No abstract

This study empirically investigates exclusion induced by institutional ranking in engineering faculty hiring and introduces a cycle of winners and losers formed by privileging graduates of high-ranked institutions in the U.S. higher education system. We analyze and visualize academic origin (i.e., institutions faculty graduated from) and destination (i.e., institutions faculty are hired at) of 5,356 tenure-track faculty in four engineering disciplines of Chemical, Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical at the top 20 and bottom 20 of the top 100 engineering institutions according to the 2022 U.S. News & World Report. Our findings indicate that the hiring of engineering faculty in the U.S. higher education system is skewed in favor of graduates from high-ranked institutions, regardless of the discipline. Concerning each engineering discipline, 78% of electrical, 76% of chemical, 71% of mechanical, and 67% of civil engineering faculty of top 20 ranked institutions have academic origins in the top 20 ranked institutions. This hiring practice fosters inequalities by excluding qualified candidates and cementing the ranking system as the sole factor of academic quality. We bring attention to the pitfalls stemming from the exclusion in the U.S. higher education system, including (1) financial resources, (2) faculty and student resources, (3) selectivity and self-selection, and (4) geography. The cascading effect of the ranking practice is the unintended consequence of inaugurating a virtuous and vicious cycle, which creates a cycle of winners and losers that is difficult to break. High-ranked institutions easily dominate and maintain their ascendancy status in the ranking system as benefactors of the virtuous cycle. Low-ranked institutions are entrapped in the vicious cycle that makes it nearly impossible to (1) attract and retain both students and faculty, (2) secure external funding, (3) obtain resources for new programs, and (4) advance engineering research. Unless the U.S. higher education system is intent on squandering talent, confirming the belief that diversity is symbolic, and cementing the ranking system as the sole factor of academic quality, we recommend faculty hiring beyond the standard sociodemographic indicators and academic origins in hiring decisions. A proactive, open-minded, and neutral approach to the faculty selection process void of decision-making based on affinity should be the central tenet of the selection committee.

No abstract

This study examines the bike access risk gap for commuting in the 50 most populated American metropolitan areas and equips bike advocates with the knowledge and tools necessary to identify the priority areas that need bike infrastructure improvements and the well-connected low-stress bike infrastructure. The analysis (i) examines the average bike access risk gaps of metropolitan areas for twelve travel time thresholds, (ii) considers the temporal and spatial disparities of slightly and extremely risky bike infrastructure, and (iii) reveals the disproportionate exposure of socially vulnerable populations to extremely risky bike infrastructure for a journey to work. The results indicate that (i) few metropolitan areas are associated with slightly risky bike infrastructure, (ii) the exposure to extremely risky bike infrastructure becomes more likely as commute travel time increases, and (iii) African Americans, Hispanics, low-income, and carless households are disproportionally exposed to extremely risky bike infrastructure and yet are the least prioritized in urban planning and bike infrastructure investments. The findings offer insights for identifying areas in which constructing low-stress bike infrastructure on or near high-stress bike infrastructure narrows the bike access risk gap.