Appendix A: Data Findings — Expanded
| Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section |
- Students: K - 12
- Students: Undergraduates
- Students: Graduate and Postdoctoral Fellows
- Faculty
- Staff
- Campus Climate
- Research and Engaged Public Scholarship
This appendix contains data supporting the main findings presented in the UC Berkeley Strategic Plan for Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity. In addition, data are provided on the pipeline (eligibility, entry, advancement) for students, faculty, and staff, as well as on campus climate, research, and engaged public scholarship. To the extent possible, the most recent data sources are presented. Moreover, the naming conventions of ethnic/racial groups follow those of the original data source (e.g., “American Indian” in some data sources and “Native American” in others).
These data do not fully represent the picture of diversity at UC Berkeley due to current limitations in how data are collected and shared and the inconsistent use of demographic indicators beyond race, ethnicity, and gender, such as LGBTIQQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, questioning), disability, and religion. The Strategic Plan prioritizes mechanisms to improve existing data gathering and analysis on all aspects of diversity, and the sharing of this information broadly.
Eligibility
Figure 1: Proportion of UC-eligible California High School Graduates by Race/Ethnicity (2007)
Source: California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPECC), University Eligibility Study for the Class of 2007
Note: Margin of error for UC eligibility is 25.3%–33.6% for Asians, 12.5%–16.8% for Whites, 6.3%–7.6% for Latinos, 4.9%–7.6% for Blacks, and 1%–4% for American Indians.
Eligibility data on high school graduates indicate that American Indian, Black, and Latino graduates in California are significantly less eligible for UC admission than Asians and Whites (Fig. 1). Only 2.4 percent of American Indian high school graduates were eligible for UC admission in 2007. While 6.9 percent and 6.3 percent of Latino and Black high school graduates, respectively, were eligible for UC admission in 2007, the figure is almost five times that for Asians (29.4 percent) and double that for White high school graduates (14.6 percent).
Eligibility Rates
Figure 2: Proportion of UC-eligible California High School Graduates
by Race/Ethnicity (1996, 2001, 2003, and 2007)
Source: CPEC, University Eligibility Study for the Class of 2007
Note: CPEC studies provide margins of error for each year by race/ethnicity. For example, the margin of error for 2007 UC eligibility is 25.3%–33.6% for Asians, 12.5%–16.8% for Whites, 6.3%–7.6% for Latinos, 4.9%–7.6% for Blacks, and 1%–4% for American Indians.
The 2007 UC eligibility rates for Blacks and Latinos increased slightly over the rates for the same populations of the California high school classes of 2003 (6.5 percent and 6.2 percent for Latinos and Blacks, respectively) and 2001 (5.5 percent and 4.3 percent for Latinos and Blacks, respectively) (Fig. 2).
Freshman Pipeline
Figure 3: UC Berkeley Undergraduate Freshman Pipeline by Race/Ethnicity (2007)
Sources: Office of Student Research, UC Berkeley, freshman applicant files; University of California Office of the President (UCOP), Statfinder; CPECCPECCPECCPEC, University Eligibility Study for the Class of 2007
Note: Foreign and unknown categories are excluded from analysis.
Freshman Applicant Pool
The proportion of American Indians, Blacks, and Latinos in the UC Berkeley freshman applicant pool is smaller than that of California high school graduates. For example, in 2007, American Indian, Black, and Latino students made up 0.8 percent, 7.3 percent, and 36.8 percent, respectively, of California high school graduates but only 0.6 percent, 5.4 percent, and 18.1 percent of the UC Berkeley freshman applicant pool (Fig. 3).
Freshman Admission
American Indian, Black, and Latino students are admitted to and enrolled in UC Berkeley at about the same proportion as their size in the applicant pool (Fig. 3). For the incoming class of fall 2007, Latino students made up 18.1 percent of the freshman applicant pool and 15.9 percent of the freshman admit pool, Black students constituted 5.4 percent of the freshman applicant pool and 4.1 percent of the freshman admit pool, and American Indians made up 0.6 percent of the freshman applicant pool and 0.7 percentof the freshman admit pool.
Retention/Persistence
For the incoming 2006 cohort of UC Berkeley freshmen, the persistence rates after the first year were 98.0 percent for Asian students and 97.0 percent for Whites, compared with 96.0 percent for Black and Latino undergraduates and 94.1 percent for American Indian undergraduates. The two-year retention rates for the same cohort were 95.4 percent for Asians and 92.9 percent for White students, compared with 92.1 percent for Black undergraduates, 90.9 percent for Latino undergraduates, and 82.4 percent for American Indian undergraduates (UCOP, Statfinder).
Graduation Rates
Figure 4: Six-Year Graduation Rates of Incoming UC Berkeley Freshmen by Race/Ethnicity by Three-year Entering Cohorts (1983–2002)
Sources: Office of Student Research, UC Berkeley, undergraduate cohort files, 1983–2002, and UC Berkeley degree files, 1984–2006; UCOP, Statfinder
For the 2002 incoming freshman cohort, the six-year graduation rates for Hispanic, Native American, and African American students were 82.6 percent, 78.6 percent, and 73.2 percent, respectively, compared with 93.5 percent for Asian American students and 90.7 percent for White students.
Despite differences in graduation rates, the six-year graduation rate has improved steadily across all race and ethnic categories between 1983 and 2002 (Fig. 4).
Graduation Rates Compared with Association of American Universities
Figure 5: Six-Year Graduation by Race/Ethnicity by Institution (Fall 2002 Cohort)
Source: Association of American Universities Data Exchange, Graduation and Retention Survey, 2008
The graduation rates for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans in the fall 2002 incoming freshman cohort at UC Berkeley are about average when assessed against those of some of UC Berkeley’s peer Association of American Universities institutions (Fig. 5).
Transfer Pipeline
Figure 6: UC Berkeley Undergraduate Transfer Pathway: Transition Points from California Community Colleges Entry to UC Berkeley Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity (2006)
Sources: Office of Student Research, UC Berkeley, transfer applicant files; UCOP, Statfinder; California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, Annual Year Report, 2006
Transfer Applicant Pool and Admission
In fall 2006, while 28.0 percent of transfer-ready students at California Community Colleges (CCCs) were from American Indian, Black, and Latino backgrounds — 22.9 percent Latino, 4.4 percent Black, and 0.7 percent American Indian — just 19.9 percent of UC Berkeley transfer applicants from CCCs were American Indian, Black, or Latino. This figure fell to 19.3 percent in the fall of 2008: 15.2 percent of CCC transfer applicants were Latino, 3.4 percent were Black, and 0.7 percent were American Indian. Of these 2008 transfer applicants, American Indian, Black, and Latino transfer applicants were admitted at the same proportion as their size in the applicant pool: 15.4 percent for Latino students, 3.3 percent for Black students, and 0.8 percent for American Indians.
Retention/Persistence
For the incoming 2006 cohort of UC Berkeley transfers, the persistence rates after the first year were 97.3 percent for Latino transfer students, 95.2 percent for Blacks, 95.1 percent for Whites, 93.9 percent for Asians, and 84.6 percent for American Indians. The two-year retention rates for the same cohort were 89.5 percent for Latino transfer students, 88.9 percent for Blacks, 87.3 percent for Asians, 86.5 percent for Whites, and 69.2 percent for American Indians (UCOP, Statfinder).
Undergraduate Choice of Major/Program
A detailed UC Berkeley analysis by the Office of Academic Affairs and the Division of Equity & Inclusion of the fields of study of degree recipients by race, ethnicity, and gender demonstrates that there are disparities in undergraduate choice of major by these demographic factors. Women, African American, Hispanic, and Native American undergraduate students are generally more likely to complete degrees in the social sciences and professional fields than in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) disciplines. For example, from fall 2002 to spring 2007, there were no African American women among the 561 UC Berkeley bachelor’s degree recipients with a major in computer science, the 389 degree recipients with a major in mathematics, or the 381 degree recipients with a major in physics (UC Berkeley degree files, undergraduate degree recipients, fall 2002–spring 2007).
Undergraduate Student Pipeline (K–12 through Undergraduate)
Figure 7: UC Berkeley Undergraduate Pathway: Transition Points from California High School Graduation to UC Berkeley Baccalaureate
by Race/Ethnicity
Sources: Educational Demographics Unit, California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System, AY 1998–2000; CPEC, University Eligibility Study for the Class of 2001; Office of Student Research, UC Berkeley, undergraduate applicant files, 1999–2001, undergraduate cohort files, 1999–2001, and UC Berkeley degree files, 2000–2006
Notes: Foreign and unknown categories are excluded from analysis. For the class of 2001, final six-year graduation rates will be adjusted based on the most recent spring graduates.
An analysis of entry and exit rates was conducted for undergraduates by ethnicity, influenced by a methodology similar to the “Diversity Scorecard,” a diversity assessment tool developed at Loyola Marymount University (Bauman et al, Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes). The high school graduating classes of 1999 to 2001 were compared with the six-year baccalaureate recipients for the entering freshman cohorts of 1999 to 2001. One finding from this study is that although Hispanics made up 33 percent of the high school graduating classes in California between 1999 and 2001, they constituted only 12 percent of the potential UC applicant pool, 13 percent of admitted students, and 10 percent of UC Berkeley graduates for the 1999 to 2001 cohorts (Fig. 7).
Undergraduate Disabled Student Population
Figure 8: UC Berkeley Undergraduate Disabled Student Population by Type of Disability (1996–2008)
Source: UC Berkeley Disabled Students’ Program, annual data, 1996–2008
In 2007–2008, slightly over 800 undergraduates used the services of the Disabled Students’ Program. Of these students, 23.3 percent had psychiatric/psychological disabilities, 19.1 percent had learning disabilities, and 16.6 percent had attention deficit disorder. Students with mobility, visual, hearing, acquired brain injury, speech, and other functional disabilities made up the remaining 40.8 percent. Since 1996, the Disabled
Students’ Program has served between 716 and 917 students each year (Fig 8).
Undergraduate Students’ Sexual Orientation
Figure 9: Responses to the 2009 UCUES Question “What Is Your Sexual Orientation?”
Source: UC Berkeley, University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, 2009
In response to the 2009 UC Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) question, “What is your sexual orientation?”, 86.3 percent of UC Berkeley undergraduate student respondents identified themselves as heterosexual and 7.3 percent identified themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, or “questioning/unsure” — all listed as separate categories. Five percent of respondents declined to state their sexual orientation, and 1.4 percent identified themselves as “other” (Fig 9).
Students: Graduate and Postdoctoral Fellows
Applicant Pool and Admission
Figure 10: UC Berkeley Doctoral Student Pathway: Transition Points from U.S. Bachelor’s Degree to UC Berkeley Ph.D. (Within 10 Years) by Race/Ethnicity
Sources: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and National Center for Education Statistics, Completion and Enrollment Survey, 1993–1997; Graduate Division, UC Berkeley, doctoral student applicant, admit, and registrant files, AY 1993–1997, and year-by-year doctoral student graduation cohort file, AY 1991–2006
*Because of variation in data sets, “unknown” and “other” are included in the international group for applicant, admit, and new doctoral student data bars but excluded from doctoral start and degree receipt bars.
**”UCB Top 25”refers to baccalaureate recipients from the 25 most common U.S. bachelor’s degree institutions among the incoming UC Berkeley cohort.
African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and Native American students make up 30.2 percent of all baccalaureate recipients from the 25 U.S. colleges and universities that supply the largest number of UC Berkeley graduate students, yet they constitute only 14.8 percent of applicants to UC Berkeley doctoral degree programs (Fig. 10).
Once students from these groups apply to UC Berkeley, however, they are admitted at about the same proportion as their size in the applicant pool: Asian Americans make up 7.8 percent of the applicant pool and 11.0 percent of the admit pool; Hispanics make up 3.8 percent of the applicant pool and 4.4 percent of the admit pool; African Americans make up 2.8 percent of the applicant pool and 2.9 percent of the admit pool; and Native Americans make up 0.5 percent of the applicant pool and 0.6 percent of the admit pool (Fig. 10).
Graduation Rates
Figure 11: 10-Year Graduation Rates of UC Berkeley Doctoral Students
by Race/Ethnicity and STEM*/non-STEM (Entering Cohorts 1991–96)
Source: Graduate Division, UC Berkeley, doctoral student year-by-year graduation cohort file, AY 1991–2006
*Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
Graduation rates of doctoral students differ by ethnicity and field. In the STEM fields, 56.5 percent of Asian American doctoral students, 52.9 percent of Hispanic doctoral students, 43.0 percent of African American doctoral students, and 38.5 percent of Native American doctoral students graduate within 10 years, compared with 68.9 percent of White doctoral students. In non-STEM fields, the rates are 47.8 percent of Hispanic
students, 46.4 percent of African American students, and 46.0 percent of Native American students, compared with 53.4 percent of White students and 53.0 percent of Asian American students (Fig. 11).
An analysis of entry and exit rates was conducted for graduate students by ethnicity. Recipients of bachelor’s degrees between 1993 and 1997 at all U.S. institutions and those at the top 25 UC Berkeley feeder schools were compared with UC Berkeley doctoral applicants, admits, and enrollees during the same time period and doctoral degree recipients after 10 years. Native American students made up 0.6 percent of U.S. baccalaureate recipients and 0.5 percent of UC Berkeley doctoral degree recipients. However, although African American and Hispanic students constituted 7.4 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively, of U.S. baccalaureate recipients, they made up only 2.4 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively, of UC Berkeley doctoral degree recipients by the 10th year (Fig. 10).
Faculty Distribution by Race and Gender
Figure 12: Proportion of Tenured and Tenure-Track Ladder Faculty by Gender and Race/Ethnicity (2008–2009)
Source: Office of Faculty Equity, UC Berkeley, Affirmative Action Program for Academic Employees, 2008–2009
Figure 13: Proportion of Tenured and Tenure-Track Ladder Faculty by Underrepresented Minority (URM) and Ethnic Minority (EM) Status (2008–2009)
Source: Office of Faculty Equity, UC Berkeley, Affirmative Action Program for Academic Employees, 2008–2009
Among UC Berkeley tenured ladder faculty or the equivalent in 2008–2009, 25.7 percent of faculty are women and 6.5 percent are underrepresented minorities. Among tenure-track ladder faculty or the equivalent during the same year, 41.0 percent are women and 9.8 percent are underrepresented minorities (Figs. 12–13).
National Availability Comparison
Figure 14: Female Proportion of UC Berkeley Tenured Ladder Faculty
Compared with National Availability Pool (2008–2009)
Source: Office of Faculty Equity, UC Berkeley, Affirmative Action Program for Academic Employees, 2008–2009
Figure 15: Proportion of Underrepresented Minorities among UC Berkeley Tenured Ladder Faculty Compared with National Availability Pool (2008–2009)
Source: Office of Faculty Equity, UC Berkeley, Affirmative Action Program for Academic Employees, 2008–2009
Among tenured faculty, women are fully utilized in only one discipline (environmental design), according to the national availability pool of doctoral degree recipients, and underutilized in 16 disciplines (Fig. 14). Underrepresented minority faculty are fully utilized in no disciplines, are completely underutilized in two disciplines, and have split utilization (i.e., are utilized in some ethnic categories but not others) in 15 disciplines (Fig. 15).
Figure 16: Female Proportion of UC Berkeley Tenure-Track Ladder Faculty Compared with National Availability Pool (2008–2009)
Source: Office of Faculty Equity, UC Berkeley, Affirmative Action Program for Academic Employees, 2008–2009
Figure 17: Proportion of Underrepresented Minorities among UC Berkeley Tenure-Track Ladder Faculty Compared with National Availability Pool (2008–2009)
Source: Office of Faculty Equity, UC Berkeley, Affirmative Action Program for Academic Employees, 2008–2009
Utilization is slightly better among tenure-track faculty. Women are fully utilized in half (eight) of UC Berkeley’s disciplines and underutilized in the other half (Fig. 16); African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are fully utilized in one discipline and completely underutilized in one discipline, with split utilization in 14 disciplines (Fig. 17).
Advancement
Figure 18: Achieving Tenure at UC Berkeley by Race/Ethnicity and STEM*/non-STEM
Source: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, faculty personnel records, 1985–2006
*Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
**”URM” includes African American, Hispanic, and Native American.
Figure 19: Advancing to Full Professor among Active UC Berkeley Faculty by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, faculty personnel records, 1985—2006
Figure 20: Advancing to Full Professor among Active UC Berkeley Faculty by Gender
Source: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, faculty personnel records, 1985—2006
Once appointed as assistant professors at UC Berkeley, African American, Hispanic, and Native American faculty achieve tenure at approximately the same rate as White faculty: 73.3 percent of African American, Hispanic, and Native American faculty achieve tenure within 10 years of the assistant professor start date, compared with 75.1 percent of STEM White faculty and 77.5 percent of non-STEM White faculty (Fig. 18). However, the rate of advancement to full professor is substantially slower in non-STEM fields, where African American, Hispanic, and Native American faculty are concentrated, and slower still for these groups of faculty overall. Although women advance to full professor at comparable rates to male professors, the rate is slightly slower (Figs. 19 and 20).
Figure 21: Achieving Full Professor at UC Berkeley by Race/Ethnicity
and STEM/non-STEM among Whites
Source: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, faculty personnel records, 1985—2006
Twelve years out from the associate professor start date, only 50.0 percent of African American, Hispanic, and Native American faculty and 70.4 percent of non-STEM White faculty have been promoted. This is compared with 84.6 percent of STEM White faculty and 89.7 percent of Asian American faculty (Fig. 21).
Gender and Race/Ethnicity Composition by Personnel Category
Figure 22: Workforce Share of Non-Academic Staff by Gender at SMG, MSP, PSS I, and PSS II Levels (1995–2008)
Source: Human Resources, UC Berkeley
Figure 23: Workforce Share of Non-Academic Staff by Race/Ethnicity
at SMG, MSP, PSS I, and PSS II Levels (1995–2008)
More than 7,000 career staff members are employed by UC Berkeley, in addition to another 2,000 to 3,000 employed in temporary or contract positions. In aggregate, women, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans are actually overrepresented among the UC Berkeley staff. According to statistics from 2008, women make up 58 percent of career staff and African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans make up 46 percent. Yet these groups are distributed
unequally across job titles (Figs. 22–23).
In 2008, women made up 54 percent to 62 percent of the professional and support staff titles (PSS I and II), but only 47 percent of the management and senior professional (MSP) titles and 24 percent of the senior management group (SMG), or executive titles. African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans made up 42 percent to 59 percent of the professional titles, but only 24 percent of the management and executive positions (Figs. 22–23).
Comparison with National, State, and Local Availability Pools (Utilization)
Figure 24a: UC Berkeley Staff Compared with National, State, and Local Availability for Women by Personnel Category (2008–2009)
Sources: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, Staff Affirmative Action Plan, 2008–2009, Staff EEO Compliance; U.S. 2000 Census data nationally, by state, by county, by race/ethnicity, and by gender
Figure 24b: UC Berkeley Staff Compared with National, State, and Local Availability for Asians by Personnel Category (2008–2009)
Sources: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, Staff Affirmative Action Plan, 2008–2009, Staff EEO Compliance; U.S. 2000 Census data nationally, by state, by county, by race/ethnicity, and by gender
Figure 24c: UC Berkeley Staff Compared with National, State, and Local Availability for Blacks by Personnel Category (2008–2009)
Sources: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, Staff Affirmative Action Plan, 2008–2009, Staff EEO Compliance; U.S. 2000 Census data nationally, by state, by county, by race/ethnicity, and by gender
Figure 24d: UC Berkeley Staff Compared with National, State, and Local Availability for Latinos by Personnel Category (2008–2009)
Sources: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, Staff Affirmative Action Plan, 2008–2009, Staff EEO Compliance; U.S. 2000 Census data nationally, by state, by county, by race/ethnicity, and by gender
Figure 24e: UC Berkeley Staff Compared with National, State, and Local Availability for American Indians by Personnel Category (2008–2009)
Sources: Human Resources, UC Berkeley, Staff Affirmative Action Plan, 2008–2009, Staff EEO Compliance; U.S. 2000 Census data nationally, by state, by county, by race/ethnicity, and by gender
Overall, UC Berkeley compares favorably with national, state, and local availability pools by gender, race/ethnicity, and personnel category (Figs. 24a–e). However, women, American Indians, Asians, and Latinos are underrepresented in the UC Berkeley SMG personnel category compared with the availability pools of the Bay Area.
Perception of Advancement
Figure 25: Statements with Higher Level of “Truthfulness” — Training Opportunities to Perform Job Safely
Source: UC Berkeley, Staff Workplace and Climate Survey, 2008–2009
Figure 26: Statements with Higher Level of “Truthfulness” — Clarity About Career Development
Source: UC Berkeley, Staff Workplace and Climate Survey, 2008–2009
Figure 27: Presence of Succession Plan in the Unit for Turnover or Retirement by Managers and Supervisors
Source: UC Berkeley, Manager/Supervisor Module, Staff Workplace and Climate Survey, 2008–2009
Figure 28: Degree of Satisfaction with Opportunities to Advance
In the 2008–2009 Staff Workplace and Climate Survey, 88 percent of UC Berkeley staff respondents said that they had the training opportunities to perform their jobs safely (Fig. 25), while less than half (48 percent) said that there is clarity about career development and advancement opportunities (Fig. 26). Moreover, only two out of five (42 percent) managers and supervisors who responded to the survey said that their departments had a succession plan in place to fill positions created by staff turnover or retirement (Fig. 27). Finally, 60 percent of responding represented workers stated that they were not satisfied with opportunities to advance, in contrast to 11 percent of the senior management group respondents (Fig. 28).
Undergraduates
Figure 29: UC Berkeley Undergraduate Student Perception of Respect
by Race (2008)
Source: UC Berkeley, University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, 2008
According to the 2008 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) for the UC Berkeley campus, 86 percent of White undergraduate respondents agree that “students are respected regardless of race,” compared with 71 percent of Chicanos and 49 percent of African American respondents. Moreover, 76 percent of White respondents agree that “students of my race are respected,” compared with 34 percent of Chicanos and 22 percent of African Americans (Fig. 29).
Note: Data on the climate perception of UC Berkeley graduate students and postdoctoral scholars by gender, race, and ethnicity will be available in fall 2010.
Faculty
Figure 30: “Very Satisfied” with Position by Gender and Discipline
Source: UC Berkeley, Faculty Climate Survey, Spring 2003
*Other options were “Somewhat satisfied,” “Somewhat dissatisfied,” and “Very dissatisfied.”
Across the major disciplinary fields, female faculty at UC Berkeley are less likely than their male counterparts to be “very satisfied” with their positions (32 percent vs. 45 percent), although they are equally likely to identify themselves as “satisfied” (82 percent vs. 85 percent) (Fig. 30).
Staff
Figure 31a: “In My Unit/Department, I Am Treated with Respect” by Personnel Category, Gender, and Disability Status
Source: UC Berkeley, Staff Workplace and Climate Survey, 2008–2009
*Includes “Strongly agree” and “Agree.” **Includes “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree.”
Figure 31b: “In My Unit/Department, I Am Treated with Respect” by Race/Ethnicity
Source: UC Berkeley, Staff Workplace and Climate Survey, 2008–2009
*Includes “Strongly agree” and “Agree.”
**Includes “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree.”
The 2008–2009 Staff Workplace and Climate Survey found that 87 percent of UC Berkeley non-academic staff respondents felt that “In my unit/department, I am treated with respect,” and 92 percent reported they were treated with respect outside their units/departments at UC Berkeley. However, responses to the questions varied by personnel classification, ethnicity, and disability status (Figs. 31a–b). For example, 100 percent of senior managers agreed that they are treated with respect in their units/departments, compared with 82 percent of represented workers. Twenty-three percent of respondents self-identified as disabled disagreed with this statement.
Figure 32: Degree of Satisfaction with Support for Diversity in My Unit/Department
Source: UC Berkeley, Staff Workplace and Climate Survey, 2008–2009
*Includes “Very satisfied” and “Somewhat satisfied.”
**Includes “Not too satisfied” and “Not at all satisfied.”
Twenty-five percent of African American respondents to the 2008–2009 Staff Workplace and Climate survey reported that they are not satisfied with UC Berkeley’s commitment to diversity, and 28 percent of African American and 25 percent of Mexican American respondents reported that they are dissatisfied with the support for diversity in their units or departments (Fig. 32).
Research and Engaged Public Scholarship
Internship Experience: In a 2005 UC system-wide study of alumni on civic and academic engagement, 47 percent of respondents reported that an internship experience had had a major impact on their lives. This factor ranked higher than course work and relationships with friends.
Cal Corps Public Service Center: In the academic school year 2007–2008, 4,687 students volunteered their time in the Cal Corps Public Service Center; 2,766 of these volunteers were long-term (one semester or more). In total, they contributed 206,873 volunteer hours (Cal Corps Public Service Center at UC Berkeley, http://students.berkeley.edu/osl/calcorps.asp?id=298).
American Cultures Enhanced Pathway Program: In the academic school year 2008–2009, 9,276 UC Berkeley students participated in the American Cultures (AC) program and 225 courses, taught by 82 faculty members, were approved for the AC requirement.
