April 25, 2005
Report of the IGERT Advisory Committee
January 13 and 14, 2005
Introductory Remarks
The Advisory Committee for the Louisiana State University (LSU) IGERT Program met
in Baton Rouge, LA on January 13 and 14, 2005. This report summarizes the
observations and recommendations of the Committee.
National Science Foundation funding for the LSU IGERT (“Teaching Craft for
Macromolecular Creativity”) began in 2000 and continues (with a no-cost extension) ,
until June 30, 2006. Consequently this review took place as the program was entering its
final phase, with several student participants nearing completion of their work, and the
focus of the review is more retrospective than prospective. The review also took place in
the context of discussions about a proposal for a new IGERT program, one that would
retain some of the elements of the current program, but which would have a different
technical focus. Some of the observations and suggestions noted below may be helpful to
the faculty group working on this new proposal.
The Advisory Committee recognizes and acknowledges the very major contributions to
this program by the faculty participants. The contributions by Professor Paul Russo have
been particularly noteworthy and, though many of the comments below emphasize
program short comings, we believe that overall, the program has been very successful.
We also acknowledge the important administrative support of the program by Dr.
Florence Schmitt.
The cadre of student participants now nearing the completion of their graduate work are
clearly performing at a high level technically and are demonstrating both the scientific
and intellectual maturity expected for soon-to-be PhDs. Their technical presentations and
posters are first-class, they are proud of their accomplishments and the fact that they have
participated in and influenced the direction of the program, and they feel enriched by the
program. Because of their unique experience as IGERT participants, the Advisory
Committee believes they will be very attractive candidates for career positions, especially
those in industry and government.
Program Presentation
Details on the program were presented in a number of ways. Paul Russo made two
formal presentations to the Committee, the first on Thursday evening which compared
LSU, a “not in the top 30 in science research spending” university with the University of
Wisconsin, ranked 4th nationwide in science research spending. Russo’s conclusion, and
the stated LSU policy, is that LSU cannot catch up in all areas with the top science
research universities but, rather, must focus on developing to national prominence
selected key departments or areas. This presentation also reviewed the basics of the LSU
“Teaching Craft” IGERT program. Russo’s second presentation on Friday morning
covered the complexities of operating an IGERT, publications based on LSU IGERT
research, new funding at LSU based on IGERT activity, and the variety of “problems and
solutions” that IGERT graduate student participants and faculty have experienced over
the past three years.
Later in the morning Advisory Committee members met in small groups with faculty
participants and university administrators to hear their perspectives of the program, and
then met one-on-one with graduate student participants. In addition, a presentation was
made to the entire Committee by Kerry Dooley, who is leading the group preparing a new
proposal for a bio-based IGERT at LSU.
On Friday afternoon all of the IGERT participants had an opportunity to briefly discuss
their backgrounds and projects (“fly-bys”), short slide presentations were made by two
student research teams, and most of the student participants displayed and discussed
posters describing their research. The Advisory Committee, as a group, then met with
the student participants (as a group), for discussion of the program and later, in the
absence of the students, met with a group of faculty advisors of the current IGERT
program and of the proposed new program. Finally, a wrap-up discussion was held for
the Advisory Committee, with Paul Russo, Kerry Dooley, and Gene Kennedy, the latter
of whom has served as the internal evaluator of the program.
Learnings from Meetings with IGERT Graduate Student Participants
Organization and Communication
Considerable student discussion focused on the issues of program organization and
communication. Many students expressed the opinion that the program’s organizational
structure has not been clear, and still is not clear. They indicated that program details
have been too ambiguous and communication of goals, responsibilities and authority
need improvement. They complained that the required IGERT courses were not well
organized, though they indicated that course work has now improved. The salary
“gapping” issue came as a big surprise to most participants and many were disappointed
to learn about this program restriction. In spite of these concerns, students agreed that
throughout the program their input had been heard and that changes were made based
upon that input. Moreover, some felt that the lack of organization gave them an
opportunity to take initiative to improve the situation. The students suggested that in the
future in-coming IGERT participants have a required half-day orientation session to learn
about the goals, procedures and practices of the program.
Mini-Grants
IGERT participants were unanimous in their enthusiasm for the Mini-grant Program.
Though they complained some about the “red tape” required in placing of orders, they
spoke very positively about the opportunity to buy equipment and other items for
research, and about the opportunity to travel with mini-grant support. Several students
indicated that the mini-grants gave them a sense of independence and contributed to their
sense of academic freedom in the IGERT program.
The process of learning how to conceive and write successful proposals could be
enhanced if IGERT participants also were part of the review process for mini-grants
written by their IGERT peers. The overall review process could mimic the NSF
procedure for single-investigator grants, where each proposal is sent to a few IGERT
students for anonymous reviews. The primary purpose would not be to help the PI make
decisions about approval/disapproval of a specific mini-grant application (although
sometimes that might be the case), but instead to expose IGERT students to different
styles of presentation, with the expectation that the exposure would be beneficial to them
in developing their own successful style.
Student-led Components
The student-led components of the program (Service Committee, Career Committee,
Social Committee) were viewed very positively, though not all students had participated
in these activities. Some concern was expressed that although students had responsibility
for these activities, they had no authority for spending resources.
Interdisciplinary Activity
Most participants were enthusiastic about the interdisciplinary activity in the IGERT
program. They liked the broadness of the program, the opportunity to choose research
topics and collaborate with teammates. They also liked the ability to use facilities in
several departments. Some students indicated they would have liked more on “teaching
craft.”
Predocs
To date, only a few students have actually had a predoc experience, but all participants
liked the idea. The Advisory Committee is very supportive of this program component
and urges that many more IGERTians have this experience.
Positive Cache
Many students spoke of their pride in what has been accomplished in the IGERT Program
and in being a member of the group. They enjoyed the special status of being an
IGERTian and, as they near the end of the experience, they feel well-rounded and wellprepared for the next step in their careers.
Liked Best/Liked Least
The evaluation survey provided no surprises. The most frequent “liked best” items were:
 Financial rewards and opportunities for travel
 Interdisciplinary experiences
while the most frequent “liked least” items were




Lack of organization
Uncertainty about goals and expectations
Insufficient interactions between faculty and students
Too frequent seminars and meetings
(note the possible inconsistency between these latter two points)
Learnings from Meetings with Faculty Participants
Student Quality
Faculty participants indicated that recruiting of students for the IGERT program has been
a problem. To date, student participants have been, with only a few exceptions, from the
Southeast U.S., and in many cases have been from geographically local colleges and
universities. The perception of the faculty is that there has not been a critical mass of
high quality students in the program, though they realize that the NSF restriction that
IGERT funding be provided only to U.S. citizens prevents financial participation by
many of the strongest, non-citizen graduate students at LSU. However, opportunities to
include strong non-IGERT students as “IGERT-affiliates” in some aspects of the program
should be considered.
The Advisory Committee believes that a non-traditional graduate program, like IGERT,
requires special marketing efforts and encourages faculty to be active in recruiting
students from across the country to come to LSU for the program. The Committee also
believes that starting students in the IGERT program in their second year of graduate
school (rather than their first) will lead to higher retention and student success. Finally,
older IGERT students can be encouraged to serve as mentors to beginning participants,
and also can be effective “marketers” of the program to students who have not yet signed
on as participants.
Interdisciplinary Work
Faculty seemed generally positive about interdisciplinary work but indicated that this is a
challenging task and some expressed the view that interdisciplinary work is being pushed
too hard by NSF. This is certainly true, but non-academic employers, who hire the vast
majority of new science PhD graduates, are behind this push and students who graduate
with interdisciplinary backgrounds will likely be more in demand than their peers who do
not have such experience. Clearly however, the question of interdisciplinarity is an
important one for success of the program and student participants and faculty participants
do not seem to be united on this issue. At least two of the student participants described
situations where attempts at crossing disciplinary borders did not work for them, one
indicating that he “worked for Professor X in the morning and for Professor Y in the
afternoon.” In addition, the Advisory Committee was troubled by the fact that some
faculty and administrators appeared to cheer the funding of this IGERT, yet when the
time came for them to support projects that were not entirely their own, they were reticent
to do so.
Cohort Teaching/Learning
Faculty felt very positive about such activity by students and encouraged more such
activity.
Mini-grants
Faculty also were very positive about mini-grants, viewing them as both good learning
experiences for students (writing a proposal) and as a financial incentive.
Infrastructure/Administrative Issues
Some faculty felt that the LSU administration has not been as supportive as it could have
been with the IGERT Program. Several administrative issues arose in recent years that
required much time and effort from the faculty participants to resolve, and more
flexibility on the part of the university administration would have brought quicker
resolution. Some faculty felt that the administration has not recognized the special effort
required by the participating faculty to make the IGERT Program work, and has not
given them “credit” for their participation. Some were concerned that the special
teaching demands of the IGERT Program were not taken into consideration, and there
was also the suggestion that special travel funds be made available to faculty who travel
with the mini-grant supported IGERT participants. Finally, some suggested that a
college-wide office should be established to help obtain funding for, and to assist with the
mechanics of such non-conventional programs.
Making IGERT Self-sustaining
Considerable discussion took place on how to make the “best features” of the IGERT
Program self-sustaining. It was generally agreed that only modest amounts of funding
would be required to support interdisciplinary work, mini-grants and student-led
components, the three most highly-rated components of the program. The Advisory
Committee recommends that the LSU Development Office seeks funding from Louisiana
companies to support the continuation of these activities.
Members of the Advisory Committee
Dr. Wayne Adams, Rice University
Dr. Eric Amis, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dr. Daniel Dekee, Tulane University
Dr. Mark DeLong, GE Plastics
Dr. Lawrence Friedman, Bayer Material Science
Dr. Michael Mackay, Michigan State University
Dr. Lon Mathias, University of Southern Mississippi
Dr. Wayne Mattice, University of Akron
Dr. Richard Stein, University of Massachusetts
Appendix
Comments on Test and Control by Wayne L. Mattice
January 19, 2005
The evaluation of the performance of the IGERT Program would benefit from use of the
built-in control group provided by the non-IGERT graduate students in the same
departments. In this evaluation, the control group should be adjusted so that it includes
only US graduate students, because only US students are in the IGERT. The control
group should be weighted so that it mimics the distribution of the IGERT students with
regard to their home departments and the dates on which they initially enrolled in the
graduate programs at LSU. Comparison of the IGERT students with the control group
could provide quantitative results relevant to answers to the following important
questions:

Does the IGERT program speed up, or delay, the clearing of important hurdles in
the graduate program? For example, how do the IGERT and non-IGERT students
compare in the number of semesters required for successful completion of the
General Examination? If a significant difference is seen, is it an expected, or
desired, result?

Does the IGERT program facilitate or deter the successful completion of research
that merits publication as full articles in the refereed literature? Compare the
average value of the ratio (refereed publication)/(student) for the IGERT students
and the control group. Perhaps one should also look at the standard deviation (i.e.,
the breadth of the distribution), because some of the written information made
available to the panel suggests that a few IGERT groups have been very
productive, but a few other IGERT groups have been decidedly unproductive. Is
that broad distribution a unique characteristic of the IGERT, or is it simply a
reflection of the overall atmosphere at LSU?

How strongly does the IGERT program facilitate collaborative research efforts?
Similar to the immediately previous bullet, but now only count publications that
have two or more senior scientists as coauthors, i. e., (refereed publications with 2
or more senior coauthors)/(student). If the IGERT is performing as advertised,
this ratio should have a larger value for the IGERT group than for the control
group. Is that difference observed?