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

[Betsy Arnold]

Dear colleagues,

Thank you to the 13 faculty members who have responded to the one-question
survey regarding admission of students to our graduate program. If you
haven't yet responded, please register your perspective by:

1. Reading the long email below (again, sorry for the great detail).
2. Responding to the multiple-choice question here:

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

Responses by 5pm today would be especially appreciated!

With warm thanks,
Betsy

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Betsy Arnold <arnold at ag.arizona.edu>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
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------
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/20130318/abc19ab6/attachment.htm>