10/30/07 PRINCE-OMER AGBO

Mathematical Contest in Modeling 2007-08

I Diversity in the Choice of the Faculty

i)
ii)
iii)

II Recommendations

III Definition of diversity goals

1
 On many Paths towards Diversity

As you know, diversity of the student population, staff and faculty is

one of the top declared priorities at most universities in the United
States. Yet, despite significant efforts & resources dedicated to that
goal, many groups remain underrepresented – in specific disciplines &
scientific fields, and also at leading universities in general.

PART I

Your goal is to design a comprehensive strategy for the University to

improve diversity on all levels, both in the university at large and in
one specific field (choose any department).

Diversity in the choice of Faculty

Plan
We will present a strategy aiming at increasing the proportion of faculty,
students and staff of underrepresented groups within the university in three
parts i) ii) iii).

i) The first part will show how to raise the level of faculty U as described above.
ii) The second part will show how to bring the level of students U in the
university choosing scientific majors up to a level that would allow the first part
to unfold and work. (Level of faculty U increased)
iii) The third part will show how to raise the level of participating staff in the
University Life.

First, for i)We will devise a plan that would assure that in an X year span from
t=0, today, the number of faculty in the University coming from
underrepresented groups will equal at least their representative percentage
within the US population. For simplicity in the design here, we will not
differentiate the group U in terms of the groups that it contains. We will also call
the underrepresented group by group U or simply, U.

We will be designing a project that would bring the percentage of faculty of

group U in universities at a proportionate level with the representation of group
U in the society. To do so, we notice first that to raise this percentage, we need
that the percentage of students U that graduate from Universities increase. More
U students graduating, leads to a greater number of U applicants to graduate
programs leading to higher education. In turns it raises the number of faculty

2
from group U. In this paper, we will concentrate on the students that go directly
to graduate programs and become faculty at the end of their program.
Another simplification is that we will be concentrating on the scientific field at
large in the University for this is particularly in the disciplines pertaining to that
field that students U do not appear. Any generalization of this design to all the
disciplines of the University is then possible.

i)
Calculating the percentage of faculty U in the scientific domain.
Table *
TABLE H-21. S&E doctorate holders employedfull time inuniversities and4-year colleges, by Carnegie classificationof academic institution, sex, race/ethnic
Race/ethnicity
American
Sex Indian/
Carnegie classification Total Female Male White Asian Black Hispanic Alaska Native
All academic institutions
357,900 110,300 247,600 270,200 55,100 16,500 12,900 2,100

Research university10
I 5,100 30,200 74,900 81,800 16,100 3,300 3,200 600
Research university II18,700 4,300 14,400 14,600 2,800 500 500 200
Doctorate granting I 12,100 3,400 8,600 9,400 1,700 600 300 S
Doctorate granting II 14,300 3,700 10,600 11,400 1,700 400 600 200
Comprehensive I 40,100 11,600 28,500 31,700 4,000 2,300 1,600 400
Comprehensive II 3,200 1,000 2,200 2,800 200 100 S S
Liberal arts 18,100 5,400 12,700 15,800 1,000 900 400 S
2-year institutions 1,100 200 900 900 S S 100 S
Medical schools and m
12
ed
,3ical
00 centers 4,700 7,600 9,100 2,100 400 700 S
Other specialized institut
3,6
ions
00 1,000 2,500 2,700 500 100 100 S
Missing 129,200 44,700 84,600 90,000 24,700 8,000 5,500 500
S =suppressed because fewer than 50 weighted cases.

NOTES: Numbers rounded to nearest 100. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Total includes Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander and multiple ra

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT).

Even though, the Ethnic group called Asian is considered a minority in the US,
we can see from this table that including group Asian in underrepresented
groups U in Sciences would completely change the final estimation of the
representation of underrepresented groups in the scientific field. We therefore
calculate the percentage of faculty U only adding the groups Black, Hispanic,
American Indian/ Alaska Native; persons with disability are already part of the
various groups. We therefore get:16.500+12.900+2100= 31500.
31500*100/357900= 8.8%

For the remaining of this work we will work with 100 Universities representing
this distribution of scientific faculty among the groups U and R(Represented
faculty)
Therefore this represents a percentage of 8.8% of instructors U within 100
universities.

3
The goal is to bring that level 8.8% to the level of share of the US population of
group U.
We let group U represents 20% of the entire US population.* therefore we want
to go from 8.8 to 20% in the representation of faculty U in the academia.

We therefore have a (20-8.8) % = 11.2% gap to bridge in the academia.

For simplicity, we will focus on what happens to one University in particular;

where the strategy we will describe to bridge that gap will be used. We choose
the University Comet University.

Without loss of generality, and for simplicity, we can pick 7 departments of

scientific studies: Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Engineering, and
Veterinary School.
We assume that there are 50 faculties in each department.
Therefore we have 50*7= 350. 350 Professors per University in Scientific
Domain = 350 prof/univ.
We therefore calculate that we have 350*.088 =30.8 ≈ 31 instructors U in
Comet University.
We therefore have 350-31=319 instructors R. (R standing for represented
group).

Now, the ideal situation as described above would be to have 20% of those 350
instructors being instructors U. 20% of 350 instructors = 70 instructors U
instead of 31 at t = 0, today.
That would leave 350-70=280 professors R.
We see here a table ** showing the repartition of minority students in
Engineering.
Figure B-1. Minority undergraduate engineering
students, by race/ethnicity: 1995–2005
(Percent)
Native
America
Year Black Hispanic n Asian
1995 7.0 7.2 0.6 10.5
1996 7.0 7.4 0.7 10.6
1997 6.8 8.4 0.7 10.8
1998 7.0 7.8 0.7 11.0
1999 7.0 8.1 0.7 11.0
2000 6.7 8.0 0.6 11.4
2001 6.7 7.7 0.6 11.7
2002 6.3 7.9 0.6 11.8
2003 6.2 8.4 0.6 11.8
2004 6.0 8.4 0.6 11.4
2005 5.9 8.6 0.6 10.6
NOTE: Race/ethnicity breakouts are for U.S. citizens and
permanent residents only.

4
SOURCE: Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering &
Technology Enrollments: Fall 2005 (Washington, DC, 2006).

From this table and from the first assumptions we took; we will assume the
following elements through the paper:
a) Number of Universities: 100
b) Number of Undergraduate Students per Universities: 15.000
c) % and number of Undergraduates from group U in the 100 Universities: 25%
=>
15.000*100* .25 = 375.000 students U.
d) % of Undergraduates U at each university having a scientific major: 14%
e) We will take into account the percentage of growth of the US population over
the next X
years by p %, and assume that it touches all groups U and R equally.
Moreover the
increase over the X years is uniform.
f) The percentage of US population growth is felt in undergraduate enrollment
which
increases by p% as well over next X years.
g) The percentage of undergraduates taking scientific majors is increased by
p% regardless of
their group U or R.
h) The increase in undergraduate students U taking scientific majors has a
multiplier effect
of 1% on students U increasing even more the percentage of students U
taking scientific
majors each year.=(p+1)%. We assume there is no multiplier effect for group
R.
i) The percentage of undergraduates with scientific degree applying to graduate
program is
70% regardless of the major, for both groups R and U.
j) The percentage of applicants to graduate programs increases uniformly by
p% over the next
X years.
k) The weighted average percentage of acceptance of students in scientific
graduate programs
is the same independently of the group where they come from: U or R. (the
criteria are the
same); this percentage of applicants being admitted is 10 %***
l) The percentage of approval of new graduate students increases uniformly by
p% over the
next X years.
m)The percentage of scientific graduate students working in academia after
graduating is a
constant 24% for both U and R groups, and irrespective of field****
the percentage of new instructors accepted in academia increases by p%
uniformly along

5
 those next X years.
n) The percentage of retirees from scientific academia each year remains
constant at 14% for
both groups U and R.*****

So, the plan will be to increase the level of faculty U over X years, arriving at a
20 percent share of academic positions for faculty U.
The first idea that comes to mind is to design a plan that would reduce the
number of instructors R from 319 to 280  a 14% decrease including
retirement, while at the same time increasing the number of instructors U from
31to 70  a 225% increase over the next X years. But this would mean not
accepting any new faculty R over those next X years, which is not conceivable.
Therefore the idea would be to increase along time the acceptance rate of
instructors U faster than the increase in acceptance rate of instructors R; that
would result in a steady increase in shares of academic positions for faculty U
along time X, and a redistribution of the faculty positions; the shorter the period
X, the greater the ratio of the two rates [%(acceptance U)/ (% acceptance R)]
uniformly along time, since we assume n) above and assume now:

o) The plan would input an additional increment ad% on the rate of accepted
faculty U. This increment would be applied uniformly over the X years that the
plan would be running.
The plan would apply a chipping off the rate of accepted faculty R dec%
uniformly along the X years.
In theory then, ad% = k*dec% for some real constant k to be determined. k is
constant over time because both rates ad and dec are applied uniformly along
time X.

31 U  X YEARS 
70 U

319 R ?R

Calculating ad%, dec% and k.

Again, the plan is to increase along time the acceptance rate of instructors U
faster than the increase in acceptance rate of instructors R, taking into account
a), though n) above.
We recall the numbers pertaining to this study:
We take 100 Universities.

The first quantity to estimate is the number of group U applicants to faculty

positions each year from t=0 to t = X.

6
So, from b) the number of Undergraduates from group U= 375.000 students,
from c) the % of Undergraduates U at each university having a scientific major:
14% and d) % of Undergraduates U applying to a scientific graduate program:
60%
We get the number of Undergraduates U applying into the graduate program of
Comet University at time t=0:
(375.000 * 0.14*0.6)/100 (from a) = 315 students U at time t=0
At time t=0, we do not apply yet p. from e) to j) above.
The number of applicants U being accepted into Co.U scientific graduate
programs is 315*.10 = 31.5.
Now, the percentage of graduates U taking positions in academia in after their
graduate years is
31.5*.24 =7.56 ≈ 8
We assume that those 8 graduate students are all taken as faculty by Co.U.

Now, at time t=0, we have 31 faculty members

We want to assure that in X years, there will be a percentage of 20 percent of
faculty U in Co.U.

The places where ad% and dec% will be used is in the rate of acceptance of the
undergraduate students into graduate school. Given m) the fact that the rate of
the taking of positions into academia is assumed the same across both groups U
and R, something needs to be done at the admission process in graduate school
scientific fields.

We will work backward now. We will first find the number of added faculty in
group U after X years given the fact that Co.U accepts# Up applicants for
group U. Here, at t=0, Up=8.
We will then do the same for the # Rp of applicants for group R.
Finally, we will find the number of applicants to graduate programs along with
the coefficients ad% and dec% that we will be able to alter according to the
length X of the strategy.

Starting with Up= 8, we find that the number of new faculty u after 1 year in
Co.U is
A1=8( X√(.10)) (1.1). X√(.10) means (.10)^(-X)
X√(.10) stems from e), j)
(1.1) multiplier- stems from h)
Therefore the total number of faculty U after 1 year is the number of faculty at
t=0 added to the number of new faculty at t=1which equals = 31 + 8( X√(.10))
(1.1)
At year 2 the added number of new faculty in Co.U is:
A2 = 8( X√(.10))^2* (1.1)^2
Therefore the total number of faculty U after 2 years is the number of faculty at
t=1, plus the added number of faculty U at t=2:
31 + 8( X√(.10)) (1.1) + 8( X√(.10))^2* (1.1)^2

7
After X steps we have:
At year X the added number of faculty is
AX = 8( X√(.10))^X (1.1)^X
Therefore the total number of a faculty U after year X is:
TXu ’= ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31

Now, to account for the retiring faculty every year, see n) we need to substract
.14 ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31 from TXu’.
We end up with
TXu = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31. We
assume here that at t=0 the faculty that needs to retire already retired.

Similarly, we get that the number of faculty from group R after X years is:

TXr = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(Yr.grad*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 319.

The formula is slightly different here because we do not count any
multiplier. See h)
Yr.grad is a real variable that represents the number of applicants R received in
scientific programs in Co.U at t=j.
Now after X years we want
TXu = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31= .2*(total
number of scientific faculty at Co.U) (see page 2 for goal)

TXr = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(Yr.grad*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 319 = .8*(total

number of scientific faculty at Co.U) (see page 2 for goal)

Now as we said in o) the way to perform that operation is to add an increment to

the rate of acceptance of undergraduates from group U by ad%, and lower the
rate of acceptance of undergraduates from group R by dec%.

So, we have right now:

The total number of scientific faculty after X years at Co.U is 350*1.1
= 385. (see page 3 and m) )
TXu = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j *8*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 31= .2*385
TXr = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(Yr.grad*( (X√(.10))^j)} + 319 = .8*385

Now, we replace 8 with Ur.grad a real variable representing the number of

graduates U that apply to graduate scientific programs and are accepted.
Ur.grad = (Ur.grad)’*(.10 + ac%)*(0.24)
<=> Ur.grad = (Ur.grad)’*(.10 + k*dec% )*(0.24) see o) and m)

8
(Ur.grad)’ is a real variable represents the number of graduates U that apply to
scientific graduate programs each year.

Similarly, we get
Yr.grad = (Yr.grad)’*(.10 – dec%)*(0.24)
((Yr.grad)’is a real variable represents the number of graduates R that apply to
scientific graduate programs each year.

So, we have:
Ur.grad = (Ur.grad)’*(.10 + k*dec% )*(0.24)
Yr.grad = (Yr.grad)’*(.10 – dec%)*(0.24)

So finally we replace in the formulas TXu and TXr above:

TXu = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(1.1)^j*((Ur.grad)’*(.10+k*dec% )*(0.24))*(

(X√(.10))^j)} + 31= .2*385

TXr = (1- .14) ∑[j=1 to j=X] {(((Yr.grad)’*(.10 – dec%)*(0.24))*(

(X√(.10))^j)} + 319 = .8*385

Now, by fixing a X (number of years of the plan) and a dec% we can

find k and ac%.
However, for a satisfying k, if ac% >0.9, we cannot satisfy the plan,
because it would amount to have more graduate students from U than
the number who apply.
Finally, if dec% is more than .10 this would mean that officials from
Co.U would be firing faculty R, which we assume as not plausible in this
work.
Therefore we have:
0.10 + k dec% < or =1
0.10 – dec% < or =0

K <or = .9/dec% dec% not 0.
Dec < or = 0.10

Therefore k < or = .9/.10 = 9.

And for the plan to work, to have the rate of accepted U greater than
the rate of accepted R, we need 9 > or = k> or =0 with Dec<0.10

Therefore given any number of years X and choosing k and dec%

appropriately given the conditions just above, we can achieve our goal
which is to raise the percentage of participation of faculty U in the
academia to 20%.

9
A specific field I choose is the mathematic field. This strategy can be
applied to maths by simply plugging into Ur.grad’ and Yr.grad’ the
percentage of undergraduate students that apply to the Mathematics
graduate program. The number of faculty at time t=0 will vary; but
from page 3) taking 50 instructors in the math department works. The
representative percentage doesn’t change; faculty U still represents
8.8% of the employed instructors and Faculty R 91.2%. the percentage
0.24 of graduate students going into academia doesn’t change since it
was taken to be the same for all students from all scientific fields,
therefore, in particular maths. see m).

Conclusion
The advantage of this strategy is that it doesn’t require the number or
percentage of students of group U going towards scientific majors to rise. It only
assumes that this quantity does not fall. It assumes that the quantity increases
with the natural increase in the US population.
This strategy also depends on the willingness of the University boards to apply it
consistently and uniformly through a period X.
This point one of the weaknesses of this strategy that requires a uniform
increase in the growth of the US population, that is translated into a uniform
increase in the number of students applying to undergraduate schools, and a
following uniform increase in all points cited from e) to n) except k) and i).
Moreover, this strategy does not count on the fact that an increase in faculty
from group U could have a multiplier effect on the number of students from U
taking scientific courses, and subsequently maybe going into scientific majors,
because feeling more comfortable.
Finally, this strategy is not the most recommendable because it does not really
take into account the need of more representation of students U in the scientific
student body .
Lastly, this list of weaknesses is of course not exhaustive, but I need to go to
part II now. 

ii) The Model Number two aims to increase the number of students from
underrepresented groups U in scientific fields.
iii) The Model iii) increase the number of staff from underrepresented group U.

PART II

Looking at the same problem on a national scale, provide

recommendations for the U.S.
Department of Education on how its resources should be optimally
used to facilitate the
diversity and competitiveness of the educated workforce.

From Part I we have seen that a steady increase in the number of accepted application for an
underrepresented group U and a proportional decrease of the number of accepted applications of

10
a represented group R can over time have a significant effect on the distribution of the
workforce. It does not require so much additional resources; it only requires a different
repartition of admitted candidates.
However, following the second strategy explained in ii) to increase the number of students U
into scientific careers; this is a strategy that would require funds; but those would be optimally
used since they would be sunken back into the economy through the various social programs;
those programs would raise the happiness levels of the students and the beneficiary of those
services.
From ii) Competitiveness would come from the awareness that people level of happiness and
expectations depend on the quality of the work provided.

PART III
Definition of diversity goals

Diversity represents to me more than a diversity of bodies. It represents more

than just having a distribution of people that satisfy quota. Diversity points to
the uniqueness of an individual and his/her ability to bring his/her uniqueness to
other people around. This then indicates a diversity of profiles, which is the very
goal of a university. This is why we fill out applications form to get accepted and
do not only provide grades. On the other hand, because of cultural groups,
affiliations, physically different people nowadays often mean different ideas, and
different stories.
Quite often, both fortunately and unfortunately, many people of the same
cultural heritage have the same stories, which in turn decreases the courage a
student must have for the demonstration of his/her uniqueness
My conclusion is that a University must be able to make this difficult choice
which is to choose its body of students. Mathematics can help as we have just
seen in Part I, but even a uniform distribution of different cultural groups cannot
assure a diversity of minds.
So, the solution is Open Mind, Open Doors, Open Heart!

11
* ** *** **** *****
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figb-1.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/race.htm#employ
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/race.htm#employ
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/tables/tabh-21.xls

12