You are on CGS' Legacy Site.
Thank you for visiting CGS! You are currently using CGS' legacy site, which is no longer supported. For up-to-date information, including publications purchasing and meeting information, please visit cgsnet.org.
General Content
Webinar Q&A: Launching a 3-Minute Thesis Competition
A large number of questions were submitted during the webinar on Launching a 3-Minute Thesis Competition at Your University—too many to address in t ...
This content is available to members only.
Please login to view the full content.
Master’s or Doctorate? For International Students Applying to U.S. Graduate Programs, Clear Preferences Emerge by Country, Field of Study
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
International Applications Up 2% for Fall 2015
Contact:
Julia Kent
jkent@cgs.nche.edu
(202) 223-3791
Washington, DC—New data from the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) provides a first-ever breakdown of international graduate applications by degree objective. The report, 2015 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey: Preliminary Applications, collects data on international graduate applications by all geographic regions and fields of study, revealing trends important to the graduate research enterprise and our understanding of the global competition for top talent. Conducted annually since 2004, the survey was expanded this year to distinguish between applications to programs at the doctorate and master’s & certificate levels.
The findings show that degree objectives of international applicants vary dramatically by country of origin and field of study, and in some cases contrast with those of their domestic U.S. counterparts.
No sending country favored master’s studies more than India, where 84% of graduate applications were for admission to master’s & certificate programs. The master’s share of graduate applications was also large among students from China (64%) Saudi Arabia (60%), and Taiwan (52%). Smaller shares of graduate applications went to master’s programs from prospective international graduate students from Mexico (50%), Canada (45%), Brazil (43%), Europe (35%), and South Korea (30%).
Overall, international students applied to doctoral programs in higher proportion than their domestic U.S. counterparts. Thirty-seven percent of international graduate enrollments were in PhD programs, compared to only 17 percent among U.S. citizens and permanent residents, according to the CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees.
According to CGS President Suzanne T. Ortega, the additional data on degree objectives is illuminating for U.S. graduate schools, even as it leads to more questions about the goals and motivations of international graduate students. “Now that our international survey offers data by degree objective, we will have a more nuanced picture of the encouraging growth we have seen in international applications to U.S. graduate programs,” Ortega said. “Our challenge is to investigate what these new data can tell us about the market for advanced skills. Are students preparing for careers in the U.S. or at home after earning their degree? Are they drawn here by academic reputations, employment prospects, or professional advancement? How do economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad influence international graduate enrollments?”
Trends by country of origin
International graduate applications for Fall 2015 increased 2% from Fall 2014, for a total 676,484 applications received by the U.S. institutions responding to the survey. For the third consecutive year, applications from China were down (-2%) while applications from India posted double-digit growth (12%). China remains the largest source of prospective students for U.S. programs, representing 39% of all international graduate applications. India continues to narrow the gap between first- and second-largest source country, reaching 28% of international applications for Fall 2015. South Korea, the third-largest sending country, increased 4% after three straight years of declines.
.png)
Trends by field of study
Growth in applications was driven by engineering and physical & earth sciences, which gained 4% and 14%, respectively. Together these STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields account for 50% of all applications to U.S. graduate programs from prospective international students for Fall 2015. This makes international graduate students crucial to U.S. research and workforce needs. Experts (including CGS) have pointed out the American economy’s demand for advanced STEM skills is unlikely to be met by homegrown talent alone, as only 16% of U.S. citizens and permanent residents enrolled in graduate programs are studying in STEM fields, according to the CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees.
In another finding of the Preliminary Applications report, international applications to graduate programs in business fell 2%, the first decline in this field since the survey launched in 2004. Nevertheless, business was the third largest field of study, accounting for 13% of international graduate applications.
About the report
Findings from the 2015 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey: Preliminary Applications are based on an annual survey of international graduate student applications among U.S. institutions. Some responding institutions may continue to receive international applications after the completion of the report. For this reason the figures are preliminary. Final application, admission and enrollment figures will be reported in late 2015. Final application numbers have traditionally tracked very closely to the preliminary numbers. Analysis from the 2015 Preliminary Applications report includes responses from 377 schools, including 80% of the top 100 institutions awarding the largest number of degrees to international graduate students. Collectively, the respondents to this year’s survey award about 70% of the degrees granted to international graduate students in the U.S. The full report is available at http://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Intl_I_2015_report_final.pdf.
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) is an organization of over 500 institutions of higher education in the United States and Canada engaged in graduate education, research, and the preparation of candidates for advanced degrees. Among U.S. institutions, CGS members award 91% of the doctoral degrees and 81% of the master’s degrees.* The organization’s mission is to improve and advance graduate education, which it accomplishes through advocacy in the federal policy arena, research, and the development and dissemination of best practices.
* Based on data from the 2013 CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees
Global Summit 2015
Implications of "Big Data" for Graduate Education
Singapore
September 27-29, 2015
"Big Data" has been broadly defined as "the collection, aggregation...and analysis of vast amounts of increasingly granular data."1 Contemporary debates about big data have raised both interest and concern in the global graduate community.
On the one hand, graduate leaders are accustomed to using data to inform decision-making and have expressed curiosity about the potential of big data experiments in graduate education, such as the collection of data on student learning in large online courses. On the other hand, big data have been associated with a number of problems that directly concern graduate leaders, posing a number of challenges and questions:
- How should large amounts of data be managed and stored?
- What methods should be used for analysis and interpretation?
- How do we think about informed consent and privacy rights in a big data context?
- How should we be preparing the next generation of graduate degree recipients to manage the world of big data?
Participants from 15 countries addressed these and other pressing questions at the 2015 Strategic Leaders Global Summit, a collaboration between CGS and the National University of Singapore (NUS).
Event Materials:
- The Implications of Big Data for Graduate Education: A Proposal for Further Action
- Online Proceedings
Reference:
1 Cate, F.H. (14 November 2014). The big data debate, Science 346(6211), 818.
[Photo credit: Singapore Tourism Board.]
CGS contributions to the Summit were supported by generous gifts from the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and ProQuest.
CGS Teams with ProQuest to Explore the Future of Doctoral Dissertations
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Contact:
Nate Thompson, CGS: (202) 223-3791 / nthompson@cgs.nche.edu
Washington, DC — The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) today announced it will partner with ProQuest to explore the future of doctoral dissertations in a new Best Practice project, which will culminate in a workshop to be held in Washington, D.C. in January of 2016. The two-day workshop will convene graduate deans, publishers, library and information professionals, and other stakeholders to discuss how emerging technologies and other innovations in doctoral training may shape the Ph.D. dissertation of the future.
CGS plans to invite scholars and experts from different stakeholder groups to write short pieces on their view of the current state and future prospects of doctoral dissertations, and to collect these papers into an edited volume that will be distributed to CGS membership. “Ultimately, the goal will be to determine the questions that will require more sustained consideration by the graduate community,” explained CGS President, Suzanne Ortega. “What information do deans need to navigate the shifting landscape of doctoral dissertations? What kinds of questions should we be asking of our structures and policies, our staff and faculty partners, and our students?”
The changing nature of academic publishing and scholarly dissemination, new technologies, and new paradigms for graduate education have caused some to question whether the traditional doctoral dissertation should remain a strict requirement for the completion of the PhD. Might dissertations take different forms (such as through a series of blog posts or as collaborative work)? How might the dissertation be structured to reduce time to degree? What is needed to ensure nontraditional dissertations are archived sustainably? What, if any, differences exist among the broad disciplinary fields of humanities and social sciences and STEM dissertations? What roles do open access dissertations and embargoes play? These questions, among others, will continue to structure the conversation in the graduate community about doctoral dissertations.
ProQuest, renowned as a gateway for discovery and access to dissertations and theses from the world’s leading universities, will support this project. “This collaboration with CGS is both exciting and important,” said Niels Dam, ProQuest Vice President, Product Management. “As holder of the world's largest collection of dissertation and theses, and partner to over 3000 global institutions we are pleased to be sharing data, metrics, and on-the-ground insight that will inform the discussion about the next generation of doctoral dissertations and help the dissertations community prepare for the future.”
CGS plans to share results of the project in the spring of 2016.
About CGS (www.cgsnet.org)
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) is an organization of over 500 institutions of higher education in the United States and Canada engaged in graduate education, research, and the preparation of candidates for advanced degrees. Among U.S. institutions, CGS members award 91% of the doctoral degrees and 81% of the master’s degrees.* The organization’s mission is to improve and advance graduate education, which it accomplishes through advocacy in the federal policy arena, research, and the development and dissemination of best practices.
* Based on data from the 2013 CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees
About ProQuest (http://www.proquest.com)
ProQuest connects people with vetted, reliable information. Key to serious research, the company’s products are a gateway to the world’s knowledge including dissertations, governmental and cultural archives, news, historical collections and ebooks. ProQuest’s technologies serve users across the critical points in research, helping them discover, access, share, create and manage information.
The company’s cloud-based technologies offer flexible solutions for librarians, students and researchers through the ProQuest®, Bowker®, Dialog®, ebrary® and EBL™ businesses – and notable research tools such as the Summon® discovery service, the Flow® collaboration platform, the Pivot® research development tool and the Intota™ library services platform. The company is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, with offices around the world.
Additional Resources, the Future of the Dissertation
CGS has compiled a list of resources for institutions, deans, and program directors seeking more information about new directions or issues in doctoral dissertations.
Graduate education in 2020 (Denecke, ed., 2009)
What is a dissertation? New models, methods, media (HASTAC Futures Initiative)
The evolving dissertation landscape (HASTAC Futures Initiative)
PhD: Is the doctoral dissertation obsolete? (Jump, 2015)
UKCGE response to Paul Jump, THE, on the future of the PhD thesis and whether it remains fit for purpose (UK Council for Graduate Education, 2015)
The amazing adventures of the comic-book dissertator (Dunn, 2013)
The dissertation can no longer be defended (Patton, 2013)
More PhDs are embargoing their dissertations—And ProQuest says that’s just fine (Patton, 2013)
Scholarly Publishing Roundtable (Association of American Universities, 2009-2012)
Open Access (Association of Research Libraries)
About 3MT (University of Queensland)
The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (Larivière, Haustein, and Mongeon, 2015)
Open Access and Dissertation Embargoes (Truschke, 2015)
Publishing a Revised Dissertation (Truschke, 2015)
To Embargo Your Dissertation, Or Not? (Truschke, 2015)
Social Science and Humanities Dissertations
Report of the MLA task force on doctoral study in modern language and literature (Modern Language Association of America, 2014)
Beyond the dissertation monograph (Smith, 2010)
An agenda for the new dissertation (Smith, 2010)
Do open access electronic theses and dissertations diminish publishing opportunities in the social sciences and humanities? Findings from a 2011 survey of academic publishers (Ramirez, Dalton, McMillan, Read and Seamans, 2013)
Editors’ choice: AHA recommendations embargoing completed history PhD dissertations roundup (Digital Humanities Now, 2013)
Future Humanities (McGill University, Institute for the Public Life of Arts and Ideas)
STEM Dissertations
STEM education related dissertation abstracts: A bounded qualitative meta-study (Banning and Folkestad, 2012)
How to prepare a scientific doctoral dissertation based on research articles (Gustavii, 2012)
Dance your PhD contest; see also Why do scientists dance? (Bohannon, 2010)
The Future of the Doctoral Dissertation
Broadening notions of PhD career paths; team science; big data: so much about doctoral education is changing. Should dissertations change too? If so, how?
CGS is leading the graduate community in discussions about the future of the PhD dissertation, and we invite you to join us.
- Follow #DissFwd on Twitter
- Watch our Webinar on the future of the dissertation (September 2016)
- Attend a session on this topic at the CGS Annual Meeting (December 2016)
A project on the dissertation supported by ProQuest culminated in a workshop held in Washington, D.C. in January 2016. The two-day workshop convened key stakeholders to discuss how emerging technologies and other innovations in doctoral training may shape the Ph.D. dissertation of the future. Presentations were given by graduate deans, publishers, library and information professionals, scholars, and disciplinary representatives.
Proceedings of the CGS Future of the Dissertation Workshop (January 2016)
GradEdge summary of the workshop (March 2016)
Additional Resources
- GradEdge opinion piece on rethinking dissertations (July 2015)
- CGS has compiled a list of resources for institutions, deans, and program directors seeking more information about new directions or issues in doctoral dissertations.
Press Releases
Thought-Leaders Convene to Consider the Future of the Doctoral Dissertation
CGS Teams with ProQuest to Explore the Future of Doctoral Dissertations
Contact
In collaboration with:
Panelists Cite Education As Critical to Meeting Demand for STEM-Capable Workforce
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Even as the number of U.S. workers who use science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) as part of their jobs has been steadily increasing, much more needs to be done in order to keep up with employer demands and to gain better participation of under-represented groups in STEM-related jobs. CGS's Julia Kent joined a panel of experts at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to discuss the financial barriers to attaining graduate degrees and the need for better career outcomes data on STEM graduates.
New Study Documents Degree Completion of Minority Doctoral Students in STEM Fields
Monday, May 4, 2015
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE) examines the latest research report released by the Council of Graduate Schools: the Doctoral Initiative on Minority Attrition and Completion (DIMAC). Among the findings called out by JBHE was the slight improvement (to 50 percent) in the completion rates of black/African American STEM PhD students over the period studied.
Interdisciplinary Learning in Graduate Education and Research: Online Proceedings of 2014 Global Summit
Interdisciplinary Learning in Graduate Education and Research: Online Proceedings of 2014 Global Summit
Summit Program and Compilation of Papers*
*Individual papers below have been updated and edited for the electronic proceedings.
We invite you to explore the electronic proceedings of the 2014 Global Summit, Interdisciplinary Learning in Graduate Education and Research. Panel summaries provide an overview of the papers and discussion, with individual papers accessible at the links below.
Introduction
The 2014 Strategic Leaders Global Summit, co-hosted by CGS and Memorial University Newfoundland, was held in Newfoundland, Canada from September 7-10. Senior graduate leaders representing fourteen different countries met to discuss the theme “Interdisciplinary Learning in Graduate Education and Research.” Graduate institutions around the world are tasked with preparing master’s and doctoral students to approach the complex questions in a global society, which cannot be answered using a single method or approach. The concept of interdisciplinary research and learning has therefore become increasingly appealing to university leaders seeking to build excellent graduate programs.
At the 2014 Global Summit, a small group of about 35 leaders considered interdisciplinarity in an international context. They reflected on questions such as: How is interdisciplinary graduate education and research defined by graduate institutions in different countries and regions? What challenges of interdisciplinary graduate education are common to most universities around the globe? What can we learn from different models of successful interdisciplinary training and research?
Participants included many delegates from CGS international members and international groups of graduate education leaders. Along with Canada and the United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China (PRC and Hong Kong), Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and the United Kingdom were all represented at the meeting.
- See the complete introduction by Suzanne T. Ortega, Council of Graduate Schools
- Event Summary by Maureen Terese McCarthy, Council of Graduate Schools
Panel 1: National and Regional Contexts: Priorities, Capabilities, and Strategies
The Summit opened in St. John’s, NL in the evening of September 7. For the opening panel, the Summit Steering Committee provided an overview of interdisciplinarity in graduate education and research as it is understood in the context of their home nations and regions. Summit co-host CGS President Suzanne T. Ortega sparked a rigorous discussion by challenging panelists to consider what graduate schools mean when they use the term interdisciplinarity. Noreen Golfman called interdisciplinary experiences in Canada “a forest of diversity,” and this characterization aptly describes the views represented at the Summit as well. For example, Shiyi Chen (Peking University) identified one objective of interdisciplinarity in China as “generating new bodies of knowledge,” adding that the concept involved “creating new areas that solve a problem which cannot be solved by traditional methods.” Laura Poole-Warren (University of New South Wales) advocated the use of “public good” outcomes as a tool for fostering interdisciplinary research. Melita Kovacevik (European University Association) noted that even within Europe, each discipline understands the concept of interdisciplinarity differently. This discussion reflected the many nuanced understandings of interdisciplinarity at play, contextualizing the following panels.
Vahan Agopyan, Universidade de São Paulo
Shiyi Chen, Peking University
Noreen Golfman, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Liviu Matei, Central European University
Laura Poole-Warren, University of New South Wales
Nirmala Rao, The University of Hong Kong
James Wimbush, Indiana University
Panel 2: Creating an Institutional Culture that Values Interdisciplinary Learning
The following day, participants traveled to a conference center in the small fishing village of Port Rexton for the core Summit sessions. The presentations for this panel examined strategies deans could use to create institutional cultures that value interdisciplinary learning and research. Again, participants differed as to what constitutes an interdisciplinary culture. Panel moderator Liviu Matei (Central European University) suggested that including some interdisciplinary statements in a strategic development plan may help graduate schools focus on interdisciplinarity as one of “the values, norms, and behaviors that are considered acceptable and promoted at the university.” Nancy Marcus (Florida State University) posited that interdisciplinary culture might be considered as “an openness to all ideas” and “respect for different views,” while Suzanne T. Ortega defined it as “the capacity of an institution to move quickly to deploy new combinations of expertise to rapidly-emerging, important problems.”
Panelists shared diverse approaches to fostering these kinds of cultures. Jay Doering (University of Manitoba) outlined a program he created to accommodate students whose program of study spans two or more academic departments. Denise Cuthbert (RMIT University) identified a host of strategies for moving beyond the “over-laying of interdisciplinary . . . centres,” including the joint appointments of staff. Lesley Wilson (European University Association) argued that the greater value funding agencies in Europe are beginning to place on interdisciplinary research has the potential to drive changes to individual university cultures.
Jay Doering, University of Manitoba
Lesley Wilson, European University Association
Denise Cuthbert, RMIT University
Shireen Motala, University of Johannesburg
Lisa Young, University of Calgary
Panel 3: Building Interdisciplinary Degree Programs
The presentations for panel three shifted in focus to the administrative structures that support interdisciplinary degree programs. Tao Tao (Xiamen University) described some of the investments the central government of China is making in interdisciplinary programs, including one at Xiamen University to study the culture and history of Taiwan. One seemingly simple structure for interdisciplinary programs is to provide a student with two mentors, from different disciplines, who share responsibility for supervising the dissertation. Robert Augustine (Eastern Illinois University) initiated a rich discussion on the merits and challenges associated with the dual mentoring model, which is common in many different contexts.
The dual mentorship discussion touched on the importance of formal procedures to reduce the administrative burden of students. One strategy included determining mentorship workloads by percentage: Jay Doering (University of Manitoba) described some institutions where one mentor is responsible for up to 80% and the other at least 20%. Another, advocated by Mark Smith (Purdue University), involved developing processes for mediating disputes between mentors.
Lucy Johnston, University of Canterbury
Robert Augustine, Eastern Illinois University
Tao Tao, Xiamen University
Stefanie Thorne, University Campus Suffolk
Melita Kovacevic, European University Association
Panel 4: Innovations in Interdisciplinary Learning
Panel four addressed innovations including non-degree program options and activities, mentoring and advising, and electronic resources in interdisciplinary learning and research. Panelists shared specific initiatives at their home institutions that deliver interdisciplinary experiences to students without requiring them to take formal interdisciplinary degrees. Student-directed initiatives, presented Marie Audette (Université Laval), create important opportunities for students to come together in a more “casual,” lower-stakes environment.
Roger Horn (Deakin University) took the position that interdisciplinary research, in particular, is an essential component of a healthy university ecosystem. He noted that the value of interdisciplinary research is often apparent to experienced researchers, but that graduate students may need guidance to see research potential beyond their disciplines. The growing need for tools to support this interdisciplinary research was addressed in the presentation by Rafael Sidi (ProQuest). Mr. Sidi highlighted ProQuest databases’ role in “creating serendipity” through broad literature search results.
Nancy H. Marcus, Florida State University
Marie Audette, Université Laval
Roger Horn, Deakin University
Mark J.T. Smith, Purdue University
Rafael Sidi, ProQuest Information Solutions
Panel 5: Structures for Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
On Tuesday, September 9, the Summit continued with panels discussing the structures for interdisciplinary research and collaboration within STEM and the humanities as well as across broad fields and with external partners. Mohan Kankanhallli (National University of Singapore) presented on the “integrative clusters” that house interdisciplinary STEM research efforts at the National University of Singapore. Research teams tackling problem-based agendas seemed to be a common feature of many universities’ interdisciplinary work. Because the government of Malaysia has indicated that certain research done at the university must contribute back to society, Zaidatun Tasir (Universiti Teknologi Malaysia) reported that social scientists have become integral parts of interdisciplinary research groups there because they frame the questions and challenges of the real-world problems to be addressed by interdisciplinary research teams. Agreeing that social benefit is an important outcome of graduate education, Barbara Knuth (Cornell University) indicated that graduate students at Cornell are trained in the “translation of research to the benefit of society,” and noted that half of Cornell research doctoral graduates go on to careers that explicitly and directly benefit the public good. This discussion transitioned into one about the importance role of funding agencies, particularly government funders, in promoting interdisciplinary research and learning.
Sue Berners-Price, Griffith University
Mohan Kankanhalli, National University of Singapore
Hans-Joachim Bungartz, Technische Universität München
Verena Blechinger-Talcott, Freie Universität Berlin
Zaidatun Tasir, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Barbara Knuth, Cornell University
Panel 6: Building and Sustaining External Partnerships
Maureen Terese McCarthy, Council of Graduate Schools
Jiaping Wang, Zhejiang University
Closing: A Statement of Principles
In the final wrap-up session, participants agreed on a set of principles supporting interdisciplinary learning in graduate education. A few key concepts framed these statements. First was the idea that interdisciplinarity is characterized by tremendous diversity in definition and practice when viewed in the context of different national cultures, disciplines, and institutions. Second, and related, was the assertion that “[i]nterdisciplinarity is not . . . an end in and of itself,” but rather an aim that “must answer specific, identifiable needs” at each institution.
Cohost Noreen Golfman described the work of the principles in a brief statement: “We tend to agree on the importance of interdisciplinarity as a concept, but practicing interdisciplinary teaching, research, and learning presents real challenges for graduate schools and administrators. This week we established a set of principles to guide graduate communities when considering how best to incorporate interdisciplinary learning and research as core values in their academic programs.”
The leaders participating in the 2014 Global Summit developed these principles in the hope that colleagues throughout the world might find them useful as a guide for developing new initiatives as well as for demonstrating the importance of interdisciplinarity in graduate programs. These general guidelines reflect the consensus points contained within the specific case studies, examples, and ideas that can be found in the papers presented by each Summit participant.
CGS contributions to the 2014 Summit were supported by a generous gift from ProQuest.
Pages
CGS is the leading source of information, data analysis, and trends in graduate education. Our benchmarking data help member institutions to assess performance in key areas, make informed decisions, and develop plans that are suited to their goals.
CGS Best Practice initiatives address common challenges in graduate education by supporting institutional innovations and sharing effective practices with the graduate community. Our programs have provided millions of dollars of support for improvement and innovation projects at member institutions.
As the national voice for graduate education, CGS serves as a resource on issues regarding graduate education, research, and scholarship. CGS collaborates with other national stakeholders to advance the graduate education community in the policy and advocacy arenas.
CGS is an authority on global trends in graduate education and a leader in the international graduate community. Our resources and meetings on global issues help members internationalize their campuses, develop sustainable collaborations, and prepare their students for a global future.
