Office of Institutional Research

EMORY UNIVERSITY

The 2001 HEDS Graduate Student Survey

Highlights of Findings

Prepared by Daniel Teodorescu and Vincent Carter

September 2002

This report summarizes the findings of the 2001-02 HEDS Graduate Student Survey, which was administered in Fall 2002 to all degree-seeking graduate students enrolled in Emory’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. The survey was designed by the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium (HEDS) to help universities assess the academic and social experiences of their graduate students and improve their services and programs. In 1999 Emory participated in the first HEDS graduate survey along with other peer universities. For a review of the findings from that survey, visit http://www.emory.edu/PROVOST/IPR/ipr_student_grd.htm

The 2001 survey was administered entirely via the web. Email invitations were sent to all graduate students in early fall 2001 and by the end of the semester a total of 388 students responded. This represents a 27 percent response rate for the 1462 degree-seeking graduate students enrolled in fall 2001.

In the following we highlight those findings that pertain mainly to student academic experiences. The report compares responses across four clusters of disciplines--humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and health sciences. The areas we discuss include academic quality, program structure and facilities, teaching and research experiences, career counseling, advising, overall experience and obstacles to academic progress, commitment to graduate studies, and post graduate plans. For those questions that remained unchanged between 1999 and 2001, we also compare the answers for the two cohorts.

Respondents Profile

Tables 1 through 13 and Appendix A show the distribution of respondents by gender, department, type of degree, citizenship status, minority status, and other demographic characteristics. The distribution by gender (39 percent males) closely approximates the composition of the fall 2001 graduate student population (42 percent males).

The overall respondent population was relatively young with more than 68 percent being 30 or younger. Thirty-one percent came directly from undergraduate studies; 28 percent had been enrolled in other graduate schools prior to starting their program at Emory; and 26 percent were employed in a related field before starting the graduate program at Emory. Ninety-six percent of the respondents were Ph.D. students; the corresponding proportion in the graduate student population is 90 percent.

With regard to the stage reached by respondents in their graduate programs, 34 percent report having completed their coursework, 41 percent have passed qualifying exams, and 29 percent have had their dissertation proposals accepted.

Forty-five percent of the respondents are married or live with a domestic partner and 11 percent have children. Seventy-two percent of the respondents are White, slightly higher than their 66 percent representation in the overall graduate student population. About 14 percent of the respondents are minorities, which mirrors the actual representation in the overall population. Another 3 percent of the respondents classify themselves as “Other,” compared to one percent in the overall population. Fifteen percent of the respondents are foreign students compared to 19 percent in the general population.[1]

Academic Quality

Tables 14 through 17 show the respondents’ ratings of the academic standards, space, and facilities in their programs as well as their perceptions of how well the programs integrate current developments in their fields.

More than 80 percent of the respondents rated the academic standards in their programs as “very good” or “excellent.” Across disciplinary clusters, the proportion of students giving “very good” and “excellent” scores ranged from 71 percent in the natural sciences to 87 percent in the social sciences.

Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of the respondents said their programs were either very good or excellent in integrating current developments in their fields. Humanities (67 percent) were least likely, while health sciences (80 percent) were most likely to respond this way.

Sixty-four percent of all respondents reported that their program space and facilities were either very good or excellent. Natural sciences (84 percent) were more likely, while humanities (57 percent) students were least likely to rate favorably the space and facilities in their programs.

More than three-quarters (79 percent) rated the overall quality of their programs as very good or excellent. Most satisfied with program quality were the social sciences students (83 percent).

Intellectual Environment

Tables 18 through 21 capture the respondents’ assessment of the intellectual quality of their faculty and fellow students, and the relationship between faculty and graduate students.

Approximately 90 percent of the respondents rate the intellectual quality of the faculty in their programs as very good or excellent. While graduate students in the humanities, social sciences and health sciences responded almost similarly, the scores of the social sciences respondents were slightly lower (77 percent).

When asked about the intellectual quality of their fellow graduate students, 75 percent rated it as either very good or excellent. Respondents in the natural sciences gave slightly lower ratings than students in the other areas (65 percent).

Overall, one notes that the intellectual quality of the fellow students is rated less favorably than that of faculty. This finding is echoed by the comments of several respondents:

“We need better motivated and performing students. I believe there is a mismatch between the quality of faculty and the quality of the graduate students.” (Social Sciences)

“I would like to have a more driven and hard working cohort.” (Health Sciences)

Sixty percent of the respondents consider that the relationship between faculty and graduate students is very good or excellent. There was no substantial variation in responses across clusters.

Program Structure

More than two-thirds of the respondents (69 percent) agree or strongly agree that program activities foster a sense of intellectual community. While humanities, social sciences, and health sciences students responded about the same, natural sciences students were more likely to see their programs as fostering a sense of intellectual community (81 percent).

Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that program content supports their research or professional goals, with no major differences across disciplinary divisions.

When asked if the structure of their program encourages student collaboration or teamwork, less than half of all respondents (47 percent) agreed or strongly agreed. Across clusters, responses ranged from 41 percent in the humanities to 71 percent in the natural sciences. The high percentage in the natural sciences might relate to the collaborative nature of lab work in these fields. Students in the humanities tend to be more isolated in their graduate work, as most of their research work takes place in the library. Says a humanities participant about the research culture in his program:

“All work is individual with no emphasis or value given to collaborative work. This is not good preparation for the modern world, especially outside of academia where everything is done in team environments.”

Seventy-nine percent of all respondents agree or strongly agree that the structure of their program provides opportunities to take coursework outside their own department. However, there was considerable variation in the responses across clusters with 93 percent of humanities, 85 percent of social sciences, compared to only 63 percent of natural sciences and 61 percent of health sciences showing agreement with this assessment.

About 72 percent report that their programs provide opportunities for interdisciplinary work. As with the previous question, there was wide variation in responses by division, with humanities respondents being considerably more likely to indicate the existence of such opportunities than their colleagues in other fields.

More than 80 percent of all respondents agree or strongly agree that the amount of coursework required seems appropriate to the degree. However, only 61 percent of natural sciences graduate students appear to feel this way.

For a detailed view of the responses regarding program structure, see Tables 21 through 26.

Academic Facilities and Services

Tables 22 through 39 show the respondents’ ratings of satisfaction with academic facilities and student services.

Ninety-three percent of the respondents rate the library facilities, buildings, and space as adequate or more than adequate.

A similarly large majority are satisfied with the library hours (90 percent), holdings (82 percent), and other library services such as interlibrary loans or databases (94 percent). Despite these positive rankings, some students felt that the university does not have adequate spaces for group study. One health sciences student recommended:

“Give graduate students a place to study together (a quiet library is not conducive to such group studies). The medical students are allowed to use the designated study rooms in the library, but graduate students are kept out.”

Other students invoked the need for a graduate student center, which among other things, would increase interaction among students from different programs.

The students whose research and training typically require lab space (natural sciences and health sciences) are very satisfied with their laboratory facilities—97 percent of the natural sciences and 99 percent of the health sciences students indicate that their lab space is adequate or more than adequate.

Ninety percent of the respondents rate the on-campus computer facilities as either adequate or more than adequate and 87 percent are satisfied with the ease of accessing them.

Approximately 83 percent of the respondents consider that web-based campus computer services (e.g., for registration) are adequate or more than adequate and 94 percent give the same ratings to the ease of accessing such services on campus. However, fewer students (76 percent) reported that the ease of accessing web-based campus computer facilities from off campus locations was either adequate or more than adequate. When asked about the availability of help with campus computer facilities, 78 percent said that it was either adequate or more than adequate.

Seventy-two percent report having used the services of the GSAS office. Of these, 84 percent were satisfied with the services provided.

Finally, about 86 percent of the respondents who used the Registrar’s services rate their services as adequate or more than adequate.

Support for Professional Development --Teaching

Tables 40 through 46 show the respondents’ satisfaction with their teaching training (TATTO) and teaching experience.

Every student pursuing the Ph.D. degree must complete the Teaching Assistant Training and Teaching Opportunity (TATTO) program as one component of his or her academic requirements. In the survey, more than two-thirds (70 percent) of all respondents said that they have held a teaching appointment in GSAS. One should note, however, that the population of respondents includes first-year students, who, at the time the survey was administered, did not satisfy their TATTO teaching requirement and thus could not hold a teaching assignment.

In general, about two-thirds of the respondents assisted in a faculty member’s course (through teaching assistantships or associateships) for one or two semesters, while another third participated for more than two terms. In contrast to the other fields, in the health sciences, participation in the TATTO program rarely extends beyond one semester--72 percent of the respondents reported having assisted in a faculty member’s course for one semester only.

Forty-two percent of the respondents who taught said that they had been the primary course instructor for one semester, 21 percent for two semesters, 17 percent for three semesters, and 20 percent for four or more semesters. Again, for most of the health sciences respondents (72 percent), teaching experiences in this category appear to be limited to one semester.

Only 45 percent of those who received training in basic teaching skills rated it as very good or excellent. In addition, there was a substantial disparity across clusters with responses ranging from 23 percent in the natural sciences to 59 percent in the social sciences to. Some students see the TATTO requirements as an overload to their coursework. Says a humanities participant:

“Having teacher training simply added on to my course schedule severely fragmented my time during my second year of coursework; in retrospect, I wish I had found a way (and been encouraged) to integrate my teaching assistantships with guided reading courses.”

Only 23 percent of all respondents said that they had taught courses that they developed themselves. Humanities students (42 percent) were most likely to report having done so, compared to only 5 percent of their colleagues in the health sciences.

More than half (52 percent) of the respondents said that their overall teaching experience has increased their interest in teaching. Across clusters, the highest gains were in the humanities and social sciences (65 percent), while the lowest were in the health sciences (35 percent) and natural sciences (20 percent).

Support for Professional Development -- Research

Tables 47 through 56 show how the respondents evaluated the research training and support they received from Emory faculty.

Seventy-two percent have conducted independent research projects since starting their graduate program. When comparing divisions, social sciences students (81 percent) were more likely to have done so, followed by the health sciences (76 percent), humanities (68 percent), and the natural sciences (52 percent).

About three-quarters of the students feel that they received adequate research training before beginning their own research. However, there was considerable disparity in responses across disciplinary clusters. For example, 86 percent of health sciences students were satisfied with the research training they received compared to only 68 percent in the humanities. One humanities participant pointed to the need to “tailor the program requirements towards future research.”

Eighty-four percent of all respondents reported having received adequate faculty guidance in formulating a research topic. At the divisional level, 93 percent of natural sciences students felt this way, compared to only 77 percent of their counterparts in the humanities.

Two-thirds of the respondents said that they have conducted research in collaboration with one or more faculty members. The health sciences respondents were most likely to report collaboration with faculty (86 percent), while the humanities students were least likely (46 percent).

More than one-third (38 percent) received research funding from a faculty grant. Across clusters, health sciences (62 percent) and natural sciences (63 percent) students were more likely to indicate receiving such funding, while those in the humanities were least likely (18 percent).

Less than one third of the respondents reported that they have assisted faculty in writing a grant proposal. Across clusters, as one would expect, graduate students in the health sciences (50 percent) were more likely to have done so than their colleagues in the social sciences (33 percent), humanities (23 percent) and natural sciences (20 percent). One should note, parenthetically, that faculty in the basic health sciences rely heavily on grant funding to support their salaries.

Only 19 percent of all respondents have published one or more research papers as sole authors. As would be expected, graduate students in the humanities (28 percent) were more likely to publish their research as single authors than their colleagues in social sciences (19 percent), or the health and natural sciences (11 percent).

About one-third of all respondents (36 percent) have published one or more research papers as co-authors. Across clusters, health sciences students (59 percent) were more likely to co-author their research papers than their counterparts in the natural sciences (50 percent), social sciences (33 percent), and the humanities (14 percent).

Eighty-six percent of the respondents reported having attended a professional conference and 71 percent presented a paper or poster session. Across clusters, natural sciences respondents were less likely than other students to attend conferences (61 percent) or present papers (44 percent). One health sciences respondent suggested that faculty needed to focus more on improving their students’ presentation skills:

“We need more instruction about how to give good scientific presentations. Just getting up and giving talks does not necessarily make you a good speaker.”

More information about how the students across different clusters evaluated the support for and their research experience is presented in Tables 47 through 56.

Support for Professional Development --Career Counseling

Eighty percent of the respondents declared that they entered their degree program intending to pursue a career in academia (Table 57). There was, however, considerable variation across clusters. Humanities (89 percent) and social sciences (88 percent) respondents were most likely to consider an academic career, while natural sciences (38 percent) students were least likely.

Three-quarters of all respondents indicated that they received advice about employment opportunities within academia (Table 58). As was the case above, there was a wide gap between the responses of humanities and natural sciences students. Whereas 84 percent of the humanities students indicated having received such advice, only 26 percent of their natural sciences counterparts answered the same. The responses of students in social sciences (80 percent) and health sciences (67 percent) were closer to those in the humanities.

Only one-third of all respondents said that they have received advice about employment opportunities outside academia (Table 59). In contrast to the previous results, respondents in natural sciences (63 percent) and health sciences (51 percent) were more likely to have received such advice than their counterparts in the humanities and social sciences (25 percent). One social sciences participant remarked: “My training has prepared me for employment in the academy. It would have been valuable if I could have received some preparation for careers outside of the academy.”

Half of the respondents indicated having received advice on conducting a job search (Table 60). Students in the humanities (61 percent) were most likely, while those in the natural sciences (29 percent) were least likely to report such assistance.

The need for more advice on professional development emerges not only from these statistics but also from the comments provided by the participants. Says one humanities student:

“I wish there was more structure to the professional development aspect of our relationship to the faculty. Whether you get this or not seems kind of random.”

About 46 percent of the respondents reported having received advice on how to prepare a resume or curriculum vitae (Table 61). Again, humanities (55 percent) were most likely, while natural sciences (29 percent) respondents were least likely to report such support.

More than one third (36 percent) of all respondents said that they received advice on preparing for a job interview (Table 62). Mirroring the disciplinary differences revealed earlier, students in the humanities were more likely (44 percent) than those in other fields to report such guidance.

In sum, it appears that disciplinary differences in the extent to which faculty offer career counseling advice to their students are determined by how tight the labor market is for the recent Ph.D.s in a particular discipline. That is, in the humanities, where it is generally more difficult than in other disciplines to secure employment, faculty are more likely to guide their students on their future careers.

The data also show a need to better inform students, particularly those in the humanities and social sciences, about possible career tracks outside academia.

Advising—All Graduate Students

Nearly all respondents (97 percent) considered that information on degree requirements is either “sometimes” or “usually” available (Table 63). Further, the vast majority of respondents (91 percent) said that information on degree requirements is sometimes or usually clear (Table 64).

When asked if faculty and staff are well-informed about degree requirements, 85 percent of all respondents said “sometimes” or “usually” (Table 65). Health sciences students (75 percent), however, were less likely than their counterparts in the natural sciences (94 percent), humanities (90 percent) or social sciences (87 percent) to give the same response.

A humanities student notes that Emory needs more forums for discussion about “exactly how to acclimate to the nature of being a graduate student – the stress, the intense periods of thinking about strange stuff, the horrible job market.” He goes on to say that “some advice from younger faculty and older graduate students in this area can go a long way.”

Finally, Table 66 reveals that 80 percent of all respondents indicated that they had some input into the design of their individual program of study.

Advising—Doctoral Students

More than eighty percent of all respondents indicated that they sometimes or usually received adequate advice on preparing for oral and written examinations and on developing their thesis proposal. It should be noted that graduate students in the natural sciences (71 percent) were less likely than their counterparts in the other divisions to be satisfied with the advice on developing a thesis proposal (Tables 67, 68, and 69).

Approximately 80 percent of all respondents said that the process required to select a thesis advisor was sometimes or usually clear (Table 70). Respondents in the natural sciences (90 percent) were most likely, while their counterparts in the humanities (74 percent) were least likely to respond this way.

Ninety-one percent of all respondents indicated that they sometimes or usually received adequate feedback on their research from their thesis advisor (Table 71). Humanities (86 percent) were slightly less likely than their colleagues in the other divisions to respond with similar ratings.

More than three-quarters (77 percent) of all respondents indicated that they sometimes or usually received adequate advice on the standards for academic writing in their field (Table 72).

A comparable proportion indicated they received advice on how to avoid plagiarism and other violations of academic integrity. Notably, graduate students in the natural sciences (90 percent) were considerably more likely than their colleagues in the other divisions to indicate receiving such advice (Table 73).

Eighty-eight percent of all respondents noted that they received adequate feedback on their thesis drafts (Table 74) and more than three-quarters received adequate advice on preparing for their final defense (Table 75).

Seventy-nine percent of all respondents said that they met or communicated with their thesis advisor about their ongoing research and results at least once a month (Table 76). Humanities graduate students (63 percent) were slightly less likely to do so.

Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of all respondents reported that they met or communicated with their thesis advisor about writing the thesis draft at least once a month. As was the case above, humanities students (56 percent) were less likely to do so than their counterparts in other divisions (Table 77).

Overall Experience and Obstacles

More than three-quarters (78 percent) of all respondents said that their academic experience was either “very good” or “excellent” (Table 78). This represents a slight increase of 2 percentage points since 1999. At the same time, less than half (48 percent) of all respondents gave their student life experience a “very good” or “excellent” rating (Table 79).

Tables 80 though 87 show the participants’ views of the main obstacles to their academic progress. The most frequently cited obstacles to academic progress were work and/or financial commitments and family obligations. More than half (56 percent) felt that work and/or financial commitments were obstacles to their academic progress. This proportion is slightly higher than that reported in 1999 (53 percent). Across disciplinary clusters, social sciences (69 percent) and humanities (65 percent) respondents were more likely to cite this as an obstacle than their colleagues in the natural (40 percent) and health (38 percent) sciences. The comments the respondents provided in the survey also reveal that there is little understanding in the community of the non-traditional students. One participant recommended:

“Increase university administration and faculty sensitivity towards older students who must work full-time to earn a living to provide for a family while in graduate school. Graduate program is geared toward younger students without family responsibilities and working full-time is frowned upon.” (Social Sciences)

Forty-four percent of all respondents cited family obligations as an obstacle to their academic progress. This obstacle has increased in importance since 1999, when only 37 percent cited it. Across clusters, respondents in the humanities (54 percent) were most likely to cite family obligations as an obstacle. These were followed by students in the natural sciences (43 percent), and the social and health sciences (38 percent).

More than one-third (39 percent) of all students indicated that the availability of faculty was an obstacle to their academic progress. However, only 27 percent of the participants in the 1999 survey listed faculty availability as an obstacle.

Forty percent of all respondents cited program structure or requirements (down from 45 percent in 1999) as an obstacle to their academic progress. And 37 percent (down from 43 percent in 1999) felt that their dissertation topic or research was an obstacle.

Thirty-seven percent of all respondents cited course scheduling as an obstacle to their academic progress (up from 32 percent in 1999).

Only 11 percent of all respondents said that immigration laws or regulations were an obstacle to their academic progress. However, it should be noted that natural sciences (30 percent), which typically enroll a relatively higher proportion of foreign students, were more likely to respond this way than the other divisions.

Commitment to Graduate Studies

Nearly all respondents indicated that they were somewhat or very likely to stay in their program until they achieve their ultimate degree objective (Table 88). About three-quarters of all respondents reported that knowing what they know now, they would “probably” or “definitely” choose to pursue graduate studies again at this university (Table 89). This is slightly lower than the 83 percent who responded the same way in 1999. Notably, health sciences students were more likely than the other groups to indicate a strong affiliation with Emory (78 percent).

Eighty-three percent of all respondents indicated that they would probably or definitely choose to pursue graduate studies again in their field (Table 90). Health sciences (90 percent) were most likely to remain committed to their field while social sciences respondents (76 percent) were least likely.

When asked if they would choose to pursue graduate studies again in any field, 68 percent of all respondents said that they probably or definitely would (Table 91). Across clusters, only 43 percent of natural sciences graduate students responded this way compared to 76 percent in the health sciences.

When asked if they would recommend Emory University to prospective students in their field, 80 percent of all respondents said that they probably or definitely would (Table 92). About 77 percent of the 1999 students responded the same way.

Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) said that they would probably or definitely recommend Emory University to prospective students in any field (Table 93). Social sciences students (80 percent) were most likely, while humanities students (64 percent) were least likely to make this recommendation.

Post Graduate Plans

About half of the respondents (47 percent) expect to be employed in a teaching position, following the completion of their degrees, with more than a third (37 percent) of them indicating that a tenure track faculty position best describes their expectation for professional employment immediately after the completion of their graduate degree (Table 94).

An additional 27 percent anticipate to work in an academic setting as researchers, postdoctoral researchers, fellows, or associates, with students in the health sciences being most likely to choose this career path (53 percent).

Finally, 12 percent would like to work as researchers in a non-academic setting, with almost half of all natural sciences students indicating this option.

As Table 95 reveals, 84 percent of all respondents estimate that their first position will be directly related to their doctoral training. Graduate students in the natural sciences (65 percent) were less likely to share this opinion than their colleagues in the other divisions.

When asked about the type of employer they expect to work for after completing their degrees, more than two-thirds (68 percent) indicated a college or university (excluding medical schools). As shown in Table 96, humanities graduate students (81 percent) were most likely to expect working in an academic environment, followed by their colleagues in the social (71 percent), health (59 percent), and the natural (38 percent) sciences.

Approximately one-tenth of the respondents expect to work in industry or business, with natural sciences students reporting most often this option (48 percent). About 7 percent indicated they would work for a non-profit organization and other 7 percent expect to work for the federal government.

---

[1] Percentages may not total to 100 percent due to rounding and respondents’ being able to select more than one race or ethnicity category.