1. Dean’s Meeting February 8, 2010 Public Research Viewpoint

2. A few of the large engineering colleges are in the top ten with regard to degrees awarded to Hispanics. BACHELOR’S DEGREES AWARDED TO HISPANICS BY SCHOOL 1. Univ. of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez 578 2. Polytechnic Univ. of Puerto Rico 372 3. Florida International University 314 4. University of Texas, El Paso 173 5. University of Florida 149 6. California State Poly. U., Pomona 147 7. University of Texas, Austin 141 8. Texas A&M University 93 9. California State Univ., Long Beach 85 9. University of Central Florida 85. Pennsylvania State University 30 ENGINEERING BACHELOR’S DEGREES AWARDED BY SCHOOL 1. Georgia Institute of Technology 1,459 2. Pennsylvania State University 1,327 3. Virginia Tech 1,162 4. University of Michigan 1,156 5. Univ. of Illinois 1,155 6. Purdue University 1,054 7. North Carolina State University 1,049 8. Texas A&M University 1,010 9. University of Texas, Austin 965 10. University of Florida 901 Data source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, 2008, http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdfhttp://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdf

3. Penn State’s BS degrees awarded to students from underrepresented populations, and Hispanics in particular, have been relatively steady during the past decade. Represents 2.3% of the BS degrees awarded in engineering at Penn State

4. The diversity at the undergraduate level in Penn State’s College of Engineering shows recent increases with respect to the Hispanic population. Represents 3.4% of the undergraduate enrollment in engineering at Penn State

5. When considering the top ten BS degree awarding universities, the percentage of degrees awarded to Hispanics varies widely: Georgia Tech 4.1%; Penn State 2.3%; Texas A&M 9.2%; Univ of Texas 14.6%; Univ of Florida 15.5%. ENGINEERING BACHELOR’S DEGREES AWARDED BY SCHOOL 1. Georgia Institute of Technology 1,459 2. Pennsylvania State University 1,327 3. Virginia Tech 1,162 4. University of Michigan 1,156 5. Univ. of Illinois 1,155 6. Purdue University 1,054 7. North Carolina State University 1,049 8. Texas A&M University 1,010 9. University of Texas, Austin 965 10. University of Florida 901 Data source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, 2008, http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdfhttp://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdf

6. While the Hispanic student enrollment numbers at many large public universities may be relatively low, those same institutions are effective at hiring Hispanic faculty. HISPANIC TENURE/TENURE TRACK FACULTY 1. Univ. of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez 156 2. Polytechnic Univ. of Puerto Rico 67 3. Texas A&M University 21 3. University of Texas, El Paso 21 5. Pennsylvania State University 16 6. Univ. of Illinois 12 6. Purdue University 12 6. Louisiana Tech University 12 9. University of Texas, Austin 11 9. Virginia Tech 11 UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT 1. Georgia Institute of Technology 7,507 2. Texas A&M University 6,840 3. Purdue University 6,695 4. North Carolina State University 6,161 5. Pennsylvania State University 6,116 6. Univ. of Illinois 5,943 7. Virginia Tech 5,929 8. California Poly. State U., SLO 5,607 9. University of Michigan 5,203 10. University of Texas, Austin 5,131 Data source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, 2008, http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdfhttp://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdf

7. The diversity among engineering faculty at Penn State compares favorably to the national trends as reported by the American Society for Engineering Education*. * Data source: American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, 2008, http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdfhttp://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2008ProfileEng.pdf

8. Sustained, structured and focused practices are key to making progress. Penn State’s Framework to Foster Diversity is a university-wide process in place since 1998. 1998-2003 2004-2009 2010-2015 University defines challenges Climate Access & Success Education & Scholarship Visibility & Vitality Unit creates and implements plan University review team provides feedback on plan Unit prepares a midpoint progress report University review team provides feedback on progress Unit prepares a final report University review team provides feedback Targeted areas for improvement are identified for each cycle

9. The Framework to Foster Diversity is a data-driven process that uses performance indicators to mark progress and identify opportunities. Demographic Data – including trends and projections Survey Data – National Survey of Student Engagement; Program to Assess the Climate in Engineering (Sloan Foundation); Faculty/Staff surveys Program Participation and Participation Rates

10. Successful programs are built with strong leadership, partnerships, and long-term commitment. For example, the Multicultural Program administered through the Office of Engineering Diversity - is led by an assistant dean and has an external advisory board - has partners with others e.g., Career Resources and Employer Relations, industry, academic units - maintains and expands successful programs, such as PrEF (Pre-First Year) program, which has been in place since early 1990s and boasts a 74% retention rate

11. To review the Framework to Foster Diversity process, including examples of plans, updates, and reviews http://www.equity.psu.edu/framework/ To review the success of a Pre-First Year program, ASEE Conference Proceeding (Amy Freeman author) http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id=22043