Goal 3 Committee Report

Committee Members:
Chair: Susan Bagley - Associate Professor: Biological Sciences
Co-Chair: Sung Lee - Professor and Vice Provost and Dean: Office of Research and the Graduate School
C. Robert Baillod - Professor and Department Chair: Civil and Environmental Engineering
Victoria Bergvall - Associate Professor: Humanities
Martin Jurgensen - Professor: Forestry
Gregory Kleinheinz - Student Representative
Paul Lewis - Associate Professor: Electrical Engineering
William Predebon- Professor: Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics
Marilyn Urion - Graduate Student Representative

Charge

The Goal 3 Committee was charged to address past, current, and planned efforts at the University as they relate to developing and strengthening graduate programs. The process has involved 1) the collection and presentation of historical data and 2) forecasts for the future based upon University goals. Evaluations have been made regarding the growth of graduate programs, especially at the doctoral level, the functions of the graduate school administration and the financial aid programs, the quality of the graduate students and graduate student opportunities, and the quality of the graduate faculty. The Committee has specifically addressed the five NCA criteria, as well evaluating how well the University is meeting the projected targets outlined in the University’s Strategic Plan. It should be noted this committee included two graduate students. See Attachment 1 for a more detailed explanation of this committee’s charge and responsibilities.

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 1: Purposes

Summary

The University’s Graduate School has a Vision Statement published in its Graduate School Bulletin [1.3B] that includes purposes that are generally consistent with the University’s overall Mission and Vision statements and are appropriate to an institution of higher education based on comparisons with similar documents from benchmark institution. A Graduate School Mission Statement, however, is currently not available. The annual goal-setting and planning processes involve Graduate School staff and graduate faculty and students (through the Graduate Council and Graduate Student Council, respectively).

The University’s Graduate Program is administered as part of the Office of Research and the Graduate School (hereafter referred to as the Graduate School), under the direction of Dr. S. M. Lee, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. The Graduate School’s Vision Statement is published in the University’s 1996-98 Graduate School Bulletin [1.3B] and is included in the Graduate School’s 1996 Self-Study Report [2.6F6]. (Note: This statement is termed a Vision Statement in the self-study and a Mission Statement in the catalog; according to Dr. Lee, this should be considered a Vision Statement.)

The University’s Mission and Vision Statements [2.1D1] generally and specifically, respectively, present roles for the Graduate School. The Mission Statement generally outlines the beneficial relationship between quality education and research, the necessity to build on "its unique tradition" of education in the engineering and science disciplines, and the necessity for "diversity, creativity, leadership, and teamwork." The Vision Statement more specifically notes that the University will be a "nationally and internationally recognized leader. . .through excellence in. . .graduate education and research in sciences and engineering," will focus on interdisciplinary approaches at the graduate level, and "will substantially increase the proportion of graduate students." The Graduate School’s Vision Statement [1.3B] is clearly stated and is generally aligned with the University’s Mission and Vision. In particular, it clearly states that the Graduate Program School will "be an advocate and driving force for Michigan Technological University in achieving and maintaining a nationally and internationally recognized leadership role in graduate education supported by vigorous research" and will "stimulate research to advance frontiers of knowledge and to enhance application of knowledge for the betterment of society." All are consistent with the University’s stated educational (and other) purposes. However, the Graduate School’s Vision Statement does not specifically address the University’s scientific and technological emphasis or the importance of interdisciplinary activities. Interdisciplinary activities are mentioned as an objective under one of the subgoals for Goal 3 in the Strategic Planning document [2.1D2]. These areas are also addressed in the Mission/Vision statements from the colleges and schools which have graduate programs [2.6A, 2.6B, and 3.4D].

The Graduate School’s Vision Statement appears to be appropriate to an institution of higher education. In a recent (December, 1996) Council of Graduate Schools Consultant Report on the Graduate School [2.8F], the consultants external reviewers stated that, "We found the vision statement of the Graduate School to be very realistic. . .". The University’s Mission and Vision Statements and the Graduate School’s Vision Statement also contain many of the same elements included in the Mission or Vision Statements and/or Strategic Planning Documents from several of the University’s Benchmark Institutions (e.g., University of Missouri - Rolla, Georgia Institute of Technology, Clarkson University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic University).

The Graduate School’s Planning documents [2.1D2, 2.1D1, 2.4A, 2.1A, and 2.8] include two clearly stated subgoals: Enhance graduate student enrollments, and recruit high quality graduate students; and Strengthen the graduate program. Under each subgoal are from three to five objectives and numerous specific strategies. These documents are developed in consultation with the staff of the Graduate School and the Graduate Council. The Graduate Council (see Attachment 2) is an advisory body with one representative from each University unit having a graduate program plus representatives from the University Senate and the Graduate Student Council. Graduate faculty provide direct input to this planning process through an annual review of the goals, objectives, and strategies. In addition, the Graduate Student Council [3.7C] has input into the planning process via the Graduate Council and through more direct involvement with the Dean of the Graduate School. Graduate students are also kept informed via frequent editions of the Graduate School’s newsletter, Out of the Blue [7.4C] for example, the most Winter, 1996 recent newsletter (Volume 7, Issue 1) contained reports on Assessment, Accreditation, and Scientific Misconduct Policies. Departmental and College or School self-study documents [2.6] generally fit within the goals, subgoals, and objectives outlined for the Graduate School. As part of the planning processes, strategies to meet the goals and objectives are proposed by specific programs, along with indication of which strategies would require additional funding for implementation. The Graduate School’s Strategic Plan has similarities to those of the University of Missouri - Rolla (II. Develop graduate programs that are recognized nationally for the quality of the graduates) and Clarkson University (Objective IV.B — Increased Financial Self-Support of the Graduate Program, GOSIs document). In their report [2.8F], the Council of Graduate Schools consultants external reviewers also stated that, in reference to one of the objectives under Subgoal 2: Strengthen the Graduate Program, ". . .we particularly endorse the concept of establishing a periodic review of all graduate programs."

Although the Graduate School’s Strategic Planning materials are reviewed annually [2.1D2, 2.1D1, and 2.8], the goals, subgoals, and objectives often relate more directly to the University’s Mission and Vision Statements than to the Graduate School’s Vision Statement. The latter should be reviewed and potentially revised by the Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School in consultation with the Graduate School staff, the Graduate Council, and the Graduate Student Council.

Given the University’s current levels of graduate students and its stated intent to "substantially increase the proportion of graduate students" [2.4A and 2.1D2], a third subgoal related to "Quality of Graduate Student Life" should be added to the Strategic Plan. This would provide for specific objectives and strategies dealing with the nature and value of the graduate experience at the University, similar to the evaluations currently being made on the quality of undergraduate student life [6.2B3].

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 2: Resources

Summary

The University has effectively organized its human resources necessary to deliver a quality graduate education. The Graduate School has efficient links between the central administration and individual departments, including a Graduate Council and a Graduate Student Council. The Graduate Faculty are appointed and retained subject to clear policies administered by departments and the Dean of the Graduate School. Several new graduate programs have been established, although there is as yet no systematic, periodic review of all programs. Recruitment and retention of graduate students could benefit from more centralized planning. The University has also effectively organized its financial resources, strongly supporting the growth of graduate programs by increasing support for graduate assistantships and fellowships. The University has generally been effective at organizing physical resources, although space, computing, and resources for graduate students could benefit from additional support.

Organization, Qualifications, and Administration of Graduate Programs

The University's graduate programs are centrally administered by the Graduate School, headed by Dr. Lee, and a graduate services staff of four (see Attachment 2 for organizational chart). Dr. Lee was appointed as Dean of the Graduate School in November, 1988 (after the last NCA review) and received the title of Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School in 1991. In their recent review [2.8F], the external reviewers found Dr. Lee to be an effective and highly qualified administrator, citing his research and leadership recognized internationally, nationally, and regionally (e.g., being elected to chair the Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools for 1997). In the 1996 Administrative Evaluation [5.3E2], the University faculty rated Dr. Lee's performance between OK and GOOD citing him positively as professional and hard-working, setting and pursuing ambitious objectives, though some other faculty members found this drive to be relentless. Dr. Lee has already begun addressing a problem identified in that survey (that about a quarter of the faculty didn't know him or his work well enough to judge it) by meeting with departments to heighten awareness of research and graduate issues, objectives, and accomplishments.

The Graduate Council, which serves as an advisory body to Dr. Lee, underwent a revision in its constitution in 1993-94. Formerly a smaller elected body, it now is a larger and more directly representative body, having a member from each of the 17 degree-granting units. This has facilitated the flow of information in each direction (see Attachment 3). Although the Graduate Council's role is advisory, they have taken an active part in assisting Dr. Lee with formulating policies such as in developing a new allocation format for graduate assistantships in 1993 (see Attachment 3).

Dr. Lee judges his staff to be well trained, efficient, and effective, and he delegates considerable responsibility to them in the conduct of their work (see Hay Study results on file in the Human Resources Office). The size of the Graduate Office staff has doubled since 1988 (from 2 to 4), with the added positions dealing with tracking graduate student payrolls and progress and working closely with individual program coordinators. The external reviewers [2.8F] commended the Graduate Office staff for their high productivity and efficiency, but called their number "lean", posing potential problems as the University pushes to increase its research activity and the size of its graduate programs. The Graduate students have evaluated their interactions with the Graduate School highly in exit interviews, finding the staff friendly, helpful, and efficient [2.6F2]. The external reviewers [2.8F] also commended the Graduate Office staff for their high productivity and efficiency.

The Graduate Council, which serves as an advisory body to Dr. Lee, underwent a revision in its constitution in 1993-94. Formerly a smaller elected body, it now is a larger and more directly representative body, having a member from each of the 17 graduate degree-granting units. This has facilitated the flow of information in each direction (see Attachment 3). Although the Graduate Council's role is advisory, they have taken an active part in assisting Dr. Lee with formulating policies such as in developing a new allocation format for graduate assistantships in 1993 (see Attachment 3).

Graduate faculty appointment and retention decisions are made by the Dean of the Graduate School, following procedures set forth in the Faculty Handbook [1.2A]. The qualifications for becoming a member of the Graduate Faculty include items such as: having earned the terminal degree in their field; regular publication of articles in recognized journals having national distribution or books related to their field of study; and involvement in research work or graduate instruction or in advising graduate students. These faculty are subject to periodic review by their chairs or deans, and may be removed from duty as members of the graduate faculty for unsatisfactory performance.

The Graduate Student Council was originally formed in 1975 and later reformed by Dr. Lee in 1990. Under its present constitution [3.7B], its function is to aid graduate students in scholarly, social, and professional activities. The Graduate Student Council is also advisory to Dr. Lee (see Attachment 2). Each department with a graduate program has a representative on the Graduate Student Council; its four standing committees are academic, social, networking, and benefits. All graduate students are welcome to attend GSC meetings or approach the GSC with questions, comments, or concerns.

Addition of new graduate programs follows procedures and policies set forth by the Graduate School, the University Senate, and the Board of Control (documents on file in the Provost’s Office). In addition to reviews by the appropriate faculty, the college or school dean, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Provost, the President, and the Board of Control, program proposals are also evaluated by several internal and external groups, including the Graduate Council, the University Senate, and the Academic Officers (group of the provosts form Michigan state colleges and universities).

There is, at present, no consistent, centrally administered process for periodic review of the individual graduate programs, although four programs have undertaken external reviews since 1988 (i.e., Rhetoric and Technical Communications, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Physics, and Forestry; [2.6F6]).

The administrative relationship between the Graduate School and the departmental programs appears to be generally effective, though at times, the information transfer could be more timely. One particular weakness is the notification process for awarding graduate teaching assistantships and fellowships: new students who have been accepted into departmental programs have had to wait several weeks for confirmation of their funding source and type [2.6B6]. This may hamper recruitment efforts of the best students, for whom funding is a major factor influencing their choice of universities. The Graduate School produces several very useful documents to keep students, faculty, and departmental administrators informed of university and departmental requirements, such as the Graduate School Bulletin [1.3B] and Keeping on Track in Graduate School [7.4C]; individual departments also provide details of their own programs to present and incoming students through, for example, departmental handbooks and newsletters of current research projects and grants (e.g., the Department of Humanities’ Rhetoric and Technical Communication Graduate Handbook and Computer Science’s newsletters, [7.3B]). The Graduate Student Council also has published The Call of the Keweenaw [7.4C], an informal guide to dealing with the both on-campus and off-campus issues, including how to deal effectively with the Graduate School.

Overall, the Graduate School's office is strongly led and staffed by efficient and friendly personnel, with a solid relationship with the departments via the Graduate Council and other linkages. Thus, the organization of the office and administration appears to provide an appropriate means for the discussion, dissemination, and implementation of policy. However, two recommended changes include adding staff as the office's responsibilities and speeding the departments notification of graduate fellowships and other funding. One of the Graduate School’s Strategic Initiatives for the 1997–98 Academic Year [2.6F6] is to add a full-time professional staff person with the responsibility for recruiting, retention, and fellowship administration, which would address some of the key concerns about the Graduate School’s current efforts (particularly recruiting) but which would require additional funds.

Recruitment and Retention of Graduate Students

Currently the Graduate School maintains a web site to help with recruitment of graduate students and it has occasionally participated in graduate student recruitment fairs. However the primary responsibility for both graduate student recruitment and admissions rests with individual departments. Most departments have either professionally printed or departmentally prepared brochures available for graduate students, including information such as faculty research specializations, and recent faculty and graduate student publications [e.g., 7.3A, 7.3B, 7.3D]. Other recruitment activities vary across departments, and include placing advertisements in prominent journals in the field, hosting get-togethers at national conferences, maintaining graduate-program web pages, matching present students with admitted students via e-mail, inviting University juniors and seniors to a workshop to discuss graduate-school opportunities, and setting up formal networking programs with alumni [e.g., 2.6A6, 2.6B6, and 2.6B9].

The University is making specific efforts to recruit minority graduate students, an area specifically recommended for improvement and change in the 1988 NCA review [6.1A]. For example, the University is involved in both the King-Chavez-Parks Future Faculty Program and the GEM Consortium (National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering and Science) [2.6F2]. Available through this consortium are MS in engineering, PhD in engineering, and PhD in science fellowships.

The University is a member of the GEM Consortium (National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering and Science). Available through this consortium are M.S. in engineering, PhD in engineering, and PhD in science fellowships. Minority fellows are selected by the employer members through an initial summer fellowship. The fellows must attend graduate school at a GEM member university. One GEM fellow is currently enrolled at the University (in Metallurgical Engineering).

This diversity of recruitment activity suggests individualized initiatives rather than a concerted, coordinated recruitment effort. The external reviewers [2.8F] noted that many departments are not engaging in proactive recruitment and thus may not be attracting as many qualified applicants as they could. They recommended that the Graduate School consider offering a recruitment training seminar for all graduate departments, designating a graduate recruitment coordinator for each graduate program who can be held accountable for department productivity, and establishing a matching fund in the Graduate School to help departments develop recruitment materials and implement recruitment strategies.

Among many of the engineering and science departments, there is also a general concern that they continue to draw domestic students primarily from University undergraduates; they feel that more recruitment effort is needed to attract students from other universities [2.6A2, 2.6A5.a, and 2.6A6].

The external reviewers also recommended that, as the University considers increasing graduate enrollment, it first seriously consider the possible benefits of putting more emphasis on retention and reduction in "time to degree" and changes in graduate course offerings.

University efforts to support retention begin with graduate-student orientation programs on teaching, research, safety issues and communication skills. The scope of such programs varies from, for example, a summer one- to two-week session followed by a one- to two-quarter long or year-long pedagogy course [2.6A1, 2.6A6, 2.6B2, 2.6B3, 2.6B6] to efforts aimed less at domestic students than at foreign nationals who are teaching assistants, with needs related to their use of English as a second language [2.6A2, 2.6A3, 2.6B7, 2.6B9]. The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development (established as such in 1996) not only conducts workshops specifically for foreign graduate teaching assistants but also serves as a pedagogical resource for all graduate teaching assistants [2.6F1].

The recent Graduate Student Council publication of Call of the Keweenaw [7.4C] may also serve some retention functions, giving new students important and useful tips on university services, housing, and local history, as well as details about local community resources, recreation, and restaurants. It provides a critical coping guide for students, especially foreign students or those unfamiliar with life in the snow belt.

Financial Resource Management

The University is presently committed to increasing its graduate enrollments, consistent with its goal of continuous improvement in graduate education for an increasingly technological world. The University has been working its way up the Carnegie classification ladder (and thereby improving university funding by current state formulas).

Overall student numbers have risen from around 300 MS students in 1985 to 372 in 1996; and about 66 PhD students in 1986 to 281 in 1996 [2.6A5.b]. However, slight dips in the overall rise in 1996 have raised questions about the rate of progress towards goals of 500 MS students and 400 PhD students in 1998 [2.6A5.b]. Lack of concomitant external funding would constitute one serious threat to further growth.

Graduate student financial assistance is provided in a variety of forms (as listed in Attachment 4): Teaching Assistantships, which are allocated by the Provost’s office and are affected by the variations in undergraduate enrollment; Graduate Assistantships, which are allocated by the Dean of the Graduate School’s office and are based on research productivity; Fellowships; Research Assistantships; and Matching Fellowships. Knowing that funding is critical to the support and continuation of graduate programs, the University has strongly supported the growth of its graduate programs by, for example, increasing the numbers and dollar amounts of matching university fellowships and Graduate Assistantships (Attachments 3 and 4 and [2.6.22]). Among engineering and science areas, the numbers of students supported have risen dramatically between from 282 in 1984 to 506 in 1994. Meanwhile, the proportion of support provided by the University has also risen, from 47% in 1984 to a spike of 62% in 1994 (as compared to the previous 4 years’ average of 48%). This last percentage far exceeds the average among benchmark institutions (42%) [Summary Report for the National Research Council prepared by Sung Lee, 1995.] [2.6A5.b]. While this support has been critical in helping the graduate programs of various departments grow, there are inherent limitations imposed on further growth by tight state funding, and strong incentives are needed to pursue and capture other external funding sources, developing external funding among a broader range of faculty.

Attention to external funding is being addressed by developing seed money for research faculty, on the premise that if research funding for faculty grows, faculty can garner more support for students as research assistants. Therefore, important increases include the growth of funds for cost-sharing in faculty research grants, Research Excellence Funds, and faculty development grants [6.2B6], to broaden the research activity across the faculty population.

The external reviewers urged the University to consider the projected growth of the graduate programs; the reviewers asked that the University study the cost/benefit ratio of funding (considering the costs of educating graduate students and the availability of external support), and the profile of external funding among research-active faculty. Without serious consideration of these questions, the University might unwisely overcommit itself to internal funding.

Other Support Systems: Human Resources, Laboratories, Equipment, Library, and Computing

The quality of the faculty plays a significant role in the support of the graduate programs. To this end, the University has increased the number of tenure-track/tenured faculty from around 280 in 1988 to 350 in 1996, on course moving toward a goal of 365 by 1998 [2.6F6]. These new hires are largely "graduate faculty," sought for their potential to direct graduate students and, in most cases, bring in research funding (including money for graduate assistantships). (See the Goal Committee 2 report [6.2B4] for more discussion of the qualifications of present and incoming faculty.) These new faculty have also played a significant role in pushing external research funding from $11 million in 1988 to $20.8 million in 1996. Meanwhile, the current faculty continues to increase their research and publication activity. (See the Goal Committee 2 report [6.2B4] for more information on faculty research productivity.) In the 1996 faculty survey [6.2B4], 71.5% of 179 respondents described their involvement with their departmental graduate program as "very active" or "active" and 74.6% (177 respondents) were "very" or "mostly" satisfied with their level of involvement. This research and scholarly activity promotes high-quality graduate research experience to its students, furthering their progress as professionals.

Involvement with External Partners

The College of Engineering, the individual engineering departments, and the School of Forestry and Wood Products maintain an open dialogue with industrial partners by meeting regularly with industrial or professional advisory committees [2.6A1, 2.6A5.a, 2.6A7, 2.6A8, 2.6D]. Meetings are typically convened twice a year with discussions related to baccalaureate and graduate curricula, educational goals and assessment, accreditation issues, research and strategic planning issues. The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering maintains a typical professional advisory committee, and that department’s 1993-94 Annual Report [7.7A2] includes a committee charter, typical meeting agenda, minutes, and recommendations resulting from the semiannual two day visitations of the professional advisory committee. It is noteworthy that the committee regularly interviews groups of baccalaureate and graduate students and provides feedback and recommendations to the faculty based on student comments. Individual committee members also attend selected undergraduate and graduate classes in their respective areas of expertise.

Advisory committees are generally selected to reflect the industrial/professional sector which employs the graduates of the particular academic unit and with which the unit interacts in research and professional service. Accordingly, the committees generally include members who hold graduate degrees and who are particularly interested in graduate education. Regular contact with these individuals benefits the graduate programs in several ways by providing: professional visibility for the graduate programs, valuable feedback and assessment of the graduate program from practicing professionals; opportunities for research collaboration with faculty at these companies which include graduate students; and discussion and facilitation of graduate internships. Because of this, some units are incorporating feedback from their industrial/professional advisory committees into their outcomes assessment procedures [e.g., 2.6A2, 2.7].

Resources for Graduate Students

There is no centralized organization of resources for graduate students, such as the allocation of office space, telephone usage, computer support, and benefits beyond the $100 provided towards health benefits to qualified, supported graduate students. (See discussion under Criterion 3 about how the decentralized services currently affect graduate education. See also the Goal 7 reports pertaining to the Campus Master Plan and Space Study [2.2A and 2.2D].)

The commitment of the University’s graduate programs to research is indicated by the very high percentage of masters degree graduates who write research theses or substantial research reports. Moreover, approximately __% of our masters and doctoral students are supported on research projects which facilitate and promote the completion of research theses and dissertations. Finally, publication data indicate that in most departments, there is significant co-authorship of archival journal publications by graduate students and faculty. As noted in the Graduate School’s self-study appendix on the Graduate Climate [2.6F6], space for graduate student offices remains a problem in some departments [see also 6.2B9]. Campus buildings originally designed for undergraduate student education do not convert easily into graduate student offices. Classrooms have been converted into graduate student offices, and some departments are still cramped, with less than adequate phone service for graduate students. (New buildings include more research space and office space for graduate students.)

The University's laboratory space and equipment have increased due to the growth in research funding and the addition of new buildings, and computing has been decentralized. Consequently the quality of space, equipment, and computer facilities for graduate students varies from department to department [2.6F6, 6.2B8, 6.2B9]. However, each department provides computing laboratories for their students along with a department system administrator, supported directly by student fees. Some of the larger departments have a separate computing laboratory for the graduate students.

The library continues to be cited as problematic for some graduate students. In the 1996 Graduate Student Opinion Survey [2.8C], a significant minority, 39% of the 150 respondents, stated they were "Not at all satisfied" with library/research facilities. However, benchmarking data from peer institutions shows that although in 1994, for example, the University ranked 6th out of 8 of its benchmarking peers in total dollar amount, it was 3rd of 8 in percentage of the total budget [8.4B]. The library is working hard to develop various on-line and interlibrary loan delivery services, and, as the World Wide Web continues to grow, this might decrease as a problem [see 6.2B8].

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 3: Accomplishments

Summary

The University is generally accomplishing its stated purposes as related to its Graduate programs. Over the past decade, the graduate enrollment has increased with almost all of the growth taking place in the doctoral programs, although this growth has still fallen short of projections made in 1991. Most individual programs are well focused along traditional discipline lines and are coherent within a particular discipline or specialty. Newer, less traditional, interdepartmental and interdisciplinary programs have also developed that tend to be more flexible. Outcomes assessment plans have been developed, but are in their early stages of implementation. While the University is well known for its large baccalaureate engineering programs, it is not as well known for its emerging graduate programs. Nevertheless, there are indications that several of its graduate programs are being externally recognized as high quality programs. One concern with the engineering graduate programs is that most of graduate students and graduate degree recipients also earned their baccalaureate degrees from the University. During the past decade, the quality of resources and extra-curricular opportunities available to graduate students has improved significantly.

Enrollment and Development of Coherent and Rigorous Graduate Programs

Overall MS and PhD student numbers have risen from around 350 and 91 students, respectively, in 1987-88 to 373 and 281 students, respectively, in 1996–97 (Attachment 4 and [2.6.22]). The graduate student enrollment has represented about 10% of the total student body since 1993 and the proportion of graduate student body in PhD programs has increased from 21% in 1987-88 to 43% to 1996–97, thus meeting two of the 1988 NCA review’s plans for improvement [6.1A]. Many of the University’s PhD and MS graduate programs are less than 10 years old, i.e., have started since the last NCA review [2.6F6]. These include PhD programs in Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mining Engineering, Rhetoric and Technical Communication, Engineering - Computational Science and Engineering, Mathematical Sciences, and Geological Engineering. New MS programs have been established in Industrial Archaeology, Environmental Engineering, and Environmental Policy, as well as Masters International Programs in Forestry and Civil Engineering (joint programs with the Peace Corps). One program, the MS in Operations Management program is no longer in operation. However, slight dips in the overall rise in 1996 have raised questions about the rate of progress towards goals of 500 MS students and 400 PhD students in 1998 [2.6F6].

Among engineering and science areas, the numbers of students supported have risen dramatically from 282 in 1984 to 506 in 1994. Meanwhile, the proportion of support provided by the University has also risen, from 47% in 1984 to a spike of 62% in 1994 (as compared to the previous 4 years’ average of 48%). This last percentage exceeds the average among benchmark institutions (42%) [2.6F6; 8F]. The University, primarily the Graduate School, has increased funding specifically for 9-month Graduate Student Fellowships (for PhD candidates) from 9 in 1987 to 22 in 1996 [2.6F6]. These Fellowships are in addition to the Challenge Fellowships and Research-sponsored Fellowships (see Attachment 4). While this support has been critical in helping the graduate programs of various departments grow, there are inherent limitations imposed on further growth by tight state funding, and strong incentives are needed to pursue and capture other external funding sources and develop external funding among a broader range of faculty. Lack of external funding would thus constitute one serious threat to further growth of the graduate programs.

Meeting projections for awarding graduate degrees depends on enrollment: The enrollment projections made in 1991 [2.1C] have not been realized. A number of factors may have contributed to this: the numbers of enrolled white males, in particular, have decreased nationally; employment opportunities in engineering discourage full-time, resident graduate study; and increasingly, students "tend to be attracted toward more ‘trendy’ degree programs which relate to today's societal needs" [2.6F6]. Increased efforts at recruitment [2.6F6] and the initiation of several innovative programs (e.g., the cooperative MS program between Forestry and the Peace Corps [2.6D] and the MS in Environmental Policy [2.6B11] suggest the strong growth of the late 1980s could resume.

The Graduate School has established general standards regarding admissions, grades, examinations, and theses/dissertations [1.3B]; these may be surpassed by individual departments, (e.g., Chemistry’s series of cumulative exams [2.6B2] and Humanities’ modern language requirement [2.6B6]). Flexibility within the overall structure allows various departments to tailor program requirements so as to provide a balance of coursework and practical experience. This flexibility is especially important for students entering graduate school with previous work experience or an interest in interdisciplinary research. Thus, while some departments require core courses either individually specified or more often from broadly specified areas (e.g., Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics, Computer Science, and Humanities Departments; [1.3B]), other departments emphasize the importance of configuring coursework requirements on an individual basis (e.g., Physics, Biological Sciences, Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Chemical Engineering Departments; [1.3B]). Some programs specifically require or encourage interdisciplinary coursework (e.g., Mathema-tical Sciences and Humanities Departments, [1.3B]) and some require internships (Mathematical Sciences and Social Sciences Departments, [1.3B, 2.6B7, 2.6B11]). This relative autonomy facilitates the growth of newer, innovative programs such as the nondepartmental PhD in Engineering and the MS in Environmental Policy. Additionally, some departments have expectations regarding graduate student publication and conference presentations (Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics and Physics assessment plans, [2.7]). Up to now, the standard measure of graduate student achievement has been the quality of graduate student theses, dissertations, and doctoral comprehensive examinations [2.6F6]. This evaluation process is undergoing thorough review, revision, and formalization as part of the assessment procedures of most departments [2.7]. All departments will have instituted assessment plans starting in 1997. The emphasis on individualized program planning combined with general requirements for the presentation and defense of projects, theses, and dissertations suggests a rigorous but flexible graduate program sensitive to the needs of a changing student population.

In most cases, there is often no clear distinction between graduate and undergraduate course offerings, other than course number level (i.e., 500- or 600-level). Only about half of the graduate programs consistently list "graduate standing" as a prerequisite for 500- or 600-level courses [1.3B]. Many of these courses have no prerequisites and, in some cases (from one department), list "senior or graduate standing" as a prerequisite. However, although undergraduate students are able to take these graduate-level courses, an examination of recent course enrollments (Attachment 5) shows that the overwhelming majority of students taking 500-level and 600-level courses are MS and PhD candidates, respectively.

The evaluation of the coherence of the graduate programs is a less straightforward issue. The University is generally recognized as an engineering school [2.1D2]; consistent with this, the graduate program is "well focused along traditional discipline lines" [2.6F6]. Newer programs at both the Masters and Doctoral level, however (e.g., MS in Environmental Policy, PhD in Rhetoric and Technical Communication, PhD in Mathematics Sciences, and Nondepartmental PhD in Engineering programs), suggest that this focus may be shifting in ways that will position the University to provide programs in line with changing enrollment trends [2.6F6]. Departmental assessment plans, however, reflect a more traditional focus. These consistently emphasize acquisition and presentation of disciplinary knowledge, either written or oral (e.g., Chemistry and Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics Departments, [2.7]) and the ability to work well for industry [2.7]. This emphasis seems more in line with the University’s 1964 legislated mission than with the interpretation of that statement [2.1D2] or with the Vision Statement of the Graduate School which includes significant statements regarding public service, diversity, and meeting "the changing needs of a global, technological, diverse, and environmentally sensitive society," as well as focus on interdisciplinary approaches [2.1D1].

Assessment of the acquisition of these broader goals at the graduate level is not generally discussed in departmental self-studies or assessment plans. There is an undergraduate component for attitudes and values assessment (Student Attitudes and Development Committee’s Assessment Plan, [2.7]), but none at the graduate level. Some departments approach these issues in assessment documents. For example, Social Sciences has developed an instrument to measure whether important values and attitudes have been adopted and expressed. The School of Forestry includes ethical skills among its goals but doesn't include a measure. Geological Engineering and Sciences states that "issues involving equity, diversity, and access will be carefully considered in all assessment activities," though there is no indication of how this will be done. Humanities faculty has "re-examined all of our degree programs in light of the university, college, and departmental mission" but, to date, includes no assessment plan for graduate education. Interdisciplinarity is apparent in a variety of programs, e.g., the non-departmental PhD in Engineering [1.3B] and the graduate programs in Humanities [2.6B6], Social Sciences [2.6B11], and the School of Forestry [2.6D]. Alignment with broader University goals appears in several departmental mission statements, e.g., Geological Engineering and Sciences [2.6A5.a] and Chemical Engineering [2.6A1]. The University publication, Michigan Tech Research [7.4C], provides anecdotal evidence of graduate student involvement in "environmentally sensitive" research. Thus, on the one hand, while flexibility in program requirements allows for innovation and the accommodation of individual student needs, the lack of either consistent ways to address interdisciplinarity and broader social goals (i.e., in core courses) or of assessment measures related to those goals makes it difficult to determine whether our graduates are "coherent" with respect to the University’s mission.

Timely Basis for Awarding Graduate Degrees

The number of graduate degrees awarded by the University, particularly at the doctoral level, has increased significantly since 1988; the University attained Carnegie Doctoral II status in 1995 and surpassed the threshold requirement for Doctoral I in 1996 [2.6F6]. These figures reflect the planned growth of the doctoral program to enroll 60% of the graduate students by 2003 [2.1D2]. Approximately 75% of students who begin MS programs complete their degrees within the 5-year allowed time (see Attachment 6); registered time-to-degree has increased slightly since 1991, but remains consistent with the average slightly under 2.5 years. The number of degrees awarded has continued to rise (see Attachment 6), suggesting MS programs are not being slighted by the development of new doctoral programs.

Given the relative newness of many doctoral programs (seven have been operating less than the standard time allowed for degree completion), time-to-degree at the doctoral level is difficult to determine. Figures available suggest that time-to-degree will be consistent with national figures [Summary Report for the National Research Council prepared by Sung Lee, 1995.] (See Attachment 6). Factors that contribute are likely to include a high level of institutional support [2.6F6], a relatively large number of full-time students and individualization of programs [1.3B]. In spite of the external reviewers’ recommendation [2.8F] that the University consider emphasis on decreasing time-to-degree, an emphasis on timeliness may be in conflict with other University goals: tightness of curricula discourages participation in international exchanges [2.6F4]; growing numbers of part-time, employed students [2.6F6] predict increased, rather than decreased, time-to-degree; similarly, interdisciplinary work may require longer a time to complete, as might required internships. Any push toward decreased time-to-degree needs to be carefully considered for its impact on innovation in graduate programs.

Another aspect of meeting projections is the gender and ethnicity of enrolled students. Concern was expressed in the 1988 self study about the need to develop and implement a plan to increase the number of minority students [6.2A1]. Increasing the number of under-represented minorities, and of women enrolled in engineering are expressly included in the quantitative context for planning [2.1D2]. The number of graduate women enrolled in engineering has increased slightly (from 76 or 11.4% in 1993-94, to 90 or 14% in 1996–97 (Fall quarter enrollment reports 1993, 1996; [8.2]). While overall the number of women graduate students has risen, 41 or 20% of them are enrolled in the Rhetoric and Technical Communications program (Fall quarter enrollment report, 1996, [8.2]). Involvement in the King-Chavez-Parks Future Faculty Program has increased the University 's minority graduate student population substantially, from zero (in 1988) to ten [2.6F2]. One GEM fellow is also currently enrolled at the University (in Metallurgical Engineering). Given changing enrollment patterns and the fact (as the external reviewers pointed out) that "even the best graduate programs in the country today must recruit aggressively for good students" [2.8F], the need for recruitment efforts specifically designed to draw in students from under-represented gender and ethnic groups is especially urgent.

National and International Recognition of Graduate Programs

As noted previously, the Vision Statement of the Graduate School states that it "will be an advocate and driving force for Michigan Technological University in achieving and maintaining a nationally and internationally recognized leadership role in graduate education supported by vigorous research." [1.3B]. This implies that the University’s graduate programs are striving for national and international recognition. An appropriate level of such recognition at this time would be at least regional recognition for all programs, national recognition for some programs, and international recognition for a few programs.

There is no doubt that, by virtue of size alone, the University’s engineering programs at the baccalaureate level have achieved national recognition (Annual Reports for the Engineering Workforce Commission and the American Association of Engineering Societies, Inc.). For example, the civil, environmental, geological, mechanical, and metallurgical engineering baccalaureate programs consistently rank in the top 10 such programs nationally in terms of degrees awarded. However, the University is a much smaller player on the graduate engineering scene. In 1996, the College of Engineering awarded 810 baccalaureate degrees, 100 masters degrees, and 30 doctoral degrees (ratio of 8:1:0.3), whereas the national engineering totals were about 61,000 baccalaureate, 28,000 masters, and 6,000 doctoral (ratio of 2.2:1:0.2) [Heckel, R.W., "Disciplinary Patterns in Degrees, Faculty, and Research Funding," Jour nal of Engineering Education , ASEE, Vol. 84(1), Jan., 1995.] . Compared to the baccalaureate programs, one would expect significantly less national and international recognition for the University’s graduate engineering programs based on size alone.

Program size is only one factor determining the level of recognition for both baccalaureate and graduate programs, however. At the graduate level, program recognition is probably more influenced by program quality (e.g., as measured by various ranking surveys), career success of program graduates, professional success of faculty, and funding for graduate research, especially in the form of national research centers. Surveys which rank graduate programs in various fields are conducted annually by magazines such as US News and World Report, and, while the University is regularly recognized in such rankings of baccalaureate programs, it is, as yet, rarely even mentioned in rankings of graduate programs. It can be argued that such surveys tend to favor traditionally long-standing research programs at major universities, where the preponderance of research faculty and administrators received their degrees. Thus, the University’s emerging graduate programs will probably continue to be under-recognized by ranking surveys for some time.

However, there are other means by which to assess the quality of programs, in other avenues of national and international recognition. For example, in 1992, the University’s graduate programs related to environmental engineering were recognized when the US Environmental Protection Agency selected the University to lead a $1.25 million/year exploratory research center focused on clean industrial and treatment technologies. In this competition, the University was the lead partner in a consortium with the University of Wisconsin and the University of Minnesota, and the joint proposal was one of only three selected out of 79 proposals in a national competition.

Recognition of the University’s graduate programs is also evidenced by its many international graduate student exchange agreements [1.3B], such as with the University of Sonora in Hermisillo, Mexico, the Swiss Federal Technical Institute, the Pohang University of Science and Technology, Korea, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), and the University of Southampton (UK). The Office of International Programs continues to work to "increase the number of highly skilled and externally funded graduate students" and is currently in active discussions with countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Turkey, and Indonesia [2.6F4]. Several Royal Thai Scholars are already in attendance at the University; this program pays the expenses for the top graduate students from public universities in Thailand to attend graduate school here.

There is evidence that the University is making progress toward national recognition as many of our recent doctoral graduates have secured academic positions. Forestry doctoral graduates have recently accepted faculty positions at universities such as Washington State, Idaho, Arkansas, and Maine [2.6D]. The Metallurgical and Materials Engineering doctoral program graduates have gone on to positions in academia, national laboratories and industry; and a number have won national recognition [2.7.8]. Civil and environmental engineering doctoral graduates have taken faculty positions at universities such as Akron, Alaska-Fairbanks, Villanova, and Wilkes. Humanities doctoral graduates have been offered tenure-track positions at universities such as Boise State, Clemson, Clarkson, Purdue, New Mexico Tech, Grand Valley State, Illinois State and Texas Tech [2.6A7].

For some graduate programs, an increasing number of students were not also undergraduate students at this University. For example, the Humanities Department self-study notes that students in the Rhetoric and Technical Communication PhD program have obtained degrees from or studied at 64 different colleges and universities worldwide [2.6B6]. However, among many of the engineering departments, in particular, there is a general concern that they continue to draw domestic students primarily from University undergraduates; these departments feel that more recruitment effort is needed to attract students from other universities [2.6A2, 2.6A5.a, 2.6A6]. As shown in Attachment 7 for numbers of students receiving graduate degrees, the College of Engineering has generally had higher percentages of MS and PhD graduates with undergraduate degrees from this University than either the College of Sciences and Arts or the School of Forestry.

Resources and Opportunities for Graduate Students

The University, Graduate School, departments, and schools make a variety of resources and opportunities available to graduate students. Graduate student salaries are currently competitive with other benchmark schools [8.4A], although at least one department noted in its self-study that the 9-month MS and PhD stipends were below the average for its discipline [2.6B2]. Since 1993 the University has also been paying $100 toward graduate student health insurance (albeit only Teaching/Research/Graduate Assistants). In 1992 the University allocated space in the ROTC Building (known as "The Blue Room") and remodeling funds to the Graduate Student Council, so that graduate students would have an adequate place for defenses, meetings, and formal and informal gatherings. In 1995 a WWW page and search pieces were developed in order to disseminate information about the University's graduate programs [2.6F6]. Since 1995, the Office of Enrollment Management has also included a graduate student recruitment effort into its functions [2.6F6].

The commitment of the University’s graduate programs to research is indicated in part by the very high percentage of MS degree graduates who write research theses or research reports (see Attachment 8). Moreover, approximately 30% of the University’s MS and PhD students are supported on research projects which facilitate and promote the completion of research theses and dissertations (see Attachment 4). Finally, publication data indicate that, in many departments, there is significant co-authorship of archival journal publications by graduate students and faculty or graduate students alone (documents on file in the Provost’s Office).

Graduate students have opportunities to participate in a variety of professional development activities throughout the year. These include the Graduate Student Council-organized Multidisciplinary Poster Session (established in 1995) and the Sigma Xi Research Colloquium (established in 1984); both these are open to all University graduate (and undergraduate) students and involve cash prizes. In addition, the School of Forestry and Wood Products held its inaugural Poster Session for its own graduate students in 1997. For the last several years the Graduate School has paid half the registration fee for all graduate students wishing to attend the Midwest Faculty Forum (held on campus). To further aid graduate students in scholarly activities, the Graduate Student Council annually awards over 25 Travel Grants worth $300 each to graduate students traveling to professional meetings. With an annual budget of more than $20,000, the Graduate Student Council also funds events such as a distinguished lecturer series, socials, professional activities, a newsletter, and information exchange for graduate students. As noted under Criterion 2, the amount of formal teaching effectiveness training and guidance varies widely between graduate programs.

Since 1992, the Presidential Commission for Women has also offered Developmental Grants for Women Scholars to provide partial support for travel to present papers, attend meetings, etc., for research projects requiring the student to be off-campus, for ongoing research needs and supplies, and for living expenses. In 1997 13 such grants were awarded, usually at about $300 and totaling $3400.

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement

Summary

With respect to the Graduate Program, the University is generally well-situated to continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness. Research opportunities and resources, in particular, will be enhanced with the completion of several new research-oriented buildings. The graduate programs in all departments will be subject to newly designed assessment programs, a plan is under development to institute internal/external reviews of all graduate programs on a five-year cycle. A key area of concern is the continued emphasis on increased growth of the graduate programs, potentially without concomitant increases in external funding and in available on-campus resources for graduate students.

University Commitment to the Graduate School’s Goals

The University appears to be committed to the Graduate School’s goals in the future. However, given the recent decreases in undergraduate enrollments, it remains to be seen if this commitment will continue, particularly in terms of providing funding for Graduate School staff and programs to enhance the quality of graduate student life and professional development. The external reviewers [2.8F] described the size of the Graduate School staff as "lean, posing potential problems as the University pushes to increase its research activity and the size of its graduate programs."

The external reviewers [2.8F] recommended that, as the University considers increasing graduate enrollment, it first seriously consider the possible benefits of putting more emphasis on retention and reduction in "time to degree" and changes in graduate course offerings. The reviewers asked that the University study the cost/benefit ratio of funding (considering the costs of educating graduate students and the availability of external support), and the profile of external funding among research-active faculty. Without serious consideration of these questions, the University might unwisely overcommit itself to internal funding.

The University has stated that it would like to increase faculty start-up funds from $300,000 to $400,000 per year [2.6F6]. In addition, the cost-share budget would increase from $300,000 to $500,000 per year. To meet this goal, the Provost increased the 1997 start-up and cost-share budgets to $200,000 and $400,000, respectively. The University annually awards $1.35 million from the Research Excellence Fund (REF) [2.6F6]. This capacity building benefits graduate students directly, by providing research assistantship support (as from the REF funds and cost-sharing) and indirectly via access to new facilities and equipment. The University has also established several cooperative agreements with other academic institutions and research establishments for the betterment of MTU faculty; many of these programs also improve research opportunities for graduate students [2.6F4].

All departments are initiating outcome assessment procedures with feedback mechanisms to modify and improve programs [2.7]. Since the last NCA review in 1988, the Departments of Humanities, Metallurgy, and Physics and the School of Forestry and Wood Products have utilized external assessments to evaluate their graduate programs. However, until this year there has been no University-wide formal procedure for regularly scheduled internal/external reviews of the graduate programs. A systematic review of all graduate programs was one of the plans for improvement listed in the 1988 NCA review [6.1A] This has been one of the objectives of the Graduate School [2.6F6, 2.1B] and this review process, as noted under Criterion One, was particularly endorsed by the external reviewers [2.8F]. As a result of discussions with the Graduate Council (see Attachment 3), Dr. Lee and the Graduate School staff are developing plans for systematic graduate program reviews on a five-year cycle basis.

University Position for the Future in Delivering Graduate Education in Terms of Facilities and Technology

The University is in the process of constructing a major research and teaching building ($43+ million), the Dow Environmental Sciences and Engineering (ESE) Building [2.6H7]. Most of the resulting usable space of this building will be used for research, faculty and graduate student offices, and lab facilities. In addition, the renovation of Dillman Hall, an addition to the U. J. Noblett forestry Building, and funding of the Ecosystems Research Center will provide added research space. This addition to facilities will provide superior working environments, more modern equipment, and more opportunities for graduate student learning and research. Furthermore, this additional space means that people who occupy buildings who are currently occupied by tenants of the new ESE building will in turn get more usable space for teaching and research [2.6H7]. Facilities Management has a plan for maintenance and up-grading of new and current facilities for the next decade [2.2A]. Facilities Management is aware that graduate education here at the University is on the rise and appears to be positioned to meet these needs. However, if graduate enrollment reaches the projected figures in 2003 (1,200–1,500; 60% doctoral), it remains to be seen if facilities will be adequate, even with the massive capital improvements which are currently underway (external reviewers, [2.8F]).

The University has added high speed computing to the resident apartments and dormitories and has dramatically increased the number of computer access points around campus [2.6H10, 2.6H9]. The number of dial-in modem lines has been increased (especially the number of 28,000 connections). Information Technology also put in extra password protection for dial-in lines during 1996 to insure the users of the University lines were indeed University faculty, staff, or students. However, despite the increases in services and equipment, the demand for computer access on campus (including dial-in modem lines) continues to outpace what Information Technology is able to provide. Information Technology is continually looking at options, such as faculty home high-speed computing, to help alleviate congestion on campus [2.6H9]. In addition, a task force was set-up to evaluate new e-mail packages for use on the University campus. This task force sought to work towards a universal standard for e-mail across campus and come up with a package that was user friendly now and well in to the future [5.3B]. However, the University’s decision to decentralize has created great inequities of support and it appears computing will remain this way for some time. This lack of centralization does not allow cross department usage of equipment, applications or even e-mail. This can cause a problem with the numerous interdisciplinary research groups on campus.

External Research Funding

In order to maintain and strengthen graduate programs at the University in the future, adequate financial resources must be available. As noted in Criterion 2, graduate student enrollments have greatly increased since 1988, with nearly 80% of the graduate students receiving some financial support from the University (Attachment 4). In the 1996/97 school year, 38% of the graduate students in the College of Engineering were funded by the university, and 34% from external sources [2.6A]. Questions have been raised about the costs and funding sources to maintain current graduate student levels, and to increase the size of the graduate program in the future (external review, [2.8F]). Due to likely funding constraints imposed by the State of Michigan, graduate enrollment at the University will increasingly depend on external research support. While sponsored research funding has shown a steady increase in the last ten years, there is concern that this growth rate will be difficult to sustain in the future and will thus negatively affect graduate student enrollments [6.2B6]. In order to address this possible problem, a task force was established in 1995 to examine ways by which the University could improve it's research capability, and respond to changing external research funding [5.1B]. However, the Task Force recommendations for creating a new organizational structure was not accepted by the University Senate. Consequently, the concept and some elements of the recommendation are being studied for possible implementation in a different manner.

Graduate Faculty Development as Part of Strategic Planning

Since over 90% of the University faculty are members of the graduate faculty, general faculty development is an integral part of maintaining strong graduate programs. The faculty advisor/graduate student mentoring relationship is the backbone of graduate education, and so a strong faculty development program enhances graduate education. An evaluation of faculty development at the University in 1995 concluded that there are various opportunities and programs available, but they are used by relatively few faculty members. Also cited was a lack of faculty development coordination at the University level [5.2.1]. One response by the University was the formation of a Sabbatical Leave Policy Task Force, which has recommended changes in the University sabbatical leave program [5.2B]. These recommendations are currently under consideration by the University Administration. A University Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development has also been established and the Faculty Development grant program has been reinstituted [6.2B4].

Otherwise, most of the planning for faculty development occurs within individual departments and varies from mentoring programs for untenured faculty [2.6B9, 2.6B11] to recognition of sabbatical leave opportunities [2.6D]. Most departments seem to have very little, if any, strategic planning for faculty development. (This has been discussed in much greater detail in the Goal Committee 2 report [6.2B4].)

Opportunities for and Commitment to Graduate Students

Graduate student stipends have increased an average of 17% since the 1989-90 academic year. However, stipend increases are not increased on a regular basis, but rather when the University’s budget will allow for an increase and in comparison to other universities of the same type (S. Lee, personal communication). For example, stipends last increased (4%) during the 1994-95 academic year and are currently not projected for increases during the 1997-98 academic year. This amount of funds for health benefits may also be inadequate (and less competitive as a recruitment issue) in the future, as many graduate student at other institutions unionize and become recognized as employees, and are consequently offered more comprehensive health benefits. While currently competitive (on average), given the remote location and lack of exceptional name recognition, the University must position itself to offer better benefits and salaries to graduate students. If not, it may not be able to compete with other more centrally located and institutions with current name -recognition.

Opportunities for graduate student professional development, particularly in teaching areas, are of concern to many faculty and graduate students. The Provost has stated that all departments will provide a "quality orientation" for their graduate teaching assistants starting with the 1997-98 academic year (documents on file in the Provost’s office). As part of a recent meeting between Dr. Lee, faculty, and graduate students (see Attachment 9), the requests from the graduate students dealt with action items such as the development of University-wide new graduate student orientation program, a seminar series on course teaching, and support from the Career Center for graduate student placement. Some issues the Graduate Student Council is currently working to address are the safety of graduate students working after hours on campus, health benefits for graduate students, teaching and research assistant salaries, and treatment of graduate students on campus. In the 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4], about 62% of the respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement that the "Atmosphere in your department promotes a productive collegiality (that) includes graduate students." Slightly more than half of the respondents (55%) strongly or somewhat agreed that "Extensive opportunities are made available to graduate students for professional development."

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 5: Integrity

Summary

The policies regarding research integrity and conflict of interest are implemented consistently and fairly with regard to faculty. The policies are not thoroughly presented, however, with regard to the research of graduate students. Sexual discrimination/sexual harassment policies are clearly stated for faculty and activity is progressing that will provide improved dissemination of information to graduate students. Efforts are underway to improve the climate for and numbers of underrepresented minority and women graduate students.

The University has established policies regarding research integrity, scientific misconduct, and conflict of interest as related to faculty that are implemented in a consistent and fair way, with carefully conceived and articulated policies presented in the Faculty Handbook [1.2A]. The importance of full and open disclosure is emphasized, and guidelines are presented.

The general policies covering graduate student conduct are noted in the Graduate School Bulletin [1.3B], with reference to the Student Handbook [1.2C], Student Rights and Responsibilities in the University Community document [1.5C3], and the Academic Integrity Policy [1.5C5]. These policies generally deal with coursework, not research, situations. The University’s Scientific Misconduct policy applies to all graduate students; the Conflict of Interest policy applies only to those graduate students employed by the University. These policies are presented in the Faculty Handbook [1.2A] but no mention is made of them in the current Graduate School Bulletin [1.3B]. All graduate students are required to sign the MTU Proprietary Rights Agreement and are covered under the University’s Intellectual Property policy [1.3B, 1.2A]. With regard to research by graduate students, the subject of scientific misconduct (particularly plagiarism) was addressed by Dr. Lee in an issue of Out of the Blue [7.4C; Winter 1996, Volume 7, Issue 1]. The Graduate Student Council and individual departments have also organized seminars and workshops dealing with academic integrity, in general, and plagiarism, in particular (see Attachment 10). Information concerning research-related activities and policies, such as scientific misconduct and conflict of interest, should be added to the Graduate School Bulletin and these policies should be modified to make it clear that graduate students are also covered by the policies.

The University Mission and goals also encourage interactions with outside interests that meet the needs of society for its improvement and enrichment [1.2A], which has resulted in the formation of external partnerships with industry. Guidelines related to dealings with external partners are outlined in the Faculty Handbook [1.2A] under sections dealing with Conflict of Interest and Research. As noted previously, graduate students involved in dealings with external partners are considered to be covered by the Conflict of Interest policy. Student projects involving industrial or proprietary research are also discussed under the Research section of the Faculty Handbook. Again, there is no mention of or reference to these areas in the 1996-98 Graduate School Bulletin [1.3B].

Sexual discrimination/sexual harassment policies are noted in the Graduate Student Bulletin [1.3B] and described in detail in both the faculty and student handbooks [1.2A, 1.2C]. One of the goals for the Affirmative Action Office for 1997 is to focus on informing graduate students about what the University policies are and how to maintain compliance. Grievance policies and procedures [1.2A] are carefully delineated for faculty, and an ombudsman is available, but there are no formalized procedures that are available to graduate students except for procedures following dismissal for academic reasons [1.3B].

A problem reported in some exit interviews [2.6F6] is that some courses as listed in the catalog are not offered on a regular basis. The causes may involve recent program or personnel changes or varying levels of student interest. Misunderstandings could be minimized by instituting strict reviews in the departments (or in the scheduling office) to locate persistent differences. Courses that are only offered subject to sufficient demand should be clearly identified.

The campus climate for graduate students also suggests some problem areas. The 1996 Graduate Student Survey [2.6F6] (having approximately 300 surveys distributed in a non-systematic fashion to graduate students) revealed that 5% of the 150 respondents had experienced a situation in the past 12 months in which they were treated unfairly or with disrespect because of ethnicity and 11% reported a situation in which they were treated unfairly or with disrespect because of gender. However, only 3% of the incidents were reported. The races/ethnicities of the respondents were predominantly white or Asian. Considering that 31% of the respondents were female, it appears that there is a perception of at least occasional gender bias by about one-third of the female graduate students responding to this survey (i.e., 15 of 46 female respondents).

A more extensive survey conducted by the Presidential Commission for Women in 1992-1993 [5.5C] showed somewhat similar findings in response to number of survey questions. This survey was distributed to 119 female graduate students and had 46 respondents (39% return rate). The majority response on many issues did not indicate a gender bias, but a sufficient number disagreed to indicate that problems may exist in certain groups or with particular individuals. A majority of respondents (65%) reported experiencing some type of sexual harassment (primarily nonphysical) at the University. The survey report contained several recommendations for aiding women graduate students who experience harassment and discrimination, many of which have already directly or indirectly been addressed by the University.

Women and students from underrepresented ethnic groups face many of the same constraints to full participation in graduate education, e.g., lack of role models. At least two reports related to minority and women's status have included specific recommendations regarding graduate students. The November 2, 1985, "Opportunities for Minorities in Instruction and Research" committed the University to a specific date for the "First graduate students and new staff members of minority groups from the plan on campus." The Climate Study of the Presidential Commission for Women [5.5C] included a page and a half of recommendations specific to graduate students. Many of the latter appear to have been addressed in the implementation plans submitted to the Commission in 1995–96 (information on file in Provost’s office and [1.2C, 7.5B, 2.6H3]). Using the University's several task force and committee studies of minority education as a benchmark, however, suggests that an annual accounting of implementation and progress is essential [2.6F2 and 6.2B2]. Substantive recommendations that promise improved climate (e.g., a minority counselor, a women’s center, a multicultural center, elimination of the "weeder" course concept as opposed to a developmental concept) [5.5A] often recur from report to report but remain unaddressed. The compilation of task force reports, reports from presidential commissions, and similar self-studies is extremely costly in terms of faculty and staff time and energy; implementation of recommendations from these groups generally should be given high priority, but it is extremely important in areas where the University has made a commitment to change as it has with regard to student demographics. While a number of recommendations (as well as programs) are supported, the University needs to move to another level, i.e., minority and women faculty in disciplines of under-representation, an intensive effort to recruit minority and women graduate students, and undergraduate research opportunities for minority and women students to introduce them to the idea of graduate education.

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

• Clear, ambitious, and far-reaching vision statement consistent with University's purpose.
• Strong internal support for initiating and developing graduate programs on campus.
• Strong leadership of the Graduate School by a highly qualified administrator, with a friendly and efficient staff.
• Diversification of graduate programs started since 1988, including programs addressing "the changing needs of a global, technological, diverse, and environmentally sensitive society."
• Flexibility and interdisciplinarity in graduate programs, while maintaining academic standards.
• Strong commitment among graduate students to research at the master’s as well as the doctoral level.
• Growing external recognition of the quality of some of the University's graduate programs.

Weaknesses

• Lack of a mission statement for Graduate School (only a vision statement).
• Lack of a coherent and broad-based recruitment effort or marketing strategy.
• Drawing too high a percentage of graduate students from University's own undergraduate programs.
• Lack of external funds to adequately balance the significant internal support.
• Inadequate professional opportunities, conditions, and fringe benefits for graduate students.
• Lagging recognition of some of the graduate programs.
• Lack of diversity of underrepresented minorities and women (outside of certain disciplines).
• Lack of clearly codified policy for graduate students on Scientific Misconduct and Conflict of Interest related to research.
• Lack of a systematically applied review process for the graduate programs.

Opportunities

• Development of a cohesive recruitment plan, to include coordination of recruitment efforts across graduate programs (particularly the interdisciplinary programs), and expansion of recruitment activities beyond the Midwest.
• Resources poised to meet the coming need for more interdisciplinary and technologically skilled and informed workforce.
• Internet connections and other electronic retrieval systems to alleviate some library deficits.
• Newer MS and PhD programs that are more socially directed (in combination with recruiting initiatives) could greatly increase the numbers of graduate students, especially under-represented minorities and women.

Threats

• Limitations of state funding for education and decreasing undergraduate enrollments may restrict funding for graduate programs and graduate student professional development.
• Excessive growth of graduate program might severely strain available financial and physical resources.

This review of the Graduate School and the University’s graduate programs indicates that most of the recommendations for improvement and change of the graduate programs that were noted in the 1988 NCA review have been addressed. These include attaining the targeted numbers and percentage of graduate student enrollments, increasing the percentage of doctoral students, developing plans to increase the number of minority graduate students, increasing support for graduate fellowships, with the focus on support for the doctoral programs. There has recently been a leveling off of some of the exuberant and ambitious growth that has converted a mainly undergraduate institution into one with a significant graduate presence. As programs mature, questions about supporting and improving them naturally arise, demanding further attention to funding, allocation of financial and other support services, and assessment practices to provide feedback for continuous improvement of instructional and mentoring practices. Continuous improvement of the quality and productivity of the graduate faculty remain a strong asset, and the infrastructure of the Graduate School has been adequate to now to support this activity. However, continued rapid growth may strain the resources of the University, from staffing levels at the Graduate School to availability of external research funding and internal funding resources. Recruitment and retention strategies and resources such as computing and other academic support (e.g., the library and office space) demand centralized attention as well. Yet overall, the University has worked to maximize its human, financial and physical resources in support of accomplishing its mission of graduate education. Meanwhile, it is making clear and consistent efforts to improve its human, financial and physical resources for graduate education, building on clear strengths of a solid research foundation and a strong graduate faculty.

Specific recommendations are to:

1. Amend the Strategic Plan related to the graduate programs (Goal 3) to include a third subgoal related to "Quality of Graduate Student Life," along with specific objectives and strategies dealing with the nature and value of the graduate experience at the University.
2. Develop a Mission Statement for the Graduate School that is consistent with the University’s Mission Statement and include both the Graduate School’s Mission and Vision Statements in the next edition of the Graduate School Bulletin.
3. Develop a comprehensive, aggressive, U.S.-wide graduate student recruitment program by bringing together diverse recruitment efforts; appointing departmental coordinators to share and implement best ideas, and adding a Graduate School staff member to deal with recruitment.
4. Develop and implement University-wide graduate student orientation, teaching effectiveness, and affirmative action programs.
5. Develop and implement graduate program assessment tools to provide more feedback about areas for improvement.
6. Implement University-wide, systematic internal/external reviews of all graduate programs.
7. Address deficiencies of office space, computing facilities, library resources, and benefits experienced by graduate students.
8. Reevaluate Strategic Plan objectives concerning desired rates of growth for the current graduate programs.
9. Continue to aggressively pursue external funding for graduate student support.
10. Incorporate into the strategic planning process an annual review of progress made in meeting the recommendations for improving the climate status for women and minority graduate students.