Commission on the future of graduate education in the pharmaceutical sciences: Final report

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,  Summer 1999  by Triggle, David J,  Miller, Kenneth W

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Overview of Graduate Education in the United States Nationally, graduate education has received relatively little attention compared to undergraduate and professional education over the past several decades. The primary responsibility for graduate education lies within the academic department and with the individual faculty member, whereas the entire university and the professional colleges and schools are responsible for undergraduate and professional education.

Undergraduate and professional education programs undergo mandated external regional and specialized accreditation to maintain participation in federal loan programs or to qualify for professional licensure. Conversely, graduate education programs are not accredited, and only undergo internal or external evaluation for National Institutes of Health (NIH) training grant applications, or if mandated by the university or statelevel higher education boards. Additionally, the cost of graduate education at most state institutions is hidden in the larger instructional budget, as state legislatures generally do not allocate dollars for faculty research or graduate education. A national evaluation of graduate programs has been conducted twice in the past two decades by the National Research Council (NRC), but these evaluations are not inclusive of all academic disciplines, and they have been criticized as little more than opinion surveys similar to those published annually in popular national magazines.

Increasing criticism of the national graduate education enterprise arose in the early 1990s, primarily from new PhD graduates in the physical sciences, who had difficulties finding desirable employment opportunities. Concerns about this "oversupply" of PhDs, or an "undersupply" of employment opportunities in the graduate's areas of research interest began to focus national attention on graduate education. The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the NRC in 1995 attempted to examine the career paths of PhD graduates in the sciences and engineering, and define the most appropriate structures and functions for graduate education. COSEPUP members "...were sufficiently troubled by the lack of generally available information to conclude that students', professors', and mentors lack of accurate, timely, and accessible data on employment trends, careers, and sources of student support is a serious flaw in our educational system." The COSEPUP final report, "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers" concluded that "...the job opportunities of the future will favor students with greater breadth of academic and career skills..."

Additional reports and recommendations on graduate education have been produced by the American Chemical Society (ACS), the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American Association of Universities (AAU), and a another committee of the NRC. Related reports have been issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) on the declining graduate enrollment of minority students, the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST) on the status of postdoctoral fellows in the U.S., and the Carnegie Foundation on the state of undergraduate education in research universities.

These studies and reports of the graduate education enterprise have several common conclusions and recommendations:

The PhD degree should remain a research-intensive degree, but provide more curricular or experiential options to increase the breadth of skills of graduates.

Potential graduate students should be provided with accurate and timely information about career prospects so students can make informed choices about their careers.

Non-U.S. students have primarily been responsible for the rapid growth in the number of PhD degrees awarded in the last decade.

The growth in PhD degrees, particularly in the biomedical sciences, has contributed to a significant increase in the number of postdoctoral fellows and time spent in postdoctoral positions.

There is disagreement among the various reports as to what should be done or even whether anything should be done about the present "oversupply" situation. Increasing the breadth of graduate programs for the purpose of preparing PhDs for alternative (non-academic) careers was recommended by some and rejected by others. Most reports suggested that no attempt should be made to limit enrollment in graduate programs, including foreign students, but a recent NRC study suggested that graduate programs in life sciences should constrain their rate of growth and that no new programs should be developed except under rare and exceptional circumstances. Concurrent with the recent recommendation to limit enrollment in graduate programs in the life sciences, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and the NIH have announced plans to initiate PhD programs that are independent of any university affiliation.