Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Admissions, Institutional Selection and Enrollment Section (Part 2 of 8)
by Jonathan Gehrz | May 19, 2010
May 5, 2010 I posted an initial entry related to the recent monograph issued by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) on promising policies and practices that promote learner success. Given recent economic stresses we are all experiencing first hand, I find such research extremely important to engaging further dialogue both as a larger, collective doctoral education community, but also at a smaller, more micro level and here within our own institutional community. While every institution has their own “flavor” or approach to doctoral education, the CGS’s Ph.D. Completion Project demonstrates that we do share common areas of concern and it only in promoting a “culture of evidence” that we’ll improve doctoral completion rates and meet society’s demands for a more relevant, globally competent PhD.
Tonight, we extend this dialogue to the policies and practices surrounding admissions and enrollment selection. Here, I wish to depart slightly from the CGS’s research and amend this to be inclusive of institutional selection, acknowledging that the role your own research and decision making related to institutional selection has a significant impact to the institution’s admission policies and enrollment practices.
Within the CGS’s research, themes pertaining to recruitment, admissions, and transparency surfaced. So, limiting yourself to this sub category, consider “fit” and “match” and reflect back (whether newly admitted or a more seasoned dissertation learner). Without limiting your contributions, consider:
• What policies and practices did you find effective?
• Were there areas that could have provided a more improved experience?
• What information did you need to reach the decision? Where did you get your information?
• Was there information absent that you would recommend to future applicants?
• Presumably, your application was approved for admission, but what do you think about the admissions/application process itself?
• What are your feelings on programs with open enrollment vs. say a program requiring entrance exams (i.e. GRE’s)?
• How could the institution integrate further mechanisms to ensure appropriate learner-institution/institution-learner “fit”?
• Should significant factors, such as quality or potential, be utilized in admissions decisions made?
• What is your role, as a current enrolled learner in the program, in such policies and practices?
• Etc.
Again, I welcome you to consider these matters as they relate to both your own individual-institutional experience, but also as they relate to the larger, doctoral community. The goal of the dialogue is to assess and evaluate all facets of this sacred experience, but more importantly to talk and work together as a community that shares the same desired outcome – a re-envisioned PhD experience that is responsive to our needs.