Mentoring in a Post‐Affirmative Action World

Abstract

Mentoring can be an effective strategy in improving retention of college students and faculty from fields where historical underrepresentation has occurred. This article reviews the benefits of mentoring in higher education, and identifies components of effective mentoring strategies that promote educational and career advancement. It illustrates how effective programs can be institutionalized and scaled through consortial and national collaborations. Traditional and alternative mentoring models are described through four successful programs designed to increase the academic and professional success of undergraduates, graduate students, and junior faculty. The article concludes with a set of general recommendations and caveats gleaned from the literature and programs reviewed.

Full text

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2005, pp. 449--479
Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World
Jean E. Girves∗
The Ohio State University
Yolanda Zepeda
Committee on Institutional Cooperation
Judith K. Gwathmey
Harvard Medical School and Gwathmey, Inc.
Mentoring can be an effective strategy in improving retention of college students
and faculty from fields where historical underrepresentation has occurred. This
article reviews the benefits of mentoring in higher education, and identifies com-
ponents of effective mentoring strategies that promote educational and career
advancement. It illustrates how effective programs can be institutionalized and
scaled through consortial and national collaborations. Traditional and alterna-
tive mentoring models are described through four successful programs designed
to increase the academic and professional success of undergraduates, graduate
students, and junior faculty. The article concludes with a set of general recom-
mendations and caveats gleaned from the literature and programs reviewed.
Introduction
Demographic Changes
The results of the 2000 Census (2001a) indicate that the United States is be-
coming a diverse nation much faster than had been anticipated. In the last 10 years,
∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jean E. Girves, 247 University
Hall, 230 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 [e-mail: girves.1@osu.edu]. The CIC Summer Research
Opportunities Program (SROP) received major funding from the Lilly Endowment, Pew Charitable
Trusts, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Ford, Kellogg, Mellon, and Sloan Foundations. The CIC Women in Science and Engineering
Initiative (WISE) was funded by the National Science Foundation.
449
C
2005 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

450 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
the minority population increased by 35% compared to just 3.4% for the White,
non-Hispanic population. According to Census projections, within 20 years, over
one-third of the U.S. population will comprised people from minority groups. And,
by 2050, minority groups are projected to become the majority population. In other
words, as the baby boom generation moves toward retirement, their future and the
future of the society will rely increasingly on people of color.
These dramatic demographic shifts in the population have been accompanied
by rapid technological advancements and the globalization of our economy. For
the United States to remain internationally competitive, the Business-Higher Ed-
ucation Forum (2002) stated that the nation must fully develop all of its human
resources. As the population increases, and as minorities constitute a growing share
of the population, the National Alliance of Business estimates that the gap between
the number of jobs to be filled and the number of people who are qualified to fill
those jobs will significantly widen (BHEF, 2002). Furthermore, they projected that
“by 2028, there will be 19 million more jobs than workers who are adequately pre-
pared to fill them; roughly 40% of the people available to fill these jobs will be the
members of minority groups; and a large proportion of new jobs—especially jobs
that offer competitive salaries and benefits—will demand skills and knowledge
farbeyond those of a high school graduate” (p. 14). They conclude that, “More
than ever, it is urgent that our nation provide equal opportunity and eliminate the
barriers to the development of human potential of all Americans” (p. 16).
At present, however, college enrollment, persistence, graduation, and the pur-
suit of advanced study are all points where students of color and low-income
students drop out in disproportionate numbers (Astin, Tsui, & Avalos, 1996;
Ottinger, 1991; Thayer, 2000; USDE, 1998). The rate at which minority groups
are pursuing undergraduate education and advanced study persistently lags behind
the rates for White non-Hispanics. According to the 2000 Census (2001b), for
example, White non-Hispanics earn bachelor’s degrees at twice the rate of under-
represented minority groups. While African-American students account for 9% of
the undergraduate student population; they earn only 5% of the bachelor’s degrees
and less than 2% of the doctorates in science and engineering fields. Further, al-
though women earn 56% of the baccalaureate degrees in all fields, they account
for only 14% of the bachelor’s degrees in engineering and 39% of the bachelor’s
degrees in the physical sciences (NSB, 2002). The representation of both minority
groups and women in the sciences and engineering is even lower at the doctoral
level (NSB, 2002). Thus, even in instances where overall representation suggests
parity, the NSB identifies sub-areas in which participation must be bolstered to
assure an adequate flow of trained professionals.
Mentoring as a Strategy to Meet the National Need
Mentoring is one strategy that fosters and facilitates academic progress as
well as career advancement (Bird, Didion, Niewohner, & Fillmore, 1993; Boyle

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 451
& Boice, 1998; Deneef, 2002; Haring-Hidore, 1987; O’Neill, Horton, & Crosby,
1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Terrell & Hassell, 1994; Woolston, Hrabrowski,
& Maton, 1997). Even though there is not clear agreement about what makes
mentoring successful (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Haring, 1997;
Healy, 1997; Wunsch, 1994; Zachary, 2000), there is widespread agreement that
it does work and that more of it is needed. National initiatives designed to foster
the development and recognize the value of mentoring include: the Department
of Education’s Mentoring Program grants (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/
mg.html); the U.S. Postal Service’s commemorative stamp, “Mentoring a Child,”
(http://www.usps.com/news/2001/philatelic/sr02 003.htm); the White House’s
Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
Mentoring (PAESMEM) that recognizes individual mentors and mentoring
programs (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/hrd/paesmem.asp); and the designation of
January as National Mentoring Month by the National Mentoring Partnership
(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/chc/mentoring.html), which hopes to scale mentor-
ing programs to meet the needs of the nation’s youth. Clearly, mentoring is be-
coming a national priority.
Effective mentoring has been described by Jacobi (1991) as having five com-
ponents: (1) the relationship is focused on the achievement or acquiring knowledge;
(2) it consists of support, direct assistance, and role modeling; (3) it has recipro-
cal benefits; (4) relations are personal in nature; and (5) mentors have greater
experience, influence, and achievement within the mentoring setting. As will be
addressed in more detail later in this article, there are many views about mentoring,
for it can take many forms. It can be formal or informal. A mentoring relationship
can evolve spontaneously or naturally, or it can be planned and systematic. It can
occur as part of a program, within a cohort group, or one-on-one. The one-on-one
relationship can bring together novices such as new employees or students; it can
involve dyads of senior and junior colleagues such as faculty–student or manager–
employee, or it can occur among colleagues, such as between senior faculty and
junior faculty. Mentoring can take place over a relatively short period of time, or
it can endure for a lifetime. Importantly, evidence seems to suggest that a number
of different types of mentoring can be effective.
Since mentoring can be manifested in so many ways, we examine the fol-
lowing questions to better understand the benefits and the process, particularly
as a strategy for impacting large numbers of underrepresented groups in higher
education. What are the key components of successful mentoring? Which students
and junior faculty are most likely to engage or be engaged in mentoring relation-
ships? How can institutions of higher education support mentoring opportunities
to maximize the benefits more broadly? This article reviews benefits and key com-
ponents of effective strategies that promote educational and career advancement.
We illustrate mentoring processes through four successful programs that employ
mentoring principles to increase the academic and professional success of under-
graduate and graduate students, especially minorities and women in science and

452 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
engineering. These model programs are followed by a brief review of the literature
and description of the status of mentoring programs for junior faculty. Finally, the
article concludes with a set of general recommendations and caveats gleaned from
the programs reviewed.
Review of the Literature
Although the value of mentoring has been discussed in the literature since the
early 1970s, empirical studies have been reported only since the mid-80s (Crosby,
1999). Most of these empirical studies have addressed mentoring relationships in
the corporate or private sector. Only a few empirical studies have been conducted in
academic settings. Unfortunately, no standard operational definition of mentoring
exists in the literature, which makes it difficult to compare and build on the results
of previous studies (Boyle & Boyce, 1998; Crosby, 1999; Haring, 1999a; Healy,
1997; Jacobi, 1991).
Academic Integration
Providing equal access to higher education for all racial and ethnic groups is
necessary to ensure opportunities for academic achievement of all groups, but is not
sufficient to ensure proportionate outcomes. The major factor that distinguishes
between undergraduate and graduate students who thrive and those who do not is
the involvement in the academic life of the institution (Girves & Wemmerus, 1986;
Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1975, 1987). Students who are more engaged
in the academic environment of the institution—those who interact frequently and
meaningfully with other students and faculty outside the classroom—are more
successful than those who do not. Pascarella and Terrenzini (1991) observed that
academic integration has its strongest positive influence on persistence and degree
attainment for students at the lowest levels of social integration. Furthermore, they
note that the importance of academic and social integration decreases as the level of
the student’s family education and commitment to graduation increases. Therefore,
first-generation college students and underrepresented minority students who often
report feeling isolated on campus are especially at risk of attrition unless they can
be integrated into the academic community very early in their college careers
(Terrell & Hassell, 1994).
Mentors can play a key role in the process of academic integration. High-
quality mentoring enhances retention and facilitates advancement all along the
higher education pipeline, positively impacting undergraduates, graduate students,
and even junior faculty (Boyle & Boice, 1992, 1998; Davidson & Foster-Johnson,
2001; Haring 1997, 1999b; Heinrich, 1995; Lee, 1999; Woolston et al., 1997;
Wunsch, 1994). Terrell and Hassel (1994) report that mentoring appears to be
especially important for students who are at risk of leaving college. While every

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 453
student could benefit from a mentoring relationship, the need for mentoring is
even more crucial for women and minorities who tend to be more isolated and
have less contact with faculty and academic role models (Davidson & Foster-
Johnson, 2001; Johnsrud, 1994). Mentoring women and minorities is particularly
critical for shaping and raising expectations about academic careers, preparing
for the job market, and managing their careers once they gain entry to a faculty
position (Freeman, 1999; Johnsrud, 1994; McHenry, 1997; Otto, 1994; Terrell &
Hassell, 1994).
What Do We Mean by Mentoring?
In the academic setting, the level and scope of mentoring activities vary signif-
icantly across mentoring pairs and programs. Although it may begin with academic
advising or role modeling, mentoring is much more than that. It is a multidimen-
sional, dynamic, reciprocal relationship between a more advanced practitioner and
anovice (Healy, 1997). A mentor helps his or her mentee set goals and standards
and to develop the skills necessary to succeed. It is an intentional process that is
supportive, nurturing, and protective, providing orchestrated or structured experi-
ences to facilitate growth. A mentor provides constructive criticism yet allows room
for risk and failure. Through sponsorship and recognition, a mentor supports the
growth and development of the mentee and bears in mind the mentee’s long-term
career goals (Brainard, Harkus, & St. George, 1998; Davidson & Foster-Johnson,
2001; Haring, 1997; Lick, 1999; Mullen, 1999; Sands, Parson, & Duane, 1991;
Tinto, 1987). In confirming Kram’s (1985) qualitative study of utility company
managers, Schockett and Haring-Hidore’s (1985) analysis of survey responses
clustered these mentoring functions into two categories, i.e., psychosocial and vo-
cational. The psychosocial or personal support functions include the role modeling,
encouraging, counseling, and colleagueship. The vocational or career-related func-
tions include educating, coaching and consulting, sponsoring, providing visibility
and exposure, and protection. Surprisingly, when asked which type of support they
thought they needed the most, mentees in Haring’s study cited the psychosocial
functions (1999b) as being the most important to them.
Effective mentors are described as practical, generous, direct, honest, having
clarity of ideas, energy, passion, high expectations, and a vision for their mentee’s
future (Otto, 1994; Wunsch, 1994). Mentors cultivate qualitative changes in the
mentee’s approach to problem solving and quantitative changes in their level of
achievement and productivity. In effect, mentors pass on their professional legacy
through the insight, judgment, understanding, and knowledge they have accumu-
lated over the years (Healy, 1997).
While mentoring is key to individual students’ and faculty members’ profes-
sional development and career advancement (Bird et al., 1993; Brainard et al.,
1998; Crow & Matthews, 1998; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Otto, 1994), mentees or

454 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
Table 1. Benefits of Mentoring to Prot´eg´e, Mentor, and Institution
Prot´eg´e Benefits Mentor Benefits Institutional Benefits
Teaches specific skills Satisfaction of helping another
person develop professionally
Better retention
Develops intellectual abilities
and critical thinking
Enthusiasm and the feeling of
accomplishment
Better learning environment
for all students
Engages in meaningful,
substantive tasks
Ideas and feedback about one’s
own research project
Clearer policies
Facilitates entry into the
profession and career
advancement
A network of mentees across
institutions who can
collaborate on projects, place
students, and serve as
sounding boards
Increased productivity and
commitment
Relates how the field or
profession operates
An expanded network of
colleagues, especially if the
mentor is part of a formal
program
Improved cooperation and
cohesiveness
Introduces to key players in
the field
Recognition for service to the
community
More positive feeling toward
campus and
Provides advice,
encouragement, and
feedback
Potential for professional
development
Sense of community, of
belonging
Raises expectations and
future aspirations
The very act of mentoring—
guiding, promoting
others—may serve to effect
their own transformations
Exemplifies values and an
approach to professional
and personal life
prot´eg´es are not the only beneficiaries of mentoring relationships. The literature
also cites benefits that accrue to mentors (Bird et al., 1996; Brainard et al., 1998;
Crow & Matthews, 1998; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Otto, 1994) and to the institutions
where mentoring programs are supported (Crow & Matthews, 1998; Didion, Fox,
& Jones, 1996; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Haring, 1999b; McHenry, 1997; Terrell &
Hassell, 1994; Woolston et al., 1997; Wunsch, 1994). A list of gains to prot´eg´es
(mentees), mentors, and institutions is provided in Table 1.
Even with demonstrated benefits of mentoring to the mentor, mentee, as well
as the institution, there are still many hindrances to participation. These hindrances
or barriers have been identified and discussed in the literature (Boyle & Boice,
1998). They appear in Table 2.
Mentoring Women and Underrepresented Minorities
Traditional mentoring models such as the grooming model described above
pose particular challenges for underrepresented students and faculty. It is the ex-
ceptional student who has the initiative, the confidence, or the savvy to initiate

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 455
Table 2. Potential Hindrances to Participation in Mentoring Programs
1. Many students and junior faculty receive no mentoring, since it is assumed to happen
spontaneously or come about naturally
2. People avoid mentoring programs because they view development programs as remedial and
therefore potentially harmful to their advancement
3. People are too busy to participate
4. Some feel vulnerable and fear that information may be used in the evaluation process
5. Mentors feel self conscious that they do not know enough or how to mentor effectively
6. Men are reluctant to mentor women because of concerns such as sexual harassment
7. Some may be unaware of how the mentoring system works and may be reluctant to develop
personal ties for professional gain
8. Many feel they are compromising themselves by involving themselves in a structure that is based
on favoritism rather than on merit
9. Programs cost money to plan, implement, assess, and sustain
informal relationships with a mentor. Wallace, Abel, and Ropers-Huilman (2000)
found that low income, first-generation students in their study reported a desire
for faculty mentors, but did not develop informal relationships with faculty. Spon-
taneous relationships, when they do occur, tend to involve students and faculty
who share social characteristics, such as gender, class background, and social sta-
tus (Woolston et al., 1997; Haring, 1997, 1999; Wunsch, 1994). Yet, mentoring
appears to be especially important when students are in environments culturally
different from their own, even for high-achieving students (Freeman, 1997). Thus,
women in science and engineering fields and minorities in all fields stand at a
disadvantage with their peers when forming relationships that are key to their
academic integration.
When the focus is on women and minority mentees and/or mentors, the em-
pirical research regarding access to mentors and the benefits derived from being
in a mentoring relationship is limited and the results are mixed. While cross-race
or cross-gender relationships have demonstrated benefits for minority and women
faculty (Boice, 1992), Welch (1997) and Tillman (2001) caution that cultural and
gender differences may limit the benefits of mentoring relationships, especially if
majority mentors do not recognize or value these differences (also see Bowman,
Kite, Branscombe, & Stacey, 1999). In the private sector, the percentage of workers
reporting having been mentored was nearly the same for men and women (Fagen-
son, 1988; Ragins & Cotton, 1991). Busch (1985) and Keith and Moore (1995)
also report no difference in percentages of men and women who reported having
been mentored in the fields of education and sociology. Yet, while underrepre-
sented minorities may indicate they were mentored during their academic careers,
in many cases their mentors were actually outside academia (Bowman et al., 1999).
Interestingly, in their survey of MBA graduates now working in the private
sector, Dreher and Cox (1996) found that both race and gender were related to
the formation of mentoring relationships with white men and that graduates who
did form these relationships earned substantially more in compensation on average

456 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
than those who did not. In fact, if the mentor was a female or a member of a minority
group, the mentee did not earn any more than those who did not have a mentor.
On the other hand, in their retrospective survey of ethnic minority members of the
American Psychological Association (APA), Atkinson, Neville, and Casas (1991)
conclude that ethnic similarity between doctoral mentee and mentor is not related
to the mentees’ ratings of any perceived benefits.
Women and minorities may be less interested in being assimilated into the pre-
dominant culture of the institution, as the grooming model presupposes. Resistance
to assimilation may cause mentees from underrepresented groups to pull back and
not take full advantage of what white male mentors have to offer (Freeman, 1997;
Gonzales-Rodriguez, 1995; Haring, 1999b). Women and minorities, in general,
may feel uncomfortable with the concept of being groomed or cloned fearing they
must give up their own identities. Mentees may feel suspicious of and behave more
awkwardly around mentors who are different from them. Or, they may be reluctant
to seek out mentors out of fear that they will be perceived as being too dependent
(Boice, 1993).
On the other hand, mentors who may be willing to provide the vocational
functions may feel less comfortable offering the psychosocial support to a mentee
who differs from them (Bowman, 1999; McCambley, 1999; O’Neill et al., 1999).
Multiple mentors may be the solution. It may be easier to establish important links
to obtain support in the vocational arena and rely on others to supply emotional or
psychosocial support. However, Wallace et al. (2000) found that low income, first-
generation students in their study generally reported that race and gender did not
matter. Those who reported a difference based on gender and/or race had multiple
mentors available and seemed to rely on different mentors for meeting different
needs.
Mentoring Models
Haring (1997, 1999b) describes two models of mentoring—the more tra-
ditional grooming model and an alternative networking model. The traditional
grooming model focuses on socializing the mentee into the culture of the in-
stitution and on providing vocational assistance. The mentoring relationship is
one-on-one and hierarchical with the benefits flowing primarily to the mentee. In
this traditional model, the focus is necessarily on matching individuals—finding
the best mentor. It is difficult to know a priori which characteristics should be
used to match mentor and mentee or how much each factor should be weighted.
Even natural, or spontaneous selection by the individuals themselves often does
not result in the “best” match (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Haring, 1999b).
Haring’s alternative networking model is more inclusive and egalitarian (1997,
1999b). With the assistance of a skilled facilitator, a group of peers join together
and exchange the traditional benefits of mentoring relationships. The expectation

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 457
is that everyone contributes and everyone benefits. No single person is the perfect
mentor who can provide everything. The facilitator is a support person to the
network and is responsible for organizing the group meetings and for connecting
the participants to senior colleagues and to the resources of the institution. In this
model the facilitator is not a mentor. Haring views the networking model as more
empowering, enabling individuals to develop in their own way rather than being
cloned or assimilated. There is a sense of equity among participants. However,
because they require a high degree of coordination, mentoring networks are more
difficult to organize and sustain than traditional mentoring programs. Individual
participants may not advance as quickly. Fortunately, structured programs can be
designed to effectively combine both models, taking advantage of the strengths of
each approach while reducing their inherent weaknesses.
Structured Mentoring Opportunities
Even if students from underrepresented groups can overcome barriers to es-
tablishing a mentoring relationship with faculty, the sheer logistics of serving the
needs of large numbers of students preclude traditional one-on-one mentoring as
an effective strategy (Haring, 1997). There are simply too many students and junior
faculty and too few potential mentors to effect a broad impact through one-on-one
mentoring relationships, regardless of the level of commitment of faculty to their
students’ development.
In addition, mentors require skills and insight beyond their academic expertise
in order to be effective (Zachary, 2000). In the classroom, protocol is fairly well
established. Outside of the classroom, however, Zachary (2000) suggests that some
faculty may be reluctant to engage students from diverse cultural or social back-
grounds in a context where expectations and communication patterns may depart
from more formal classroom interaction. Further, faculty are rarely rewarded for
their mentoring efforts in the promotion and tenure process and are seldom trained
or hired for possessing such skills. Structured mentoring programs can provide for
the training and support of mentors to ensure that mentoring activity is effective
and productive, and to the degree they are institutionalized, can include faculty
reward structures.
Within post-secondary education, structured efforts can help disadvantaged
or underrepresented students gain access to mentoring activities; they can expand
the benefits to more students than traditional one-on-one faculty to student re-
lationships; and structured mentoring can provide the training and support that
participants need to develop effective relationships. While structured programs
may lessen the overall time commitment required of mentors and mentees, lack of
time is still viewed as a major obstacle in implementing them (e.g., Boyle & Boice,
1998). Furthermore, even though a growing number of mentoring programs have
been established in colleges and universities across the country, they typically are

458 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
small, isolated, and not centrally located within the administrative structure. They
have not significantly impacted the number of minority students completing their
degree programs (Haring, 1999a).
In contrast to typical programs, several large, federally funded mentoring
programs designed to counter the disadvantages mentioned previously have dra-
matically increased the number of minority students who earn bachelor’s de-
grees and pursue graduate study. For example, over 11,000 juniors and seniors
(minority as well as first-generation and low-income students) have participated
in the Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement Program since 1989
(Humphrey, Carey, & Mansfield, 2002) and over a third of those earning baccalau-
reate degrees entered graduate school (see http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/
trio/mcnair.html for information about the program). Another example, the Louis
Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation Program (LSAMP) targets all un-
derrepresented minority students majoring in the sciences, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics (STEM) fields (see http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/hrd/amp.asp for
information about the program). In 2001, nearly 22,000 minority students who
were enrolled in LSAMP institutions earned bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields.
“LSAMP works on changing the system and the capacity of the system to meet
student needs, as well as the success rate of students within it” (Sharp, Kleiner,
& Frechtling, 2000, p. 3). In their assessment of three federal programs support-
ing minority undergraduates in STEM fields, Sharp et al. report that the alliance
structure, the emphasis on creating a sense of community among students within
each alliance, mentoring, and other academic and social support activities have
benefited a large proportion of the STEM minority students enrolled on LSAMP
campuses.
According to Zachary (2000), successful mentoring programs have a clearly
defined purpose, flexibility in implementing and modifying activities for individu-
als, visible support from the top, paid staff, and are housed in a stable support unit.
She recommends that a mentoring program office should provide the important
functions listed in Table 3 (see also Boyle & Boice, 1998; Crow & Matthews,
1998; Ferren, Gaff, & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002; Haring, 1999b, 1997; Johnsrud,
1994; Sharp et al., 2000; Terrell & Hassell, 1994; Wunsch, 1994).
Table 3. Functions of Successful Mentoring Program Offices
1. Administrative support
2. Coordination to foster and monitor activities
3. Development of a pool of mentors and mentees
4. Marketing and communication about the program
5. Evaluation and tracking
6. Recommendations for institutional policies and practices that support mentoring
7. Workshops and training seminars
8. Orientation
9. Social activities

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 459
Indicators of Success—Formative and Summative Evaluation
and Institutionalization
The purposes of mentoring programs vary. In the corporate sector, for exam-
ple, career advancement (promotions) and increased compensation are the typical
desired outcomes (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). In academic settings, on the other
hand, key outcomes may include improved critical thinking, higher grades, re-
tention, pursuit of advanced study, or employment (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2002;
Jacobi, 1991; Woolston et al., 1997). Therefore, the criteria used to determine
whether mentoring programs are successful will also vary. Indicators of success
are a function of the purpose of the program and the amount of time the program
has been in place. The federally funded McNair Program, for example, is intended
to increase the number of minority students who pursue advanced study and aca-
demic careers (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2002). However, more than 10 years could
elapse before a McNair Scholar finishes his or her bachelor’s degree, completes the
PhD degree, and enters the professoriate. Therefore, in the short term, evaluators
use formative evaluation measures to assess and refine the quality of the program
and to assess the experiences and progress of the participants. Specific measures
include the level of participation in and satisfaction with program activities, cumu-
lative grade point averages, progress toward the baccalaureate, graduation rates,
recommendations to peers, and external recognition and awards (e.g., Humphrey
et al., 2002). Summative evaluation is used to determine the overall effectiveness
of the program. Did it achieve its goals? McNair evaluators track students beyond
their baccalaureate degrees. They determine how many students enroll in graduate
school, complete doctoral degrees, and become faculty members.
We have found through our experiences running programs like McNair that
reporting the results of positive formative evaluations can provide increased visibil-
ity and credibility to the program, which may in turn lead to its institutionalization.
That is, programs can become an integral rather than peripheral part of the univer-
sity’s culture and infrastructure. This final step is critically important in order to
achieve the overall goal of fully developing all human resources. Even successful
programs, if not institutionalized, will eventually disappear and their benefit will
be lost, for their success is tied to the individuals who run them. In the following
section, we draw upon our personal experiences to describe four model programs,
provide assessments that demonstrate their success in achieving their goals, iden-
tify the factors associated with their success, and highlight the strategies they have
incorporated to sustain and institutionalize them over the long term.
Four Model Programs—Undergraduate and Graduate Students
Individual mentors can only work with a limited number of mentees. In or-
der to meet the challenge of providing equal access to mentoring, colleges and

460 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
universities must scale their mentoring efforts. Four programs that utilize tradi-
tional, networking, and co-mentoring models are examined to identify the factors or
characteristics that contribute to their success. Two of the programs, the Meyerhoff
Scholarship Program and the Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP)
have received the Presidential Award for Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Excellence in Mentoring. The Meyerhoff Program is based on a single campus,
while the SROP and the third program, the Women in Science and Engineering
(WISE) Initiative, are administered across 15 campuses in the Midwest by the
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). The fourth model, the Preparing
Future Faculty (PFF) Program, is coordinated by the American Association of
Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS)
on over 300 campuses.
Meyerhoff Scholarship Program—Single Campus
The Meyerhoff Scholarship Program is an intensive, 4-year, academic support
and research internship program that is based on a single campus. It was created
at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County in 1988 with a grant from
the Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Foundation (Woolston et al., 1997). The founders
identified four critical factors from the literature that they believe lead to minority
student success—(1) knowledge and skills; (2) motivation and support; (3) moni-
toring and advising; and (4) academic and social integration (for more information
see http://www.umbc.edu/Programs/Meyerhoff). They incorporated these ideas in
their program design. “The concept of mentoring is at the heart of almost every
component” (Woolston et al., 1997, p. 106).
Program description.Top high school mathematics and science students are
recruited and invited to campus for a “selection” weekend involving faculty, staff,
and peers. A summer bridge program featuring math, science, and humanities
course work, group study, problem-solving training, and social events prepares
students for the transition from high school to college and helps establish a strong
sense of community. Meyerhoff scholars receive 4 years of comprehensive finan-
cial support as long as they maintain a B average in a science or engineering major.
Approximately 45 freshmen join the program each year.
Study groups are strongly encouraged. Program staff emphasizes the impor-
tance of striving for outstanding academic achievement, seeking help when needed,
supporting one another, and looking ahead to and preparing for advanced study.
According to Woolston et al. (1997), a sense of community is further advanced
through regular meetings and living in the same residence hall during their fresh-
man year. Scholars have access to personal advising and counseling, tutoring, and
summer internships. Faculty are involved in every aspect of the program. Parents
are kept informed of student progress and may participate in special events. In

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 461
addition to the mentoring that occurs at every stage of the program, mentors for
each student are also identified from among science professionals in the Baltimore–
Washington area.
Evaluation.Meyerhoff scholars have a 94% graduation rate in the sciences
with a cumulative grade point average of 3.4 (Woolston et al., 1997, p. 104).
Approximately 82% of the graduates pursue advanced study in sciences. Meyerhoff
scholars are more likely to persist in science fields than comparison samples that
have similar academic ability (Meyerhoff Scholars—94%, comparison sample
of Asian American—74%, and White—52%) and maintained the same GPA’s
in science courses as the comparable samples. Woolston et al. (1997) conclude
that without such highly integrated support programs, even very talented African-
American students are generally unlikely to earn PhD degrees in the sciences.
SROP and WISE—Regional Collaborative Programs
The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) is the academic consor-
tium in the Midwest that includes the University of Chicago, the University of
Illinois, Indiana University, the University of Iowa, the University of Michigan,
Michigan State University, the University of Minnesota, Northwestern Univer-
sity, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, and
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Three affiliated campuses, the University
of Illinois at Chicago, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, and
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee participated in the collaborative programs
described below.) CIC programs encompass all aspects of university activity ex-
cept intercollegiate athletics. Over the years, the CIC has administered a wide
variety of mentoring programs that target women and underrepresented minorities
in an effort to increase the number of students who complete degree programs,
pursue advanced study, and pursue academic careers (see http://www.cic.uiuc.edu
for more information about the CIC and its programs). By examining two of
these consortial programs, the SROP and the Women in Science and Engineering
(WISE) Initiative in the next section, we identify factors associated with successful
mentoring programs and illustrate the value of inter-institutional collaborations in
sustaining them over the long term. Each program was evaluated by the CIC staff
facilitator on an annual basis as well by the LEAD Center at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP)
Begun in 1986, the SROP is an early intervention program designed to engage
underrepresented minority students majoring in any field in research experiences
with faculty mentors, to accelerate each student’s socialization into a discipline,

462 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
and to foster the creation of a community of scholars among all the participants. It is
intended to enhance bachelor’s degree completion and to better prepare students for
and encourage them to pursue graduate study and academic careers. The program
is composed of three complementary components: one-on-one research intern-
ships with faculty mentors, weekly campus-based educational enrichment activi-
ties, and a CIC-wide summer research conference. Over 8,000 students and over
3,000 faculty mentors have participated in the SROP since its inception.
One-on-one faculty mentoring.Faculty mentors are activeresearchers.Match-
ing students with a faculty mentor is a function of the interests and capabilities
of the student, the nature of the discipline, and the research areas and directions
of the faculty mentor. With faculty from 15 institutions involved in the SROP,
campus coordinators can better ensure a research experience that focuses on a
topic of interest to both the student and the mentor. Furthermore, because faculty
mentors are part of this larger program, they are not burdened with the administra-
tive details of running a program or hosting a student from another campus (e.g.,
identifying and recruiting applicants, room and board, campus orientation, social
activities, and support). They have moretime available to attend to the task of men-
toring students and in engaging them in a research project (Foertsch, Alexander, &
Penberthy, 1997). Over 60% of the student participants rated their research expe-
rience and faculty mentors “excellent” (Girves, 2000).
Mentoring interactions are not limited to the individual student’s faculty men-
tor. Other faculty on the host campus or attending the conference, graduate students,
SROP staff, SROP alumni, and the other participants all play important roles in
mentoring each student throughout the summer. Most of the students live together
in a residence hall. Thus, mentoring occurs at several levels: one-to-one; among
peers; within a campus group that represents all fields of study; and at the research
conference where students are clustered by discipline. A community of scholars
evolves over the summer that supports and reinforces each student’s commitment
to pursue advanced study and an academic career. Those students who have had
positive experiences are the best recruiters for new participants. Over 99% say they
would recommend the program to a friend (Girves, 2000). They inform, guide,
and most importantly demonstrate by example to their peers.
Educational enrichment activities. The weekly workshops and seminars are
designed to broaden students’ views of research and graduate education, to
strengthen their technical skills, and to foster the development of a community of
scholars among all the participants. Seminars conducted by faculty members and
graduate students, who serve as role models, expose the undergraduates to a wide
range of fields of study and research. Workshops inform students about graduate
admission procedures, financial aid opportunities, and university resources (e.g.,
computing facilities, library databases, writing and statistical labs), and develop

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 463
their test taking, public speaking, and writing skills. Informal social gatherings
provide a relaxed setting for students and faculty to exchange ideas and share ex-
periences. Belonging to this academic community of scholars both on campus and
across campuses is one of the key ingredients to student success and advancement.
These campus-based activities are generally rated good to excellent by two-thirds
of the participants (Girves, 2000).
Research conference. The third component istheResearchConference,which
brings the participants together from all 15 campuses for a weekend. It is struc-
tured to maximize the networking and mentoring interactions among students in the
same or related disciplines. The Conference features roundtable progress reports
from students in the same or related disciplines; formal presentations by SROP
alumni from the previous year; faculty and graduate student panel discussions on
the rewards and sacrifices of pursuing a career in academia; workshops on oppor-
tunities and strategies for applying for graduate admission and financial aid; and
a chance to meet with individual campus representatives to discuss specific grad-
uate programs. The roundtables are small, informal group discussions facilitated
by a faculty member in the discipline. In addition to describing their own research
projects, students question one another and offer suggestions. Two roundtables
are combined for discussions with graduate students focusing on applying to and
surviving in graduate school.
To encourage more in depth networking at the Conference, roommates are
assigned by field but from different institutions. All of the students in the same
field room next door to one another creating discipline clusters derived from the
roundtables and the “applying and surviving” discussion groups. Thus, even though
the Conference may host 600 students, the peer networks are focused. Students
report that they are inspired by seeing and meeting so many other students like
themselves, who are interested in pursuing academic careers (Foertsch et al., 1997).
The intellectual stimulation together with the peer support network created by the
Conference generates a very powerful mechanism motivating students to fulfill
commitments to attend graduate programs.
Concluding symposium.Atthe end of the summer, the graduate school on
each of the 15 CIC participating campuses arranges a symposium for students
and faculty mentors during which the students present their research orally and/or
with posters and share experiences and accomplishments. Mentors, family, and
friends are invited to hear each student’s presentation. The research presentations
are typically followed by a banquet at which the student participants are recognized
and urged to maintain the sense of community that has grown among them. Faculty
mentors are also recognized for their contributions to the success of each student.
Each student also submits an abstract and a final report on his or her summer
research project. Oftentimes, students are listed as co-authors on publications

464 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
resulting from their research. For many students, the experience does not end at
the close of the summer. Nearly half of the SROP participants continue working on
their research projects during the academic year—sometimes for academic credit,
sometimes for money, and sometimes just for the experience (Girves, 2000).
Evaluation. Each program component is evaluated annually and refined as
necessary. In addition, an SROP database is maintained by the CIC office, so that
the academic progress of program participants can be tracked. The retention, grad-
uation, and post-baccalaureate enrollment rates of SROP students are substantially
higher than those of the general student population nationally. Approximately 74%
of the SROP alumni have gone on to graduate and professional schools—compared
to 17% of underrepresented minority students nationally (Foertsch et al., 1997,
p. 4). Approximately 55% pursue graduate study, over half of whom attend a CIC
institution (Girves, 2000). Another 20% pursue professional degrees. Based on
their interviews and surveys, Foertsch et al. (1997) reported that students gained
confidence and a better understanding of what it takes to succeed in graduate
school and become a professor. In many cases, students reported that the program
steered them toward research and academic careers.
Administration.Akey component to the success of this program is that it is
administered and facilitated through the consortium. Each campus has a program
coordinator, usually an assistant or associate dean in the graduate school plus
graduate student staff members. Individual campus programs range from 10 to 100
participants annually. Although each campus program follows the same general
guidelines, implementation is flexible and varies considerably across institutions.
At their quarterly meetings, the campus coordinators review evaluation results and
discuss which practices work and which do not. Their discussions lead to program
modification and change for the next summer, since new ideas can be quickly
adopted. The SROP has been institutionalized and nearly all of the funding is now
provided by the host institutions.
Factors related to the success of the SROP (Foertsch et al., 1997; Girves, 1993,
2000) are provided in Table 4.
Women in Science and Engineering (WISE)
The CIC WISE Initiative was established in 1996 with a grant from the Na-
tional Science Foundation to address the broad goal of achieving gender equity
along the science and engineering pipeline by focusing on the retention and ad-
vancement of upper-division undergraduate and graduate students. Four comple-
mentary strategies were utilized: (1) annual Student Leadership Conferences that
focused on Strategies for Success; (2) bi-annual Travel Grant Award competi-
tions for students presenting their research at scientific meetings; (3) annual Best

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 465
Table 4. SROP Success Factors
1. Intensive relationship with a faculty member
2. Structured, substantive research experience
3. High expectations
4. Creation of a community of scholars across fields on campus
5. Creation of a peer network within a discipline across 15 campuses
6. Research conference experience
7. Program coordinator who handled the administrative details
8. Financial support for the student as well as for his or her research expenses
9. Continual refinement of program activities
10. Creation of a co-mentoring network among the program coordinators
Practices Workshops addressing the professional development of administrators
and faculty; and (4) WISE Liaisons who coordinated consortial and campus ac-
tivities. The independent evaluation conducted by the LEAD Center focused on
the impact of the WISE Initiative on institutionalizing WISE programs on the
participating campuses (Bowcock, 2000).
Student leadership conferences. Using the SROP Conference as a model (e.g.,
small groups, assigned roommates, facilitated networking), the Leadership Con-
ferences were designed to develop the leadership and survival skills that promote
success in academic and professional careers. Each year campus teams attended the
conference and returned to plan a similar forum at their own institutions. Students
reported gaining confidence, a sense of community, useful survival strategies, and
the motivation to pursue their academic goals. Participation enhanced retention
and jumpstarted the implementation of similar programs on each campus, thus
broadening the impact (Bowcock, 2000).
Travel grants. Attending and presenting posters and papers at professional
conferences are important components of the academic integration and social-
ization process. Bi-annual travel grant competitions supported nearly 400 stu-
dents to attend professional meetings with their faculty mentors. The volume
of applications for each competition demonstrated the need for and encouraged
the creation of campus-funded travel grant programs. Bowcock (2000) reported
that the recipients gained confidence, exposure, and expanded their professional
networks.
Some students who participated in the Leadership Conferences or who were
awarded Travel Grants felt torn because they knew women were underrepresented
in science and engineering fields, but they did not want special or preferential
treatment. Even students who were not ambivalent said that faculty members,
advisors, or male peers reacted negatively to the idea of a conference or travel
grants for women. In these cases, they felt pressure to justify their participation
to their peers, advisers, or faculty. Even women faculty participants feared that

466 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
they would be viewed as less serious about science if they took advantage of these
programs or if they advocated for women (Bowcock, 2000).
Best practices workshops.Four faculty and staff professional development
workshops were designed to help identify, adapt, and institutionalize best prac-
tices for recruiting, retaining, and advancing women in science and engineering
disciplines. Information regarding program content, management, infrastructure,
finances, and assessment was provided in sufficient detail to enable attendees to
adapt these programs on their own campuses. Workshops addressed classroom
climate, undergraduate research internships, living/learning programs, mentor-
ing strategies, and fundraising and program development (CIC, 1998). Bowcock
(2000) concludes that these workshops fostered networking among faculty and
staff (67% of her survey respondents) across the consortium and provided ac-
countability, credibility, opportunities for benchmarking, peer support, and a sys-
temic approach. Eighty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they took
follow-up actions when they returned to their home institutions (Bowcock, 2000).
As a strategy, these workshops created mechanisms for inducing changes in the
institutions in the CIC.
WISE campus liaisons. The WISE Initiative is another example of a co-
mentoring strategy. The CIC WISE Liaisons came together to develop the con-
sortial programs as well as to share information about WISE activities on their
own campuses. Working with the CIC facilitator, they coordinated WISE activi-
ties across the consortium. As individuals, they implemented them on their own
campuses. Bowcock (2000) reported that the Liaisons considered the consortial
structure invaluable for exchanging ideas, benchmarking, jump-starting campus
programs, and most importantly, enhancing their own professional development.
Institutionalization. Individual students and faculty benefited from their par-
ticipation in the consortial activities as described above. However, one of the pur-
poses of the Initiative was to broaden the impact beyond those who participated in
the consortial activities—to create a multiplier or ripple effect. As a result of their
participation in WISE programs, individuals and teams were expected to return to
support and implement WISE-related activities on their own campuses.
The extent to which individual participants were able to implement programs
and energize others on their own campuses appears to be a function of each insti-
tution’s capacity to support WISE-related activities. The campus leadership, the
climate for women, the presence of a critical mass of science and engineering
women students and faculty, and the WISE-related infrastructure are important
factors that in combination are considered the capacity of the institution. Bowcock
(2000) reports that individuals returning to low-capacity institutions appeared to
have little impact; yet, low levels of participation reaped big returns at high-capacity

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 467
institutions. A threshold in capacity appears to exist below which there is little rip-
ple or multiplier effect for the home institution.
CIC campus WISE programs represent a range of organizational structures,
staffing patterns, and funding levels. Some are centralized; many are very de-
centralized. Some have no formal structure where a lone faculty or university staff
member voluntarily carries out WISE-related work. These structures tend to be
marginalized and peripheral. Success and progress of the effort at these institutions
are dependent on the idiosyncratic and unique qualities of the person serving as the
WISE Liaison. Unfortunately, much of their effort was spent on the basics—trying
to legitimize and bring visibility to the activities.
The more formal campus programs have an infrastructure in place; stable
staffing and budget; and broad-based funding sources. The amount of core fund-
ing available impacts the staffing level, the number of WISE activities, and, im-
portantly, the amount of time Liaisons spend on grant writing. Those with stable
funding were able to generate additional external funds for their programs. Li-
aisons at institutions with moderate support reported that they and their programs
improved as a result of their participation in WISE. Even those with the most
support indicated that their campuses benefited from fresh ideas and energized
participants.
Factors related to successful institutionalization of WISE programs and high-
capacity institutions (Bowcock, 2000; Girves, 1999) are listed in Table 5.
Advantages of the Consortial Approach
The CIC has a 45-year history of effective voluntary inter-institutional cooper-
ation. The programs of the CIC offer a clear demonstration of a mechanism, which
enables a set of institutions to accomplish collectively far more than they could
achieve acting individually (CIC, 1998). The results of collaborative activities af-
ford several advantages (Bowcock, 2000; CIC, 1998; Girves, 1999) including the
following:
1. Greater stability of programming as personnel changes inevitably occurs—
When a program is administered in relative isolation, it may disappear when
Table 5. WISE Success Factors Related to Institutionalization
1. Programs are centrally located within the organizational structure.
2. Endorsement and visibility are provided from higher administration.
3. Coordinators have the authority to carry out their responsibilities.
4. Sufficient human and financial resources are available to hire staff and implement program
activities.
5. Advisory committees with broad representation are actively involved in guiding activities.
6. Campus community is educated about the need for and value of such programs.
7. Programs are evaluated and status reports are published on a regular basis.
8. A co-mentoring network facilitates professional development among WISE Liaisons.

468 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
the project director departs. However, when it is part of a consortium, more
people on each campus and across the campuses have a vested interest in its suc-
cess. The institutional and consortial memory is not lost as personnel changes
occur.
2. The ability to bring the new partners up to speed quickly through collegial
mentoring—Invariably over time, people change responsibilities or jobs. In a
consortium, each person has a counterpart at each of the other member insti-
tutions, who has similar responsibilities. They share information regularly and
can help inform, mentor, and socialize new colleagues quickly.
3. Greater local and national visibility in recruiting and placement—Programs are
promoted by individual institutions as well as by the entire consortium, thus
increasing their national visibility. At the same time, individual programs gain
additional credibility on their own campuses.
4. More effective program operation through economies of scale—Once a struc-
ture has been put in place, new programs can be added without a significant
increase in staff. Programs that would be too small to operate on a single campus
can be cost effective across multiple campuses, because a central infrastructure
is in place. Without the consortium, for example, neither the Research nor the
Leadership Conferences would have been possible.
5. Achieving a critical mass—Underrepresented minority students and women in
science and engineering fields, who may feel isolated in a department or on a
campus, have access to a network of peers across the consortium.
6. Continuous learning and refinement of programs through co-mentoring facil-
itated by CIC staff—The campus coordinators review programs on a regular
basis and share ideas on what works and what does not. As a result, they can
quickly adopt new ideas, which have proven effective at peer institutions.
7. Greater and longer continuity as individual institutional allocations fluctuate
annually—The number of students applying for and funded by the SROP con-
tinued to increase even though the source of funding changed over the years
and the number of students supported on each campus has fluctuated.
8. Vertical integration of programs, involving faculty, department chairs, deans,
vice presidents, and provosts—The structure of a long-standing consortium
involves people at multiple levels, which broadens the base of understanding
and support of individual programs. Broad-based faculty participation across
all disciplines plus high-level administrative support and understanding have
enabled the consortium to maintain the institutional commitment required to
sustain these programs over the long term.
9. Cooperation in a competitive environment, generating peer pressure to excel—
Faculty and staff cooperate across institutional lines to make these programs
work, but they continually compare their institution’s performance with the

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 469
others. The desire to compete with one’s peers is even stronger in a consortium
where comparative data are provided routinely.
Preparing New Faculty
Preparing Future Faculty Program (PFF)—A National Collaboration
The Preparing Future Faculty Program (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000)
was designed to develop alternative models of faculty preparation and then to in-
stitutionalize them. It is a national initiative that was established in 1993 by the
American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Council
of Graduate Schools (CGS) with funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts. PFF
currently involves over 300 colleges and universities, eleven national professional
associations and societies, and additional external funders. PFF programs address
the mismatch between doctoral education and the needs of colleges and univer-
sities that employ new PhDs (see http://www.preparing-faculty.org for additional
information). Since doctoral training is research oriented, it oftentimes does not
match the career goals of graduate students seeking faculty appointments or the
expectations of their hiring institutions (Adams, 2002; Deneef, 2002; Gaff et al.,
2000).
PFF features clusters of institutions—an anchor doctoral degree-granting uni-
versity collaborating with various partner colleges and universities located within
the same geographical area. These PFF clusters transform the way in which doc-
toral programs prepare aspiring faculty members for their careers by providing
doctoral students with the opportunity to observe and experience faculty at a va-
riety of academic institutions with varying missions, diverse student bodies, and
different expectations for faculty. A steering committee determines the direction
of the program and includes representatives from each partner. Each program is
expected to address the full scope of faculty roles and responsibilities. Most of the
programs provide a course on college teaching, a seminar series that addresses dif-
ferent aspects of faculty life, and visits to different colleges and universities. PFF
programs include a formal system of mentoring in all aspects of professional devel-
opment. While doctoral students usually have a mentor guiding their dissertation
research, they seldom have a mentor guiding their teaching or professional service
experiences. In fact, most doctoral students do not have structured teaching or pro-
fessional service experiences in which they are given progressively more complex
assignments and responsibilities as part of their training (Adams, 2002; Gaff et al.,
2000). The new mentors are often located at one of the partner institutions.
In his survey of PFF alumni, Deneef (2002) found that PFF legitimizes con-
versations about all faculty roles, that minority students value PFF programs more
than majority students, that junior faculty who had participated in PFF believe
they are much better prepared to be faculty than their colleagues, and that the PFF

470 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
program smoothens the transition from graduate student to assistant professor.
Over 99% of the respondents said they would recommend PFF to other doctoral
students. However, more time is needed to assess the impact of the PFF experience
to determine if alumni earn tenure at higher rates than non-PFF participants.
ThePFFcampusdirectorsmeetregularlytoshareideas;to discuss the strengths,
weaknesses, and opportunities of their programs; and to develop strategies for in-
stitutionalizing their activities. PFF professional development activities are now
being integrated into existing academic programs on many campuses. Ferren et al.
(2002) report on the assessment of the strategies for sustaining PFF programs,
which was conducted by three independent observers who interviewed faculty,
students, and alumni. Eight of the 10 programs visited are likely to continue over
the next 3 years, one is uncertain, and one probably will not continue due to severe
budgetary cutbacks. While PFF programs are tailored to individual campus circum-
stances, several overarching strategies designed to sustain PFF over the long term
have proven effective. The lessons learned (Ferren et al., 2002) are summarized
below.
1. Leadership: PFF seems to work better when there is both strong centralized
administrative leadership (most are located in the graduate school offices) and
decentralized departmental leadership. In order to enhance sustainability, suc-
cession planning and shared leadership should be built in.
2. Graduate faculty: Although the initial aim was to involve graduate faculty in
the process, only a few actively participated in the program. By engaging 11
professional societies, the credibility and visibility of the PFF among faculty
have been enhanced. Applegate (2002) notes that “disciplinary societies signal
what is important and define quality in their fields by the content of their jour-
nals, the programs at their conferences, and the special activities they sponsor”
(p. 1).
3. Expanded perspective: The cluster concept, with research universities serving
as anchors and community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and master’s institu-
tions serving as partners, broadened the vision of all participants. Barriers to
collaborations have been reduced (Ferren et al., 2002, p. 18).
4. Budgeting: Universities are required to match the money they received from
the grant in the hope they would continue their support after external funding
disappears. The results are mixed. A few campuses have added little money;
others have slowly integrated PFF into regular budget lines; and one or two
have increased institutional funds and sought additional external funds.
5. Professional development: Students are most satisfied with the professional
development component.
6. Institutionalizing programs: Visibility, integration, and recognition are critical
to institutionalizing a program. This is enhanced through annual conferences

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 471
for PFF program directors and publications, as well as through conferences of
professional societies.
7. Assessment: Formative evaluation focuses on continuous program improve-
ment and refinement through the sharing of information among program direc-
tors and through surveys of participants. Although individual portfolios com-
piled at the end of the program demonstrate substantial progress for each stu-
dent, summative information (e.g., number of tenure-track faculty, quality of
teaching) still needs to be compiled for the entire program.
8. Placement of graduates: The original goal of PFF was to better prepare and
increase the number of graduate students interested in pursuing academic ca-
reers. However, the number of current participants is just a fraction of those
entering the professorate. Little tracking of graduates has been conducted by
the campus programs.
9. Adaptations: The flexible program structure enables each cluster to respond to
its local context and to make changes as needed.
Mentoring Junior Faculty
Participation in PFF gives graduate students a jumpstart in pursuing their
academic careers. However, the majority of new faculty enters the professoriate
with little preparation for the roles and responsibilities that they are expected to
assume. Mentoring programs for junior faculty are not widespread and there are
no consortial or national collaborations in place. Yet, just as universities facilitate
students’ involvement into the academic life of the university in order to enhance
retention, universities can facilitate the academic integration and career develop-
ment of their junior faculty (Boice, 1993; Boyle & Boice, 1998). The University
of Wisconsin-Madison, for example, recognizes that “high quality mentoring has
apositive effect on climate and is vital to effective recruitment and retention
of faculty...” (Draine, Hyde, & Buehlman, 1999, p. 23). Their Women Faculty
Mentoring Program was created to ameliorate the isolation of women faculty and
improve retention. The advantages of mentoring junior faculty and involving them
in their campuses have been demonstrated in a variety of settings. Mentees exhibit
improvements in risk taking, political savvy, research productivity, and profes-
sional skills (Boice, 1993; Cameron & Blackburn, 1991; Corcoran & Clark, 1984;
Didion et al., 1996; Fagenson, 1989).
Boice (1993) conducted multiple, in depth interviews in his study examining
the involvement of new faculty in the campus community. He observed that new
women and minority faculty tended to be less effectively immersed in their cam-
puses than their White, male counterparts. Boice concluded that minor, yet pivotal,
negative events occur quickly—within the first two or three semesters of employ-
ment. These events can result in key decisions that lead to reduced professional

472 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
interactions with colleagues and lowered career aspirations. New faculty who
thrive, on the other hand, typically “came to campus with social networks, men-
toring, and collaborations already in place” (p. 333). This outcome is consistent
with the perceptions of the PFF alumni described above.
In a study conducted by Sands et al. (1991), over a half of the faculty reported
having been mentored in some way when they were graduate students. About
20% had mentors when they were undergraduates. Only one-third said that they
were mentored by a faculty colleague once they joined the faculty. In most cases,
senior faculty and junior faculty mentoring relationships were mutually negotiated.
Respondents estimated spending 1–3 hours per week with their mentoring partner.
Few reported having a mentor assigned to them or being mentored in a structured
program as a new faculty member. It is assumed that new faculty members do
not need the mentoring support they received as graduate students. Boice (1992)
also reports that about one-third of new faculty had mentoring relationships that
were formed naturally or spontaneously. However, these relationships tended to
be irregular and short-lived. When one must rely on a spontaneous or natural
mentoring relationship to develop, women and minorities are less likely to be
included (Otto, 1994; Wunsch, 1994).
In their study of new teachers, new graduate teaching assistants, and new
faculty, Boyle and Boice (1998) concluded that systematic or structured mentoring
works much better than spontaneous or natural mentoring. Mentoring pairs met
more regularly, met over a longer period of time, and experienced greater program
involvement than a matched control group of natural mentoring pairs. In addition,
they noted that structured programs are more likely to involve people who are
normally left out of the mentoring process. Even though initially junior faculty
feared they would be too busy to participate, both mentors and mentees not only
reported learning from each other, they indicated that their program group meetings
were an important part of the learning process. As a result of participating in
this mentoring program, junior faculty felt part of the university community and
believed that their participation would have a positive impact on their academic
careers. The participants developed an effective mentoring network in which they
could easily exchange and adopt ideas and approaches. Boyle and Boice (1998)
concluded that in the long run, participants realized that mentoring saved more
time than it costs.
Junior faculty would benefit by participating in a mentoring program (Boyle &
Boice, 1998; Deneef, 2002; Draine et al., 1999; Sands et al., 1991). However, since
university cultures value competitiveness, independence, and autonomy, junior
faculty may be reluctant to participate in a mentoring program fearing that it would
be harmful to their careers if they admitted that they needed “extra help” (Boyle &
Boice, 1998). Administrators and senior faculty need to facilitate the integration of
new faculty into the academic community and to create an environment in which

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 473
mentoring and professional development of junior faculty are valued, fostered,
and rewarded. Consortial and national collaborations with the help of professional
societies could help provide both the credibility and visibility needed to sustain
campus-based programs over the long term.
Recommendations
The purpose of mentoring, as we have discussed it here, is academic ad-
vancement and professional development, helping individuals achieve their full
potential. However, in order to assure an adequate flow of trained professionals to
meet the projected national need, successful mentoring programs must be imple-
mented and scaled. This concluding section describes conditions drawn from the
literature and our experience that we believe are necessary for the development
and maintenance of successful mentoring programs (Bird et al., 1993; Bowcock,
2000; Brainard et al., 1998; Ferren et al., 2002; Foertsch, 1997; Gaff et al., 2000;
Girves, 1997, 1999, 2000; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Jacobi, 1991; McHenry, 1997;
Sandler, 1992; Sandler et al., 1996; Woolston et al., 1997; Wunsch, 1994; Zachary,
2000).
1. Leadership: University leaders, including the president and provost, should
discuss mentoring programs and encourage their development at every
level.
2. Education: The value of mentoring is not apparent to everyone, especially the
need for mentoring during a student’s or faculty member’s critical first year.
The university needs to offer workshops, produce publications, and, otherwise,
make information readily available for faculty, staff, and students concerning
the importance of mentoring, how to be a better mentor, what to expect from
a mentor, and what university resources are available to support mentoring.
3. Facilitation: An office or group of people with expertise in developing men-
toring programs should be identified as a resource and the implementation of
programs should be facilitated. Such an office could serve as a clearinghouse
for best practices around the university and country.
1. Student conferences: Conferences that bring students together to discuss their
research and to share their experiences will inspire and raise their expectations,
facilitate peer mentoring, accelerate their socialization into the discipline, and
reinforce their commitment to complete their degree programs.
5. Gatherings: Opportunities need to be provided for mentors to come together to
share information and for mentoring pairs to come together to learn strategies
from one another in a safe environment, one that encourages openness and
respect for diversity.

474 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
6. Genealogy: Mentors should talk about their own mentors and their mentors’
mentors, so students and others will understand how they fit (belong) within
the long history of the discipline.
7. Networking: Mentoring program coordinators should have an opportunity to
come together and share ideas much like the SROP, WISE, and PFF coordi-
nators do, so they can create their own mentoring network.
8. Structure: An infrastructure needs to be put in place that enables mentors and
mentees to focus their attention on cultivating their relationship and the task
at hand and not on administrative details.
9. Integration: Mentoring programs should be fully integrated into the univer-
sity’s larger effort to recruit, retain, and advance all individuals. They need to
be aligned within the university and not viewed as an add-on, or left on the
margin.
10. Policy and practice review: Departmental, college, and university policies and
practices should be reviewed to determine whether they support or hinder
the mentoring process. Funding agencies need to include a mentoring com-
ponent just as they request an evaluation component to be part of their pro-
posals. Progress and final reports should include information on individuals
mentored.
11. Support: Support, recognition, and incentives should be provided to individual
mentors and to programs. Promotion and tenure documents should include
information on students and faculty mentored.
12. Compensation: Mentors must be compensated for their time, especially those
who mentor faculty or students at other institutions.
13. Assessment: Both formative and summative evaluation are important. Individ-
ual programs need to be assessed on a regular basis for continuous improve-
ment. (Mentors who are not part of a program should also have an opportunity
to have their mentoring assessed.) Participants also need to be tracked in order
to determine the overall effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals.
14. National information and support: A national, searchable, online database of
best practices should be created that contains a program description together
with basic financial information, organizational structure, contacts, and as-
sessments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we return to the questions posed at the outset of this article:
What are key components of successful mentoring? Which students and junior
faculty are most likely to engage or be engaged in mentoring relationships? How
can institutions of higher education support mentoring opportunities to maximize

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 475
benefits more broadly? While few evaluations of mentoring programs or individual
mentors have been published, we have identified common factors that characterize
effective mentoring efforts. Structured programs are necessary in academic settings
to ensure access to mentoring relationships, to provide support and resources that
foster productive relationships, and to recognize and reward the efforts of those
who participate in mentoring activities. Consortial and national collaborations have
successfully scaled campus efforts to expand and help institutionalize mentoring
opportunities on campus.
Mentoring can certainly play an important role in helping us meet the national
goal of fully developing all of our human resources. The challenge is to scale ef-
fective intervention programs in order to positively impact as many students and
junior faculty as possible and to integrate mentoring efforts into the mainstream
of the university structure and culture as soon as possible. Consortial and national
programs have several advantages over single-campus programs that, in combi-
nation, can dramatically accelerate the scaling and integration processes. In other
words, structured mentoring programs that are part of consortial or national initia-
tives are more likely to help achieve goals of institutionalizing effective mentoring
programs across campuses expeditiously.
References
Adams, K. A. (2002). What colleges and universities want in new faculty.Washington, DC: Association
of American Colleges and Universities.
Applegate, J. L. (2002). Engaged graduate education: Seeing with new eyes.Washington, DC: Asso-
ciation of American Colleges and Universities.
Atkinson, D. R., Neville, H., & Casas, A. (1991). The mentorship of ethnic minorities in professional
psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 336–338.
Astin, A. W., Tsui, L., & Avalos, J. (1996). Degree attainment rates at American colleges and uni-
versities: Effects of race, gender, and institutional type. Higher Education Research Institute.
University of California at Los Angeles.
Bird, S. J., Didion, C. J., Niewohner, E. S., & Fillmore, M. D. (1993). Mentoring means futurescientists:
A guide for developing mentoring programs based on the AWIS mentoring project.Washington,
DC: The Association for Women in Science.
Boice, R. (1992). Lessons learned about mentoring. In M. D. Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Devel-
oping new and junior faculty (pp. 51–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boice, R. (1993). New faculty involvement for women and minorities. Research in Higher Education,
34, 291–340.
Bowcock, D. (2000). CIC WISE initiative: Evaluation of the outcomes. Madison, WI: LEAD Center,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Bowman, S., Kite, M., Branscombe, N., Williams, S. (1999). Developmental relationships of Black
Americans in the academy. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilem-
mas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 21–46). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate teaching
assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 157–179.
Brainard, S. G., Harkus, D. A., & St. George, M. R. (1998). A curriculum for training mentors and
mentees: Guide for administrators. Seattle: Women in Engineering Initiative, University of
Washington.

476 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
Busch, J. (1985). Mentoring in graduate schools of education: Mentors’ perceptions. American Edu-
cational Research Journal, 22, 257–265.
Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF). (2002). Investing in people: Developing all of America’s
talent on campus and in the workplace.Washington, DC: BHEF.
Cameron, S. W., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). Sponsorship and academic career success. Journal of
Higher Education, 52, 369–377.
Committee on Institutional Cooperation. (1998). CIC annual report: July 1, 1997 through June 30,
1998. Champaign, IL: Committee on Institutional Cooperation.
Corcoran, M., & Clark, S. M. (1984). Professional socialization and contemporary career attitudes of
three faculty generations. Research in Higher Education, 20, 131–153.
Crosby, F.J. (1999). The developing literature on developmental relationships. In A. Murrell, F.Crosby,
&R.Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural orga-
nizations (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crow, G. M., & Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding ones’ way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic
leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Davidson, M. N., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate researchers
of color. Review of Educational Research, 71, 549–574.
Denecke, D. (2002). Report of the PFF complementarity meeting. CGS Communicator, 35(8), 1–2, 6,
7.
Deneef, A. L. (2002). The preparing futurefaculty program: What difference does it make? Washington,
DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Didion, C. J., Fox, M. A., & Jones, M. E. (1996). Cultivating academic careers: AWIS project on
academic climate.Washington, DC: Association for Women in Science.
Draine, B., Hyde, J., & Buehlman, J. (1999). Mentoring for faculty and academic staff—three programs
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.In J. Z. Daniels (Ed.), WISE best practices guidebook—
mentoring programs (pp. 23–28). Champaign, IL: Committee on Institutional Cooperation.
Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment
and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–
308.
Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of prot´eg´es. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309–320.
Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The power of a mentor: Prot´eg´es’ and nonprot´eg´es’ perceptions of their own
power in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 13(2), 182–194.
Ferren, A., Gaff, J. G., & Clayton-Pedersen, A. (2002). Will reforms survive? Strategies for sustaining
Preparing Future Faculty programs. Liberal Education, Changing Course: Preparing Faculty
for the Future, 88 (3), 14–21.
Foertsch, J. A., Alexander, B. A., & Penberthy, D. L. (1997). Evaluation of the UW-Madison’s summer
undergraduate research programs, final report: Integrated analysis of program outcome data,
student surveys, and student and mentor interviews. Madison, WI: LEAD Center, University
of Wisconsin-Madison.
Freeman, K. (1999). No services needed? The case for mentoring high-achieving African American
students. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 15–26.
Gaff, J. G., Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Weibl, R. A. (2000). Building the faculty we need—colleges and
universities working together.Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Uni-
versities.
Girves, J. E. (1997). Catalyst for success: The SROP. Presentation at the IDEA Exchange, Washington,
DC, Council of Graduate Schools.
Girves, J. E. (1999). The CIC WISE initiative: The value of a consortium. Proceedings of the 10th
Annual WEPAN Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Girves, J. E. (2000). Student tracking. National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure
(NPACI) All Hands Meeting, February, 2000, San Diego, California.
Girves, J. E., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student progress. Journal of
Higher Education, 59, 163–189.
Gonzales-Rodriguez, Y. E. (1995). Mentoring to diversity: A multicultural approach. New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, 66, 69–77.

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 477
Hall, R., & Sandler, B. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women.Washington, DC:
Association of American Colleges.
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1983). Academic mentoring for women students and faculty: A new
look at an old way to get ahead.Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Haring, M. J. (1999a). The case for a conceptual base for minority mentoring programs. Peabody
Journal of Education, 74, 5–14.
Haring, M. J. (1999b). Foreword from the field. In C. A. Mullen & D. W. Lick (Eds.), New directions
in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy (pp. xi–xii).New York: Falmer Press.
Haring, M. J. (1997). Networking mentoring as a preferred model for guiding programs for underrep-
resented students. In H. T. Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 1. Mentoring
and diversity in higher education (pp. 63–76). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Haring-Hidore, M. J. (1987). Mentoring as a career enhancement strategy for women. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 66, 147–148.
Harvey, W. B. (2001). Minorities in higher education 2000–2001: Eighteenth annual status report.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Healy, C. C. (1997). An operational definition of mentoring. In H. T. Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in
higher education: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in higher education (pp. 9–22). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Heinrich, K. (1995). Doctoral advisement relationships between women: On friendship and betrayal.
Journal of Higher Education, 66, 447–469.
Humphrey, J., Carey, N., & Mansfield, W. (2002). Aprof ile of the Ronald E. McNair postbaccalaureate
achievement program: 1999–2000.Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of
Educational Research, 61, 505–532.
Johnsrud, L. K. (1994). Enabling the success of junior faculty women through mentoring. In W. A.
Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions
(pp. 53–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Keith, B., & Moore, H. (1995). Training sociologists; An assessment of professional and the emergence
of career aspirations. Teaching Sociology, 23, 199–214.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman.
Lee, W.Y.(1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race on mentoring African American
students. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 27–43.
Lick, D. W. (1999). Multiple level comentoring: Moving toward a learning organization. In C. A.
Mullen & D. W. Lick (Eds.), New directions in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy
(pp. 202–212). New York: Falmer Press.
McCambley, E. (1999). Testing theory by practice. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.),
Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationshipswithin multicultural organizations (pp. 173–
188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McHenry, W. (1997). Mentoring as a tool for increasing minority student participation in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology undergraduate and graduate programs. In H. T.
Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in higher
education (pp. 115–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mullen, C. A. (1999). Navigating a new mentoring pathway: The search begins. In C. A. Mullen &
D. W. Lick (Eds.), New directions in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy (pp. 1–8). New
York: Falmer Press.
National Science Board (NSB). (2002). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation (NSB-02-01).
O’Neill, R. M., Sylvia, H., & Crosby, F. J. (1999). Gender issues in developmental relationships. In A.
Murrell, F. Crosby, & R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within
multicultural organizations (pp. 63–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ottinger, C. (1991). College going, persistence, and completion patterns in higher education: What
do we know? Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research Improvement. (ERIC: ED 381
054).

478 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey
Otto, M. L. (1994). Mentoring: An adult developmental perspective. In W. A. Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring
revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions (pp. 15–24). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers
to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 939–951.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentors functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and
women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Science, 84, 529–
549.
Sandler, B. R. (1992). Success and survival strategies for women faculty members.Washington, DC:
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., & Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly classroomclimate: A guide to improve
the education of women.Washington, DC: Association for Women in Higher Education.
Sands, R. G., Parson, L. A, & Duane, J. (1991). Faculty mentoring faculty in a public university.
Journal of Higher Education, 62, 174–193.
Schockett, M. R., & Haring-Hidore, M. J. (1985). Factor analytic support for psychosocial and voca-
tional mentoring functions. Psychological Reports, 57, 627–630.
Sharp, L., Kleiner, B., & Frechtling, J. (2000). A description and analysis of best practice finds
of programs promoting participation of underrepresented undergraduate students in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology fields.Washington, DC: WESTAT.
Terrell, M. C., & Hassell, R. K. (1994). Mentoring undergraduate minority students: An overview,
survey, and model program. In W. A. Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring revisited: Making an impact
on individuals and institutions (pp. 35–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Thayer, P. (May, 2000). “Retention of students from first generation and low income backgrounds,”
Opportunity outlook,Washington, DC: Council for Opportunity in Education.
Tillman, L. C. (2001). Mentoring African American faculty in predominantly white institutions.
Research in Higher Education, 42, 295–325.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (March, 2001a). Population by race and Hispanic or Latino origin for the United
States: 1990 and 2000; Table 4: Difference in population by race and Hispanic or Latino origin,
for the United States: 1990–2000. Retrieved April 30, 2003 from www.census.gov/population/
www/cen2000/phc-t1.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. (March, 2001b). Educational attainment in the United States; Table 1a: Percent of
high school and college graduates of the population 15 years and over by age, sex, race, and His-
panic origin. Retrieved April 30, 2003 from landview.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/
education/ppl-157.html.
U.S. Department of Education (USDE). (1998). National Center for Education Statistics. First-
generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary educa-
tion, NCES 98-082, by A. Nunez and S. Cuccaro-Alamin, Washington, DC.
Wallace, D., Abel, R., & Ropers-Huilman, B. (2000). Clearing a path for success: Deconstructing
borders through undergraduate mentoring. Review of Higher Education, 24, 87–102.
Welch, O. (1997). An examination of effective mentoring models in academe. In H. T. Frierson,
Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in higher education
(pp. 41–62). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Woolston, C., Hrabrowski, F., & Maton, K. (1997). The recruitment and retention of talented African
Americans in science: The role of mentoring. In H. T. Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher
education: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in higher education (pp. 103–114). Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Wunsch, M. A. (1993). Giving structure to experience: Mentoring strategies for women faculty. Initia-
tives, 56, 1–10.
Wunsch, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 479
Zachary, L. J. (2000). The mentor’s guide—facilitating effective learning relationships. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
JEAN E. GIRVES obtained her PhD from Ohio State University, where she served
as assistant dean of the graduate school before joining the Committee on In-
stitutional Cooperation (CIC) as its associate director. Her institutional research
focused on the retention and advancement of graduate students. Her administrative
responsibilities focused on developing, implementing, and monitoring consortial
programs designed to increase the number of underrepresented minority students
and women in science and engineering, who earn bachelor’s and PhD degrees and
who pursue academic careers. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Science,
Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring was given to the CIC for its Summer
Research Opportunities Program (SROP) in 2000. Dr. Girves is the project director
for the Ohio Science and Engineering Alliance, which is funded under the Louis
Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) program by the National
Science Foundation.
JUDITH K. GWATHMEY earned her PhD from Ohio State University and her
VMD (Veterinary Medical Degree) from the University of Pennsylvania. Her pri-
mary research goal is to reverse the effects of heart disease. She maintains a diverse
lab and has mentored 53 students and junior faculty for which she received the
2001 Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineer-
ing Mentoring. Dr. Gwathmey is currently CEO of Gwathmey, Inc., a pre-clinical
research company offering animal studies and in vitro assays.
YOLANDA ZEPEDA is assistant director of graduate education and diversity
at the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). Her professional interests
are recruitment and retention of underrepresented students and the professional
development of students in graduate education. She has been involved with the CIC
SROP program for nearly 10 years at Indiana University, Ohio State University,
and the CIC office.