Initiative for Optimal Doctoral Completion

How are UGA programs performing with respect to

doctoral completion figures?

All of this leads to the question:

How are UGA programs performing?

We examined the performance of one cohort: the 474 doctoral students who entered programs between Fall of 1998 and Summer of 1999.

 

Completion for All Doctoral Programs

1998-1999 & 1999-2000

COHORT

1999-20001998-1999

Cou

nt

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

STATUS

Withdraw

Currently Enrolled

Graduated

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Completion Status for All Doctoral Programs

1998-1999 Cohort (N=475)

20%

40%

80%

100%

60%

N=144

N=18

N=313

Withdrew

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

30%

6%

64%

30%3%

68%

34%

6%60%

25%

1%

74%

57%43%

Completion Status by Broad Field

1998-1999 (N=475)

%

BRDFIELD

Social Sciences

Physical Sciences

Life Sciences

Humanities

Mea

n

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

WITHDREW

ENROLLED

GRADUATE

33513138

64

45

6562

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Time to Degree for All Programs 1998-1999 Cohort

(Graduates Only N=313)

TTD

9.008.50

8.007.50

7.006.50

6.005.50

5.004.50

4.003.50

3.002.50

2.00

50

40

30

20

10

0

Std. Dev = 1.39

Mean = 4.79

N = 355.00

Median=4.67

# Students

Years

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Time To Degree by Broad Field1998-1999 Cohort

(N=313)Broad Field Median Mean SDHumanities 4.33 4.67 1.32Life Sciences 4.33 4.52 1.35Math&Physical Sci 4.02 4.42 1.36Social Sciences 4.67 4.97 1.39All Programs 4.67 4.79 1.39

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Time to Withdraw for All Programs1998-1999 Cohort

(Non-completers Only. N=144)

TTW

7.507.00

6.506.00

5.505.00

4.504.00

3.503.00

2.502.00

1.501.00

.50

50

40

30

20

10

0

Std. Dev = 1.68

Mean = 2.07

N = 166.00

Median=1.67

# Students

Years

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Time To Withdraw by Broad Field1998-1999 Cohort

(N=144)Discipline Mean SD MedianHumanities 2.34 1.91 1.67Life Sciences 1.95 1.56 1.67Mathematics 1.25 0.46 1.33Physical Sciences 1.35 1.34 1.00Social Sciences 2.23 1.61 2.00Total 2.07 1.68 1.67

How Does UGA Compare to Other Universities?

Broad Field Percent CompletionUGA

1998-1999CGS

National 1992-1995

Duke1991-1995

Humanities 62 49 61Life Sciences 65 63 73Math and Physical Sciences

45 55 60

Social Sciences 64 56 50ALL PROGRAMS

66 57 64

What the UGA Graduate School will do during the Initiative

• Create Data Systems to help faculty understand the performance of their programs.

• Provide faculty members with Web-based Information Resources to foster self-study and program improvement.

• Provide Direct Support to those programs most in need of improvement.

Creating Data SystemsTwo things have become clear during our preliminary work:

1. In general, most faculty members do not know how well their programs are performing with respect to doctoral completion.

2. In general, programs do not keep track of reasons for non-completion.

Three Data Activities• Drillable Data Set for faculty investigation and

program self assessment

• Non-Completion Reasons systematically collected, tabulated, and shared with programs

• Follow-up questionnaire data collected from completers and non-completers

Drillable Database• The Graduate School worked with the Office of

Institutional Research to construct a data base that faculty could use to understand their program performance.

• Starting this week, that data base is available to faculty to study patterns in their own programs and compare them with other university programs.

Completion Figures for All Programs

Completion Figures for One High Performing

Program

Completion Figures for One Low Performing

Program

The Need for Interpretive Benchmarks

No one involved in higher education believes that 100% of admitted students should graduate.

But how does a program determine whether or not it is performing well?

– By comparing itself with other programs in the nation and

– By comparing itself with other programs at UGA.

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Benchmark Graduation (%)Top 1/5 >92.024/5 70.67-92.023/5 57.20-70.662/5 43.10-57.10Bottom 1/5 <43.20

Interpretive Benchmarks: Graduation1998-1999 Cohort

(N=75 Programs)

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Benchmark Range of TTD (Years)Top 1/5 <3.674/5 3.67-4.323/5 4.33-4.992/5 5-5.99Bottom 1/5 >5.99

Interpretive Benchmarks: Time to Degree

1998-1999 Cohort(N=75 Programs)

 

30%

4%

33%

66%

7%

60%

Interpretive Benchmarks: Time to Withdraw

1998-1999 Cohort(N=75 Programs)Benchmark Range of TTW (Years)

Top 1/5 <0.674/5 0.67-1.323/5 1.33-1.992/5 2-3.52Bottom 1/5 >3.53

Establishing Benchmarks

This Spring, the Graduate School will convene an advisory committee on benchmarks.

We would welcome volunteers with expertise to help us create quality benchmarks that are: – technically defensible and– of maximum acceptability to the graduate

faculty.

Non-Completion Reasons• The Graduate School will distribute a “Non-

completer List” to all Graduate Coordinators for their respective doctoral programs.

• Graduate Coordinators will be asked to visit a web site to complete a very brief report stating the reason for each non-completion.

Follow-up Student Questionnaires

• The questionnaires will collect data that will help us better understand doctoral completion and non-completion.

• Separate web-based surveys will be conducted for

completers and non-completers twice a year.

• Results will be shared with faculty. Pilot administration will begin this Spring.

Information Activities Through a website and email, information will be

provided to all members of the graduate faculty to enable them to:

– Understand the issues surrounding the use of doctoral completion figures as an indicator of program quality

– Engage in program level self-study and program improvement

Direct Support to Programs

For programs who recognize the need to improve their doctoral completion figures, the Graduate School will work collaboratively with faculty to develop and carry out a plan of action.

Actions YOU can take

After this session, go back and investigate your own program’s performance using the drillable database.

Share the data with your colleagues and discuss at upcoming faculty meetings.

Framework for Action

• At the Graduate School, we developed a Framework for Action that sets forth conditions that are likely to lead to high doctoral completion. (See green handout.)

• We urge you to use the framework to assess your program with respect to the four conditions in the framework.

Does Your Program Fulfill the Four Conditions in the Framework?

Condition #1: The right people apply for doctoral study.

Do you have a high quality website?

Do you provide potential applicants with realistic information about academic demands, funding, and time to completion?

Condition #2: The right applicants are admitted as doctoral students.

Does the admissions process rely on faculty judgment and insight about an applicant’s likelihood of success?

Or is it largely a clerical task?

Assessing your Program

Does Your Program Fulfill the Four Conditions in the Framework?

Condition #3: Students and faculty form productive working relationships.

How are students matched with major professors? Is there a process to remedy a bad match?

How do new professors learn to mentor doctoral students?

Condition #4: Students experience social support from fellow students.

Do students have the opportunity to interact professionally (seminars, mini-conferences)?

Do students have a location where they can interact socially (lunchroom, lounge, etc.)?

 

Assessing Your Program

If the statistics and your own inquiries point to a need for improvement . . .

• Review the four strategy sheets (handouts) to see ideas for improving your program.

• Visit our website to see strategies that other programs have used in the past.

• Contact the graduate school to ask for our help.

Program Improvement

Questions, Comments and Concerns?