PhD Program Best Practices at the University of Florida A Provost Fellowship Project Spring 2006...
-
Upload
reynold-wood -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of PhD Program Best Practices at the University of Florida A Provost Fellowship Project Spring 2006...
PhD Program Best Practices at the University of Florida
A Provost Fellowship Project Spring 2006
Prepared by Sylvia Chan-OlmstedProfessor and Associate Dean for ResearchCollege of Journalism and Communications
Background of the Project
• Synopsis: Examine the recruitment, admission, and mentoring practices of PhD programs to identify best practices
• Rationale: Low completion and high attrition rates mean loss of talent resources/public investment
Project Objectives
• Identify the characteristics of the high/low performing PhD programs
• Explore the factors associated with above- average program completion patterns
• Recommend specific practices in PhD recruitment, admission, and mentoring
Project Process
1. Analysis of secondary program data from the graduate school and CGS
2. In-depth personal interviews with the graduate coordinators of selected programs
(Botany, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Economics, English, History, Microbiology, Psychology, Physics, and Sociology)
Major Findings: Program PerformancePhD Completion Rates• Three tiers of performers (some
underperformed their CGS peers – NCSU & UGA)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Completion Rate
Microbiology
Psychology
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Botany
Sociology
Economics
Physics
Mathematics
Computer Engineering
English
History
Department
Ten-Year Completion Rate by Department 1992-2002
Major Findings: Program PerformancePhD Attrition Rates• Three tiers of performers (four underperformed
their CGS peers)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Attrition Rate
Microbiology
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Psychology
Economics
Botany
Physics
Sociology
English
Computer Engineering
Mathematics
History
Department
Ten Year Attrition Rate by Department 1992-2002
Major Findings: Program PerformancePhD Time-to-Degree• Sociology, computer engineering, and civil
engineering led the group (one underperformed)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Months (1 year =12 months; 1 semster=4 months)
History
Botany
Physics
English
Mathematics
Psychology
Chemical Engineering
Economics
Chemistry
Microbiology
Civil Engineering
Computer Engineering
Sociology
De
pa
rtm
en
t
PhD Time to Degree by Department 1992-2002
Major Findings: Recruitment
• Communication and Information Dissemination– Web rules, cold mass mailing
considered ineffective
• Recruitment Activities– No systemic off-campus
recruitment– Limited marketing efforts;
peer schools and personal recruitment
Notable Recruitment Practices
• An extensive Web site that features in-depth program information, online tools for self-assessment of program readiness, and helpful guides on effective applications and success in graduate school.
• A formal “partner schools” program which institutionalizes the recruitment practices that would benefit all partnered schools
• A proactive recruitment practice that follows up inquiries with phone calls and waives application fees for eligible domestic students.
• A proactive investigation (e.g., survey) of the reasons behind an admitted student’s decision not to attend UF.
Major Findings: Admissions• Admission procedures vary greatly
among programs (e.g., geographic division of applications)
• Notable admission practices– Separation of the recruitment and
admission functions– Provision of financial support for on-
campus visits after admissions– Preference for a program’s own
undergraduate students– Lack of a sponsored on-campus
visit/interview program– Limited emphasis on the factor of “fit”
Major Findings: MentoringIt is a highly individualized endeavor, but
leaders may cultivate an environment that encourages certain productive mentoring practices
Notable positive practices:• The institutionalization of a formal, well-
thought-out advisor–student matching system that emphasizes the process of mutual selection and gives junior faculty the needed research assistance.
• Assignments of faculty advisors after the PhD students have a chance to become acquainted with the faculty.
Notable negative practices:• Very uneven distribution of PhD advising
loads
Major Findings: Program Characteristics
• Programs vary greatly in size of applicationsNumber of Applications by Department
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
No
. o
f A
pp
lic
an
ts
Microbiology
Mathematics
Botany
Psychology
Civil Engineering
Computer Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Economics
Physics
History
English
Chemistry
Sociology
Major Findings: Program Characteristics
• Programs vary greatly in acceptance ratesPhD Acceptance Rate by Department 2002-2005
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Acc
ep
tan
ce
Ra
te
Microbiology
Mathematics
Botany
Psychology
Civil Engineering
Computer Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Economics
Physics
History
English
Chemistry
Sociology
Major Findings: Program Acceptance Rates by Gender & Test Scores
• Computer Engineering and Physics – higher acceptance rates for male applicants; Civil Engineering & Chemistry – higher rates for female applicants
• Chemical Engineering – Highest increase in female acceptance rates
• Economics, English, Botany, and Psychology – high GPA
• Computer Engineering, Civil Engineering, Economics, Physics, and Chemical Engineering – high GRE scores
Major Findings: Program Student-to-Faculty Ratio
• Computer Engineering had the highest ratioGraduate Student-Teacher Ratio by Department
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Student-Teacher Ratio('98)
Student-Teacher Ratio('99)
Student-Teacher Ratio('00)
Student-Teacher Ratio('01)
Student-Teacher Ratio('02)
Student-Teacher Ratio('03)
Year
Rati
o
Botany Chemical Engineering Chemistry Civil Engineering Computer Engineering
Economics English History Mathematics Microbiology
Physics Psychology Sociology
Major Findings: Relative Size of PhD Programs
• History, Computer Engineering, and to a lesser degree, Civil Engineering had the smallest proportions of PhD degrees awarded
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
No. of Degree
Botany
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Computer Engineering
Economics
English
History
Mathematics
Microbiology
Physics
Psychology
Sociology
Dep
art
men
t
No. of Doctoral Degree to Total/Graduate Degree Awarded
Doctoral Degree to all Degrees Awarded ('04-05) Doctoral Degree to All Graduate Degrees ('04-05)
Notable Program Characteristics
• Positive Characteristics: competitive stipend, comparably balanced graduate/undergraduate programs, mid-size program, and mid-range student-to-faculty ratio
• Negative Characteristics: low stipend, lack of office
space, high student-to-faculty ratio, unstructured curriculum, and very large program size
Recommendations - Recruitment
• Develop an informative and interactive program website
• Establish a program to identify and take advantage of “partner schools”
• Proactively recruit by initiating follow-ups with more personal approaches
• Waive the application fee for attractive domestic students
• Proactively investigate the reasons behind an admittee’s decision not to attend UF
Recommendations-Admissions • Divide the functions of
recruitment and admission• Provide financial support for on-
campus visits of admittees• Avoid preferential admission for
a program’s own undergraduate students
• Emphasize the factor of “fit” between students and faculty/program
• Monitor acceptance rates to avoid comparatively very high acceptance rates
Recommendations: Mentoring• Institutionalize a formal advisor–
student matching system that emphasizes the process of mutual selection and the factor of “fit”
• Create opportunities for new PhD students to become acquainted with the faculty before assigning advisors
• Develop a reward system to ensure a more even distribution of the PhD student advising loads