1. TIME-TO-DEGREE FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN PHD STEM PROGRAMS AT OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: DOES THE FORMATION OF THE THESIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AFFECT TIME TO COMPLETION? AUTHORS: CRYSTAL PAREDES, ZACHARY WALKER, KIRSTEN KEITH, ADAM WARDELL

2. INTRODUCTION Our research proposal explores how the rate at which a PhD candidate in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) field forms their Thesis Advisory Committee (TAC) in relationship to their matriculation (start) date will impact their thesis completion and graduation Why we care about STEM PhD graduation?  Meaningful impact on educational field  Meaningful impact on community  Improved services to students and increased graduation rates for students and university administrators

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT Increased enrollment in undergraduate and postbac programs Increased doctoral degrees awarded in STEM (3.4% per year from 1958-2012) In 2012 74% doctoral degrees awarded were in STEM fields Average time to earn a STEM PhD is 6.7 years (NSF 2012) 59.5% STEM PhD candidates graduate within 10 years Problem Statement: PhD candidates in STEM fields are taking too long to graduate and this has impacts on university resources and student success in their chosen field. With more STEM PhD students on university campuses, it has become vital for university administration to better understand how to provide effective support to these students.

4. DEMOGRAPHICS We considered several factors that may impact successful completion of a STEM PhD including:  Race  Gender Literature led us to focus on mentoring and advising to create immediate impact

5. RESEARCH QUESTION Does the time from starting a PhD program to the formation of a Thesis Advisory Committee impact a STEM PhD candidate’s time to complete their program?

6. HYPOTHESIS Students who have less time between matriculation and TAC formation will complete their PhD program faster than students who have more time between matriculation and TAC formation

7. LITERATURE REVIEW Mentoring is a key element to success for students and a factor leading to PhD completion (Lunsford, 2012) (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008)  Lunsford’s career and psychosocial mentoring models  TACs can act as sources for different types of mentoring, leading students who build TACS sooner to have more frequent opportunities for mentorship Relationship with advisor impacts educational experience for student (Zhao et al.,2007) Involvement in Graduate Program directly related to degree progress (Girves and Wemmerus, 2014)  Early TAC formation ensures students have early access to networking with TAC members/advisors to build positive relationships and learn about involvement opportunities - leading to progress towards degree completion and positive educational experiences

8. ANTICIPATED DATA Data collected from 648 PhD students over 15 years Data included:  STEM Field (Neuroscience, Behavioral Neuroscience, Physiology & Pharmacology, Molecular and Medical Genetics, Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Cancer Biology, Cell and Developmental Biology, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Computer Science & Engineering, Biomedical Informatics, Electrical Engineering, Environmental Science, Biomedical Engineering and the joint MD/PhD program)  Time from matriculation to TAC Formation  Overall time to thesis completion  Other potential contributing factors such as race and gender were not considered

9. ANTICIPATED DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Multiple linear regression Compare multiple variables Analyze dependent and independent categorical,numerical data Does not assume experimental data Accounts for potential confounding factors

10. EXPECTED RESULTS We expect an upward linear correlation between matriculation date, Thesis Advisory Committee formation and thesis completion.

11. CONCLUSION Potential Impacts of study if our hypothesis is correct: Earlier TAC formation to lead to earlier graduation rates Students will be motivated to form their TACs earlier University administration may implement guidelines or rules around TAC formation University administration may alter existing requirements and support structures for new and continuing STEM PhD students University administration, faculty, and staff may adjust strategies provided to incoming doctoral students about best practices in finishing their program in a timely fashion.

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Girves, J.E., Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing Models of Graduate Student Degree Progress. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(2),163-189 Lunsford, L. (2012). Doctoral Advising or Mentoring? Effects on Student Outcomes, Mentoring & Tutoring. Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 251-270. DOI:10.1080/13611267.2012.678974 Zhao, C., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2005). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263-281. DOI:10.1080/03098770701424983 Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Analysis of Baseline Program Data from the Ph.D. Completion Project. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 National Science Foundation. (2006). Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients.National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 06(312). National Science Foundation. (2012). Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2012.Science and Engineering Doctorates. Oregon Health and Sciences University Graduate School. (2014).