MIT Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

E E C S

Women Undergraduate Enrollment in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT

Final Report

Summary, Feb. 17, 1995

This summary is drawn from the full report.

Committee Members:

Introduction and Executive Summary

This Committee was chartered by the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science to examine the perceived imbalance in male and female undergraduate enrollment at MIT, to get some sense of the reasons for this (in particular whether these factors are internal to MIT), and to suggest steps that might be taken to improve the balance.

We found that imbalance does indeed exist. Women at MIT are about half as likely as men to major in EECS, despite the fact that men and women major at about the same rate in the School of Engineering as a whole. For example, for 1991 S.B. degrees granted, Computer Science had the lowest ratio of women to men of any major at MIT with more than a few students.

The data surveyed in Chapter 1 of this report, assembled from both MIT and national sources, reveal that this pattern is distressingly typical. When measured by the adjusted ratio of women to men (the percentage of women choosing to major in the Department, versus the percentage of men choosing to major in the Department), MIT does about the same as other selective engineering schools and considerably better than selective general universities. Moreover, the imbalance in undergraduate enrollment matches (and is in fact slightly less than) the imbalance with which entering first-year men and women express interest in EECS on their applications for admission to MIT. This makes it difficult to argue that the imbalance in EECS enrollment is a result of factors that are unique to MIT.

It is not adequate, however, merely to report that comparable institutions do as badly as we do. As a national leader in EECS education, MIT should also lead in coming to grips with this imbalance, and in encouraging men and women to participate equally in electrical engineering and computer science. Chapter 2 of this report discusses the results of two surveys of MIT undergraduates, one survey comparing women who are majoring in EECS with women who are not, and one comparing men and women in EECS. The most notable results of these surveys are that women, much more so than men, feel that they have come to MIT "less prepared to major in EECS" than their peers, and that both women and men consider EECS to be a very competitive major.

In Chapter 3 we recommend some easy short-term steps the EECS Department could take to begin to address the enrollment imbalance. We have avoided suggesting measures that would result in any preferential treatment of women over men. Not only would this be counterproductive, but it would also avoid the real underlying issue. There are many superb students who are discouraged from entering electrical engineering and computer science because they are less overtly assertive and self-confident than their peers, or feel that they were not sufficiently exposed to electrical engineering and computer science in high school. These students, both women and men, can become leaders in EECS fields, and it behooves a nationally prominent Department to make sure they that will have every opportunity to do so.

Chapter 1: Male/Female enrollment patterns in EECS at MIT and other schools

Chapter 1 of the report discusses undergraduate enrollment figures in EECS at MIT and other universities. See the full report for details.

Summary Observations

At MIT, women are about half as likely as men to major in EECS. In contrast, for the School of Engineering overall, women and men major in engineering at the same rate. Even though the ratio of women to men is low, the absolute numbers of women in EECS are significant-more women received S.B. degrees in EECS in 1991 than in any other department.

It is difficult to make the case that the low ratio of women to men is the result of factors unique to MIT. MIT does about as well as other selective engineering schools, and better than selective non-engineering schools, in the rates at which women major both in electrical engineering and in computer science relative to men. Also, EECS is a net "draw" for both men and women between their admission to MIT and their choice of a major, and the percentage of increase is about the same for men as for women.

Nevertheless, the committee believes that maintaining national leadership in EECS education requires more than merely doing somewhat less badly then comparable schools. We might improve the gender balance in EECS by attempting to increase the yield ratio of admitted women students with EECS interests. Beyond that, chapter 2 attempts to identify factors internal to MIT whose change might improve the situation.

Chapter 2: Two surveys of MIT Undergraduates

As part of our activities, the committee conducted two surveys of MIT undergraduates. The first, conducted during the spring of 1994, was aimed at identifying some of the factors that influenced women's choices of whether or not to major in EECS. This survey consisted of half-hour individual and small-group interviews of two populations: 32 women (the "transfer out group") who had indicated on their MIT admissions application that they were interested in EECS, but did not end up majoring in the department; and 28 women (the "transfer in group") majoring in EECS did not indicate interest in EECS on their admissions application. The results of the survey were largely "negative" in that there were few questions to which the differences in the responses of the two groups were statistically significant. (Responses are considered to be different if they show a statistically significant difference at the 1% level, as computed by the Mann-Whitney "U" test.) On the other hand, the responses to which the two groups largely agreed, and had strong opinions, give food for thought.

The second survey was a small subset of the questions in the first, administered as a questionnaire to students in the EECS core subjects -- 230 men and 75 women -- during the fall of 1994. (We refer to these groups as the "core course men" and the "core course women.") Here, the objective was to note differences in the responses of men versus women. While the responses of men and women were largely consistent, there are a few telling places where the differences are significant.

The complete surveys and responses are given in the full report. Here are comments on some of results.

Women feel less prepared than their peers to major in Course 6.

The most striking result to emerge from the surveys is the extent to which MIT undergraduates feel that they are less prepared than their peers to major in course 6, and that the women feel this way much more so than the men. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "I had less prior computer experience compared to other MIT students," 35% percent of the core course men, 65% of the core course women, 74% of the transfer in women, and 63% of the transfer out women indicated that this was either "somewhat true" or "very true." For the statement "I had less prior EE experience compared to other students at MIT," 53% of the core course men, 79% of the core course women, 61% of the transfer out women, and 79% of the transfer in women indicated that the statement was somewhat true or very true.

Although it is probably true that women, on the average, come to MIT with less experience in EE and CS than do men, it also seems true that such a difference in responses must be due partly to perception rather than reality. (For example, at least one women who rated her background in computer science as below average for MIT had taken the computer science advanced placement exam.)

Whether perception or reality, the difference in background is likely to be a significant factor in discouraging women from entering the department. When asked about the statement "It is difficult to succeed in Course 6 without having had previous EE or CS experience," 47% of the core course men, 52% of the core course women, and 55% of the transfer out women agreed. (For the transfer in women, 41% agreed, 48% disagreed, and 11% were neutral.)

Both men and women consider Course 6 to be very competitive.

For the statement "Course 6 is very competitive compared with other majors," 73% of the core course men, 68% of the core course women, 84% of the transfer out women, and 85% of the transfer in women all agreed. (The differences between the responses of the core course women versus the other two groups of women probably reflect the different circumstances of the two surveys.) The respective percentages of the groups disagreeing with the statement are 6%, 7%, 0%, and 0%.

It is not obvious that competitiveness in and of itself is a factor in deterring women. For the transfer out women, 56% said that this competitiveness was an unfavorable trait in their choice of a major while 16% considered it favorable. For the transfer in women, 40% considered it unfavorable and 27% considered it to be favorable. (We did not ask this question in the core course survey.)

Interestingly, when asked if other women (not oneself) find course 6 too competitive, the transfer in women largely agreed, while the transfer out women were neutral (a statistically significant difference). When asked if they themselves found course 6 too competitive, both groups were largely neutral. The same phenomenon (statistically significant differences between the two groups when asked about other women, but not when asked about themselves) occurred with the questions "Women find course 6 too intimidating," and "Women have less background in EE or CS than men." In each case it was the transfer in women, much more so than the transfer out women, who subscribed to this belief about other women.

In a similar vein, 81% of the core course men, 84% of the core course women, 78% of the transfer out women, and 92% of the transfer in women agreed with the statement "Course 6 requires more work than other majors." For the transfer out women, 37% said this was unfavorable and only 6% said this was favorable. For the transfer in women, 35% said this was unfavorable and 23% said this was favorable.

Regardless of the effect of these factors, it is sobering that Course 6 is uniformly viewed as such a competitive major.

Impressions of EECS careers are a factor.

In the survey comparing the two women groups, the area with the largest number of statistically significant response differences concerned careers in EECS. The transfer in women, more than the transfer out women, felt that course 6 careers are more creative and more exciting, have independence, and have good opportunities for women. A related question with a statistically significant difference is the response to the M.Eng. program, where the enterers more than the leavers felt that the program increases the attractiveness of Course 6. Such results are hardly surprising, but they do highlight the importance of career plans as a factor in women's choice of Course 6 as a major.

6.001 is viewed more positively than 6.002.

We compared the responses of the transfer in women in a number of questions concerning 6.001 and 6.002. (We did not compare the responses of the transfer in women and the transfer out women, nor did we ask these questions of the core course groups.)

There were statistically significant differences in the extent to which this group thought that 6.001 was more inspiring, better organized, and was an overall good experience. Both courses, however, were considered overwhelming, and for both courses, the transfer in women largely agreed with the statement "My background knowledge for this course was lower than my peers' (74% for 6.001 and 64% for 6.002). Worrisomely, the group largely disagreed with the statement that the subject "increased my confidence in my ability." (For 6.001, 37% agreed and 59% disagreed; for 6.002, 30% agreed and 66% percent disagreed.)

Chapter 3: Recommendations

This chapter presents nine recommendations for reducing the undergraduate enrollment balance in Course VI. We have focused on short-term activities that can be easily accomplished with modest resources. Additionally, we have attempted to avoid recommendations that would entail preferential treatment for women.

1. Cooperate with the Admissions Office to attempt to increase the number of women with EECS interests who attend MIT as undergraduates.

As chapter 1 shows, the disparity between male and female undergraduate enrollment in EECS mirrors the disparity in EECS interest indicated by entering first-year men and women when they apply to MIT. Therefore, regardless of other activities the Department undertakes to improve the enrollment balance, we should try to increase the number of women who enter MIT with interests in EECS areas.

We do not advocate using woman applicants' intended major as a factor in the admissions process. Instead, we propose focusing on encouraging women with EECS interests to apply to MIT, and especially, on encouraging admitted women with EECS interests to attend MIT This should be done in coordination with the Admissions Office, as part of the Institute's ordinary recruitment efforts.

Some simple steps that should be taken immediately include:

  1. sending a personal letter on behalf of the Department to all women in the admitted class with EECS interests
  2. coordinating with the Admissions Office Contact program (in which current undergraduates contact admitted students) to help assure that women with EECS interests are contacted by women EECS undergraduates
  3. having the Admission Office direct visiting students to the EECS Undergraduate Office
  4. having the Department participate in Campus Preview Weekend (an MIT program in April for admitted women and minority students)
  5. preparing a brochure about opportunities for women in engineering (not just EECS) similar to the one sent now to women graduate student applicants, but targeted at undergraduates.
Other efforts, growing out of these initial ones, should evolve in cooperation with the Admissions Office.

2. Offer an IAP introduction to EECS designed for students with little or no EECS background.

As indicated in chapter 2, a significant difference between MIT men and women is the extent to which women feel less prepared than their peers to major in EECS. Beginning in IAP 1996, the Department should offer a subject that is specifically addressed to freshmen (both women and men) who may be interested in exploring EECS but feel that they have little experience with electronics or computers.

3. Continue the spring social for women.

Last spring the Committee sponsored a social event for students to meet women faculty in EECS. Although attendance was sparse, reactions to it were highly positive, and it should be continued this spring. Attendance should be open to both men and women, although the department should make a special effort to invite first-year women who have expressed interest in EECS.

4. Sponsor a seminar series for undergraduates that features women in EECS industries.

As indicated in chapter 2, impressions of EECS careers are an important factor in undergraduates' choice to major in Course VI. The Department should sponsor a seminar series that provides undergraduates (both men and women) with opportunities to meet and interact with women in electrical engineering and computer science industries. Typically this would consist of a seminar presentation followed by a dinner or other social event. The Department should provide funding for this program, although it might best be run by a student organization such as Eta Kappa Nu.

5. Provide better coordination and support for students looking for UROPs.

It is difficult to obtain centralized information about UROP positions in course VI. As a consequence, less aggressive students have difficulty finding UROP placements, or even applying for them. The Department maintains a lists of UROP projects, but this is far from complete, many faculty are unaware of its existence, and it is not extensively coordinated with UROP efforts in the labs. The Department should provide a matching service where faculty can advertise for UROPs and students (both men and women) can apply for them. Participating in this service should be helpful to faculty as well as to students, since the service can pre-screen student applicants according to faculty-specified criteria.

6. Participate in Academic Midway and/or hold an Open House for Freshmen.

The Department has traditionally not participated in MIT's academic midway for incoming freshmen, one the grounds that there is no need to make efforts to increase undergraduate enrollment in EECS. One consequence of this decision is that the main source of information about course VI for incoming freshmen is the grapevine, with its concomitant mythology, e.g., that Course VI is more competitive than other majors, is graded more harshly, is not accessible to people without previous exposure to EECS, and so on. As a result, the department can seem aloof and uninviting, and it is easy for less assertive students to be discouraged from considering Course VI as a potential major.

7. Consider offering "L" versions in the introductory subjects.

The Physics Department has had positive experience with 8.01L (a version of 8.01 that covers the material at a slower pace and extends into IAP). Course VI should consider an analogous experiment with 6.001 and 6.002 which, as the survey in chapter 2 shows, many students regard as overwhelming. For example, there could be a version of 6.001 that starts during IAP and extends through the spring, or a version of 6.002 that starts in the fall and extends through IAP.

8. Schedule recitation sections in large subjects in a way that avoids isolating women.

It can be very uncomfortable being the only woman in a class of 25 students. In large multiple-section subjects, the Department should attempt to "bunch" women so that a few sections are more equally balanced between men and women, rather than spreading women thinly throughout all the sections.

9. Make EECS teaching staff aware of MIT policies on harassment and conflict of interest.

The surveys in Chapter 2 uncovered no evidence that inappropriate behavior by staff is any more of a problem in Course VI than elsewhere at the Institute. Nevertheless, there were reports of at least isolated incidents, such as TA's "hitting on" students in their class. While MIT already has adequate policies and channels for dealing with this, it would be helpful for the Department to regularly provide information for TAs and undergraduate assistants that reminds them of their obligations under MIT's harassment and conflict-of-interest policies, and interprets these policies with examples of appropriate and inappropriate behavior in teaching situations.
URL of this page: http://www-eecs.mit.edu/AY94-95/announcements/13.html
Authors: EECS Ad Hoc Committee on Women Undergraduate Enrollment
Created: Feb 21, 1995 | Modified: Jun 24, 1997
This announcement is from the MIT EECS 1994-95 archive. | Current announcements
To MIT EECS home page | Your comments and inquiries are welcome.