Craig E. Wills of WPI recently wrote a report that describes the outcomes of advertised CS faculty positions across institutions in 2017. It was a follow-up to a previous report on the CS positions advertised in 2017. The report contains a wealth of information about the number of faculty positions filled at different institutions.
In summary, 244 of the 323 advertised positions were fulfilled, giving an aggregate 75% success rate. Not surprisingly, this success varied by institution type: 90% of the positions advertised by the top 100 graduate schools according to U.S. News Rankings were filled, whereas other PhD-granting institutions, Masters-granting institutions, and Bachelors-granting institutions had 67%, 66%, and 69% success rates, respectively.
Wills also looked at the faculty positions by research area. I’ll focus on three:
- AI/DM/ML: artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, data mining, machine learning, natural language processing, text analytics
- CompSci: computational biology, computational life science, computational medicine, computational neuroscience (you get the picture…)
- Security: cryptography, forensics, information assurance, privacy, security
The figure below shows the percent of faculty positions sought for each field on the x-axis and the percent of faculty positions filled for each field on the y-axis:
Points that lie on the red x=y line indicate that the percent of faculty positions filled exactly matched the percent of faculty positions sought. Let’s look at the three largest outliers:
- AI/DM/ML was sought for 11% of the positions by area, but ended up filling 21% of the positions.
- DataSci was sought for 16% of the positions by area, but ended up filling only 7% of the positions.
- Security was sought for 23% of the positions, but ended up filling only 12% of the positions.
Wills cited many factors associated with these discrepancies, including the fact that nearly a quarter of the positions did not specify an area of interest in their ad. Additionally, institutions simply did not end up hiring in the areas of interest, either because they could not find candidates in that area or they found better candidates in other areas. Areas could also be satisfied with multiple fields (for example AI/DM/ML or DataSci accounted for 27% of the positions sought and ended up filling 28% of the positions when combined).
Another factor that Wills considered was the number of Ph.D.s produced by area (based on Taulbee Survey results):
It’s good to be in Security, since only 6% of the Ph.D.s produced are in this area compared to the demand of 23% of the positions sought in this area. It’s also good to be in AI/DM/ML because over 20% of the faculty positions were filled in this area, even if the job ads didn’t specify it.
Overall, the report was an interesting read – I’m looking forward to seeing these trends over time.