Graduate Education- A National Crisis?

Nationwide, there are sharply divided and contrasting views on graduate education. These divisions and contrasts are summarized in three recent reports:

National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers. The Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 1995.

W. F. Massy and C. A. Goldman, The Production and Utilization of Science and Engineering Doctorates in The United States. Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research. Stanford, CA. 1995.

D. S. North, Soothing The Establishment. The Impact of Foreign-Born Scientists and Engineers on America. University Press of America, Lanham, MD. 1995.

a standard volume on the analysis of doctoral education:

W. G. Bowen and N. L. Rudenstine, In Pursuit of The Ph.D. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1992.

and editorials and articles including among others:

T. J. Kennedy, Graduate Education In The Biomedical Sciences: Academic Medicine, 69: 779-799, 1994.

Newsweek, No Ph.D.s Need Apply, Newsweek, Dec. 5, 1994.

New York Times, Supply Exceeds Demand for Ph.D.s in Many Science Fields. 7/4/95.

R. Finn, Discouraged Job-seekers Cite Crisis in Science Career Advice. The Scientist, 9: 1, 1995.

J. C. Fleet, Young Researchers' Disillusionment Bodes Ill for Future of Science. The Scientist, 9: 11, 1995.

L. R. Raber, Chemists Give Mixed Review of NRC Report on Doctoral Education. C & EN News, 44, May 29, 1995.

L. R. Raber, New Ph.D.s Still Face Very Tight Job Market. C & EN News, 9, June 26, 1995.

National Research Council, Issues Brief, Ph.D.s and Postdoctoral Appointments, June 1995.

J. A. Armstrong, Rethinking The Ph.D., Issues In Science and Technology, 19, 1994.

M. Heylin, Chemist's Job Market Still Weak. C & EN News, 10, August 7, 1995.

C. E. Mannix and K. A. Ross, Point of View, Chronicle of Higher Education, A40, August 11, 1995.

P. A. Griffiths, Reshaping Graduate Education, Issues In Science and Technology, 75-79, Summer, 1995.

D. Goodstein, Peer Review After The Big Crunch, The American Scientist, 83: 401-402, 1995.

D. J. Triggle, The Road Ahead For Graduate Education, Pharmaceutical News, 2: Sept/Oct, 1995.

R. Byerly and R. A. Pielke, The Changing Ecology of United States Science. Science 269: 1531, 1995.

The report from the National Academy of Sciences, in particular, has received major attention: it focuses on an increasingly reiterated theme of a mismatch between graduate education and the world outside the University. Although this report discusses only the sciences and engineering, it is likely that in broad outline its general conclusions may be applicable to other disciplines, including those in the humanities. This report does not offer any specific recommendations regarding numbers of graduate students, but it does note that changes in research support are occurring and that a continuing downward movement is to be expected over the next several years. Nor is this decrease expected to be limited to the sciences and engineering: support for the arts and humanities is decreasing at least as rapidly. The major thrust of the NAS report centers on the growing realization that a faculty position can no longer be the principal realized outcome of graduate education and that knowledge and skills additional to those conventionally defined by the Ph.D. degree are increasingly needed.

The NAS report suggests that graduate education in engineering and sciences, in addition to providing the base for our engineering and scientific strength for the future, must also achieve the following:

u serve the needs of those whose careers will not center on research or academic positions;

u provide a broader range of academic options including multiple subfields to prevent overspecialization;

u provide internships in government, academe and the workplace to facilitate the development of communication, interpersonal and group skills.

Clearly, similar arguments are able to be made for disciplines other than science and engineering.

If changes in graduate education are to occur, however, the report notes a major difficulty-funding. Funding in the sciences and engineering is frequently provided by grants for "research assistantships" in faculty-run laboratories where the emphasis is predominantly on projects and the satisfaction of granting agency requirements (or even the career of the faculty member) rather than longer-term educational objectives. An increase in training grants for the sciences and engineering is advocated, but this will certainly come at the expense of individual investigator awards: that will not meet with popular approval. Additionally, the report notes the difficulty in drawing broad conclusions from the very diverse areas of graduate education, commenting that conditions and expectations of employment vary greatly. It is, perhaps, noteworthy that a recently published report [Thomas J. Kennedy] on physician training also described similar deficiencies in communication, management and related skills.

Other reports have advocated both qualitative and quantitative changes in graduate education. It is argued that current and future employment patterns for Ph.D. recipients do not justify the present size and numbers of graduate programs and that reductions in both enrollment and the numbers of graduate programs must occur (see list of articles above). This same issue has been raised in the Rand-Stanford report by William F. Massy and Charles A. Goldman and is a dominant theme of the book, "Prometheus Bound," by John Ziman and of a recent editorial by David Goodstein, Vice Provost at the California Institute of Technology, both of which focus on the impact of the end to the growth in funding for scientific research. David Goodstein writes:

"I believe that in American science, the Big Crunch took place about 25 years ago-after two decades that saw the enormous postwar expansion of academia and the creation of corporate and government research laboratories all around the U.S. in response to economic growth and the Cold War. The good times ended forever around 1970, as one can see from the graph. By importing students and employing Ph.D.s as temporary postdocs, we have stretched time out, pretending that nothing has changed, waiting for the good times to return. For a quarter century we have been trying to ignore the end of the great expansion of American science. What we have to do now is to solve a problem that has never even occurred to cosmologists: What do you do after the Big Crunch?"

These are not optimistic words, but it is difficult to doubt their conviction. The same theme has, in fact, been sounded previously by John Ziman in "Prometheus Bound." Elsewhere, Goodstein notes, "Education and scientific research are intrinsically good things. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we have a real moral dilemma." "-it's dangerous to do nothing. The market place will eventually work these problems out if we let it. But in the course of doing that it may hurt a lot of people, and it may even destroy science completely."

That quantitative changes are needed in the numbers of graduate students and programs is also vigorously advanced by David North in "Soothing the Establishment." North argues that the increasing number of non-U.S. students in American graduate programs, currently approximately 50 percent and largely centered in the sciences and engineering, does not serve well the long-term national interest, although it may serve the immediate interests of the university and the faculty. He suggests that non-U.S. students serve to depress science and engineering opportunities and salaries for U.S. students and graduates with a particular impact on minority groups. Such comments are often dismissed as xenophobic: that is an oversimplification. This number of non-U.S. students in graduate school raises several important issues. On the one hand, it argues for the quality of graduate education in the United States and the ability of the system to accommodate such a large number of students. It is also undeniable that many extremely talented students arrive in the U.S. by this route and that some 50 percent of these same students eventually reside here permanently. However, these same numbers raise issues of the cost of graduate education, its impact on undergraduate education, resource use, the employment market, and assuming that these numbers of graduates are required, of a failure to attract a sufficient number of domestic students into these same areas.

Similarly, it has been asserted that the role of graduate education in the University has little to do with external demands. Graduate students serve as inexpensive teaching assistants, research assistants and clerical assistants: these roles may be separate from or even compromise the functions of graduate education. It is argued that, divorced from the impact of the market, the University and its faculty have little incentive to redefine or reform the process of graduate education. The humorist Daedulus, writing in the scientific weekly Nature, argued that each prospective graduate student should constitute a company and issue stock based upon the ideas that they intend to research. It was claimed that exposed to the influence of the market, the value and originality of the ideas might be more appropriately assessed!

Due skepticism is, however, needed in the interpretation of the several sets of opinions and numbers descriptive of American graduate education. The quality of available data on graduate enrollment, graduation, employment, etc., is not always consistent. Many institutions, including our own, have both incomplete and poor quality data. Additionally, quoted data concerning placement rates often differ widely between reporting agencies. In large part this is due not to incorrect data, but rather to methodological differences including the use of different elapsed time points following degree completion to assess employment status [P. D. Syverson, Coping With Conflicting Data: The Employment Status of Recent Science and Engineering Ph.D.s. Communicator, p.8, June 1995]. Additionally, the widely quoted Massy-Goldman report is not a survey but a simulation, albeit a sophisticated one. Some of their input data are simply incorrect, notably that for Ph.D. production in computer science where corrected figures show an employment excess of only 3.6 percent rather than the previously projected 50.3 percent.

These general observations on graduate education may well be extended to postdoctoral education. There are few, if any, structural models for postdoctoral education in the sciences and engineering. Postdoctoral education is characteristically a highly project-oriented and individual relationship with a faculty member, focusing intensely on a discrete problem or technique. In larger laboratories there is frequently a significant supervisory relationship with less experienced members of the laboratory. In principle, postdoctoral education is a further period of scientific education and training, but there are trends to suggest that this process is increasingly corrupted with fellows being hired because of their specific expertise and/or of being parked "semi-permanently" in postdoctoral orbit in lieu of or pending regular employment.

PART 2

The Graduate School at the University at Buffalo

The Graduate School at UB is in trouble. Downsized, devolved and devalued, it is at the point where critical decisions have to be made as to whether it should be reduced further to a minor paper-processing operation or recast and strengthened to play a larger and more critical role. Over the years the Graduate School at Buffalo has been reduced in influence primarily by two processes: an apparently willing decentralization to the schools, departments and other administrative areas, and the absence of any coherent and mutually agreed-upon vision, developed by the faculty and the Dean of the Graduate School, of the nature and scope of graduate education. As a direct consequence of these deliberate actions, the Graduate School now lacks both the physical and intellectual resources with which to impact and direct graduate education at Buffalo. These resources are now critically needed given the triple witching hour of change-declining resources from state, federal and private sources-that has sounded a nationwide signal for graduate education.

The National Research Council report on research doctorate programs [Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change] was recently released to the public. It will serve as a national index of quality, resource allocation and priorities for a decade. If we have not developed, with few notable exceptions, strong and nationally recognized graduate departments and programs at UB, we need look only to ourselves for answers to the question-"Why not?" In significant measure I believe that our failures lie in our inability to have made critical choices and to adequately monitor academic quality. When we were building we built broadly, when we were forced to cut we cut largely across the board, and when we had opportunity to change we ducked. All of these decisions are those of least resistance and have resulted in small departments, small programs and small reputations.

The critical choice facing UB and our Graduate School was outlined in the 1994 report "External Review Of The Graduate School; University at Buffalo" [June 14-15, 1994]. That choice has now been made-the Graduate School is to again become a major player and influence in graduate education at Buffalo. This will not be easy. The solution is not to recast in the old mold, but rather to create a new Graduate School with sufficient credibility, creativity and resources to become a primary positive influence on the quality, quantity and organization of graduate education at Buffalo. The defining mechanism is that of a catalyst for change, and the challenge is to avoid being consumed by the very process of this change.

The problems facing graduate education at Buffalo are many. They can, however, be classified under a number of broad general headings each of which will define correspondingly broad issues that must be addressed.

A. Organization and Priorities:

1. What is the proportion of post-baccalaureate education relative to other functions of the University including undergraduate, professional and service roles? What are the priorities within and across graduate programs?

2. How do we know what we do have-collecting comprehensive, consistent, accurate and useful information about our graduate programs?

3. How should graduate education outside of the professional programs be organized-by school and department, by discipline across schools and departments or by interdisciplinary programs?

4. How do we generate new and dynamic models of graduate education that reflect and respond to newly emerging and changing needs over time?

5. How do we recognize the need for and create new programs?

6. Relationship between the Graduate School and Research/Sponsored Programs-who does what and why?

7. Relationship of graduate to postdoctoral education-is there one and should there be one?

B. Program Quality:

8. What criteria should be established to determine program quality and need-prescribed minimum numbers of students/faculty/graduates, resources committed, societal need or other?

9. Quality control-roles of the Academic Deans and the Graduate School?

10. What price for failure of a program-real consequences associated with real evaluation?

11. What are the criteria for being a member of the Graduate Faculty and for remaining a member of this faculty?

12. The role of the Dean of the Graduate School in tenure/promotion decisions?

C. Resources of the Graduate School:

13. What resources are essential to support the mission of the Graduate School and where will they come from?

14. How do we calculate the real costs of our graduate programs and how should this knowledge impact our priorities?

15. Rewarding the best programs-what criteria and what rewards?

D. Graduate Students:

16. Recruiting the students we want and need-departmental, school and Graduate School roles? Training grant programs?

17. Graduate education and research-roles, functions and evaluation of "graduate students" as students, teaching assistants, research assistants, technicians-what relationships?

18. What organizational framework and support systems for graduate students? Housing, career information resources, interactions with outside world through internships, cooperative programs, etc.

Preparing for Change at Buffalo

If we are to realize our objective that the Graduate School at the University at Buffalo be a significant and effective player in graduate education, a number of changes are necessary. Some must occur rapidly and some will require significant faculty consultation to define appropriate partnership roles.

Role of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean of the Graduate School

The Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean of the Graduate School must be seen as an academic leader with substantial intellectual and academic credentials and with recognized scholarship and communication skills. This individual must be trusted and have the respect of faculty, staff, administrators and students. Additionally, the Vice Provost and Dean should be an individual who continues to practice scholarship, research and teaching and is perceived to be an effective leader more broadly within the academy.

The role of the Dean of the Graduate School is similar to that of the other academic deans-namely to ensure the effective operation and allocation of resources within the school and to ensure that the appropriate academic standards for graduate education are maintained. As Vice Provost for Graduate Education the role is significantly larger and will embrace both intra-campus and inter-campus responsibilities. The Vice Provost will be the principal academic voice for all post-baccalaureate education and training both within and without the campus, will serve as the principal advisor to the Provost on all matters of post-baccalaureate education, and will serve as the principal facilitator and organizer of graduate education including evaluation and change. The Vice Provost for Graduate Education will be a principal player in the necessary SUNY-wide examination and reorganization of graduate education and programs. Additionally, the Vice Provost will be a principal player, along with the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, in defining that interface, and with the Vice President for Research in redefining the roles of and interrelationships between research and graduate education.

The Vice Provost for Graduate Education will ensure that the appropriate questions are asked, answered and that solutions are implemented. Since changes will clearly be needed, it is important that these questions be asked and answered in the public domain. Inevitably, in a period of declining real resources the solutions will not be uniformly pleasing-this will simply have to be accepted as the necessary price of doing what is best for the institution rather than simply for the individual. Finally, we must move irrevocably from the "across-the-boardism" that has been our norm to focused change. The role of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education is to ensure that the focus is appropriate and accurate and that effective leadership is provided to implement the changes that will be necessary.

The Consultation Process

The resources and the academic responsibilities of the institution reside significantly with the Academic Deans and their faculties. Both groups will have to be actively participating players as we move toward a redefinition of the role and functions of the Graduate School. These parties, together with the Faculty Senate, will necessarily have to subscribe to changing arrangements of graduate education. Additionally, the Graduate School needs a refocused Executive Committee consisting of leading practitioners in graduate education at Buffalo. Finally, the Graduate Student Association must become an effective participant in the consultative process. This multipartite process of consultation will be a critical factor in any changes in the Graduate School.

Changes in Graduate Education at Buffalo

Although consultation will be a critical step prior to implementation of changes, it is clear that change must occur. Resource limitations, changing employment opportunities and markets, heightened societal expectations, growing political pressure and our own responsibilities will all demand change. These changes will fall into several general areas:

A. Graduate Program Priorities and Organization

Priorities. Although we often speak of our University mission with prominent reference to graduate work, we should not speak of it in isolation, nor should we speak of it in terms of campus uniqueness. If SUNY does not first ensure that it delivers high quality undergraduate education, then graduate education will be seen increasingly as the luxury we should not have. Similarly, if we continue to see the graduate offerings of each campus as separate and inviolate territories, we will be subject to justifiable criticism concerning resource allocation. The SUNY system may well undergo some significant structural and functional reorganization over the next decade. Regardless of the specific form of this change it will likely involve both campus differences and program cooperation including distance learning. Graduate programs will be affected by these changes and it is both plausible and desirable that we will see greater institutional specialization and regional concentrations of graduate programs. Such concentrations of programs and associated concentrations of resources will be necessary to permit the increased quality and cost-effectiveness that are needed and being demanded of us.

Organization and New Models. Quite generally, I believe that it will be necessary for Ph.D. graduate programs to become larger and more flexible in their organization and to become more interdisciplinary. Some programs will do both, some will do neither and some will disappear. I look for graduate programs to become larger by expanding beyond departmental boundaries-for example, a graduate program in Chemical Sciences that would include faculty from Chemistry, Medicinal Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Biochemistry, etc. Another area might well be Structural Biology where we have recently made a significant institutional investment. Many other examples could be given for both the sciences and humanities. Such programs, limited only to active graduate faculty, should be more effective competitors for students as well as for national individual and program funding, should facilitate new faculty recruitment, and should reflect the broader models of graduate education recommended in recent reports. These organizational considerations should also apply to Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Such organizational changes automatically raise the issue of where the responsibilities lie for the degree program-department or program?

We need to look closely at the mixture of Ph.D. and professional doctoral programs we offer. It is not likely that sufficient freedom will be given to campuses in the near term that we will be free from the tyranny of numbers. Accordingly, we will need to use our existing resources to reflect both demand and institutional priorities including budget. More, rather than less, flexibility of resource allocation will be necessary.

At the non-doctoral level we need a comprehensive and vigorous discussion on the future of the master's degree. Although a largely devalued currency, this degree could be revitalized to satisfy a likely increasing need for post-baccalaureate education at the non-doctoral and continuing education levels, as well as to serve as a key element in possible joint or accelerated bachelor/master degree programs. This discussion should be broad in nature and include Roswell Park, Millard Fillmore College and local business and industry.

New models of graduate education should be explored in cooperation with industry to generate exchange and cooperative programs and to facilitate and encourage graduate program and student support as well as later employment opportunities. This may be most easily applicable to the sciences and engineering, but in any event should be seen as part of the larger service role of the University.

Postdoctoral education is not currently considered within the scope of the Graduate School, but rather is viewed as an individual faculty responsibility. This should change and consideration might usefully be given to some formal set of studies that better prepare postdoctoral fellows for subsequent employment that will increasingly be outside of academia. We should also strive to achieve more appropriate budgetary and faculty workload recognition for our institutional efforts in supervising postdoctoral persons.

Enhanced Communication and Data Collection. The dilemma of inadequate and inaccurate data concerning graduate education at the national level has been noted previously. We have a similar lack of accurate reporting and useful data collection at the campus level. This problem has been exacerbated by the decentralization process that has occurred during the past two decades. Accurate reporting and comprehensive data assembly concerning student applications, admissions, student progress, program completions and careers are vital to assessing the status and quality of graduate programs. We need to establish an electronic communications capacity through which standard information including application, admission, financial support, candidacy, academic records, thesis requirements, subsequent career history, etc., are available and used by all programs for their own purposes and to provide a management information database for the Graduate School and the larger institution.

Through the recent efforts of Associate Provost Myron Thompson we have made some important advances in these areas; however, much more remains to be done. There are campus-wide committees in which the Graduate School actively participates including the Data Warehouse Pilot Project Group and an ad hoc group focusing on the development of UB's presence on the Internet/World Wide Web. Additionally, Dr. Thompson has already begun to explore new technologies that should enable "on-line" catalogues and applications for admission, electronic records exchange, etc. As part of the enhanced communications capability of the Graduate School, various graduate policy documents and the entire graduate catalog are expected to soon be available in electronic format. These technologies are, of course, part of the vastly increased commitment, including the Graduate School, that the campus has to make to the electronic age. Without it we will not survive as an institution of other than third-rate status.

Graduate School Teaching. Discipline-based courses and subject matter are appropriately and best taught in the individual departments and programs. This policy should continue. However, there are a number of targeted areas where it is appropriate for the Graduate School to organize and even conduct specific course offerings. These could include courses on research and professional ethics, writing, career opportunities, etc. As a specific example, my colleague Richard Hull and I have offered a course on Research Ethics through the School of Pharmacy for the past three years. Given its broad applicability, this course should be offered under Graduate School auspices, with a Graduate School course number and supported by the Graduate School. Additionally, the Graduate School should coordinate potential offerings by other Schools in areas where it is deemed appropriate that they be part of a general graduate program-management, communications, etc.

Graduate School Publicity. The Graduate School must initiate, exercise leadership and actively participate in an expanded program of public information whereby through newsletters and other means, and with the cooperation with the UB News Services, we better inform and educate the public regarding the role and value of graduate education and the achievements of our graduates.

B. Program Quality

Graduate Program Evaluation. Central to the generation of a revitalized Graduate School is the critical evaluation of graduate programs. This process, essentially abandoned in recent years, will be restored and strengthened. The shape and consequences of the evaluation process will be developed through campus-wide consultation. The only useful process of program evaluation will be one that has real consequences for failure, including program termination in whole or in part, and real rewards for success.

In this process of program evaluation there will be a need for the closest cooperation between the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and the Academic Deans. This must be so, given the current state of resource and program devolution to the latter. However, the Graduate School must have sufficient resources in the form of flexible funds, graduate assistantships and tuition scholarship support to generate both rewards and penalties for programs.

Graduate Faculty. The graduate faculty are the core of our graduate programs. The quality and effectiveness of those individuals determine the corresponding success or failure of the programs themselves. We need to reconsider the criteria for membership in the Graduate Faculty and, more importantly, to establish criteria for continued membership. There should not be an automatic permanency of status as a member of the graduate faculty. As part of the mechanism through which faculty prepare annual reports, an appropriate section should be directed to and reviewed by the Graduate School. Similarly, quality control standards and review procedures regarding Graduate Faculty membership should be developed and reside at the program and Faculty/School levels as well.

Promotion and Tenure of Faculty. Among the most important decisions we make are those regarding the promotion and tenure of faculty. Since research and scholarship is one critical and indispensable condition for promotion and tenure, and since this is significantly linked to graduate education, there should be input from the Graduate Dean to this process. One step that could ensure this would be to appoint the Dean of the Graduate School as a standing member of the President's Review Board (PRB).

C. Resources of the Graduate School

Necessary Resources. There will not be a massive infusion of resources into the Graduate School. Nonetheless, the changes that must occur including a heightened ability to assess program quality, to generate new programs and to provide incentives for change will require that the Graduate School command comprehensive support. These resource needs will be elaborated during the next several months and will necessarily reflect the funding shortfalls facing both SUNY and UB. However, it is clear that the Graduate School will need resources to initiate new data collection and dissemination, to support and allocate tuition remission, graduate groups, new program initiatives, program evaluations and incentives for change, etc. Additionally, the earlier divestment of resources and responsibilities from the Graduate School to other offices including those of the Vice Presidents for Research and Public Service and Urban Affairs must be reversed. Research support and minority student recruiting should be functions of the Graduate School, albeit carried out with close collaboration with all appropriate constituents and University officers. Quite clearly, the Graduate School will need more rather than fewer resources: improvement of quality, organization, responsibility and reputation must be the expected and necessary results of increased spending.

Program Costs. With diminishing resources there is a greater imperative to understand the true costs of programs. The implementation of more comprehensive and effective data collection, together with increased collaboration with UB's Office of Institutional Analysis, should permit such calculation of the costs of graduate programs and graduate education. As important as those costs may be, it is important to keep in mind that they are but one component of the total set of factors-demand, need, value, quality and cost-that collectively should inform and influence institutional priorities.

D. Graduate Students:

Graduate School Recruiting. The Graduate School currently plays only a supporting role in the student recruiting process, although it does issue the comprehensive Guide to Graduate Programs (Graduate School Catalog). Given the size of the staff and the discipline/program-based nature of graduate student recruitment, it is unlikely that a much more substantial direct involvement in the recruitment process can be assumed by the Graduate School in the near term. However, it is important that all programs take advantage of electronic communication for recruitment. Some programs already have a "home page" on the World Wide Web. It would appear advantageous to expand and coordinate this program so that there is a Graduate School home page with appropriate general information and hyper-linked to more detailed individual program home pages. Individual program home pages should contain information regarding faculty profiles, courses and curriculum, admission requirements, financial support opportunities, graduation success and placement rates, etc. A committee should be established by the Graduate School to coordinate ongoing processes and to determine the resources necessary for fuller implementation of these concepts.

High quality programs attract high quality students-particularly domestic students. Earlier, the need to create stronger and more responsive graduate programs has been noted. In turn, the Graduate School and our programs of advanced study will need to provide incentives for heightened graduate student quality. These incentives should come in the form of enhanced stipends for recipients of national fellowships including training grants, and enhanced tuition and research support for those programs. In addition, the university should continue to aggressively pursue opportunities for dedicated housing for graduate students and their families. The availability of such housing would considerably facilitate the recruitment process.

Interrelationships Among Graduate Education, Training and Research. The roles, responsibilities and expectations of graduate students are a dual function of both the academic program and the Graduate School. The Graduate School needs to assume a more effective function in determining and monitoring interrelationships among the several roles students play as teaching, research and technical assistants and the contributions of these roles to graduate education.

David J. Triggle

Distinguished University Professor

Vice Provost for Graduate Education and

Dean of the Graduate School (Designate)

October 26, 1995