The Leadership Alliance: Twenty Years of Developing a Diverse Research Workforce

Figures & data

TABLE 1 Member Institutions of the Leadership Alliance

Brown University

Claflin University

Columbia University

Cornell University

Dartmouth College

Dillard University

Harvard University

Howard University

Hunter College

Johns Hopkins University

Montana State University-Bozeman

Morehouse College

Morgan State University

New York University

Princeton University

Spelman College

Stanford University

Tougaloo College

Tufts University

University of Chicago

University of Colorado at Boulder

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

University of Miami

University of Pennsylvania

University of Puerto Rico

University of Virginia

Vanderbilt University

Washington University in St. Louis

Xavier University of Louisiana

Yale University

FIGURE 1 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program students by race within three cohort groups.

FIGURE 2 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program students by ethnicity within three cohort groups.

FIGURE 3 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program students by gender within three cohort groups.

FIGURE 4 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program students by undergraduate level within three cohort groups.

FIGURE 5 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program students by undergraduate discipline within three cohort groups.

FIGURE 6 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program students by undergraduate discipline and gender within three cohort groups.

TABLE 2 SR-EIP Participants, Evaluation Survey Respondents and Corresponding Response Rates by SR-EIP Cohort Year

	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
SR-EIP participants	160	161	168	147	151	155	183	190	226	233
Survey respondents	135	133	119	121	138	140	168	171	201	227
Response rate	84%	83%	71%	82%	91%	90%	92%	90%	89%	97%

Note. SR-EIP = Summer Research Early Identification Program.

TABLE 3 Percentage of Summer Research Early Identification Program Respondents Who Rated Program “Very to Totally Useful” on Selected Program Topics

	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011^a
Clearly understanding what it takes to earn a Ph.D. and become a researcher	87%	87%	84%	83%	90%	83%	76%	84%	87%	73%
Making the decision to pursue graduate school	82%	76%	73%	78%	79%	73%	77%	78%	81%	62%
Gaining specific knowledge about selecting and applying to graduate school	71%	77%	76%	74%	78%	73%	71%	76%	77%	69%
Learning about the availability of fellowships, assistantships, and other forms of support for graduate study	47%	57%	42%	50%	57%	59%	51%	62%	53%	53%
Learning about career choices	66%	70%	60%	68%	65%	64%	64%	67%	71%	46%
Helping clearly decide what to do with the balance of undergraduate career	65%	65%	59%	54%	64%	65%	55%	67%	70%	52%

^aResponse scale modified in 2011 from a 5-point to a 4-point scale, with the highest ratings being somewhat useful to very useful; Table 3 data for 2011 represent only those respondents choosing very useful for each of the selected program topics.

TABLE 4 Students’ Self-Report Perceptions of Summer Research Early Identification Program's Contribution to Their Improved Knowledge of the Research Process

	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011^a
% reporting a “great deal” of or	81%	82%	84%	84%	81%	82%	77%	75%	85%	81%
“tremendous” improvement

^aResponse scale was modified in 2011 to measure level of knowledge before and after program; Table 4 shows percent change from lower to higher levels of reported knowledge before and after program.

TABLE 5 Percentage of Summer Research Early Identification Program Participants Indicating Positive Impact of Program on Their Commitment to Pursue a Research Career

	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Evaluation item: As a result of participation in the summer program, I have strengthened my commitment to pursue a research career	66%	76%	71%	75%	71%	74%	73%	75%	75%	74%

TABLE 6 Percentage of Leadership Alliance National Symposium Participants by Class Who Reported Never Attending Another Conference Intended to Help Students Learn About Academic Careers

	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Sophomore	50%	83%	83%	74%	84%
Junior	54%	68%	67%	66%	76%
Senior	45%	51%	44%	48%	53%

TABLE 7 LANS Undergraduate Participants’ Presentation Rates, Type of Presentation, and Satisfaction With Presentation Experience

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
No. of LANS undergraduate participants	287	305	318	284	320	350
No. of undergraduate presenters	262	268	291	265	301	338
Presenters as % of participants	91%	88%	92%	93%	94%	97%
% of presentations by type
Oral	57%	56%	70%	69%	65%	65%
Poster	43%	44%	30%	31%	35%	35%
Satisfaction by presentation type
Oral	90%	81%	84%	92%	90%	92%
Poster	75%	73%	74%	89%	86%	85%

Note. LANS = Leadership Alliance National Symposium.

TABLE 8 Percentage of Leadership Alliance National Symposium Undergraduate Students Reporting High Ratings of Importance and Value for Workshops

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Undergraduate workshops
Graduate School Application Process	58%	78%	59%	75%	82%	80%
The Graduate School Experience	61%	78%	62%	75%	73%	80%

FIGURE 7 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program alumni by degree completion and graduate enrollment. Note. Based on n = 2,633.

FIGURE 8 Distribution of Summer Research Early Identification Program alumni by PhD degree completion and PhD program enrollment.

FIGURE 9 Distribution of doctoral scholars by race.

FIGURE 10 Distribution of male and female doctoral scholars within discipline areas.

FIGURE 11 Career positions of doctoral scholars.

FIGURE 12 Percentage of doctoral scholar faculty placements by type of institution.