10 April 2001

The report from Caucus 2 is now posted at www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/strategic.

The Senior Steering Council asked Caucus 2 to send forward a single, long, unranked list of strong, existing departmental or interdisciplinary graduate programs in the College of Arts and Science that Caucus 2 deemed qualified for increased development, including a brief rationale supporting each selection. In addition to this report, the Steering Council has already received the detailed proposals prepared by each department for Caucus 2.

To accomplish their task, Caucus 2 adopted the following factors for evaluating departmental or interdisciplinary graduate programs:

1. 1995 NRC rankings, both raw rankings and percentiles;
2. Quality of graduate student applicants and matriculants;
3. Market for Ph.D.'s in the discipline;
4. Record of Ph. D. placement;
5. Stability of the program, faculty turnover, trajectory; and
6. How well the proposal received by the Caucus addressed specific improvements in the graduate program, e.g., curriculum, recruitment, graduate student aid. (For proposals that focused on more general improvements like faculty lines, for instance, the degree to which the proposal tied new hires to improvements in the graduate program.) Likely return on proposed investments.

The Senior Steering Council must now proceed to fulfill the request from SAPG that we identify three to five strong CAS departmental or interdisciplinary graduate programs in the humanities and social sciences, and additional graduate programs in the natural science division, for increased development. Toward this end, the Senior Steering Council has reviewed both the original SAPCAS criteria, which were used in our evaluation of interdisciplinary proposals, and the Caucus 2 factors, and has agreed to use both sets of metrics, as appropriate, in its evaluation of the graduate programs.

Now that this report has been received, the SAPCAS Senior Steering Council would welcome your views of the Caucus 2 report. Your departmental/program response, if you choose to submit one, should not exceed 2 single-spaced pages. Please submit your comments to me at john.wikswo@vanderbilt.edu, or use the EMAIL SAPCAS feature on the web page. RESPONSES MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO 5:00 PM 17 APRIL 2001. After comments have been received, the SAPCAS Senior Steering Council will proceed to formulate the list for SAPG.

John Wikswo

     Caucus 2 received an original charge that was revised by the SAP-CAS Steering Council on February 14, 2001, and revised again on February 20, 2001. This report responds to the final charge of February 20, 2001.

     The original charge to Caucus 2 was as follows:

     “To identify three to five strong CAS departmental or interdisciplinary graduate programs in the humanities and social sciences, as prescribed by the SAPG [Strategic Academic Planning Group], and additional graduate programs in the natural science division, for increased development.”

     In considering its charge, the Caucus emphasized the following criteria:

1. How does the program contribute to the ChancellorÂ’s goal of advancing Vanderbilt to the front rank of American Research Universities by reinventing graduate education at Vanderbilt?

2. How does the program engage a broad range of faculty (rather than a few individuals) and enhance our ability to foster collaboration and to forge effective faculty links within or across departmental lines?

3. How does the program enhance our capacity to create an effective learning environment at all levels, recruit and retain the best students, including minorities, and attract and retain top-flight scholars and teachers?

     We began by soliciting proposals from department chairs and program directors. Our call for proposals, and the proposals that were submitted in response to that call, are appended. We note that not every established Ph.D. program in the College of Arts and Science submitted a proposal. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, in at least some cases, this may have been due to the rather narrow scope of the charge. Indeed, if the University is to meet its goal of joining the top tier of American research universities, support will eventually have to be found for building to national prominence a broad array of graduate programs. For the purpose of our report, however, we did limit our consideration of programs to those that did respond to the charge. Thus, we viewed our task as identifying the first wave in the expanded development of graduate programs in the College, a wave that must be followed by broader initiatives.

     In reviewing programs, we utilized data provided in the submitted proposals, data available from the Graduate School, and data from the 1995 NRC report (Marvin L. Goldberger et al., Research-doctorate Programs in the United States. Washington, DC; National Academy Press, 1995). To the extent that data were available, we considered the following factors:

1. 1995 NRC rankings, both raw rankings and percentiles;

2. Quality of graduate student applicants and matriculants;

3. Market for Ph.D.Â’s in the discipline;

4. Record of Ph. D. placement;

5. Stability of the program, faculty turnover, trajectory; and

6. How well the proposal received by the Caucus addressed specific improvements in the graduate program, e.g., curriculum, recruitment, graduate student aid. (For proposals that focused on more general improvements like faculty lines, for instance, the degree to which the proposal tied new hires to improvements in the graduate program.) Likely return on proposed investments.

     Our understanding of the objective of our study is to identify programs for immediate development with new resources. This understanding is consonant with the overall goals of the current strategic planning effort: we cannot raise the quality of the whole enterprise by shifting resources among viable existing programs.

     Based on our understanding of the original charge and on the chair’s discussions with the chair of the Steering Council, we drafted a preliminary report, which was distributed to the members of SAP-CAS as part of the Caucus 2 progress report at the SAP-CAS luncheon on February 8, 2001. The response of the Steering Council was to decline the preliminary report and to modify its charge to Caucus 2. On February 14, 2001, the SAP-CAS Steering Council issued the following clarification of the charge to Caucus 2:

     Caucus 2 Charge: To identify three to five strong CAS departmental or interdisciplinary graduate programs in the humanities and social sciences, as prescribed by the SAPG, and additional graduate programs in the natural science division, for increased development.

     The charge was amplified by the statement “This Caucus should solicit and review proposals from departments and programs for the enrichment of graduate curricula, instruction and other training, and recommend appropriate candidates to SAPCAS for approval.”

     We request that your Caucus provide us with the following:

     1)   A report that fulfills the requirements of the charge, and includes a rationale for the recommendation of chosen programs, but does not include a secondary list of “findings beyond the charge.” This will become the final, public report by your Caucus.

     2)   A copy of the data that you used in reaching this recommendation and information on why other nationally or internally competitive programs were not recommended for new support. The Steering Council will use these data in evaluating your report and exploring the impact of other SAPCAS initiatives on all of the departments and programs in the College.

     While you may choose to request additional information from any or all of the units that you have been considering, we reiterate that we want a single list, as indicated in the original charge.

     The chair of Caucus 2 met with the SAP-CAS Steering Council, and on February 20, 2001, the Steering Council issued a further revised charge to Caucus 2 was as follows:

     The Steering Council requests that Caucus 2 send forward a single, long, unranked list of strong, existing departmental or interdisciplinary graduate programs in the College of Arts and Science that your Caucus deems qualified for increased development. This list should include a brief rationale supporting each selection. Please forward with your report those data used to form this list. Your caucus should not solicit additional or revised proposals from departments or programs.

     It is the charge of February 20, 2001, hereinafter referred to as the revised charge, to which this report is addressed. In responding to this revised charge, it was the consensus of the Caucus that since we “should not solicit additional or revised proposals from departments or programs,” we should not consider materials submitted to the Caucus after the February 8, 2001, SAP-CAS luncheon, so as not to create a bias toward programs that submitted additional materials without a specific solicitation. We interpreted “strong, existing graduate programs” to exclude newly proposed programs and to restrict our attention to Ph.D. programs (as distinct from programs leading only to the M.A., M.S., or M.A.T.). A further consensus of the Caucus was that for the “brief rationale” that we were charged with including with each program included on the “long, unranked list,” we would consider, to the extent to which we had data, the six factors enumerated above, beginning at the bottom of page one. Applying these criteria in the context of the revised charge, we submit the following annotated list of “strong, existing departmental or interdisciplinary graduate programs,” which we deem qualified for increased development. The NRC rankings were converted to percentile scores within each discipline. Raw rankings are given in parentheses. Numbers of Ph.D.’s granted per year for the period 1995-1999 were from data supplied from the Graduate School, as were combined GRE scores for recent (1999 and 2000) applicants. We organized this single, unranked list by division, with programs listed alphabetically within each division:

Humanities

Ph.D. Program in English - NRC ranking (1995): 76% (30/127). Ca. eight Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca.1800. Market essentially restricted to the academic arena. Placement has largely been regional and in non-research institutions, with a few at research universities. Students present at conferences. Proposal focuses on space, rather than on the graduate program, though the space issue presented is relevant to the graduate program.

Ph.D. Program in Philosophy - NRC ranking (1995): 47% (38/72). Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca. 1870. Ca. seven Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Placements of recent graduates includes several major research universities and many smaller universities and colleges, a better than average record for humanities and social sciences departments at Vanderbilt. Some graduates placed outside traditional academic positions, e.g., medical ethics, administration. Maintaining pluralistic approach to philosophy in the face of significant senior faculty turnover. Proposed investments mixed between faculty lines and increased support for the graduate program.

Ph.D. Program in Religion - NRC ranking (1995): 82% (7/38). Ca. fifteen Ph.D.’s per year. GRE data not provided by the Graduate School. Students are admitted to eight different areas of specialization. Strong record of minority student training and placement. Recent placements at major research universities, smaller universities and colleges, seminaries, and international institutions, a very strong record for a humanities or social sciences program at Vanderbilt. Very low — noncompetitive — stipends. Program comes out of the Graduate Department of Religion, an entity formed of faculty from the A&S Department of Religious Studies and from the Divinity School, the combined strengths of which have led to a high national ranking. Program proposes a Center for the Study of Religion and Culture. This includes proposed investments directed toward the graduate program, as well as other elements.

Ph.D. Program in Spanish and Portuguese - Not ranked in the 1995 NRC rankings. (The 1995 NRC rankings included programs that produced at least one Ph.D. per year in 1988-1990 or were ranked in the previous edition.) Combined GRE’s of recent applicants, ca. 1625. Slightly less than two Ph.D.’s per year, 1995-1999. Three tracks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Spanish & Portuguese. Have placed all of their recent graduates in academic positions, mostly at four-year colleges. Positive momentum from good hires, strong demand at the undergraduate level, strong market for Ph.D.’s. Has much more room for growth than the other language departments. Modest proposed investments with great “bang for the buck.”

Social Sciences

Ph.D. Program in Anthropology -NRC ranking (1995): 17% (57/69). Ca. 2 Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca. 1800. Evidence of a high quality graduate student body based on grants and awards; however, the data are limited. Excellent student placements. Strong, but highly specialized program; vulnerable due to the small size of its faculty. Proposal quality mixed; investments need to be more focused on graduate program issues.

Ph.D. Program in Economics - NRC ranking (1995): 56% (47/106). Eight Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca. 2000; current first year class of supported students, ca. 2150. Strong market (which has the negative effect of making faculty recruiting difficult). Place graduates into U.S. and foreign universities (not highly competitive ones) and into governmental agencies. Continuing difficulties in filling faculty openings, though recently succeeded in three senior hires. Well formulated proposal likely to yield high returns on a relatively modest investment.

Ph.D. Program in History -NRC ranking (1995): 67% (36/110). Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca. 1800. Ca. 5 Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Data provided by the Department suggests that placements are weak. In transition due to faculty turnover; this could be an opportunity for the Department. Proposal focuses on faculty hires, rather than on investments in the graduate program, per se.

Ph.D. Program in Political Science - NRC ranking (1995): 34% (65/98). Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca. 1850. Slightly less than three Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. List of ten year placements include several at AAU universities, most at lower tier institutions. Departmental data included many national honors and awards to students in the program, strong record of student publications and conference presentations. Upward trajectory as a result of a turnaround in the 1990's; needs to develop further the clusters of excellence concept. Investments proposed are overly broad, but include elements that focus on the graduate program.

Ph.D. Program in Psychology - NRC ranking (1995): 78% (40/185). Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, low 1800's. Ca. seven Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Graduate placements are difficult to interpret without dates, but several are at major research universities. Relationship of the neuroscience track in Psychology to the Integrative and Cognitive track of the Neuroscience Program is difficult to assess, as the data provided by Psychology and Neuroscience contain a lot of overlap. Recently reorganized at least part of its graduate program with that of the Peabody department. Investments proposed are overly broad, but include elements that focus on the graduate program.

Ph.D. Program in Sociology - NRC ranking (1995): 72% (27/95). Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca. 1800. Slightly more than one Ph.D. per year, 1995-1999. Unclear (undated) placement data; unclear as to which placements are tenure-track positions. High per capita faculty publication/citation rate in the top three sociology journals. The faculty appear stronger than the graduate program, perhaps due to an apparently weak market in the field. More successful than most programs in developing racial plurality in the graduate student body. Department needs to find focal areas in which to build excellence (in contrast to overall growth). Proposed investments more focused on building faculty than on the graduate program.

Natural Sciences and Mathematics

Ph.D. Program in Biological Sciences - NRC rankings in 1993 were not of departments but in programmatic areas, selected by the NRC, which combined faculty in the College and the Medical School: Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, 85% (30/194); Cell & Developmental Biology, 84% (29/179); Molecular and General Genetics, 65% (36/103); Ecology, Evolution & Behavior, 42% (75/129). Ca. six Ph.D.Â’s per year 1995-1999 (Biology plus Molecular Biology). Graduate students recruited through two routes, directly or through the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program (IGP). Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants (direct recruits only), ~1950. First placements are generally into postdocs, most of these at major research universities. Strong market driven by growth in NIH funding, biotech industry. Students publish in major journals (with their mentors as co-authors) and present work at major national and international meetings. Faculty rejuvenation through new recruits. Only losses of senior faculty to outside recruiting in the past decade were to head major departments (UC Davis and Penn State). Modest proposed investments directed to the graduate program: seed money and topping awards.

Ph.D. Program in Chemistry - NRC ranking (1995): 46% (90/168). Ca. 6 Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca.1925. Reported GREÂ’s of matriculated students are, on average, somewhat lower than the average for applicants, suggesting that the program is not landing the top applicants in their pool. Placements of graduates are into postdoctoral positions at research universities, faculty positions at four-year colleges, and postdoctoral or staff positions in governmental agencies or industry. The breadth of placements reflects a strong market for Ph.D.Â’s in chemistry. Proposal focuses more on faculty hires than on investments in the graduate program, per se.

Ph.D. Program in Mathematics - NRC ranking (1995): 37% (88/139). Ca. 4 Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca.1930, similar to the average reported GREÂ’s of matriculated students. Placement data provided are sketchy, but the information provided notes that few placements are at major research universities, and that these are mostly postdoctoral positions. The departmental response to the call for proposals is rather thin on data, but the proposed investments are focused on the graduate program, are relatively modest, and therefore have potential high return on investment.

Ph.D. Program in Neuroscience (Integrative and Behavioral Track) - NRC ranking (Neuroscience, 1993): 72% (29/102). This is a new Ph.D.-granting program. No graduation data or GRE data on applicants were included in the data provided by the Graduate School. The creation of the Ph.D. in Neuroscience was well timed with respect to funding growth and market potential. Relationship of the neuroscience track in Psychology to the Integrative and Cognitive track of the Neuroscience Program is difficult to assess, as the data provided by Psychology and Neuroscience contain a lot of overlap. Many of the strongest mentors and graduates of the A&S Psychology program are listed in the Neuroscience proposal. Proposed investments are relatively modest and are focused directly on the graduate program (stipends, topping-up awards), with great potential for a high return.

Ph.D. Program in Physics - NRC ranking (1995): 61% (58/147). Combined GREÂ’s of recent applicants, ca. 1990. Ca. five Ph.D.Â’s per year, 1995-1999. Little specific data provided by the program on graduate students. Narrative mentions placing graduates in postdoctoral positions at major research universities and graduate student publications and meeting presentations, but without specifics. Reorganization of focal research areas of the Department appears likely to mesh well with various interdisciplinary initiatives. Proposed investments are modest and focused on the graduate program.