FYI: Science Policy News
FYI
/
Article

Is Graduate Education Changing With the Times?

APR 10, 1998

“The era of perpetual expansion of the academic enterprise is over,” announced Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) on April 1. “Yet we continue to train scientists at the same rate, and in the same way -- which is to focus them on careers in academia.” He made these remarks at the fourth of his House Science Committee hearings providing input to a National Science Policy Study. The purpose of the session was to examine what progress has been made in graduate science and engineering education to prepare students for a richer panoply of career choices.

The day’s testimony indicated that graduate programs in engineering have adapted to changing times more effectively than those in the sciences. Earl Dowell, Dean of Duke University’s School of Engineering, acknowledged that although engineering PhD production is “at an all time high,” undergraduate enrollment is declining and universities are having difficulties attracting young people to the field. He reported that while some areas of engineering are in desperate need of qualified workers, others are experiencing a surplus. The key, he believed, is training students broadly enough that they can readily adapt from one field to another, and providing necessary skills in communications, teamwork, and multidisciplinary tasks. He praised NSF for developing experimental programs to encourage such change. Michael Peralta, Executive Director of the Junior Engineering and Technical Society, agreed that “engineering education is shifting to meet industry’s needs,” and discussed how his program provides high school students with mentoring and an understanding of what skills engineering requires.

David Goodstein, Vice Provost of CalTech, lamented the slow pace of change in graduate science programs. While the fraction of undergraduates continuing on to grad school in fields like physics has declined, he remarked, “the influx of foreign grad students has allowed us to pretend nothing’s changed.” He said that while the U.S. system continues to produce the best research scientists in the world, it is still “a mining and sorting operation” that selects the best and discards the rest. This results in the paradox of a surplus of highly-trained PhDs “and scientific illiteracy in everyone else.” Catharine Johnson, a graduate student in biological chemistry at Johns Hopkins, added that the system is designed to “replenish the ranks” of academia, using graduate students “as the primary source of labor.” She concluded, in her written statement, “the current system...is too narrowly focused on training specialists in a market that increasingly needs generalists.”

Phillip Griffiths, Director of the Institute for Advanced Study, and Chair of the National Academy’s Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), had been a witness at a similar House Science hearing three years ago, where he presented a COSEPUP report, “Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers” (see FYI #107 , 1995). The report, while it did not find a need for major restructuring of graduate education, made several recommendations for “reshaping” the process. It also debunked several myths prominent in the discussion of graduate education. For example, Griffiths said, most research faculty do not just produce “clones” that follow them into academia; more than one-half of PhD scientists work outside of universities. Secondly, he said, science PhDs are not facing high unemployment; not only have their unemployment rates declined slightly in recent years, but the two percent unemployment rate for scientists represents about one-third of the general rate. Neither is the country training too many scientists, according to Griffiths; enrollments in graduate science and engineering are declining.

However, the COSEPUP report recognizes a number of problems with graduate education, including the length of time to degree, the length of most postdoctoral positions, and the resulting queue for tenure-track jobs. Reiterating a comment made by Dowell earlier, Griffiths said the system promulgates a “misalignment” between how graduate schools train students and what employers are seeking - skills in communication and teamwork, experience in multidisciplinary and applied research, and adaptability. Griffiths blamed the misalignment largely on the way graduate education is funded: research grants to faculty members support most grad students, but force them to work on problems relevant to their advisor’s project, and allow little opportunity for taking other courses to widen their horizons. The COSEPUP report offered several recommendations: make graduate programs more flexible, experiment with different types of training and funding, shorten the time to degree, and provide students with better career information and guidance. Since the report came out in 1995, Griffiths commented, universities are paying more attention to graduate education and attempting some reforms. He also praised NSF and other federal agencies for offering “interesting” programs to give graduate students more varied experiences.

Subcommittee members questioned whether anything should be done about the number of foreign graduate students. While the witnesses had differing opinions, none disagreed with Dowell when he said, “when international students don’t want to come to the U.S. anymore, that’s when we have to worry.”

More from FYI
FYI
/
Article
Top appropriators in both parties have signaled disagreement with Trump’s proposals for deep cuts and indirect cost caps.
FYI
/
Article
The new model would rename facilities and administrative costs and change how they are calculated.
FYI
/
Article
Trump’s nominee to lead NOAA said he backs the president’s proposed cuts while expressing support for the agency’s mission.
FYI
/
Article
Some researchers doubt their reinstatements will come through, while others are seeking solutions outside court rulings.