Showing posts with label Completion Rates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Completion Rates. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
PhD Reform?
Attention has been drawn to doctoral education in the popular media lately. An article and blog post in University Affairs call for PhD reform in Canada, prompted by the release of exclusive date on completion rates and times to completion that have not been published elsewhere. While this data is not comprehensive, representing only eight of the 15 top research-intensive universities- none of them identified, it helps to create a picture, of what has been termed elsewhere the ‘crisis’ in doctoral education.
This data, provided by a group of the country’s leading research-intensive universities, known as the U-15, shows that of a 2001 PhD cohort, 55.8% of those in humanities, and 65.1% of social science students completed their programs, compared to 78.3% in the health sciences and 75.4% in the physical sciences. Times to completion were also highest in these disciplines, with humanities students taking, on average, 18.25 terms, or just over six years, and those in social science programs averaging 17 terms.
This data substantiates earlier research that found that fewer than half of those who start a doctoral program in the humanities and social sciences actually graduate; these faculties have the lowest completion rates at both the master’s and doctoral degree levels. Doctoral students in these fields of study are also reported to have the longest times to completion, with averages hovering around 77 months, according to statistics released by the Canadian Association of University Teachers.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Funding Awarded to Study STEM Master's Completion
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Association, has selected five U.S. universities to take part in a study on completion and attrition in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) master's programs. Each institution will receive $30,000 for their participation. Further information can be found here.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Steps Forward in Graduate Education
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) has released a new document entitled "Steps Taken on the Path Forward", which reviews the impact of "The Path Forward: The Future of Graduate Education in the United States", a report released in April 2010 that addresses issues and challenges of graduate education. The Path Forward was developed by the Commission on the Future of Graduate Education, a joint initiative of the CGS and Educational Testing Services (ETS) and drew a connection between the country's "need for a highly trained workforce to drive innovation and competitiveness" and the strengthening of the current graduate education system. That system is struggling, much like the Canadian system, with changing demographics, poor degree completion rates, and competition in the higher education sector. Two initiatives were proposed to support graduate education: a COMPETES doctoral traineeship program that would provide financial support to students in areas "of national need"; and a grant program to provide partial funding for the creation of new, and revision of existing, master's degree programs.
This new document outlines outcomes and impacts of the report to three stakeholders: higher education, policymakers, and business leaders. Perspectives were shared at the CGS Legislative Forum. According to the news release, the report has been responsible for a number of advances, such as the following:
• Influenced critical decision processes by helping to shape institutional strategic plans and goals for graduate
education programs;
• Changed institutional priorities by highlighting the importance of graduate education, the report resulted in
making graduate fellowships the top priority for one institution’s fundraising;
• Created new communication channels, such as catalyzing new online discussions between deans and faculty about
graduate education issues and development of a video aimed at clarifying career pathways for students;
• Shaped evaluation metrics and affirming the commitment of graduate deans to developing and using outcome
measures and offering more information to prospective and current students;
• Introduced new programs, particularly professional development programs for graduate students.
While the Canadian system of higher education is quite different from that of its neighbours to the south, it is not immune to the problems identified in these reports; what is concerning is that these current and potential issues are not generating the same sort of discussions that they should be.
This new document outlines outcomes and impacts of the report to three stakeholders: higher education, policymakers, and business leaders. Perspectives were shared at the CGS Legislative Forum. According to the news release, the report has been responsible for a number of advances, such as the following:
• Influenced critical decision processes by helping to shape institutional strategic plans and goals for graduate
education programs;
• Changed institutional priorities by highlighting the importance of graduate education, the report resulted in
making graduate fellowships the top priority for one institution’s fundraising;
• Created new communication channels, such as catalyzing new online discussions between deans and faculty about
graduate education issues and development of a video aimed at clarifying career pathways for students;
• Shaped evaluation metrics and affirming the commitment of graduate deans to developing and using outcome
measures and offering more information to prospective and current students;
• Introduced new programs, particularly professional development programs for graduate students.
While the Canadian system of higher education is quite different from that of its neighbours to the south, it is not immune to the problems identified in these reports; what is concerning is that these current and potential issues are not generating the same sort of discussions that they should be.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Ph.D. Placement Statistics
There has been some recent discussion at Princeton University about Ph.D. statistics. This editorial published in The Daily Princetonian, commented on the need for graduate schools at research universities to release information on the placement of their Ph.D. graduates into academic positions to potential graduate students. Unfortunately, few schools release these statistics, although it is argued that these statistics help students to consider their options with regards to a career path- an important decision considering the job market today. The fact of the matter is that while most Ph.D. students in the social sciences and humanities are encouraged to enter academia, few will find opportunities for employment upon graduation. This reality, and the disillusionment that accompanies it, is evidenced by websites about dropping out of graduate school, such as SellOutYourSoul.com, and Leavingacademia.com. The editorial further notes that a recent report released by the National Research Council, discussed in an earlier blog, did not include data on graduate placement because of the difficulty encountered in trying to obtain it from institutions. A recent column, written in response to the earlier editiorial, says that schools should strive to provide more than just placement stats; information on completion and time-to-degree in Ph.D. programs should also be made available.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Trends in U.S. Graduate Education
According to this news release, the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS)has released a report today entitled "Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 1999 to 2009". The report contains statistics on graduate applications and enrollment for fall 2009, degrees conferred in 2008-09, and trend data for one-, five- and ten-year periods. Data is based on the findings of an annual survey of U.S. graduate schools, co-sponsored by CGS and the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) Board, and "the only annual national survey that covers enrollment in all fields of graduate study and is the only source of national data on graduate applications." Interesting findings include the following:
* Applications for admission to U.S. graduate schools grew 8.3% from 2008 to 2009
* Enrollment of new students at U.S. graduate schools grew 5.5% from 2008 to 2009
* First-time and total graduate enrollment in 2009 was higher for men than for women. First-time enrollment of men increased 6.7%, compared to 4.7% for women, while the growth in total enrollment rose 5.2% for men compared to 4.4% for women.
* The enrollment of new international graduate students declined in 2009, by 1.7%, compared to 6.0% growth for U.S. students.
* For the first time ever, women earned the majority of doctorates (50.4%) in the 2008-2009 academic year. Women also accounted for 6 out of 10 graduate student enrollments. Inside Higher Ed
notes that female graduates are still under represented in such fields as engineering (22%), math and computer science (27%), and physical and earth sciences (33%).
* First-time graduate enrollment increased faster at the doctoral level than at the master’s level: 6.3% vs. 5.1%.
* The representation of minority groups in U.S. graduate schools rose from 28.3% to 29.1% of first-time domestic enrollment.
* Approximately three-fourths of all graduate student enrollments were at the master’s level, and almost 90% of graduate degrees conferred in 2008-09 were master’s degrees.
* The number of master’s degrees awarded increased 4.3% and the number of doctoral degrees conferred grew 3.9% between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
The full report can be read here
* Applications for admission to U.S. graduate schools grew 8.3% from 2008 to 2009
* Enrollment of new students at U.S. graduate schools grew 5.5% from 2008 to 2009
* First-time and total graduate enrollment in 2009 was higher for men than for women. First-time enrollment of men increased 6.7%, compared to 4.7% for women, while the growth in total enrollment rose 5.2% for men compared to 4.4% for women.
* The enrollment of new international graduate students declined in 2009, by 1.7%, compared to 6.0% growth for U.S. students.
* For the first time ever, women earned the majority of doctorates (50.4%) in the 2008-2009 academic year. Women also accounted for 6 out of 10 graduate student enrollments. Inside Higher Ed
notes that female graduates are still under represented in such fields as engineering (22%), math and computer science (27%), and physical and earth sciences (33%).
* First-time graduate enrollment increased faster at the doctoral level than at the master’s level: 6.3% vs. 5.1%.
* The representation of minority groups in U.S. graduate schools rose from 28.3% to 29.1% of first-time domestic enrollment.
* Approximately three-fourths of all graduate student enrollments were at the master’s level, and almost 90% of graduate degrees conferred in 2008-09 were master’s degrees.
* The number of master’s degrees awarded increased 4.3% and the number of doctoral degrees conferred grew 3.9% between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
The full report can be read here
Monday, August 30, 2010
Russian Ph.D. Programs
There has been talk of increasing the period of graduate study in Russia from 3 to four years. This proposal has been justified in part due to the fact that some disciplines, such as the technical and natural sciences require mandatory experimental validation of the theoretical results.
From Inside Higher Ed:
The idea behind that proposal is that it should significantly improve the quality of dissertations and the quality of academic training. This proposal is consistent with international practice, where dissertations can take 4-5-6 years. More importantly, the current situation really needs to be improved – drop-outs are high and the average level of research associated with doctoral theses is quite low. However, many people believe that increasing program length, by itself, is unlikely to change anything, and that the problem is not too little time, but extremely poor financial support for such studies and work. Indeed, the basic post-graduate scholarship –currently about $50 a month – doesn’t allow students to focus entirely on research since they must seek some part-time or even full-time job to support themselves. The sad result is that most of PhD students devote too little attention and effort to their dissertation. Only 26% of graduate students finally submit their thesis and the quality (generally) is rather weak. Additionally, since PhD degrees are prestigious, there is a large demand for degree holders and this status is easily bought and sold. So the PhD degree does not necessarily reflect strong training or a sophisticated academic qualification anymore (This situation is most disastrous in the social sciences).
The Russian government also recently announced increases in graduate scholarships starting this September. This comes at the cost of reducing the number of graduate students.
From Inside Higher Ed:
The idea behind that proposal is that it should significantly improve the quality of dissertations and the quality of academic training. This proposal is consistent with international practice, where dissertations can take 4-5-6 years. More importantly, the current situation really needs to be improved – drop-outs are high and the average level of research associated with doctoral theses is quite low. However, many people believe that increasing program length, by itself, is unlikely to change anything, and that the problem is not too little time, but extremely poor financial support for such studies and work. Indeed, the basic post-graduate scholarship –currently about $50 a month – doesn’t allow students to focus entirely on research since they must seek some part-time or even full-time job to support themselves. The sad result is that most of PhD students devote too little attention and effort to their dissertation. Only 26% of graduate students finally submit their thesis and the quality (generally) is rather weak. Additionally, since PhD degrees are prestigious, there is a large demand for degree holders and this status is easily bought and sold. So the PhD degree does not necessarily reflect strong training or a sophisticated academic qualification anymore (This situation is most disastrous in the social sciences).
The Russian government also recently announced increases in graduate scholarships starting this September. This comes at the cost of reducing the number of graduate students.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)