Slide 1: UCB Faculty Hiring Levels, AY2012-13—2015-16* · 2020. 1. 7. · Slide 2: UCB Fac. Job Searches 20122015 (- n=220*): Total Committee Members (median, mean) per Job Search,

UCB Faculty Hiring Levels, AY2012-13—2015-16*

Hiring Level No Yes % Yes**Made Long List 25,148 2,751 9.9%Made Short List 26,750 1,149 4.1%Made Proposed Cand. 27,623 276 1.0%Offered Position 27,659 240 0.9%Accepted Position 27,701 198 0.7%

Total Applicants 27,899 100.0%

Declined Accepted % Accept.Accepted Position 35 198 85.0%

Source: UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016).

*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included above and going forward(220 job searches in total).

**% Yes=percentage of applicants among total applicants successfully advancing to specified hiring level.

5

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

5

5.9

5.9

6.1

5.3

5.2

5.7

5.5

5.5

5.8

6.2

5.4

PTEM**

Bio. and Natural Res.

Professional

Social Science

Humanities

All Fields*

Ten. Track (assist.)

Ten./Ten. Track

Tenured Only

Open Search

Closed Search

Median Mean

Slide 2: UCB Fac. Job Searches 2012-2015 (n=220*): Total Committee Members(median, mean) per Job Search, by Broad Field, Job Rank, Open/Closed


*Includes all searches, even ones with more than 20% missing gender/ethnicity data for committee members.**Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics.

# of Searches

47

37

60

38

38

220

128

74

18

96

124

5

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

6

5

5

5.8

5.7

6.3

4.6

5.0

5.5

5.5

5.5

6.1

6.0

5.2

PTEM**


Professional

Social Science

Humanities

All Fields*


Ten./Ten. Track

Tenured Only

Open Search

Closed Search

Median Mean

Slide 3: UCB Fac. Job Searches 2012-2015 (n=164*): Total Committee Members(median, mean) per Job Search, by Broad Field, Job Rank, Open/Closed


*Searches with more than 20% missing gender/ethnicity data for committee members are excluded.**Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics.

# of Searches

40

23

39

31

31

164

96

52

16

69

95

105

105

87

157

114.5

105.5

121

89.5

47.5

110.5

105

123

123

101

170

135

127

142

118

54

133

122

PTEM**


Professional

Social Science

Humanities

All Fields


Ten./Ten. Track

Tenured Only

Open Search

Closed Search

Median Mean

Slide 4: UCB Fac. Job Searches 2012-2015* (n=220): Total Number of Applicants(median, mean) per Job Search, by Broad Field, Job Rank, Open/Closed


*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included.**Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics.

# of Searches

47

37

60

38

38

220

128

74

18

96

124

6

6

5

5

3

5

5

5

4

5

5

7.0

5.5

5.0

4.8

3.7

5.2

5.2

5.6

4.3

5.6

5.0

PTEM**


Professional

Social Science

Humanities

All Fields


Ten./Ten. Track

Tenured Only

Open Search

Closed Search

Median Mean

Slide 5: UCB Fac. Job Searches 2012-2015* (n=220): Total Number of Short List(median, mean) per Job Search, by Broad Field, Job Rank, Open/Closed



# of Searches

47

37

60

38

38

220

128

74

18

96

124

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1.6

1.1

1.2

1.5

0.9

1.3

1.2

1.4

1.2

1.4

1.2

PTEM**


Professional

Social Science

Humanities

All Fields


Ten./Ten. Track

Tenured Only

Open Search

Closed Search

Median Mean

Slide 6: UCB Fac. Job Searches 2012-2015* (n=220): Total Proposed Cand.(median, mean) per Job Search, by Broad Field, Job Rank, Open/Closed



# of Searches

47

37

60

38

38

220

128

74

18

96

124

UCB Faculty Applicants, Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*

47225

134979 5988

0

5340

648

257 51 46 37

57

14

4

8 26

6954 14629

2151 1928223 90

22 20 1718

5

21

8

1071822943

1246 1133113 54

12 11 914

3

02

5

748717572

1787 1609178 69

20 19 1618

3

1

37

577920337

3692 3414 278 10730 25

24 30

4

0

15

49599

154518 10445

9410

1035

444

127

113

95

119 14

8

15 37

2590

2314

276

128

14

6 0

7

8

5 20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(Ten. Track)

US PhD

Pool(Tenured)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Did not m

akelong-list

Made long-list

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered position

Accepted

position

New

UC

B Fac.

2013-2016

Withdrew

(short-list)

Withdrew

(proposed)

Declined

Position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

White Women Asian Women URM** Women URM** MenAsian Men White Men Missing Data***

Sources: Survey of Earned Doctorates (US, PR, 2008-2012 [TT]; 1993-2007 [TEN.]); UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016); UCB Faculty Personnel Records, AY2013-14—2016-17.

*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included. **includes Afric. Am., Hisp., and Nat. Am.***Includes missing gender or ethnicity data, decline to state, and no demographic survey response.

UCB Faculty Applicants, Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*

37.0%

37.0% 21.5%

21.2%

23.6%

22.4%

18.5%

19.2%

18.7%

22.3%

28.0% 17.4%

22.9%

24.1%

5.4% 4.0%

7.7% 7.7%8.1% 7.8%

8.0% 8.3% 8.6%7.0%

10.0%

8.7%2.9%

7.4%

8.4%6.3%

4.5% 4.5%4.1% 4.7%

4.3% 4.6% 4.5%5.5%

6.0%

0.0%5.7%

4.6%

5.9%4.8%

6.4% 6.4%6.5% 6.0%

7.2% 7.9% 8.1%7.0%

6.0%

4.3%

8.6%6.5%

4.5%5.6%

13.2% 13.6% 10.1% 9.3%10.9% 10.4%

12.1% 11.7%

8.0%

0.0%

2.9%4.6%

38.8%

42.3% 37.4%

37.4%

37.6%

38.6%

46.0%

47.1%

48.0%

46.5% 28.0%

34.8%

42.9%

34.3%

9.3%

9.2%

10.0%

11.1%

5.1%

2.5%

0.0%

14.0%

34.8%

14.3%

18.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(Ten. Track)

US PhD

Pool(Tenured)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Did not m

akelong-list

Made long-list

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered position

Accepted

position

New

UC

B Fac.

2013-2016

Withdrew

(short-list)

Withdrew

(proposed)

Declined

Position

All w

ithdrewdeclined




UCB Faculty Applicants, Diversity Pipeline, Missing Data Excluded, AY2012-13—2015-16*

47225

134979 5988

0

5340

648

257 51 46 37

57

14 4 8 26

6954 14629

2151 1928223 90

22 20 1718

52

1

8

1071822943

1246 1133113 54

12 11 914

3

0

2

5

748717572

1787 1609178 69

20 19 1618

3

1 3

7

577920337

3692 3414 278 107

30 25 24 30

4

0 1

5

49599

154518

10445

9410

1035

444 127

113

95

119

14

8

15

37

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(Ten. Track)

US PhD

Pool(Tenured)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Did not m

akelong-list

Made long-list

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered position

Accepted

position

New

UC

B Fac.

2013-2016

Withdrew

(short-list)

Withdrew

(proposed)

Declined

Position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

White Women Asian Women URM** WomenURM** Men Asian Men White Men


*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included. **includes Afric. Am., Hisp., and Nat. Am.

UCB Faculty Applicants, Diversity Pipeline, Missing Data Excluded, AY2012-13—2015-16*

37.0%

37.0% 23.7%

23.4%

26.2%

25.2%

19.5%

19.7%

18.7%

22.3%

32.6%

26.7%

26.7%

29.5%

5.4% 4.0%

8.5% 8.4%9.0% 8.8%

8.4% 8.5% 8.6%7.0%

11.6%13.3%

3.3%

9.1%

8.4%6.3%

4.9% 5.0%4.6% 5.3%

4.6% 4.7% 4.5%5.5%

7.0%

0.0%

6.7%

5.7%

5.9%4.8%

7.1% 7.0%7.2% 6.8%

7.6% 8.1% 8.1%7.0%

7.0%

6.7% 10.0%

8.0%

4.5%5.6%

14.6% 15.0% 11.2% 10.5%

11.5% 10.7% 12.1% 11.7%

9.3%

0.0% 3.3%

5.7%

38.8%

42.3%

41.3%

41.2%

41.8%

43.5%

48.5%

48.3%

48.0%

46.5%

32.6%

53.3%

50.0%

42.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(Ten. Track)

US PhD

Pool(Tenured)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Did not m

akelong-list

Made long-list

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered position

Accepted

position

New

UC

B Fac.

2013-2016

Withdrew

(short-list)

Withdrew

(proposed)

Declined

Position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

White Women Asian Women URM** WomenURM** Men Asian Men White Men



UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

21.8% 741

54 11 9 6

7

35

5.9%

37719

1 11

2

12

3.7%

665

1 11

1

2

5.9%

25318

3 22

1

15

8.7%1386 49

16 13 12

2

37

54.0%

2529 126

38

34 29

8

119

406

56

3

6

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****


Sources: Survey of Earned Doctorates (US, PR, 2008-2012 [TT]; 1993-2007 [TEN.]); UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016).

*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included. **includes Afric. Am., Hisp., and Nat. Am. ***Includes missing gender or ethnicity data, decline to state, and no demographic survey response. ****40 out of 47 searches included necessary data.

UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

21.8%

12.9%

16.5%

15.1%

15.0%

11.8%

25.9% 15.2%

5.9%

6.5%5.8%

1.4% 1.7%2.0%

7.4%

5.2%

3.7%

1.1%1.5%

1.4% 1.7%2.0%

3.7%

0.9%

5.9%

4.4%5.5%

4.1% 3.3%3.9%

3.7%

6.5%

8.7%24.1% 15.0%

21.9% 21.7% 23.5%

7.4%

16.0%

54.0%

43.9% 38.5%

52.1%

56.7%

56.9% 29.6%

51.5%

7.1%17.1%

4.1% 0.0% 0.0%

22.2%

4.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Biological Sciences and Natural Resources

36.2%

931

56

7 6 5

4 26

7.0%

379

18

6 43

3

7

6.4%

114

50

00

0

4

5.3%

254

8

22

2

2

5

5.1%

78422

43

3

1

10

40.0% 1737

85 20 19 18

6

62

367

11

1 1 15

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Biological Sciences and Natural Resources

36.2% 20.4%

27.3% 17.5%

17.6%

16.1%

23.5%

20.2%

7.0%

8.3%

8.8%

15.0% 11.8%9.7%

17.6%

5.4%

6.4%

2.5%

2.4%0.0%

0.0%0.0%

0.0%

3.1%

5.3%

5.6%

3.9%

5.0%5.9%

6.5%

11.8%

3.9%

5.1%

17.2%10.7%

10.0%8.8%

9.7%

5.9%

7.8%

40.0% 38.0%

41.5%

50.0%

55.9%

58.1%

35.3%

48.1%

8.0% 5.4%2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9%

11.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Professional Schools

32.4% 1224

67 11 9 6

8 57

6.5%

645 26

6 6 6

122

7.6%

240 17

4 4 32

7

7.0%

43122

88 8

013

5.5%

807 244

4 4

2

20

41.1% 2067

108 31

25

22

12

112

578

30 6

3

8

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Professional Schools

32.4% 20.4%

22.8%

15.7%

15.3%

12.2%

24.2%

23.5%

6.5%

10.8% 8.8%

8.6% 10.2% 12.2%

3.0%9.1%

7.6%

4.0% 5.8%

5.7% 6.8% 6.1%6.1%

2.9%

7.0%

7.2%7.5%

11.4%13.6% 16.3%

0.0%5.3%

5.5%

13.5% 8.2%5.7%

6.8% 8.2%

6.1%

8.2%

41.1% 34.5%

36.7%

44.3%

42.4%

44.9%

36.4%

46.1%

9.6% 10.2% 8.6%5.1%

0.0%

24.2%

4.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Social Sciences

35.0% 1508 31 10

10

9 5 28

5.7%

514

13 2 21 2 7

9.6%

575

206 5

41

8

7.5%

56417

7 74

312

3.3%

561

9 5 4

4

0 12

38.9% 2131 74

25 23

15

10

65

596 20

3 3

4

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Social Sciences

35.0% 23.4%

16.8%

17.2%

18.5%

24.3%

20.0%

19.6%

5.7%

8.0%

7.1% 3.4% 3.7%2.7% 8.0% 4.9%

9.6%

8.9%

10.9%10.3% 9.3%

10.8%4.0%

5.6%

7.5%

8.7%9.2%

12.1% 13.0%10.8%

12.0%8.4%

3.3%

8.7%

4.9% 8.6% 7.4%

10.8%

0.0% 8.4%

38.9% 33.0% 40.2%

43.1%

42.6%

40.5%

40.0%

45.5%

9.2% 10.9%5.2% 5.6%

0.0%

16.0%7.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Humanities

41.7% 1584

49 12

12 11 2 46

4.8%

236

147

7 6

0 6

10.3%

251

7

11 1

16

6.2%

285

40

0 0 1

9

1.9%

154

31

1 10

8

35.1%

1981

51

13

12 11

1

57

643

11

1 0

1

19

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Humanities

41.7% 30.9%

35.3%

34.3%

36.4%

36.7%

33.3%

30.5%

4.8%

4.6%

10.1%20.0%

21.2% 20.0%

0.0% 4.0%

10.3%

4.9%

5.0%

2.9%3.0% 3.3%

16.7%4.0%

6.2%

5.6%

2.9%0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 16.7%

6.0%

1.9%

3.0%

2.2%2.9%

3.0% 3.3%0.0%

5.3%

35.1%

38.6%

36.7%

37.1%

36.4%

36.7% 16.7% 37.7%

12.5%7.9%

2.9% 0.0% 0.0%

16.7% 12.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Tenured Only Job Searches

37.1% 253

21

3 3 2

3

30

3.5%

81 7

33 3

0

2

7.2%

38 21

1

1

0

7

6.5%

52 6 2

2

2

1

8

4.1%

666 1

0

0

1

6

41.6% 337

23 5

4

3

5

38

93 9

3 2

3

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Tenured Only Job Searches

37.1% 27.5%

28.4% 16.7%

20.0%

18.2%

23.1%

30.6%

3.5%

8.8% 9.5%

16.7%20.0% 27.3%

0.0%

2.0%

7.2%

4.1% 2.7%5.6%

6.7%

9.1%

0.0%

7.1%

6.5%

5.7% 8.1% 11.1%

13.3%

18.2%

7.7%

8.2%

4.1%

7.2%8.1% 5.6%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

6.1%

41.6% 36.6%

31.1%

27.8%

26.7%

27.3%

38.5%

38.8%

10.1% 12.2%16.7% 13.3%

0.0%

23.1%

7.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Tenure Track and Tenured Job Searches

30.4% 1765

86 14

13 10

7 58

6.3%

601 34

8 7 5

5 24

8.0%

42223

7 6 5

2

3

6.8%

627 227

7 6

1

16

5.5%

1130 39 1613 12

1 32

42.9% 3337 151

42

36

32

11

132

882 59

8 4

10

17

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Tenure Track and Tenured Job Searches

30.4% 20.1%

20.8%

13.7%

15.1%

14.3%

18.9%

20.6%

6.3%

6.9% 8.2%

7.8% 8.1% 7.1%

13.5% 8.5%

8.0%

4.8%5.6%

6.9% 7.0% 7.1%

5.4%

1.1%

6.8%

7.2% 5.3%6.9%

8.1% 8.6%

2.7%

5.7%

5.5%

12.9% 9.4% 15.7%15.1% 17.1%

2.7% 11.3%

42.9% 38.1%

36.5%

41.2%

41.9%

45.7%

29.7%

46.8%

10.1% 14.3%7.8% 4.7%

0.0%

27.0%

6.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Tenure Track Only Job Searches

33.6% 3970

150

34 30 25

16 104

6.2%

1469 49 11 10 93

28

7.1%

786 29 4 4 33

17

6.1%

1108 4111 10 8

5

30

5.0%

2496 6213 12 12

3

49

41.9% 6771

270

80

73

60 21 245

1615

60

3 0

7

44

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Tenure Track Only Job Searches

33.6% 21.8%

22.7%

21.8%

21.6%

21.4%

27.6%

20.1%

6.2%

8.1% 7.4% 7.1% 7.2% 7.7%5.2%

5.4%

7.1%

4.3% 4.4% 2.6% 2.9% 2.6%5.2%

3.3%

6.1%

6.1% 6.2%7.1% 7.2% 6.8%

8.6%

5.8%

5.0%

13.7% 9.4%8.3% 8.6% 10.3%

5.2%

9.5%

41.9% 37.2%

40.8%

51.3%

52.5%

51.3%

36.2%

47.4%

8.9% 9.1%1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

12.1% 8.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Closed or Specified Job Searches

32.9% 3350

140 27 24 20

12 103

5.8%

1186 4210 10 8

4 30

7.4%

810 347 6 4

412

6.5%

1031 3914 13 11

5

27

4.7%

195253 14 11 11

2

40

42.6% 5493

266

70

64

52

21 241

1356

44

6 3

6

38

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Closed or Specified Job Searches

32.9% 22.1%

22.7%

18.2%

18.3%

18.9%

22.2%

21.0%

5.8%

7.8% 6.8%6.8% 7.6% 7.5%

7.4% 6.1%

7.4%

5.3% 5.5%4.7% 4.6% 3.8%

7.4%2.4%

6.5%

6.8% 6.3%9.5% 9.9% 10.4%

9.3%

5.5%

4.7%

12.9%8.6% 9.5% 8.4% 10.4%

3.7%

8.1%

42.6% 36.2%

43.0%

47.3%

48.9%

49.1% 38.9%

49.1%

8.9% 7.1%4.1% 2.3% 0.0%

11.1% 7.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Open or Unspecified Job Searches

32.7% 2638

117 24

22 17

14 89

6.3%

965 48 12 10 9

424

7.4%

43620

5 5 51

15

6.3%

75630

66 5 2 27

5.6%

1740 54 1614 13

347

41.8% 4952 178

57

49

43

16

174

1234 84

8 3

14

30

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




UCB Faculty Applicant Diversity Pipeline, AY2012-13—2015-16*Open or Unspecified Job Searches

32.7% 20.7%

22.0%

18.8%

20.2%

18.5%

25.9%

21.9%

6.3%

7.6% 9.0% 9.4% 9.2% 9.8%

7.4%5.9%

7.4%

3.4%3.8%

3.9% 4.6% 5.4%1.9%

3.7%

6.3%

5.9%5.6%

4.7%5.5% 5.4% 3.7% 6.7%

5.6%

13.7% 10.2% 12.5%12.8% 14.1%

5.6%11.6%

41.8% 38.9%

33.5%

44.5%

45.0%

46.7%

29.6%

42.9%

9.7%15.8%

6.3% 2.8%0.0%

25.9%

7.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US PhD

Pool(%

means)

UC

B fac.

applicants

Made short-list

Proposedcandidate

Offered

position

Accepted

position

All w

ithdrewdeclined

Fac. searchcom

mittee

(sum)****




Total Headcount of UCB Faculty Hiring Committee Members (164 searches*) by Gender/Ethnicity, AY2012-13—2015-16

35

26

57 28

46 192

104

58

30 89 103

127

22

7

6

54 28 24

2

24 302

4

7

8

6

27 173

7

15 1215

5

1312

9

54 30 16

8

2727

37 10

2012

8

87 49 32

6

4740

119 62

112 65 57

415 245

132

38 174 241

11 15

12 11 19

68 44

17 7 30 38

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PTEM***

Bio./N

at. Res.

Professional

Soc. Science

Hum

anities

All Fields

Ten. TrackO

nly

Ten. Track/Tenured

Tenured Only

Open Search

Closed Search

White Women Asian Women URM** Women URM** MenAsian Men White Men Missing Data


*Searches with more than 20% missing gender/ethnicity data for committee members are excluded.**includes Afric. Am., Hisp., and Nat. Am. ***Physical Sciences, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics.

UCB Faculty Hiring, 2012-2015*: Modeling for individual applicant advancement through the levels, selected groups and controls

Sources: Survey of Earned Doctorates (US, PR, 2008-2012 [TT]; 1993-2007 [TEN.]); UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016)

*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included. Logistic regression is used in modeling.

Made Short List Made Proposed Accepted Offer Withdrew (post-interview)Variables ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val

Women 0.234 0.000 -0.487 0.002 -0.504 0.258 0.205 0.369URM** 0.010 0.919 0.029 0.901 0.266 0.651 -0.075 0.824Asian -0.385

UCB Faculty Job Searches (n=220): Possible hiring methods used, from most common to least Used Partial Not Used*1 Avoided improper or unlawful questions related to gender, sexual orientat., race, ethnicity, religion, family status, pregnancy, internat. status, health status, age.… 98% 2% 0%

2 Established a welcoming environment for all interview finalists (i.e., sought to minimize any undue stress related to the interview process). 95% 3% 2%

3 Communicated efficiently and respectfully with all faculty candidates/ finalists throughout the entire recruitment. 95% 3% 1%

4 Took the necessary time to fully evaluate all applications, carefully reviewing all materials (e.g., handbooks suggest spending 15-20 minutes per application). 93% 5% 1%

5 Tried to make sure that the applicant pool/finalist group was as diverse as possible to support equitable evaluation of all candidates (i.e., research studies suggest...). 91% 5% 4%

6 Evaluated candidates using a broad holistic approach, focusing particularly on candidates areas of strength rather than narrowly defined areas of weakness…. 91% 5% 5%

7 Used a variety of different settings/forums to evaluate/get-to-know interview finalists (e.g., from formal lectures to relaxed conversational settings…). 90% 4% 6%

8 Appointed senior reviewers or equity advisors to monitor the equity of all recruitment related processes/decisions. 90% 4% 5%

9 Developed broad hiring goals...that allowed the committee to be open to a wide range of candidates, including candidates from diverse backgrounds. 88% 5% 7%

10 Evaluated candidates based on their potential to develop a significant research program in their field (not exclusively based on their publication placement to date). 87% 10% 3%

11 Contacted colleagues from other institutions to ask for their help in identifying potential applicants from diverse backgrounds. 85% 9% 6%

12 Discussed post-hire support efforts for new faculty. 85% 6% 10%

13 Checked why candidates did not make the short list, including individuals from diverse backgrounds, explicitly identifying the reasons for de-selection. 82% 9% 9%

14 Established a search committee with individuals from diverse backgrounds. 79% 14% 7%

15 Made clear to job finalists the possibility of research collaboration across departments and disciplines...in regard to areas of pressing societal concern.... 76% 6% 17%

16 Actively considered candidates with degrees from a broad range of different institutional settings (e.g., PhDs from non-top-tier programs; HBCU/Hispanic serv.). 76% 12% 12%

17 Developed standard interview questions/job presentation criteria and made sure that all finalists had an opportunity to respond to all areas of inquiry.... 76% 13% 11%

18 Notified candidates about possible dual-career couple employment options and family friendly polices/resources. 72% 8% 20%19 Advertised widely, including in diversity specific venues (e.g., The Hispanic Outlook...). 71% 11% 18%

20 Actively considered candidates with publications from less well-known journals/publishers, carefully evaluating the quality of the work…. 70% 13% 17%Sources: UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016).*includes “Did not use,” “Not applicable,” “Not sure/other.”

UCB Faculty Job Searches (n=220): Possible hiring methods used, from most common to least Used Partial Not Used*21 Specified the position at the junior level where appl. pools tend to be more diverse. 69% 21% 10%

22 Developed internal search guides and/or made sure that committee members were aware of and reviewed campus and "best practices" related to diversity…. 68% 13% 19%

23 Directly called/emailed possible candidates with diverse backgrounds and encouraged them to apply to the position. 65% 9% 26%

24 Arranged to have finalists meet with campus groups/individuals from diverse backgrounds. 62% 13% 25%

25 Put out a call to the larger department...other [groups]...to help the hiring committee identify potential faculty applicants of diverse backgrounds. 60% 16% 25%

26 As a department/unit, clarified and prioritized the diversity needs of the department vs. competing needs…. 58% 15% 27%

27 Specified in the job qualifications/evaluation criteria that demonstrated commitment to diversity, exp. with multicultural ed…, working w. diverse populations. 55% 11% 34%

28 Established consistent departmental mechanisms to review the equity of all faculty searches…. 54% 9% 37%

29 Specified the position in a disciplinary area with relatively high diversity of degree recipients/faculty (based on examination of demographic data or personal observation). 51% 10% 40%

30 Systematically examined applicant pool and availability data throughout recent faculty recruitments...to ensure diverse applicant pools, past and future. 50% 12% 38%

31 Developed longer-term relationships with possible faculty candidates of diverse backgrounds via conferences, national organizations, faculty contacts, etc. 48% 18% 34%

32 Monitored national resources that identify possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds (e.g., lists of recent fellowship recipients…). 46% 9% 45%

33 Tapped existing UC/UCB academic pipelines to diversify the applicant search pool (e.g., considered...UC Presidents Postdoctoral Fellowship recipients). 45% 9% 45%

34 Supported existing UC academic pipelines, from our undergrad to junior faculty, to develop, promote, and identify future faculty talent of diverse backgrounds. 45% 10% 45%

35 Appointed a "champion," typically a faculty member, to advocate for candidates who may have been overlooked, including individuals from diverse backgrounds…. 45% 12% 43%

36 Examined and analyzed the history of departmental hiring in regard to equity issues (perhaps including an evaluation of past institutional affiliation of current faculty....). 45% 13% 42%

37 Developed in advance of reviewing applications a weighted rubric that was used in the evaluation of all candidates. 42% 13% 45%

38 Codified the departments approach to dealing with pre-existing relationships between faculty candidates and hiring committee members…. 38% 9% 53%

Sources: UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016).*includes “Did not use,” “Not applicable,” “Not sure/other.”

UCB Faculty Job Searches (n=220): Possible hiring methods used, from most common to least Used Partial Not Used*39 Compared the relative success of our department to similar programs at peer institutions in re. to diversity-related issues and faculty hiring patterns…. 36% 13% 51%

40 Conducted retrospective analyses of recent faculty recruitments in regard to diversity issues (e.g., Were the applicant pools/finalists appropriately diverse?...). 35% 11% 53%

41 Demonstrated a willingness to extend on-going faculty searches which have low diversity of applicant pools/finalists. 35% 6% 59%

42 Appointed a departmental point person(s) to coordinate on-going recruitment efforts in regard to possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds.... 34% 6% 60%

43 Developed or made use of programs/events that bring possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds to campus...(e.g., visiting scholar/postdoc…). 34% 19% 48%

44 Specified degree requirements in broad ways (e.g., did not explicitly restrict the search to Ph.D. recipients, allowing for other equivalent/appropriate...degrees). 32% 10% 58%

45 Supported faculty peer presentations...and discussions with hiring committees regarding faculty diversity and mitigating implicit associations. 32% 9% 59%

46 Involved the Dean/other administrators in communicating with faculty about the importance of diversity in faculty recruitment…. 31% 8% 61%

47 Promoted on-going relationships with institutions/departments/organizations known to grant PhDs to, or support research scholars from, diverse populations. 30% 15% 54%

48 Instilled a sense of institutional accountability by monitoring the effectiveness of hiring diverse candidates through the years…. 30% 14% 56%

49 Encouraged search committee members to attend trainings regarding issues of "implicit associations" and how to minimize their impact. 29% 10% 60%

50 Developed multiple short-lists emphasizing different important qualifications (e.g., short-lists focused on teaching, contribution to diversity, service, research potential, etc.). 23% 16% 61%

51 Selected subject area(s) associated with "public" or "engaged scholarship"--fields focused on direct societal improvement, particularly in re. to underserved pop. 22% 11% 67%

52 Considered and/or pursued cluster hires of candidates with diverse backgrounds (multiple faculty positions that are related...e.g., research clusters…). 22% 9% 70%

53 Developed a departmental diversity plan with specific plans-of-action and benchmarks to gauge their short-term and longer-term effectiveness. 21% 15% 64%

54 Coupled the subject area with diversity issues (e.g., "labor" AND "womens history" vs. just "labor history"). 20% 7% 73%

55 Set aside/secured resources to support ongoing faculty recruitment activities in regard to individuals from diverse backgrounds (e.g., course relief…). 10% 5% 85%

Sources: UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016).*includes “Did not use,” “Not applicable,” “Not sure/other.”

Sources: UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016).

Slide 36: UCB Faculty Job Searches (n=220): Hiring methods used (%) by Broad Field

PTEM* Bio./Nat. Res.Profes-sional

Social Scien.

Human-ities Total

Q1 Specified the position in a disciplinary area with relatively high diversity of degree recipients/faculty (based on examination of demographic data or personal observation). 43% 49% 48% 63% 55% 51%

Q2 Developed broad hiring goals...that allowed the committee to be open to a wide range of candidates, including candidates from diverse backgrounds. 89% 86% 87% 92% 87% 88%

Q3 Specified the position at the junior level where appl. pools tend to be more diverse. 81% 84% 60% 66% 58% 69%

Q4 Specified degree requirements in broad ways (e.g., did not explicitly restrict the search to Ph.D. recipients, allowing for other equivalent/appropriate...degrees). 26% 27% 37% 29% 39% 32%

Q5 Coupled the subject area with diversity issues (e.g., "labor" AND "womens history" vs. just "labor history"). 4% 16% 28% 26% 21% 20%

Q6 Selected subject area(s) associated with "public" or "engaged scholarship"--fields focused on direct societal improvement, particularly in re. to underserved pop. 6% 32% 32% 21% 16% 22%

Q7 Actively considered candidates with degrees from a broad range of different institutional settings (e.g., PhDs from non-top-tier programs; HBCU/Hispanic serv.). 70% 84% 73% 68% 87% 76%

Q8 Actively considered candidates with publications from less well-known journals/publishers, carefully evaluating the quality of the work…. 53% 78% 63% 74% 89% 70%

Q9 Specified in the job qualifications/evaluation criteria that demonstrated commitment to diversity, exp. with multicultural ed…, working w. diverse populations. 53% 73% 53% 42% 53% 55%

Q10 Evaluated candidates based on their potential to develop a significant research program in their field (not exclusively based on their publication placement to date). 85% 92% 85% 87% 89% 87%

Q11 Evaluated candidates using a broad holistic approach, focusing particularly on candidates areas of strength rather than narrowly defined areas of weakness…. 87% 97% 92% 92% 87% 91%

Q12 Developed multiple short-lists emphasizing different important qualifications (e.g., short-lists focused on teaching, contribution to diversity, service, research potential, etc.). 17% 35% 27% 18% 16% 23%

Q13 Used a variety of different settings/forums to evaluate/get-to-know interview finalists (e.g., from formal lectures to relaxed conversational settings…). 91% 92% 88% 89% 92% 90%

Q14 Developed longer-term relationships with possible faculty candidates of diverse backgrounds via conferences, national organizations, faculty contacts, etc. 51% 41% 62% 47% 32% 48%

Q15 Developed or made use of programs/events that bring possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds to campus...(e.g., visiting scholar/postdoc…). 49% 32% 35% 34% 13% 34%

*Includes Physical Sc., Technology, Eng., & Math. Red shading, less likely than Social Sciences to use the method (p




Social Scien.

Human-ities Total

Q16 Promoted on-going relationships with institutions/departments/organizations known to grant PhDs to, or support research scholars from, diverse populations. 21% 35% 40% 34% 18% 30%

Q17 Monitored national resources that identify possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds (e.g., lists of recent fellowship recipients…). 45% 49% 45% 47% 45% 46%

Q18 Supported existing UC academic pipelines, from our undergrad to junior faculty, to develop, promote, and identify future faculty talent of diverse backgrounds. 43% 57% 43% 37% 47% 45%

Q19 Appointed a departmental point person(s) to coordinate on-going recruitment efforts in regard to possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds.... 45% 43% 35% 29% 16% 34%

Q20 Set aside/secured resources to support ongoing faculty recruitment activities in regard to individuals from diverse backgrounds (e.g., course relief…). 13% 11% 13% 11% 3% 10%

Q21 Advertised widely, including in diversity specific venues (e.g., The Hispanic Outlook...). 66% 65% 73% 71% 79% 71%

Q22 Put out a call to the larger department...other [groups]...to help the hiring committee identify potential faculty applicants of diverse backgrounds. 62% 81% 60% 45% 50% 60%

Q23 Contacted colleagues from other institutions to ask for their help in identifying potential applicants from diverse backgrounds. 85% 89% 82% 89% 84% 85%

Q24 Directly called/emailed possible candidates with diverse backgrounds and encouraged them to apply to the position. 60% 62% 68% 74% 63% 65%

Q25 Tapped existing UC/UCB academic pipelines to diversify the applicant search pool (e.g., considered...UC Presidents Postdoctoral Fellowship recipients). 43% 62% 40% 37% 50% 45%

Q26 Appointed a "champion," typically a faculty member, to advocate for candidates who may have been overlooked, including individuals from diverse backgrounds…. 55% 65% 30% 39% 42% 45%

Q27 Established a welcoming environment for all interview finalists (i.e., sought to minimize any undue stress related to the interview process). 94% 95% 95% 97% 97% 95%

Q28 Arranged to have finalists meet with campus groups/individuals from diverse backgrounds. 47% 62% 68% 63% 71% 62%

Q29 Made clear to job finalists the possibility of research collaboration across departments and disciplines...in regard to areas of pressing societal concern.... 77% 70% 80% 84% 68% 76%

Q30 Notified candidates about possible dual-career couple employment options and family friendly polices/resources. 79% 65% 68% 71% 76% 72%





Social Scien.

Human-ities Total

Q31 Discussed post-hire support efforts for new faculty. 79% 84% 85% 89% 87% 85%

Q32 Communicated efficiently and respectfully with all faculty candidates/ finalists throughout the entire recruitment. 96% 100% 97% 97% 87% 95%

Q33 Established a search committee with individuals from diverse backgrounds. 79% 86% 80% 79% 71% 79%

Q34 Encouraged search committee members to attend trainings regarding issues of "implicit associations" and how to minimize their impact. 45% 41% 17% 24% 24% 29%

Q35 Developed in advance of reviewing applications a weighted rubric that was used in the evaluation of all candidates. 30% 43% 43% 53% 42% 42%

Q36 Took the necessary time to fully evaluate all applications, carefully reviewing all materials (e.g., handbooks suggest spending 15-20 minutes per application). 85% 97% 90% 97% 100% 93%

Q37 Appointed senior reviewers or equity advisors to monitor the equity of all recruitment related processes/decisions. 94% 84% 85% 92% 100% 90%

Q38 Checked why candidates did not make the short list, including individuals from diverse backgrounds, explicitly identifying the reasons for de-selection. 83% 86% 83% 82% 76% 82%

Q39 Tried to make sure that the applicant pool/finalist group was as diverse as possible to support equitable evaluation of all candidates (i.e., research studies suggest...). 91% 86% 95% 89% 92% 91%

Q40 Developed standard interview questions/job presentation criteria and made sure that all finalists had an opportunity to respond to all areas of inquiry.... 57% 78% 85% 76% 82% 76%

Q41 Avoided improper or unlawful questions related to gender, sexual orientat., race, ethnicity, religion, family status, pregnancy, internat. status, health status, age.… 96% 97% 98% 97% 100% 98%

Q42 As a department/unit, clarified and prioritized the diversity needs of the department vs. competing needs…. 55% 57% 70% 47% 55% 58%

Q43 Developed a departmental diversity plan with specific plans-of-action and benchmarks to gauge their short-term and longer-term effectiveness. 21% 35% 20% 8% 21% 21%

Q44 Examined and analyzed the history of departmental hiring in regard to equity issues (perhaps including an evaluation of past institutional affiliation of current faculty....). 38% 51% 55% 37% 37% 45%

Q45 Compared the relative success of our department to similar programs at peer institutions in re. to diversity-related issues and faculty hiring patterns…. 40% 24% 40% 29% 42% 36%





Social Scien.

Human-ities Total

Q46 Established consistent departmental mechanisms to review the equity of all faculty searches…. 55% 51% 58% 45% 58% 54%

Q47 Demonstrated a willingness to extend on-going faculty searches which have low diversity of applicant pools/finalists. 32% 54% 33% 26% 29% 35%

Q48 Considered and/or pursued cluster hires of candidates with diverse backgrounds (multiple faculty positions that are related...e.g., research clusters…). 19% 30% 15% 39% 11% 22%

Q49 Involved the Dean/other administrators in communicating with faculty about the importance of diversity in faculty recruitment…. 26% 30% 52% 29% 11% 31%

Q50 Developed internal search guides and/or made sure that committee members were aware of and reviewed campus and "best practices" related to diversity…. 60% 76% 67% 61% 82% 68%

Q51 Supported faculty peer presentations...and discussions with hiring committees regarding faculty diversity and mitigating implicit associations. 28% 49% 32% 18% 34% 32%

Q52 Codified the departments approach to dealing with pre-existing relationships between faculty candidates and hiring committee members…. 47% 49% 27% 26% 45% 38%

Q53 Systematically examined applicant pool and availability data throughout recent faculty recruitments...to ensure diverse applicant pools, past and future. 51% 43% 50% 47% 58% 50%

Q54 Instilled a sense of institutional accountability by monitoring the effectiveness of hiring diverse candidates through the years…. 34% 30% 33% 24% 24% 30%

Q55 Conducted retrospective analyses of recent faculty recruitments in regard to diversity issues (e.g., Were the applicant pools/finalists appropriately diverse?...). 36% 46% 35% 32% 29% 35%



Slide 40: UCB Faculty Job Searches (n=220): Hiring methods with Increasing Use by Year* ß p-val

Q9 Specified in the job qualifications/evaluation criteria that demonstrated commitment to diversity, exp. with multicultural ed…, working w. diverse populations. 0.4303 0.0014

Q10 Evaluated candidates based on their potential to develop a significant research program in their field (not exclusively based on their publication placement to date). 0.3980 0.0515

Q17 Monitored national resources that identify possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds (e.g., lists of recent fellowship recipients…). 0.3236 0.0124

Q21 Advertised widely, including in diversity specific venues (e.g., The Hispanic Outlook...). 0.3756 0.0104

Q24 Directly called/emailed possible candidates with diverse backgrounds and encouraged them to apply to the position. 0.2973 0.0301

Q25 Tapped existing UC/UCB academic pipelines to diversify the applicant search pool (e.g., considered...UC Presidents Postdoctoral Fellowship recipients). 0.3421 0.0093

Q34 Encouraged search committee members to attend trainings regarding issues of "implicit associations" and how to minimize their impact. 0.2731 0.0576

Q35 Developed in advance of reviewing applications a weighted rubric that was used in the evaluation of all candidates. 0.2233 0.0870

Q39 Tried to make sure that the applicant pool/finalist group was as diverse as possible to support equitable evaluation of all candidates (i.e., research studies suggest...). 0.5138 0.0439

Q42 As a department/unit, clarified and prioritized the diversity needs of the department vs. competing needs…. 0.3406 0.0106

Q43 Developed a departmental diversity plan with specific plans-of-action and benchmarks to gauge their short-term and longer-term effectiveness. 0.3518 0.0278

Q49 Involved the Dean/other administrators in communicating with faculty about the importance of diversity in faculty recruitment…. 0.3239 0.0256

Q51 Supported faculty peer presentations...and discussions with hiring committees regarding faculty diversity and mitigating implicit associations. 0.3201 0.0220

Q52 Codified the departments approach to dealing with pre-existing relationships between faculty candidates and hiring committee members…. 0.4385 0.0014

Q53 Systematically examined applicant pool and availability data throughout recent faculty recruitments...to ensure diverse applicant pools, past and future. 0.2798 0.0298

Q55 Conducted retrospective analyses of recent faculty recruitments in regard to diversity issues (e.g., Were the applicant pools/finalists appropriately diverse?...). 0.2402 0.0718

*Based on logistic regression. Dependent variable(s): 1=Used method, 0=Did not use/partial/other. Independent variables:Broad disciplinary field dummies, and linear calendar year of search; ß and p-val values refer to calendar year variable.Dark green shading = p

Hiring Methods:

Very Promising Search Practices

Sources: Survey of Earned Doctorates (US, PR); UCB AP Recruit 2012-13—2015-16 (as of 9/28/2016).

# of job searches: used meth., N=43; partial use, N=16; Did not use, N=161.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60% Used Method Partial Use Did Not Use

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Availability Applicants Short List Proposed Accepted

0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 41: Coupled the subject area with diversity issues (e.g., labor AND womens history vs. just labor history).

% White Male

*includes Afric. Am., Hisp., & Nat. Am.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 42: Selected subject area(s) associated with public or engaged scholarship --fields focused on direct societal improvement, particularly in re. to underserved pop.

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 43: Specified the position in a disciplinary area with relatively high diversity of degree recipients/faculty (based on examination of demographic data or personal observation).

% White Male


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % URM**, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 0.976x - 0.0174R² = 0.3916

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants

Estimated pool availability

Field linked to URM Race-Ethn. and/or PublicScholarship/Diversity

% URM**


URM** average 12.7% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR) and 10.6% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % Asian, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 1.3616x + 0.0801R² = 0.31890%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to Asian Lang.-Cult.-Ethn.

% Asian


Asian average 10.2% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR)and 21.9% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.

*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included.

Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % Women, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 0.7816x - 0.0014R² = 0.51320%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to Gender, Sexuality, and/orPublic Scholarship/Diversity

% Women


Women average 45.2% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR)and 35.2% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % White Women, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 0.7266x - 0.0292R² = 0.47060%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to Gender & Sexuality

% White Women


White women average 32.8% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR) and 20.9% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % Asian Women, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 0.6511x + 0.0425R² = 0.1122

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to Asian Lang.-Cult.-Ethn. and/or Gend.-Sex.

% Asian Women


Asian women average 6.0% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR) and 8.2% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % URM** Women, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 0.8484x - 0.0198R² = 0.4286

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to URM Race-Ethn., Gend.-Sex. and/or PublicScholarship/Diversity

% URM Women**


URM** women average 7.4% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR) and 4.3% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % URM** Men, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 0.9004x + 0.0053R² = 0.222

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to URM Race-Ethn. and/or Public Scholar.

% URM Men**


URM** men average 6.4% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR) and 6.3% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % Asian Men, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 2.0032x + 0.0349R² = 0.4495

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to Asian Lang.-Cult.-Ethn.

% Asian Men


Asian men average 5.1% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR) and 13.7% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.


Scatterplot of UCB Fac. Job Searches, 2012-2015* (n=220): % White Men, Estimated Applicant Pool by Actual Applicant Pool by Individual Job Search

y = 0.5182x + 0.1493R² = 0.28870%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Actu

al a

pplic

ants


Field linked to URM-Asian Race-Ethn., Gend.-Sex. and/or PublicScholarship/Diversity

% White Men


White men average 42.2% of the estimated U.S. faculty labor pool (U.S., PR) and 36.8% of UCB faculty applicants across 220 UCB job searches, 2012-2015*.

*Only searches with responses to the search methods survey are included.URM = Afric. Am., Hisp., and Nat. Am.

UCB Fac. Job Searches 2012-2015* (n=220): Modeling for % of actual applicants, linear regression, selected groups and controls



% women % urm** % asian % white women% asian women

%urm** women

%urm** men

% asian men

% white men

Variables ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val ß p-val

% in availability pool 0.598



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 54: Tapped existing UC/UCB academic pipelines to diversify the applicant search pool (e.g., considered...UC Presidents Postdoctoral Fellowship recipients).

% White Male


Hiring Methods:

Promising Search Practices



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 55: Directly called/emailed possible candidates with diverse backgrounds and encouraged them to apply to the position.

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 56: As a department/unit, clarified and prioritized the diversity needs of the department vs. competing needs….

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 57: Monitored national resources that identify possible future faculty candidates from diverse backgrounds (e.g., lists of recent fellowship recipients…).

% White Male


Hiring Methods:

Additional Practices Showing Some Promise



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 58: Developed a departmental diversity plan with specific plans-of-action and benchmarks to gauge their short-term and longer-term effectiveness.

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 59: Arranged to have finalists meet with campus groups/individuals from diverse backgrounds.

% White Male


Hiring Methods:

Not Clearly Promising Search Practices

Practices for Which We Observed Insufficient Variation



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 60: Avoided improper or unlawful questions related to gender, sexual orientat., race, ethnicity, religion, family status, pregnancy, internat. status, health status, age.…

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 61: Established a welcoming environment for all interview finalists(i.e., sought to minimize any undue stress related to the interview process).

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Used Method Partial Use Did Not Use

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 62: Communicated efficiently and respectfully with all faculty candidates& finalists throughout the entire recruitment.

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 63: Took the necessary time to fully evaluate all applications,carefully reviewing all materials (e.g., handbooks suggest spending 15-20 minutes per application).

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 64: Tried to make sure that the applicant pool/finalist group was as diverse as possible to support equitable evaluation of all candidates (i.e., research studies suggest...).

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 65: Evaluated candidates using a broad holistic approach, focusing particularly on candidates areas of strength rather than narrowly defined areas of weakness….

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 66: Used a variety of different settings/forums to evaluate/get-to-know interview finalists (e.g., from formal lectures to relaxed conversational settings…).

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 67: Appointed senior reviewers or equity advisors to monitor the equity of all recruitment related processes/decisions.

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 68: Developed broad hiring goals...that allowed the committee to be open to a wide range of candidates, including candidates from diverse backgrounds.

% White Male




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

% Women

% URM*

Slide 69: Evaluated candidates based on their potential to develop a significant research program in their field (not exclusively based on their publication placement to date).

% White Male

*includes Afric. Am., Hisp., & Na

Documents

Slide 1: UCB Faculty Hiring Levels, AY2012-13—2015-16* · 2020. 1. 7. · Slide 2: UCB Fac. Job Searches 20122015 (- n=220*): Total Committee Members (median, mean) per Job Search,