PhD Program Best Practices at the University of Florida

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

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

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

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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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”

11. 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

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

13. Major Findings: Program Characteristics • Programs vary greatly in acceptance rates

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.