[Plsfaculty] Perspective on grad policies

Thu Mar 14 10:43:10 MST 2013

Maybe I can add to David's comments. 

In the Spring of 2010, we interviewed ten students. I could see that the
number of graduate students had dropped precipitously and I made financial
offers to 9 of the students, even though I knew it would be difficult to
bring all of that money together if they all accepted. For most of the 9
students, we offered an extra $5,000 as a sort of sign-on using money from
PLP's accounts for PLP students and a bit of PLS monies for the PLS
students. As I remember, only Sarah Doore and Ricardo Fernandez accepted and
each accepted because a faculty member was interested in recruiting them. 

Things have certainly changed in that we have several new assistant
professors who would work very hard to recruit students but what has changed
with the more senior faculty?  We can complain that it costs a lot of money
now to host a graduate student and that the monies have dried up but maybe
it would be helpful to consider why the number of grad students has gone
from 50 to 18 in just 4-5 yrs. The following is from a slide that I used in
the 11 Jul 2010 faculty meeting so we saw this coming. We had 27 students
three years ago but we predicted that 11 would graduate over the next year.
Fortunately, we added two more students in Jan 2011 and then a few more in
the last two recruiting cycles. 

Enrolled 2010/2011 academic year:

     PhD        2010-11 (graduating in coming year)
     Pl S: 8          (-2)
     Pl P: 13        (-4)
       21
     MS
     Pl S: 2           (-2)
     Pl P: 4           (-3)
       6
Total: 27 (32 last year this time) 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Oracle_plane_downwa
rd_spiral_smoke.jpg/800px-Oracle_plane_downward_spiral_smoke.jpg

Kenneth A. Feldmann
Professor
School of Plant Sciences
The University of Arizona
P.O. Box 210036
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Telephone: 520.621.7158
Fax: 520.621.7186
Email:  <mailto:feldmann at cals.arizona.edu> feldmann at cals.arizona.edu

From: plsfaculty-bounces at CALS.arizona.edu
[mailto:plsfaculty-bounces at CALS.arizona.edu] On Behalf Of David Galbraith
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:16 AM
To: Betsy Arnold; plsfaculty at ag.arizona.edu
Subject: [Plsfaculty] Perspective on grad policies

Hi Betsy:

This was one of the things I wanted to talk to you about over a beer!  It's
an important area and one we should definitely address.  I am glad you are
taking the initiative!

Some thoughts from the top of my head in no particular order.

(1)  What is the replacement number for any faculty in terms of graduate
students?  We know our population replacement number when we have kids.  Is
there a way to figure this out for graduate student training?  My advisor
had 80 grad students over his lifetime.  That certainly is not sustainable!

(2)  I think we should consider consolidating graduate programs.  Perhaps we
should set up a Center for Plant Sciences (like the Center for Insect
Sciences) with one goal being enhancing graduate student education.

(3)  How do highly successful graduate programs fund their graduate
programs.  I am thinking particularly of BME here.  Have you talked to those
folks? 

(4) Can we come up with an estimate of how much it would cost to fully fund
our "optimal" graduate program in SPLS.  If we had an idea of the amount
involved, then we could start figuring out how to get that money.

(5) Science Foundation Arizona is interested in graduate education.  Have
you contacted them?

Best,

David

At 12:34 PM 3/13/2013, Betsy Arnold wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Plsfaculty mailing list
Plsfaculty at CALS.arizona.edu
http://CALSmail.arizona.edu/mailman/listinfo/plsfaculty
David W. Galbraith
Professor, School of Plant Sciences, and BIO5 Institute
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cals.arizona.edu/pipermail/plsfaculty/attachments/20130314/51682521/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7436 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://list.cals.arizona.edu/pipermail/plsfaculty/attachments/20130314/51682521/attachment.jpg>