Student-Centric Graduate Training: Challenges and Opportunities

By Yara Skaf and Reinhard Laubenbacher

In part 1 of this article, which appeared in the October 2021 issue of SIAM News, the authors discussed prospective changes that would make mathematics Ph.D. programs more student-centric. Here they address some of the challenges and opportunities that coincide with customized course plans.

Individuals with Ph.D.s in the mathematical sciences have a variety of career opportunities available to them that range from the traditional tenure-track path to the private sector and academic research organizations. To best prepare students for this rapidly evolving job market, we advocate for a student-centric graduate training approach that tailors program content and structure to each student’s unique needs. As an intermediate step, we proposed the introduction of four different tracks with distinct roles for coursework, teaching, and research that depend on student interest [4]. In this follow-up article, we discuss several challenges and opportunities that accompany such a structure.

How might a student-centric program look? When new students arrive, they will receive a tool kit of valuable resources and learn about different faculty research areas and possible career trajectories. An initial mentoring team will help each student develop a career and training plan during the first year of the program. The plan can introduce potential study topics through a mixture of formal coursework, directed reading, and online resources, as well as a collection of activities to guide students as they narrow down future career objectives. Students will engage in research as early as possible—much like the laboratory rotation practice in the life sciences—then transition to a thesis project and select a Ph.D. advisor during their second year.

The adoption of this structure will have a profound impact on participating departments. It will more effectively assess specific student needs and plans and allow students to truly take a proactive role in their education. A richer palette of training options will likely attract a broader and more diverse group of participants to ultimately grow and enrich the departments. Because students and faculty will presumably engage with greater intensity than in a formal classroom setting, students become readily integrated into the intellectual and social life of the department. As a result, departmental faculty will obtain a more comprehensive view of the mathematical sciences and their applications and strengthen their connections to other departments and programs within the university.

Word cloud image of the article text. It reflects the centrality of students in the proposed training paradigm as well as the paradigm’s many connections within and outside of academics. Image courtesy of Free Word Cloud Generator.

Funding

The vast majority of mathematics Ph.D. students currently receive financial support through teaching assistantships. Under our proposed structure, fewer students might choose this teaching component. Those who are interested in careers in the private sector will instead seek support from relevant internships as well as research and other grants. How will we fund all of these needs? The new program structure will likely increase the graduate student population, particularly among students who are looking for “nontraditional” careers. As a result, the portion of the student population that pursues funding from teaching assistantships may only decrease marginally, thus allowing departments to still fulfill their teaching missions. Permitting select undergraduates to teach certain courses could also help mitigate this issue.

Nevertheless, finding financial support for students is still difficult. Resources include the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program, as well as internships in both the non-academic sector and the academic research enterprise outside of mathematics departments. Such opportunities are not uncommon, particularly in the biomedical sector.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

Despite widespread public awareness of and support for issues that pertain to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), this area remains a major challenge for most U.S. graduate programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in general — and mathematics programs in particular. An extensive body of literature aims to document the state of diversity in STEM Ph.D. tracks, explore historical events that contribute to this state, and offer suggestions on how to foster a more supportive and inclusive climate in academia [1-3]. Application rates for graduate mathematics programs comparatively tend to be much lower for historically underrepresented groups like women, people of color, and sexual orientation or gender minorities. The reasons behind this trend are multifactorial but likely related to elements such as negative classroom environments, a lack of exposure to positive STEM experiences in early education, and blatant forms of discrimination. These scant application numbers give rise to low rates of matriculation and degree completion for members of underrepresented groups. For instance, women comprised only 24.4 percent of all mathematics Ph.D.s for U.S. citizens in the 2016-2017 academic year. Even more strikingly, African American students received just 2.1 percent of these Ph.D.s [1].

Our more customizable program structure could allow departments to facilitate the success of a much more heterogeneous cohort of graduate students by tailoring curricula to account for the unique needs and barriers that each individual faces. Furthermore, the process of restructuring longstanding elements of existing arrangements provides an ideal opportunity for departments to analyze other aspects of graduate training that may intentionally or unintentionally impact the educational environment for historically underrepresented or marginalized groups. Such efforts can help eventually produce a more inclusive educational environment that fosters a diverse mathematics workforce in the future.

Faculty and Mentoring

Faculty and peer mentoring contribute to a student-centric program’s success. Upon entering the program, every student will ideally be assigned a mentoring committee with at least three members, including an advanced graduate student. This committee’s composition may change over time as students progress. The committee members collectively assure that students’ best interests remain at the center of all aspects of their personalized agendas. At least some committee members will interact frequently with the students, preferably on a weekly basis.

Peer mentoring is also crucial and will require the establishment of several new structures, which present a significant burden on the faculty. Faculty members who currently mentor Ph.D. students typically receive little to no credit for this activity, even though it is quite time consuming. Institutions should adopt different reward structures for faculty, perhaps by providing them with the equivalent of course credits or additional research funds from departmental grant overhead accounts or other sources. Some faculty may of course refrain from participating in this new structure; they can still serve as Ph.D. advisors to students who opt for the current training model.

Not all faculty are sufficiently familiar with the entire spectrum of career opportunities that are available to students. In-depth faculty training programs that address mentoring and career options beyond academia can mitigate this problem. Though such training would require a great deal of time, effort, and culture change within mathematics departments, active steps toward better student mentoring experiences will produce more qualified graduates whose future successes feed back to the program.

Concluding Thoughts

The mathematical sciences are crucial to human endeavors in all realms of society. They hold a unique place as both a universal language of science and technology and a research field in their own right; these two roles fundamentally depend on each other and have profound implications for the mathematical sciences workforce. We must implement training programs that account for mathematics’ dual roles and do so in a unified and integrated environment. Our student-centric proposals are meant to address this need.

Ultimately, we have discussed several possible implementations for a student-centric graduate program. A continuum of possible program structures clearly exists between the current prevalent model and a fully customized program. Each department can develop its own resources, constraints, and strategic plans that dictate whether and what changes might be made. None of the aforementioned challenges have quick and easy solutions; the facilitation of more adaptable Ph.D. training requires substantial changes to many logistical structures, cultural attitudes, and longstanding departmental traditions. However, graduate programs must account for and adapt to evolving student interests and needs in order to remain competitive in today’s fast-moving academic and professional environment. Re-imagining the traditional architecture also presents an exciting opportunity for departments to remove some of the deep-rooted impediments to EDI that Ph.D. programs in STEM fields—particularly mathematics—should address. Doing so will help create an educational environment that allows a greater number and variety of students to thrive within the mathematical community.

References
[1] Gevertz, J., & Wares, J. (2020). Fostering diversity in top-rated pure mathematics graduate programs. Notices Am. Math. Soc., 67(1).
[2] Grundman, H.G. (2009). Revisiting the question of diversity: Faculties and Ph.D. programs. Notices Am. Math. Soc., 56(9), 1115-1118.
[3] Inniss, T.R., Lewis, W.J., Mitrea, I., Okoudjou, K.A., Salerno, A., Su, F., & Thurston, D. (2021). Towards a fully inclusive mathematics profession (Report of the Task Force on Understanding and Documenting the Historical Role of the AMS in Racial Discrimination). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
[4] Skaf, Y., & Laubenbacher, R. (2021, October 1). Toward student-centric graduate training. SIAM News, 54(8), p. 7.

Yara Skaf is an M.D./Ph.D. student in the Department of Mathematics and the Laboratory for Systems Medicine in the Department of Medicine’s Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Florida. She is developing tools from topological data analysis and applying them to the analysis of electronic health records. Reinhard Laubenbacher is director of the Laboratory for Systems Medicine and a professor in the Department of Medicine’s Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Florida.