Graduate Completion Rates

The University of Nottingham in the UK announced today that its Ph.D. students are among the most successful in England, according to data released by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Nottingham ties with Bristol University on a measure of PhD completion rates that compared 111 English universities, with 88% of full-time Home and EU doctoral students qualifying to graduate within seven years. Unfortunately, this data is not compared with completion rates in other countries.

The Commission on the Future of Graduate Education in the United States, a joint effort of the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and Educational Testing Service (ETS) recently released The Path Forward: The Future of Graduate Education in the United States, outlining research findings and recommendations on how best to increase graduate education completion. To my knowledge, the last time Ph.D. completion rates in Canada were made available was in a report published by the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies (CAGS) in 2003 and revised in 2004. At that time, it was estimated that Canadian universities needed to produce between 80,000-90,000 graduate degree holders in the next decade. Six years later, I wonder where we stand. It is clear that more and more people apply and enter graduate programs each year, as educational qualifications for employment continue to rise.

It would be useful if statistics on graduate completion rates at all universities could be made available to students, faculty, and deans, so comparisons can be made across programs, institutions, regions, and countries, and to identify problems areas as well as solutions to make improvements. The CAGS report highlights three means by which Canadian universities can increase the number of master’s and doctoral graduates: 1) Increase the number of students admitted; 2)graduate more of the students that are admitted; 3) reduce the time to degree, increasing the number of students graduating within a given period of time. Those in favour of the first option should proceed with caution, given the recent research on student disengagement and grade inflation occurring in Canada’s post secondary institutions (see Cote and Allahar for discussions on these issues). The second method seems quite logical in theory, but may prove more difficult to implement. Issues that have been identified in the literature as contributing to graduate program drop-outs and lengthy times-to-degree include funding, inadequate supervision, lack of support or difficulties assimilating into the academic lifestyle; poor academic preparation, to name only a few. The third option has garnered some discussion, and some countries have already implemented steps to change the structure and requirements of Ph.D. programs to encourage and assist students to complete on time.

This brings up an important point with regards to time to degree. I see using narrow time frames (which vary by institution and program) for completion rates as potentially problematic and misleading as a measure of success. Today’s graduate student population is a lot more diverse than it once was. Many students complete masters and doctorate degrees part-time while working, raising families or pursuing other career and life goals. Depending on the program, students may be younger or more mature than average. Many factors contribute to why students take longer to complete, and longer times to degrees should not necessarily be considered a bad thing. For the sake of quality education if nothing else, students certainly shouldn’t be rushed through their programs, a point that Noreen Golfman, Dean of Graduate Studies at Memorial University, makes in her post; efforts to prepare them for the world outside of school should be emphasized more. A comparison of the productivity and successes of on-time versus late completers once they finish would be an interesting study.

Professors in Training

Ok, so here it goes: my first blog post. I would first like to say a few things about this blog. The purpose is to share news relating to graduate education, in Canada specifically, and on a more global scale. Posts will aim to serve two audiences: graduate students involved in the study of various subjects, offering information and support, and scholars interested in the study of graduate education as an interdisciplinary subject of research, discussing recent topics of debate. Oddly enough, I fit into both groups- I am an incoming graduate student setting out to study graduate students.

Today I read an article that I felt really reiterated an inhibition I have regarding graduate education and the training of academics. A Time to Teach: Reflections upon Pedagogy in the Life of a Graduate Student by Kevin Carey takes a look at one of the many hats worn by the graduate student: that of teacher. This role marks an important step in the transition from amateur to professional on the path to an academic career. I have long pondered the fact that university professors- those who teach students at the highest level of education- are not (typically) required to complete coursework in education or any sort of teacher training. A doctorate in one’s chosen discipline has long been the accepted standard –a license- for teaching at the university level, while educators at the pre-post-secondary level must complete an education degree, focused on the art of teaching a subject, not just the subject matter itself. I’m sure if you asked any university student they could easily share a story of the professor from hell who, while undoubtedly respected in their field for their significant contributions, struggled (if they were even willing to try!) to help their students grasp the material. Certainly this isn’t the norm; my own university experience is tainted by memories of scatter brained professors, but I have also been lucky to have had some really great teachers and mentors.

So, is it realistic to expect those professors who can’t teach/don’t enjoy teaching their undergraduate students to help their graduate students, as professors in training, learn this important skill? Isn’t this process reproducing a culture of what Carey calls “antipedagogy” and ultimately creating an environment hostile to learning? Indeed, how often do we hear graduate students grumble about their underlings and the tedious task of marking? Many universities offer professional development workshops for instructors, as well as graduate students, focusing on course development, methods of instruction and other topics related to teaching. Unfortunately, however, these opportunities are optional and ironically typically availed of by those who want to learn to teach, and not those who desperately need to learn. One quickly begins to question the quality of higher education when teaching is devalued to such a point. Instead, research is the almighty standard by which we judge academics; while I understand and appreciate the importance of this skill, I don’t feel that it should be the primary method by which we evaluate our peers or emerging scholars. I was once told by a Department Chair that they (the faculty hiring committee) did not care about what teaching experience the applicant had, but how reputable the journals were in which he/she had been published. What does that say about the importance of students in the academy, some of whom (those who are not entirely discouraged, that is!) will become the professors of the future? Just some food for thought…