FOR
COMMENT
Graduate Education at Penn: The Middle
States Review
Peter
Conn
Deputy
Provost
Over
the past two years, members of the Penn faculty, administration,
and student community have
devoted a considerable amount of attention to Ph.D. education.
Most significantly, the new strategic plan puts a high
priority on graduate education (an important shift in emphasis
from the predecessor plan). The plan states, as one of
Penn's central goals, that the University aspires to "strengthen
the quality and national visibility of Ph.D. education
across all of Penn's schools." Penn's "standing as a university
of the first rank," the plan continues, "depends in large
part upon its reputation as a center of ... Ph.D. education
and its commitment to train a new generation of scholar-teachers."
Simultaneously, the University has been
preparing for two separate but related external reviews:
the decennial assessment of graduate programs, conducted
by the National Research Council (NRC); and the decennial
accreditation review, conducted by the Middle States Commission
on Higher Education.
Our
ultimate purpose, as the strategic plan makes clear,
is to strengthen
Penn's graduate programs
across the nine schools that offer the Ph.D. Since
the future choices we will make must be informed by full
knowledge of our current practices, we chose to make graduate
education the focus of our Middle States review.
The Middle States review entails a detailed
self-study. Professor Walter Licht, professor of history
and associate dean of graduate studies in the School of
Arts and Sciences, has led this effort. We organized our
investigation under six headings, each of which was assigned
to a committee:
--degree
requirements, rules and regulations (Rebecca Bushnell, chair);
--preparation for teaching (Dennis
DeTurck, chair);
--support
systems for graduate students (Janice Madden, chair);
--admission
systems, and placement strategies (John Monroe, chair);
--performance
measures and quality review of graduate groups
(Herb Smith, chair);
--administrative
and financial structuring of graduate education
(Dwight
Jaggard, chair).
(A list of all the sub-committee members
is contained in the report.)
These
sub-committees met regularly over the academic year 2002-03.
In addition, a steering committee,
consisting of the six sub-committee chairs and convened
by Professor Licht, also met to guide the work of the sub-groups
and eventually to draft the self-study report. To support
their inquiries, the sub-committees made extensive use
of statistical data and surveys that were distributed to
all of Penn's graduate chairs. The steering committee also
conducted extensive interviews and held several public
meetings with faculty and graduate students.
The report which the steering committee
has produced is available for comment at: www.upenn.edu/grad/selfstudy.html.
This document distills the work of the six committees,
including their recommendations for change. This represents
the most extensive inquiry into Penn doctoral education
undertaken in the past thirty years. We now know more than
we ever have about graduate education at this University.
The findings and recommendations in this document will
have substantial implications for the future of graduate
education at Penn.
To
convey something of what the report contains--and what it does not--let
me quote a few paragraphs from the prefatory essay.
"Key factors lie outside the charge and
purview of this study. For one, the strength and reputation
of our graduate programs obviously rest on the excellence
of the faculty. That premise did not require investigation
and recommendations would be superfluous: sustaining faculty
distinction is the primary agenda of the University. Second,
the health of graduate studies at Penn and elsewhere is
shaped by forces far beyond the control of educational
institutions. The state of the job market affects both
the quantity and quality of applications to graduate programs
as well as the morale of students and faculty; this in
turn has an impact on time to degree. Similarly, the financing
of graduate education is influenced by general economic
conditions and by endowment performance of universities
and outside private agencies. Finally, of course, politics
and the fiscal solvency of the federal government have
direct consequences for all of higher education, including
doctoral studies.
"If this report stops short of fundamental
or revolutionary findings and proposals, nonetheless it
provides a systematic and detailed scrutiny of our current
policies and practices--the most comprehensive appraisal
of the past thirty years. At the same time, it includes
dozens of specific recommendations which, if implemented,
will substantially improve the quality of Penn's doctoral
programs.
"Stated
summarily, these concrete suggestions can be categorized
into the following propositions. The
University should: