PhD Program Best Practices at the University of Florida

A Provost Fellowship Project Spring 2006

Prepared by Sylvia Chan-OlmstedProfessor and Associate Dean for ResearchCollege 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 PerformancePhD Completion Rates• Three tiers of performers (some

underperformed their CGS peers – NCSU & UGA)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Completion Rate

Microbiology

Psychology

Chemical Engineering

Chemistry

Civil Engineering

Botany

Sociology

Economics

Physics

Mathematics

Computer Engineering

English

History

Department

Ten-Year Completion Rate by Department 1992-2002

Major Findings: Program PerformancePhD Attrition Rates• Three tiers of performers (four underperformed

their CGS peers)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Attrition Rate

Microbiology

Chemical Engineering

Chemistry

Civil Engineering

Psychology

Economics

Botany

Physics

Sociology

English

Computer Engineering

Mathematics

History

Department

Ten Year Attrition Rate by Department 1992-2002

Major Findings: Program PerformancePhD Time-to-Degree• Sociology, computer engineering, and civil

engineering led the group (one underperformed)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Months (1 year =12 months; 1 semster=4 months)

History

Botany

Physics

English

Mathematics

Psychology

Chemical Engineering

Economics

Chemistry

Microbiology

Civil Engineering

Computer Engineering

Sociology

De

pa

rtm

en

t

PhD Time to Degree by Department 1992-2002

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: MentoringIt 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 applicationsNumber of Applications by Department

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

No

. o

f A

pp

lic

an

ts

Microbiology

Mathematics

Botany

Psychology

Civil Engineering

Computer Engineering

Chemical Engineering

Economics

Physics

History

English

Chemistry

Sociology

Major Findings: Program Characteristics

• Programs vary greatly in acceptance ratesPhD Acceptance Rate by Department 2002-2005

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Acc

ep

tan

ce

Ra

te

Microbiology

Mathematics

Botany

Psychology

Civil Engineering

Computer Engineering

Chemical Engineering

Economics

Physics

History

English

Chemistry

Sociology

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 ratioGraduate Student-Teacher Ratio by Department

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Student-Teacher Ratio('98)

Student-Teacher Ratio('99)

Student-Teacher Ratio('00)

Student-Teacher Ratio('01)

Student-Teacher Ratio('02)

Student-Teacher Ratio('03)

Year

Rati

o

Botany Chemical Engineering Chemistry Civil Engineering Computer Engineering

Economics English History Mathematics Microbiology

Physics Psychology Sociology

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

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

No. of Degree

Botany

Chemical Engineering

Chemistry

Civil Engineering

Computer Engineering

Economics

English

History

Mathematics

Microbiology

Physics

Psychology

Sociology

Dep

art

men

t

No. of Doctoral Degree to Total/Graduate Degree Awarded

Doctoral Degree to all Degrees Awarded ('04-05) Doctoral Degree to All Graduate Degrees ('04-05)

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.