| The focus of this chapter is graduate education. It
begins by placing graduate education at SFSU in an institutional and
historical context. Recommendations for graduate education emerging from
the university strategic plan are then presented, as are priorities for
implementation and their status at the end of the 1999-2000 academic year.
The chapter concludes with suggested directions for the future. |
|
x |
|
SYSTEM AND CAMPUS CONTEXT
FOR GRADUATE EDUCATION
|
|
x |
| Like many other universities that began as teachers'
colleges and evolved into comprehensive universities, SFSU historically
has not made graduate education a central attribute of its institutional
personality. In delegating to the CSU major responsibility for educating
California's baccalaureate students and to the University of California
the major responsibility for graduate education, the state's Master Plan
for Higher Education reinforced SFSU's identity as an undergraduate
institution. In spite of this historical circumstance, the graduate
program at SFSU has grown over the years to become the largest in the CSU
and the fourth largest in California behind USC, UC Berkeley, and UCLA.
Each year since 1995, the Graduate Division has processed an average of
7,500 applications for admission [www.sfsu.edu/~gadmit/] to one of SFSU's
96 graduate programs and concentrations. As the table below indicates,
SFSU has graduated over 10,000 graduate students in the eight years since
1992 (with an annual average of 1270 students) from its master's degree
programs and the joint doctoral program in special education. |
|
x |
|
SFSU Graduate Degrees Granted by College—1992-2000
|
|
x |
|
COLLEGE |
1992-93 |
1993-94 |
1994-95 |
1995-96 |
1996-97 |
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
TOTAL |
|
Behav. & Social Sciences |
121 |
140 |
150 |
161 |
138 |
136 |
149 |
92 |
1087 |
|
Business |
244 |
206 |
192 |
173 |
183 |
216 |
217 |
184 |
1615 |
|
Creative Arts |
115 |
99 |
94 |
83 |
81 |
76 |
105 |
92 |
745 |
|
Education |
243 |
235 |
239 |
247 |
271 |
230 |
271 |
246 |
1982 |
|
Ethnic Studies |
4 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
36 |
|
Health & Human Services |
241 |
239 |
243 |
245 |
293 |
308 |
280 |
217 |
2066 |
|
Humanities |
261 |
265 |
238 |
223 |
142 |
301 |
250 |
202 |
1882 |
|
Science & Engineering |
72 |
69 |
77 |
84 |
74 |
70 |
114 |
115 |
675 |
|
Special Major |
16 |
9 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
11 |
69 |
|
UNIVERSITY TOTAL |
1317 |
1269 |
1241 |
1228 |
1193 |
1350 |
1398 |
1,161 |
10,157 |
|
|
x |
| These data, and the fact that every fifth student is a
graduate student, notwithstanding, SFSU has yet to generate a
fully-developed graduate "culture." Student services, for
example, traditionally have been established with the needs of
undergraduates in mind (not a circumstance unique to SFSU). Many faculty
at SFSU see themselves as under-rewarded and inadequately appreciated for
the time they spend working with graduate students. In fact, the
designation "graduate faculty" (missing from SFSU’s official
vocabulary) itself is a political issue, with many feeling that to create
such distinctions among faculty would be divisive and elitist on a campus
that prides itself on egalitarian solidarity. |
|
x |
| In the Cornerstones report, summarizing the outcomes of
the CSU system-wide strategic planning process begun in May 1996, one of
the four fundamental commitments refers to graduate education: "We
must design a more responsive post-baccalaureate system to meet the demand
in California for liberally educated professionals." Thus,
Cornerstones was interpreted by some on campus as supportive of graduate
education, particularly graduate education that is flexible and responsive
to changing community needs. It was seen by others, however, as an
equivocal and ambiguous response, potentially marginalizing graduate
education by separating it from state financial support and linking it to
user-supported continuing education [see Cornerstones principles and
recommendations, www.calstate.edu/cornerstones/]. |
|
x |
| To the extent that a university's sense of itself as a
graduate institution is tied to the master's degree, this identity is
clearly in a period of reformulation. Professional and terminal master's
degrees (e.g., the MSW, MBA, MSN, MPH, MPA, and MFA) have become
increasingly popular. Nationally, interest is growing in combining
emerging interdisciplinary areas and traditional fields in the sciences.
Today at SFSU we are following at least part of the path suggested in
Cornerstones by beginning to offer some master's and credential programs
through the College of Extended Learning. |
|
x |
| Against this backdrop of national trends and system-wide
and local campus contingencies, the major challenges for us at SFSU are to
make graduate education a more visible and vital part of university life;
to legitimize the graduate enterprise and create a sense of community and
identity among those involved with graduate education; to shape graduate
programs that will be flexible and responsive to changing social needs;
and to insure that the highest standards of quality are achieved in
graduate programs so that they become a source of pride for SFSU's
faculty, students, and alumni. |
|
x |
| Taking the last WASC self-study in 1991 as a point of
departure to measure our progress, it becomes apparent that the foundation
of the graduate program continues to be liberal arts degree programs (with
new areas emerging such as the Master of Arts in Asian American Studies).
The growing emphasis noted in 1991 on professional degree and
employment-related graduate certificate programs (the Master of Public
Health and the Certificate in Entrepreneurial Leadership in Health Care,
for example) has also continued. The university maintained its commitment
to diversity by attracting underrepresented and economically disadvantaged
students to graduate programs (through participation in the Graduate
Equity Fellowship Program, the California Pre-doctoral Incentive Program,
and graduate opportunities workshops for underrepresented SFSU
undergraduates). These efforts, combined with the Rosa Parks Scholarships
through Student Affairs to support graduating women of color going into
graduate programs, have helped to prepare SFSU undergraduates for graduate
school. In addition, SFSU has become a leading participant in the
California Forum for Diversity in Graduate Education (formerly Forum on
Minority Graduate Education). Most notably, SFSU has had considerable
success, particularly since 1994, in increasing the support of
underrepresented and economically disadvantaged students through federal
programs such as the Patricia Roberts Harris fellowships, the RIMI
(Research Initiatives for Minority Institutions), the NIH Bridge program (M.A.
to Ph.D.), and GAANN (Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need)
awards. In 1995, the demographic profile of graduate students at SFSU was
more diverse than among comparable graduate institutions in the western
region, according to the Council of Graduate Schools; and our ethnic
diversity was even more pronounced in 2000 (see ethnicity charts on the
following page). |
|
x |
| For the most part, established policies and procedures
governing graduate education (e.g., course and program approval and review
processes; composition of graduate programs and culminating experience
committees; monitoring graduate students’ progress toward their degrees)
that were working well as of the 1991 self-study remain in place today.
These are found in the graduate section of the university’s Bulletin.
New policies have been implemented in some areas of growth in response to
new demands (for example, the senate policy [www.sfsu.edu/~senate/F98-204.htm]
for offering existing degree programs through the College of Extended
Learning). A number of the recommendations about graduate education that
were contained in the university’s 1991 WASC self-study document have
been accomplished since 1992 (e.g., regular program review to include
graduate education; developing occupationally-related graduate certificate
programs; increasing participation in graduate fairs; and increasing
numbers of students participating in research activities and
competitions); others are reflected in the university strategic plan. |
|
x |
| In the last self-study, two issues were raised about the
organization of the Graduate Division that were addressed by 1995. First,
a major workload problem was identified in 1991 as having occurred during
the previous five years, with the assignment of the position of associate
dean of graduate studies to the research and sponsored programs area of
the university. As of 1991, the Graduate Division office was staffed by a
dean and three secretarial/clerical staff members. In 1992, as a result of
a serious budget situation, the graduate deanship position was suspended
and the graduate dean functions transferred to the associate vice
president for academic programs and planning. At the same time, the vice
president for academic affairs commissioned a review of graduate studies
at SFSU dealing with administrative, structural, curricular, and policy
issues. After campus review of the report, the vice president proposed a
reorganization of the Graduate Division office for Fall 1994 which would
combine the positions of graduate dean and associate vice president for
research and sponsored programs. This reorganization also established the
position of associate dean of the Graduate Division, for which there was a
campus-wide search conducted in Spring 1994. A favorable administrative
reorganization review was concluded in the Spring 1996. This structure
remains in place today and, together with another development noted below,
has resulted in an expanded Graduate Division staff that numbers fifteen
(including the dean/associate vice president and a now vacant associate
deanship). |
|
x |
| A second major organizational issue raised in the 1991
self-study and echoed in the 1992 review of graduate studies was the need
to consolidate dispersed admission, evaluation, and graduation services
for students that were performed at that time by the Office of Enrollment
Services and the Graduate Division. Effective August 1, 1995, the
president approved a proposal to place all of these functions within the
Graduate Division. By consolidating these services for graduate students
in the Graduate Division, it was possible to modify the delivery of
services in a way that would be more responsive to graduate students’
needs and the needs of faculty in graduate programs. Additionally, these
administrative changes served to make graduate education more central and
visible on campus. |
|
x |
| Other efforts undertaken prior to 1998 to enhance the
visibility of graduate education and to create a sense of community and
identity among those involved with it have included the development of
orientation sessions at the beginning of each semester for new graduate
students, a celebration honoring student participants in the campus and
CSU system-wide student research competition, and an all-university spring
ceremony specifically designed to honor outstanding graduate students
selected by their departments and colleges. |
|
x |
| While many recommendations contained in the 1991 WASC
self study were accomplished prior to 1998, still other recommendations
had yet to be implemented. For example, various documents outlined
requirements for offering a quality graduate program. The 1986 Chancellor’s
Office guidelines for proposing new degree programs established three
full-time faculty members with the terminal professional degree as the
minimum level of staffing necessary. The 1991 WASC self study recommended
that each department offering a master’s degree program should make
available at least four regular graduate courses in addition to
supervision and independent study per year. |
|
x |
| The 1989 report on graduate education in the CSU
(Graduate Education in The California State University: Meeting Public
Needs Consistent with Educational Priorities) suggested that "a
program graduating fewer than five students per year may be too small to
provide a graduate experience of sufficient quality, limiting, for
example, the opportunity for scholarly discourse with other graduate
students and faculty." It also suggested that "a faculty of
three to five is thought to be a reasonable minimum to assure breadth of
expertise." The report also endorsed the minimum of four graduate
courses available per year and recommended that the percent of graduate
course work required in a program should be increased from 50 to 70
percent. Prior to 1998, the Graduate Division (and, of course, individual
departments) gathered data on the number of graduates. These data were
included as part of rationales for modifying or discontinuing degree
programs or concentrations. However, no systematic or university-wide
effort was undertaken to identify or enforce "critical mass"
criteria. |
|
x |
| Prior to 1998, various departments published entrance
requirements in the Bulletin that exceeded Title 5 (state education code)
minimum requirements; e.g., more than a 2.5 GPA for admission. However,
comprehensive information about entrance requirements was not
systematically recorded. In AY 1996-1997, |
|
.
|
|
San Francisco State University
Enrolled Graduate Students - Comparison by Ethnicity, 1992 and 2000 |
|
FALL 1992
|
FALL 2000 |
|
x |
 |
 |
|
| the Graduate Division (having assumed responsibility for
graduate admissions in 1995) began to review university practices in
admitting non-degree-seeking "unclassified" students. However,
no modifications were undertaken. |
|
x |
| To determine how graduate students perceived the quality
of their graduate school experience, the Graduate Division began to
collect data in 1995 from graduate students who were applying for
graduation for the first time using an instrument developed by ETS.
However, the Graduate Division did not have the resources to code and
systematically analyze these data until AY 1998-99. |
|
x |
| The challenge of providing financial support for graduate
students in a comprehensive university within a collective bargaining
environment is considerable. Mechanisms for increasing the availability of
graduate teaching associate and graduate assistantship positions were in
place prior to 1998. Certainly some departments, particularly those with
greater resources from externally-funded projects, were able to provide
support for their graduate students. However, with some exceptions noted
below, there were relatively few concerted efforts at the university or
college level to make more opportunities available to graduate students.
Efforts to increase support to graduate students included the following:
the Bridge and GAANN programs in the sciences, a successful Patricia
Roberts Harris grant to support students in Nursing and Broadcast and
Electronic Communication Arts, and a College of Behavioral and Social
Sciences initiative to increase the number of graduate assistants. |
|
x |
| As of 1998, several joint and cooperative educational
programs existed. The joint doctoral degree program offered by SFSU and UC
Berkeley in special education had been in place since 1967. As noted
above, several "bridge" programs had been jointly implemented by
SFSU and UC institutions in the biological sciences and chemistry.
Physical therapy had become a joint master’s degree program with UCSF.
Several proposals for joint doctoral degrees from the College of Education
reached initial planning stages, but did not come to fruition. |
|
x |
| Thus, the 1991 self study and the 1989 system-wide report
on graduate education in the CSU, as well as developments and unfinished
initiatives undertaken since the last WASC review, provided the context
for the 1998 university strategic plan recommendations that are presented
in the next section. |
|
x |
|
STRATEGIC PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
x |
| The 1998 university strategic plan, emerging from a
process that began in AY 1995-96, addressed some of the important issues
in graduate education noted at the beginning of this chapter; e.g.,
establishing high standards of quality in graduate programs, increasing
the flexibility and responsiveness of graduate programs, and improving
services to graduate students. Specifically, strategic plan
recommendations can be clustered around four broad themes or goals that
address graduate education issues: the quality of the university’s
graduate program; the quality of the graduate student experience;
enhancing graduate program resources; and planning for joint doctoral
programs. |
|
x |
| It is not difficult to argue that improving the quality
of the university’s graduate program and improving the experience of
graduate students should be at the heart of strategic planning for
graduate education. The Commission on University Strategic Planning
focused on making what have been termed "critical mass"
indicators congruent with articulated standards. Without a reasonable
number of actively participating graduate students and faculty in graduate
programs, it is not likely that ample opportunities will occur for
scholarly discourse and faculty guidance and mentoring. Without a
reasonable number of graduate courses offered annually, students will not
experience the level of instruction and inquiry characteristic of a
quality graduate program and will be unable to complete their programs in
a timely manner. |
|
x |
| CUSP recommendations dealt with: |
|
x |
| • Raising admission requirements to improve the quality
of the graduate program and the graduate student experience by insuring
that only highly qualified students who are likely to experience success
are admitted. |
| • Once admitted, guaranteeing access to student support
services and increasing financial support available in order to improve
the quality of their experience. |
| • Asking programs and colleges to keep track of
students following graduation in order to assist current students in
career planning. |
|
x |
| Resources, especially at the department level, are
necessary for enabling some of these improvements to occur and for
fostering a stronger identity and sense of community among faculty
involved in graduate teaching. CUSP focused on strengthening the role of
departmental graduate coordinators and providing more support for chairs
of culminating experience committees. It also recommended, as one aspect
of enhancing the university’s community responsiveness and raising the
stature of graduate education on campus, the very selective creation of
doctoral programs that can be justified in terms of need and potential
impact on existing undergraduate and graduate programs. |
|
x |
|
1998 BENCHMARKS
|
|
x |
| The Quality of Graduate Programs |
|
x |
| Beginning in the 1998-1999 AY, the Graduate Division
began to systematically record information from the campus Student
Information Management System (SIMS), the university Bulletin, and the
Class Schedule on master’s degree programs over a period of the previous
five years for compliance with CSU and campus recommendations regarding
the "critical mass" criteria mentioned earlier in this chapter. |
|
x |
| As indicated above, fewer than five graduates per year is
thought to be too small to provide a graduate experience of acceptable
quality; fewer than three to five faculty may not provide sufficient
breadth of expertise; and fewer than four regular courses per year
(excluding supervision and independent study) may not allow students to
complete their programs in a timely manner. It can also be argued that
fewer than ten enrolled students would not offer sufficient opportunity
for student exchange and interaction. |
|
x |
| The table below summarizes data gathered by program on
"critical mass" criteria from the university Bulletin for
1998-99 and Class Schedule for Fall 1998 and Spring 1999 for the
university’s eight colleges. It can be seen that sixteen (16) of the
university’s 96 graduate degree programs and concentrations (17%)
averaged fewer than 10 students enrolled per year over a six-year period
from 1993 to 1998. Four of the six programs in the College of Behavioral
and Social Sciences that have been under-enrolled are concentrations in
psychology; however, the Psychology Department recently has been
restructuring its offerings. Applied economics, another BSS concentration,
has been discontinued. Three of the four Creative Arts programs are in
Theatre Arts, which is revising its offerings. The Health and Human
Services program averaging fewer than ten students is the new MPH degree
begun in 1998. The three under-enrolled Humanities programs are all in
Foreign Languages (German, Italian, Russian). One concentration in biology
(microbiology) is under-enrolled; the other College of Science and
Engineering program is the new (1996) degree in geosciences. |
|
x |
|
Number of Degree Programs
or Departments Not Meeting Critical Mass Criteria By College
| |
COLLEGES |
TOTALS |
| |
BSS |
BUS |
CA |
ED |
ES |
HHS |
HUM |
SCI |
N |
% |
|
# Programs < 10 Students Enrolled |
6 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
16/96 |
17% |
|
# Departments < 4 Grad. Courses AY98-99 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
5/53 |
9% |
|
# Departments w/ 3 or Fewer T/TT Faculty |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
6/53 |
11% |
|
# Programs < 5 Graduates Per Year |
5 |
0 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
9 |
10 |
36/96 |
38 % |
Sources: Student enrollments and graduates from University and Budget
Planning; number of graduate courses offered from Class Schedule
(Fall 1998, Spring 1999); number of tenured/tenure-track faculty from
university Bulletin. |
|
x |
| Only five of 53 departments (9%) offered fewer than four
regular graduate courses in AY 1998-99. The interdisciplinary social
science program in the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences offered
only two regular graduate seminars. However, as an interdisciplinary
program, the curriculum is designed to require students to take graduate
courses in related social science fields. The other four programs offering
fewer than four classroom courses in AY 1998-99 were in the College of
Humanities. Classics offered two graduate-level courses, as did Chinese
and Russian; Spanish offered three. |
|
x |
| Six of 53 departments offering graduate degrees (11%)
have three tenured or tenure-track (T/TT) faculty or fewer. There are
three T/TT faculty in taxation in the College of Business. In the College
of Humanities, programs in Chinese, Italian, Russian, and museum studies
have fewer than three T/TT faculty. Three T/TT faculty are listed as part
of the biomedical laboratory sciences program in the College of Science
and Engineering. |
|
x |
| Overall, 36 (38%) of SFSU’s 96 programs have averaged
fewer than five graduates per year over the period 1993-94 to 1998-99.
This finding, in particular, should receive attention in the next several
years to reduce the number of programs with fewer than five graduates. Of
the five concentrations in Behavioral and Social Sciences that have
averaged fewer than five graduates, three are in psychology, which has
been restructuring; a fourth, applied economics, has been discontinued. In
Creative Arts, the MA in Art produces fewer graduates than the MFA; both
the MA and MM in Music have graduated fewer than five students per year,
as have the three theatre arts concentrations (under revision). Of the
three currently offered education concentrations graduating fewer than
five students, two are new programs (math education and language and
literacy); the third is the joint doctorate with UCB. The three degree
programs in the College of Health and Human Services are family and
consumer sciences, kinesiology, and recreation and leisure studies. In
Humanities, classics, the linguistics concentration in English, and women
studies have graduated fewer than five. The other programs are all foreign
languages, most of which are the only degree programs in the CSU. In
Science, the applied geosciences degree is new. The others with fewer than
five graduates are five concentrations in biology, chemistry/biochemistry,
marine science, and mathematics. (There are detailed tables available of
graduate program admissions, enrollments, and graduates by college and
program.) |
|
x |
| As was mentioned earlier in the chapter, in Fall 1998,
the Academic Senate passed a policy (F98-204), with considerable input
from the Graduate Council, to offer existing degrees through the College
of Extended Learning. The Graduate Council, Academic Senate, and CEL
focused attention on insuring that quality would be maintained while
permitting more flexibility in offering graduate programs to students who,
in many cases, would not otherwise have access to them. |
|
x |
| For the Fall 1998 admission cycle, the Graduate Division
eliminated the practice of admitting students as "unclassified"
with a designated subject area; e.g., unclassified/anthropology. While the
general "unclassified" designation was retained, consistent with
Title 5 categories, the Graduate Division attempted to limit its use to
specific and justifiable situations; e.g., to permit non-SFSU
undergraduate students to have a semester in which to prepare materials to
create an individualized "special" major or to accommodate
students seeking the opportunity to fulfill prerequisites prior to
applying to medical school. |
|
x |
| The Quality of Graduate Student Experiences |
|
x |
| Beginning in the Spring of AY 1998-1999, a campus-wide
effort to implement an "extended services counter" was
undertaken, permitting working graduate students to access campus
services, such as the Graduate Division, Registrar’s Office, Financial
Aid Office, Advising Center, College of Extended Learning, and Bursar's
Office, until 7 p.m. two evenings per week. Also during AY 1998-1999,
colleges were asked to develop enhanced advising plans for students. As a
result, advising services were improved and, in some cases, consolidated
within a central college office. Several colleges offered extended hours
advising services; e.g., College of Business and College of Health and
Human Services. |
|
x |
| The first report of findings from the graduate student
exit survey using the ETS instrument (covering the period Spring 1995 to
Spring 1997) was produced during the Spring of AY 1998-1999. This report
was distributed on campus during the Summer and Fall of 1999. The
responses of SFSU were aggregated into ten categories and mean ratings
were compared with ETS national mean ratings. Our students’ evaluations
of the curriculum and their internships slightly exceeded national norms,
while their evaluations of available resources and resource accessibility
were substantially below national means. These latter categories include
availability of graduate student housing, student services (such as
counseling, placement, health care), financial assistance, services for
non-resident students, and opportunities for intellectual and social
interaction among colleagues in the program. (A complete report is
available in the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment.) |
|
x |
| Enhancing Graduate Program Resources |
|
x |
| During 1998-1999, no additional initiatives were
undertaken to enhance support for students at the departmental level or to
provide released time or workload compensation for graduate coordinators.
However, the Graduate Division did institute an e-mail listserve for
graduate coordinators to help enhance communication and information
sharing. |
|
x |
| Planning for Joint Doctoral Programs |
|
x |
| As of AY 1998-1999, preliminary discussions had occurred
at SFSU and at UCSF about initiating a joint doctoral degree in physical
therapy, building on the successful joint master’s program. |
|
x |
|
PRIORITIES AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1998-2000)
|
|
x |
| In view of the areas in which accomplishments had taken
place in implementing, or at least initiating, strategic plan
recommendations during 1998-1999, and the areas in which less activity had
occurred, the Graduate Council selected three priority areas for emphasis:
(1) in the area of quality of the graduate program, a focus on writing
proficiency; (2) in the area of students’ experiences, a focus on
student financial support; and (3) in the area of enhancing graduate
program resources, a focus on faculty workload issues. Graduate Council
members solicited input from participants at the January 2000, Asilocampus
faculty retreat on these topics and on the issue of "continuous
enrollment" for students already enrolled once in a culminating
experience course (in an effort to encourage more timely completion of the
degree). Each of these issues will be considered below. |
|
x |
| The Quality of Graduate Programs |
|
x |
| The Graduate Division continued to compile "critical
mass" indicators for constructing "profiles" of graduate
programs from sources such as the Student Information Management System (SIMS),
the university Bulletin, and the Class Schedule. These profiles were
distributed to campus graduate coordinators for discussion during their
Spring meeting in April 2000. They also were distributed to the Council of
Academic Deans and were provided to the Chancellor’s Office in Long
Beach as part of SFSU’s new "accountability reporting"
process. (The complete "First Annual Accountability Report,"
SFSU, August 2000, is available in the Office of Academic Planning and
Assessment.) |
|
x |
| As noted above, the issue of requiring "continuous
enrollment" of post-culminating experience students to encourage them
to complete their degrees was discussed at the Asilocampus faculty
retreat. It had also been discussed at the Fall 1999 graduate coordinators
meeting. This issue not only affects time-to-degree for students but also
has implications for faculty workload. If students are not enrolled but
are nevertheless using the time of faculty advisers, then faculty are not
being compensated for or receiving adequate credit for their efforts. Most
faculty expressed support for some university-wide policy that would
require "continuous enrollment," but there was no consensus
about the enrollment mechanism (regular university or CEL) and the amount
of the fee. This is a major item on the Graduate Council’s agenda in
Fall 2000. |
|
x |
| With the new senate policy in place permitting
departments to offer their graduate programs through CEL to groups of
students who might not otherwise have access, the Graduate Council
approved four proposals from the College of Education (three
concentrations within the M.A. in Education offered in the Bay Area and
the entire M.S. in Communicative Disorders offered on the island of Guam);
one from the Department of Psychology (the Pupil Personnel Services
Credential in School Psychology); and two from the College of Business (an
accelerated, weekend M.B.A. in South San Francisco and an M.B.A. to be
offered in Japan). |
|
x |
| Having selected writing proficiency as a priority issue
for AY 1999-2000, the Graduate Council formed a subcommittee to assess
options available to departments to better identify students who are
likely to be successful in handling the writing demands of graduate
courses. Various tests of written English, including the GRE writing test,
TWE, TOEFL, and GMAT were compared. In addition, students’ test scores
on some of the above standardized tests were compared with their
performances on the Graduate Essay Test (GET). The Graduate Council
subcommittee had discussed the possibility of recommending that the
university raise its TOEFL minimum requirement to 600 from 550. However,
the members of the subcommittee concluded that this was not a practical
course of action given the projected loss of international students with
such a requirement. |
|
x |
| In April 2000, the subcommittee met with other university
groups dealing with literacy and writing issues; i.e., the Task Force on
Writing in the Disciplines and the All-University Committee on
International Programs. The groups are continuing to meet in Fall 2000,
while the chair of the Graduate Council is meeting with staff of the
Learning Assistance Center (LAC) to discuss their role in addressing
writing proficiency issues. At the same time, graduate writing course
instructors are being polled regarding the advisability of pre-course
classes, modules, or lab sections. The Graduate Council subcommittee,
Learning Assistance Center staff, and MATESOL faculty developed a pilot
program for Fall 2000 in which 18-25 students receiving GET scores of 2 or
3 would meet twice per week with tutors (MATESOL graduate students) at the
LAC for additional help to support their work in their graduate writing
classes. A memorandum was sent to the provost to request assistance with
resources. If the pilot proves successful, based on an evaluation plan,
the Graduate Council will recommend expanding it in subsequent semesters.
(For an additional discussion of this matter, see Chapter 17.) |
|
x |
| In Spring 1999, the senate and president approved new
language which was added to the handbook for the fifth cycle of academic
program review: "Graduate programs will be asked to address the level
of preparation of admitted students, the investment of faculty and other
resources in the graduate program compared with the undergraduate
program(s), student research/scholarship (publications, exhibitions,
public presentations, etc.), completion rates for the culminating
experience, and average time to degree" [see www.sfsu.edu/~apd/5th%
20cycle%20handbook.html]. |
|
x |
| The Quality of Graduate Student Experiences |
|
x |
| The results of the second and third ETS surveys of
graduate students covering the periods Fall 1997 to Spring 1999 and the
1999-2000 academic year were examined and distributed to members of the
Council of Academic Deans, the Graduate Council, and graduate coordinators
[see www.sfsu.edu/~acadplan/gradexits99.htm]. Results were quite similar
and consistent with results from the earlier reporting period.
Specifically, the mean ratings of SFSU graduate students in ten categories
were generally slightly below those of master’s students nationally,
with the exception of the areas of "quality of teaching" and
"curriculum," (1997-1999) and "assistantship or internship
experiences" (1997-1999, 1999-2000), in which SFSU means slightly
exceeded national means. The areas in which SFSU student ratings were more
substantially below national means were in the areas of "available
resources" and "resource accessibility," as also was
indicated in the summary of results of the 1995-1997 survey. |
|
x |
| Concerns noted by students in the areas of inadequate
campus housing and inconvenient support services are being addressed by
the construction of the "Village at Centennial Square," which is
expected to provide additional housing and "one-stop shopping"
for support services. Centralization of support services, as well as
extended student services hours in some of the colleges, will hopefully
remove some of the barriers and inconveniences graduate students have
experienced. |
|
x |
| The Graduate Division and Enrollment Services, including
the Registrar’s Office and Student Financial Aid, are cooperating on a
new technology project which we hope will also improve services to
graduate students. Hardware and software (Keyfile from Hershey Business
Systems) have been purchased which will permit the creation of electronic
files to which all of our offices will have access. We thus expect to
provide much faster admissions services, as well as graduation evaluation,
using scanning technology. The Graduate Division began to incorporate
Keyfile into its operations beginning in Spring 2000. Having an integrated
database will also contribute to the operating efficiency of the
"one-stop" student services center at the new Village at
Centennial Square. |
|
x |
| Additional efforts to make services to graduate students
more accessible have included redesigning the Graduate Division’s web
page to make it easier for students to access information, download forms,
and keep track of deadlines. The Graduate Council also considered, in
Spring 2000, revisions to thesis preparation guidelines that will permit
students to use new media and desktop publishing. |
|
x |
| The Graduate Council formed a subcommittee to focus on
one of its identified priority areas, student financial support. The
subcommittee determined that a major first step would be data gathering.
Accordingly, a survey was prepared and distributed during Spring 2000.
Results of the survey were presented for Graduate Council review and
discussion. Results indicated that lack of financial support for graduate
students is a substantial and pervasive problem. The Graduate Council
discussed the possibility of providing a limited number of tuition waivers
for out-of-state graduate students. The Graduate Division is exploring
such possibilities in Fall 2000. The Graduate Council discussed concerns
about student financial support with the provost in Spring 2000, and
followed his suggestion to consult with University Advancement to explore
possibilities for securing external support for graduate fellowships.
Consequently, the subcommittee met with University Advancement staff in
May 2000 to discuss acquiring external support. The Graduate Council is
continuing to work with University Advancement in AY 2000-2001. |
|
x |
| Several Bay Area community colleges have indicated they
expect to have faculty shortages in various disciplines in the next few
years as current faculty retire. The Graduate Division, along with the
associate vice president for academic program development, entered into
discussions with several local community colleges and with other northern
California CSU campuses to explore opportunities for collaboration.
Successful models of cooperative community college-CSU internship programs
already exist; e.g., Santa Rosa Community College with Sonoma State and
College of the Redwoods with Humboldt State. Some models have included
stipends for CSU students while they gain experience in community college
teaching. The Graduate Division began to identify SFSU faculty and student
interest in departments from which community college faculty expect to
need new teachers. It is expected that a program will be designed during
the 2000-2001 academic year for teaching internship placements. |
|
x |
| Enhancing Graduate Program Resources |
|
x |
| One strategic plan recommendation called for SFSU and the
CSU to pursue more realistic state funding for graduate teaching by
counting a graduate FTES as 12 units rather than 15. Proposals to this
effect have been made for years. The latest incarnation by the CSU is
presently before the state legislature. |
|
x |
| Graduate program resources and the workload of faculty
involved in graduate teaching were priorities identified by the Graduate
Council for special attention in AY 1999-2000. The Graduate Council agreed
that there is considerable variety in the way in which
departments/programs handle workload and recognize and compensate faculty
teaching graduate students. The Graduate Council decided that a "best
practice" focus group would be a good way to determine the various
strategies employed by departments. Accordingly, this issue is being
placed on the agenda for the periodic department/program chairs’
meetings for Fall 2000. Results of the chairs’ discussion can then be
disseminated to all departments for their consideration. |
|
x |
| Planning for Joint Doctoral Programs |
|
x |
| Planning discussions for a joint doctoral degree in
physical therapy with UCSF have continued and have resulted in the
completion of a proposal for a DPTSc degree. The proposal is currently
being reviewed on campus as a prelude to consideration as a "master
plan projection" by the Chancellor’s Office. Building on the
long-standing joint doctorate in special education with UC Berkeley,
preliminary discussions have also taken place regarding a possible joint
doctorate in urban educational leadership that would link SFSU, SJSU, and
CSU Hayward with UC Berkeley. Interest also has been expressed by the
Biology Department in exploring joint doctoral possibilities with a UC
partner. |
|
x |
| CURRENT
STATUS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS |
| OF
GRADUATE EDUCATION AT SFSU |
|
x |
| Some activity on virtually all of the strategic plan
recommendations has taken place. In some cases, recommendations have
essentially been implemented; in other cases, work has just begun. Certain
key initiatives will require continuing effort in AY 2000-2001 and beyond.
They are discussed below. |
|
x |
| The Quality of Graduate Programs |
|
x |
| Two key developments in the area of the quality of
graduate programs require additional effort. The first step in insuring
that SFSU’s graduate programs have sufficient "critical mass"
in students, graduate courses taught annually, faculty, and graduates to
offer a quality experience was to systematically collect data in a manner
that could be understood and used as a basis for planning and decisions.
That step has essentially been taken in the Graduate Division’s data
collection activities during AY 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Given that some
programs have had difficulty over a number of years in maintaining a
minimum number of students, faculty, graduates, and graduate courses
offered annually, the next step becomes the development of a process for
taking corrective action. This will be a sensitive issue for some programs
and will certainly require the engagement of the Graduate Division,
Graduate Council, Council of Academic Deans, and Academic Senate. |
|
x |
| Assessing writing proficiency as an admission requirement
was a focus of Graduate Council activity during AY 1999-2000. This work
resulted in agreements among several offices/departments and a pilot plan
to enhance support services for students enrolled in graduate writing
courses because of their low GET scores. The Graduate Council, in
cooperation with the Council of Academic Deans and the Graduate Division,
will need to assess the effectiveness of these initial efforts in
addressing the problem of deficient writing skills among a proportion of
the graduate student population. Complicating the situation are
philosophical disagreements about satisfactory mechanisms for funding
essentially "remedial" courses for graduate students. |
|
x |
| The Quality of Graduate Student Experiences |
|
x |
| Progress is being made on a number of projects that
should make services more accessible to graduate students and remove
barriers to their use. Extending the hours of student service offices and
implementing the "one-stop" extended service hours at the new
Village at Centennial Square should be very helpful. This new construction
will also add on-campus housing, which is another area that graduate
student exit survey data revealed was a problem. The new initiative for
"year-round operation," which has resulted in offering a
state-supported summer term for the first time in Summer 2000, is also
likely to be beneficial to many graduate students who are "year
round" students. Renovation of the student center to add meeting
spaces may also address some of the criticisms graduate students have had
about opportunities to interact with peers. |
|
x |
| Other findings of the graduate exit survey were that
students were critical of a number of departmental procedures. For
instance, in the 1995-97 report, only 37.9% of students agreed that the
department actively helped graduates find appropriate employment; that
percent barely improved to 40.2% among students surveyed during the
1997-1999 period and to 44.4% among students surveyed in 1999-2000. While
it could be argued that, in some disciplines, it is difficult for faculty
to assist students in finding employment, it is certainly the
responsibility of a faculty member in his/her role as a mentor to provide
curricular and career advising for graduate students. Only 42.0% of
students surveyed in 1995-1997, 42.2% of students surveyed in 1997-1999,
and 45.0% of students surveyed in 1999-2000 thought the curricular and
career advising in their departments was good or excellent. Improving
advising at SFSU was a major initiative during 1998-2000, and hopefully
future exit surveys will reveal greater graduate student satisfaction.
Student dissatisfaction with curricular and career advising underscores
the need for one of the strategic plan recommendations which has not
received systematic attention to date; that is, programs and colleges
tracking graduate students after graduation to assist current students in
career planning. This recommendation should receive greater attention in
the future. |
|
x |
| Another finding of the graduate exit survey was that only
35.3%, 37.0%, and 39.2% of students surveyed in 1995-1997, 1997-1999, and
1999-2000, respectively, felt that their opportunities for participating
in departmental decisions affecting master’s programs were good or
excellent. These results, coupled with the fact that only 52.3%, 53% and
54.8%of students, respectively, agreed that there were many opportunities
outside the classroom for interaction between master’s students and
faculty, suggest that departments may be missing some opportunities to
create a more supportive graduate department "culture" with
their students. Admittedly, a commuter campus does not readily lend itself
to non-classroom interaction. However, departments may want to consider
ways in which they can better involve their students in the intellectual
life of the department. |
|
x |
| Enhancing Graduate Program Resources |
|
x |
| Improving the resources of graduate programs, in terms of
support for both graduate students and faculty, is likely to go a long way
toward fostering a more cohesive graduate "culture." The
Graduate Council’s work during 1999-2000 on faculty work load issues, in
anticipation of department chairs’ discussions of "best
practice" models in dealing with compensation for graduate
coordinators and thesis advisers, should only be the beginning of a
process to better articulate the role of graduate faculty on campus.
Indeed, it may be time for deans and department chairs, along with the
Graduate Council, to engage in a discussion of the attributes and
qualifications necessary for a person to be a member of a "graduate
faculty." This issue has been thought to be divisive in the past.
However, one strategic plan recommendation to take into account in work
assignments a faculty member’s particular skills, qualifications, and
interests implies some differentiation in faculty roles and
responsibilities. As programs in addition to physical therapy, education,
and biology seek permission to explore the development of joint doctoral
degrees, a further articulation of graduate faculty expectations is both
likely and desirable in the years ahead. |
|
x |
|
CONCLUSION
|
|
x |
| This chapter has addressed important issues in graduate
education at SFSU: establishing high standards of quality in graduate
studies, increasing the flexibility and responsiveness of graduate
programs, and improving services to graduate students. Progress has been
made in developing "critical mass" indicators; in focusing on
the writing proficiency of entering graduate students; and in improving
resource availability and accessibility for those seeking graduate
degrees, including financial aid and curricular and career advising. In
addition, work has been ongoing in examining graduate faculty workload
issues and in planning for joint doctoral programs. The future direction
of graduate education at SFSU, as it has emerged from the priorities and
recommendations of the strategic plan, will be informed by continuing
efforts in these key areas. |