An official website of the United States government
This Research Full Paper presents two examples of doctoral engineering attrition. To date, little research has been conducted on the many compounding factors that lead to attrition in graduate programs. In this paper, we present the narratives of two doctoral PhD students, Kelsey and Amy, who were deciding on departing from the engineering PhD. These narratives embody a deeper investigation of academic self-concept development through graduate school, with a focus on the decision-making processes to continue in the PhD program or decide to depart with a Master’s degree. At the time of the interviews, both participants were still enrolled in their programs, but one had definite plans to depart and left shortly after the interview. This study is one of the first that highlights the role of the Master's degree as an off-ramp from the engineering doctorate and lends insight to narratives surrounding attrition in engineering: Despite academic success in their courses and successful research progress, these participants decided to depart even after passing significant milestones such as qualifying exams. This research presents the beginning of a larger research project with a goal of generating a more complete narrative of the attrition process for the students, with an explicit focus on Master's-level departure.
more »
« less
What I Wish I Had Known Early in Graduate School but Didn’t
Begin with the end in mind!1 PhD students in artificial intelligence can start to prepare for their career after their PhD degree immediately when joining graduate school, and probably in many more ways than they think. To help them with that, I asked current PhD students and recent PhD computer-science graduates from the University of Southern California and my own PhD students to recount the important lessons they learned (perhaps too late) and added the advice of Nobel Prize and Turing Award winners and many other researchers (including my own reflections), to create this article.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1837779
- PAR ID:
- 10193994
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- AI Magazine
- Volume:
- 41
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 0738-4602
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 90 to 100
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Students from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds can experience stigma in undergraduate educational settings but little research on this topic has been conducted at the PhD level. Lower‐SES PhD students may feel lower levels of social integration as they experience incidents of interpersonal disconnection from others inside and outside of academia. Interpersonal disconnection may be a mechanism by which lower‐SES leads to a lower sense of social integration. In this prospective study of first‐year PhD students at three North American universities (N = 608), we assessed students’ perceived social integration and their interpersonal perceptions inside and outside of academia 2–8 times throughout their first year of graduate school. Relative to higher‐SES students, lower‐SES students perceived lower levels of social integration. They had difficulty making academic friends, felt dissimilar to their academic peers, and perceived a lack of understanding about their work in graduate school from non‐academic families and friends. They also lost non‐academic social ties. These interpersonal disconnections prospectively mediated the association between lower SES and lower levels of perceived social integration. Lower‐SES PhD students are at risk of impaired interpersonal relationships. Institutional policies to promote social connections among PhD students may help lower‐SES students integrate into academia.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundDespite many initiatives to improve graduate student and faculty diversity in engineering, there has been little or no change in the percentage of people from racially minoritized backgrounds in either of these groups. Purpose/HypothesisThe purpose of this paper is to counter the scarcity fallacy, in which institutions blame the “shortage” of qualified people from traditionally marginalized backgrounds for their own lack of representation, related to prospective PhD students and prospective faculty from traditionally marginalized groups. This study identifies the BS‐to‐PhD and PhD‐to‐tenure‐track‐faculty institutional pathways of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino engineering doctorate recipients. Design/MethodUsing the US Survey of Earned Doctorates, we tracked the BS‐to‐PhD institutional pathways of 3952 Black/African American and 5732 Hispanic/Latino engineering PhD graduates. We also used the Survey of Doctorate Recipients to track the PhD‐to‐tenure‐track faculty pathways of 104 Black/African American and 211 Hispanic/Latino faculty. ResultsThe majority of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino PhD graduates in this study did not earn their BS degrees from Top 25 institutions, but rather from Not Top 25, non‐US, and minority‐serving institutions. The results also show the relatively small proportion of PhD earners and faculty members who move into highly ranked institutions after earning a bachelor's degree from outside this set of institutions. ConclusionsThe findings of this study have important implications for graduate student and faculty recruitment by illustrating that recruitment from a narrow range of institutions (i.e., Top 25 institutions) is unlikely to result in increased diversity among racially minoritized PhDs and faculty in engineering.more » « less
-
Abstract Occupational choices at the early stage of one's career path are influenced by the real and imagined input of mentors. This research focuses on PhD advisors and the graduate students that they mentor. Each participant in that dyadic mentoring relationship holds assumptions about the beliefs of the other regarding the students' career preferences. We propose that, in the absence of discussions surrounding career goals in such relationships, pluralistic ignorance surrounding career norms may develop. PhD students may assume that their advisors prefer that students seek academic research positions; while advisors may assume students prefer academic research positions and may not bring up alternative careers. Three studies adopt a mixed‐method approach to investigate divergent experiences surrounding career discussions. Study 1A (N = 301 faculty members in STEM fields) features qualitative and quantitative data and found that PhD advisors have experience working with students whose career preferences did not align with their expectations, and report changing their mentorship approaches while maintaining rigorous training. Study 1B (N = 195 PhD students in STEM fields) features qualitative data and found that students, although generally comfortable discussing different career options with their advisors, report several concerns that deterred them from discussing nonacademic research positions. Study 2, an experiment designed to compare perceived with actual norms (N = 200 PhD students in STEM fields) revealed that such discomfort could be alleviated by making explicit advisors' support for diverse career options and actual career preferences. The present research provides insights about pluralistic ignorance with implications for having more holistic career discussions in dyadic mentor relationships.more » « less
-
The landscape of graduate science education is changing as efforts to diversify the professoriate have increased because academic faculty jobs at universities have grown scarce and more competitive. With this context as a backdrop, the present research examines the perceptions and career goals of advisors and advisees through surveys of PhD students (Study 1, N = 195) and faculty mentors (Study 2, N = 272) in science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. Study 1 examined actual preferences and career goals of PhD students among three options: research careers, teaching careers, and non-academic careers in industry, and compared the actual preferences of students with what they perceived as being the normative preferences of faculty. Overall, students had mixed preferences but perceived that their advisors had a strong normative preference for research careers for them. Moreover, students who ranked research positions as most desirable felt the most belonging in their academic departments. Further analyses revealed no differences in career preferences as a function of underrepresented minority (URM) student status or first-generation (FG) status, but URM and FG students felt less belonging in their academic departments. Study 2 examined faculty preferences for different careers for their advisees, both in general and for current students in particular. While faculty advisors preferred students to go into research in general, when focusing on specific students, they saw their preferences as being closely aligned with the career preference of each PhD student. Faculty advisors did not perceive any difference in belonging between their students as a function of their URM status. Discrepancies between student and faculty perceptions may occur, in part, because faculty and students do not engage in sufficient discussions about the wider range of career options beyond academic research. Supporting this possibility, PhD students and faculty advisors reported feeling more comfortable discussing research careers with each other than either non-academic industry positions or teaching positions. Discussion centers on the implications of these findings for interpersonal and institutional efforts to foster diversity in the professoriate and to create open communication about career development.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v41i1.5291
