Gender patterns in engineering PhD teaching assistant evaluations corroborate role congruity theory

International Journal of STEM Education

Table 2 Number of student responses for male and female teaching assistants (TAs) in 18 programs or departments over the five semesters of mid-semester evaluation data used for this analysis

	FA17		FA18		FA19		SP18		SP19		Study
	TA Gender		TA Gender		TA Gender		TA Gender		TA Gender		TOTALS
Program/department	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M
AEP	30	17	0	55	4	47	8	29	0	14	42	162
BEE	4	0	43	12	31	13	14	2	9	8	101	35
BME	46	25	9	53	12	18	15	19	78	5	160	120
CEE	79	95	34	43	30	111	13	10	3	30	159	289
CHEME	11	117	24	42	16	76	14	24	24	18	89	277
COMM	4	4	0	0	12	7	7	0	5	2	28	13
CS	28	209	53	106	17	132	7	159	2	85	107	691
EAS	0	10	4	80	49	18	59	30	10	13	122	151
ECE	19	25	0	16	4	28	24	65	4	34	51	168
ENGRD	33	101	98	83	1	233	34	96	17	43	183	556
ENGRI	0	17	0	10	10	0	7	19	19	0	36	46
INFO	35	13	6	11	18	9	39	61	42	31	140	125
MAE	11	67	11	100	56	154	26	100	13	55	117	476
MSE	31	79	10	69	50	31	12	28	14	24	117	231
ORIE	84	107	62	50	27	112	30	50	25	87	228	406
PHYS	0	11	1	3	0	3	1	7	0	3	2	27
STSCI	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	12	9	12
SYSEN	15	18	0	4	0	14	0	10	0	6	15	52
TOTALS	430	915	355	737	337	1006	310	709	274	470	1706	3837
									Responses		5543