1999-2000 Evaluation Report
Ithaca Evaluation Group
Executive Summary
The MentorNet program pairs undergraduate and graduate women who are considering careers in science, math, and engineering professions with mentors who work in science/engineering industries, government laboratories, and other non-academic settings. Mentors and protégés apply to the program, are matched by MentorNet staff, and then communicate for at least one academic year using email. In 1999-2000, 1089 pairs1 from 362 schools and more than 200 companies participated in the program and were tracked in the evaluation.
This report summarizes analysis of MentorNet-provided and Ithaca Evaluation Group (IEG)-acquired data. Our principal data collection method was a web-administered questionnaire completed in the spring. Although all participants were invited to complete the questionnaire, reminders and analysis targeted a random sample of 200 pairs, and most results in this report are based on that sample. Analysis included generation of baseline statistics, assessment of factors related to satisfaction with mentor-protégé matches, and inspection of outcome measures for differences related to other variables. Content analysis of questionnaire free-response items was done using a coding system developed and refined during evaluations done during the previous two years.
Participants’ assessments of their mentoring relationships remain very positive. On a five-point scale (1-5), students responded very favorably (>4) to queries concerning the comfort asking and answering questions of their mentoring partner, their post-mentoring interest in their major, their post-mentoring interest in working in industry, their willingness to recommend the MentorNet program to others, and their perceptions of their mentoring partners’ interest in them. This year's evaluation also looked in some detail at effects on mentors and identified some noteworthy outcomes. For example, 57% of mentors reported that "self-reflection on my own career" was a positive outcome, 18% reported a "renewed commitment to my field," and 7% reported the development of "improved supervisory skills."
The evaluation found few differences between male and female mentors with respect to outcomes and no significant differences in outcomes related to various participant demographics, such as ethnicity.
Participants were asked about the content and value of their email exchanges, using both topic checklists and free-response (essay) questions. Most participants discussed their backgrounds, the mentor’s job, the protégé’s career plans, and college life. Regression analysis identified a small set of topics that is related to participant satisfaction with the overall mentoring experience, and it may be useful in the future to focus training materials and program prompts on those topics.
Open-ended questions asked mentors and students to identify the most valuable outcomes of the mentoring experience and to make suggestions for program improvement. The results are consistent with previous program years.
One new aspect of this year's evaluation was that the outcomes questionnaire was longer and was divided into two parts, a general program evaluation segment and a campus-specific segment. Campus representatives at a number of campuses developed and input their own questions for the second part, and results were passed along to them. Our analysis is restricted to the first, general program evaluation, segment.
Overall, evaluation data indicate that the project had a successful second full year of mentoring. MentorNet achieved a 111% increase in participation relative to 1998-99 while retaining mentors’ and protégés’ mentoring success.
1We tracked student-mentor pairs who had accepted one-on-one mentoring matches on or before 11/18/99. An additional group of approximately 100 students and mentors participated in a group mentoring initiative, which this analysis does not address. We also disregard a small number of changes made after 11/2000.
2Two of the campuses run two different programs for women in science and engineering. Our internal databases distinguish between these programs, raising the number of "schools" to 38. The smaller number is used in this report.