Meeting Minutes
Tufts University Council on Graduate Education
Dec 19, 2005 8:30 AM-12:00 PM
Boston Campus
The meeting was called to order at 8:50 AM. Present were David Walt (Chair), Laura Liscum, Shafiqul Islam, Vin Manno, Bill Moomaw, Bea Rogers and Art Donohue-Rolfe.
Minutes
Minutes of the November meeting were amended and the new document approved.
Discussion concerning expansion of the Fletcher and Sackler doctoral student bodies
At the last meeting, the Council had discussed barriers to expansion of the Fletcher and Sackler doctoral student bodies. At Sackler, the gate is narrow because of need for stipend support for first year students. At Fletcher, the limitation is financial aid for doctoral students, funds to support research endeavors, and number of faculty committed to doctoral education. David Walt has a meeting with President Bacow on Dec 28. Bill Moomaw and Laura Liscum will provide him with a ‘white paper’ outlining a possible scheme for expansion of these two programs. It was decided not to include the School of Nutrition in this document because there is not the same fundamental structural barrier as is found in Sackler and Fletcher.
Discussion concerning the Office of Research Management
The Council discussed upcoming changes in Office of Research Management policies and personnel. Some of these changes will allay the concerns voiced by the Council to Vice Provost Newell through Vin Manno.
The ‘Operational Changes to Build Excellence in Graduate Education’ document
Vin reported that the Operational Changes document is with the Provost and will be distributed to the Deans after the first of the year. The Provost is writing an introduction asking the Deans to engage in discussion with their faculty on how to use the recommendations. The suggestion was made to add incentives for the Deans for follow through.
Vin read the current draft of the introduction, which used the term “doctoral faculty”. At most Tufts schools, the graduate faculty members oversee doctoral and masters students; Sackler is the only example of a school in which the doctoral faculty is a discrete population. Deans may need to adapt this document to deal with the situation at their schools.
Agenda item #1 – Criteria for new PhD programs
Five possible agenda items for the upcoming year were raised at the September meeting. Item #4 has been dealt with. Further discussion focused on the first agenda item, which was ‘what should be the criteria for new PhD programs that will be successful?
Discussion ensued on the following points:
• Need to find opportunities for new interdisciplinary programs.
• Are there targets of opportunity? For example, departments with a large number of undergraduate majors for which a doctoral program may enhance their education.
The last three doctoral programs launched at Tufts were:
1. Biomedical Engineering. This was deemed a success due to the fact that it had a strong advocate, a motivated faculty, and school resources.
2. Occupational Therapy. This program is actually a Doctor of Occupational Therapy, rather than a PhD. The D.O.T. is a professional versus research degree in recognition of marketplace issues.
3. Mathematics, Science, Technology, and Engineering Education. This program has not yet realized its potential due in some measure to disjointed allocation of faculty and other resources.
In addition there is the PhD in Biomedical Sciences offered at the Cummings School, which suffers from limited faculty involvement and lack of commitment from the administration. Plans for a doctoral program at the Dental School are currently being given low priority due to lack of space and facilities.
Key criteria for a successful new doctoral program are:
1. A strong faculty advocate within the department or program.
2. A critical mass of committed faculty members who are involved in the program and have a track record of collaboration.
3. A distinguishing niche or unmet need. Applicants to the program should have few alternative programs that give them the same training.
4. The ability to leverage other strengths at Tufts, as well as buy-in from the administration.
5. An undergraduate research component. If the opportunity exists for undergraduate and doctoral education to be synergistic, that opportunity should be taken.
Laura will develop this into a new Council document. This may be subsumed into the new graduate degree approval process, which will be distributed by Vin.
Agenda item #2 – Interdisciplinary doctoral and postdoctoral programs
There is an IDOC program within A&S that admits 1 or 2 students per year. Should it remain at A&S or be moved to university level? What are the incentives to develop cross school PhD programs? How do doctoral and postdoctoral programs relate to one another? Can a program that attracts targeted postdocs advance the interdisciplinary programs?
Shafiqul Islam proposed that Tufts invest in supporting 20 postdoctoral fellows per year to work with faculty on interdisciplinary projects. The relative benefits were weighed of investing in postdocs vs. graduate student stipends vs. Provost Fellowships. Postdocs bring in new ideas and techniques and could serve as the glue that brings together faculty members from different disciplines. An expanded postdoc population would enhance graduate education at Tufts. Shafiqul and Bill were charged with writing a proposal.
Next meeting will take place on Jan 20 in the Burden Lounge, Anderson building room 108, from 12:30 to 5 PM.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM.
