highly skilled faculty at research universities.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
311
Table 3 Number and Percentage of Total U.S. and Hispanic Professors in DegreeGranting Institutions by Academic Title, Gender, and Age, Fall 2003 Full-Time Instructional Faculty and Staff
Total in U.S. DegreeGranting Institutions
Hispanic, Latino Male
Hispanic, Latina Female
Total Hispanic
Number, in thousands Percentage distribution Instructional faculty Full professor Percentage Associate professor Percentage Assistant professor Percentage Age distribution Younger than 45 45 to 64 65 and older
682 0.0 502 194 100.0 150 100.0 158 100.0 682 248 400 36
13 2.0 5.8 1.8 0.01 1.7 0.01 2.3 0.02 13 5.2 3.2 2.6
10 1.5 4.0 0.8 0.01 1.3 0.01 1.9 0.01 10 4.6 2.4 0.3
23 3.5 9.8 2.6 0.02 3.0 0.02 4.2 0.03 23 9.8 5.6 2.9
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2003).
ACE reports that the number of minority full-time faculty significantly increased, from 65,000 positions in 1993 to more than 97,000 positions in 2003, a 50% increase. However, in 2003, URM faculty accounted for less than 10% of full-time faculty, including African American (5.3%), Hispanic (3.2%), and Native American (0.5%). The rest of the full-time faculty included Asian American (6.6%), foreign (3.4%), and White, non-Hispanic faculty (81%) (ACE, 2006b, Figure 16). A major concern is that these numbers of URMs are insufficient to replenish a significant number of retiring faculties. Nationally, as indicated in Table 3, there are 682,000 full-time instructional faculty and staff in degree-granting institutions. Of these, there are only 245,000 younger than 45 years of age. On the other hand, there 36,000 full-time faculty and staff older than 65 years of age. By now, they may have retired. Table 3 shows data on the miniscule pool of Hispanic full-time instructional faculty and staff in higher education. In 2003, there were 23,000 Latinas/os working full-time as instructional faculty and staff. Of these, there were only 9,800 Latina/o professors, ranging from assistant to full professors. Of these, 5,800 were Latino and 4,000 were Latina. Among Latina/o professors, 57% (or 5,600) were between the ages of 45 to 64 in 2003. Moreover, a disproportionate number of Latinas/os were 65 years and older in 2003.
312
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Table 4 U.S. Jobs in Science and Engineering: 2002 and Projected 2012 (Thousands) Occupation All occupations Science and engineering Computer and mathematical scientists Engineers Life scientists Physical scientists Social scientists or related occupations
2002
2012
Change
144,014 4,873 2,504 1,478 214 251 426
165,319 6,119 3,480 1,587 253 287 512
21,305 1,246 976 109 39 36 86
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections (2004).
These numbers should draw attention to the potential consequences of Latino retirements. However, too date, there has been hardly a concern with Latina/o retirements or with bringing more URMs into academe as instructional faculty and staff. We may be witness to the last vestiges of Latino scientists at many universities, unless higher education responds with more active inventiveness and campaigns to advance more Latinas/os in STEM. Corporate/industry employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that employment in traditional S&E occupations will increase about 70% faster than the overall growth rate of all occupations (Olsen, 2006). At the same time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts particular growth in the fields of computer, mathematical, and operations research, medical professions, and STEM generally (U.S. Department of Labor, 2004). Examples subsumed within the projections on Table 4 include jobs to operate public health laboratories, to generate life-saving technology, to address international pandemics, and to effectively respond to global warming and environmental protection. Overall, the forecast of S&E jobs in 2012 indicates an open, growing market of employment. Science organizations (including Sigma Xi and AAAS) report the need for more scientists in chemistry, geology, meteorology, astrology, physics, microbiology and molecular biology, and interdisciplinary fields such as ecology, nanotechnology, bioengineering, genomics, neuroscience, astrophysics, environmental sciences, and more. Microsoft’s Gates (2007) has noted, Computer science employment is growing by nearly 100,000 jobs annually. But at the same time studies show that there is a dramatic decline in the number of students graduating with computer science degrees. (p. B7)
Mark Mather (2006), of the Population Reference Bureau, has argued that
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
313
there is a mismatch in the education levels and technical skills of minority groups and the demands of the knowledge-based economy. In 2004, 30 percent of non-Hispanic whites ages 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 17 percent of blacks and 13 percent of Latinos. Among Asians, 48 percent had at least a bachelor’s degree. . . . The low proportions of blacks and Hispanics in S&E occupations cannot be attributed to state- or county-level deficits in S&E employment opportunities. In fact, counties with high proportions of minorities employ more S&E workers than counties that are mostly white: Minorities are more likely to live in large metro areas where S&E jobs are most concentrated.
Mather adds, The lack of professionals in many minority communities also means that there are few role models for youth interested in pursuing careers in science. Within metro areas, black and Latino youth are much more likely to be living in distressed neighborhoods with high proportions of people in poverty, high school dropouts, and working-age males who are unemployed to the labor force. More research is needed to determine the potential impact of neighborhood characteristics on youth education and career trajectories.
Overall, federal, corporate, and science organizations are making it clear that the economy is robust when it comes to national employment in S&E. This situation portends tremendous opportunities for Latinas/os to fill jobs in several growing fields of science and technology. How can Latinas/os be informed and persuaded to get the education and degrees for these opportunities? Who is working on this area of corporate and public responsibility?
Part II: The Problematic Pipeline According to Chapa and De La Rosa (2006), The educational “pipeline” for Latinos is rife with massive leaks. . . . In 2000 Latino individuals accounted for 12.5% of the total population and 17.5% of the college-age population; however, only 10.8% of the high school graduates were Latino, 9.9% of the associate degree recipients were Latino, and only 6.6% of all bachelor’s degrees and 3.8% of all doctorates were Latino individuals. The comparison between the overall Latino student population and the very small numbers of these with PhDs will truly make the pipeline seem much more like a pipette. (pp. 203-204) Latinos are underrepresented in all parts of the nation’s higher education pipeline; this degree of underrepresentation increases at higher education levels. (p. 219)
Educational expert Patricia Gandara (2006) deeply delves into Latina/o education in K-12 and notes that
314
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
because Latino students begin school far behind their non-Hispanic peers, moving more of them into the math and science pipeline will require a broad strategy that begins with preliteracy skills. (p. 234)
Additional research by anthropologists shows that Latino pathways through U.S. education need to address complex cultural dimensions such as the experiences of English language learners (Cooper, Chavira, & Mena, 2005). Efforts to increase the numbers of Latinas/os in S&E have been consistently presented by others in terms of this pipeline metaphor. For many in higher education, the public systems of educational pipelines yield mere trickles of Latinas/os at the doctoral level (de los Santos, Keller, Nettles, Payan, & Magallan, 2006). Indeed, the data show stark contrasts between the achievement of Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic students in the science classroom, translating these data into an equally startling gap in educational attainment on the whole. Moreover, educational pipeline issues are critical: (a) underpreparation of students in K-12 courses in English, math, and science, (b) failure to complete Advanced Placement courses, (c) little home support and incentives to prepare students for higher stages of education, (d) poverty and few in family to show the way, and (e) few students entering and completing college degrees and paving the way for others. The RAND report by Philip Garcia (2002) suggests ways for overcoming these obstacles and provides ideas for immediate implementation in higher education. Clearly, the pipeline analogy is a tough one to ignore. But, increasingly, the pipeline metaphor has tended to obscure other, more meaningful problems in advancing Latinas/os through the academic fields of S&E. Moreover, as we read the literature on the national science, Latinas/os appear to be underappreciated in the S&E community because of the pipeline metaphor. We also find other more massive leaks in the educational pipeline that tend to go ignored. Latinos are not the only ones with a pipeline leakage. Non-Hispanic White students also leave the science track from sixth grade to the bachelor’s degree, and the drop-off is relatively high (see Long, referenced in PCAST, 2004).
The Pyramid Metaphor Versus the Pipeline of Higher Education Nationally, there is a small cadre of educators who believe that the pipeline metaphor stereotypes negative perceptions of Latinas/os in STEM. Under the leadership of BEST, a new perspective is being advanced to replace the negative perception of Latino leakages in S&E. By examining what works with youth, the BEST method aims at scaffolding Latinas/os over barriers and hurdles that impede their potential in S&E. What are critical according to this perspective are creative methods for reducing barriers and positive measures for ensuring that interested students achieve higher levels of education.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
315
Figure 1 Pyramid of Advanced Degrees in Science and Engineering
Source: Joan Burrelli, National Science Foundation, for data. Depiction by Building Engineering and Science Talent (2004a).
For example, in 2000, one third of all African American, Hispanic, or Native American undergraduates earned a bachelor’s degree in a technical discipline, but from there on, few progressed higher toward the doctorate. In the BEST approach, these students would succeed in S&E by supporting them over structural and institutional barriers. What is needed, accordingly, is planning with students and attention to institutional challenges at various levels of the educational pyramid. In other words, ways to widen the participation of URMs at all levels of the pyramid, as illustrated in Figure 1, are needed.
The Pyramid Approach A recent report by ACE (2007) sheds light on what happens to students in pursuit of S&E in higher education. According to the ACE report Increasing the Success of Minority Students in Science and Technology, the fourth publication in the ACE series The Unfinished Agenda: Ensuring Success for Students of Color,
316
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
1. African American and Hispanic students begin college interested in majoring in STEM fields at rates similar to those of White and Asian American students and persist in these fields through their 3rd year of study but do not earn their bachelor’s degrees at the same rates as their peers. 2. African American and Hispanic students majoring in STEM fields who persisted beyond the 3rd year did not drop out but were still enrolled and working toward a degree after 6 years. 3. A statistical analysis showed that majoring in STEM fields did not affect student persistence. Instead, the variables strongly related to persistence for all students, regardless of major or race/ethnicity, were full-time attendance, hours worked while enrolled, and rigor of high school curriculum.
The ACE analysis identified a number of key differences between students who earned a bachelor’s degree by spring 2001 in a STEM field and those who did not. 1. Completers were better prepared for postsecondary education because a larger percentage took a highly rigorous high school curriculum. 2. Nearly all completers were younger than 19 when they entered college in 19951996, compared to 83.9% of noncompleters. 3. Completers were more likely to have at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. 4. Completers came from families with higher incomes. 5. Noncompleters were more likely to work 15 hours or more a week.
According to Eugene Anderson, associate director of the Center for Policy Analysis at ACE and coauthor of the report, We find that these students do pursue these majors and persist beyond the third year, but are not earning enough credits each year to attain a degree within six years. The challenge now is to move traditionally underrepresented students in the STEM fields toward timely degree completion by supporting these students—both academically and financially throughout their undergraduate careers. (ACE, 2006a)
Furthermore, according to Anderson, Higher education institutions must know how to better identify those students who need support—and what type of support, both academic and financial—would be most helpful in order to be successful in the STEM fields. Institutions must also encourage students to work less and attend full-time consistently. This is a major challenge because these are two areas institutions can do little to control. Also, the federal government must recommit to financial aid for the neediest students. (ACE, 2006a)
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
317
Steps to Building the Pyramid There is no doubt that higher education sits high in the national agenda for S&E: America’s competitive edge in this “flat world,” its strength and versatility, all depend on an educational system capable of producing young people and productive citizens who are well prepared in science and mathematics. We know—and this report demonstrates—that there is a need to make drastic changes within the Nation’s science and mathematics classrooms. If not, our Nation risks raising generations of students and citizens who do not know how to think critically and make informed decisions based on technical and scientific information. Nor will they have a firm grasp of academic language necessary to advance into STEM careers and produce the innovation and discovery necessary to maintain our Nation’s prosperity for the future. (NSB, 2006)
One of the reported bottlenecks in both the pipeline and the pyramid is a systematic set of policies that impede degree completion and extend the task. In the report by Shulock and Moore (2007), these policies are particularly endemic in California community colleges. They find that “access-oriented policies” have the unintended consequence of inhibiting degree completion. Those policies are presented in five clusters. According to the authors, Four of the policy clusters involve finance, broadly defined to include laws and regulations that affect how much funding each college receives, how colleges can use their funds, the fees students pay, and the conditions of student financial aid eligibility. . . . A fifth set of policies influences how students are advised and counseled to choose courses and make academic decisions. These policies are especially influential for under-prepared students.
Shulock and Moore add, The rapidly growing Latino population is currently the least-well educated. Without significant gains in educational attainment among Latinos, the average education level of the California workforce will decline.
In sum, there is clearly a need to address “access-oriented policies” and more complex access requirements such as SAT and ACT scores for college admissions. There is also a need to examine the pros and cons of precollege instruction for general education classes in math and English. Especially critical is the access question of college tuition and fees. There is more work to be done on issues of college affordability and ways for Latinos to balance loans and part-time work while in college. For an in-depth analysis of these points and more, see Garcia’s (2002) report, Understanding Obstacles and Barriers to Hispanic Baccalaureates.
318
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Part III: Latinas/os on the Pyramid of STEM According to Rick Fry, senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center, Hispanics have transformed the landscape of American public education by their growth in K-12. Specifically, Hispanics accounted for 64% of the students added to public school enrollment between 1994 and 2003. Meanwhile, according to Fry (2006), Blacks accounted for 23% of the increase and Asians 11%. White enrollment declined by 1%. Fry’s (2006) report also finds that a relatively small number of schools absorbed most of the increase in Hispanic enrollment, and those schools in turn were generally larger, had more students on federal subsidies, and also had greater teacher–student ratios, the latter an important indicator that has improved across the nation but not as significantly in Hispanic-impacted schools. With greater numbers in the college-age bracket, there is a good chance for an increase in Latinos going to college. What is needed is a closer look at their numbers in colleges and universities today and their potential graduate enrollment, especially in fields of science.
College-Age Latinas/os In 2000, according to Chapa and De La Rosa (2006), the number of college-age Latinas/os was about 3.7 million, out of a population of nearly 36 million. College age was defined at the percentage of Latinos between 18 to 24 years of age out of the total population of similarly aged adults within the United States. In 2007, there are approximately 45 million U.S. Hispanics, with about 64.0% of Mexican origin (29 million), followed by Puerto Rican at 9.0% (4 million) and Cuban origin at 3.5% (1.6 million). Dominican-origin Hispanics are the fourth largest group at 2.7% (1.2 million) (Pew Hispanic Center, October 2006). If we consider, like Chapa and De La Rosa (2006), that the Latino college-age population is about 10.3% of the Latino population, then we estimate that today’s number of college-age Latinos is about 4.6 million (between 18 and 24 years of age).
Educational Attainment of Hispanics 25 Years and Older in 2006 More recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2006a) show the educational attainment of Hispanic origin persons, 25 years and older. As indicated in Table 5, Hispanic degree completion reached these numbers: • • • • •
1.12 million with associate’s degrees 1.65 million with bachelor’s degrees 469,000 with master’s degrees 133,000 with professional degrees 83,000 with doctoral degrees (with more than 73,000 held by Latinos older than 35 years).
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
319
Table 5 Educational Attainment of Latinas/os in Labor Force by Age: 2006 (Numbers in Thousands, Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population) Hispanic Civilians in Labor Force
Total
18 to 24 years 3,388 25 to 29 years 3,207 30 to 34 years 3,001 35 to 44 years 5,178 45 to 54 years 3,387 55 to 64 years 1,456 65 years and older 340 18 years and older 19,957 25 years and older 16,569
High Some School College, Graduate No Degree 1,178 1,033 912 1,519 923 405 93 6,064 4,886
805 521 434 657 476 202 46 3,142 2,337
AA BA or BS MA or MS Professional Doctoral Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree 136 234 194 335 231 102 15 1,248 1,112
113 266 317 554 333 141 37 1,760 1,647
7 40 81 162 118 54 14 476 469
1 5 29 42 42 13 2 133 133
—a 5 5 22 31 18 2 83 83
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007). a. Represents zero or rounds to zero.
The data also show the particular steps ahead of the Latinas/os who are 18 to 24 years old. There are long jumps ahead for them to earn postgraduate college degrees in higher education. But, notably, the group of 18- to 24-year-olds numbers more than 5 million.
Projections of College Going by Latinas/os, 2000 to 2050 In March 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau (2006b) projected the overall population of the United States. Accordingly, nearly 67 million people of Hispanic origin may be added to the population from 2000 to 2050, a 188% increase from 35.6 million to 102.6 million. They will account for 24% of the overall population, the U.S. Census Bureau predicts, up from 13% in 2000. The U.S. Department of Education (2006a) projected enrollment at degreegranting colleges and universities from 2004 to 2015. Its projections show enrollment growth of 42% for Hispanic students, 30% for American Indian or Alaska Native students, 28% for Asian or Pacific Islander students, and 27% for Black, nonHispanic students. Enrollment for White, non-Hispanic students is projected to rise 6%, whereas nonresident-alien enrollment is expected to rise 34%. (This is the first time the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics annual report, first published in 1964, has included projections of college enrollment by race and ethnicity.) Projections by Chapa and De La Rosa (2006) indicate that Latinos can be expected to more than double their rates of college degree completion, from 3.7 million in 2000 to 8.9 million by 2040. What’s more, if Latinos adjust to the White rate
320
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
of college completion (increase graduation rates from 6.0% to 13.3%), their college degree completion could reach 1.2 million by 2040. Although the population of White non-Hispanics in the United States grows slowly, the relative youth of the U.S. Hispanic population means that it will supply much of the U.S. population growth for decades to come. As a result, Chapa and De La Rosa (2006) suggest that Latinas/os can reshape American higher education by increasing enrollment and expressing their preferences for degrees, by affecting the curriculum, and, ultimately, by affecting the composition of staff and faculty. Moreover, Latinos have widespread geographic distribution, increasing in areas such as the Midwest, where the traditional White and Black communities are shrinking in population (Millard & Chapa, 2004). The foundation of Latinos for graduate enrollment is already in college, in community colleges and 4-year colleges. de los Santos et al. (2006) note that Latinos are increasing enrollment levels in community colleges and increasingly in top-tier research universities. Latino trends are upward and a sure sign of progress (also see Lopez, Ramirez, & Rochin, 1999).
Part IV: Latina/o Trends in Higher Education Trends in College Enrollment, 1993 to 2003 Not surprising is the finding of ACE (2006c): From 1993 to 2003, growth in Hispanic enrollment led all racial/ethnic groups, increasing by nearly 70 percent or more than 650,000 students. The largest growth took place at four-year institutions, where Hispanic enrollment rose by 75.1 percent, compared with a 64.2 percent increase at two-year institutions. (p. 8)
Enrollment of Latinas/os is steadily going up. For 2003-2004, Table 6 shows a high in degree completion for Latinas/os at levels for associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees.
Trends in Latina/o Graduate Enrollment, 1986 to 2005 The annual survey of CGS (2006b), Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 19862005, revealed, • From 1986 to 2005, Latinas increased their numbers in graduate enrollment by an annual average rate of 7%. The comparable rate for Latinos was 5%. • Latina/o graduate enrollment was 85,764 in fall 2005, composed of 31,556 Latinos and 53,633 Latinas. • For Latinas and Latinos, the largest enrollments were in education (22,483), business (10,790), and social sciences (7,778).
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
321
Table 6 Hispanic Degrees Conferred, Associate’s, Bachelor’s, and Master’s, 2003-2004 Degree Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s
Total Number Conferred, 2003-2004
Percentage of Latinos of College Age, 2003-2004
68,356 93,448 26,635
Male, Latino Total
Female, Latina Total
26,098 36,564 9,608
42,258 56,884 17,027
10.3 6.4 4.7
Source: American Council on Education (2006c).
• The Latino rate of enrollment surpassed the White rate of enrollment in every field from 1986 to 2005. • First-time Hispanic enrollment was up 10%, with Hispanic enrollment in biological sciences increasing by 16% from 1986 to 2005 (see http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/R_GED2005.pdf).
Trends in Latina/o Doctorates, 1976 to 2004 The National Center for Education Statistics has estimated the number of Latina/o doctorates since 1976 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). In Figures 2 and 3, we show that from 1976 to 1994, the annual numbers of Hispanic doctorates were less than 1,000 per year, representing less than 2.0% of U.S. doctorates. However, after 1994, the number of Latino doctorates increased to 1,662 in 2004, representing 3.4% of U.S. doctorates.
Trends Comparing White and Latino Doctorates, 1976-1977 to 2003-2004 Figure 4 compares the Latina/o doctoral trends with that of White doctorates from 1977 to 2004. Latina/o doctorates pale by comparison to White, non-Hispanic doctorates. The gap is huge, showing the need for Latina/o doctorates to annually increase by 20,000 to close the gap. Although there is a tendency to highlight this huge divide between the two groups, it is also important to note the trends of each. As indicated in Figure 5, Latinas/os have experienced steady positive growth in doctorates, whereas the proportion of doctorates going to White non-Hispanics has declined at a steady rate. It becomes plausible to foresee a more rapid rate of increase in Latina/o doctorates in the near future based on sheer demographic growth alone. It is more conceivable if some of the pyramid’s tiers are made easier to achieve.
322
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Figure 2 Number of Doctoral Degrees Awarded to Latino Graduates by DegreeGranting Institutions in the United States (1976-1977 to 2003-2004) 2000 1750 1500 1250 Numbe 1000 750
Latino (number of doctorates awarded
500 250 0 Year
`7677
`8081
`8485
`8889
`8990
`9091
`9192
`9293
`9394
`9495
`9596
`9697
`9798
`9899
`9900
`0001
`0102
`0203
`0304
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005).
Figure 3 Percentage of Doctoral Degrees Awarded to Latino Graduates by DegreeGranting Institutions in the United States (1976-1977 to 2003-2004) 4% 4% 3% 3% Percent 2% 2%
Latino (percent of total doctorates awarded)
1% 1% 0% Year
`7677
`8081
`8485
`8889
`8990
`9091
`9192
`9293
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005).
`9394
`9495
`9596
`9697
`9798
`9899
`9900
`0001
`0102
`0203
`0304
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
323
Figure 4 Number of Doctoral Degrees Awarded to White and Latino Graduates by Degree-Granting Institutions in the United States (1976-1977 to 2003-2004) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 Number 15,000
White
10,000
Latino
5,000
Year
0 `76-77
`80-81
`84-85
`88-89
`89-90
`90-91
`91-92
`92-93
`93-94
`94-95
`95-96
`96-97
`97-98
`98-99
`99-00
`00-01
`01-02 `02-03 `03-04
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005).
Figure 5 Percentage of Doctoral Degrees Awarded to White and Latino Graduates by Degree-Granting Institutions in the United States (1976-1977 to 2003-2004) 90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Percent 40%
White
30%
Latino
20%
10%
0% `76-77
`80-81
`84-85
`88-89
`89-90
`90-91
`91-92
`92-93
`93-94
`94-95
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005).
`95-96
`96-97
`97-98
`98-99
`99-00
`00-01
`01-02
`02-03
`03-04
324
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Table 7 Numbers of Doctorates Conferred, U.S. and Hispanic Total, 1976 to 2004 Year 1976-1977 1980-1981 1984-1985 1988-1989 1989-1990 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
U.S. Total
Total Latino Hispanic
Hispanic Males
Hispanic Females
% Hispanic of U.S. Total
33,126 32,839 32,307 35,659 38,371 39,294 40,659 42,132 43,185 44,446 44,652 45,876 46,010 44,077 44,808 44,904 44,160 46,024 48,378
522 456 677 629 780 757 824 824 900 984 997 1,120 1,275 1,302 1,305 1,516 1,434 1,561 1,662
383 277 431 350 419 399 465 437 463 488 514 585 652 625 611 687 650 742 766
139 179 246 279 361 358 359 387 437 496 483 535 623 677 694 829 784 819 896
1.6 1.4 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.4
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Table includes PhD, EdD, and comparable degrees at the doctoral level. It excludes first-professional degrees, such as MD, DDS, and law degrees.
Trends by Gender, 1976 to 2004 Table 7 provides a breakdown by gender of the annual doctorates awarded to Hispanics from 1976 to 2004. From 1976 to 1994, Hispanic males received more doctorates than did Hispanic females. In 1998, females took the lead. From 1998 to 2004, Hispanic female doctorates outnumbered Hispanic male doctorates by a growing margin. In 2004, there were 896 Latina doctoral recipients, compared to 766 Latino doctoral recipients. These numbers exclude first-professional degrees, such as doctor of medicine, doctor of dental surgery, and law degrees.
Trends in Latina/o PhDs by Citizenship and Resident Status, 1975 to 1999 Table 8 shows the numbers and distributions of PhDs by citizenship and resident status from 1975 to 1999, the latest years for which we have data. In this 25-year
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
325
Table 8 Citizenship Status of U.S. Total and Latina/o PhDs, 1975 to 1999 Citizenship Status All PhDs U.S. citizen Permanent resident Temporary resident Total PhDs Science and engineering (S&E) PhDs U.S. citizen Permanent resident Temporary Total S&E
Total U.S. PhDs
Total Latino PhDs
Total Latina PhDs
Latina/o % of U.S. Total
640,434 48,679 127,843 816,956
9,102 1,520 7,347 17,969
7,548 930 1,972 10,450
2.6 5.0 5.8 3.5
356,531 36,037 127,843 520,411
5,150 1,019 6,148 12,317
3,264 461 1,238 4,963
2.4 4.1 5.8 3.3
Source: National Science Foundation (2006b).
period, the United States produced 816,956 PhDs. Of these, 28,419 were Latina/o PhDs, representing 3.5% of the national total. Most PhDs have gone to U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Most PhDs in S&E have gone to U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Of the 12,317 Latino PhDs in S&E, 6,148 were to Latinos with temporary resident status. Of the 4,963 Latina PhDs in S&E, 1,238 were conferred to temporary resident Hispanics. Thus, between 1975 and 1999, a sizeable number of Latina/o PhDs were foreign-born temporary residents within the United States. We do not know how many have continued their professional employment in S&E within the United States. It is likely that a relatively large number of today’s faculty in higher education are foreign-born and educated Latina/o faculty.
Trends in Latina/o Doctorates in S&E, 1996 to 2005 NSF has unpublished data on the doctorates in S&E from 1996 to 2005. Here, we provide the numbers of Hispanic and Mexican doctorates conferred in science fields in 2005 and for prior years. Of all the sciences reported, Hispanics have earned significant numbers of doctoral degrees in the biological sciences (e.g., 227 in 2005). In the aggregate, doctorates in physical sciences are also high in number. Next in order for all Hispanics are doctoral degrees in psychology (188 in 2005) and social sciences (149 in 2005). Mexican American doctorates (for which there are data) were highest in 2005 in biological sciences (71) and psychology (62), followed in third place by social sciences (54) (see Table 9).
326
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Table 9 Hispanic and Mexican American Doctorates by Field of Science and Engineering, 1996 to 2005 Hispanic and Mexican Doctorates Selected Years
1996
2000
2004
2005
Hispanic total all PhDs Science and engineering Science alone, total Hispanic Agricultural sciences Biological sciences Computer sciences Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences Mathematics Physical sciences Astronomy Chemistry Physics Psychology Social sciences Mexican American, total PhDs Science and engineering Science alone, total Mexican American Agricultural sciences Biological sciences Computer sciences Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences Mathematics Physical sciences Astronomy Chemistry Physics Psychology Social sciences
1,113 626 527 13 131 16 19 11 67 2 36 29 173 97 293 149 121 2 28 1 5 2 23 1 15 7 38 22
1,310 730 648 29 174 14 16 15 77 3 51 23 211 112 415 214 188 7 46 4 4 8 23 1 17 5 61 35
1,299 718 630 16 192 13 11 26 62 6 43 13 172 138 457 232 208 6 58 3 3 8 21 2 14 5 53 56
1,426 799 710 18 227 12 18 24 74 3 55 16 188 149 519 248 224 3 71 3 3 8 20 2 11 7 62 54
Source: National Science Foundation (2006a).
Part V: U.S. and Latina/o Doctorates, Post-9/11 Nearly 49,000 Doctoral Degrees Conferred Nationally According to data from the U.S. Department of Education, illustrated in Figure 6, 48,378 doctoral degrees were conferred nationally in 2003-2004. This includes doctorates to U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and nonresident aliens on temporary visas. This also includes relatively large numbers of doctoral degrees in S&E. In 2003-2004, 58.3% of all doctorates went to White non-Hispanics and 26.4% went to nonresident aliens. Latinas/os earned a total of 1,662 degrees, representing about 3.5%. Asian or Pacific Islander Americans and African Americans earned 2,632 and 2,900, respectively, of the doctoral degrees, representing close to 6% each.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
327
Figure 6 U.S. Doctoral Degrees Awarded by Ethnicity, 2003-2004
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Numbers are in thousands. Does not include professional degrees (doctorates in medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
Top Doctorates in Education, Engineering, and Biological or Biomedical Sciences Nationally, as indicated in Figure 7, education was at the top of the list of doctoral degrees in 2003-2004, closely followed by doctorates in engineering and the biological and biomedical sciences. Also at the top were doctorates in psychology, health professions and clinical sciences, physical sciences, and sciences technology. Figure 8 shows the percentage distribution of all U.S. doctorates in 2003-2004. As indicated, nearly 15% of all U.S. doctorates were in education, the top field of study in higher education. But equally significant were doctorates in engineering and biological and biomedical sciences, which represented 23% of all U.S. doctorates in 2003-2004.
Latina/o Doctorates in All Fields, 2003-2004 Figure 9 illustrates the numeric distribution of PhDs conferred on Latinas/os in 2003-2004. This list does not include professional doctorates. At the top of Latina/o PhDs are education, psychology, and biological and biomedical sciences. Health professions and clinical sciences and engineering follow social sciences and history. Most of all Latina/o doctorates are in these fields.
328
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Figure 7 Total Number of U.S. Doctoral Degrees Awarded by Major, 2003-2004 Education
7,088 5,923
Engineering 5,242
Biological & Biomedical Sciences
4,827
Psychology
4,361
Health Professions & Clinical Sciences
3,815
Physical Sciences & Science Technologies
3,811
Social Sciences & History 1,481
Business Theology and Religious Vocations
1,304
Visual and Performing Arts
1,282
English language and Literature/Letters
1,207
Agriculture and Natural Resources
1,185
Mathematics and Statistics
1,060
Foreign Lang., Literatures & Linguistics
1,031
Computer and Information Sciences
909
Multi & Interdisciplinary Studies
876
Public Admin. & Social Service Pprofessions
649
Philosophy and Religious Studies
595 418
Communications, Journalism, and related
329
Family and Consumer Sciences Parks, Recreation, Leisure & Fitness
222
Area, Ethnic, Cultural & Gender Studies
209
Architecture and related services
173
Legal professions and Studies
119 95
Liberal Arts & Sci, Gen. studies, Humanities
58
Engineering Technologies Security and Protective Services
54
Library Science
47 8
Communications Technologies
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Does not include professional degrees (doctorates in medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
Figure 10 shows the distribution of all doctorates awarded to Latinas/os as a percentage of all degrees nationally awarded in 2003-2004. Nationally, as indicated in Table 10, Latinas/os make up a good share of the doctorates in foreign language, culture, and liberal arts. For example, in 2003-2004, there were 1,031 doctorates confirmed nationally by degree-granting institutions of Higher Education. Latinas/os received 89, representing 8.6% of the national total.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
329
Figure 8 Percentage Distribution of U.S. Doctoral Degrees by Major, Degree-Granting Institutions in the United States, 2003-2004 14.7%
Education 12.2%
Engineering
10.8%
Biological & Biomedical sciences
10.0%
Psychology
9.0%
Health Professions & Clinical sciences Physical Sciences & Science Technologies
7.9%
Social Sciences & History
7.9% 3.1%
Business Theology and Religious Vocations
2.7%
Visual and Performing Arts
2.6%
English language and Literature/Letters
2.5%
Agriculture and Natural Resources
2.4%
Mathematics and Statistics
2.2%
Foreign Lang., Literatures & Linguistics
2.1%
Computer and Information Sciences
1.9%
Multi & Interdisciplinary studies
1.8%
Public Admin. & Social Service professions
1.3%
Philosophy and Religious studies
1.2% 0.9%
Communications, Journalism, and related
0.7%
Family and Consumer sciences
0.5%
Parks, Recreation, Leisure & Fitness Area, Ethnic, Cultural & Gender studies
0.4%
Architecture and related services
0.4%
Legal Professions and studies
0.2%
Liberal Arts & Sci, Gen. studies, Humanities
0.2%
Engineering Technologies
0.1%
Security and Protective services
0.1%
Library Science
0.1%
Communications Technologies
0.0% 0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Does not include professional degrees (doctorates in medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
15.0%
330
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Figure 9 Number of Doctoral Degrees Awarded to Latino Graduates by Degree-Granting Institutions in the United States (2003-2004) 307
Education 276
Psychology 173
Biological & Biomedical sciences 153
Social Sciences & History
148
Health Professions & Clinical sciences 104
Engineering 89
Foreign Lang., Literatures & Linguistics 76
Physical Sciences & Science Technologies 51
Business 39
Theology and Religious Vocations
32
Visual and Performing Arts Multi & Interdisciplinary studies
32
English language and Literature/letters
30 28
Public Admin. & Social Service professions
25
Mathematics and Statistics Computer and Information Sciences
19
Agriculture and Natural Resources
18 15
Area, Ethnic, Cultural & Gender studies
10
Philosophy and Religious studies Parks, Recreation, Leisure & Fitness
9
Family and Consumer sciences
8
Communications, Journalism, and related
8
Liberal Arts & Sci, Gen. studies, Humanities
6
Architecture and related services
3
Library Science
2 1
Engineering Technologies Transportation and Materials Moving
0
Legal Professions and studies
0
Communications Technologies
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Does not include professional doctoral degrees (medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
Latina/o Doctorates in Professional Fields, 2003-2004 In this section, we report data on the oddly termed non-S&E degrees, namely doctorates in these professional fields: • • • •
Doctor of medicine (MD) Doctor of dental surgery (DDS) Doctor of veterinary medicine (DVM) Doctor of osteopathy (OD)
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
331
Figure 10 Percentage and National Rank Order of all PhDs Awarded to Latinas/os in the United States (2003-2004) 8.6%
Foreign Lang., Literatures & Linguistics
7.2%
Area, Ethnic, Cultural & Gender studies Liberal Arts & Sci, Gen. studies, Humanities
6.3%
Psychology
5.7%
Education
4.3%
Public Admin. & Social Service professions
4.3%
Library Science
4.3%
Parks, Recreation, Leisure & Fitness
4.1%
Social Sciences & History
4.0%
Multi & Interdisciplinary studies
3.7%
Business
3.4%
Health Professions & Clinical sciences
3.4%
Biological & Biomedical sciences
3.3%
Theology and Religious Vocations
3.0%
Visual and Performing Arts
2.5%
English language and Literature/letters
2.5%
Family and Consumer sciences
2.4%
Mathematics and Statistics
2.4%
Computer and Information Sciences
2.1%
Physical Sciences & Science Technologies
2.0%
Communications, Journalism, and related
1.9%
Engineering
1.8%
Architecture and related services
1.7%
Engineering Technologies
1.7%
Philosophy and Religious studies
1.7%
Agriculture and Natural Resources
1.5%
Transportation and Materials Moving
0.0%
Legal Professions and studies
0.0%
Communications Technologies
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Does not include professional doctoral degrees (medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
• • • •
Doctor of pharmacy (PharMD) Doctor of psychology (PsyD) Juris doctor (JD) And other similar degrees
80.0%
100.0%
332
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Table 10 Doctorates Latinos Received Over 5% of the National Total, 2003-2004 Major Field of Study Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics Area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, humanities Law (LLB, JD) Psychology Medicine (MD)
U.S. Degree Total
Number Latino or Hispanic
% Latino or Hispanic
1,031 209
89 15
8.6 7.2
95 40,209 4,827 15,442
6 2,430 276 792
6.3 6.0 5.7 5.1
According to ACE’s (2006b) annual report, professional degrees modestly increased from 1993-1994 to 2003-2004. ACE attributed the relatively small growth to significant declines in the number of professional degrees earned by males, down 5.7%. On the other hand, women earned 33.1% (or 10,100) more professional degrees than did men. ACE (2006b) also noted that minority women earned an additional 4,500 professional degrees, a greater numerical increase than that of White females. Also, ACE reported that only dentistry experienced overall growth from 1993-1994 to 20032004, at 16.9%. Doctoral degrees in medicine were flat, whereas JD degrees in law experienced a slight decline of less than 1%. These trends were attributed to a decline overall in White, non-Hispanic doctorates in medicine and law. Conversely, the ACE (2006b) report revealed increases in law, medicine, and dentistry by URMs. Specifically, URM doctorates increased in law at 38.5%, medicine at 33.3%, and dentistry at 45.6%. Notably, according to ACE (2006b; ACE latest figures in Errata Sheets), Hispanics had the largest percentage increase in law degrees earned (59.3 percent) and medical degrees (83.6 percent), while Asian Americans earned 67.3 percent more degrees in dentistry since 1993-1994.
It is widely known that professional doctorates in medicine, dentistry, and related fields require undergraduate preparation in science fields. Yet although Latinas/os are slowly striving for doctorates in S&E, it is apparent that they are successfully completing professional doctorates in more lucrative fields of study (see Tables 11, 12, and 13).
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
333
Table 11 Number of First-Professional Doctorates Conferred by Degree-Granting Institutions by White, Hispanic, and Major Field of Study, 2003-2004 Total
Non-Hispanic White
Hispanic or Latina/o
4,335 15,442 1,275 2,722 8,221 382 2,228 2,730 165 40,209 5,332 83,041
2,703 10,255 815 2,064 5,076 237 2,003 2,129 141 31,087 3,869 60,379
202 792 49 93 319 31 86 125 6 2,430 140 4,273
Major Field of Study Dentistry (DDS or DMD) Medicine (MD) Optometry (OD) Osteopathic medicine (DO) Pharmacy (PharMD) Podiatry, podiatric medicine Veterinary medicine (DVM) Chiropractic medicine Naturopathic medicine Law (LLB or JD) Theology (divinity) Total
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005).
Table 12 Percentage of Professional Doctorates by Major, 2003-2004 Major Field of Study Dentistry (DDS or DMD) Medicine (MD) Optometry (OD) Osteopathic medicine (DO) Pharmacy (PharMD) Podiatry, podiatric medicine Veterinary medicine (DVM) Chiropractic medicine Naturopathic medicine Law (LLB or JD) Theology (divinity) Total Total number
U.S. Total Doctorates
White, Non-Hispanic (%)
Latina/o or Hispanic (%)
Total (%)
4,335 15,442 1,275 2,722 8,221 382 2,228 2,730 165 40,209 5,332
62.4 66.4 63.9 75.8 61.7 62.0 89.9 78.0 85.5 77.3 72.6 72.7 60,379
4.7 5.1 3.8 3.4 3.9 8.1 3.9 4.6 3.6 6.0 2.6 5.1 4,273
67.1 71.5 67.7 79.2 65.6 70.1 93.8 82.6 89.1 83.3 75.2 77.8 64,652
83,041
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005).
334
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Table 13 Number of First-Professional Doctorates by Gender, White and Hispanic, and Major Field of Study, 2003-2004 Male
Dentistry (DDS or DMD) Medicine (MD) Optometry (OD) Osteopathic medicine (DO) Pharmacy (PharMD) Podiatry, podiatric medicine Veterinary medicine (DVM) Chiropractic medicine Naturopathic medicine Law (LLB or JD) Theology (divinity) Total
U.S. Total
White, non-Hispanic
2,532 8,273 543 1,567 2,711 221 569 1,868 42 20,332 3,511 42,169
1,732 5,697 379 1,210 1,752 148 520 1,475 35 16,503 2,543 31,994
Female
Latino 98 397 15 50 111 15 23 95 0 1,161 115 2,080
U.S. Total
White, non-Hispanic
1,803 7,169 732 1,155 5,510 161 1,659 862 123 19,877 1,821 40,872
971 4,558 436 854 3,324 89 1,483 654 106 14,584 1,326 28,385
Latino 104 395 34 43 208 16 63 30 6 1,269 25 2,193
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005).
Part VI: Comparison of White and Latino Doctorates by Major Field In comparing White and Latino doctorates by field in 2003-2004, we are interested in addressing two related questions. First, what doctorates are preferred when professional doctorates are factored out of the data? Second, what doctorates do Latinas/os prefer among all of the distinct areas of study. This question deals with a subtle comparison. If Latinas/os pursue doctorates in science fields with stiff requirements in biomedical fields, for example, would they prefer to be MDs or career scientists in R & D?
Latino Preferences for Doctorates Excluding the Professional Fields Figure 11 is based on Table 14, which lists doctorates by field in 2003-2004. It shows the preference ordering of doctorates of each respective group by major. Here, the denominator of these percentages is the sum of all doctorates by group—28,214 doctorates for Whites and 1,662 for Latinos. The White bar is for White and the dark bar for Latino doctorates. For example, education is high on the White list, with 16.8% of all White doctorates. Latinos have a slightly higher percentage of their doctorates in education, with 18.5%. However, as we go down the chart to psychology, health
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
335
Table 14 Doctoral and Professional Degrees Awarded to U.S. Graduates, 2003-2004 Major Field Sorted by White Communications technologies Legal professions and studies Engineering technologies Library science Security and protective services Architecture and related services Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, humanities Area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies Parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness Family and consumer sciences Communications, journalism, and related Computer and information sciences Public administration and social service professions Mathematics and statistics Philosophy and religious studies Foreign language, literatures, and linguistics Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies Agriculture and natural resources Business Theology and religious vocations Visual and performing arts English language and literature or letters Engineering Physical sciences and science technologies Social sciences and history Biological and biomedical sciences Health professions and clinical sciences Psychology Education Total
Total
White, non-Latino
8 119 58 47 54 173 95 209 222 329 418 909 649 1,060 595 1,031 876 1,185 1,481 1,304 1,282 1,207 5,923 3,815 3,811 5,242 4,361 4,827 7,088 48,378
5 17 20 24 46 69 76 109 146 198 250 344 407 419 454 567 575 587 673 762 847 939 1,751 1,929 2,354 3,072 3,144 3,684 4,746 28,214
Latina/o 0 0 1 2 0 3 6 15 9 8 8 19 28 25 10 89 32 18 51 39 32 30 104 76 153 173 148 276 307 1,662
Nonresident Alien 3 91 27 13 5 81 8 38 49 71 110 455 95 557 86 309 153 516 569 255 296 119 3,588 1,530 948 1,322 555 239 665 12,753
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Excludes professional doctoral degrees (medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
professions, other doctorates, and so on, the percentage of each group’s interest differs. The reader can see different patterns of doctoral degree completion by major.
Latino Preferences for Doctorates Across All Fields, Including Professional Fields Figure 12 is based on doctorates and professional doctorates as listed in Table 15. To a degree, it is important to keep the broader listing. Latinas/os have career choices
336
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Figure 11 Comparison of Within-Major Percentages of Doctoral Degrees Awarded to Latino and White Graduates, United States (2003-2004) 16.8%
Education
18.5% 13.1%
Psychology
16.6% 11.1%
Health Professions & Clinical sciences
8.9% 10.9%
Biological & Biomedical sciences
10.4% 8.3%
Social Sciences & History
9.2% 6.8%
Physical Sciences & Science Technologies
4.6% 6.2%
Engineering
6.3% 3.3%
English language and Literature/letters
1.8%
Visual and Performing Arts
1.9%
3.0% 2.7%
Theology and Religious Vocations
2.3% 2.4%
Business
3.1% 2.1%
Agriculture and Natural Resources
1.1% 2.0%
Multi & Interdisciplinary studies
1.9% 2.0%
Foreign Lang., Literatures & Linguistics
5.4% 1.6%
Philosophy and Religious studies
0.6%
Mathematics and Statistics
1.5%
Public Admin. & Social Service professions
1.4%
1.5% 1.7% 1.2%
Computer and Information Sciences
1.1% 0.9%
Communications, Journalism, and related
0.5% 0.7%
Family and Consumer sciences
0.5% 0.5%
Parks, Recreation, Leisure & Fitness
0.5%
Area, Ethnic, Cultural & Gender studies
0.4%
Liberal Arts & Sci, Gen. studies, Humanities
0.3%
0.9% 0.4% 0.2%
Architecture and related services Security and Protective services
0.2% 0.2%
0.0%
Library Science
0.1%
Engineering Technologies
0.1%
Legal Professions and studies Communications Technologies
0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Does not include professional doctoral degrees (medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
between a biomedical degree (science field) and medical degree (non-S&E field). When we add law, medicine, and pharmacy, the rank order of doctorates changes from Figure 11 above to Figure 12. Here, the denominator is the sum of doctorates per group as shown below in Table 15. So that in 2003-2004, Hispanics received 5,935 doctorates, of that number 2,430 of the degrees were in law (35.1%).
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
337
Table 15 Doctoral and Professional Degrees Awarded to U.S. Graduates, 2003-2004 Major Field Sorted by White Construction trades Precision production Military technologies Mechanics and repair technologies Transportation and materials moving Communications Technologies Legal professions and studies Engineering technologies Library science Security and protective services Architecture and related services Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, humanities Area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies Naturopathic medicine Parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness Family and consumer sciences Podiatry, podiatric medicine Communications, journalism, and related Computer and information sciences Public administration and social service professions Mathematics and statistics Philosophy and religious studies Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies Agriculture and natural resources Business Theology and religious vocations Optometry (OD) Visual and performing arts English language and literature or letters Engineering Physical sciences and science technologies Veterinary medicine (DVM) Osteopathic medicine (DO) Chiropractic medicine (DC, DCM.) Social sciences and history Dentistry (DDS, DMD) Biological and biomedical sciences Health professions and clinical sciences Psychology Theology (MDiv, MHL, BD, Ord) Education Pharmacy (PharMD) Medicine (MD) Law (LLB, JD) Total
Total 0 0 0 0 0 8 119 58 47 54 173 95 209 165 222 329 382 418 909 649 1,060 595 1,031 876 1,185 1,481 1,304 1,275 1,282 1,207 5,923 3,815 2,228 2,722 2,730 3,811 4,335 5,242 4,361 4,827 5,332 7,088 8,221 15,442 40,209 131,419
White, Nonresident non-Hispanic Latina/o Alien 0 0 0 0 0 5 17 20 24 46 69 76 109 141 146 198 237 250 344 407 419 454 567 575 587 673 762 815 847 939 1,751 1,929 2,003 2,064 2,129 2,354 2,703 3,072 3,144 3,684 3,869 4,746 5,076 10,255 31,087 88,593
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 6 15 6 9 8 31 8 19 28 25 10 89 32 18 51 39 49 32 30 104 76 86 93 125 153 202 173 148 276 140 307 319 792 2,430 5,935
0 0 0 0 0 3 91 27 13 5 81 8 38 5 49 71 10 110 455 95 557 86 309 153 516 569 255 54 296 119 3,588 1,530 8 5 153 948 323 1,322 555 239 317 665 189 199 667 14,683
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Includes doctorates in non–science and engineering fields (e.g., medicine, law, pharmacy, etc.).
338
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Figure 12 Comparison of Within-Group Percentages of Doctoral and Professional Degrees Awarded to Latino and White Graduates, United States (2003-2004) 35.1%
Law (LL.B., J.D.) 13.3%
5.7%
Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)
5.4% 5.4%
Education
5.2% 4.4%
Theology (M.Div., M.H.L., B.D., Ord.)
2.4%
4.2%
Psychology
4.7%
3.5%
Health Professions & Clinical sciences
2.5%
3.5%
Biological & Biomedical sciences
2.9% 3.1%
Dentistry (D.D.S., D.M.D.)
3.4%
2.7%
Social Sciences & History
2.6% 2.4%
Chiropractic Medicine (D.C., D.C.M.)
2.1% 2.3%
Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.)
1.6%
Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.)
1.4%
Physical Sciences & Science Technologies
1.3%
2.3%
2.2%
2.0%
Engineering
1.8% 1.1%
English language and Literature/letters
0.5%
Visual and Performing Arts
1.0%
0.5% 0.9%
Optometry (O.D.)
0.8%
Theology and Religious Vocations
0.7%
0.9%
Business
0.8%
Agriculture and Natural Resources
0.3%
Multi & Interdisciplinary studies
0.6%
0.9%
0.7%
0.5%
Foreign Lang., Literatures & Linguistics
0.6%
Philosophy and Religious studies
0.2%
Mathematics and Statistics
0.5%
Public Admin. & Social Service professions Computer and Information Sciences Communications, Journalism, and related Podiatry, Podiatric Medicine Family and Consumer sciences Parks, Recreation, Leisure & Fitness Naturopathic Medicine
1.5%
0.5%
0.4% 0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3% 0.3%
0.1% 0.3%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1% 0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
Area, Ethnic, Cultural & Gender studies
0.1%
Liberal Arts & Sci, Gen. studies, Humanities
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
Architecture and related services
0.1%
Security and Protective services
0.0%
Library Science Engineering Technologies
40.9%
11.6%
Medicine (M.D.)
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Legal Professions and studies
0.0%
Communications Technologies
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0%
10%
20%
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2005). Note: Includes professional doctoral degrees (medicine, law, divinity, etc.).
30%
40%
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
339
Overall, when we list all of the different types of doctorates, it looks as if Latinos prefer the professional doctorates to the other doctorates or PhDs. Thus, colleges and universities that aim to recruit the best and the brightest of Latino students into STEM will have to address the proclivity of high-achieving Latinos to receive professional degrees.
Top 10 Doctorates Conferred on White and Hispanic Graduates, 2003-2004 In 2003-2004, there were a total of 131,419 doctorates covering all fields of S&E and non-S&E. Some fields such as medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy are not treated as S&E in most federal statistics. Out of this grand total, Latinos received 5,935 doctorates in both PhD and professional fields. At the same time, Whites (nonHispanics) received 88,593 doctorates, African Americans 8,830, Asian Americans 12,596, Native Americans 782, and nonresident aliens 14,683. Both Whites and Latinos did not have doctorates in construction trades, precision production, military technologies, mechanics, and transportation and materials, although the federal government lists these fields for possible doctoral degrees. Latinos and Whites have similar, but not overlapping, interests in doctorates and professional degrees. For example, we compare the top 10 doctorates of both Latinos and Whites in the following table. What differs by comparison is the higher interest of White in theology (5th place) compared to the interest in theology of Latinos (10th place). Latinos gave relatively more effort to doctorates in dentistry and the biological and biomedical sciences than did White graduates (see Table 16). Latinos for the most part receive fewer than 4.0% of all doctorates and professional degrees. We estimate the average to be 3.4% of all doctorates in 2004. However, there are some majors where Latinos rank higher in terms of the national share of doctorates.
Part VII: A Closer Look at Latina/o Doctorates in S&E Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorates In the NSF’s (1996b) report on the undergraduate origins of S&E doctorates, only about 325 universities in the United States provided doctorate-level education in S&E, but a broad base of institutions provided students their foundation in science or engineering. 1. Almost 2,200 four-year colleges that offer undergraduate S&E degrees. 2. About 1,400 two-year schools that offer S&E instruction and/or training in S&E technologies.
340
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Table 16 The Top 10 Doctorates by White and Hispanic, 2003-2004 White Ranking of Top 10
Latino Ranking of Top 10
1. Law (LLB, JD) 2. Medicine (MD) 3. Pharmacy (PharMD) 4. Education 5. Theology (MDiv, MHL, BD, Ord) 6. Psychology 7. Health professions and clinical sciences 8. Biological and biomedical sciences 9. Dentistry (DDS, DMD) 10. Social sciences and history
1. Law (LLB, JD) 2. Medicine (MD) 3. Pharmacy (PharMD) 4. Education 5. Psychology 6. Dentistry (DDS, DMD) 7. Biological and biomedical sciences 8. Social sciences and history 9. Health professions and clinical sciences 10. Theology (MDiv, MHL, BD, Ord)
Note: Figure 12 for ranking of top doctorates includes doctorates in professional fields.
3. More than 23,000 high schools that provide mathematics and science courses. 4. Numerous high schools, colleges, and universities in foreign countries that educate the many students who come to the United States for their graduate degrees.
The NSF (1996b) report also noted that research universities play less of a role in the baccalaureate education of PhDs (see Figures 13 and 14). Moreover, according to the report, Asians were much more likely than Whites to have received their undergraduate degrees at research universities, and Black S&E doctorate holders were less likely than Whites to have attended research universities.
Baccalaureates Origins of Latina/o S&E Doctorates The list of the prominent baccalaureate origin institutions cited by Latina/o doctorates in S&E greatly differs from others with doctorates in S&E. As indicated in the figure, many Latina/o S&E doctorates received their baccalaureates from Puerto Rican universities. Moreover, significant numbers of institutions cited by Latina/o doctorates are located in California, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas, as would be expected given their geographic concentrations (see Tables 17 and 18).
The Role of Community Colleges In addition to the institutions listed above, John Tsapogas’s (NSF, 2004) report on the role of community colleges notes that more than 40% of recent S&E graduates have attended community colleges at some point in their educational paths. According to his data, based on the 2001 National Survey of Recent College Graduates,
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
341
Figure 13 Baccalaureate Origins of Science Doctorate Recipients, by Race/Ethnicity and Carnegie Classification of Institutions, 1996
Source: National Science Foundation (1996b). See Appendix B for the Carnegie Classification (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96334/append.htm#tables).
Figure 14 Baccalaureate Origins of Engineering Doctorate Recipients, by Race/Ethnicity and Carnegie Classification of Institutions, 1996
Source: National Science Foundation (1996b). See Appendix B for the Carnegie Classification.
342
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Table 17 Baccalaureate Origins of Latina/o Doctorates, 1996 Baccalaureate Origin Institution University of Puerto Rico–Rio Piedrasa University of Puerto Rico–Mayagueza University of California, Berkeley University of California, Los Angeles University of Texas at Austin University of Miami (FL) Cornell University (NY) University of New Mexico–Albuquerquea University of California, Irvine Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harvard University (MA) University of California, Santa Barbara University of Texas at El Pasoa University of California, San Diego Florida International Universitya Texas A&M University–College Station Stanford University (CA) Rutgers University–New Brunswick (NJ) University of Maryland–College Park University of California, Davis Inter American University of Puerto Rico–San Germana Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Ricoa New York University Princeton University (NJ) University of Florida Total, top 25 Total, all U.S. institutions. Top 25 as a percentage of all institutions
Total Science and Engineering
Total Sciences
Total Engineering
233 69 64 42 39 37 36 30 29 25 23 23 22 22 21 20 20 19 19 19 19 18 17 17 17 900 2,090 43.1
220 57 52 38 32 30 28 27 29 16 21 21 17 22 21 17 17 16 14 14 19 18 17 15 14 792 1,844 43.0
13 12 12 4 7 7 8 3 0 9 2 2 5 0 0 3 3 3 5 5 0 0 0 2 3 108 246 43.9
Source: National Science Foundation (1996a). Note: Includes earth, atmospheric, and oceanographic sciences. a. Hispanic-serving institutions (with 25% or more Hispanic enrollment).
Hispanics have attended community colleges in greater proportion than have whites, blacks, or Asian/Pacific Islanders. Female graduates in S&E fields are more likely than their male counterparts to have attended community college. This is especially true of married women with children living in the household. In addition to lower tuition and fees, the location of a community college, usually close to the student’s home, may contribute to higher attendance by women who are attempting to manage families, education, and, sometimes, jobs. (pp. 2-25)
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
343
Table 18 Baccalaureate Origins of Mexican American Doctorates, 1996 Baccalaureate Origin Institution University of Texas at Austin University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Berkeley University of New Mexico University of California, Irvine University of California, Santa Barbara University of Texas at El Paso Stanford University (CA) Texas A&M University–College Station University of California, San Diego University of California, Davis San Diego State University (CA) California State University, Los Angeles University of California, Riverside New Mexico State University California State University, Fullerton Pan-American University of Texas–Edinburg California State University, Long Beach University of Arizona California Institute of Technology Arizona State University–Tempe University of Houston (TX) California State University, Fresno California State University, Northridge Loyola Marymount University (CA) Saint Mary’s University of San Antonio (TX) University of Texas at San Antonio Total, top 27 Total, all U.S. institutions Top 27 as a percentage of all institutions
Total Science and Engineering
Total Sciences
Total Engineering
26 22 20 18 18 17 16 13 13 13 12 11 11 10 9 9 9 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 310 570 54.4
20 19 14 16 18 16 13 12 13 13 9 11 11 10 7 9 9 8 4 4 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 277 514 53.9
6 3 6 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 33 56 58.9
Source: National Science Foundation (1996a). Note: Includes earth, atmospheric, and oceanographic sciences.
The Role of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) According to the ACE (2006c) report, HSIs have played a significant role in the education of Latinos in S&E. To quote Cook and Cordova’s presentation of the ACE data, In 1995, HSIs enrolled 39 percent of all Hispanic college students. Eight years later, HSIs accounted for nearly 50 percent of all Hispanic enrollment. It is important to note that the number of HSIs doubled during this period, increasing from 163 to 316
344
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
institutions. Both Hispanic male and female enrollment at HSIs increased during those eight years, as the number of Hispanic women increased by 87 percent (or 205,700) and the number of Hispanic men increased by nearly 73 percent (or 123,400).
The ACE (2006c) report defines HSIs as accredited, degree-granting institutions with a full-time equivalent enrollment of undergraduate students that comprises at least 25% Hispanic students. The federal government defines HSIs as accredited degree-granting public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education with a full-time equivalent enrollment of undergraduate students that comprises at least 25% Hispanic students, with no less than 50% of its Hispanic students being low-income and first-generation college students and another 25% being either low-income or first-generation college students. Federal HSIs are designed more strictly for federal grants and support.
Conclusions In the national scene, Latinas/os are viewed as side issues when it comes to post9/11 concerns with the slowing enrollment of college students in STEM, U.S. reliance on foreign nationals, America’s ability to compete globally, the “quiet crisis” of producing skilled, professional workers, and the problems of promoting opportunities among URMS for employment in STEM. It is unfortunate to see Latinas/os relegated to footnotes and negative overtones in America’s arena of science and technology at a time when they are showing progress in pursuing and attaining doctorial degrees in S&E. It is also a dangerous sign to see Latinas/os caste in the public limelight as failures in the pipeline of higher education. The general perception of Latina/o dropouts and unproductive peoples in STEM makes it difficult to generate public support, funds, and programs for Latinas/os as a whole. It is more conceivable to support Latinas/os in higher education when couched in terms of a pyramid of higher education. Institutional barriers are rampant and probably increasing without being addressed. The layers of requirements for college and the tiers to academic success affect everyone but probably Latinas/os more so because of their limited number of supportive role models, mentors, and faculty who represent them at the forefront of professionalism. Foremost for Latinas/os are the needs of understanding the pyramid structure and the ways to get financial support. Next for Latinas/os is the need to address their issues with working part-time while in school. This in turn exacerbates the need for more time to pursue and complete their studies in higher education. The bottom line is to see that community colleges and HSIs produce and generate Latina/o doctorates in science, engineering, and professional fields. If more attention is given to the inspiring accomplishments of Latina/o scientists and doctorates who
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
345
progressed from these origins of baccalaureate degrees, then more could be learned for the future years as Latinas/os become 25% of America’s future.
Lessons and Inspirational Ideas for Becoming a Scientist—What it Takes to Become a Scientist Lesson 1 According to a report of the National Research Council (2007), students who are proficient in science, 1. Know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world. 2. Generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations. 3. Understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge. 4. Productively participate in scientific practices and discourse.
The process of achieving proficiency in science involves all four strands; advances in one strand support and advance those in another.
Lesson 2 Take note that environment can affect motivation, but true success in science builds on directly facing challenges, cara-a-cara, face-to-face. It is recognized that there are a large number of schools that have poor facilities and high concentrations of Latino students. There are Latino students from lowincome households and communities with limited resources. But Latino conditions can be faced squarely with knowing that cada cabeza es un mundo. Latino education can be fun and profound. Not all scientists were born to riches or the most ideal conditions at home and school. Latinos succeed where opportunities support their vision and capabilities. And Latinos perform at higher levels when they receive their fair share of resources and opportunities. More importantly, Latinos succeed when they take the higher ground, have positive outlooks and attitudes about learning, and study hard.
Lesson 3 Get organized and/or join a professional society that promotes science and mentoring. Take, for example, the Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS). Founded in the mid-1970s with a relatively small number of Latino scientists, this organization of volunteers has become a national leader in promoting, mentoring, and advancing Native American and Latino doctorates
346
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
and careers in science. The first SACNAS national conference was held in 1978, and yearly mentoring conferences have been held since 1987. Since then, SACNAS has been the nation’s foremost organization promoting science education, leadership, and careers at the highest professional levels. SACNAS conferences have drawn an average attendance of approximately 2,300 students and professors, all talented individuals, most the first in their family to attend college and hardly a one without challenges at home. In 2005, SACNAS received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring. SACNAS has also won recognition for online biographies of distinguished scientists of Native American and Latino origin, available at http://www2.sacnas.org/ biography/default.asp. As noted by Dr. William Yslas Vélez (n.d.), the project’s founder, “As you read these biographies, you will see that these scientists and engineers are intimately involved, not only in scientific matters, but in helping set policy for this country.” SACNAS has members in the National Academies and the support from several entities, including NIH, NSF, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Security Agency. Its membership is primarily composed of undergraduates in science programs from across the United States. Recent data on membership and interests have shown increasing numbers joining this supportive organization (see Figure 15).
Lesson 4 Promote and admire Latino successes. Achievements build ideas and dreams for others. Take, for example, the champions of Carl Hayden Community High School, Arizona, and their creation, “Stinky.” Long considered an underperforming inner-city school of Latinos, Carl Hayden Community High School beat Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the rest of the competition with a robot they named Stinky. They made Stinky out of PVC pipes and off-the-shelf computer parts and tested it in a local pool, then won competitive events, including a national championship in 2004. According to the Washington Post, “Stinky’s creators didn’t look all that impressive, either—four teenage guys in baggy pants and sneakers, all of them illegal Mexican immigrants attending Carl Hayden High School in funky West Phoenix” (Carlson, 2005, p. C1). In fact, the team won other awards (Lajvardi, 2004). • • • •
Judges choice for best ROV Elegance in Design Award First Place in the Technical Writing First place overall in the competition (compilation of many different points from different parts of the competition; see more at http://www.phxhs.k12.az.us/education/ components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=42009&sc_id=1128473338; for Stinky video, see http://www.phxhs.k12.az.us/education/components/scrapbook/ default.php?sectiondetailid=41828&sc_id=1173231515)
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
347
Figure 15 Current Membership Demographics by Discipline
Source: Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (n.d.).
Lesson 5 Read and learn about the experiences of Latinos who have scored big in science, Latinos who come from various backgrounds, and those who also serve their community. For example, Albert V. Baez, a noted physicist who was the father of folksingers Joan Baez and the late Mimi Farina, died of natural causes on March 20, 2007, in Redwood City, California. He was 94. He reportedly combined personal and professional roles as scientist, environmentalist, teacher, and humanitarian. Born in Puebla, México, and reared in Brooklyn, Mr. Baez was a distinguished academic with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Drew University, a master’s in math from Syracuse University, and a doctorate in physics from Stanford University. He taught physics at Drew, Harvard, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Redlands, and Stanford, among others. While studying at Stanford, he coinvented the x-ray reflection microscope, which is still used for medical purposes and to take x-ray pictures of galaxies. While stationed in Paris for UNESCO, he served as director of science teaching from 1961 to 1967, creating teaching programs for high school–level students in physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics. He collaborated on more than 100 science films for the Encyclopedia Britannica Educational Corp (Liberatore, 2007).
348
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
For example, Nobel Laureate Severo Ochoa was a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1959. Severo Ochoa was born in Luarca, Spain, on September 24, 1905. After a start at the Universities of Madrid and Oxford, he went to the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, in 1941. In 1942, he was appointed at the New York University School of Medicine and there subsequently became leading scientist of enzymatic processes in biological oxidation and synthesis and the transfer of energy. In 1956, he became an American citizen. Severo Ochoa died on November 1, 1993. For example, Luis Walter Alvarez was a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1968. Dr. Alvarez was born on June 13, 1911, in San Francisco, California. He studied chemistry and math at the University of Chicago and became a physicist at the Radiation Laboratory of the University of California, where he built a hydrogen bubble chamber, with which he discovered that atoms and other particles when traveling through liquid hydrogen leave a track of bubbles. Using bubble chambers, Alvarez’s team discovered many new atomic particles. The Nobel description of his important work and discoveries in physics was the longest in the prize’s history. He died on August 31, 1988, but established a legacy in physics and a prominent core of American scientists.
Lesson 6 Heed the wisdom of those who know and value the other lessons. For example, Professor Martin Chemers (2006), PhD (UCSC), stated, Successful science careers demand high levels of ability both in the scientific inquiry process and in scientific leadership and teamwork. Scientific inquiry skills can be thought of as the ability to initiate, design, and carry out research studies by applying a body of scientific tools and procedures to address a new research question. This includes the development of the research question, hypotheses, research methods, and measures, as well as data collection, analysis, and reporting. Scientific leadership and teamwork includes establishing and communicating vision, developing and using resources (including personal strengths, group members’ strengths, and resources from the environment), developing and implementing action plans, and leading and participating in group processes such as decision-making and delegation. Thus scientific teamwork skills can be thought of as the ability to plan, administer, and carry out a research project as a leader or responsible team member.
Opportunities in S&E NSF Opportunities Quoting Olsen (2006), Part of NSF’s mission is to educate an S&E workforce to meet changing times. This means being capable of quickly absorbing new knowledge, and adapting to new and advanced technologies.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
349
To this end, NSF has named “learning” as one of the agency’s four major investment priorities in its newly released strategic plan. To implement this priority of “learning,” NSF has more than 40 programs specifically designed to improve STEM education. Many of these are administered through NSF’s Education and Human Resources Directorate. Graduate student support is one such broader impact. Almost 85 percent, or 23,000, of graduate students directly supported by NSF are performing research as part of research projects, centers, or facilities awards. The other 15 percent of NSF-supported graduate students receive stipends or salaries through some of your favorite programs. Collectively, these programs have a comprehensive reach—from training the individual to catalyzing institutional change, and from infusing classrooms with research to global networking. (see Figure 16) 1. NSF Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFs). NSF GRFs support graduate students conducting science, engineering, math, or interdisciplinary research (the newest category added for 2007 awards).
According to Olsen (2006), NSF has supported more than 40,000 GRF fellows since 1952. More than 20 former graduate research fellows have gone on to win Nobel Prizes. One of Google’s cofounders, Sergey Brin, was supported by a GRF. 2. The Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program (IGERT). IGERT supports the development of novel, interdisciplinary graduate education programs for PhD students. More than 1,400 students are supported each year. IGERT projects also include strategies for recruitment and retention, career-development opportunities such as industry internships, and dissemination plans for successful graduate education activities. NSF expects to support 20 awards each year, and each award can be up to $3 million during a 5-year period. Since 1998, more than 10,000 graduates have received IGERT support. 3. The NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in the K-12 Education Program (GK-12). Through this program, NSF supports STEM graduate students for 2 years as part of larger partnerships between local school districts and graduate institutions. By directly placing graduate students in K-12 classrooms, the teachers and students are exposed to science, whereas the graduate students enhance their teaching and communication skills.
Annually, the program supports 25 partnerships. It offers nonrenewable 5-year awards for up to $600,000 per year. Since 1999, GK-12 has provided support for more than 5,000 graduate students.
NIH Opportunities NIH has a long history of addressing the serious underrepresentation of African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders in biomedical research.
350
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Figure 16 National Science Foundation Graduate Education Programs
Source: Olsen (2006).
Some 79 programs serve populations from community college students to postdoctoral fellows. Despite some gains, the current output is small—108 Blacks, 175 Hispanics, and 11 Native Americans earned biological PhDs in 2003, a 7.3% share of the total number of degrees awarded. Yet these groups represent 25% of the general population. Clifton Poodry, PhD, directs several programs, including the Minority Biomedical Research Support (MBRS) program at the National Institute of General Medical Science (NIGMS). He is concerned that NIH needs a doubling of minority PhDs every 8 years to shift the curve to where it should be (Mervis, 2006). Since 1972, the MBRS program has offered support to minority-serving institutions (MSIs) with 50% or more student enrollment from individuals underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral sciences to increase the numbers of individuals who pursue PhD research training and are professionally engaged in and occupy positions of leadership in these fields. The MSIs that have received MBRS funding include associate’s-, bachelor’s-, master’s-, and PhD-granting institutions and medical and health professional schools. The original MBRS program coupled student development with research. In 1998, the MBRS program was refocused into two separate components—one for student development and another for research support (see background documents related to this change—NIGMS, 1999, n.d.). The MBRS program that currently supports undergraduate and graduate student development at MSIs is the Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE). The other MBRS program for MSIs, Support of Continuous Research Excellence, supports faculty research. An indirect way of gauging the impact of the MBRS RISE program is through anecdotal information. For example, MORE (Minority Opportunities in Research)
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
351
includes “success stories” in the justification narratives of the NIGMS annual congressional justification (see http://www.nigms.nih.gov/About/Budget/CJs/). MORE has also featured many of its participants in the Minority Programs Update (see the archived print issues at http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Publications/MPU.htm) and in the booklet Profiles of Excellence developed in celebration of MORE’s 30th anniversary.
Appendix A Science is defined by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to include the physical sciences (chemistry, physics, astronomy), earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, biological and agricultural sciences, and psychology and social sciences. Engineering generally refers to chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical, and other engineering disciplines. NSF defines professional doctorates in these fields: Doctor of medicine (MD) Doctor of dental surgery (DDS) Doctor of veterinary medicine (DVM) Doctor of osteopathy (OD) Doctor of pharmacy (PharMD) Doctor of psychology (PsyD) Juris doctor (JD) and other similar degrees The major difference between NSF’s classification and those of other agencies is the exclusion of health fields from the science and engineering (S&E) rubric. NSF places health fields within the non-S&E group, along with education, humanities, and professional fields. Other agencies include health fields with biological and agricultural sciences under life sciences or with biological sciences alone under biomedical sciences.
Appendix B A system of classification of postsecondary institutions was established by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. A majority of the doctorate-granting institutions are classified as research (126) or doctoral (109) institutions, and they account for the vast majority of doctorates awarded in the United States. In 1990 to 1999, Research I institutions conferred 68.3% of all doctorates, Research II institutions conferred 11.5%, Doctoral I institutions conferred 10.6%, and Doctoral II institutions conferred 4.4%. Although a substantial number of doctorate-granting institutions fall into the “other” Carnegie categories, together they awarded 5.3% of all doctorates in the 1990s; these institutions were aggregated and presented as the “other” Carnegie group in this report. Citizenship status. Most citizenship data are presented as reported by the doctorate recipients or as provided by the institutions that granted the doctorates.
(continued)
352
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Appendix B (continued) Doctorate-granting institution. This includes any postsecondary institution in the United States that awards research doctorates (as defined below) and is accredited by an agency recognized by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education as a doctorate-granting institution. Currently, there are about 400 doctorate-granting institutions. The number can fluctuate from year to year for various reasons: (a) additional institutions become doctorate granting, (b) some institutions with small programs do not award doctorates every year, and (c) a few institutions eliminate their doctoral programs altogether. Field of doctorate. Field is the specialty field of doctoral degree as reported by the doctorate recipient or obtained from the institution’s commencement program or graduation list. Race/ethnicity. The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) race/ethnicity question has undergone several revisions. In 1980, the item was done in two ways: (a) the Hispanic category was subdivided into “Puerto Rican,” “Mexican,” and “other Hispanic” to provide more detail for users of the racial/ethnic data and (b) respondents were asked to check only one race/ethnicity category. In 1982, the item was recast as two questions to separately capture ethnicity and race. Since then, respondents have been asked to indicate whether or not they are Hispanic and then check one of four race categories (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or White). Hispanics can be of any race. Research doctorate. A research doctorate is any doctoral degree that (a) requires the completion of a dissertation or equivalent project of original work (e.g., musical composition) and (b) is not exclusively intended as a degree for the practice of a profession. Not included in this definition are professional doctorates: MD, DDS, DVM, OD, PharMD, PsyD, JD, and other similar degrees. Year of doctorate. The SED collects data for the academic year, which begins on July 1 of one calendar year and ends on June 30 of the next year. Academic years are identified in reports by the calendar year in which they end. For example, data reported as 1999 include all graduations from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 1999. Graduations that took place in the last 6 months of calendar year 1999 were part of the 2000 SED and are not included in this report.
Note 1. Our report is primarily developed from data provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Science Resources Statistics and its annual report titled Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards. These data come from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) for academic year 2005 (July 2004 to June 2005). Recent summary reports are available at http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm. The Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards Series (NSF 1997–2002) is available on the NSF Web site at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates/. The SED, in turn, is sponsored by six federal agencies: NSF, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The most recent information on trends is S&E Doctorates Hit All-time High in 2005 (NSF, 2006a), found at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07301/. In addition, NSF’s WebCASPAR database provides a large body of statistical data resources for science and engineering at U.S. academic institutions at http://webcaspar.nsf.gov/includes/checkJavascriptAbility2.jsp;jsessionid=19E1106F9CE17419FD939B37958347E4? submitted=1.
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
353
References American Council on Education. (2006a). Increasing the success of minority students and technology (Press release interview with Eugene Anderson). Retrieved March 2007 from http://www .acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=19511 American Council on Education. (2006b). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-second annual status report. Washington, DC: Author. American Council on Education. (2006c). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-second annual status report. PowerPoint addendum. Washington, DC: Author. American Council on Education. (2007). Increasing the success of minority students in science and technology. Washington, DC: Author. Building Engineering and Science Talent. (2004a). A bridge for all: Higher education design principles to broaden participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.bestworkforce.org/ Building Engineering and Science Talent. (2004b). The talent imperative: Meeting America’s challenge in science and engineering, ASAP. San Diego, CA: Author. Carlson, P. (2005, March 29). Stinky the robot, four kids and a brief whiff of success. Washington Post, p. C01. Chapa, J., & De La Rosa, B. (2006). The problematic pipeline: Demographic trends and Latino participation in graduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5(3), 203-221. Chemers, M. M. (2006). Assessing science inquiry and leadership skills (AScILS). Presented at COSMOS Leadership Training, University of California, Santa Cruz. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm, energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future: Executive summary. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. Cooper, C. R., Chavira, G., & Mena, D. D. (2005). From pipelines to partnerships: A synthesis of research on how diverse families, schools, and communities support children’s pathways through school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 407-430. Council of Graduate Schools. (2006a). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 1986-2005. Retrieved February 2007 from http://cgsnet.org/Default.aspx?tabid=168 Council of Graduate Schools. (2006b). Growth in graduate enrollment remains constant: Increases highest among women and African Americans. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/N_pr_GED2005.pdf de los Santos, A. G., Keller, G. D., Nettles, M. T., Payan, R., & Magallan, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). Latino achievement in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics [Special issue]. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5(3). Fry, R. (2006). The changing landscape of American public education: New students, new schools. Retrieved February 2007 from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=72 Gandara, P. (2006, July). Strengthening the academic pipeline leading to careers in math, science, and technology for Latino students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5(3), 222-237. Garcia, P. (2002). Understanding obstacles and barriers to Hispanic baccalaureates. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Gates, B. (2007, February 25). How to keep America competitive. Washington Post, p. B7. Jackson, S. A. (2004). The quiet crisis: Falling short in producing American scientific and technical talent. Retrieved March 2007 from http://bestworkforce.org/PDFdocs/Quiet_Crisis.pdf Lajvardi, F. (2004). Carl Hayden High School wins MATE. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www .seabotix.com/news/news04/hayden.htm Liberatore, P. (2007, March 22). Albert Baez, 94, physicist, father of two folksingers. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5493643
354
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
Lopez, E., Ramirez, E., & Rochin, R. (1999, June). Latinos and economic development in California (Monograph CRB-99-008). Sacramento: California Research Bureau. Mather, M. (2006, August). Is there a U.S. shortage of scientists and engineers? It depends where you live. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/IsThereaUSShortageofScientistsand EngineersItDependsWhereYouLive.aspx Mervis, J. (2006). Biomedical training program: NIH told to get serious about giving minorities a hand. Science, 311(5759), 328-329. Millard, A. V., & Chapa, J. (2004). Apple pie & enchiladas: Latino newcomers in the rural Midwest. Austin: University of Texas Press. National Bureau of Economic Research. (2005). Does globalization of the scientific/engineering workforce threaten U.S. economic leadership (NBER Working Paper 11457). Cambridge, MA: Richard B. Freeman. National Institute of General Medical Science. (1999, December 9-10). Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/Meetings/MinorityBiomedicalResearchSupportFocusGroup.htm National Institute of General Medical Science. (n.d.). Report from the NIGMS committee examining possible update of the MBRS SCORE program. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nigms.nih .gov/News/Reports/score.htm National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Science Board. (2004, May). Science and engineering indicators 2004 (2 vols.). Retrievable February 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/ National Science Board. (2006, February). A companion to America’s pressing challenge—Building a stronger foundation. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0602/ National Science Foundation. (1996a). Survey of earned doctorates. Arlington, VA: Author. National Science Foundation. (1996b). Undergraduate origins of recent (1991-95) science and engineering doctorate recipients (NSF 96-334). Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96334/htmstart.htm National Science Foundation. (2004). The role of community colleges in the education of recent science and engineering graduates (NSF 04-315). Arlington, VA: Author. National Science Foundation. (2006a). S&E doctorates hit all-time high in 2005 (NSF 07-301). Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07301/#tab1 National Science Foundation. (2006b). Science and engineering doctorate awards: 2005 (NSF 07-305). Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305/ Olsen, K. L. (2006, December 8). Shaping the workforce: NSF graduate student support. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/olsen/06/k0061208_cgs/ Pew Hispanic Center. (2006, October 10). From 200 million to 300 million: The numbers behind population growth. Retrieved February 2007 from http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/25.pdf President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2004, June). Report on maintaining the strength of our science and engineering capabilities. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.ostp .gov/PCAST/FINALPCASTSECAPABILITIESPACKAGE.pdf Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2007). Rules of the game: How state policy creates barriers to degree completion and impedes student success in California community colleges. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.csus.edu/ihe/PDFs/Rules%200f%20the%20Game%20FINAL.pdf Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science. (n.d.). SACNAS biography project. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www2.sacnas.org/biography/default.asp U.S. Census Bureau. (2006a). Educational attainment in the United States: 2006. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2006.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2006b). Table 5: Cumulative estimates of the components of population change by race and Hispanic or Latino origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (NC-EST2005-05). Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2005/ NC-EST2005-05.xls
Rochin, Mello / Latinos in Science
355
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Current population survey, 2006 annual social and economic supplement. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/ education/ 009749.html U.S. Department of Education. (2003). National study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF:04). Retrieved February 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_231.asp U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Degrees and other formal awards conferred surveys, 1976-77 through 1984-85; and 1988-89 through 2003-04. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2006a). Projections of education statistics to 2015. Thirty-fourth edition (NCES 2006-084). Retrieved February 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006084.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2006b). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html U.S. Department of Labor. (2004). National industry-occupation employment projects 2002-2012. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/tables.htm#c3 Van Der Werf, M. (2007). Conference roundup: American colleges seem ill-prepared for foreign competition and natural calamities. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 2007 from http:// chronicle.com/daily/2007/02/2007022001n.htm Vélez, W.Y. (n.d.). Welcome to the SACNAS biography project. Retrieved April 2007 from http://www2 .sacnas.org/biography/Message.asp
Refugio I. Rochin is professor emeritus in Chicana/o studies and agricultural and managerial economics at the University of California, Davis, and director emeritus of research & evaluation, Educational Partnership Center, at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He was former executive director of the Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Latinos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS), first permanent director of the Julian Samora Research Institutes at Michigan State University, senior visiting professor and associate director of the Inter-University Program for Latino Research at the University of Notre Dame, and founding director of the Smithsonian Center for Latino Initiatives. He is on the board of directors of Mentor Net, the Institute for Teachers of the California Teachers Association, and on Sigma Xi’s Committee for Distinguished Lecturers. He is currently on recall at UC Davis as director of Chicana/o studies and the program’s senior evaluator for Lab Aspire, a service program for enhancing the staff and directorship of California’s Public Health Laboratories. He has numerous publications in Latin American and Latino studies and is also known for his pioneering research on the diffusion and adoption of new technology as part of the Nobel Laureate team of Dr. Norman Borlaug on the green revolution in Asia.
Stephen F. Mello is policy analyst and evaluator at the Educational Partnership Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. He completed doctoral studies in educational policy and analysis at University of California, Berkeley and conducts data analysis and reports on state and federally funded programs of GEAR UP and No Child Left Behind.
