3.2 THE MASTER'S EXPERIENCE
In some fields, a master's degree is the professional norm.
A master's degree generally entails 2 years of coursework. Some master's-degree programs require a research thesis, others do not. In the latter case, the master's degree is not so much a terminal degree as a recognition of the coursework and qualifying examinations completed after about 2 years in a doctoral program.
In recent decades, the 2-year master's degree has served in some fields as the terminal degree. For example, the American Society for Engineering Education in 1987 reaffirmed the appropriateness of the master's degree for engineering students not expecting to enter careers in research or university teaching (ASEE, 1987). About 4.6 times as many master's degrees in engineering are awarded each year as engineering PhDs (for comparison, the ratio in the physical sciences is close to unity) (NSF, 1994b). The master's degree is also a customary end point in public health, computer science, and bioengineering and for those who want to teach in high schools and community colleges.
Data on the number of master's degrees by field, sex, race, and citizenship are included in Tables B-16 through B-19 in Appendix B and on the employment of new master's-degree recipients in Appendix C.
3.3 THE DOCTORAL EXPERIENCE
Acquisition of research skills is central to the doctoral experience.
The typical PhD program constitutes a two-part experience of great depth and
intensity that lasts 4 or more years. The first part consists of about 2 years
of course work. The second part focuses on a doctoral dissertation based on
original research that might take 2 or 3 years or more to complete. The
dissertation, as a demonstration of ability to carry out independent research,
is the central exercise of the PhD program. When completed, it is expected to
describe in detail the student's research and results, the relevance of that
research to previous work, and the importance of the results in extending
understanding of the topic (CGS, 1990).
It is customary in most fields of science and engineering for a doctoral
candidate to be invited to work as a research assistant (RA) on the project of
a faculty member; an aspect of this research project often becomes the subject
of the student's dissertation. A traditional expectation of many students (and
their professors) is that they will extend this work by becoming university
faculty members. If they do, promotion and tenure depend to a great extent on
continuing research publication.
A properly structured requirement for demonstrated ability to perform
independent research continues to be the most effective means to prepare bright
and motivated people for research careers. Original research demands high
standards, perseverance, and a first-hand
understanding of evidence, controls, and problem-solving, all of which have
value in a wide array of professional careers.
In the course of their dissertation research, doctoral students perform much
of the work of faculty research projects and some of the university's teaching.
Therefore, institutions and individual professors have incentives to accept and
help to educate as many graduate (and postdoctoral) researchers as they can
support on research grants, teaching assistantships, and other sources of
funding. By the time they receive PhDs, 63% of science and engineering
graduate students have been RAs and half have been teaching assistants. This
system is advantageous for institutions, to which it brings motivated students,
outside funding, and the prestige of original research programs. And it is
advantageous for the graduate students, for whom it supports an original
research experience as part of their education.
Although the research component of the doctoral experience is dominant, other
components are also important. They include a comprehensive knowledge of the
current state of knowledge and techniques in a field and an informed approach
to career preparation. Because of the recent trend toward large group
projects in some disciplines--in which a research topic is divided
among a number of students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty--a PhD
candidate can become so focused on a particular technique that there might be
little opportunity for independent exploration of related fields or career
options. When a graduate student becomes essential to a larger research
project, completion of the degree can be unduly delayed. Furthermore, students
working on tightly focused research might conclude that this is the only valued
achievement for scientists and engineers.
In many fields, nonresearch jobs are accorded lower status by faculty;
students who end up in such jobs, especially outside academe, often regard
themselves as having failed (that is less true in engineering and chemistry, in
which nonacademic employment is often the norm). If the number of
academic-style research positions continues to level off or contract, as seems
likely, a growing number of PhDs might find themselves in nonacademic careers
to which they have been encouraged to give little respect.
3.4 TIME TO DEGREE
The average time to complete a doctoral degree has increased for graduate
students in all science and engineering fields.
Over the last 30 years, the average time it takes graduate students to
complete their doctoral programs, called the "time to degree" (TTD), has
increased steadily. One measure, the median time that each year's new PhDs
have been registered in graduate school, has increased in some fields by more
than 30%. (The time to master's degree does not seem to have increased,
although no one collects national statistics on it.)
The lengthening of the period of graduate work is accompanied by a second
trend. It has become more common for new PhDs in many fields to enter a period
of postdoctoral study (discussed at the end of this chapter), to work in
temporary research positions, and to take 1-year faculty jobs before finding a
tenure-track or other potentially permanent career-track position.
We are concerned about the increasing time spent by young scientists and
engineers in launching their careers. Spending time in doctoral or
postdoctoral activities might not be the most effective way to use the talents
of young scientists and engineers for most employment positions. Furthermore,
because of the potential financial and opportunity costs, it might discourage
highly talented people from going into or staying in science and engineering.
The median number of years between receipt of the bachelor's degree and the
doctorate in science and engineering has increased from 7.0 years during the
1960s to 8.7 years for those who received doctorates in 1991 (Table 5 in NSF,
1993b). Graduate students in the physical sciences have shorter-than-average
overall completion times--about 7 years--and social scientists
have longer-than-average completion times--about 11 years (Figure 3-2).
The remaining science and engineering fields average between 8 and 9 years.
The median time registered in doctorate programs is shorter than total TTD
(the interval from receipt of a bachelor's degree to receipt of a PhD) because
many graduate students take some time between college and graduate school to
work, and some take time off during graduate school. Because time out between
college and graduate school can be valuable for gaining work experience and
more mature decision-making
about careers, an increase in years from bachelor's
degree to doctorate is not a problem. But registered time to degree (RTTD)
[1] has also increased steadily over the last 30 years.
The median RTTD for engineering PhDs increased from 5.0 years in 1962 to 6.2
years in 1992. In 1992, it was 6.7 years for PhDs in the life sciences, 6.5
years in the physical sciences, and 7.5 for the social sciences (Table 6 in
NRC, 1993).
Our understanding of factors that affect TTD is incomplete. One finding,
reported for psychology, is that TTDs are longer when there are many students
per faculty member or many students overall (Striker, 1994). The National
Research Council's Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel in 1990
tested a five-variable model over 11 fields of science and could find no cause
or set of causes to explain the trend (Striker, 1994; Tuckman et al., 1990).
Some researchers explain the increase in TTDs by pointing to the increasing
complexity and quantity of knowledge required for expertise in a given field.
Another possible explanation is the tendency of some faculty to extend the time
that students spend on research projects beyond what is necessary to meet
appropriate requirements for a dissertation. The Council of Graduate Schools
(CGS) reports that lack of financial support during the dissertation phase
substantially extends TTD, as do difficulties in topic selection, unrealistic
expectations for the amount of work that can be completed in a dissertation,
and inadequate guidance by advisers. Still other reasons are poor
undergraduate preparation, student reluctance to leave the congenial life of
academe, and postponement of graduation in the face of uncertain employment
prospects (CGS, 1990).
There has been little research on how students spend the extra time that they
take to earn a degree--whether in classwork, studying for general examinations,
doing thesis research, working as teaching assistants or research assistants,
etc. In a tight labor market, students might hope that the extra time might
provide them with a better thesis and thus a better chance at a research
position, but information on this is not readily available.
3.5 MECHANISMS OF ASSISTANCE FOR GRADUATE EDUCATION
Research grants, whose primary purpose is to support research, exert a
powerful influence on the format of graduate education.
Table 3-1 provides an overview of the sources of graduate school support for
doctorate recipients by broad field in 1993. Master's-degree students are
mainly self-supporting (and often hold full-time jobs while studying), but most
PhD students offset the cost of graduate education with grants and other forms
of support from state and federal governments, industries, universities,
nonprofit groups, and others. The amount and kind of support vary widely by
field (see Appendix B, Table B-7).
In 1992, according to a survey of graduate departments, 41% of the 126,000
full-time graduate science and engineering students received their primary
support from their institutions, 31% provided most of their own funds
(including funds from federally guaranteed loans), and 20% depended primarily
on federal sources, primarily in the form of research assistantships, graduate
fellowships, and training-grant positions (Table 12 in NSF, 1994a). However,
federal support for students in the biological and physical sciences was higher
(34% and 36%, respectively). One-fourth of those with institutional support
received it in the form of research assistantships, half received teaching
assistantships, and the remaining one-fourth were supported by a mix of
fellowships, traineeships, and other forms of support.
The preceding discussion underestimates the importance of federal support,
especially to RAs, because they were measured at one time (1992). Typically,
graduate students depend on different sources of support in different phases of
graduate work--perhaps as teaching assistants (TAs) in the first 2 years and
then as RAs while doing dissertation research. By the time students receive
the doctorate, nearly two-thirds have been RAs and half TAs (see Figure 3-3).
The students reporting this information are not always sure of the ultimate
source of their RA funds, and the reported data do not distinguish between
federal and institutional RAs (Table A-5 in NRC, 1993). But we believe that
most RAs are supported by federal research grants and contracts.
Since the early 1970s, virtually all growth in federal support of scientists
and engineers in academe has been in the form of grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreements for R&D projects Figure 3-4).
Federal fellowship and traineeship programs were cut back substantially in the
early 1970s. The research-assistantship mechanism began to grow in importance
as faculty used their research grants to support graduate students. Federal
support of graduate fellowships and traineeships fell steadily as a percentage
of overall federal funding Figure 3-5). As a result, the federal
government has supported graduate education for the last 2 decades primarily
through its support of faculty research projects, rather than direct support of
graduate students.
There are no clear guidelines for distributing the various types of federal
support. The research assistantship has become dominant, but not as a result
of an education policy. The number of PhDs produced now reflects more closely
the availability of research funds than the employment demand for PhDs. There
are several drawbacks to this dependence on research grants. One is that the
pressure to produce new research results extends to graduate students, who
easily gain the impression that hard, goal-oriented work on a specific project
is the most important aspect of graduate education. As already noted, PhD
students can become so involved in the work of the faculty investigators under
whose grants they conduct their dissertation research that little time is left
for independent exploration or other educational activities. Even the
best-intentioned professors might lack the time to impart a broad appreciation
of their discipline or to encourage their RAs to investigate the discipline
thoroughly or plan their careers. Efforts should continue to be made to make
this experience as profitable and broadening as possible so that graduate
scientists and engineers are prepared for all kinds of careers.
In addition, the peer-review process, effective as it is at judging the
research ability of academic researchers, does not try to evaluate the
educational value of the research projects that can constitute the central
activities of graduate students (although contribution to education is
technically one of four criteria used to judge National Science Foundation
grants). And a project or research environment of high educational merit will
not necessarily impress a peer-review committee charged with judging the
scientific merit of a proposed research topic and the ability of a principal
investigator to carry it out.
3.6 CAREER INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE
Graduate students do not routinely receive accurate, timely, and complete
information on the array of available careers in science and engineering.
Several government agencies and private organizations collect and publish
information relevant to the careers of graduate students, including the
National Science Foundation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the National
Research Council. Those data are of interest to three more or less distinct
communities:
In general, the data that are available are not presented in formats designed
for use by students or faculty advisers in choosing and planning careers in
science and engineering. Moreover, in most cases, there is a lag of several
years between the gathering of data and their publication. As a result,
graduate students lack adequate information to
More-effective guidance is clearly required. A prevailing belief in higher
education is that faculty members "naturally" know how to be dissertation
advisers through their own experience as students and teachers. That might be
true when it comes to advising students who will enter academic careers, but
many (if not most) faculty members have little experience with or awareness of
nonacademic job opportunities and so cannot be effective advisers for other
students.
3.7 THE GRADUATE EDUCATION OF WOMEN AND MINORITY-GROUP
STUDENTS
The presence of women and minority-group students, although increasing, is
still small relative to the population as a whole in nearly all science and
engineering fields. In the long run, it is in the interest of all to recruit a
fair share of the most-able members of society into science and engineering.
Meanwhile, efforts should continue to ensure that all people with talent have
an equal opportunity to enter science and engineering careers.
Women and minorities are underrepresented as graduate students and
particularly as faculty, researchers, academic officers, administrators, and
policy-makers. The proportion of new entrants into the workforce who are
minority-group members and women has risen and will continue to rise, and the
quality and extent of their education should have high national priority.
Statistically, the position of women students in advanced science and
engineering is improving, in part because of special efforts. From 1982 to
1992, the total number of women in graduate schools rose by about 3% a year,
compared with a rise of 1% a year for men. In 1982, women received 23.7% of
science and engineering doctorates; in 1992, they received 28.5% (see Appendix
B, Table B-22). In 1993, women constituted 33% of all full-time faculty (and
37% of combined full-time and part-time faculty) but only 6% of the full-time
faculty in engineering, 20% in the natural sciences, and 27% in the social
sciences (Table 6 in NCES, 1994).
Women have been most successful at entering the social and life sciences. In
1992, 54% of graduate students in the social sciences and 44% of those in the
life sciences were women (see Appendix B, Table B-3). Fewer women enroll in
the physical sciences or engineering. In 1992, 15% of engineering graduate
students and 27% of those in the natural sciences were women, but their
percentage gains over the preceding decade have been greatest in those
fields.
Entry into science and engineering graduate schools is lowest among minority-group
students. The percentage of science and engineering doctorates awarded to
members of underrepresented minorities increased from only 4.1% in 1982 to only
5.5% in 1992 (see Appendix B, Table B-24). In 1992, fewer than 29,000 (9%) of
science and engineering graduate students were US citizens who belonged to
underrepresented minorities (black, Hispanic, and American Indian) (see
Appendix B, Table B-4). That is related to their low representation on college
faculties: 8% of full-time faculty in 1993--6% in engineering, 7% in
the natural sciences, and more than 9% in the social science (Table 6 in NCES,
1994). By comparison, in 1991, 22% of Americans were black, Hispanic, or
American Indian. Committee witnesses indicated that a "critical mass" of
students is particularly important for minority-group members, who as students
often suffer from a "one and only" syndrome.
As the demographics of the workplace shift rapidly, it is clearly in the
national interest to encourage and facilitate the entry of women and
minority-group members, with white men, into science and engineering fields.
3.8 FOREIGN GRADUATE STUDENTS
The number of foreign science and engineering students enrolled in US
graduate schools and the number receiving PhDs have both risen more rapidly
than the comparable numbers of US citizens.
The number of science and engineering doctorates earned annually by people who
are not US citizens and have temporary visas increased sharply from 3,400 in
1983 to almost 8,100 in 1993. This group received 18.5% of the doctorates in
1982 and 32% in 1992 (see Appendix B, Table B-25) and accounted for most of the net increase in the number of doctorates awarded since 1986 (see Figure 1-2).
One reason for the marked increase has been a series of political events that
have encouraged in immigration. The Immigration Reform Act of 1990 gave visa
preference to applicants with science and engineering skills (NSB, 1993). The
arrival of many of those students results from one-time political events, but
American universities continue to attract students for whom comparable
education is not available at home. The issues raised by the increase in the
number of foreign students in American graduate schools and earning US
doctorates are discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2). As discussed in Chapter
4, the decision of an increasing number of those students to seek permanent
jobs in the United States increases the talent available to our country,
although it adds to the employment-related pressures on advanced scientists and
engineers.
3.9 POSTDOCTORAL EDUCATION
The postdoctoral population has increased faster than the graduate-student
population. Some of the increase might be due to employment
difficulties.
According to the latest National Science Foundation (NSF) survey of science
and engineering graduate departments (unpublished), there were 24,024 science
and engineering postdoctoral appointees[2] in
doctorate-granting institutions in the fall of 1992, compared with 14,672 in
1982--a 63.7% increase, compared with a 26.7% increase in the
number of graduate students. Part of the growth can be assumed to reflect the
legitimate need for postdoctoral study and exploration to prepare for the
increased complexity of modern science; in biology, chemistry, and physics, for
example, postdoctoral study has become the norm. But committee testimony and
other anecdotal evidence indicates that many postdoctoral appointees are
extending their studies because permanent positions in academic or industrial
research are not available.
An important additional factor is the increasing percentage of postdoctoral
appointees who are foreign students--53% in 1992, compared with 42% in 1985
(NSF, unpublished). More foreign citizens than American citizens have had
postdoctoral appointments in US universities since 1991 (Tables C-29 and C-30
in NSF, 1993a).
However, surveys do not determine the extent to which young scientists and
engineers take postdoctoral positions because they cannot find regular
employment. One measure of the impact of employment-market problems on the
growth of the postdoctoral pool would be an increase in the length of
postdoctoral time before a permanent position is found or an increase in the
percentage of scientists and engineers who take second or third postdoctoral
positions. Another indication would be an increasing percentage of scientists
and engineers taking postdoctoral appointments at the institutions where they
received their doctorates; this would indicate that professors are retaining
their former students as RAs when they cannot find regular jobs.
The Survey of Doctorate Recipients can be analyzed to address the question.
The comparative analysis of cohorts of scientists and engineers 5-8 years after
receipt of their PhDs, done for this report, indicated that the percentage
still in postdoctoral positions grew from 2% in 1977 to 3% in 1989; the
increase was greater and smaller in specific fields (see Appendix C, Table
C-2).[3] In 1979, more than 600 (4.9%) of the
biologists who received PhDs in 1971-1974 held postdoctoral appointments; in
1989, nearly 1,300 (9.2%) of those with PhDs from 1981-1984 were in
postdoctoral positions. The percentage of each cohort in the faculty tenure
system fell from 40% in 1979 to 25% in 1989.
The above changes might partially explain the finding that the percentage of
young biologists (aged 36 and younger) who applied to the National Institutes
of Health for individual-investigator research grants fell by 54% from 1985 to
1993 (NRC, 1994a); clearly, fewer of them were in a position of independent
investigator, from which they are permitted to apply for research grants.
Regardless of the proportion of postdoctoral appointees who are in a
vocational "holding pattern," their numbers are rising, and each year they vie
with the new class of graduating PhDs for available positions. The
postdoctoral appointees have an advantage in being able to offer more research
experience and publications in competing for available research positions.
That competition, in turn, increases the trends among new PhDs toward
postdoctoral study and nontraditional jobs.
NAS Home Page |
NAP Home Page |
Reading Room |
Report Home Page
Previous Section |
HTML Home Page |
Next Section