Search News


Browse Archives

News

Admitted -- to College and Grad School

June 22, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The chancellor of the City University of New York floated a unique approach this week to dealing with the long lamented problem of low enrollments in the sciences: Offer promising students conditional acceptances to top Ph.D. programs in science, technology, engineering and math (the so-called STEM fields) as they start college.

“This is an idea that was created in my own mind after reflecting on a problem that nobody really seemed to be able to capture and shape in a way that would have the results that we would like to see,” Chancellor Matthew Goldstein said in a phone interview Thursday.

“The fact is, when you go into laboratories at major universities today, laboratories for graduate students, you see a paucity, at best, of American students,” Goldstein said. As international students return home with the knowledge they've gained, “We, making the investment here, are not seeing the benefit in our own economies.”

He added: “As a result of that, it impedes our ability to be as competitive certainly on a going-forward basis, in an economy that is going to be more and more demanding of highly technically skilled people."

In a speech Monday, Goldstein envisioned a national effort in which students identified for their aptitude in middle school would subsequently benefit from academic enrichment programs that their own local high schools might not be able to provide (The chancellor described the proposed program as one that could have a particularly strong impact on increasing woefully low minority enrollments in the STEM fields).

Upon entering college, students would be offered a spot in a top Ph.D. science or math program, provided they meet certain performance requirements throughout their undergraduate years.

“It sends a very strong statement to students who have not necessarily had the encouragement … that very elite places genuinely believe in them and, at an early age, they are prepared to make an investment to serve as an incentive for those students to continue to do very good work,” Goldstein said.

Such a program would obviously require a very heavy investment on the part of colleges, donors and government, and Goldstein said that while he has had some informal conversations with other college presidents on this matter, he has not formalized any plans. He does intend, however, to begin fund raising to launch such an initiative at CUNY, with the idea that middle school students identified and nurtured early on would eventually obtain a conditional Ph.D. program acceptance right alongside admission to the system's William E. Macaulay Honors College.

Such a proposal is not entirely without precedent: Some medical schools have long offered conditional acceptance to admitted undergraduates. But applying that idea to the Ph.D. is something new -- and very different, said Carol Lynch, the senior scholar in residence at the Council of Graduate Schools and former dean of the graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

“I’m a little bit skeptical," said Lynch, who added that she had not heard of such a proposal in the past.

“A Ph.D. is not like the professional schools. It’s not like medical school. We’re increasingly becoming aware of an array of non-cognitive abilities that you can’t really test for that tend to be predictive of success in Ph.D. programs,” Lynch said -- citing, for instance, the skills needed to handle the stress of independent work.

Plus, there’s the problem of individual fit, as Ph.D. programs are obviously much more specialized, and a student admitted to a certain institution may not ultimately fit there for a number of reasons, including what specialties a program does and does not offer, Lynch said. “A high school biology student says 'Oh, I love biology.' But they don’t know if they want to do molecular biology, cancer research, ecology, evolutionary biology.”

Lynch was, however, a strong proponent of the early and sustained intervention component of the chancellor's proposal, and suggested that the mentoring could continue throughout college, and could incorporate graduate school advising and independent research opportunities.

“I love the idea of identifying kids early and saying, ‘Wow, you like science. Let's keep you on track for a career in science,' " Lynch said. “I personally would like to see this [mentoring] continued through college. We do have a lot of data: The pipeline’s leaking all the way along.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Admitted -- to College and Grad School

  • Posted by mathteacher on July 6, 2007 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Why not invest in educating elementary, middle, and high school math and science teachers? Since these are the people who can make an immediate difference in math and science teaching for American students, it makes more sense to provide masters in math and science for these teachers. See the University if Pennsylvania's MISEP program as an example.

  • In Response
  • Posted by Verna , Assoc, Dir on July 11, 2007 at 10:05pm EDT
  • to one of the posters who suggested using Middle School initiatives as a part of bridging the gap of math and sciences and minority representation, well that has been done before. The results have been mixed. Having evaluated thousands of applications into some of the CUNY campuses graduate teaching programs, I was appalled at the horrible grades in Science and Math and also many of those in Teacher Education programs, were taken the LSAT exams two or three times. Now ask yourself this question, Would you want them teaching your kids?????

  • Posted by Singh , I agree with .......... on July 23, 2007 at 3:40pm EDT
  • I agree with encouraging middle school and high school students for science/math before they start working on STEM(is not a bad proposal either). There must be some change in education system. I finished my high school in a country where they follow British education system.In my country students are focused on the subjects of their major. But in United States students till senior year of their college are undecided about their major.High school strengthens and incite student about their future goal.If roots(high school) of a tree are not strong enough how will they hold the tree(stability of students in college).

  • Been done before
  • Posted by Jocelyn Bowie , Dir. Communications/Recruiting at IU College of Arts and Sciences on June 22, 2007 at 9:10am EDT
  • I may be tooting the horn of our rival institution to the north (assuming you think this is a good idea), but here goes:

    Purdue has the Beering Scholarship (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4) that covers the bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees. For an in-state student, the value of the scholarship is estimated to be $250,000. They pick seven recipients per year, a mix of in-state and out-of-state students. I'll leave it to others to debate the merits of such a plan.

  • Interesting Idea
  • Posted by Jim on June 22, 2007 at 9:10am EDT
  • I think this is an interesting idea, so long as expectations for completion by entering students are not unreasonably high. Many young students haven't yet developed their interests and career goals and will likely change their minds before completing the program. This, of course, would not be a reflection on the program.
    The concept brings to mind the ill-fated 6 yr Ph.D. program that Cornell tried back in the late 60s. Cornell enrolled freshmen with off-the-chart SAT scores and promised them a Ph.D. after 6 years. The students lived and studied together in the same dormitory. As I recall, the culture became very disfunctional and the program ended when their dormitory burned down. I might be remembering wrong (it was a long time ago!), but I think the fire was deliberate, and that some students may have died. Only a very few students graduated before the program was cancelled. The experiment showed how important emotional development of brainy young students could be to their academic success.

  • Three things ...
  • Posted by RWH on June 22, 2007 at 9:10am EDT
  • First, there is nothing at all revolutionary about this idea. There are seven-year med school programs all over the American academic landscape.

    Second, I have read the article and listened to the PodCast. Although no one has explicitly stated that these programs are for graduates of American high schools, it certainly seems to be implied. I’m all for recruiting high school graduates in Delhi, Mumbai, Moscow, Kiev and other interesting cities about the world and making this program available to them. And, oh yes, if they complete their undergraduate degrees with a GPA > 3.5, let’s throw in automatic citizenship as a bonus before they begin their Ph.D. programs.

    Third, this issue isn’t just about STEM students. When you open the following URL’s – and, by the way, others like these are ubiquitous in American higher education – be sure to observe where these faculty members got their bachelors’ degrees.

    http://www.siue.edu/MATH/faculty.html

    http://admin.business.uconn.edu/portalvbvs/desktopmodules/webmanager/preview/previewPage.aspx?pageid=204

    It’s time we recognize that there are explanations for why American students are eschewing careers in mathematics and the sciences, and Matthew Goldstein is addressing the issue at quite some distance from the root causes. See, for example one of InsideHigherEd’s own discussions of this topic ...

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/14/stem

  • Nice try, but...
  • Posted by Robert on June 22, 2007 at 9:20am EDT
  • It's certainly a good idea to try to get more students interested in SMET. But this guaranteed-PhD-acceptance program seems little more than social promotion applied to higher ed. I have a post at my blog on this:

    http://www.castingoutnines.net/2007/06/22/youre-in-the-phd-program-guaranteed/

    It seems like, rather than investing resources to admit new freshmen sight-unseen into a "top PhD" program, CUNY could spend the money better on enhancing their middle- and high-school outreach programs (which the article mentions) and providing assistance for CUNY students to get into the graduate or professional program that best suits them. For example, set up a fund to pay for the application fees for graduate school, medical school, or law school. Not every student is going to be cut out for, or even be interested in, getting a PhD from a top institution, and the incentive power of such a program is questionable at best for the sorts of marginal students CUNY seems to be targeting.

  • Comment
  • Posted by Georgia , Associate VP for Enrollment Management on June 22, 2007 at 10:45am EDT
  • The Chancellor seems to be a bit full of himself..."an idea in his own mind"!!! You would think this has never been done before. Glad to hear that CUNY is catching up with what many other institutions have been doing for years. CUNY has made great strides over the past few years...let it go at that.

  • Thanks for the link, RWH
  • Posted by SB on June 22, 2007 at 10:45am EDT
  • Who knew all math faculty looked so... so... hmm. What's the word?

    Now here's an idea for good study -- where are all the good-looking PhD's going? Because clearly, it ain't in Math.

  • Posted by math prof on June 22, 2007 at 10:45am EDT
  • I think this idea has a lot of potential.

  • Posted by TW on June 22, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I think guaranteeing admission to a PhD program is putting several carts before the horse. The PhD and MD are very different beasts, MD education is fairly standardized and regulated while PhD programs are an almost completely individualized free for all.

    What would make more sense is to create something like the undergraduate pre-med and pre-law programs that many schools have. These programs could actively identify and foster student interests, provide solid advising, and give good students the extra boost they need to get into top programs.

  • Re: Three Things
  • Posted by Rob on June 22, 2007 at 1:05pm EDT
  • "I’m all for recruiting high school graduates in Delhi, Mumbai, Moscow, Kiev and other interesting cities about the world and making this program available to them. And, oh yes, if they complete their undergraduate degrees with a GPA > 3.5, let’s throw in automatic citizenship as a bonus before they begin their Ph.D. programs."

    RWH,

    You're neglecting to consider the fact that students from abroad will have no more incentive to pursue a Ph.D. program than Americans once given U.S. citizenship.
    The main reason foreign students want PhDs from US schools is that they are eligible for Green Cards after finishing their programs and so the PhD is a back-door to US immigration.

    For Americans, however, getting a PhD makes no financial sense. It only costs more time and money to complete the program, and then often limits ones job opportunities and salary once they earn their PhD. this is the reason why Americans don't bother getting PhDs in the STEM fields.

    Your statement above is backwards: Foreign students often do not come to the US because they want PhDs, instead they want PhDs as a way to immigrate to the US. If you grant them automatic citizenship after completing a bachelor's, many will no longer see any reason to spend the time and money on a Phd.

    Meanwhile, this phenomenon is part of what's causing the decline in Americans going into these fields- the widespread numbers of foreigners coming to America and going into the science and tech fields, whether on student visas or H1-B visas, is overcrowding the job market. When American students then see scientists and engineers having their salaries depressed, or facing an unstable job market, they choose to go into fields that will offer them higher salaries and more job security.

  • Acceding to Rob’s Wisdom
  • Posted by RWH on June 22, 2007 at 4:20pm EDT
  • I didn’t really expect to weigh in on this subject again, but as long as I’m here, I’d like to say five things.

    First, I magnanimously admit that Rob has identified the flaw in my (facetious) argument, but, fortunately, it’s one we can easily repair. Instead of giving the high school graduates from Delhi, Mumbai, Moscow, Kiev, and Winchester, Virginia automatic citizenship when they complete their bachelors’ degrees (with GPA > 3.5), we’ll give them the privilege of trading in their green cards at that point in time for the famous purple cards, thus enabling them to (1) stay in the U.S. just as long at they pursue a STEM Ph.D. and (2) continue, for at least the next twenty years, “the practice of either mathematics or science in the good ol’ U.S. of A.” I assume, Rob, that will keep them from abandoning any feigned interest in science or mathematics and making a bee-line for an opportunistic, matriculation in either law school or an MBA program ... the options of choice for our intellectually slovenly natural-born citizens.

    Second, I really appreciate Robert’s insistence on writing SMET instead of STEM. Indeed, STEM is a terrible acronym. The S and M components of SMET are many, many miles distant from the E and T components. So, I, too, am voting for SMET instead of STEM.

    Third, I do, in fact, believe the URLs in my first post captured, for the most part, the essence of the problem described by Matthew Goldstein. Furthermore, I chose those URL sites – i.e., at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville (Mathematics and Statistics) and the University of Connecticut (Operations and Information Management) by virtue of the fact that each faculty member’s profile was accompanied with a photograph. On the other hand, I could not disagree more vociferously with the reaction of SB (what a jerk! ... or was he being as facetious as I?) who asked, “Now here’s an idea for a good study -- where are all the good-looking PhD’s going? Because clearly, it ain’t in Math.”

    Frankly – and certainly discounting the photographs of the dorky men in those groups – I was impressed by the preponderance of quite beautiful female mathematicians and scientists displayed in my URLs.

    Fourth, getting back to the issue at hand, if I said anything at all that was important – and I think I did – it was that Matthew Goldstein was miles and miles away from either understanding or addressing a solutions to a problem of significant importance to mathematics and science (and even engineering and technology) education in the U.S.

    If we want real answers to important questions, his contribution is zilch!

    Finally (and fifth), I had hoped that someone would object to my claim that one could almost choose a university at random and find faculty profiles as “unusual” as the two I included in my earlier post. I chose those two because of the photographs. But click on the academic origins of the faculty listed in the following ... and use your own “random” mechanism to review others close to wherever you reside.

    UT – Pan American
    (Computer Science)
    http://www.cs.panam.edu/people

    UT – Pan American
    (Mathematics)
    http://www.math.panam.edu/faculty.html

    Cal State Long Beach
    (Electric Engineering)
    http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/ee/views/personnel/index.shtml

    Cal State Long Beach
    (Mathematics and Statistics)
    http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/faculty/Emp_Department_Cat.asp?which=3%20and%20DepartmentID=5

    University of North Dakota
    (Physics)
    http://www.und.edu/dept/physics/faculty.html

    University of Illinois – Chicago
    (Mechanical and Industrial Engineering)
    http://www.mie.uic.edu/faculty/list.htm

    University of Illinois – Chicago
    (Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science)
    http://www.math.uic.edu/people/

    Wayne State University
    (College of Engineering)
    http://www.eng.wayne.edu/page.php?id=140

    Georgia State University
    (Mathematics and Statistics)
    http://www.mathstat.gsu.edu/faculty_staff/tenured/index.html

    University of Michigan – Ann Arbor
    (Finance)
    http://www.bus.umich.edu/facultybios/facultylist.asp?Department=FI

    Villanova University
    (Mechanical Engineering)
    http://www.villanova.edu/engineering/departments/mechanical/facstaff/

    If that doesn’t knock you out of your quintessential socks, nothing will.

  • Another bad investment
  • Posted by Franchise Pick , Dean at Franchise U. on June 22, 2007 at 6:15pm EDT
  • Your input is invited. This article contends higher education, overall,is a poor investment:
    http://www.franchisepick.com/wise-up-skip-college-buy-a-franchise/
    Some good points. What do you think?

  • Posted by Undergrad math concentrator on June 23, 2007 at 6:40pm EDT
  • I agree that mentoring through middle and high school is a good idea. I don't see any reason to limit it to science. I also think that getting admitted to a PhD program when you are an undergrad is a little much
    unless the program is very exclusive and makes sure they are getting people who they think can complete it. Sort of like the bachelors degree/medical degree program they have for undergrads at Brooklyn College.