Memo

Date: March 2, 2001

To: Steve

From: Ron

Subject: Report on Graduate Education

This report is in response to item 4 in your August 7, 2000 PRD letter to me. In fact, this report will address items 4, 6, and 7 in that letter, all of which deal with graduate education—specifically, recruitment, the graduate experience, and partnerships, respectively. I attach a copy of those items extracted from the letter.

As you know the Graduate Education Task Force has morphed into the Graduate Education Working Group (GEWG), which consists of the directors of the nine graduate programs in the College as well as two student representatives. I communicate with these folks on a regular basis, but our most intense interaction is through once-per-semester sessions of GEWG. In the fall I shared with GEWG the three PRD items and charged the directors with preparing reports to me describing their efforts in the areas of graduate recruitment, the graduate experience, and partnerships. Those reports are also appended to this document. GEWG discussed the reports in a stimulating meeting in February. My assessment of the state of graduate education in CMPS, in particular of the status of the three areas mentioned, is based on the unit reports and on the GEWG discussion.

Rather than repeat the details found in the reports, I will present to you a series of bullets that summarize what I see as the most important facts that emerge from the process. At the conclusion I will present a brief set of recommendations.

Allow me to conclude this memo with a note of admiration for the job done by the graduate program directors. They work under difficult constraints (money, space, time) to significantly improve the life of their students and the value of their educational experience. Very often they succeed. CMPS is fortunate to have a dedicated group of professionals like this.

Recruitment

• There is a major discrepancy between the number of full-time graduate students reported to me by the graduate directors, and the number reported in the DIB. The graduate directors' numbers indicate we have 651 full-time graduate students in the College this semester; the DIB reported 510 during the Fall semester. At the moment, I do not know how to reconcile this significant discrepancy.
• If our figures are correct, we have finally reversed the downward spiral in enrollments that has been evident throughout the 90s. If the DIB is correct, the downward trend has not abated.
• Regardless of the quantity, there is no doubt that the quality of our graduate student body, especially our entering students, has improved. A 100-point improvement in the GRE scores of entering students is dramatic testimony to that fact.
• It is evident that the two most important factors influencing the chances for acceptance by a recruit are: personal contact, and total stipend offered. It does not matter so much whether the recruitment process involves phone calls, individual visits, group visits, etc.; the important point is that there be a strong personal component to the interaction between department faculty and prospective graduate students. Regarding the stipend offered, again it is not so important how the offer is structured (fellowship, assistantship, combination thereof); what seems to matter most to prospective enrollees is the total size of the stipend they are offered.
• Our programs are increasingly utilizing summer programs as part of their recruitment efforts (Math, Meteorology, Geology, e.g.). The fact that the departments do not have independent funding for the summer programs is a glaring lack.
• The number of new Computer Science graduate students has skyrocketed. Given the increased interest in the subject in our society, that is not so surprising. But the phenomenon was definitely enhanced by the fact that the department ran a much more efficient and effective recruitment process during the last year.
• The lack of a VIGRE grant is hurting the recruitment efforts of the Math Department, as many of our peer institutions have garnered these grants and so can offer much larger stipends to applicants.
• The significant increase in stipends that Physics provided to prospective students in 1998, funded through their own budget, had a major impact on the number and quality of their enrollees at that time. They are having a difficult time sustaining that momentum because of budgetary constraints.
• Block grants are an effective tool for recruitment—they maximize the department's flexibility in negotiating with candidates and the timing with which they can tender offers.
• The gender and ethnic diversity of our graduate student body has remained largely unchanged in recent years. The number of foreign students has increased significantly, mainly at the expense of the white student body.

The Graduate Experience

• Speaking broadly, the two features of the graduate experience to which students appear to attach the most importance are: first, how rapidly and intensely they are led into bona fide research projects; and second, the overall ambience or environment in which they pursue their studies.
• Instances of the above include: in the first case, the Math Department's recently implemented Graduate Research Interaction Days (GRID); special colloquia prepared by Computer Science faculty to introduce new students to the research areas of expertise practiced by the faculty; fast pickup by faculty of graduate students on faculty research contracts; or other methods to involve students in the faculty member's research. As for the second feature, special instances are exemplified by: the sprucing up of GA quarters (for example, better and bigger offices, newer furniture); provision of high quality computing equipment on the desktop; and better staff or infrastructure support for graduate student teaching and research. Many of our departments have deployed one or more of these improvements.
• I am concerned that not all of our programs have modernized their graduate curricula. Several, including Astronomy, Meteorology, AMSC (nee MAPL), and STAT, have in fact designed and implemented broad changes in their curricula. Our other units need to follow suit.
• Regarding the other aspects of the graduate experience—for example, teacher training, placement support, professional writing training, mentoring, orientation, and graduate student documentation—we do a reasonably good job, to varying degrees across the departments. I believe all the graduate directors are aware of the manifold components of the graduate experience and are doing their best to improve as many as they can.
• The stipend issue (see recruitment above) is on everyone's mind. Some have tried creative ways to increase the stipend, for example, supplementary travel funds, or computer funds. These help; more could be done.
• Everyone is aware that student access to the most robust computing facilities appropriate to their discipline is an absolute necessity for a modern, successful graduate program. The limitations that get in our way are money, of course, but also inadequate wiring infrastructure in some of our older buildings.
• One should not forget the social aspect of graduate student life. Many of our departments have regular and successful mechanisms to involve the students socially in the departments. These efforts are very worthwhile.
• Graduate student awards, both for teaching and research, are morale boosters. Math and Computer Science seem to be particularly good at this.

Partnerships

• There is a feast-or-famine quality to the formal partnerships within our College—some of the programs enjoy robust partnerships with various federal agencies (and in some cases private sector organizations), and some of our programs have virtually no partnerships whatsoever. Those with extensive and/or intensive partnerships are: Physics, Astronomy, Meteorology, and CHPH.
• There is some correlation between the programs that have active formal partnerships and those that have recently significantly modernized their curricula.
• The benefits one sees from partnerships include: graduate student support, exposure of graduate students to cutting edge research, initiation of network contacts for graduate students in their research specialties, and placement opportunities. Given that impressive list, one wonders why all of our units are not aggressively pursuing these avenues.
• Some of our programs enjoy cooperative arrangements with other units in the College, or on campus but outside the College. These can benefit graduate students. But they should not preclude attempts to forge off-campus relationships.
• By far, the agency with which we enjoy the most intense and extensive relationship is NASA. We also have cooperative projects with NOAA, NRL, JHU/APL, LPS, NIST, and NIH.
• Many faculty have collaborative research projects with individuals and groups around the nation, indeed all over the world. Often these do not translate into the same kind of opportunities for graduate students that more formal relationships/partnerships with agencies or companies yield.

Recommendations

• Investigate the graduate enrollment discrepancy to see which data is correct.
• Meet individually with the graduate directors of those of our programs that have not revised their curriculum recently to explore what changes might be considered.
• Facilitate a meeting between the directors of those programs without partnerships and our external relations group in the Dean's Office to explore possibilities for pilot programs.