Report of Meeting of some members of the Council of Research Deans, Executive Officers in the Sciences and Co-Chair of the Discipline Council in Biochemistry, Biology, Chemistry and Physics on June 2, 2006
Prepared by:
1. Admissions
Recommendations I.a and I.c concern admissions procedures. I.a states
“A Committee of research-active faculty, not Executive Officers or other administrators, should govern the admissions process for each program.”
This is currently done. Research active faculty at each campus rank applicants for admission. Because the number of students admitted is determined by available support, the campuses control admissions, not the Executive Officer. Even Graduate Center funds assigned to programs (Science Fellowships, University Fellowships and Tuition Fellowships) are controlled by the campuses because Executive Officers assign these to campuses according to the number of students based there and Program initiatives.
We recommend that students choose a campus affiliation upon admission to a program. We see no good reason why, as recommendation I.a states: “The students should be accepted to CUNY, not to a specific campus…” The campuses should not be denied the opportunity to be actively involved in recruiting students to do research with their faculty and help teach undergraduate students. Since the campuses are putting up most of the money to support students they should have a reasonable expectation that students who are admitted with a pledge of support will do research and teach there.
We believe that a centralized admissions process, while theoretically advantageous in giving students a broader view of our faculty, may in reality be detrimental to their retention. Without a campus affiliation during the first year there is a risk that students will not receive the necessary mentoring and supervision which they need at the beginning of their graduate career. Students need a faculty member who closely supervises their academic progress, someone who will interact with them to discuss interests and concerns. Students need a “home” where they can study and interact with fellow students.
Students are allowed to transfer from one campus to another at this time if they prefer to work with a member of the faculty at a different campus. These transfers are arranged by Executive Officers. The percentage is usually less that 10 percent.
2. Student support
Recommendations concerning the support of students are also made in I.a and I.c.
“The first year of funding should come from a central source, with subsequent years being covered by a faculty member in partnership with his/her respective college.”
The 1:4 funding model recommended by the reviewers is now favored by the central administration over the 2:3 model based on the Science Fellowships that was proposed by the central administration in advance of the review. Both the central administration and campuses must find additional funds to support students in either model. The amount of additional support depends on the model and number of students supported. We have heard from the central administration that the number of students to be supported is to be based on the average number of students enrolled in the programs during the last 3 years. This number was determined by the Executive Officers at this meeting to be 93 (12, 36, 25, and 20 for biochemistry, biology, chemistry and physics, respectively), not 80 as mentioned recently by the central administration. The number 93 represents a critical mass for our programs. After consideration of the 2 models we recommend the implementation of the 2:3 model, that is, two years of support at $24K plus full tuition from the “central source” and 3 years of support provided by a campus.
The 2:3 model may resemble the current distribution of funding better than the 1:4 model recommended in the Report at some campuses. Students supported by the 2:3 model would be able to finish in 5 years, rather than 6, the current average. Who is to cover the support if a student needs part of a 6th year of support to earn the degree? The 2:3 model may be more appropriate because the Graduate Center is the Ph.D. granting institution of CUNY, even if the campuses are acknowledged on the diploma. The costs to both the “central source” and the campuses for the 2 models have been analyzed. The results will be shared with interested parties.
We believe that few or no faculty with grants will agree to support graduate students at $24K per year, certainly not when students are in their first two years taking courses and exams. They will prefer to “top off” Grad A support which is only about $8K away from $24K, or significant support from other sources, or hire a post doc.)
The number of students supported has to give each program its critical mass of students, that is, the number required to offer the specialized training in different areas that helps our students get jobs and cover teaching in laboratory and recitation sections at the campuses.
The number of students also has to be large enough to help the many outstanding faculty who have been hired in recent years obtain their first research grant and be successful at CUNY. No one pores over admission applications as much as new faculty, whether or not they are members of the official admissions committees. They will leave if they do not get the help they need.
The central administration should request our help to determine what the latter number is.
We recommend that health insurance is included in the support package. This is critical.
3. Role of the Graduate Center
The Report states “The Graduate Center could play a redefined role in doctoral education in the sciences. It should focus on admissions, fellowship support, student services and institutional research. It should remain a center of intellectual life, a place where faculty and students can come together for seminars and meetings.” Following recommendation I.m as it does in the Report (“Develop state-of the-art videoconferencing to link campuses, including the Graduate Center, for teaching, so that students at all the campuses have easy access to courses, …’) the omission of “teaching” in the list of focuses causes concern. State-of-the-art videoconferencing systems (CUMBIN, the City University Mutual Benefit Instructional System, and recently the CUNY Media Distribution System) have been introduced before and used initially with enthusiasm to offer instruction and spare students trips to the Graduate Center. Both systems are regarded as failures by the students and faculty who used them.
The programs’ Executive Committees are responsible for the educational content of their programs: course syllabi, curricula, first and second-level examinations, evaluation of student performance in courses, seminar programs, thesis committees, student advisement and registration. These functions are managed expertly in the present structure.
4. Participation by Executive Officers on the Task Force
Because of the Executive Officers’ important administrative role in their programs the Research Deans attending this meeting recommend that the Executive Officers be invited to join the Task Force that is being assembled by the central administration.
5. Teaching option for first year students.
I.c of the Report recommends “Full support should be offered to first year students with no teaching requirement for the student.”
We appreciate the rationale in the Report for this recommendation but because teaching is an important part of our students’ education we recommend that they be allowed to teach in their first year but with a lighter load. Students could take a course on effective teaching in their first semester and put what they learn to practice by teaching a recitation or laboratory course in their second. The Chemistry program already has a required course on effective teaching that students take during their first semester. Most students at most institutions teach during their first year. For students who expect to go on to liberal arts institutions to work, there is an increasing demand for those who have substantial teaching as well as research expertise. Some notable research institutions have begun formal programs to make sure that their graduate and postdoctoral students leave with considerable teaching skills.
6. Joint degrees.
We recommend that the Graduate Center continue as the Ph.D. Degree granting institution of the City University of New York; however, joint degrees with the campuses should be awarded to give them recognition they deserve.
7. More credit for mentoring students.
Faculty should be given more release time for mentoring students. The allocation system currently gives 1 unit = 3 hours credit for mentoring 5 students in IND courses (.2 units per student per semester), for example, release time for mentoring 2 students could be assigned 1 unit = 3 hours credit (1.5 hour per student per semester).
8. Further discussions.
We hope that these comments and recommendations
will be helpful to the task force that will convene soon. We may meet again
to discuss other recommendations made in the Report.