Computing Senior Survey - Computing Research Association

Thomas M. Guterbock 

Director 

Center for Survey Research 

Computing Senior Survey 

Report of Results 

Robin A. Bebel 

Assistant Director 


Wendy Cohn 

Associate Professor 

Public Health Sciences 

With Assistance From 

Research Analysts, Center for Survey Research 

Matthew Braswell Elizabeth Kaknes Young-Il Kim 

Prepared for: 

Computing Research Association 

June 2011

COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION 

Table of Contents 

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... ii 

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... iii 

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ iv 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... viii 

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1 

Overview ...................................................................................................................................................1 

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................1 

Questionnaire design ................................................................................................................................1 

Sample construction .............................................................................................................................2 

Production data collection ....................................................................................................................3 

Subgroup Analysis .................................................................................................................................3 

II. Demographic Profile ..................................................................................................................................6 

Gender ..................................................................................................................................................6 

Race .......................................................................................................................................................6 

Under-Represented Minorities .............................................................................................................7 

Age ........................................................................................................................................................8 

Marital Status ........................................................................................................................................8 

Primary care giver .................................................................................................................................9 

Disability ...............................................................................................................................................9 

U.S. citizenship ......................................................................................................................................9 

Parents’ education ............................................................................................................................. 10 

Grade Point Average .......................................................................................................................... 11 

Academic major and minor area of study ......................................................................................... 13 

Changes during undergraduate college career .................................................................................. 14 

CRA-W program participation ........................................................................................................... 15 

III. Undergraduate Experience .................................................................................................................... 16 

Graduation Plans................................................................................................................................ 16 

Faculty support .................................................................................................................................. 17 

Computing related activities .............................................................................................................. 19 

Outside activities ............................................................................................................................... 20 

Mentor relationships ......................................................................................................................... 21 

IV. Academic and Work Experience in Research ........................................................................................ 23 

Participation in academic research .................................................................................................... 23 

Academic research activities ............................................................................................................. 24 

Effect of research experience ............................................................................................................ 25 

Comments on research experience ................................................................................................... 26 

Non research work experience .......................................................................................................... 27 

Academic research and work experience compared......................................................................... 28 

V. Confidence and Knowledge .................................................................................................................... 30 

Confidence in abilities ........................................................................................................................ 30 

Knowledge or expectations about computing ................................................................................... 31 

VI. Future Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 33 

Relative importance of items to career choice .................................................................................. 33 

Work plans ......................................................................................................................................... 35 

Influence on decision to attend grad school ..................................................................................... 35 

Center for Survey Research i

COMPUTING SENIOR SURVEY 

Reasons for not attending grad school .............................................................................................. 36 

Application to grad school ................................................................................................................. 38 

Recommendations to grad school ..................................................................................................... 38 

Graduate Fellowships ........................................................................................................................ 39 

Degree plans ...................................................................................................................................... 39 

VII. Effects of Program Participation .......................................................................................................... 42 

Demographic Differences between Participants and Non-participants ............................................ 43 

Likelihood of postgraduate action ..................................................................................................... 46 

Undergraduate Experiences - Research ............................................................................................. 48 

Undergraduate Experiences – Faculty Support ................................................................................. 52 

Confidence in abilities ........................................................................................................................ 53 

Knowledge or expectations about computing ................................................................................... 56 

Importance of Influences on Future Career ...................................................................................... 64 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Questionnaire 

Appendix B: Survey and Sampling Methodology 

Appendix C: Demographics of Participant Sample 

Appendix D: Survey Results 

Appendix E: Crosstabulations/All Respondents: Ratings by Demographic Variables 

Appendix F: CRA Program Participants: Crosstabs of Key Variables by Demographics 

Appendix G: Under-Represented Minorities: Crosstabs of Key Variables by Demographics 

Appendix H: Women: Crosstabs of Key Variables by Demographics 

Appendix I: Responses to Open-Ended Questions 

ii University of Virginia

List of Figures 


Figure II-1: Gender .........................................................................................................................................6 

Figure II-2 Race ..............................................................................................................................................7 

Figure II-3: Under represented minorities .....................................................................................................8 

Figure II-4: Age ..............................................................................................................................................8 

Figure II-5: Marital status ..............................................................................................................................9 

Figure II-6: US Citizenship ........................................................................................................................... 10 

Figure II-7: Education level of Mother & Father ......................................................................................... 11 

Figure II-8: Grade Point Average for Overall Studies & Major Field of Study ............................................. 12 

Figure II-9: Start Undergraduate Degree .................................................................................................... 12 

Figure II-10: Graduation Year ..................................................................................................................... 13 

Figure II-11: Major and Minor areas of study ............................................................................................ 14 

Figure II-12: Changes during undergraduate career .................................................................................. 15 

Figure III-1: Graduation Plans ..................................................................................................................... 16 

Figure III-2: Student perceptions of faculty support ................................................................................... 18 

Figure III-3: Computing related support activities - Existence & Participation ........................................... 20 

Figure III-4: Participation in computing related activities outside the university ....................................... 21 

Figure III-5: Perceptions of mentor relationships for undergraduate students .......................................... 22 

Figure IV-1: Participation in research experience ....................................................................................... 23 

Figure IV-2 : Research experience ............................................................................................................... 25 

Figure IV-3 : Effect of research experiences ............................................................................................... 26 

Figure IV-4: Effect of work experience ........................................................................................................ 28 

Figure IV-5: Compare the effect of academic research and work experience ............................................ 29 

Figure V-1: Confidence in abilities to be successful in computing .............................................................. 30 

Figure V-2: Knowledge or expectations about computing ......................................................................... 31 

Figure VI-1 : Relative importance of items to career choice ....................................................................... 33 

Figure VI-2: Plan to apply to grad school in computing in 2009-10 ........................................................... 34 

Figure VI-3: Intended field of study at graduate school other than computing ......................................... 34 

Figure VI-4: Work plans for Fall 2010 ......................................................................................................... 35 

Figure VI-5: Factors encouraging graduate school attendance ................................................................ 36 

Figure VI-6 : Reasons for not attending graduate school ........................................................................... 37 

Figure VI-7 : Do you plan to attend graduate school in Fall 2010? ............................................................ 38 

Figure VI-8 : Highest degree anticipated .................................................................................................... 40 

Figure VII-1: Gender of participants and non-participants ......................................................................... 43 

Figure VII-2: Residency of participants and non-participants .................................................................... 44 

Figure VII-3: Major areas of study for participants and non-participants.................................................. 44 

Figure VII-4: Overall GPA for participants and non-participants ................................................................ 45 

Figure VII-5: Undergrad institutions for participants and non-participants ............................................... 45 

Figure VII-6: Likelihood of future action ..................................................................................................... 46 

Figure VII-7: Likelihood of future action: Participants ................................................................................ 47 

Figure VII-8: Likelihood of future action: Non-participants ........................................................................ 48 

Figure VII-9: Undergraduate research experience ...................................................................................... 49 

Figure VII-10: Undergraduate research experience: Participants .............................................................. 50 

Center for Survey Research iii


Figure VII-11: Undergraduate research experience: Non-participants ...................................................... 50 

Figure VII-12: Influence of research experience.......................................................................................... 51 

Figure VII-13: Influence of research experience: Participants ................................................................... 52 

Figure VII-14: Influence of research experience: Non-participants ........................................................... 52 

Figure VII-15: Faculty support .................................................................................................................... 53 

Figure VII-16: Confidence in future abilities ............................................................................................... 54 

Figure VII-17: Confidence in future abilities: Participants .......................................................................... 55 

Figure VII-18: Confidence in future abilities: Non-participants .................................................................. 56 

Figure VII-19: Knowledge or expectations about computing ..................................................................... 56 

Figure VII-20: Knowledge or expectations about computing: Participants ................................................ 58 

Figure VII-21: Knowledge or expectations about computing: Non-participants ........................................ 59 

Figure VII-22: Factors encouraging graduate school attendance: Participants ......................................... 61 

Figure VII-23: Factors encouraging graduate school attendance: Non-participants ................................. 61 

Figure VII-24: Highest degree anticipated .................................................................................................. 62 

Figure VII-25: Influencing graduate school attendance: Participants ........................................................ 63 

Figure VII-26: Influencing graduate school attendance: Non-participants ................................................ 64 

Figure VII-27: Importance to future career: Participants ........................................................................... 65 

Figure VII-28: Importance to future career: Non-participants ................................................................... 66 

List of Tables 

Table IV-1: Reason not to participate in research ...................................................................................... 24 

Table VI-1: Who wrote graduate school recommendations ....................................................................... 39 

Table VI-2: Areas of highest degree intended ............................................................................................ 41 

Table VI-3: Type of aid offered ................................................................................................................... 41 

Table VII-1: Participation in CRA-W/CDC BPC and other diversity programs ............................................. 42 

iv University of Virginia

Executive Summary 


This report details the findings of an online survey conducted in the summer of 2010 by the Center for 

Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia at the request of the Computing Research Association 

(CRA), an association of more than 200 North American academic departments of computer science, 

computer engineering, and related fields. This survey was on behalf of the Widening the Research 

Pipeline Alliance, a joint effort of the Computing Research Association's Committee on the Status of 

Women in Computing Research (CRA-W) and the Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC), funded 

through a Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC) grant from the National Science Foundation. 

The goal of this survey was to evaluate the effect of Alliance programs that promote careers in 

computing research fields to women and minorities and that provide support to students who seek to 

pursue careers in these fields. 

This report details the findings of the study and provides details about the survey’s execution and 

analysis phases. 

The final survey design incorporated questions from several different online questionnaires that had 

been used to survey CRA-W program participants for related purposes in the past as well as additional 

questions on topics of interest that had not been previously covered. 

The results of the survey will not only serve the CRA, but will be shared with the colleges and universities 

that chose to take part in this research so that they may contribute to the decisions made by computing 

science departments nationwide. 

A total of 412 web instruments were completed by a national sample of students who had graduated 

from an undergraduate program in computing. 

Colleges and universities that had been the home institution of at least one CRA program participant in 

the past three years were contacted and asked to participate in this study by sending contact 

information for their graduating seniors. Some schools who wished to be a part of the study were more 

comfortable sending the announcement emails to their students themselves. This led CSR to host two 

versions of the same survey, one granting access to students that could be tracked and reminded to 

participate and another that could be made available to the anonymous users. 

CSR first examined the characteristics of all of the persons who made up the final sample. Since the 

sample was comprised of CRA program participants as well as the total population of students in 

cooperating computing departments, CSR looked at how that would impact the final results. 

• Men outnumbered women, representing 62 percent of the dataset. The CRA program participant 

sample, because it targeted women in particular, was comprised of more than 84 percent women. 

• Hispanics were also better represented in the CRA sample, with 15 percent over 8 percent in the total 

sample. 

Researchers first tried to establish some background by asking all respondents for details about their 

undergraduate experiences, followed by questions about research and work outside of school. 

• When asked about the likelihood of some plans after completing undergraduate work, 85 percent of 

respondents said they would successfully complete a graduate program, and 79 percent of them 

Center for Survey Research v


anticipated a job in computing, not in research. 

• Faculty support was very highly rated, with 97 percent saying someone had been available for oneon-one 

advising and 95 percent reporting they had help making progress toward a degree. 

• The effect of faculty involvement was evident when students responded to questions about 

mentoring; the four most frequently cited items, totaling over 2/3 of students, directly referred to 

faculty or a faculty advisor. 

• Students were asked to judge the impact of academic research and work experience on future 

decisions. Work experience had a pronounced effect on decisions about attending graduate school 

(68%) and 8 of 10 cited career choice and confidence in success. Academic research, though not 

perceived to be as valuable, was rated very or somewhat important by nearly 60 percent for all 

three of those items. 

• A career compatible with the lifestyle to which I aspire was the number one choice for 94 percent 

when asked about the importance of a list of items to their future career. Teaching (43%) and 

research (41%) fell to the bottom of the list, under such items as creating new technologies (76%), 

earning potential (75%) and flexible work time (72%). 

The next sections asked about plans and expectations of graduate school. 

• About a quarter of students planned to apply to graduate school in computing in 2010. 

• Sixty percent of respondents said that they preferred to work first to save money for graduate 

school. 

• Letters of recommendation to graduate school came from undergraduate professors in computing 

fields (32%) and mentors (29%). 

• Of those planning to go to grad school, about one half were offered either a teaching or research 

assistantship. 

The main, long-term programs CRA hoped to evaluate with this study were Distributed Research 

Experiences for Undergraduates (DREU) (formerly Distributed Mentoring Project (DMP)) and 

Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates (CREU). There were 182 participants in 

Broadening Participation programs, with 95 who took part in CREU/DREU programs. 

Additional analysis on the responses given by CREU/DREU program participants compared to those who 

did not participate in a program explored the potential differences between the two groups and 

revealed some significant variance. 

• Students who had participated in CREU/DREU programs were significantly more likely to plan to 

attend graduate school immediately after graduation, more likely to study computing and to 

anticipate earning a PhD in computing. 

• Program participants were significantly more likely to say they had some or quite a bit of experience 

in research as an undergraduate in all of the 10 listed areas. Receiving the highest rating (85%) 

from participants was collecting data or conducting experiments; 72 percent of non-participants 

said that they had some or quite a bit of experience collecting data or conducting experiments. 

vi University of Virginia


• Participants were clearly confident in their knowledge of what it would be like to be a grad student, 

what it would be like to do computing research and how computing can address social issues. 

• Of note was the finding that at 15-17 percent, personal financial concerns and immediate 

employment opportunities were the most strongly discouraging to students in both groups as they 

considered attending graduate school. 

• Participation in CRA programs is associated with greater enthusiasm for research as part of one’s 

career path. Over half report that research is either very or somewhat important for their future 

career, while only 14.5 percent of non-participants say the same. 

A more in-depth understanding of the motivations and goals of the students in computing fields is 

crucial to the development of programs and support mechanisms that will enable more students to stay 

in those fields. 

It is hoped that the responses detailed here will be useful to the Association as they attempt to plan 

programs in the future that will further their goals of keeping students, and especially women and 

minority students, in computing research fields. 

Center for Survey Research vii


Acknowledgements 

This report details the findings of the 2010 Computing Senior Survey done by the Center for Survey 

Research on behalf of the Computing Research Association (CRA). 

Dr. Joanne Cohoon, of the National Center for Women & IT at the University of Virginia and CRA-W 

Board member, participated in the study design and oversight. 

Dr. Betsy Bizot, Director of Statistics and Evaluation, Computing Research Association, participated in 

study design and oversight and sampled the participating departments. 

Dr. Thomas Guterbock, Director of CSR and Professor of Sociology, was the principal investigator for the 

study. He supervised all aspects of the project, including budgeting, questionnaire creation and data 

analysis and weighting. 

Robin Bebel, Assistant Director of CSR, served as project coordinator during the development, fielding 

and reporting phases of this project. She was the primary contact for CSR, overseeing the questionnaire 

development and data collection and is the primary author of this report. 

John Lee Holmes, M.A, Survey Operations Manager, oversaw the operation of the web survey during the 

data collection phase of this study. Mr. Holmes was also responsible for programming the survey 

instrument, and maintaining email contact with respondents. 

Research Analysts with the CSR, Dr. Young-Il Kim, Matthew Braswell, Elizabeth Kaknes and Mark Parker 

provided data analysis and assisted in writing and editing the report. Katherine Coker contributed 

cleaning and formatting of text variables while Jae Sook Lee and Kezhou (Spencer) Xiao assisted with the 

preparation of tables and figures. 

Dr. Wendy Cohn, of Public Health Sciences at the University of Virginia, was instrumental in the 

development of the questionnaire. Dr. Cohn supplied background on the CRA research and the goals of 

this project, collaborated on the structure of the report and provided the first draft of Chapter 7. 

Project administrators would like to thank the many schools who provided locator information so their 

students could be contacted. Other schools chose to contact their students themselves and we 

appreciate the extra work they took on in the interest of assisting this research. 

Funding for this study was provided by the National Science Foundation under Broadening Participation 

in Computing grant #0540631 to the Computing Research Association. 

And finally, all those connected with this project are grateful to the students in computing majors who 

gave their time to answer many questions about the perceptions and experiences as undergraduates in 

these fields. 

The Center for Survey Research is responsible for any errors or omissions in this report. Questions may be 

directed to the Center for Survey Research, P.O. Box 400767, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904-4767. CSR 

may also be reached by telephone at 434-243-5222; by electronic mail at surveys@virginia.edu, or via 

the World Wide Web at: http://surveys.virginia.edu. 

viii University of Virginia

I. Introduction 

Overview 


In 2009 the Center for Survey Research (CSR) was contacted to provide technical and operational 

expertise in a survey of students for the Computing Research Association (CRA) , an association of more 

than 200 North American academic departments of computer science, computer engineering, and 

related fields. This survey was on behalf of the Widening the Research Pipeline Alliance, a joint effort of 

the Computing Research Association's Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Research (CRA- 

W) and the Coalition to Diversify Computing (CDC), funded through a Broadening Participation in 

Computing (BPC) grant from the National Science Foundation. 

The goal of this survey was to evaluate the effect of Alliance programs that promote careers in 

computing research fields to women and minorities and that provide support to students who seek to 

pursue careers in these fields. The main, long-term programs that CRA hopes to evaluate with this 

survey are Distributed Research Experiences for Undergraduates (DREU) (formerly Distributed 

Mentoring Project (DMP)) and Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates (CREU). Other 

activities sponsored by CRA or other BPC organizations were tabulated and are shown in Table VII-1 on 

page 42. 

The Alliance wanted to investigate the details of post-graduation plans for students in computing 

majors. They hoped to better understand the undergraduate experience and other priorities that might 

influence student decisions about careers and graduate school attendance. They wanted to compare 

participants in their programs to similar nonparticipant students. Also, it was hoped that increased 

awareness of students’ experiences and the transition to graduate school would lead to improvements 

in current program offerings and produce more students equipped to and desiring to pursue a career in 

computing research. 

Methodology 

As part of this evaluation, the Alliance wished to include other students attending similar colleges and 

universities to form a control group against whom their program participants could be compared. CSR’s 

role was to assist in the development of the instrument, host the web survey, administer data collection, 

analyze the results and report on the findings. 

Deployment of the survey was done on a customized website hosted by CSR. The web only 

administration was selected as a cost effective way to reach college students. This predominately young 

group, given their selected areas of study concentration, was assumed to have regular internet access 

and to prefer communications using the computer. 

Questionnaire design 

Several different online questionnaires had been used to survey Alliance program participants for 

related purposes in the past. The questionnaire used for this survey brought together pieces from these 

questionnaires and incorporated additional questions on topics of interest that had not been previously 

Center for Survey Research 1


covered. CSR was able to make some suggestions to improve the clarity and flow of the instrument and 

to develop additional questions where appropriate. 

The questionnaire draft was reviewed by the sponsor and some edits were made. The questionnaire was 

programmed into Sensus Web, a data collection software tool designed to present surveys on the 

Internet. Sensus is designed to work closely with WinCATI, data collection software from Sawtooth 

Technologies that is in use in CSR’s telephone interviewing facility. 

This revised instrument was sent to the client for review and fielded in a pilot study. Respondents to the 

survey during this initial pre-test were asked if there were any things about the survey that were difficult 

to respond to, confusing, hard to understand, or not relevant. In addition, some respondents were 

contacted for a more formal debriefing by telephone. No significant changes were found to be needed 

at this point. 

The final survey consisted of these nine areas: 

A. Undergraduate experiences 

B. Research experience 

C. Work experience 

D. Confidence in abilities and Knowledge about computing 

E. Future plans 

F. Graduate fellowship applications 

G. Features in future career 

H. Not attending grad school 

I. Demographics 

Sample construction 

The study was developed in stages. First, schools attended by program participants in 2005, 2006 or 

2007 were identified. Schools were assigned their appropriate Carnegie category and divided into three 

strata depending on size and highest degree awarded in computer science. Schools were randomly 

selected to be contacted for the survey, with an oversample of smaller schools to ensure adequate 

student representation in the final sample. Target departments were designated, even when the name 

suggested a different aspect of computing, as long as the primary focus was on computing. Once 

schools were chosen, the decision was made not to attempt to sample students within each target 

department, but to include all students in the department. 

The sponsor attempted to recruit departments into survey participation. Departments were asked to 

supply names and contact information for all students who were due to graduate from their 

departments from May 2010 to December 2010. 

Not every school elected to send student contact information to us. Some schools agreed to participate 

in the study but preferred to send email notifications and reminders to their own students. Since CSR 

would not know who responded, or how many responses to expect, access was set up to be completely 

anonymous. CSR had contact information for the majority of students, which provided definite 

advantages. Respondents could click on a personalized link in their email and be sent directly to the 

2 University of Virginia


survey, whereas other respondents where sent to a generic page with instructions that explained how 

to login to the survey. 

One university sent mailing addresses for their students but no email. In this case, students were 

contacted by means of an advance letter that included the link to the web survey. Non-responders 

received a postcard reminder instead of email. These students also were sent to the anonymous site, to 

take advantage of the much simpler link address. 

In addition, a list was developed of 186 program participants from 2007 – 2009 who might be graduating 

in the desired time window. These students were surveyed through CSR in the same way as those from 

the participating departments. 

All students completed the same questionnaire. 

Production data collection 

Deployment of the survey was done on a customized website hosted by CSR. The web only 

administration was selected as a cost effective way to reach students. This predominately young group, 

given their selected areas of study concentration, was assumed to have regular internet access and to 

prefer communications using the computer. 

Online questionnaires allow for adaptive questioning, such that participants skip over questions that are 

not applicable based upon their prior responses. Respondents did not see questions they did not have to 

answer. 

In order to achieve an acceptable completion rate, the researchers decided to offer a $10 gift card as a 

thank you to students who completed the survey. The offer of an incentive was publicized in all mailings. 

Respondents could choose either Target or Barnes & Noble, retailers that would be appealing and 

accessible to most students. Both vendors have an active internet presence and cards could be 

redeemed there or at a bricks and mortar location. Students provided a regular mail address at the end 

of the survey so that the card could be mailed to them. 

All students, no matter how they accessed the survey, saw the same version, with the same questions. 

Calculation of response was complicated by several factors. First, there were two versions of the survey, 

one where only staff members of the CSR had access to personally identifying information and could link 

response back to the individual respondent.. In the second version, users were guided there by emails 

sent to them directly from participating schools or by a link included in a postal letter sent to students of 

one school that declined to send email addresses. In the former case, CSR knew the size of the initial 

universe. The adjusted rate of response calculated was 35.21%. In the later case, the client was able to 

forward information from the schools on how many students they had contacted. We do not know how 

many reminder emails were sent or how often. The rate of response for this group was 21.86%. 

More detail on how the survey was done is available in Appendix B: Methodology. 

Subgroup Analysis 

Throughout this report, the responses were analyzed by demographic variables to reveal differences 

between subgroups such as men and women or respondents of differing races. In discussing the results, 



we report those instances in which relevant statistically significant differences were found among 

demographic subgroups. Statistically significant differences are those that probably did not result 

merely from sampling variability, but instead reflect real differences within the population. 1 

The results 

of the demographic crosstabulation analysis are in the attached appendices. The demographic variables 

listed below were those used in our subgroup analysis. In some cases, categories were combined to 

facilitate comparison. 

• Gender. Women were compared to men. 

• Race/Ethnicity. Self-identified racial groups were compared, using the categories presented (white, 

Black/African American, Hispanic, Asian and other groups). 

• Age. Age was divided into two categories: 18-25 and 26 and above. 

• Marital Status. Respondents presently married were compared with those in other categories 

(never married, separated/divorced, and living together). 

• Primary caregiver. Primary caregiver for a child was compared to non-caregiver. 

• Disability. The disabled were compared to the non-disabled. 

• Citizenship. Respondents selected from native born U.S. citizen, naturalized U.S. citizen, non-U.S. 

citizen with permanent residency, and non-U.S. citizen with a temporary visa. 

• Parent’s education level. Education level of both father and mother was examined with less than 

high school, high school education or less, some college, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, PhD or 

professional degree being compared. 

• Grade Point Average. Student’s GPA overall and that reported in their major subject were divided 

into three categories: 2-2.99, 3.0-3.49, and 3.5-4.0. 

• Academic Major/Minor. Student’s self-reported major and minor were divided into six categories: 

Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Computer Information System, Other Computing 

major/minor, Other science and engineering non-computing major/minor, and Other noncomputing 

major/minor. 

• Institutional Size. The institution granting the student’s undergraduate degree was coded and 

categorized by the client as a large PhD granting school, other PhD granting school, a school that 

does not grant PhD’s or a small school. “Small schools” do not grant PhDs, and grant fewer than 10 

BS degrees per year on average. 

• Computing Research Association participants. The sample included students who were known to 

have participated in CRA-W programs. Section F: Effects of Program Participation uses self-reported 

data to compare participants from CREU/DREU programs to the rest of the study respondents. 

1 Throughout this report, only those differences that reached statistical significance to the degree of p


• Under-Represented Minorities (URM). This dichotomous grouping separates African American, 

American Indian, and Hispanic students from students of all other racial groups, including Asians, 

who are not underrepresented among U.S computer science students. 



II. Demographic Profile 

Respondents were asked about their personal and social characteristics to allow for data analysis by 

demographic groups. Each demographic variable was analyzed for the full sample , then CRA-W program 

(CREU/DREU/DMP) participants were separated from the rest of the sample and results were compared 

to see differences between the subset group of interest and the entire population of interviewed 

students. For the purpose of this section, we will discuss the raw numbers, that is, the survey results 

before any weighting to correct for shortfalls in some demographic representation was applied. 

Gender 

When taking into account all respondents, men outnumbered women, comprising 62.2 percent of 

respondents while women made up 37.8 percent of the respondents. 

Figure II-1: Gender 

Male 

Female 

12.6% 

37.8% 

62.2% 

87.4% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Participants All respondents 

However, women significantly outnumbered men as CREU/DREU/DMP program participants, accounting 

for 87.4 percent of participants compared to 12.6 percent of male participants. 

Race 

When asked what race respondents considered themselves to be, six out of ten respondents (60.6%) 

identified themselves as white. Twenty-two percent of respondents identified themselves as Asian and 

another 8 percent of respondents gave their race as Hispanic. Almost 6 percent of respondents 

identified themselves as African American. Other races (i.e., Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, etc) 

including those whose racial designation fell under “other” comprised the reminder (3.4%). Not included 

in this breakdown are the 5.8 percent of the sample who refused to answer the question about race. 


Figure II-2 Race 

White 

African 

American 

Hispanic 

As ian 

Other 

5.9% 

6.4% 

3.4% 

2.1% 

8.2% 

14.9% 

21.9% 

19.1% 

60.6% 

57.4% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 



More respondents identified themselves as African American and Hispanic among the CRA-W program 

participants. Particularly, Hispanics respondents make up nearly 15 percent of participants compared to 

just 8.2 percent of non-participants. 

Under-Represented Minorities 

We created a new variable that combines race with gender to explore further the difference between all 

respondents and participants. Under-Represented Minorities (URM) include African- American, 

American Indian, and Hispanic students but does not include Asian students. The latter group is not 

under-represented among U.S computer science students, so in this dichotomous grouping, Asian 

students are tabulated with the “Majority”. As Figure II-3 illustrates, participants have significantly more 

female respondents, whether from the majority or minority group. It is helpful to keep this disparity in 

mind when examining these results. 



Figure II-3: Under represented minorities 

Age 

Majority male 

Majority 

female 

URM male 

URM female 

2.1% 

9.8% 

9.6% 

7.5% 

13.8% 

31.0% 

51.7% 

74.5% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 


Almost 86 percent of respondents were between 18 and 25 years old. Non-traditional students older 

than 25 represented 14.1 percent of the respondents. Participants have a similar pattern of age 

distribution. 

Figure II-4: Age 

Marital Status 

18-25 

26 and above 

14.1% 

8 University of Virginia 

85.9% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

When considering all respondents, the majority of respondents (85.3%) were never married and only 8.4 

percent were married at the time of the interview. Another 5.8 percent indicated that they are living 

with a partner.

Figure II-5: Marital status 

Never Married 

Living with partner 

Married 

Divorced/separated 

5.8% 

3.2% 

0.5% 

8.4% 

1.1% 

11.6% 

85.3% 

84.2% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 



Program participants were more often married (11.7%), while all respondents were more likely to live 

with a partner (5.8%) than participants (3.2%) were. 

Primary care giver 

As anticipated from marital status outcome, there are very few students who are the primary caregiver 

for a child (1.3%). Primary caregivers of children are all married, but most married people (85%) had no 

children. 

Disability 

Nine of ten respondents reported no disability. Among those with some disability, nearly five percent 

say they have some vision impairment and 0.9 percent has mobility impairment. Other categories, 

added by students, such as ADHD and Sensory Processing Disorder, comprised 3.7 percent. 

U.S. citizenship 

Respondents were asked whether or not they are U.S. citizens. Eighty percent of respondents identified 

themselves as native born U.S. citizens and another 10 percent give their citizenship status as 

naturalized U.S .citizens. Another 2.6 percent were non- U.S. citizens with permanent residency and 

about 7 percent were non- U.S. citizens with a temporary visa. 



Figure II-6: US Citizenship 

Native born 

U.S citizen 

Naturalized 

U.S citizen 

Permanent 

residency 

Temporary 

visa 

2.6% 

10.1% 

4.3% 

12.0% 

6.7% 

12.0% 

71.7% 

80.6% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 


CRA-W programs include higher proportions of non-citizens than are found in the sample as a whole. For 

example, 12 percent of participants had a temporary visa compared to 6.7 percent in the general 

sample. 

Parents’ education 

Given the known correlation between student’s academic achievement and parents’ level of education, 

we asked about the highest level of education of respondents’ both father and mother. As is illustrated 

in Figure II-7, 17.9 percent of fathers had some high school and 13.8 percent attended some college, 

whereas 32.9 percent had a 4-year degree. Nearly a quarter of respondents’ fathers had a master’s 

degree and 10.4 percent had a Ph.D. or some other professional degree. The distribution of mothers’ 

education is similar to that of the father’s. A third of mothers had a 4-year degree (33.7%), and another 

quarter had a master’s degree (24.3%), some high school (18.5%), some college (17.1%), and Ph.D. or 

other advanced degree (6.4%). 

The addition of the participant numbers, shown in the darker shades of yellow and blue, reveal that the 

parents of program participants are more likely to be a high school graduate or less. Over one third 

(35.7%) of the mothers of participants have earned a bachelor’s degree but do not report having earned 

a Master’s degree (15.5%) at the same rate as the all respondent group (24.3%). 

Showing the results in one graph demonstrates how the distribution of degrees remains constant for 

both parents. The percentage of mothers and fathers with a Master’s degree is virtually the same, with 

mothers having a slight edge in the lower levels of education and fathers having more PhD’s and other 

advanced degrees. 


Figure II-7: Education level of Mother & Father 

PHD/MD/JD 

Master's degree 

Bachelor's 

degree 

Some college 

High school 

grad or less 

Grade Point Average 

9.9% 

10.4% 

10.7% 

6.4% 

15.5% 

16.0% 

13.8% 

15.5% 

17.1% 

22.2% 

25.1% 

24.3% 

21.0% 

17.9% 

22.6% 

18.5% 

30.9% 

32.9% 

35.7% 

33.7% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 


Father - 

Participants 

Father - All 

respondents 

Mother - 

Participants 

Mother - All 

respondents 

Respondents were asked about the Grade Point Average (GPA) for both overall studies and for 

computing major field. Figure II-8 illustrates the findings for both program participants and nonparticipants, 

collapsing the averages into three categories. Percentages for major fields of study are 

shown in shades of yellow. Students earned a higher GPA in their computing major than in their overall 

GPA. For example, compared to 47.6 percent of students who have earned the highest overall GPA 

ranging from 3.5 to 4.0, 56 percent of students have earned a GPA in their computing major above 3.5. 

It can also be observed that, in general, participants earn a higher GPA than non-participants. Shown in 

blue, participants earned the highest GPA in 56.7 percent of the responses, compared to 47.6 percent of 

records for all respondents. 



Figure II-8: Grade Point Average for Overall Studies & Major Field of Study 

3.5 - 4.0 

3.0 - 3.49 

2 - 2.99 

6.5% 

Undergraduate dates 

8.9% 

14.8% 

18.1% 

29.9% 

29.1% 

34.4% 

34.3% 

47.6% 

56.1% 

56.7% 

63.6% 

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

Major Field of 

Study - 

Participants 

Major Field of 

Study - All 

respondents 

Overall Studies - 

Participants 

Overall Studies - 

All respondents 

Respondents were also asked about what year they started their undergraduate degree. A majority of 

students reported that they started in 2006 (63.5%), followed by 2005 (17.5%), 2007 (8.7%) and fewer 

than 5 percent in other years. 

Figure II-9: Start Undergraduate Degree 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

3.7% 

4.2% 

8.7% 

2.4% 

17.5% 

63.5% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 



Respondents were asked when they completed or expected to complete their undergraduate degree. As 

Figure II-10 shows, over three-quarters (75.9%) of students completed or expected to finish their degree 

in 2010. Another 16 percent graduated in 2009, with a few in 2008 or projecting graduation in 2011 or 

2012. 

Figure II-10: Graduation Year 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

1.3% 

5.8% 

0.8% 

16.2% 

75.9% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Over two thirds (66.1%) of students reported that they have graduated or expected to graduate in May. 

Another 17 percent graduated in December and 7 percent in June. Minimal numbers graduated in other 

months. 

Academic major and minor area of study 

Respondents were also asked about their major and minor areas of study. As Figure II-11 indicates, over 

half of students major in Computer Science, followed by Computer Engineering/Electrical and Computer 

Engineering (18%), other non-computing major (10.6%), other science/engineering non-computing 

major (8.6%), other computing major (6.1%), and Computer Information Systems (3%). Regarding minor 

fields, shown in shades of blue, over half of students minor in other non-computing field such as math, 

business, and cognitive sciences. About 24 percent of students minor in other science/engineering noncomputing 

area such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Psychology. 



Figure II-11: Major and Minor areas of study 

Computer Science 

Computer 

Engineer/Electrical 

and Computing 

Engineer 

Computer 

Information Systems 

Other computing 

major 

Other 

science/engineering 

non-computing 

major 

Other noncomputing 

major 

1.7% 

4.0% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

5.1% 

3.0% 

6.1% 

6.2% 

12.0% 

10.1% 

8.4% 

7.4% 

10.0% 

8.6% 

10.6% 

13.7% 

18.0% 

15.8% 

24.2% 

32.0% 

40.0% 

52.6% 

53.7% 

52.8% 

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

Changes during undergraduate college career 

Major - 

Participants 

Major - All 

respondents 

Minor - 

Participants 

Minor - All 

respondents 

Respondents were also asked about whether they had made significant changes during their college 

career. As Figure II-12 illustrates, CRA-W program participants changed their majors more often than all 

respondents did. On the other hand, they transferred schools, took time out and went part-time less 

than the general population. 


Figure II-12: Changes during undergraduate career 

CRA-W program participation 


Students who report participation in a Computing Research Association sponsored program or event 

make up 30.1 percent of the final sample. The main, long-term programs that CRA-W hopes to evaluate 

with this survey are Distributed Research Experiences for Undergraduates (DREU) (formerly Distributed 

Mentoring Project (DMP)) and Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates (CREU). Twentythree 

percent of respondents report that they have participated in one of these programs. CREU (49.5%) 

and DREU/DMP (50.5%) participants were evenly represented among respondents. More information 

on this group is noted as appropriate throughout this report and is detailed in Chapter 7: Effects of 

Program Participation (page 42) 



III. Undergraduate Experience 

Graduation Plans 

The first question asked of students was about the likelihood that they would accomplish a list of 

possible goals after graduating from their undergraduate schools. They could respond by indicating that 

they felt the goal was very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely. They could also 

offer that they did not know how likely that goal was for them. Nearly 86 percent of students who 

responded thought it likely that they would complete a graduate program. Sixty-four percent (63.9%) 

thought it likely that they would study computing in graduate school, but nearly 79 percent (78.6%) felt 

that they would get a job in computing, but not in research. 

Six in ten students thought that they would likely get a Master’s degree (61.5%) but only three of ten 

(32.7%) felt they would get a PhD. Figure III-1 shows the results to each item in the list, sorted by the 

percentage of students who felt it very likely or somewhat likely that they would achieve that goal. Each 

goal was judged separately and from the results, it is evident that not all have finalized their future 

plans. For instance, the 78.6 percent who think they will get a job in computing but not in research 

overlaps with the 52.7 percent who think it likely that they will get a job in research that involves 

computing. 

Figure III-1: Graduation Plans 

Successfully complete a graduate program 

Get a job in computing, not in research 

Study computing in graduate school 

Earn a Masters in computing 

Attend grduate school after working for a while 

Get a job in research that involves computing 

Study a non-computing subject in graduate school 

Attend graduate school immediately after 

undergraduate degree 

Earn a PhD in computing 

32.7% 

44.3% 

40.8% 

52.7% 

63.9% 

61.5% 

61.1% 

78.6% 

84.6% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Significant Demographic Findings 

Both African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to report that they will complete a graduate 

program, with Hispanic students adding that they expect to complete a program in computing. Asian 

students are more likely than white students to anticipate going to graduate school immediately. It is 



important to remember that the dataset includes an oversample of CRA-W program participants. The 

demographics of Chapter I, particularly Figure II-1 & 2 detailing Gender and Race, show the incidence of 

women and minorities in the final dataset. 

Not surprisingly, those with an overall grade point average in the highest range of 3.5 to 4.0 were more 

likely to anticipate that they would attend graduate school. Those in this high range in their major field 

of study were more likely to say in addition that they would complete a graduate program and finish 

with a Master’s or Doctoral degree. Those in the median overall range of 3.0-3.49 were more likely to 

say that they would work for a while before attending graduate school. Those in the lowest range of 2.0- 

2.99, in addition to delaying graduate school, were most likely to report that they would study a noncomputing 

field. 

Naturalized U.S. citizens are more likely to feel that they will complete a graduate program and earn a 

Master’s degree than native-born citizens. Non-citizens, whether permanent residents or with a 

temporary visa, are more likely to report that they expect to earn a PhD and get a job that involves 

computing research. 

If either parent had a PhD or other advanced degree, it was more likely that the student would 

anticipate earning one. It was also more likely that the student would pursue a degree in computing. If 

the father was a high school graduate or less, the student was more likely to follow the more traditional 

path of graduate school immediately after undergraduate work than students whose fathers had some 

college or a bachelor’s degree. Students whose mothers had either some college or an advanced degree 

thought it more likely that they would complete a graduate degree. 

Students coming out of schools that did not award PhD’s and those from the larger PhD granting 

institutions were more likely to anticipate studying computing in graduate school than students from 

other PhD granting schools or smaller schools. Students from smaller schools were more likely to go to 

school immediately after undergraduate education but less likely to anticipate a Master’s degree. They 

also tended to anticipate a career in computing but not in research. 

Faculty support 

Graduates were asked about their perceptions of faculty within their undergraduate computing 

department. The percentages of “yes” responses to the question “Are there any faculty members in 

your program who act in these ways?” are shown in Figure III-2, sorted to show highest percentage first. 

Faculty were rated highest in their availability for one-on-one advising (97.2%) and in providing help in 

progress toward the degree (95.2%).Also very highly rated (90.1%) was care about the individual student 

as a person. Help with professional contact (56.7%) and encouragement to publish research (55.0%) still 

were able to attract more than half of respondents. The three negatively worded items got the fewest 

number of “yes” responses, with just over a third of students perceiving that a faculty member favors 

certain groups of students over others (33.6%), that expectations of undergraduate students are too 

high (27.4%) and that a faculty member undermines confidence in abilities (9.3%). 



Figure III-2: Student perceptions of faculty support 

Available for one-on-one advising 

Helps me progress toward my degree 

Cares about me as a person 

Gives me useful advice about my research 

Gives me useful career advice 

Encourages research with fellow students 

Other than major advisor interested in my progress 

Encourages me to attend professional conferences 

Helps me make professional contacts 

Encourages me to publish research 

Favors certain groups of students over others 

Expectations of undergrad students too high 

Undermines my confidence in my abilities 


9.3% 

33.6% 

27.4% 

56.7% 

55.0% 

76.9% 

76.3% 

70.6% 

90.1% 

85.5% 

84.9% 

97.2% 

95.2% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Women were significantly more likely to agree with many of these statements. They felt a faculty 

member gave useful advice (91.0%), encouraged collaboration on research (83.5%) and attendance at 

conferences (82.0%) and helped them to make professional contacts (69.7%). In addition, someone 

other than their advisor indicated interest in their progress (82.8%). 

One hundred percent of African-American and Hispanic students felt that there was a faculty member 

available for one-on-one advising. 

Students with an overall grade point average in the median range of 3.0-3.49 were significantly more 

likely to feel that faculty favored certain groups of students over others (40.5%) and that expectations of 

undergraduate students were too high (36.9%) than students whose overall GPA were over 3.5. 

It is reassuring that nearly ninety-three percent of students felt somewhat (31.2%) or very (61.5%) 

welcome in their computing department. The more traditional age group, that is 18 to 25 years of age, 

were more likely to feel welcome than their older counterparts, although men and women reported 

similar levels of comfort with their department. Hispanics felt more welcome that either white, African- 

American or Asian students. Marriage, children, disability or citizenship did not seem to make a 

difference, but those at smaller schools and schools that did not grant PhD’s felt more welcome that 

those from larger schools.

Computing related activities 


Many colleges and departments are able to provide resources or activities that may be supportive of 

continued research activities. Recent graduates first told us if listed items existed in their schools. 

Almost everyone had access to computing related student groups (92.8%), followed by visiting lectures 

(88.7%) and groups for women in computing/engineering or science fields (79.6%). 

Students then were asked to tell us if they had participated in the listed available activities. Figure III-3 

shows the results of this series of questions about the existence of supportive activities and student 

reports of participation in those activities. The chart is sorted by percentage of items that are reported 

to have existed at the student’s undergraduate school. Only students who reported the existence of an 

activity were asked about participation. 

Students most often reported attending visiting lectures (82.9%). Student groups, which had been listed 

as the most available, were third in participation at 61.6 percent. Brown bag lunches, which were 

available at only 27% of schools, were attended by more than half (54.7%) of students. Asian students 

were most likely to report the existence of department sponsored brown bag lunches (49.6%), but 

students of all races reported participation in them. 

Lectures by women or minority computer scientists, available at about 3 in ten schools, were attended 

by nearly 7 in ten students. 

On the other hand, groups for women students in computing, engineering or science existed at almost 

eighty percent of schools, with forty percent of students choosing to participate in them. It is worth 

noting that women made up about 45 percent of the final dataset and nearly 77 percent of that number 

took part in these groups, whereas only about 7 percent of men did. The same pattern holds true for 

program participants, where 2/3 of the women and none of the men reported having participated in 

these activities. 

Groups for minority students in those fields, available at sixty percent of the colleges and universities in 

our study, attracted the fewest students (31.6%). Although men were significantly more likely to report 

the existence of groups for minority students (69.3% to 50.3%), women were more likely (41.9% to 

23.4%) to have participated in them. Hispanics were the most likely to report the existence of minority 

student groups (86.8%) but African American students were significantly more likely to participate 

(83.4%) than any other group. 

Although levels of reported existence of computing-related local or student groups did not rise to the 

level of statistically significant difference by race, African American students were significantly more 

likely to participate in local (74.3%) and student groups (88.3%) than their white peers (34.6% and 

57.5%), just as underrepresented minorities were more likely to participate in CRA-W programs than 

white students. African-Americans were also more likely to report participation in honor societies 

(51.2%) than were white students (33.7%). This difference, though notable, was not statistically 

significant. The reader is well advised to remember the increased representation of minority students in 

the sample of CRA program participants when considering these survey results. 



Figure III-3: Computing related support activities - Existence & Participation 

In general, PhD granting schools were significantly more likely to host most of the listed activities than 

the smaller schools. On the other hand, participation was higher at non-PhD granting schools for almost 

all areas, including visiting lectures (87.8%), computing related student groups (76.1%), groups for 

women (48.9%) and minority computing students (70.6%), lectures by women or minority computer 

scientists or engineers (74.4%), local computing-related group (61.7%) and computing related honor 

societies (66.7%). Smaller schools followed the same trend of active participation, although not always 

reaching statistical significance. Students at small schools did report 100% participation in visiting 

lectures, higher than all other groups. 

Outside activities 

Students were asked about participation in computing-related activities outside their university. They 

were allowed to select more than one item from the list. The following figure shows a good distribution 

between the offered items, with just about 1/3 participating in professional conferences and social networking 

and over a quarter (26.6%) in society memberships. Other items were listed by 7.6 percent of 

respondents. 


Figure III-4: Participation in computing related activities outside the university 

Professional 

conferences 

Computingrelated 

social 

networking 

Society 

memberships 

Others 

Mentor relationships 

7.6% 

26.6% 

33.2% 

32.6% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 


The next section describes someone with whom you have an ongoing relationship, who provides advice 

and assistance in advancing your career as a mentor. Students were asked who had acted in that 

capacity for them. They could select more than one choice from the list of possibilities. If they did not 

make a selection, then they had the chance to specify that no one had helped them in that way or they 

could type in another description. 

The effect of faculty involvement is evident in Figure III-5. It shows that the four most frequently cited 

items, totaling over two thirds of students, directly include faculty or a faculty advisor. An academic 

advisor who is a faculty member had the most mentions, over 20 per cent of the total. An adult family 

member or friend (10.0%), fellow students and other professionals made up the rest of the choices. 

Only one student chose to say they say that they had no mentor. About six percent had a mentor that 

they could not characterize in the offered categories. A complete listing of open-ended responses is 

provided in Appendix I: Open Ended Comments. 



Figure III-5: Perceptions of mentor relationships for undergraduate students 

Academic advisor who is a faculty 

member 

Departmental faculty not officially 

assigned to mentor me 

Research advisor 

Former undergraduate instructor 

Adult family member or family friend 

Assigned member of the advising 

staff 

Fellow undergraduate student 

Non-academic computing 

professional 

Graduate student 

Formal mentoring program outside 

the university 

0.4% 

5.2% 

4.1% 


6.7% 

6.0% 

10.0% 

15.9% 

13.8% 

20.3% 

17.5% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

IV. Academic and Work Experience in Research 


This section of the questionnaire focused on research experiences in or outside of the traditional 

classroom, and then any work experience the student may have had that had a research component. 

Participation in academic research 

To start, students were asked to detail experiences in research by saying “yes” or “no” to a list of 

possibilities. They were instructed to include interdisciplinary research that had a computing 

component. Figure IV-1 details the “yes” responses given to each list item. Nearly 60 percent (59.9%) of 

them had taken a course that included computing research. About half (49.7%) had taken an 

independent study that included computing research. Just under half (46.1%) had done computing 

research during the school year but only 29.3 percent had done summer research at their own university 

and 25.1 percent at another. One in nine (11.3%) had had an internship in computing at a government 

or industry lab. 

Figure IV-1: Participation in research experience 

Course that included computing research 

Independent study that included computing 

research 

School-year computing research at my university 

Summer research at my university with a 

computing professor or researcher 

Summer computing research at another 

university 

Computing research internship at a government 

or industry lab 

11.3% 

29.3% 

25.1% 

49.7% 

46.1% 

59.9% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 

If a student answered no to all of the listed avenues of research, they were then asked why they did not 

participate in any hands-on computing research while a college undergraduate. The response from 

these one hundred and seventy-three students detailed in Table IV-1show that the largest percentages 

(21.7% each) represented those who were not interested or who did not have time. Some individuals 

said it had not occurred to them (12.7%) to do research or that opportunities were not available to them 

(10.6%). At 5 percent or less were uninteresting opportunities, the individual was turned down or faculty 



did not do research at that school. Finally, just under 4 percent listed some other reason. Open ended 

responses are printed in their entirety in Appendix I. 

Table IV-1: Reason not to participate in research 

N Percent 

I was not interested in doing research 38 21.7% 

I didn’t have time 38 21.7% 

It never occurred to me to do research 22 12.7% 

I was not aware research opportunities were available 18 10.6% 

My grades were not good enough 14 7.9% 

It didn’t pay well enough (or at all) 13 7.6% 

The research opportunities that were available to me weren’t 

interesting 

9 5.2% 

I applied/asked about doing research but was turned down 8 4.7% 

Faculty didn’t conduct research at the school I attended 7 4.1% 

Other 7 3.9% 

Academic research activities 

Total 173 100.0% 

For this series of items, students could choose to say they had Quite a bit of experience, Some, Almost 

none or None. They might also choose to say they didn’t know. They were instructed to include 

experience gained in a class. Figure IV-2 shows the percentage of students who could say that they had 

quite a bit or some experience in each research activity. Three quarters (75.8%) of students said they 

had collected data or conducted an experiment and over seven in ten has explained results from data 

analysis or experiments (72.4%) and used statistics or other tools to analyze data (71.1%). Nearly that 

many (68.8%) had generated a hypothesis. About half (53.8%) had experience summarizing published 

research data or could report feeling like a member of a research community (47.0 %). 


Figure IV-2 : Research experience 

Collecting data or conducting experiment 

Explaining results from data analysis or 

experiments 

Analyzing data with statistics or other tools 

Generating hypothesis 

Using scientific method to test hypothesis 

Presenting a research or report 

Author/co-author of research paper or report 

Summarizing published research results 

Feeling like a member of a research community 

Publishing a research paper or report 

29.0% 


53.8% 

47.0% 

65.0% 

62.8% 

60.3% 

75.8% 

72.4% 

71.1% 

68.8% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

African-American students were more likely to report experience in every area over students of other 

races. Most notably, African-Americans chose to report experience in publishing a research paper or 

report and that they felt like a member of a research community significantly more often than students 

of any other race. Those who chose to report a race other than White, Black or African American, Asian 

or Hispanic were less likely to feel like a community member than students of any of the listed races. 

A mother’s Ph.D. seemed to make students feel more of a research community member. It is interesting 

those students with a less educated father, with a high school diploma or less, reported experience 

presenting and in publishing a research paper or report. Respondents with a temporary visa were more 

likely to have had experience presenting and in writing or co-authoring a paper than students with 

permanent residency. They also reported feeling a member of a research community significantly more 

often than those with permanent residency or native-born U.S. citizens. 

Students in the traditional age range of 18-25 had more experience summarizing published research 

results and in generating hypotheses. 

Not surprisingly, students with the highest grade point average in their computing major had more 

experience in every area, in most cases by statistically significant margins over students with a GPA in 

the 2.0-2.9 range. 

Effect of research experience 

When considering the effect of this research experience, students could say it was very important, 

somewhat important, only slightly important or not at all important to certain selected decisions. 

Overall, just under 60 percent of students found their research experience in academics to be very or 

somewhat important to their decision whether or not to attend graduate school (59.7%), their 



confidence that they would succeed in their chosen path (59.1%) and in their career choice (59.0%). 

About 45 percent (45.1%) found it important to their choice of graduate school. 

Figure IV-3 : Effect of research experiences 

Decision whether or not to attend 

graduate school 

Confidence that you will succeed 

in your chosen path 

Career Choice 

Choice of graduate school 

45.1% 

59.7% 

59.0% 

59.0% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 


When considering major field of study, students who chose computer information systems were the 

least influenced by any of these research items than any other group. Unmarried students found 

research to be important to their decision to attend graduate school, their choice of school and to their 

confidence in success. 

Recalling again that women made up so many of the program participants in the dataset, it is of note 

here that women were more likely to think any of these items in research had been important to their 

decisions than men. 

Non-U.S. citizens with permanent residency were significantly more likely to report that research had 

been important to their decision to attend graduate school, their choice of career, and to their selfconfidence 

in their success. Those with the highest overall grade point average, 3.5-4.0, found that 

research was important to their choice of graduate school and to their confidence that they will be 

successful in their chosen path. All four items were important to students with the highest grade point 

average in their computing major. 

African-American students gave more importance to research in their decision whether or not to attend 

graduate school and to their choice of school than did white students. 

Comments on research experience 

A question inviting open comments gave respondents the opportunity to describe the influence 

research experience had on their decisions about graduate school. Much of the extensive feedback on 



the effect of research experience on future decision-making was strongly favorable. Many felt that the 

knowledge and familiarity gained gave them the confidence to pursue further studies. 

My research experience has given me confidence about having a successful computing career 

and has encouraged me to go to graduate school. 

Without research, I probably would have gone into industry. My research experience was the 

single most important factor that made me decide to go to graduate school. 

Even many of those who said that they were not considering graduate school credited past research 

experience with giving them the understanding they needed to make a more informed decision about 

their future. 

I still think it was a positive experience, and I am glad that it helped me rule something out that I 

had been considering. 

My research experience showed me that I did not have as much interest in the computing field 

at a graduate level as I originally thought 

Their complete comments are provided separately in Appendix I: Open Ended Comments. 

Non research work experience 

Students were asked if they had ever taken part in full or part-time non-research work that involved 

computing. Non-research work was defined in the survey as any kind of programming, projects, or 

system support that involves computing, but does not attempt to discover new principles. It could 

include developing new products from known principles. Seven of ten students said yes. Those students 

were then asked about that experience more specifically, where they could indicate if the experience 

was very important, somewhat important, only slightly important or not at all important to each of the 

listed items. They could also decline to rate the item or say they did not know. Figure IV-4 shows the 

percentage of respondents who said that their work experience was very or somewhat important to 

each area. 

Over 80 percent said it was important to their career choice (82.9%) and to their confidence that they 

would succeed in their chosen path (81.4%). Over 68 percent (68.3%) reported that it was important in 

their decision whether or not to attend graduate school but only 44 percent (44.2%) found it important 

to their choice of graduate school. 



Figure IV-4: Effect of work experience 

Confidence that you will succeed in 

your chosen path 


Decision about whether or not to 

attend graduate school 

Your career choice 


44.2% 

68.3% 

81.4% 

82.9% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

Older students, that is, those over 26 years old, were significantly more likely to think work experience 

was important to their confidence about having success in their chosen path. Men were more likely to 

think it important to their decision whether or not to attend graduate school. Non-U.S. citizens found 

work to be of significantly more importance in deciding to go to graduate school than did native born 

citizens. Naturalized citizens rated work experience as important when considering their choice of 

school and their confidence in success in their chosen path. 

All four of these items were influential to the decisions of students choosing to major in other noncomputing 

science or engineering fields or other non-computing fields. Married students found work 

experience to be important to decisions about graduate school attendance and career choice. 

African-American students gave more importance to work experience in their decision whether or not to 

attend graduate school and to their choice of school than did white students. 

Academic research and work experience compared 

Since students were asked to judge the importance of the impact of both academic research and work 

that did not involve research using the same list of items, it is interesting to compare the results. 

Although the lists and the rating scales were the same, the question wording differed slightly between 

the two, with the former asking students to think about all research experience, or lack of it, and the 

latter referring solely to all work experience. Figure IV-5 shows the response for each and demonstrates 

the relative importance of academic research and work experience on the listed items. 

Students report that choice of graduate school was the least affected by research (45.1%) or by work 

experience (45.1%) of any of the items. Work experience was a pronounced influence on decisions 

about attending graduate school (68.3%) and career choice (82.9%). Student’s confidence in success was 

favorably impacted by work experience for nearly 83 percent (82.9%). Academic research, though not 

perceived to be as valuable as work experience to many, was rated very or somewhat important by 

nearly 60 percent for all items but career choice. 


Figure IV-5: Compare the effect of academic research and work experience 

Decision whether or not to attend 


Confidence that you will succeed in 


Career Choice 


44.2% 

45.1% 

59.7% 

59.0% 

59.0% 

68.3% 

81.4% 

82.9% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Research Work 




V. Confidence and Knowledge 

Confidence in abilities 

Students could select very confident, moderately confident, only slightly confident or not at all confident 

to indicate their levels of self confidence in listed items. Figure V-1 shows the range of responses for 

each item, in order by very confident ratings. This type of stacked bar graph allows us to examine the full 

range of response. Students reported the most confidence that they would have a successful career in 

computing. This was true whether considering very confident ratings alone or combined with 

moderately confident ratings. The next two items, completion of a graduate degree in computing and 

getting admitted to graduate school in computing, yielded nearly identical ratings to the combination of 

very and moderately confident (83%), but the completion of a graduate degree (54.1%) had somewhat 

more very confident students (compared to 50.2%). Even the item with the lowest ratings had over 

three-quarters of students (76.3%) reporting at least some confidence that they could become a capable 

researcher. 

Figure V-1: Confidence in abilities to be successful in computing 


Perhaps not unexpectedly, students with higher overall grade point averages (GPA) were significantly 

more likely to indicate confidence in their ability to contribute to a research program in computing, to 

get admitted to a graduate school in computing, to complete a graduate degree and to become a 

capable researcher than students with GPA’s under 2.99. Confidence in the ability to have a successful 

career was also higher, although the difference was not statistically significant when grade point 

averages in the student’s major field are considered. Students with the highest GPA’s showed a similar 

difference in confidence, this time including the ability to have a successful career. 



In general, as expected, students who described their major field of study as computer science were 

more confident in their abilities in computing than those who choose fields outside of computing. In 

addition, students were more confident that they could become a capable researcher and have a 

successful career in computing than those who chose science or engineering fields or other fields 

outside of computing. 

Hispanics were more confident that they could have a successful career in computing than other racial 

groups. Hispanics are more prevalent in the participant sample. Breakdown by participant/nonparticipant 

are available in Chapter 7. Neither age nor gender made a difference to reported confidence 

in any of these measures. 

Those who did not report any disability were more confident that they would be admitted to graduate 

school. Students who report living with a partner were significantly more likely to be confident in their 

ability to become a capable researcher than either married or never married students and married 

students were more confident about having a successful career in computing than students who had 

never married. 

Knowledge or expectations about computing 

A series of items was listed to allow students to indicate their perceived levels of knowledge about the 

issues that might arise when considering a career in computing or what to expect in a future career. 

Respondents could choose to say they were very knowledgeable, moderately knowledgeable, only 

slightly knowledgeable or not at all knowledgeable about each item. Percentages shown are the total of 

very and moderately knowledgeable responses. 

Figure V-2: Knowledge or expectations about computing 

What it is like to work as a computer scientist or 

computer engineer 

How computing can address social issues 

What it is like to do computing research 

Criteria for admission to graduate school 

What it is like to be a graduate student in 

computer science or computer engineering 

How to choose the right graduate school for me 

How to get financial support for graduate school 

54.9% 

48.3% 

62.3% 

59.0% 

58.7% 

77.4% 

77.0% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 


If the father was a high school graduate or less, the student was more likely to feel knowledgeable about 

computing research and what it is like to work as a computer scientist or engineer than a student whose 



father had a master’s degree. On the other hand, students’ whose mother had a doctoral degree felt 

more knowledgeable about those issues and also about how computing can address social issues. 

Those who studied computing information systems felt more knowledgeable about how computing can 

address social issues. 

Naturalized U.S. citizens felt more knowledgeable than native-born citizens did when it came to what it 

is like to be a graduate student in either computer science or computer engineering. They were more 

confident of their knowledge of how computing can affect social issues and what it is like to work in 

either computer science or engineering compared to those working on a temporary visa. 

Black students felt more knowledgeable than white students regarding what it is like to do computing 

research, how computing research can affect social issues, the criteria for admission into graduate 

school, how to choose the right graduate school and how to get financial support. 

Female students felt knowledgeable about what it is like to do computing research and male students 

were more likely to feel knowledgeable about working as a computer scientist or computer engineer. An 

oversample of female students who participated in CRA programs is part of the final dataset and must 

be acknowledged in any consideration of the final results. Further details are available in Chapter 7. 


VI. Future Plans 

Relative importance of items to career choice 


When students were asked about the importance of listed items to their future career, a career 

compatible with the personal lifestyle to which I aspire was the number one choice. Students could 

choose very important, moderately important, slightly important or not at all important. Figure VI-1 

shows the list in order by item ranking based on the combined percentage of very and moderately 

important. 

Research (41%), teaching (43%) and working at a prestigious occupation (53%) were ranked the lowest. 

The ability to decide for oneself what to work on was ranked as important by only about six out of ten 

students. Other items were important to about three quarters of respondents. 

Figure VI-1 : Relative importance of items to career choice 

Career compatible with personal lifestyle to which I 

aspire 

To be prepared for a wide variety of career options 

Career creating new technology or application 

Career in which I can exercise considerable 

leadership 

Graduate school 

Career that has social impact 

Career that involves teamwork 

Career that has high earning potential 

Flexible work time 

Decide for myself what I will work on 

Prestigious occupation 

Teach 

Do research 

43.3% 

41.1% 

53.1% 

61.3% 

77.4% 

75.8% 

75.6% 

74.5% 

71.5% 

71.0% 

81.5% 

94.1% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

We asked whether respondents applied to graduate schools during the 2009-2010 school year. Nearly a 

quarter (23.5%) of respondents said they had applied to graduate school in computing. Ten percent 

(10.1%) said that they planned to apply, but two-thirds (66.4%) said that they did not plan to apply to 

graduate school. 



Figure VI-2: Plan to apply to grad school in computing in 2009-10 

Yes 

Not yet, but plan 

to apply 

No 

10.1% 

23.5% 

66.4% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 

Respondents were also asked whether they applied to graduate school in something other than 

computing. Nine percent of respondents said they applied to graduate school in a science, technology, 

engineering, or math field and 7 percent applied to graduate school in another field such as Economics, 

Business, and Law. 

Figure VI-3: Intended field of study at graduate school other than computing 

Yes, in another field 

Yes, in a science, technology, engineering, or 

math field 

Not yet, but plan to apply 

No 

6.7% 

8.9% 

9.2% 

75.2% 

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

Women were significantly more likely to apply to graduate school in non-computing fields (31.6%) than 

men (18.8%). Non-U.S. citizens with permanent residency were significantly more likely to apply to 

graduate school in non-computing (68.2%) than both native born U.S. citizens (21.4%) and naturalized 

U.S. citizens (25.3%). 


Work plans 


Figure VI-4 shows the comparison of respondents who reported that they would work either in 

computing or in another field in the fall of 2010. Respondents could note that they planned either full- 

or part-time work. Over half of respondents (52.2%) said they planned to work in computing fulltime 

and one-fifth (19.7%) said they planned to work part time. Almost 12 percent (11.9%) of respondents 

said they wanted to work fulltime in an area other than computing with another 10 percent preferring 

part-time work. 

Figure VI-4: Work plans for Fall 2010 

Yes, full time 

Yes, part time 

No 

11.9% 

9.9% 

19.7% 

28.0% 

52.2% 

78.2% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

In computing Area other than computing 

Students from smaller schools (39.2%) were significantly less likely than students from larger schools to 

say that they planned to work in computing in the fall. 

Influence on decision to attend grad school 

Figure VI-5: shows how students chose to respond to questioning about what influenced their decision 

to attend or not attend graduate school immediately after their undergraduate education. 

Undergraduate faculty members (60.3%) and research advisors (54.9%) were credited with providing 

encouragement to attend graduate school. The idea of maintaining academic momentum was almost 

equally important (54.4%). 

The figure is ordered by the number of students who reported that the item was either strongly or 

somewhat encouraging. Respondents could also choose to say that the item was strongly or somewhat 

discouraging, or that the item was of no influence to their decision. The appeal of the kind of work, 

academic achievement and the anticipated lifestyle were similarly encouraging, with about half of 

students noting the positive influence. Current academic achievement was less discouraging though, 

with only 13 percent of students noting that their record was affecting their graduate school decision, 

compared to over a quarter of students who were discouraged by the kind of work or the lifestyle. 

Only a few students said that faculty and research advisors were discouraging, while personal financial 

concerns were cited by four in ten students as discouraging to graduate school attendance. Perhaps 



surprisingly, friends were of the least influence, with most students (57.2%) saying friends were, neither 

encouraging nor discouraging about graduate school attendance. 

Figure VI-5: Factors encouraging graduate school attendance 

Undergraduate faculty/advisor 


Keep academic momentum 

Kind of work I want to do 

My academic achievement to date 

Kind of lifestyle I want to do 

Family or personal responsibilities 

My computing research experience 

My computing work experience 

Friends 

General economic environment 

Personal financial concerns 

Reasons for not attending grad school 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Encouraged attending 

No influence 

Discouraged attending 

Those that reported that they would not be attending graduate school in the fall of 2010 were asked 

their reasons for that decision. Respondents were given a list of possibilities; they could click on either 

yes or no for each. Reported percentages do not add up to 100% because a respondent could say yes to 

multiple items. 

As anticipated, financial concerns were the most important reason. Sixty percent (60.6%) of respondents 

said that they preferred to work first to save money for graduate school. Nearly half (47.9%) said that 

they did not consider graduate school because they already had a job, and 45 percent (44.8%) said they 

plan to take some time off before going to graduate school. Just over one third of respondents felt that 

they could not afford graduate school (38.0%) or that they did not need more education for the job they 

wanted (36.2%). Figure VI-6 shows all the items, sorted with the most often selected items first. “I 

haven’t taken the right courses”, “No one has encouraged me to go”, “No one in my family has ever 

attended graduate school”, “My GRE scores are too low” and “I plan to join the Armed Forces” were all 

ranked below ten percent. 


Figure VI-6 : Reasons for not attending graduate school 

I prefer to work first to save money for graduate 

school 

I already have a job 

I plan to take some time off before going to graduate 

school 

I cannot afford to go to graduate school 

I don't need more education for the job I want 

I don't like school 

I need to help support my family 

I plan to get married or start my own family 

I probably can't get admitted to the graduate school I 

want to attend 

I do not feel that going to graduate school is 

important 

My grades are too low 

I cannot afford the necessary tests or pay application 

fees 

Most of my friends will not be going to graduate 

school 

I haven't taken the right courses 

No one has encouraged me to go 

No one in my family has ever attended graduate 

school 

My GRE scores are too low 

I plan to join the Armed Forces 


Men were significantly more likely to say that they did not like school (29.7%), they didn’t need more 

education for the job they wanted (46.0%), they didn’t feel going to graduate school was important 

(21.3%) and that they already had a job (61.1%) Married students definitely felt the pull of family when 

sixty-five percent of them did not apply to graduate school because they needed to support family. 

Married students (51.3%) and those living with a partner (44.4%) were more likely to say they planned 

to marry or start a family. 

Students over the age of 25 were also more likely to feel they were needed to help support the family 

(48.0%). They also reported they could not afford graduate school (68.6%) and their grades were too 

low (33.4%). 

White students were more likely than were Asian students to prefer to work to save money before 

graduate school (64.1%), to plan some time off before graduate school (48.0%) and to plan to get 

Center for Survey Research 37 

5.3% 

2.8% 

10.9% 

9.6% 

8.1% 

7.2% 

17.4% 

16.4% 

16.1% 

14.3% 

12.8% 

22.8% 

19.2% 

38.0% 

36.2% 

47.9% 

44.8% 

60.6% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


married or start a family (23.5%). Hispanics (67.4%) are also more likely than non-Hispanics (36%) to say 

that they did not plan to attend graduate school because they could not afford it. 

Those with the lowest grade point average (2.0-2.99) were more likely to think they could not apply to 

graduate school because their grades were too low (50.2%), they probably couldn’t get admitted where 

they wanted to go (32.9%), they could not afford to take the necessary tests (24.3%) and that no one in 

the family had attended graduate school (17.0%). 

Application to grad school 

Nearly 30 percent of respondents said they plan to attend graduate school in Fall 2010 including those 

who planned to attend full- or part-time (28.6%). 

Figure VI-7 : Do you plan to attend graduate school in Fall 2010? 

Yes, full time 

Yes, part time 

Still waiting to hear about admission 

Have heard about admission, but haven't decided 

yet whether to attend 

No 

3.5% 

0.8% 

1.7% 

25.1% 

69.0% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 

Those with a higher overall GPA (3.5-4.0) were significantly more likely to say they planned to attend 

graduate school in the fall of 2010 (39.6%) than those with a GPA in the range of 3.0-3.49. This was 

echoed by those with a GPA in the highest range in their major field of study, where 38.1 percent were 

likely to plan graduate school in fall 2010. 

Two-thirds (66.4%) of residents on a temporary visa plan to attend graduate school, significantly higher 

than U.S. native or naturalized citizens. Students who selected “other computing major” (e.g., Applied 

Computer Technology, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and Information Technology) as 

their field of study were significantly more likely to plan to attend school in the fall 2010 (69.6%) than 

students in any other major field listed. 

Recommendations to grad school 

Respondents who reported that they planned to go to graduate school in the fall of 2010 were asked 

who wrote their letters of recommendation. Professors in a computing area (31.8%) and undergraduate 

mentors (29.4%) were cited by the most students, followed by professors in non-computing areas 

(15.3%) and professional contacts (13.5%). Six out of ten respondents reported that they did research 

with their references. 


Table VI-1: Who wrote graduate school recommendations 


N Percent 

Professor in computing area 85 31.8% 

Undergraduate mentor 79 29.4% 

Professor in non-computing area 41 15.3% 

Professional contact 36 13.5% 

Other 9 3.3% 

I did not need recommendations 18 6.7% 

Total 269 100.0% 

Women and male URM were more likely than majority men to ask undergraduate mentors or a 

professor in a computing area to write recommendation letters for their graduate school applications. 

Graduate Fellowships 

All students were asked if they applied for a graduate fellowship separate from any offered by their 

intended institution, just 7.4 percent of people said yes. 

Naturalized U.S. citizens were more likely to apply for a graduate fellowship (23.9%) than native born 

U.S. citizens (6.5%). As anticipated, students with a higher overall GPA were more likely to apply for a 

graduate fellowship than those with a lower GPA. 

Among those people that did apply, 44 percent said that they received any of the fellowships. Due to the 

small sample size of fellowship applicants who received the fellowships (n=29), subgroup analysis would 

not produce reliable results. 

Degree plans 

We asked about the highest degree respondents planned to attain. Forty-five percent of respondents 

reported that they anticipated a masters degree and thirty-three percent reported that they would 

pursue a Ph.D. Fewer than 15 percent felt that they would terminate their studies at the bachelor level. 



Figure VI-8 : Highest degree anticipated 

Undergraduate 

Master's 

PhD 

Professional Degree 

Other 

3.3% 

3.6% 

14.7% 

33.3% 

45.2% 

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

Women and URM male(38.2%) were more likely to plan to attain a Ph.D. than majority males (27.1%). 

When considering these demographaphic breakdowns, it is good to recall that women and minority men 

were especially targeted as part of the CRA program participant sample. Also, non-U.S. citizens (71.1%) 

were more likely to pursue a Ph.D. than U.S. citizens (29%). As anticipated, students with a higher 

overall GPA are more likely to pursue a Ph.D. than those with a lower GPA. Also, respondents whose 

father got a Ph.D. or advanced degree were more likely to plan to attain a Ph.D. degree than those 

whose father got a master’s degree or below. 

When considering the possible fields they might pursue for their highest degree, computer science 

(63.6%) was ranked the first, followed by computer engineering/electrical engineering (19.5%), business, 

law or life or health sciences (15.1%), and computer information systems (10.3%). 


Table VI-2: Areas of highest degree intended 

N Percent 

Computer science 252 63.6% 

Computer engineering or electrical engineering 38 19.5% 

Computer information systems or information systems 41 10.3% 

Other computing major 26 6.5% 

Math/applied math 36 9.2% 

Business, law or life or health science 60 15.1% 

Interdisciplinary 29 7.2% 

Other science or engineering non-computing major 22 5.6% 

Other non-computing major 44 11.0% 

Total 546 100.0% 


Respondents who reported planning to attend graduate school in Fall 2010 were asked whether they 

were offered any type of aid. About a quarter of students were offered teaching assistantships (26.2%) 

or research assistantships (24.4%). Another fifteen percent were offered a fellowship and just under 12 

percent did not receive any type of aid. Non-U.S. citizens were more likely to receive research 

assistantships (41.2%) or teaching assistantships (52.5%) than U.S. citizens (RA: 24%; TA: 25.8%). 

However, U.S. citizens were more likely to be offered a fellowship (18.3%) than non-U.S. citizens 

(10.3%). 

Table VI-3: Type of aid offered 

N Percent 

Teaching assistantship 38 26.2% 

Research assistantship 36 24.4% 

Fellowship 22 15.4% 

Other 17 11.7% 

None 32 22.2% 

Total 146 100.0% 



VII. Effects of Program Participation 

One of the important outcomes of this survey is the ability to assess the extent to which participation in 

Computing Research Association (CRA-W) programs had positive outcomes on students’ desire to attend 

graduate school in computing and associated future plans when compared to non-participation. The 

main, long-term programs that CRA-W hopes to evaluate with this survey are Distributed Research 

Experiences for Undergraduates (DREU) (formerly Distributed Mentoring Project, or DMP) and 

Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates (CREU). All schools asked to participate in the 

study had been the home institution of at least one CREU/DREU participant, but all students in the 

target department were eligible to respond to the survey. All respondents were asked to identify any 

CRA-W programs they had ever participated in based on a supplied list of programs. Although the 

sample supplied by CRA denoted program participation, analysis was based on self-report. The sample 

was post-weighted to adjust for the size of the school and for program participation. Table VII-1 shows 

the distribution of responses. Students who report participation in a CRA-W sponsored program or 

event made up 30.1 percent of the final sample. 

Table VII-1 shows that each of the two programs attracted over 26 percent of the total respondents. The 

number of times a program was selected is shown; participants could select more than one. Further 

analysis in this chapter is based on the 95 respondents who took part in the CREU/DREU programs. 

Table VII-1: Participation in CRA-W/CDC BPC and other diversity programs 

CRA-W Programs N Percent 

Distributed Research Experiences for Undergraduates (DREU) or 

Distributed Mentoring Project (DMP) 50 27.50% 

Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates (CREU) 49 26.90% 

Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing 29 15.90% 

Distinguished Lecture Series (DLS) 18 9.90% 

Multidisciplinary Research Opportunities for Women (MRO-W) 9 4.90% 

STARS Alliance 7 3.80% 

Richard Tapia Conference 5 2.70% 

Alliance for the Advancement of African American Researchers in 

Computing (A4RC) 4 2.20% 

Empowering Leadership (EL Alliance) 2 1.10% 

AccessComputing 1 0.50% 

Computing Alliance of Hispanic Serving Institutions (CAHSI) 1 0.50% 

Other 7 3.80% 


182

Demographic Differences between Participants and Non-participants 


A single variable was created to indicate whether a respondent was a participant in a CREU/DREU/DMP 

program or not. Each demographic variable was tested to determine whether there is a statistically 

significant between participants and non-participants for that category of respondent. It is important to 

a comprehensive understanding of this data to remember that program participants, that is, women and 

minorities, make up a significant part of this dataset. This section details the relevant demographic 

variables, with an emphasis on variables that show a difference in incidence between participants and 

non-participants. 

First, men made up over three quarters (77.9%) of the sample of respondents who had not participated 

in CRA-W programs, but when the sample is divided female participants significantly outnumbered male 

participants, accounting for 87.4 percent of respondents compared to 12.6% of the program participants 

who are men. 

Figure VII-1: Gender of participants and non-participants 

Male 

Female 

12.6% 

22.1% 

77.9% 

87.4% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Non-participants Participants 

Non-U.S. citizen participants outnumbered non-U.S. citizen non-participants. For example, there were 

12 percent of participants who were non-U.S citizen participants with a temporary visa, compared to 

only 5 percent of non-participants. 



Figure VII-2: Residency of participants and non-participants 

Native born 

U.S citizen 

Naturalized 

U.S citizen 

Permanent 

residency 

Temporary 

visa 

2.0% 

9.5% 

4.3% 

5.1% 

12.0% 

12.0% 

71.7% 

83.4% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Participants Non-participants 

Program participants were more likely to major in other science /engineering non-computing major than 

non-participants. Also, non-participants were more likely to major in computer engineering or electrical 

engineering. 

Figure VII-3: Major areas of study for participants and non-participants 


Computer 

Engineer/Electrical 

and Computing 

Computer 

Information Systems 


major 

Other 

science/engineering 

non-computing 


major 

3.3% 

2.1% 

8.4% 

5.7% 

7.4% 

6.3% 

9.7% 

15.8% 

13.7% 

21.0% 

54.0% 

52.6% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 


Also, program participants were more likely to have a better overall GPA than non-participants. For 

example, 20.9 percent of students who have the lowest overall GPA (2 to 2.99), just 9 percent of 



participants fell into that group. Well over half (56.7%) of participants were in the high GPA group 

compared to just under 45 percent of non-participants. 

Figure VII-4: Overall GPA for participants and non-participants 

3.5 - 4.0 

3.0 - 3.49 

2 - 2.99 

Lastly, regarding the institution characteristics, more participants come from non-PhD granting schools 

(46.1%) and small schools (11.2%) than non-participants. This reflects the targeted design of the CREU 

and DREU programs. 

Figure VII-5: Undergrad institutions for participants and non-participants 

PhD 

granting-top 

36 

PhD 

grantingother 

Non-PhD 

granting 

Small 

schools 

8.9% 

5.4% 

20.9% 

15.7% 

11.4% 

11.2% 

34.2% 

34.4% 

27.0% 

44.9% 

38.8% 

56.7% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 


44.5% 

46.1% 

0% 25% 50% 75% 




Likelihood of postgraduate action 

A mean response was calculated for variables that had a scale of responses, allowing each question to 

have a total response that could be compared to similar items. The advantage of a mean response is 

that it takes the full range of response into account in the final figure. The survey started with a series of 

items that asked the respondent to rate the likelihood that they would do the named action. In this 

case, respondents could choose to say very likely (4), somewhat likely (3), somewhat unlikely (2) or very 

unlikely (1). Although this is not a strictly linear scale, it will serve in this case to allow us to calculate a 

mean response for each item that could then be used for comparisons. Statistically significant results 

were revealed in several areas of particular interest to CRA-W. 

Students who had participated in CRA-W programs were significantly more likely to plan to attend 

graduate school immediately after graduation (2.51 vs. 2.18). CRA-W participants were also significantly 

more likely to study computing in graduate school (3.27 vs 2.74) and to anticipate earning a PhD in 

computing (2.5 vs. 1.93). 

Figure VII-6: Likelihood of future action 

Successfully complete a graduate program 

Study computing in graduate school 

Attend graduate school after working for a 

while 

Get a job in research that involves computing 

Get a job in computing, not in research 

Earn a Masters in computing 

Attend graduate school immediately after 

undergraduate degree 

Earn a PhD in computing 

Study a non-computing subject in graduate 

school 

2.14 

2.36 


1.93 

2.41 

2.63 

2.7 

2.51 

2.18 

2.5 

2.74 

3.07 

2.69 

2.97 

2.91 

3.23 

3.54 

3.34 

3.27 

1 2 3 4 

Participant NonParticipants 

In addition, bar charts were used in this section to emphasize the percentage of responses that fall into 

the different response categories for each question. Over 40 percent of program participants reported 

that it was very likely that they would attend graduate school immediately, and a majority said that it 

was either very likely or somewhat likely. Only 29.6 percent of non-participants reported that it was


very likely that they would attend graduate school immediately, with 37.6 percent reporting that it was 

either very likely or somewhat likely. CRA-W participants were also significantly more likely to study 

computing in graduate school, with 57.4 percent of participants reporting that it was very likely that 

they would do so as opposed to only one-third of non-participants. Almost a quarter of participants 

went on to anticipate earning a PhD in computing compared to only 11.8 percent of non-participants. 

This type of bar graph does allow us to see details such as for the item “likelihood that students would 

attend graduate school immediately after undergraduate school”. This item was most often chosen by 

both participants and non-participants as the one that was very unlikely to happen for them. Nonparticipants 

were more likely to say that they would study a non-computing subject in graduate school 

(26.5%) as opposed to only 9.8 percent of participants who felt this way. These findings suggest that the 

CRA-W programs were effective in encouraging their participants to pursue future scholarship and 

careers in computing, but may find that programs that help students bridge from undergraduate to 

graduate studies would increase the likelihood of continued studies. 

Figure VII-7: Likelihood of future action: Participants 

Likelihood to successfully complete a graduate 

program 

Likelihood to study computing in graduate school 

Likelihood to earn a Masters degree in computing 

Likelihood to attend graduate school immediately 

Likelihood to get a job in research that involves 

computing 

Likelihood to get a job in computing, not in research 

Likelihood to attend graduate school after working 

for a while 

Likelihood to earn a PhD in computing 

Likelihood to study a non-computing subject in 


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely 



Figure VII-8: Likelihood of future action: Non-participants 

Likelihood to successfully complete a graduate 

program 

Likelihood to get a job in computing, not in research 

Likelihood to study computing in graduate school 

Likelihood to earn a Masters degree in computing 

Likelihood to attend graduate school immediately 

Likelihood to attend graduate school after working 

for a while 

Likelihood to study a non-computing subject in 


Likelihood to get a job in research that involves 

computing 

Likelihood to earn a PhD in computing 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely 

Undergraduate Experiences - Research 

All students were asked about their experiences in different aspects of research by indicating their level 

as quite a bit (4), some (3), almost none (2) or none (1) for a list of possible experiences. Mean values 

were calculated based on this 4 point scale for each item. Students who participated in the CRA-W 

programs were significantly more likely to have participated in almost every area explored. Feeling like a 

member of the research community (2.85 vs. 2.18; with over two-thirds of participants reporting at least 

some experience feeling this way compared to 39.9% of non-participants) and summarizing published 

research results (2.28 vs. 1.78; with over 80 percent of participants reporting at least some experience 

doing so compared to 45 percent of non-participants) were particularly noteworthy. Writing or coauthoring 

a research paper or report (3.04 vs 2.45 with over 80 percent of participants reporting at least 

some experience compared to 54.0 percent of non-participants) and presenting a research paper or 

report (2.97 vs 2.54 with three-quarters of participants reporting some experience compared to 58.6 

percent of non-participants) were also particularly significant. 

For both participants and non-participants, the practice that the fewest respondents reported 

experience with was publishing a research paper or report. Nevertheless, the effects of the CRA-W 

programs can still be felt in this area; 41.5 percent of participants had at least some experience 

publishing their work while only 25.3 percent of non-participants had similar levels of experience. 


Figure VII-9: Undergraduate research experience 

Collecting data or conducting experiments 

Writing or co-authoring a research paper 

or report 


Explaining results from data analysis or 

experiments 

Presenting a research paper or report 

Using scientific methods to test a 

hypothesis 

Generating hypotheses 

Feeling like a member of a research 

community 





1.78 

2.26 

2.14 

2.28 

2.45 

2.54 

2.56 

3.17 

2.82 

3 

2.99 

2.81 

2.97 

2.96 

2.94 

2.63 

2.85 

2.83 

2.77 

3.04 

1 2 3 4 

Non Participants Participants 

Looking at the results for each item by response frequency, it is evident that non-participants were 

much more likely to say they had no research experience in any of the listed areas. Both figures, 

showing participants and non-participants, are ordered by item showing the most positive response. For 

participants, the highest is collecting data or conducting experiments, followed by writing or coauthoring 

a paper. The first item for non-participants is collecting data or conducting experiments, with 

explaining results second.


Figure VII-10: Undergraduate research experience: Participants 


Writing or co-authoring a research paper or report 



Explaining results from data analysis or … 


Using scientific methods to test a hypothesis 




Figure VII-11: Undergraduate research experience: Non-participants 

Explaining results from data analysis or experiments 




Writing or co-authoring a research paper or report 

Using scientific methods to test a hypothesis 





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Quite a Bit Some Almost None None 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Quite a Bit Some Almost None None 

As shown in Figure VII-13 research experience can positively influence decisions about attending 

graduate school, about what and where to study and to the students’ confidence that they will succeed. 

The following figures gauge the importance that respondents felt their research experience (or lack 



thereof) had on their plans and attitudes. Mean values for each item were based on a scale of 1-4, 

where (1) not at all important, (2) only slightly important, (3) somewhat important and (4) very 

important. Even though this is not a strictly linear scale, a single mean value for each item allows for 

easy comparison of items that includes all levels of response. For each of the four measures, participants 

were more likely than non-participants to indicate that their research experience had been very 

important in formulating their plans and goals. 

Figure VII-12: Influence of research experience 

Your decision about whether or not to 


Your confidence that you will succeed 



Your choice of graduate school 


2.2 

2.5 

2.5 

2.6 

3.07 

2.91 

3.33 

3.3 

1 2 3 4 

Participants Non Participants 

When seen as a bar graph, it is evident that participants value their research experiences and find them 

influential when making decisions. Among participants, research experience had the greatest influence 

on their decision about whether to attend graduate school, with 61.7 percent of participants saying that 

their level of research experience was very important in this capacity. Only 29.7 percent of nonparticipants 

said that their level of research experience was very important in this regard. 

Hovering just under 30 percent, career choice is joined by the decision whether to attend graduate 

school and confidence in success for non-participants. For this group of items it is equally telling to note 

that for many non-participants, any research experience was unlikely to have an influence on future 

decisions. 

Choice of Graduate school was ranked as the least likely to be influenced by prior research experience, 

although more than 4 of ten participants still said it very likely influenced them. Only about 20 percent 

of non-participants felt the same.


Figure VII-13: Influence of research experience: Participants 

Decision about whether or not to attend 


Confidence that you will succeed in your 

chosen path 

Career choice 


Figure VII-14: Influence of research experience: Non-participants 

Undergraduate Experiences – Faculty Support 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Very Important Somewhat Important Only Slightly Important Not At All Important 

Career choice 

Decision about whether or not to attend 


Confidence that you will succeed in your 

chosen path 


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Very Important Somewhat Important Only Slightly Important Not At All Important 

The experience of faculty support is an important factor to consider in retention of women in computer 

science. All students were asked to indicate whether or not faculty supported them by choosing from a 

list of possible types of support. As shown in Figure VII-15: Faculty support, participants follow the same 

curve as non-participants in ranking the importance of the offered items although they are in general 

more favorable. Students who participated in CRA-W programs were significantly more likely to indicate 

that faculty gave them useful advice about research (90.8% vs. 83.5%), encouraged them to publish 

(69.2% vs. 49.7%), encouraged them to attend professional conferences (80.5% vs. 67.5%), and helped 

them make professional contacts (71.1% vs. 52.2%). 

Non-participants were more likely to feel that faculty favored certain groups of students over others 

(35.2% vs. 28.3%) and that faculty had expectations of students that were too high (29.2% vs. 21.4%). 

On the other hand, participants were more likely to perceive that faculty undermined their confidence 

in their abilities. 


Figure VII-15: Faculty support 

Faculty is available to me for one-on-one advising 

Faculty helps me progress toward my degree 

Faculty gives me useful advice about my research 

Someone other than my advisor takes an interest in 

my progress toward my degree 

Faculty encourages me to collaborate on research 

with my fellow students 

Faculty encourages me to attend professional 

conferences 

Faculty helps me make professional contacts 

Faculty encourages me to publish research 

Faculty favors certain groups of students over others 

Faculty has expectations of undergraduate students 

that are too high 

Faculty undermines my confidence in my abilities 

Confidence in abilities 

Faculty cares about me as a person 

Faculty gives me useful career advice 

10.8% 

8.8% 

28.3% 

35.2% 

21.4% 

29.2% 


52.2% 

49.7% 

90.8% 

83.5% 

89.7% 

83.4% 

82.2% 

74.5% 

80.6% 

75.6% 

80.5% 

67.5% 

71.1% 

69.2% 

98.8% 

96.7% 

97.6% 

94.5% 

93.4% 

89.1% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

NonParticipants Participant 

Students were asked “How confident are you that, if you choose, you can successfully….” and then were 

presented with a list of items to consider. They then selected the option that most closely described 

their confidence in their own success in each listed task. A mean value was calculated based on that 

scale of 1-4, where (1) meant not at all confident, (2) only slightly confident, (3) somewhat confident and 

(4) very confident in their success in that particular task. A mean value takes into its calculation all 

possible values for that item and it allows for comparison between items. It is a more comprehensive 

descriptor of response than comparing just positive response. 

Participants had more confidence in their ability to get admitted to graduate school (3.47 vs. 3.20) than 

other respondents. They were also more confident in their ability to contribute to a research project in 

computing (3.44 vs. 3.16) 

There was little difference between groups when asked how confident they feel about having a 

successful career in computing. Other items, though more highly rated, did not rise to the level of 

statistical significance. 



As Figure F-16 shows, the general trend across all categories for participants in the CREU/DREU/EMP 

programs is that they are confident in their future abilities either in computing, research or graduate 

school. 

Figure VII-16: Confidence in future abilities 

Have a successful career in computing 

Get admitted to graduate school in computing 

Complete a graduate degree in computing 

Contribute to a research project in computing 

Become a capable researcher in computing 


3.2 

3.16 

3.05 

3.27 

3.27 

3.47 

3.51 

3.47 

3.45 

3.44 

1 2 3 4 

Participants Non Participants 

The next two figures show an alternate way of considering response. These figures show the range of 

response from very confident to not at all confident for each item. The first figure, Figure VII-17, shows 

response just from CRA-W program participants, ordered to show the item with the highest percentage 

of reported confidence, the ability to complete a graduate degree (63.8 percent). That is followed 

closely by getting admitted to graduate school (62.8 percent) or have a successful career in computing 

(61.9 percent.) The percentage of program participants responding that they were very confident in 

their ability either to contribute to a research project in computing or to become a capable researcher is 

still quite high, but slightly lower than their confidence in getting in and completing a graduate degree, 

58.9 percent and 48.2 percent, respectively. 

Other levels of confidence do not display the same trend. Fully one in five respondents is moderately 

confident of their ability to complete a graduate degree (21.3 percent). A quarter of respondents report 

the same moderate confidence in their ability either to get admitted to graduate school (24.5 percent) 

or have a successful career in computing (26.3 percent). Nearly thirty percent (29.5 percent) of 

respondents are moderately confident in their ability to contribute to a research project, and fully one 

third of respondents are moderately confident in their ability to become capable researchers (33.7 

percent). 

Percentages for “slight confidence” and “not at all confident” are still lower than the values for 

moderate confidence, underlining the general trend in high confidence among participants in the 

programs. Percentages for “slight confidence” are consistently lower than 15 percent; the highest being 

“ability to become a capable researcher,” (14.7 percent) and the lowest being “ability to contribute to a


research project,” (8.4 percent). Percentages for “not at all confident” are consistently less than three 

point two percent. 

Figure VII-17: Confidence in future abilities: Participants 






0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Very Confident Moderately Confident Only Slightly Confident Not At All Confident 

As shown in Figure VII-18 below, respondents who were not participants in the programs display similar 

percentages of confidence as program participants across both levels of confidence and areas of 

confidence. Fully two-thirds (64.8 percent) of nonparticipant respondents reported high confidence in 

their ability to have a successful career in computing, while over half (51.1 percent) reported similar 

confidence in their ability to complete a graduate career in the field. Over four in ten respondents 

reported confidence in their ability either to get admitted to graduate school (46.4 percent) or to 

contribute to a research project in computing (45.8 percent). Confidence in ability to become a capable 

researcher in computing obtained the lowest percent confidence, at 36.8 percent. 

Percentages of moderate confidence were slightly higher for non-participants than they were for 

participants. All but one area (ability to have a successful career in computing, 25.4 percent) obtained 

values at or above thirty percent of respondents, the highest being confidence in ability to become a 

capable researcher in computing, at 37.8 percent. 

Similarly, non-participants reported higher levels of “slight confidence” and “not at all confident” than 

did the participants. Summed together, these values underline the overall tendency for non-participants 

to be less confident than program participants are. For instance, fully one-quarter of respondents report 

slight or no confidence in their ability to become a successful researcher (25.4 percent), while 21.8 

percent of respondents report similarly low levels of confidence in their ability to contribute to a 

research project in the field. Roughly the same percentage of respondents report slight or no confidence 

in their abilities to be admitted to graduate school (18.3 percent) or complete a graduate degree in 

computing (17.5 percent). 



Figure VII-18: Confidence in future abilities: Non-participants 






Knowledge or expectations about computing 

Participants were clearly confident in their knowledge of what it would be like to be a graduate student 

(3.01 vs. 2.52), what it would be like to do computing research (3.21 vs. 2.58) and how computing can 

address social issues (3.19 vs. 2.92). This scale was based on responses including (1) not at all 

knowledgeable, (2) only slightly knowledgeable, (3) somewhat knowledgeable and (4) very 

knowledgeable. 

Figure VII-19: Knowledge or expectations about computing 



What it is like to work as a computer scientist 

or computer engineer 

What it is like to be a graduate student in 

computer science or computer engineering 

Criteria for admission to graduate programs 

How to choose the right graduate school for 

me 

How to get financial support for graduate 

school 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Very Confident Moderately Confident Only Slightly Confident Not At All Confident 

2.69 

2.54 

2.53 

2.42 

2.97 

2.7 


2.58 

2.52 

3.19 

2.92 

3.18 

3.1 

3.01 

3.21 

1 2 3 4 

Participants Non Participants


When asked how knowledgeable they felt about various issues related to computing and professions in 

computing, respondents who were participants in the programs on average reported moderate levels of 

knowledge. Specifically, when asked how knowledgeable they felt regarding what it is like to work as a 

computer scientist or engineer, 36.8 percent reported high knowledge, while 46.3 percent reported 

moderate knowledge and a combined 16.8 percent of participants reported either slight or no 

knowledge of what computing careers are like. 

When asked a similar question on their knowledge of criteria for admission into graduate programs, 35.8 

percent of participants reported high knowledge of the criteria, while 28.4 percent reported moderate 

knowledge and a combined 35.8 percent reported slight or no knowledge of graduate admissions 

criteria. When asked about their knowledge of what it is like to do computing research, 35.4 percent of 

participants reported high knowledge, while 28.4 percent reported moderate knowledge and a 

combined 12.5 percent reported either little or no knowledge. Similar results were obtained when 

participants were asked their knowledge of how computing can address social issues. Thirty-three point 

seven percent of participants report high knowledge, while fully half of participants reported moderate 

knowledge (52.1 percent) and a combined 12.5 percent of participants reported little to no knowledge 

of how computing can address social issues. 

When asked how knowledgeable they felt about how to choose the right graduate program, participants 

were roughly equally knowledgeable across all levels of knowledge. Twenty eight point four percent of 

participants reported high knowledge, the same percentage (28.4 percent) reported moderate 

knowledge, 27.4 percent reported slight knowledge and 15.8 percent reported no knowledge of how to 

choose the right graduate school. Similar results were obtained when participants were asked how 

knowledgeable they felt about what it is like to be a graduate student in computer science or 

engineering. Nearly one-quarter of participants (24.5 percent) reported high knowledge, over one-half 

of participants (54.3 percent) reported moderate knowledge and a combined 21.2 percent reported 

either slight or no knowledge of what it is like to be a graduate student in computer science. 

Participants reported less knowledge when asked how to get financial support for graduate school. Just 

over one in five participants (21.1 percent) reported high knowledge, 28.4 percent reported moderate 

knowledge, over one-third (33.7 percent) report slight knowledge and 16.8 report no knowledge of how 

to get financial support for graduate school. 



Figure VII-20: Knowledge or expectations about computing: Participants 







What it is like to be a graduate student in computer 

science or computer engineering 


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Very Knowledgeable Moderately Knowledgeable 

Only Slightly Knowledgeable Not At All Knowledgeable 

Compared to program participants, non-participants reported lower knowledge overall when asked how 

knowledgeable they felt about various issues related to computing and professions in computing. 

Specifically, when asked how knowledgeable they felt regarding what it is like to work as a computer 

scientist or engineer, 40.0 percent reported high knowledge, while 35.7 percent reported moderate 

knowledge, 18.4 percent of non-participants reported slight knowledge and 5.9 percent reported no 

knowledge of what computing careers are like. 

When asked a similar question on their knowledge of criteria for admission into graduate programs, 26.1 

percent of non-participants reported high knowledge of the criteria, while 31.3 percent reported 

moderate knowledge, 28.7 percent reported slight knowledge and 14.0 reported no knowledge of 

graduate admissions criteria. 

When asked about their knowledge of what it is like to do computing research, 17.3 percent of nonparticipants 

reported high knowledge, while 37.3 percent reported moderate knowledge, 32.4 percent 

reported slight knowledge and 13.1 reported no knowledge of what it is like to do research in 

computing. Similar results were obtained when non-participants were asked their knowledge of how 

computing can address social issues. Twenty-seven point one percent of non-participants report high 

knowledge, while 46.7 percent reported moderate knowledge, 17.3 percent of non-participants 

reported little knowledge and 8.8 percent reported no knowledge of how computing can address social 

issues. 



When asked how knowledgeable they felt about how to choose the right graduate program, 17.6 

percent of non-participants reported high knowledge, 36.8 percent reported moderate knowledge, 27.7 

percent reported slight knowledge and 17.9 percent reported no knowledge of how to choose the right 

graduate school. Similar results were obtained when non-respondents were asked how knowledgeable 

they felt about what it is like to be a graduate student in computer science or engineering. Seventeen 

point six percent of non-participants reported high knowledge, 35.2 percent of non-participants 

reported moderate knowledge, 29.0 percent reported slight knowledge, and 18.2 percent reported no 

knowledge of what it is like to be a graduate student in computer science. 

Similar to the results for participants in the programs, non-participant respondents reported less 

knowledge when asked how to get financial support for graduate school. Sixteen percent report high 

knowledge, 32.0 percent reported moderate knowledge, 30.4 percent reported slight knowledge, and 

21.6 report no knowledge of how to get financial support for graduate school. 

Figure VII-21: Knowledge or expectations about computing: Non-participants 






What it is like to be a graduate student in computer 




0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Very Knowledgeable Moderately Knowledgeable 

Only Slightly Knowledgeable Not At All Knowledgeable 

When asked what influenced their decision to go to graduate school immediately after completing 

undergraduate work, respondents could choose to say strongly encourage attending (5), somewhat 

encourage attending (4), no influence (3), somewhat discourage attending (2) or strongly discourage 

attending (1). 

This bar chart, though similar to Figure VI-5, shows the detailed response of program participants. As 

previously noted, half of students judged friends to be of no influence when they were making decisions 

about graduate school, but it also shows that friends were not strongly discouraging either. Nearly half 

of those responding said their research advisor had been strongly encouraging, with 8 of 10 saying their 

advisor had been at least somewhat encouraging to them. Figure VII-23 below shows the same question 

detailing the responses of non-participants. Although they also gave the most positive rating to their 



research advisor, not quite 30 percent said the advisor had been strongly encouraging. Keeping 

academic momentum (43%) was second for participants, where non-participants were more likely to 

cite the kind of work they wanted to do (28%). Of the thirteen items, seven of them were more highly 

rated by participants than the non-participants highest rated item. 

Computing research experience was of no influence to over half (52%) of non-participants but only to 

12 percent of participants. 

It is worth noting that at 15-17 percent, personal financial concerns and immediate employment 

opportunities were the most strongly discouraging to students in both groups considering attending 



Figure VII-22: Factors encouraging graduate school attendance: Participants 







Kind of lifestyle I want 




Friends 


Immediate employment opportunities 

Figure VII-23: Factors encouraging graduate school attendance: Non-participants 


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Strongly Encouraged Attending Somewhat Encouraged Attending No Influence 

Somewhat Discouraged Attending Strongly Discouraged Attending 










Friends 




0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 





Highest Degree 

When asked their likelihood to earn advanced degrees in computing, CRA-W program participants were 

significantly more likely to indicate completing a PhD (49.6%), while non-participants were more likely to 

think they would terminate their studies at a Master’s degree (45.2%). 

Figure VII-24: Highest degree anticipated 

Professional (MD, 

JD) 

PhD 

Masters 

Undergraduate 

Other 

2.6% 

3.3% 

1.9% 

3.6% 

8.4% 

14.7% 

33.3% 

37.6% 

45.2% 

49.6% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 

NonParticipants Participants 

Figure VII-25 and Figure VII-26 below detail responses from program participants and non-participants 

on the question of factors that might influence a student’s decision to go to graduate school 

immediately after their undergraduate work. 

Participants in CRA-W programs were more likely than non-participants to report that their research 

advisor strongly encouraged that they attend graduate school immediately after completing their 

undergraduate education (49.4% vs 28.1%). A much higher percentage of participants than nonparticipants 

reported receiving no influence from a research advisor (53.9% vs 19.5%), suggesting that 

participants were more likely than non-participants to have research advisors in the first place. Data on 

the influence of computing research experience tells a similar story – participants are more likely than 

non-participants to report that such experience strongly encouraged them to attend graduate school 

immediately (41.8% vs 14.1%), while non-participants are more likely than participants to report 

receiving no influence from computing research experience (52.3% vs 12.1%), suggesting that many nonparticipants 

lacked experience with computing research. 



Roughly similar percentages of participants (39.4%) and non-participants (40.7%) reported that personal 

financial concerns either somewhat or strongly discouraged them from attending graduate school 

immediately, suggesting that the CRA-W programs are limited in their ability to overcome the obstacles 

that personal financial considerations can present to the pursuit of graduate degrees. Roughly one half 

of respondents said that friends were not influential in their decision. 

A significantly larger percentage of participants (43.0%) than non-participants (24.0%) indicated that a 

desire to keep up their academic momentum strongly encouraged them to attend graduate school 

immediately after the completion of their undergraduate work. Participants were also more likely than 

non-participants to report that their academic achievement to date provided strong encouragement to 

go to graduate school immediately (36.8% vs 22.6%). 

Figure VII-25: Influencing graduate school attendance: Participants 











Friends 



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 





Figure VII-26: Influencing graduate school attendance: Non-participants 










Friends 




Importance of Influences on Future Career 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 



Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which certain characteristics of a potential career 

were important to them. They were given a list of items and asked if each item was very important, 

moderately important, slightly important or not at all important. For both participants and nonparticipants 

in CRA-W programs, the characteristic that was rated as very important most frequently 

was that their future career be compatible with the personal lifestyle to which they aspired. 

Participants and non-participants were also alike in that teaching was described as very important by 

the fewest respondents in each group. 

Despite these similarities, significant differences also existed between participants and non-participants 

regarding the importance they attached to characteristics of future careers. Only 30.1 percent of 

participants reported that having a career with high earnings potential was very important to them; 40.2 

percent of non-participants reported that having a career with high earnings potential was important to 

them. This suggests that CRA-W programs may expose their participants to compelling non-monetary 

rewards that careers in computing can offer. Additional support for this idea comes from the gap in 

attitudes regarding the importance of a career with social impact; 60.6 percent of participants reported 

that this was very important to them compared to only 44.0 percent of non-participants. 

Participation in CRA-W programs is also associated with greater enthusiasm for research as a part of 

one’s future career. Nearly thirty percent (27.7%) of participants report that doing research is very 

important for their future career and over half report that it is either very or moderately important. 

Among non-participants, meanwhile, only 14.5 percent call research very important and 37.2 percent 

say that it is either very or moderately important. 



Another intriguing effect of participation in CRA-W programs involves how respondents hope to relate 

to others at their jobs. A higher percentage of non-participants (39.8%) than participants (28.4%) report 

that it is very important that they hold a career in which they can exercise considerable leadership. 

Almost three quarters (73.9%) of non-participants say that exercising leadership is either very or 

moderately important to them; while the corresponding figure for participants is only 63.1 percent. One 

might expect that the lesser importance participants place on leadership would produce a greater 

concern for teamwork, but this is not the case. Over a third (35.1%) of participants say that having a 

career involving teamwork is very important to them and 73.4 percent say that it is either very or 

moderately important; the respective figures for non-participants are 41.1 percent and 76.6 percent. 

Figure VII-27: Importance to future career: Participants 

A career that is compatible with the personal … 

A career that has social impact 

A career creating new technology or applications 


To have flexible work time 

A career that involves teamwork 

To decide for myself what I will work on 

A career that has high earnings potential 

To work in a particular geographic location 

A career in which I can exercise considerable … 

To do research 

A prestigious occupation 

To teach 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Very Important Moderately Important Slightly Important Not At All Important 



Figure VII-28: Importance to future career: Non-participants 

A career that is compatible with the personal … 

A career creating new technology or applications 

A career that has social impact 

A career that involves teamwork 

A career that has high earnings potential 

A career in which I can exercise considerable … 


To have flexible work time 

To decide for myself what I will work on 

A prestigious occupation 

To work in a particular geographic location 

To do research 

To teach 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Very Important Moderately Important Slightly Important Not At All Important 


University of Virginia 

Appendix A: 

Questionnaire 

COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION


Center for Sur vey Research

Computing Senior Questionnaire 

UVA Center for Survey Research 

Congratulations on completing your undergraduate degree! 

1 

Computing Senior Survey Questionnaire 

The Computing Research Association, a leader in computing research, is working with the 

Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia to find out more about the 

undergraduate experiences and post-graduation plans of computing graduates around the 

country. No matter what your plans are, even if you’re not sure yet, we would like to hear 

from you! 

The questionnaire is easy, fast, and confidential. It should only take you 10 to15 minutes to 

complete. Your personal information will not be given to any outside party, and will only be 

used to contact you about this survey. All data will be stripped of any personal identifiers 

and presented only in summary form. 

At the end of the questionnaire, you may choose to receive a $10 gift card from either 

Target or Barnes and Noble as a thank you for completing the survey. 

For more information about the Computing Research Association, see their website at 

cra.org or contact Betsy Bizot at bizot@cra.org about the study. If you have any questions 

about this questionnaire, you can contact the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at 1-800- 

CSR-POLL or email us at surveys@virginia.edu. 

Your participation in this study will have no effect on admission applications to any academic 

programs at the University of Virginia or any other institution. 

By submitting this questionnaire, you are agreeing to participate in this research study. You 

do not need to answer every question, and if you would like to quit, you can stop at any 

time. We do appreciate your time and energy in filling out this questionnaire; we hope the 

results of the study will contribute to improvements in the availability of resources for 

students in colleges and universities across the country. 

For the purposes of this survey, please think about computing as computer science, 

computer engineering, information systems, information technology and related areas. 

This first section has to do with your undergraduate experience. 

A1. After your graduation, how unlikely or likely are you to ... 

Very 

unlikely 

Somewhat 

unlikely 

Somewhat 

likely 

Very 

likely 

{LIKELY} 

a. Study computing in graduate school 1 2 3 4 9 

b. Study a non-computing subject in 


1 2 3 4 9 

c. Attend graduate school immediately after 

finishing your undergraduate degree 

1 2 3 4 9 

d. Attend graduate school after working for 

a while 

1 2 3 4 9 

Don't 

Know

2 


e. Successfully complete a graduate 

program 

1 2 3 4 9 

f. Earn a Masters degree in computing 1 2 3 4 9 

g. Earn a PhD in computing 1 2 3 4 9 

h. Get a job in research that involves 

computing 

1 2 3 4 9 

i. Get a job in computing, not in research 1 2 3 4 9 

{FACULTY} 

A2. Following is a list of ways faculty in your undergraduate program might interact with 

students. Please indicate if there are any faculty members in your program who act 

in any of the following ways. 

Yes No N/A 

a. Available for one-on-one advising. 1 2 9 

b. Helps me progress toward my degree. 1 2 9 

c. Gives me useful career advice. 1 2 9 

d. Gives me useful advice about my research. 1 2 9 

e. Encourages me to collaborate on research with my fellow students. 1 2 9 

f. Cares about me as a person. 1 2 9 

g. Someone other than my major advisor takes an interest in my 

1 2 9 

progress toward my degree. 

h. Favors certain groups of students over others. 1 2 9 

i. Encourages me to publish research. 1 2 9 

j. Has expectations of undergraduate students that are too high. 1 2 9 

k. Encourages me to attend professional conferences. 1 2 9 

l. Helps me make professional contacts. 1 2 9 

m. Undermines my confidence in my abilities. 1 2 9 

A3. How welcome or unwelcome do you feel in your home department? 

1 Very Welcome 

2 Somewhat Welcome 

3 Somewhat Unwelcome 

4 Very Unwelcome 

9 Don’t know/Decline to rate 

{WELCOME}

3 


A4. Please tell us if the following computing-related activities exist at your college or 

university, and if so, indicate if you participated or not. 

{EXIST} {PARTCPT} 

Did they exist? If Yes, Did you 

Participate? 

a. Brown-bag lunches Y N 

Not 

Sure 

Y N 

b. Visiting lectures Y N 

Not 

Y N 

c. Computing-related student groups Y N 

d. Groups for minority computing students or minority 

engineers/scientists 

e. Groups for women computing students or women 


Y N 

Y N 

f. Computing-related honor societies Y N 

g. Local computing-related groups Y N 

h. Lectures by women or minority computer scientists Y N 

Sure 

Not 

Sure 

Not 

Sure 

Not 

Sure 

Not 

Sure 

Not 

Sure 

Not 

Sure 

Y N 

Y N 

Y N 

Y N 

Y N 

Y N 

Please name any other college or university computing-related activities in which you 

have participated: _____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________ 

{OUTSIDE} 

A5. Have you participated in any of the following computing-related activities outside of your 

university? (Select all that apply) 

Professional Conferences 

Society memberships 

Computing-related social networking, such as blogs or listservs 

Other activity, please specify: ______________________________________ 

{MENTOR} 

A6. Who do you consider to be mentor(s) to you as an undergraduate student? A mentor is 

someone with whom you have an ongoing relationship, who provides you advice and 

assistance in advancing in your career. 

My mentor is my academic advisor who is a faculty member. ________________ 

My mentor is my assigned member of the advising staff. ____________________ 

My mentor is my research advisor. _____________________________________ 

My mentor(s) are one or more departmental faculty who are not officially assigned to 

mentor me. 

My mentor is my former undergraduate instructor. _________________________

4 


I met my mentor through a formal mentoring program sponsored by an outside 

organization. __________________________________________________ 

My mentor is a non-academic computing professional. _____________________ 

My mentor is a graduate student. ______________________________________ 

My mentor is a fellow undergraduate student. ____________________________ 

My mentor is an adult family member or family friend. ______________________ 

IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT INDICATE ANY OF THE OPTIONS A6a-j: 

{NOMENTOR} 

Please select the statement that is true for you. 

1. I do no have someone with whom I have an ongoing relationship, or who provides 

me with advice and assistance in advancing my career. 

2. There is someone else I would consider a mentor. (Please describe their relationship 

to you.)____________________________________________________________ 

B. RESEARCH EXPERIENCE 

{RESEXP} 

B1. Have you participated in any of these research experiences? (Include interdisciplinary 

research that had a computing component.) 

a. A course that included computing research Yes No 

b. Independent study that included computing research Yes No 

c. Summer research at my university with a computing professor or researcher Yes No 

d. School-year computing research at my university Yes No 

e. Summer computing research at another university Yes No 

f. Computing research internship at a government or industry lab Yes No 

g. Other computing research, please specify: _________________________ Yes No 

h. Other non-computing research, please specify:______________________ Yes No 

IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED NO TO ALL OF B1a-h ABOVE:… {NORES} 

B2. Which of the following reasons tell us why you did not participate in any hands-on 

computing research when you were a college undergraduate? (Select all that apply) 

It never occurred to me to do research 

I was not aware that research opportunities were available to me 

I was not interested in doing research 

The research opportunities that were available to me weren’t interesting 

I applied/asked about doing research but was turned down 

My grades were not good enough 

I didn’t have time 

It didn’t pay well enough (or at all) 

Faculty did not conduct research at the school I attended 

Other (please specify) ___________________________________________

5 


{SKILLEXP} 

B3. How much experience, if any, do you have with the following activities related to 

computing research? (Include experience gained in a class.) 

Quite 

a Bit 

Some Almost 

None 

None 

Don't 

Know 

a. Summarizing published research results 1 2 3 4 9 

b. Using scientific methods to test a hypothesis 1 2 3 4 9 

c. Generating hypotheses 1 2 3 4 9 

d. Collecting data or conducting experiments 1 2 3 4 9 

e. Analyzing data with statistics or other tools 1 2 3 4 9 

f. Explaining results from data analysis or 

experiments 

1 2 3 4 9 

g. Writing or co-authoring a research paper or report 1 2 3 4 9 

h. Presenting a research paper or report 1 2 3 4 9 

i. Publishing a research paper or report 1 2 3 4 9 

j. Feeling like a member of a research community 1 2 3 4 9 

{RESIMPT} 

B4. Thinking about all of your research experience, or lack of it, how important was it to each 

of the following? 

Very 

important 

Somewhat 

important 

Only slightly 

important 

Not at all 

important 

Don’t 

know/ 

Decline 

to rate 

a. Your career choice 1 2 3 4 9 

b. Your decision about whether to 


1 2 3 4 9 

c. Your choice of graduate school, if any 1 2 3 4 9 

d. Your confidence that you will succeed 


1 2 3 4 9 

IF any of B3 was answered “1” or “2”: {DSCRIMP} 

B5. Please describe how your research experience, or lack of it, influenced your career 

choice or decisions about graduate school: 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________

6 


C. WORK EXPERIENCE 

The following questions relate to non-research work experience related to computing. 

{NONRESWK} 

C1. Have you ever taken part in full or part-time non-research work that involved 

computing? Non-research work includes any kind of programming, projects, or 

system support that involves computing, but does not attempt to discover new 

principles. It may include developing new products from known principles. 

1 Yes 

2 No 

{WRKIMPT} 

C2. Thinking about all of your work experience, how important was it to each of the 

following? 

Very 

important 

Somewhat 

important 

Only slightly 

important 

Not at all 

important 

Don’t 

know/ 

Decline 

to rate 

a. Your career choice 1 2 3 4 9 

b. Your decision about whether to 


1 2 3 4 9 

c. Your choice of graduate school, if any 1 2 3 4 9 

d. Your confidence that you will succeed 


1 2 3 4 9 

D. CONFIDENCE IN ABILITIES AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT COMPUTING 

D1. How confident are you that, if you choose, you can successfully... 

{CNFDNCE} 

Very Moderately Only slightly Not at all 

confident confident confident confident 

a. Contribute to a research project in 

computing 

1 2 3 4 

b. Get admitted to graduate school in 

computing 

1 2 3 4 

c. Complete a graduate degree in computing 1 2 3 4 

d. Become a capable researcher in computing 1 2 3 4 

e. Have a successful career in computing 1 2 3 4

D2. How knowledgeable do you feel about the following topics? 

a. What it is like to do computing 

research 

b. What it is like to be a graduate 

student in computer science or 

computer engineering 

c. How computing can address 

social issues 

d. What it is like to work as a 

computer scientist or computer 

engineer 

e. Criteria for admission to 

graduate programs 

f. How to get financial support for 


g. How to choose the right 

graduate school for me 

Very 

knowledgeable 

7 


Moderately 

knowledgeable 

Only Slightly 

knowledgeable 

{KNWLDGE} 

Not at all 

knowledgeable 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

E. FUTURE PLANS 

{GRAPCOMP} 

E1. During the 2009-2010 school year, did you apply to graduate school in computing? 

(Include applications in progress but not complete) 

1 Yes 

2 Not yet, but plan to apply 

3 No 

{GRAPOTH} 

E2. During the 2009-2010 school year, did you apply to graduate school in something other 

than computing? 

1 Yes, in a science, technology, engineering, or math field, please specify: 

___________________________________ 

2 Yes, in another field, please specify: 

___________________________________ 

3 Not yet, but plan to apply 

4 No 

E3. Do you plan to work in computing in Fall 2010? 

1 Yes, full time 

2 Yes, part time 

3 No 

4 Don’t know 

{WORKFALL}

8 


{WRKOTH} 

E4. Do you plan to work in an area other than computing in Fall 2010? 

1 Yes, full time, specify area_____________________________________ 

2 Yes, part time, specify area_____________________________________ 

3 No 

4 Don’t know 

{ENCIMM} 

E5. How much did each of the following influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately after your undergraduate education? 

Strongly 

Encouraged 

Attending 

Somewhat 

Encouraged 

Attending 

No 

Influence 

Somewhat 

Discouraged 

Attending 

Strongly 

Discouraged 

Attending 

Don’t 

Know/Not 

Applicable 

a. Family or personal 

responsibilities 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

b. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 9 

c. Undergraduate 

faculty/advisor 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

d. Research advisor 1 2 3 4 5 9 

e. Personal financial 

concerns 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

f. General economic 

environment 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

g. Immediate 

employment 

opportunities 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

h. Kind of work I want 

to do 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

i. Kind of lifestyle I 

want 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

j. Keep academic 

momentum 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

k. My academic 

achievement to 

date 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

l. My computing work 

experience 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

m. My computing 

research 

experience 

1 2 3 4 5 9 

n. Were there any other strong influences on your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately 

following graduation?: ____________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________

9 


IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS “YES” TO {GRAPCOMP} OR {GRAPOTH}: 

{RECWHO} 

E6. Who wrote your recommendations for your graduate school applications? (Check all that 

apply) 

Undergraduate mentor 

Professor in computing area 

Professor in non-computing area 

Professional contact 

Other person, please specify: 

I did not need recommendations ______________________________________ 

{RECRSCH} 

E7. Did you do research with any of the people who wrote your recommendations? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

F. GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS 

{FELWSHP} 

F1. During the 2009-2010 school year, did you apply for a graduate fellowship separate from 

any offered by your intended institution? Include applications currently in progress. 

1 Yes 

2 No 

IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED YES TO F1: 

{FLWRCVD} 

F2. Did you receive any of the separate graduate fellowships that you applied for? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

3 Decisions still pending 

G. FEATURES WANTED IN FUTURE CAREER 

{FUTURE} 

G1. How important to you is each of the following in regards to your future career? 

a. A career that involves 

teamwork. 

b. A career creating new 

technology or applications. 

c. A career that has social 

impact. 

d. A career in which I can 

exercise considerable 

leadership. 

Very 

Important 

Moderately 

Important 

Slightly 

Important 

Not at all 

Important 

Don’t 

Know/Not 

Applicable 

1 2 3 4 9 

1 2 3 4 9 

1 2 3 4 9 

1 2 3 4 9

10 


e. A career that has high earnings 

potential. 

1 2 3 4 9 

f. To be prepared for a wide 

variety of career options. 

1 2 3 4 9 

g. A career that is compatible with 

the personal lifestyle to which I 

aspire. 

1 2 3 4 9 

h. To do research. 1 2 3 4 9 

i. To teach. 1 2 3 4 9 

j. To have flexible work time. 1 2 3 4 9 

k. A prestigious occupation. 1 2 3 4 9 

l. To decide for myself what I will 

work on. 

1 2 3 4 9 

m. To work in a particular 

geographic location. 

1 2 3 4 9 

{HIDEGREE} 

G2. What is the highest degree you plan to attain? 

1 Undergraduate 

2 Master’s 

3 PhD 

4 Professional Degree (JD, MD, etc) 

5 Other, please specify: ______________________________________ 

{DEGAREA} 

G3. Which of the following areas do you plan to attain your highest degree in? (PLEASE 

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 


Computer Engineering or Electrical and Computer Engineering 

Computer Information Systems or Information Systems 

Other computing major (Please specify): ___________________________________ 

Math/applied math 

Business, Law or Life/Health Sciences 

Interdisciplinary (Please specify areas): _________________________________ 

Other science or engineering non-computing major (Please specify): 

___________________________________ 

Other non-computing major (Please specify): 

___________________________________

11 


{GRADFALL} 

G4. Do you plan to attend graduate school in Fall 2010? 

1 Yes, full time. IF YES, please name the school _____________________ 

2 Yes, part time. IF YES, please name the school_____________________ 

3 Still waiting to hear about admission 

4 Have heard about admission, but haven’t decided yet whether to attend 

5 No 

IF {GRADFALL}=1 OR 2: {AIDOFFER} 

G5. What type of aid was offered to you at your chosen school? (Please check all that apply) 

Research Assistantship 

Teaching Assistantship 

Fellowship 

Other ____________________________ 

None 

IF {GRADFALL}=5: {NOTAPPLY} 

H. NOT ATTENDING GRADUATE SCHOOL 

H1. Which of the following are reasons why you did not apply to graduate school? 

a. I do not like school 

b. I don’t need more education for the job I want 

c. I do not feel that going to graduate school is important 

d. My grades are too low 

e. My GRE scores are too low 

f. I haven’t taken the right courses 

g. I probably can’t get admitted to the graduate school I want to attend 

h. I cannot afford to go to graduate school 

i. I cannot afford to take the necessary tests or pay application fees 

j. I prefer to work first to save money for graduate school 

k. I need to help support my family 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No

l. No one has encouraged me to go 

m. No one in my family has ever attended graduate school 

n. Most of my friends will not be going to graduate school 

o. I plan to take some time off before going to graduate school 

p. I plan to join the Armed Forces 

q. I plan to get married or start my own family 

r. I already have a job 

12 


Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

s. Other, please specify: _____________________________________________ Yes No 

I. DEMOGRAPHICS 

And finally, some details about you. Remember, information is confidential and only used to 

ensure that all groups are represented. Data is only reported in summary form. 

I1. Are you… 

1 Male 

2 Female 

I2. In what year were you born? 

Year _______ 

I3. Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? 

1 Yes, I am Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino/a 

2 No, I am not Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino/a 

I4. Please indicate your race. (Check all that apply) 

White 

Black or African American 

American Indian or Alaska native 

Asian (please specify) ______________________ 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

Other (please specify) ______________________ 

{SEX} 

{BRTHYR} 

{HISPANIC} 

{RACE}

13 


{CHILDREN} 

I5. Are you the primary care giver to any children? (A primary care giver is the person 

mostly responsible for child care.) 

1 Yes 

2 No 

I6. What is your marital status? 

1 Never married 

2 Living with partner 

3 Married 

4 Divorced or legally separated 

5 Widowed 

I7. What is your disability status? (Please check all that apply.) 

No disability 

Vision impairment 

Hearing impairment 

Mobility impairment 

Other, please specify: ______________________ 

Decline to answer 

I8. Are you a: 

1 Native born U.S. citizen 

2 Naturalized U.S. citizen 

3 A non-U.S. citizen with permanent residency 

4 A non-U.S. citizen with a temporary visa 

5 Other (Please Specify: _________________) 

I9. What is (are) your undergraduate academic major(s)? 

{DSABLTY} 

{USCITZN} 

{ACAMAJOR} 




Other computing major (Please specify:____________) 

Other science and engineering non-computing major (Please specify:_________) 

Other non-computing major (Please specify:_________) 

{ACAMINOR} 

I10. What is (are) your undergraduate academic minor(s)? 




Other computing minor (Please specify:____________) 

Other science and engineering non-computing minor (Please specify:_________) 

Other non-computing minor (Please specify:_________)

I11. What is your overall undergraduate GPA? 

_____ out of ______ 

14 


{GPAOVRLL} 

{GPACOMP} 

I12. What is your GPA in your undergraduate computing major? 

_____ out of ______ 

{GRADDATE} 

I13. When is the date that you completed or expect to complete your undergraduate 

degree? ____/____ 

{YRBEGAN} 

I14. What year did you start your undergraduate degree? 

1 2003 

2 2004 

3 2005 

4 2006 

5 2007 

6 2008 

7 Other, please specify: __________________________ 

{GRADSCHL} 

I15. Please select the undergraduate school that will grant your degree from this list: 

Arizona State University 

Auburn University 

Boston College 

Brooklyn CUNY 

{EDCHNGE} 

I16. Since starting your degree, do any of the following apply? 

Please check all that apply. 

Changed majors 

Transferred between universities 

Took time out other than internships or summers 

Went part time for some or all of the time 

Began at a 2-year institution 

{FATHER} 

I17. What is your father’s (or male parent/guardian most influential in your education 

choices) highest level of education? 

1 Less than high school 

2 High school graduate or GED 

3 Some college 

4 Bachelor’s degree 

5 Master’s degree 

6 PhD 

7 Professional degree (MD, JD, etc) 

8 Other (please specify) _______________________________ 

9 NO FATHER/MALE PARENT/GUARDIAN INVOLVED

15 


{MOTHER} 

I18. What is your mother’s (or female parent/guardian most influential in your education 

choices) highest level of education? 

1 Less than high school 

2 High school graduate or GED 

3 Some college 

4 Bachelor’s degree 

5 Master’s degree 

6 PhD 

7 Professional degree (MD, JD, etc) 

8 Other (please specify) _______________________________ 

9 NO MOTHER/FEMALE PARENT/GUARDIAN INVOLVED 

{CRAW} 

I19. Have you participated in any of the following programs sponsored by the Computing 

Research Association, Coalition to Diversify Computing, or Broadening Participation 

in Computing? (Select all that apply.) 

Distributed Research Experiences for Undergraduates (DREU)/ Distributed Mentoring 

Project (DMP) 

Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates (CREU) 

Distinguished Lecture Series (DLS) 

Multidisciplinary Research Opportunities for Women (MRO-W) 

Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing 

Richard Tapia Conference 

STARS Alliance 

CAITE (Massachusetts) 

Georgia Computes! 

AccessComputing 

Computing Alliance of Hispanic Serving Institutions (CAHSI) 

Empowering Leadership (EL Alliance) 

ARTSI 

Into the Loop (Los Angeles Area) 

Alliance for the Advancement of African American Researchers in Computing (A4RC) 

Other (please specify) ________________________________ 

We have finished the main survey. Thank you for completing this questionnaire! 

{RCOMM1} 

And if there were any things about this survey that you found difficult to respond to, 

confusing, hard to understand, or not relevant to your experience, please describe them 

here. 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

{RCOMM2} 

If you think we left out anything that we should have covered, please identify that here. 

_________________________________________________________________________

16 


Thank you for taking the time to complete the COMPUTING SENIOR SURVEY 

We wish you all the best in the coming months! 

Once you SUBMIT the completed survey, we will send you a $10 gift card 

to either TARGET or BARNES & NOBLE. Please indicate your choice below. 

TARGET 

BARNES & NOBLE 

Either is fine 

No, thanks 

The card may be used either on-line at the company website (target.com or bn.com) or at 

any of their stores. 

Thank You Again! 

PRETEST ONLY: 

1. Were there any things about this survey that you found difficult to respond to, confusing, 

hard to understand, or not relevant to your experience? 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

2. Did we leave out anything that you think we should have covered? 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________


Appendix B: 

Survey and Sampling Methodology 



University of Virginia

Survey & Sampling Methodology Report 

Computing Senior Survey - 2010 

COMPUTING SENIOR SURVEY - 2010 

Overview of Survey Methods 

The goal of this survey was to evaluate the effect of programs sponsored by Computing Research Associates that 

promote careers in computing research fields for women and minorities and that provide support to students who 

seek to pursue careers in these fields. 

The Center for Survey Research (CSR) worked closely with Dr. Betsy Bizot of CRA and Dr. Wendy Cohn of the 

University of Virginia and Dr. Joanne Cohoon, of the National Center for Women & IT at UVA and CRA-W Board 

member to develop a questionnaire, conduct the survey, analyze the data and report the results. 

Deployment of the survey was done on a customized website hosted by CSR. The web only administration was 

selected as a cost effective way to reach students. Given their selected areas of study concentration, this 

predominately young group was assumed to have regular internet access and to prefer communications using the 

computer. 

Questionnaire Development 

Several different paper questionnaires had been used to survey CRA program participants for related purposes in 

the past. The questionnaire used for this survey brought together pieces from these questionnaires and incorporated 

additional questions on topics of interest that had not been previously covered. CSR was able to make some 

suggestions to improve the clarity and flow of the instrument and to develop additional questions where 

appropriate. 

The questionnaire draft was reviewed by the sponsor and some edits were made. The questionnaire was 

programmed into Sensus Web, a data collection software tool designed to present surveys on the internet. Sensus is 

designed to work closely with WinCATI, data collection software from Sawtooth Technologies that is in use in 

CSR’s telephone facility. The instrument was debugged and early returns were checked to ensure that programming 

was correct. 

Online Questionnaires 

Online questionnaires allow for adaptive questioning, such that participants skip over questions that are not 

applicable based upon their prior responses. Respondents did not see questions they did not have to answer. Care 

was taken to ensure that the web application was fast and easy-to-use to suit a target respondent who was 

comfortable with computer use. It was noted on the survey introduction that SensusWeb works best with Internet 

Explorer for Windows and Safari on a Mac. Pop-ups should blocked for optimal function of the website. 

Sample Selection and Recruitment 

Selection of this national sample was done in stages. First colleges and universities that had hosted at least one 

CRA program participant were grouped by broad Carnegie classification. A target number of cases was calculated 

by taking the estimated number of students in each department, using the size of the school and previous 

department size as indicators. It was decided that all seniors in the department would be contacted and those who 

did not fit into the female or minority categories of interest to the CRAW programs would serve as a control group 

that would highlight the effects of program participation. In addition, program participants from 2008-2010 were 

contacted and asked to complete the survey. 

CRA Methods.v4.doc Page 1 of 4 8/26/2011

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Number of cases in each sample group 

Sample Group Designation N 

Pretest 40 

PR1 49 

PR2 325 

PR3 706 

No email 124 

Total cases 1244 


Not every school elected to send student contact information to us. Some schools agreed to participate in the study 

but preferred to send email notifications and reminders to their own students. CSR sent email scripts to the client 

that had been customized for these schools and could be forwarded for their use. A special website was set up for 

these students. Since CSR would not know who responded, or how many responses to expect, access was set up to 

be open and completely anonymous. Participants would click on the link in their email and be sent to a page that 

explained how to log in to the survey. 

One university sent mailing addresses for their students but no email. In this case, students were contacted by 

means of an advance letter that included the link to the web survey. Non-responders received a postcard reminder 

instead of email. These students also were sent to the anonymous site, to take advantage of the much simpler link 

address. 

CSR used contact information for all modes supplied by the school. For some students, it was possible to reinforce 

contact by using more than a single mode and for others contact was possible by one mode when another was not 

effective. 

All students saw the same questionnaire. 

Incentive 

Participants are typically not directly compensated for participating in surveys because it is more successful to 

appeal to intrinsic and social-relationship motivations. Instead, it is common to include a small amount of money 

(i.e., $2) with a questionnaire to create the expectation of reciprocity. In this case, CSR did not have a mail address 

for most students and could not send advance mail. Thus, in order to achieve an acceptable completion rate, the 

researchers decided to offer a $10 gift card as a thank you to students who completed the survey. The offer of an 

incentive was publicized in all mailings. Respondents could choose either Target or Barnes & Noble, retailers that 

would be appealing and accessible to most students. Both vendors have an active internet presence and cards could 

be redeemed there or at a bricks and mortar location. Students provided a regular mail address at the end of the 

survey so that the card could be mailed to them. 

Mailings 

All mailings were sent by first-class mail. The strategy used was a modified version of the best practices for mail 

surveys known as the Tailored Design Method, described by Don A. Dillman 1 . An initial advance letter alerting 

recipients to the upcoming survey was used when a mailing address was available. Email was the primary mode of 

contact and an announcement email that echoed the language of the letter was sent with the intent of reaching the 

student about the same time as the letter. Second and third email reminders, along with post card and telephone 

reminders when possible were used according to the schedule laid out in Table Error! No text of specified style in 

document.-2. 

1 

See Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth, Leah Melani Christian, Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design 

Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2008). 


Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Schedule of attempted contact 

Group Advance letter 1 st email 2 nd email Post Card 3 rd email 

Pretest 40 6-May 


CRA Methods.v4.doc Page 3 of 4 8/26/2011 

Reminder phone 

calls 

PR1 47 3-Jun 47 9-Jun 43 17-Jun 38 1-Jul 38 9-Jul 32 20-Jul 



No 

email 

124 - n/a - n/a - 123 2-Jul n/a - 20 20-Jul 

All letters and mailing labels included an identification number for quality control during assembly of the mailing 

pieces and to track respondents and non-respondents. Each student was assigned a four-digit id number, and an 

easy-to-remember password. Emails sent to most students contained a click here link that would take them directly 

into their own copy of the survey. Identification numbers were attached to the data collected, allowing CSR to track 

response and to send automated reminders to those who accessed the survey but did not complete it. 

In all the mailings, students were directed to the online versions of the questionnaire. 

Disposition 

Calculation of response was complicated by several factors. First, there were two versions of the survey, one that 

was confidential, where only staff members of the CSR had access to personally identifying information and one 

that was completely anonymous. Users of the anonymous site were guided there by emails sent to them directly 

from participating schools or by a link included in a postal letter sent to students of one school that declined to send 

email addresses. 

Response is shown below calculated separately for the two versions. CSR did keep track of all students in the case 

files they were given. Response was calculated for that version and is shown below in Table Error! No text of 

specified style in document.-3. These numbers are further influenced by the fact that not all students had the same 

number or type of contacts. Since schools supplied different combinations of postal addresses, telephone numbers 

and email addresses, contact attempts were limited to the resources available. This graph is limited to reporting the 

outcomes for the cases CSR could track, from the website where responses could be tied to respondent. CSR 

referred to this site as the Confidential site, in reference to the way the data were handled. 

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-3: Response Rate – Confidential survey 

COUNT OVERALL QUALIFIED/ 

REACHABLE 

Adjusted 

count 

Adjusted 

% 

Complete 335 27.8% 33.6% 351 35.21% 

Partial Completes 16 1.3% 1.6% 

Refusal 5 0.4% 0.5% 5 0.50% 

Undeliverable Mail or Email 209 17.3% 

Ineligible 0 0.0% 

Open Status 641 53.2% 64.3% 641 64.29% 

Total 1206 100.0% 100.0% 997 100.00%


The Anonymous version of the survey collected 54 completed interviews and another 7 partial interviews that had 

enough information in them to be usable. The client was able to forward information from the schools on how 

many students they had contacted. We do not know how many reminder emails were sent or how often. In all, there 

were 389 completed surveys and 23 partially complete for a total of 412 usable interviews. 

Table 4: Response rate - Anonymous survey 

COUNT OVERALL 

QUALIFIED/ 

REACHABLE 

Adjusted 

count 

Adjusted 

% 

Complete 54 19.4% 19.4% 61 21.86% 

Partial Completes 7 2.5% 2.5% 

Refusal 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.00% 

Undeliverable Mail 0 0.0% 

Ineligible 0 0.0% 

Open Status 218 78.1% 78.1% 218 78.14% 

Total 279 100.0% 100.0% 279 100.00% 



Appendix C: 

Demographics of Participant Sample 




gender R's gender 

CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Male 216 52.6 54.9 54.9 

2 Female 178 43.3 45.1 100.0 

Total 394 95.8 100.0 

Missing System 17 4.2 

Total 411 100.0 

brthyr In what year were you born? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1952 1 .2 .2 .2 

1958 1 .3 .3 .5 

1960 1 .2 .2 .7 

1962 0 .1 .1 .8 

1963 0 .1 .1 .9 

1968 1 .2 .2 1.1 

1970 0 .1 .1 1.2 

1971 1 .2 .2 1.4 

1972 1 .2 .2 1.5 

1973 5 1.3 1.3 2.9 

1974 1 .3 .3 3.2 

1975 1 .2 .2 3.4 

1976 2 .4 .4 3.8 

1977 1 .2 .2 4.0 

1978 5 1.3 1.3 5.3 

1979 3 .7 .7 6.0 

1980 4 1.0 1.0 7.0 

1981 1 .2 .2 7.2 

1982 4 1.0 1.1 8.3 

1983 8 1.9 2.0 10.3 

1984 7 1.6 1.7 12.0 

1985 9 2.3 2.4 14.4 

1986 27 6.5 6.9 21.3 

1987 89 21.7 22.8 44.1 

1988 188 45.7 48.1 92.2 

1989 22 5.3 5.5 97.8 

1990 9 2.1 2.2 100.0 

Total 391 95.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

hispanic Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 33 8.1 8.5 8.5 

Center for Survey Research C-3


2 No 357 86.9 91.5 100.0 

Total 391 95.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

children Are you the primary care giver to any children? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 No 390 94.9 99.0 100.0 

Total 394 95.8 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

married What is your marital status? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Never married 333 81.1 84.6 84.6 

2 Living with partner 28 6.9 7.2 91.7 

3 Married 31 7.5 7.8 99.5 

4 Divorced or legally 

separated 2 .4 .5 100.0 

Total 394 95.9 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

uscitzn US Citizenship status 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Native born U.S. citizen 319 77.6 81.3 81.3 

2 Naturalized U.S. citizen 26 6.3 6.6 87.9 

3 A non-U.S. citizen with 

permanent residency 11 2.6 2.7 90.7 

4 A non-U.S. citizen with a 

temporary visa 28 6.8 7.2 97.8 

5 Other 9 2.1 2.2 100.0 

Total 393 95.5 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 


gpaoa1 What is your overall GPA? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 2.00 1 .2 .2 .2 

2.01 1 .2 .2 .4 

2.04 1 .2 .2 .6 

2.12 1 .2 .2 .8 

2.13 1 .2 .2 .9 

2.16 1 .2 .2 1.1 

2.20 1 .2 .2 1.3 

2.30 1 .2 .2 1.5 

2.33 0 .1 .1 1.6 

2.40 1 .4 .4 2.0 

2.42 1 .2 .2 2.2 

2.44 1 .2 .2 2.4 

2.50 4 1.0 1.0 3.4 

2.55 1 .3 .3 3.7 

2.59 3 .6 .7 4.4 

2.60 3 .7 .7 5.1 

2.65 3 .6 .7 5.8 

2.68 1 .2 .2 6.0 

2.70 7 1.6 1.7 7.7 

2.72 1 .2 .2 7.9 

2.75 1 .3 .3 8.2 

2.80 14 3.3 3.5 11.7 

2.84 1 .2 .2 11.9 

2.89 0 .1 .1 12.0 

2.90 11 2.7 2.9 14.9 

2.93 3 .6 .7 15.6 

2.95 1 .2 .2 15.8 

2.98 5 1.1 1.2 17.0 

2.99 1 .3 .3 17.3 

3.00 27 6.5 6.9 24.2 

3.02 1 .3 .3 24.5 

3.03 3 .7 .8 25.3 

3.04 1 .3 .3 25.6 

3.05 2 .4 .5 26.1 

3.06 0 .1 .1 26.2 

3.07 1 .2 .2 26.4 

3.08 1 .2 .2 26.6 

3.10 9 2.2 2.4 29.0 

3.11 1 .2 .2 29.1 

3.12 2 .6 .6 29.8 

3.14 1 .2 .2 29.9 

3.15 4 1.1 1.2 31.1 

3.16 3 .6 .7 31.8 

3.17 3 .8 .9 32.6 




3.18 2 .4 .5 33.1 

3.19 1 .2 .2 33.3 

3.20 14 3.4 3.6 37.0 

3.21 3 .6 .7 37.6 

3.24 1 .3 .3 37.9 

3.25 5 1.1 1.2 39.1 

3.26 0 .1 .1 39.2 

3.27 1 .2 .2 39.4 

3.30 13 3.2 3.4 42.8 

3.31 3 .6 .7 43.5 

3.32 3 .7 .8 44.3 

3.33 2 .4 .4 44.7 

3.34 1 .2 .2 44.9 

3.35 3 .8 .9 45.7 

3.36 1 .2 .2 45.9 

3.38 1 .2 .2 46.1 

3.39 2 .4 .4 46.5 

3.40 7 1.8 1.9 48.5 

3.41 1 .3 .3 48.8 

3.43 2 .5 .5 49.3 

3.45 2 .4 .5 49.8 

3.46 1 .2 .2 50.0 

3.47 1 .2 .2 50.1 

3.48 1 .2 .2 50.3 

3.49 3 .7 .8 51.1 

3.50 19 4.5 4.8 56.0 

3.51 1 .2 .2 56.1 

3.52 5 1.2 1.3 57.4 

3.53 1 .3 .3 57.7 

3.55 2 .4 .5 58.2 

3.56 1 .4 .4 58.6 

3.57 6 1.6 1.7 60.3 

3.58 0 .1 .1 60.4 

3.60 16 3.9 4.2 64.6 

3.61 0 .1 .1 64.7 

3.62 2 .4 .5 65.2 

3.63 1 .2 .2 65.4 

3.64 1 .2 .2 65.6 

3.65 5 1.2 1.3 66.8 

3.66 1 .3 .3 67.1 

3.67 1 .3 .4 67.5 

3.68 4 .9 1.0 68.5 

3.70 11 2.6 2.7 71.2 

3.71 1 .2 .2 71.5 

3.72 4 1.0 1.1 72.5 

3.73 0 .1 .1 72.6 

3.74 3 .8 .9 73.5 

3.75 4 .9 1.0 74.5 

3.76 0 .1 .1 74.6 


3.77 2 .5 .5 75.1 

3.78 12 2.8 3.0 78.2 

3.79 9 2.3 2.4 80.6 

3.80 9 2.3 2.4 83.0 

3.81 0 .1 .1 83.1 

3.82 10 2.4 2.6 85.7 

3.83 1 .2 .2 85.9 

3.84 2 .6 .6 86.5 

3.85 0 .1 .1 86.6 

3.86 2 .5 .5 87.1 

3.88 3 .7 .8 87.9 

3.89 2 .4 .5 88.4 

3.90 11 2.8 3.0 91.4 

3.91 4 1.1 1.2 92.5 

3.92 2 .5 .5 93.0 

3.93 1 .2 .2 93.2 

3.94 0 .1 .1 93.3 

3.95 3 .8 .9 94.2 

3.96 6 1.6 1.7 95.9 

3.97 1 .4 .4 96.2 

3.98 4 .9 .9 97.2 

3.99 2 .6 .6 97.8 

4.00 8 1.8 2.0 99.7 

8.70 1 .2 .3 100.0 

Total 384 93.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 




gpacp1 Overall GPA in computing major (4.0) 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1.85 1 .2 .2 .2 

2.00 2 .6 .7 .9 

2.24 1 .2 .2 1.1 

2.30 1 .2 .2 1.3 

2.40 1 .4 .4 1.7 

2.50 4 1.0 1.3 3.0 

2.55 1 .3 .3 3.4 

2.60 2 .5 .6 4.0 

2.65 3 .6 .8 4.7 

2.70 7 1.7 2.1 6.8 

2.77 3 .6 .8 7.6 

2.80 13 3.1 3.7 11.3 

2.87 1 .2 .2 11.5 

2.90 6 1.4 1.7 13.3 

2.92 1 .2 .2 13.5 

2.95 1 .2 .2 13.7 

2.96 1 .3 .4 14.1 

3.00 19 4.7 5.7 19.8 

3.05 1 .2 .2 20.0 

3.08 1 .3 .4 20.4 

3.10 11 2.6 3.2 23.6 

3.12 1 .3 .3 24.0 

3.13 0 .1 .1 24.1 

3.15 1 .3 .4 24.5 

3.16 1 .2 .2 24.7 

3.20 22 5.4 6.6 31.3 

3.23 3 .6 .8 32.1 

3.25 1 .3 .3 32.4 

3.30 13 3.1 3.7 36.1 

3.31 3 .8 1.0 37.1 

3.32 0 .1 .1 37.2 

3.33 2 .4 .5 37.8 

3.35 1 .2 .2 38.0 

3.38 1 .2 .2 38.2 

3.40 11 2.7 3.2 41.4 

3.43 1 .2 .2 41.7 

3.44 1 .2 .2 41.9 

3.45 2 .5 .6 42.4 

3.47 2 .4 .5 43.0 

3.48 1 .3 .3 43.3 

3.50 26 6.3 7.6 51.0 

3.52 1 .3 .3 51.3 

3.54 1 .2 .2 51.5 

3.56 5 1.3 1.5 53.0 

3.57 0 .1 .1 53.1 

3.60 19 4.5 5.5 58.6 


3.62 3 .6 .8 59.4 

3.63 0 .1 .1 59.5 

3.64 1 .2 .2 59.7 

3.65 2 .4 .5 60.2 

3.67 2 .6 .7 60.9 

3.68 0 .1 .1 61.0 

3.70 8 2.0 2.5 63.5 

3.71 0 .1 .1 63.6 

3.72 1 .2 .2 63.8 

3.73 4 .9 1.1 64.9 

3.74 1 .2 .2 65.1 

3.75 6 1.6 1.9 67.0 

3.77 1 .2 .2 67.3 

3.78 2 .4 .5 67.7 

3.80 21 5.2 6.3 74.0 

3.82 1 .4 .4 74.4 

3.84 1 .3 .3 74.8 

3.85 4 .9 1.1 75.9 

3.88 1 .2 .2 76.1 

3.89 2 .4 .5 76.5 

3.90 22 5.4 6.5 83.0 

3.91 3 .7 .8 83.9 

3.92 6 1.6 1.9 85.8 

3.93 3 .7 .9 86.7 

3.94 1 .3 .3 87.0 

3.95 2 .6 .7 87.8 

3.96 5 1.2 1.4 89.2 

3.97 1 .2 .3 89.4 

3.98 2 .4 .5 89.9 

4.00 33 8.0 9.8 99.7 

8.80 1 .2 .3 100.0 

Total 339 82.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 




gradmon Month that you completed or expect to complete your undergraduate degree 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Jan 6 1.4 1.5 1.5 

2 Feb 3 .8 .9 2.4 

3 Mar 1 .2 .2 2.5 

4 Apr 2 .5 .5 3.1 

5 May 264 64.2 68.3 71.3 

6 Jun 22 5.4 5.8 77.1 

7 Jul 7 1.8 1.9 79.0 

8 Aug 9 2.1 2.2 81.2 

9 Sep 4 1.0 1.1 82.3 

10 Oct 1 .3 .3 82.7 

12 Dec 67 16.3 17.3 100.0 

Total 387 94.1 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

gradyr Year that you completed or expect to complete your undergraduate degree 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 2008 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2009 66 16.0 17.2 18.2 

2010 278 67.7 72.7 90.9 

2011 32 7.8 8.4 99.3 

2012 3 .6 .7 100.0 

Total 383 93.1 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

yrbegan_ What year did you start your undergraduate degree? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 2003 14 3.4 3.6 3.6 

2 2004 16 3.9 4.1 7.7 

3 2005 66 16.0 16.8 24.5 

4 2006 240 58.3 61.2 85.7 

5 2007 33 8.0 8.4 94.1 

6 2008 9 2.2 2.3 96.4 

7 Other 14 3.4 3.6 100.0 

Total 392 95.1 100.0 


Total 412 100.0 


yrbegoth What year did you start your undergraduate degree?: Other 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1995 1 .2 5.9 5.9 

2000 1 .2 5.9 11.7 

2001 2 .6 19.8 31.5 

2002 9 2.1 68.5 100.0 

Total 12 3.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

father What is your father's highest level of education? 



Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Less than high school 17 4.2 4.5 4.5 

2 High school graduate or 

GED 58 14.2 15.0 19.5 

3 Some college 52 12.6 13.4 32.9 

4 Bachelor's degree 116 28.1 29.9 62.8 

5 Master's degree 77 18.8 19.9 82.7 

6 PhD 32 7.8 8.3 91.0 

7 Professional degree 

(MD, JD, etc) 28 6.8 7.3 98.2 

8 Other (please specify 

below) 7 1.7 1.8 100.0 

Total 387 94.2 100.0 

Missing 9 NO FATHER, MALE 

PARENT, GUARDIAN 

INVOLVED 

6 1.4 

System 18 4.4 

Total 24 5.8 

Total 411 100.0 



mother What is your mother's highest level of education? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Less than high school 11 2.6 2.7 2.7 

2 High school graduate or 

GED 62 15.1 15.9 18.7 

3 Some college 65 15.9 16.7 35.4 

4 Bachelor's degree 107 26.1 27.5 62.9 

5 Master's degree 91 22.2 23.4 86.4 

6 PhD 26 6.4 6.7 93.1 

7 Professional degree 

(MD, JD, etc) 17 4.1 4.4 97.4 

8 Other (please specify 

below) 10 2.4 2.6 100.0 

Total 390 94.8 100.0 

Missing 9 NO MOTHER, 

FEMALE PARENT, 

GUARDIAN INVOLVED 

1 .4 

System 20 4.8 

Total 21 5.2 

Total 411 100.0 

gradschlr school that will grant your degree (incl. other categories) 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Arizona State University 15 3.5 3.7 3.7 

2 Auburn University 4 1.1 1.1 4.8 

3 Austin College 2 .4 .5 5.2 

4 Boston College 16 3.9 4.0 9.3 

5 Brooklyn CUNY 1 .2 .2 9.4 

6 Bryn Mawr College 9 2.3 2.4 11.8 

7 California State 

University Monterey Bay 3 .6 .7 12.5 

8 Carnegie Mellon 

University 2 .5 .6 13.0 

9 City College of New 

York, CUNY 1 .3 .3 13.4 

10 Colorado School of 

Mines 1 .3 .3 13.7 

11 Colorado State 

University 15 3.5 3.7 17.4 

12 Columbia University in 

the City of New York 6 1.6 1.6 19.0 

15 Duke University 10 2.4 2.5 21.5 

16 Eastern Washington 


17 Florida International 

University 10 2.5 2.6 24.4 

18 Fordham University 8 1.9 2.0 26.4 



19 Georgia Institute of 

Technology 1 .3 .3 26.7 

20 Gonzaga University 8 1.9 2.0 28.7 

22 Grand Valley State 


23 Grove City College 1 .3 .3 29.2 

24 Hampshire College 2 .4 .5 29.7 

25 Harvey Mudd College 3 .8 .8 30.5 

26 Hiram College 3 .6 .7 31.2 

27 Illinois Institute of 

Technology 1 .3 .3 31.5 

28 Indiana University 3 .8 .8 32.3 

29 Jackson State 

University 11 2.6 2.7 34.9 

30 Jacksonville State 


32 Marymount University 3 .6 .7 35.8 

33 Missouri University of 

Science and Technology 2 .6 .6 36.4 

34 Mount Holyoke College 

38 9.2 9.5 45.9 

35 NC A&T State 


38 Northwestern Univ 1 .3 .3 46.4 

39 Olin College of 

Engineering 1 .2 .2 46.6 

40 Oregon State University 

1 .3 .3 46.9 

41 Polytechnic Institute of 

NYU 1 .2 .2 47.1 

42 Purdue University 1 .3 .3 47.3 

43 Radford University 2 .5 .5 47.8 

46 San Jose State 


47 Shippensburg 


48 Simmons College, 

Boston 2 .4 .5 49.1 

49 South Dakota School of 

Mines and Technology 2 .5 .5 49.6 

50 Southwest Baptist 


51 St Edward's University 11 2.7 2.8 52.9 

52 St. Thomas Aquinas 

College 2 .4 .5 53.4 

53 SUNY Brockport 3 .8 .8 54.2 

56 Texas Tech University 1 .3 .3 54.5 

57 The College of New 

Jersey 2 .5 .5 55.0 

58 Touro College 1 .2 .2 55.2 

59 Trinity Western 




60 Tufts University 10 2.5 2.6 58.3 

61 University of Akron 14 3.4 3.5 61.8 

62 University of Alabama 1 .2 .2 62.0 

63 University of British 

Columbia 1 .2 .3 62.2 

64 University of California - 

Berkeley 18 4.3 4.5 66.7 


San Diego 3 .8 .8 67.6 


Santa Barbara 3 .7 .7 68.3 

67 University of Chicago 5 1.2 1.3 69.6 

68 University of Colorado - 

Boulder 1 .3 .3 69.9 

69 University of 

Connecticut 1 .3 .3 70.2 

70 University of Delaware 1 .3 .3 70.5 

71 University of Hawaii 

Hilo 1 .2 .2 70.6 

72 University of Idaho 1 .2 .2 70.8 

75 University of Minnesota 

- Twin Cities 2 .5 .6 71.4 

76 University of Minnesota 

- Morris 2 .5 .5 71.9 

78 University of North 

Carolina - Charlotte 15 3.7 3.9 75.7 

79 University of North 

Carolina - Chapel Hill 0 .1 .1 75.9 

80 University of 

Pennsylvania 1 .3 .3 76.1 

81 University of PR 

Mayaguez Campus 1 .2 .2 76.3 

82 University of Richmond 

1 .2 .2 76.5 

83 University of Southern 

Maine 11 2.6 2.7 79.1 

84 University of Texas - 

Austin 2 .4 .4 79.5 

86 University of Virginia 19 4.6 4.8 84.3 

87 University of West 

Florida 3 .6 .7 85.0 

88 Virginia Tech 31 7.5 7.8 92.8 

89 Williams College 2 .4 .5 93.2 

92 Worcester Polytechnic 

Institute 1 .3 .3 93.5 

93 Xavier University 19 4.6 4.8 98.3 

94 Youngstown State 


95 PREFER NOT TO 

SPECIFY 6 1.5 1.5 100.0 

Total 394 95.9 100.0 

Missing -99 17 4.1 


Total 411 100.0 

group Institutional Group 



Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Ph-D granting - top 36 67 16.2 17.2 17.2 

2 Ph-D granting - other 125 30.5 32.3 49.6 

3 Non Ph-D granting 117 28.3 30.1 79.7 

4 Small schools 79 19.1 20.3 100.0 

Total 387 94.2 100.0 

Missing -99 24 5.8 

Total 411 100.0 



Appendix D: 

Survey Results 



Center for Survey Research

a1a Likelihood to study computing in graduate school 



Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Very unlikely 64 15.6 16.2 16.2 

2 Somewhat unlikely 79 19.2 19.9 36.1 

3 Somewhat likely 99 24.0 24.8 60.9 

4 Very likely 155 37.8 39.1 100.0 

Total 397 96.6 100.0 

Missing 5 Don't Know 11 2.7 

System 3 .7 

Total 14 3.4 

Total 411 100.0 

a1b Likelihood to study a non-computing subject in graduate school 


Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 91 22.1 22.6 100.0 

Total 402 97.7 100.0 


System 4 1.0 

Total 9 2.3 

Total 411 100.0 

a1c Likelihood to attend graduate school immediately 


Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 132 32.0 32.4 100.0 

Total 406 98.7 100.0 

Missing 5 Don't Know 2 .5 

System 3 .8 

Total 6 1.3 

Total 411 100.0 

University of Virginia D-1


a1d Likelihood to attend graduate school after working for a while 


Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 119 28.8 29.9 100.0 

Total 396 96.3 100.0 


System 3 .8 

Total 15 3.7 

Total 411 100.0 

a1e Likelihood to successfully complete a graduate program 


Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 229 55.7 59.2 100.0 

Total 386 93.9 100.0 


System 5 1.2 

Total 25 6.1 

Total 411 100.0 

a1f Likelihood to earn a Masters degree in computing 


Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 131 31.8 33.2 100.0 

Total 393 95.7 100.0 


System 3 .8 

Total 18 4.3 

Total 411 100.0 

D-2 Center for Survey Research

a1g Likelihood to earn a PhD in computing 



Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 57 13.9 14.8 100.0 

Total 386 94.0 100.0 


System 5 1.2 

Total 25 6.0 

Total 411 100.0 

a1h Likelihood to get a job in research that involves computing 


Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 87 21.1 22.3 100.0 

Total 389 94.7 100.0 


System 3 .8 

Total 22 5.3 

Total 411 100.0 

a1i Likelihood to get a job in computing, not in research 


Cumulative 

Percent 




4 Very likely 189 45.9 48.1 100.0 

Total 392 95.4 100.0 


System 2 .5 

Total 19 4.6 

Total 411 100.0 



a2a Faculty is available to me for one-on-one advising 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 393 95.6 97.2 97.2 

2 No 11 2.8 2.8 100.0 

Total 405 98.4 100.0 

Missing 3 N/A 7 1.6 

Total 411 100.0 

a2b Faculty helps me progress toward my degree 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 386 93.8 95.2 95.2 

2 No 20 4.7 4.8 100.0 

Total 405 98.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a2c Faculty gives me useful career advice 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 336 81.7 84.9 84.9 

2 No 60 14.6 15.1 100.0 

Total 396 96.3 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a2d Faculty gives me useful advice about my research 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 279 67.9 85.5 85.5 

2 No 47 11.5 14.5 100.0 

Total 327 79.5 100.0 


System 0 .1 

Total 84 20.5 

Total 411 100.0 



a2e Faculty encourages me to collaborate on research with my fellow students 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 268 65.2 76.9 76.9 

2 No 80 19.6 23.1 100.0 

Total 349 84.8 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a2f Faculty cares about me as a person 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 351 85.3 90.1 90.1 

2 No 38 9.4 9.9 100.0 

Total 389 94.7 100.0 


System 0 .1 

Total 22 5.3 

Total 411 100.0 

a2g Someone other than my advisor takes an interest in my progress toward my degree 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 304 74.0 76.3 76.3 

2 No 94 22.9 23.7 100.0 

Total 399 96.9 100.0 


System 1 .2 

Total 13 3.1 

Total 411 100.0 

a2h Faculty favors certain groups of students over others 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 131 31.8 33.6 33.6 

2 No 258 62.8 66.4 100.0 

Total 389 94.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



a2i Faculty encourages me to publish research 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 178 43.4 55.0 55.0 

2 No 146 35.5 45.0 100.0 

Total 324 78.8 100.0 


System 0 .1 

Total 87 21.2 

Total 411 100.0 

a2j Faculty has expectations of undergraduate students that are too high 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 109 26.5 27.4 27.4 

2 No 290 70.4 72.6 100.0 

Total 399 96.9 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a2k Faculty encourages me to attend professional conferences 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 276 67.2 70.6 70.6 

2 No 115 28.0 29.4 100.0 

Total 392 95.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a2l Faculty helps me make professional contacts 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 219 53.2 56.7 56.7 

2 No 167 40.6 43.3 100.0 

Total 386 93.8 100.0 


System 1 .2 

Total 25 6.2 

Total 411 100.0 


a2m Faculty undermines my confidence in my abilities 



Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 37 8.9 9.3 9.3 

2 No 360 87.5 90.7 100.0 

Total 396 96.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

welcome How welcome do you feel in your home department? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Very Welcome 250 60.7 61.5 61.5 

2 Somewhat Welcome 127 30.8 31.2 92.7 

3 Somewhat Unwelcome 25 6.0 6.0 98.7 

4 Very Unwelcome 5 1.3 1.3 100.0 

Total 406 98.7 100.0 

Missing 5 Don't Know, Decline to 

rate 5 1.3 

Total 411 100.0 

a4ea Existence: Brown-bag lunches 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 78 19.1 27.1 27.1 

2 No 211 51.4 72.9 100.0 

Total 290 70.4 100.0 

Missing 3 N/A 121 29.4 

System 1 .2 

Total 122 29.6 

Total 411 100.0 

a4eb Existence: Visiting lectures 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 348 84.7 88.7 88.7 

2 No 44 10.8 11.3 100.0 

Total 393 95.5 100.0 


System 1 .2 

Total 19 4.5 

Total 411 100.0 



a4ec Existence: Computing-related student groups 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 361 87.8 92.8 92.8 

2 No 28 6.8 7.2 100.0 

Total 389 94.6 100.0 


System 1 .3 

Total 22 5.4 

Total 411 100.0 

a4ed Existence: Groups for minority computing students or minority engineers/scientists 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 194 47.2 60.5 60.5 

2 No 127 30.8 39.5 100.0 

Total 321 78.0 100.0 


System 1 .2 

Total 91 22.0 

Total 411 100.0 

a4ee Existence: Groups for women computing students or women engineers/scientists 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 285 69.3 79.6 79.6 

2 No 73 17.8 20.4 100.0 

Total 358 87.1 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a4ef Existence: Computing-related honor societies 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 183 44.5 58.6 58.6 

2 No 129 31.5 41.4 100.0 

Total 313 76.0 100.0 


System 0 .1 

Total 99 24.0 

Total 411 100.0 


a4eg Existence: Local computing-related groups 



Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 193 46.9 68.2 68.2 

2 No 90 21.8 31.8 100.0 

Total 283 68.7 100.0 

Missing 3 N/A 124 30.2 

System 4 1.1 

Total 129 31.3 

Total 411 100.0 

a4eh Existence: Lectures by women or minority computer scientists/engineers 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 266 64.6 81.5 81.5 

2 No 60 14.7 18.5 100.0 

Total 326 79.3 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a4pa Participation: Brown-bag lunches 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 43 10.4 54.7 54.7 

2 No 36 8.7 45.3 100.0 

Total 78 19.1 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a4pb Participation: Visiting lectures 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 288 70.0 82.9 82.9 

2 No 59 14.5 17.1 100.0 

Total 347 84.5 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



a4pc Participation: Computing-related student groups 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 222 53.9 61.6 61.6 

2 No 138 33.6 38.4 100.0 

Total 360 87.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a4pd Participation: Groups for minority computing students or minority engineers/scientists 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 61 14.8 31.6 31.6 

2 No 132 32.1 68.4 100.0 

Total 193 46.9 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a4pe Participation: Groups for women computing students or women engineers/scientists 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 113 27.6 40.0 40.0 

2 No 170 41.4 60.0 100.0 

Total 284 69.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a4pf Participation: Computing-related honor societies 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 69 16.7 37.7 37.7 

2 No 113 27.5 62.3 100.0 

Total 182 44.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 


a4pg Participation: Local computing-related groups 



Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 80 19.5 41.8 41.8 

2 No 112 27.2 58.2 100.0 

Total 192 46.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

a4ph Participation: Lectures by women or minority computer scientists/engineers 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 177 43.1 66.9 66.9 

2 No 88 21.3 33.1 100.0 

Total 265 64.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

nomentor I have no mentor 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 25 6.1 97.2 97.2 

2 No 1 .2 2.8 100.0 

Total 26 6.3 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

b1a Have participated in: A course that included computing research 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 240 58.4 59.9 59.9 

2 No 161 39.2 40.1 100.0 

Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



b1b Have participated in: Independent study that included computing research 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 199 48.4 49.7 49.7 

2 No 201 48.9 50.3 100.0 

Total 400 97.3 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

b1c Have participated in: Summer research at my university with a computing professor or 

researcher 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 116 28.3 29.3 29.3 

2 No 281 68.4 70.7 100.0 

Total 398 96.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

b1d Have participated in: School-year computing research at my university 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 185 44.9 46.1 46.1 

2 No 216 52.6 53.9 100.0 

Total 401 97.5 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

b1e Have participated in: Summer computing research at another university 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 100 24.4 25.1 25.1 

2 No 299 72.6 74.9 100.0 

Total 399 97.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



b1f Have participated in: Computing research internship at a government or industry lab 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 45 10.9 11.3 11.3 

2 No 352 85.6 88.7 100.0 

Total 397 96.5 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

b1g Have participated in: Other computing research 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 44 10.7 11.2 11.2 

2 No 350 85.0 88.8 100.0 

Total 394 95.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

b1h Have participated in: Other non-computing research 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 74 18.1 19.1 19.1 

2 No 315 76.7 80.9 100.0 

Total 390 94.8 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

b4a How important is research experience on: Career choice 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Very important 129 31.4 34.7 34.7 

2 Somewhat important 91 22.0 24.3 59.0 

3 Only slightly important 72 17.4 19.2 78.2 

4 Not at all important 81 19.8 21.8 100.0 

Total 373 90.7 100.0 

Missing 5 Don't know, Decline to 

rate 32 7.7 

System 7 1.6 

Total 38 9.3 

Total 411 100.0 



b4b How important is research experience on: Decision about whether or not to attend 



Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 368 89.5 100.0 


rate 36 8.8 

System 7 1.6 

Total 43 10.5 

Total 411 100.0 

b4c How important is research experience on: Choice of graduate school 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 310 75.3 100.0 


rate 95 23.0 

System 7 1.6 

Total 101 24.7 

Total 411 100.0 

b4d How important is research experience on: Confidence that you will succeed in your 

chosen path 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 359 87.2 100.0 


rate 46 11.1 

System 7 1.6 

Total 53 12.8 

Total 411 100.0 



b3a How much experience: Summarizing published research results 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Quite a Bit 74 17.9 19.0 19.0 

2 Some 135 32.7 34.8 53.8 

3 Almost None 68 16.4 17.4 71.3 

4 None 111 27.0 28.7 100.0 

Total 387 94.1 100.0 

Missing 5 Don't know 14 3.4 

System 10 2.4 

Total 24 5.9 

Total 411 100.0 

b3b How much experience: Using scientific methods to test a hypothesis 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 176 42.9 44.8 65.0 

3 Almost None 61 14.9 15.6 80.5 

4 None 77 18.7 19.5 100.0 

Total 394 95.9 100.0 


System 7 1.8 

Total 17 4.1 

Total 411 100.0 

b3c How much experience: Generating hypotheses 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 197 47.9 50.0 68.9 

3 Almost None 56 13.5 14.1 83.0 

4 None 67 16.3 17.0 100.0 

Total 394 95.8 100.0 


System 7 1.8 

Total 17 4.2 

Total 411 100.0 



b3d How much experience: Collecting data or conducting experiments 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 190 46.3 48.3 75.9 

3 Almost None 44 10.8 11.3 87.2 

4 None 51 12.3 12.8 100.0 

Total 394 95.8 100.0 


System 8 2.0 

Total 17 4.2 

Total 411 100.0 

b3e How much experience: Analyzing data with statistics or other tools 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 196 47.6 49.7 71.1 

3 Almost None 58 14.1 14.7 85.7 

4 None 56 13.7 14.3 100.0 

Total 394 95.8 100.0 


System 8 2.0 

Total 17 4.2 

Total 411 100.0 

b3f How much experience: Explaining results from data analysis or experiments 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 178 43.3 45.2 72.4 

3 Almost None 51 12.4 12.9 85.3 

4 None 58 14.1 14.7 100.0 

Total 394 95.8 100.0 


System 8 2.0 

Total 17 4.2 

Total 411 100.0 



b3g How much experience: Writing or co-authoring a research paper or report 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 153 37.2 39.0 60.3 

3 Almost None 69 16.7 17.5 77.8 

4 None 87 21.3 22.2 100.0 

Total 393 95.6 100.0 


System 9 2.2 

Total 18 4.4 

Total 411 100.0 

b3h How much experience: Presenting a research paper or report 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 156 38.1 39.8 62.8 

3 Almost None 63 15.2 15.9 78.7 

4 None 84 20.4 21.3 100.0 

Total 393 95.7 100.0 


System 9 2.1 

Total 18 4.3 

Total 411 100.0 

b3i How much experience: Publishing a research paper or report 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 79 19.2 20.0 29.1 

3 Almost None 91 22.2 23.1 52.2 

4 None 189 45.9 47.8 100.0 

Total 394 95.9 100.0 


System 8 1.9 

Total 17 4.1 

Total 411 100.0 



b3j How much experience: Feeling like a member of a research community 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Some 125 30.5 33.3 47.0 

3 Almost None 88 21.5 23.5 70.5 

4 None 111 27.0 29.5 100.0 

Total 376 91.4 100.0 


System 12 3.0 

Total 35 8.6 

Total 411 100.0 

nonreswk Have participated in non-research work that involved computing? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 294 71.5 72.7 72.7 

2 No 111 26.9 27.3 100.0 

Total 404 98.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

c2a How important is non-research work experience on: Career choice 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 374 91.1 100.0 


rate 30 7.3 

System 7 1.6 

Total 37 8.9 

Total 411 100.0 



c2b How important is non-research work experience on: Decision about whether or not to 



Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 372 90.4 100.0 


rate 33 8.0 

System 7 1.6 

Total 40 9.6 

Total 411 100.0 

c2c How important is non-research work experience on: Choice of graduate school 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 324 78.7 100.0 


rate 80 19.5 

System 7 1.7 

Total 87 21.3 

Total 411 100.0 

c2d How important is non-research work experience on: Confidence that you will succeed in 



Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 375 91.3 100.0 


rate 29 7.1 

System 7 1.6 

Total 36 8.7 

Total 411 100.0 



d1a How confident: Contribute to a research project in computing 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Very confident 197 47.8 48.9 48.9 

2 Moderately confident 127 30.9 31.6 80.5 

3 Only slightly confident 49 11.9 12.2 92.8 

4 Not at all confident 29 7.1 7.2 100.0 

Total 402 97.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d1b How confident: Get admitted to graduate school in computing 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 402 97.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d1c How confident: Complete a graduate degree in computing 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d1d How confident: Become a capable researcher in computing 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 402 97.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 


d1e How confident: Have a successful career in computing 



Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 402 97.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d2a How knowledgeable do you feel about: What it is like to do computing research 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Very knowledgeable 86 21.0 21.5 21.5 

2 Moderately 

knowledgeable 164 39.9 40.8 62.3 

3 Only slightly 


4 Not at all 


Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d2b How knowledgeable do you feel about: What it is like to be a graduate student in computer 



Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Moderately 




4 Not at all 


Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



d2c How knowledgeable do you feel about: How computing can address social issues 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Moderately 




4 Not at all 


Total 401 97.5 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d2d How knowledgeable do you feel about: What it is like to work as a computer scientist or 



Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Moderately 




4 Not at all 


Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d2e How knowledgeable do you feel about: Criteria for admission to graduate programs 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Moderately 




4 Not at all 


Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



d2f How knowledgeable do you feel about: How to get financial support for graduate school 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Moderately 




4 Not at all 


Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

d2g How knowledgeable do you feel about: How to choose the right graduate school for me 


Cumulative 

Percent 


2 Moderately 




4 Not at all 


Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

grapcomp Did you apply to graduate school in computing? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 94 23.0 23.5 23.5 

2 Not yet, but 

plan to apply 40 9.8 10.1 33.6 

3 No 267 64.8 66.4 100.0 

Total 401 97.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



grapoth Did you apply to graduate school in something other than computing? 

Valid 1 Yes, in a science, 

technology, 

engineering, or math 

field, please specify 


Cumulative 

Percent 

36 8.6 8.9 8.9 

2 Yes, in another 

field, please specify 27 6.6 6.7 15.6 

3 Not yet, but plan to 

apply 37 9.0 9.2 24.8 

4 No 301 73.3 75.2 100.0 

Total 401 97.5 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

workfall Do you plan to work in computing in Fall 2010? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes, full time 188 45.7 52.2 52.2 

2 Yes, part time 71 17.2 19.7 72.0 

3 No 101 24.5 28.0 100.0 

Total 359 87.4 100.0 


System 10 2.5 

Total 52 12.6 

Total 411 100.0 

wrkoth Do you plan to work in an area other than computing in Fall 2010? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes, full time, 

specify area 40 9.7 11.9 11.9 

2 Yes, part time, 

specify area 33 8.1 9.9 21.8 

3 No 264 64.2 78.2 100.0 

Total 338 82.1 100.0 


System 14 3.5 

Total 74 17.9 

Total 411 100.0 



e5a Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Family or 

personal responsibilities 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Strongly encouraged 

attending 91 22.1 23.5 23.5 

2 Somewhat 

encouraged attanding 90 21.9 23.3 46.8 

3 No influence 131 31.9 33.9 80.7 

4 Somewhat 

discouraged attending 54 13.2 14.0 94.7 

5 Strongly discouraged 

attending 20 4.9 5.3 100.0 

Total 387 94.0 100.0 

Missing 6 Don't know, Not 

applicable 10 2.4 

System 15 3.6 

Total 25 6.0 

Total 411 100.0 

e5b Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Friends 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 48 11.7 12.6 12.6 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 218 53.1 57.2 95.3 

4 Somewhat 



attending 3 .7 .7 100.0 

Total 382 92.8 100.0 



System 18 4.4 

Total 30 7.2 

Total 411 100.0 



e5c Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: 



Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 115 27.8 30.3 30.3 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 145 35.3 38.3 98.6 

4 Somewhat 

discouraged attending 4 .9 1.0 99.6 


attending 1 .3 .4 100.0 

Total 378 92.0 100.0 



System 15 3.7 

Total 33 8.0 

Total 411 100.0 

e5d Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Research 

advisor 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 107 25.9 34.0 34.0 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 139 33.9 44.4 99.3 

4 Somewhat 

discouraged attending 1 .3 .4 99.7 


attending 1 .3 .3 100.0 

Total 314 76.3 100.0 



System 14 3.5 

Total 97 23.7 

Total 411 100.0 



e5e Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Personal 

financial concerns 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 29 7.0 7.5 7.5 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 143 34.8 37.5 59.5 

4 Somewhat 



attending 59 14.4 15.5 100.0 

Total 381 92.8 100.0 



System 15 3.6 

Total 30 7.2 

Total 411 100.0 

e5f Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: General 

economic environment 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 37 8.9 9.6 9.6 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 151 36.6 39.2 73.9 

4 Somewhat 



attending 27 6.7 7.1 100.0 

Total 384 93.4 100.0 



System 14 3.5 

Total 27 6.6 

Total 411 100.0 



e5g Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Immediate 

employment opportunities 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 33 8.1 9.1 9.1 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 115 27.9 31.0 64.6 

4 Somewhat 



attending 63 15.4 17.1 100.0 

Total 370 89.9 100.0 



System 15 3.7 

Total 41 10.1 

Total 411 100.0 

e5h Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Kind of work 

I want to do 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 118 28.8 30.9 30.9 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 81 19.6 21.1 73.5 

4 Somewhat 



attending 36 8.8 9.4 100.0 

Total 383 93.2 100.0 



System 14 3.5 

Total 28 6.8 

Total 411 100.0 



e5i Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Kind of 

lifestyle I want 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 102 24.9 26.9 26.9 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 88 21.4 23.0 72.6 

4 Somewhat 



attending 37 8.9 9.6 100.0 

Total 381 92.7 100.0 



System 14 3.5 

Total 30 7.3 

Total 411 100.0 

e5j Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: Keep 

academic momentum 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 107 26.1 28.8 28.8 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 143 34.7 38.2 92.6 

4 Somewhat 



attending 8 2.0 2.2 100.0 

Total 373 90.7 100.0 



System 15 3.6 

Total 38 9.3 

Total 411 100.0 



e5k Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: My academic 

achievement to date 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 99 24.0 26.2 26.2 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 136 33.1 36.1 86.7 

4 Somewhat 



attending 9 2.1 2.3 100.0 

Total 377 91.7 100.0 



System 14 3.5 

Total 34 8.3 

Total 411 100.0 

e5l Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: My computing 

work experience 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 52 12.7 14.3 14.3 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 145 35.4 39.7 79.8 

4 Somewhat 



attending 18 4.4 4.9 100.0 

Total 367 89.2 100.0 



System 16 4.0 

Total 45 10.8 

Total 411 100.0 



e5m Influence your decision to attend or not attend graduate school immediately: My 

computing research experience 


Cumulative 

Percent 


attending 74 18.0 21.2 21.2 

2 Somewhat 


3 No influence 145 35.4 41.7 88.2 

4 Somewhat 



attending 12 2.8 3.3 100.0 

Total 349 84.8 100.0 



System 15 3.6 

Total 63 15.2 

Total 411 100.0 

recrsch Did you do research with any of the people who wrote your recommendations? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 76 18.4 60.4 60.4 

2 No 50 12.1 39.6 100.0 

Total 126 30.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



felwshp Did you apply for a graduate fellowship separate from any offered by your intended 

institution? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 29 7.0 7.4 7.4 

2 No 363 88.2 92.6 100.0 

Total 392 95.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

flwrcvd Did you receive any of the separate graduate fellowships that you applied for? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 13 3.1 44.0 44.0 

2 No 16 3.9 56.0 100.0 

Total 29 7.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

g1a How important is this for your future career: A career that involves teamwork 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Very Important 150 36.6 39.4 39.4 

2 Moderately Important 138 33.6 36.2 75.6 

3 Slightly Important 60 14.6 15.7 91.3 

4 Not at all Important 33 8.1 8.7 100.0 

Total 382 92.8 100.0 

Missing 5 Don't Know, Not 

Applicable 12 3.0 

System 17 4.2 

Total 29 7.2 

Total 411 100.0 



g1b How important is this for your future career: A career creating new technology or 

applications 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 377 91.7 100.0 



System 20 4.8 

Total 34 8.3 

Total 411 100.0 

g1c How important is this for your future career: A career that has social impact 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 378 91.8 100.0 



System 20 4.8 

Total 34 8.2 

Total 411 100.0 

g1d How important is this for your future career: A career in which I can exercise considerable 

leadership 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 374 90.9 100.0 



System 24 5.7 

Total 37 9.1 

Total 411 100.0 



g1e How important is this for your future career: A career that has high earnings potential 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 378 92.0 100.0 



System 23 5.6 

Total 33 8.0 

Total 411 100.0 

g1f How important is this for your future career: To be prepared for a wide variety of career 

options 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 377 91.8 100.0 



System 22 5.2 

Total 34 8.2 

Total 411 100.0 

g1g How important is this for your future career: A career that is compatible with the personal 

lifestyle to which I aspire 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 379 92.2 100.0 



System 20 4.8 

Total 32 7.8 

Total 411 100.0 



g1h How important is this for your future career: To do research 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 375 91.3 100.0 



System 20 4.8 

Total 36 8.7 

Total 411 100.0 

g1i How important is this for your future career: To teach 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 376 91.5 100.0 



System 22 5.4 

Total 35 8.5 

Total 411 100.0 

g1j How important is this for your future career: To have flexible work time 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 380 92.4 100.0 



System 21 5.1 

Total 31 7.6 

Total 411 100.0 



g1k How important is this for your future career: A prestigious occupation 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 378 91.8 100.0 



System 21 5.1 

Total 34 8.2 

Total 411 100.0 

g1l How important is this for your future career: To decide for myself what I will work on 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 374 91.1 100.0 



System 24 5.8 

Total 37 8.9 

Total 411 100.0 

g1m How important is this for your future career: To work in a particular geographic location 


Cumulative 

Percent 





Total 374 90.9 100.0 



System 20 4.8 

Total 37 9.1 

Total 411 100.0 


hidegree What is the highest degree you plan to attain? 



Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Undergraduate 58 14.1 14.7 14.7 

2 Master's 179 43.4 45.2 59.8 

3 PhD 132 32.0 33.3 93.1 

4 Professional Degree 

(JD, MD, etc) 13 3.1 3.3 96.4 

5 Other, please specify 14 3.5 3.6 100.0 

Total 395 96.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

gradfall Do you plan to attend graduate school in Fall 2010? 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes, full time 99 24.1 25.1 25.1 

2 Yes, part time 14 3.3 3.5 28.6 

3 Still waiting to hear 

about admission 3 .8 .8 29.4 

4 Have heard about 

admission, but haven't 

decided yet whether to 

attend 

7 1.6 1.7 31.0 

5 No 272 66.2 69.0 100.0 

Total 394 95.9 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1a Reason not apply to graduate school: I do not like school 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 61 14.9 22.8 22.8 

2 No 207 50.3 77.2 100.0 

Total 268 65.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



h1b Reason not apply to graduate school: I don't need more education for the job I want 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 97 23.5 36.2 36.2 

2 No 171 41.5 63.8 100.0 

Total 267 65.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1c Reason not apply to graduate school: I do not feel that going to graduate school is 

important 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 43 10.5 16.1 16.1 

2 No 225 54.7 83.9 100.0 

Total 268 65.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1d Reason not apply to graduate school: My grades are too low 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 38 9.3 14.3 14.3 

2 No 230 55.9 85.7 100.0 

Total 268 65.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1e Reason not apply to graduate school: My GRE scores are too low 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 14 3.4 5.3 5.3 

2 No 253 61.6 94.7 100.0 

Total 267 65.0 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



h1f Reason not apply to graduate school: I haven't taken the right courses 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 26 6.2 9.6 9.6 

2 No 242 59.0 90.4 100.0 

Total 268 65.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1g Reason not apply to graduate school: I probably can't get admitted to the graduate school 

I want to attend 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 44 10.7 16.4 16.4 

2 No 224 54.5 83.6 100.0 

Total 268 65.2 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1h Reason not apply to graduate school: I cannot afford to go to graduate school 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 101 24.5 38.0 38.0 

2 No 165 40.0 62.0 100.0 

Total 265 64.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1i Reason not apply to graduate school: I cannot afford to take the necessary tests or pay 

application fees 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 34 8.3 12.8 12.8 

2 No 231 56.1 87.2 100.0 

Total 265 64.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



h1j Reason not apply to graduate school: I prefer to work first to save money for graduate 

school 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 163 39.6 60.6 60.6 

2 No 106 25.8 39.4 100.0 

Total 269 65.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1k Reason not apply to graduate school: I need to help support my family 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 51 12.4 19.2 19.2 

2 No 215 52.2 80.8 100.0 

Total 265 64.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1l Reason not apply to graduate school: No one has encouraged me to go 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 21 5.2 8.1 8.1 

2 No 241 58.7 91.9 100.0 

Total 263 63.9 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1m Reason not apply to graduate school: No one in my family has ever attended graduate 

school 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 19 4.6 7.2 7.2 

2 No 246 59.9 92.8 100.0 

Total 265 64.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



h1n Reason not apply to graduate school: Most of my friends will not be going to graduate 

school 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 29 7.0 10.9 10.9 

2 No 236 57.4 89.1 100.0 

Total 265 64.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1o Reason not apply to graduate school: I plan to take some time off before going to graduate 

school 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 118 28.8 44.8 44.8 

2 No 146 35.6 55.2 100.0 

Total 265 64.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1p Reason not apply to graduate school: I plan to join the Armed Forces 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 7 1.8 2.8 2.8 

2 No 258 62.7 97.2 100.0 

Total 265 64.6 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1q Reason not apply to graduate school: I plan to get married or start my own family 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 46 11.2 17.4 17.4 

2 No 219 53.2 82.6 100.0 

Total 265 64.4 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



h1r Reason not apply to graduate school: I already have a job 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 128 31.0 47.9 47.9 

2 No 139 33.7 52.1 100.0 

Total 266 64.7 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 

h1s Reason not apply to graduate school: Other 


Cumulative 

Percent 

Valid 1 Yes 69 16.8 30.0 30.0 

2 No 161 39.1 70.0 100.0 

Total 230 55.8 100.0 


Total 411 100.0 



Appendix E: 

Crosstabulations/All Respondents 

Ratings by Demographic Variables 




ALL RESPONDENTS 

GENDER 


University of Virginia E-1


E-2 Center for Survey Research

Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Gender 

Male 

(1) 


a1b Likelihood to study a non-computing subject in 



a1d Likelihood to attend graduate school after working for 

a while 

a1e Likelihood to successfully complete a graduate 

program 



a1h Likelihood to get a job in research that involves 

computing 


welcomer How welcome or unwelcome do you feel in 

your home department? 


University of Virginia E-3 

Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.91 214 2.83 167 

2.26 213 2.37 173 

2.14 213 2.41 175 

2.60 213 2.77 166 

3.38 211 3.44 158 

2.79 213 2.77 163 

1.94 204 2.16 166 

2.37 208 2.73 1 164 

3.24 205 3.06 171 

3.47 213 3.61 176


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Gender 

Male 

(1) 

b3ar How much experience: Summarizing published 

research results 

b3br How much experience: Using scientific methods to 

test a hypothesis 

b3cr How much experience: Generating hypotheses 

b3dr How much experience: Collecting data or conducting 

experiments 

b3er How much experience: Analyzing data with statistics 

or other tools 

b3fr How much experience: Explaining results from data 

analysis or experiments 

b3gr How much experience: Writing or co-authoring a 

research paper or report 

b3hr How much experience: Presenting a research paper 

or report 

b3ir How much experience: Publishing a research paper 

or report 

b4ar How important is research experience on: Your 

career choice 

b4br How important is research experience on: Your 

decision about whether or not to attend graduate school 

b4cr How important is research experience on: Your 

choice of graduate school 

b4dr How important is research experience on: Your 

confidence that you will succeed in your chosen path 

c2ar How important is non-research work experience on: 


c2br How important is non-research work experience on: 

Your decision about whether or not to attend graduate 

school 

c2cr How important is non-research work experience on: 


c2dr How important is non-research work experience on: 

Your confidence that you will succeed in your chosen path 

E-4 Center for Survey Research 

Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.32 203 2.59 174 

2.67 208 2.64 176 

2.70 208 2.70 177 

2.81 207 3.01 177 

2.74 207 2.81 177 

2.79 207 2.91 177 

2.37 207 2.86 1 176 

2.52 207 2.79 176 

1.83 207 2.00 177 

2.53 198 2.92 1 167 

2.54 198 2.93 1 162 

2.25 179 2.44 122 

2.55 192 2.93 1 157 

3.33 202 3.13 162 

2.93 2 202 2.57 161 

2.32 183 2.12 133 

3.28 202 3.09 163

Chapter 5: Confidence in abilities and Knowledge 

about computing Gender 

Male 

(1) 

d1ar How confident: Contribute to a research project in 

computing 

d1br How confident: Get admitted to graduate school in 

computing 

d1cr How confident: Complete a graduate degree in 

computing 

d1dr How confident: Become a capable researcher in 

computing 

d1er How confident: Have a successful career in 

computing 

d2ar How knowledgeable do you feel about: What it is like 

to do computing research 

d2br How knowledgeable do you feel about: What it is like 

to be a graduate student in computer science or computer 

engineering 

d2cr How knowledgeable do you feel about: How 

computing can address social issues 

d2dr How knowledgeable do you feel about: What it is like 

to work as a computer scientist or computer engineer 

d2er How knowledgeable do you feel about: Criteria for 

admission to graduate programs 

d2fr How knowledgeable do you feel about: How to get 

financial support for graduate school 

d2gr How knowledgeable do you feel about: How to 

choose the right graduate school for me 



Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.30 216 3.12 177 

3.35 216 3.13 177 

3.40 215 3.19 177 

3.13 216 3.04 177 

3.56 216 3.41 177 

2.62 216 2.87 1 178 

2.58 216 2.68 178 

2.88 216 3.10 178 

3.25 2 216 2.94 178 

2.81 216 2.70 178 

2.40 216 2.49 178 

2.51 216 2.63 178


Chapter 6: Future Plans Gender 

Male 

(1) 

e5ar Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Family or personal 


e5br Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Friends 

e5cr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Undergraduate 


e5dr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Research advisor 

e5er Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Personal financial concerns 

e5fr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: General economic 

environment 

e5gr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Immediate employment 

opportunities 

e5hr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Kind of work I want to do 

e5ir Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Kind of lifestyle I want 

e5jr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: Keep academic momentum 

e5kr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: My academic achievement 

to date 

e5lr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: My computing work 

experience 

e5mr Influence your decision to attend or not attend 

graduate school immediately: My computing research 

experience 


Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.44 210 3.46 173 

3.46 205 3.44 173 

3.80 208 4.00 167 

3.75 172 4.03 1 138 

2.68 208 2.81 170 

3.11 209 3.11 171 

2.79 207 3.05 160 

3.36 208 3.62 171 

3.35 209 3.46 169 

3.69 209 3.80 161 

3.57 205 3.66 169 

3.32 201 3.26 163 

3.43 185 3.64 160

Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Gender 

Male 

(1) 

g1ar How important is this for your future career: A career 

that involves teamwork 

g1br How important is this for your future career: A career 

creating new technology or applications 

g1cr How important is this for your future career: A career 

that has social impact 

g1dr How important is this for your future career: A career 

in which I can exercise considerable leadership 

g1er How important is this for your future career: A career 

that has high earnings potential 

g1fr How important is this for your future career: To be 

prepared for a wide variety of career options 

g1gr How important is this for your future career: A career 

that is compatible with the personal lifestyle to which I 

aspire 

g1hr How important is this for your future career: To do 

research 

g1ir How important is this for your future career: To teach 

g1jr How important is this for your future career: To have 

flexible work time 

g1kr How important is this for your future career: A 

prestigious occupation 

g1lr How important is this for your future career: To 

decide for myself what I will work on 

g1mr How important is this for your future career: To work 

in a particular geographic location 



Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.08 209 3.04 171 

3.21 205 3.07 170 

3.08 206 3.47 1 170 

3.13 2 202 2.81 171 

3.15 207 2.92 170 

3.13 205 3.12 171 

3.61 207 3.61 171 

2.15 202 2.34 172 

2.15 203 2.38 171 

2.90 206 3.10 172 

2.53 206 2.51 170 

2.75 202 2.85 171 

2.69 205 2.72 168


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Gender 

Male 

(1) 

a2ad Faculty is available to me for one-on-one advising 

a2bd Faculty helps me progress toward my degree 

a2cd Faculty gives me useful career advice 

a2dd Faculty gives me useful advice about my research 

a2ed Faculty encourages me to collaborate on research 


a2fd Faculty cares about me as a person 

a2gd Someone other than my advisor takes an interest in 


a2hd Faculty favors certain groups of students over 

others 

a2id Faculty encourages me to publish research 

a2jd Faculty has expectations of undergraduate students 


a2kd Faculty encourages me to attend professional 

conferences 

a2ld Faculty helps me make professional contacts 

a2md Faculty undermines my confidence in my abilities 


Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

96.9% 210 98.2% 177 

94.6% 213 96.0% 176 

85.0% 207 86.1% 174 

80.8% 170 91.0% 1 144 

70.7% 181 83.5% 1 150 

87.1% 204 93.4% 170 

70.4% 207 82.8% 1 175 

36.7% 203 29.8% 170 

49.4% 167 62.6% 147 

29.3% 208 25.6% 175 

62.3% 204 82.0% 1 173 

46.8% 203 69.7% 1 169 

8.5% 211 10.5% 171

Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Gender 

Male 

(1) 

a4ead Existence: Brown-bag lunches 

a4ebd Existence: Visiting lectures 

a4ecd Existence: Computing-related student groups 

a4edd Existence: Groups for minority computing students 

or minority engineers/scientists 

a4eed Existence: Groups for women computing students 

or women engineers/scientists 

a4efd Existence: Computing-related honor societies 

a4egd Existence: Local computing-related groups 

a4ehd Existence: Lectures by women or minority 

computer scientists/engineers 

a4pad Participation: Brown-bag lunches 

a4pbd Participation: Visiting lectures 

a4pcd Participation: Computing-related student groups 

a4pdd Participation: Groups for minority computing 

students or minority engineers/scientists 

a4ped Participation: Groups for women computing 

students or women engineers/scientists 

a4pfd Participation: Computing-related honor societies 

a4pgd Participation: Local computing-related groups 

a4phd Participation: Lectures by women or minority 




Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

25.2% 157 27.4% 123 

85.6% 205 91.4% 172 

94.6% 204 90.1% 169 

69.3% 2 155 50.3% 153 

83.4% 171 75.1% 172 

69.3% 2 159 45.3% 143 

78.9% 2 158 54.0% 115 

81.9% 169 79.3% 144 

50.9% 39 59.8% 34 

79.0% 176 86.9% 158 

56.6% 193 68.0% 152 

23.4% 108 41.9% 1 77 

7.3% 142 76.9% 1 129 

36.5% 110 38.3% 65 

39.6% 124 42.6% 62 

52.5% 138 84.9% 1 114


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Gender 

Male 

(1) 

b1ad Have participated in: A course that included 

computing research 

b1bd Have participated in: Independent study that 

included computing research 

b1cd Have participated in: Summer research at my 

university with a computing professor or researcher 

b1dd Have participated in: School-year computing 

research at my university 

b1ed Have participated in: Summer computing research 

at another university 

b1fd Have participated in: Computing research internship 

at a government or industry lab 

b1gd Have participated in: Other computing research 

b1hd Have participated in: Other non-computing research 

nonreswkd Have participated in non-research work that 

involved computing? 


Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

56.5% 214 64.2% 176 

40.0% 213 63.5% 1 176 

24.4% 213 35.8% 173 

39.2% 214 56.5% 1 176 

12.2% 213 40.9% 1 175 

17.0% 2 213 4.6% 172 

12.1% 214 9.7% 169 

15.1% 210 23.8% 168 

78.5% 216 66.5% 178 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Gender 

Male 

(1) 

grapcompd Did you apply to graduate school in 

computing? 

grapothd Did you apply to graduate school in something 

other than computing? 

workfalld Do you plan to work in computing in Fall 2010? 

wrkothd Do you plan to work in an area other than 

computing in Fall 2010? 

recrschd Did you do research with any of the people who 

wrote your recommendations? 

felwshpd Did you apply for a graduate fellowship separate 

from any offered by your intended institution? 

flwrcvdd Did you receive any of the separate graduate 

fellowships that you applied for? 

Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

31.8% 216 34.5% 178 

18.8% 216 31.6% 1 177 

79.5% 2 198 63.4% 157 

17.8% 180 26.6% 152 

55.3% 65 65.4% 60 

7.4% 215 7.5% 174 

32.5% 16 57.7% 13

Not attending graduate school Gender 

Male 

(1) 

h1ad Reason not apply to graduate school: I do not like 

school 

h1bd Reason not apply to graduate school: I don't need 

more education for the job I want 

h1cd Reason not apply to graduate school: I do not feel 

that going to graduate school is important 

h1dd Reason not apply to graduate school: My grades 

are too low 

h1ed Reason not apply to graduate school: My GRE 

scores are too low 

h1fd Reason not apply to graduate school: I haven't taken 

the right courses 

h1gd Reason not apply to graduate school: I probably 

can't get admitted to the graduate school I want to attend 

h1hd Reason not apply to graduate school: I cannot 

afford to go to graduate school 

h1id Reason not apply to graduate school: I cannot afford 

to take the necessary tests or pay application fees 

h1jd Reason not apply to graduate school: I prefer to 

work first to save money for graduate school 

h1kd Reason not apply to graduate school: I need to help 

support my family 

h1ld Reason not apply to graduate school: No one has 

encouraged me to go 

h1md Reason not apply to graduate school: No one in my 

family has ever attended graduate school 

h1nd Reason not apply to graduate school: Most of my 

friends will not be going to graduate school 

h1od Reason not apply to graduate school: I plan to take 

some time off before going to graduate school 

h1pd Reason not apply to graduate school: I plan to join 

the Armed Forces 

h1qd Reason not apply to graduate school: I plan to get 

married or start my own family 

h1rd Reason not apply to graduate school: I already have 

a job 

gradfalld Do you plan to attend graduate school in Fall 

2010? 



Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

29.7% 2 151 13.4% 117 

46.0% 2 151 23.0% 116 

21.3% 2 151 8.9% 117 

15.3% 151 12.5% 117 

5.1% 151 5.0% 116 

8.7% 151 10.2% 117 

15.8% 151 16.7% 117 

42.3% 148 32.3% 117 

11.3% 147 14.2% 117 

64.1% 151 55.8% 117 

18.6% 148 19.4% 117 

10.5% 148 4.5% 114 

6.8% 148 7.1% 117 

13.9% 148 6.4% 116 

43.7% 148 45.8% 116 

4.0% 148 .8% 117 

17.6% 147 16.7% 117 

61.1% 2 149 30.8% 117 

29.3% 216 33.0% 177



AGE 

B-12 University of Virginia


Center for Survey Research B-13


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Age 

18-25 

(1) 






a while 


program 




computing 




26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.86 331 2.91 47 

2.36 2 336 1.99 46 

2.26 339 2.28 46 

2.67 329 2.68 46 

3.42 323 3.36 43 

2.75 328 2.96 45 

2.01 323 2.13 43 

2.51 324 2.70 45 

3.14 326 3.28 46 

3.56 2 340 3.33 46 


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Age 

18-25 

(1) 







experiments 








or report 


or report 

b3jr How much experience: Feeling like a member of a 

research community 


career choice 











school 






26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.49 2 327 2.09 46 

2.70 334 2.33 46 

2.76 2 334 2.30 47 

2.93 333 2.74 47 

2.80 334 2.58 46 

2.88 333 2.58 47 

2.64 333 2.33 47 

2.68 333 2.42 46 

1.93 334 1.76 47 

2.34 318 2.11 46 

2.70 318 2.71 43 

2.73 315 2.50 42 

2.35 261 2.17 38 

2.71 306 2.79 41 

3.21 321 3.48 40 

2.75 321 2.90 38 

2.21 276 2.37 36 

3.15 320 3.48 1 42 




about computing Age 

18-25 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.19 342 3.39 47 

3.26 342 3.17 47 

3.30 341 3.28 47 

3.08 342 3.12 47 

3.49 342 3.55 47 

2.74 344 2.64 47 

2.61 344 2.69 47 

2.99 343 2.91 47 

3.13 344 2.94 47 

2.76 344 2.75 47 

2.43 344 2.50 47 

2.57 344 2.47 47 


Chapter 6: Future Plans Age 

18-25 

(1) 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 


26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.53 2 333 2.83 47 

3.44 328 3.52 46 

3.94 2 325 3.51 46 

3.90 270 3.64 37 

2.78 328 2.44 47 

3.15 2 331 2.75 46 

2.88 319 3.06 44 

3.45 331 3.60 45 

3.35 328 3.71 46 

3.73 321 3.77 46 

3.62 324 3.47 46 

3.23 319 3.71 1 42 

3.52 302 3.47 39 



Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Age 

18-25 

(1) 















aspire 


research 










26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.07 331 3.00 46 

3.14 327 3.17 46 

3.27 327 3.14 46 

3.02 324 2.80 46 

3.02 328 3.13 46 

3.08 328 3.45 1 45 

3.64 328 3.42 46 

2.25 326 2.11 45 

2.26 326 2.30 45 

2.99 329 2.99 46 

2.53 329 2.50 44 

2.78 327 2.91 43 

2.66 324 3.01 45 


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Age 

18-25 

(1) 











others 





conferences 




26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

98.0% 338 93.4% 46 

95.9% 339 90.3% 46 

86.7% 332 75.7% 46 

86.8% 272 75.9% 38 

77.6% 285 69.0% 43 

90.3% 326 87.0% 45 

76.9% 335 69.7% 45 

33.8% 325 27.3% 44 

58.0% 2 274 38.1% 37 

25.9% 334 39.9% 45 

72.0% 329 65.2% 45 

57.3% 323 54.1% 45 

8.0% 334 17.4% 44 



Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Age 

18-25 

(1) 























26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

25.7% 241 30.9% 34 

88.3% 330 86.7% 44 

92.5% 329 92.3% 40 

58.5% 266 68.7% 39 

79.7% 300 74.6% 39 

57.3% 263 62.2% 35 

66.6% 235 81.4% 35 

81.3% 275 77.8% 36 

57.5% 62 38.4% 10 

83.0% 292 80.2% 38 

63.9% 305 46.6% 37 

30.6% 156 37.5% 27 

41.7% 2 239 25.3% 29 

39.2% 2 151 19.9% 21 

42.5% 157 33.2% 29 

69.9% 2 224 48.8% 28 


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Age 

18-25 

(1) 


















26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

60.8% 341 54.4% 46 

51.5% 341 43.4% 45 

30.4% 341 20.7% 42 

46.6% 341 48.1% 45 

25.4% 342 22.6% 42 

12.0% 340 7.9% 42 

11.4% 337 8.9% 42 

19.1% 333 19.5% 42 

74.0% 344 63.3% 47 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Age 

18-25 

(1) 


computing? 












26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

32.0% 344 35.7% 47 

25.4% 344 19.6% 46 

71.5% 307 77.7% 45 

22.3% 288 19.9% 40 

62.4% 106 40.6% 16 

7.4% 339 8.4% 47 

48.0% 25 18.4% 4 



Not attending graduate school Age 

18-25 

(1) 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

29.7% 2 151 13.4% 117 

46.0% 2 151 23.0% 116 

21.3% 2 151 8.9% 117 

15.3% 151 12.5% 117 

5.1% 151 5.0% 116 

8.7% 151 10.2% 117 

15.8% 151 16.7% 117 

42.3% 148 32.3% 117 

11.3% 147 14.2% 117 

64.1% 151 55.8% 117 

18.6% 148 19.4% 117 

10.5% 148 4.5% 114 

6.8% 148 7.1% 117 

13.9% 148 6.4% 116 

43.7% 148 45.8% 116 

4.0% 148 .8% 117 

17.6% 147 16.7% 117 

61.1% 2 149 30.8% 117 

29.3% 216 33.0% 177 



HISPANIC 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 






a while 


program 




computing 





Mean N Mean N 

3.28 2 30 2.82 347 

2.18 33 2.34 349 

2.67 33 2.22 352 

2.68 30 2.66 345 

3.65 2 30 3.38 336 

3.05 31 2.74 342 

1.84 31 2.05 338 

2.49 33 2.54 336 

3.39 33 3.13 340 

3.75 2 33 3.52 352 

Center for Survey Research B-25 

No 

(2)


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Mean N Mean N 

2.49 33 2.42 341 

2.35 33 2.68 348 

2.50 33 2.71 348 

2.80 33 2.90 348 

2.79 33 2.76 348 

2.73 32 2.84 348 

2.61 33 2.58 347 

2.71 33 2.63 347 

2.06 33 1.88 348 

2.49 25 2.29 338 

2.61 31 2.71 329 

2.97 29 2.68 328 

2.12 31 2.33 267 

2.66 31 2.71 314 

3.46 29 3.21 331 

2.77 29 2.76 330 

2.30 28 2.22 283 

3.45 32 3.15 330 

B-26 University of Virginia 

No 

(2)


about computing Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Mean N Mean N 

3.33 33 3.20 356 

3.33 33 3.24 356 

3.40 33 3.28 356 

2.94 33 3.09 356 

3.78 2 33 3.46 356 

2.74 33 2.72 357 

2.71 33 2.61 357 

3.09 33 2.97 357 

3.33 33 3.09 357 

2.69 33 2.76 357 

2.62 33 2.42 357 

2.82 33 2.54 357 


No 

(2)


Chapter 6: Future Plans Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Mean N Mean N 

3.26 33 3.47 347 

3.45 33 3.44 342 

3.97 33 3.87 339 

3.98 29 3.85 278 

2.22 33 2.79 1 342 

2.76 32 3.15 346 

2.90 32 2.89 331 

3.81 33 3.43 344 

3.92 2 30 3.35 344 

4.09 2 30 3.70 336 

3.65 33 3.59 338 

3.36 31 3.27 329 

3.60 29 3.51 313 


No 

(2)

Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 















aspire 


research 











Mean N Mean N 

3.10 30 3.05 347 

3.34 30 3.12 342 

3.35 30 3.24 343 

2.87 33 2.98 336 

2.78 33 3.06 341 

3.07 33 3.12 340 

3.52 30 3.61 344 

2.09 33 2.23 338 

2.44 29 2.22 342 

2.91 33 2.99 343 

2.62 33 2.50 340 

2.63 33 2.80 337 

2.57 33 2.70 336 


No 

(2)


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 











others 





conferences 



% N % N 

100.0% 2 33 97.2% 353 

94.3% 33 95.3% 351 

87.3% 32 85.2% 345 

76.9% 25 87.0% 285 

85.9% 27 75.4% 301 

85.7% 32 90.3% 339 

74.3% 33 76.4% 346 

33.9% 31 33.0% 339 

67.4% 26 54.9% 285 

20.9% 32 28.6% 347 

80.5% 33 70.3% 341 

71.0% 31 55.9% 337 

6.6% 32 9.0% 346 


No 

(2)

Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 
























% N % N 

10.8% 21 27.7% 1 256 

80.9% 33 89.6% 341 

98.0% 32 91.9% 338 

86.8% 2 32 56.2% 273 

76.2% 32 79.4% 308 

75.0% 30 55.5% 268 

75.8% 25 67.2% 244 

77.3% 27 80.8% 283 

67.9% 2 54.6% 71 

88.5% 27 82.2% 305 

72.1% 31 60.7% 310 

45.2% 28 28.0% 154 

35.8% 24 40.3% 244 

33.9% 22 36.5% 149 

45.4% 19 39.5% 164 

61.2% 21 67.8% 229 


No 

(2)


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 

















% N % N 

52.3% 33 60.3% 353 

48.4% 33 50.3% 352 

30.5% 33 28.7% 350 

43.3% 33 47.4% 353 

20.2% 33 25.1% 351 

23.0% 33 9.8% 349 

12.7% 33 11.0% 345 

24.9% 33 18.6% 342 

63.5% 33 73.5% 357 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 


computing? 












% N % N 

29.7% 33 32.8% 357 

30.0% 33 23.7% 357 

71.2% 30 72.1% 321 

26.6% 28 21.6% 300 

55.8% 13 62.2% 109 

9.5% 32 6.5% 354 

.0% 3 55.8% 1 23 


No 

(2) 

No 

(2)

Not attending graduate school Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 


% N % N 

22.9% 17 22.9% 247 

48.3% 17 35.3% 246 

18.6% 17 15.9% 247 

6.6% 17 14.8% 247 

.0% 17 5.0% 1 246 

13.8% 17 9.2% 247 

6.6% 17 17.1% 247 

67.4% 2 17 36.0% 244 

31.2% 17 11.5% 244 

71.5% 17 60.2% 247 

51.1% 2 17 16.6% 244 

15.9% 17 7.5% 242 

10.5% 17 6.8% 244 

.0% 17 10.5% 1 244 

67.4% 17 43.3% 244 

.0% 17 2.8% 1 244 

17.5% 17 17.4% 244 

49.5% 17 46.8% 244 

45.9% 33 29.9% 356 


No 

(2)



RACE 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate 

Experience 

Native 

American/American 

Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N 

a1a Likelihood to study computing 

in graduate school 2.77 247 3.00 26 3.28 1 a1b Likelihood to study a non- 

30 2.93 62 2.91 10 

computing subject in graduate 

school 

2.30 252 2.68 26 2.18 33 2.32 60 2.58 10 

a1c Likelihood to attend graduate 

school immediately 2.10 252 2.57 25 2.67 33 2.51 1 62 2.30 10 

a1d Likelihood to attend graduate 

school after working for a while 2.62 247 3.10 1 26 2.68 30 2.71 61 2.55 10 

a1e Likelihood to successfully 

complete a graduate program 3.33 237 3.85 1,4 26 3.65 1,4 30 3.35 61 3.44 10 

a1f Likelihood to earn a Masters 

degree in computing 2.70 245 3.18 25 3.05 31 2.71 59 2.85 10 

a1g Likelihood to earn a PhD in 

computing 1.96 241 2.12 24 1.84 31 2.34 60 2.24 10 

a1h Likelihood to get a job in 

research that involves computing 2.50 241 3.02 1,4 24 2.49 33 2.47 58 3.09 10 

a1i Likelihood to get a job in 

computing, not in research 3.11 245 3.44 24 3.39 33 3.02 58 3.17 10 

welcomer How welcome or 

unwelcome do you feel in your 

home department? 


Race 

3.51 254 3.55 26 3.75 1,4 33 3.48 61 3.79 1,4 9

Chapter 4: Research and Work 

Experience 

b3ar How much experience: 

Summarizing published research 

results 

b3br How much experience: Using 

scientific methods to test a 

hypothesis 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.41 245 2.73 5 26 2.49 33 2.48 58 1.87 10 

2.69 252 3.02 26 2.35 33 2.57 58 2.35 10 

b3cr How much experience: 

Generating hypotheses 2.69 252 3.08 5 26 2.50 33 2.74 58 2.32 10 

b3dr How much experience: 

Collecting data or conducting 

experiments 

b3er How much experience: 

Analyzing data with statistics or 

other tools 

b3fr How much experience: 

Explaining results from data 


b3gr How much experience: 

Writing or co-authoring a research 

paper or report 

b3hr How much experience: 

Presenting a research paper or 

report 

b3ir How much experience: 

Publishing a research paper or 

report 

b3jr How much experience: 

Feeling like a member of a 


2.87 252 3.28 1,5 26 2.80 33 2.93 58 2.53 9 

2.71 252 3.16 25 2.79 33 2.84 58 2.58 10 

2.81 252 3.18 5 26 2.73 32 2.92 58 2.46 10 

2.59 5 250 3.21 1,4,5 26 2.61 5 33 2.43 58 1.79 10 

2.66 5 251 3.32 1,4,5 26 2.71 5 33 2.35 58 1.84 10 

1.83 252 

2.22 5 244 

2.74 1,3,4,5 

3.13 1,3,4,5 

26 2.06 33 1.81 58 1.62 10 

26 2.49 5 25 2.29 5 55 1.73 10



Experience (contitued) 

b4ar How important is research 

experience on: Your career 

choice 

b4br How important is research 

experience on: Your decision 

about whether or not to attend 


b4cr How important is research 

experience on: Your choice of 


b4dr How important is research 

experience on: Your confidence 

that you will succeed in your 

chosen path 

c2ar How important is nonresearch 

work experience on: 


c2br How important is nonresearch 


Your decision about whether or 

not to attend graduate school 

c2cr How important is nonresearch 



c2dr How important is nonresearch 


Your confidence that you will 

succeed in your chosen path 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.62 236 3.05 25 2.61 31 2.86 58 2.84 8 

2.55 235 3.29 1 24 2.97 29 2.89 58 3.02 8 

2.20 182 3.11 1,3,5 21 2.12 31 2.52 54 2.19 8 

2.62 225 3.14 25 2.66 31 2.85 55 3.20 7 

3.19 238 3.45 26 3.46 29 3.18 57 3.27 8 

2.68 238 3.18 1 25 2.77 29 2.89 56 3.11 8 

2.07 200 2.78 1 24 2.30 28 2.56 1 49 2.11 7 

3.12 238 3.43 26 3.45 1 32 3.13 56 3.21 8

Chapter 5: Confidence in 

abilities and Knowledge about 

computing 

d1ar How confident: Contribute 

to a research project in 

computing 

d1br How confident: Get 

admitted to graduate school in 

computing 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.21 255 3.41 26 3.33 33 3.01 62 3.43 10 

3.23 255 3.36 26 3.33 33 3.16 62 3.52 10 

d1cr How confident: Complete a 

graduate degree in computing 3.28 255 3.29 26 3.40 33 3.22 62 3.66 1,4 10 

d1dr How confident: Become a 

capable researcher in computing 3.09 255 3.28 26 2.94 33 2.92 62 3.62 1,3,4 10 

d1er How confident: Have a 

successful career in computing 3.48 255 3.47 26 3.78 1,4 33 3.33 62 3.56 10 

d2ar How knowledgeable do you 

feel about: What it is like to do 


d2br How knowledgeable do you 

feel about: What it is like to be a 

graduate student in computer 


d2cr How knowledgeable do you 

feel about: How computing can 

address social issues 

d2dr How knowledgeable do you 

feel about: What it is like to work 

as a computer scientist or 


d2er How knowledgeable do you 

feel about: Criteria for admission 

to graduate programs 

2.67 5 256 3.11 1,5 26 2.74 5 33 2.88 5 63 2.09 10 

2.56 256 2.80 26 2.71 33 2.76 63 2.53 10 

2.94 256 3.33 1,4 26 3.09 33 2.94 63 2.75 10 

3.06 256 3.31 26 3.33 33 3.12 63 2.93 10 

2.71 256 3.22 1,5 26 2.69 33 2.80 63 2.58 10




computing (continued) 

d2fr How knowledgeable do you 

feel about: How to get financial 

support for graduate school 

d2gr How knowledgeable do you 

feel about: How to choose the 

right graduate school for me 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.34 256 2.95 1,5 26 2.62 33 2.55 63 2.13 10 

2.47 256 2.92 1 26 2.82 33 2.64 63 2.32 10 

Chapter 6: Future Plans 

Race 

Native 

American/American Asian/Pacific 

Indian 

Islander 

Black 

White 

Other 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


e5ar Influence your decision to 

attend or not attend graduate 

school immediately: Family or 


3.33 251 3.88 


1 26 3.26 33 3.86 1 e5br Influence your decision to 

58 3.63 10 


school immediately: Friends 

e5cr Influence your decision to 

3.41 247 3.49 26 3.45 33 3.54 57 3.47 10 


school immediately: 


e5dr Influence your decision to 

3.90 246 3.89 26 3.97 33 3.76 56 3.79 9 


school immediately: Research 

advisor 

e5er Influence your decision to 

3.90 201 3.89 21 3.98 29 3.62 45 3.90 9 


school immediately: Personal 


2.66 247 3.58 1,3 26 2.22 33 2.97 3 56 2.96 10


(continued) 

e5fr Influence your decision to 


school immediately: General 


e5gr Influence your decision to 


school immediately: Immediate 


e5hr Influence your decision to 


school immediately: Kind of work 

I want to do 

e5ir Influence your decision to 


school immediately: Kind of 


e5jr Influence your decision to 


school immediately: Keep 


e5kr Influence your decision to 


school immediately: My 

academic achievement to date 

e5lr Influence your decision to 



computing work experience 

e5mr Influence your decision to 




g1ar How important is this for 

your future career: A career that 

involves teamwork 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.07 251 3.65 3 26 2.76 32 3.24 57 3.39 10 

2.83 241 3.79 1,3,4 25 2.90 32 2.67 53 3.28 10 

3.39 249 3.67 26 3.81 33 3.39 56 4.01 10 

3.25 248 4.06 1,4 26 3.92 1,4 30 3.34 58 3.85 10 

3.62 241 4.26 1,4 26 4.09 1 30 3.73 57 3.66 10 

3.55 242 4.13 1,4 26 3.65 33 3.48 58 3.55 10 

3.15 236 4.01 1,3,4 25 3.36 31 3.33 56 3.75 10 

3.42 222 3.93 1 25 3.60 29 3.59 54 3.73 9 

3.06 251 3.36 26 3.10 30 2.95 58 2.75 9



(continued) 

g1br How important is this for 

your future career: A career 

creating new technology or 

applications 

g1cr How important is this for 


has social impact 

g1dr How important is this for 

your future career: A career in 

which I can exercise 

considerable leadership 

g1er How important is this for 


has high earnings potential 

g1fr How important is this for 

your future career: To be 

prepared for a wide variety of 

career options 

g1gr How important is this for 


is compatible with the personal 


g1hr How important is this for 

your future career: To do 

research 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.09 246 3.44 26 3.34 30 3.13 58 2.98 9 

3.22 248 3.44 25 3.35 30 3.28 58 3.25 9 

2.94 241 3.42 1,4 26 2.87 33 2.96 58 3.19 9 

2.94 246 3.72 1,3,4 26 2.78 33 3.19 1 58 3.24 9 

3.06 244 3.60 1,4 26 3.07 33 3.07 58 3.59 1,4 9 

3.60 249 3.92 1,3,4 26 3.52 30 3.52 58 3.87 1,3,4 9 

2.22 244 2.56 26 2.09 33 2.19 56 1.98 9 

g1ir How important is this for 

your future career: To teach 2.24 249 2.66 4,5 26 2.44 29 2.04 56 1.90 9 

g1jr How important is this for 

your future career: To have 


2.95 247 3.55 1,3,4 26 2.91 33 2.90 58 3.14 9


(continued) 

g1kr How important is this for 

your future career: A prestigious 

occupation 

g1lr How important is this for 

your future career: To decide for 

myself what I will work on 

g1mr How important is this for 

your future career: To work in a 

particular geographic location 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.37 246 3.21 1,4 26 2.62 33 2.73 1 57 2.71 9 

2.69 243 3.27 1,3 26 2.63 33 2.97 58 3.14 9 

2.73 242 2.83 26 2.57 33 2.52 56 2.75 9



Experience 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

a2ad Faculty is available to me for 

one-on-one advising 97.7% 254 

100.0% 1* 

4* 26 

100.0% 1* 

4* 33 93.9% 62 

100.0% 1* 

*4 9 

a2bd Faculty helps me progress 

toward my degree 96.7% 255 82.2% 26 94.3% 33 93.7% 59 

100.0% 1, 

4 9 

a2cd Faculty gives me useful 

career advice 85.2% 247 84.1% 26 87.3% 32 83.7% 61 95.2% 9 

a2dd Faculty gives me useful 

advice about my research 89.0% 205 84.0% 25 76.9% 25 80.2% 47 84.0% 6 

a2ed Faculty encourages me to 

collaborate on research with my 

fellow students 


Race 

76.6% 219 74.6% 25 85.9% 27 69.8% 47 76.9% 7 

a2fd Faculty cares about me as a 

person 92.2% 244 86.9% 25 85.7% 32 83.3% 59 89.5% 8 

a2gd Someone other than my 

advisor takes an interest in my 

progress toward my degree 

a2hd Faculty favors certain groups 

of students over others 29.6% 244 

78.5% 249 86.2% 4 26 74.3% 33 64.3% 60 67.4% 9 

73.5% 1,3, 

4,5 

23 33.9% 31 31.5% 60 20.7% 9 

a2id Faculty encourages me to 

publish research 57.7% 203 45.9% 24 67.4% 26 50.8% 49 45.2% 6 

a2jd Faculty has expectations of 

undergraduate students that are 

too high 

27.8% 252 42.5% 26 20.9% 32 22.4% 58 39.7% 9 

a2kd Faculty encourages me to 

attend professional conferences 75.1% 4,5 249 72.5% 23 80.5% 4,5 33 52.4% 58 42.1% 8 

a2ld Faculty helps me make 

professional contacts 55.2% 243 

82.3% 1,4, 

5 

25 71.0% 5 31 50.2% 59 33.5% 8 

a2md Faculty undermines my 

confidence in my abilities 8.8% 250 4.8% 24 6.6% 32 11.8% 60 7.9% 9


Experience (continued) 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

a4ead Existence: Brown-bag 

lunches 24.8% 186 15.8% 20 10.8% 21 

49.6% 1,2, 

3,5 42 10.4% 6 


88.9% 243 82.2% 25 80.9% 33 96.6% 1 61 80.1% 9 

a4ecd Existence: Computingrelated 

student groups 89.9% 239 93.1% 25 98.0% 1 32 97.9% 1 62 100.0% 1 9 

a4edd Existence: Groups for 

minority computing students or 

minority engineers/scientists 

a4eed Existence: Groups for 

women computing students or 

women engineers/scientists 


Race 

51.0% 183 67.2% 24 86.8% 1,4 32 62.6% 55 80.1% 9 

76.2% 210 78.8% 25 76.2% 32 86.5% 61 

100.0% 1, 

2,3 

a4efd Existence: Computingrelated 

honor societies 51.0% 186 65.4% 23 75.0% 1 30 63.5% 49 70.9% 6 

a4egd Existence: Local computingrelated 

groups 66.7% 168 51.0% 19 75.8% 25 72.6% 46 76.4% 8 

a4ehd Existence: Lectures by 

women or minority computer 

scientists/engineers 

a4pad Participation: Brown-bag 

lunches 50.0% 46 

77.8% 198 85.9% 25 77.3% 27 85.8% 48 

100.0% 1, 

4 

100.0% 1, 

4 

3 67.9% 2 55.7% 21 100.0% 1 

a4pbd Participation: Visiting 

lectures 83.1% 216 78.3% 21 88.5% 27 83.7% 59 64.3% 7 

a4pcd Participation: Computingrelated 

student groups 57.5% 215 

a4pdd Participation: Groups for 



a4ped Participation: Groups for 



16.9% 93 

88.3% 1,4, 

5 

84.3% 1,3, 

4,5 

23 72.1% 5 31 64.0% 61 35.7% 9 

16 45.2% 1 28 34.4% 34 18.8% 7 

40.8% 5 160 44.1% 5 20 35.8% 5 24 42.5% 5 53 7.1% 9 

9 

9




Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

a4pfd Participation: Computingrelated 

honor societies 33.7% 5 95 51.2% 5 15 33.9% 22 43.1% 5 31 10.0% 4 

a4pgd Participation: Local 

computing-related groups 37.6% 112 74.3% 1,5 10 45.4% 19 41.8% 5 33 12.3% 6 

a4phd Participation: Lectures by 




Experience 

b1ad Have participated in: A 

course that included computing 

research 

Race 

66.2% 154 77.3% 22 61.2% 21 76.6% 42 45.0% 9 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

62.4% 253 

79.1% 3,4, 

5 

26 52.3% 33 46.8% 63 35.7% 9 

b1bd Have participated in: 

Independent study that included 


48.6% 252 

77.1% 


1,3, 

b1cd Have participated in: 

4,5 26 48.4% 33 49.0% 63 39.7% 9 

Summer research at my university 

with a computing professor or 

researcher 

b1dd Have participated in: School- 

27.3% 250 40.4% 26 30.5% 33 31.8% 63 19.9% 9 

year computing research at my 

university 

48.6% 253 37.7% 26 43.3% 33 47.0% 63 39.7% 9 

b1ed Have participated in: 

Summer computing research at 

another university 

19.0% 251 42.7% 26 20.2% 33 43.3% 1,3 b1fd Have participated in: 

63 27.0% 9 

Computing research internship at a 

government or industry lab 

8.5% 250 10.7% 25 23.0% 33 15.6% 63 4.8% 9



Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

b1gd Have participated in: Other 

computing research 9.4% 245 26.0% 26 12.7% 33 11.4% 63 12.8% 9 

b1hd Have participated in: Other 

non-computing research 15.0% 243 20.8% 26 24.9% 33 31.1% 1 62 27.8% 9 

nonreswkd Have participated in 

non-research work that involved 

computing? 



Race 

75.4% 256 53.3% 26 63.5% 33 74.6% 63 64.1% 10 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

grapcompd Did you apply to 

graduate school in computing? 

grapothd Did you apply to 

31.0% 256 37.0% 26 29.7% 33 37.6% 63 32.3% 10 

graduate school in something other 


21.8% 256 20.8% 25 30.0% 33 30.3% 63 44.2% 10 

workfalld Do you plan to work in 

computing in Fall 2010? 73.4% 237 79.7% 23 71.2% 30 60.9% 51 90.6% 4 8 

wrkothd Do you plan to work in an 

area other than computing in Fall 

2010? 

recrschd Did you do research with 

any of the people who wrote your 

recommendations? 

felwshpd Did you apply for a 

graduate fellowship separate from 

any offered by your intended 

institution? 

flwrcvdd Did you receive any of the 

separate graduate fellowships that 

you applied for? 

Race 

23.2% 217 27.8% 24 26.6% 28 14.9% 49 9.4% 8 

62.4% 79 37.7% 12 55.8% 13 79.6% 2 15 65.5% 2 

7.4% 252 3.9% 26 9.5% 32 3.8% 63 6.6% 10 

55.5% 4 19 100.0% 1 .0%* 3 54.8% 2 .0% 1


Not attending graduate school 

h1ad Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I do not like 

school 

h1bd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I don't need more 

education for the job I want 

h1cd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I do not feel that going to 

graduate school is important 

h1dd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: My grades are too 

low 

h1ed Reason not apply to 

graduate school: My GRE scores 

are too low 

h1fd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I haven't taken the right 

courses 

h1gd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I probably can't 

get admitted to the graduate school 


h1hd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I cannot afford to 

go to graduate school 

h1id Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I cannot afford to take the 

necessary tests or pay application 

fees 

h1jd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I prefer to work first to save 

money for graduate school 

h1kd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I need to help support my 

family 

h1ld Reason not apply to graduate 

school: No one has encouraged me 

to go 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

25.5% 2 176 2.5% 18 22.9% 17 22.3% 2 45 10.3% 7 

38.3% 2 175 2.5% 18 48.3% 2 17 36.5% 2 45 22.8% 7 

16.7% 2 176 .0% 18 18.6% 17 18.4% 2 45 6.3% 7 

12.6% 5 176 28.5% 5 18 6.6% 17 20.9% 5 45 .0% 7 

5.9% 3,5 175 2.5% 18 .0%* 17 3.6% 45 .0%* 7 

9.5% 176 6.8% 18 13.8% 17 8.0% 45 16.6% 7 

15.5% 2 176 2.5% 18 6.6% 17 30.1% 2,3 45 12.6% 7 

38.5% 173 42.4% 18 

67.4% 1,4, 

5 

17 25.2% 45 26.8% 7 

9.8% 173 33.2% 18 31.2% 17 8.5% 45 20.6% 7 

64.1% 4 176 62.5% 18 71.5% 17 43.9% 45 53.7% 7 

14.5% 173 23.3% 18 51.1% 1 17 21.1% 45 20.6% 7 

8.7% 4 173 4.9% 15 15.9% 17 2.9% 45 6.3% 7


(continued) 

h1md Reason not apply to 

graduate school: No one in my 

family has ever attended graduate 

school 

h1nd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: Most of my friends 

will not be going to graduate school 

h1od Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I plan to take 

some time off before going to 


h1pd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I plan to join the 

Armed Forces 

h1qd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I plan to get 


Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

6.9% 173 7.8% 18 10.5% 17 5.5% 45 10.3% 7 

11.3% 3 173 4.1% 18 .0% 17 9.1% 3 45 10.3% 7 

48.0% 4 173 42.6% 17 67.4% 4,5 17 30.2% 45 20.6% 7 

2.5% 173 2.5% 18 .0% 17 4.5% 45 .0% 7 

23.5% 2,4 173 .0% 18 17.5% 2 17 2.6% 45 10.3% 7 

h1rd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I already have a job 47.8% 173 43.4% 18 49.5% 17 46.3% 45 26.8% 7 

gradfalld Do you plan to attend 

graduate school in Fall 2010? 30.6% 256 28.7% 25 45.9% 33 28.3% 63 21.3% 10



MARITAL STATUS 


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Marital Status 






a while 


program 




computing 




Never married 

(1) 


(2) 


Married 

(3) 

Mean N Mean N Mean N 

2.92 2 321 2.08 27 3.03 2 30 

2.34 3 325 2.49 28 1.81 30 

2.30 328 1.96 28 2.24 31 

2.65 318 2.69 28 2.77 31 

3.44 310 3.15 28 3.33 29 

2.79 317 2.30 28 3.10 2 30 

2.04 312 1.77 27 2.29 29 

2.54 316 2.31 28 2.76 26 

3.16 315 2.85 28 3.36 31 

3.55 328 3.57 28 3.34 31 



Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Marital Status 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Never married 

(1) 


(2) 

Married 

(3) 


2.48 316 2.21 28 2.24 31 

2.69 323 2.62 28 2.37 31 

2.76 3 324 2.53 28 2.28 31 

2.91 323 2.85 28 2.89 31 

2.82 324 2.55 28 2.54 30 

2.88 323 2.56 28 2.74 31 

2.61 322 2.45 28 2.52 31 

2.66 323 2.79 28 2.33 30 

1.93 3 323 2.00 28 1.59 31 

2.37 310 1.88 24 2.13 30 

2.72 307 2.47 28 2.84 28 

2.79 2 302 2.09 28 2.61 29 

2.45 2 250 1.40 26 2.08 2 24 

2.76 2 295 2.17 28 2.80 25 

3.20 308 3.14 27 3.74 1 28 

2.73 306 2.81 27 3.25 1 28 

2.24 265 2.34 24 2.16 24 

3.17 308 3.12 27 3.43 28 



about computing Marital Status 

Never married 


(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Married 

(3) 


3.20 333 3.30 28 3.36 30 

3.24 333 3.30 28 3.45 30 

3.28 332 3.53 28 3.41 30 

3.05 333 3.52 1 28 3.18 30 

3.46 333 3.69 28 3.70 1 30 

2.71 333 2.92 28 2.82 31 

2.65 333 2.31 28 2.72 31 

2.96 333 3.20 28 2.96 31 

3.13 333 3.03 28 3.06 31 

2.76 333 2.60 28 2.92 31 

2.40 333 2.63 28 2.75 31 

2.55 333 2.60 28 2.80 31 



Chapter 6: Future Plans Marital Status 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Never married 

(1) 


(2) 

Married 

(3) 


3.49 323 3.45 28 3.09 31 

3.45 317 3.57 28 3.33 31 

3.92 314 3.82 28 3.68 31 

3.89 261 3.82 22 3.91 27 

2.78 320 2.51 28 2.66 28 

3.17 321 2.84 28 2.81 31 

2.92 309 2.48 27 3.15 30 

3.48 321 3.33 27 3.57 30 

3.39 319 3.20 26 3.63 31 

3.76 310 3.52 27 3.76 31 

3.62 314 3.61 27 3.62 31 

3.29 304 2.82 27 3.77 1,2 31 

3.55 290 3.29 25 3.52 29 


Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Marital Status 















aspire 


research 










Never married 

(1) 


(2) 


Married 

(3) 


3.09 320 2.91 28 2.91 31 

3.18 315 2.70 28 3.27 31 

3.29 315 3.19 28 3.06 31 

2.97 314 3.30 28 2.81 28 

3.01 319 3.04 28 3.37 1 28 

3.10 315 3.19 28 3.27 31 

3.60 317 3.53 28 3.78 31 

2.26 314 2.21 28 2.15 30 

2.22 315 2.49 28 2.31 30 

2.96 318 2.90 28 3.45 1,2 31 

2.50 315 2.79 28 2.57 31 

2.75 313 3.11 1 28 2.92 30 

2.71 314 2.48 28 2.99 28 



Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Marital Status 











others 





conferences 



Never married 

(1) 


(2) 

Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

97.4% 327 97.4% 28 98.6% 31 

94.8% 328 97.4% 28 97.6% 31 

86.4% 321 92.5% 3 28 69.2% 30 

85.7% 269 90.6% 19 79.0% 25 

75.1% 281 93.4% 1 21 77.2% 28 

89.4% 314 100.0% 1,3 27 87.0% 31 

77.1% 324 73.5% 27 66.9% 29 

34.1% 313 29.8% 27 29.4% 30 

56.1% 273 56.9% 14 48.7% 27 

27.1% 322 30.5% 28 32.3% 30 

70.7% 318 93.1% 1,3 27 57.2% 30 

57.3% 313 59.3% 27 51.9% 30 

8.9% 322 9.3% 28 16.1% 29 


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Marital Status 























Never married 

(1) 


(2) 


Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

23.1% 234 39.9% 19 41.7% 24 

88.3% 319 81.3% 28 93.9% 30 

91.2% 317 100.0% 1* 27 100.0% 1* 27 

60.7% 259 42.2% 23 65.1% 24 

79.6% 292 70.5% 24 82.8% 25 

58.5% 261 35.9% 16 67.9% 24 

65.7% 235 100.0% 1,3 17 74.0% 21 

78.5% 266 100.0% 1,3 23 85.0% 23 

56.8% 54 44.6% 8 48.2% 10 

83.9% 281 84.1% 23 69.2% 28 

63.8% 3 289 68.9% 3 27 31.9% 27 

31.8% 2 157 .0% 10 41.4% 2 16 

40.8% 232 36.7% 17 34.3% 21 

37.1% 153 43.2% 6 32.5% 16 

42.7% 3 154 46.8% 17 14.5% 16 

68.4% 209 72.1% 23 45.9% 19 



Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Marital Status 

















Never married 

(1) 


(2) 

Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

61.3% 329 59.5% 28 46.5% 31 

52.5% 328 38.8% 28 44.1% 31 

30.3% 326 29.3% 28 24.4% 30 

44.4% 329 57.8% 28 62.9% 30 

26.1% 2 327 8.8% 28 27.8% 30 

12.5% 3 325 9.3% 28 3.6% 30 

11.2% 321 14.5% 28 7.3% 31 

20.0% 318 10.0% 28 14.1% 30 

73.3% 333 71.4% 28 70.9% 31 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Marital Status 


computing? 












Never married 

(1) 


(2) 

Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

35.5% 2 333 11.6% 28 25.7% 31 

24.4% 333 30.9% 28 24.7% 30 

70.7% 303 91.2% 1 21 76.0% 29 

20.7% 285 26.4% 18 26.6% 28 

62.9% 111 23.6% 5 52.2% 9 

8.0% 2 328 1.6% 28 7.5% 31 

44.8% 3 26 .0% 0 43.4% 2 


Not attending graduate school Marital Status 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

Never married 

(1) 


(2) 


Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

20.1% 223 25.7% 23 46.4% 1 19 

36.0% 223 44.2% 23 22.7% 18 

17.2% 2 223 6.2% 23 14.1% 19 

14.0% 2 223 3.1% 23 19.9% 19 

5.7% 3 223 2.8% 23 .0% 19 

8.4% 223 6.2% 23 15.6% 19 

16.4% 223 9.4% 23 14.1% 19 

33.7% 221 57.0% 23 56.6% 19 

11.1% 220 15.6% 23 17.5% 19 

61.7% 223 55.5% 23 58.5% 20 

14.2% 221 23.8% 23 65.1% 1,2 19 

8.3% 218 3.1% 23 10.1% 19 

6.4% 2 221 .0% 23 16.4% 2 19 

11.4% 2 220 .0% 23 16.4% 2 19 

45.7% 221 43.0% 23 38.2% 18 

2.5% 221 3.1% 23 2.4% 19 

11.6% 221 44.4% 1 23 51.3% 1 19 

47.6% 221 57.1% 23 43.1% 20 

31.8% 332 17.5% 28 36.6% 31 




CHILDREN 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Children 

Yes 

(1) 






a while 


program 




computing 




Mean N Mean N 

3.45 4 2.86 377 

2.28 4 2.31 382 

2.05 4 2.27 385 

2.95 4 2.66 375 

4.00 2 4 3.40 365 

3.82 2 4 2.77 372 

1.93 2 2.04 367 

2.33 4 2.53 368 

3.65 2 4 3.15 372 

3.63 4 3.53 385 


No 

(2)

Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Children 

Yes 

(1) 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 






Mean N Mean N 

2.61 4 2.44 373 

2.61 4 2.65 380 

2.61 4 2.70 380 

2.89 4 2.90 380 

2.45 4 2.78 380 

2.63 4 2.84 380 

2.63 4 2.59 379 

2.65 4 2.64 379 

2.28 4 1.91 380 

2.28 4 2.32 363 

3.09 3 2.70 361 

2.29 3 2.72 357 

1.53 2 2.33 299 

3.09 3 2.72 346 

3.74 2 3 3.23 361 

2.42 4 2.77 358 

1.84 3 2.23 312 

3.63 2 4 3.18 361 


No 

(2)



about computing Children 

Yes 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











Mean N Mean N 

2.89 4 3.22 388 

3.26 4 3.25 388 

3.82 2 4 3.30 388 

2.80 4 3.09 388 

3.82 4 3.49 388 

2.43 4 2.73 390 

2.52 4 2.63 390 

3.46 4 2.98 390 

2.82 4 3.11 390 

2.89 4 2.76 390 

2.70 4 2.44 390 

2.89 4 2.56 390 


No 

(2)

Chapter 6: Future Plans Children 

Yes 

(1) 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 


Mean N Mean N 

2.77 4 3.45 379 

3.46 4 3.45 374 

3.98 4 3.89 371 

2.77 3 3.89 307 

2.24 4 2.74 374 

3.23 3 3.10 378 

3.69 2 2.89 364 

3.63 4 3.47 376 

3.80 4 3.39 374 

4.07 4 3.73 366 

3.46 4 3.61 370 

4.18 2 4 3.28 360 

3.45 4 3.53 342 


No 

(2)


Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Children 

Yes 

(1) 















aspire 


research 










Mean N Mean N 

2.82 4 3.06 376 

3.08 4 3.15 372 

2.72 4 3.26 372 

2.82 4 2.98 368 

3.82 2 4 3.03 373 

3.67 4 3.12 372 

4.00 2 4 3.61 374 

2.05 4 2.24 370 

3.26 2 4 2.24 371 

2.89 4 2.99 375 

3.00 4 2.52 372 

3.00 4 2.79 369 

2.24 4 2.71 368 


No 

(2)

Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Children 

Yes 

(1) 











others 





conferences 




% N % N 

100.0% 2 4 97.5% 383 

81.5% 4 95.4% 384 

81.5% 4 85.6% 378 

100.0% 2 2 85.4% 311 

64.9% 4 76.7% 328 

63.0% 4 90.3% 370 

63.0% 4 76.5% 379 

18.5% 4 33.7% 369 

34.2% 3 55.9% 312 

37.0% 4 27.5% 378 

64.9% 4 71.4% 373 

46.4% 4 57.3% 368 

22.7% 3 9.3% 379 


No 

(2)


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Children 

Yes 

(1) 























% N % N 

77.3% 2 3 25.6% 275 

100.0% 2 4 88.1% 374 

100.0% 2 4 92.4% 369 

100.0% 2 3 59.5% 305 

100.0% 2 2 79.1% 341 

100.0% 2 2 57.7% 299 

100.0% 2 1 68.2% 271 

100.0% 2 3 80.5% 310 

70.7% 2 54.5% 71 

100.0% 2 4 82.5% 329 

64.9% 4 61.6% 341 

34.2% 3 31.1% 182 

70.7% 2 40.1% 269 

66.7% 2 36.4% 172 

50.0% 1 40.5% 185 

77.3% 3 67.3% 249 


No 

(2)

Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Children 

Yes 

(1) 


















% N % N 

63.0% 4 59.9% 386 

35.1% 4 50.7% 385 

16.6% 4 29.6% 382 

44.5% 4 46.8% 386 

44.5% 4 24.8% 384 

.0% 4 11.4% 1 382 

.0% 4 11.0% 1 378 

27.9% 4 18.9% 374 

63.0% 4 73.2% 390 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Children 

Yes 

(1) 


computing? 












% N % N 

16.6% 4 33.0% 390 

18.5% 4 24.6% 389 

83.4% 4 72.0% 351 

46.4% 4 21.5% 329 

47.4% 1 60.3% 124 

16.6% 4 7.2% 385 

.0% 1 43.5% 28 


No 

(2) 

No 

(2)


Not attending graduate school Children 

Yes 

(1) 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

% N % N 

.0% 3 22.8% 1 265 

43.0% 3 35.9% 264 

.0% 3 16.0% 1 265 

43.0% 3 13.8% 265 

.0% 3 5.1% 1 264 

43.0% 3 9.0% 265 

43.0% 3 16.0% 265 

100.0% 2 3 37.2% 262 

71.5% 2 3 12.0% 261 

28.5% 3 60.8% 266 

100.0% 2 3 18.2% 262 

28.5% 3 7.7% 260 

71.5% 2 3 6.3% 262 

28.5% 3 10.5% 262 

39.9% 2 44.6% 262 

.0% 3 2.6% 1 262 

.0% 3 17.3% 1 261 

28.5% 3 48.0% 263 

35.1% 4 30.9% 389 


No 

(2)


DISABILITY 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 






a while 


program 




computing 





Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.90 339 2.61 41 

2.27 345 2.70 39 

2.25 346 2.38 41 

2.69 337 2.58 41 

3.42 327 3.26 41 

2.83 334 2.35 41 

2.07 329 1.72 39 

2.55 333 2.39 38 

3.20 336 2.75 38 

3.54 348 3.49 39 



Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.50 1 335 2.02 41 

2.70 342 2.36 41 

2.73 342 2.51 41 

2.92 342 2.76 41 

2.80 342 2.59 40 

2.88 342 2.57 41 

2.63 341 2.33 41 

2.67 341 2.46 41 

1.93 342 1.75 40 

2.36 329 1.96 36 

2.74 324 2.41 38 

2.77 1 320 2.18 38 

2.39 1 265 1.88 35 

2.75 310 2.49 38 

3.29 1 325 2.77 37 

2.81 322 2.46 38 

2.26 277 2.11 37 

3.23 325 2.81 38 



about computing Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.25 349 2.93 42 

3.30 1 349 2.81 42 

3.33 349 3.06 42 

3.09 349 3.06 42 

3.51 349 3.37 42 

2.75 351 2.60 42 

2.68 1 351 2.18 42 

2.99 351 2.95 42 

3.16 1 351 2.72 42 

2.81 1 351 2.37 42 

2.48 351 2.16 42 

2.60 351 2.27 42 



Chapter 6: Future Plans Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.46 341 3.31 41 

3.44 336 3.55 41 

3.90 334 3.72 40 

3.89 282 3.66 27 

2.73 336 2.76 41 

3.09 340 3.22 40 

2.90 327 2.86 38 

3.51 338 3.18 41 

3.42 336 3.17 41 

3.74 328 3.73 40 

3.63 332 3.36 41 

3.32 324 3.01 38 

3.53 311 3.42 33 


Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 















aspire 


research 











Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.12 1 339 2.56 40 

3.22 1 335 2.57 39 

3.25 335 3.32 40 

3.03 332 2.59 39 

3.06 336 2.80 40 

3.14 335 2.95 39 

3.64 336 3.39 40 

2.24 336 2.18 37 

2.28 333 2.08 40 

3.02 339 2.77 39 

2.56 335 2.17 40 

2.78 332 2.89 40 

2.74 332 2.32 39 



Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 











others 





conferences 



Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

97.3% 347 98.9% 39 

95.0% 348 97.0% 39 

85.1% 342 88.9% 38 

84.8% 287 92.4% 25 

76.1% 304 80.8% 26 

89.9% 334 91.2% 39 

75.5% 342 83.6% 39 

34.8% 337 21.2% 34 

55.9% 291 54.7% 23 

28.0% 341 24.4% 40 

71.5% 339 68.3% 37 

56.3% 333 65.1% 37 

9.2% 341 10.5% 38 


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 
























Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

26.4% 253 23.6% 24 

87.9% 337 90.6% 39 

91.6% 332 100.0% 0 39 

61.3% 276 45.1% 31 

78.0% 303 88.3% 38 

56.4% 274 72.0% 26 

68.1% 242 69.3% 29 

79.1% 277 92.9% 0 35 

55.2% 67 47.8% 6 

83.5% 297 75.5% 35 

61.3% 304 64.3% 39 

31.5% 169 29.9% 14 

40.8% 236 34.5% 34 

37.3% 154 39.2% 19 

43.6% 165 22.7% 20 

67.4% 219 68.6% 32 



Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 

















Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

60.6% 348 54.0% 41 

51.5% 346 45.0% 41 

30.8% 344 19.8% 41 

47.7% 347 38.7% 41 

24.8% 345 27.6% 41 

11.5% 343 11.6% 41 

11.5% 340 7.8% 41 

18.2% 336 26.0% 41 

73.8% 351 65.6% 42 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 


computing? 












Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

33.4% 351 26.6% 42 

22.4% 350 44.1% 0 42 

73.0% 325 66.2% 28 

22.1% 306 18.3% 25 

60.4% 115 52.2% 9 

7.8% 346 3.5% 42 

44.7% 27 50.0% 1 


Not attending graduate school Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 


Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

23.6% 237 15.2% 30 

37.7% 236 22.1% 30 

16.0% 237 14.9% 30 

12.7% 237 24.8% 30 

5.4% 236 2.1% 30 

7.7% 237 22.2% 30 

14.5% 237 29.6% 30 

38.4% 234 34.2% 30 

12.5% 233 13.2% 30 

63.5% 1 237 37.9% 30 

18.9% 234 19.7% 30 

8.9% 1 231 .0% 30 

6.6% 234 9.9% 30 

10.8% 233 9.9% 30 

46.6% 233 30.1% 30 

2.9% 1 234 .0% 30 

17.4% 233 15.9% 30 

51.1% 1 235 21.1% 30 

31.8% 350 22.5% 42 




US CITIZENSHIP 






Experience US Citizenship 

A non-U.S. citizen with A non-U.S. citizen with a 

Native born U.S. citizen Naturalized U.S. citizen permanent residency temporary visa 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N 


in graduate school 

a1b Likelihood to study a non- 

2.81 308 3.12 26 3.00 11 3.18 28 


school 

2.28 314 2.27 26 2.90 11 2.53 26 


school immediately 2.16 315 2.14 26 3.00 11 3.10 1,2 28 


school after working for a while 2.69 306 2.84 25 3.00 11 2.50 28 


complete a graduate program 3.37 298 3.70 1 25 3.87 1 11 3.48 28 


degree in computing 2.71 305 3.08 1 25 2.88 11 3.18 1 26 


computing 1.93 298 2.12 25 2.58 1 11 2.72 1 27 


research that involves computing 2.45 304 2.44 25 3.42 1,2 11 3.21 1,2 24 


computing, not in research 3.18 3 305 3.35 3 26 2.57 11 3.13 25 




3.54 315 3.45 26 3.22 11 3.59 28 







(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 




results 


2.43 303 2.36 26 2.32 11 2.71 27 


hypothesis 

2.68 311 2.71 26 2.70 11 2.42 27 


Generating hypotheses 2.70 311 2.60 26 3.00 11 2.74 28 



experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




2.87 310 3.08 26 3.25 1 11 2.91 28 

2.73 310 3.01 26 3.06 1 11 2.94 28 

2.81 310 3.04 26 2.60 11 3.07 28 

2.57 309 2.43 26 2.09 11 3.01 1,2,3 28 

2.62 309 2.56 26 2.16 11 2.97 3 28 

1.89 310 1.98 26 1.78 11 2.31 28 

2.25 301 2.58 23 1.89 11 2.77 1,3 22 


experience on: Your career choice 2.67 294 2.73 24 3.18 1 11 2.78 27 


experience on: Your decision about 

whether or not to attend graduate 

school 

2.61 291 2.86 24 3.76 1,2 11 3.08 27 




Experience (continued) US Citizenship 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 






2.24 240 2.42 23 2.50 6 2.70 27 



chosen path 

2.65 289 2.74 24 3.66 1,2 c2ar How important is non- 

6 3.09 23 

research work experience on: Your 

career choice 

c2br How important is non- 

3.23 297 3.51 24 3.37 11 3.20 24 


decision about whether or not to 


2.70 297 3.02 24 3.53 1 11 3.07 1 24 


work experience on: Your 


2.18 255 2.73 1 c2dr How important is non- 

21 2.72 9 2.23 24 


confidence that you will succeed in 


3.14 297 3.58 1,4 25 3.47 11 3.18 24 



Chapter 5: Confidence in abilities 

and Knowledge about computing US Citizenship 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


d1ar How confident: Contribute to 

a research project in computing 3.19 318 3.37 26 2.68 11 3.55 1 28 

d1br How confident: Get admitted 

to graduate school in computing 3.24 318 3.42 26 2.60 11 3.42 28 


graduate degree in computing 3.29 317 3.54 26 2.74 11 3.44 28 


capable researcher in computing 3.09 318 3.10 26 2.48 11 3.19 28 


successful career in computing 3.51 318 3.58 26 2.70 11 3.52 28 












feel about: What it is like to work as 

a computer scientist or computer 

engineer 


feel about: Criteria for admission to 






feel about: How to choose the right 


2.69 319 2.76 26 2.39 11 3.13 1,3 28 

2.58 319 2.89 1 26 2.45 11 3.03 1,3 28 

3.01 3,4 319 3.31 1,3,4 26 2.39 11 2.65 28 

3.12 319 3.41 4 26 3.03 11 2.87 28 

2.72 319 2.74 26 2.67 11 3.15 28 

2.39 319 2.56 26 2.23 11 2.84 28 

2.52 319 2.65 26 2.34 11 3.00 28 



Chapter 6: Future plans 





e5br Influence your decision to 





school immediately: Undergraduate 





advisor 















school immediately: Kind of work I 

want to do 



school immediately: Kind of lifestyle 

I want 





US Citizenship 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.41 309 3.57 26 3.78 11 3.69 28 

3.43 305 3.36 25 3.70 11 3.75 1 28 

3.86 303 3.66 24 4.07 11 4.16 2 28 

3.82 245 3.76 23 4.21 10 4.13 26 

2.68 308 2.63 26 3.38 1,2 10 3.20 25 

3.11 307 3.28 26 3.15 10 3.13 28 

2.91 298 2.69 25 3.28 10 3.08 25 

3.39 307 3.45 25 4.27 1 11 4.05 1 27 

3.32 305 3.47 26 3.71 11 3.89 1 27 

3.67 297 3.92 26 3.81 11 4.21 1 27 



(continued) 



school immediately: My academic 




school immediately: My computing 





research experience 

g1ar How important is this for your 

future career: A career that involves 

teamwork 

g1br How important is this for your 

future career: A career creating 

new technology or applications 

g1cr How important is this for your 

future career: A career that has 

social impact 

g1dr How important is this for your 

future career: A career in which I 

can exercise considerable 

leadership 

g1er How important is this for your 


high earnings potential 

g1fr How important is this for your 

future career: To be prepared for a 

wide variety of career options 

g1gr How important is this for your 

future career: A career that is 

compatible with the personal 






(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.52 301 3.79 26 4.44 1 11 3.93 27 

3.20 294 3.60 25 4.05 1 10 3.69 1 27 

3.44 277 3.57 25 3.86 11 3.95 1 25 

3.07 307 3.21 26 2.80 11 2.99 28 

3.14 302 3.34 26 2.99 11 3.25 28 

3.22 302 3.31 26 3.55 11 3.40 28 

2.93 301 3.10 26 3.54 1 11 3.35 1 25 

3.00 307 3.40 1 26 3.41 11 3.00 25 

3.13 304 3.30 26 3.39 11 2.86 28 

3.62 304 3.70 26 3.87 4 11 3.42 28 




(continued) US Citizenship 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


g1hr How important is this for your 

future career: To do research 2.18 301 2.15 26 2.79 1 11 2.64 27 

g1ir How important is this for your 

future career: To teach 2.19 303 1.96 24 2.56 11 2.94 1,2 27 

g1jr How important is this for your 

future career: To have flexible work 

time 

g1kr How important is this for your 

future career: A prestigious 

occupation 

g1lr How important is this for your 

future career: To decide for myself 

what I will work on 

g1mr How important is this for your 

future career: To work in a 


2.95 305 2.97 26 3.55 1 11 3.19 28 

2.41 304 2.89 1 26 3.04 1 11 3.03 1 28 

2.74 301 2.90 26 3.48 1 11 2.88 28 

2.67 304 2.73 26 3.44 1,2,4 11 2.48 23 



Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience 


A non-U.S. citizen with A non-U.S. citizen with 

Native born U.S. citizen Naturalized U.S. citizen permanent residency a temporary visa 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

a2ad Faculty is available to me for oneon-one 

advising 97.7% 314 92.4% 26 100.0% 1 11 98.4% 28 

a2bd Faculty helps me progress toward 

my degree 95.3% 316 89.6% 26 95.9% 11 98.4% 27 

a2cd Faculty gives me useful career 

advice 87.9% 309 82.6% 25 60.9% 11 87.4% 27 

a2dd Faculty gives me useful advice 

about my research 85.6% 247 79.4% 24 87.6% 9 85.6% 24 


collaborate on research with my fellow 

students 


a2gd Someone other than my advisor 

takes an interest in my progress toward 

my degree 

78.1% 265 66.2% 23 87.6% 9 66.2% 25 

91.1% 306 76.9% 25 93.7% 7 89.0% 27 

77.7% 312 61.9% 24 66.6% 10 72.5% 27 

a2hd Faculty favors certain groups of 

students over others 32.7% 300 46.6% 26 56.0% 11 25.4% 27 

a2id Faculty encourages me to publish 

research 55.8% 250 60.4% 22 63.5% 9 59.1% 25 


undergraduate students that are too high 26.4% 312 39.6% 25 66.9% 1,4 11 23.6% 26 

a2kd Faculty encourages me to attend 

professional conferences 72.7% 2 307 53.5% 25 59.4% 10 75.1% 27 

a2ld Faculty helps me make professional 

contacts 57.9% 3 301 45.5% 3 26 10.9% 10 72.0% 2,3 27 

a2md Faculty undermines my confidence 

in my abilities 9.3% 3 316 6.7% 24 .0% 7 17.5% 3 26 




(continued) 






(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

23.1% 221 24.5% 17 65.2% 9 29.3% 24 

90.0% 305 87.0% 26 79.0% 11 77.2% 27 

a4ecd Existence: Computing-related 

student groups 92.5% 309 98.2% 25 60.9% 11 100.0% 1 25 

a4edd Existence: Groups for minority 

computing students or minority 


a4eed Existence: Groups for women 

computing students or women 


58.7% 3 239 93.7% 1,3,4 24 15.3% 10 65.4% 3 27 

78.9% 271 97.1% 1 25 65.0% 11 72.1% 27 

a4efd Existence: Computing-related 

honor societies 54.5% 237 89.5% 1 23 61.7% 10 73.3% 23 


groups 70.3% 3 218 86.9% 3,4 18 26.2% 10 48.2% 20 

a4ehd Existence: Lectures by women or 

minority computer scientists/engineers 81.2% 4 251 96.3% 1,4 20 95.4% 1,4 10 53.3% 24 



55.4% 51 31.1% 4 87.0% 2 6 61.5% 7 

82.6% 275 76.3% 23 91.5% 9 85.5% 21 

a4pcd Participation: Computing-related 

student groups 60.3% 3 286 73.2% 3 24 16.7% 7 82.3% 1,3 25 

a4pdd Participation: Groups for minority 



a4ped Participation: Groups for women 



28.1% 141 36.0% 23 28.8% 2 54.7% 18 

39.2% 214 29.4% 24 25.0% 7 59.6% 2 20 




(continued) 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

a4pfd Participation: Computing-related 

honor societies 37.2% 3 129 27.5% 20 7.1% 6 62.2% 3 17 

a4pgd Participation: Local computingrelated 

groups 39.0% 153 35.4% 16 16.8% 3 64.8% 3 10 

a4phd Participation: Lectures by women 

or minority computer scientists/engineers 66.9% 204 45.8% 19 80.1% 9 84.9% 2 13 


Experience 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

b1ad Have participated in: A course that 

included computing research 62.1% 4 315 46.1% 26 65.5% 11 33.8% 28 

b1bd Have participated in: Independent 

study that included computing research 48.2% 314 42.7% 26 93.3% 1,2,4 11 55.9% 28 

b1cd Have participated in: Summer 

research at my university with a 


27.7% 312 30.0% 26 24.4% 11 43.5% 28 

b1dd Have participated in: School-year 

computing research at my university 46.5% 315 43.1% 26 48.1% 11 43.0% 28 

b1ed Have participated in: Summer 

computing research at another university 22.1% 313 21.2% 26 27.1% 11 47.9% 1 28 

b1fd Have participated in: Computing 

research internship at a government or 

industry lab 

11.8% 311 16.5% 26 4.1% 11 6.8% 28 


computing research 10.4% 4 308 16.8% 26 39.1% 11 2.6% 27 

b1hd Have participated in: Other noncomputing 

research 15.3% 305 20.4% 25 66.9% 1,2 11 35.6% 27 

nonreswkd Have participated in nonresearch 

work that involved computing? 75.4% 4 319 76.6% 4 26 91.8% 1,4 11 45.6% 28 







(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

grapcompd Did you apply to graduate 

school in computing? 29.8% 319 36.2% 26 35.3% 11 51.7% 28 

grapothd Did you apply to graduate 

school in something other than 

computing? 

21.4% 319 25.3% 26 68.2% 1,2 11 51.3% 1 28 


computing in Fall 2010? 75.9% 4 286 76.8% 4 24 79.7% 4 11 44.2% 25 

wrkothd Do you plan to work in an area 

other than computing in Fall 2010? 21.0% 3 266 19.9% 21 6.1% 11 35.0% 25 

recrschd Did you do research with any of 

the people who wrote your 


felwshpd Did you apply for a graduate 

fellowship separate from any offered by 

your intended institution? 


separate graduate fellowships that you 

applied for? 

50.3% 87 85.7% 1 10 100.0% 1 5 72.8% 17 

6.5% 3 314 23.9% 1,3,4 26 .0% 11 4.9% 28 

49.7% 20 14.2% 6 52.6% 1 





(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

h1ad Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I do not like school 24.2% 3,4 232 13.9% 3 17 .0% 5 4.7% 9 

h1bd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I don't need more education for 

the job I want 

35.5% 4 232 36.1% 17 58.6% 5 12.4% 9 


school: I do not feel that going to graduate 

school is important 

16.2% 4 232 19.1% 17 11.9% 5 4.7% 9 




(continued) 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

h1dd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: My grades are too low 14.1% 232 12.2% 17 25.2% 5 4.7% 9 

h1ed Reason not apply to graduate 

school: My GRE scores are too low 5.1% 4 232 2.6% 17 20.0% 5 .0% 9 


school: I haven't taken the right courses 9.7% 2,3 232 2.6% 17 .0% 5 9.4% 9 

h1gd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I probably can't get admitted to the 

graduate school I want to attend 

h1hd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I cannot afford to go to graduate 

school 



necessary tests or pay application fees 


school: I prefer to work first to save money 

for graduate school 

14.2% 232 21.0% 17 11.9% 5 46.0% 9 

36.7% 230 51.5% 17 28.2% 5 24.0% 9 

12.8% 229 13.9% 17 8.1% 5 12.4% 9 

60.7% 232 73.3% 18 41.4% 5 41.4% 9 


school: I need to help support my family 16.7% 230 34.4% 17 28.2% 5 32.0% 9 


school: No one has encouraged me to go 7.4% 3,4 227 9.6% 17 .0% 5 .0% 9 

h1md Reason not apply to graduate 

school: No one in my family has ever 

attended graduate school 

h1nd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: Most of my friends will not be 

going to graduate school 

h1od Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I plan to take some time off before 


7.1% 3 230 9.6% 17 .0% 5 4.7% 9 

11.2% 4 229 9.6% 17 8.1% 5 .0% 9 

45.1% 229 54.0% 17 46.6% 5 29.7% 9 

h1pd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I plan to join the Armed Forces 2.7% 3,4 230 2.6% 17 .0%* 5 .0%* 9 




(continued) 

h1qd Reason not apply to graduate 

school: I plan to get married or start my 

own family 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

18.5% 3,4 229 11.2% 17 .0%* 5 .0%* 9 


school: I already have a job 46.8% 230 64.9% 18 58.6% 5 33.7% 9 

gradfalld Do you plan to attend graduate 

school in Fall 2010? 26.0% 318 32.4% 26 49.3% 11 66.4% 1,2 28 



ACADEMIC MAJOR 





Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience 

a1a Likelihood to study 

computing in graduate 

school 

a1b Likelihood to study a 

non-computing subject in 


a1c Likelihood to attend 


immediately 

a1d Likelihood to attend 

graduate school after 

working for a while 

a1e Likelihood to 

successfully complete a 

graduate program 

a1f Likelihood to earn a 

Masters degree in 

computing 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 

Engineering/Elect 

rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 

Other science or 

engineering noncomputing 

major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N 

2.99 3 214 2.99 3 39 2.07 10 2.84 29 2.69 45 2.61 44 

2.10 217 2.26 37 2.35 10 2.67 29 2.57 45 2.86 1,2 48 

2.15 3 218 2.21 3 39 1.14 10 

3.11 1,2,3 

29 2.55 3 45 2.34 3 48 

2.67 209 2.52 38 2.84 10 2.22 29 2.74 45 2.95 48 

3.36 3 206 3.33 3 38 2.65 10 3.63 3 29 3.44 3 45 

3.68 1,2,3 

2.91 3 209 2.88 3 39 2.08 10 2.82 28 2.57 43 2.44 48 

a1g Likelihood to earn a 

PhD in computing 2.12 3 204 1.97 38 1.42 10 2.07 28 2.07 43 1.85 47 

a1h Likelihood to get a 

job in research that 

involves computing 

a1i Likelihood to get a 

job in computing, not in 

research 

welcomer How welcome 

or unwelcome do you feel 

in your home 

department? 

2.56 3 210 2.27 35 1.98 9 2.65 28 2.80 3 45 2.35 46 

3.40 5,6 214 3.03 34 

3.64 2,5,6 

10 2.99 29 2.53 45 2.73 46 

3.59 2 220 3.29 38 3.63 10 3.75 2 29 3.39 45 3.46 48 

43


Chapter 4: Research 

and Work Experience 

b3ar How much 

experience: 

Summarizing published 


b3br How much 

experience: Using 

scientific methods to test 

a hypothesis 

b3cr How much 

experience: Generating 

hypotheses 

b3dr How much 

experience: Collecting 

data or conducting 

experiments 

b3er How much 

experience: Analyzing 

data with statistics or 

other tools 

b3fr How much 

experience: Explaining 

results from data 


b3gr How much 

experience: Writing or 

co-authoring a research 


b3hr How much 

experience: Presenting a 


b3ir How much 

experience: Publishing a 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.51 3 217 2.47 38 1.79 8 2.23 28 2.56 42 2.21 44 

2.72 6 218 2.78 6 38 2.25 10 2.67 28 2.78 6 45 2.18 44 

2.75 3,6 218 2.85 3,6 38 2.12 10 2.89 3,6 29 2.82 3,6 45 2.20 44 

2.97 6 218 3.10 6 38 2.72 10 3.07 6 29 2.97 6 45 2.23 44 

2.79 6 218 3.04 6 38 2.55 10 3.07 6 29 2.81 6 45 2.28 44 

2.96 3,6 218 3.06 3,6 38 2.33 10 3.12 3,6 29 2.74 6 45 2.13 44 

2.65 216 2.40 38 2.33 10 

2.67 217 2.51 38 2.92 10 

3.12 1,2,3, 

6 

3.20 1,2,5, 

6 

29 2.55 45 2.29 44 

29 2.64 45 2.23 44 

1.94 218 1.80 38 1.52 10 2.23 3 29 1.87 45 1.82 44



(continued) 

b3jr How much 

experience: Feeling like 

a member of a research 

community 

b4ar How important is 

research experience on: 


b4br How important is 


Your decision about 

whether or not to attend 


b4cr How important is 


Your choice of graduate 

school 

b4dr How important is 


Your confidence that you 

will succeed in your 

chosen path 

c2ar How important is 

non-research work 

experience on: Your 

career choice 

c2br How important is 



decision about whether 

or not to attend graduate 

school 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.39 3,6 207 2.33 3 36 1.78 10 2.69 3,6 25 2.30 3 44 1.91 44 

2.72 3 210 2.99 3 35 2.15 9 2.67 24 2.75 45 2.52 41 

2.75 3 208 2.88 3 35 1.84 10 2.86 3 24 2.63 3 45 2.58 3 38 

2.31 176 2.66 3,6 33 1.65 10 2.54 22 2.54 3 35 1.84 26 

2.71 3 207 2.97 3,6 34 2.14 9 2.95 3 22 2.86 3 44 2.40 33 

3.40 4,5,6 

205 

3.47 4,5,6 

36 3.06 10 2.91 29 2.90 37 2.84 47 

2.89 5 206 2.89 36 2.67 10 2.71 29 2.34 38 2.53 44


Chapter 4: Research and 

Work Experience 

(continued) 



on: Your choice of graduate 

school 



on: Your confidence that you 

will succeed in your chosen 

path 


abilities and Knowledge 

about computing 

d1ar How confident: 

Contribute to a research 

project in computing 


admitted to graduate school 

in computing 

d1cr How confident: 

Complete a graduate degree 

in computing 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 

Engineering/Elec 

trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 

computing major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.40 5,6 176 2.49 5,6 34 2.00 10 2.26 26 1.68 31 1.78 39 

3.34 6 206 3.33 6 36 2.92 10 3.16 27 2.83 39 2.78 47 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.38 6 221 3.19 6 39 3.34 6 10 3.39 6 29 3.15 6 45 2.43 49 

3.40 6 221 3.20 6 39 3.56 6 10 3.16 29 3.23 6 45 2.64 49 

3.43 6 221 3.32 6 39 3.56 6 10 3.35 6 29 3.20 45 2.74 48

Chapter 5: Confidence 

in abilities and 

Knowledge about 


d1dr How confident: 

Become a capable 

researcher in computing 

d1er How confident: 

Have a successful 

career in computing 

d2ar How 

knowledgeable do you 

feel about: What it is like 

to do computing 

research 

d2br How 



to be a graduate student 

in computer science or 


d2cr How 


feel about: How 

computing can address 

social issues 

d2dr How 



to work as a computer 

scientist or computer 

engineer 

d2er How 


feel about: Criteria for 

admission to graduate 

programs 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.24 5,6 221 3.03 39 2.92 10 3.07 29 2.93 45 2.65 49 

3.68 2,5,6 

221 3.38 39 3.49 10 3.54 29 3.26 45 2.94 49 

2.85 3,6 222 2.68 39 2.19 10 2.94 3,6 29 2.60 45 2.39 49 

2.77 5,6 222 2.73 5 39 2.38 10 2.64 29 2.27 45 2.29 49 

3.07 6 221 2.96 39 

3.45 1,2,4, 

5,6 

10 2.85 29 2.90 45 2.64 49 

3.30 4,5 222 3.04 39 2.97 10 2.65 29 2.78 45 2.95 49 

2.82 222 2.69 39 2.91 10 2.94 29 2.66 45 2.52 49





d2fr How knowledgeable do 

you feel about: How to get 

financial support for 


d2gr How knowledgeable 

do you feel about: How to 

choose the right graduate 

school for me 


e5ar Influence your 

decision to attend or not 


immediately: Family or 


e5br Influence your 



immediately: Friends 

e5cr Influence your decision 

to attend or not attend 


immediately: Undergraduate 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.46 222 2.32 39 2.77 10 2.69 29 2.61 45 2.10 49 

2.60 222 2.43 39 2.58 10 2.86 29 2.47 45 2.45 49 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.54 3 214 3.58 3 38 2.78 10 3.39 29 3.22 45 3.36 48 

3.50 3 212 3.38 38 2.99 10 3.60 3 29 3.40 45 3.34 44 

3.92 3 212 3.71 35 3.45 10 4.04 3 29 4.03 3 42 3.79 47


(continued) 

e5dr Influence your 



immediately: Research 

advisor 

e5er Influence your 



immediately: Personal 


e5fr Influence your 



immediately: General 


e5gr Influence your 



immediately: Immediate 


e5hr Influence your 



immediately: Kind of work 

I want to do 

e5ir Influence your 



immediately: Kind of 


e5jr Influence your 



immediately: Keep 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.84 3 171 3.68 29 3.39 7 4.09 3 28 3.99 3 40 4.01 3 35 

2.70 3 209 2.71 37 2.20 10 3.27 3 29 2.83 3 45 2.64 48 

3.13 213 3.13 37 3.18 10 3.16 29 3.25 44 2.84 48 

2.95 2,3 209 2.59 36 2.09 10 

3.45 3 211 3.38 38 2.82 10 

3.31 209 3.28 38 3.40 10 

3.73 208 3.61 38 3.45 10 

3.38 2,3,6 

4.06 1,2,3, 

6 

4.10 1,2,6 

4.28 1,2,3, 

6 

29 3.19 2,3 39 2.57 44 

29 3.79 3 44 3.16 48 

28 3.73 45 3.15 48 

28 3.80 42 3.60 44



(continued) 

e5kr Influence your decision 



immediately: My academic 


e5lr Influence your decision 



immediately: My computing 


e5mr Influence your 





g1ar How important is this 

for your future career: A 

career that involves 

teamwork 

g1br How important is this 


career creating new 

technology or applications 

g1cr How important is this 


career that has social impact 

g1dr How important is this 


career in which I can 


leadership 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.69 2 211 3.37 38 3.77 10 3.78 29 3.52 42 3.36 44 

3.33 3 205 3.23 35 2.75 10 3.67 3,6 28 3.37 39 2.99 46 

3.51 3 194 3.60 3 34 2.99 10 3.79 3 29 3.56 3 41 3.46 38 

3.14 211 3.02 37 3.31 10 3.27 29 2.81 45 2.82 48 

3.26 6 207 3.41 6 37 3.18 6 10 3.15 6 28 3.14 6 45 2.47 48 

3.16 208 3.22 37 3.24 10 3.46 29 3.47 45 3.40 48 

2.95 208 3.06 37 2.55 10 3.13 28 3.22 3 45 2.84 44


(continued) 

g1er How important is this 


career that has high 

earnings potential 

g1fr How important is this 

for your future career: To be 

prepared for a wide variety 

of career options 

g1gr How important is this 


career that is compatible 

with the personal lifestyle to 

which I aspire 

g1hr How important is this 

for your future career: To do 

research 

g1ir How important is this 

for your future career: To 

teach 

g1jr How important is this 


have flexible work time 

g1kr How important is this 



g1lr How important is this 


decide for myself what I will 

work on 

g1mr How important is this 


work in a particular 

geographic location 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.17 5,6 208 3.35 5,6 37 

3.16 210 3.19 37 

3.47 4,5,6 

3.79 1,2,5 

,6 

10 2.80 28 2.65 45 2.67 48 

10 3.14 28 3.05 45 2.83 46 

3.59 208 3.69 37 3.79 10 3.44 29 3.82 1,4 45 3.50 48 

2.30 3 207 2.18 36 1.67 10 2.30 28 2.44 3 45 1.92 48 

2.16 208 2.04 37 2.13 10 2.68 1,2 28 2.50 45 2.41 48 

3.05 211 3.11 37 3.06 10 3.21 29 2.83 45 2.65 47 

2.54 210 2.80 6 37 2.89 10 2.77 29 2.31 44 2.20 46 

2.83 206 2.95 3 37 2.48 10 2.85 29 2.80 45 2.56 46 

2.73 206 2.71 37 2.99 10 2.87 28 2.45 44 2.65 48


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience 

a2ad Faculty is available 

to me for one-on-one 

advising 

a2bd Faculty helps me 

progress toward my 

degree 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

97.9% 218 94.2% 38 

100.0% 

1,2* 

10 97.4% 28 

100.0% 

1,2* 

45 95.3% 48 

95.5% 220 93.9% 36 93.1% 10 94.8% 28 98.4% 45 92.8% 48 

a2cd Faculty gives me 

useful career advice 87.7% 214 84.6% 37 92.6% 10 71.9% 28 87.6% 45 81.3% 47 

a2dd Faculty gives me 

useful advice about my 

research 

a2ed Faculty 

encourages me to 

collaborate on research 


84.8% 176 84.6% 32 78.8% 7 85.6% 25 90.3% 42 85.6% 32 

76.3% 191 76.2% 33 61.7% 8 75.0% 27 82.8% 41 75.9% 33 

a2fd Faculty cares about 

me as a person 90.3% 212 85.6% 35 85.1% 10 88.7% 28 92.6% 45 91.3% 44 

a2gd Someone other 

than my advisor takes an 

interest in my progress 

toward my degree 

a2hd Faculty favors 

certain groups of 

students over others 

76.4% 2 219 60.4% 35 73.8% 8 85.1% 2 29 79.3% 45 78.8% 2 47 

34.7% 213 44.2% 3 38 14.9% 10 29.0% 27 31.0% 43 27.9% 43 

a2id Faculty encourages 

me to publish research 53.7% 186 57.8% 31 57.6% 7 59.0% 25 58.7% 40 58.8% 26 

a2jd Faculty has 

expectations of 

undergraduate students 


27.8% 219 39.2% 36 21.6% 10 28.2% 28 23.4% 43 23.8% 47

Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 


a2kd Faculty encourages 

me to attend professional 

conferences 

a2ld Faculty helps me 

make professional 

contacts 

a2md Faculty 

undermines my 

confidence in my abilities 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

a4ead Existence: Brownbag 

lunches 22.6% 165 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

70.0% 2 214 47.5% 36 79.2% 2 10 

85.3% 1, 

2 

29 78.7% 2 44 79.2% 2 45 

60.4% 214 46.0% 36 55.3% 10 72.8% 2 29 50.4% 45 47.5% 39 

10.4% 218 13.4% 37 13.9% 10 5.6% 27 4.6% 45 7.7% 44 

44.9% 1, 

3,5 

26 8.7% 8 46.8% 3 20 12.7% 29 33.5% 32 

a4ebd Existence: Visiting 

lectures 86.9% 216 92.7% 37 86.1% 10 84.4% 24 86.9% 43 94.9% 48 

a4ecd Existence: 

Computing-related 

student groups 

a4edd Existence: 

Groups for minority 

computing students or 

minority 


a4eed Existence: 

Groups for women 


women 


a4efd Existence: 

Computing-related honor 

societies 

92.7% 215 94.6% 37 

57.7% 179 

79.9% 3 194 

52.2% 175 

a4egd Existence: Local 

computing-related groups 67.0% 168 

79.1% 1, 

6 

98.8% 1, 

3,6 

94.2% 1, 

5,6 

83.3% 1, 

5 

100.0% 

1,2 

10 89.1% 24 91.7% 45 91.1% 43 

33 46.9% 8 60.7% 23 63.4% 36 51.0% 30 

38 37.4% 8 71.4% 25 80.0% 3 37 71.0% 42 

34 65.5% 10 63.1% 21 40.7% 37 68.3% 25 

28 

90.5% 1, 

5 

8 78.7% 22 45.7% 28 72.4% 19


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 


a4ehd Existence: 

Lectures by women or 

minority computer 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

79.0% 184 92.4% 1 26 80.8% 8 66.9% 22 87.0% 33 83.6% 40 

a4pad Participation: 

Brown-bag lunches 62.8% 4 37 37.3% 4 12 .0% 1 27.3% 9 

80.1% 4, 

6 

4 66.2% 4 11 

a4pbd Participation: 

Visiting lectures 83.5% 187 71.8% 34 69.5% 9 90.7% 2 20 87.8% 2 37 83.0% 46 

a4pcd Participation: 



a4pdd Participation: 



minority 


a4ped Participation: 



women 


a4pfd Participation: 


societies 

a4pgd Participation: 

Local computing-related 

groups 

a4phd Participation: 




64.7% 2 199 44.5% 35 56.8% 10 51.9% 22 53.6% 42 77.4% 2 39 

40.4% 2, 

4,5 

103 20.4% 27 40.8% 4 13.5% 14 17.9% 23 23.0% 15 

39.1% 2 154 17.4% 38 51.3% 3 40.4% 18 

43.8% 3, 

5 

91 30.1% 3 32 .0% 6 

66.9% 2, 

3,5,6 

66.1% 1, 

2 

30 48.3% 2 30 

13 15.7% 15 22.9% 3 17 

45.2% 6 113 32.3% 6 23 48.6% 7 56.2% 6 18 33.4% 13 3.2% 14 

66.7% 2 146 47.4% 24 65.6% 6 72.8% 15 

89.9% 1, 

2,6 

29 62.6% 34



b1ad Have participated 

in: A course that included 


b1bd Have participated 

in: Independent study 

that included computing 

research 

b1cd Have participated 

in: Summer research at 

my university with a 

computing professor or 

researcher 

b1dd Have participated 

in: School-year 

computing research at 

my university 

b1ed Have participated 

in: Summer computing 

research at another 

university 

b1fd Have participated 

in: Computing research 

internship at a 

government or industry 

lab 

b1gd Have participated 

in: Other computing 

research 

b1hd Have participated 

in: Other non-computing 

research 

nonreswkd Have 

participated in nonresearch 

work that 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

64.9% 6 220 53.1% 39 62.8% 10 59.6% 29 60.0% 44 43.5% 49 

48.1% 220 51.9% 39 47.9% 10 58.0% 29 65.7% 44 44.2% 49 

31.4% 3 219 28.1% 3 39 6.7% 10 36.0% 26 22.4% 44 30.4% 3 49 

46.4% 220 40.9% 39 55.3% 10 60.1% 29 61.7% 6 44 31.6% 49 

22.1% 3 219 20.6% 39 6.7% 10 34.1% 26 44.2% 3 45 23.6% 49 

14.2% 219 12.4% 39 7.4% 10 8.3% 26 5.4% 44 6.3% 49 

12.4% 3 216 5.1% 3 39 .0% 10 4.2% 26 12.0% 44 14.7% 49 

7.9% 3 212 17.2% 3 39 .0% 10 26.3% 3 26 

77.2% 3, 

4 

222 

79.0% 3, 

4 

58.9% 1, 

2,3 

39 39.1% 10 43.1% 29 66.0% 45 

44 

32.3% 1, 

3 

80.0% 3, 

4 

49 

49



grapcompd Did you 

apply to graduate school 

in computing? 

grapothd Did you apply 

to graduate school in 

something other than 

computing? 

workfalld Do you plan to 

work in computing in Fall 

2010? 

wrkothd Do you plan to 

work in an area other 

than computing in Fall 

2010? 

recrschd Did you do 

research with any of the 

people who wrote your 


felwshpd Did you apply 

for a graduate fellowship 

separate from any offered 

by your intended 

institution? 

flwrcvdd Did you receive 

any of the separate 

graduate fellowships that 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

32.1% 3 222 41.7% 3 39 6.9% 10 40.1% 3 29 41.1% 3 45 23.7% 49 

14.4% 3 221 24.6% 3 39 .0% 10 41.5% 3 29 

80.6% 2, 

4,5 

205 58.2% 36 

93.3% 2, 

4,5 

14.6% 189 17.3% 35 15.3% 9 21.6% 24 

51.1% 1, 

2,3 

45 

42.3% 1, 

3 

10 47.0% 26 53.5% 40 71.5% 39 

48.6% 1, 

2,3 

60.1% 4 67 77.8% 4 15 .0% 1 41.0% 5 19 46.1% 4 13 

49 

40 36.0% 35 

93.4% 1, 

4,5 

8.9% 3,6 218 8.1% 3 39 .0% 10 8.0% 29 8.1% 3 44 .9% 49 

47.8% 19 65.5% 5 3 19.3% 2 12.4% 4 100.0% 0 

11

Not attending graduate 

school 

h1ad Reason not apply 

to graduate school: I do 

not like school 

h1bd Reason not apply 

to graduate school: I 

don't need more 

education for the job I 

want 

h1cd Reason not apply 


not feel that going to 

graduate school is 

important 

h1dd Reason not apply 

to graduate school: My 

grades are too low 

h1ed Reason not apply 


GRE scores are too low 

h1fd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I haven't 

taken the right courses 

h1gd Reason not apply 


probably can't get 

admitted to the graduate 

school I want to attend 

h1hd Reason not apply 


cannot afford to go to 


h1id Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I cannot 

afford to take the 

necessary tests or pay 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

28.5% 3, 

4,5,6 

161 

34.8% 3, 

4,5,6 

25 8.0% 9 8.3% 9 9.2% 29 4.7% 35 

37.9% 161 43.0% 25 58.0% 8 31.3% 9 26.2% 29 25.9% 35 

18.0% 5, 

6 

161 

13.1% 3 161 

28.1% 5, 

6 

31.3% 1, 

3,5,6 

25 16.1% 9 13.4% 9 4.1% 29 7.2% 35 

25 .0% 9 33.1% 3 9 6.4% 29 11.5% 3 35 

5.5% 3,5 161 8.2% 3,5 25 .0% 9 15.8% 9 .0% 29 3.4% 35 

6.8% 3 161 10.8% 3 25 .0% 9 8.3% 9 17.5% 3 29 15.8% 35 

13.7% 3 161 

41.5% 5, 

6 

38.2% 1, 

3,5,6 

25 .0% 9 24.8% 9 15.3% 29 14.7% 3 35 

159 43.5% 25 53.4% 9 

59.4% 5, 

6 

9 20.3% 29 21.8% 35 

13.5% 159 15.7% 25 8.0% 9 24.9% 9 7.9% 29 8.0% 34



school (continued) 

h1jd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I prefer to 

work first to save money for 


h1kd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I need to help 


h1ld Reason not apply to 

graduate school: No one has 




family has ever attended 



graduate school: Most of my 

friends will not be going to 







graduate school: I plan to join 





h1rd Reason not apply to 

graduate school: I already 

have a job 

gradfalld Do you plan to 

attend graduate school in Fall 

2010? 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

64.5% 162 57.3% 25 53.4% 9 59.4% 9 50.8% 29 54.2% 35 

17.9% 159 27.1% 6 25 24.1% 9 37.8% 9 23.6% 29 8.1% 35 

8.6% 5 156 12.8% 5 25 8.0% 9 8.3% 9 .0% 29 7.4% 35 

7.9% 3,6 159 

14.3% 3, 

4,5,6 

158 

15.7% 3, 

6 

17.5% 3, 

4,5,6 

25 .0% 9 8.3% 9 3.8% 29 .0% 35 

25 .0%** 9 .0%** 9 .0%** 29 3.4% 35 

48.8% 158 36.3% 25 24.1% 9 38.3% 9 36.1% 29 45.5% 35 

3.4% 159 3.5% 25 .0%** 9 .0%** 9 1.5% 29 .0%** 35 

21.4% 6 158 11.9% 25 24.1% 9 8.3% 9 13.2% 29 5.3% 35 

51.2% 5 159 

61.1% 5, 

6 

25 

76.7% 5, 

6 

26.0% 221 31.3% 39 13.9% 10 

9 55.4% 9 21.4% 29 34.6% 35 

69.6% 1, 

2,3,5,6 

29 36.9% 45 29.7% 49


ACADEMIC MINOR 





Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience 



school 






immediately 









computing 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.99 3 214 2.99 3 39 2.07 10 2.84 29 2.69 45 2.61 44 

2.10 217 2.26 37 2.35 10 2.67 29 2.57 45 2.86 1,2 48 

2.15 3 218 2.21 3 39 1.14 10 

3.11 1,2,3 

29 2.55 3 45 2.34 3 48 

2.67 209 2.52 38 2.84 10 2.22 29 2.74 45 2.95 48 

3.36 3 206 3.33 3 38 2.65 10 3.63 3 29 3.44 3 45 

3.68 1,2,3 

2.91 3 209 2.88 3 39 2.08 10 2.82 28 2.57 43 2.44 48 


PhD in computing 2.12 3 204 1.97 38 1.42 10 2.07 28 2.07 43 1.85 47 






research 



in your home 

department? 

2.56 3 210 2.27 35 1.98 9 2.65 28 2.80 3 45 2.35 46 

3.40 5,6 214 3.03 34 

3.64 2,5,6 

10 2.99 29 2.53 45 2.73 46 

3.59 2 220 3.29 38 3.63 10 3.75 2 29 3.39 45 3.46 48 

43




b3ar How much 

experience: 



b3br How much 



a hypothesis 

b3cr How much 


hypotheses 

b3dr How much 



experiments 

b3er How much 



other tools 

b3fr How much 




b3gr How much 




b3hr How much 



b3ir How much 



Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.51 3 217 2.47 38 1.79 8 2.23 28 2.56 42 2.21 44 

2.72 6 218 2.78 6 38 2.25 10 2.67 28 2.78 6 45 2.18 44 

2.75 3,6 218 2.85 3,6 38 2.12 10 2.89 3,6 29 2.82 3,6 45 2.20 44 

2.97 6 218 3.10 6 38 2.72 10 3.07 6 29 2.97 6 45 2.23 44 

2.79 6 218 3.04 6 38 2.55 10 3.07 6 29 2.81 6 45 2.28 44 

2.96 3,6 218 3.06 3,6 38 2.33 10 3.12 3,6 29 2.74 6 45 2.13 44 

2.65 216 2.40 38 2.33 10 

2.67 217 2.51 38 2.92 10 

3.12 1,2,3, 

6 

3.20 1,2,5, 

6 

29 2.55 45 2.29 44 

29 2.64 45 2.23 44 

1.94 218 1.80 38 1.52 10 2.23 3 29 1.87 45 1.82 44



(continued) 

b3jr How much 



community 












school 





chosen path 




career choice 






school 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.39 3,6 207 2.33 3 36 1.78 10 2.69 3,6 25 2.30 3 44 1.91 44 

2.72 3 210 2.99 3 35 2.15 9 2.67 24 2.75 45 2.52 41 

2.75 3 208 2.88 3 35 1.84 10 2.86 3 24 2.63 3 45 2.58 3 38 

2.31 176 2.66 3,6 33 1.65 10 2.54 22 2.54 3 35 1.84 26 

2.71 3 207 2.97 3,6 34 2.14 9 2.95 3 22 2.86 3 44 2.40 33 

3.40 4,5,6 

205 

3.47 4,5,6 

36 3.06 10 2.91 29 2.90 37 2.84 47 

2.89 5 206 2.89 36 2.67 10 2.71 29 2.34 38 2.53 44




(continued) 




school 





path 









in computing 



in computing 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.40 5,6 176 2.49 5,6 34 2.00 10 2.26 26 1.68 31 1.78 39 

3.34 6 206 3.33 6 36 2.92 10 3.16 27 2.83 39 2.78 47 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.38 6 221 3.19 6 39 3.34 6 10 3.39 6 29 3.15 6 45 2.43 49 

3.40 6 221 3.20 6 39 3.56 6 10 3.16 29 3.23 6 45 2.64 49 

3.43 6 221 3.32 6 39 3.56 6 10 3.35 6 29 3.20 45 2.74 48











d2ar How 




research 

d2br How 






d2cr How 




social issues 

d2dr How 





engineer 

d2er How 




programs 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.24 5,6 221 3.03 39 2.92 10 3.07 29 2.93 45 2.65 49 

3.68 2,5,6 

221 3.38 39 3.49 10 3.54 29 3.26 45 2.94 49 

2.85 3,6 222 2.68 39 2.19 10 2.94 3,6 29 2.60 45 2.39 49 

2.77 5,6 222 2.73 5 39 2.38 10 2.64 29 2.27 45 2.29 49 

3.07 6 221 2.96 39 

3.45 1,2,4, 

5,6 

10 2.85 29 2.90 45 2.64 49 

3.30 4,5 222 3.04 39 2.97 10 2.65 29 2.78 45 2.95 49 

2.82 222 2.69 39 2.91 10 2.94 29 2.66 45 2.52 49





(continued) 








school for me 
















Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.46 222 2.32 39 2.77 10 2.69 29 2.61 45 2.10 49 

2.60 222 2.43 39 2.58 10 2.86 29 2.47 45 2.45 49 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.54 3 214 3.58 3 38 2.78 10 3.39 29 3.22 45 3.36 48 

3.50 3 212 3.38 38 2.99 10 3.60 3 29 3.40 45 3.34 44 

3.92 3 212 3.71 35 3.45 10 4.04 3 29 4.03 3 42 3.79 47


(continued) 





advisor 




















I want to do 











Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.84 3 171 3.68 29 3.39 7 4.09 3 28 3.99 3 40 4.01 3 35 

2.70 3 209 2.71 37 2.20 10 3.27 3 29 2.83 3 45 2.64 48 

3.13 213 3.13 37 3.18 10 3.16 29 3.25 44 2.84 48 

2.95 2,3 209 2.59 36 2.09 10 

3.45 3 211 3.38 38 2.82 10 

3.31 209 3.28 38 3.40 10 

3.73 208 3.61 38 3.45 10 

3.38 2,3,6 

4.06 1,2,3, 

6 

4.10 1,2,6 

4.28 1,2,3, 

6 

29 3.19 2,3 39 2.57 44 

29 3.79 3 44 3.16 48 

28 3.73 45 3.15 48 

28 3.80 42 3.60 44



(continued) 



















teamwork 












leadership 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.69 2 211 3.37 38 3.77 10 3.78 29 3.52 42 3.36 44 

3.33 3 205 3.23 35 2.75 10 3.67 3,6 28 3.37 39 2.99 46 

3.51 3 194 3.60 3 34 2.99 10 3.79 3 29 3.56 3 41 3.46 38 

3.14 211 3.02 37 3.31 10 3.27 29 2.81 45 2.82 48 

3.26 6 207 3.41 6 37 3.18 6 10 3.15 6 28 3.14 6 45 2.47 48 

3.16 208 3.22 37 3.24 10 3.46 29 3.47 45 3.40 48 

2.95 208 3.06 37 2.55 10 3.13 28 3.22 3 45 2.84 44


(continued) 
















research 



teach 










work on 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.17 5,6 208 3.35 5,6 37 

3.16 210 3.19 37 

3.47 4,5,6 

3.79 1,2,5 

,6 

10 2.80 28 2.65 45 2.67 48 

10 3.14 28 3.05 45 2.83 46 

3.59 208 3.69 37 3.79 10 3.44 29 3.82 1,4 45 3.50 48 

2.30 3 207 2.18 36 1.67 10 2.30 28 2.44 3 45 1.92 48 

2.16 208 2.04 37 2.13 10 2.68 1,2 28 2.50 45 2.41 48 

3.05 211 3.11 37 3.06 10 3.21 29 2.83 45 2.65 47 

2.54 210 2.80 6 37 2.89 10 2.77 29 2.31 44 2.20 46 

2.83 206 2.95 3 37 2.48 10 2.85 29 2.80 45 2.56 46 

2.73 206 2.71 37 2.99 10 2.87 28 2.45 44 2.65 48


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience Minor 



advising 



degree 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

97.9% 218 94.2% 38 

100.0% 

1,2* 

10 97.4% 28 


100.0% 

1,2* 

45 95.3% 48 

95.5% 220 93.9% 36 93.1% 10 94.8% 28 98.4% 45 92.8% 48 


useful career advice 87.7% 214 84.6% 37 92.6% 10 71.9% 28 87.6% 45 81.3% 47 



research 

a2ed Faculty 




84.8% 176 84.6% 32 78.8% 7 85.6% 25 90.3% 42 85.6% 32 

76.3% 191 76.2% 33 61.7% 8 75.0% 27 82.8% 41 75.9% 33 


me as a person 90.3% 212 85.6% 35 85.1% 10 88.7% 28 92.6% 45 91.3% 44 








76.4% 2 219 60.4% 35 73.8% 8 85.1% 2 29 79.3% 45 78.8% 2 47 

34.7% 213 44.2% 3 38 14.9% 10 29.0% 27 31.0% 43 27.9% 43 


me to publish research 53.7% 186 57.8% 31 57.6% 7 59.0% 25 58.7% 40 58.8% 26 





27.8% 219 39.2% 36 21.6% 10 28.2% 28 23.4% 43 23.8% 47

Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 




conferences 



contacts 

a2md Faculty 

undermines my 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 


lunches 22.6% 165 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

70.0% 2 214 47.5% 36 79.2% 2 10 

85.3% 1, 

2 

29 78.7% 2 44 79.2% 2 45 

60.4% 214 46.0% 36 55.3% 10 72.8% 2 29 50.4% 45 47.5% 39 

10.4% 218 13.4% 37 13.9% 10 5.6% 27 4.6% 45 7.7% 44 

44.9% 1, 

3,5 

26 8.7% 8 46.8% 3 20 12.7% 29 33.5% 32 


lectures 86.9% 216 92.7% 37 86.1% 10 84.4% 24 86.9% 43 94.9% 48 







minority 





women 




societies 

92.7% 215 94.6% 37 

57.7% 179 

79.9% 3 194 

52.2% 175 


computing-related groups 67.0% 168 

79.1% 1, 

6 

98.8% 1, 

3,6 

94.2% 1, 

5,6 

83.3% 1, 

5 

100.0% 

1,2 

10 89.1% 24 91.7% 45 91.1% 43 

33 46.9% 8 60.7% 23 63.4% 36 51.0% 30 

38 37.4% 8 71.4% 25 80.0% 3 37 71.0% 42 

34 65.5% 10 63.1% 21 40.7% 37 68.3% 25 

28 

90.5% 1, 

5 

8 78.7% 22 45.7% 28 72.4% 19


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience (continued) Minor 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

79.0% 184 92.4% 1 26 80.8% 8 66.9% 22 87.0% 33 83.6% 40 


Brown-bag lunches 62.8% 4 37 37.3% 4 12 .0% 1 27.3% 9 


80.1% 4, 

6 

4 66.2% 4 11 


Visiting lectures 83.5% 187 71.8% 34 69.5% 9 90.7% 2 20 87.8% 2 37 83.0% 46 







minority 





women 




societies 



groups 





64.7% 2 199 44.5% 35 56.8% 10 51.9% 22 53.6% 42 77.4% 2 39 

40.4% 2, 

4,5 

103 20.4% 27 40.8% 4 13.5% 14 17.9% 23 23.0% 15 

39.1% 2 154 17.4% 38 51.3% 3 40.4% 18 

43.8% 3, 

5 

91 30.1% 3 32 .0% 6 

66.9% 2, 

3,5,6 

66.1% 1, 

2 

30 48.3% 2 30 

13 15.7% 15 22.9% 3 17 

45.2% 6 113 32.3% 6 23 48.6% 7 56.2% 6 18 33.4% 13 3.2% 14 

66.7% 2 146 47.4% 24 65.6% 6 72.8% 15 

89.9% 1, 

2,6 

29 62.6% 34









research 





researcher 




my university 




university 





lab 



research 



research 



work that 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

64.9% 6 220 53.1% 39 62.8% 10 59.6% 29 60.0% 44 43.5% 49 

48.1% 220 51.9% 39 47.9% 10 58.0% 29 65.7% 44 44.2% 49 

31.4% 3 219 28.1% 3 39 6.7% 10 36.0% 26 22.4% 44 30.4% 3 49 

46.4% 220 40.9% 39 55.3% 10 60.1% 29 61.7% 6 44 31.6% 49 

22.1% 3 219 20.6% 39 6.7% 10 34.1% 26 44.2% 3 45 23.6% 49 

14.2% 219 12.4% 39 7.4% 10 8.3% 26 5.4% 44 6.3% 49 

12.4% 3 216 5.1% 3 39 .0% 10 4.2% 26 12.0% 44 14.7% 49 

7.9% 3 212 17.2% 3 39 .0% 10 26.3% 3 26 

77.2% 3, 

4 

222 

79.0% 3, 

4 

58.9% 1, 

2,3 

39 39.1% 10 43.1% 29 66.0% 45 

44 

32.3% 1, 

3 

80.0% 3, 

4 

49 

49





in computing? 




computing? 



2010? 




2010? 









institution? 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

32.1% 3 222 41.7% 3 39 6.9% 10 40.1% 3 29 41.1% 3 45 23.7% 49 

14.4% 3 221 24.6% 3 39 .0% 10 41.5% 3 29 

80.6% 2, 

4,5 

205 58.2% 36 

93.3% 2, 

4,5 

14.6% 189 17.3% 35 15.3% 9 21.6% 24 

51.1% 1, 

2,3 

45 

42.3% 1, 

3 

10 47.0% 26 53.5% 40 71.5% 39 

48.6% 1, 

2,3 

60.1% 4 67 77.8% 4 15 .0% 1 41.0% 5 19 46.1% 4 13 

49 

40 36.0% 35 

93.4% 1, 

4,5 

8.9% 3,6 218 8.1% 3 39 .0% 10 8.0% 29 8.1% 3 44 .9% 49 

47.8% 19 65.5% 5 3 19.3% 2 12.4% 4 100.0% 0 

11



school Minor 

Computer 

Computer 

Engineering/Elect Information 

rical and Systems or 


Computer Computer Information Other computing engineering non- Other non- 

Science Engineering Systems 

major computing major computing major 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 




28.5% 3, 

4,5,6 161 

34.8% 3, 



4,5,6 25 8.0% 9 8.3% 9 9.2% 29 4.7% 35 



want 


37.9% 161 43.0% 25 58.0% 8 31.3% 9 26.2% 29 25.9% 35 




important 

18.0% 5, 

6 161 

28.1% 5, 

6 25 16.1% 9 13.4% 9 4.1% 29 7.2% 35 




13.1% 3 161 

31.3% 1, 

3,5,6 25 .0% 9 33.1% 3 9 6.4% 29 11.5% 3 35 




5.5% 3,5 161 8.2% 3,5 25 .0% 9 15.8% 9 .0% 29 3.4% 35 




6.8% 3 161 10.8% 3 25 .0% 9 8.3% 9 17.5% 3 h1gd Reason not apply 

29 15.8% 35 





13.7% 3 161 

38.2% 1, 

3,5,6 25 .0% 9 24.8% 9 15.3% 29 14.7% 3 35 





41.5% 5, 

6 159 43.5% 25 53.4% 9 

59.4% 5, 



6 9 20.3% 29 21.8% 35 




13.5% 159 15.7% 25 8.0% 9 24.9% 9 7.9% 29 8.0% 34 



































have a job 



2010? 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

64.5% 162 57.3% 25 53.4% 9 59.4% 9 50.8% 29 54.2% 35 

17.9% 159 27.1% 6 25 24.1% 9 37.8% 9 23.6% 29 8.1% 35 

8.6% 5 156 12.8% 5 25 8.0% 9 8.3% 9 .0% 29 7.4% 35 

7.9% 3,6 159 

14.3% 3, 

4,5,6 

158 

15.7% 3, 

6 

17.5% 3, 

4,5,6 

25 .0% 9 8.3% 9 3.8% 29 .0% 35 

25 .0%** 9 .0%** 9 .0%** 29 3.4% 35 

48.8% 158 36.3% 25 24.1% 9 38.3% 9 36.1% 29 45.5% 35 

3.4% 159 3.5% 25 .0%** 9 .0%** 9 1.5% 29 .0%** 35 

21.4% 6 158 11.9% 25 24.1% 9 8.3% 9 13.2% 29 5.3% 35 

51.2% 5 159 

61.1% 5, 

6 

25 

76.7% 5, 

6 

26.0% 221 31.3% 39 13.9% 10 

9 55.4% 9 21.4% 29 34.6% 35 

69.6% 1, 

2,3,5,6 

29 36.9% 45 29.7% 49


OVERLL GPA 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Overall GPA 






a while 


program 




computing 




2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.52 66 2.88 123 2.99 1 184 

2.72 2,3 66 2.16 128 2.30 182 

2.05 66 2.00 129 2.53 1,2 184 

2.92 3 66 2.93 3 126 2.41 179 

3.15 66 3.49 121 3.48 174 

2.50 66 2.78 124 2.88 178 

1.80 64 1.78 120 2.29 1,2 177 

2.31 66 2.43 127 2.69 172 

3.30 65 3.26 125 3.02 176 

3.36 66 3.49 128 3.62 1 187 



Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Overall GPA 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.09 65 2.34 130 2.64 1 173 

2.42 66 2.67 130 2.72 180 

2.38 66 2.73 130 2.78 1 180 

2.74 66 2.92 129 2.94 180 

2.55 66 2.79 130 2.85 179 

2.60 66 2.85 129 2.94 180 

2.23 65 2.49 130 2.79 1,2 179 

2.36 66 2.66 130 2.72 179 

1.73 66 1.76 130 2.06 2 180 

2.05 63 2.25 124 2.45 1 172 

2.56 55 2.63 122 2.82 179 

2.45 54 2.57 119 2.89 178 

1.70 45 2.25 1 103 2.57 1 148 

2.45 52 2.56 120 2.92 1,2 169 

3.29 63 3.29 121 3.20 170 

2.57 64 2.73 117 2.88 173 

2.24 56 2.21 104 2.25 148 

3.20 64 3.13 122 3.24 170 



about computing Overall GPA 

2 - 2.99 

3.0 - 3.49 

(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.94 66 3.18 129 3.34 1 188 

2.45 66 3.36 1 129 3.46 1 188 

2.74 66 3.37 1 128 3.46 1 188 

2.82 66 3.10 1 129 3.17 1 188 

3.37 66 3.55 129 3.50 188 

2.53 66 2.68 130 2.84 1 188 

2.38 66 2.53 130 2.79 1 188 

2.74 66 3.18 1,3 130 2.92 187 

2.99 66 3.23 130 3.09 188 

2.43 66 2.75 130 2.90 1 188 

2.23 66 2.46 130 2.51 188 

2.29 66 2.59 130 2.64 1 188 



Chapter 6: Future Plans Overall GPA 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.55 66 3.31 129 3.51 180 

3.41 66 3.41 128 3.51 176 

3.54 65 3.84 1 126 4.05 1 175 

3.27 55 3.77 1 95 4.15 1,2 153 

2.76 66 2.63 128 2.82 175 

2.98 65 3.20 128 3.11 179 

3.11 63 2.98 123 2.77 172 

3.41 65 3.36 129 3.58 178 

3.34 66 3.34 126 3.48 178 

3.41 65 3.75 122 3.87 1 174 

2.92 66 3.53 1 128 3.93 1,2 172 

3.27 64 3.32 124 3.27 167 

3.16 60 3.51 1 115 3.66 1 162 


Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Overall GPA 















aspire 


research 










2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.13 66 3.23 3 127 2.92 178 

3.25 62 3.15 127 3.12 178 

3.01 63 3.38 1 127 3.27 177 

3.09 63 2.92 129 3.01 172 

3.13 64 3.02 130 3.01 175 

3.30 3 64 3.23 128 2.98 176 

3.48 64 3.55 127 3.71 1 178 

2.06 63 2.24 126 2.31 177 

2.11 62 2.07 125 2.45 2 179 

2.69 64 2.91 130 3.17 1 177 

2.63 64 2.52 129 2.48 175 

2.84 61 2.80 129 2.78 175 

2.54 63 2.73 126 2.71 175 














others 





conferences 



2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

98.2% 66 96.0% 126 98.1% 186 

94.0% 66 93.0% 127 97.2% 186 

85.6% 66 88.1% 126 83.6% 181 

75.0% 50 89.7% 102 86.4% 154 

69.4% 55 74.4% 103 80.3% 165 

87.9% 61 90.5% 124 90.8% 180 

75.8% 65 75.9% 126 76.4% 183 

42.0% 64 40.5% 3 124 25.3% 178 

50.8% 49 45.5% 101 63.0% 2 157 

32.7% 60 36.9% 3 128 19.8% 186 

73.1% 64 70.1% 123 72.0% 183 

56.5% 63 56.7% 124 57.0% 176 

12.5% 66 11.4% 125 6.2% 181 


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Overall GPA 























2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

21.5% 43 16.3% 93 34.2% 2 135 

95.5% 2 57 85.1% 128 88.0% 183 

98.6% 3 64 93.4% 127 89.6% 174 

67.2% 51 60.7% 104 57.8% 146 

83.7% 53 84.1% 117 74.5% 165 

69.5% 42 54.9% 100 57.7% 151 

62.4% 43 67.1% 94 71.0% 130 

88.4% 49 84.2% 104 76.0% 152 

53.0% 9 53.6% 15 56.1% 46 

86.6% 55 78.3% 109 84.1% 161 

62.1% 63 62.2% 119 61.8% 156 

39.0% 34 36.8% 63 25.0% 84 

24.0% 44 45.2% 1 98 40.9% 123 

17.6% 29 27.3% 54 51.5% 1,2 87 

39.1% 27 43.6% 63 40.7% 93 

67.5% 43 68.5% 88 65.9% 116 




















2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

52.3% 66 63.4% 129 60.0% 185 

40.2% 66 46.6% 128 56.2% 185 

18.1% 66 32.6% 128 30.6% 183 

38.1% 66 41.7% 128 53.4% 185 

11.5% 66 23.1% 128 30.3% 1 184 

17.1% 66 9.6% 128 10.5% 182 

8.0% 66 10.6% 128 12.5% 178 

11.7% 66 12.2% 127 26.0% 1,2 176 

69.3% 66 68.5% 130 76.7% 188 



computing? 












2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

21.5% 66 30.3% 130 38.9% 1 188 

28.2% 66 22.9% 130 25.1% 188 

77.1% 55 83.3% 3 123 62.8% 171 

18.8% 50 24.1% 111 20.7% 163 

36.7% 16 48.2% 34 69.7% 73 

2.8% 66 8.4% 130 8.9% 1 183 

64.7% 2 41.0% 11 43.6% 16 


Not attending graduate school Overall GPA 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

23.1% 51 22.7% 98 21.1% 112 

31.3% 51 33.6% 98 40.2% 112 

17.7% 51 14.3% 98 15.2% 112 

50.2% 2,3 51 10.6% 3 98 .4% 112 

15.6% 51 3.3% 98 2.0% 111 

16.2% 51 7.8% 98 8.0% 112 

32.9% 2,3 51 11.3% 98 13.5% 112 

44.4% 49 40.2% 98 32.3% 112 

24.3% 3 49 14.6% 3 98 4.4% 111 

68.7% 51 58.3% 99 57.7% 112 

21.5% 49 20.2% 98 15.9% 112 

15.7% 49 4.7% 95 6.8% 112 

17.0% 3 49 6.4% 98 3.4% 112 

14.7% 49 10.8% 97 9.0% 112 

48.9% 49 42.4% 97 43.9% 112 

4.2% 49 1.2% 98 3.1% 112 

12.3% 49 21.6% 98 15.3% 111 

28.2% 49 57.0% 1 99 49.5% 1 112 

21.9% 66 23.3% 130 39.6% 1,2 187 




OVERLL GPA IN COMPUTING MAJOR 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Overall GPA in Computing Major 






a while 


program 




computing 




2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.35 47 2.85 95 3.12 1 185 

2.35 47 2.35 98 2.12 185 

1.94 47 1.86 99 2.50 2 188 

2.80 46 2.95 3 96 2.46 186 

3.37 47 3.13 96 3.53 2 179 

2.41 46 2.74 96 3.02 1 183 

1.71 45 1.75 96 2.36 1,2 179 

2.32 47 2.36 96 2.70 176 

3.11 46 3.39 96 3.16 181 

3.16 46 3.50 98 3.64 1 190 









experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


1.85 46 2.40 1 99 2.62 1 181 

2.55 47 2.63 99 2.73 188 

2.59 47 2.66 99 2.81 188 

2.75 47 2.87 98 2.98 188 

2.60 47 2.63 99 2.92 2 188 

2.44 47 2.81 99 3.01 1 188 

2.14 46 2.68 1 99 2.72 1 187 

2.33 47 2.64 99 2.74 1 187 

1.58 47 1.82 99 2.07 1 188 

2.12 46 2.14 99 2.50 2 179 

2.28 38 2.55 94 2.90 1 184 

2.27 39 2.45 91 2.98 1,2 184 

1.98 35 2.17 72 2.57 2 162 

2.40 38 2.56 92 2.95 2 177 

3.06 46 3.39 93 3.33 178 

2.51 45 2.71 89 2.95 178 

2.19 42 2.30 74 2.26 158 

3.06 46 3.30 92 3.25 178 





2 - 2.99 

3.0 - 3.49 

(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.94 47 3.22 98 3.47 1,2 192 

2.60 47 3.24 1 98 3.60 1,2 192 

2.84 47 3.28 1 98 3.58 1,2 192 

2.80 47 2.99 98 3.30 1,2 192 

3.08 47 3.60 1 98 3.70 1 192 

2.38 47 2.68 99 2.89 1 192 

2.14 47 2.59 1 99 2.85 1 192 

2.82 47 3.03 99 3.01 192 

2.91 47 3.31 1 99 3.17 192 

2.44 47 2.70 99 2.97 1 192 

2.26 47 2.39 99 2.61 192 

2.32 47 2.43 99 2.72 1,2 192 

















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.25 47 3.33 98 3.54 184 

3.33 46 3.29 97 3.55 2 184 

3.55 46 3.77 94 4.06 1,2 180 

3.31 38 3.62 1 75 4.16 1,2 155 

2.89 47 2.51 98 2.81 179 

3.11 47 3.01 97 3.14 184 

2.90 46 2.87 96 2.88 172 

3.25 46 3.37 97 3.56 183 

3.38 46 3.30 95 3.49 182 

3.59 46 3.52 96 3.94 2 176 

3.02 46 3.35 98 3.93 1,2 179 

3.37 44 3.27 95 3.30 173 

3.32 44 3.37 87 3.72 1,2 167 



Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Overall GPA 















aspire 


research 










2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.20 47 3.09 96 3.03 186 

3.23 43 3.23 96 3.24 186 

3.29 44 3.11 96 3.30 185 

3.24 2 44 2.81 98 3.04 184 

2.99 44 3.10 99 3.11 183 

3.13 44 3.26 98 3.10 185 

3.55 44 3.58 96 3.66 186 

2.21 44 2.16 94 2.34 185 

2.18 44 1.98 94 2.38 2 185 

2.78 44 2.90 99 3.18 2 185 

2.58 44 2.47 98 2.58 185 

2.81 44 2.79 96 2.83 185 

2.72 44 2.88 3 97 2.61 182 













others 





conferences 



2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

99.0% 47 95.5% 98 97.4% 188 

90.0% 47 95.7% 97 95.1% 190 

81.5% 46 87.6% 97 84.8% 185 

76.9% 39 87.4% 73 87.0% 159 

71.7% 42 76.3% 76 76.6% 169 

83.0% 45 90.3% 92 89.9% 188 

78.2% 46 68.9% 95 76.8% 188 

56.6% 2,3 45 35.0% 93 28.0% 184 

44.4% 39 45.5% 76 60.9% 165 

49.3% 3 43 37.0% 3 97 18.3% 189 

59.0% 45 71.5% 93 71.4% 187 

47.1% 46 53.2% 95 61.1% 185 

11.2% 46 9.3% 95 7.7% 189 



Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Overall GPA 























2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

10.1% 33 18.7% 70 30.8% 1 135 

76.7% 39 89.2% 97 88.1% 188 

89.6% 45 98.1% 98 92.7% 180 

68.7% 33 59.1% 80 60.6% 150 

83.0% 35 82.7% 89 78.4% 170 

74.4% 34 62.1% 76 55.5% 154 

65.7% 30 64.2% 73 72.6% 141 

92.9% 2,3 29 77.2% 76 76.8% 163 

13.2% 3 58.9% 1 13 50.5% 1 42 

80.1% 30 76.2% 87 83.9% 166 

52.4% 40 56.5% 96 64.3% 167 

33.6% 23 24.8% 47 31.8% 91 

31.8% 29 28.7% 73 43.5% 133 

21.1% 25 22.5% 47 51.3% 1,2 85 

36.0% 20 39.3% 47 47.1% 102 

56.1% 27 66.0% 59 65.8% 125 



















2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

50.1% 46 67.0% 98 58.4% 189 

37.8% 46 45.0% 98 55.2% 189 

3.9% 46 32.5% 1 97 37.9% 1 186 

25.7% 46 42.4% 98 55.9% 1 189 

10.2% 46 20.2% 97 31.0% 1 188 

3.9% 46 15.2% 1 98 12.6% 1 185 

9.8% 46 7.7% 98 12.7% 182 

7.0% 46 13.8% 97 21.8% 1 179 

58.2% 47 73.8% 99 77.0% 192 



computing? 












2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

20.1% 47 28.4% 99 42.6% 1 192 

33.4% 46 15.3% 99 18.9% 192 

67.2% 40 85.9% 3 94 69.0% 179 

33.3% 41 13.5% 83 22.3% 173 

33.3% 14 60.4% 17 63.9% 77 

1.4% 47 1.9% 99 12.8% 1,2 187 

.0% 1 62.2% 2 45.2% 2 24 



Not attending graduate school Overall GPA 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

29.1% 36 26.3% 81 17.8% 118 

47.1% 36 32.0% 81 37.3% 118 

18.8% 36 15.8% 81 15.8% 118 

63.0% 2,3 36 9.5% 3 81 2.5% 118 

15.0% 36 5.6% 81 3.1% 117 

14.8% 36 7.8% 81 6.0% 118 

36.5% 2,3 36 8.7% 81 14.1% 118 

52.4% 33 40.7% 81 32.2% 118 

22.8% 33 13.6% 81 6.7% 117 

63.0% 36 71.6% 3 82 52.9% 118 

25.2% 33 13.6% 81 20.1% 118 

13.7% 33 5.0% 81 5.5% 115 

12.3% 33 7.7% 81 4.6% 118 

7.9% 33 14.0% 81 11.3% 118 

37.7% 33 53.8% 3 81 36.2% 117 

2.7% 33 2.9% 81 3.0% 118 

10.1% 33 26.0% 81 14.2% 117 

50.8% 33 48.8% 82 52.7% 118 

22.7% 47 15.8% 99 38.1% 2 191 



GRADUATION YEAR 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Graduation Year 






a while 


program 




computing 




2008/2009 

(1) 



2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 


3.18 2 70 2.75 270 3.11 31 

2.10 69 2.44 274 1.94 33 

2.33 69 2.16 275 2.82 2 35 

2.83 69 2.64 266 2.87 34 

3.56 68 3.38 260 3.35 30 

3.09 2 67 2.72 265 2.89 34 

2.13 68 1.97 258 2.16 33 

2.68 65 2.50 265 2.73 32 

3.42 67 3.14 267 2.96 32 

3.52 70 3.51 275 3.66 34


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Graduation Year 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 


2.61 69 2.40 267 2.34 34 

2.82 69 2.66 274 2.33 34 

2.74 70 2.71 274 2.57 34 

3.03 70 2.90 274 2.67 34 

2.79 69 2.81 274 2.56 34 

2.90 70 2.86 274 2.58 33 

2.74 70 2.56 273 2.62 34 

2.71 70 2.66 274 2.41 33 

1.80 70 1.96 274 1.76 34 

2.22 67 2.32 260 2.43 34 

2.69 67 2.62 259 3.34 1,2 30 

2.64 68 2.63 251 3.37 1,2 31 

2.40 63 2.25 206 2.60 24 

2.70 65 2.64 247 3.27 2 29 

3.54 2 65 3.15 256 3.27 33 

2.99 65 2.72 254 2.53 33 

2.57 2 60 2.13 219 2.09 28 

3.49 2 66 3.10 256 3.20 33


about computing Graduation Year 

2008/2009 

2010 

(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












2011/2012 

(3) 


3.29 70 3.22 278 2.91 35 

3.47 2 70 3.20 278 3.13 35 

3.51 70 3.25 278 3.19 34 

3.08 70 3.08 278 2.99 35 

3.62 70 3.46 278 3.42 35 

2.77 70 2.69 278 2.83 35 

2.77 70 2.58 278 2.51 35 

3.05 70 2.94 278 3.03 35 

3.23 3 70 3.12 3 278 2.70 35 

3.05 2,3 70 2.72 278 2.39 35 

2.62 70 2.41 278 2.14 35 

2.70 70 2.53 278 2.38 35 



Chapter 6: Future Plans Graduation Year 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 


3.74 2 70 3.37 277 3.58 30 

3.56 70 3.41 272 3.61 29 

3.98 70 3.89 270 3.71 28 

3.93 56 3.82 231 4.26 2 18 

2.73 67 2.68 274 3.15 30 

3.05 70 3.08 274 3.41 30 

2.91 70 2.86 267 3.20 23 

3.58 70 3.44 275 3.57 28 

3.45 70 3.34 272 3.76 29 

3.87 68 3.69 270 3.97 26 

3.93 2 70 3.53 268 3.51 29 

3.55 2 70 3.19 260 3.46 27 

3.57 64 3.44 249 4.11 2 25

Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Graduation Year 















aspire 


research 










2008/2009 

(1) 



2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 


3.05 70 3.08 270 2.93 34 

3.13 69 3.18 267 2.90 33 

3.07 70 3.25 267 3.70 1,2 33 

2.74 67 3.06 266 2.88 33 

3.29 2 66 2.97 270 3.07 34 

3.34 69 3.07 267 3.16 34 

3.68 70 3.63 268 3.39 34 

2.29 66 2.19 268 2.46 33 

2.33 66 2.22 269 2.45 33 

3.31 2 70 2.92 270 2.86 33 

2.48 69 2.57 268 2.17 33 

2.76 69 2.81 264 2.67 33 

2.96 3 64 2.69 269 2.21 33


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Graduation Year 











others 





conferences 



2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

95.3% 70 97.8% 273 100.0% 1,2 35 

93.5% 69 95.3% 274 96.6% 35 

84.6% 65 85.2% 271 86.6% 35 

77.0% 55 86.7% 224 91.6% 25 

70.3% 58 77.0% 239 81.4% 25 

93.3% 67 88.0% 263 95.7% 34 

69.6% 67 75.4% 272 90.8% 1,2 35 

27.4% 67 36.7% 263 25.6% 32 

47.6% 58 56.8% 223 54.7% 25 

29.5% 68 26.4% 270 37.1% 35 

67.8% 66 71.6% 268 72.7% 34 

54.8% 65 54.8% 263 72.3% 34 

13.2% 68 7.9% 268 9.8% 35

Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Graduation Year 























2008/2009 

(1) 



2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

36.0% 47 21.5% 199 26.3% 22 

86.8% 66 88.7% 268 83.7% 34 

94.9% 66 92.5% 263 85.3% 33 

73.4% 3 53 58.9% 3 218 33.8% 28 

82.5% 58 76.8% 241 86.8% 34 

73.4% 2 55 54.0% 216 44.9% 20 

79.3% 3 51 66.6% 198 44.3% 15 

72.5% 57 82.3% 218 84.1% 29 

49.3% 17 52.6% 43 51.7% 6 

73.4% 57 83.4% 237 91.3% 1 28 

64.5% 63 59.8% 244 71.0% 28 

50.3% 2,3 39 25.8% 128 12.7% 9 

44.3% 48 34.8% 185 60.0% 2 29 

40.0% 40 33.5% 116 42.4% 9 

35.7% 40 42.0% 132 28.6% 7 

51.4% 41 68.5% 179 81.4% 24


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Graduation Year 

















2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

62.5% 69 60.1% 275 49.7% 35 

47.9% 69 49.7% 274 60.5% 35 

27.9% 66 26.6% 274 47.8% 35 

47.7% 69 45.0% 275 54.9% 35 

22.6% 66 21.1% 275 48.4% 2 35 

12.8% 66 10.5% 273 5.3% 35 

11.9% 66 10.4% 3 274 2.4% 31 

11.2% 64 18.0% 273 31.8% 31 

79.9% 70 69.7% 278 81.1% 35 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Graduation Year 


computing? 












2008/2009 

(1) 

2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

35.1% 70 29.8% 278 55.5% 2 35 

20.7% 70 24.5% 278 34.6% 35 

83.9% 2 67 70.8% 252 61.4% 31 

22.6% 63 20.0% 232 31.2% 31 

54.0% 3 31 63.5% 3 89 .0% 3 

5.2% 70 9.1% 3 277 .0% 31 

30.5% 4 45.9% 25

Not attending graduate school Graduation Year 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

2008/2009 

(1) 



2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

15.4% 36 24.5% 3 192 4.6% 32 

31.6% 3 36 40.8% 3 192 2.3% 32 

10.1% 36 19.0% 3 192 2.3% 32 

11.4% 36 14.6% 192 16.1% 32 

9.1% 3 36 5.3% 3 191 .0% 32 

9.4% 36 10.5% 192 4.3% 32 

21.4% 36 16.5% 192 11.2% 32 

58.0% 3 36 37.7% 189 21.2% 32 

8.2% 35 12.6% 189 16.6% 32 

85.2% 2,3 37 63.8% 3 192 18.9% 32 

18.9% 36 19.7% 189 16.6% 32 

8.1% 36 8.7% 3 186 2.3% 32 

4.0% 36 8.1% 189 2.3% 32 

13.4% 36 11.7% 3 188 1.4% 32 

72.0% 2,3 36 47.2% 3 188 2.3% 32 

2.0% 36 3.0% 189 .0% 32 

19.6% 35 18.4% 3 189 4.6% 32 

68.0% 3 37 52.7% 3 189 .0% 32 

47.3% 2,3 70 30.4% 3 277 3.5% 35



CHANGED MAJORS 





Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 






a while 


program 




computing 




Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.89 292 2.80 106 

2.28 298 2.38 104 

2.28 300 2.19 106 

2.64 293 2.80 103 

3.41 284 3.32 102 

2.77 290 2.83 104 

2.13 285 1.88 101 

2.58 291 2.41 98 

3.18 295 3.10 98 

3.51 300 3.57 106 


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 






Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.50 285 2.26 102 

2.65 289 2.67 105 

2.71 288 2.69 106 

2.94 288 2.81 106 

2.86 1 288 2.58 106 

2.92 1 288 2.65 106 

2.58 287 2.62 106 

2.67 288 2.58 106 

1.89 289 1.94 106 

2.34 273 2.24 103 

2.74 276 2.66 97 

2.75 270 2.64 99 

2.38 230 2.23 79 

2.73 263 2.71 95 

3.26 277 3.20 98 

2.75 272 2.86 100 

2.24 240 2.29 84 

3.19 276 3.19 99 




about computing Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.26 297 3.10 105 

3.28 297 3.22 105 

3.33 296 3.25 105 

3.12 297 3.03 105 

3.53 297 3.42 105 

2.74 295 2.70 106 

2.61 295 2.69 106 

2.99 295 2.96 106 

3.11 295 3.11 106 

2.76 295 2.77 106 

2.43 295 2.49 106 

2.57 295 2.59 106 


Chapter 6: Future Plans Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 


Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.46 281 3.45 106 

3.45 276 3.45 106 

3.90 277 3.86 102 

3.90 237 3.82 77 

2.70 277 2.83 105 

3.11 280 3.12 104 

2.92 272 2.84 97 

3.60 1 278 3.14 105 

3.42 276 3.33 106 

3.71 272 3.81 101 

3.62 275 3.58 102 

3.33 265 3.20 102 

3.53 250 3.51 98 



Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 















aspire 


research 










Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.10 277 2.98 105 

3.18 272 3.06 105 

3.24 273 3.30 105 

2.97 269 3.03 105 

3.02 274 3.11 104 

3.10 273 3.19 104 

3.62 274 3.58 105 

2.24 271 2.23 104 

2.24 273 2.30 103 

2.98 275 3.02 105 

2.49 273 2.61 104 

2.77 273 2.85 102 

2.72 270 2.67 104 


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 











others 





conferences 




Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

96.7% 299 98.5% 106 

95.2% 299 95.2% 106 

82.8% 292 90.7% 0 104 

85.3% 244 86.1% 83 

78.3% 266 72.6% 83 

90.6% 288 88.7% 101 

75.0% 296 80.1% 102 

34.3% 287 31.7% 102 

54.6% 242 56.4% 82 

28.1% 295 25.3% 104 

69.4% 289 74.0% 103 

54.1% 285 64.0% 101 

9.6% 290 8.4% 106 



Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 























Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

26.5% 214 28.8% 75 

89.1% 291 87.5% 102 

90.4% 284 99.4% 0 105 

60.6% 237 60.2% 84 

78.3% 266 83.2% 93 

56.5% 241 65.8% 71 

65.6% 216 76.6% 67 

81.1% 237 82.6% 89 

60.0% 57 40.7% 22 

82.1% 258 85.2% 89 

61.3% 256 62.4% 104 

34.0% 143 24.8% 50 

41.5% 207 36.0% 77 

38.4% 135 35.6% 47 

43.7% 141 36.4% 51 

68.0% 191 64.2% 74 


Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 


















Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

60.5% 297 58.0% 104 

48.6% 296 52.9% 104 

30.2% 293 26.7% 104 

45.2% 297 48.7% 104 

24.6% 293 26.6% 106 

10.2% 292 14.5% 104 

11.4% 290 10.5% 103 

19.1% 286 19.0% 103 

70.1% 298 80.0% 106 

Chapter 6: Future Plans Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 


computing? 












Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

34.4% 295 31.5% 106 

26.0% 294 21.4% 106 

71.7% 268 72.8% 91 

21.9% 253 21.3% 84 

58.4% 94 66.1% 32 

7.6% 285 6.8% 106 

40.9% 22 53.2% 7 



Not attending graduate school Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

24.3% 188 19.4% 81 

39.1% 188 29.2% 80 

17.5% 188 13.0% 81 

11.3% 188 21.3% 81 

5.6% 187 4.6% 81 

7.2% 188 15.1% 81 

13.9% 188 22.3% 81 

37.7% 185 38.7% 81 

9.6% 184 20.1% 81 

56.1% 188 71.1% 81 

16.2% 185 26.1% 81 

9.3% 182 5.6% 81 

7.6% 185 6.3% 81 

12.9% 184 6.4% 81 

42.2% 184 50.6% 81 

3.0% 185 2.4% 81 

18.6% 184 14.7% 81 

47.8% 186 48.2% 81 

34.1% 288 22.9% 106 




FATHER'S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION 






Experience 

Father's Education 

High school grad 

or less 

Some college Bachelor's degree Master's degree PhD/MD/JD 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 



in graduate school 2.76 75 2.63 49 2.99 111 2.91 73 3.32 1,2 a1b Likelihood to study a non- 

32 


school 

2.20 75 2.42 50 2.35 113 2.50 75 2.01 32 


school immediately 2.65 2,3 75 1.93 51 1.95 113 2.40 76 2.39 32 


school after working for a while 2.50 75 2.81 48 2.88 109 2.59 76 2.81 32 


complete a graduate program 3.36 74 3.31 48 3.36 105 3.51 72 3.64 32 




computing 1.95 69 1.97 50 1.96 107 2.06 75 

2.72 1,2,3,4 


research that involves computing 2.64 74 2.50 51 2.41 106 2.56 73 2.63 30 


computing, not in research 3.27 75 3.12 51 3.42 4 110 2.89 72 2.94 29 




3.46 75 3.37 52 3.66 116 3.57 76 3.55 32 


31



Experience 



results 



hypothesis 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.39 74 2.28 49 2.52 116 2.40 68 2.60 28 

2.59 74 2.54 52 2.68 116 2.62 73 2.66 28 


Generating hypotheses 2.66 75 2.57 52 2.66 116 2.64 73 2.92 28 



experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




3.01 75 2.71 52 2.87 116 2.81 72 2.88 28 

2.85 74 2.65 52 2.71 116 2.74 73 2.78 28 

2.98 75 2.56 52 2.78 116 2.81 72 2.95 28 

2.80 2 75 2.14 51 2.74 2 115 2.53 73 2.64 28 

3.00 2,4,5 75 2.51 52 2.68 116 2.50 73 2.30 28 

2.11 5 75 1.71 52 1.98 116 1.80 73 1.59 28 

2.30 66 2.23 52 2.33 114 2.18 72 2.72 28 






choice 











chosen path 

















High school grad or 

less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.72 69 2.47 50 2.68 111 2.84 65 2.88 32 

2.70 68 2.49 48 2.69 108 2.78 65 2.94 32 

2.28 61 2.01 43 2.35 88 2.52 55 2.33 23 

2.86 65 2.44 51 2.62 105 2.80 61 3.11 2,3 30 

3.40 70 3.11 51 3.37 102 3.08 71 3.14 31 

2.88 71 2.54 47 2.86 104 2.77 71 2.64 31 

2.22 69 1.89 43 2.45 2 91 2.21 59 2.12 22 

3.34 72 3.16 51 3.28 104 3.17 69 2.95 31 





computing 



computing 



computing 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.36 76 3.10 52 3.30 115 2.89 77 3.24 32 

3.19 76 3.26 52 3.30 115 3.13 77 3.31 32 


graduate degree in computing 3.24 76 3.33 52 3.36 115 3.16 76 3.35 32 


capable researcher in computing 3.24 76 3.06 52 3.14 115 2.82 77 3.02 32 


successful career in computing 3.58 76 3.36 52 3.59 115 3.33 77 3.44 32 


















2.99 2,4 76 2.48 52 2.76 116 2.46 77 2.97 32 

2.79 76 2.44 52 2.57 116 2.56 77 2.78 32 

2.99 76 3.10 4 52 3.03 4 116 2.64 77 2.96 32 

3.30 4 76 3.20 52 3.12 116 2.85 77 3.14 32 

2.91 76 2.61 52 2.72 116 2.68 77 2.75 32 


























advisor 








less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.61 76 2.66 52 2.30 116 2.22 77 2.40 32 

2.75 76 2.56 52 2.42 116 2.50 77 2.47 32 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.24 75 3.44 52 3.41 115 3.63 77 3.76 24 

3.67 4,5 75 3.38 52 3.45 116 3.36 72 3.17 24 

3.99 75 3.86 52 3.90 115 3.92 73 3.75 24 

3.93 67 3.71 43 3.96 5 89 3.90 58 3.53 21 

2.47 75 2.94 52 2.69 112 2.93 76 2.71 23 




(continued) 












I want to do 


























less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.96 74 3.34 3 52 2.89 115 3.23 3 76 3.23 24 

3.13 5 73 3.16 5 51 2.76 5 115 2.87 5 70 2.14 23 

3.90 3 74 3.45 52 3.18 115 3.40 76 3.43 24 

3.68 3 74 3.47 49 3.14 114 3.42 77 3.44 24 

3.85 74 3.65 49 3.69 114 3.80 73 3.47 24 

3.93 4,5 74 3.58 52 3.60 5 114 3.41 73 3.08 24 

3.53 4,5 74 3.33 4 50 3.38 4,5 108 2.92 69 2.87 24 

3.55 74 3.49 47 3.48 102 3.53 61 3.38 23 

3.17 75 2.99 49 3.19 112 2.98 76 2.92 28 



(continued) 




applications 





















research 




less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.42 3,4 75 3.21 46 3.03 110 2.93 76 3.11 28 

3.37 75 3.46 3,5 46 3.15 112 3.28 76 2.97 28 

3.08 75 2.94 49 3.03 108 2.80 73 2.76 28 

3.15 74 3.01 49 3.06 109 2.89 76 3.12 28 

3.26 75 3.08 49 3.20 108 2.97 76 2.99 27 

3.63 75 3.68 46 3.60 112 3.61 76 3.55 28 

2.39 75 2.10 49 2.02 106 2.23 76 2.60 3 28 


your future career: To teach 2.44 75 2.06 46 2.24 112 2.25 76 2.36 28 




3.08 74 2.83 49 3.05 112 2.86 76 3.18 28 




(continued) 



occupation 









less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.95 2,3,4,5 

75 2.40 49 2.42 109 2.38 76 2.14 27 

3.05 4,5 74 2.78 49 2.75 106 2.55 76 2.56 28 

2.79 75 2.60 48 2.67 106 2.77 76 2.61 28 




Experience 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


one-on-one advising 97.8% 73 96.5% 52 98.6% 114 98.5% 76 95.0% 32 


toward my degree 96.5% 76 92.4% 51 97.2% 114 96.0% 77 96.3% 32 


career advice 81.3% 72 88.8% 52 88.8% 111 81.2% 74 88.4% 32 






74.7% 74 80.1% 44 75.3% 93 75.0% 59 77.1% 26 


person 90.7% 71 86.6% 51 94.6% 109 91.2% 75 75.8% 32 




79.1% 74 69.2% 51 76.7% 113 80.0% 75 61.1% 31 


of students over others 43.3% 72 43.3% 47 27.0% 111 28.3% 71 31.2% 31 





too high 

32.8% 74 33.8% 49 28.6% 114 17.2% 75 24.6% 32 


attend professional conferences 72.9% 75 66.3% 51 76.0% 109 68.2% 75 54.9% 30 


professional contacts 57.7% 74 44.3% 51 60.8% 110 56.2% 69 49.4% 29 


confidence in my abilities 10.3% 71 7.7% 51 8.5% 114 7.2% 75 15.6% 32 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


lunches 26.8% 54 10.1% 40 26.3% 2 87 36.2% 2 53 45.1% 2 21 


78.1% 67 79.1% 48 89.4% 115 93.8% 76 95.7% 1 32 


student groups 89.4% 71 89.8% 51 91.4% 110 100.0% 70 88.2% 32 







55.3% 57 53.6% 41 62.6% 98 54.3% 49 56.6% 26 

67.3% 59 62.0% 42 77.9% 108 

92.8% 1,2, 

3 

64 82.9% 30 


honor societies 68.6% 53 50.8% 47 56.6% 93 59.8% 52 50.3% 27 


groups 58.1% 54 59.6% 35 72.1% 78 79.3% 55 63.2% 21 




80.3% 58 82.5% 35 77.4% 101 80.6% 64 81.7% 21 


lunches 52.5% 15 47.7% 4 69.8% 23 41.5% 19 60.4% 9 


lectures 87.9% 52 79.4% 38 80.0% 102 82.1% 72 83.7% 31 


student groups 59.3% 63 55.2% 46 70.8% 4 101 53.6% 70 59.6% 28 







41.2% 4 31 16.2% 22 38.9% 2,4 61 12.2% 27 40.8% 15 

50.7% 40 31.9% 26 31.8% 84 34.2% 60 60.8% 3 25 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


honor societies 46.3% 36 19.9% 24 48.1% 2,4 52 23.5% 31 52.7% 13 


computing-related groups 39.3% 31 60.0% 4 21 51.3% 56 28.9% 43 38.9% 13 





Experience 



research 







researcher 

b1dd Have participated in: Schoolyear 

computing research at my 

university 




b1fd Have participated in: 



66.8% 46 76.4% 29 65.6% 78 55.4% 51 76.4% 18 



or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

70.1% 76 56.7% 51 59.9% 114 53.0% 76 55.1% 31 

51.4% 75 45.5% 51 50.6% 113 44.4% 76 62.2% 31 

26.6% 74 21.4% 51 25.0% 111 38.2% 76 40.4% 31 

53.4% 75 39.5% 51 46.0% 114 40.6% 76 58.2% 31 

16.6% 74 27.9% 51 22.7% 113 29.5% 76 52.8% 1,3 31 

10.7% 74 10.5% 50 12.2% 111 6.7% 76 17.6% 32 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


computing research 19.0% 2,4 75 3.7% 51 7.5% 111 3.1% 76 18.1% 27 


non-computing research 16.6% 72 16.1% 51 15.3% 111 22.8% 75 32.2% 27 



computing? 

65.9% 76 76.2% 52 80.0% 116 67.5% 77 77.9% 32 




or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


graduate school in computing? 35.6% 76 41.3% 52 24.1% 116 36.1% 77 36.0% 32 




29.7% 75 31.9% 52 14.4% 116 31.8% 3 77 16.6% 32 


computing in Fall 2010? 75.4% 73 78.6% 47 84.3% 4,5 105 57.1% 70 55.2% 28 



2010? 







institution? 




26.7% 67 30.1% 42 21.4% 101 19.0% 64 13.7% 26 

44.6% 37 52.5% 15 66.2% 26 74.9% 25 75.6% 5 

9.8% 76 9.4% 52 4.6% 115 7.7% 77 7.4% 28 

54.4% 7 45.4% 5 39.4% 5 59.5% 6 21.3% 2 





school 









low 



are too low 



courses 











fees 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

17.5% 46 24.8% 38 27.3% 88 22.1% 46 19.2% 26 

33.0% 46 49.7% 38 36.7% 87 26.6% 46 37.8% 26 

12.9% 46 24.7% 38 14.6% 88 15.0% 46 8.0% 26 

20.2% 46 22.0% 38 9.9% 88 11.8% 46 14.7% 26 

7.7% 46 9.9% 38 2.6% 88 1.6% 45 9.6% 26 

11.0% 46 12.8% 38 6.9% 88 10.0% 46 7.1% 26 

15.9% 46 15.6% 38 15.6% 88 20.8% 46 19.7% 26 

64.1% 3,4, 

5 

46 42.7% 5 36 39.3% 5 88 31.0% 5 46 6.9% 26 

21.0% 5 46 20.8% 5 36 8.4% 5 88 12.2% 5 46 .0% 25 

64.9% 5 46 69.3% 5 38 68.7% 5 88 61.4% 5 46 31.2% 26 



family 

47.3% 


2,3, 


4,5 46 11.4% 36 13.3% 88 11.9% 46 4.5% 26 


to go 

10.9% 46 7.3% 36 7.9% 88 6.7% 46 4.5% 26



(continued) 




school 










Armed Forces 






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

15.9% 5 46 9.9% 5 36 4.8% 5 88 4.6% 46 .0% 26 

19.3% 46 9.5% 35 8.5% 88 10.1% 46 10.5% 26 

48.8% 46 43.6% 35 50.0% 88 54.1% 46 29.7% 26 

1.9% 46 2.0% 36 4.5% 88 .0% 46 .0% 26 

27.9% 5 46 27.5% 5 36 17.0% 5 88 13.9% 5 46 .0% 26 




graduate school in Fall 2010? 37.8% 76 24.3% 51 24.0% 116 37.7% 77 19.6% 32 




MOTHER'S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION 






Experience 

Mother's Education 


or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 



in graduate school 2.85 73 2.93 62 2.78 103 2.81 88 3.42 1,3,4 a1b Likelihood to study a non- 

26 


school 

2.31 72 2.35 64 2.31 104 2.44 91 1.91 26 


school immediately 2.44 72 2.72 3,4 65 1.95 105 2.02 91 2.96 3,4 26 


school after working for a while 2.75 71 2.30 62 2.70 101 2.85 2 91 2.45 26 


complete a graduate program 3.41 69 3.52 3 61 3.19 99 3.57 3 87 3.74 3 25 




computing 1.92 71 2.07 61 1.91 93 2.00 91 

2.82 1,2,3,4 








3.47 72 3.60 65 3.58 106 3.47 90 3.73 26 


25



Experience 



results 



hypothesis 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.31 71 2.53 54 2.44 107 2.47 91 2.55 22 

2.52 71 2.57 62 2.66 107 2.73 91 2.78 22 


Generating hypotheses 2.71 72 2.48 62 2.65 107 2.74 91 2.98 2 22 



experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




2.86 72 2.90 62 2.87 107 2.85 90 3.12 22 

2.83 72 2.76 61 2.70 107 2.82 91 2.97 22 

2.78 72 2.74 61 2.81 107 2.85 91 3.02 22 

2.76 71 2.52 62 2.48 107 2.55 91 2.39 21 

2.82 72 2.77 62 2.53 107 2.51 91 2.45 22 

2.08 5 72 2.02 5 62 1.86 5 107 1.71 91 1.45 22 

2.20 66 2.52 57 2.20 106 2.33 86 2.65 3 22 






choice 











chosen path 


















less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.70 66 3.01 58 2.59 103 2.55 83 3.09 26 

2.73 64 2.90 55 2.62 103 2.58 84 3.22 3,4 26 

2.34 54 2.45 54 2.23 81 2.16 73 2.79 21 

2.84 59 2.82 57 2.61 101 2.61 79 3.08 24 

3.26 66 3.48 62 3.28 93 3.08 89 3.02 26 

2.91 66 3.03 58 2.78 96 2.62 87 2.52 26 

2.37 63 2.06 56 2.22 81 2.26 74 2.36 21 

3.36 69 3.39 63 3.15 93 3.04 87 2.91 25 





computing 



computing 



computing 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.24 73 3.23 65 3.19 107 3.21 90 3.31 26 

3.16 73 3.35 65 3.18 107 3.32 90 3.41 26 
























2.82 73 2.67 65 2.67 107 2.62 91 3.24 2,3,4 26 

2.60 73 2.66 65 2.60 107 2.45 91 

3.28 1,2,3,4 

3.01 73 2.83 65 2.99 107 2.99 91 3.28 26 

3.13 73 3.21 65 3.12 107 3.08 91 3.37 26 

2.78 73 2.92 65 2.63 107 2.69 91 3.24 1,3,4 26 


26

























advisor 









less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.43 73 2.64 65 2.34 107 2.35 91 2.76 26 

2.48 73 2.77 65 2.50 107 2.61 91 2.59 26 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.31 72 3.61 3 65 3.15 107 3.64 3 88 

4.44 1,2,3,4 

3.54 71 3.61 62 3.33 107 3.41 87 3.57 22 

3.91 71 4.08 4 65 3.87 106 3.67 85 4.15 22 

4.03 61 4.10 53 3.79 85 3.68 66 3.87 21 

2.62 72 2.71 65 2.64 107 2.89 84 3.26 1,3 21 


22


(continued) Mother's Education 


less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 






3.07 71 3.19 65 3.05 106 3.06 88 3.57 3 e5gr Influence your decision to 

21 




3.14 4 68 3.10 4 e5hr Influence your decision to 

65 2.81 106 2.56 84 3.19 21 



I want to do 

3.78 3,4 70 3.79 3,4 65 3.32 106 3.15 88 3.91 3,4 e5ir Influence your decision to 

21 




3.44 71 3.78 3,4 63 3.26 106 3.16 87 4.17 1,3,4 e5jr Influence your decision to 

22 





3.74 71 3.84 62 3.63 105 3.67 84 4.09 22 





3.74 71 3.75 61 3.52 106 3.47 88 3.71 22 





3.48 68 3.39 60 3.21 100 3.13 86 3.56 20 




3.57 67 3.71 3 53 3.32 101 3.50 74 3.93 3 g1ar How important is this for 

22 



3.06 72 3.02 63 3.08 103 3.21 91 2.88 22 



(continued) 




applications 





















research 




less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.18 71 3.25 62 3.13 101 3.00 90 3.25 22 

3.41 3 72 3.19 62 3.10 100 3.38 90 3.01 22 

3.13 71 2.92 62 2.97 101 2.93 87 2.63 22 

3.09 71 3.14 65 3.13 101 2.79 88 3.12 22 

3.22 70 3.03 64 3.20 101 3.03 90 3.05 22 

3.59 72 3.83 1,3,4 63 3.55 101 3.56 91 3.55 22 

2.15 72 2.34 65 2.10 100 2.27 86 2.76 3 22 


your future career: To teach 2.38 71 2.52 3 62 2.08 102 2.29 89 2.14 22 




3.07 71 3.11 65 2.91 101 2.92 90 3.16 22 




(continued) 



occupation 









less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.75 3 70 2.63 65 2.41 101 2.34 89 2.50 21 

3.02 70 2.66 65 2.73 98 2.65 90 2.80 22 

2.96 3 70 2.81 65 2.50 101 2.59 86 2.59 22 




Experience 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


one-on-one advising 95.8% 73 98.8% 63 98.9% 106 96.0% 90 98.3% 26 


toward my degree 94.7% 72 96.0% 65 97.0% 106 91.1% 89 98.3% 26 


career advice 85.1% 68 87.0% 64 84.1% 107 83.6% 87 84.2% 26 


advice about my research 91.2% 2 63 68.8% 50 85.4% 87 90.0% 2 68 83.0% 20 




77.6% 64 74.9% 53 72.3% 93 78.6% 75 74.2% 20 


person 89.9% 65 91.5% 63 93.2% 103 90.7% 87 77.2% 26 




71.7% 70 75.5% 64 79.4% 106 75.5% 88 67.7% 25 







too high 

33.9% 5 71 29.2% 5 65 28.7% 5 101 26.2% 90 10.8% 26 


attend professional conferences 68.4% 72 77.5% 64 69.7% 102 70.2% 86 64.9% 25 











or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


lunches 26.2% 52 18.1% 47 21.3% 75 25.5% 70 

78.8% 1,2, 

3,4 16 


76.2% 63 85.2% 64 93.4% 104 87.2% 91 97.5% 1 26 









64.5% 56 61.3% 47 63.0% 85 53.7% 73 61.7% 20 

73.1% 58 78.2% 51 80.7% 98 83.9% 85 80.8% 23 




groups 54.5% 49 81.0% 1 47 68.9% 74 74.4% 63 63.5% 21 




82.7% 59 76.4% 49 81.7% 87 80.1% 76 80.0% 15 


lunches 52.4% 14 41.8% 8 71.5% 16 43.2% 18 76.4% 13 


lectures 85.3% 48 84.3% 55 82.0% 97 76.3% 79 90.2% 25 









34.2% 36 35.5% 29 19.9% 54 32.4% 39 56.5% 12 

41.9% 42 38.2% 39 26.2% 79 50.5% 3 72 42.6% 19 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


honor societies 35.5% 34 36.3% 26 39.8% 56 26.5% 38 

86.2% 1,2, 

3,4 10 


computing-related groups 35.5% 27 47.4% 38 33.5% 51 40.7% 47 70.9% 3 13 





Experience 



research 







researcher 



university 







72.7% 49 58.9% 37 71.0% 71 56.7% 61 75.7% 12 



or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

67.8% 3 73 73.0% 3 65 45.6% 105 55.1% 90 67.9% 26 

52.6% 72 50.3% 65 44.7% 104 46.6% 90 69.0% 26 

21.3% 69 24.7% 64 23.2% 105 36.0% 90 

57.4% 1,2, 

3 

48.0% 73 43.2% 64 46.1% 105 44.8% 90 61.0% 26 

26.1% 69 25.0% 64 16.6% 107 21.6% 90 

62.0% 1,2, 

3,4 

9.5% 69 9.9% 64 15.2% 4 105 3.5% 91 26.3% 26 


26 

26






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


computing research 13.1% 69 10.0% 65 6.4% 105 7.8% 86 14.5% 26 


non-computing research 30.4% 3,4 67 19.2% 64 12.0% 105 7.5% 86 39.0% 4 26 



computing? 

70.6% 73 70.7% 65 80.1% 107 68.1% 91 80.0% 26 




or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


graduate school in computing? 


32.6% 73 39.2% 65 27.8% 107 28.7% 91 50.1% 26 



31.7% 73 30.4% 65 20.1% 107 27.4% 91 12.2% 26 


computing in Fall 2010? 73.8% 70 76.0% 62 76.4% 93 67.2% 82 68.4% 22 



2010? 







institution? 




37.1% 2,5 68 11.9% 50 20.5% 5 90 24.8% 5 80 6.3% 21 

41.0% 28 55.2% 28 67.9% 26 66.6% 26 71.1% 11 

2.8% 73 13.7% 65 4.8% 107 2.8% 86 22.7% 26 

67.9% 2 17.2% 9 51.3% 5 54.8% 2 61.4% 6 






school 









low 



are too low 



courses 











fees 






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

18.6% 48 17.9% 34 30.8% 81 22.1% 64 26.7% 17 

44.4% 48 52.5% 4 34 39.6% 81 23.4% 63 36.2% 17 

17.5% 48 24.1% 5 34 17.0% 5 81 15.5% 64 4.3% 17 

23.1% 48 9.8% 34 14.4% 81 11.4% 64 19.8% 17 

5.6% 48 .0% 34 5.8% 80 4.0% 64 .0% 17 

11.9% 48 2.6% 34 13.3% 2 81 9.4% 64 6.5% 17 

24.3% 48 13.4% 34 15.0% 81 12.8% 64 24.2% 17 

54.9% 4,5 48 

75.0% 3,4, 

5 

34 35.6% 5 78 23.6% 5 64 5.2% 17 

19.2% 4,5 48 28.1% 4,5 34 14.6% 4,5 78 1.1% 64 2.6% 17 

68.8% 4,5 49 77.6% 4,5 34 65.0% 5 81 44.2% 64 31.7% 17 



family 

36.7% 


3,4, 

5 48 29.6% 4,5 34 16.3% 4,5 78 4.5% 64 2.6% 17 



to go 

13.7% 5 48 16.7% 5 34 6.0% 5 78 3.3% 62 .0% 17


(continued) 




school 










Armed Forces 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

12.6% 4,5 48 4.7% 34 7.9% 4,5 78 .0%* 64 .0%* 17 

6.4% 48 19.0% 34 12.8% 5 77 6.8% 64 2.6% 17 

50.2% 48 53.3% 34 42.2% 78 39.7% 64 27.4% 17 

2.8% 48 1.3% 34 1.5% 78 5.2% 64 .0% 17 

27.8% 4,5 48 31.1% 4,5 34 19.5% 5 78 6.8% 5 64 .0% 17 


school: I already have a job 47.8% 5 49 66.4% 5 34 51.5% 5 78 44.1% 5 64 16.5% 17 


graduate school in Fall 2010? 31.7% 73 47.5% 3 65 24.2% 107 27.7% 91 35.3% 26 




INSTITUTIONAL GROUP 






Experience Institutional Group 

Ph-D granting - top 36 Ph-D granting - other Non Ph-D granting 

Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



in graduate school 2.93 4 66 2.85 123 3.11 4 a1b Likelihood to study a non- 

111 2.37 75 


school 

2.36 66 2.13 124 2.29 113 2.61 77 


school immediately 2.08 66 2.05 124 2.19 114 2.79 1,2 79 




complete a graduate program 3.46 65 3.27 120 3.41 109 3.52 69 


degree in computing 2.95 4 65 2.77 4 123 3.01 4 109 2.20 73 


computing 2.03 63 1.84 119 2.26 2 107 1.92 75 


research that involves computing 2.40 64 2.49 121 2.68 105 2.44 77 


computing, not in research 3.22 4 62 3.32 4 120 3.54 1,4 111 2.29 77 




3.40 65 3.39 123 3.62 1,2 116 3.71 1,2 79 






Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 




results 

2.53 2 66 2.15 124 2.64 2 b3br How much experience: Using 

113 2.49 67 


hypothesis 

2.70 66 2.58 125 2.71 115 2.66 71 





experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




2.97 66 2.80 124 2.99 116 2.87 71 

2.82 66 2.68 124 2.88 116 2.77 71 

2.94 2 66 2.65 124 3.01 2 116 2.82 71 

2.67 2 66 2.27 124 2.72 2 116 2.87 2 71 

2.56 66 2.44 124 2.84 2 115 2.74 71 

2.06 2 66 1.77 125 2.02 116 1.84 71 

2.30 64 2.11 119 2.41 113 2.50 64 


experience on: Your career choice 2.73 61 2.55 113 2.81 117 2.75 67 




school 

2.78 60 2.56 114 2.83 113 2.62 66 




Experience (continued) Institutional Group 


Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 





2.52 2 b4dr How important is research 

51 2.14 103 2.32 101 2.54 41 



chosen path 

2.79 59 2.53 109 2.82 114 2.78 62 



career choice 

3.35 4 62 3.23 4 113 3.57 2,4 c2br How important is non- 

111 2.63 71 




2.82 4 61 2.69 114 3.15 1,2,4 c2cr How important is non- 

107 2.28 73 



c2dr How important is non- 

2.25 52 2.17 102 2.45 97 2.00 58 




3.26 4 63 3.20 115 3.39 4 110 2.79 71 




and Knowledge about computing Institutional Group 


Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



a research project in computing 3.34 66 3.20 124 3.38 4 117 2.85 79 


to graduate school in computing 3.28 66 3.24 124 3.43 4 117 2.97 79 


graduate degree in computing 3.44 4 66 3.35 123 3.37 117 3.00 79 




successful career in computing 3.54 4 66 3.56 4 124 3.63 4 117 3.12 79 














engineer 










2.82 2 67 2.56 125 2.88 2 117 2.69 79 

2.69 67 2.72 4 125 2.67 117 2.33 79 

3.03 66 3.05 125 2.88 117 2.98 79 

3.24 4 67 3.23 4 125 3.25 4 117 2.59 79 

2.74 67 2.78 125 2.86 117 2.55 79 

2.18 67 2.47 1 125 2.50 117 2.50 79 

2.45 67 2.60 125 2.58 117 2.55 79 


















advisor 
















want to do 




I want 





Institutional Group 


Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.47 66 3.39 124 3.47 116 3.42 71 

3.40 66 3.41 123 3.49 115 3.47 67 

3.71 63 3.71 122 4.09 1,2 115 4.00 67 

3.69 57 3.73 101 4.00 88 4.07 58 

2.83 65 2.54 122 2.67 113 3.05 2 71 

3.42 2,3 64 2.98 124 3.00 115 3.16 71 

2.65 65 2.72 119 3.10 1 115 3.12 62 

3.33 66 3.35 121 3.53 115 3.63 71 

3.16 66 3.24 122 3.52 112 3.63 71 

3.58 64 3.59 122 3.93 2 113 3.79 64 



(continued) 















teamwork 






social impact 




leadership 














Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.46 65 3.39 122 3.92 1,2 116 3.52 64 

3.29 63 3.11 118 3.44 114 3.26 64 

3.49 61 3.35 108 3.62 108 3.57 62 

3.07 66 3.07 123 3.17 113 2.82 71 

3.24 4 66 3.20 4 121 3.32 4 111 2.66 71 

3.15 65 3.15 123 3.16 110 3.68 1,2,3 71 

3.09 66 2.89 122 2.96 111 3.17 67 

3.33 2,4 66 3.08 4 123 3.13 4 110 2.58 71 

3.20 4 65 3.20 4 122 3.27 4 113 2.70 69 

3.64 66 3.54 123 3.71 111 3.55 71 




(continued) Institutional Group 


Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



future career: To do research 2.14 65 2.09 121 2.41 110 2.29 71 


future career: To teach 2.19 64 2.06 119 2.34 110 2.50 75 



time 



occupation 







3.04 66 2.91 122 3.15 113 2.81 71 

2.71 2 66 2.46 121 2.62 113 2.32 69 

2.95 66 2.84 121 2.81 110 2.54 69 

2.81 66 2.76 121 2.63 109 2.62 69 





Ph-D granting - top 36 Ph-D granting - other Non Ph-D granting Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


advising 93.0% 66 95.3% 123 100.0% 1,2* 114 100.0% 1,2* 79 


my degree 90.9% 65 91.9% 122 97.7% 116 100.0% 1,2 79 


advice 80.0% 64 83.2% 118 89.6% 114 88.1% 79 


about my research 82.7% 56 77.5% 85 86.2% 100 97.2% 1,2 66 



students 




my degree 

73.9% 59 68.5% 101 76.9% 100 88.9% 1,2 66 

82.6% 64 85.3% 117 97.7% 1,2 113 92.5% 75 

63.1% 64 62.8% 118 86.9% 1,2 116 90.4% 1,2 79 


students over others 43.5% 4 65 39.9% 4 115 33.9% 111 14.7% 77 


research 62.7% 55 53.5% 93 54.2% 101 56.4% 60 


undergraduate students that are too high 37.3% 4 65 34.6% 4 119 28.3% 114 11.9% 79 


professional conferences 56.5% 61 63.0% 121 77.9% 1,2 113 85.6% 1,2 77 


contacts 43.5% 62 51.3% 118 64.9% 1 113 67.5% 1 75 


in my abilities 15.4% 3,4 66 15.4% 3,4 119 6.3% 4 115 .0% 75 




(continued) 





(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

44.1% 2,3 47 24.8% 78 14.3% 97 35.9% 52 

97.3% 3 65 96.0% 3 122 78.4% 110 82.6% 75 


student groups 97.3% 4 66 98.8% 4 121 92.2% 111 78.2% 69 







86.2% 3,4 56 87.2% 3,4 98 33.8% 86 32.6% 64 

97.9% 3,4 64 94.8% 3,4 111 65.2% 95 58.4% 67 


honor societies 81.1% 3,4 54 81.4% 3,4 96 37.7% 89 29.2% 58 


groups 83.2% 3,4 45 87.9% 3,4 92 55.7% 86 40.1% 47 


minority computer scientists/engineers 91.9% 3 49 90.5% 3 101 64.8% 95 85.5% 3 64 



49.4% 21 44.9% 19 57.1% 14 70.1% 19 

67.2% 63 79.3% 1 117 87.8% 1 86 100.0% 1,2,3 62 


student groups 50.7% 65 56.1% 119 76.1% 1,2 102 65.4% 54 







17.3% 48 23.0% 86 70.6% 1,2 29 45.3% 21 

29.9% 62 22.8% 106 48.9% 2 62 90.7% 1,2,3 39 




(continued) 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


honor societies 32.7% 43 22.6% 78 66.7% 1,2 34 55.4% 17 


groups 28.6% 37 34.0% 81 61.7% 1,2 48 50.0% 19 


or minority computer scientists/engineers 52.7% 45 54.4% 92 74.4% 1,2 62 93.0% 1,2 54 


Experience 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


included computing research 59.0% 2 66 44.7% 123 75.2% 1,2 117 60.8% 77 


study that included computing research 49.6% 2 65 37.2% 122 57.1% 2 117 63.2% 2 77 




29.7% 65 23.2% 122 33.5% 114 31.7% 77 


computing research at my university 49.9% 65 37.7% 123 58.1% 2 117 41.5% 77 


computing research at another university 19.9% 65 15.5% 122 23.0% 114 47.2% 1,2,3 79 



industry lab 

11.4% 66 16.0% 122 11.6% 114 4.9% 77 


computing research 8.7% 66 8.5% 122 12.8% 113 15.5% 73 


research 17.2% 3 65 14.8% 3 122 6.0% 110 48.7% 1,2,3 73 


work that involved computing? 79.1% 4 67 74.4% 125 80.2% 4 117 54.6% 79 






(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 





computing? 

24.1% 67 17.1% 124 15.8% 117 47.9% 1,2,3 79 


computing in Fall 2010? 69.7% 4 64 78.3% 4 112 86.8% 1,4 109 39.2% 62 


other than computing in Fall 2010? 16.6% 61 16.9% 108 18.4% 97 45.2% 1,2,3 58 









applied for? 

84.7% 3,4 20 70.1% 34 49.9% 41 38.3% 24 

7.9% 4 67 6.6% 4 123 10.7% 4 117 .0% 75 

62.6% 5 38.2% 8 26.4% 12 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: I do not like school 29.5% 47 26.7% 87 20.0% 82 15.6% 49 




51.9% 3,4 47 44.5% 4 86 29.6% 82 19.3% 49 




28.1% 3,4 47 22.3% 4 87 12.8% 4 82 .0% 49 




(continued) 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: My grades are too low 23.4% 3,4 47 22.0% 3,4 87 8.8% 82 .0% 49 


school: My GRE scores are too low 7.0% 4 47 4.2% 4 87 8.9% 82 .0% 49 


school: I haven't taken the right courses 11.2% 47 13.0% 87 8.8% 82 3.8% 49 






school 







25.2% 3 47 20.8% 3 87 8.0% 82 11.3% 49 

37.4% 4 47 45.9% 4 87 46.3% 4 80 11.3% 49 

14.9% 4 47 19.9% 4 86 9.9% 80 3.8% 49 

57.5% 47 63.6% 4 88 74.4% 4 82 34.3% 49 


school: I need to help support my family 22.9% 47 25.6% 4 87 16.5% 80 7.8% 49 


school: No one has encouraged me to go 11.2% 47 13.4% 3 87 3.4% 77 3.8% 49 










9.8% 4 47 10.6% 4 87 6.6% 80 .0% 49 

17.3% 4 47 13.9% 4 87 10.8% 4 79 .0% 49 

46.3% 47 47.1% 86 50.4% 80 30.6% 49 


school: I plan to join the Armed Forces 5.6% 4 47 2.5% 87 3.3% 80 .0% 49 




(continued) 



own family 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

12.6% 47 21.9% 86 20.7% 80 7.8% 49 


school: I already have a job 68.3% 4 47 54.6% 4 88 51.2% 4 80 11.5% 49 


school in Fall 2010? 27.5% 67 28.5% 125 28.8% 117 38.3% 79 




CRAW PARTICIPANTS (ONLY CREU/DREU/DMP) 










a while 


program 




computing 




Non-Participants 

(0) 

CRAW Participants 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.74 303 3.27 0 94 

2.36 309 2.14 93 

2.18 311 2.51 95 

2.70 303 2.63 93 

3.34 298 3.54 88 

2.69 303 3.07 0 90 

1.93 297 2.50 0 90 

2.41 301 2.97 0 88 

3.23 1 303 2.91 89 

3.49 312 3.65 94 



Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience 







experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 






(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.26 293 3.00 0 94 

2.56 300 2.96 0 94 

2.63 299 2.94 0 94 

2.82 300 3.17 0 94 

2.77 300 2.83 94 

2.81 300 2.99 94 

2.45 300 3.04 0 93 

2.54 300 2.97 0 94 

1.78 300 2.28 0 94 

2.14 283 2.85 0 93 

2.60 278 3.07 0 95 

2.52 276 3.33 0 93 

2.17 239 2.91 0 71 

2.52 266 3.30 0 92 

3.27 290 3.18 85 

2.80 288 2.73 83 

2.32 254 2.01 69 

3.19 290 3.21 85 



about computing CRAW Participants 


(0) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.16 307 3.44 0 95 

3.20 307 3.47 0 95 

3.27 306 3.45 95 

3.05 307 3.27 95 

3.51 307 3.47 95 

2.58 306 3.21 0 95 

2.52 306 3.01 0 95 

2.92 306 3.19 0 95 

3.10 306 3.18 95 

2.70 306 2.97 0 95 

2.42 306 2.53 95 

2.54 306 2.69 95 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 


(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.49 292 3.36 94 

3.44 288 3.50 94 

3.80 286 4.16 0 93 

3.73 227 4.27 0 86 

2.68 288 2.89 94 

3.06 291 3.28 93 

2.89 280 2.93 90 

3.42 289 3.65 94 

3.32 288 3.62 93 

3.65 280 3.99 0 93 

3.53 283 3.87 0 94 

3.22 281 3.53 0 85 

3.37 256 3.95 0 93 


Chapter 6: Future Plans (continued) 















aspire 


research 











(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.08 287 3.02 94 

3.16 283 3.11 94 

3.18 284 3.50 0 94 

3.04 279 2.81 94 

3.06 285 2.98 94 

3.12 286 3.13 91 

3.60 285 3.63 94 

2.12 282 2.60 0 94 

2.19 285 2.45 91 

2.95 287 3.13 93 

2.50 286 2.61 91 

2.77 283 2.87 92 

2.67 283 2.79 91 














others 





conferences 




(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

96.7% 309 98.8% 95 

94.5% 311 97.6% 94 

83.4% 302 89.7% 94 

83.5% 239 90.8% 88 

75.6% 260 80.6% 89 

89.1% 295 93.4% 94 

74.5% 304 82.2% 94 

35.2% 299 28.3% 90 

49.7% 235 69.2% 0 89 

29.2% 304 21.4% 95 

67.5% 299 80.5% 0 93 

52.2% 294 71.1% 0 92 

8.8% 303 10.8% 94 


Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience (continued) 
























(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

27.6% 223 25.5% 67 

88.6% 300 88.9% 93 

90.8% 297 99.3% 0 93 

61.1% 237 58.6% 84 

78.0% 264 84.1% 94 

58.7% 231 58.2% 81 

69.9% 219 62.6% 64 

83.7% 247 74.4% 79 

51.5% 61 66.0% 17 

81.5% 265 87.4% 82 

59.3% 268 68.2% 92 

29.0% 144 39.0% 49 

33.5% 204 56.6% 0 79 

37.2% 134 39.1% 47 

43.2% 152 36.3% 40 

62.1% 206 83.7% 0 59 





















(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

57.8% 308 66.5% 93 

44.4% 307 67.3% 0 93 

23.9% 304 46.7% 0 93 

39.4% 308 68.2% 0 93 

13.6% 304 62.0% 0 95 

11.6% 304 10.5% 93 

12.6% 301 6.4% 93 

17.1% 298 25.6% 92 

70.9% 309 78.4% 95 

Chapter 6: Future Plans CRAW Participants 


Participants 

(0) 

(1) 

% N % N 


computing? 

29.4% 306 47.2% 


0 95 



25.2% 306 23.5% 95 


74.0% 272 65.6% 88 



21.3% 251 23.0% 87 



49.9% 96 93.5% 0 30 



4.8% 298 15.7% 0 94 



46.4% 14 41.7% 15



school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 


(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

26.9% 1 208 8.8% 61 

38.0% 207 30.0% 61 

19.0% 1 208 6.3% 61 

14.9% 208 12.4% 61 

5.4% 208 5.1% 60 

7.2% 208 17.7% 61 

14.2% 208 24.0% 61 

39.7% 205 32.4% 61 

12.8% 204 12.9% 61 

62.1% 208 55.5% 61 

19.2% 205 19.3% 61 

9.7% 202 3.0% 61 

6.9% 205 8.1% 61 

12.6% 1 205 4.9% 60 

44.7% 204 44.9% 61 

3.6% 1 205 .0% 61 

17.1% 204 18.4% 61 

50.6% 206 38.8% 61 

30.0% 299 34.4% 95 




RACE AND GENDER 






Experience Race and Gender 

Majority male 

Majority female 

URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



in graduate school 2.80 174 2.81 135 3.32 1,2 a1b Likelihood to study a non- 

33 2.91 32 


school 

2.29 173 2.33 138 2.27 33 2.54 35 


school immediately 2.03 174 2.37 140 2.52 33 2.61 35 




complete a graduate program 3.34 172 3.34 126 3.57 32 3.82 1,2 32 


degree in computing 2.68 173 2.73 131 3.19 1,2 33 2.94 32 


computing 1.90 168 2.21 133 2.05 32 1.96 33 


research that involves computing 2.31 169 2.73 1 131 2.77 1 32 2.76 33 


computing, not in research 3.20 166 2.97 137 3.36 32 3.40 2 34 




3.43 174 3.60 141 3.71 1 32 3.64 35 





Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 




results 

2.25 163 2.62 1 b3br How much experience: Using 

139 2.56 33 2.44 34 


hypothesis 

2.61 168 2.73 142 2.95 33 2.29 34 





experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




2.75 168 3.04 1 143 3.01 32 2.88 34 

2.69 168 2.79 143 2.90 32 2.88 34 

2.74 168 2.94 143 2.92 32 2.81 34 

2.30 167 2.88 1 142 2.64 33 2.78 34 

2.47 167 2.75 142 2.69 33 2.97 34 

1.75 167 1.92 143 2.14 1 33 2.35 1 34 

2.01 164 2.51 1 136 2.60 1 32 2.68 1 28 


experience on: Your career choice 2.43 162 2.96 1 132 2.88 30 2.75 34 




school 

2.38 163 2.91 1 131 3.23 1 29 2.99 32 




Experience (continued) Race and Gender 

Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 






2.14 145 2.47 91 2.62 28 2.35 31 



chosen path 

2.45 158 2.94 1 123 2.91 28 2.88 34 



career choice 

3.29 165 3.07 130 3.59 1,2 c2br How important is non- 

29 3.35 33 




2.91 2 165 2.47 129 3.02 2 c2cr How important is non- 

30 2.97 31 




2.29 146 2.00 103 2.40 30 2.56 30 




3.21 164 3.01 130 3.50 2 31 3.37 34 




and Knowledge about computing Race and Gender 

Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



a research project in computing 3.23 176 3.10 142 3.56 1,2 33 3.18 35 


to graduate school in computing 3.27 176 3.15 142 3.67 1,2,4 33 3.07 35 


graduate degree in computing 3.33 176 3.20 142 3.67 1,2,4 32 3.13 35 




successful career in computing 3.51 176 3.39 142 3.76 1,2 33 3.50 35 














engineer 










2.54 176 2.92 1 143 2.91 33 2.65 35 

2.49 176 2.72 143 2.90 1 33 2.52 35 

2.80 176 3.12 1 143 3.23 1 33 3.02 35 

3.20 2 176 2.91 143 3.44 2 33 3.08 35 

2.71 176 2.74 143 3.21 1,2,4 33 2.52 35 

2.30 176 2.49 143 2.82 1 33 2.50 35 

2.41 176 2.62 143 2.89 1 33 2.66 35 


















advisor 
















want to do 




I want 





Race and Gender 

Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.43 170 3.43 139 3.54 33 3.56 34 

3.45 165 3.41 139 3.36 33 3.58 34 

3.77 169 4.01 133 3.86 32 3.96 34 

3.66 135 4.08 1 111 4.04 1 30 3.85 28 

2.61 168 2.84 136 3.01 33 2.67 34 

3.07 169 3.14 138 3.40 33 2.99 33 

2.70 167 2.94 127 3.11 33 3.48 1 32 

3.29 168 3.52 137 3.57 33 4.01 1 34 

3.25 169 3.29 137 3.80 1 33 4.16 1,2 32 

3.58 169 3.73 129 4.07 1 33 4.11 1 32 



(continued) 















teamwork 






social impact 




leadership 













Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.45 165 3.64 135 3.91 1 33 3.72 34 

3.19 162 3.18 129 3.78 1,2 32 3.57 33 

3.32 148 3.61 1 128 3.77 1 31 3.75 32 

3.05 170 3.02 139 3.14 32 3.14 32 

3.14 166 3.05 139 3.47 1,2 32 3.17 32 

3.07 167 3.42 1 139 3.05 32 3.69 1,3 31 

3.12 2 162 2.73 137 3.08 32 3.15 34 

3.08 168 2.88 136 3.33 2 32 3.07 34 

3.06 166 3.07 136 3.38 32 3.30 34 

3.60 168 3.58 139 3.69 32 3.76 32 




(continued) Race and Gender 

Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 





future career: To teach 2.12 165 2.30 140 2.18 31 2.70 1 32 



time 



occupation 







2.85 167 3.05 138 3.09 32 3.28 1 34 

2.49 166 2.38 136 2.65 32 3.06 1,2 34 

2.67 163 2.83 137 2.98 32 2.91 34 

2.64 165 2.74 133 2.77 32 2.63 34 





Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


advising 96.2% 173 97.8% 143 100.0% 1,2 32 100.0% 1,2 35 


my degree 94.4% 173 98.3% 1 141 94.2% 32 86.9% 35 


advice 84.3% 169 85.6% 139 85.6% 31 88.3% 35 


about my research 83.0% 139 92.8% 1 113 75.6% 24 84.4% 31 



students 




my degree 

69.2% 147 83.1% 1 119 73.5% 27 85.3% 31 

88.1% 166 93.4% 137 79.0% 31 93.5% 33 

70.8% 169 81.8% 140 67.2% 32 87.2% 1,3 35 


students over others 34.8% 164 24.3% 140 39.5% 32 55.5% 2 30 


research 49.3% 136 64.7% 116 55.4% 25 55.1% 31 


undergraduate students that are too high 29.3% 170 23.8% 140 29.3% 31 32.7% 35 


professional conferences 60.6% 167 83.0% 1 140 66.5% 31 77.7% 33 


contacts 41.9% 165 69.1% 1 136 67.6% 1 31 72.3% 1 33 


in my abilities 8.2% 3 173 10.8% 3 137 2.3% 31 9.6% 34 




(continued) 




Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

27.3% 4 129 31.9% 4 98 16.8% 23 9.1% 24 

85.7% 167 96.2% 1,4 137 90.5% 32 72.4% 35 


student groups 93.3% 167 89.2% 134 100.0% 1,2 30 93.2% 35 







61.3% 116 46.5% 121 91.7% 1,2,4 32 64.8% 32 

80.4% 133 76.7% 138 92.7% 2 31 68.9% 34 


honor societies 64.7% 2 126 41.0% 110 83.7% 2 26 59.8% 33 


groups 75.8% 2,4 123 57.2% 90 87.5% 2,4 28 42.1% 24 


minority computer scientists/engineers 79.5% 132 79.3% 114 88.5% 30 79.3% 30 



47.0% 35 57.0% 31 80.9% 4 100.0% 1,2 2 

78.7% 143 88.0% 132 81.2% 29 81.2% 25 


student groups 54.8% 156 64.3% 120 62.4% 30 81.8% 1 33 







11.7% 71 34.1% 1 56 46.2% 1 30 63.3% 1 21 

5.2% 107 77.8% 1,3 106 2.6% 28 72.6% 1,3 24 




(continued) 


Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


honor societies 35.0% 81 37.8% 45 37.2% 22 39.6% 20 


groups 37.2% 94 41.1% 52 45.7% 24 50.0% 10 


or minority computer scientists/engineers 53.4% 105 85.9% 1,3 90 49.9% 27 81.3% 1,3 24 



Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


included computing research 55.4% 175 64.1% 141 54.4% 32 64.7% 35 


study that included computing research 35.9% 174 64.5% 1 141 55.9% 32 59.2% 35 




20.3% 174 38.3% 1 138 39.0% 32 25.8% 35 


computing research at my university 38.2% 175 60.9% 1 141 43.9% 32 38.6% 35 


computing research at another university 7.5% 174 44.2% 1 140 32.5% 1 32 27.6% 1 35 



industry lab 

14.7% 2 174 3.9% 139 25.4% 2 32 7.4% 34 


computing research 10.2% 174 9.3% 134 24.9% 32 11.3% 35 


research 14.7% 172 22.9% 133 20.2% 32 27.5% 35 


work that involved computing? 79.7% 4 176 69.6% 143 67.7% 33 53.4% 35 





Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 





computing? 

18.6% 176 29.4% 143 14.7% 33 40.7% 3 34 


computing in Fall 2010? 78.6% 2 161 61.7% 126 85.6% 2 30 70.2% 31 


other than computing in Fall 2010? 20.5% 145 23.0% 3 121 8.3% 28 40.3% 3 31 









applied for? 

58.6% 49 72.4% 44 50.2% 11 45.2% 16 

5.5% 176 8.3% 139 9.5% 32 4.7% 35 

53.1% 3 10 57.3% 3 11 .0% 3 60.5% 2 



Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: I do not like school 33.1% 2,3 127 13.8% 95 12.3% 19 11.9% 22 




48.8% 2,4 127 23.2% 94 27.3% 19 22.0% 22 




23.7% 2,3 127 8.2% 95 4.7% 19 11.9% 22 




(continued) 


Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: My grades are too low 17.9% 3 127 9.4% 95 2.3% 19 25.4% 22 


school: My GRE scores are too low 4.9% 4 127 6.1% 94 2.3% 19 .0% 22 








school 







17.8% 4 127 19.5% 3,4 95 7.0% 19 4.9% 22 

43.0% 2 124 26.2% 95 40.1% 19 58.1% 2 22 

11.1% 123 7.4% 95 15.3% 19 43.0% 1,2 22 

64.5% 127 54.0% 95 66.2% 20 63.5% 22 




school: No one has encouraged me to go 11.8% 2,3 124 1.9% 95 2.3% 19 17.1% 20 










7.5% 124 5.4% 95 3.8% 19 14.0% 22 

13.6% 3,4 124 7.2% 94 3.8% 19 3.3% 22 

44.5% 124 44.0% 95 43.9% 19 53.4% 22 


school: I plan to join the Armed Forces 4.7% 3 124 .5% 95 .0% 19 2.0% 22 




(continued) 



own family 


Majority male 


URM male 

URM female 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

18.6% 4 123 19.8% 4 95 15.3% 19 3.3% 22 


school: I already have a job 60.4% 2 124 30.6% 95 55.8% 2 20 31.9% 22 


school in Fall 2010? 27.6% 176 33.1% 143 38.5% 33 32.4% 34 




WOMEN/MALE MINORITY VS MAJORITY MALE 










a while 


program 




computing 




Majority male 

(0) 

Women/Male Minority vs Majority Male 


Women/Male URM 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.80 174 2.91 200 

2.29 173 2.36 206 

2.03 174 2.43 0 208 

2.57 173 2.77 200 

3.34 172 3.46 190 

2.68 173 2.84 196 

1.90 168 2.15 198 

2.31 169 2.74 0 197 

3.20 166 3.10 203 

3.43 174 3.62 0 209 










experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Majority male 

(0) 



(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.25 163 2.58 0 207 

2.61 168 2.69 209 

2.67 168 2.72 210 

2.75 168 3.01 0 209 

2.69 168 2.82 209 

2.74 168 2.91 209 

2.30 167 2.82 0 209 

2.47 167 2.77 0 209 

1.75 167 2.02 0 210 

2.01 164 2.55 0 196 

2.43 162 2.91 0 196 

2.38 163 2.98 0 191 

2.14 145 2.47 150 

2.45 158 2.93 0 185 

3.29 165 3.20 192 

2.91 165 2.64 191 

2.29 146 2.17 162 

3.21 164 3.15 194 




about computing Women/Male Minority vs Majority Male 

Majority male 


(0) 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











Mean N Mean N 

3.23 176 3.19 210 

3.27 176 3.22 210 

3.33 176 3.26 209 

3.08 176 3.07 210 

3.51 176 3.47 210 

2.54 176 2.88 0 211 

2.49 176 2.72 211 

2.80 176 3.12 0 211 

3.20 176 3.02 211 

2.71 176 2.78 211 

2.30 176 2.54 211 

2.41 176 2.67 0 211 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Majority male 

(0) 



(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.43 170 3.47 207 

3.45 165 3.43 206 

3.77 169 3.98 200 

3.66 135 4.03 0 169 

2.61 168 2.84 203 

3.07 169 3.16 204 

2.70 167 3.06 0 193 

3.29 168 3.61 205 

3.25 169 3.51 202 

3.58 169 3.85 0 194 

3.45 165 3.70 202 

3.19 162 3.34 195 

3.32 148 3.66 0 190 

















aspire 


research 










Majority male 

(0) 




(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.05 170 3.06 203 

3.14 166 3.13 203 

3.07 167 3.40 0 202 

3.12 1 162 2.85 203 

3.08 168 2.98 203 

3.06 166 3.16 203 

3.60 168 3.62 203 

2.08 163 2.33 205 

2.12 165 2.35 203 

2.85 167 3.10 205 

2.49 166 2.53 203 

2.67 163 2.87 203 

2.64 165 2.73 200 














others 





conferences 



Majority male 

(0) 



(1) 

% N % N 

96.2% 173 98.5% 210 

94.4% 173 95.7% 208 

84.3% 169 86.0% 205 

83.0% 139 88.8% 167 

69.2% 147 82.0% 0 177 

88.1% 166 91.2% 201 

70.8% 169 80.4% 207 

34.8% 164 31.3% 202 

49.3% 136 61.6% 172 

29.3% 170 26.1% 206 

60.6% 167 79.6% 0 204 

41.9% 165 69.4% 0 200 

8.2% 173 9.3% 202 

























Majority male 

(0) 




(1) 

% N % N 

27.3% 129 25.7% 145 

85.7% 167 91.3% 204 

93.3% 167 91.6% 199 

61.3% 116 57.5% 186 

80.4% 133 77.8% 203 

64.7% 126 51.3% 169 

75.8% 123 60.5% 142 

79.5% 132 80.9% 174 

47.0% 35 62.0% 37 

78.7% 143 86.0% 186 

54.8% 156 67.1% 183 

11.7% 71 43.1% 0 107 

5.2% 107 63.5% 0 158 

35.0% 81 38.0% 86 

37.2% 94 43.4% 86 

53.4% 105 78.3% 0 141 






















computing? 












Majority male 

(0) 



(1) 

% N % N 

55.4% 175 62.7% 208 

35.9% 174 62.3% 0 208 

20.3% 174 36.3% 0 205 

38.2% 175 54.5% 0 208 

7.5% 174 39.6% 0 207 

14.7% 174 7.9% 204 

10.2% 174 12.2% 201 

14.7% 172 23.2% 200 

79.7% 1 176 66.7% 211 

Majority male 

(0) 



(1) 

% N % N 

30.1% 176 34.4% 211 

18.6% 176 29.0% 210 

78.6% 161 66.9% 186 

20.5% 145 23.7% 180 

58.6% 49 63.0% 71 

5.5% 176 7.9% 206 

53.1% 10 46.9% 16 




school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

Majority male 

(0) 




(1) 

% N % N 

33.1% 1 127 13.3% 136 

48.8% 1 127 23.6% 135 

23.7% 1 127 8.3% 136 

17.9% 127 11.1% 136 

4.9% 127 4.6% 135 

9.4% 127 9.6% 136 

17.8% 127 15.3% 136 

43.0% 124 33.4% 136 

11.1% 123 14.4% 136 

64.5% 127 57.3% 136 

15.9% 124 21.3% 136 

11.8% 1 124 4.2% 133 

7.5% 124 6.6% 136 

13.6% 124 6.1% 135 

44.5% 124 45.5% 135 

4.7% 124 .7% 136 

18.6% 123 16.5% 136 

60.4% 1 124 34.4% 136 

27.6% 176 33.9% 210 



Appendix F: 

CRA Program Participants: 

Crosstabs of Key Variables by Demographics 




PARTICIPANTS ONLY 

GENDER 


University of Virginia F-1


F-2 Center for Survey Research







a while 


program 




computing 





University of Virginia F-3 

Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.74 2 14 3.19 80 

1.91 14 2.18 79 

3.15 14 2.40 81 

2.33 14 2.68 79 

3.74 14 3.50 74 

3.25 14 3.04 76 

2.63 13 2.47 77 

2.92 14 2.98 74 

2.90 13 2.91 76 

3.78 14 3.62 81









experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 



F-4 Center for Survey Research 

Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.74 14 3.04 80 

3.00 14 2.96 80 

2.83 14 2.96 81 

3.17 14 3.17 81 

2.78 14 2.84 81 

2.91 14 3.00 81 

3.05 14 3.04 80 

2.87 14 2.99 80 

2.65 14 2.22 81 

3.27 2 14 2.78 79 

2.79 14 3.12 81 

3.65 14 3.28 79 

2.87 13 2.92 58 

3.43 14 3.28 78 

3.43 11 3.15 73 

2.91 13 2.70 71 

1.94 13 2.03 57


about computing Gender 

Male 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 













Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.91 2 14 3.36 81 

3.91 2 14 3.39 81 

3.74 14 3.40 81 

3.48 14 3.24 81 

3.87 2 14 3.40 81 

3.31 14 3.20 81 

3.26 14 2.97 81 

3.26 14 3.17 81 

3.61 2 14 3.10 81 

3.31 14 2.92 81 

3.05 2 14 2.44 81 

3.00 14 2.64 81

















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 


Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.69 14 3.31 81 

3.47 14 3.50 80 

3.92 14 4.20 79 

4.48 14 4.23 73 

3.25 14 2.83 80 

3.75 14 3.20 79 

3.03 14 2.91 76 

3.87 14 3.62 80 

4.22 14 3.51 79 

4.39 14 3.92 79 

4.34 2 14 3.79 81 

4.09 13 3.43 73 

4.35 14 3.89 79
















aspire 


research 












Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.07 14 3.01 81 

3.43 14 3.05 81 

3.41 13 3.51 81 

3.17 14 2.75 81 

3.13 14 2.95 80 

3.25 14 3.11 78 

3.57 14 3.65 81 

2.87 14 2.56 80 

2.46 13 2.45 79 

2.87 14 3.17 79 

2.87 14 2.56 78 

3.00 14 2.85 78 

2.52 14 2.84 77













others 





conferences 




Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

100.0% 14 98.7% 81 

100.0% 14 97.2% 81 

100.0% 2 13 88.0% 81 

78.1% 14 93.2% 74 

78.1% 14 81.1% 75 

78.1% 14 96.0% 81 

55.2% 13 86.5% 81 

30.8% 14 27.9% 76 

76.0% 13 68.0% 76 

17.3% 14 22.1% 81 

69.2% 14 82.4% 79 

61.3% 14 72.9% 78 

.0% 13 12.6% 1 81


























Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

.0% 10 29.8% 1 57 

77.0% 13 90.9% 79 

100.0% 13 99.2% 79 

86.8% 2 14 53.1% 70 

86.8% 14 83.6% 81 

90.9% 2 13 51.9% 68 

74.7% 12 59.8% 52 

78.1% 14 73.7% 65 

66.0% 17 

88.2% 10 87.3% 72 

73.5% 13 67.3% 79 

35.4% 12 40.2% 37 

.0% 12 66.7% 1 67 

35.3% 12 40.4% 35 

40.2% 9 35.1% 31 

61.6% 11 88.7% 48





















computing? 













Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

65.3% 14 66.7% 79 

65.3% 14 67.6% 79 

60.6% 14 44.3% 79 

64.7% 14 68.8% 79 

26.6% 14 68.0% 1 81 

26.0% 14 7.8% 79 

17.3% 14 4.4% 79 

8.7% 14 28.5% 78 

82.7% 14 77.7% 81 

Male 

(1) 

Gender 

Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

57.4% 14 45.4% 81 

4.7% 14 26.7% 1 81 

81.0% 13 63.0% 75 

.0% 13 27.2% 1 74 

100.0% 5 92.2% 25 

24.2% 13 14.4% 81 

.0% 3 52.5% 1 12

Not attending graduate school Gender 

Male 

(1) 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 



Female 

(2) 

% N % N 

.0% 8 10.1% 1 53 

60.6% 8 25.5% 53 

.0% 8 7.2% 1 53 

.0% 8 14.3% 1 53 

14.2% 8 3.8% 52 

15.5% 8 18.1% 53 

.0% 8 27.5% 1 53 

45.1% 8 30.6% 53 

.0% 8 14.8% 1 53 

60.6% 8 54.8% 53 

29.6% 8 17.8% 53 

.0% 8 3.4% 53 

.0% 8 9.3% 1 53 

.0% 8 5.6% 52 

29.6% 8 47.2% 53 

.0%* 8 .0%* 53 

.0% 8 21.1% 1 53 

60.6% 8 35.6% 53 

44.0% 14 32.8% 81



AGE 











a while 


program 




computing 





18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.26 78 3.20 13 

2.16 77 2.05 13 

2.50 80 2.44 13 

2.60 77 2.79 13 

3.54 75 3.63 11 

3.04 75 3.11 13 

2.46 76 2.45 12 

2.97 73 2.90 13 

2.97 73 2.63 13 

3.66 79 3.61 13








experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 







18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.01 79 2.81 13 

3.07 79 2.38 13 

3.05 2 79 2.40 13 

3.23 79 2.95 13 

2.84 79 2.82 13 

3.04 79 2.73 13 

3.11 79 2.71 13 

3.02 79 2.67 13 

2.32 79 1.99 13 

2.89 77 2.72 13 

3.06 80 3.16 13 

3.35 80 3.27 11 

3.04 2 60 2.23 8 

3.24 79 3.80 1 11 

3.17 71 3.40 12 

2.70 71 3.01 10 

1.97 58 2.13 9 

3.16 71 3.54 13



about computing Age 

18-25 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.44 80 3.46 13 

3.50 80 3.36 13 

3.50 80 3.24 13 

3.28 80 3.29 13 

3.48 80 3.49 13 

3.24 80 3.08 13 

3.04 80 2.77 13 

3.23 80 2.86 13 

3.21 80 2.94 13 

3.03 80 2.63 13 

2.63 2 80 1.88 13 

2.81 2 80 1.86 13 

















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 



18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.49 2 79 2.43 13 

3.49 78 3.45 13 

4.24 2 77 3.60 13 

4.29 74 4.09 11 

2.93 78 2.51 13 

3.32 78 2.91 12 

2.92 76 2.86 12 

3.61 79 3.82 13 

3.58 78 3.77 13 

3.97 78 3.99 13 

3.88 79 3.76 13 

3.43 74 4.12 1 11 

3.94 79 4.05 11

















aspire 


research 











18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.06 79 2.75 13 

3.09 79 3.12 13 

3.47 78 3.67 13 

2.78 79 3.11 13 

2.97 79 3.03 13 

3.10 78 3.41 11 

3.72 79 3.21 13 

2.62 79 2.42 13 

2.44 77 2.58 13 

3.14 78 2.98 13 

2.58 78 2.70 11 

2.82 79 3.27 11 

2.74 76 3.08 13












others 





conferences 





18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

98.6% 80 100.0% 13 

97.1% 79 100.0% 13 

89.9% 78 86.8% 13 

89.8% 72 95.1% 13 

79.9% 74 81.3% 13 

93.5% 79 91.7% 13 

81.9% 80 80.9% 13 

26.4% 75 28.0% 13 

69.4% 74 62.7% 13 

20.2% 80 23.6% 13 

82.1% 77 67.6% 13 

72.2% 77 59.6% 12 

9.8% 79 10.4% 13


























18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

26.3% 55 26.1% 9 

91.5% 78 70.0% 12 

99.2% 80 100.0% 11 

57.6% 69 65.9% 13 

83.4% 80 85.5% 13 

59.1% 68 54.4% 11 

63.9% 55 62.2% 8 

74.8% 66 79.3% 12 

60.4% 15 100.0% 1 2 

86.4% 72 92.3% 9 

72.5% 79 49.7% 11 

35.0% 40 63.2% 8 

58.9% 66 43.7% 11 

40.1% 40 22.1% 6 

39.4% 35 13.6% 5 

84.4% 50 79.9% 9




















computing? 














18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

66.1% 78 71.5% 13 

65.2% 78 74.3% 13 

45.8% 78 43.5% 13 

69.4% 78 64.8% 13 

62.5% 80 60.4% 13 

10.2% 78 14.0% 13 

5.2% 77 14.0% 13 

21.9% 77 50.5% 13 

78.8% 80 72.9% 13 

18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

46.1% 80 45.1% 13 

21.5% 80 31.1% 13 

66.1% 73 57.0% 13 

21.1% 73 39.0% 12 

92.0% 25 100.0% 4 

15.6% 78 18.9% 13 

50.2% 2 12 .0% 3




school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 


18-25 

(1) 

Age 

26 and above 

(2) 

% N % N 

8.4% 51 12.0% 9 

28.0% 51 44.1% 9 

7.5% 2 51 .0% 9 

10.6% 51 24.1% 9 

6.1% 50 .0% 9 

15.7% 51 31.3% 9 

21.1% 51 32.1% 9 

28.4% 51 58.5% 9 

13.3% 51 12.0% 9 

58.5% 51 34.4% 9 

17.5% 51 31.3% 9 

.0% 51 20.0% 9 

7.5% 51 12.0% 9 

5.9% 50 .0% 9 

52.6% 2 51 7.2% 9 

.0%* 51 .0%* 9 

18.6% 51 19.2% 9 

41.8% 51 26.4% 9 

34.4% 80 31.4% 13


HISPANIC 











a while 


program 




computing 




Hispanic 



Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.67 2 14 3.19 79 

1.66 14 2.23 1 77 

3.09 14 2.41 80 

2.41 14 2.65 78 

3.61 14 3.52 73 

3.50 2 14 2.98 75 

2.34 13 2.52 75 

2.79 14 3.01 73 

3.14 14 2.87 73 

3.75 14 3.62 79 

No 

(2)









experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Hispanic 


Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.75 14 3.04 79 

3.22 14 2.92 79 

3.03 14 2.93 80 

3.52 2 14 3.12 80 

3.00 14 2.80 80 

3.14 14 2.96 80 

3.18 14 3.02 79 

3.01 14 2.96 79 

2.39 14 2.25 80 

3.17 14 2.80 78 

3.25 14 3.04 80 

3.59 14 3.27 77 

2.94 14 2.92 56 

3.58 14 3.24 77 

3.72 2 11 3.11 73 

3.00 13 2.68 69 

2.63 2 12 1.86 56 

3.72 2 13 3.11 71 

No 

(2)


about computing Hispanic 

Yes 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Mean N Mean N 

3.78 2 14 3.37 80 

3.64 14 3.43 80 

3.63 14 3.41 80 

3.25 14 3.27 80 

3.87 2 14 3.39 80 

3.38 14 3.19 80 

3.05 14 3.01 80 

3.32 14 3.16 80 

3.62 2 14 3.10 80 

3.19 14 2.93 80 

2.85 14 2.48 80 

2.76 14 2.68 80 


No 

(2)

















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Hispanic 


Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.22 14 3.38 80 

3.58 14 3.47 79 

4.19 14 4.15 78 

4.38 14 4.25 72 

2.31 14 2.96 79 

3.27 12 3.29 79 

2.67 12 2.94 77 

3.67 14 3.63 79 

3.92 14 3.55 78 

4.36 14 3.91 79 

4.14 14 3.81 80 

3.84 12 3.45 72 

4.31 14 3.88 78 

No 

(2)
















aspire 


research 










Hispanic 



Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.17 14 2.98 80 

3.55 2 14 3.02 80 

3.46 14 3.50 79 

2.82 14 2.80 80 

2.81 14 2.99 79 

3.50 14 3.06 77 

3.44 14 3.66 80 

2.74 14 2.56 79 

2.44 12 2.43 78 

2.81 14 3.17 79 

2.45 14 2.62 77 

2.86 14 2.86 77 

2.64 14 2.81 77 

No 

(2)













others 





conferences 



Hispanic 


Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

100.0% 14 98.6% 80 

100.0% 14 97.1% 79 

100.0% 2 13 87.8% 80 

91.6% 14 90.5% 72 

91.6% 14 78.2% 74 

91.6% 14 93.7% 79 

73.5% 14 84.8% 80 

26.1% 14 29.2% 75 

87.0% 14 65.3% 74 

13.0% 14 23.2% 80 

78.5% 14 80.5% 77 

76.9% 13 71.1% 77 

4.8% 14 12.0% 79 

No 

(2)
























Hispanic 



Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

15.2% 7 26.7% 59 

87.0% 14 89.1% 77 

95.2% 14 100.0% 78 

95.0% 2 13 51.1% 70 

100.0% 2 14 81.0% 79 

85.9% 2 13 52.1% 67 

89.2% 2 11 56.0% 51 

90.1% 12 71.2% 66 

100.0% 2 1 63.7% 16 

90.3% 12 86.7% 69 

72.9% 13 68.3% 78 

61.5% 12 32.4% 36 

36.3% 14 62.1% 64 

27.1% 11 44.2% 35 

30.7% 10 39.6% 29 

72.0% 11 88.4% 47 

No 

(2)





















computing? 












Hispanic 


Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

67.0% 14 65.9% 78 

68.3% 14 66.6% 78 

52.2% 14 45.0% 78 

71.5% 14 67.2% 78 

38.4% 14 67.0% 1 80 

43.0% 2 14 4.7% 78 

21.5% 14 3.7% 77 

20.8% 14 26.8% 77 

83.1% 14 77.3% 80 

Yes 

(1) 

Hispanic 

% N % N 

53.1% 14 46.8% 80 

11.7% 14 25.9% 80 

72.6% 11 64.0% 75 

13.6% 13 25.1% 73 

100.0% 6 91.8% 24 

23.5% 13 14.7% 80 

.0% 3 52.5% 1 12 

No 

(2) 

No 

(2)



school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

Hispanic 



Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

.0% 7 10.1% 1 53 

53.4% 7 25.6% 53 

.0% 7 7.2% 1 53 

16.8% 7 12.2% 53 

.0% 7 3.7% 52 

35.1% 7 16.0% 53 

16.8% 7 25.4% 53 

35.1% 7 30.7% 53 

16.8% 7 12.7% 53 

46.6% 7 55.7% 53 

45.1% 7 14.4% 53 

.0% 7 3.4% 53 

26.8% 7 6.0% 53 

.0% 7 5.6% 52 

28.3% 7 45.9% 53 

.0%* 7 .0%* 53 

.0% 7 21.0% 1 53 

46.6% 7 36.6% 53 

49.3% 14 32.2% 80 

No 

(2)



RACE 






Experience 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 



in graduate school 3.14 50 3.01 7 3.67 1 14 3.27 19 

4.00 1,2,3,4 2 

a1b Likelihood to study a noncomputing 

subject in graduate 

school 

2.19 51 3.06 3,4,5 7 1.66 14 2.08 17 1.74 2 


school immediately 2.21 51 2.72 7 3.09 1 14 2.73 19 3.26 1 2 


school after working for a while 2.60 50 3.00 7 2.41 14 2.68 18 2.47 2 


complete a graduate program 3.53 46 3.73 7 3.61 14 3.34 18 4.00 1,3,4 2 


degree in computing 2.91 50 2.72 7 3.50 1 14 3.18 16 3.74 1 2 


computing 2.38 48 2.48 7 2.34 13 2.79 18 3.26 1,3 2 




Race 

4.00 1,2,3,4 






3.66 51 3.73 7 3.75 14 3.43 19 4.00 1,3,4 2 

2


Experience 



results 



hypothesis 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.03 5 51 3.36 5 7 2.75 5 14 3.14 5 18 1.53 2 

2.95 5 51 3.00 5 7 3.22 5 14 3.00 5 18 1.53 2 


Generating hypotheses 2.88 5 51 3.09 5 7 3.03 5 14 3.10 5 19 2.00 2 



experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




2.99 51 3.27 7 3.52 1 14 3.38 19 3.26 2 

2.68 51 2.82 7 3.00 14 3.11 19 2.74 2 

2.88 5 51 2.92 7 3.14 5 14 3.28 5 19 2.26 2 

3.07 5 50 3.63 1,4,5 7 3.18 5 14 2.86 5 19 1.53 2 

2.91 5 51 3.27 5 7 3.01 5 14 3.16 5 18 1.53 2 

2.21 51 3.18 5 7 2.39 14 2.12 19 1.53 2 

2.69 51 3.63 1,4,5 7 3.17 1,5 14 2.85 18 2.26 2






choice 











chosen path 















Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.10 51 2.13 7 3.25 14 3.07 19 

4.00 1,2,3,4 

3.29 49 2.94 7 3.59 14 3.27 19 4.00 1,4 2 

2.88 5 33 3.30 5 4 2.94 5 14 3.04 5 16 2.00 2 

3.28 50 3.11 7 3.58 14 3.06 18 4.00 1,3,4 2 

2.99 46 3.19 7 3.72 1 11 3.33 17 3.47 2 

2.63 44 2.84 7 3.00 13 2.63 16 3.47 2 

1.68 34 1.75 7 2.63 1,5 12 2.39 13 1.74 2 

2.99 46 3.19 7 3.72 1 13 3.35 16 3.47 2 

2



computing 



computing 



computing 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.32 51 3.20 7 3.78 1 14 3.47 19 4.00 1,4 2 

3.40 51 3.20 7 3.64 14 3.51 19 4.00 1,3,4 2 


graduate degree in computing 3.38 51 3.20 7 3.63 14 3.49 19 4.00 1,3,4 2 


capable researcher in computing 3.29 51 3.20 7 3.25 14 3.12 19 4.00 1,3,4 2 


successful career in computing 3.42 51 3.20 7 3.87 1,4 14 3.31 19 4.00 1,4 2 


















3.22 5 51 3.19 5 7 3.38 5 14 3.22 5 19 2.26 2 

3.03 5 51 3.08 5 7 3.05 5 14 3.02 5 19 2.26 2 

3.26 51 3.44 7 3.32 14 2.90 19 2.53 2 

3.11 5 51 3.35 5 7 3.62 1,5 14 3.09 5 19 2.26 2 

2.96 5 51 3.18 7 3.19 5 14 2.87 19 2.26 2


























advisor 





Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.41 51 3.08 5 7 2.85 5 14 2.59 19 1.53 2 

2.72 5 51 2.98 7 2.76 5 14 2.62 19 1.53 2 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.12 51 3.83 1,5 7 3.22 14 3.98 1,5 19 3.00 2 

3.43 2,5 51 3.10 7 3.58 2,5 14 3.78 2,5 18 3.00 2 

4.29 50 3.84 7 4.19 14 3.98 18 3.53 2 

4.36 45 4.21 6 4.38 14 3.98 18 4.26 2 

2.84 51 3.09 7 2.31 14 3.10 18 4.26 1,3,4 2


(continued) 












I want to do 
























Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.21 51 3.38 7 3.27 12 3.34 18 4.26 1,3,4 2 

2.89 51 3.09 7 2.67 12 2.85 16 

3.56 51 3.48 7 3.67 14 3.70 18 

3.50 50 3.65 7 3.92 14 3.45 19 

3.81 50 3.84 7 4.36 14 4.06 19 

3.74 51 3.65 7 4.14 14 3.92 19 

3.20 44 3.72 7 3.84 12 3.74 18 

3.68 50 3.92 7 4.31 14 4.25 1 19 

4.26 1,2,3,4 

5.00 1,2,3,4 

5.00 1,2,3,4 

5.00 1,2,3,4 

5.00 1,2,3,4 

5.00 1,2,3,4 

5.00 1,2,3,4 

3.04 51 3.00 7 3.17 14 2.95 19 1.79 2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2



(continued) 




applications 





















research 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.95 51 2.84 7 3.55 1 14 3.34 19 2.53 2 

3.46 51 3.41 6 3.46 14 3.55 19 

2.60 51 2.92 7 2.82 14 3.12 19 

2.80 51 3.29 1 7 2.81 14 3.27 1 18 

2.97 48 3.02 7 3.50 1 14 3.17 19 

4.00 1,2,3,4 

4.00 1,2,3,4 

4.00 1,2,3,4 

4.00 1,2,3,4 

3.59 51 4.00 1,3,4 7 3.44 14 3.68 19 4.00 1,3,4 2 

2.54 51 2.19 7 2.74 14 2.76 18 2.53 2 






3.19 50 3.29 7 2.81 14 2.97 19 

4.00 1,2,3,4 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2


(continued) 



occupation 







Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.41 50 3.02 1 7 2.45 14 2.95 1 18 3.26 1,3 2 

2.75 50 2.73 7 2.86 14 3.05 18 

4.00 1,2,3,4 

2.79 50 2.90 7 2.64 14 2.75 17 3.26 2 

2



Experience 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


one-on-one advising 

100.0%** 

* 

51 

100.0%** 

* 

7 

100.0%** 

* 

14 94.3% 19 

100.0%** 

* 

2 


toward my degree 100.0%* 51 82.4% 7 100.0%* 14 94.1% 18 100.0% 2 


career advice 91.1% 51 

100.0% 1* 

4* 

7 

100.0% 1* 

4* 


Race 

13 73.2% 19 

100.0% 1* 

*4 






80.5% 47 70.4% 6 91.6% 14 72.3% 18 

100.0% 1, 

4 


person 97.9% 51 73.2% 7 91.6% 14 88.6% 18 100.0% 2 




87.7% 51 82.4% 7 73.5% 14 79.4% 19 73.6% 2 


of students over others 29.6% 5 50 37.2% 5 26.1% 5 14 29.8% 5 18 .0% 2 


publish research 70.9% 47 63.6% 7 87.0% 5 14 56.0% 17 26.4% 2 



too high 


attend professional conferences 86.9% 5 51 


professional contacts 72.7% 50 

23.1% 51 9.6% 7 13.0% 14 18.3% 19 

100.0% 1, 

4,5 

100.0% 1, 

4,5 

100.0% 1, 

2,3,4 

5 78.5% 14 65.5% 19 26.4% 2 

6 76.9% 13 63.6% 19 26.4% 2 


confidence in my abilities 15.3% 2,5 51 .0%* 7 4.8% 14 9.2% 19 .0%* 2 

2 

2 

2



Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


lunches 21.7% 2 37 .0% 5 15.2% 7 48.1% 2 15 26.4% 2 


90.4% 5 50 70.4% 6 87.0% 5 14 

19 26.4% 2 









100.0%** 

* 

50 

100.0%** 

* 

55.2% 44 36.8% 7 

80.1% 2 51 36.8% 7 


honor societies 56.2% 44 70.4% 6 


Race 

7 95.2% 14 

95.0% 1,2, 

4,5 

100.0% 1, 

2* 

85.9% 1,4, 

5 

100.0% 1, 

5 

100.0%** 

* 

19 

100.0%** 

* 

13 50.0% 17 26.4% 2 

14 96.6% 1,2 19 

100.0% 1, 

2* 

13 36.3% 14 26.4% 2 


groups 55.2% 32 41.8% 3 89.2% 1,5 11 66.6% 14 26.4% 2 




73.4% 41 73.2% 7 90.1% 12 60.3% 16 

100.0% 1, 

4 


lunches 63.6% 8 100.0% 1 60.5% 7 100.0% 1 


lectures 86.1% 45 57.2% 4 90.3% 12 94.3% 19 100.0% 1 


student groups 64.4% 50 90.4% 1,5 7 72.9% 13 76.1% 19 26.4% 2 







27.2% 24 73.9% 3 61.5% 12 29.6% 8 100.0% 1 

62.4% 41 47.8% 3 36.3% 14 68.2% 18 26.4% 2 

2 

2 

2




Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


honor societies 47.6% 25 42.1% 4 27.1% 11 35.3% 5 .0% 1 


computing-related groups 36.2% 18 50.0% 1 30.7% 10 47.4% 9 .0% 1 





Experience 



research 







researcher 



university 








Race 

87.9% 30 62.8% 5 72.0% 11 100.0% 1 10 100.0% 1 2 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

69.4% 50 72.8% 7 67.0% 14 59.6% 19 26.4% 2 

59.4% 50 90.4% 1 7 68.3% 14 72.6% 19 

100.0% 1, 

3,4 

46.7% 50 36.4% 7 52.2% 14 46.2% 19 26.4% 2 

72.0% 50 36.8% 7 71.5% 14 61.2% 19 

60.7% 51 72.8% 7 38.4% 14 77.8% 3 19 

5.0% 50 .0%* 7 

43.0% 1,2, 

4,5 

100.0% 1, 

2,3,4 

100.0% 1, 

3,4 

14 6.3% 19 .0%* 2 

2 

2 

2



Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


computing research 4.5% 49 9.6% 7 21.5% 14 .0% 19 .0% 2 





computing? 



Race 

75.3% 51 80.8% 7 83.1% 14 81.8% 19 73.6% 2 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


graduate school in computing? 40.1% 51 36.4% 7 53.1% 14 61.4% 19 

100.0% 1, 

2,3,4 2 




19.1% 51 27.2% 7 11.7% 14 34.1% 19 

100.0% 1, 

2,3,4 2 


computing in Fall 2010? 62.9% 50 62.8% 5 72.6% 11 62.6% 18 

100.0% 1, 

4 2 



2010? 







institution? 




Race 

26.2% 5 46 54.0% 5 7 13.6% 13 14.3% 17 .0% 2 

95.6% 15 82.2% 4 100.0% 6 86.1% 5 100.0% 1 

19.4% 2 51 .0% 7 23.5% 13 5.7% 19 26.4% 2 

61.7% 3,4 10 .0% 3 .0% 1 .0% 1





school 









low 



are too low 



courses 











fees 






family 



to go 

Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 


Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

15.3% 2,3, 

4,5 

35 .0% 5 .0% 7 .0% 3 11 .0% 2 

33.7% 2,5 35 .0%* 5 53.4% 2,5 7 16.2% 11 .0%* 2 

9.1% 35 .0% 5 .0% 7 5.7% 11 .0% 2 

10.3% 35 24.0% 5 16.8% 7 14.5% 11 .0% 2 

5.7% 34 .0%*** 5 .0%*** 7 .0%*** 11 .0%*** 2 

19.0% 5 35 24.0% 5 35.1% 7 5.7% 11 .0% 2 

25.3% 2,5 35 .0%* 5 16.8% 7 41.0% 2,5 11 .0%* 2 

34.4% 5 35 49.7% 5 35.1% 7 16.2% 11 .0% 2 

12.2% 4,5 35 49.7% 5 16.8% 7 .0%* 11 .0%* 2 

63.7% 5 35 73.8% 5 5 46.6% 5 7 32.5% 5 11 .0% 2 

14.8% 2,5 35 .0%* 5 45.1% 2,5 7 22.0% 11 .0%* 2 

5.2% 35 .0%** 5 .0%* 7 .0%* 11 .0% 2


(continued) 




school 










Armed Forces 




Native 


Indian 

(1) 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

(2) 



Race 

Black 

White 

Other 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

7.2% 35 13.1% 5 26.8% 7 .0% 11 .0% 2 

8.6% 34 .0%*** 5 .0%*** 7 .0%*** 11 .0%*** 2 

52.1% 5 35 73.8% 4,5 5 28.3% 7 22.0% 11 .0% 2 

.0%**** 35 .0%**** 5 .0%**** 7 .0%**** 11 .0%**** 2 

32.0% 2,3, 

4,5 

35 .0%** 5 .0%* 7 .0%* 11 .0% 2 


school: I already have a job 43.2% 2,5 35 .0%* 5 46.6% 2,5 7 38.2% 2,5 11 .0%* 2 


graduate school in Fall 2010? 30.2% 51 26.8% 7 49.3% 14 40.4% 19 26.4% 2



MARITAL STATUS 








a while 


program 




computing 




Never married 

(1) 



(2) 


Married 

(3) 


3.27 80 3.73 2 3.11 11 

2.16 78 2.00 2 1.91 11 

2.57 81 1.82 2 2.31 11 

2.64 78 3.18 2 2.33 11 

3.58 75 3.54 2 3.12 10 

3.02 77 4.00 1 2 3.18 10 

2.49 77 2.82 2 2.48 10 

2.99 75 3.27 2 2.91 10 

2.88 75 3.18 2 2.94 11 

3.69 80 3.27 2 3.39 11 










experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Never married 

(1) 



(2) 

Married 

(3) 


3.04 80 2.54 2 2.81 11 

3.04 80 3.00 2 2.41 11 

3.03 2,3 80 2.27 2 2.39 11 

3.16 80 3.18 2 3.16 11 

2.87 80 2.46 2 2.59 11 

3.01 80 2.73 2 2.89 11 

3.08 79 2.91 2 2.79 11 

3.04 80 3.18 2 2.37 10 

2.37 2,3 80 1.27 2 1.77 11 

2.92 2 79 1.82 2 2.59 11 

3.04 81 2.54 2 3.27 11 

3.34 78 3.46 2 3.46 11 

2.94 3 63 2.00 1 3.08 6 

3.27 78 3.27 2 3.46 11 

3.09 72 4.00 1 2 3.71 1 11 

2.64 70 3.37 1 2 3.40 1 11 

1.99 60 2.00 1 2.33 8 

3.15 72 4.00 1,3 2 3.40 11 



about computing Marital Status 

Never married 


(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Married 

(3) 


3.43 81 3.54 2 3.44 11 

3.49 81 3.54 2 3.39 11 

3.45 81 4.00 1 2 3.27 11 

3.26 81 3.54 2 3.37 11 

3.46 81 3.09 2 3.60 11 

3.22 81 3.27 2 3.15 11 

3.06 2 81 2.27 2 2.92 11 

3.23 2 81 3.00 2 2.84 11 

3.20 81 3.00 2 3.02 11 

3.04 81 2.54 2 2.67 11 

2.59 81 2.27 2 2.16 11 

2.79 81 1.82 2 2.20 11 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Never married 

(1) 



(2) 

Married 

(3) 


3.48 2 80 2.54 2 2.90 11 

3.56 80 2.82 2 3.10 11 

4.20 79 4.18 2 3.83 11 

4.32 2 73 3.63 2 4.34 11 

2.94 80 2.54 2 2.81 11 

3.34 2 80 3.00 2 2.91 11 

2.93 2 77 1.82 2 3.16 2 11 

3.71 80 3.09 2 3.32 10 

3.64 80 3.12 2 3.49 11 

4.08 79 2.90 2 3.68 11 

3.91 80 3.73 2 3.78 11 

3.50 72 3.63 2 3.67 11 

3.98 78 3.73 2 3.82 11 

















aspire 


research 










Never married 

(1) 



(2) 


Married 

(3) 


3.07 80 3.00 2 2.64 11 

3.08 80 3.27 2 3.18 11 

3.52 80 2.63 2 3.46 11 

2.88 80 2.54 2 2.31 11 

2.94 80 3.27 2 3.07 11 

3.14 77 3.46 2 2.92 11 

3.60 80 3.46 2 3.89 1 11 

2.66 80 2.82 2 2.22 10 

2.47 78 2.82 2 2.04 10 

3.08 79 3.73 1 2 3.45 11 

2.62 77 2.73 2 2.42 11 

2.82 78 3.00 2 3.26 10 

2.76 77 3.18 2 3.13 11 














others 





conferences 



Never married 

(1) 



(2) 

Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

98.6% 81 100.0%* 2 100.0%* 11 

97.1% 80 100.0% 2 100.0% 2 11 

92.8% 80 72.8% 2 68.9% 11 

91.4% 2 74 27.2% 2 100.0% 1,2 11 

80.3% 75 72.8% 2 82.5% 11 

93.6% 80 100.0% 1 2 89.6% 11 

84.2% 2 81 27.2% 2 76.9% 10 

25.2% 76 72.8% 2 43.5% 11 

70.5% 75 72.8% 2 55.8% 11 

21.4% 2 81 .0% 2 28.5% 11 

82.2% 78 100.0% 1,3 2 61.0% 11 

74.2% 77 54.4% 2 49.7% 11 

9.1% 2 80 .0% 2 28.7% 10 

























Never married 

(1) 



(2) 


Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

21.7% 55 45.6% 2 34.9% 8 

89.4% 80 100.0% 1 2 80.8% 9 

99.2% 79 100.0% 3 2 100.0% 10 

58.0% 71 100.0% 1,3 2 51.2% 10 

82.7% 81 100.0% 1 2 90.5% 11 

59.9% 72 100.0% 1 41.2% 9 

65.2% 55 100.0% 1 42.4% 8 

74.8% 67 100.0% 1 67.8% 11 

60.9% 2 12 .0%* 1 100.0% 1* 3 

89.3% 2 71 27.2% 2 86.9% 2 8 

72.2% 3 78 72.8% 2 31.8% 10 

40.6% 2 41 .0% 2 26.6% 5 

59.2% 3 67 100.0% 1,3 2 26.1% 10 

37.2% 43 100.0% 1 51.4% 4 

38.7% 3 36 .0% 1 18.6% 4 

82.1% 50 100.0% 1 90.9% 7 




















Never married 

(1) 



(2) 

Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

64.9% 79 72.8% 2 73.3% 11 

70.2% 2 79 .0% 2 67.9% 2 11 

49.7% 79 27.2% 2 34.2% 11 

66.2% 79 100.0% 1 2 73.1% 11 

60.2% 81 72.8% 2 68.9% 11 

11.5% 2 79 .0% 2 6.2% 11 

6.7% 2 78 .0% 2 6.2% 11 

23.9% 78 27.2% 2 29.6% 11 

76.8% 81 72.8% 2 89.6% 11 


Never married 



Married 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

% N % N % N 


computing? 

49.5% 81 27.2% 2 39.0% 11 



24.5% 


2 81 .0% 2 23.4% 11 


65.1% 74 72.8% 2 63.7% 10 



21.6% 74 27.2% 2 24.7% 9 



93.0% 28 100.0% 2 



15.6% 2 80 .0% 2 21.8% 11 



41.3% 12 43.4% 2



school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

Never married 

(1) 



(2) 


Married 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

3.7% 49 .0% 2 45.8% 1,2 8 

27.2% 49 27.2% 2 38.7% 8 

5.3% 49 .0% 2 15.7% 8 

8.4% 2 49 .0% 2 30.1% 8 

4.9% 49 27.2% 2 .0% 8 

13.6% 2 49 .0% 2 38.7% 2 8 

24.8% 2 49 .0% 2 15.7% 8 

29.5% 2 49 .0% 2 51.8% 2 8 

9.9% 2 49 .0% 2 24.3% 8 

60.0% 49 45.6% 2 37.4% 8 

13.4% 2 49 .0% 2 51.8% 2 8 

3.7% 49 .0% 3 2 .0% 8 

5.3% 49 .0% 2 15.7% 8 

3.6% 49 .0% 2 15.7% 8 

47.1% 49 45.6% 2 37.4% 8 

.0%** 49 .0%** 2 .0%** 8 

9.9% 49 45.6% 2 67.5% 1 8 

38.4% 49 72.8% 2 36.1% 8 

36.7% 2 81 .0% 2 28.0% 2 11 




CHILDREN 











a while 


program 




computing 




Children 


Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

4.00 2 2 3.26 92 

2.63 2 2.13 91 

2.12 2 2.51 93 

2.88 2 2.63 91 

4.00 2 2 3.53 86 

4.00 2 2 3.06 88 

4.00 1 2.48 89 

2.75 2 2.98 86 

3.63 2 2 2.90 87 

4.00 2 2 3.64 93 

No 

(2)








experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Children 



Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.37 2 2.99 92 

3.37 2 2.96 92 

3.37 2 2.93 93 

4.00 2 2 3.16 93 

3.00 2 2.83 93 

3.00 2 2.99 93 

3.00 2 3.04 92 

2.63 2 2.97 92 

2.63 2 2.27 93 

2.63 2 2.86 91 

4.00 2 2 3.05 93 

2.12 2 3.36 91 

1.75 2 2.94 69 

4.00 2 2 3.29 90 

4.00 1 3.18 84 

2.12 2 2.75 82 

2.12 2 2.01 68 

4.00 2 2 3.19 84 

No 

(2)



about computing Children 

Yes 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











Mean N Mean N 

4.00 2 2 3.43 93 

2.75 2 3.48 93 

4.00 2 2 3.44 93 

3.37 2 3.27 93 

4.00 2 2 3.46 93 

3.37 2 3.21 93 

2.75 2 3.02 93 

3.63 2 3.18 93 

3.00 2 3.18 93 

2.75 2 2.98 93 

2.75 2 2.53 93 

2.75 2 2.69 93 


No 

(2)
















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Children 



Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.49 2 3.38 93 

3.63 2 3.49 92 

4.37 2 4.15 91 

1.75 2 4.32 1 85 

2.12 2 2.91 92 

4.00 1 3.28 92 

3.00 1 2.93 90 

4.00 2 2 3.65 92 

4.37 2 2 3.60 91 

3.75 2 3.99 92 

2.37 2 3.90 1 93 

4.00 2 2 3.52 84 

4.00 2 3.95 91 

No 

(2)

















aspire 


research 










Children 


Yes 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.00 2 3.02 93 

4.00 2 2 3.09 93 

3.63 2 3.50 92 

3.00 2 2.81 93 

4.00 2 2 2.96 92 

3.25 2 3.13 90 

4.00 2 2 3.63 93 

2.12 2 2.61 92 

4.00 2 2 2.42 90 

2.75 2 3.14 91 

3.00 2 2 2.60 90 

3.00 2 2.87 90 

2.12 2 2.81 90 

No 

(2)












others 





conferences 



Children 



Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

100.0% 2 98.8% 93 

100.0% 2 97.5% 93 

100.0% 2 2 89.5% 92 

100.0% 2 2 90.6% 86 

62.7% 2 81.0% 87 

100.0% 2 2 93.3% 93 

100.0% 2 2 81.9% 93 

.0% 2 28.9% 1 88 

62.7% 2 69.3% 87 

.0% 2 21.8% 1 93 

62.7% 2 80.8% 91 

62.7% 2 71.3% 90 

.0% 2 11.0% 1 92 

No 

(2)

























Children 


Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

100.0% 2 2 23.5% 65 

100.0% 2 2 88.7% 91 

100.0% 2 99.3% 91 

100.0% 2 2 57.7% 82 

100.0% 2 2 83.8% 93 

No 

(2) 

58.2% 81 

62.6% 64 

100.0% 2 2 73.9% 77 

100.0% 2 2 62.1% 15 

100.0% 2 2 87.1% 81 

62.7% 2 68.3% 90 

62.7% 2 38.2% 47 

100.0% 2 2 55.7% 78 

39.1% 47 

36.3% 40 

100.0% 2 2 83.2% 57




















computing? 












Children 



Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

100.0% 2 2 65.8% 91 

37.3% 2 67.8% 91 

37.3% 2 46.9% 91 

100.0% 2 2 67.6% 91 

100.0% 2 2 61.3% 93 

.0% 2 10.7% 1 91 

.0% 2 6.5% 1 91 

62.7% 2 24.8% 90 

100.0% 2 2 78.0% 93 

Yes 

(1) 

Children 

% N % N 

37.3% 2 47.4% 93 

.0% 2 23.9% 1 93 

62.7% 2 65.6% 86 

62.7% 2 22.2% 85 

100.0% 1 93.4% 29 

37.3% 2 15.3% 92 

.0% 1 43.6% 14 

No 

(2) 

No 

(2)




school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

Children 


Yes 

(1) 

% N % N 

.0% 1 9.0% 1 60 

100.0% 2 1 28.7% 60 

.0% 1 6.4% 1 60 

100.0% 2 1 10.8% 60 

.0% 1 5.2% 59 

100.0% 2 1 16.2% 60 

100.0% 2 1 22.6% 60 

100.0% 2 1 31.2% 60 

100.0% 2 1 11.3% 60 

.0% 1 56.5% 1 60 

100.0% 2 1 17.8% 60 

.0% 1 3.1% 60 

100.0% 2 1 6.4% 60 

.0% 1 5.0% 59 

.0% 1 45.8% 1 60 

.0%* 1 .0%* 60 

.0% 1 18.7% 1 60 

.0% 1 39.5% 1 60 

37.3% 2 34.3% 93 

No 

(2)


DISABILITY 











a while 


program 




computing 




No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 


Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.24 80 3.40 13 

2.19 80 1.84 12 

2.48 81 2.62 13 

2.69 79 2.39 13 

3.60 74 3.18 13 

3.12 76 2.83 13 

2.52 77 2.27 12 

2.99 76 2.78 12 

2.95 77 2.71 12 

3.70 80 3.30 13 










experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 

Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.06 80 2.63 13 

3.01 80 2.69 13 

2.92 80 3.14 13 

3.12 80 3.44 13 

2.80 80 3.05 13 

2.98 80 3.00 13 

3.08 79 2.81 13 

3.01 80 2.72 13 

2.30 80 2.14 13 

2.87 79 2.77 13 

3.05 81 3.16 13 

3.36 79 3.11 13 

2.92 60 2.93 10 

3.24 78 3.60 13 

3.18 72 3.27 12 

2.77 69 2.57 13 

2.02 57 2.02 12 

3.22 71 3.20 13 



about computing Disability 

No Disability 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.45 81 3.35 13 

3.57 1 81 2.83 13 

3.51 81 3.03 13 

3.31 81 3.03 13 

3.48 81 3.39 13 

3.25 81 3.00 13 

3.04 81 2.84 13 

3.18 81 3.17 13 

3.28 1 81 2.56 13 

3.02 81 2.69 13 

2.66 1 81 1.70 13 

2.81 1 81 1.99 13 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 

Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.41 80 3.09 13 

3.48 80 3.62 13 

4.19 80 3.88 12 

4.31 75 3.95 11 

2.92 80 2.66 13 

3.24 80 3.47 12 

2.91 79 2.97 10 

3.63 80 3.71 13 

3.59 79 3.74 13 

3.98 79 3.98 13 

3.93 80 3.45 13 

3.55 73 3.33 12 

3.93 79 4.06 13 

















aspire 


research 










No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 


Disability 

(2) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.11 1 80 2.38 13 

3.09 80 3.17 13 

3.45 80 3.75 13 

2.81 80 2.75 13 

2.91 80 3.35 13 

3.16 77 2.95 13 

3.61 80 3.74 13 

2.62 80 2.41 13 

2.44 77 2.51 13 

3.08 80 3.39 12 

2.54 77 2.92 13 

2.82 78 3.10 13 

2.83 77 2.55 13 














others 





conferences 



No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 

Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

98.6% 81 100.0% 13 

97.1% 80 100.0% 13 

90.7% 80 82.8% 13 

89.2% 75 100.0% 0 12 

78.9% 76 90.2% 12 

93.6% 80 91.8% 13 

82.7% 80 82.8% 13 

28.6% 77 27.8% 12 

70.3% 76 60.6% 12 

18.4% 81 35.7% 13 

81.6% 79 72.7% 13 

71.2% 78 69.2% 13 

10.4% 80 13.8% 13 

























No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 


Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

21.0% 58 52.8% 8 

90.2% 80 79.8% 12 

99.2% 79 100.0% 13 

59.4% 72 50.8% 11 

81.3% 80 100.0% 0 13 

54.9% 71 80.3% 9 

63.7% 53 54.4% 10 

72.6% 67 84.3% 11 

67.7% 12 55.7% 4 

88.6% 72 77.6% 10 

72.7% 1 78 39.9% 13 

37.9% 43 40.4% 6 

58.1% 65 47.4% 13 

42.5% 39 24.9% 7 

36.3% 34 40.4% 6 

82.6% 49 88.4% 9 






















computing? 












No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 

Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

65.7% 79 69.2% 13 

66.7% 79 69.0% 13 

48.2% 79 35.7% 13 

66.3% 79 78.2% 13 

61.9% 81 60.8% 13 

10.0% 79 13.8% 13 

7.5% 1 79 .0% 13 

21.1% 78 52.6% 13 

81.0% 81 66.5% 13 

No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 

Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

45.9% 81 52.6% 13 

21.7% 81 30.8% 13 

64.5% 74 70.0% 13 

22.8% 73 25.4% 13 

93.1% 28 100.0% 1 

17.7% 1 80 .0% 13 

43.6% 14 




school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

No Disability 

(1) 

Disability 


Disability 

(2) 

% N % N 

6.2% 49 20.5% 11 

29.9% 49 30.3% 11 

5.3% 49 10.7% 11 

7.1% 49 36.2% 11 

4.9% 49 5.8% 11 

14.9% 49 30.3% 11 

18.9% 49 46.6% 11 

29.4% 49 46.0% 11 

10.1% 49 25.5% 11 

64.5% 1 49 15.7% 11 

16.8% 49 30.3% 11 

3.7% 49 .0% 11 

5.3% 49 20.5% 11 

1.3% 49 20.5% 11 

52.9% 1 49 9.8% 11 

.0%* 49 .0%* 11 

15.7% 49 30.3% 11 

43.2% 49 19.6% 11 

38.2% 1 81 8.2% 13 




US CITIZENSHIP 









(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 





3.24 62 3.44 11 3.69 4 3.45 13 


school 

2.14 62 2.06 11 2.31 4 2.15 12 




school after working for a while 2.66 61 2.71 10 3.10 4 4 2.26 13 




degree in computing 3.02 60 3.18 10 3.38 4 3.41 12 


computing 2.41 58 2.48 10 3.00 1 4 2.99 13 




computing, not in research 2.91 58 3.15 11 2.85 4 3.05 12 




3.66 62 3.63 11 4.00 1,2,4 4 3.56 13 







(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 




results 

3.01 3 62 2.73 11 1.83 4 3.47 1,2,3 b3br How much experience: Using 

13 


hypothesis 

3.06 62 2.89 11 2.29 4 3.15 13 





experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




3.18 62 3.12 11 3.15 4 3.42 13 

2.80 62 2.93 11 2.85 4 3.15 13 

2.97 62 3.05 11 2.57 4 3.42 3 13 

3.15 3 61 2.84 11 1.98 4 3.05 13 

2.98 61 3.01 11 2.29 4 3.14 13 

2.31 62 2.22 11 1.67 4 2.59 13 

2.79 61 3.08 10 2.57 4 3.09 13 


experience on: Your career choice 3.15 63 2.60 11 3.59 2 4 3.24 13 




school 

3.28 62 3.02 11 4.00 1,2 4 3.73 1 13 




Experience (continued) US Citizenship 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 





2.81 44 2.62 9 2.37 4 3.49 1,3 b4dr How important is research 

13 



chosen path 

3.30 62 2.81 11 3.85 1,2 4 3.51 13 



career choice 

3.04 55 3.57 1 10 3.74 1 c2br How important is non- 

4 3.37 12 




2.57 56 2.81 10 3.59 1 c2cr How important is non- 

4 3.11 12 




1.79 44 2.60 8 2.67 4 2.25 12 




3.04 55 3.70 1 10 4.00 1,4 4 3.27 12 




and Knowledge about computing US Citizenship 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



a research project in computing 3.38 63 3.73 11 3.69 4 3.64 13 


to graduate school in computing 3.38 63 3.83 1 11 3.85 1 4 3.60 13 


graduate degree in computing 3.38 63 3.83 1 11 3.85 1 4 3.60 13 


















engineer 










3.19 3 63 3.23 11 2.57 4 3.41 3 13 

2.99 63 2.88 11 2.57 4 3.32 3 13 

3.33 3,4 63 3.22 11 2.57 4 2.82 13 

3.19 63 3.55 11 2.72 4 3.05 13 

3.00 63 2.88 11 2.57 4 3.18 13 

2.52 63 2.78 3 11 1.72 4 2.86 3 13 

2.72 63 2.56 11 1.83 4 3.13 3 13 


















advisor 
















want to do 




I want 








(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.22 62 3.49 11 3.57 4 4.13 1 13 

3.41 62 3.64 10 3.57 4 3.81 13 

4.23 61 3.97 10 3.57 4 4.28 13 

4.26 57 4.19 10 3.82 4 4.37 3 13 

2.79 62 2.46 11 3.94 1,2 4 3.72 1,2 13 

3.28 61 3.35 11 3.51 4 3.54 13 

2.94 61 2.58 10 3.76 4 3.26 12 

3.65 61 3.38 11 4.38 4 4.00 13 

3.61 61 3.38 11 4.38 4 3.82 13 

3.90 61 3.91 11 4.54 4 4.51 1 13 



(continued) 















teamwork 






social impact 




leadership 















(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.75 62 3.95 11 4.54 4 4.37 1 13 

3.27 56 3.73 11 4.82 1,2 4 4.10 1 13 

3.77 62 3.84 11 4.85 1,2 4 4.64 1 13 

3.06 62 3.07 11 2.55 4 3.01 13 

3.07 62 3.22 11 2.83 4 3.51 1 13 

3.48 61 3.55 11 3.54 4 3.55 13 

2.63 62 3.11 11 4.00 1,2,4 4 3.23 1 13 

2.77 62 3.27 1 11 3.85 1,2 4 3.48 1 13 

3.09 61 3.18 11 3.85 1,2 4 3.19 13 

3.68 62 3.67 11 4.00 1,2,4 4 3.45 13 




(continued) US Citizenship 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



future career: To do research 2.55 61 2.52 11 2.67 4 3.19 1 13 


future career: To teach 2.46 60 2.10 10 2.09 4 2.60 13 



time 



occupation 







3.13 61 3.06 11 3.54 4 3.05 13 

2.41 61 2.69 11 3.41 1 4 3.23 1 13 

2.71 61 2.96 11 3.54 4 3.31 13 

2.74 61 2.77 11 3.26 4 4 2.60 11 







(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


advising 100.0%** 63 89.8% 11 100.0%** 4 100.0%** 13 


my degree 98.1% 62 89.8% 11 100.0% 4 100.0% 13 


advice 94.4% 63 88.6% 10 100.0% 4 77.5% 13 


about my research 93.0% 57 89.8% 11 100.0% 1 4 76.3% 13 



students 




my degree 

86.8% 58 78.7% 11 100.0% 1,4 4 56.9% 13 

98.4% 62 78.7% 11 100.0% 4 86.4% 13 

84.3% 63 65.6% 10 58.6% 4 95.1% 13 


students over others 30.9% 4 58 44.5% 4 11 15.5% 4 8.2% 13 


research 74.8% 4 58 88.6% 4 10 49.0% 4 40.5% 13 




professional conferences 91.1% 60 61.6% 11 41.4% 4 67.9% 13 


contacts 75.6% 3 59 72.7% 3 11 15.5% 4 72.6% 3 13 


in my abilities 13.5% 2,3 62 .0%* 10 .0%* 4 13.1% 13 




(continued) 






(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

21.2% 2 43 .0% 5 26.4% 2 45.9% 2 13 

95.2% 62 88.9% 11 56.9% 4 80.6% 13 


student groups 99.0% 63 100.0%* 10 100.0%* 4 100.0% 13 







60.5% 54 93.9% 1,3,4 11 25.9% 4 35.5% 12 

83.8% 62 100.0% 1* 11 100.0% 1* 4 76.6% 13 


honor societies 59.2% 54 92.7% 1,3,4 9 25.9% 4 48.0% 10 


groups 68.6% 41 80.0% 6 41.4% 4 44.6% 11 


minority computer scientists/engineers 76.1% 50 100.0% 1*4 8 100.0% 1*4 4 45.9% 13 



57.0% 9 100.0% 1 70.4% 6 

84.3% 59 88.6% 10 100.0% 1* 2 100.0% 1* 10 


student groups 68.6% 3 62 88.2% 3 10 15.5% 4 78.2% 3 13 







34.4% 3 32 54.8% 3 10 .0% 1 57.2% 3 4 

59.7% 52 49.6% 11 30.9% 4 70.6% 10 




(continued) 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


honor societies 35.0% 3 32 36.8% 3 8 .0% 1 86.9% 1,2,3 5 


groups 35.6% 3 28 27.2% 5 .0% 2 62.0% 3 5 


or minority computer scientists/engineers 85.6% 38 61.2% 8 74.1% 4 100.0% 1,2 6 


Experience 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 




study that included computing research 62.6% 61 51.4% 11 100.0% 1,2 4 81.3% 13 




47.1% 61 50.5% 11 41.4% 4 50.0% 13 


computing research at my university 70.9% 61 62.5% 11 84.5% 4 59.7% 13 


computing research at another university 60.0% 63 39.4% 11 58.6% 4 95.1% 1,2 13 



industry lab 

9.1% 3 61 28.2% 11 .0% 4 8.9% 13 


computing research 4.7% 61 28.2% 11 .0% 4 .0% 13 


research 20.9% 61 22.6% 10 43.1% 4 38.0% 13 


work that involved computing? 75.9% 63 82.9% 11 100.0% 1 4 81.5% 13 







(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school in computing? 41.9% 63 38.4% 11 58.6% 4 81.5% 1,2 13 



computing? 

21.1% 63 16.2% 11 74.1% 1,2 4 31.5% 13 




other than computing in Fall 2010? 24.6% 2 60 .0% 8 15.5% 4 15.8% 12 









applied for? 

89.3% 18 100.0%* 4 100.0% 1 100.0%* 6 

12.6% 3 62 49.5% 1,3,4 11 .0% 4 4.9% 13 

66.3% 2 8 .0% 5 .0% 1 





(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: I do not like school 10.2% 2,3,4 41 .0%* 7 .0%* 4 .0% 5 




23.9% 4 41 49.9% 4 h1cd Reason not apply to graduate 

7 49.0% 4 .0% 5 



7.6% 41 .0%* 7 18.3% 4 .0%* 5 




(continued) 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: My grades are too low 14.0% 2,4 41 .0% 7 18.3% 4 .0% 5 


school: My GRE scores are too low 4.8% 41 .0%* 7 30.7% 4 .0%* 5 


school: I haven't taken the right courses 23.3% 2,3,4 41 .0%* 7 .0% 4 4 .0%* 5 






school 







19.0% 41 16.6% 7 18.3% 4 54.9% 5 

30.4% 41 33.3% 7 30.7% 4 11.9% 5 

18.9% 2,3,4 41 .0%* 7 .0% 4 4 .0%* 5 

56.6% 41 75.7% 7 30.7% 4 33.7% 5 




school: No one has encouraged me to go .0%*** 41 .0%*** 7 .0%*** 4 .0%*** 5 










11.8% 2,3,4 41 .0%* 7 .0% 4 .0%* 5 

7.2% 41 .0%* 7 .0% 4 .0%* 5 

51.3% 41 51.5% 7 30.7% 4 21.8% 5 


school: I plan to join the Armed Forces .0%*** 41 .0%*** 7 .0%*** 4 .0%*** 5 




(continued) 



own family 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

24.2% 2,3,4 41 .0% 7 .0% 2 4 .0% 5 


school: I already have a job 35.2% 41 59.0% 7 49.0% 4 33.7% 5 


school in Fall 2010? 31.1% 63 33.4% 11 15.5% 4 59.0% 13 



ACADEMIC MAJOR 





Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience 



school 






immediately 









computing 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.22 44 3.36 8 

4.00 1,4,5, 

6 

1 3.27 6 3.34 19 3.23 15 

2.05 45 1.91 6 1.50 1 2.34 6 2.06 19 2.57 3 15 

2.49 3 45 

3.50 1,3,6 

8 1.50 1 2.34 6 2.74 3 19 1.92 15 

2.31 2 44 1.83 7 3.50 1,2 1 2.88 2 6 2.87 2 19 3.45 1,2 15 

3.49 41 3.18 8 3.50 1 3.84 6 3.49 18 3.79 14 

3.06 43 2.73 8 3.50 1 3.27 6 3.24 16 2.99 15 


PhD in computing 2.53 42 2.73 8 3.00 1 2.27 6 2.53 17 2.31 15 






research 



in your home 

department? 

3.03 42 2.73 5 3.00 1 3.34 6 3.04 18 2.66 15 

3.12 2 41 1.54 6 3.50 2 1 3.37 2 6 2.86 2 19 2.72 2 15 

3.68 45 3.18 8 4.00 1 3.67 6 3.78 2 19 3.58 15




b3ar How much 

experience: 



b3br How much 



a hypothesis 

b3cr How much 


hypotheses 

b3dr How much 



experiments 

b3er How much 



other tools 

b3fr How much 




b3gr How much 




b3hr How much 



b3ir How much 



Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.01 45 3.18 7 3.50 1 3.17 6 2.76 19 3.05 15 

3.03 45 3.04 7 2.50 1 3.32 3 6 2.86 19 2.76 15 

2.99 45 3.01 7 3.00 1 3.08 6 2.92 19 2.73 15 

3.19 45 3.42 3 7 3.00 1 

3.73 1,3,5, 

6 

6 3.15 19 2.84 15 

2.89 45 3.27 7 3.00 1 3.07 6 2.63 19 2.57 15 

3.08 45 3.35 7 3.00 1 

3.63 1,3,5, 

6 

6 2.76 19 2.54 15 

2.99 44 3.32 7 3.50 1 3.14 6 2.87 19 3.18 15 

2.93 45 3.15 7 3.50 1 3.10 6 2.86 18 3.03 15 

2.39 4 45 2.59 7 

3.50 1,4,5, 

6 

1 1.84 6 2.07 19 2.15 15



(continued) 

b3jr How much 



community 












school 





chosen path 




career choice 






school 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.99 45 3.26 4,5 7 3.00 5 1 2.74 6 2.43 17 2.78 15 

3.20 45 3.11 8 2.50 1 3.05 6 3.29 19 2.44 15 

3.45 45 3.35 8 2.50 1 3.56 6 3.36 19 2.87 14 

3.01 33 3.45 7 2.00 1 2.50 5 2.90 16 2.51 8 

3.38 45 3.68 6 8 3.00 1 3.58 5 3.22 19 2.84 14 

3.28 41 3.39 8 2.00 1 3.47 6 3.10 13 2.86 15 

2.87 6 42 2.88 8 2.00 1 3.10 6 6 2.70 14 2.11 13




(continued) 




school 





path 









in computing 



in computing 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.08 6 35 2.43 6 8 2.00 1 2.18 5 1.89 11 1.42 9 

3.30 42 3.24 8 2.00 1 3.34 5 3.24 14 2.99 15 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.55 45 3.24 8 3.50 1 3.49 6 3.31 19 3.35 15 

3.58 45 2.89 8 3.50 1 3.69 6 3.55 19 3.23 15 

3.52 45 3.03 8 3.50 1 3.84 2 6 3.37 19 3.37 15











d2ar How 




research 

d2br How 






d2cr How 




social issues 

d2dr How 





engineer 

d2er How 




programs 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.41 45 3.00 8 3.50 1 3.30 6 2.99 19 3.30 15 

3.68 45 3.03 8 3.50 1 3.49 6 3.41 19 3.16 15 

3.24 45 3.24 8 3.50 1 3.74 1,5 6 2.89 19 3.28 15 

3.09 45 3.01 8 3.00 1 3.00 6 2.76 19 3.09 15 

3.19 45 3.01 8 3.50 1 3.27 6 3.05 19 3.36 15 

3.32 2,3 45 2.10 8 3.00 2 1 3.39 2,3 6 3.06 2 19 3.37 2 15 

3.11 45 2.64 8 2.50 1 3.44 2,3 6 2.84 19 2.74 15












school for me 
















Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.62 45 2.36 8 2.50 1 2.66 6 2.45 19 2.40 15 

2.82 45 2.32 8 3.00 1 3.18 6 2.45 19 2.57 15 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.61 6 45 3.63 7 4.00 1 3.14 6 3.13 19 2.85 15 

3.49 45 3.83 7 3.50 1 3.47 6 3.61 19 3.23 15 

4.31 45 4.41 6 4.00 1 4.22 6 3.93 19 3.88 15


(continued) 





advisor 




















I want to do 











Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


4.51 41 4.54 5 4.00 1 4.01 6 3.98 19 3.96 14 

3.14 6 45 2.91 7 2.50 1 2.64 6 3.10 6 19 2.06 15 

3.51 6 45 3.36 7 3.50 6 1 3.36 6 6 3.33 6 17 2.49 15 

3.08 6 45 2.67 5 2.00 1 2.91 6 3.38 6 17 2.16 15 

3.65 3 45 3.79 7 3.00 1 3.56 6 4.13 3,6 18 3.15 15 

3.55 3 45 3.81 3 7 2.50 1 3.81 3 6 3.97 3 19 3.33 15 

4.02 45 3.65 7 3.50 1 

4.53 2,3,6 

5 4.25 19 3.60 15



(continued) 



















teamwork 












leadership 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


4.03 45 3.40 7 3.50 1 3.25 6 4.21 19 3.54 15 

3.49 3 43 3.36 5 3.00 1 4.10 3,6 6 3.77 3 16 3.21 14 

3.88 45 4.45 7 4.00 1 4.27 6 3.82 19 3.97 14 

3.15 6 45 2.55 7 3.50 6 1 

3.66 1,2,5 

,6 

6 2.89 19 2.67 15 

3.26 6 45 3.35 6 7 3.50 6 1 3.66 6 6 2.85 19 2.58 15 

3.45 45 3.66 7 

4.00 1,4,5 

,6 

1 3.12 6 3.70 19 3.44 15 

2.70 3 45 2.88 3 7 2.00 1 3.08 3 6 2.93 3 19 2.93 3 15


(continued) 
















research 



teach 










work on 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.05 45 3.35 7 

2.99 44 2.62 7 

4.00 1,2,4 

,5,6 

4.00 1,2,5 

,6 

1 3.05 6 2.72 19 2.79 15 

1 3.51 2 6 

3.61 1,2,6 

19 2.96 14 

3.66 45 3.85 7 4.00 1,4 1 3.24 6 3.70 19 3.52 15 

2.58 45 2.89 7 2.50 1 2.61 6 2.64 18 2.50 15 

2.49 3 44 2.27 3 7 1.00 1 2.18 3 5 2.52 3 18 2.58 3 15 

3.18 4 45 

3.66 1,4,5 

7 3.50 4 1 2.47 6 2.97 19 3.15 14 

2.70 45 2.61 7 3.00 1,5 1 2.30 6 2.23 17 2.88 14 

2.81 45 3.53 1,3 7 2.50 1 2.60 6 2.76 18 3.04 14 

2.85 44 2.85 7 3.50 5 1 2.46 6 2.46 17 3.06 15


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience 



advising 



degree 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

100.0% 

**** 

100.0% 

**** 

45 

45 

100.0% 

**** 

100.0% 

**** 


useful career advice 92.1% 44 86.0% 8 



research 

a2ed Faculty 




90.9% 40 

83.9% 42 

100.0% 

** 

100.0% 

1*4 


me as a person 93.3% 45 86.0% 8 








85.6% 45 75.6% 7 

30.5% 3, 

4 

45 

44.7% 3, 

4 


me to publish research 71.3% 42 74.6% 7 





8 

8 

7 

7 

100.0% 

**** 

100.0% 

**** 

100.0% 

1 

100.0% 

** 

100.0% 

1*4 

100.0% 

* 

100.0% 

1,6 

1 

1 

100.0% 

**** 

100.0% 

**** 

6 

6 

100.0% 

**** 

100.0% 

**** 

19 92.9% 15 

19 85.2% 15 

1 65.9% 6 90.2% 19 92.9% 15 

1 65.9% 6 

100.0% 

** 

17 85.9% 15 

1 48.9% 6 78.3% 17 77.0% 15 

1 84.5% 6 

100.0% 

* 

19 92.9% 15 

1 74.4% 6 93.6% 6 19 63.3% 15 

8 .0%* 1 .0%* 6 

100.0% 

1,4,5,6 

24.4% 3, 

4 

17 

33.2% 3, 

4 

1 55.8% 6 73.4% 19 57.2% 14 

18.7% 45 22.4% 8 50.0% 1 27.1% 6 25.6% 19 19.0% 15 

12

Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 




conferences 



contacts 

a2md Faculty 

undermines my 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

83.9% 45 60.0% 8 

77.1% 42 77.6% 8 

100.0% 

1,2*6 

100.0% 

1,4,5,6 

1 

100.0% 

1,2*6 

6 80.4% 19 69.9% 14 

1 48.9% 6 74.0% 19 55.1% 15 

15.9% 3 45 9.1% 7 .0% 1 17.0% 6 3.5% 19 4.2% 15 


lunches 19.7% 3 29 57.2% 3 4 .0% 1 


lectures 87.9% 44 90.3% 7 







minority 





women 




societies 

100.0% 

** 

45 90.9% 7 

100.0% 

1* 

100.0% 

* 

1 

1 

84.3% 1, 

3,5,6 

100.0% 

1* 

100.0% 

* 

4 20.2% 14 17.6% 13 

6 90.2% 19 84.0% 15 

6 100.0% 19 100.0% 14 

62.4% 39 35.7% 7 50.0% 1 81.0% 5 52.6% 17 58.8% 15 

85.6% 45 

62.9% 5 39 

100.0% 

1* 

89.1% 1, 

5 

8 50.0% 1 

6 

100.0% 

1*5,6 

1 

100.0% 

1* 

100.0% 

1*5,6 

6 80.4% 19 72.3% 15 

4 20.7% 17 60.2% 5 14 


computing-related groups 64.1% 33 62.7% 5 100.0% 1 78.7% 5 41.4% 15 89.0% 6


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 






Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

70.5% 38 80.2% 6 

100.0% 

1 


Brown-bag lunches 68.1% 6 26.4% 2 71.4% 4 


Visiting lectures 88.1% 3 39 82.0% 3 6 .0% 1 







minority 





women 




societies 



groups 





62.3% 2, 

3 

45 20.0% 7 .0% 1 

1 81.3% 5 71.8% 15 81.2% 13 

100.0% 

1,3* 

67.5% 2, 

3 

6 

6 

100.0% 

2 

100.0% 

1,3* 

80.8% 2, 

3 

3 52.2% 2 

17 74.0% 3 13 

19 

100.0% 

1,2,3 

44.1% 4 24 54.4% 2 .0% 1 43.5% 4 33.1% 9 27.4% 9 

59.8% 2, 

4 

45.5% 2, 

3,5 

38 25.0% 8 .0% 1 30.4% 6 63.1% 4 15 

25 12.2% 5 .0%* 1 

84.6% 1, 

2,3,5,6 

4 .0%* 3 

77.7% 2, 

4,5 

36.8% 3, 

5 

39.6% 4 21 22.2% 3 .0% 1 32.3% 4 69.5% 4 6 .0% 5 

73.9% 27 85.3% 4 50.0% 1 

100.0% 

1 

4 

100.0% 

1 

14 

11 

11 88.9% 11 

8









research 





researcher 




my university 




university 





lab 



research 



research 



work that 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

65.6% 45 84.7% 8 

62.7% 45 

100.0% 

1*4,5,6 

8 

100.0% 

1,5,6 

100.0% 

1*4,5,6 

1 71.3% 6 67.3% 17 54.3% 15 

1 52.8% 6 75.9% 17 58.0% 15 

53.1% 5 45 48.3% 8 50.0% 1 64.5% 6 25.9% 17 42.0% 15 

66.1% 45 60.0% 8 

100.0% 

1,2,6 

1 84.5% 6 78.7% 17 57.7% 15 

49.4% 45 86.0% 1 8 50.0% 1 61.2% 6 83.6% 1 19 62.0% 15 

13.4% 3, 

4 

9.1% 3,5, 

6 

45 16.7% 8 .0%* 1 .0%* 6 7.1% 17 7.7% 15 

45 8.3% 8 .0%** 1 17.0% 6 .0%** 17 .0%** 15 

9.7% 3 45 37.3% 8 .0% 1 18.6% 6 

56.8% 1, 

3 

17 37.0% 3 15 

83.7% 3 45 72.0% 3 8 .0% 1 74.4% 3 6 73.4% 3 19 80.5% 3 15





in computing? 




computing? 



2010? 




2010? 









institution? 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

46.4% 3 45 69.3% 3 8 .0% 1 61.2% 3 6 45.4% 3 19 38.5% 3 15 

17.9% 3 45 30.7% 8 .0% 1 27.1% 6 35.4% 3 19 22.5% 15 

72.0% 2 44 9.1% 7 50.0% 1 79.1% 2 5 60.0% 2 17 77.9% 2 14 

14.7% 4 42 26.8% 7 50.0% 1 .0% 5 32.1% 4 17 40.7% 4 15 

90.1% 20 100.0% 3 

19.1% 3, 

6 

57.2% 4, 

5 

100.0% 

** 

3 

100.0% 

** 

3 

100.0% 

2** 

45 23.6% 8 .0%* 1 28.7% 6 13.8% 17 .0%* 15 

9 64.7% 2 .0%* 2 .0%* 2 

2


school 








want 





important 
























Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Major 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

15.9% 3, 

4,5,6 

39.1% 3, 

5 

14.3% 2, 

3,4,5,6 

27 37.6% 3 .0%* 1 .0%* 4 .0% 11 .0% 15 

27 37.6% 3 .0% 1 52.8% 3 4 9.7% 11 24.7% 15 

27 .0% 3 .0%** 1 .0% 4 .0%** 11 .0%** 15 

11.8% 3 27 37.6% 3 .0% 1 28.6% 4 9.7% 11 8.1% 15 

9.2% 26 .0%*** 3 .0%*** 1 18.6% 4 .0%*** 11 .0%*** 15 

18.3% 3, 

4 

27 37.6% 3 .0%* 1 .0%* 4 31.5% 11 8.1% 15 

21.7% 3 27 62.4% 3 .0% 1 28.6% 4 25.8% 11 20.3% 15 

31.1% 3 27 37.6% 3 .0% 1 52.8% 3 4 25.8% 11 37.0% 3 15 

18.4% 2, 

3,4 

27 .0%** 3 .0%** 1 .0%** 4 9.7% 11 12.3% 15


































have a job 



2010? 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Major 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

65.0% 2, 

3 

27 .0% 3 .0% 1 

52.8% 2, 

3 

4 32.2% 11 

72.8% 2, 

3 

24.1% 3 27 37.6% 3 .0% 1 52.8% 3 4 9.7% 11 8.1% 15 

.0%**** 27 .0%**** 3 .0%**** 1 .0%**** 4 .0%**** 11 12.3% 15 

14.3% 2, 

3,4,6 

27 .0%** 3 .0%** 1 .0%** 4 9.7% 11 .0% 15 

11.3% 26 .0%*** 3 .0% 4,5 1 .0%*** 4 .0%*** 11 .0%* 3** 15 

59.2% 2, 

3,4 

.0%**** 

* 

33.5% 3, 

4,5,6 

27 .0%** 3 .0%** 1 .0%** 4 32.2% 11 

27 

.0%**** 

* 

3 

.0%**** 

* 

1 

.0%**** 

* 

4 

.0%**** 

* 

11 

52.4% 2, 

3,4 

.0%**** 

* 

27 37.6% 3 .0%** 1 .0%* 4 .0%* 11 7.4% 15 

49.8% 5 27 37.6% 3 50.0% 1 71.4% 5 4 .0% 11 40.2% 5 15 

41.1% 3, 

6 

45 40.3% 3 8 .0% 1 

45.7% 3, 

6 

6 

39.1% 3, 

6 

15 

15 

15 

19 4.2% 15


ACADEMIC MINOR 





Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience 



school 






immediately 









computing 


PhD in computing 






research 



in your home 

department? 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.64 5 2.57 2 4.00 5,6 1 4.00 5,6 5 3.04 19 2.97 18 

2.22 2 5 1.00* 2 2.00* 1 1.73 5 2.29 2 17 2.48 2 20 

3.64 3,5,6 

5 2.57 2 1.00 1 

1.67 5 2.00 2 

3.00 1,2,4 

3.60 5 2.57 2 3.00 1 

3.34 5 2.57 2 3.00 1 

3.34 2,3,5, 

6 

5 1.52 2 2.00 1 

3.43 2,5 5 1.52 2 3.00 2 1 

2.64 5 2.57 2 

4.00 1,4,6 

3.54 3,5,6 

5 2.03 3 19 1.98 3 20 

1 1.69 5 2.93 1,2 17 2.96 1,2 20 

4.00 3,5,6 

3.86 3,5,6 

3.64 2,3,5, 

6 

3.64 2,3,5, 

6 

5 3.45 3 17 3.50 3 17 

5 2.94 17 2.99 20 

5 2.07 17 1.98 19 

5 2.68 2 16 2.83 2 18 

1 2.36 5 3.37 17 2.95 18 

3.68 5 3.04 2 4.00 5,6 1 4.00 5,6 5 3.40 19 3.79 19




b3ar How much 

experience: 



b3br How much 



a hypothesis 

b3cr How much 


hypotheses 

b3dr How much 



experiments 

b3er How much 



other tools 

b3fr How much 




b3gr How much 




b3hr How much 



b3ir How much 



Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.64 2,3,5, 

6 

5 3.00* 2 2.00* 1 

2.80 5 2.52 2 3.00 6 1 

3.64 2,3,5, 

6 

3.64 1,2,3, 

6 

5 2.78 3 19 3.03 3 20 

5 3.08 6 19 2.53 20 

3.00 5 3.04 2 3.00 1 3.50 6 5 2.82 19 2.65 20 

2.80 5 3.52 6 2 3.00 1 

3.77 1,3,6 

5 3.29 6 19 2.64 20 

2.32 5 2.52 2 3.00 1,6 1 3.25 1,6 5 2.81 19 2.41 20 

2.80 5 3.52 6 2 3.00 6 1 

3.18 5 

3.00 5 

4.00 1,3,5, 

6 

4.00 1*4,5, 

6 

2 3.00 1 

2 3.00* 1 

2.82 2,3 5 2.00* 2 1.00* 1 

3.64 1,3,6 

3.64 3,5,6 

3.50 3,5,6 

3.50 2,3,5, 

6 

5 2.97 19 2.56 20 

5 2.99 18 2.99 20 

5 2.73 19 2.76 20 

5 2.22 3 19 2.15 3 20



(continued) 

b3jr How much 



community 












school 





chosen path 




career choice 






school 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.36 3 5 3.00* 5 2 2.00* 1 

3.50 6 5 2.57 2 

4.00 1,5,6 

3.56 3 5 2.57 2 3.00* 1 

3.50 2,3,5, 

6 

5 2.57 3 19 2.65 3 20 

1 3.77 5,6 5 2.94 19 2.53 20 

4.00* 5,6 

5 3.36 19 3.01 18 

3.68 5,6 5 4.00 5,6 1 4.00 5,6 1 3.27 5 2.49 15 2.57 11 

3.50 5 

2.91 5 

4.00 1**5, 

6 

4.00 1*4,5, 

6 

2 

2 

4.00 1**5, 

6 

4.00 1*4,5, 

6 

1 

4.00 1**5, 

6 

5 3.13 19 3.00 18 

1 3.25 5 3.52 6 16 2.73 18 

2.68 5 2.52 2 3.00 1 2.75 5 2.93 16 2.46 16




(continued) 




school 





path 









in computing 



in computing 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


2.27 5 2.04 2 

2.89 5 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

4.00 1*5,6 

2 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

4.00 1,2,4 

,5,6 

4.00 1*5,6 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

1 2.48 5 1.85 13 1.47 12 

1 3.48 5 3.56 6 16 3.02 18 

Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.68 3 5 3.04 2 3.00 1 

3.68 5 3.04 2 

3.68 5 3.04 2 

4.00* 5,6 

4.00* 5,6 

1 

1 

4.00 3,5,6 

4.00* 5,6 

4.00* 5,6 

5 3.31 19 3.06 20 

5 3.12 19 3.60 20 

5 3.12 19 3.38 20











d2ar How 




research 

d2br How 






d2cr How 




social issues 

d2dr How 





engineer 

d2er How 




programs 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.68 5 5 3.52 2 4.00 5,6 1 4.00 5,6 5 2.90 19 3.06 20 

3.68 5 3.52 2 4.00 5,6 1 4.00 5,6 5 3.18 19 3.41 20 

3.38 5 

4.00 1*5,6 

3.06 5 3.52 2 3.00 1 

2 3.00* 1 3.64 3 5 3.13 19 3.02 20 

3.64 3,5,6 

5 3.06 19 2.81 20 

3.08 5 3.04 2 3.00 1 3.52 3 5 3.47 3,6 19 3.06 20 

3.08 5 3.52 2 3.00 1 3.39 5 3.22 19 3.24 20 

3.44 2 5 2.52 2 

4.00 1,2,4, 

5,6 

1 3.50 2,6 5 2.84 19 2.83 20





(continued) 








school for me 
















Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.33 3,6 5 2.04 2 1.00 1 2.88 3 5 2.54 3 19 2.38 3 20 

3.33 3,5 5 3.04 2 2.00 1 3.25 3,5 5 2.41 19 2.61 20 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 

Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


4.44 2,5,6 

4.14 2,5,6 

5 1.52 2 

5 3.00* 2 

4.68 5,6 5 4.52 2 

5.00 1,2,4 

,5,6 

5.00 1*4,5 

,6 

5.00 4,5,6 

1 

4.25 2,5,6 

5 3.06 2 19 2.90 2 20 

1 3.59 5 3.37 19 3.13 20 

1 4.52 5 4.07 19 3.98 20


(continued) 





advisor 




















I want to do 











Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


4.64 5 5.00 5,6 2 4.77 5 5 4.13 19 4.32 17 

3.66 2 5 1.00* 2 

4.08 5,6 5 3.09 2 

5.00 1*4,5 

,6 

5.00 1,4,5, 

6 

1 3.59 2 5 2.82 2 19 2.85 2 20 

1 3.88 5 3.16 19 3.07 20 

4.14 5,6 5 3.09 2 4.00 5,6 1 4.21 5 5 2.24 17 3.03 5 20 

4.68 2,3,5, 

6 

4.68 3,5,6 

4.68 3,5,6 

5 1.52 2 4.00 2,5 1 

5 2.57 2 4.00 5,6 1 

5 3.57 2 4.00* 6 1 

4.73 2,3,5, 

6 

4.73 3,5,6 

5.00* 5,6 

5 2.91 2 19 3.42 2 20 

5 2.97 18 3.36 20 

5 3.59 19 3.34 19



(continued) 



















teamwork 












leadership 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


4.68 3,5,6 

5 3.57 2 4.00 1 

3.44 5 3.52 2 3.00 1 

4.21 3 5 4.04 2 3.00 1 

3.36 5 2.57 2 

4.00 1,5,6 

3.04 5 3.00** 2 3.00** 1 

3.50 3 5 3.52 2 3.00* 1 

3.20 2,3 5 1.52 2 2.00 1 

5.00 3,5,6 

4.61 1,2,3 

,5,6 

4.86 3,5,6 

5 3.89 19 3.51 20 

5 3.17 15 3.09 17 

5 3.65 19 3.42 18 

1 3.50 5 3.19 19 3.11 20 

4.00 1**5, 

6 

4.00 1*5,6 

3.86 2,3,5 

,6 

5 3.39 6 19 2.58 20 

5 3.45 3 19 3.54 3 20 

5 2.49 2 19 2.59 2,3 20


(continued) 
















research 



teach 










work on 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 


3.32 5,6 5 2.96 2 3.00* 1 

3.30 4 3.04 2 

3.68 5 

3.08 2,3,5 

,6 

3.56 2,3,5 

,6 

4.00* 4,5, 

6 

2 

4.00 1,5,6 

4.00* 4,5, 

6 

5 1.52 2 2.00 1 

5 1.52 2 2.00 1 

1 

4.00 1*5,6 

4.00 1,5,6 

5 2.55 19 2.78 20 

5 3.06 19 2.79 18 

1 3.50 5 3.73 19 3.50 20 

3.73 2,3,5 

,6 

3.21 2,3,5 

5 2.19 19 2.34 20 

5 2.08 19 2.28 19 

3.68 3,6 5 2.96 2 3.00 1 3.25 5 3.08 19 2.84 20 

3.14 5 2.48 2 

3.00* 5,6 

3.26 2,3 5 2.00* 2 2.00* 1 

2.54 5 

4.00 1*4,5 

,6 

1 

4.00 1,2*5 

,6 

3.61 2,3,5 

,6 

5 2.34 19 2.41 18 

5 2.77 2,3 19 2.62 2,3 18 

2 3.00* 1 3.12 5 2.83 19 2.82 19


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience Minor 



advising 



degree 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

100.0% 

5 

100.0% 5 

5 100.0% 2 100.0% 1 100.0% 5 100.0% 19 

100.0% 

*** 


useful career advice 81.8% 5 52.2% 2 



research 

a2ed Faculty 





me as a person 








100.0% 

* 

100.0% 

** 5,6 

100.0% 

*** 

100.0% 

* 5 


me to publish research 69.9% 5 





5 

5 

100.0% 

* 

100.0% 

** 5,6 

2 

2 

2 

5 52.2% 2 

5 52.2% 2 

100.0% 

*** 

100.0% 

* 

100.0% 

*** 

100.0% 

* 5 


1 

1 

1 

100.0% 

*** 

100.0% 

* 

100.0% 

** 

100.0% 

** 5,6 

100.0% 

*** 

5 

100.0% 

*** 

100.0% 

1,4,5 

20 

19 93.9% 20 

5 87.1% 19 100.0% 20 

5 80.0% 17 89.4% 17 

5 70.9% 19 72.4% 17 

5 

100.0% 

*** 

19 90.7% 20 

1 63.5% 5 62.0% 19 93.9% 5 20 

31.8% 5 47.8% 2 .0% 1 38.6% 5 42.3% 3 19 25.5% 3 20 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

2 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

19.9% 5 .0%* 2 .0%* 1 27.2% 5 

5 63.2% 17 64.2% 19 

25.7% 2, 

3 

19 

17.8% 2, 

3 

20

Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 




conferences 



contacts 

a2md Faculty 

undermines my 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

100.0% 

5 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

5 

5 

100.0% 

* 5 

100.0% 

5,6 

2 

2 

100.0% 

* 5 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

1 86.4% 5 72.0% 19 81.3% 20 

1 77.1% 5 54.1% 18 68.0% 19 

19.9% 5 .0%** 2 .0%** 1 .0%** 5 11.8% 19 12.2% 20 


lunches 43.3% 5 26.1% 3 29.3% 14 16.9% 14 


lectures 81.8% 5 







minority 





women 




societies 

100.0% 

5 

53.4% 4 

81.8% 5 

56.7% 5 

100.0% 

*** 

1 

100.0% 

*** 

5 100.0% 2 100.0% 1 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

100.0% 

** 6 

100.0% 

5,6 


computing-related groups 61.5% 3 52.2% 2 

2 

2 

2 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

100.0% 

** 6 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

100.0% 

6 

1 

100.0% 

*** 

100.0% 

1,5,6 

5 

100.0% 

*** 

5 100.0% 19 

19 78.1% 20 

100.0% 

1,5 

1 86.4% 5 60.0% 16 54.3% 18 

1 

1 

100.0% 

** 6 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

18 

5 84.8% 19 65.5% 20 

5 55.9% 13 48.1% 19 

1 86.4% 5 67.0% 11 52.5% 12


Chapter 3: 

Undergraduate 

Experience (continued) Minor 






Brown-bag lunches 


Visiting lectures 







minority 





women 




societies 



groups 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

61.9% 5 52.2% 2 

100.0% 

* 6 

100.0% 

*** 6 

100.0% 

6 

1 86.4% 5 81.6% 16 67.9% 17 

2 100.0% 1 29.1% 4 50.0% 2 

4 

100.0% 

*** 6 

1 .0%*** 1 


100.0% 

*** 6 

5 82.3% 3 19 79.4% 3 15 

43.7% 3 5 52.2% 2 .0% 1 52.2% 3 5 73.0% 3 19 63.2% 3 18 

72.8% 2, 

3 

2 .0%* 2 .0%* 1 

48.7% 2 4 .0%* 2 

76.2% 2, 

3,4 

100.0% 

** 4,5,6 

80.8% 3 3 

100.0% 

1*4,5,6 

73.5% 2, 

3 

4 

34.9% 2, 

3 

10 

38.6% 2, 

3 

1 52.2% 2 5 32.6% 2 16 66.9% 2 13 

3 .0%* 2 .0%* 1 13.6% 5 38.3% 7 

2 .0%** 1 

100.0% 

* 4* 

100.0% 

** 4,5,6 

52.3% 2, 

3 

1 28.9% 4 32.2% 7 29.8% 6 

1 .0%** 1 44.7% 4 

100.0% 

** 4 

10 

13 78.8% 3 12 

9









research 





researcher 




my university 




university 





lab 



research 



research 



work that 


Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 



Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

50.0% 5 

68.2% 5 

100.0% 

1**5,6 

100.0% 

** 5,6 

76.2% 5 52.2% 2 

68.2% 3 5 

100.0% 

3,5,6 

51.7% 5 52.2% 2 

2 

2 

100.0% 

1*5,6 

100.0% 

** 5,6 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

1 

1 

1 

100.0% 

1*5,6 

100.0% 

** 5,6 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

5 72.7% 17 73.9% 20 

5 42.1% 17 74.5% 20 

5 42.1% 17 38.1% 20 

2 .0% 1 75.0% 3 5 63.0% 3 17 59.4% 3 20 

100.0% 

1,4,5,6 

.0%*** 5 52.2% 2 .0%*** 1 

1 13.6% 5 53.6% 4 19 71.2% 4 20 

63.5% 1, 

3,5,6 

5 .0%*** 17 .0%*** 20 

31.8% 5 .0%** 2 .0%** 1 25.0% 5 .0%** 17 5.6% 20 

11.9% 5 .0%** 2 .0%** 1 .0%** 5 

29.0% 2, 

3,4 

17 

22.0% 2, 

3,4 

76.2% 3 5 52.2% 2 .0% 1 61.4% 3 5 83.8% 3 19 86.7% 3 20 

20





in computing? 




computing? 



2010? 




2010? 









institution? 





Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


rical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 


major 

(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

32.1% 3 222 41.7% 3 39 6.9% 10 40.1% 3 29 41.1% 3 45 23.7% 49 

14.4% 3 221 24.6% 3 39 .0% 10 41.5% 3 29 

80.6% 2, 

4,5 

205 58.2% 36 

93.3% 2, 

4,5 

14.6% 189 17.3% 35 15.3% 9 21.6% 24 

51.1% 1, 

2,3 

45 

42.3% 1, 

3 

10 47.0% 26 53.5% 40 71.5% 39 

48.6% 1, 

2,3 

60.1% 4 67 77.8% 4 15 .0% 1 41.0% 5 19 46.1% 4 13 

49 

40 36.0% 35 

93.4% 1, 

4,5 

8.9% 3,6 218 8.1% 3 39 .0% 10 8.0% 29 8.1% 3 44 .9% 49 

47.8% 19 65.5% 5 3 19.3% 2 12.4% 4 100.0% 0 

11



school Minor 

Computer 

Computer 

Engineering/Elect Information 

rical and Systems or 


Computer Computer Information Other computing engineering non- Other non- 

Science Engineering Systems 

major computing major computing major 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 





.0% 1 47.8% 2 .0%** 1 .0%** 1 17.1% 14 8.4% 14 




want 

.0% 1 47.8% 2 .0%* 1 

100.0% 

* 5,6 1 

43.4% 2, 

4 14 

35.0% 2, 



4 14 



important 


.0% 1 .0%*** 2 .0%*** 1 .0%*** 1 8.5% 14 9.2% 14 



.0% 1 47.8% 2 .0%* 1 .0%* 1 8.5% 14 13.0% 14 




.0% 1 .0%*** 2 .0%*** 1 

100.0% 

*** 6 1 4.7% 14 4.6% 14 




.0% 1 

100.0% 

*** 6 


2 .0%*** 1 .0%*** 1 21.5% 14 13.0% 14 





.0% 1 .0%** 2 

100.0% 

*** 6 1 .0%*** 1 

41.6% 2, 


3,6 14 22.0% 14 




100.0% 1 47.8% 2 

100.0% 

** 6 1 

100.0% 

** 6 


1 37.4% 14 30.2% 14 





100.0% 1 .0%*** 2 

100.0% 

*** 6 1 .0%*** 1 4.7% 14 8.4% 14 



































have a job 



2010? 

Computer 

Science 

(1) 

Computer 


trical and 

Computer 

Engineering 

(2) 

Computer 

Information 

Systems or 

Information 

Systems 

(3) 


Minor 

Other 


(4) 



major 

(5) 


major 

(6) 

% N % N % N % N % N % N 

100.0% 1 .0%*** 2 

100.0% 

*** 6 

.0% 1 47.8% 2 .0%** 1 

1 

100.0% 

*** 6 

100.0% 

** 6 

1 65.3% 3 14 64.7% 3 14 

1 

28.8% 2, 

4 

14 13.0% 14 

.0% 1 .0%*** 2 .0%*** 1 .0%*** 1 .0%* 14 12.8% 14 

100.0% 1 .0%*** 2 .0%*** 1 .0%*** 1 8.5% 14 4.6% 14 

.0% 1 .0%*** 2 

100.0% 1 .0%*** 2 

100.0% 

*** 6 

100.0% 

*** 6 

1 .0%*** 1 8.5% 14 4.6% 14 

1 

100.0% 

*** 6 

1 32.6% 3 14 51.9% 3 14 

.0% 1 .0%**** 2 .0%**** 1 .0%**** 1 .0%**** 14 .0%**** 14 

.0% 1 47.8% 2 

.0% 1 47.8% 2 

88.1% 2, 

3,5,6 

100.0% 

* 5,6 

100.0% 

** 6 

5 .0%* 2 .0%* 1 

1 .0%* 1 

1 

100.0% 

** 6 

77.1% 2, 

3,5,6 

28.1% 2, 

6 

14 21.4% 14 

1 58.4% 2 14 23.0% 2 14 

5 

24.7% 2, 

3 

19 

27.6% 2, 

3 

20


OVERLL GPA 











a while 


program 




computing 




2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.25 7 3.24 31 3.30 51 

2.37 7 2.07 30 2.18 50 

2.55 7 2.06 31 2.77 2 51 

2.95 7 2.96 3 31 2.40 50 

3.87 7 3.55 31 3.55 46 

2.90 7 2.98 29 3.15 49 

2.76 6 2.40 30 2.56 49 

3.00 7 2.83 29 3.10 47 

2.96 7 2.97 28 2.84 48 

3.48 7 3.57 30 3.71 51 










experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.29 2 7 2.70 31 3.08 51 

3.09 7 2.91 31 2.96 51 

3.09 7 2.98 31 2.88 51 

3.53 7 3.14 31 3.13 51 

2.97 7 2.68 31 2.87 51 

2.97 7 3.00 31 2.96 51 

3.29 7 2.84 31 3.12 50 

3.07 7 2.93 31 2.95 51 

2.17 7 1.92 31 2.45 2 51 

3.11 7 2.76 31 2.84 50 

3.03 7 3.06 31 3.13 51 

2.94 7 3.09 30 3.57 50 

2.51 5 2.73 22 3.03 42 

3.47 6 3.33 31 3.30 50 

3.36 6 3.28 29 3.13 44 

2.11 7 2.75 27 2.88 43 

1.31 6 2.05 20 2.08 1 38 

3.43 6 3.18 28 3.21 45 




2 - 2.99 

3.0 - 3.49 

(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.38 7 3.55 31 3.40 51 

2.73 7 3.44 31 3.63 1 51 

3.25 7 3.49 31 3.49 51 

3.10 7 3.44 31 3.22 51 

3.38 7 3.51 31 3.46 51 

3.34 7 3.18 31 3.23 51 

3.01 7 2.88 31 3.13 51 

3.56 3 7 3.19 31 3.11 51 

3.38 7 3.13 31 3.18 51 

3.40 7 2.94 31 2.99 51 

2.91 7 2.46 31 2.57 51 

2.91 7 2.69 31 2.68 51 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.81 7 3.17 31 3.39 51 

3.78 7 3.60 30 3.42 51 

3.82 7 4.21 29 4.17 51 

3.42 7 4.20 27 4.44 1 48 

2.47 7 2.75 30 3.07 51 

3.31 6 3.35 30 3.31 51 

3.03 6 3.00 29 2.87 50 

4.10 7 3.52 31 3.67 51 

3.62 7 3.59 30 3.64 51 

4.00 7 3.95 31 4.07 50 

2.93 7 3.63 31 4.19 1 51 

3.77 7 3.60 29 3.45 44 

4.10 7 4.00 31 3.95 50 

















aspire 


research 










2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.66 7 3.10 31 2.98 51 

3.52 7 3.09 31 3.05 51 

3.76 7 3.66 31 3.37 51 

2.91 7 2.96 31 2.72 51 

3.13 7 2.97 31 2.95 51 

3.53 7 3.21 30 3.03 50 

3.62 7 3.74 31 3.56 51 

2.70 7 2.57 31 2.67 51 

2.48 7 2.23 31 2.61 48 

2.78 7 3.28 31 3.08 50 

2.87 7 2.72 31 2.44 48 

3.04 7 2.97 31 2.80 49 

2.28 7 2.96 28 2.70 51 














others 





conferences 



2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

100.0% 3 7 96.4% 31 100.0% 51 

83.9% 7 96.4% 30 100.0% 51 

86.6% 7 89.0% 31 89.4% 50 

86.6% 7 96.1% 28 87.2% 46 

86.6% 7 87.7% 28 73.3% 48 

86.6% 7 92.7% 30 94.1% 51 

70.5% 7 80.8% 31 82.8% 51 

32.1% 7 25.5% 31 28.0% 48 

86.6% 7 72.8% 27 61.2% 49 

8.8% 7 23.6% 31 20.8% 51 

100.0% 2,3 7 84.5% 31 73.8% 51 

84.5% 6 68.8% 29 67.7% 51 

8.8% 7 12.0% 31 8.1% 50 

























2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

51.7% 4 19.0% 19 28.2% 40 

90.4% 7 91.7% 30 87.2% 51 

100.0% 7 100.0% 1,3 31 100.0% 1 49 

69.0% 7 67.1% 29 54.2% 42 

100.0% 3 7 95.8% 3 31 76.6% 51 

100.0% 2,3 5 61.2% 26 55.0% 45 

55.3% 5 73.3% 25 54.9% 30 

64.2% 6 86.1% 27 67.7% 41 

52.3% 2 100.0% 3 4 57.8% 11 

80.5% 6 85.5% 27 88.1% 44 

86.6% 7 67.4% 31 67.4% 49 

87.3% 2,3 5 31.7% 19 34.7% 23 

77.8% 7 55.0% 29 49.8% 39 

27.8% 5 26.2% 16 52.4% 25 

42.0% 3 35.3% 18 36.5% 17 

71.1% 4 84.4% 23 82.5% 27 




















2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

75.2% 7 66.8% 31 63.5% 50 

54.3% 7 54.8% 31 73.4% 50 

38.3% 7 43.1% 31 48.1% 50 

73.1% 7 72.4% 31 67.3% 50 

36.9% 7 57.1% 31 68.1% 51 

24.8% 7 3.9% 31 12.3% 50 

.0% 7 5.7% 31 8.5% 1 49 

14.7% 7 26.2% 30 25.9% 49 

86.6% 7 66.8% 31 81.9% 51 


2 - 2.99 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

3.5 - 4.0 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

% N % N % N 


computing? 

60.5% 7 39.1% 31 52.9% 51 



29.5% 7 21.9% 31 23.9% 51 


67.9% 7 77.9% 30 56.2% 47 



30.8% 7 22.9% 29 19.2% 45 



100.0% 4 78.6% 6 96.5% 19 



24.8% 7 13.5% 31 17.4% 50 



64.7% 2 26.5% 4 44.0% 9 




school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

.0% 5 15.5% 22 6.2% 30 

23.8% 5 32.4% 22 28.7% 30 

.0% 5 8.2% 22 6.6% 30 

85.8% 2,3 5 16.0% 3 22 .0% 30 

14.2% 5 2.9% 22 6.0% 29 

49.8% 5 23.7% 22 10.5% 30 

45.6% 5 18.4% 22 27.9% 30 

38.0% 5 34.4% 22 28.0% 30 

38.0% 5 16.0% 22 2.2% 30 

40.2% 5 51.7% 22 55.3% 30 

23.8% 5 21.3% 22 13.2% 30 

.0%* 5 .0%* 22 6.1% 30 

23.8% 5 11.1% 22 4.4% 30 

.0% 5 10.5% 22 2.2% 30 

26.0% 5 43.9% 22 41.8% 30 

.0%** 5 .0%** 22 .0%** 30 

.0% 5 29.1% 1 22 11.4% 30 

.0% 5 48.8% 1 22 39.8% 1 30 

38.3% 7 23.3% 31 41.9% 51 




OVERLL GPA IN COMPUTING MAJOR 











a while 


program 




computing 




2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA in Computing Major 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.90 4 3.40 22 3.30 51 

2.10 4 2.27 22 2.01 49 

2.42 4 2.28 22 2.69 51 

3.21 4 2.94 3 22 2.40 50 

4.00 2,3 4 3.56 22 3.54 48 

2.27 4 3.21 22 3.14 47 

2.34 4 2.40 21 2.68 49 

2.74 4 2.78 21 3.20 47 

2.60 4 2.90 21 2.92 49 

3.31 4 3.56 22 3.74 51 









experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.00 4 2.90 22 3.06 50 

2.87 4 2.93 22 3.03 50 

2.87 4 3.00 22 2.99 51 

3.16 4 3.14 22 3.23 51 

2.71 4 2.65 22 2.91 51 

2.42 4 3.00 22 3.06 51 

3.00 4 3.20 22 3.06 50 

2.60 4 3.14 22 2.97 50 

1.71 4 2.12 22 2.41 51 

3.16 4 2.79 22 2.89 50 

2.74 4 2.92 22 3.24 51 

3.14 4 3.13 22 3.53 51 

2.46 3 3.02 15 2.95 43 

3.18 4 3.36 21 3.35 51 

3.55 4 3.24 22 3.20 43 

2.51 4 2.49 21 2.94 44 

1.48 4 2.07 15 2.01 38 

3.40 4 3.26 21 3.17 44 





2 - 2.99 

3.0 - 3.49 

(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.14 4 3.66 22 3.49 51 

2.74 4 3.47 22 3.62 51 

2.90 4 3.63 22 3.49 51 

2.90 4 3.65 3 22 3.25 51 

3.14 4 3.55 22 3.58 51 

3.31 4 3.27 22 3.23 51 

3.00 4 3.03 22 3.08 51 

3.45 4 3.22 22 3.12 51 

3.69 3 4 3.28 22 3.19 51 

3.69 2 4 2.92 22 3.06 51 

3.05 4 2.36 22 2.71 51 

3.05 4 2.68 22 2.79 51 

















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


3.92 4 3.33 22 3.41 51 

3.55 4 3.71 22 3.47 51 

3.63 4 4.32 21 4.23 51 

3.71 4 4.26 18 4.42 1 50 

2.87 4 2.55 22 3.09 51 

3.18 4 3.39 22 3.28 51 

2.71 4 2.87 21 3.04 49 

4.14 4 3.65 22 3.71 50 

3.03 4 3.83 22 3.66 50 

3.74 4 3.82 22 4.27 51 

2.80 4 3.54 22 4.23 1,2 51 

3.58 4 3.52 21 3.47 46 

3.90 4 3.97 22 3.97 51 


















aspire 


research 










2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 


2.69 4 3.02 22 3.02 51 

3.14 4 3.13 22 3.15 51 

3.81 4 3.61 22 3.54 51 

3.03 4 2.81 22 2.80 51 

2.92 4 3.00 22 2.98 50 

3.40 4 3.18 22 3.11 50 

3.60 4 3.67 22 3.69 51 

3.18 4 2.73 22 2.66 50 

2.29 4 2.20 22 2.46 49 

3.40 4 3.04 22 3.18 50 

2.71 4 2.74 22 2.50 50 

3.55 2,3 4 2.83 22 2.91 50 

2.77 4 2.80 22 2.63 49 













others 





conferences 



2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

100.0% 4 95.1% 22 100.0% 51 

71.2% 4 95.1% 22 100.0% 50 

100.0% 3 4 85.7% 22 88.3% 50 

100.0% 4 89.5% 20 91.1% 47 

100.0% 3 4 89.5% 20 76.3% 49 

100.0% 4 85.7% 22 94.0% 50 

71.2% 4 72.5% 22 86.0% 50 

28.8% 4 32.2% 22 24.7% 48 

100.0% 2,3 4 67.4% 19 63.9% 50 

15.7% 4 25.9% 22 19.1% 51 

100.0% 3 4 86.8% 22 75.2% 51 

100.0% 2,3 3 65.7% 22 72.9% 50 

15.7% 4 5.8% 22 7.0% 50 


























2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

.0% 2 20.9% 14 28.5% 1 40 

81.4% 4 96.9% 21 87.3% 51 

100.0% 4 100.0% 1,3 22 100.0% 1 50 

68.6% 4 73.0% 20 53.3% 43 

100.0% 3 4 97.1% 3 22 81.6% 51 

100.0% 2,3 4 72.4% 20 53.2% 45 

55.9% 3 76.2% 17 57.9% 38 

58.6% 3 80.4% 17 69.6% 45 

64.9% 3 67.5% 11 

58.0% 3 80.9% 21 92.2% 45 

100.0% 2,3 4 56.9% 22 71.7% 50 

77.1% 2 3 17.0% 15 53.0% 2 23 

84.3% 3 4 51.2% 22 48.6% 42 

37.3% 4 8.2% 15 59.6% 2 24 

.0% 2 32.0% 1 13 43.7% 1 22 

35.3% 2 82.7% 14 84.8% 31 



















2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 


3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

55.5% 4 71.2% 22 63.4% 49 

44.5% 4 56.3% 22 73.3% 49 

15.7% 4 55.1% 1 22 49.5% 1 49 

75.9% 4 60.5% 22 74.3% 49 

15.7% 4 52.6% 22 68.0% 1 51 

15.7% 4 10.7% 22 12.4% 49 

.0% 4 2.9% 22 8.5% 1 49 

.0% 4 11.1% 22 28.7% 1 49 

100.0% 2,3 4 61.0% 22 80.8% 51 


2 - 2.99 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

3.5 - 4.0 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

% N % N % N 


computing? 

55.5% 4 49.2% 22 50.1% 51 



52.9% 4 15.6% 22 18.6% 51 


71.2% 4 72.2% 21 68.2% 48 



28.8% 4 13.6% 22 16.6% 44 



100.0% 3 86.4% 5 96.1% 17 



15.7% 4 5.4% 22 22.3% 


2 50 



.0% 1 100.0%* 1 44.4% 2 11




school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

2 - 2.99 

(1) 

Overall GPA 

3.0 - 3.49 

(2) 

3.5 - 4.0 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

.0% 3 12.5% 18 10.1% 30 

.0% 3 16.1% 18 34.7% 1 30 

.0%* 3 .0%* 18 10.5% 30 

73.9% 2,3 3 15.0% 18 4.0% 30 

26.1% 3 .0% 18 8.1% 29 

47.8% 3 22.6% 18 14.3% 30 

.0% 3 11.4% 18 29.5% 1 30 

26.1% 3 25.6% 18 31.8% 30 

26.1% 3 16.1% 18 4.3% 30 

73.9% 3 46.8% 18 53.0% 30 

.0% 3 9.6% 18 23.2% 1 30 

.0%** 3 .0%** 18 .0%** 30 

.0% 3 7.1% 18 6.1% 30 

.0% 3 6.2% 18 6.1% 30 

47.8% 3 43.9% 18 41.8% 30 

.0%** 3 .0%** 18 .0%** 30 

.0% 3 25.6% 1 18 13.8% 1 30 

.0% 3 42.7% 1 18 41.9% 1 30 

39.8% 4 13.2% 22 41.0% 2 51 



GRADUATION YEAR 











a while 


program 




computing 




2008/2009 

(1) 

Graduation Year 

2010 

(2) 


2011/2012 

(3) 


3.23 22 3.21 53 3.47 17 

2.07 22 2.16 53 2.18 15 

2.56 22 2.25 54 3.27 2 17 

2.73 22 2.63 52 2.51 16 

3.73 22 3.57 48 3.32 16 

3.16 21 2.95 51 3.22 16 

2.40 22 2.45 49 2.70 16 

3.06 22 2.84 50 3.32 13 

2.98 20 2.98 52 2.54 14 

3.70 22 3.68 53 3.47 17 










experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 


2.98 22 2.98 54 3.02 16 

3.07 22 3.04 54 2.70 16 

2.98 22 2.96 54 2.95 16 

3.19 22 3.14 54 3.35 16 

2.88 22 2.78 54 3.07 16 

3.06 22 2.98 54 2.95 16 

3.12 22 3.08 53 2.86 16 

2.95 22 3.05 54 2.85 15 

2.12 22 2.41 54 2.10 16 

2.77 22 2.93 52 2.77 16 

2.92 22 3.11 54 3.16 17 

3.20 22 3.27 51 3.68 2 17 

2.76 19 2.97 37 2.94 14 

3.04 22 3.34 52 3.50 16 

3.23 19 3.22 47 3.04 16 

2.79 19 2.78 46 2.48 16 

2.26 16 1.96 38 1.80 14 

3.29 21 3.30 48 2.85 15 



about computing Graduation Year 

2008/2009 

2010 

(1) 

(2) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












2011/2012 

(3) 


3.36 22 3.41 54 3.60 17 

3.61 22 3.45 54 3.31 17 

3.58 22 3.42 54 3.35 17 

3.34 22 3.29 54 3.09 17 

3.56 22 3.46 54 3.40 17 

3.19 22 3.29 54 3.03 17 

2.85 22 3.14 54 2.81 17 

2.98 22 3.39 1,3 54 2.85 17 

3.46 3 22 3.23 3 54 2.63 17 

3.08 22 3.01 54 2.79 17 

2.55 22 2.67 3 54 2.09 17 

2.78 22 2.83 3 54 2.19 17 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 


3.59 22 3.18 54 3.57 16 

3.56 22 3.43 53 3.63 16 

4.02 22 4.30 53 3.87 15 

4.04 22 4.35 48 4.30 14 

3.14 22 2.59 53 3.34 2 16 

3.14 22 3.14 52 3.85 2 16 

3.04 22 2.74 51 3.19 14 

3.55 22 3.47 54 4.39 1,2 15 

3.28 22 3.52 53 4.37 1,2 16 

3.82 21 3.99 54 4.35 16 

4.04 22 3.77 54 3.96 16 

3.55 22 3.43 47 3.75 14 

3.59 22 4.00 52 4.30 16 

















aspire 


research 










2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 


2011/2012 

(3) 


3.02 3 22 3.22 3 54 2.32 16 

2.78 22 3.29 3 54 2.88 16 

3.29 22 3.55 54 3.63 15 

2.87 22 2.85 54 2.65 16 

3.24 22 2.84 54 3.09 16 

3.15 21 3.17 52 3.00 16 

3.65 22 3.69 54 3.50 16 

2.61 22 2.48 54 2.94 15 

2.71 20 2.36 54 2.46 15 

3.31 22 3.07 54 3.09 15 

2.61 22 2.61 52 2.53 15 

2.88 22 2.79 52 3.06 15 

3.22 3 20 2.79 53 2.34 16 














others 





conferences 



2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

95.1% 22 100.0% 54 100.0% 17 

89.7% 22 100.0% 53 100.0% 17 

94.8% 21 90.4% 54 79.1% 17 

88.6% 19 91.5% 50 90.0% 17 

85.2% 19 78.5% 51 79.1% 17 

89.7% 22 94.5% 53 94.0% 17 

71.6% 22 85.5% 53 83.4% 17 

28.4% 22 28.0% 51 26.1% 14 

74.4% 20 71.8% 50 50.5% 17 

19.0% 22 13.7% 54 45.8% 2 17 

70.3% 22 88.1% 52 67.1% 17 

59.5% 19 79.2% 53 54.9% 17 

17.7% 22 6.0% 53 11.8% 17 

























2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 


2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

33.2% 16 12.8% 36 46.9% 12 

94.5% 22 87.5% 53 84.5% 16 

100.0%* 22 100.0%* 51 96.1% 17 

77.9% 2 22 53.0% 46 47.9% 14 

84.4% 22 78.5% 54 100.0% 2 16 

63.1% 19 59.9% 48 44.3% 12 

69.7% 16 61.8% 34 56.3% 11 

78.4% 19 76.5% 46 64.0% 11 

57.1% 5 85.8% 5 51.7% 6 

78.6% 20 90.8% 46 87.0% 13 

77.4% 22 71.9% 51 53.1% 16 

59.2% 17 32.6% 24 18.3% 7 

75.7% 19 53.3% 42 44.2% 16 

43.7% 12 37.6% 29 22.8% 5 

41.6% 11 40.1% 21 20.0% 6 

60.8% 15 89.5% 1 35 100.0% 1,2 7 




















2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 

2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

62.8% 22 71.9% 52 56.4% 17 

65.1% 22 63.4% 52 84.9% 17 

43.0% 22 47.3% 52 49.8% 17 

66.8% 22 67.1% 52 83.0% 17 

55.5% 22 58.0% 54 78.3% 17 

16.6% 22 8.2% 52 11.1% 17 

23.5% 2,3 22 1.3% 51 .0% 17 

13.5% 22 22.5% 51 54.7% 1,2 17 

83.6% 22 76.0% 54 76.2% 17 


2008/2009 


2010 

2011/2012 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

% N % N % N 


computing? 

26.4% 22 47.3% 54 74.4% 


1,2 17 



31.3% 22 11.2% 54 49.5% 2 17 


68.4% 21 67.2% 48 59.7% 17 



28.2% 19 22.4% 49 15.1% 17 



92.1% 8 93.7% 21 



16.1% 3 22 21.2% 3 53 .0% 17 



30.5% 4 45.3% 11



school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

2008/2009 

(1) 


2010 

(2) 


2011/2012 

(3) 

% N % N % N 

.0% 3 10 11.5% 1,3 36 .0% 14 

30.0% 10 42.3% 3 36 .0% 14 

.0%* 10 10.6% 1,3 36 .0%* 14 

12.2% 10 14.9% 36 7.3% 14 

11.2% 10 5.6% 35 .0% 14 

12.2% 10 24.8% 3 36 4.8% 14 

.0% 10 32.6% 1 36 20.7% 14 

46.6% 3 10 42.0% 3 36 .0% 14 

.0% 10 18.4% 1,3 36 .0% 14 

88.8% 3 10 66.1% 3 36 .0% 14 

28.0% 10 24.9% 3 36 .0% 14 

.0%* 10 5.1% 36 .0%* 14 

.0% 10 13.6% 1,3 36 .0% 14 

.0% 10 8.3% 35 .0% 14 

75.5% 3 10 51.9% 3 36 .0% 14 

.0%** 10 .0%** 36 .0%** 14 

21.4% 10 21.8% 3 36 .0% 14 

51.4% 3 10 51.4% 3 36 .0% 14 

56.1% 3 22 33.2% 3 54 7.2% 17 




CHANGED MAJORS 











a while 


program 




computing 




Not selected 

(0) 

Changed Majors 

Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.25 58 3.30 36 

2.11 58 2.19 34 

2.54 59 2.46 36 

2.64 59 2.63 34 

3.43 55 3.70 34 

2.96 56 3.25 34 

2.50 56 2.49 33 

2.88 57 3.14 31 

2.91 56 2.92 33 

3.59 58 3.74 36 









experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 





Not selected 

(0) 



Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.01 59 2.98 35 

2.90 59 3.07 35 

2.86 59 3.08 36 

3.14 59 3.23 36 

2.89 59 2.73 36 

2.96 59 3.03 36 

2.93 58 3.23 36 

2.94 58 3.01 36 

2.27 59 2.30 36 

2.87 58 2.82 34 

3.02 59 3.15 36 

3.29 56 3.39 36 

2.83 44 3.04 27 

3.24 57 3.40 35 

3.23 53 3.11 31 

2.72 50 2.75 34 

1.99 43 2.04 26 

3.12 53 3.35 33 




about computing Changed Majors 

Not selected 

(0) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 











Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.47 59 3.39 36 

3.50 59 3.42 36 

3.43 59 3.49 36 

3.21 59 3.37 36 

3.47 59 3.47 36 

3.21 59 3.22 36 

2.94 59 3.13 36 

3.14 59 3.26 36 

3.13 59 3.25 36 

2.98 59 2.96 36 

2.48 59 2.62 36 

2.65 59 2.76 36 

















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 

Not selected 

(0) 



Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.26 59 3.54 36 

3.40 58 3.65 36 

4.11 57 4.24 36 

4.32 53 4.19 34 

2.85 58 2.97 36 

3.26 58 3.32 34 

2.84 58 3.09 33 

3.74 58 3.51 36 

3.60 58 3.66 36 

3.80 58 4.29 0 36 

3.76 59 4.05 36 

3.57 52 3.47 33 

3.98 57 3.92 36 


















aspire 


research 










Not selected 

(0) 


Selected 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.98 59 3.07 36 

3.13 59 3.06 36 

3.41 58 3.64 36 

2.73 59 2.95 36 

3.05 59 2.86 35 

3.15 56 3.10 36 

3.63 59 3.65 36 

2.55 58 2.68 36 

2.39 57 2.56 34 

3.18 58 3.05 36 

2.59 56 2.64 36 

2.87 56 2.87 36 

2.86 56 2.69 35 













others 





conferences 



Not selected 

(0) 



Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

98.1% 59 100.0% 36 

98.1% 58 96.7% 36 

88.0% 59 92.4% 35 

91.8% 56 89.2% 32 

81.9% 56 78.5% 33 

96.2% 58 88.9% 36 

81.1% 58 84.0% 36 

30.6% 54 25.0% 36 

67.6% 54 71.6% 35 

27.2% 59 12.0% 36 

75.4% 56 88.4% 36 

60.5% 55 87.3% 0 36 

15.4% 1 58 3.6% 36 


























Not selected 

(0) 


Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

18.0% 43 38.8% 24 

92.4% 56 83.5% 36 

100.0% 56 98.2% 36 

59.7% 50 57.0% 33 

88.8% 59 76.3% 36 

55.0% 52 63.7% 30 

64.8% 40 58.8% 23 

76.0% 48 72.1% 31 

85.8% 8 49.6% 9 

85.7% 52 90.3% 30 

66.9% 56 70.1% 36 

31.6% 30 50.8% 19 

52.9% 52 63.8% 27 

31.2% 28 51.1% 19 

34.5% 26 39.8% 14 

86.2% 36 79.8% 23 





















computing? 












Not selected 

(0) 



Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

66.6% 59 68.4% 34 

42.1% 59 54.7% 34 

72.6% 59 60.7% 34 

56.3% 59 71.3% 36 

6.3% 59 17.7% 34 

6.9% 59 5.5% 34 

27.1% 58 22.9% 34 

77.1% 59 80.5% 36 

66.6% 59 68.4% 34 

Not selected 

(0) 


Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

44.4% 59 51.7% 36 

28.1% 59 16.0% 36 

65.8% 53 65.2% 34 

21.3% 54 26.0% 33 

87.9% 16 100.0% 14 

13.8% 58 18.8% 36 

28.8% 8 56.7% 7 





school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 

Not selected 

(0) 


Selected 

(1) 

% N % N 

11.5% 36 4.9% 25 

39.1% 36 16.5% 25 

8.7% 36 2.7% 25 

11.8% 36 13.4% 25 

5.5% 35 4.5% 25 

15.1% 36 21.7% 25 

14.8% 36 37.6% 25 

38.5% 36 23.5% 25 

12.3% 36 13.8% 25 

48.2% 36 66.3% 25 

19.4% 36 19.1% 25 

5.0% 36 .0% 25 

8.7% 36 7.1% 25 

5.2% 35 4.5% 25 

30.5% 36 66.3% 0 25 

.0%* 36 .0%* 25 

22.7% 36 12.0% 25 

36.9% 36 41.7% 25 

36.8% 59 30.4% 36 




FATHER'S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION 






Experience 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 





3.33 16 2.92 13 3.36 26 3.18 20 3.33 7 


school 

2.19 16 2.66 12 2.10 27 2.22 18 2.49 7 


school immediately 2.70 16 1.96 13 2.49 27 2.56 20 2.21 7 


school after working for a while 2.41 15 2.91 13 2.75 27 2.46 20 3.25 1 7 


complete a graduate program 3.39 16 3.57 12 3.61 24 3.28 19 3.91 4 7 




computing 2.31 14 2.25 13 2.46 27 2.48 20 3.10 7 








3.38 15 3.52 13 3.76 27 3.61 20 3.84 7 




Experience 



results 



hypothesis 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.30 2 14 2.51 13 3.19 27 2.99 20 2.93 7 

3.05 14 2.43 13 3.03 27 2.87 20 3.34 2,4 7 





experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




3.44 2 15 2.85 13 3.19 27 3.03 20 2.98 7 

3.02 15 2.72 13 2.79 27 2.80 20 2.58 7 

3.34 2,5 15 2.67 13 2.89 27 3.05 20 2.67 7 

3.53 2,5 15 2.41 12 3.21 2 27 3.20 2 20 2.48 7 

3.29 2 15 2.45 13 3.04 27 3.08 20 2.98 7 

2.81 2,4,5 15 1.93 13 2.43 27 2.07 20 1.88 7 

3.17 4 15 2.71 13 2.96 27 2.39 19 3.31 2,4 7 






choice 











chosen path 


















less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.05 16 2.58 13 2.98 27 3.21 20 3.09 7 

3.22 15 2.68 13 3.61 2 25 3.23 20 2.91 7 

2.98 2 13 1.86 11 3.32 2,5 19 3.09 2,5 15 2.10 5 

3.63 2 16 2.77 13 3.38 25 3.10 19 3.25 7 

3.19 14 3.20 13 3.16 21 3.05 18 2.98 7 

2.87 15 2.62 12 2.73 20 2.71 18 2.13 7 

1.80 14 1.90 10 2.16 17 2.14 13 1.48 5 

3.25 16 3.43 5 13 3.20 5 22 3.17 16 2.46 7 





computing 



computing 



computing 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.58 16 3.27 13 3.58 27 3.30 20 3.33 7 

3.30 16 3.48 13 3.58 27 3.41 20 3.36 7 






successful career in computing 3.81 4 16 3.38 13 3.43 27 3.30 20 3.33 7 


















3.50 2 16 2.86 13 3.37 2 27 3.01 20 3.09 7 

3.24 16 2.99 13 2.95 27 3.00 20 2.82 7 

3.31 16 3.29 13 3.22 27 2.96 20 2.82 7 

3.50 4 16 3.26 13 3.15 27 2.77 20 2.99 7 

3.08 16 2.67 13 2.87 27 3.14 20 2.84 7 


























advisor 








less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.56 16 2.62 13 2.55 27 2.56 20 2.27 7 

2.95 5 16 2.65 13 2.70 27 2.77 20 2.10 7 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.68 15 3.49 13 3.28 27 3.78 1 20 3.58 7 

3.28 15 3.36 13 3.58 27 3.63 19 3.64 7 

4.02 15 3.91 13 4.36 27 4.24 18 4.33 7 

4.34 15 4.10 12 4.45 4 24 3.89 17 4.26 7 

2.25 15 3.09 13 2.96 27 3.09 20 2.90 7 




(continued) 












I want to do 


























less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.00 14 3.42 13 2.97 27 3.39 20 3.43 7 

2.86 14 3.44 13 2.71 27 3.07 17 2.72 7 

3.47 15 3.33 13 3.49 27 3.81 20 4.31 7 

3.41 15 3.40 13 3.39 27 3.87 20 4.44 1,2,3 7 

3.88 15 3.66 13 4.01 27 4.14 20 3.88 7 

3.67 15 3.95 13 4.12 27 3.65 20 3.73 7 

3.51 15 3.75 12 3.68 22 3.15 18 3.33 7 

3.97 15 3.76 13 4.05 25 3.78 20 3.91 7 

3.19 15 2.63 13 3.25 4 27 2.67 20 3.03 7 



(continued) 




applications 





















research 




less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.44 4 15 2.89 13 3.18 27 2.80 20 2.79 7 

3.60 15 3.90 3,4 13 3.38 27 3.51 20 3.34 7 

2.57 15 2.88 13 2.98 27 2.51 20 2.86 7 

2.96 14 3.27 13 2.82 27 2.89 20 3.02 7 

2.99 15 3.10 13 3.27 24 3.03 20 2.84 7 

3.67 15 3.47 13 3.60 27 3.75 20 3.82 7 

2.58 15 2.17 13 2.54 27 2.55 20 3.24 2 7 


your future career: To teach 2.34 15 1.87 13 2.62 2 26 2.24 20 




3.39 1,2,3,4 

3.12 14 3.12 13 2.97 27 3.28 20 3.57 3 7 


7



(continued) 



occupation 









less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.66 15 2.85 13 2.46 25 2.46 20 2.32 6 

2.91 15 2.94 13 3.01 25 2.62 20 3.02 7 

2.75 15 2.74 12 2.79 25 2.74 20 2.82 7 



Experience 








or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

100.0%** 

* 

16 91.3% 13 

100.0%** 

* 

27 

100.0%** 

* 

20 

100.0%** 

* 

7 

100.0%** 

* 

16 80.8% 12 

100.0%** 

* 


27 

100.0%** 

* 

20 

100.0%** 

* 


career advice 85.3% 16 91.3% 13 89.1% 26 82.3% 20 100.0% 7 


advice about my research 88.3% 16 90.3% 11 84.4% 27 94.0% 17 100.0% 3 7 




80.6% 16 90.3% 11 74.9% 27 75.3% 17 82.0% 7 


person 81.3% 16 90.8% 12 95.6% 27 94.9% 20 100.0% 7 




85.3% 16 72.4% 13 75.8% 27 88.8% 20 76.0% 7 




publish research 76.4% 4 16 66.9% 11 73.0% 4 27 39.2% 19 67.9% 5 



too high 

31.5% 16 34.3% 13 8.4% 27 15.0% 20 31.4% 7 


attend professional conferences 95.8% 2 16 57.1% 13 76.9% 25 72.0% 20 91.1% 7 




confidence in my abilities 16.1% 16 10.3% 13 7.9% 27 .0% 19 25.3% 7 

7






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


lunches 26.8% 11 18.1% 10 20.1% 22 43.4% 15 21.4% 3 


82.9% 14 84.8% 12 88.9% 27 91.6% 20 91.1% 7 


student groups 95.8% 16 








honor societies 

100.0%** 

* 

13 

100.0%** 

* 


25 

100.0%** 

* 

20 

100.0%** 

* 

63.9% 4 16 63.0% 4 12 61.6% 4 23 22.4% 16 76.0% 4 5 

84.1% 16 84.5% 13 75.7% 27 82.3% 20 91.1% 7 

86.2% 3,4, 

5 

13 64.9% 13 47.0% 24 46.4% 15 35.7% 5 


groups 55.7% 11 52.3% 8 71.4% 19 49.2% 13 48.6% 4 




68.7% 13 88.1% 11 77.3% 26 60.7% 16 65.7% 4 


lunches 100.0% 4 3 64.7% 2 75.0% 4 38.1% 6 100.0% 1 


lectures 89.1% 12 71.0% 10 83.7% 24 87.8% 18 


student groups 72.2% 15 57.8% 13 70.8% 25 56.6% 20 







100.0% 2, 

3 

100.0% 1, 

2,3,4 

46.2% 5 10 31.8% 8 51.0% 5 14 33.3% 4 .0% 4 

72.5% 13 38.8% 11 46.9% 20 56.9% 16 90.2% 2,3 7 

7 

7 

7






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 




computing-related groups 21.7% 6 44.7% 4 44.2% 5 13 35.8% 6 .0% 2 





Experience 



research 







researcher 



university 







92.9% 9 80.9% 10 81.8% 20 88.8% 10 52.2% 3 



or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

91.6% 2,3, 

4,5 

16 37.2% 13 67.4% 25 63.5% 20 50.7% 7 

74.7% 16 51.7% 13 70.4% 25 74.7% 20 73.2% 7 

56.4% 16 41.6% 13 38.7% 25 56.5% 20 40.4% 7 

81.9% 16 61.1% 13 67.6% 25 58.2% 20 82.1% 7 

57.9% 16 44.6% 13 70.0% 27 82.2% 2 20 59.6% 7 

20.3% 4,5 16 9.5% 13 9.4% 25 .0%* 20 .0%* 7 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


computing research 4.2% 16 .0%** 13 11.6% 25 .0%** 19 .0%** 7 





computing? 

76.9% 16 94.8% 4 13 77.5% 27 61.2% 20 91.1% 7 




or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


graduate school in computing? 37.7% 16 42.2% 13 32.4% 27 63.0% 20 65.7% 7 




18.3% 16 29.1% 13 8.8% 27 29.4% 20 56.8% 3 7 


computing in Fall 2010? 73.0% 14 59.1% 12 76.2% 23 53.2% 19 74.7% 7 



2010? 







institution? 




31.5% 15 30.9% 12 32.1% 25 11.2% 17 19.6% 6 

100.0%* 5 86.1% 5 89.9% 6 100.0%* 7 100.0% 2 

4.2% 16 9.5% 13 17.6% 26 21.2% 20 16.4% 7 

100.0% 1 100.0%* 4 1 45.6% 5 52.9% 4 .0%** 1 





school 









low 



are too low 



courses 











fees 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

22.6% 10 11.8% 10 .0%* 17 15.6% 12 .0%* 4 

33.4% 10 31.2% 10 48.8% 17 15.6% 12 15.4% 4 

11.8% 10 12.9% 10 .0% 17 5.5% 12 .0% 4 

33.4% 3,5 10 18.3% 10 .0% 17 8.4% 12 .0% 4 

.0%** 10 .0%** 10 6.3% 17 .0%** 11 30.7% 4 

45.2% 4 10 18.3% 10 10.5% 17 .0% 12 15.4% 4 

22.6% 10 9.9% 10 27.9% 17 33.0% 12 43.5% 4 

46.3% 5 10 18.3% 10 51.2% 5 17 30.0% 12 .0% 4 

10.8% 10 11.8% 10 18.0% 17 14.7% 12 .0% 4 

12.9% 10 58.3% 1 10 

96.2% 1,2, 

4,5 

17 55.4% 1 12 43.5% 4 



family 

39.8% 


2,4, 

5 10 .0%* 10 

40.3% 2,4, 


5 17 .0%* 12 .0% 4 


to go 

.0%*** 10 .0%*** 10 10.5% 17 .0%*** 12 .0%*** 4



(continued) 




school 










Armed Forces 






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

22.6% 10 6.5% 10 7.5% 17 5.5% 12 .0% 4 

11.8% 10 .0%* 9 .0%* 17 9.2% 12 15.4% 4 

6.4% 10 43.0% 1 10 75.1% 1 17 50.9% 1 12 58.9% 1 4 

.0%**** 10 .0%**** 10 .0%**** 17 .0%**** 12 .0%**** 4 

29.0% 10 31.2% 5 10 22.7% 5 17 9.2% 12 .0% 4 








MOTHER'S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION 






Experience 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 



in graduate school 3.22 20 3.67 12 3.16 28 2.84 13 3.79 3,4 8 

a1b Likelihood to study a noncomputing 

subject in graduate 

school 

1.74 19 2.20 12 2.39 1 29 2.51 1 13 2.10 8 


school immediately 2.60 20 2.96 12 2.16 29 2.71 13 2.85 8 


school after working for a while 2.56 19 2.12 12 2.87 2 29 2.57 13 2.71 8 


complete a graduate program 3.46 17 3.39 12 3.55 27 3.54 13 3.86 7 


degree in computing 2.98 18 3.15 12 2.75 28 3.12 13 3.61 3 7 


computing 2.34 19 2.80 12 2.23 27 2.09 13 

3.64 1,2,3,4 


research that involves computing 2.71 19 3.34 4 12 2.82 28 2.62 13 3.75 1,3,4 7 






3.52 20 3.72 12 3.64 28 3.61 13 3.88 8 


7



Experience 



results 



hypothesis 



or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.87 18 3.00 12 3.05 29 2.75 13 3.33 4 8 

2.64 18 3.05 12 3.00 29 2.88 13 3.23 8 





experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




3.22 19 3.17 12 3.09 29 3.08 13 3.48 4 8 

3.01 19 2.85 12 2.69 29 2.71 13 3.00 8 

3.01 19 3.00 12 2.89 29 2.74 13 3.12 8 

3.00 19 3.23 12 2.93 29 2.98 13 2.85 7 

2.85 19 3.17 12 2.80 29 2.90 13 3.35 7 

2.22 19 2.50 12 2.39 29 2.12 13 1.76 8 

2.87 19 3.07 12 2.92 28 2.82 13 2.99 8 






choice 











chosen path 


















less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.23 20 3.15 12 2.76 29 3.15 13 3.27 8 

3.43 18 3.67 11 3.15 29 3.44 13 3.29 8 

2.80 16 3.48 3 10 2.64 20 3.01 13 2.45 5 

3.53 18 3.54 12 3.14 29 3.37 13 3.28 7 

3.14 16 3.57 11 3.06 24 3.24 13 2.93 8 

2.98 16 3.27 3 10 2.51 24 2.47 12 2.70 8 

2.25 15 1.94 9 1.66 20 2.13 12 2.34 5 

3.41 5 18 3.41 11 2.98 24 3.21 13 2.66 7 





computing 



computing 



computing 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.45 20 3.65 12 3.39 29 3.73 13 3.36 8 

3.39 20 3.80 12 3.45 29 3.49 13 3.39 8 
























3.31 20 3.39 12 3.16 29 3.10 13 3.36 8 

2.98 20 3.16 12 2.95 29 2.84 13 3.32 8 

3.09 20 3.20 12 3.23 29 3.09 13 3.11 8 

3.05 20 3.54 1,3 12 3.07 29 3.34 13 3.25 8 

2.81 20 3.51 1,3 12 2.81 29 3.12 13 3.21 8 


























advisor 








less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.14 20 3.12 1 12 2.46 29 2.52 13 2.99 1 8 

2.43 20 3.02 12 2.79 29 2.83 13 2.81 8 



less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.93 19 3.74 12 2.90 29 4.00 1,3 13 4.44 1,3 8 

3.32 19 3.44 12 3.36 29 4.05 1,3 13 3.64 8 

4.09 19 4.33 12 4.31 4 29 3.66 12 4.27 8 

4.34 17 4.70 4 10 4.29 28 3.86 12 4.39 7 

2.49 19 3.86 1,3 12 2.67 29 3.17 13 3.22 7 




(continued) 












I want to do 


























less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.81 18 3.98 1,3 12 3.12 29 3.48 13 3.64 1,3 7 

2.96 18 3.41 12 2.87 29 2.54 13 3.10 7 

3.36 19 3.99 12 3.46 29 4.03 13 4.55 1,3 7 

3.25 19 3.94 12 3.43 28 3.70 13 4.59 1,3,4 8 

4.08 19 3.95 12 3.75 28 3.74 13 4.61 3,4 8 

3.89 19 4.21 12 3.78 29 3.78 13 3.77 8 

3.72 17 3.91 11 3.26 26 3.71 12 3.90 3 6 

3.97 17 4.42 3 12 3.71 29 3.87 13 4.27 8 

2.86 19 3.24 12 3.11 29 2.95 13 3.27 8 



(continued) 




applications 





















research 




less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


3.24 19 3.28 12 2.99 29 2.99 13 3.21 8 

3.75 2,3 19 3.13 11 3.29 29 3.65 13 3.34 8 

2.95 19 2.81 12 2.86 29 2.65 13 2.46 8 

3.06 18 3.05 12 2.85 29 3.30 13 2.88 8 

3.23 17 3.32 11 3.22 29 2.89 13 2.92 8 

3.59 19 3.89 3 12 3.56 29 3.68 13 3.79 8 

2.25 19 3.05 12 2.43 29 2.59 13 3.16 7 






3.19 18 3.29 3 12 2.87 29 3.27 13 3.34 8 




(continued) 



occupation 









less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 


2.77 17 3.00 5 12 2.47 29 2.33 13 2.34 7 

3.20 3 17 2.90 12 2.55 29 3.01 13 2.95 7 

2.91 17 3.05 11 2.45 29 3.09 3 13 2.79 7 



Experience 








or less 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

100.0%** 

* 

20 

100.0%** 

* 

12 

100.0%** 

* 

29 91.8% 13 

100.0%** 

* 

8 

100.0%** 

* 

19 

100.0%** 

* 

12 

100.0%** 

* 

29 82.9% 13 

100.0%** 

* 


career advice 87.7% 19 100.0% 12 91.4% 29 78.2% 13 75.0% 8 


advice about my research 100.0% 2 20 57.0% 10 93.5% 2 28 91.4% 13 86.4% 7 




84.7% 20 68.5% 10 83.3% 28 72.0% 13 61.2% 7 


person 88.0% 19 84.8% 12 100.0% 29 91.8% 13 87.5% 8 




76.0% 19 75.4% 12 89.5% 29 65.8% 13 79.3% 8 







too high 

31.2% 20 20.1% 12 22.5% 29 16.3% 13 14.9% 8 


attend professional conferences 68.9% 20 79.1% 12 95.6% 1,4 27 59.9% 13 83.7% 8 


professional contacts 64.9% 19 75.4% 4 12 79.5% 4 27 36.6% 13 71.2% 8 




8






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


lunches 24.4% 15 27.8% 10 12.7% 19 30.1% 10 58.9% 3 6 


70.6% 19 82.9% 11 94.3% 29 95.1% 13 91.8% 8 


student groups 96.2% 17 100.0% 5 12 100.0%* 29 100.0% 5 13 100.0%* 8 







59.0% 20 66.6% 11 61.0% 23 57.4% 11 60.3% 6 

84.2% 20 79.3% 12 83.7% 28 87.7% 13 91.8% 8 


honor societies 61.2% 17 52.0% 10 68.5% 5 25 65.2% 5 13 19.4% 5 


groups 53.5% 14 65.7% 9 66.3% 18 66.0% 11 44.5% 4 




86.7% 18 55.8% 10 82.0% 26 59.2% 10 50.0% 5 


lunches 81.9% 4 61.5% 3 100.0% 2 60.4% 3 69.8% 3 


lectures 95.0% 2 13 54.3% 9 95.2% 2,4 27 65.6% 13 

100.0% 2, 

4 









65.3% 3,5 12 31.9% 8 18.0% 14 37.2% 6 .0% 4 

53.6% 17 73.7% 3 9 38.8% 24 80.5% 3 12 50.3% 7 


7






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 




computing-related groups 41.1% 8 47.4% 5 6 34.8% 5 12 32.6% 7 .0% 2 





Experience 



research 







researcher 



university 







81.2% 16 68.0% 5 88.1% 21 80.0% 6 100.0% 2 



or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

78.1% 3,4 20 89.1% 3,4 12 47.3% 27 30.9% 13 91.8% 3,4 8 

80.0% 20 70.8% 12 59.4% 27 56.0% 13 91.8% 3,4 8 

34.2% 20 55.3% 12 41.9% 27 39.1% 13 68.7% 8 

79.1% 20 54.7% 12 77.8% 27 79.5% 13 71.2% 8 

65.1% 20 83.6% 3,4 12 52.1% 29 47.9% 13 75.0% 8 

18.7% 4,5 20 5.5% 12 11.2% 27 .0%* 13 .0%* 8 







or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


computing research 6.1% 20 14.6% 12 6.4% 27 .0% 13 .0% 8 


non-computing research 39.3% 2 20 5.5% 12 18.2% 27 27.4% 13 38.0% 8 



computing? 

75.9% 20 75.4% 12 75.8% 29 91.8% 13 87.5% 8 




or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 


graduate school in computing? 36.3% 20 41.6% 12 34.1% 29 61.6% 13 

91.8% 1,2, 

3 8 




26.9% 20 10.9% 12 21.8% 29 47.8% 2 13 23.1% 8 


computing in Fall 2010? 66.7% 19 88.8% 3 11 57.7% 25 61.0% 12 75.5% 8 



2010? 







institution? 




47.0% 2,5 19 .0% 11 32.5% 2,5 27 17.8% 13 .0% 7 

84.3% 4 100.0% 4 92.0% 8 88.0% 5 100.0% 5 

6.6% 20 14.6% 12 16.1% 29 5.3% 12 35.6% 8 

50.0% 1 62.7% 2 46.7% 5 .0% 1 35.1% 3 





school 









low 



are too low 



courses 




or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

16.8% 14 .0% 6 14.9% 20 .0% 7 .0% 5 

59.6% 4,5 14 22.1% 6 39.5% 4,5 20 9.5% 7 .0% 5 

13.5% 14 11.1% 6 6.4% 20 .0% 7 .0% 5 

24.8% 14 .0% 6 9.6% 20 17.4% 7 22.2% 5 

8.0% 14 .0% 6 6.6% 20 9.5% 7 .0% 5 

33.5% 2 14 .0% 6 21.2% 2 20 17.4% 7 14.5% 5 





30.1% 


4 14 18.6% 6 21.2% 4 20 .0% 7 

71.0% 2,3, 

4 5 




50.9% 5 14 51.8% 5 6 33.5% 5 h1id Reason not apply to graduate 

20 14.6% 7 .0% 5 



fees 

8.0% 14 29.6% 6 24.4% 4,5 20 .0%* 7 .0%* 5 




34.9% 14 59.3% 6 75.5% 1 20 32.0% 7 63.3% 5 



family 

37.6% 5 14 11.1% 6 20.8% 5 h1ld Reason not apply to graduate 

20 14.6% 7 .0% 5 


to go 

13.3% 14 .0%*** 6 .0%*** 20 .0%*** 7 .0%*** 5



(continued) 




school 










Armed Forces 






or lessl 


(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

% N % N % N % N % N 

16.8% 14 .0%* 6 9.6% 20 .0%* 7 .0% 5 

8.7% 14 18.6% 6 3.3% 20 .0% 7 .0% 5 

21.5% 14 59.3% 6 54.7% 20 32.0% 7 41.1% 5 

.0%**** 14 .0%**** 6 .0%**** 20 .0%**** 7 .0%**** 5 

21.5% 14 

70.4% 1,3, 

4,5 

6 14.9% 20 14.6% 7 .0% 5 


school: I already have a job 34.3% 5 14 70.4% 5 6 42.7% 5 20 24.1% 7 .0% 5 





INSTITUTIONAL GROUP 









Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 





3.64 15 3.09 28 3.27 27 3.10 18 


school 

2.14 15 2.00 29 2.03 26 2.56 16 




school after working for a while 2.79 15 2.26 28 2.49 25 3.20 2,3 18 




degree in computing 3.50 2 15 2.74 28 3.05 25 3.11 16 


computing 2.46 14 2.32 26 2.68 25 2.30 18 




computing, not in research 2.93 15 2.87 28 3.06 24 2.67 16 




3.36 15 3.63 29 3.73 1 26 3.80 1 18 






Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 




results 


2.86 15 2.92 29 3.05 25 3.00 18 


hypothesis 

2.86 15 3.13 29 2.92 25 2.90 18 





experiments 



other tools 









report 



report 




3.21 15 3.42 29 3.08 26 2.90 18 

2.79 15 3.08 29 2.85 26 2.50 18 

2.93 15 3.13 29 3.03 26 2.70 18 

3.21 15 3.00 29 2.88 26 3.10 18 

3.07 15 3.04 29 2.90 25 2.80 18 

2.36 15 2.50 29 2.08 26 2.20 18 

2.85 14 3.13 29 2.77 25 2.50 18 


experience on: Your career choice 3.00 15 3.17 29 3.27 27 2.70 18 




school 

3.21 15 3.38 29 3.28 26 3.33 16 




Experience (continued) Institutional Group 


Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 






3.08 13 2.79 23 2.72 19 3.33 11 



chosen path 

c2ar How important is non- 

3.43 15 3.25 29 3.41 27 3.11 16 


career choice 

c2br How important is non- 

3.38 14 3.05 26 3.33 24 3.00 15 




2.62 14 2.39 28 3.00 2 c2cr How important is non- 

23 3.00 13 




2.42 13 1.60 24 2.21 18 2.00 9 




3.43 15 3.09 28 3.14 23 3.25 15 




and Knowledge about computing Institutional Group 


Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 



a research project in computing 3.50 15 3.46 29 3.49 27 3.20 18 


to graduate school in computing 3.36 15 3.46 29 3.68 27 3.30 18 


graduate degree in computing 3.71 15 3.38 29 3.54 27 3.20 18 


















engineer 










3.21 15 3.38 29 3.27 27 2.90 18 

2.79 15 3.25 1,3 29 2.83 27 3.00 18 

3.14 15 3.38 29 3.07 27 3.10 18 

3.21 15 3.33 29 3.10 27 2.90 18 

3.00 15 3.13 29 2.90 27 2.70 18 

2.14 15 2.75 29 2.61 27 2.30 18 

2.50 15 3.04 29 2.63 27 2.30 18 

















advisor 
















want to do 




I want 








Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.36 15 3.50 29 3.15 26 3.20 18 

3.93 2,3 15 3.33 29 3.33 25 3.50 18 

4.31 14 4.21 29 4.31 4 25 3.80 18 

4.17 13 4.42 29 4.35 22 4.00 16 

3.07 15 2.75 29 2.67 25 3.20 18 

3.77 14 3.33 29 3.10 25 3.00 18 

3.08 14 2.88 29 2.74 25 3.22 16 

4.00 15 3.63 29 3.54 25 3.40 18 

3.79 15 3.54 29 3.42 25 3.80 18 

3.54 14 3.88 29 4.10 26 4.30 18 




(continued) 















teamwork 






social impact 




leadership 













Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 


3.64 15 3.88 29 3.85 26 4.00 18 

3.77 14 3.22 28 3.43 24 3.88 15 

4.07 15 3.79 29 3.95 26 4.00 16 

3.00 15 3.00 29 3.15 26 2.70 18 

3.07 15 3.17 4 29 3.35 4 26 2.50 18 

3.29 15 3.54 29 3.36 25 3.80 3 18 

2.86 15 2.67 29 2.83 26 3.20 18 

3.36 2 15 2.88 29 3.03 25 2.80 18 

3.15 14 3.00 29 3.18 26 3.33 16 

3.79 15 3.63 29 3.50 26 3.70 18 




(continued) Institutional Group 


Small schools 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 





future career: To teach 2.92 3 14 2.48 28 2.23 25 2.40 18 



time 



occupation 







3.43 2 15 2.91 28 3.15 26 3.10 18 

2.79 15 2.57 28 2.58 26 2.67 16 

3.00 15 2.88 29 2.79 25 2.89 16 

3.29 2,3 15 2.58 29 2.63 25 3.00 16 






(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


advising 92.9% 15 100.0% 3 29 100.0%* 27 100.0% 2* 18 


my degree 92.9% 15 95.8% 29 100.0%* 26 100.0%* 18 


advice 85.7% 15 91.3% 28 95.1% 27 90.0% 18 


about my research 84.6% 14 91.3% 28 97.2% 24 88.9% 16 



students 




my degree 

84.6% 14 83.3% 29 91.7% 4 24 55.6% 16 

85.7% 15 95.8% 29 100.0% 26 90.0% 18 

64.3% 15 70.8% 29 92.5% 1,2 26 100.0% 1,2 18 


students over others 35.7% 4 15 36.4% 4 26 32.5% 4 26 .0% 16 


research 84.6% 4 14 81.8% 4 26 73.0% 24 40.0% 18 




professional conferences 92.9% 4 15 83.3% 29 85.0% 26 55.6% 16 


contacts 57.1% 15 73.9% 28 79.5% 25 70.0% 18 


in my abilities 14.3% 15 8.3% 29 17.9% 4 25 .0% 18 



(continued) 






(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

42.9% 8 30.8% 16 16.1% 20 20.0% 18 

100.0% 3,4 14 95.8% 29 89.7% 25 70.0% 18 


student groups 100.0%** 15 100.0%** 29 97.5% 26 100.0%** 16 







91.7% 3,4 13 90.5% 3,4 25 47.1% 4 22 10.0% 18 

100.0%* 3,4 15 100.0%* 3,4 29 85.0% 4 26 50.0% 18 


honor societies 83.3% 3,4 13 80.0% 3,4 24 54.3% 4 23 11.1% 16 


groups 75.0% 4 9 88.9% 3,4 22 48.1% 18 28.6% 13 


minority computer scientists/engineers 71.4% 8 90.5% 3 25 70.3% 24 70.0% 18 



66.7% 3 75.0% 5 80.0% 3 50.0% 4 

69.2% 14 91.3% 28 88.6% 23 100.0% 1,3 13 


student groups 42.9% 15 79.2% 1 29 76.9% 1 25 77.8% 16 







18.2% 12 42.1% 23 43.8% 10 100.0% 1,2,3 2 

71.4% 15 45.8% 29 64.7% 22 60.0% 9 




(continued) 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


honor societies 20.0% 11 31.3% 19 52.6% 12 100.0% 1,2,3 2 


groups 33.3% 7 37.5% 19 38.5% 8 50.0% 4 


or minority computer scientists/engineers 60.0% 5 78.9% 23 84.6% 17 100.0% 2,3 13 


Experience 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 




study that included computing research 64.3% 15 62.5% 29 61.0% 27 88.9% 3 16 




42.9% 15 45.8% 29 53.7% 27 33.3% 16 


computing research at my university 71.4% 15 83.3% 4 29 75.6% 4 27 33.3% 16 


computing research at another university 64.3% 15 45.8% 29 58.5% 27 100.0% 1,2,3 18 



industry lab 

.0%* 15 25.0% 1,4 29 9.8% 1,4 27 .0%* 16 


computing research 14.3% 15 8.3% 29 5.0% 26 .0% 16 


research 21.4% 15 25.0% 29 15.4% 25 55.6% 3 16 


work that involved computing? 78.6% 15 87.5% 29 73.2% 27 70.0% 18 






(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school in computing? 


42.9% 15 50.0% 29 36.6% 27 50.0% 18 


computing? 

35.7% 15 20.8% 29 19.5% 27 20.0% 18 




other than computing in Fall 2010? 14.3% 15 22.7% 26 20.0% 23 44.4% 16 









applied for? 

100.0%* 4 100.0%* 11 78.6% 9 100.0% 2 

14.3% 15 21.7% 4 28 17.1% 4 27 .0% 18 

50.0% 2 40.0% 6 14.3% 5 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: I do not like school 


12.5% 9 20.0% 18 4.0% 16 .0% 15 



37.5% 9 40.0% 18 36.0% 16 12.5% 15 




.0%* 9 6.7% 18 16.0% 1,4 16 .0%* 15 




(continued) 



(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 


school: My grades are too low 25.0% 9 13.3% 18 12.0% 16 .0% 15 


school: My GRE scores are too low 12.5% 9 .0%* 18 12.5% 16 .0%* 15 








school 







25.0% 9 20.0% 18 8.0% 16 37.5% 15 

50.0% 9 20.0% 18 32.0% 16 37.5% 15 

25.0% 9 6.7% 18 16.0% 16 12.5% 15 

37.5% 9 60.0% 18 52.0% 16 62.5% 15 


school: I need to help support my family 37.5% 4 9 26.7% 4 18 16.0% 4 16 .0% 15 


school: No one has encouraged me to go .0%** 9 .0%** 18 .0%** 16 12.5% 15 










12.5% 9 6.7% 18 16.0% 4 16 .0% 15 

12.5% 9 6.7% 18 4.2% 16 .0% 15 

37.5% 9 40.0% 18 52.0% 16 50.0% 15 


school: I plan to join the Armed Forces .0%*** 9 .0%*** 18 .0%*** 16 .0%*** 15 



(continued) 



own family 




(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

% N % N % N % N 

37.5% 4 9 20.0% 18 20.0% 4 16 .0% 15 


school: I already have a job 50.0% 9 40.0% 18 56.0% 4 16 12.5% 15 


school in Fall 2010? 35.7% 15 37.5% 29 36.6% 27 20.0% 18 



Appendix G: 

Under-Represented Minorities: 





UNDER-REPRESENTED MINORITIES ONLY 


University of Virginia G-1


G-2 Center for Survey Research







a while 


program 




computing 





(0) 

craw participants (only CREU/DREU/DMP) 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.89 42 3.51 (0) 23 

2.61 45 2.08 23 

2.36 45 3.00 23 

2.95 43 2.59 23 

3.71 42 3.69 23 

2.94 42 3.30 23 

1.75 43 2.48 (0) 22 

2.70 44 2.91 22 

3.57 (1) 45 2.98 22 

3.63 45 3.77 23 










experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 






(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.33 45 2.80 23 

2.42 45 2.97 23 

2.57 45 2.94 23 

2.71 45 3.41 (0) 23 

2.88 45 2.92 23 

2.80 45 2.98 23 

2.50 45 3.13 23 

2.75 45 2.93 23 

2.11 45 2.54 23 

2.30 38 3.21 (0) 23 

2.71 41 3.00 23 

2.89 37 3.44 23 

2.27 39 2.90 20 

2.56 40 3.49 (0) 23 

3.40 43 3.51 20 

2.97 40 3.00 22 

2.60 39 2.25 22 

3.36 43 3.53 22 



about computing craw participants (only CREU/DREU/DMP) 


Participants 

(0) 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Mean N Mean N 

3.24 45 3.63 23 

3.27 45 3.55 23 

3.32 45 3.55 23 

3.08 45 3.32 23 

3.60 45 3.69 23 

2.57 45 3.21 (0) 23 

2.59 45 2.97 23 

3.06 45 3.27 23 

3.20 45 3.40 23 

2.76 45 3.09 23 

2.62 45 2.78 23 

2.83 45 2.69 23 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 


(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.63 45 3.38 23 

3.51 45 3.37 23 

3.86 45 4.02 23 

3.71 36 4.32 (0) 22 

2.88 45 2.76 23 

3.08 45 3.42 22 

3.44 45 2.99 22 

3.80 45 3.76 23 

3.97 43 3.96 23 

3.99 43 4.28 23 

3.68 45 4.08 23 

3.53 44 3.94 22 

3.46 40 4.27 (0) 23 

















aspire 


research 











(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.25 42 2.97 23 

3.38 42 3.23 23 

3.30 42 3.51 22 

3.20 45 2.98 23 

3.25 45 3.08 23 

3.31 45 3.41 23 

3.76 42 3.67 23 

2.10 45 2.55 23 

2.52 42 2.31 22 

3.24 45 3.08 23 

2.93 45 2.71 23 

2.94 45 2.94 23 

2.65 45 2.79 23 














others 





conferences 




(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

100.0% (1) 45 100.0% 23 

88.2% 45 94.9% 23 

80.7% 45 100.0% (0) 22 

76.7% 33 86.8% 23 

75.8% 36 86.8% 23 

86.4% 42 87.1% 23 

78.8% 45 76.1% 23 

57.6% (1) 42 25.7% 22 

43.1% 33 73.8% 23 

37.6% 43 21.2% 23 

70.2% 43 77.5% 22 

66.6% 42 77.7% 22 

7.9% 42 2.9% 23 


























(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

13.2% 32 12.0% 15 

84.0% 45 75.9% 23 

96.0% 43 97.1% 23 

83.2% 43 69.7% 22 

79.8% 42 81.7% 23 

68.6% 38 74.7% 22 

64.7% 36 71.1% 17 

83.2% 40 85.9% 21 

82.9% 4 100.0% 2 

81.0% 38 82.4% 17 

72.6% 41 73.1% 22 

48.9% 36 65.1% 16 

32.4% 33 36.5% 19 

42.5% 26 30.0% 16 

56.7% 23 31.1% 12 

60.8% 33 73.3% 18 

Chapter 4: Research and Work Experience craw participants (only CREU/DREU/DMP) 





















computing? 













(0) 

Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

57.9% 45 64.4% 23 

47.5% 45 78.1% (0) 23 

26.4% 44 44.9% 23 

28.1% 44 64.4% (0) 23 

16.2% 44 54.9% (0) 23 

10.5% 43 26.0% 23 

18.7% 45 15.8% 23 

21.4% 44 28.1% 23 

48.6% 45 81.4% (0) 23 


(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

22.2% 45 53.2% (0) 23 

30.3% 45 25.5% 23 

78.3% 43 73.7% 19 

25.1% 38 24.5% 22 

20.0% 17 93.9% (0) 11 

2.2% 45 16.6% 22 

100.0% 1 .0% 4 


Not attending graduate school craw participants (only CREU/DREU/DMP) 


school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 


(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

17.8% 28 .0% 13 

23.6% 28 26.2% 13 

12.6% 28 .0% 13 

13.6% 28 17.2% 13 

1.6% 28 .0% 13 

4.2% 28 26.2% 13 

4.8% 28 8.2% 13 

56.5% 28 35.8% 13 

31.9% 28 26.8% 13 

71.4% 29 50.4% 13 

39.7% 28 22.1% 13 

15.1% 25 .0% 13 

5.2% 28 18.0% 13 

5.2% 28 .0% 13 

52.6% 27 41.4% 13 

1.6% 28 .0% 13 

13.0% (1) 28 .0% 13 

52.6% 29 22.8% 13 

33.8% 44 40.4% 23 



Appendix H: 

Women: 





WOMEN ONLY 











a while 


program 




computing 





(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.50 87 3.19 (0) 80 

2.53 94 2.18 79 

2.43 94 2.40 81 

2.85 88 2.68 79 

3.38 83 3.50 74 

2.53 87 3.04 (0) 76 

1.90 89 2.47 (0) 77 

2.53 90 2.98 (0) 74 

3.17 96 2.91 76 

3.59 95 3.62 81 










experiments 








or report 


or report 




career choice 











school 






(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

2.20 94 3.04 (0) 80 

2.38 96 2.96 (0) 80 

2.48 96 2.96 (0) 81 

2.88 96 3.17 81 

2.78 96 2.84 81 

2.84 96 3.00 81 

2.71 96 3.04 80 

2.63 96 2.99 80 

1.82 96 2.22 81 

2.31 85 2.78 (0) 79 

2.73 85 3.12 81 

2.60 83 3.28 (0) 79 

2.01 65 2.92 (0) 58 

2.59 78 3.28 (0) 78 

3.11 89 3.15 73 

2.46 90 2.70 71 

2.20 76 2.03 57 

3.06 91 3.11 73 



about computing craw participants (only CREU/DREU/DMP) 


Participants 

(0) 

(1) 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 


computing 





engineering 












Mean N Mean N 

2.91 95 3.36 (0) 81 

2.91 95 3.39 (0) 81 

3.00 95 3.40 (0) 81 

2.86 95 3.24 (0) 81 

3.41 95 3.40 81 

2.59 97 3.20 (0) 81 

2.44 97 2.97 (0) 81 

3.04 97 3.17 81 

2.81 97 3.10 81 

2.51 97 2.92 (0) 81 

2.53 97 2.44 81 

2.62 97 2.64 81 


















environment 



opportunities 









to date 



experience 



experience 


(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.59 93 3.31 81 

3.39 93 3.50 80 

3.82 88 4.20 (0) 79 

3.82 66 4.23 (0) 73 

2.79 90 2.83 80 

3.03 92 3.20 79 

3.17 83 2.91 76 

3.62 91 3.62 80 

3.40 90 3.51 79 

3.69 81 3.92 79 

3.54 88 3.79 81 

3.12 90 3.43 73 

3.40 81 3.89 (0) 79 

















aspire 


research 











(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

Mean N Mean N 

3.07 90 3.01 81 

3.09 90 3.05 81 

3.43 90 3.51 81 

2.87 90 2.75 81 

2.88 90 2.95 80 

3.12 93 3.11 78 

3.58 90 3.65 81 

2.16 92 2.56 80 

2.31 93 2.45 79 

3.04 93 3.17 79 

2.47 93 2.56 78 

2.85 93 2.85 78 

2.61 90 2.84 77 

Chapter 3: Undergraduate Experience craw participants (only CREU/DREU/DMP) 













others 





conferences 




(0) 

Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

97.9% 96 98.7% 81 

95.1% 95 97.2% 81 

84.4% 93 88.0% 81 

88.7% 70 93.2% 74 

86.0% 75 81.1% 75 

91.1% 90 96.0% 81 

79.6% 94 86.5% 81 

31.3% 93 27.9% 76 

56.9% 71 68.0% 76 

28.6% 94 22.1% 81 

81.6% 94 82.4% 79 

67.0% 91 72.9% 78 

8.7% 91 12.6% 81 



























(0) 



Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

25.4% 66 29.8% 57 

91.8% 93 90.9% 79 

82.0% 90 99.2% (0) 79 

48.0% 83 53.1% 70 

67.7% 91 83.6% 81 

39.3% 75 51.9% 68 

49.3% 63 59.8% 52 

83.9% 79 73.7% 65 

53.5% 17 66.0% 17 

86.7% 85 87.3% 72 

68.8% 73 67.3% 79 

43.5% 40 40.2% 37 

87.9% (1) 62 66.7% 67 

35.8% 29 40.4% 35 

50.0% 31 35.1% 31 

82.2% 66 88.7% 48 


(0) 


Participants 

(1) 





















computing? 












% N % N 

62.2% 96 66.7% 79 

60.0% 96 67.6% 79 

28.5% 94 44.3% 79 

46.2% 96 68.8% (0) 79 

17.4% 94 68.0% (0) 81 

1.9% 93 7.8% 79 

14.3% 90 4.4% 79 

19.7% 90 28.5% 78 

57.0% 97 77.7% (0) 81 


(0) 


Participants 

(1) 

% N % N 

25.3% 97 45.4% (0) 81 

35.8% 96 26.7% 81 

63.8% 82 63.0% 75 

26.0% 78 27.2% 74 

45.8% 35 92.2% (0) 25 

1.6% 93 14.4% (0) 81 

100.0% (1) 1 52.5% 12 

Not attending graduate school craw participants (only CREU/DREU/DMP) 


(0) 

Participants 

(1) 



school 






are too low 




























a job 


2010? 


% N % N 

16.2% 64 10.1% 53 

20.9% 63 25.5% 53 

10.3% 64 7.2% 53 

11.0% 64 14.3% 53 

6.0% 64 3.8% 52 

3.7% 64 18.1% (0) 53 

7.8% 64 27.5% (0) 53 

33.6% 64 30.6% 53 

13.7% 64 14.8% 53 

56.7% 64 54.8% 53 

20.8% 64 17.8% 53 

5.5% 61 3.4% 53 

5.3% 64 9.3% 53 

7.1% 64 5.6% 52 

44.6% 63 47.2% 53 

1.4% 64 .0% 53 

13.0% 64 21.1% 53 

26.9% 64 35.6% 53 

33.2% 96 32.8% 81 



Appendix I: 

Responses to Open-Ended Questions 



2 Center for Survey Research

RESPONSES TO OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS 


Q_CRAWOTH: Have you participated in any of the following programs sponsored by the 

Computing Research Association, Coalition to Diversify Computing, or Broadening 

Participation in Computing? 

ACM 

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) 

CRA-W 

NSF sponsored Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) 

OCWIC (Ohio Celebration of Women in Computing) 

REU 

Society of Women Engineers 

Q_DEGAREA01: Which of the following (other computing) areas do you plan to attain your 

highest degree in? 

Applied Computing Technology 

Biology 

Computational Biology 

Computational Biology 

Computational Science and Engineering 

Computer Security/Forensics 

Databases 

Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology 

Human Centered Computing 

Human Centered Computing (human interaction) 

Human Computer Interaction 

Human Factors and Ergonomics 

Human-Computer Interaction 


Information Assurance 

Information Assurance and Security 

Information Science 

Information Technology 


interactive multimedia, or digital journalism 

Looking into HCI, mostly. 

MSE Software Engineering 

Not Sure. 

Robotics 

Robotics. 

Software Engineering 



some other engineering 

Systems Engineering 

unsure 

University of Virginia 3


Q_DEGAREA02: Which of the following (other interdisciplinary) areas do you plan to attain 

your highest degree in? 

Biology/Environmental and Computing (unsure) 

Biotechnology/Bioinformatics 

cognitive systems 

Computational Linguistics 

Computer Science / Psychology 

computer science, math and biology (medicine) 

Education Art 

Education technology 

engineering management 

Entertainment Technology (CS, fine arts, design, theatre) 

environment/art/and/or/math 

environmental engineering 

Human Computer Interaction 


I think a heavy dosage of quality human interaction is required. I will study human interaction. It's 

something I've neglected for 37 years. 

Instructional Design and Technology 

Interactive Design 

Linguistics 

Marine Science, Ecology, Modeling 

Neuroscience, Cognitive science, Computing 

Probably business or computer science, but currently unsure. 

Web science 

Q_DEGAREA03: Which of the following (other science or engineering non-computing) areas do 

you plan to attain your highest degree in? 

Aerospace Engineering(possibly) 

Aerospace, possibly GNC. 

Biology 

Biology 

biology 

Biotechnology/Bioinformatics 

Chemistry 

Computer Science, Cognitive Science, or perhaps computing and green structures 

Engineering Management 

human factors 

IT 

Marine Biology... maybe one day 

Masters of Engineering Management 

Media arts and sciences 

Nuclear Engineering 

physics 

Psychology. 

Psychology/cognitive science 

Social Psychology 

Urban/environmental planning. OR Business Managment 

Weather and Atmospheric Sciences 



Q_ DEGAREA04: Which of the following (other non-computing) areas do you plan to attain 

your highest degree in? 

Business Administration 

Classics 

criminal justice 

don’t know 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics 

education 

education 

education 

Education 

English 

Finance 

I am also considering finance or economics. 

Instructional Design 

Interactive Media 

Internet Marketing 

linguistics 

Management degree of some kind so that I can work towards becoming a project or program 

manager. 

Medical Degree 

not sure yet 

Nursing--to do nursing informatics 

public policy 

secondary education 

Undetermined 

Urban Affairs and Planning 

Would like to do something with foreign languages, specifically Japanese (maybe Korean). 

Q_DSABLTYO: What is your disability status? 

ADHD 

Age-related cognitive decline 

Anxiety Disorder 

Attention Deficit Disorder 

Attention Deficit Disorder 

I don't understand people. 

Learning disability (ADHD, OCD tendencies) 

no legal disability but I do have Central Auditory Processing Disorder 

seizure disorder 

Sensory Processing Disorder 

Sleep Apnea 

Q_DSCRIMP: Please describe how your research experience, or lack of it, influenced your 

career choice or decisions about graduate school. 

Actually, my main interest is in Mathematics, Comp. Sci. is a second degree. My choice of grad 



school is very limited by my home and family ties (older student) since I can't leave this immediate 

area. Research experience is not a factor. 

After doing research I found that I enjoyed they subject so I pursued it. 

After doing UGrad research I knew I had what i takes to be an academic researcher. 

After doing undergraduate research, I knew I wanted my career to be in research. 

After getting my Master's degree, I will work for a few years. Following this, I may try to get a PhD, 

or work in an area where I can do computing-related research. 

After my experience in DREU, I decided that I am not yet ready to begin graduate school or a 

career in research. DREU overall left me feeling as though my undergraduate degree did not 

prepare me for research, and that I would be very behind if I decided to go in that direction. I may 

be interested in research and teaching in the near or distant future, but I am about to start a nonresearch 

programming job. 

After participating in various research projects as an undergraduate I realised I wanted to continue 

doing research and graduate school was a great place to do this. 

Always wanted to go to grad school, but didn't know if I wanted to be a prof. 

An REU experience I had at a different university helped to solidify for me what graduate research 

would be like. I wouldn't say it was the sole deciding factor, but it helped me to recognize it was 

within my skill set to conduct and of interest to me. 

As a biologist, strengthened and diversified my skill set to help me stand out from those who were 

bio majors alone. 

Based on research I have done I am familiar with the types of research going on at different 

universities and what graduate degree programs are offered. 

Because my research is in a branch of computing other than the one I've accepted a job offer in, it 

lacks immediate impact though it may influence my later graduate studies. 

Convinced me that research may not be for me for the rest of my life. 

Decided not to go to graduate school - research is not for me. 

Didn't do much in undergrad, didn't look enjoyable. The school I went to everyone was focused in 

an area that didn't sound interesting at all. 

Doing research made we want to go to graduate school 

Encouraged me to continue research at the graduate level, since I enjoyed the process and feel 

more confident in my research skills 

Encouraged me to go for PhD 

Encouraged me to seek a career in research. 

Found new interest in virtual machines. 

Getting involved in research during my undergraduate years made me decide that I wanted to 

remain in school to attain my PhD and conduct computing research as a long-term career, either in 

Academia or Government 

Helped focus what I would study 

Helped me figure out what I like/dislike about different research in different careers. 

I am very proud of the research projects I have been a part of, and I feel that research is important. 

After having interviewed with a company that did not think highly of research, I realized that I want 

to work for a company that values research and finds interest in what I have worked on. As an 

undergraduate, I have been a co-author on a note and a work-in-progress, which both appeared in 

the proceedings of the same conference. This is something that not many undergraduates have 

accomplished. 

I believe it improved my confidence and the encouragement I received made me decide that I 

wanted to go to graduate school, which I had not planned on doing before the research. 

I believe that my research will certainly help me acquire a job or gain admission to graduate school. 

I learned a substantial amount through my research, but most importantly, I learned that I enjoy 

computing research. Because of this, I know that I will eventually succeed in completing a Ph.D. 

program in computer science. 

I chose to attend graduate school and was able to do so because of my research experience. 

I chose to get my master's at CSUMB following my undergraduate research experience. I felt 

encourage to get my master's in the field of instructional technology after participating in research 

related to the career field. 



I confirmed what area of research I would like to pursue and that I enjoy research. 

I continue to do research and hope to publish again in graduate school, but the experience showed 

me that a career in research is not for me. I still think it was a positive experience, and I am glad 

that it helped me rule something out that I had been considering. 

I decided I didn't want to do research/go to graduate school in computing. I decided I wanted to 

work in the field (not in research). 

I decided not to go to grad school because of the work level. I needed some time away from it all. 

I decided not to go to grad school right after graduating because I didn't know exactly what I 

wanted to focus in for research, so I applied for jobs instead and got a job as a software engineer, 

but the company also promotes doing research and conducting your own research and one day 

they will probably put me through grad school. (It is a government related company) 

I decided not to go to grad school unless I become obsessed with some sub-topic. 

I decided that I dislike academia and research. 

I decided to stay at the same school to continue working with the same professor. 

I decided to wait to go to graduate school because I saw how important it was for graduate 

students to be focused and passionate about their area of study. Also, I saw that I was not very 

interested in the type of research at my host research university, aside from the small project I was 

involved in. 

I definitely want to continue working with faculty and researching at UCSD 

I did not do any research. It did not impact my decisions except to not want to do graduate 

research. 

I did undergraduate research and did grad school with the same professor 

I didn't care to go to graduate school, but that doesn't have anything to do with my research. 

I didn't do any research so it was not a factor. 

I don't have a job because I don't have experience in my field. 

I enjoyed making new technologies and working in a continually advancing field to help others and 

knew I needed a graduate degree to continue. 

I enjoyed my research and felt that there was more to do, so I decided to enroll in Duke's 

accelerated (4 1) master's program. My general love of computing led me to two internships at 

Microsoft and a desire to work there after I get my masters. 

I enjoyed my research experience and decided I would like to do more of it. 

I felt really scared to start a Master’s degree with a thesis because of my research. 

I figured if I could succeed in undergraduate research it would be like a taste of what graduate 

work, or a career in industry research, was like. If I could not succeed in undergraduate research, 

or did not feel like it was for me, neither grad school nor research careers were, either. 

I got to know my adviser and we worked well together. 

I had a terrible experience, and this has colored my inclination to participate in research in the 

future. This will most likely result in me not attending a graduate program in which I will be required 

to submit a thesis or complete research projects. 

I had no idea what grad school would be like and my research opportunity showed me pretty much 

what it would be like. It also showed me I could probably succeed in grad school. 

I had no research experience in my undergraduate institution, but my research experience with the 

DREU definitely made me much more comfortable with my decision to attend graduate school; it 

made me look forward to doing more research as a PhD student. 

I had participated to a DREU research in Washington University in St. Louis in summer 2009. That 

was my first computing research experience. I learned two things from it: first, I can do 

programming very well, since I was programming 8 hours every day, and I did a good job. Second, 

though I like programming, I would like to achieve something in a higher level, such as studying 

human needs (what their requirements for the computer and network, how to make a software 

more user friendly to them, etc.) That was the very first stimulation for me to search graduated 

school in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) direction. 

I have an assistantship for research and that was my primary reason for attending graduate school. 

I have little interest in graduate school right now, and research might have changed that. Also, my 

lack of research and a Master's degree closes some private-sector research opportunities. 



I intend to go, eventually. 

I knew I didn't want to do research in whatever career i chose. 

I knew that I was decently capable at research and wanted to continue it at the graduate level, 

possibly continuing afterward to be an academic at a research university. I am pursuing a Ph.D. in 

economics rather than computer science, however, making my experience doing research in 

computing only partially relevant. 

I learned that computer science has more to offer than just programming. 

I learned that I didn't particularly like the lack of direction you often find in a research environment, 

but I did enjoy the projects I worked on and gained experience working in a team on a large-scale 

project. 

I originally considered my computing interests to be a helpful technical component to my real 

research in the life sciences. Conducting computing research has given me a broader view of what 

research is, and has led me to more interdisciplinary career interests. 

I realized I don't want to do a thesis; I want to do coursework only. 

I realized that I am passionate research. I love trying to discover a better means of solving an 

existing problem on my own. Also, my mentor was impressed with my work and this was a source 

of great inspiration for me since earlier I was not certain whether I was likely to succeed in this field, 

even if I enjoyed it. 

I realized that I didn't enjoy research, so it led me to find a career rather than apply to graduate 

schools. 

I realized that I enjoy the challenge in research because there is always more to learn and 

discover. 

I realized that I liked research and wanted to pursue it further. It encouraged me to apply for 

graduate schools. 

I realized that I really enjoy doing research and may want to pursue a career in research. Also I 

found out about some really cool graduate schools through people I did research with. 

I really like doing research and thus, I decided to complete a PhD program in computing, then find 

a career that would allow me to apply my knowledge in math and computer science to address 

problems in medicine. 

I simply could not get involved in any meaningful research. It was one of reasons I gave up on 

graduate schools. 

I started doing research the summer I graduated high school. Since that time, over the past two 

years, I have worked on ten separate research projects and co-authored eleven papers / posters. 

These experiences were vital in my decision to attend graduate school (which was less of a 

decision and more of a logical next step.) In fact, I'm currently involved in a summer research 

experience with someone I have a great deal of respect for, and I am now quite certain I'd like to 

pursue my PhD under her direction. I could not imagine attempting to make decisions about 

graduate school without having prior research experience. 

I think my research experience helped me realized that there was more to computer science than 

just writing code. It differentially opened my eyes to exploring different options within computing 

and had an influence in choosing to continue on to grad school. 

I think my research experience made me realize that graduate school might not be right for me at 

this point in time. Although it is a great opportunity, I think right now I will be happiest and will do 

best by joining the workforce. 

I think undergraduate research helped me gauge my interest in research. 

I took my research seriously and knew it would have an influence on my graduate schooling. 

However, I was blessed with an I.T. opportunity as an Assoc. Software Design Engineer in a 

corporation before the graduate idea could come to fruition. 

I viewed our undergraduate projects as a sample of what graduate school projects may be like. I 

felt like at our school, without clear direction into new areas, research would really mean rehashing 

things that aren't new or interesting. Seeing what graduate students worked on was not impressive 

or compelling. 

I want to continue with grad school at UNCC 

I was able to see what a research environment is like and whether it is something I see myself 

doing. 

I was introduced to other graduate students and learned details about graduate school that I did not 



know. The information and understanding of graduate school helped me realize that it was 

something I could do and would probably like. 

I was never interested in doing research or CS/EE graduate school 

I was pushed into Human Computer Interaction by faculty members who said I had an uncommon 

aesthetic sense and a skill for programming. This encouragement gives me faith that my work will 

be well accepted in that field. My experience with internships in industry labs however has 

convinced me that there are more interesting problems to solve in industry and the rewards are 

much greater. I remain conflicted. 

If I had been involved in more research I may have pursued that in a graduate school setting rather 

than finding employment. 

if there was more research in undergrad, grad school would be more appealing 

I'm constantly evolving and learning which I this is a best thing! 

In the future, I want to do more technical work in the field, providing services, etc, rather than in 

research. 

Independent study and research in Bioinformatics has led me to consider studying something 

similar in Grad school. 

Independent study gives industry experience of Compsci, which is very valuable. 

Instead of research I did internships, which gave me hands on experience of the industry, making 

me want to work right after school 

Introduced me to new project areas that I will be focusing on in graduate school 

It developed my ability to communicate computer science concepts. 

It didn’t. 

It didn't. I planned to go to graduate school from the beginning after working. 

It encouraged me to look into research-based jobs as well as jobs in industry. 

It encourages me to pursue further research in Computer Science, graduate school seems to be 

one of the best ways to do that. 

It gave me a feel for some of the differences in graduate school as opposed to undergrad. 

It gave me an idea about how Graduate School would feel. 

It gave me an idea about what computing fields I would like to get into. 

It gave me better insight into various specific fields of computer science. After this research, I felt 

that it was necessary to work in the industry in order to choose which part of computer science I 

wished to focus on. 

It gave me a bit of insight into what I'd be doing if I pursued a graduate degree 

It gave me the confidence and ability to work in a more technical environment of digital media. 

Also, the nature of my research-creating computing content for and with kids-led me to my first job 

as a web producer and a children's book publisher. 

It gave me the desire to pursue advanced degree & focused my interests 

It has convinced me that this is what I want to do with my life and career, and so this lead me to 

believe that graduate school would be a great option for the future. 

It has helped me decide about whether or not I should pursue graduate school. Also, since I have 

done research in two different areas in computing, it has helped me decide what I should focus on 

in selecting a graduate school. 

It has motivated me to want a higher education. 

It helped convince me that I could contribute something valuable and useful to people that 

otherwise wouldn't have access to it. 

It helped me figure out what I was interested in. 

It helped me get my job and discouraged me from attending graduate school. 

It helped me see if research was something that I wanted to do as a career. 

It helped me understand what I want to do with my degree. It gave me confidence and improved 

my skills, and also helped direct my post graduation plans. 

It helps me get more experience in research, so I can decide if I really want to be in research 

It influenced it by giving me a concentration that I enjoy to pursue farther in graduate school. Thus 

making certain schools stand out above others. 

It influenced the area/field in which I want to build my career in. 



It informed me that I didn't want to pursue a career path in a Corporate R&D lab. 

It introduced me to research area worth pursuing in graduate school. 

It left me more uncertain about whether I would be any good at it. Mentors have said that true 

research is different from undergraduate programs. Furthermore, the message I perceive is that 

some people are just born for research - like from my undergraduate opportunities, it should be 

clear that it's preferable to working on problems in industry. Right now I fail to see the difference 

between some of the problems industry tackles and some that academia tackles. While industry 

may not start looking for fundamental problems, I don't see how the solutions they find to their own 

tasks don't abstract to something fundamental. Mentors have usual sayings like If we didn't have 

to do it again, it wouldn't be research! to encourage us, but it doesn't seem to ring true. A well 

you're new at this or sometimes it works out this way would be better. I tend to enjoy research 

more when I have a space to work in. Independent study has been more stressful than working in a 

lab, even if the lab is just a windowless room with a couple computers and a white board. I think I 

could really enjoy working in an environment like that with others like me. However, from what I 

understand graduate school is not like that - what you may do after graduate school is like that. It's 

unclear whether you need to go to graduate school to have employment of that type. Maybe if I 

was working with other PhD students, I would have more of an idea of graduate school. The 

schools I've worked at do not have PhD programs though. I have benefited from being able to talk 

casually with Masters students about their experiences and believe I could do that. However, my 

mentors are urging me towards pursuing a PhD program. 

It made me feel confident that I could succeed in graduate school and in becoming a research 

professor. 

It made me more likely to attend graduate school. 

It made me not want to go to grad school. 

It made me think seriously about attending grad school. Being in a research environment showed 

me what research can do for you and the doors that it will open up. I also learned how research is 

great for those who plan to attend grad school and felt that this was very important especially since 

few minorities go to and succeed in graduate school. 

It made me want to continue my education and become even more successful 

It opened my eyes to another path that I could take my career. 

It prepared me for it, and made me confident in my choice to attend. It was also responsible for me 

having a strong enough application to be admitted to graduate school. 

It provided me the additional experience I needed to learn more about EHR. 

It showed me that I need a break from academia for a few years. 

It showed me that people like me could find a place in the research environment and that I was 

actually quite proficient. I liked the program a lot, and also really enjoyed the lab atmosphere and 

the other grad students where I was, so when it came to applying I already knew where I wanted to 

go. 

It showed me that there are so many different computing disciplines to choose from, so I'd like to 

learn more about them before I choose one and pursue a degree. 

It was the other way round. a yin-yang relationship 

It's interesting, so I might want to go to graduate school and do research, but I don't enjoy it enough 

to make a career out of it. 

Made me choose graduate school in computer science, rather than something else. 

Made me decide that I wanted to have a real job before going on to graduate school. 

Made me want to go to graduate school. 

Made me want to pursue a broader/less specialized field 

Makes me want to actually attend. Although working first. 

More confidence in applying knowledge in practical context. 

More confidence when applying 

My career choice (graduate study) was completely determined by my positive research experience 

My DREU research experience greatly influenced me to go to graduate school. I actually did not 

plan to go to graduate school at all until I had the DREU research experience. 

My experiences, good and bad, heavily influenced what kind of research environment and what 

kind of work I wanted to do. I wanted a program that emphasized collaboration and group work, 



that drew on backgrounds outside of strict computer science, and that had very available faculty 

and staff that view the whole individual, not just the work, in a nurturing environment. 

My lack of experience dissuaded me from considering Graduate School. 

My lack of experience or research makes it difficult to land a job. 

My lack of research influenced me to seek work before attending higher education 

My neighbor worked at HP and helped my build my first computer then taught me DOS. This is 

what caught my interest. 

My overall purpose on my career is to bring computing assisted solutions to everyday life and 

society. Therefore any knowledge and practice in research will allow to design, implement, analyze 

and present possible solutions to these everyday life challenges in an appropriate manner. 

My own research experience will determine if I have the opportunity to enter a top rank graduate 

school or a graduate school near my home 

My research experience affirmed my decision to go to graduate school and to pursue a career in 

research. 

My research experience gave me a window into what graduate school would look like, whether I 

pursued a Masters or a PhD, and it also helped me understand what sorts of careers would be 

open to me as a result of my degree. The view I gained helped me make a more informed decision 

about whether or not I would pursue a graduate degree. 

My research experience gave me the confidence to know that I will succeed I'm my career. It also 

helped me to learn how to manage my time and tasks undress Little to no supervision. 

My research experience has given me confidence about having a successful computing career and 

has encouraged me to go to graduate school. 

My research experience has improved my co-authoring skills and made me a more efficient person 

in regards to team-related work. 

My research experience introduced me to academic research methodologies and the skills required 

to work in a laboratory environment. 

My research experience is what convinced me to apply to graduate school. I enjoy research and 

teaching, and I eventually want to become a college professor. Presently, however, I have decided 

to join the workforce for a while before attending school. 

My research experience let me get a taste of grad school, and I liked it! 

My research experience showed me that I did not have as much interest in the computing field at a 

graduate level as I originally thought. During my internships and job application process, I saw how 

various people in the computing field only received a masters in computing and then went on to 

attain a business graduate degree (or something similar). 

My research experience showed me that I wanted to look further into AI. I am currently a 

consultant - developer but I plan you pursue a masters and focus on AI. 

My research experience was a pleasant one and eventually I would like to attend. 

My research is largely unrelated to my choice of graduate schools 

My research provided me with the insight into what research entails, what parts I enjoy, what parts I 

do not. Through doing research as an undergraduate I feel well prepared to take it on as a 

graduate student. 

My research was based on Human Computer Interaction building software for local organization. I 

learned to love the field of Human Computer Interaction and wanted to learn more about it. 

My undergraduate thesis helped me understand more about the research community as a whole 

and helped me identify its personality compared to the private industry. 

N/A 

N/A 

No impact 

Not focused on graduate school, therefore did not do much research 

Not so important so far, but it helps me to think about what kind of research I want to go into. 

Performing research in various fields, including computing, helped me to determine the subject of 

my major and future interests. 

Positively 

Reinforced what I already thought I knew. 



Research experience can help me out in letting me know how a graduate school looks like. It can 

also help telling me about the life of the people who are involved in the research. 

research experience confirmed my desire to go to grad school 

Research experience led me to be sure that i wish to return to graduate school in the future. 

Research experiences make grad school seem more feasible, almost like a small taste of grad 

school. 

Research experiences were by far favorable to non-research experiences. 

Research exposed me to the level of critical thinking and collaboration required to succeed in a 

graduate school setting. This exposure made me a more experienced individual and increased my 

confidence to consider attending graduate school in the future. 

Research is important to advance computing technologies, but it did not interest me, so I decided 

to go to industry and not pursue a graduate degree in computing. 

Research is simply what I want to do. I like solving problems and research if by definition that! 

Research showed me that graduate school is not for me. In an applied field like cs research is 

more theoretical and less relevant to what I want in my career. 

Shows what I didn't like. 

Starting last fall, many of my professors began talking to me about grad school and encouraging 

me to go for my Masters. I considered it, but wasn't sure. Grad school is hard. You have to be very 

smart and my GPA isn't the highest. This research project that CRA aided has given me more 

confidence that I can and will succeed. 

taught me what my specific interests were 

The research I did gave me a clear picture of what I could pursue in grad school or even in a work 

environment. The opportunity of doing so many undergrad research projects is definitely what 

made me choose to go to grad school. 

The research I did was both exciting and fulfilling. It challenged me intellectually and I wish to 

continue to challenge myself. 

The subject I did research in was only available more thoroughly in graduate school. 

The summer before senior year I did research at the Media Lab as part of a DREU. This work was 

written and published and I had the opportunity to present it at my first academic conference. It 

was a great experience and I've decided to continue working with the same group in graduate 

school. My experience also certainly helped me gain admission into the graduate program. 

This summer I am participating in an REU program at Harvard Forest, where I am learning to use R 

(an open-source statistical language and environment) to run various data sets that I am preparing, 

through an ensemble of forecast models. This is the first formal opportunity that I have had to 

actually learn how to model, despite being aware of this technology and incorporating it into a past 

independent study (with help of senior student partner). This single experience has swayed my 

decision to pursue a graduate degree in computer science with the hope of beginning a degree in 

ecological modeling. I'm a little sad that I have one semester left of school and I'm only now getting 

a chance to explore such an opportunity. Now that I can see the relevance, I wish I could go back 

in time and take more math and statistic classes. Understanding the application of the skills we 

acquire in class, makes the experience of learning less passive and more insightful. 

Through research, I realized that I would rather first gain experience in industry as a computing 

professional prior to considering graduate school. 

Through the research experience I've gained, I feel as I have a better understanding of what is to 

be expected in graduate school, and I also feel more confident that I can successfully complete a 

graduate degree. 

Told me what I think is exciting. 

Undergrad research opportunities got me interested in Grad school. 

Well, it hasn't really at this point -- I'm working in a very non-computing field. I guess my 

experiences were effective in telling me that if I wanted, I would probably be pretty okay doing 

research. 

When I first entered college I was undecided about a major and I had never considered graduate 

school. After taking just one computer science course my professor approached me about joining 

the department and applying for a research grant. Participating in a CREU research program my 

sophomore year is what got me interested in applying to graduate school. After that experience I 

continued to become involved in different research projects on campus. These experiences have 



prepared me for graduate school and given me the confidence to apply to top-tier program. 

Without my DREU research experience, I would not have known whether or not I liked graduate 

school or felt confident in my ability to contribute in an industry job. My research experience was 

crucial in my decision to stay in Computer Science and consider pursuing grad school in the future. 

Without research, I probably would have gone into industry. My research experience was the single 

most important factor that made me decide to go to graduate school. 

Q_ENCIMMO: How much did each of the following influence your decision to attend or not 

attend graduate school immediately after your undergraduate education? 

A real life experience of developing and deploying software solutions using all the computer 

science learned in school is critical for any graduate for the following reasons: 1.Evaluating their 

level of knowledge and how satisfied with it they are. 2. Discovering their passionate in computing 

and what path they want to continue with. 3. Maturing -or learning new- business, computing and 

non-computing, skills. 4. Relating their theoretical knowledge to the real world and finding 

applicable ways they can apply and practice that knowledge through business standards. 5. 

Establishing research ideas based on the market and/or real life problems, which helps those 

interested in graduate studies to find a program and an institute that provides a good environment 

for their ideas. In my opinion, this helps student connecting educational institutes to the business 

and/or real world. Furthermore, it helps closing the gap between education and work of the point of 

view of the students. 

Accepting a full-time job in a tough economy. 

After 3 years of studying the nature of computation, I've concluded that humans have an innate 

urge to calculate. Humans aren't special or different than any other form of life. A tree calculates 

as does a rock, just not in the same way as a human. Why is this? I came to the conclusion that 

the universe is one massive computation engine and we are just a subset of that computation. We 

are bounded in our limited space and time while the universe is not. So my decision to not attend 

graduate school was based on the calculation that no new knowledge in the field of computation 

could be discovered. We've ... or perhaps I've reached a bounded limit. For humans and all other 

life subservient to the one-verse, P!=NP. For the universe, P=NP. And that's just the way it is. 

after the disaster in my former country, it thought it would be good to stay in school and gather 

more knowledge so I can help my school in my country. 

Age. I'm 57. The return on investment is limited if my career is short. My abilities and health are 

declining. Both tend to discourage extending my student years. 

Already received multiple job offers 

Applying to graduate school while maintaining my academic and co-curricular activities was tough. 

I felt that I did not have as much time to put into my graduate school search, test preparations, and 

applications as I would have liked to. Also, the cost of applying to graduate school is not 

insignificant as a full-time student, so I only applied to a few programs. Had I not been accepted 

for this fall I would have looked for temporary employment and applied again. 

been rejected by a low GPA Not enough money to pay None school tutoring 

Being able to have financial independence in life, aside from school. 

College caused me to not get enough sleep and to not eat right. As a result, I was sick and 

depressed a lot. I had to live 200 miles from my husband and only saw him on weekends. Some of 

the teachers tried to impede my academic progress for very unfair and ridiculous reasons. It is an 

experience which I never wish to repeat again. The thing college did for me was get companies to 

look at my resume. 

Escaping woefully extended maternal idiocy and entrapment and theoretically having a potentially 

desirable lifestyle besides would seem to preclude it. 

faculty at my university 

Feelings of being extremely stressed out and needing a break following senior year Desire to get 

real-world experience at a non-research job 

Figuring out whether to travel; figuring out which career path to take, and what to study in grad 



school later on. 

Financial aid low influences me not to attend graduate school following graduation 

Financial situation comes off to be foremost reason why getting a job after undergraduate degree 

makes the most sense, unless graduate school will help out further in advancing career path. 

Focus on career make graduate school seem less important 

For me, I chose not to attend graduate school immediately following graduation because I was 

unsure of what I wanted to concentrate in. I decided to work for a year or two to get a feel of what 

type of field I really want to work in, and then go to graduate school specifically to better my skills 

for my future career. 

General feeling of being burnt out by school/college in general. 

Getting a job and start paying of loans since I have two undergraduate degrees 

Getting a job offer from a company I wanted to work for strongly discouraged me from attending 

graduate school. I also wanted to make money. I also did not want to continue doing schoolwork for 

another ~4 years. 

Getting multiple job offers with only a graduate degree 

got a job offer, did not get into any good graduate schools 

Grades 

Hired full-time one month prior to graduation. 

I already worked 2 summer internships at a company who offered me a starting position. That was 

hard to turn down 

I am fortunate to have many mentors who give me what seems like sound advice. Sadly, their 

sound advice tends to be conflicting: - I am told to take the appropriate classes to go into a certain 

subfield that I have shown promise in. Then another mentor tells me that I should apply to a more 

general program because the more general degree will give me a wider range of employment 

prospects. - I am told I have what it takes to go into a respect program with good funding. Then 

another mentor tells me that should I get into one of those, I will be mediocre and miserable and 

working hard for it. I will be wasting my youth. Instead, I should go to a program where I have more 

freedom but less pressure. - I am told that I shouldn't go to graduate school because I don't have a 

clear idea of what I want to do. Then another mentor tells me that I will discover what I want to do 

in graduate school and that's okay. Many my mentors are sure I would regret it if I didn't go to 

graduate school. They believe I won't like industry or would be bored. Because my mentors are 

professors themselves, they prefer it to industry. I wonder if they are just projecting their feelings 

and values onto me. There have been other students who they said similar things to who have 

been very happy going to industry directly. Science in academia tends to strongly value academic 

research as the only true success and going into industry as some sort of booby prize. One mentor 

told me that not going to graduate school 'would be a waste.' I don't think my peers who are in 

industry or intend to go to industry are wasting their talents. They create new things, solve 

problems, and support our economy. The pervasive attitude that not being in academic research 

means you're a failure or that going to graduate school and determining research is not for you 

means you're a failure scares me. It makes the stakes very high. Being a minority compounds the 

fear of failure. If I do poorly, many will take me as one of their few representatives of women in 

computing. At the same time though, being am minority pressures me to try to reverse some of the 

stereotypes. If I am talented, it seems like I should go forward to show that women can do this. 

Then again, given that it has been shown that attractiveness is a large factor in the hiring of 

women, I am encouraged to enter industry sooner rather than when I am older and less attractive. 

Not only could a PhD make me 'overqualified' for many positions, but it could affect my 

marketability in that respect too. 

I am more interested in getting real-world experience at this point in my life. 

I am planning on pursuing a non-computing related career in the US Navy as soon as possible, so 

that will preclude my involvement in graduate school immediately. 

I am starting a business with my brother and will have most of my time taken up. If not I would 

have likely gone straight to graduate school but will wait at least a year or two until the business is 

successful and stable. 

I am taking five years to graduate, but I plan to apply next year. 

I considered it, but I did not want to relocate and I did not think highly of local Computer Science 

graduate programs. I also was anxious to find employment as a developer. 



I decided I want to be a professor, and that is the only way to make that possible. 

I didn't know what I wanted to focus my research in, so I decided to get a job and see if anything 

sparks my interest there and then go to grad school and I got a very good job, and they do 

research too so, this will help me hopefully find something I want to research in grad school. My 

other idea is to one day go to grad school for marine biology and then combine my computer 

knowledge to this field and develop programs and applications for it, but I don't think I would do this 

for many years to come. 

I don't know what subfield I want to pursue, so I wanted more experience in the field to help me 

decide. 

I don't want to do research; I just like programming. The only reason I am at all tempted to attend 

grad school is because the economy is so terrible that I am worried I won't be able to find a job. 

My grades were not good, so I probably wouldn't be able to get in anyways. 

I feel like graduate school in computer science destroys the ability to make practical things. While I 

understand this is more software engineering, I enjoy doing practical, useful things with computers 

and I have seen very few of those produced by people who hold graduate degrees (granted after 

say, 1990). 

I felt strongly influenced not to attend graduate school immediately after graduating college, 

because I had had such a tough time in undergrad computer science, and was feeling burned out 

on coursework. Another strong influence to not attend graduate school immediately was the fact 

that I wanted to go to grad school for something different than what I got my undergraduate degree 

in, and I wanted to gain work experience in the field before applying. 

I got a prestigious job at Google, which I decided to take instead of going directly to graduate 

school 

I had been in college for 8 years and I wanted a break. 

I just needed a break from school. 

I just needed a break from the schooling routine. 

I knew that I needed a break from school and some real world experience, finding out what I liked 

best about computing, before jumping back in to school and studying the areas of computing I'm 

passionate about. 

I love math and my tutoring experience in my university 

I love to continue as long as my brain still fresh with knowledge! 

I need to focus my interests before I will feel ready for grad school. 

I need to help my family, and attending grad school will push that way off, whereas a steady salary 

would not. 

I needed money, so I got a job first 

I never considered not attending graduate school immediately following graduation. 

I never planned on going to graduate school to begin with. 

I really wanted to take time to improve my Judaic knowledge. Also, lack of professor I knew well 

who could write a recommendation. 

I spent 9 years working on my undergraduate degree due to military deployments and I wanted to 

try working in computing before spend any more time on education. 

I think it's important to work in the real world for a while before I can even consider if grad school is 

right for me. I don't even know exactly what interests me, so it would be hard to go to grad school 

right away. 

I think seeing other people talk about their graduate experiences at conferences helped me make 

my own decision about graduate school. I think to go to graduate school you need to have a very 

strong passion for a specific area of study and research, and I realized my desire was to start 

working rather than continue in school directly after college. 

I think taking a gap makes it harder for me to go back to school. So I prefer going immediately 

following graduation. 

I took a year off because of struggling with issues of anxiety, depression, and chronic insomnia. I 

sought help from medical professionals and counselors, and felt a needed low responsibilities to 

rebuild my confidence and decide what was worth my time and money, and what I really wanted to 

do both now and in the future. 



I want to go to Medical School 

I want to have a game that is polished enough to get me into industry 

I want to know more! I also want to develop my own projects, answer my own questions. 

Eventually, I'd like to be able to help other scientists enhance their work, using the skills I have 

attained. I believe the computer science will allow me to work with other scientists across many 

disciplines, letting me experience so many more things then if I had chosen to become an 

ecologist, biologist or chemist. 

I want to remain local and available until my daughter finishes high school. 

I wanted some work experience and see if that could help me focus on what I wanted to do. 

I wanted to be able to get a job teaching technology at a college or university so getting Master’s as 

soon as possible seemed a good opportunity to increase my career options. 

I wanted to continue to attend my local church 

I wanted to get to work in the industry immediately because I hear that that is where the learning 

really takes place. 

I wanted to see what my concentration would be in before attending. 

I wanted to work and have breather from school. 

I wanted to work for a while and then go back, also my job pays for me to attend graduate school, 

so now I wont have to worry about where is the money coming from . 

I wanted to work for awhile before deciding if a grad program was right for me 

I was completely out of money and so it made the most sense to me to try to get a job after 

graduating. I figure that a good job will pay for me to continue working towards my Masters. 

I was offered a full time position in IT, which influenced me not to attend graduate school 

immediately. 

I went into the Ministry 

I'm a returning student in my undergrad degree, so once I decided I was interested in grad school I 

felt it was important to move ahead with it immediately rather than take another break. 

I'm doing a 5 year BS/MS, so it makes sense and I save a year of time and money. 

Interest in Mathematics led me to explore theoretical computer science on my own. Availability of 

excellent theoretical CS professors at my college. 

It seemed that after three years of graduate work, in the field of computer science, your pay was 

very similar to having been in the industry after the same amount of years. I also did not find any 

particular field of interest within computer science to do research in. Nothing in particular interested 

me. I wanted to become a functional member of society earlier. 

It was mostly a personal decision rather than one that was influenced by others around me. After 

having been in school for so many years, I wanted to take a break and try something new (without 

the expectation of grades, homework, and paper-writing). I also wanted to gain some experience in 

industry. 

Just a conviction that it wouldn't be right for me to go unless I am passionate. 

Just my financial situation. I am skeptical of getting full financial aid, so I will work for a while until 

either I decide to go back to school or my employer pays for it. 

Just need a break from school for a little while 

Like most students, I could accept a great, high-paying job and then let the company pay for grad 

school later or go to grad school, work as a TA, and make very little money. Few students that I 

know turned down the job and free grad school. 

limited classroom teaching experience 

Mainly financial concerns and bad experiences with research. 

Mainly making sure that I had the funds to attend was the most important part of my decision. I 

currently have to work full time and didn't have the extra money to attend graduate school at the 

time. 

Mainly money. I'd like to attend grad school after I pay off my debts. I don't like having debts and I 

would like to be rid of them as soon as possible. If I spend a year working, then I will be able to pay 

off my debts, which I've managed to keep very small considering how long I have been in college 

(6 years, working on 2 degrees, and 1 or 2 minors). I would also like some time to rest my brain 

and body. I'm afraid of burnout between classes and everything else that happens in life. 

Missed the deadline for registering for GREs 



Monetary concerns 

Mostly it was because I wanted to have a better idea what to specialize in graduate school before 

entering graduate school. 

Mostly the encouragement of my undergraduate professor and mentor 

My current post-graduate job with a laboratory will be sending me to graduate school. 

My decision to not attend graduate school immediately was strongly influenced by full-time 

employment and financial concerns. 

My girlfriend encouraged me as she is also planning to get a Master's degree. 

My interests and experiences were strong influences to attend graduate school. 

My internship in government work was terrible (Office Space like) 

My primary reason for not attending grad school, other than my rather horrific academic record is 

that I'm not at all certain what I would want to do in grad school. Although I'm working as a 

programmer, I rather doubt I could succeed in grad school because of my poor programming 

foundation and general disinterest in programming itself. 

My prior boss encouraged me to go to graduate school. 

My research advisor/mentor convinced me to attend graduate school and showed me the 

possibilities that existed 

My sister got a PhD in the wrong field and regretted it. Despite knowing this, I got a B.S. in the 

wrong field. I will not make the same mistake with my graduate degree. Thus, I want to work full 

time, sampling various engineering fields as much as possible, before deciding to go to grad 

school. 

myself 

myself not wanting to go to school ever again... 

N/A 

N/A 

n/a 

n/a 

N/A 

N/A 

New York City is very expensive and it is very difficult to take the decision of attending graduate 

school right after graduation because of the need to pay for living expenses right away by, 

hopefully, finding a good job in the computing field. I am lucky I got one. 

No 

No 

No 

no 

No 

no 

no 

No 

No 

no 

no 

no 

no 

No 

No 

No 

no 

no 

no 

No 

No 

no 



no 

no 

no 

No 

No 

no 

No 

No 

no 

no 

no 

No 

no 

No 

No desire to attend. Had a job offer 

No there weren't. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. Taking a break from school and working full time prior to attending graduate school has always 

been my plan. 

No. The main reason is that I have found a job I love doing, and I don't need a Master's degree for 

it. 

No. The primary reason was that I want to work in a research lab and I cannot do that without 


None 

None 

nope 

nope 

Nope 

Not especially. It was mainly the opportunity to gain full-time employment. 

Not knowing what I wanted to study was an influence on my decision not to attend 

Not really I just already have a good job offer so there is no need to go to grad school. 

Not really, just trying to figure out what I want so I got a job as a web developer where I can be a 

ski bum at the same time. Awesome! 

Not really. 

Not sure what field I want to study in graduate school yet. 

null 

One of the strong influences is my program director. He is the one who managed to get me a full 

scholarship. 

Parents and advisors 

Past medical experience. 

Personal decision to take some time between degrees and experience a work-type computing 

position. 

Personal feeling. I wanted to work. 

Personal finances do not allow me to consider going on to Graduate School. 

Quality of Admitted Program 

Research is not for me, and in my career it doesn't pay good enough 

Receiving funding through a Fellowship program encouraged me to attend because my financial 



situation was no longer a burden. 

relationship -- girlfriend in graduate school for math 

Scholarships/ financial aid were not available 

School is expensive and I have taken out too many loans so working made more sense, but I want 

to feel more accomplished before I go into the work industry, I don't feel that I am done learning 

yet. 

Simply, I do not have a focus right now. I wouldn't know what type of program to choose, neither 

where to go or with whom to work. 

Since I had several job offers, I was not looking very hard at graduate programs 

Strongest influence is money and current place of work. I don't think my current employer would 

allow me to keep working part time for several more years while I get a masters degree, and I need 

the money to pay for my house and other expenses, which would make attending graduate school 

difficult. 

Student loans!!!!! 

Student loans. Debt. 

Take some time off to enjoy the undergraduate 

The desire to have a break from rigorous academic work motivated me to enter the workforce first 

and then re-consider. 

The main actors in waiting to attend graduate school were general academic burnout and a desire 

to develop some of my non-research computing interests, such as game development. My strong 

interest in developing a research career, however, is influencing my plan to return to school within 

the next couple of years. 

The only graduate school I am currently interested in attending is business school. It is generally 

accepted that most applicants to business school will have a few years of work experience by the 

time they apply. I believe I will be able to get into a much better business school after working for a 

couple years than if I applied now. 

The two primary reasons I chose not to attend graduate school for computing were financial issues 

(already have too much student loan debt, didn't want to accrue more) and a lack of confidence in 

my ability to produce valuable original research. 

There were two major influences on my decision to not attend graduate school immediately 

following graduation. The first was that I had to take out a few student loans to pay for my 

undergraduate degree. That on its own would not have been enough to dissuade me from 

attending graduate school immediately following graduation; however, I got engaged my senior 

year. Being in school for another five years to get a PhD then having to work for several years to 

get tenure after that (I was most interested in becoming a college professor) would make it more 

difficult to pay off the loans. Also, I would like to be able to be a stay-at-home mother when my 

husband and I have children so it made even less sense to spend another 10 years getting the 

degree and faculty position. 

Tired of extremely structured learning and time commitments required by school, especially 


Wanted to join Peace Corps. Might pursue grad school after. 

Wanted to take a break from school to work full time, will reconsider later 

work, money, marriage, and Jesus 

Would like to have first some work experience in order to take more advantage of a graduate 

school. 

Would rather work and gain experience in the field before continuing education and hoped that an 

employee might provide the funds to attend graduate school. 

Yes, A community of entrepreneurs and hackers which I have much respect for strongly 

discourages higher education as a waste of time and money. I agree. After four years of college, I 

remain convinced that everything I will ever need to know is online and that the class/professor 

model is deeply flawed as a form of education. (although it is successful as a way of making 

money) 

Yes, I had taken time from work to complete my undergraduate degree. I needed to get back to 

work as soon as possible to help support my family. 

Yes, I received a very good job offer. 



Yes. This year, in 2010, I am working with a small team to develop a business. Because of my 

commitment to my team, I have decided not to attend graduate school in the Fall of 2010; however, 

I plan on attending graduate school in the future. 

Q_EXISTOTH: Please name any other college or university computing-related activities in 

which you have participated: 

A student ACM chapter newsletter which I contributed to for one issue and edited for another; I was 

also president of my university's ACM chapter. 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM 

ACM ACM programming competition 

ACM ACM-W - president STARS (Students using Technology in Academia, Research, and 

Service) Alliance - team leader Helped organize several visiting lecturers Computer Science Honor 

Society 

ACM and ACM Programming Competition 

ACM and AITP competitions. 

ACM Collegiate programming context 

ACM Digi-Key Programming Competition Research at home college and another college 

ACM ICPC 

ACM ICPC - Competitive Programming 

ACM ICPC competitions 

ACM ICPC Programming Competition 

ACM International Collegiate Programming Competition 

ACM International Collegiate Programming Contests 

ACM Programming Club. 

ACM programming competitions IT day (student posters and guest speakers) 

ACM Programming Contest (regional and world finals) 

ACM Programming Contests 

ACM programming team CS Undergraduate Teaching Assistant 

ACM tech talks 

ACM, Computer Science Community Service, and undergraduate research, numerous research 

studies (as a subject). 

ACM, NSBE 

ACM, online student magazine, online student newspaper 

acm, swe 

ACM, Women In Computer Science 

ACM-W, Comp. Sci. Reading Group, CS Colloquium Lecture Series 

Annual (bi-annual?) Computer Cyber Symposium 

annual computer science day, celebration of the department with lectures, etc. 

Annual programming competition IEEE CS Group 

Association For Computer Machinery UPE Honor Society Research Under NSF Grant 

Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) 

Auburn University - DREU research student SC 08 & SC 09 Supercomputing Conferences 

AARCS Conference 2009 ADMI Conference 2010 

Broward Community College 



Brown University Computer Science Day 

Career fairs, company infosessions 

Career fairs/tech talks/info-sessions. Academic research. HKN Honor Society. 

CCSC 

Classes and conferences 

coding competitions 

Cognitive Science weekly lunch lectures. 

College branch of the ACM College Women in Computing club Game Developer's club 

Computer game development group. 

Computer Science Community Service club 

computer science undergraduate association 

Computing-related community service 

Conference for high school girls interested in math/science (our school sponsors 

CRA-W Computer Architecture Workshop at Brown University in 2008 

CS^2 (Computer Science Community Service) STS (Students Teaching Students) lectures Misc. 

lectures 

CS^2 UPE 

CSUA,IEEE 

departmental introduction lunch 

Dickenson College in Carlisle PA Lock Haven University in PA 

Distinguished Lecture Series 

Distinguished Speaker Lectures 

Duke ACM 

Duke University Robotics Club, Duke Smart Home 

Duke University via DMP 

ewb 

Florida International University 

Front Range Community College 

Game Design for a student run game development club ACM's ICPC 

Gamers Club 

Georgia Southern university 

Grace Hopper Conference 

Grace Hopper Conference, Richard Tapia Conference, CRA-W DMP and DREU 

Guest lecturers speaking at RIT and University of Rochester. 

Habitat for Humanity 

Hackathons 

Harvard University at Harvard Forest - Summer (REU) Research Experience for Undergraduates 

I attended ACM Programming Content when I was at Diablo Valley College. 

I had attended an ACM meeting. 

I helped give inspirational talks with students in local schools 

I participated in the ACM programming contest all four years. 

ICPC Programming Competition 

IEEE 

IEEE 

IEEE Student Branch 

If internships count, internships. 

Intern programs 

I've been to Virginia Tech's Career Fair where there were a good amount of computer related 

companies like IBM. 

Kent State 

Kid's Tech University, CS squared (teaching local elementary school students computing) 

LAN Parties (two of them). 

Linux/Unix User's Group, Programming Team 



Local ACM student chapter, Visualization Study Group (independent research) 

Local chapter of ACM 

Lunches (not brown-bag, food is provided), Wii party 

Macworld Conference, AECT Conference 

Madison House Tutoring 

Many similar activities in the Mathematics department which tend to have some overlap with 

computing. They tend to have more speakers, more conferences, and more research-intensive 

courses. 

math club, math and computer science end of the year picnic 

Miami Dade College Florida International University 

Microsoft talks 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

n/a 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

n/a 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A, too busy completing degree. 

New York University 

None 

none 

None 

none 

none 

none 

none 

None 

None 

None. 

None. 

None. 

None---had job and didn't have time to go to other events 

North Carolina Central University 

NSF funded research/encouragement program for women and minority CS students 

null 

One year I participated in a programming competition. 

Only CRA-W mentor/mentee summer program 

Outreach for high school students / aboriginal students 

Performed research with a graduate student and faculty research team. 

Pizza-seminars, talks by graduate students in computer science with free food! 

Policy research (website design for) 

Programmer for the campus housing department, Perl/UNIX dev environment 

Programming competition sponsored by Women in Computer Science club. 

Programming competitions Video game development club 



Programming Team 

research 

Research assistant to members of the cognitive science lab. 

Research at the Tetherless World Constellation at Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Research conferences, both professional and undergraduate-oriented 

Research with a professor. 

REU 

REU (Research for Undergraduates) Summer 2009 Virginia Tech 

Robot Club Open lecture seminars 

Service learning 

Since my CREU project, I have participated in two similar research projects. One of these projects 

was a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program in Utah, where I worked on image 

processing, namely fire detection in videos. This project was also sponsored by the National 

Science Foundation. The other project involves trying to find an efficient algorithm to accomplish 

super resolution in videos. 

Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE) 

STARS Alliance, Gamers Alliance, Distinguished Lecture Series, Undergraduate Research, CRA- 

W, CREU, ACM-W, ACM, REU 

Student game developers 

Student Game Developers 

Student Manager at on-campus IT Helpdesk 

Study abroad to Switzerland at HEIG-VD at Yverdon-les-Bains. 

Summer Research 

Teaching Assistant; on the majors committee. 

The ACM Programming Competition - I was on our college's team. 

The School of Computing and Information Systems Ethics Group, several lectures put on by the 

Ethics Group in conjunction with the School of Computing and Information Systems, and several 

meetings with representatives from local companies talking about careers, opportunities with their 

companies, etc. 

The TechnoSonics Music course, which I took two years ago, requires students to participate in an 

electronic music concert. 

Tutoring! And I also competed in Games 4 Girls. 

Undergraduate research in one of the department's centers. 

University of Maryland programming competition 

University of Massachusetts at Amherst Brown University 

University of Massachusetts at Amherst Tufts University of Maryland at College Park 

University of Massachusetts, Amherst Arizona State University 

University of Miami - School of Engineering 

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Purdue University of Wisconsin - Madison Howard University - 

Washington D.C. Technical University of Vienna - Austria Technical University of Graz - Austria 

University Of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez University of Houston University of Maryland, College Park 

University of Tennessee 

UVA Game Developers 

UVA-Wise CS undergrad program, freshmen year 

Virginia Tech Jackson State University 

VT Gaming Project CSSquared 

Women in Engineering REU at the University of Maryland 

Worked for the school's IT department 



Q_FATHERO: What is your father’s (or male parent/guardian most influential in your 

education choices) highest level of education? 

Associates Degree 


Associate's Degree in General Studies 

certifications 

Two-year degree 

Q_GRADFALL_01 and 02: Do you plan to attend graduate school in Fall 2010? 



ASU 

Auburn University 

California State University Monterey Bay 

Capella University 

Carnegie Mellon University 


Carnegie Mellon, Entertainment Technology Center 

CCNY 

City College of New York 

Clemson University 

Clemson University 

Colorado state university 

Colorado State University 

Columbia University 

Cornell 

Cornell Law 

Cornell University 

Dartmouth College 

Duke 

Duke 

Duke University 



Florida International University 

George Mason University 

George Mason University 

George Mason University School of Law 

George Mason University School of Law 

George Washington University 

Georgia Institute of Technology 


Georgia Tech 

Indiana University. I started grad school Fall 2009. 

Indiana University Bloomington 

Indiana University School of Optometry 

Jackson State 

Kaplan University; Florida International University 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 




MIT 

MIT 

New York University 

North Carolina Central University 

Nova Southeastern University 

Polytechnic Institute of NYU. 

Portland State University 

San Jose State University 

Shippensburg University in PA 

Stanford University 

Stanford University 

Texas A&M University 



The University of Akron 

Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine 

UC Berkeley 

UC Berkeley 

UC Berkeley 

UC Berkeley 

UC Berkeley 

UC Berkeley 

UC Davis 

UNC Charlotte 

UNC Charlotte 

University of Alabama 

University of Arizona 

University of California, Berkeley 

University of California, San Diego 

University of Cincinnati 

University of Colorado 

University of Hawaii, Manoa 

University of Maryland - Baltimore County 

University of Maryland, College Park 

University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte 


University of Pennsylvania 

University of Rochester 

University of Rochester 

University of Southern Maine 

University of Victoria 




University of Washington 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

UW-Madison 

Virginia Tech 

Virginia Tech 

Virginia Tech 

Virginia Tech 




Virginia Tech 

Virginia Tech 

Virginia Tech 

Xavier 

Xavier University 

Xavier University 

Yale University School of Medicine 

Q_GRADOTH: During the 2009-2010 school year did you apply to graduate school in 

something other than computing? 

Austin College 

California State University Monterey Bay 



City College of New York, CUNY 

City University of New York - City College 

Colorado School of Mines 

Colorado State University 

Eastern Washington University 

Eastern Washington University 


Grand Valley State University 

Grove City College 

Grove City College 

Hampshire College 

Illinois Institute of Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology (China) 

Indiana University 



Jackson State University 

Jacksonville State University 

Marymount University 

Missouri University of Science and Technology 

Missouri University of Science and Technology (formerly University of Missouri - Rolla) 

NC A&T State University 

Olin College of Engineering 

Oregon State University 

Polytechnic Institute of NYU 

Purdue University 




Shippensburg University 

Shippensburg University 

Simmons College, Boston 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 



Southwest Baptist University 

St. Thomas Aquinas College 

SUNY Brockport 

The College of New Jersey 




Touro College 

Trinity Western University (Langley BC Canada) 

University of Alabama 

University of British Columbia 

University of California, San Diego 

University of California-Berkeley 

University of California-San Diego 

University of California-San Diego 

University of Chicago 

University of Colorado-Boulder 

University of Connecticut 

University of Delaware 

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 

University of Minnesota at Morris 

University of Minnesota-Morris 

University of MN, Morris 


University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill 

University of Pennsylvania 

University of Richmond 

University of Southern Maine 

University of Texas at Austin 

University of Texas at Austin 

University of West Florida 

Williams College 

Worcester Polytechnic Institute 


Q_GRAPOTH1: During the 2009-2010 school year did you apply to graduate school in 

something other (other science) than computing? 

Applied Math 

Applied to various PhD programs in both Mathematics and Computational Biology. Enrolled in a 

PhD program in CompBio. 

Bioinformatics 

Comparative biology or ecology/evolution 


Computer Engineering, Robotics 

computer science 


Computer Science. 

Computing Studied Program 

CS 

EE 

Electrical & Computer Engineering 

Electrical Engineering 




Electrical engineering 




Engineering 

Engineering Management 

Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology 

human factors 


Instructional Design and Technology 

Learning, Design and Technology at Stanford 

management 

Masters of Engineering Management 

math 

Mathematics 

mechanical engineering 

Medicine 

MEM 

Physics 

Public Health 

Q_ GRAPOTH1: During the 2009-2010 school year did you apply to graduate school in 

something other (other field) than computing? 

Business 

Economics 

Economics 

Education 

Education 

education 

Information Assurance and Security 

International Studies 

Law 

Law 

Law 

Management Information System- Business Track 

Master of Library Science 

MBA 

Medical School 

Optometry 

secondary education 

Sociology 

Q_ HIDEGREE_01: What is the highest degree you plan to attain? 

don’t know 

Don't Know. 

I don't know at this point in time 

I'm a curious being by nature. Always have been. I will continue to collect and digest any 

information from any source possible. Titles are between two or more persons. They don't really 

mean much for a singular person such as myself. 

MBA 

MBA 

Not sure yet. 

Not sure, so not applicable, but next would be a Master's if not a professional degree. PhD would 



depend if change paths and intend to do more research solely at university level. That is why not 

sure. 

Not sure. 

Undergraduate, for the time being. But that might change as I move on with my career. 

Q_MAJOR01: What is (are) your undergraduate academic (other computing) major(s)? 

Applied Computer Technology 




Cognitive Systems, with a focus on Computer Science 

Computer Science and Engineering 

Computer Science, Math 

Digital Media Design (interdisciplinary in CS, art/design, communications) 

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 



Informatics 


Information Security 






Information Technology and Communication Design 

interactive multimedia 

mathematics 

mathematics 


Software Engineering and Database 

Q_ MAJOR02: What is (are) your undergraduate academic (other science or engineering noncomputing) 

major(s)? 

Applied Mathematics 

Applied Mathematics- Machine Learning 

Applied Mathematics, and Statistics 

Biology 

Biology 

Biology 

Biology 

Biology 

Biology 

Cognitive Science 

Engineering mathematics and statistics 

engineering psychology 

Environmental Studies 

I did a joint major in computer science and mathematics 

Math 



Math 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics, minor in Physics 

mechanical engineering 

Physics 

Physics 

Physics 

Systems Engineering 

Q_ MAJOR03: What is (are) your undergraduate academic (other non-computing) major(s)? 

Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Bachelor of Science in Economics 

Classics 

Computer Animation and Animal Behavior (thesis project in Robotics) 

Criminal Justice 

Economics 

Economics 

economics 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics 

economics 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics, Philosophy, Mathematics 

Education General Studies 

History 

Japanese 

journalism 

linguistics 

Linguistics 

Linguistics 

math 


Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Music, concentration in vocal performance 

Philosophy 

Philosophy 

Philosophy 

Philosophy 

Politics - Foreign Affairs 

Psychology 

Quantitative Economics 

sociology 

sociology 

Spanish 

Spanish 

Q_MINOR01: What is (are) your academic (other computing) minors? 


Business 

Cognitive Science (interdisciplinary: Computer Science, Psychology, Philosophy, aspects of 

English) 

Computational Finance 

Graphic Design 


Math 

Math 

Math Sciences 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 


Q_ MINOR02: What is (are) your academic (other science or engineering non-computing) 

minors 

Applied Mathematics 

Biology 

Biology 

Biology 

biology 

Chemistry 

Chemistry 

Cognitive Science 

Engineering Business 





Engineering Business Minor. 



Engineering business, mathematics 

Math 

math 

math 

Math 

Math 

Math 

Math 

Math 

Math 

Math 

Math and Physical Science 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics, Systems Engineering 

Mathematics. 

Maths 

physics 

PreMed 

Psychology 

Psychology 

Psychology, Math 

Q_ MINOR03: What is (are) your academic (other non-computing) minors 

Art 

business administration, management 

Business 

Business 

business 

Business 

business 

Business 

Business 

Business 

Business 

Business 


Business 



business administration 

business administration 


Business. I may also receive a minor in Information Security. 

Chinese 

Classics 

Communications. 

Criminal Justice 

criminal justice 

Economics 

Economics 

Economics 

economics 

Economics 

economics 

Engineering business 


Entrepreneurship 

Film 

Germanic Literature and Languages 

Graphic Design 

History 

History 

Interactive Media 

Italian 

Latin American studies and entrepreneurship 

Leadership 

Linguistics 

Marketing 

Math 

math 

Math 

Math 

Math 

Math 

math 

math 

Math 

Math 

math 

math, economics 

Math, Fine Arts 

Mathematics 

mathematics 

Mathematics 




Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Maths 

music 

Music 

Music 

Music 

No minor 

No minor 

Philosophy 

Professional Education 

Professional Writing, Cognitive Science 

Psychology 

Psychology 

Psychology 

Psychology/Cognitive Science 

Romance Languages 

Spanish 

Spanish language 

statistics 

Studio Art 

Technical Writing 

Technical/Professional Writing 

Theatre Arts 

Theology 

Q_MOTHERO: What is your mother’s (or female parent/guardian most influential in your 

education choices) highest level of education? 

2-year Nursing 


completed bachelor's, working toward master's 

Cosmetology school for her cosmetology license 

Law school 

Nursing Degree, obtained through a 3 year, non Bachelor's program 

RN Degree/certification 

Vocational/Technical Training/Certificate Training (No college) 


Q_NOMENTOR_01: There is someone else I would consider a mentor. 


Numerous mathematics professors have acted as my mentors throughout my entire undergraduate 

career. I have had no significant mentor within the computer science department at my university; in 

fact, I have attempted to avoid this department at all costs. 

Q_NORES_01: Which of the following reasons tell us why you did not participate in any 

hands-on computing research when you were a college undergraduate? 

always playing catch up 

I am a transfer student and I am too busy to complete my requirements in order to graduate on 

time. 

I am shy and not confident in my abilities. 

I don't like computer science. I plan to switch areas. 

Job as web developer took up a good portion of my time each week and during my free time I 

rather have been skiing or hiking. 

My schedule was too full. 

other obligations such as a job 

Research opportunities seem to be for the chosen few students who faculty members favor above 

others. 

Very few research opportunities were advertised to students and they generally paid around 8- 

10/hour. In a major where most interns make 18-22/hour, the research opportunities generally went 

to people who couldn't get an internship. 

Wanted/needed to spend time at home with family, away from research jobs. 

Q_NOTAPLYO: Which of the following are reasons why you did not apply to graduate 

school? 

After 4.5 years in Computer Science and my 1.5 years of experience in computer science 

internships and jobs, I'm not sure if I still want to be in the computer science field. 

Applying to start in the spring semester 

because I haven't decided about it yet, or given my GRE 

Graduate school does not provide me with any career advances in my current position. 

I all ready explained this question earlier in the survey. 

I am going into my senior year of college. I must first complete my B.A.; then I will apply to 


I am not graduating yet - I still have a year to go. I'm a super senior. 

I am starting my own business and feel I need to focus all my effort on it to make it successful. 

I am working to start a computer business. 

I am working towards my second bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from UMass, Amherst 

I cannot attend graduate school in Fall 2010 because I am still in undergraduate school. I obtain my 

degree on December 18th 2010. 

I decided to take more undergraduate courses and get a dual degree. 

I don't graduate until 2011. Even if I wanted to go to graduate school immediately after graduating 

(which I don't) I wouldn't be attending in Fall of 2010. 

I feel it's important to get work experience first. 

I graduate winter 2011, so graduate school will be in the fall to follow. 

I have not found a program that I am prepared for/interested in. 



I have not yet graduated from my undergraduate institution. I plan to attend graduate school in Fall 

2011 if possible but I have not yet begun the application process. 

I have not yet graduated. I have only taken 3 years of my undergraduate degree, and my 

coursework will likely require me to stay for 5 years. 

I have yet to find one sub-topic of computer science that I am passionate about. 

I haven't graduated 

I haven't graduated from my undergraduate studies yet. 

I haven't graduated yet. 

I need more in class teaching experience. 

I plan to return to graduate school after gaining enough work experience to tell me what area of 

computing I prefer to study more in depth. 

I pushed back my undergraduate graduation date. Graduating earlier would have involved a 

heavier course load which would have resulted in learning less and having less time for my 

undergraduate research project. 

I still have a semester left of undergraduate school. 

I want real world experience before going back for an advanced degree. 

I want to gain work experience. 

I want to go to Medical School 

I want to work for some time to determine what fields I want to study. 

I wanted to gain a broader understanding of what parts of CS I like best so as to know what to 

focus on in grad school. 

I will still be in college Fall 2010 - Spring 2011. I will immediately attend graduate school upon 

graduation in Fall 2011. 

I'm not graduating until next summer. 

I'm still finishing undergraduate. 

I'm taking time to develop non-academic, non-research interests, such as game development and 

other potential extra income streams before returning to school. 

Immediate Job Employment after graduation 

It is taking me five years to graduate, I will be graduating spring 2011 

nope 

Plan to go to a yeshiva (to study Jewish text) next year in Israel. 

pursuing another undergraduate degree in a different field 

Repeating a previous answer: To avoid a bad decision. My sister got a PhD in the wrong field and 

regretted it. Knowing this, I got a B.S. in the wrong field. I will not repeat that mistake in graduate 

school, and will sample as many engineering fields as possible before I make a commitment. 

The question was why I wasn't attending grad school in fall 2010: I had to push off my graduation, 

so I will still be an undergrad in fall 2010. 

unsure of what to study in grad school 

Waiting for work to cover expenses 

Want to go to grad school but need some time to figure it out first. 

Q_OUTSIDE: Have you participated in any of the following computing-related activities 

outside of your university? 

ACM Programming Competition 

Competitions, particularly Microsoft Imagine Cup 

Computers4Kids mentoring 

computing contest 

Computing related outreach, off campus computing internships 


conventions (interz0ne, phreaknic, outerz0ne), local groups (Charlug, 2600) 

CRA internships. 

Culturally Situated Design Tool workshops 

DMP 

I had a part-time job as a software developer. 

Independent/corporate research. 

Internship in a professional real-time software company 

Internships at other universities. 

IT intern at Bank of America 

Job 

Local meet up group for computing professionals and students 

Local user group meetings for Ruby on Rails. 

online gaming 

Open source project. 

Open Source software development 

Open source software development 

programming competitions 

Research conferences (not sure if that counts as professional conferences) 

REU 

REU at another university 

summer internships 

Summer Research Experiences for Undergraduates 

summer research, internship 

Summer REU at Harvard Forest, Harvard University 

The REU project was done at Utah State University. 

Web science summer school 

Went to PAX and talked to developers and programmers. 

Working at a national lab 


Q_RCOMM1: Were there any things about this survey that you found difficult to respond to, 

confusing, hard to understand, or not relevant to your experience? 

A number of different organizations were mentioned throughout this survey but I did not see 

anything about ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) in the survey. Was it left out because it 

does not apply to the information you are looking for or is it not associated with CSR? 

A progress indicator would be helpful. 

At the beginning it was difficult to respond to some questions because the survey asked me to 

categorize as very likely, not likely, etc. decisions about which I was absolutely certain. (I listed 

them as very likely and not likely, of course, but there should be an option expressing certainty.) 

Although this is probably not a common issue, some later parts of the survey were strange for me 

because I am going to graduate school in a field other than computer science. Hence I am very 

unlikely to go to graduate school in computer science (as one page asked me repeatedly), but this 

doesn't reflect on anything actively pushing me away from computing graduate school; I just 

decided I'd rather study a different field. In general I think the survey would be much better if it was 

more interactive, only giving certain questions contingent on a certain set of responses earlier. This 

would make your sample sizes for each question smaller, but the statistical precision offered by 

sampling everybody is a mirage, because when the question is not relevant the answers are 

essentially just noise. 

buggy 

From the perspective of somebody who dislikes computer science, a lot of the questions took on a 

weird meaning. 

good survey 

I did not know my major's GPA off the top of my head, or do I recall seeing it ever specified 



anywhere so I estimated it. I not sure option would be nice. 

I don't browse with Javascript on by default. I was immediately taken to a page that told me I 

needed a browser with Javascript support. When I did however, that page did not redirect me to the 

beginning of the survey. Instead the page remained static in its message that I needed a browser 

with Javascript support. 

I never held a non-research position in computing, so that section was hard. 

I participated in DREU after my senior year and have been in grad school a year 

I think in general the user interface of this survey - like most online surveys - needs some 

development. Specifically, radio buttons were too small to click on easily! 

I think the questions about parents' education could be confusing to fill out if someone had samesex 

parents. Maybe you could word it differently? 

I wasn't sure if non-marital cohabitation without children was including in a married/starting a family 

option. I don't see how it'd necessarily be realistically different sans marital contract barring actual 

divorce proceedings and ignoring any legal discrimination and favoritism. 

In describing activities at my college they were very sporadic such as lectures with about 2 in the 4 

years i attended. Therefore maybe levels of agreement to those questions. 

It was confusing to answer the questions, because I am in graduate school but the questions were 

about my undergraduate experience. 

It was long and I had no idea when it was going to end! It would have been more bearable if there 

was a progress bar. 

Minority involvement programs. What happened to treating everyone equally? 

My major was an interdisciplinary program called the Interdepartmental Major - it was selfdesigned, 

half were courses from the computer science major, and the other half from the biology 

major. (It was not a double major, but no box was available for interdisciplinary). 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

N/A 

No 

No 

No 

NO 

No 

No confusion 

None 

none 

none 

None 

nope 

Nope. 

Nope. 

Not too much... 

Please, please, please have an indicator which indicates how far along you are in the survey. It is 

very frustrating to not know when a survey is going to end. 

question a2 should organize questions by those involved in research and those not involved in 

research 

Should not ask about undergraduate institution or GPA 

Some items that were simply a yes or no choice could use a middle ground (maybe or sometimes). 

Some of the questions did not directly relate to my major and so I answered them as close as 

possible in order to give an answer. 

Some of the questions left me not knowing what I should put. For example, one question might ask 



if work experience had any influence on going to graduate school. Saying yes I feel implies that it 

made me feel stronger about computer science, while in fact it might influence me to go back to 

school for something else because it made me feel less strong about computer science. 

The fact that some parts of it, in particular about graduate school, are just things in life that cannot 

be realistically determined unless you are put into that position. Many cases that involves lots of 

research, and a big commitment. So though one wants to make it somewhat fuzzy, that decision is 

really black and white. Relationships during college with professors, friends, and family affect that 

decision a lot, and am glad that such was emphasized in the survey, but the ultimate decision 

comes down to one's own self and his or her preparation for it. After all, it may not have benefit if 

there are parts about it which start to have one thinking differently on it while going through with 

graduate studies. 

The question about my plans for graduate school in Fall 2010 did not have a question for applied 

but rejected which is what I was going to answer. 

The question about what college I got my undergraduate degree did not seem to have a place for 

me to fill in other (Ithaca College) The graduation date field was confusing 

The questions for H1 are confusing to answer. Am I supposed to answer the questions as they are 

asked or answer them with respect to my decision to not attend graduate school. I did the former 

but that section could be much better designed or presented. 

The registration process for the survey was a little confusing. 

The text boxes would not allow me to write as much as I wanted. 

This seems to be aimed at students who have just graduated. It was slightly confusing because I 

have yet to complete my undergraduate degree. There should be a section that allows you to skip 

a page if you are yet an undergraduate. 

This survey assumed that I graduated this year or would be graduating this fall, despite my contrary 

answers. Other than that, it was fine. 

This survey was well-made for the most part. However, it seemed very biased against people not 

going to graduate school. 

Though most questions were clear on this, some questions asked only about graduate school but 

seemed to be geared towards learning about computing graduate school. I am very interested in 

Business school but not at all interested in going to graduate school for computer science. I would 

just be careful how you interpret the results from some of these questions. 

too many radio buttons 

Was unsure what defined computing - if it included basic front end web development, producing 

for the Web, etc. 

well...having a computing survey that only works in IE is pretty stupid..... 

What are brown bag lunches? I'm assuming you don't just mean packing a lunch and bringing it to 

work. 

When you hit Ctrl Home or Ctrl End while in a text box, the survey abruptly terminates. This 

caused me some trouble at first. 

When you list more than 5 questions and have the answers on the far right side, it's hard to follow 

the line over. It would be nice if ever other question had a different background. There were also a 

lot of questions, a couple sounded repeated 2 or 3 times. 

Yeah. The whole thing is aimed at traditional students. I'm off the main track, and much older than 

most of my peers. I entered with a Masters in another field, years of work experience, multiple 

interests, and an established life. I'm tied to my home and community, so the questions about 

where I might go and why/why not were mostly irrelevant. I understand that outliers are hard to 

include in a survey, but do think that the category of non-traditional students is large and growing. 

Q_RCOMM2: Did we leave out anything that you think we should have covered? 

A main reason I left computing was because I have stronger interest in other areas. I think this 

could be an important factor of your survey. Also, the computing professor who taught in the area 

of my discipline passed away from cancer while I was carrying out my course work. That influenced 



my decision to shift my focus from computing greatly because I go to a small school (only 3 

computing teachers). 

ACM but only if it applies to your research. 

already (continued). The questions assumed I was still an undergrad. 

Everything was covered, it was very extensive 

Everything was great! 

Fix your open response boxes. Only one line is allowed. 

Game design. Not sure where, but a lot of this was irrelevant to me as a game designer. 

Got an NSF GRFP 

How about simply asking whether you think your undergraduate education was worth the money? 

Because I don't think it was. I think that a degree in computer science is like a degree in music. It 

will not make you a better musician. This is one of those fields where practice makes perfect. If I 

had spent the last four years writing games or web apps, I could have become a much more 

valuable and skilled computing professional. 

How positive the research experience was for a student. Some students decide about wanting a 

career as a computer scientist based on the quality of work they have or have not achieved. 

How satisfied the individual was with the education they received. Also, any gaps in the education 

in a particular area should be identified. =) 

I am actually pursuing two undergraduate degrees from two different Universities through a special 

5 year program they share. I have already received my degree in Computer Science from Mount 

Holyoke College and will receive my second bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from 

UMass, Amherst next year. 

I decided to go another year with my undergraduate degree - not sure if this mad 

I never got a place on the survey to say that I was simply disinterested in computing. Halfway 

through my CS major, I lost interest and, though I decided to finish it, picked up another major. 

While I will be working in computing this fall, I don't plan to pursue further education in computing, 

because I found academic computing to be uninteresting. 

I participated in MRO-W, but graduated in May 2009. I then went on to grad school. This became 

an issue when trying to fill out questions on plans to attend grad school etc. 

I think a section covering when I want to start graduate school might be more reflective of my 

interests. I plan on doing it after a little break to become accustomed to my work conditions first. 

I think at each University, the computing department should ask students for their evaluation of the 

curriculum or programs after completing the program and maybe after finding a job or getting into 

graduate school. A process which will most likely improve the quality of education received at a 

particular level of study. 

I think there's a lack of understanding in why someone should get a PhD. I once asked that of an 

alumna who came to encourage us to go to graduate school. Most attendees were shocked that 

someone in attendance would even ask that, and yet the answer given didn't really clear things up 

for me. Perhaps this survey should address the question of what people perceive the purpose of 

obtaining a PhD to be. I know reasons for attending graduate school were touched upon, but it 

seems that this issue should be more carefully addressed. 

I would have questions about how certain things influenced our interest in computer science 

Maybe find a way to ask questions about both parents/guardians that doesn't assume that one is 

male and one is female, so as not to exclude people with gay or lesbian parents? 

Maybe you could ask why I chose the major or what I liked or disliked about it. 

More space to provide specifics about other computer related career info, such as undergraduate 

degrees in web design, etc. 

N/A 

n/a 

N/A 

N/A 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

no 



No 

No distinction between BA / BS? 

None 

none 

None 

none 

None 

nope 

Not that can think of off the bat. For most part, covered a lot that was relevant. 

Not that I know of. 

Nothing. 

Professional school should be listed as a reason for not attending grad school 

Something that has been much discussed at my school is the question of *how* students get 

involved/interested in computing, whether this is different across gender/class/other lines, and how 

this information can be used to encourage more interest in computing from under-represented 

groups. I was surprised not to see any questions asking if I had originally planned to go into 

computing, or if I was interested in a computer science major before I started my undergraduate 

degree. 

Survey seemed comprehensive 

The large text boxes (like this one) only allow one line. 

The survey took much more than 10 min. Maybe mention this in the email. 

Unfortunately jobs and grad schools look at overall GPA instead of the major GPA 

Very, very thorough 

While this survey could already indicate something, I've notice a trend for greater women/minority 

specific support than otherwise. I'm unsure of the normality, as this is my only university, or 

causality, given possibly different social behavior between genders and among ethnic/religious 

groups. Admittedly, being asocial, it wouldn't matter in my case, but it just seems weird. 

Yeah again. Non-traditional students with a significant break in their education (a decade or more) 

often have trouble getting specific credit for past work. That fact tends to restrict their future 

choices, unless they have the time and inclination to re-till ploughed ground. I opine that you will 

find agreement on this query, if you choose to ask it, among elders like me. 

You did well. 

You should have covered subjects such as, how easy or difficult has been for the students to find a 

job, or an internship; or better yet ask if the schools are pro-active in assisting students in their job 

or internship search. Or if the schools are involving local companies in the career process of their 

students. 

Q_RECWHOO: Who wrote your recommendations for your graduate school applications? 

A research scientist from industry that I collaborated with. 

Advisor in extracurricular student-produced theatre 

Employer supervisor 

Friend of family 

Manager 

My CRA mentor. 

research advisors 

Summer Volunteer Supervisor 

Q_RESEXPOG: Have you participated in any of these (computing) research experiences? 

Capstone class consisting of 2 courses in a 5 person group. Our project involved some research. 



Computer modeling and simulations for physics research group 

Computing research for industry 

Culturally Situated Design Tools 

Entrepreneurial oriented computing research in the mobile computing space. 

Honors thesis 

I researched packet sniffing on my own. 

Independent research on topics in computing. 

Intel Opportunities Scholarship- research as part of a scholarship 

Mathematical computations in Discrete Math area 

Minor research for NASA involving load balancing. 

My own independent research outside of my degree studies 

N/A 

n/a 

Ongoing self education and experimentation with many different platforms for creating computer art 

Online research 

PIRE program, a program sponsored by NSF 

Quantitative Trading: applying AI to financial securities trading. 

School year independent research while abroad at another institution, during undergraduate. 

Senior Honors Project 

Senior Thesis 

Teleconference Interviewing and Collaboration via another College 

Testing bleeding edge type web technologies for friends outside the university. 

U 

US Army work related to Wargaming. 

Worked a co-op at The Center For Defense Integrated Data. 

Worked for a computer research oriented lab while attending school. 

Q_RESEXPOH: Have you participated in any of these research (non-computing) experiences? 

1) Psychology - study of Third World Women's Alliance 

Along with research being done for a personal independent study, I assisted a marine scientist 

from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in collecting data for her work. 

As part of our Bachelor's of Science, students are required to take an academic year of natural 

sciences. One of my quarters included a biology research methods class in which we conducted 

two or three practice experiments and then our own lab research project. 


Biology- ecology- lizard body temperature regulation in Southwest American Deserts (I was a 

comp. sci. major but intend to continue on in biology) 

Biology independent study research 

biology/chemistry laboratory research (internship) 

biomedical optics research with a physics research group 

Chemistry research 

Coded and time stamped data studying social networking. 

Cognitive Psychology 

Cognitive Science principles applied to dance and movement via the CogSci Dept. 

Cyborg Beetle Research 

During sophomore year and the following summer, I worked in Dr Lance Kam's Microscale 

Biocomplexities Laboratory where I did wet lab research on the effect of signal protein patterning 

on white blood cells response. 

Econ research 

Economics classes. 


Electrical Engineering REU at another university 



engineering psychology research 

Extensive research in economics during the school year. 

For a history class on the law behind slavery in the United States. 

Hold MA degree in Mathematics, study Number Theory, one published paper 

I interned at a computational neuroscience lab, in which I conducted some non-computing 

research. 

I participated in a research conducted by the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at 

IIT. The research is to design a interdisciplinary course for second year graduate students from 

science, engineering and philosophy of science. Its goal is to bring students in the three areas to 

directly encounter one another ÇÖ’s perspectives in joint research and to identify and consider 

together ethical issues associated with their research. My job is to read potential reading 

assignment and give suggestions (from a student perspective) whether they are good for the 

course. 

I participated in an independent study course that involved researching human perception of 

sounds and music and how the mind interprets certain shapes, forms, and colors as sounds or 

music. 

I read about philosophy on a regular basis as a hobby. I'm also very interested in mathematics, 

particularly graphing theory and classic geometric techniques. 

I researched bird songs in zebra finches 

I worked for a biomedical engineering lab one summer 

I worked on research in the Physics department, studying simulations of predator-prey systems. 

In addition to working in two computing labs, I have also worked in psychology labs at my 

university. 

Interdisciplinary research combining computing and life sciences research. 

Internship with nonprofit company researching and reporting on public policy in local home 

community. 

Lamont-Doherty Summer Earth Internship funded through the NSF 

Math related research (dealing with an unsolved version of the Tower of Hanoi problem). 

Mathematics REU 

Mathematics REU, Mathematics research courses that use computing 

mathematics summer internship with department of defense 

My senior project 

none 

Psychological studies on cognitive behavior. 

Related to my studies in Chinese, particularly the cultural side and effects has on those of Chinese 

cultural background and those who do not but are exposed to it. 

Research in a gastroenterology lab 

research related to elementary education 

Research related to Particle Physics. 

Researched and wrote a paper with a group of students that discussed the current security in place 

at one set of campus buildings and made recommendations on improving the current system. It 

was for a class and the paper was shared with Campus Safety. Also worked on my family's 

history. My father gave me a folder that contained less than 200 names of relatives and possible 

relatives that he, his mother, and his grandmother had put together. Both his mother and 

grandmother had died by the time he showed me this folder. He asked me to look online and see if 

I could find anything. Four years later I managed a database of relatives that contained more than 

10,000 records. The data collected included vital information, various notes, christening/baptisms, 

criminal records, census data, ship manifests, pictures, etc. I contacted relatives across the United 

States and one in the Netherlands. I learned to research in Dutch, which I had no experience or 

knowledge of before this project. 

Sarnoff Corporation 

seminars 

senior project 

Senior Research projects in other non-computing major 



Senior Thesis Research Project 

Several animal behavior studies (one of which is being published) 

Social experiments 

sociology 

Statistical analysis of Pompeii archeological data 

Studied prognostic indicators in canine hemangiosarcoma at the Tufts Cummings School of 

Veterinary Medicine, and participated in a mathematics-based REU at University of North Carolina 

Asheville, focusing on cellular automata representations of fractals with overlap. 

Summer prior to Sophomore year - was Biomedical Eng major. 

Sustainability policy 

Undergraduate Research in Mathematics 

Worked in a biology wet lab at UMass Medical School in Summer 2006. 

Worked in two school of optometry research labs, one for developing and testing a retinal imaging 

device and another that deals with different aspects of sports vision. 

Writing simulations for MEMS device. 

Q_USCITZN_01: 

Bulgarian 

Native born Canadian living in Canada 

Q_WRKOTH1: Do you plan to work (full time) in an area other than computing in Fall 2010? 


Biotech or related industry 

Campus ministry 

Catholic Missionary 


Consulting 

Credit union teller, took a year off 

customer service 

Data Analytics 

Defense, hardware 

Econ Consulting 

Economic research/consulting 

Education 

EE 


Electronics manufacturing 

Finance 

Finance 

Financial Services 

Grade 1 teacher 

graduate school, math 

Higher education (college counseling) 

I'd love to teach beginning programming to middle school students. As a backup plan, I'll apply for 

work in Quality Assurance. 

IT 

IT Sales 

Ministry 

not sure where; human factors 

Peace Corps 


Possibly something aerospace, tangentially related to computing. 

Product Management 

Race Directing (starting a business, includes computing work) 

Scientific assistant in the mammals department of a natural history museum 

teaching or as a luthier 


Q_WRKOTH2: Do you plan to work (part time) in an area other than computing in Fall 2010? 

Business Analysis 

Business Analysis 

Business management 

Don't know at this time. 

During the fall of 2010, I will still be a student worker at my college until I graduate in December. 

The student worker job does not involve computing. 

Education, Athletics 

EE Research 

Event Planning 

Freelance Computer Animation and teaching a class in Character Animation 

Graduate Assisting, Housing 

I am a SafeRide Driver (www.saferide.uncc.edu) 

I'm a part time grading assistant in my department, but as it's correcting rather than computing I'm 

counting it as different. 

Managerial 

Marketing and Advertising for campus cultural center 

modeling and simulations for a physics research group 

Neuroscience 

Office Assistant for the Computer Science Department 

Optometry, sports vision section 

Outdoor leadership 

Psychology research 

Retail while attending grad school for English 

Service Industry. This would be a job to have while I look for a job in the computing industry. 

TA 

Teaching assistant 

Teaching assistant 

Technical Support 

Tutoring, Emergency Medical Technician

Computing Senior Survey - Computing Research Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?