Report from William Karlon From Discussion to Action: Meeting the Needs of Future Generations of Graduate Scientists and Engineers National Convocation on Science and Engineering Doctoral Education June 15, 1996 Washington, DC Welcome Remarks by Bruce Alberts (President, National Academy of Sciences) Dr. Alberts opened the convocation by declaring that there is a need for more rather than less scientifically trained individuals who can meet the needs of our changing society. He declared that training will have to change particularly to embrace non-traditional individuals and that faculty will need to be educated about roles other than those in active research. This will require a change in the typical attitude about the definition of a scientist. There is also a need to people in federal, state and local governments to affect science policy and alterations must be made to secondary education to increase hands-on science. These needs raise questions such as: How do we educate faculty? What programs can be developed to meet these needs? Dr. Alberts suggested bringing "non-traditional" scientists back to the universities as role models and continue to promote and encourage scientific inquiry. Remarks by Phillip Griffiths (Chair, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP - see homepage: http://www2.nas.edu/cosepup/) and Director, Institute for Advanced Study) Dr. Griffiths described the COSEPUP report "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers" (http://www.nap.edu/nap/online/grad/index.html) and how this report has generated much discussion and action. Approximately fifty percent (and more expected in the future) of new doctoral graduates find work in a non-academic setting. At least one career change can be expected of doctoral graduates which requires flexibility and a variety of skills. Current standards of education follow the path of the advisor. But training should offer broader academic options and training for multidisciplinary work (including career and communication skills). There is a need for providing information on career goals and training options to provide a complete and realistic picture of all fields in science and engineering. Some actions taken by the NAS/NAE/IOM (http://www.nas.edu) are the creation of the web page Career Planning Center (http://www2.nas.edu/cpc/index.html) and a guidebook to Careers in Science and Engineering (http://www.nap.edu/nap/online/careers/). Other examples of local university actions are creation of joint MBA-PhD programs, summer internships in industry positions, and career planning and professional development programs targeted specifically at graduate students. In the future it is expected that federal funding for graduate education will be reduced by up to 30 percent. How can continue to provide quality graduate education in the face of this reduced funding? Dr. Griffiths suggests returning to first principles. We should switch funding from research assistanceships to training grants and also foster creative university programs. Panel Discussion 1: Perspectives on the most important changes needed in the science and engineering doctoral educational system 1.a. Michael Teitelbaum (Program Officer, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation - http://www.sloan.org/personnel/administration/Teitelbaum.html) asked the panel what their views on changes needed in science and engineering doctoral education. Neal Lane (Director, National Science Foundation - http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/lane/quscipol.htm) responded by praising the COSEPUP report and how it has been most positive in generating provocative discussion. The National Science Foundation (NSF) agrees that there is a lack of data about graduate students (such as job placement). NSF is also trying some experimental programs such as new traineeships. However, NSF is concerned about maintaining programs which have already been effective in supporting graduate education. M.R.C. Greenwood (Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz) stated that graduate education is not a static thing, and that challenges are different today than they once were. The response is creation of new programs and what is required is communication about these programs. Individual investigators now dominate the face of science research rather than having a departmental focus. This should change to focus on PhD programs rather than on individuals. Paul Anderson (Vice President for Chemical and Physical Science, DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company) claimed that industry employment was increasing for PhD graduates and that industry expectations were increasing in areas such as new product development. Industrial research requires adequate training and innovation. Industry needs individuals who can be problem solvers. In chemistry for example, a firm grasp of fundamentals is required as are communication skills. The research aspects of a thesis are only one requirement. Training is key and should emphasize research proposal writing among other things. Nina Fedoroff (Director, Biotechnology Institute, Pennsylvania State University - http://www.bmb.psu.edu/deptpage/fedoroff.htm) believes that a faster pace of change is coming for science. Graduates can no longer count on just one field of training and being able to continue this work throughout a career. Graduates must be flexible and able to self-train. Dr. Fedoroff calls for a change in the mentality that graduate students are simply "hands for our research". M.J. Finley Austin (President, Association of Science Professionals) states there is a need to provide tools to enhance research and promote scientific discovery. There must be a balance in the time spent on the many aspects of education. There should be more focus on career goals and mentors must be held more accountable. More attention should be focused on post doctoral training. Ronald Breslow (President, American Chemical Society - http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/faculty/rcb.html) used the chemical industry as a model where research is included as a primary focus for creation of new products. More creative skills (which are not second rate) are required for this development. Alternate careers should be made more appealing. The broad outlines of science need to be taught to students in the K-12 system. More breadth is required in all sciences in graduate education since this will generate more creative contribution. One training concept that has been useful in many chemistry programs is the development of a research proposal in other fields. Graduate education should include industry speakers, collaboration and affiliations. Ted Logan (Associate Director, Research and Development Personnel Administration, Proctor and Gamble Corporation) suggests five things he would require of all PhD candidates in all sciences and engineering: - internships in industry - working in multidisciplinary teams - biochemistry classes for non-biological scientists (since it is an exciting current field with broad applications) - improve oral and written communication skills - basic business principles (concepts of profit, economics, etc.) Sharon Hays (Vice President, BioMass Graduate Student Association, Stanford University - see BioMASS homepage: http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biomass) finds students to be pessimistic about job prospects (particularly in academia) and therefore seek alternate careers. She suggests incorporation of flexibility in PhD programs to encourage those seeking alternative or non-traditional employment and to reduce the time to degree. Continued discussion on this question: The dominance of individual researchers may be a function of current funding policies, but principal investigators (PIs) also need to provide evidence that emphasis is on broad training issues with departmental goals. Current funding policies may be creating a vicious cycle where decreased funding increases performance expectations. This may require some alterations in these policies. Previously, funding was directly to students rather than to a PI which allowed for more freedom of selection of research away from the dependence of PI sponsorship. 1.b. John Benditt (Feature Editor, Science and Science's Next Wave) stated that graduates are having a tougher time finding employment. He asked the panel if they believed there was an oversupply of PhDs and if enrollments should be decreased. Ted Logan believes that students learn a lot from interaction with other students. Therefore only the smallest of programs should be considered in cutbacks. Marci Greenwood finds current market analysis unreliable and has no confidence in projections (particularly considering the expectation that there would be a large demand for PhDs in the late 80's). Since unemployment is still low, there is no present crisis. However, academic positions in particular are stagnating or declining. This trend has not discouraged students from pursuing advanced education. The real issue is who will ultimately be responsible for funding all of this education. Scientific progress is connected to economic growth and prosperity therefore society at large may be responsible for funding graduate education. Finley Austin thinks it is inappropriate to reduce enrollments at the present time. New programs should be tried first. However, if enrollments drop, there should not be a reduction in admission standards to bolster enrollment. More information should be provided on alternate careers. Nina Fedoroff suggests having mentors and departments actively involved in helping students make contacts and networking just like business schools do. Ronald Breslow believes that the balance of funding should be shifted to traineeships (but R01's should still allow some funding for foreign students). Quality control should drive enrollments since oversupply and undersupply numbers are confusing. Neal Lane describes a declining interest in science and engineering among US students which explains why so many foreign students have been welcomed. Many benefits have arisen from this, however good jobs are still hard to find. Paul Anderson also suggests that quality is the key issue. The best people need to be recruited by departments and in business and industry. 1.c. Michael Teitelbaum claims that the number of US citizens entering the sciences and engineering is rising, but the total number of positions is rising faster. He asks who will pay the costs for this increase. Time to degree for PhDs has been increasing while in other fields such as business this time has been decreasing. Should this trend be changed? Marci Greenwood has attempted to reduce time to degree at UC Davis. However some "hangers-on" tend to skew statistics. The composition of funding also has an affect on this since teaching assistance tends to increase time to degree. Older students and students with families are entering now and changing the complexion of students. Educators need to be aware of this trend and prevent qualified students from being driven out. Ronald Breslow calls for departmental traineeships to more carefully plan training which will make programs better and may have the net result of decreasing time to degree. Sharon Hays thinks the job market influences the perceived need for quality PhDs and research. Ted Logan thinks that corrective education is increasing the time to degree since students may be entering programs without adequate preparation. He also suggests that students may not be working hard enough. Nina Fedoroff points out that the argument that students are not working hard enough has been used for a long time, but is it true? Finley Austin thinks there should be a set of maximum standards to force people to graduate and prevent students from "hanging on" unnecessarily (even to get another publication). Neal Lane suggests that highly interactive environments for PhDs should be emphasized (working with other PhD candidates, post docs, and industry among others). 1.d. John Benditt suggested that graduates need to increase breadth of training and learn to move in non-academic circles but also shorten their time to degree. He asked the panel if other professional schools should be used as a model. Finley Austin suggests that breadth can be increased by seminar series and writing mock R01 grants and other similar activities. She believes training and research proposal should follow the current grant model. The focus on training should remain scientific pursuit, but breadth should be a requirement and is equally important. Ronald Breslow thinks departments should enforce a five year rule. This would force increased planning for the program and for later career goals. He believes students should be given exposure to a broad range of fields through short courses which provide students with good books, resources and appropriate terminology. Nina Fedoroff believes we should give up on the idea that one can cram in all knowledge in a training program. The essential skill is the ability to know how to get more information and skills to become trained at a more in-depth level if required. Sharon Hays thinks students are not made aware of expectations clearly enough. Currently student motivation is depended upon too heavily. Mentors need to be concerned with students who are uncertain. She believes that the amount of required coursework should be reduced. Paul Anderson thinks education is the platform of future economic growth. The time to degree may be irrelevant as long as the focus is on the pursuit of scientific discovery. Marci Greenwood wants departments to stimulate individual creativity which requires the ability to tailor programs to individual students. A mastery of fundamentals should also be required. Can departments balance the need for flexibility with this mastery of fundamentals in a timely fashion? 1.e. Michael Teitelbaum asked the panel if there should be a more "professional science" degree for those who do not wish to pursue independent scientific research. Nina Fedoroff points out that alternative degrees have not been successful in the past, but they might be considered again. Ronald Breslow thinks that often a Masters degree should be enough to prepare creative individuals. The worth of this degree may have been degraded over time. Ted Logan claims that some Bachelor's degrees are already considered professional such as in engineering. This is reflected in salary and job availability. 1.f. Audience questions: What about K-12 teaching? K-12 teaching may be an alternative. However, the two years required to obtain a teaching certificate may be a barrier. Some universities are already offering teaching certification simultaneously with the PhD (MIT has such a program). How should dwindling resources be allocated? Marci Greenwood thinks we should keep trying. Researchers must stay in touch with students and legislators. Researchers must bear in mind that they have an obligation to explain what is being done with thefunding they receive. How can faculty be helped to educate students about alternative careers? Ronald Breslow thinks faculty really do want to educate students. By focusing on departmental goals and programs, faculty will respond appropriately. Is post-doctoral training necessary, or is it just a holding pattern? Nina Fedoroff believes post-doctoral work is an opportunity for independent research where graduates can learn how to structure their own research. Paul Anderson also thinks that the exposure to other laboratories, alternative practices and additional mentorship are valuable post-doctoral experiences. Panel Discussion 2: Perspectives on the most interesting new strategies being undertaken in the science and engineering doctoral education system. Ruth Kirschstein (Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health) thinks training grants support students who are also supported indirectly by research grants. She believes that funding cuts could stop training grants again in the future. Narrow focused research and training is bad for all parties involved. A broader education of graduate students is beneficial. Mentors should not train students solely to be clones of themselves. Debra Stewart (Vice Provost and Dean, Graduate School, North Carolina State University - http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu:80/grad/dean.htm) described three aspects to training (from the COSEPUP report): 1. Process - an advisor-student focused relationship 2. Content - a narrow research focus 3. Outcome - which includes job placement and strategies, which may unfortunately relate only to cloning mentors. The reforms suggested in the COSEPUP report should be implemented only under the close supervision of state and industrial funding sources. Industrial demands are inherently interdisciplinary and this should be reflected in the training of graduate students. There should be emphasis on team concepts with interaction among many faculty and other students. Industrial advisory committees should be formed to oversee financial input and to offer students an opportunity to interact with future employers. Michael Zigmond (Professor of Neuroscience and Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh - http://www.pitt.edu/~neurosci/faculty/zigmond.html) offers five "current realities": 1. Students are worried about their futures - jobs are harder to come by now. 2. Faculty are not very concerned about students' futures - they are detaching themselves from "worldly concerns". Careerism is the antithesis of research investigation. 3. Faculty assume a "real/good" job is one like their own - they are unfamiliar with other jobs. 4. Students know how faculty feel - all kinds of messages are presented to students in seminar speakers, courses, etc. 5. Present funding mechanisms foster these attitudes. Dr. Zigmond believes increased information about jobs and opportunities should be presented to students. There is a technology of job seeking which requires resume writing, information gathering, interviewing skills, etc. Special groups such as minorities and women need to be targeted specifically. There should be a focus on specific career paths. General survival skills should be taught to all graduate students which should include communication skills, mentorship, research conduct, obtaining funding, among others. Dr. Zigmond suggests a series of "new realities" which should be adopted: 1. Change aspects of training to increase breadth while maintaining a focus on research. 2. Develop new support mechanisms not only for research training. 3. Train faculty as well as students. Catharine Johnson (Graduate Student, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) conducted a career survey at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and found that 60 percent of students are considering careers outside of academia, and that most feel their advisors are not supportive of these career interests. There is lack of information regarding career guidance. Some of the present needs for graduate education are: 1. Clear guidelines for research required for degree 2. Support of informed faculty, administration and students 3. Better information and education about career opportunities and professional development. Graduate school should be considered the same way a career is. Some programs underway at Hopkins are: 1. Written faculty response about student seminars 2. Faculty panels on all types of survival skills (e.g. academic interviews) 3. Career symposia Marc Brodsky (Executive Director, CEO, American Institute of Physics) believes that membership organizations such as the AIP can pressure alterations for some issues. Examples are under- and unemployment, globalization, the Web and internet interaction. Susan Allen (Vice President for Research; and Dean, Graduate School, Tulane University) commented on the role universities and graduate school organizations to foster projects like the recent survey of graduate schools (http://www.tulane.edu:80/~aau). Greater versatility in training should be emphasized toward lifelong versatility. Independent research should not be compromised, but interdisciplinary study (with short courses) and internships can be added without increasing time to degree. There must be a change in the concept of an "acceptable job" for students. There is a departmental responsibility for tracking of students and in reality advisors do not know what students have done. A changing value system should be adopted which encourages faster time to degree and increased breadth. The application for traineeships may be useful in this aspect since it must be peer-reviewed. Mentoring should be a departmental concern. Breakout Session I: Improving PhD Versatility Keynote Speaker: Dr. Glenn Crosby (Washington State University) believes that programs need to be refocused in a broad sense. Currently science and engineering programs do not train students, but rather produce researchers. Students need to be placed first again. Students should be trained to read intelligently, write grants, review articles among other things. Programs should undergo a process of self-analysis which should produce a series of desired outcomes and concrete changes. Perhaps changes in undergraduate education which led to a loss of depth may be responsible for graduate students entering programs unprepared. Group Discussion: One of the major goals of the university is education of faculty. In an attempt to increase PhD versatility, we must preserve the current quality of programs in research and the advancement of science. However the educational process can be improved. Extensive program changes may not be required, but attitude adjustment is required. The current system of rankings should be adjusted to include aspects of training (which degrees are "value-added"?). These changes may not apply to the "best" students, who will form a core of future scientists. However, the definition of "best" is unclear. Perhaps we should define "best" to be those who go on to have the greatest impact on society. All students, including those defined to be the best, are having difficulty now. These students are also seeking "alternative" employment options, not only those deemed to be "left-over". Departments should focus on defining desired or successful outcomes for students and make changes appropriately. Increasing versatility and diversity is necessary in any field, but impediments in the university system do exist, particularly in the area of financial disbursement. Confining students and faculty to narrow research often stifles creativity including those who will go on to become future faculty. Not changing and growing makes researchers and departments vulnerable to funding cuts. The PhD is not a business and is therefore not self-sustaining. Perhaps no graduate students should be supported by federal funds. Medical and law students are not supported by federal funding and there seems to be no lack of interested students. This may be an appropriate model for graduate education. Unfortunately the scientific community has progressed away from professionalism (unlike law and medicine). Pressure on research and on individuals have driven fields away from desired professionalism. We must treat graduate students like professionals. Technical ability is only the first stage in a career. Versatility is required to keep a job. Curricula should be designed in part by the people who will do the eventual hiring. What is at stake is the value system of the enterprise of science. There are no incentives for change right now among principal investigators. Breakout Session II: Better Career Information and Guidance Keynote Speaker: Irene Kennedy (Career Counselor) makes the following definitions: 1. Placement - finding a job. Entails writing a CV, interviewing, writing cover letters, etc. 2. Career Infomation/Guidance - a long-term game plan with options. The best guidance offers options and a complete plan. At present it is very difficult to obtain information about where graduates go, but some information is available from university departments, professional societies and national organizations. Surveys (which generally have a low response rate), placement services and alumni groups are potential resources and methods. Scientists may also expect up to 5-8 years of post-doctoral study which may or may not be a holding pattern. And academic positions are hard to find (chemistry expects 1 in 8 students to find academic employment and physics less than 1 in 10). Options include: 1. Web-based resources expanding 2. Career days with non-academics (should use graduate students to help organize these) 3. Guest speakers, newspaper columns, etc. can be used to highlight career paths 4. Non-faculty members need to be taught how to provide genuine career guidance and act as information sources. No one person can have all the answers. Group Discussion: Perhaps the academic position should be viewed as the alternative career. Regardless of size there is about a 1 in 7 average for graduates entering academia. There needs to be a breaking down of the stereotypes and preconceived notions about what PhDs do. There must also be more honesty in recruiting so students are aware of time to degree and what career options exist. A long term goal for all departments should be making information available to students. More diversity of opportunity should be made for students. Coursework outside the department or short survey courses can be required. Also outside speakers from alternative careers can be invited. Plenary Session: Group Reports from Breakout Sessions F. Financing Graduate Education in the Future - Is the amount correct? - Finance is driving all our academic programs - Why should we support graduate education at all? - There is a need for highly trained problem solvers in this technological society. - Must support leading edge research (which is transcendent, innovative and leads to breakthroughs) - These rationales need to be reframed in our post-cold war society for K-12 education - Strategies: - Open PhD markets and diversify training - Diversity sources of training and funding: - Government and industry partnerships - Pool departmental funds for first year students - Alumni endowments, etc. - Commercialization revenues (technology transfer) - Support ancillary student costs (e.g. health care, housing) - Cut costs - Reduce time to degree - Make use of technology - Short courses/modules in non-primary areas - Sharing of resources G. Preparing Future Faculty - Must be aware of the scope of the job market: a variety of options are available (e.g. small university, community colleges) - Define the role of faculty and necessary skills - balance teaching and research - PFF (Preparing Future Faculty) Project H. Responsibility of Faculty to Students (mentoring, faculty attitudes) - Articulate what student "success" means for faculty - and define what "success" actually is for the department - Articulate to faculty what expectations are with regard to student "success" - Collect and publish data on: - Best practices - Student/alumni perceptions of faculty and effectiveness in mentoring - Collect information from employers as well - Get information to faculty to assist them in mentoring and guiding students - Identify profiles and organizational elements of good practices (as well as bad ones) - Assure continuity of student funding - Faculty responsibilities: - Be honest in evaluation, career guidance, and MS vs. PhD - Provide meaningful assistance with job hunting, networking, advertising students, conferences - Inform students about the "real world" - direct students to others with pertinent information - Student responsibilities: - Be responsible for your own education, do not be passive - Be honest in faculty evaulation I. Student Diversity (minority, reentering and older students) Barriers and solutions: - Legal issues such as the California anti-affirmative action legislation - Cultural and family constraints - Sense of isolation - Limited funding J. Strategizing the Master's Degree in Relation to Doctoral Programs - Should be a flexible entry-level degree designed in response to employer demand - Departments should collect information about where MS recipients have been placed - Define the degree (depends on discipline): - May have two types: 1. Terminal degree leading to: - employment - PhD program 2. Traditional degree leading to: - PhD program - "real" MS useful for employment - Consolation prize MS = nothing - May wish to try combined MS/MBA or similar programs (BS/MS, MS/MS - transitional degrees) - Improve the MS-PhD time to degree when spanning two institutions - Should contain a broad involvement in design and execution - Optimize the continuing education market (MS and certificate programs) - Assess impact of technology on the state of these programs K. Strategizing the Post-Doctorate Appointment in Relation to Doctoral Programs - Why post-doc? - Learn something new, sharpen a skill - Specialize and establish an identity - Publish and make contacts - Post-docs are all different - wide range of benefits - wide range of duration - at worst can be a holding pattern - Post-docs have become essential in many fields, but can reach a dead-end or a point of diminishing returns - Students should be in control of their own professional development, the post-doc can be a time of growth and a time to gain survival skills. - Faculty and Funding Agencies should provide data on the net worth of post-doctorates (is it "value added"?). - Funding Agencies should: - Establish standards for salary, benefits and duration - Provide annual reviews of professional development - Funding for graduate students, post-docs and staff researchers may need some adjustment - Societies should: - Highlight post-docs in alternative careers (e.g. congressional fellow) - Establish career development programs - Collect and disseminate data