[Plsfaculty] Please read and give perspective on grad admission policy

[Betsy Arnold]

Dear colleagues,

I apologize in advance for this long email. I am writing to ask you to please
help me understand faculty perspectives on a major question facing our
graduate program.

Please read the text below and submit your perspective using the link at
the bottom of the page.

With thanks,
Betsy


---

Over the period since our last Academic Program Review, our graduate
program (consisting of the Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology graduate
majors) has decreased in enrollment from >50 students (fall 2004) to <20
students (projection for end of fall 2013). This reflects the challenges we
are facing with regard to supporting graduate students (limited
institutional support, high ERE, dwindling grant funds). *The current
situation places our graduate program at risk because of low numbers. *



Our faculty-approved Strategic Plan for the School states that we wish to
enhance our graduate enrollment, indicating that graduate training is
important to a large proportion of our faculty.



Several long-term solutions are being explored by your SPLS Graduate
Program Committee: seeking private/industry support, changing institutional
culture with regard to RA/TA/ERE, clarifying and solidifying College
support for TAships in SPLS, applying for training grants, linking with
other graduate programs, developing joint graduate programs with
international partners, enhancing courses to draw in students, cultivating
new connections with undergraduates and undergraduate majors on campus,
working with STEM recruitment efforts through research experiences for
undergrads from regional institutions, etc. However, if successful, each
will only be implemented over a period of years, not in the very near term.



For fall 2013 we received over 65 applications for our graduate program. A
total of 20 applicants has been deemed acceptable, and some are truly
excellent. However, polls of faculty indicated only a very small number
(3-4) have the funds on hand to support student stipends for even one
semester: many have funds for research, but not for the 'full package' that
includes ERE for one semester or more. Because of opacity regarding
availability of TAships we can't guarantee TA support with certainty
(although we are trying).



The tradition in SPLS has been that we link admission with at least some
statement of financial support for the student (stipend amount, RA plans,
fellowship information). On the surface, this reads as though we 'only
accept students with funding.' However, the reality of the situation is
that SPLS students very rarely have a guarantee of support through more
than one year: even with grant funds or traineeships, we are not in the
position to offer more than a semester or two of guaranteed. We generally
state in the letter of admission that an incoming student will work with a
given faculty member; that s/he will be supported with certainty for X
semesters; and that s/he will be considered for TAships and faculty support
after that, *as available* -- and let the student decide if s/he wishes to
accept the offer.

* *

*Here, I am writing to ask for your perspective on the following: should we,
in highly selective cases, and only in consultation with potential mentors,
admit chosen students without any guarantee of financial support? *



To make this somewhat philosophical question more tractable, please
consider the following practical situation:



A qualified applicant has applied to work with a faculty member who has a
strong history of positive mentorship. The applicant interviews well and is
a good match for the mentor. The faculty member has a project in which the
student is interested and it's a good fit all around. The faculty member
can cover research expenses but can't guarantee RA support for even one
semester. TA support may or may not be available.



Would you suggest that we:



A. Accept the student by offering admission with no financial commitment
(other than, say, a research budget). In this scenario the student might be
self-supporting, work an outside job, and/or work with the mentor to seek
support. The student would be considered for TAships and RAships if
available, but no guarantee could be made (and older students would have
first dibs). The mentor would do his/her best to find funding with/for the
student if needed.



B. Accept the student exactly as above, but also stipulate in the letter of
admission the exact costs per semester, expected number of hours per week
that must be dedicated to classes and research, leave of absence policies,
and the fact that a degree is not guaranteed at the end of any given period
or given any number of hours -- with the goal being to provide the
applicant with all information needed to make a highly informed decision.



C. Deny admission.



A fourth option (accept with the plan that the student will TA, and ensure
that we have TA support) is perhaps most appealing to some, and is in line
with other units on campus (e.g., College of Science) -- but is not yet
practical in CALS/SPLS. Thus it is not included here, although it is
potentially
highly desirable.


We have followed C in the past. In the context of the many actions we are
taking to try to enhance and maintain our graduate program, it time to
cautiously and thoughtfully explore A or B, or a combination of them, in very
specific cases?



Please vote and offer your thoughts on this issue (up to 500
characters;contact me directly if
that's not enough):



https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/M72NHVV


Thank you very much.



Betsy




-- 
---------------------------------
A. Elizabeth (Betsy) Arnold
School of Plant Sciences
The University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

http://arnoldlab.net
arnold at ag.arizona.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cals.arizona.edu/pipermail/plsfaculty/attachments/20130313/933a4170/attachment.htm>