6

A Call for Systemic Change

The committee envisions a 21st-century U.S. graduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education system that builds on the substantial strengths of the current system but better meets the evolving needs of its students, the scientific enterprise, and the nation. That vision is outlined in the next section. Achieving it will require a clear commitment and changes in both policies and practices throughout the system, as well as focused actions by every stakeholder.

Achieving what the committee sees as an ideal, modern graduate STEM education will require substantial cultural change throughout the system. As discussed throughout this report, the system must become more student-centric and must increase the value it places on best practices of mentorship and advising. The value placed on educating students at the master’s level must be increased. The mind-set that seems to be most valued for preparing students at the Ph.D. level for academic research careers must be readjusted to recognize that some of the best students will not pursue academic research but will enter careers in other sectors, such as industry or government.

These cultural changes will come about only if there are changes in the incentive system that appears to drive so much of academia. The current system is heavily weighted toward rewarding faculty for research output in the form of publications and the number of future scientists produced. It must be realigned to increase the relative rewards for effective teaching, mentoring, and advising. Unless faculty behavior can be changed—and changing the incentive system is critical in that regard—the system will not change.

The committee recognizes that these cultural changes will inevitably have costs associated with them but did not attempt to estimate what they might be,

since that was not within the committee’s statement of task. However, despite any costs, the changes advocated in this report must be achieved. Without such a unified commitment to continue the legacy of excellence in the system, the United States may not unlock the full potential of discovery to power its economy, protect its national interests, and lead the world in addressing the grand challenges of the 21st century.

To make clear the part each stakeholder must play to achieve its vision, the committee lists in this chapter the actions recommended in this report for each participant in the system: state and federal government agencies; private foundations and other nongovernmental organizations; institutions of higher education; faculty; employers in industry, government, and other organizations; professional societies; and students themselves, who are to be the focus of the graduate education system of the future.

AN IDEAL GRADUATE STEM EDUCATION

Implementing the recommendations in this report would produce a U.S. graduate STEM education system that enables graduate students of all backgrounds to meet the highest standards of excellence in 21st-century STEM fields, and to use their knowledge and sophistication across the full range of occupations essential to address global societal needs using science- and technology-informed decision making. These recommendations build on the current strengths of the graduate STEM enterprise, urging careful attention to core educational elements and learning objectives—one set for the master’s degree and another for the Ph.D.—that are common across all STEM fields. However, many of the recommendations in this report are also intended to stimulate review and revision of incentive and reward policies, teaching and mentoring practices, and curricular offerings. They may also lead to the expansion of career exploration mechanisms and transparency about trainee outcomes that can inform career paths for students.

Importantly, this report also calls for a shift from the current system that focuses primarily on the needs of institutions of higher education and those of the research enterprise itself to one which is student centered, placing greater emphasis and focus on graduate students as individuals with diverse needs and challenges. An ideal, student-centered STEM graduate education system would include several attributes that are currently lacking in many academic institutions. In an ideal STEM graduate education system:

• Prospective graduate students would be able to select their graduate program aided by fully transparent, easily accessible data about costs incurred and viable career pathways and successes of previous students, at the level of the institution and its departments.
• Students would acquire broad technical literacy coupled with deep specialization in an area of interest. They would acquire the core competen-

• cies outlined in Chapters 3 and 4. As they acquire this knowledge base, students would have multiple opportunities to understand better and to learn to consider ethical issues associated with their work, as well as the broader implications of their work for society.

• Students from all backgrounds would fully participate and achieve their greatest potential during their educational experience through transparent institutional action to enhance diversity and promote inclusive and equitable learning environments.
• Students would encounter a variety of points of view about the nature, scope, and substance of the scientific enterprise and about the relationships among science, engineering, and society, and they would be encouraged to understand and grapple with differences of opinion, experiences, and ideas as part of their graduate education and training.
• Students would have opportunities to communicate the results of their work and to understand the broader impacts of their research. This includes the ability to present their work and have exposure to audiences outside of their department, ranging from peers in other departments to the broader scientific community and nontechnical audiences. Students would also understand and learn to consider ethical and cultural issues surrounding their work, as well as the broader needs of society.
• Students would be encouraged to create their own project-based learning opportunities—ideally as a member of a team—as a means of developing transferable professional skills such as communication, collaboration, management, and entrepreneurship. Experiences where students “learn by doing,” rather than simply learn by lecturing and coursework, would be the norm.
• Students would be encouraged and given time, resources, and space to explore diverse career options, perhaps through courses, seminars, internships, and other kinds of real-life experiences. While some institutions have launched such programs, they should become universal, albeit sensitive to the specific contexts of individual institutions. For example, students clearly interested in future faculty positions might have the opportunity to teach undergraduates from a variety of institutions, from community colleges to research-based universities. Those students wishing to compete for research-intensive university positions would be advised about appropriate postdoctoral positions and the track records of those universities and/or specific faculty members in placing such individuals in faculty positions. Students with potential interests in nonacademic careers would be provided with opportunities to attend workshops and seminars about jobs in a wide range of industries, nonprofit organizations, and government, together with opportunities for placements in nonacademic job settings. Internships with corporations, government agencies, or nonprofit employers during summer months or the school year would become

• the norm rather than the exception for graduate students seeking careers outside of academia. Institutions would seek corporate and foundation funding to support such learning experiences.

• Graduate programs and departments would develop more efficient channels for students to communicate with the administration and faculty regarding processes and decisions within the department and the graduate school that affect graduate student education. These channels would facilitate communication in both directions, offering students mechanisms to provide feedback and giving administrators and faculty a better understanding of the student perspectives on issues important to them.
• Graduate programs would develop course offerings and other tools to enable student career exploration and to expose students to career options. Faculty advisors would encourage students to explore career options broadly and would not stigmatize those who favor careers outside of academia.
• Institutions would help students identify advisors and mentors who can best support their academic and career development.
• Institutions would provide faculty with training, resources, and time both to improve their own skills as mentors and to provide for quality mentoring and advising to the graduate students they supervise directly, as well as other students in their departments or from across the institution, as appropriate. Training would provide the mentors with strategies for navigating relationships in which goals and identities (cultural or demographic differences, career aspirations) may differ between mentor and mentee, and mentoring would center on the goals set jointly by the student and mentors and provide strategies for navigating relationships in which goals may differ between supervisor and student. The training would consider the various challenges faculty face at various stages of their own careers. For example, early career faculty who are in the process of establishing themselves in a department with a research group or laboratory may require a primer on best practices for becoming a mentor and advisor. Long-tenured faculty might benefit from periodic refreshers to explore new skills or techniques in supporting student success. Institutions would provide opportunities for students to seek and develop multiple separate mentoring and advising relationships, including those that are interdisciplinary and cross departments. Institutions would also reward faculty for their accomplishments as mentors and advisors.

FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Federal and state governments provide a substantial fraction of the funding for the U.S. scientific enterprise and its graduate STEM education system. For that reason, their funding policies have dramatic effects on the behavior of

grantees. In fact, diverse stakeholders in a variety of settings made the argument to the committee that government policies in many ways are responsible for the incentives that drive so much institutional and faculty behavior. Thus, for the system changes recommended in this report to come about, funding policies issued by federal and state government agencies must be aligned with the goals articulated here.

• Federal and state funding agencies should require institutions that receive support for graduate education to develop policies that require data collection on a number of metrics, including but not limited to demographics, funding mechanisms, and career outcomes, on current students and alumni at regular intervals for 15 years after graduation. Institutions should make these data available to qualify for traineeships, fellowships, and research assistantships.
• Federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, and state agencies that fund graduate STEM education should issue calls for proposals to better understand the graduate education system and outcomes of various interventions and policies, including but not limited to: the effect of different funding mechanisms on outcomes for doctoral students; studies on career outcomes related to master’s students; the ways to integrate master’s students into the STEM workforce and research and development ecosystem; the effect of expanding eligibility of international students to be supported on federal fellowships and training grants; and the effect of different models of graduate education on knowledge, competencies, mind-sets, and career outcomes.
• Federal and state funding agencies should align their policies and award criteria to ensure that students in the programs they support experience the kind of graduate education outlined in this report and achieve the scientific and professional competencies articulated here, whether they are on training or research grant mechanisms.
• Federal and state agencies should embed diversity and inclusion metrics in their funding criteria. They should also adjust their grant award policies and funding criteria to include policies that incentivize diversity, equity, and inclusion, and they should include accountability measures through reporting mechanisms.
• Federal and state funding agencies that support or conduct education research should support studies on how different STEM disciplines can integrate the changing scientific enterprise into graduate education programs and curricula.
• Federal and state agencies that support graduate education should require STEM doctoral students to create and update annually individual development plans in consultation with faculty advisors to map educational goals, career exploration, and professional development.

PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS AND OTHER NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

In addition to the government funding agencies, private funding organizations play a pivotal role in promoting innovation and research in graduate STEM education, from supporting research directly to funding internships and fellowships, curriculum development, and other programs.

• Private funders of graduate STEM education should issue calls for proposals to better understand the graduate education system and outcomes of various interventions and policies, including but not limited to the effect of different funding mechanisms on outcomes for doctoral students; the effect of expanding eligibility of international students to be supported on federal fellowships and training grants; and the effect of different models of graduate education on knowledge, competencies, mind-sets, and career outcomes.
• Nongovernmental organizations that rate institutions should embed diversity and inclusion metrics in their criteria.
• Private funders of graduate education should adjust their grant award policies and funding criteria to include policies that incentivize diversity, equity, and inclusion and include accountability measures through reporting mechanisms.
• Private foundations that support or conduct education research should support studies on how different STEM disciplines can integrate the changing scientific enterprise into graduate education programs and curricula.
• Nongovernmental organizations should convene and lead discussions among stakeholders and disseminate innovative models, practices, and approaches in graduate STEM education.
• Private foundations that support graduate education should require STEM doctoral students to create and to update annually individual development plans in consultation with faculty advisors to map educational goals, career exploration, and professional development.

INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Many colleges and universities have programs and existing commitments that align with the recommendations made in this report, but the continued excellence of the U.S. graduate STEM education system hinges upon the collective movement of all departments, programs, and institutions. The ways in which institutions reward faculty, collect data, and engage with students are central tenets of graduate STEM education. This report acknowledges the work many institutions have already taken to address the actions below. Not until all institutions act in this way, however, will there be a system of graduate education that ensures that all students have the support and educational experiences needed to

fully develop their capacities for research, collaboration, and critical thinking and for success in their STEM careers. Going forward, institutions should

• Verify that every graduate program they offer provides for the master’s and Ph.D. core competencies outlined in this report and that students demonstrate they have achieved them before receiving their degrees.
• Increase priority for and reward faculty that demonstrate high-quality teaching and inclusive mentoring practices for all graduate students based on the results of restructured evaluations.
• Require faculty and postdoctoral researchers, who have extensive contact with graduate students, to undergo training, provided by those institutions, to learn evidence-based and inclusive teaching and mentoring practices.
• Integrate professional development opportunities, including relevant course offerings and internships, into graduate curriculum design.
• Develop a uniform, scalable, and sustainable model for data collection that can operate beyond the period of extramural funding. The data collection should occur on a regular basis and follow standard definitions that correspond with national STEM education and workforce surveys to help inform benchmarking or higher education research. Key data elements to be collected include master’s degree and Ph.D. completion rates, time to degree, and career outcomes and paths of their graduates spanning 15 years, disaggregated to the extent possible by demographics, including gender, race and ethnicity, and visa status.
• Develop comprehensive strategies that use evidence-based models and programs and include measures to evaluate outcomes to ensure a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment.
• Administer periodic cultural climate surveys of graduate students at the departmental level to assess their well-being in the aggregate and make adjustments when problems are identified.
• Take extra steps to make available and advertise effective mental health services, such as those already available to veterans and most undergraduate students, at no-cost to graduate students.
• Establish criteria and update characteristics of the doctoral research project and dissertation preparation and format, in collaboration with professional societies and higher education associations.
• Develop comprehensive strategies for recruiting and retaining faculty and mentors from demographic groups historically underrepresented in academia.

GRADUATE SCHOOLS, DEPARTMENTS, AND PROGRAMS

The department is the primary organizational unit on campus. It serves as the primary affiliation for most faculty and students, serving as a key connection

to a researcher’s identity within his or her field of research. Within the broader academic institutions, graduate schools work with the departments to help address governance and policy issues, to support faculty and students with concerns that rise above the level of the department, and to leverage resources to provide services at scale. These two levels of a university represent key drivers of change within an institution. To achieve the kind of STEM graduate education system outlined in this report, graduate programs should

• Facilitate mentor relationship between the graduate student and the primary research advisors and create opportunities for students to develop additional mentor or advisor relationships with faculty both within and outside of their home department.
• Provide extra-departmental mentoring and support programs and encourage doctoral students to involve dissertation committees more extensively in advising and mentoring.
• Scrutinize their curricula and program requirements for features that lie outside of the core competencies and learning objectives and that may be adding time to degree without providing value to Ph.D. students, such as a first-author publication requirement, and eliminate those features or requirements.
• Review and modify curricula, dissertation requirements, and capstone projects to ensure timeliness and alignment with the ways relevant work is conducted on a periodic basis, and to provide students with opportunities to work in teams that promote multidisciplinary learning.
• Collect and make widely available information about master’s degree and Ph.D. completion rates, time to degree, and career outcomes and paths of their graduates spanning 15 years, disaggregated to the extent possible by demographics, including gender, race and ethnicity, and visa status.
• Post publicly how their programs reflect the core competencies for master’s and doctoral students, including the milestones and metrics they use in evaluation and assessment.
• Engage in discussions with professional societies, nonprofit organizations, employers, and other stakeholders to disseminate innovative approaches and to receive feedback on how to align graduate curricula and other educational experiences with changes in the nature of science and engineering activity and of STEM careers.
• Incorporate full awareness of mental health issues into the training experience for both students and faculty, and assess services to ensure that they are meeting the needs of graduate students.
• Develop, adopt, and regularly evaluate a suite of strategies to accelerate increasing diversity and improving equity and inclusion, including comprehensive recruitment, holistic review in admissions, and interventions to prevent attrition in the late stages of progress toward a degree.

• Encourage students to engage as a group in activities and experiences outside of traditional academic settings as a means of increasing feelings of inclusion and normalizing feelings associated with negative phenomena, such as imposter syndrome, that can reduce productivity and success in the training experience and extend time to degree.
• Allow students to have an active and collaborative voice to advocate for, and proactively engage in, practices that support holistic academic and social development and that allow students to provide feedback on their experiences.

FACULTY MEMBERS

Faculty play a, if not the, central role in fostering the next generation of STEM professionals through their roles as educators, mentors, and advisors. They are what one might consider the “front line” of graduate education. The relationships that graduate students develop with faculty members help shape their interests, build their professional networks, and spark their growth as scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians. Most faculty invest considerable time and resources supporting the development of students, and the recommendations that follow provide details on the ways in which all faculty can ensure that the time spent with students benefits all parties to the fullest extent possible. This list includes some substantial changes in the way some faculty regard and interact with graduate students. The committee recognizes that expecting such changes in faculty behavior will not be possible unless there are broader cultural changes in the entire graduate education system, and that these changes will not be expressed at the faculty level unless the academic incentive system is adjusted as discussed in this report. To play their part in the modernization of the graduate STEM education system, faculty should

• Review and modify curricula, dissertation requirements, and capstone projects to ensure timeliness and alignment with the ways relevant work is conducted on a periodic basis, and to provide students with opportunities to work in teams that promote multidisciplinary learning.
• Develop, adopt, and regularly evaluate a suite of strategies to accelerate increasing diversity and improving equity and inclusion, including comprehensive recruitment, holistic review in admissions, and interventions to prevent late-stage attrition.
• Foster understanding of how to support and engage with students requiring or seeking mental health services and take action when appropriate.
• Use evidence-based and inclusive teaching and mentoring practices for graduate students.
• Cultivate their individual professional development skills to advance their

• abilities to improve the educational culture and environment on behalf of students.

• For those who serve as primary research mentors, review their mentees’ individual development plans on an annual basis to help students map educational goals, career exploration, and professional development to help students acquire the core competencies, as outlined in this report for master’s or doctoral students.
• Discuss with students their areas of interest, educational and professional goals, and potential career paths.
• Discuss with their students, undergraduates interested in graduate education or current graduate students, whether and how a master’s or Ph.D. degree will advance the students’ long-term educational and career goals.

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

Use of the acronym STEM can appear to flatten the distinctions among fields, but each discipline has its own unique culture, opportunities, and challenges. The professional societies have important roles to play in shaping graduate STEM education in their disciplines by developing appropriate implementation strategies and connecting students, institutions, faculty, and employers with existing resources. To support the recommendations made in this report, professional societies should

• Develop comprehensive strategies that use evidence-based models and programs and include measures to evaluate outcomes to ensure a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment.
• Convene and lead discussions with those who employ STEM master’s and Ph.D. holders, along with other stakeholders, to develop and disseminate innovative approaches to STEM graduate training.
• Participate in and support studies on how different STEM disciplines can integrate the changing scientific enterprise into graduate education programs and curricula.
• Engage with institutions, departments, and students to design and to provide resources on professional and career development.
• Collaborate with other sectors to create programs that help graduate students make the transition into a variety of careers.
• Work with universities and higher education associations to establish criteria and update characteristics of the doctoral research project and dissertation preparation and format.

EMPLOYERS IN INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

With more students graduating with master’s and doctoral degrees in STEM fields, industry, government, and nonprofit employers could tap into a growing pool of highly trained applicants. These stakeholders face the same questions as institutions of higher education with regard to building diverse and inclusive environments, addressing national and global challenges, and driving the frontiers of discovery. They also may seek particular skills in STEM graduates. As such, they develop partnerships with universities and students themselves to communicate their needs and support programs that may advance those skills.

• National laboratories and other research organizations should develop comprehensive strategies that use evidence-based models and programs and include measures to evaluate outcomes to ensure a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment.
• Employers from all sectors, as key stakeholders in graduate STEM education, should engage with graduate programs, employers, and other stakeholders to provide feedback on how to align graduate curricula and other educational experiences with changes in the nature of science and engineering activity and of STEM careers.
• Industry, nonprofit, government, and other employers should provide guidance and financial support for relevant course offerings at institutions and provide internships and other forms of professional experiences to students and recent graduates.

GRADUATE STUDENTS

While many other stakeholders have more power to change the graduate STEM education system, prospective and current students still play a critical role in driving change. They can and should seek out an education experience that best fits their goals and need to take initiative in shaping their own educations. The committee urges students to use the recommendations in this report as a resource and a guide to help determine their educational experience and advocate for improvements. To seek the ideal graduate education, current and prospective graduate students should

• Discuss with their advisors how a master’s or a Ph.D. degree will advance their long-term educational and career goals, including how to explore opportunities within a graduate program to gain the knowledge and competencies needed to pursue their career interests.
• Use a range of data, from national datasets on graduate education and workforce trends to department-level data on current students and alumni,

• to inform graduate program selection, educational goal development, and career exploration.

• Seek multiple mentors to meet their varied academic and career needs, such as information about potential career paths and employers.
• Learn how to apply their expertise in a variety of professional contexts and seek guidance from faculty, research mentors, and advisors on strategies to gain work-related experience while enrolled in graduate school.
• Engage in group activities and experiences outside of traditional academic settings to increase feelings of inclusion and to normalize feelings associated with negative phenomena, such as imposter syndrome, that can reduce productivity and success in the training experience and extend time to degree.
• Create an individual development plan that includes the core competencies, as outlined in this report for master’s or doctoral degrees, as a key feature of their own learning and career goals and that utilizes the resources provided by their university and relevant professional societies. Students should update these plans annually in consultation with faculty advisors to map educational goals, career exploration, and professional development.
• Communicate with graduate faculty and deans to encourage the implementation of practices that support holistic research training and diverse career outcomes and provide feedback on their experiences.
• Seek opportunities to work in cross-disciplinary and cross-sector teams that promote multidisciplinary learning during their graduate education and via extracurricular activities.