IV. Attrition
Fig. 4-C Percentage Female of "Voluntary Attrition" (for reasons
other than Death or Retirement) in Relation to Percentage Female
of PopulationFig. 4-D Faculty Representation by Tenure Status and Gender,
Compared with the Percentage Female in Hiring and Attrition
from AY 2006-07 to 2010-11Fig. 4-E Percentage Female in Hiring and Attrition in CAS
Natural Sciences as Compared with CAS as a Whole,
AY 2006-07 to 2010-11, for Tenure-track (Non tenured)
FacultyFig. 4-F Representation of Women in Tenured and Tenure-track
positions, in Relation to Percentage Female in Hiring and Attrition,
AY 2006-07 to 2010-11Fig. 4-G Attrition as a Percentage of Population on an
Annual Basis for Men and Women, by Division, between
2006-07 and 2010-11
Overview
Background: Patterns of attrition 1997 to 2006-07The progress in increasing female representation that might be expected in the Natural Sciences and Engineering from the rates at which female faculty have been hired over the last 15 years or so has been diminished by relatively high rates of female attrition. Considering the period from 1997 to AY 2006-2007, females went from 13.8% of the faculty with unmodified professorial ranks (ASTP, ASCP, PROF) in the Natural Sciences to 13.3%. In that period, 18.4% of the hires were female, but so were 22.9% of the departures. For females in the Natural Sciences, the total number who left represented 50% of the original number who held such positions in 1997 (for males, this percentage was 26.8%). Thus, despite the relatively high percentages of females hired, attrition seriously cut into the outcome.
During this same period, the percentage of females in the College of Engineering went from 11.2% to 12.7% of the professorial rank faculty. Although 20.4% of the hires were female, so were 20.6% of the departures. In that period, the total number of males lost from ENG was equal to about 31% of the total number of males on the faculty in 1997, whereas the total number of females who left the university came to about 63.6% of the original female population.
So, during that period, we had a small increase in the number of females in the CAS Natural Sciences and ENG despite hiring a relatively high percentage of females (a percentage that generally exceeded the female representation on the faculty in these disciplines at the time of hire, although there were differences among disciplines in this regard). We had have had a “leaky bucket” problem with respect to increasing numbers of female faculty members. In the Natural Sciences during this period, 14 females were hired, but the number of females increased by only 3 (from 22 to 25). In Engineering, despite 11 new female hires, the number of females increased by only 4 (from 11 to 15).
Patterns of attrition 2006-07 to 2010-11As shown in Section 1, we are finally getting a bit of traction in increasing the numbers of females, at least for tenure-track faculty. This is largely due to a significant increase in female hiring (Section 3). Nonetheless, progress in increasing representation of females is still checked by the fact that female attrition is disproportionately high in the Natural Sciences, and the over-representation of females in attrition is even greater when attention is restricted to voluntary departures (i.e., those who leave the university for reasons other than death, retirement, program termination, or dismissal).
Attrition for reasons other than death or retirement: "voluntary" attritionFigure 4-C focuses specifically on voluntary attrition. Figure 4-D shows the breakdown in more detail. In the Natural Sciences, although there were 14 women hired, the total number of women increased from 26 in 2006-07 by only 8 (although 1 female PROF transferred into ENG, thereby reducing the remaining total for 2010-11 from 34 to 33). In Engineering, 3 women were hired (and there was 1 internal transfer into ENG), increasing the total numbers only by 2 (since 2 women left). So the increase in the number of females that might have been achieved through the hiring process was reduced by 2/3 in ENG, and by 6/14 in CAS Natural Sciences, as a result of the attrition that occurred in this 4-year period. Although females represented at most 15.7% of the tenured/tenure-track population in the CAS Natural Sciences over this period, they represented 23.1% of all attrition and 33.3% of the voluntary attrition that occurred. This is not the case in other CAS divisions (although in CAS Humanities, females are also over-represented in attrition, especially voluntary attrition). Note also that in the Natural Sciences, we are losing female faculty at the highest rate from the tenure-track ranks, which has a clear relationship to the rapidity with which we can expect that the increased hiring rates at the junior level will have an impact on female representation in the tenured ranks (which has been stagnant over an extended period of time, cf. Section 1).
Figure 4-E focuses on tenure-track faculty and Figure 4-F on tenured and tenure-track faculty combined, illustrating the female representation on the faculty compared with the percentage of females among new hires and among those who left (and, in particular, those who left voluntarily).
Annual rates of attritionFigure 4-G shows the attrition rates for tenured and tenure-track males and females, calculated on an annual basis in relation to the overall population each year. This is separated out by category: 1) Attrition due to death or retirement; 2) Involuntary attrition resulting from dismissal or program termination; and 3) Attrition for all other reasons, labeled as “voluntary attrition.” [see note 1] Between AY 2006-07 and 2010-11, the CAS Natural Sciences lost 6.84% of its tenure-track women each year, on average, whereas only 1.61% of the TTK males were lost each year, to voluntary attrition. Of the TTK faculty members who left voluntarily during that period, 60% were female, despite the fact that females represented between 17% and 32% of the TTK faculty. Voluntary attrition and involuntary attrition related to the tenure process are especially worthy of attention, since changes might be made that would have a positive effect on retention.
It is also the case for tenured faculty that females had a higher annual rate of voluntary attrition than males during this period. Although the rates in both cases were lower than for tenure-track faculty, in the Natural Sciences, we lost 2.7% of our tenured females each year, on average, as compared to 1.37% of our tenured males, to voluntary attrition. In Engineering,the rate of voluntary attrition from the tenured faculty was also higher for females (4.2%) than for males (2.3%). Although these numbers are not large, attention to increasing the female representation on the tenured faculty might focus, in part, on ways to reduce voluntary attrition among the tenured as well as tenure-track faculty. [see note 2]
The numbers are also quite small in Sargent College. Overall females accounted for about 50% of the voluntary attrition from the tenured and tenure-track faculty combined, although they made up more than half of the tenured and tenure-track faculty (56-67% over this period). The attrition rates are greater for TEN/TTK men than for women in Sargent, as is shown in the final graph in Figure 4-G, and attrition rates are higher overall in SAR than in CAS Natural Sciences or Engineering.
To summarize: excluding attrition due to death or retirement, the annual rate at which tenured and tenure-track males and females were lost during this period in relation to the population is as follows:
- CAS Natural Sciences: 4.5% of females 1.9% of males
- Engineering: 4.2% of females 3.0% of males
- Sargent: 6.5% of females 8.4% of males
Notes:
[1] The data on terminations include faculty who left the University, became part-time, or changed to a modified rank. The attrition figures include individuals who leave because of difficulties in the tenure review process. In cases where tenure is denied outright, this is reflected in the involuntary attrition numbers. In cases where the candidate resigns in the course of the review (possibly to avoid a negative decision), this is reflected in the numbers for voluntary attrition.
[2] Small numbers in any given year represent a general problem in the analysis of attrition. Nonetheless, aggregating over multiple years has revealed a consistent pattern at BU in the Natural Sciences and Engineering (although to a lesser extent in this most recent set of data for ENG than in the past) of relatively high rates of female attrition.
Fig. 4-C Percentage Female of "Voluntary Attrition"
(for reasons
other than Death or Retirement) in Relation to
Percentage Female of Population
Fig. 4-D Faculty Representation by Tenure Status and Gender,
Compared with the Percentage Female in Hiring and Attrition
from AY 2006-07 to 2010-11
Fig. 4-E Percentage Female in Hiring and Attrition in CAS Natural Sciences
as Compared with CAS as a Whole, AY 2006-07 to 2010-11, for
Tenure-track (Non tenured) Faculty
Fig. 4-F Representation of Women in Tenured and Tenure-track
positions, in Relation to Percentage Female in Hiring and
Attrition, AY 2006-07 to 2010-11
Fig. 4-G Attrition as a Percentage of Population on an Annual Basis for
Men and Women, by Division, between 2006-07 and 2010-11
CAS Natural Sciences
Engineering
Sargent
Return to the main page for this Web report on the Status of Women in the Natural Sciences and Engineering at Boston University, Summer 2012 or jump to section:
<1> Female Representation among Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty: 1997 and 2007-2011
<2> Female Representation by Tenure Status
<3> Hiring Patterns
<4> Attrition
<5> Success in Tenure and Promotion
<6> Time at Rank
<7> Salaries
<8> Leadership Positions, 2010-11
<Conclusions>
