The American College President: 2007 Edition

In 1986 the American Council on Education (ACE) surveyed college presidents to determine the characteristics of American higher education’s “typical” leader. Twenty years later, ACE repeated its survey and discovered that although the presidents’ average age had risen, little else had changed (57). Despite having made modest gains, women, particularly women of color, still reach the presidents’ office in much lower numbers than their white male counterparts.

As the authors of the report indicate, “the most sobering conclusion” to be drawn from the 2006 data is that change in the presidential profile has occurred much less rapidly than had been hoped (57). According to results of the 2006 survey, the “typical” American president, much like the 1986 counterpart, is “a married, white male who had earned a doctorate and had served as a president at his institution for an average of nine years” (57). Although the shares of white women and men and women of color in the presidency have grown in the past twenty years, presidents are still a much less diverse group, both in terms of race and ethnicity and gender, than the faculty and administrative constituencies they serve.

The twentieth anniversary report on the American College President places particular weight on the experiences of women and people of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In many cases the authors disaggregate the data either by race and ethnicity, or by gender--complicating attempts to interpret results with attention to both factors. Nevertheless, the results make clear that only 4 percent of respondents identified as “minority women,” indicating that women of color still face substantial obstacles on the administrative path to the presidency (vii; 20).

ACE’s report summarizes results in several themed chapters: Summary Profile; Profile of Women Presidents; Profile of Minority Presidents; Institutional Profiles; Duties and Responsibilities of the President; Perspectives of Long-Serving Presidents; Career Paths (including data for recent hires); Search and Selection. This review revisits some of the findings as they relate to gender, race, and ethnicity.

Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the American Presidency

The office of the American college president has seen significant diversification in the past twenty years. Nevertheless, presidents remain a much less diverse group than the faculty and administrators they serve.

Women in particular have stepped into presidents’ offices as never before. In 1986, only 9.5 percent of American college presidents were women (9). In the past twenty years, this share has increased significantly; women now hold 23 percent of college presidencies (9-11).

The report’s authors point out that despite these gains, women of all races are still not represented in shares equal to those of female faculty members and “senior administrative staff,” 45 percent of whom are women (18). Discouragingly, the rate of increase seems to be slowing, since most of the growth occurred between 1986 and 2001 (11.6 percentage points, from 9.5 percent to 21.1 percent) (15).

People of color (including women of color) have also seen slow growth in presidential shares; but they did not see the initial gains that women did as a group, and growth between 1986 and 2001 was a mere 4.5 percentage points (from 8.1 percent to 12.6 percent) (21). The percentage of presidents of underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds has risen from 8.1 percent in 1986 to 13.6 percent in 2006; but even this small increase is tempered by the fact that, if minority serving institutions are discounted from the figure, the 2006 percentage drops to about 10 percent (9; viii).

The shares of presidencies held by people of color are low even when compared to faculty and administrative demographics. According to data collected by the National Center of Education Statistics, 16 percent of faculty and senior staff was comprised of people from traditionally underrepresented groups in 2003 (23).

Rare samples of data disaggregated by both race and ethnicity and gender provided some of the report’s most interesting findings. Women were more likely than men to identify with an underrepresented group (18.9 percent of women did so, as compared to 12.0 percent of men) (16).

When compared to all women presidents, women of color saw consistent but small gains between 1986 and 2006. The percentage of women presidents who were African American rose from 3.9 percent to 8.1 percent; Asian Americans rose from 0.8 to 1.0 percent; Hispanics rose from 5.1 percent to 6.7 percent; and American Indians rose from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent (13—See Table 3).

Even more promising was the rise in the number of women among presidents of color. African American women, who comprised 7.4 percent of all African American presidents in 1986, represented 32.0 percent in 2006; Hispanic women rose from 21.8 percent to 34.8 percent of all Hispanic presidents in the same period (20--See Table 8). Yet despite these gains, women of color still represent only 4 percent of all American college presidents (20).

Where and Who: the Particulars of the American Presidency

The backgrounds and circumstances of white women presidents and men and women presidents of color varied in slight but significant ways from those of their white male peers. Differences in institutional type, educational background, and personal life hinted at the additional pressures inherent upon white women presidents and men and women of color.

Data disaggregated by gender illustrated persistent differences in the experiences of female and male presidents.

Women presidents served 28.8 percent of associate’s colleges in 2006, a greater share than at any other type of institution (15). While women presidents led a total of 44.7 percent of baccalaureate and associate’s degree-granting institutions, women headed only 13.8 percent of doctoral institutions (15).

Female presidents as a group were more likely than male presidents to hold doctorates (81.0 percent of women held doctorates, compared with 73.1 percent of men) (16). They were also more likely to have studied education (53.9 percent did so, compared with 39.7 percent of men) (16). 

Examination of men’s and women’s personal lives showed even greater divergence. While 89.3 percent of men were married at the time of the survey, only 62.6 percent of women reported being currently married--and their rates of divorce and of having never married were significantly higher than men’s as well (18). Although the survey did produce information regarding domestic partnerships in addition to marriage--2.7 percent of women reported having a domestic partner, while 0.6 percent of men reported the same--analysis tended not to address these findings (18).

Data disaggregated by race and ethnicity produced similarly interesting findings.

Men and women of color held the presidency at more than 20 percent of public master’s, public baccalaureate, and public special focus institutions (21). These institutions tended to be larger than their private counterparts, and presidents of color served large institutions at disproportionately high rates (21). Hispanic presidents served large institutions at particularly high rates (31.5 percent of Hispanic presidents served at institutions of at least 10,000 students; in comparison, 31.2 percent of African Americans and 38.1 percent of whites served in schools with under 2,000 students) (22). 

Men and women of all races and ethnicities tended to study education. This was particularly true for African American and Hispanic respondents, 53 percent of whom had done so (while only 42 percent of whites of both genders studied education) (22). 

The Path to the Presidency and Recent Hiring Trends

Women as a group were most likely to reach the presidency by gaining experience as a CAO/provost. As compared with 40.9 percent of men, 52.6 percent of women presidents had served as CAO/provost in a prior position (16). Women were also more likely than men to have entered the presidency directly from the CAO/provost position. While only 28.7 percent of men served as CAO/provost in the last prior position, 39.8 percent of women did so (74). 

Presidents of color, too, were likely to have entered the presidency directly from a CAO/provost position, but career paths differed by race and ethnicity. While African American and Hispanic presidents, like their white peers, were most likely to have served as CAO/provost in their most recent position, Asian Americans and presidents identifying as “other/multiple races” were slightly more likely to have entered their current positions through another president/CEO job (74). 

The report’s authors interpreted this trend of hiring from president and CAO positions as evidence of “conservative” hiring practices that tend to privilege candidates with closely related leadership experience (47). They noted that “[t]his cautious approach to hiring may limit opportunities for younger leaders, women, and people of color” (ix). Describing the presidency as increasingly complex, the authors indicated that this “growing complexity…may actually have impeded diversification” by encouraging hiring practices that privilege experienced older leaders--i.e., white men (58).

Indeed, the percentage of new hires who were women (25 percent) is not significantly greater than the percentage of women presidents overall (23 percent) (51). Hiring rates for presidents of color are even lower than the current shares of all presidents. While 14 percent of all presidents identify with traditionally underrepresented groups, only 13 percent of new hires were presidents of color (52). 

Clearly, then, a change in presidential demographics will require a change in hiring practices. The authors call for development both of a “diverse pool of leaders” and a hiring process that offers white women and men and women of color greater opportunity (58). By identifying the problem, ACE’s report takes an important initial step in this process.

To obtain a copy of The American College President: 2007 Edition, visit www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pubInfo.cfm?pubID=384.