Update of Grad Program Review

October 18, 2006

Objective for Today

• Communicate status of grad program review• Discuss testing of a semester progress evaluation• Answer any questions you may have• Listen to your concerns and suggestions

Grad Review Committee Members• Info: Hall, Modiano, Roy• Systems: de Weck, Widnall, Young• Vehicles: Darmofal, Peraire, Radovitzky, Drela• Draper: Schmidt• Staff: Lechner, Stuppard

• Current students: Elizabeth Deems, Geoff Huntington, Nayden Kambouchev

• Former students: Megan Mitchell, Mitch Ingham

• Committee email: aa-gradreview@mit.edu

Spring 2006 Survey

• A survey of faculty and graduate students was taken to help identify issues and scope the review

• In addition to electronic responses, two community discussions and one grad student discussion were held

• In total, input from 26 faculty and around 50 students was received

Themes from Faculty Survey

• Establish program objectives, then work from these to develop a program that can meet them

• Improve admissions process: more selectivity (fewer admits), higher funding rate immediately upon admission, rolling admissions

• Consider substantial modification of SM degree, e.g. a 1-year non-thesis Masters, or drop SM requirement for Doctorates

• Need a fund-raising campaign in particular for grad fellowships and stop-gap funding

• The review needs departmental resources and strong HQ backing. Can’t be done on the margin.

• Doctoral exams: why two?• Should establish some structure for our grad subjects

Themes from Student Survey

• Doctoral exams: why two? Impact of departmental broadening on effectivity of current qualifying exam?

• Funding is not competitive with other institutions• Better communications/increased clarity in particular for

obtaining/maintaining funding and degree requirements• Better advising: large disparity in quality of advising occurs

from advisor-to-advisor• Raise expectations on publications and conference

attendance• Improved community life: grad student lounge, larger

sense of community than just (at best) lab• More frequent, planned reviews/surveys of grad program

Grad Review Committee Charge1. Formulate the objectives of our graduate program including

the objectives for all graduate degrees. 2. Develop a model for our graduate program which addresses

the objectives and propose it to the faculty and the broader community. This model should:

a) Establish requirements for all graduate degrees specificallyi. Develop curriculum tracks to improve student academic planning and

departmental teaching assignments.ii. Address, and potentially revise, all doctoral requirements including

doctoral entrance requirements, qualifying exams, and general exams. The purpose of any requirement in the proposed model should be stated, in addition to the actual requirement.

b) Establish the role of a doctoral student’s advisor and thesis committee

c) Establish a set of expectations for a typical graduate student experience including conference attendance and presentations, publication, teaching, proposal preparation, etc.

Grad Review Committee Charged) Consider improving processes to monitor and inform students of their

progress including continuation of financial supporte) Review and improve existing admissions processes including (though not

limited to):i. Coordination of the number of admits to projected funding availability, ii. Utilization of resources to attract high quality students to apply and enroll

f) Consider how to increase the effectivity of department-controlled fellowship resources

g) Propose continuous improvement processes based on the tracking of measurable outcomes of our graduate program

3. Recommend steps that can be taken to improve the graduate student sense of community specifically addressing (though not limited to):

a) Draper fellowsb) Graduate student space, both the quality of office space and lack of a

graduate student loungec) Development and/or support for events that strengthen the graduate student

sense of community (e.g. grad student scholar awards and lecture)

Grad Review Committee Charge4. Working with departmental leadership and graduate

program staff, develop implementation plans for the proposed graduate program.

Status

• Over the summer, we focused on doctoral program and developed two proposals.

• Currently, working with faculty to develop learning objectives of our doctoral program.

• Once some consensus is developed on objectives, committee will work to arrive at a single proposal for our doctoral program.

• We will phase in changes as quickly as possible, BUT, do not expect to see any significant changes until next fall (i.e. qualifying and general exams will continue as is at least this year)

Semester evaluation report proposal

• Objectives: – To improve student self-reflection through

periodic, joint student-advisor evaluation of progress in research and professional development

– To set short term (i.e. next semester) goals for student progress in research and professional development

– To ensure student-advisor communication on future funding expectations

• Semester evaluation is based on practice from MSE

MSE Process

• Evaluation initially completed independently by both student and advisor

• Student and advisor meet to discuss evaluation

• Student must turn in a statement signed by both advisor and student that the evaluation meeting was held and what the THG grade was (J/U)

• Required for all students (SM and PhD) registered for THG

Proposed Process for Aero/Astro• Same process as MSE but using a web-based

implementation• Specific questions include:1. Describe (your / your student's) important accomplishments during the

semester. Include coursework, research, and reporting activities.2. What goals would (you like to / you like your student to) accomplish

during the next semester?3. Do any changes need to be made to help (you / your student)

accomplish these goals?4. Indicate your level of satisfaction with the rate of progress of the thesis

project: (very satisfied/adequate/not satified). Comment on your selection.

5. On the timeline below, indicate when you expect to achieve your next milestones, e.g. paper, defense, etc.

6. How often do you meet with (your advisor / your student)? Do you feel that this is frequent enough?

7. What are your expectations for continued funding over the upcoming semesters?

Trial for this Semester

• Conduct a trial of semester evaluation process using volunteers this Fall, possibly Spring also

– More than half of the faculty have volunteered to participate with any willing advisees. They will discuss this with you.

– If you would like to participate in the trial but your advisor has not approached you, please discuss this with your advisor

• An email with instructions will be sent to all faculty and grad students once web survey is ready

• Collect feedback from the volunteers on the experience at the end of the fall

• Improve process based on feedback• Anticipate making this a required part of our program in

Spring, or at the latest in the Fall 2007.

Discussion