Many thanks to:
The Carnegie Foundation
Georgetown University
Michigan State University
Ohio State University
University of Illinois
University of Minnesota
University of Vermont
University of Wisconsin
George Walker
Chris Golde
Pat Hutchings
Association of
Neuroscience
Departments and
Programs (ANDP)
CID participants!
What is a catalyst for change?
CID: a catalyst for change
Q: How do we train our scholars? Can we
do it better?
Cultivate intellectual community
Consider purpose, consider goals
Create stewards of the discipline
Revisiting our CID work:
What are the mechanisms?
How to make them available?
Sustainability?
Agenda
1. Where are we now?
- Assessing the CID’s long-term impact
2. Where are we going?
- Ongoing innovations
3. How do we get there?
- breakout discussion
Revisiting the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate
Trials, successes and failures
M.E. Estevez, K.C. Dominick, P.R. Bergethon, T. Hoagland, M. Moss
Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology, Boston University Schools of Medicine
Background -2004
The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID)
was a multi-year research and action project
intended to support departments' efforts to
more purposefully structure their doctoral
programs. The initiative had three interacting
elements: a conceptual analysis of doctoral
education, the design of experiments in
departments, and dissemination of research
results. In 2004 during the initiation of the CID
project within the Department of Anatomy and
Neurobiology at Boston University School of
Medicine, a student survey was distributed to all
graduate students within the department as a
descriptive assessment of the state of the
department. Student opinions on topics
including curriculum, professional development,
career guidance, time to completion of degree,
advisor mentorship, and department climate
were measured. Based on the results of this
survey as well as participation in many
dialogues with partnering CID departments, five
focused changes were made to improve the
doctoral program in the Department of Anatomy
and Neurobiology. These changes included:
• revision of the qualifying exam process.
• formalization and refinement of the
Vesalius Program.
• development of a professional skills
course for first year graduate students.
• the development of a student
representative organization.
• the development of an alumni network.
Methods -2008
Now, in 2008 we have assessed the relative
short term results of these changes that were
inspired by our participation in the CID by
resurveying students. All members of the
current PhD program were invited to participate
in this survey thatMeasured satisfaction in a
variety of areas of PhD Student life.
Qualifying Exam Revision
The Qualifying Examination was changed from
a high stakes content-summative assessment
to an authentic assessment model using an
NRSA grant format with oral defense as the
evaluation procedure. Formative feedback is
provided to students during the QE process.
…and the survey says!!
Query: I found my qualifier exam a good tool for
assessing my progress/knowledge in the field.
2004
2008
Agree
27%
27%
Disagree
19%
9%
Professional Skills Course
The overall goal of this new course is to provide
a formal opportunity to address two topics that
had been left to the discretion of individual
graduate advisors. The first is to provide
students with training in some of the
professional skills. The second is to provide a
forum for discussions of research ethics in the
specific context of their work.
…and the survey says!!
Query: Students in the Department receive training in
professional ethics via coursework or seminars.
Agree
Disagree
2004
65%
23%
2008
82%
9%
.
Query: Students in the Department receive training in
professional skills such as public speaking, grant
writing, and publications.
Agree
Disagree
2004
31%
62%
2008
64%
27%
Student Representation and
Communication
Vesalius Program
Development
Rationale:
- Neuroscience is one of the most rapidly growing
disciplines, producing Ph.D.s faster than the
availability of jobs in the traditional academic medical
track. At the same time there is a sharp decline and
great need for individuals trained and able to teach in
the biomedical sciences, particularly in gross anatomy
and neuroanatomy.
In response, the Department, several years ago,
created the Vesalius Program, named after the 16 thcentury Belgian father of anatomy. The program is
designed to train graduate students to become
effective teachers in the biomedical sciences.
Problem:
The Vesalius Program needed more formal structure,
defined rubrics, and a concrete identity.
The Solution: see diagram below and related poster
nearby.
All Students:
Vesalius Students:
-serve as teaching
assistants 1 semester per
year in the medical and
dental school courses of
anatomy, histology, or
neurosciences.
-Attend annual T.A.
orientation*
-Receive mid- and endsemester written
evaluations to include in
teaching portfolio*
-Receive opportunities to
teach formal lectures in
the medical or dental
school courses.
In addition to the
regular requirements,
students on the
Vesalius track take
the following two
courses:
- GMS AN804:
“Teaching in the
Biomedical Sciences
I”, 2 credits, methods
and theory
- GMS AN805:
“Teaching in the
Biomedical Sciences
II - Practicum”, 4
credits, mentored
teaching practicum
experience*
…and the survey says!!
Query: Teaching experience available through the
department is adequate preparation for an
academic/teaching career.
Agree
Disagree
2004
69%
12%
2008
64%
9%
.
Student representation has a three formal structures:
• GMSSO Graduate Medical Sciences Student
Organization) – with representation at the Division
Level
• Departmental Omsbudsman for all graduate students
• Student representation (2) on the Graduate Advisory
Committee
…and the survey says!!
Query: There are adequate resources in the
Department in case of perceived abuse or
misconduct towards graduate students.
Agree
Disagree
2004
41%
26%
2008
82%
18%
.
Query: Students in the Department are treated with
respect.
Agree
Disagree
2004
69%
23%
2008
91%
9%
Query: I feel my voice is heard when I have concerns
or issues within the Department.
Agree
Disagree
2004
37%
56%
2008
64%
27%
Conclusions
The successful implementation and some change in
satisfaction indices to over 80% of the CID initiatives
suggests an enduring effect of the CID. We believe that
there may be value for continued longitudinal
characterization in the future.
Georgetown University
Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience
(IPN)
Following successes of a student-chaired CID team we developed a
Student Action Committee (SAC)
A new leadership committee that encourages development of professional identity
A continued venue for students to discuss gaps in the graduate program and launch
changes to address these issues
Focus on:
Graduate curriculum
Developed a summer curriculum for incoming 1st year students
SAC partnership with faculty-led IPN Curriculum Committee to optimize 1st year curriculum
Mentoring
Initiated discussions improving student-faculty mentoring relationship
Completion of a student-faculty mentoring questionnaire and retreat exercise to demonstrate how
this might be discussed between mentor-mentee
Intellectual Community
Created monthly Tea Time Discussions
Instituted a two-day annual retreat organized by students
Began a monthly Neuroethics forum
Professional development
Utilized Mentor/student teaching partnerships
Held inaugural Alumni Career Panel
The CID and the Neuroscience Program: the Formation of Scholars at Illinois
Claudia Lutz, Margaret Ferris, Patty Kandalepas, Molly Kent, Samit Shah, Samuel Beshers
Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Core
curriculum
?
?
Diverging
trajectories
Tracking the
Discipline
SfN
Night
Orientation
Guidelines
Setting
expectations
?
Annual
Reports
Program
Coherence
Intellectual
Community
Professional
Identity
Professional
Development
Program
Careers
Awards
Student
Involvement
A reflection on participation in the CID: Improvement in
graduate student training through increased student
involvement and ownership
Katharine Northcutt1, Deborah Soellner1, Jessica Poort1, Michael Schwartz2, and Cheryl Sisk1
1Neuroscience Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
2Biology Department, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Recent changes to Neuroscience Research Forum seminar course:
• organized by students instead of faculty
• includes wide variety of topics
• succeeding in graduate school
• career/life preparation
• other science issues (letters to congress, animal rights discussions)
Results of these changes:
• students feel more involved and have experience organizing
course
• students play active role in training experience
• students feel more prepared to make career decisions
www.neuroscience.msu.edu
GPN at the University of Minnesota
Successful CID initiatives
The Idealized Pathway
Standing GPN
Committee’s
DGS
Student Rep
Student
Board
Student
Body
Steering
Committee
Action
Revision of the oral and written
preliminary exams
Improvement of GPN faculty
membership policies
Formation of GPN student board
The Current Pathway
Student
Board
Student
Body
Student
Handbook
Website
DGS
Future Directions
Reinforce communication between
the student body and faculty
Create a network for student travel
presentations at nearby schools
Quantitative analysis of the Neuroscience Graduate Studies Program at The Ohio State
University: A follow-up on the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate
R. E. White, M. R. Detloff, E. L. Hoschouer, P. G. Popovich, D. M. McTigue, R. J. Nelson
Neuroscience Graduate Studies Program, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210
Highlight of Original CID Convening
•Two-day retreat held at Deer Creek Resort and Conference Center
•Goal: Reflection on depth and breath of the NGSP program
•Small group discussions with facilitators
•Opportunity for interaction between students, faculty, and program directors
•Allowed students to provide feedback on the program
The Current NGSP Program
•Both numbers and diversity of students and faculty have increased
•Laboratory training
•Core facilities with cutting-edge equipment
•Interdisciplinary centers
•Training in multiple model systems and research skills
•Students are able to participate in community outreach programs
•NGSP and the OSU Graduate School provide career training opportunities
•NGSP graduates hold both teaching and research-oriented post doctoral positions
Post-CID Update 11/2008
Jenny Dahlberg, M.S.
htttp://ntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu
Faculty, student and alumni surveys returned generally positive feedback.
Areas needing improvement were identified and addressed:
A) Resolved discrepancies between student/faculty perception
 New Senior Professional Development Course supplements certain topics
B) Improved student/advisor communication
 Student/faculty evaluations following rotations
 Annual student “report card” distributed to committee members
 Annual advisory committee meeting reports (including prelims &
dissertation)
C) Developed non-traditional career paths
 Neuroscience & Public Policy Dual Degree Program: 3 enrolled students
 Teaching Opportunities:
Teaching Fellows in Neuroscience Program (TFN), Delta Program, PEOPLE
 New (numerous) outreach events:
Brain Awareness Week, Science Alliance, Science Expeditions
http://www.uvm.edu/~neurogp
Department
(6 students)
University-wide
(30 students)
Exemplary feature = Grad Student Journal Club
Innovation = Basic Science of Neurological Disease
Training objectives
•To establish a core knowledge in all students of the areas of molecular, cellular, developmental,
systems and biobehavioral neuroscience.
•To train individuals who can understand, create and undertake hypothesis-based approaches to
research.
•To train individuals in a variety of techniques and approaches to studying the nervous system.
•To develop a keen sense of analytical thinking and logic in the evaluation of one's own work as well
as that of others.
•To create effective teachers and communicators of neuroscience.
•To foster independence in thinking, laboratory work, teaching, and communicating
Creating an Intellectual
Community Infrastructure
Facilitate dialogues
Within departments
Between institutions
Dialogu
e
KEEP
Listserv
Weblogs
Centralize institutional
knowledge
Maintain two-way access
Convenings
Big Ten CID Conference:
Training for Careers, Sustaining the Passion
Convening
Small group /Whole group discussions on specific questions
Keynote speakers: Diane Witt (NSF), Michael Zigmond (SSEP Pittsburgh)
Beer
Mechanism: participants responsible only for travel to UI
Participants: G’town, IN, IL, Louisville, MN, OSU, WI
Diane Witt
Her career path
What program
directors can’t do
The many faces of science
Michael Zigmond
Survival skills
Career planning
Know yourself
Find mentors
Graduate
Recruiting and
Training
A Passion for Neuroscience:
creating and sustaining
Foster achievement
Remove unnecessary
hurdles
Develop professional
identity
Build relationship to
community
Explore career prospects
George Walker
Small Group Discussion
Questions
1. What elements in your program
foster communication with other
departments/programs/institutions?
2. What elements hinder it?
Where are we going?
How do we get there?
Communication  innovation
Better scientists
Better science
Keep people talking
Obtain institutional support
More research