Faculty Availability for AAP

Calculating availability of faculty has become very difficult. Affirmative Action regulations require that federal contractors determine availability.

“Availability is an estimate of the number of qualified minorities or women available for employment in a given job group, expressed as a percentage of all qualified persons available for employment in the job group. The purpose of the availability determination is to establish a benchmark against which the demographic composition of the contractor’s incumbent workforce can be compared in order to determine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity may exist within particular job groups.” (41 CFR60-2.14)

The first factor is a look at the incumbency in similar positions in a reasonable recruiting area. This is difficult to determine for faculty because of changes in the 2000 census occupation codes that combined all post-secondary teachers into one code. A second factor in determining availability is a look at the incumbency in the job group in the employer’s workforce for the employees that could reasonably be promoted, transferred or would be trainable to be promoted or transferred. A third factor that my large, private, higher education institution uses for determining faculty availability looks at institutions capable of training potential recruits and comes from the Survey of Earned Doctorates as an indication of the number of people who have the necessary degree to be a faculty member in a specific discipline.

The changes, which have been made to protect privacy, will make it even more difficult to determine a current statistically significant availability for faculty positions, keeping in mind that an English professor cannot necessarily instruct, research or serve in an advisory capacity to the department of biochemical engineering nor, can a reasonable person expect someone with a Ph.D. in mathematics to research, instruct or advise in the law school or visual and performing arts.

Is anyone doing anything different to determine availability for faculty?

Melanie, at 10:20 am EDT on April 24, 2008

Private Doctorates?

The awarding of a doctorial degree is a public act. The graduates’ names are published in campus newspapers, university web sites and in professional journals.

Math Prof, at 10:25 am EDT on April 24, 2008

Terms that Need Explaining

As a native American myself (Inner Asian Mixed by heritage), I am amused and perplexed by this latest “news.”

The 2006 Survey uses the terms Asian, Black, Hispanic, American Indian, White and Other. That nomenclature seems to garble and foolishly confuse skin color, geographic region, and ethnicity.

Can someone explain the difference between Hispanic, Latino, and Chicano in a straightforward way that is consistent and succinct?

Chuck, at 11:00 am EDT on April 24, 2008

Torturous Terminology

Copied from: http://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html

“According to EEOC guidelines, minority is used to mean four particular groups who share a race, color or national origin.

These groups are: American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintain their culture through a tribe or community.

Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original people of the Far East, Southeast Asia, India, or the Pacific Islands. These areas include, for example, China, India, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

Black (except Hispanic). A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

The many peoples with origins in Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East make up the dominant white population. Of course, many more minority groups can be identified in the American population. However, they are not classified separately as minorities under EEO law.”

The already torturous definitions for ethnicity and race groups for compliance purposes are in the process of changing (one agency at a time). So, depending for the moment on which agency is receiving the reporting (i.e., DOL, DOE, OFCCP or EEOC) there might be some variations in terminology.

These are the changes that were made by the EEOC to the EEO-1 report + adds a new category titled “Two or more races” + divides “Asian or Pacific Islander” into two separate categories: “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander” + renames “Black” as “Black or African American” + renames “Hispanic” as “Hispanic or Latino”

Melanie, at 5:00 pm EDT on April 24, 2008

Martin’s Comment

Martin’s ridiculous comment and those similar to it that he has made in the past affirm my previous observation about him: he is too ignorant about racial matters and too prejudiced toward blacks to engage in an intelligent conversation about race.

Donald Ray Jenkins, The Rev. Dr. at Independent Scholar, at 5:20 am EDT on April 25, 2008

Further proof

I offer this further proof to Dr. Jenkins that perhaps I understand the African American mentality better than he things. On this very same day, one of his “brothers” Cleveland Sellers was named president of Voorhees College in SC, and instead of posting praise to Cleve, he posts a negative comment about me. Easier to be critical of the white guy, than to be supportive of one of your own. Thee are mirrors we look into every day, if you do not like what looks back..........

Martin, at 7:35 am EDT on April 25, 2008

Some institutions in the geosciences and erth system sciences have been witholding infomation due to low numbers for more than a decade. My hunch has been that it is to their advantage in order to tell shades of truth about there diversity and inclusion efforts (fudging the numbers to hoohwink NSF on broadening criteria). Is this an effort by NSF to help such institutions hide the ball? Afterall, my guess is that getting a PhD would be a source of pride and honor, so why be overly concerned if someone learn of one reaching such height of accomplishment. And too, it isn’t like it is a desease to be ashamed of. So, who is protecting who for the wrong reason is the real ugly to bring to light...in my opinion.

Ajearld, at 4:20 pm EDT on April 25, 2008

If I were a researcher who used the NSF numbers, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that there actually are federal regulations that prohibit the publication of the data. After all, haven’t the data been published in past years? Have any new regulations been adopted? No.

In reality, the decision to stop publishing the data was made by a couple of individuals, merely a different — and arbitrary — and perhaps wrong —interpretation of existing regs. Who knows? Other NSF staff could make a different decision. But that won’t happen unless the research community speaks up — and is persistent — because NSF is a bureaucracy and it’s difficult to get the attention of its leadership.

CHAF, at 12:15 am EDT on April 28, 2008

NSF may have done everyone a favor

There is some good news for any of you who are interested in PhD demographics: there is a better place to get the data. The IPEDS data set contains complete information on the demographics of doctorates, with no data suppression. What’s more, IPEDS also has data on master’s students and on undergraduates, their data are not limited to science and engineering, they have a much more detailed taxonomy of disciplines than NSF, and they make their data available at the institution rather than the national level. IPEDS data are much more timely than NSF’s. And, best of all, you can get the full data set without having to pay NORC lots of money. The NSF may have just done you a big favor.

More here: http://blog.phds.org/2008/5/3/privacy-paranoia-at-nsf

Geoff Davis, at 1:35 pm EDT on May 3, 2008