Prepared by: Kenneth Maton, Alphonso Gantt, Troy Green, and Colleen Loomis. Funding Provided by NIGMS/NIH

• Allen, W.R. (1992). The color of success: African American college student outcomes at predominantly white and historically black colleges and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26-44.Widely cited research examining the greater academic success of African American college students on historically black campuses than on predominantly white ones.
• Astin, A.W., & Astin, H.S. (1993). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Large-scale, longitudinal study indicating that approximately 1/3 of African-American, Hispanic and American Indian students at college entry select an SEM major. More generally, Astin’s yearly reports (The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 19..) and related specialized analyses, are a widely cited nationally representative source of data on students.
• Bowen, W.G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Written by former presidents of Harvard and Princeton, this book has influenced the policy debate in the college diversity/affirmative action area. It is based on a large scale study of the of minority students who benefitted from racial preferences when admitted to highly selective colleges. The post-college outcomes of the students affirm the importance of diversity, as does survey data which indicate that non-minority students appreciate the value of a diverse student body.
• Carmichael, J.W., Labat, D., Hunter, J., Preivett, J, & Sevenair, J.P. (1993). Minorities in the biological sciences: The Xavier success story and some implications.Bioscience, 43, 564-569.One of the well-known success stories in the SEM area, Xavier, an historically black college, has developed a comprehensive approach to enhancing the minority pipeline, for pre-med students especially. The approach includes working closely with local public secondary schools, and a campus collaborative effort to enhance student achievement in chemistry and biology based majors.
• Culotta, E., & Gibbons, A. (eds.) (1992). Special report: Minorities in science. Science, 258, 1176-1196.Widely-cited special section of Science in the early 1990′s focused on minority students in the sciences. Important as an emerging indicator of the high visibility of this issue, the challenges faced by minority students in the sciences, and the status of efforts to make a positive difference.
• The College Board (1999). Reaching the top: A report of the national task force on minority high achievement. New York: College Board Publications.College Board report which focuses on issues related to minority students reaching the top tier in undergraduate and graduate education. Factors which influence academic achievement are highlighted, as are strategies needed to enhance highest levels of achievement. Significant in its focus on achieving high levels of achievement; proposes the term “affirmative development” as a basis for efforts in this area.
• Fullilove, R., & Triesman, U. (1990). Mathematics achievement among African-American undergraduates at the University of California at Berkeley. An evaluation of the Math Workshop Program. Journal of Negro Education, 59, 463-478.One of first studies indicating positive findings for Uri Triesman’s group-based and strengths-focused (non-remedial) intervention for minority freshman mathematics students. The study is significant in supporting the value of strengths-based, academic enhancement efforts in the SEM area and the view that there is an untapped pool of capable minority SEM students.
• Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (1999). Priming the pump: Strategies for increasing the achievement of underrepresented minority undergraduates. NY: College Board.Significant for its systematic examination of 20 promising (mostly SEM) intervention programs, each of which has some documentation of effectiveness in enhancing minority college student success. Components common to programs are highlighted, along with challenges faced by SEM intervention programs.
• Hilton, T.L, Hsia, J., Solarzano, D.G., & Benton, N.L. (1989). Persistence in science of high-ability minority students.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Early, influential report highlighting key factors related to minority student success and persistence in the SEM area.
• Malcolm, S., Van Horne, V., Yolanda, G., & Gaddy, C. (1998). Losing ground: Science and engineering graduate education of Black and Hispanic Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.Survey results from 93 major research universities which indicated a drop in minority graduate SEM first-time enrollments from 1996 to 1997. Authors suggest that anti-affirmative action policies may be a contributing factor.
• Maton, K.I., Hrabrowski, F.A., & Schmitt, C.L. (2000). African American college students excelling in the sciences: College and post-college outcomes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 37, 629-654.Well-designed evaluation of the Meyerhoff Scholars Program, indicating substantial program success in African American SEM graduates entering Ph.D. graduate programs. Significant for quality of research design, comprehensive nature of program, and its focus on talented minority students. Information about the parenting and community factors contributing to the academic success of the students from their early years onwards can be found in Beating the Odds: Raising academically successful African-American males. (Hrabowski, F.H., Maton, K.I., & Greif, G.L., 1998, Oxford University Press).
• Mervis, J. (1998). Wanted–A better way to boost numbers of minority PhD.s. Science, 281, 1268-1270.This article is significant in continuing the high visibility emphasis on the importance of the minority Ph.D. issue. Alternative approaches that majority institutions are using in order to achieve diversity in the current, anti-affirmative action political climate are portrayed.
• Miller, L.S. (1995). An American imperative: Accelerating minority educational achievement. New Haven: Yale University Press.Broad-based and insightful analysis of the problem of minority educational achievement.
• Nettles, M.T. (1990). Success in doctoral programs: Experiences of minority and white students. American Journal of Education, (August), 494-522.Early, systematic study of graduate education which delineates a number of factors, including racism, as accounting for the lower success rates of minority graduate students.
• Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Widely cited volume which examines a diversity of variables which influence student outcomes in college.
• Pearson, W., & Warner, I. (1999). Mentoring experiences of African American Ph.D. Chemists. In H.T. Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in Higher Education. Volume II: Examining mentoring protege experiences. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Another in a series of insightful accounts of factors influencing the success of African American scientists by a well known researcher in the area.
• Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N.M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Widely cited, in-depth study examining why students leave science majors.. The chapter on minority students briefly reviews existing knowledge, and portrays a number of factors which differentiate SEM major “switchers” from “non-switchers”.
• Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.Summarizes evidence for his novel, widely cited “vulnerability threat” hypothesis. Based on research with college students, this hypothesis states that when minority students are aware that their academic performance results will be linked to their race, they do less well, due to the negative influence of concerns about confirming existing stereotypes.
• Tinto, V. (1987, 1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago PressWidely cited, broad-based book which examines factors that influence student attrition from college–includes discussion of factors related to attrition among minority students.
• Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23, 362-372.Seminal research which informed the development of Treisman’s Math Workshop Program, indicating less group support and group studying among African-American than among Asian college students.

Executive Summary

Several institutions in the U.S. have developed highly successful programs for mentoring underrepresented science students. To disseminate information about these programs to institutions that are primed for change, we seek funding to support three symposia, one each at Harvard University, the University of Louisiana at Monroe, and the University of Washington, that will bring together administrators, faculty, and students from institutions committed to supporting diversity among undergraduate and graduate science students. We aim to promote institutional change across a broad spectrum of institutions, including research I universities, regional universities, and liberal arts colleges. We believe that “taking the show on the road” to disseminate the expertise and successes of several universities will galvanize action at institutions that are ready to adopt new approaches to increase diversity in their graduate and/or undergraduate programs. Moving the conversation away from the home sites of central funding agencies (HHMI, NSF, NIH), where such discussions are often restricted to those already committed to increasing diversity, is a new approach aimed at reaching a broader array of participants.

Each symposium will have roughly the same format, with (1) presentations by leaders from the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, Xavier University of Louisiana, and Louisiana State University, and (2) break-out sessions to catalyze development of institution-specific action plans. Institutions with HHMI programs or professors and other nearby institutions will be invited to participate. Prior to arrival, each participating team must submit relevant institutional data on underrepresented minority participation in undergraduate science programs, establish its own definitions of “success” for mentoring and retention programs, and articulate a set of goals aimed at achieving success. This prior work is designed to ensure that institution-specific action plans, developed at and following the symposia, emanate from an informed consideration of current practices.

The proposed symposia will result in two tangible products: a national consortium of colleges and universities dedicated to promoting diversity in the sciences, and a web site that provides a repository of relevant data, a summary of initiatives emanating from our symposia, and a central hub for academic and federal sites that support diversity efforts in the sciences.

Significant non-HHMI funding has been secured to support this effort, with $50,000 from the National Institutes of Health, $50,000 from Harvard University, $10,000 from the University of Louisiana at Monroe, and $25,000 from the University of Washington for a total of $185,000 in funding for the three symposia. More than half of the combined funds will pay for travel awards to participating institutional teams.

Co-Program Directors:

Wendy Raymond, Williams College
(wraymond@williams.edu)

Robert Lue, Harvard University
(Robert_lue@harvard.edu)

Collaborators:

David Ratner, Amherst College
(diratner@amherst.edu)

Elizabeth Tobin, Bates College
(etobin@bates.edu)

Patsy Dickinson, Bowdoin College
(pdickins@bowdoin.edu)

Pat Marsteller, Emory University
(pmars@LearnLink.emory.edu)

Robert Fairman, Haverford College
(rfairman@pop.haverford.edu)

Christopher Barney, Hope College
(barney@hope.edu)

Jeff Bartz, Kalamazoo College
(jbartz@kzoo.edu)

Isiah Warner, Louisiana State University
(iwarner@lsu.edu)

Craig Woodard, Mount Holyoke College
(cwoodard@mtholyoke.edu)

Bruce Telzer, Pomona College
(btelzer@pomona.edu)

Ann Findley, University of Louisiana at Monroe
(afindley@ulm.edu)

Michael Summers, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
(summers@hhmi.umbc.edu)

Barbara Wakimoto, University of Washington
(wakimoto@u.washington.edu)

Nancy Kolodny, Wellesley College
(nkolodny@wellesley.edu)

Michael Weir, Wesleyan University
(mweir@wesleyan.edu)

Tuajuanda Jordan, Xavier University of Louisiana
(tjordans@xula.edu)

Please check the following requirements:

1. Is at least one high-level administrator (President, VP, Provost, Dean) and one science faculty member attending the symposium?
2. Has your team gathered relevant institutional data on underrepresented minority participation in your undergraduate science programs? If not, will you be able to prepare the data in time for the symposium?
3. Have you downloaded the readings for your symposium and the two Excel Data Sheets (plus instructions and low-income definition) for submission at a later date?
4. Have you designated a team leader, or “Primary Contact”, to whom all email correspondence regarding the symposium will be sent?
5. If your team will apply for a travel award, please be ready with your request and justification when you register.

Full list of Team Requirements.

Registration

No symposia registrations are being accepted at this time. Each participating team only needs to register for one of the three symposia.

Harvard Symposium: Closed

ULM Symposium: Closed

UW Symposium: Closed

Registration deadline for UW symposium: September 30, 2006.

1. Comparison of successful and unsuccessful undergraduate diversity-in-science initiatives reveals that strong commitment by both administrators and faculty is required for any action plan to work. Thus each participating team must include at least one high-level administrator (President, VP, Provost, Dean) and one science faculty member. Students from underrepresented groups will also be encouraged to attend, both as future scientific leaders and to provide important perspectives. Other than the requirement for at least one high-level administrator and one science faculty member, the determination of size and composition of a team is at each institution’s discretion.
2. Prior to the symposium, each participating team must:
   1. Gather relevant institutional data on underrepresented minority participation in undergraduate science programs. The excel datasheet available below provides a template for this institutional analysis.
   2. Establish its own definitions of “success” for mentoring and retention programs.
   3. Articulate a set of goals and an action plan aimed at achieving success.
   4. Submit institutional data to Billy Biederman, Grants Systems Assistant, HHMI; biederma@hhmi.org, 301.215.8895. Deadline for UW symposium: 2PM (EST) on Monday, October 23, 2006. Each institution’s data will be kept confidential. Data from all participating teams will be aggregated by Billy Biederman, HHMI, and a professional consultant retained by the consortium. These aggregate data may be presented at subsequent symposia (e.g., selections from aggregate data from Harvard and ULM symposium participants may be presented at the UW symposium). The Excel Datasheet can be found below.
3. We’ve distilled relevant readings to the following list of 6 references, which will be helpful to your pre-symposium discussions.

Readings for Download (PDF Format)

All articles are copyrighted by their respective authors and publishers. They are provided for download only to single users for academic purposes

1. Summers and Hrabowski (2006). Preparing Minority Scientists and Engineers. Science 311, 1870-1871.
2. Steele, Claude (1997). A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psychologist 52, 613-629.
3. Cohen and Steele (2002). A Barrier of Mistrust: How Negative Stereotypes Affect Cross-Race Mentoring. In Improving Academic Achievement, Chapter 15, Elsevier Science (USA).
4. Gandara, Patricia and Julie Maxwell-Jolly (1999). Priming the Pump: Strategies for increasing the achievement of underrepresented minority undergraduates. The College Board.
5. Matsui, John, Liu, Roger, and Caroline M. Kane (2003).Evaluating a Science Diversity Program at UC Berkeley: More Questions Than Answers. Cell Biology Education 2, 117-121.
6. Fullilove, Robert E., and Philip Uri Treisman (1990). Mathematics Achievement Among African American Undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An Evaluation of the Mathematics Workshop Program. Journal of Negro Education 59, 463-478.

Extended reading list

Two Datasheets: Gateways data and Majors data (Excel Format)

Please download the Gateways Data Sheet and the Majors Data Sheet for collection of institutional data.

Also download this accompanying instructions document, which explains the aims of the Gateways and Majors data collection.

You may also download recommended guidelines to define “low income”, based on annual U.S. Census data.

The Meyerhoff program has four overarching objectives: (a) academic and social integration; (b) knowledge and skill development; (c) support and motivation; and (d) monitoring and advising.  To achieve these objectives, five major elements are employed: (i) recruiting a significant pool of high-achieving minority students with interests in math and science who are most likely to be retained in the scientific pipeline; (ii) offering merit-based financial support; (iii) providing an orientation program for incoming freshmen; (iv) recruiting the most active research faculty to work with the students (our philosophy is that it takes a scientist to train a scientist); and (v) involving the students in scientific research projects as early as possible, so that they can engage in the excitement of discovery. Encouraging high academic performance in the first 2 years is critical. Students are encouraged to retake courses in which they earn a C in order to strengthen foundation knowledge before advancing to other courses.
- Michael Summers, Ph.D., University of Maryland-Baltimore County
For further information about the Meyerhoff Scholars Program, see:
Summers, M. F., Hrabowski, F. A. III, “Preparing minority scientists and engineers,” Science 311, 1870-1871 (2006), and references there-in.

Sadly, the result has been a perpetually small pool of competitively eligible STEM students from underrepresented groups. And it is this small pool we compete over for our graduate programs and professions, perpetuating the status quo of too few minority scientists, engineers, physicians, etc., to meet the U.S. workforce needs.

The success of underrepresented, ethnic minorities in the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), Biology Scholars Program (BSP) over the last 14 years provides insights into what we must do differently to address underrepresentation and its toll (e.g., economic, health) on America.

BSP is a majority female (70%) and majority minority (60%) program. Since 1992, 1,400 UCB undergraduates have participated in BSP. Nine hundred of its graduates have entered graduate and professional programs. Funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the program aims to increase the diversity of UCB undergraduates who succeed in their biology majors and related careers. BSP shares components similar to other science diversity programs across the U.S., including study
groups, paid research opportunities, academic advising, and faculty mentoring.

How successful have BSP students been? In comparison with majority students not in BSP, minority (African American, Hispanic, and Native American) BSP members have graduated with biology degrees in equivalent percentages and with equivalent final University of California GPAs; this in spite of entering UCB with lower high school GPAs and lower SATs. By their success in biology at UCB, BSP minority graduates have attained parity, closing the minority-majority performance gap.1 So what is the “BSP lesson” that will help us tackle underrepresentation in STEM? Students are most often not the problem. They do not need to be made “better.” Rather it is our programs and institutions that must change for the better.

Since diversity programs began in the 1960s, the science diversity community (including BSP) has done essentially the same traditional list of interventions and activities with students. The result? A perpetually small pool of competitively eligible minorities over which we continue to compete for our graduate programs and professions.

Some would characterize this as “insanity”—doing the same things over and over again and expecting different outcomes. How do we break this cycle and realize our goal of diversifying our STEM majors and professions? The key point is that we have done neither (1) substantive research on what’s working, what’s not, and for whom, nor (2) have we tied funding of our work to rigorous assessment/evaluation. Why not? In my opinion, diversity work is not treated as real work. Rather it is viewed as retrofit or adjunct to the main fabric of our disciplines. The “science” of diversity work is not taken seriously, and is not held to the same high standards of scholarship as our work at “the bench.”

Accordingly we have limped along uncritically doing the same things (“the list”) with our students, not researching what works, what doesn’t, and for whom. And we continue to receive funds for work based on outcomes that are not rigorously analyzed or evaluated. In what legitimate discipline would this occur?

In defense, some would rationalize our behavior in light of the imprecise “fuzzy” nature of diversity work. Factors often cited as “out of our control” range from the
“micro” (e.g., students’ level of preparation, motivation, and/or ability) to the “macro” (e.g., historical inequities in society and our institutions).

Unfortunately, framed in this way, the focus shifts outward to what we can’t control, rather than looking at what we’re doing. Over what do we have control? What should we do? And, what resources do we need to do it?

First, we must work on understanding our diversity work through rigorous research that enlists the expertise of our social science colleagues.

Second, we must hold ourselves accountable for what we do through assessment/evaluation and tying funding to student outcomes.

To do this we need resources, not doing more of the same. We need money, training, and an interdisciplinary effort that taps the expertise of social scientists to help us do what we haven’t been trained to do as scientists–to understand what works, what doesn’t, and for whom.

Finally, and more difficult, we need the personal, political, and professional will to be self-critical regarding how our actions may or may not address the problem of
underrepresentation. We must elevate program assessment and research on the effectiveness of diversity work to the status of, for example, our studies of cytoskeleton regulation.

Only then will we make STEM majors and careers accessible to all motivated and interested students. This is our challenge. This is where our real work lies.
—John Matsui
24 ASCB NEWSLETTER AUGUST 2006Reference
1 Matsui, et. al. (2003). Cell Biology Education 2,117–121.

Applications are due on or before September 1, 2006 and are included at the end of the registration form. Top priority will be given to those who apply by the September 1 deadline; requests for travel awards received after September 1 will be considered only if travel-award funds remain. Travel awards for the symposium at UW will be announced by September 15, 2006.