An official website of the United States government
Traditional PhD training in STEM fields places a strong emphasis on developing doctoral students' academic skills, encompassing research, academic writing, as well as sharing of knowledge through publications and conference presentations, etc. However, with the ever evolving expectations of graduate training, particularly in applied fields, the demand for PhD has transcended the confines of academia. For instance, nearly 90% of engineering PhDs will not enter academia, which underscores the discrepancy between the current PhD training programs and the preparation of students for future careers. To better support doctoral students especially for those who intend to pursue positions in industry including corporate R&D labs, national labs, defense organizations, healthcare institutes, etc., Lehigh University launched an innovative program called Pasteur Partners PhD (P3) specifically for the training of such doctoral students. It is a student-centered doctoral training program based on use-inspired research in partnership with industry. A preliminary evaluation of the P3 program, which was developed with support from NSF’s IGE program, revealed that students benefited significantly from gaining practical skills through industry involvement such as co-advising, resulting in a clearer understanding of how the industry operates, which, in turn, enhanced their employability in the industry [1]. The University administration also provided significant support for the program. However, a broader implementation of P3 encountered challenges and hesitancy from faculty members. Mostly the senior faculty who already had preexisting connections with industry and junior faculty from certain departments were more receptive to joining the P3 program than others. Could this be a result of the prevailing emphasis of the graduate education system on research output (publications) rather than the training of students for their subsequent careers? What other reasons could there be for the faculty’s lack of enthusiasm for the training of their PhD students following P3 track? To answer above questions and examine the challenges and obstacles that the faculty members feel for student centered doctoral training from an institutional and system perspective, we are conducting a survey specifically targeting faculty members in STEM fields. It seeks to comprehensively understand faculty members’ perspective on the primary objectives of doctoral training within different STEM fields. By exploring these objectives, the survey aims to uncover how they vary across disciplines and what faculty members perceive as the most significant goals in their areas of expertise. Moreover, the survey is designed to shed light on the challenges and hurdles faced by faculty members in their pursuit of these training objectives. Faculty participants are encouraged to identify and articulate the specific obstacles they encounter, whether they pertain to institutional constraints, resource limitations, demands of perceived professional success or other factors that impede the realization of these goals. In addition, the survey takes a close look at the resources that faculty members believe would be beneficial in addressing these challenges and improving the effectiveness of doctoral training. This insight is essential for designing support systems that can empower faculty to contribute to the training of doctoral workforce for the benefit of society at large. The survey seeks to gain valuable perspectives on the qualities and skills considered essential for the success of PhD students. These insights will inform curriculum development and help prepare students better for a wider range of career paths. The results of the survey, currently underway, are presented.
more »
« less
Innovations in qualifying exams: toward student-centered doctoral training
The career paths of PhD scientists often deviate from their doctoral theses. As a result, the need to integrate student-centered career and professional development training is important to meet the needs of doctoral students. Qualifying exams (QEs) represent a significant milestone in progression toward graduation within most PhD Programs in the United States. These exams are commonly administered 2–3 years into a PhD program following the completion of coursework, with the primary objective of evaluating whether the candidate possesses the necessary knowledge and skills to progress with their dissertation research. To enhance the value of QEs and intentionally align them with the diverse career trajectories of our students, we explored the inclusion of student-centered assessments in a track with a Pharmaceutical Sciences PhD program. In this PhD program, one component of QEs is a series of monthly, written cumulative exams focused on recent scientific literature in the faculty and students’ discipline. To create a student-centered QE, the student and a faculty member collaborated to develop personalized assessments focused on career exploration and in alignment with individual student’s career goals. All students enrolled in the PhD track (n = 8) were invited to participate in a survey about their experience with the redesigned QE. A combination of Likert scale and short answer questions were collected; quantitative items were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative items with thematic coding. A subset of survey participants (n = 5) participated in a focus group regarding their experience with both the Traditional Model QE and the redesigned Pilot Model QE. Two faculty interviews were conducted regarding the design, content, procedures, and evaluation of student QEs. The study design and analysis were grounded in the cognitive apprenticeship framework, with a focus on how the QEs were situated within the four domains of this framework: content, methods, sequencing, and sociology. Results revealed that this student-centered QE approach was perceived to be more aligned with student career aspirations and to have a high interest level and value for students without placing a substantial additional burden on participants. This suggests that it is a feasible mechanism for integrating student-centered assessment into QEs.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2325518
- PAR ID:
- 10638326
- Publisher / Repository:
- Frontiers Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Education
- Volume:
- 9
- ISSN:
- 2504-284X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Driven by the fact that a great majority of STEM PhD graduates will be employed in non-academic jobs, primarily in industry (defined broadly to include private corporations, national labs, defense organizations, etc.), there is a growing recognition that the present format of doctoral training does not prepare them sufficiently for a career outside academia. In response to this need, recently a new student-centered model of STEM doctorate, Pasteur Partners PhD (P3), was developed based on use-inspired research [3]. Industry-university partnership is a requirement of this model, which calls for concerted participation of industry experts in the training of students through identification of industry-relevant research problems, co-advising about how to approach their practical solutions, and training for other non-technical skills that are crucial for success in industry. An assessment of student demand and their experience with P3’s non-traditional features, support of university administration, and the challenges felt by interested faculty advisers during its implementation at Lehigh University were presented previously. This paper completes P3 program’s assessment by analyzing the feedback provided by industry scientists who have served as co-advisers to students. The specific objective of the present study is to establish not only the benefits to students but also the advantages these collaborations offer to the industry researchers themselves as well as their organizations. Accordingly, we solicited feedback about the experience of the industry co-advisers from serving as mentors of P3 fellows. Briefly, the mentors were generally positive about their engagement with students as research advisers and hosts for experiments in their labs. The mentors from national labs were especially appreciative of the opportunity to expand the scope of their own research program as a result of these interactions. They also highlighted the effectiveness of pre-program internships in fostering long-term research productivity, as well as the training provided in the corresponding courses such as project management. With regard to improving the program, the industry mentors expressed a desire for clearer expectations regarding their role in mentoring students, particularly when students return to university. A detailed analysis of the feedback provided by industry mentors and its implications for further improving the P3 model, indeed the state of STEM doctoral training, are presented. The conclusions of this study are expected to have broad impact beyond the P3 model as they provide valuable insight into the mutual benefits of industry-university partnership for doctoral education.more » « less
-
Driven by the fact that a great majority of STEM PhD graduates will be employed in non-academic jobs, primarily in industry (defined broadly to include private corporations, national labs, defense organizations, etc.), there is growing recognition that the present format of doctoral training does not prepare them sufficiently for a career outside academia. In response to this need, recently a new student-centered model of STEM doctorate, Pasteur Partners PhD (P3), was developed based on use-inspired research. Industry-university partnership is a requirement of this model, which calls for concerted participation of industry experts in the training of students through identification of industry-relevant research problems, co-advising about how to approach their practical solutions, and training for other non-technical skills that are crucial for success in industry. An assessment of student demand and their experience with P3’s non-traditional features, support of university administration, and the challenges felt by interested faculty advisers during its implementation at Lehigh University were presented previously. This paper completes P3 program’s assessment by analyzing the feedback provided by industry scientists who have served as co-advisers to students. The specific objective of the present study is to establish not only the benefits to students but also the advantages these collaborations offer to the industry researchers themselves as well as their organizations. Accordingly, we solicited feedback about the experience of the industry co-advisers from serving as mentors of P3 fellows. Briefly, the mentors were generally positive about their engagement with students as research advisers and hosts for experiments in their labs. The mentors from national labs were especially appreciative of the opportunity to expand the scope of their own research program as a result of these interactions. They also highlighted the effectiveness of pre-program internships in fostering long-term research productivity, as well as the training provided in the corresponding courses such as project management. With regard to improving the program, the industry mentors expressed a desire for clearer expectations regarding their role in mentoring students, particularly when students return to university. A detailed analysis of the feedback provided by industry mentors and its implications for further improving the P3 model, indeed the state of STEM doctoral training, are presented. The conclusions of this study are expected to have broad impact beyond the P3 model as they provide valuable insight into the mutual benefits of industry-university partnership for doctoral education.more » « less
-
Current structures of STEM graduate programs raise questions about addressing graduates’ interest in multiple career paths, and how programs prepare graduates for positions increasingly available in varied occupations. This problem is addressed through an innovative doctoral program in engineering, Pathways to Entrepreneurship (PAtENT), which works to develop a scalable alternative student-centered framework. This research explores how this program responds to calls for graduate STEM education to address changes in science and engineering, the nature of the workforce, career goals, and how program components build an entrepreneurial mindset. A mixed-methods design includes a curriculum analysis showing alignment of program components to recommendations for Ph.D. STEM programs from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Direct measures include surveys and interviews developed for current doctoral students and faculty to describe students’ and faculty perspectives about program components, particularly entrepreneurship and the patent process. The curriculum analysis shows strong alignment of the PAtENT program components and activities to the ten elements of the National Academies’ recommendations. A survey of graduate students in engineering, computing, and business show strong measures in engineering and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Interviews of program participants and faculty demonstrate strong interest in patents and developing entrepreneurship. This innovative program in engineering focusing on obtaining a patent as a capstone shows potential to reform doctoral studies, so candidates are prepared not only for academic careers but a range of industry and government work environments. This work will lead to development of a model for other graduate STEM programs.more » « less
-
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
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1474572
