July 25

Reality Check

When I started teaching chemistry at a women’s college 10 years ago, a sophomore named Tahnee came to me and said she wasn’t very good at math, so was a bit nervous about taking chemistry. She wanted to become a doctor, so she said I had better be a good teacher. As a young professor, I was taken aback, but also impressed with this student’s confidence and drive.

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,719
Administrative: 2,095
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Tahnee proceeded to attend every office hour I scheduled. Sometimes she had problems on homework but often, she simply did extra problems at the tables outside my office door. Apparently, she told her friends that this was a good way to learn chemistry, and soon, I had about 10 women sitting outside my door during every office hour. They would help each other with problems or send representatives to my office if they got stuck.

After a while, I asked Tahnee how she got all these young women to spend so much time doing chemistry. She explained that she lectured them about how people didn’t think that women could do science and that it was up to them to prove that Scripps women were better at chemistry than their male counterparts. I was stunned. This young woman understood that gender discrimination existed but wasn’t about to let that stop her.

At this point, Claremont McKenna College, a member of our joint science department, had far more chemistry majors than Scripps. But now, 10 years later, that situation is reversed. I have come to understand the value of a woman’s college in terms of encouraging young women to study science.

I wonder if Tahnee, as much as she was a leader, would have parked outside my office if she attended a co-ed college. In the single-sex environment, women (students, faculty and staff) have high expectations for each other and help each other live up to those expectations.

Seeing the successes of young women at women’s colleges makes me proud to work at Scripps. As a chemistry professor and now the mother of three daughters, what more could I ask for?

Actually, a lot. Because when the Tahnees go on to graduate school, the reception isn’t always a warm one. Nationally, nearly 50 percent of chemistry undergraduates are women, but it’s nowhere near that percentage when it comes to gender equity in Ph.D. programs or in academic careers. And the reason for the falloff continues to be gender discrimination.

We have had a number of women chemistry majors, from each of our participating colleges (Scripps, Pitzer and Claremont McKenna), go on to graduate school and be quite successful, but they often remark that the transition is difficult. A few years ago, one of my Scripps students enrolled in a Ph.D. program in chemistry but had trouble finding a research lab that would take her. I remember her words when she informed me of her decision to leave with a master’s degree: “You never told me that in science, men assume I’m stupid.”

The recent Harvard Business Review study on brain drain, “The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology,” found that 41 percent of highly qualified scientists, engineers, and technologists on the lower rungs of corporate career ladders are female. But the study found that 52 percent drop out because they are marginalized by hostile macho cultures. This contradicts Susan Pinker’s argument in “The Sexual Paradox,” that women leave science fields because they were pushed to be scientists and engineers and they ended up in jobs they didn’t enjoy. While Pinker’s argument may hold true for some we simply cannot ignore that prejudices in science exist and have a negative effect on the women in these careers.

Not buying it? Consider recent blogger comments on a higher education blog:

“So the problem is women won’t take risks, won’t spend enough time at work, choose unconventional and even ‘mysterious’ career paths, and don’t successfully fit into the workplace culture. My gosh, if I said that, I’d be branded a MCP!”
“If they can’t stand the heat, they should get back to the kitchen.”
“I like behaving like a male. I find women interesting to a point. The problem is that we need we need more GOOD-LOOKING females in the science field.”

Such comments demonstrate a mind-set that is damaging to women in science. I forwarded the article and the string of blog comments to a female colleague in biology and she responded, “This is so depressing!” Why is it that there are those out there who are still trying to make being a woman in science so depressing?

Sadly, these bloggers point out another problem we thought was solved. Many insist that the discriminators are the old men and things will get better once they retire or die off. But blogging is the sphere of younger men so the comments above likely came from male academics who will be around a long time.

A junior colleague once questioned my work with a women in science committee on campus. “It is not like the 60s,” he said. “Those women had it really tough. Today at least we let you women have these jobs, we let you in the door.” I informed him that we were not ‘let in’ but that we were highly qualified teachers and scholars and that our credentials must never be questioned.

A 1999 MIT study on the status of women faculty in science states, “Once and for all we must recognize that the heart and soul of discrimination, the last refuge of the bigot, is to say that those who are discriminated against deserve it because they are less good.”

The MIT study is an excellent example of what can be achieved when people come together to solve a difficult problem. Their recommendations included establishing a continuing review of primary data to ensure that inequities do not occur, and ensuring close communication among senior women faculty, department heads, deans, and university leadership to prevent marginalization of women faculty and to integrate senior women faculty knowledge of gender issues at the level where academic power resides. The latter will remain critically important until women faculty routinely occupy positions of academic power.

In 2000, to advance the cause of women scientists, I created a Celebrating Women in Science Speaker Series. Harvey Mudd and Pomona Colleges, the other members of the Claremont Consortium, have endowed lectureships in chemistry but over the years have hosted very few female scientists. The Scripps version was intended to remedy that. Well-known women scientists have discussed their work, but more importantly, their career trajectories and methods they had learned to navigate a career in science.

In 2006, I did something unheard of. I invited a man to be the series speaker. Richard Zare, chair of chemistry at Stanford University, had written an article in Chemical & Engineering News entitled, “Sex Lies and Title IX,” in which he endorsed the use of Title IX to address the lack of equity in science, just as the federal law has been used to promote equity in athletics. Even someone as enlightened as Professor Zare admits that he sometimes succumbs to a culture that, in his words, “broadcasts signals about the innate superiority of men.”

Women colleagues expressed concern over the need for bringing in a man to discuss issues facing women in science. Sadly, while I agreed with them at some level, I knew we did need him. The Zare lecture was attended by more of the male scientists in Claremont that any of the previous 12 lectures. Zare discussed a number of the issues women have regularly raised, but coming from him, it had more weight.

A recent study of the plight of women leaders by Catalyst found that women leaders often offer ideas in a meeting, only to have a male colleague restate the idea and take credit for it. A senior executive quoted in the study advised women to “nip it in the bud,” by thanking the male colleague for rewording your idea, and then asking the rest of the meeting attendees what they think about implementing it. While “nipping it in the bud” is a good idea, it gets really tiring having to fight to be heard.

Being tired is my final point. Studies discuss how women leave science, or become disenchanted, later in their careers. I think the dissatisfaction comes when you’ve gotten tired of fighting to be heard, to be counted, to be taken seriously. When we are young, we think we can overcome anything. It is when we realize that we have not overcome the obstacles but instead simply learned to live with them that we become disenchanted. This is what I want to see changed. I do not want my daughters to find their dream job in a male-dominated career, only to later be too tired and beat up to enjoy it.

I think most male scientists have good intentions, but as Zare pointed out, gender discrimination is embedded in our culture. Gender discrimination can only be eradicated through a collective desire to eradicate it. We cannot continue to dismiss reports on brain drain, such as the recent Harvard Business Review study, as women whining. Such studies prove the problem has not been solved. We must remain vigilant. The attitudes and ideals about creating spaces for women as scholars and leaders may be the norm where I work, but we have to be vigilant about spreading these attitudes and ideals throughout academia and beyond.

Mary Hatcher-Skeers is associate professor of chemistry at Scripps College.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Nursing and Elementary Education

What about the alarmingly low number of male students in fields like nursing and elementary education? I don’t see the vast majority of those in higher ed rushing to help the marginalized minority here.

Robert, PhD Student, at 6:45 am EDT on July 25, 2008

Communication Breakdown

Great post. I think these inequities are partially due to the fact that characteristics that we generally think of as important for science, such as assertiveness and single-mindedness, tedn to be stereotyped as undersireable traits in females. This speaks to gender differences in how men and women are socialized to communicate [i.e. Women Don’t Ask, Babcock and Leschever, 2003, Princeton University Press.] Although things are starting to change, I think it is still often the case in Universities that assertive men are often viewed as “Strong” and assertive women are labeled as “Aggressive”. It only takes a one such label for serious damage to be done.

Dr MCR, Professor and Associate Dean, at 8:00 am EDT on July 25, 2008

Gender bias in the sciences? I am offended at the implication.

I have taught at two smaller liberal arts institutions in the south, both having overall female-to-male ratios of approximately 60-40. At both of these institutions, the population of science majors that I have personally taught have been overwhelmingly female — in the biological sciences.

The number of female students is much smaller in the physical sciences as well as mathematics. Why? Why not ask the students before trying to push some artificial and dangerous governmental ‘equality’ program? I have heard many times from many female students that they would never want to be a Physicist because they don’t find it interesting, or they don’t like the math, or they want to be a medical doctor. Never once has the idea of some sort of ingrained gender bias ever come to the fore.

Circumstantial evidence != data, but I would not be surprised to find similar stories elsewhere.

Of course the entire push to Title IX the sciences is based on circumstantial evidence. There has been no realistic studies that have shown that female graduate students have less access to advisors, or that female researchers get less data access or grants. At the meeting of the American Astronomical Society in January of this year, the number of female students seemed to be at an all-time high, many of them with very interesting research projects.

There is zero need to try and create equality in the sciences with a sledgehammer. If you want more women in the sciences, change the culture. Instead of giving your daughter a doll, give her a chemistry set. The last thing that academic departments need is to suffer under the yoke of Title IX restrictions.

Remember — today it may be the sciences that get forced to give up academic freedom for some mythical ‘equality’. Tomorrow, it could be the sociologists and women’s studies departments that get axed for having the wrong views.

Assistant Professor, at 8:30 am EDT on July 25, 2008

How about psychology? Medicine? From what I see they are shifting to large majority female. In 4 years, I have yet to see one male Child and Adolescent Psychiatry resident at my institution (see I can use limited value anecdotal evidence too!).

There may be minor pockets of discrimination, I will grant you that, but the 1970’s era is long past (who uses the term “macho” anymore?!? Break out the fondue set!).

And yes it cuts both ways. Many a female graduate supervisor has almost (if not all) female grad students, deliberately excluding men (and are proud of it!). I’ve gotten more grief from aging feminists for being a male student than I ever saw female students receive from male supervisors. I have never seen an exclusively male lab. Ever.

Did you ever think that the rigid academic career track is what is preventing the turnover to allow women to progress? Look around your department. I bet there are more than a few old men (some who even pre-date feminism totally!) and boomers with tenure doing little. This blocks the way for everyone, female and male. Look at faculty turnover as context for the progress of women and let me know what the data says.

As for the 50% chemistry undergrads, how many go onto medicine or nursing instead of graduate chemistry? This relates to the sports problem. Equal numbers does not equate equal interest.

Given the overall trend for more women at university, do you support men getting preferential admissions and scholarships, special efforts at recruitment and retention?

Frank, at 9:25 am EDT on July 25, 2008

They still don’t get it

Excellent commentary. While I know that institutional and policy changes are part of the solution, the comments on this piece already show that attitudes haven’t changed much in the last 40 years.

Male scientists still do not see how those subtle (and not so subtle) broadcasts about male superiority inform their own practices. What have they done to be sure they are treating both sexes (students and colleagues) fairly?

Canadian, at 9:40 am EDT on July 25, 2008

Tired

This rang so true to me. I have a Phd in computer science but was nearly run out of the field when I took my preliminary exams and was told that I needed to take a remedial class in developing large software systems. Despite the fact that the exam didn’t test for such ability and the fact that I had worked as a software developer for 7 years (and won several awards for my work) prior to entering the PhD program (experience that none of the males taking the test had), the faculty insisted that I needed this class. When I (reluctantly) said that if I wasn’t given a clear reason for why I needed such a class, I was going to have to assume it was simply because I was a woman and I would complain to the dean, the faculty backed down. The experience made me seriously question whether this was the right field for me. I decided that I wouldn’t let them win and went on to get the PhD.

I’ve now left computer science because I’m tired of fighting to be taken seriously. Luckily, I was able to stay in academia and am now a faculty member in a media studies department. My technical background is valued here and I fight far less often to have my voice heard.

All of these experiences have happened in the last 10 years. Sexism is not a thing of the past.

tired, at 10:40 am EDT on July 25, 2008

Why is she apologizing to men?

Tom, at 10:50 am EDT on July 25, 2008

Mathematics

Dr. Hatcher-Skeers asks whether her student would have parked outside her door at a coed institution. I believe she would. I teach mathematics at a coed institution, and the male students typically outnumber the female students by a wide margin in courses like calculus and differential equations. However, women come in for help much more often, are far more conscientious, and outperform the men by a wide margin. In my differential equations class last year, the men outnumbered the women 3 to 1, but the average among the women was 9 points (almost a full letter grade) higher than the average among the men. I agree that a women’s college can be a great environment (my daughter attends one), but women can also flourish at coed schools.

Fred Sullivan, Associate Professor at Wilkes University, at 2:10 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

dolls<—->chemistry sets

Ah, the old “give girls a chemistry set instead of dolls” argument.

It’s not enough to change how girls think of themselves and how people think of girls. We also have to give boys dolls instead of chemistry sets. Why are “family-friendly” policies seen as ways to attract women only? Because their husbands don’t pull equal weight. It should be just as important for a new father to have time off as a new mother; the fact that it’s not is evidence of the fact that women are always seen as the ones who take care of “family” (read, life) responsibilities. If “someone” has to stay home to take care of the children, it’s always the woman. Thus, “family-friendly” policies are usually framed as “woman-friendly” policies.

And if you argue that it should be that way because men make more money... well, think about that.

ex-professor, PhD, at 2:10 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

Hmm.... chemistry, computer science, physics....hmmm... seems like the areas of science that attract the most socially awkward men have the most trouble recruiting and keeping women.... Most women have little experience dealing with such types (aside from avoiding them socially) and may be mistaking ‘dork posturing’ (go to any comic book store and start a Batman vs. Superman debate to see this in action) for a ‘hostile macho’ environment.

Back to the interest vs. numbers question. If women do not show interest in these fields and do not sign up in droves under a Title IX expansion, do we close all those pesky departments of chemistry, physics and computer science? That’s what happened to many men’s sports teams.

It would make more room for more Women’s Studies buildings...

Frank, at 2:10 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

Frank and Assistant Professor — your attitudes certainly reflect the problem. How sad that you cannot — or will not — see it.

RLS, Dean, at 2:10 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

I totally agree with Frank — it doesseem like the areas of science that attract the most socially awkward men have the most trouble recruiting and keeping women and since women are NEVER socially awkward, and never encounter socially awkward men until they have to work in these fields they must be “mistaking ‘dork posturing’. . . for a ‘hostile macho’ environment"! I am so glade I finally understand! Thanks Frank.

Jean, at 3:00 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

The socially awkward bit was a joke...yeesh. Since sarcasm and humor are lost here, let me be serous.

RLS — because I do not seem to slavishly agree immediately to the premise I am blind? Read what I said. I said there are pockets of true discrimination (jerks that hate women). I also said it cuts both ways regrettably (jerks who hate men). And one does not excuse the other.

Men are ‘discriminated’ against in some academic paths by this very WIDE definition of discrimination. It is one major assumption that all those ‘missing’ female chem grad students are due to discrimination. Its seems goofy to me. Same way men could assume nursing programs or women studies programs are purposefully discriminatory. Maybe they just are not interested and do other things.

Nobody responded to my three questions:(1) What happens now that women outnumber men at the undergrad level and in medicine? Are you in favor of preferences for men now?

(2) What happens to those departments if interest fails to materialize? Do they get closed like the sports teams did? What is the punishment?

(3) What does career progress for women look like when you account for the huge boomer cohort that is tying up all the tenure lines? What is the percentage of new faculty for each sex? What is the percentage of new faculty to grad students for each sex?

Frank, at 3:45 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

Women in Science

The comments from males here show exactly what the situation is — men refusing to “see” sexism. Of course they don’t see it, it’s not part of their experience. And men are not being discriminated against in nursing schools or in elementary education training. I teach at a university which does make efforts to bring men into nursing, and we have increasing numbers of men — higher than the national average — entering the nursing program, now that salaries in this area are rising. Why haven’t men gotten into nursing and elementary ed programs? BECAUSE THEY’RE WOMEN’S WORK AND MEN DON’T WANT TO PUT UP WITH THE LACK OF STATUS AND LOUSY PAY THAT ACCOMPANIES WOMEN’S WORK! Sexism is what kept men out — but not discrimination against men, but against women. Sexism exists and continues to hold women down. Hopefully, enough women will get fed up with it and demand it stop.

Karen Pare, at 5:45 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

“Why haven’t men gotten into nursing and elementary ed programs? BECAUSE THEY’RE WOMEN’S WORK AND MEN DON’T WANT TO PUT UP WITH THE LACK OF STATUS AND LOUSY PAY THAT ACCOMPANIES WOMEN’S WORK!”

This is bull and you know it. Especially in terms of Elementary Ed, there is a massive anti-male gender bias both culturally and institutionally against men working with children. You can blame the ‘pedophile hysteria’ of the 80’s and 90’s for that. One of my best friends growing up ended up in middle-school education as one of only a couple of men on the campus.

Boys are very ill served by the lack of male teachers in the early years.

My own Physics department is 33% female; 1 of 3. That is exactly the same as my graduate office in Astrophysics: 2 out of 6. The year I graduated with my PhD there were more female graduate students in Astrophysics than male ones in my program.

Unlike the liberal arts, the sciences is merit based and highly competitive. I have seen my female students on my coed campus far outshine male students. The top of the class for the past 4 semesters of intro physics has been female. Females come by my office to ask for help in large numbers and they certainly do work hard to do well. I find the implication that I am somehow a secret sexist to be not only personally offensive but a blatant and outright lie bordering on libel.

To claim that there is some ‘macho culture’ of science based on the bad experiences of a few female scientists is to ignore reality. Every Physicist, Chemist and Mathematician I have ever known personally and professionally have been among the most color and gender-blind people on the planet. We, as a group, care only about talent, skill and results. I don’t care if you’re male, female, transgender, neutered, Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Atheist or all eight. If you can understand the condensation of interstellar grains you are welcome in my lab.

Can the same be said for more politicized academic disciplines? I don’t think so, and I think that a simple investigation of academic bias in something like Women’s or Queer studies would show far more obvious and systematic biases.

Assistant Professor, at 7:50 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

males in female careers

Hey, Robert: Guess what? Men are NOT marginalized minorities in nursing and education! Far from it. Male teachers are recognized as remarkable and quickly promoted to higher-paying adminstrative ranks. Women who are outstanding in math and science are looked at as freakish while men who are excellent with children are elevated as gods and rewarded far more often and more quickly than their female peers who have taught longer and have more education. It is discouraging to say the least! I speak from experience, but there are numerous studies that document the situation.

Katherine, PhD Student at An Ed Admin Dept., at 10:30 pm EDT on July 25, 2008

One comment that has come up over and over and has gone unchallenged is that men’s sports teams had to be eliminated because of Title IX. It is very simplistic to say that Title IX is the cause of the cutting men’s sports. Football plays a huge role in the cutting of other men’s sports—it is an expensive, money-losing venture at most institutions of higher education. And there are typically a hundred (or more) men on the team. The culture that we’ve created around football presumes it is the most important sport on the campus and therefore simply cannot be cut (no one is suggesting elimination of the program here—just cutting but that is blasphemy). If you have limited resources, difficult choices must be made. To suggest that adding more slots for women athletes (which at our school anyway, have not been difficult to fill so the argument about lack of interest just doesn’t hold water) is automatically the cause for eliminating entire sports is simply not looking at the bigger picture.

Tired, at 1:05 pm EDT on July 27, 2008

sexism is extinct

Nah, there’s no more sexism. It’s just that hysterical women aren’t smart enough to understand their own experiences and so need to be told by men who don’t believe in sexism what they think, want, need and do, and why this is their problem. If they dare stridently disagree with men they should be sued for libel for offending men. Then the men can complain when called on their sexist language and beliefs that they were “only joking”. Women should just lighten up and realize they aren’t as smart as men.

“There may be minor pockets of discrimination, I will grant you that, but the 1970’s era is long past, Hysteria, politicized, overwhelmingly female, There is zero need to try and create equality in the sciences, mythical ‘equality’, axed for having the wrong views, no realistic studies, circumstantial evidence, Never once has the idea of some sort of ingrained gender bias ever come to the fore, artificial and dangerous governmental ‘equality’, give girls a chemistry set instead of dolls, women … may be mistaking ‘dork posturing’ … for a ‘hostile macho’ environment, If women do not show interest in these fields and do not sign up in droves under a Title IX expansion, do we close all those pesky departments of chemistry, physics and computer science? That’s what happened to many men’s sports teams., It would make more room for more Women’s Studies buildings, The socially awkward bit was a joke...yeesh. Since sarcasm and humor are lost here, let me be serous, slavishly agree immediately, true discrimination (jerks that hate women), goofy, assume, just are not interested and do other things, preferences, punishment, This is bull and you know it, massive anti-male gender bias both culturally and institutionally, My own [experience], Unlike the liberal arts, the sciences is merit based and highly competitive, find the implication that I am somehow a secret sexist to be not only personally offensive but a blatant and outright lie bordering on libel, To claim that there is some ‘macho culture’ of science based on the bad experiences of a few female scientists is to ignore reality., I don’t think so, and I think that a simple investigation of academic bias in something like Women’s or Queer studies would show far more obvious and systematic biases… “

MD, at 5:45 pm EDT on July 27, 2008

It’s yin and yang, not yin vs yang...

I have been in nursing education for over twenty five years and, yes, there is gender discrimination against men and always has been. It is true that it has lessened slightly in the past ten years, but nationally, men remain about 5% to 8% of the nursing workforce. Now it could be that men are simply not interested in a profession whose very name “nursing” is ipso facto something that only a wman can do. Or it could be that this discrimination has nothing to do with “womens work” or low pay. Claims like that are no longer true and reflect a kind of neanderthal attitude that is out of touch with today’s realities...sort of like Jeremiah Wright and his sad, antiquated rants. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Men and women ARE different. DUH!

They have different interests, attitudes, and ways of thinking. Could it be that women are simply not as interested as men in sciences like physics, math, whereas men are not as interested as women in the care-giving sciences like nursing and medical care?

feudi pandola, at 11:35 am EDT on July 28, 2008

what about the women who aren’t different

To feudi pandola:

Perhaps men and women ARE different as you say but that has nothing to do with the argument made in the article above as she is clearly (if you had read all the way through) talking about women who have already demonstrated an interest in science fields, including some women who have demonstrated interest at very high levels. So your “men and women are different” in terms of interest argument holds no water. In addition, whoever stated that there is no data to back up claims of institutionalized discrimination hasn’t bothered to try and find the data at all. There are tons of empirical studies out there that do suggest that female scientists experience discrimination throughout their careers and that male scientists and engineers experience cumulative advantage. This holds true when controlling for time since doctoral degree, age, race, number of children, indicators of productivity, tenure status, type of business, type of university...I could go on.

Try doing some real research on the topic before shooting off at the mouth.

Jinny, at 1:20 pm EDT on July 29, 2008

...and just WHO is shooting off at the mouth Jinny?

I am insulted at your comment that I am “shooting off at the mouth". As I clearly wrote, I have been in education for nearly 25 years, and I did graduate from Wharton so I must not be a total idiot, huh? As for “shooting off tat he mouth", you stated thhere were “tons of empirical evidence” supporting your ridiculous comments. How about offering us some.

feudi@earthlink.net, at 3:35 pm EDT on July 29, 2008

not doing your research

Because I am assuming that, as you have a degree from Wharton, you might know how to do a simple search of available literature or data on your own. If you wish to actually explore raw data rather than studies done by others, you might begin by looking at the SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers statistical data system) as a good start.

I’m hardly going to do homework you should have done before pretending to know something about the topic.

I do think Frank (?) made a good point in recognizing the large number of semi-retired professors holding up tenure lines.

Jinny, at 1:15 pm EDT on July 30, 2008

Jobs Related to Reality Check

or search for jobs directly.

Assistant/Associate Professor in Fitts Dept of Industrial and Systems Eng
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Assistant Professors of Geography (2)
Old Dominion University

(Position #1) Environmental Geographer (Position #2) Human Geographer see job

Instructor (Statistician)
Medical University of South Carolina

In the historic, coastal city of Charleston, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) offers a wide range of ... see job

Coordinator of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Student Success — 695200T
Miami Dade College

Job Description: The Coordinator will assist the Project Director with implementing Activity-2 of the five-year, grant-funded ... see job