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
Global Summit 2014
Interdisciplinary Learning in Graduate Education and Research
Newfoundland, Canada
September 7-10, 2014
As interdisciplinary research generates increasing excitement in the international community, its graduate institutions have the potential to prepare the next generation of research professionals to conduct research and collaborate beyond the bounds of one discipline. At the same time, graduate institutions often confront many barriers to creating and delivering interdisciplinary experiences for master’s and doctoral students.
Interdisciplinarity raises many questions that can be productively explored in an international context: 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? How should graduate leaders decide which investments in interdisciplinary graduate education are most rewarding for their students, faculty and institutions?
A collaboration between CGS and the Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN), the 2014 Strategic Leaders Global Summit addressed these and other pressing questions. Summit participants were nominated by the leaders of international organizations devoted to graduate education.
Event Materials:
- Press Release: University Leaders Issue Statement on Interdisciplinarity in Graduate Education and Research
- Principles for Supporting Interdisciplinarity in (Post)Graduate Education and Research (PDF)
- Online Proceedings
CGS contributions to the 2014 Summit were supported by a generous gift from ProQuest.
Global Summit 2013
Graduate Education and the Promises of Technology
Budapest, Hungary
The development of new technologies for teaching, research, and communication are shaping graduate education in ways that seemed impossible only a decade ago. New online learning resources have been integrated into the “flipped” classroom; graduate institutions have developed programs that are partly or wholly delivered online; and Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become viable, if controversial, models for making graduate curricula more accessible.
The risks and rewards of new technologies for graduate education, already a topic of discussion in national and institutional contexts, raise special questions for the global graduate community. How do we define and measure the quality of graduate education in the wake of new technologically-enabled tools? What impacts are these tools having on students, institutions, and countries? How will emerging technologies shape research practices now and in the future? Co-hosted by CGS and Central European University (CEU), the Seventh Annual Strategic Leaders Global Summit convened a diverse group of global graduate education leaders to discuss these important questions.
Event Materials:
CGS contributions to the 2013 Summit were supported by a generous gift from ProQuest.
Principles of Good Practice in Dealing with Students in Distress
By Lee Bird, Vice-President of Student Affairs, Oklahoma State University, and Sheryl A. Tucker, Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate College, Oklahoma State University
For the graduate school, it started off as a run of the mill situation—an inquiry into the student’s lack of research progress. However, it quickly became apparent that the situation was anything but routine from the bizarre office displays; talk of firearm ownership; disturbing utterances; unrealistic expectations; talk of the overwhelming stress of caring for children and the financial dependence on student loans; and withdrawing from interacting with the research advisor and graduate program staff. Due to the graduate school’s campus-wide relationships already in place, a complete picture of a graduate student’s serious situation began to emerge from the isolated pockets of knowledge that existed throughout campus. Thankfully, issues were mitigated, and the graduate student was provided with the resources to transition into a situation that provided a path forward.
Many times in the past, the aforementioned scenario as it initially presented would have turned out to be a typical mismatch between the research advisor’s and graduate student’s expectations, with a lack of clarity and articulation of such being a significant contributing factor. Mediating a resolution that allowed the student to continue successfully in the graduate program or to determine how to address a poor fit with the advisor and/or program was an achievable outcome. Today, the complexity of student situations, as noted above, has altered and elevated the importance of the graduate school’s involvement in graduate student lives and/or program concerns.
While graduate schools are structured very differently across the broad array of higher educational institutions, words that might be used to describe the role of the graduate school’s involvement in student situations previously might have been counselor, mediator, referee, negotiator, peacemaker, etc. One may have even used the word “facilitator,” as many graduate deans view their roles as facilitators of graduate student and graduate faculty success. Yet, as the graduate student population changes, so does the role, and “facilitator” becomes much more encompassing in dealing with significantly more complex graduate student situations. For example, as opportunities for people with physical and mental disabilities have improved, many are now seeking advanced degrees, often encountering the inherent complexities of less-structured academic milestones surrounding the integral research and creative activities of these degrees. In such cases, graduate schools can be facilitators between many campus units with specific expertise that all need to be at the table to address equal opportunities for all graduate students. Beyond the newer responsibilities such as facilitating accommodations for a more diverse student population, the complexities surrounding general student concerns continue to evolve. The need for effective collaboration with student affairs and university legal counsel has never been greater. Not only are student issues more pressing and complex, graduate deans must also ensure compliance with Title IX, Clery reporting and other federal reporting mandates.
Graduate students face many issues as they work through their master’s, doctoral and professional degrees. Faculty may not be as prepared or willing to address developmental, mental health or social concerns of graduate versus undergraduate students, leaving students and the institution vulnerable. In an interesting article, “Paranoid?, You Must be a Grad Student,” Troop (2011online article) found that “factors common in the graduate-school experience like being a newcomer, unsure of your standing, and knowing that you’re being sized up constantly can ultimately induce social paranoia, a heightened sensitivity to what you imagine others might be thinking about you.” Fogg (2009) also noted that, “Graduate school is gaining a reputation as an incubator for anxiety and depression. Social isolation, financial burdens, lack of structure, and the pressure to produce groundbreaking work can wear heavily on graduate students, especially those already vulnerable to mental-health disorders.” (p. B12). Citing a 2004 University of California at Berkeley study, Fogg noted that 67% of graduate students surveyed said they felt hopeless at least once in the past year, 54% percent felt so depressed they had a hard time functioning, and 10% considered suicide.
Stixrud (2012), talking about the impact of stress on the body and mind, noted, “This stress-soaked atmosphere is poisonous to learning, judgment and adaptive functioning—and to the physical and mental health of individuals and organizations.” (p.135). Hillier (in Stixrud, 2012), noted that “although creativity and adaptability are trumpeted as crucial for success, research in animals and humans has indicated that stress markedly compromises the ability to make mental transitions to ‘shift’ and to cope flexibly—as stress induced behaviors are largely reflexive, defensive and stereotyped.” The Stixrud article noted that how people respond to and deal with stress may not only be important for graduate degree completion but also a predictor of success for young professionals in the workplace. Additional factors impacting performance are sleep deprivation and the use of alcohol or other drugs which compound the effects of stress. In addition, chronic fatigue impacts a student’s ability to learn, think and act effectively.
Stixrud notes there is a strong connection between high levels of stress and mental health problems in people of all ages. Specifically, Giedd (in Stixrud) states “the prefrontal brain systems that regulate higher order cognitive functions do not appear to be largely mature until, on average, age 25 and the systems that mediate emotional control are not fully wired until even later.” Younger, less mature graduate students may not have the emotional strength or stability necessary to function independently or to supervise others without proper supervision by faculty members. More troublesome is the Brownson Study, which found that 47% of graduate students who considered suicide in the last year did not tell anyone and 52% did not seek professional help. Relationship problems were rated as the most pressing problem followed by academic, financial and family problems. Brownson (in Fogg, 2009) noted that, “…graduate students often feel the strain of juggling multiple roles, such as being a spouse, parent, and caregiver to an older parent, usually while bringing in very little income.” Balance is difficult when perfectionism is the order of the day, and according to Fox (in Fogg, 2009), “graduate schools tend to reward students who go way overboard on work even if that means jeopardizing other aspects of their lives.”
So what does this imply for the care of graduate students on campus? Graduate schools need to be leaders in creating a campus culture that ensures that graduate students are not abused or harassed and feel comfortable sharing their concerns with caring faculty, staff and administrators who model best practice behavior.
Graduate students face unique challenges. Jankowski, founder of PhinisheD, an online support group for graduate students, found “Grad students are in a remarkable position of powerlessness” (in Fogg, 2012). Isolation due to work and study schedules and academic competition combines with other stress related issues to create a potentially toxic environment. Faculty have a great deal of control over academics (grading, supervising scholarly work, etc.) and students, especially international students, may be unwilling to confide in a faculty member about a personal concern such as stress or harassment they may be experiencing. Graduate faculty may not feel they have the time, expertise or energy to help or that they should not be involved in a graduate student’s personal life. However, many studies have shown that a positive relationship with key graduate faculty, such as the mentor, and the use of campus support services is critical to graduate student success. Referrals by faculty members make it “okay” to seek help.
Graduate faculty need to recognize the signs and symptoms of stress or other problems and be willing to refer students to counseling or other appropriate campus units, such as the student affairs and graduate schools offices. Not only can such units help manage referrals; they may be willing to sponsor events to help reduce graduate student stress and help students create better support systems. Programs on stress management, sleep and nutrition or even those that just provide opportunities for social interaction are common on most campuses, but may need to be tailored with graduate students in mind.
|
Good Practice for Dealing with Students in Distress:
|
It is also important to note that Mori (2000) observed, “Besides the normal developmental concerns that every student may have, international students encounter additional stressors due to the demands for cultural adjustment.” Moreover, research conducted by Hyun (2007) indicates that 44% of international graduate students experienced emotional, stress-related problems that significantly impacted their well-being or academic performance within the last year. Unique international student stressors identified by Mori were linguistic, academic, interpersonal, financial and interpersonal adjustments. Mori also noted that while these students have significant issues, they are more likely to underutilize mental health services. Several studies have noted that there may be several reasons for this including concern about the cost of treatment, and the cultural stigma associated with seeking help. Yakunina (2012) indicated that the unique challenges faced by international students (termed acculturative stress) leads to negative outcomes for international students including depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms. On a positive note, Yakunina’s research indicates that these students’ experiences have produced both hardiness and a developed universal-diverse orientation skill (defined as students’ openness to and appreciation of similarities and differences in others) that can be tapped to help moderate current issues. In addition, Hyun’s research indicated that higher financial confidence and a positive, high functioning relationship with the faculty advisor were key factors in the level of stress they experienced. Therefore, graduate schools, in collaboration with graduate faculty, staff and other campus units, have the opportunity to facilitate resources (training, programming, etc.) that promote a healthy graduate education environment.
Coordination and collaboration between the graduate school and student affairs division is most critical when situations escalate. Irrespective of what the campus threat assessment team (e.g., Behavioral Consultation Team, BCT, or Behavioral Intervention Team, BIT) is called, the responsibility of the modern threat assessment team is to provide the careful and contextual identification and evaluation of behaviors that may raise concern or may precede violent activity on campus (Deisinger 2009). Incidents involving graduate students should trigger a call to the graduate school whether their staff serves on the threat assessment team or not. Coordination of information rests with the team, and gathering accurate and timely information regarding graduate students can be greatly aided by regular consultation with the graduate school. Such teams are dependent on administrators, faculty, staff (including graduate teaching and research assistants, GTAs/GRAs) and fellow students to report students of concern.
According to Deisinger (2009), while the method of reporting may vary by campus, key facts and impressions of faculty regarding students in crisis can help the team provide “… a proactive, collaborative, coordinated, objective and thoughtful approach to identify, assess, intervene and manage situations that may pose a threat to the campus community or to themselves ” (p. 26). Graduate faculty must be trained to recognize and report their concerns and not err on keeping concerns solely inside the department. According to Van Brunt (2014), angry and upset graduate students may be more hostile with peers and perceived subordinates than with faculty with whom they work, conduct research or are evaluated by. It is worth mentioning that Van Brunt (2014) also notes that while meeting hostility with reason may seem emotionally counterintuitive, it may prevent the incident from escalating.
For the threat assessment group, the process feels like collecting pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in order to determine what the “whole” looks like. From this information, contact, assessment, referral to counseling or other actions can be coordinated and the situation assessed. Cases continue to be assessed until there is no evidence of a threat or the person leaves the university through attrition or graduation. This jigsaw puzzle analogy can also describe the role of the graduate school in piecing together concerns brought to their attention about student situations, like the aforementioned scenario. Proactive efforts by the graduate school can lead to facilitating graduate student and faculty awareness of needed resources or potentially to understanding the need for threat assessment team involvement. Many times, it is the graduate school that is in the best position to see the developing picture early on, whereas other entities may only have single pieces of the puzzle.
Most campuses offer training to faculty about how to manage hostile or threatening incidents on campus, and Van Brunt (2014) provides an excellent guide specifically for faculty. It is also important that training be more comprehensive than just threat assessment and address the wealth of topics touched on here. Additionally, it is imperative to ensure that training is provided for graduate school staff, graduate program staff and GTAs/GRAs. Training resources, beyond campus expertise in student affairs, faculty development, human resources, general counsel offices, etc., can include Council of Graduate Schools and Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) workshops and conflict resolution and mediation programs through law schools, local governments and municipalities.
Working in a constantly changing environment makes the challenges even greater and not just in providing training to diverse groups. Relationships are critical for knowing about and addressing graduate student situations. These relationships have been increasingly jeopardized as key administrators and staff turnover at a frequency not seen in the past. The constant redevelopment of working relationships with interim, new and sometimes vacant critical positions can delay responses and resolutions. Therefore, it is even more incumbent that graduate schools be an active partner with student affairs to provide campus-wide leadership to address graduate students in distress. As a group, these entities are experienced and well-positioned to continue to evolve and adapt to address graduate students issues, even as the internal and external situations change.
Ultimately, graduate students can benefit from training, programs and services (counseling, stress reduction programs, low cost social and cultural programs and activities, support groups, etc.) provided by units such as student affairs and graduate schools, but nothing can replace or duplicate the most essential relationship—that of the graduate faculty mentor with the graduate student—and significant attention and resources must be focused there. Everyone’s willingness, to be involved in making the graduate school culture more humane and in making timely referrals when necessary, may not just improve graduate degree completion—these efforts may save a life.
References:
Deisinger, G., Randazzo, M., O’Neill, D. & Savage, J. (2009). The Handbook for Campus Threat Assessment & Management Teams. Alexandria, VA: Applied Risk Management.
Fogg, P. (2009). Grad-school blues: Students fighting depression and anxiety are not alone. The Chronicle Review, 55(24), B12.
Hyun, J., Quinn, B., Madon, T., & Lustig, S. (2007). Mental health need, awareness, and use of counseling services among international graduate students. Journal of American College Health, 56(2), 109-118.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 137-144.
Stixrud, W.R. (2014). Why stress is such a big deal. Journal of Management Education, 36(2), 135-142.
Troop, D., (2011). Paranoid? You must be a grad student. Retrieved from: https://chronicle.com/article/Paranoid-You-Must-Be-a-Grad/127235/
Van Brunt, B., & Lewis, W. S. (2014). A faculty guide to addressing disruptive and dangerous behavior. New York, NY: Routledge.
Yakunina, E.S., Weigold, I. K., Hercegovac, S., & Elsayed, N. (2013). International students’ personal and multicultural strengths: Reducing acculturative stress and promoting adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 216-223.
This article appeared in the May 2014 issue of GradEdge.
Global Summit Archive
Implications of "Big Data" for Graduate Education
September 27-29, 2015
Singapore
The 2015 Summit addressed the topic of "big data" and how graduate institutions can anticipate issues surrounding research involving "big data."
Interdisciplinary Learning in Graduate Education and Research
September 7-10, 2014
Newfoundland, Canada
The 2014 Summit explored opportunities and barriers to interdisciplinary education and research, which are key to solving global research problems.
Graduate Education and the Promises of Technology
September 30-October 2, 2013
Budapest, Hungary
The 2013 Summit explored how the development of new technologies for teaching, research, and communication are shaping graduate education.
From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation: Graduate Education for Global Career Pathways
September 4-6, 2012
Bavaria, Germany
The 2012 Summit examined the "brain circulation" model for global talent mobility and the impacts to institutions and national economies.
Career Outcomes for Graduate Students: Tracking and Building Pathways
September 26-28, 2011
Hong Kong
The 2011 Summit explored national, regional, and institutional efforts to support the career development of graduate students.
Measuring Quality in (Post)Graduate Education and Research Training
September 13-15, 2010
Brisbane, Australia
The 2010 Summit addressed specific types of quantitative and qualitative measurement designed to improve the quality and assess the outcomes of (post)-graduate education and research.
Graduate International Collaborations: How to Build and Sustain Them
December 5-6, 2009
San Francisco, California
The 2009 summit addressed a topic with far-reaching implications for graduate students, faculty, and institutions: the challenges and opportunities surrounding international collaborations at the graduate level.
Scholarly Integrity and Research Ethics in an International Context
August 31-September 2, 2008
Florence, Italy
In this first global follow-up to the 2007 Global Summit, CGS convened thirty-five leaders representing graduate education around the world to share national and comparative perspectives on research ethics in a global context and identified possible areas for future collaboration.
Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education
August 30-September 1, 2007
Banff, Alberta, Canada
The Council of Graduate Schools, in partnership with the Province of Alberta, co-hosted the first-ever Global Summit on Graduate Education, in Banff, Alberta, Canada. The 27 participants reached consensus on a set of principles to guide and strengthen international collaboration and advance graduate education globally through the sharing of best practices.
Webinar: Recent Data from The Commission on Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers
CGS members are invited to register for an upcoming webinar.
Recent Data from The Commission on Pathways Through Graduate School and Into ...
This content is available to members only.
Please login to view the full content.
More Indians Want to Study in the U.S.
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Wall Street Journal takes note of the trend data from India reported in CGS's 2014 International Graduate Admissions Survey, Phase 1: Applications.
India drives 7% increase in US graduate applications
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Applications to U.S. graduate schools from India jumped 32% in 2014, according to the CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey, Phase 1: Applications. However, there is cause for concern in overall trends because prospective students from India have not exhibited large and sustained year-to-year increases, CGS President Debra W. Stewart tells the Professionals in International Education (PIE) News.
Partnership & Sponsorship Opportunities
CGS is pleased to offer opportunities to connect with graduate school leaders at the 2021 CGS Annual Meeting and beyond.
Our partnerships take many forms including:
- Participation in the CGS Sustaining Membership Network
- Thought-leader sessions at the 2021 CGS Annual Meeting (Dec 1-4; New Orleans, LA)
- Traditional event sponsorships
- Research projects
- Custom events and workshops
- Webinar programming for CGS members
- Exhibiting at CGS convenings
- Advertising in CGS publications, including GradEdge
Check out the 2021 CGS Partnership Prospectus and contact Adrienne Vincent with questions, to learn more, or to propose a custom partnership that brings value to your organization and to CGS members.
CGS would like to thank the following organizations for their generous support of the 2021 CGS Annual Meeting:
Sponsors:
- Cayuse
- Duolingo English Test
- EAB
- ETS
- IELTS USA
- Liaison International
- Nature Portfolio
- pd.education by DoctoralNet
- ProQuest
- Wiley Education Services
Exhibitors:
- Cayuse
- Duolingo English Test
- EAB
- ETS
- Liaison International
- National Science Foundation/National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
- Nature Portfolio
- pd.education by DoctoralNet
- Prodigy Finance
- ProQuest
- Slate by Technolutions
- Studyportals
- Wiley Education Services
Issue Brief: Tax Policy - Education Related Provisions
Monday, February 12, 2018
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed by Congress in 2017, made significant changes to the U.S. tax code. CGS continues to have concerns about the law’s adverse impact on institutions of higher education due to the broader changes to endowments, charitable contributions and state and local tax deductions, for example. However, tax code provisions that directly affect the ability of graduate students to pursue master’s and doctoral education, and which were considered seriously for elimination, were protected in the final agreement.
Tax policies should encourage, not discourage, the pursuit of master’s and doctoral education because advanced knowledge and skills have become the threshold requirement for many fast-growing and high-demand fields and careers. Additionally, master’s degrees are required to qualify for licensure in many critical healthcare, education, and service occupations. The U.S. cannot afford to discourage talented individuals from pursuing graduate education if we are to remain competitive in a global economy. All students, especially those from diverse economic and demographic backgrounds must have access to high quality, affordable master’s and doctoral education.
To achieve that goal, CGS recommends the following principles:
Make permanent the above the line deduction for qualified education expenses related to tuition and fees.
Improve employer provided tax-exempt educational assistance under the Internal Revenue Code Section 127, by including student loan repayment assistance and increasing the annual limit of $5,250.
Provide tax credit incentives for low- and moderate-income individuals to contribute to 529 education savings accounts, including employer tax credits when they match the contributions.
Retain benefits in the tax code that support the ability of graduate students to finance their education such as Student Loan Interest Deduction (SLID); section 117(d)(5), which excludes tuition waivers and remissions from being included as taxable income; and Lifetime Learning Credit.
CGS Summary of Select Items from President's FY2015 Budget
OVERVIEW
This document is a summary of select items in the President’s 2015 Budget Request. It indicates how those resources would be impact graduate education, research and graduate students. Overall, the President’s budget proposes $3.9 trillion in total outlays. In 2010, mandatory spending made up 55 percent of the total budget. That figure has grown to 63 percent and is expected to continue to do so. The expected deficit is $564 billion. The discretionary spending budget cap matches the $1.014 trillion cap recently agreed to by Congress.
With respect to Federal R&D, the President’s 2015 Budget proposes $135.4 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion (1.2%) from 2014. Defense R&D is increased by 1.7% ($1.19 B) and nondefense R&D is increased by 0.7% ($477 M). Overall, basic research is reduced by $331 million (-1.0%) and applied research increased by $582 million (1.8%). Within the total however, funding for basic research is decreased by $331 million to $32 billion, while funding for applied research increases by $582 million to $32.6 billion.
However, the President’s budget contains additional discretionary spending of $56 billion above the cap through the “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative”, to be split between defense and nondefense. This initiative would require Congress to raise the current cap and agree to the proposals in the President’s budget that would fully fund it (other cuts in spending and tax increase on the wealthy). The budget request House appropriators have already stated that they are not willing to raise the cap, and Senate Republicans in a hearing on the budget, questioned the inclusion of this initiative, which makes it very unlikely that this additional discretionary spending will be made available for 2015. If agreement could be reached and these resources become available, it would be a source of funding to support some of the recommendations contained in the CGS issue briefs on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and America COMPETES, and Immigration Reform.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2015 budget provides $30.4 billion, which is an increase of $211 million or 0.7 percent over the 2014 funding level, $100 million of which is to support the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. After accounting for inflation, this increase is really a cut of about 1 percent. Over half of NIH’s budget will be for Research Project Grants to finance 34,197 competitive, peer-reviewed, and largely investigator-initiated projects, an increase of 329 grants over FY 2014 levels, which includes 9,326 new and competing awards. In 2015, about 83 percent of NIH’s funding will go to the extramural community which supports work by more than 300,000 research personnel at over 2,500 organizations, including universities, medical schools, hospitals and other research facilities.
NIH plans to increase its emphasis on research innovation by increasing its investment in High-Risk, High-Reward projects to $100 million. The agency will also continue to implement a series of steps to enhance its efforts to recruit and advance the careers of people traditionally underrepresented in the biomedical and behavioral research workforce. A total of $767 million (approximately $9 million less than the 2014 budget request) will support the training of 15,715 (about 400 fewer than the 2014 budget request) of the next generation of research scientists through the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards program.
More information on the NIH budget is available in pdf format at:
http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY15/FY2015_Overview.pdf.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
For the National Science Foundation (NSF) the budget provides $7.255 billion, an increase of $83.08 million or 1.2 percent increase over FY 2014.NSF funds approximately 24 percent of all federally supported fundamental research conducted by America’s colleges and universities. Overall, Research and Related Activities (RRA) is reduced by 0.03 percent, Education and Human Resources (EHR) is increased by 5.1 percent and Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction is increased by 0.4 percent. Within the 2015 budget request, the number of people involved in EHR activities is projected to be 140,900, 12,300 of which are graduate students, 300 are postdoctorates, and 6,700 are researchers. Close to 110,000 are K-12 teachers and students.
Graduate education program funding levels of interest within EHR include:
- For Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFs) the President’s budget request allots $166.72 million to Education and Human Resources (EHR) which will provide 2,000 new awards, a cost of education allowance of $12,000 and a stipend increase of @2,000 to $34,000.
- For the second year of NSF Research Traineeships there is $28.3 million. NRT investments aim to advance research on priority themes as well as develop and conduct research on new approaches and models for educating the next generation of scientists and engineers. NRT funding also includes $7.0 million for a new track within NRT, supporting Innovation in Graduate Education (IGE). IGE will invite proposals for model design, innovation, and research in graduate education student training and professional development. IGE will not support trainees directly, however it will allow institutions that have traineeship programs, or that offer other types if support for graduate students, to serve as testbeds. IGE is an effort that parallels recommendations made by the Commission on Pathways in the Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers report1.
This request also includes $20.32 million for continuing grant increments for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT), which transitioned to NRT in FY 2014.
- The Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) is level funded at the FY 2014 level.
- STEM Professional Workforce Preparation is increased by $1 million. The program will expand the knowledge base to improve STEM professional workforce development (at all educational levels) through development of models, research, and evaluation, and allow translation of the results of this research for adoption and/or adaptation in workforce and education programs. The Excellence Awards in Science and Engineering (EASE) includes up to $500,000 to initiate a new STEM Teacher Leader Corps activity in collaboration with the NOYCE program in the Division of Undergraduate Education.
More information about the NSF budget request is available at:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130728
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DoE)
The DoE budget request is $27.9 (2.6 percent increase over 2014), with $5.111 billion for the Office of Science (SC), an increase of 0.9 percent over 2014 enacted levels. The budget request assumes a reorganization of the Department into three Under Secretaries – Science and energy, Nuclear Security and Management and Performance. As the largest federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, DOE’s SC supports 22,000 researchers at 17 National Laboratories and more than 300 universities. The budget request provides $1.8 billion for basic energy sciences activities, $744 million for high energy physics, $628 million for biological and environmental research, $594 million for nuclear physics research, $541 million for advanced scientific computing research, and $416 million for fusion energy sciences. There is continued support for the energy Frontier Research Centers that involves over 600 researchers from multiple institutions. These centers have produced 3,400 peer-reviewed publications, 60 invention disclosures, 200 patents, and numerous instances of technology transfer in just three years. In the Fossil Energy Program there is a special recruitment program, the Mickey Leland Energy Fellowship Program, to provide students majoring in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines with the opportunity to enhance their education and knowledge of fossil fuels. The goal of the program is to support an increase in the number of females and underrepresented minorities entering the scientific and engineering career fields in the U.S. workforce.
More information is available at:
http://www.energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2015-budget-justification.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNNOLOGY (NIST)
Under the president’s FY 15 budget proposal, NIST would receive $900 million, a $50 million increase over the 2014 enacted levels to expand and strengthen programs in a number of key areas such as forensic science, lightweight vehicle alloys and bioengineering measurement tools. Of the $900 million, $680 million is designated for Scientific and Technical Research and Services; $161 million is for Industrial Technology Services; and $59 million is for Construction of Research Facilities. Six million dollars is included for NIST to accelerate and expand technology transfer across the federal government, which will enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industry by sharing innovations and knowledge from federal labs.
For more information on the NIST budget request check:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)
The President’s Budget Request is $68.6 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education overall, which is an increase of $1.3 billion, or 1.9 percent, more than the 2014 level. With respect to higher education, the President’s budget proposal calls for making college more affordable and helping borrowers manage their student loan debt. However, most of the emphasis in the ED higher education budget request continues to be on undergraduate education.
The Pell Grant maximum is increased by $100 to $5,830. Other aid programs in the Department, such as Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and Federal Work Study, will continue to receive current level funding. There are two new proposals in the Department’s budget: a $4 billion state matching grant for graduating students from low-income backgrounds, and an $8 billion initiative to reward colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of low- to moderate-income students on time. In this political climate, neither proposal has much chance of being enacted. The budget request also provides $10 million for the development of a national college ratings system.
For student loans, the budget calls for an expansion of the “Pay as You Earn” (PAYE) income-based repayment program to all student borrowers, including graduate students, regardless of when they took out their loans. It caps monthly payments at 10 percent of the borrower’s discretionary income and forgives the remaining balances after 20 years of payments. However, according to the budget documents, the Administration is proposing to trim some of the benefits that high-income, high-debt borrowers receive under this program. Additionally, the budget proposal would require borrowers with more than $57,500 in debt to make payments for 25 years before it would be forgiven. The amount of debt forgiven for public-sector workers would be limited to $57,500 as a way to prevent institutional practices that may further increase student indebtedness. Pay as You Earn is currently seen as a windfall for students at expensive professional schools who incur high debt but also get high-paying jobs that allow them to repay their debt.
The Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program is level-funded at $29.3 million, of which 8 percent would be used to make 126 new awards and the remainder to fund continuing GAANN awards. Separate funding for the GAANN and Javits programs was eliminated in the 2012 appropriations measure, subsequent to the programs being combined in the President’s 2012 budget request. Continuation funds for Javits in 2012 and 2013 were made through the GAANN program. However, 2014 is the final year of Javits continuations.
The McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement Program receives no proposed increase over the 2014 level of $35.7 million. The International Education and Foreign languages Studies programs receive an increase of $4 million (6 percent over 2014) is to support new awards to help American students develop proficiency in critical foreign languages, specifically those spoken in the Asia-Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa regions, and new institutional mobility grants in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
More information can be accessed at:
http://www.ed.gov/budget15?src=feature
OPPORTUNITY, GROWTH, AND SECURITY INITIATIVE (OGSI)
The Budget includes a separate $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI). The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, which will be split evenly between defense and non-defense funding, demonstrates how additional discretionary investments in 2015 can spur economic progress, promote opportunity, and strengthen national security.
For NIH, this fund would provide $970 million to increase the number of new grants funded and provide additional resources for activities such as the BRAIN Initiative and other innovative projects.
For NSF, this fund would provide an additional $552.0 million. At NSF this initiative would add to progress in many areas including clean energy, cognitive science and neuroscience, cyber-enabled smart systems, graduate education, and secure cyberspace. It is expected to support 1,000 additional research grants and add $34 million to support up to 3,000 graduate traineeships.
At DOE, OGSI provides funds to accelerate investment in key infrastructure and activities, in addition to the $27.9 billion requested by the base budget. OGSI would accelerate research and the development and deployment of new, high impact clean energy technologies by providing an additional $484 million for activities leading to innovative materials, processes, and system designs; validation of new technologies; and increased federal energy cost savings. In support of the President’s goal to double U.S. energy productivity by 2030, OGSI includes $200 million for Race to the Top performance-based awards to support state governments that implement effective policies to cut energy waste and modernize the grid.
For NIST, $115 million is included in OGSI to strengthen its research and development capabilities and facilities by accelerating advances in top research priorities including advanced manufacturing, forensics, and cybersecurity and disaster resilience. An additional $2.4 billion is included to support the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
At the Department of Education OGSI would support investments of $250 million for Preschool Development Grants, $300 million for the ConnectEDucators initiative, and $200 million for Promise Neighborhoods. None of the additional funding would be used for graduate education programs.
1Council of Graduate Schools and Educational Testing Service. (2012). Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers. Report from the Commission on Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
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.
