Valerie Petit Wilson, PhDExecutive Director, Leadership AllianceAssociate Dean of the Graduate SchoolClinical Professor of Community Health

A Consortium of 33 Outstanding Academic Institutions

Shared Vision: Greater diversity in the nation’s institutions of higher learning

Shared Commitment: Assist underrepresented minority students become future educators and leaders for our academic, public and government organizations

Member InstitutionsBrooklyn CollegeBrown University

Chaminade UniversityClaflin University

Columbia UniversityCornell UniversityDartmouth College

Delaware State UniversityDillard University

Harvard UniversityHoward University

Hunter CollegeJohns Hopkins University

Montana State University-BozemanMorehouse College

Morgan State UniversityNew York University

Prairie View A&M UniversityPrinceton University

Spelman CollegeStanford UniversityTougaloo CollegeTufts University

University of ChicagoUniversity of Colorado at BoulderUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore

CountyUniversity of Miami

University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Puerto Rico

University of VirginiaVanderbilt University

Xavier University of LouisianaYale University

Selecting the Appropriate Students Providing the Right Information at the Right

Time Building Partnerships and Linking Resources

to Assure Transitions to the Next Level Maintaining a Robust Network to Assess

Outcomes and Provide Advice to Protégés as they Advance Over Time

Understanding Societal, Economic and Other factors that are attendant to career choices

Selecting the Appropriate Students

1. Understand the source of students who enroll in your programs

2. Determine if the program selection criteria reflect the intent of your program's goals

3. Determine if your program increases the number of students in the pool or enriches those already in the pool

Alliance program is open to students nationwide…

…for talented students are from many institutions

Institutional Diversity

60% of participants were from the 33 Alliance Institutions;

40% of the participants were from 154 unique undergraduate institutions.

Institutional Classification*

46.7% - Doctoral/Research

29.5% - Master’s 20.9% - Baccalaureate 1.0% - Associates 1.0% from Specialized

Institutions, Tribal colleges

0.5% - Unclassified

* 2006 Modification of the Revised Carnegie Classification

Selection Reflects Intent

Data in early years indicated that large numbers of students entered MD and other clinical training programs

Why? Selection criteria based on GPA and not on career aspiration

Change/revise selection procedure

1. Revise selection criteria to reflect program intent

2. Communicate program intent to prospective candidates

3. Prioritize Applications from those intending PhD or MD/PHD degrees

Track and Follow Progression into Programs

14% 14%

16%

20%

29%30%

30%

33%

31%

28%

24%

22%

7%

34%

27%26%

16%14%

12%

17%

14%13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Classification % of Cohort

Seniors With Research Experience

30.9

Seniors Without Research Experience

29.7

Underclassmen with Research Experience

13.1

Underclassmen without research experience

26.3

Findings : 1 of every 3 students was a rising senior without prior undergraduate research experience. Students were:

From campuses without funded undergrad research programs; and

Otherwise qualified students who are not enrolled in undergrad research programs on their campuses

Conclusion: Many otherwise qualified students would be

considered non-competitive for leading training programs

Interpretation:Every student will not be identified ‘early’ – look at

those who come to these career aspirations relatively late in the undergrad career

While not an exclusive criterion, external research experience is a factor in admissions decisions to competitive graduate training programs

Providing the Right Information at the Right Time

1. Provide information on graduate training options and the careers that result from specific training

2. Understand why correct information is important for the student and the training program so as to achieve mutual goals

What PhD training is about: Better understanding of the nature of graduate training and the goals of a research career.

Differences Among Career Options: Enhance students’ ability to make an informed career choice.

Understanding Expectations: Both Requirements for the Application process and Expectations of Programs in initial years.

Research Outcomes GoalA Quality Research Experience

for Each Participant.

Better Graduate Training Decision-Making by Program Participants

Increased Acceptance of Program Participants into Graduate Schools of Choice

Reduced Opportunity Costs to Graduate Program

Result? Greater Retention in the 1st 2

years of Graduate Training

Social Outcomes GoalEnvisioning Themselves in the

Role of Researcher

Connection to a Network: Interacting with a group of students who are like-minded and academically focused

Peer support from Graduate Students and Postdocs who look like them

Confidence in their research abilities

Result?Increased Persistence by

Students

Building Partnerships and Linking Resources to Track Transitions to the Next Level

1.Develop tracking systems to follow students’ progression

2.Evaluate student outcomes to determine which training environments benefit from your undergraduate research program

Confounders

Highly mobile 1-3 years since summer

program. Break Before Beginning

Graduate School Enrolled in Master’s or

Postbac Programs Multiple Program

Participation

Our Tracking Mechanism for gathering information

Yearly surveys for three years of all students to permanent address:◦ Year 1

4 months after summer 8 months after summer

◦ In Dec for 2 additional years Social networks for

information gathering Alliance intranet site Conferences and Meeting

Are STEM Enrollments Increasing?◦ Greater Proportion in STEM◦ Constant proportion

Medical/Clinical◦ Larger Number overall

Where are Enrollments Increasing?

◦ SR-EIP alum is nearly three times more likely to attend a Leadership Alliance Institution

Maintain a robust network to assess outcomes and provide advice to protégés as they advance over time

1.Set up long-term tracking to assess degree completion times

2.Assess Outcomes Compared to National Standards

How to Get the Data? Multiple tracking modes

Program Based◦ e-mails to all available

addresses◦ Snail mail to permanent

addresses Network Based

◦ Intranet Sites◦ JustGarciaHill website

External sources◦ Google search by name and

by putative graduate institutions

◦ ProQuest for Dissertation Completion

◦ Data tracker sources

An Individual History of a PhD?

Time to degree◦ Defense date vs.

graduation date MS before PhD or direct

to PhD route ‘Stopping out’

We may also need to know Sources of funding Plans for post PhD

activity

National Outcome= 28% progress into grad training

LA Progression 61% have gone into grad programs◦ 23% PhDs◦ 3% MD/PhD◦ 12% MS◦ 18% MD◦ 5% Other degrees

MS 12%

PhD 23%

MD/PhD 3%

MD 18%

JD 3%

BA Only 39%

Other Doctorates 2%

Grad Programs

LA Alums with PhDs are remaining in the academic career pathway by

• Choosing Postdocs• Choosing Academic & Research Careers

LA Alums in Academic Careers are Diversifying all levels of the Academy•More than half in Research Institutions

Academic33%

Postdoc39%

Industry/Gov't10%

Other20%

Occupations of Leadership Alliance PhD Recipients (N=93)

Type of Institution F aculty are Employed (n=30)

Doctoral10%

B ac/A&S13%

Mas ters20%R es earch

57%

Understanding Societal, Economic and Other factors that are attendant to career choices

1.What are the Economic Factors?2.What are the Social Factor?

Variables Under Control of Market Forces Funds available to support graduate trainees Competition from international or other students The draw of the job market after BS degree Undergraduate debt burden

Variables Under Control by Institutions Time to degree varies by institution Time to degree varies by discipline Time to degree varies by mentor

Variables Control by Socio-Economic Circumstances Social Acceptance of PhD training

◦ Race/ethnicity◦ Lifestyle Choices – e.g. gender

Economic Consequences of pursuing PhD