PhD Program Best Practices at the University of Florida A Provost Fellowship Project Spring 2006 Prepared by Sylvia Chan-Olmsted Professor and Associate Dean for Research College of Journalism and Communications

Background of the Project Synopsis: Examine the recruitment, admission, and mentoring practices of PhD programs to identify best practices Rationale: Low completion and high attrition rates mean loss of talent resources/public investment

Project Objectives Identify the characteristics of the high/low performing PhD programs Explore the factors associated with above- average program completion patterns Recommend specific practices in PhD recruitment, admission, and mentoring

Project Process 1. Analysis of secondary program data from the graduate school and CGS 2. In-depth personal interviews with the graduate coordinators of selected programs (Botany, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Economics, English, History, Microbiology, Psychology, Physics, and Sociology)

Major Findings: Program Performance PhD Completion Rates Three tiers of performers (some underperformed their CGS peers – NCSU & UGA)

Major Findings: Program Performance PhD Attrition Rates Three tiers of performers (four underperformed their CGS peers)

Major Findings: Program Performance PhD Time-to-Degree Sociology, computer engineering, and civil engineering led the group (one underperformed)

Major Findings: Recruitment Communication and Information Dissemination –Web rules, cold mass mailing considered ineffective Recruitment Activities –No systemic off-campus recruitment –Limited marketing efforts; peer schools and personal recruitment

Notable Recruitment Practices An extensive Web site that features in- depth program information, online tools for self-assessment of program readiness, and helpful guides on effective applications and success in graduate school. A formal “partner schools” program which institutionalizes the recruitment practices that would benefit all partnered schools A proactive recruitment practice that follows up inquiries with phone calls and waives application fees for eligible domestic students. A proactive investigation (e.g., survey) of the reasons behind an admitted student’s decision not to attend UF.

Major Findings: Admissions Admission procedures vary greatly among programs (e.g., geographic division of applications) Notable admission practices –Separation of the recruitment and admission functions –Provision of financial support for on- campus visits after admissions –Preference for a program’s own undergraduate students –Lack of a sponsored on-campus visit/interview program –Limited emphasis on the factor of “fit”

Major Findings: Mentoring It is a highly individualized endeavor, but leaders may cultivate an environment that encourages certain productive mentoring practices Notable positive practices: The institutionalization of a formal, well- thought-out advisor–student matching system that emphasizes the process of mutual selection and gives junior faculty the needed research assistance. Assignments of faculty advisors after the PhD students have a chance to become acquainted with the faculty. Notable negative practices: Very uneven distribution of PhD advising loads

Major Findings: Program Characteristics Programs vary greatly in size of applications

Major Findings: Program Characteristics Programs vary greatly in acceptance rates

Major Findings: Program Acceptance Rates by Gender & Test Scores Computer Engineering and Physics – higher acceptance rates for male applicants; Civil Engineering & Chemistry – higher rates for female applicants Chemical Engineering – Highest increase in female acceptance rates Economics, English, Botany, and Psychology – high GPA Computer Engineering, Civil Engineering, Economics, Physics, and Chemical Engineering – high GRE scores

Major Findings: Program Student-to-Faculty Ratio Computer Engineering had the highest ratio

Major Findings: Relative Size of PhD Programs History, Computer Engineering, and to a lesser degree, Civil Engineering had the smallest proportions of PhD degrees awarded

Notable Program Characteristics Positive Characteristics: competitive stipend, comparably balanced graduate/undergraduate programs, mid-size program, and mid-range student-to- faculty ratio Negative Characteristics: low stipend, lack of office space, high student-to-faculty ratio, unstructured curriculum, and very large program size

Recommendations - Recruitment Develop an informative and interactive program website Establish a program to identify and take advantage of “partner schools” Proactively recruit by initiating follow-ups with more personal approaches Waive the application fee for attractive domestic students Proactively investigate the reasons behind an admittee’s decision not to attend UF

Recommendations-Admissions Divide the functions of recruitment and admission Provide financial support for on- campus visits of admittees Avoid preferential admission for a program’s own undergraduate students Emphasize the factor of “fit” between students and faculty/program Monitor acceptance rates to avoid comparatively very high acceptance rates

Recommendations: Mentoring Institutionalize a formal advisor– student matching system that emphasizes the process of mutual selection and the factor of “fit” Create opportunities for new PhD students to become acquainted with the faculty before assigning advisors Develop a reward system to ensure a more even distribution of the PhD student advising loads

Recommendations-Program Raise stipend levels to be comparable with peer institutions. Provide adequate office space. Control program size and student-to-faculty ratio. Offer a curriculum that is in line with that of the peer institutions and provides both structure and freedom.