Measuring Progression Toward the PhD – Lessons from the

download report

Transcript Measuring Progression Toward the PhD – Lessons from the

Valerie Petit Wilson, PhD
Executive Director, Leadership Alliance
Associate Dean of the Graduate School
Clinical Professor of Community Health



A Consortium of 33
Outstanding Academic
Institutions
Shared Vision: Greater diversity
in the nation’s institutions of
higher learning
Shared Commitment: Assist
underrepresented minority
students become future
educators and leaders for our
academic, public and
government organizations
Member Institutions
Brooklyn College
Brown University
Chaminade University
Claflin University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Delaware State University
Dillard University
Harvard University
Howard University
Hunter College
Johns Hopkins University
Montana State University-Bozeman
Morehouse College
Morgan State University
New York University
Prairie View A&M University
Princeton University
Spelman College
Stanford University
Tougaloo College
Tufts University
University of Chicago
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
University of Miami
University of Pennsylvania
University of Puerto Rico
University of Virginia
Vanderbilt University
Xavier University of Louisiana
Yale University





Selecting the Appropriate Students
Providing the Right Information at the Right
Time
Building Partnerships and Linking Resources
to Assure Transitions to the Next Level
Maintaining a Robust Network to Assess
Outcomes and Provide Advice to Protégés as
they Advance Over Time
Understanding Societal, Economic and Other
factors that are attendant to career choices
Selecting the Appropriate Students
1.
2.
3.
Understand the source of students who
enroll in your programs
Determine if the program selection criteria
reflect the intent of your program's goals
Determine if your program increases the
number of students in the pool or enriches
those already in the pool
Institutional Diversity
 60% of participants
were from the 33
Alliance Institutions;
 40% of the participants
were from 154 unique
undergraduate
institutions.
Institutional Classification*
 46.7% Doctoral/Research
 29.5% - Master’s
 20.9% - Baccalaureate
 1.0% - Associates
 1.0% from Specialized
Institutions, Tribal
colleges
 0.5% - Unclassified
* 2006 Modification of the Revised Carnegie
Classification
Alliance program is open to
students nationwide…
…for talented students are
from many institutions
Data in early years indicated that
large numbers of students
entered MD and other clinical
training programs
Why? Selection criteria based on
GPA and not on career
aspiration
Change/revise selection procedure
1. Revise selection criteria to
reflect program intent
2. Communicate program
intent to prospective
candidates
3. Prioritize Applications from
those intending PhD or
MD/PHD degrees
40%
35%
33%
31%
30%
30%
34%
28%
29%
24%
25%
27%
22%
26%
20%
17%
20%
14%
15%
16%
14%
10%
30%
14%
16%
12%
13%
14%
7%
5%
0%
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Selection Reflects Intent
Track and Follow
Progression into Programs
While not an exclusive criterion, external research experience is a factor
in admissions decisions to competitive graduate training programs
Findings : 1 of every 3 students was a rising senior
without prior undergraduate research experience.
Students were:
 From campuses without funded undergrad research
programs; and
 Otherwise qualified students who are not enrolled in
undergrad research programs on their campuses
Conclusion:
Many otherwise qualified students would be considered
non-competitive for leading training programs
Interpretation:
Every student will not be identified ‘early’ – look at those
who come to these career aspirations relatively late in
the undergrad career
Classification
% of
Cohort
Seniors With
Research
Experience
30.9
Seniors Without
Research
Experience
29.7
Underclassmen
with Research
Experience
13.1
Underclassmen
without
research
experience
26.3
Providing the Right Information at the Right
Time
1. Provide information on graduate training options
and the careers that result from specific training
2. Understand why correct information is important
for the student and the training program so as to
achieve mutual goals



What PhD training is about:
Better understanding of the
nature of graduate training
and the goals of a research
career.
Differences Among Career
Options: Enhance students’
ability to make an informed
career choice.
Understanding Expectations:
Both Requirements for the
Application process and
Expectations of Programs in
initial years.
Research Outcomes Goal
A Quality Research Experience
for Each Participant.



Better Graduate Training
Decision-Making by Program
Participants
Increased Acceptance of
Program Participants into
Graduate Schools of Choice
Reduced Opportunity Costs to
Graduate Program
Result?
Greater Retention in the 1st 2
years of Graduate Training
Social Outcomes Goal
Envisioning Themselves in the
Role of Researcher



Connection to a Network:
Interacting with a group of
students who are like-minded
and academically focused
Peer support from Graduate
Students and Postdocs who
look like them
Confidence in their research
abilities
Result?
Increased Persistence by
Students
Building Partnerships and Linking Resources to
Track Transitions to the Next Level
1.
2.
Develop tracking systems to follow
students’ progression
Evaluate student outcomes to determine
which training environments benefit from
your undergraduate research program
Confounders





Highly mobile
1-3 years since summer
program.
Break Before Beginning
Graduate School
Enrolled in Master’s or
Postbac Programs
Multiple Program
Participation
Our Tracking Mechanism for
gathering information

Yearly surveys for three
years of all students to
permanent address:
◦ Year 1
 4 months after summer
 8 months after summer
◦ In Dec for 2 additional years



Social networks for
information gathering
Alliance intranet site
Conferences and Meeting

Are STEM Enrollments
Increasing?
◦ Greater Proportion in STEM
◦ Constant proportion
Medical/Clinical
◦ Larger Number overall

Where are Enrollments
Increasing?
◦ SR-EIP alum is nearly three
times more likely to attend a
Leadership Alliance Institution
Maintain a robust network to assess outcomes
and provide advice to protégés as they
advance over time
1. Set
up long-term tracking to assess degree
completion times
2. Assess Outcomes Compared to National
Standards
An Individual History of a
PhD?
 Time to degree
How to Get the Data? Multiple
tracking modes
 Program Based
◦ e-mails to all available
addresses
◦ Snail mail to permanent
addresses
◦ Defense date vs.
graduation date


MS before PhD or direct
to PhD route
‘Stopping out’
We may also need to know
 Sources of funding
 Plans for post PhD activity

Network Based

External sources
◦ Intranet Sites
◦ JustGarciaHill website
◦ Google search by name and
by putative graduate
institutions
◦ ProQuest for Dissertation
Completion
◦ Data tracker sources
National Outcome= 28%
progress into grad
training
LA Progression
61% have gone into grad
programs
◦ 23% PhDs
◦ 3% MD/PhD
◦ 12% MS
◦ 18% MD
◦ 5% Other degrees
MS 12%
PhD 23%
BA Only 39%
Grad Programs
MD/PhD 3%
MD 18%
JD 3%
Other Doctorates 2%
T ype of Institution F a c ulty a re E m ploye d (n= 30)
Occupations of Leadership Alliance PhD Recipients
(N=93)
B ac /A &S
13%
Other
20%
Industry/Gov't
10%
Academic
33%
Postdoc
39%
LA Alums with PhDs are remaining
in the academic career pathway by
•
•
Choosing Postdocs
Choosing Academic & Research Careers
R es earc h
57%
Mas ters
20%
Doc toral
10%
LA Alums in Academic Careers are
Diversifying all levels of the Academy
•More than half in Research Institutions
Understanding Societal, Economic and Other
factors that are attendant to career choices
1.
2.
What are the Economic Factors?
What are the Social Factor?
Variables Under Control of Market Forces
Funds available to support graduate trainees
Competition from international or other students
The draw of the job market after BS degree
Undergraduate debt burden




Variables Under Control by Institutions

Time to degree varies by institution

Time to degree varies by discipline

Time to degree varies by mentor
Variables Control by Socio-Economic Circumstances


◦
◦
Social Acceptance of PhD training
Race/ethnicity
Lifestyle Choices – e.g. gender
Economic Consequences of pursuing PhD