University of Virginia 3 November 2017 Charlottesville, VA The APS Bridge Program: Changing the Face of Graduate Education Theodore Hodapp Director of Project Development Senior Advisor to Education and Diversity
APS Education and Diversity Programs APS Bridge Program PhysTEC Conferences for Undergraduate Women in Physics (CUWiP) National Mentoring Community New Faculty Workshops Best Practices in Undergraduate Physics Programs STEP UP 4 Women Physics chairs meeting (7-9 June) REU site leaders Prof. skills development workshops Graduate education conference Advocating for physics education Childcare at meetings Mentoring seminar materials Ethics case studies National Mentoring Community 2
Focus on professional development, networking, understanding pathways Attendance more than tripled since APS became involved in 2012 Very good URM attendance Departments using CUWiP as retention event for 1 st year students Support from NSF, DOE 11 sites for 2018, plus 1 in Canada Directed research efforts to improve messaging to women sees positive changes National leadership group; Current chair: Pearl Sandick, Utah; Overseen by CSWP Site applications due 1 November for 2019 conferences APS Conferences for Undergraduate Women in Physics (CUWiP) 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 US Female Physics Degrees CUWiP Attendance 2018 CUWIP CONFERENCE SITE LOCATIONS If you have any questions, please email women@aps.org 5 Alaska Cal Poly Pomona/Pomona College/Harvey Mudd College California (South of San Jose) Hawaii 6 Arizona State University Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Utah 7 University of Kansas Arkansas Kansas Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma Texas University of 8 North Florida Alabama Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi Puerto Rico South Carolina 1 University of Oregon California (San Jose and north) Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Wyoming 9 University of Virginia 1 WASHINGTON OREGON CALIFORNIA ALASKA NEVADA Kentucky Maryland (Frederick and west) North Carolina Tennessee Virginia (Fredericksburg and south) West Virginia 5 IDAHO UTAH ARIZONA 6 HAWAII 2 Iowa State Illinois Iowa Minnesota North Dakota South Dakota Wisconsin MONTANA WYOMING COLORADO NEW MEXICO George Washington 10 University District of Columbia Delaware NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA NEBRASKA KANSAS TEXAS Maryland (East of Fredrick) New Jersey (Trenton and south) Pennsylvania (Eastern, Lancaster) Virginia (North of Fredricksburg) OKLAHOMA 3 University of Toledo Indiana Michigan Ohio Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and west) MINNESOTA IOWA 7 WISCONSIN MISSOURI ARK. ILLINOIS LOUISIANA MISS. MICHIGAN 2 3 INDIANA KENTUCKY TENNESSEE ALABAMA 11 Columbia/Barnard/ City College Connecticut Massachusetts (East of I-91, including Springfield) New Jersey (North of Trenton) New York (Poughkeepsie and south) Rhode Island OHIO GEORGIA Canada Rochester Institute 4 of Technology Maine W. VA. Massachusetts (West of I-91) New Hampshire New York (North of Poughkeepsie) Pennsylvania (Central - Harrisonburg) Vermont NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT PENNSYLVANIA VIRGINIA N. CAROLINA S. CAROLINA 8 FL. 12 4 9 NEW YORK 10 11 MAINE RHODE ISLAND CONNECTICUT NEW JERSEY DELAWARE MARYLAND Queens University 12 in Canada Site location includes all Canadian provinces MASSACHUSETTS Indicates location of conference within regional area PUERTO RICO 3
Percentage of Women in Physics 25% Bachelor's 20% PhD 15% 10% 5% 0% 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 Source: National Center for Education Statistics and APS 4
Percentage of Women in Physics 50% 45% Sources: NCES/IPEDS, AIP-SRC, HERI 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% High School College Entrance BS (degree) PhD (degree) Assistant Professor 5
Undergraduate Physics Degrees Awarded to Women 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Germany USA Canada Australia Italy Argentina IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics Proceedings (2005-2013) India Albania Iran
Effects of Interventions Hazari, Potvin, Lock, Lung, Sonnert, and Sadler, "Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common hypotheses," PRST PER 9 020115 (2013)
Physics / STEM Bachelor Degrees 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 All STEM 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 100,000 50,000 Physics Source: IPEDS 0 0 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 4,000 2,000 8
APS Statement 8.2 JOINT DIVERSITY STATEMENT (Adopted by Council on November 16, 2008) To ensure a productive future for science and technology in the United States, we must make physics more inclusive. The health of physics requires talent from the broadest demographic pool. Underrepresented groups constitute a largely untapped intellectual resource and a growing segment of the U.S. population. Therefore, we charge our membership with increasing the numbers of underrepresented minorities in physics in the pipeline and in all professional ranks, with becoming aware of barriers to implementing this change, and with taking an active role in organizational and institutional efforts to bring about such change. We call upon legislators, administrators, and managers at all levels to enact policies and promote budgets that will foster greater diversity in physics. We call upon employers to pursue recruitment, retention, and promotion of underrepresented minority physicists at all ranks and to create a work environment that encourages inclusion. We call upon the physics community as a whole to work collectively to bring greater diversity wherever physicists are educated or employed. 9
Hispanic American Bachelor Degrees 22% 20% 18% 16% 14% US College-Age Hispanic Population 12% 10% Biology 8% Engineering Chemistry 6% 650 Physics 4% Math and Stats 2% 112 Earth Sciences 0% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, US Census, and APS 10
African American Bachelor Degrees 16% 14% 12% US College-Age Black Population 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 182 0% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 195 Biology Chemistry Math & Stats Engineering Physics Earth Sciences Source: National Center for Education Statistics, US Census, and APS 11
URM Bachelor Degrees 9% 8% 7% 6% Hispanic African American 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Source: IPEDS 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 12
Underrepresented Minority (URM) Physics degrees 36% US Graduate-Age URM population 30% 24% Bachelor's 18% PhD 12% 860 6% 307 67 28 0% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Only ~30 students! Source: National Center for Education Statistics, US Census, and APS 13
Bachelor and PhD STEM Degrees 22% Percentage of URM 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 78 639 161 386 61 BS PhD 63 6 2% 0% Computer Science Biological Sciences Chemistry Engineering Mathematics and Statistics Physics Astronomy 14
Leadership / Oversight National Advisory Committee Emilio Codecido (OSU, Grad student) J.D. Garcia (Arizona) Yolanda George (AAAS) Wendell Hill (UMCP) Renee Horton (NSBP) Anthony Johnson (Chair, UMBC) Ramon Lopez (UT Arlington) James Mathis (UM, Grad student) Steve McGuire (Southern University) Jesús Pando (NSHP) Ritchie Patterson (Cornell) Funding NSF APS Bridge sites Architect s Council Marcel Agüeros (Columbia) Ed Bertschinger (MIT) Andreas Bill (CSU Long Beach) Simon Capstick (Florida State) Kelly Holley-Bockelmann (Fisk/Vanderbilt) Cagliyan Kurdak (Michigan) Garrett Matthews (USF) Jon Pelz (Ohio State) Talat Rahman (UCF) Jon Urheim (Indiana) Research / Assessment Deepa Chari (FIU-Postdoctoral Assoc.) Geoff Potvin (FIU-Research advisor) Rachel Scherr (SPU-Project evaluator) This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1143070. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 15
Bridge Program Design: Underlying Themes Focus on underrepresented minorities (Hispanic American, African American, Native American) Base components on published scholarship and operational successes of similar programs Design program to avoid rearranging the deck chairs Bring unique position of APS to bear on the problem Measurable outcomes must be immediately recognizable by an APS member as having significant value Must have significant national impact 16
APS Bridge Program: Key Features Recruit students through graduate programs (unaccepted), undergrad programs (promising but uncompetitive, or unsure ) Establish Bridge Sites (6): Year 1: Advanced undergraduate or grad courses, introduction to grad-level research, active mentoring, progress monitoring, social integration into grad school (Project funds) Year 2: Take 1 st year grad courses, apply to PhD program, research underway (Department funds) Place additional students at Partnership Institutions (23): 65 graduate programs looked at other applications (2017), recruited additional students; No direct support, some travel COM approved Partnership Institutions; national recognition of program Monitor student/site progress Research Disseminate / Advocate 17
Student Eligibility Bachelor s degree in physics or closely related discipline US citizen or permanent resident Either: Applied but was not accepted Did not apply to graduate program this year Be committed to improving diversity in physics Meet individual requirements of the institution Students may not be currently enrolled in a graduate program We review applications AFTER April 15 18
Institution Involvement Member Institution (any institution, 125) Free; receive information / updates; reduced fees for APS-BP conferences Partnership Site (graduate only, 32) APS COM approval process; recommended site for Bridge Fellows (and others) to attend; demonstrate effective practices in graduate student support Bridge Site (graduate only, 6) Receive significant funding from APS; build sustainable program; prepare 2+ students each year for graduate study; significant institutional commitment APS Bridge Partnership Sites *Bowling Green State University *California State University Long Beach *California State University, Los Angeles Columbia University Delaware State University *DePaul University Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Fisk-Vanderbilt Florida International University Florida State University Illinois Institute of Technology Indiana University MIT North Dakota State University Ohio State University Princeton University *Texas State University *Towson University University of Central Florida University of Chicago University of Cincinnati University of Connecticut University of Hawai'i at Manoa *University of Houston Clear Lake University of Michigan University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Rochester University of South Florida University of Texas at Arlington University of Texas, San Antonio University of Virginia *Wright State University 19
Member and Partner Institutions Member Institutions 125 in 38 states Partnership Institutions 32 in 18 states! 24 PhD! 8 MS 20
Principles for Bridge and Partnership Institutions Admission decisions ( holistic criteria) Financial support (timing) Coursework (induction advising critical, allow advanced undergrad courses, alternative plan) Progress monitoring (timing, tutors if needed) Multiple mentors (intervention, peer involvement) Research (appropriate match) 21
Bridge Program Achievements Bridge Program Physics PhDs " 23% Women (20%) " 93% URM (6%)! 64% Hispanic! 24% African American! 5% Native " 88% Retention (60%) Students 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Left Program Placed/Retained Project Funding National Achievement Gap 5 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 22
Where did the 48 students go (2017)? Bowling Green State University CSU Long Beach (2) CSU Los Angeles (5) Delaware State University (2) DePaul University Fisk-Vanderbilt University (3) Florida State University (6) Indiana University (2) Ohio State University (3) Texas A&M University, Commerce Texas State University University of Central Florida (5) University of Cincinnati (3) University of Connecticut University of Houston, Clear Lake (3) University of Kansas (2) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Minnesota Duluth University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill University of Rochester University of South Florida (2) University of Virginia 23
What we didn t know 1. Aggregating applications is a powerful tool 2. Admissions data are not what they seem a. GRE is a big factor b. Students perceptions are different than faculty 3. Applications are expensive 4. Importance of graduate student groups 24
Some reasons students are not admitted Students: Low physics GRE score Apply to too few or wrong places Feel unprepared (self-esteem) Inadequate preparation: will fail in grad courses Application materials do not tell a predictive story Life intervenes Admissions Committees: Members overwhelmed Members unaware of admissions research findings 25
Research Efforts Graduate admissions study Doctoral institutions (accepted for publication) Master s institutions GRE (and other) admissions data: Correlations with student success; impact on diversity Holistic admissions practices: practical use of noncognitive measures or other practical techniques for use by physics graduate admissions faculty (parallel effort by CGS) (accepted for publication) Student perspective on admissions 26
Physics GRE: Impact of Cutoff Scores 1.0# 0.9# 0.8# 0.7# 0.6# 0.5# 0.4# 0.3# 0.2# 0.1# Frac1on#(White)# Frac1on#(Hispanic)# Frac1on#(Black)# 0.61 (Asian) Frac1on#(Asian)# 0.44 (White) 0.34 (Hispanic) 0.09 (Black) 650 0.0# 400# 500# 600# 700# 800# 900# 1000# 27
GRE Physics Scores: Impact of Cutoff Scores 1.00# 0.90# 0.80# 0.70# Frac1on#(F)# Frac1on#(M)# 0.60# 0.50# 0.40# 0.46 (M) 0.30# 0.20# 0.25 (F) 0.10# 650 0.00# 400# 500# 600# 700# 800# 900# 1000# Source: ETS 28
Next Steps Replicate process in chemistry, math, astronomy, geosciences Mentoring / tracking students into careers / postdoc positions Broader implementation of advances made by Bridge Program (admissions, induction, 1 st year support, peer and faculty mentoring) Spawning related research efforts in graduate education Interface with APS National Mentoring Community (www.aps.org/nmc) New fund for emergency aid to NMC undergrads (BEAM: Bringing Emergency Aid to Mentees) Planning joint Bridge Program / National Mentoring Community Meeting: Fall 2018 Happy Physicists Great Physics 29
Thanks! National Mentoring Community Email: hodapp@aps.org, Phone: 301-209-3263 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1143070, 0808790, 1346627 Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.