<html>
<body>
Hi Betsy:<br><br>
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!<br><br>
Some thoughts from the top of my head in no particular order.<br><br>
(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!<br><br>
(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.<br><br>
(3) How do highly successful graduate programs fund their graduate
programs. I am thinking particularly of BME here. Have you
talked to those folks? <br><br>
(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.<br><br>
(5) Science Foundation Arizona is interested in graduate education.
Have you contacted them?<br><br>
Best,<br><br>
David<br><br>
<br><br>
At 12:34 PM 3/13/2013, Betsy Arnold wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear colleagues,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Please read the text below and submit your perspective using the link at
the bottom of the page. <br><br>
With thanks,<br>
Betsy<br><br>
<br>
---<br><br>
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). <b>The
current situation places our graduate program at risk because of low
numbers. </b><br>
<br>
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
<br><br>
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). <br><br>
<br><br>
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, <b><i>as available</i></b> -- and let the student
decide if s/he wishes to accept the offer.<br><br>
<b><i> <br>
</i></b><br>
<b><i>Here, I am writing to ask for your perspective on the following:
should we, in <u>highly selective</u> cases, and only in consultation
with potential mentors, admit chosen students without any guarantee of
financial support? <br>
</i></b><br>
<br><br>
To make this somewhat philosophical question more tractable, please
consider the following practical situation:<br><br>
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br><br>
Would you suggest that we:<br><br>
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br><br>
C. Deny admission.<br><br>
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
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? <br><br>
<br><br>
Please vote and offer your thoughts on this issue (up to 500 characters;
contact me directly if that's not enough):<br><br>
<br><br>
<a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/M72NHVV">
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/M72NHVV</a><br><br>
<br>
Thank you very much.<br><br>
<br><br>
Betsy<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
---------------------------------<br>
A. Elizabeth (Betsy) Arnold<br>
School of Plant Sciences<br>
The University of Arizona<br>
Tucson, AZ 85721<br><br>
<a href="http://arnoldlab.net">http://arnoldlab.net</a><br>
<a href="mailto:arnold@ag.arizona.edu">arnold@ag.arizona.edu</a><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Plsfaculty mailing list<br>
Plsfaculty@CALS.arizona.edu<br>
<a href="http://calsmail.arizona.edu/mailman/listinfo/plsfaculty" eudora="autourl">
http://CALSmail.arizona.edu/mailman/listinfo/plsfaculty</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
David W. Galbraith<br>
Professor, School of Plant Sciences, and BIO5 Institute<br>
University of Arizona<br>
Tucson, Arizona</body>
</html>