MINUTES
Tufts University Council on Graduate Education
Nov 23, 2005 8:30 AM-12:30 PM
Grafton Campus
The meeting was called to order at 8:45 AM. Present were David Walt (Chair), Laura Liscum, Shafiq Islam, Vin Manno, Bill Moomaw, and Art Donohue-Rolfe.
Minutes
Minutes of the September meeting were approved.
Meeting Dates (please note that January and February meeting dates are changed)
Dec 19, 2005—Sackler, 8:30 AM
Jan 20, 2006—Engineering, 8:30 AM
Feb 28, 2006—Fletcher, 1 PM
March 28, 2006—Grafton, 1 PM
Provost’s Fellows
The Provost’s Fellows’ breakfast was a success. For this coming year, all schools will be required to submit student applications electronically. The Council reviews will be done via the web. Vin will investigate the use of the web-based Blackboard system. Each member of the Council will receive a password so that they will be able to access the applications. During the review process, each reviewer will not be able to see the reviews of others. Each application will have three reviewers.
Discussion concerning the Office of Research Management
The Council discussed concerns about the Office of Research Management. These concerns fell into three general areas:
A. Grant preparation
B. The IRB process
C. Operational issues, in particular regarding clinical trials
Vin will speak to Vice Provost Newell regarding these concerns and will report back to the Council.
The ‘Operational Changes to Build Excellence in Graduate Education’ document
Utilizing the comments made by the deans at the October Provost’s Council Meeting, this document was edited by David and the changes were approved by all attending members of the Council. David will send around the edited version to all members of Council for final approval.
Concern was raised about the future of this document. At the Provost’s Council Meeting, the deans seemed to be enthusiastic about the document but it will still need strong backing by the Provost and continued strong support from each individual dean or the document will soon be forgotten.
Discussion on agenda items presented at the September 26th meeting
Based on the September 26th meeting, we had listed five possible agenda items to work on for the upcoming year. The first agenda item, deemed to be the highest priority, was the focus of our further discussion. The agenda item was the following:
What should be the criteria for new Ph.D. programs that will be successful? As a start, we should look at existing programs and see whether they map to the Strategic Plan.
Incentives for departments to develop Ph.D. programs within the established criteria. We should start with the existing procedure/process and make sure it meets the need. New programs should align with University goals. How many and what kind of programs? Flexibility, quality control. Would we recommend a policy of encouraging new Ph.D. programs?
A general discussion ensued on whether we had a general model for graduate training. Do we tend to train our students as a reflection of who we are, academicians? We train them to be good in three general areas, research, oral communication and written communication. Competency in these three areas should enable our graduates to be successful in a wide arena.
Why create new programs? New programs are costly, and dilute faculty time from other programs they might be involved in. With limited resources, the university might want to strengthen or expand existing programs. This might provide the biggest bang for the buck. Institutional resources/incentives to promote broadening of existing are needed. Tufts has a very traditional structure that can make change and flexibility difficult.
What programs should be strengthened? Discussion focused on two graduate programs which had representatives on the Council, Fletcher and the Sackler School.
Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences
Current size 125 faculty and about two hundred PhD students
The various programs are multi-disciplinary in nature and cross departmental lines
Students have a degree of flexibility (switching Programs does happen)
The across department program system is thriving and may be a model for other graduate programs in the university.
The current limitation to the number of students admitted is financial i.e. there is ample space and faculty for expansion.
The Fletcher School
32 faculty but only half are involved in mentoring PhD students
Students pay tuition so there is a revenue source
Both faculty and financial resources for students are limiting. There is a shortage of funds expenses to execute thesis studies.
Greater resources will mean a higher number of PhD students.
The current limitation are financial resources and faculty time
In summary, Fletcher and Sackler represent strong programs generating well qualified graduates. Both programs are restricted in their number of PhD candidates by resource limitation. An increase in quantity of students would not compromise the quality of the programs. In our document, Operational Changes to Build Excellence in Doctoral Education, within the section on allocation of resources, one of our specific recommendations is the following: “The University must provide an explicit, well-identified process to identify programs, future and present, worth investing in. The necessary resources for the strengthening and/or establishment of these programs must then be provided.”
Laura, representing the Sackler Program, and Bill, representing the Fletcher School, will work on a “white paper” outlining a possible scheme for expansion of these two programs.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 PM.
