Last week I sent a university-wide email and referenced a web document (Graduate School – The Third Iteration) that described the third and last iteration of widespread discussions about the strengthening of graduate programs at Georgetown. The email sought reactions to the plan from the faculty and students now through the end of May, when final recommendations would be constructed.
It described a Graduate School that would become the incubator and home for interdisciplinary graduate programs and the key administrative unit for support of graduate students. It described a more proactive protocol of Graduate School review of the quality and sustainability of graduate programs, based on an agreed set of program performance metrics. It described the reform of allocation of graduate fellowships to programs and the establishment of new university-wide competition for graduate fellowships. It described a new budget model to be introduced over the next few years that would fund the graduate school activities through graduate tuition payments and alter the support for graduate student teaching assistants from graduate school funds to school funds used to support the undergraduate courses in which teaching assistants are used. These changes addressed the goals of 1) improving the quality of graduate programs, 2) increasing the attractiveness of Georgetown among the best graduate students, and 3) fostering new interdisciplinary programs.
The “Iteration 3 plan” moved the research administrative functions of the Graduate School to the new Vice-Provost for Research. Similarly, that vice-provost would oversee the Institute for Soft Matter and Metrology, the Georgetown University Press, and the Center for Population and Health. The research administrative functions would be governed by a faculty-led executive committee, to assure that the services remain responsive to those customers. These changes addressed the goal of increasing the research and scholarship among faculty.
The Culture, Communication, and Technology program, the Global Health program, and the Global Infectious Disease program remained under the Graduate School.
Finally, the new vice-provost for education will be given the goals of 1) aligning undergraduate and graduate student activities will be give to the new vice-prost for education and 2) integrating research experiences into the educational activities of both graduate and undergraduates.
I’ve gotten a few comments on the Iteration 3 Plan via email so far:
- Some are worried that an interim dean for 2013-2014, with the normal delays of startup with a new permanent dean in 2014-2015, may delay real reforms.
On this score, we can note that the new structure for research administration will be introduced as soon as the vice-provost for research is in place. The budget model change will begin next year, staged over years to avoid disruptions. We will launch the university fellowships process next year. - Some are worried that very productive service relationships between faculty and current research administrators will be ruined with such changes.
We envision no such changes.
- Some are concerned that the graduate fellowship problem is more complicated than anticipated by the Iteration 3 plan. Another noted that the real need is for summer support for students.
This undoubtedly requires ongoing attention of the provost, vice-provost for education, and the relevant deans.
- Another comment raised concerns about establishing performance metrics that reflect differences among fields. Similarly, another urge attention to making the selection of university-fellowship winners a fair one.
The comment suggested input from specific fields to reflect variation in use of GRE’s as quality measures, time to degree differences across fields inherent in the educational anatomy of a field, etc. It suggested adding research/scholarship productivity of the program’s faculty. These sound like good ideas.
- One writer urged that we review support for teaching assistants, making sure that TA support and duties are aligned.
This seems like a nice addition to the review of how teaching assistants are paid. - There was some misunderstanding about the goal of integrating research and education in the document, a goal that will be a partnership of the vice-provost for education and vice-provost for research.
The writer forwarded the viewpoint, which I share deeply, that research and education are synergistic not conflictual. This integration will seek out opportunities to build teams of undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty working together to learn through active research/scholarship. It will seek to build course structures and environments where that teaming is fostered.
Other comments are basically supportive, qualified only by concern about the uncertainty involving any change to the status quo. It’s clear that it’s easier for all of us to envision how things work now than how they’ll work in the future. By full involvement of faculty in all the changes, I’m hopeful that we’ll find the best course of action when we hit unanticipated implementation issues. Keep the input coming, sending emails to PROVOST@GEORGETOWN.EDU.