st. maryÕs college of california - aps bridgeapsbridge.com/resources/smc.pdfst. maryÕs college of...

St. Mary’s College of California

1 March 2017 Moraga, CA

The APS Bridge Program

Theodore Hodapp Director of Project Development

Senior Advisor to Education and Diversity

www.aps.org ©2017, American Physical Society; Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Departmental Programs

•  PhysTEC •  APS Bridge Program •  Conferences for Undergraduate

Women in Physics (CUWiP) •  National Mentoring Community •  Best Practices in Undergraduate

Physics Programs •  New Faculty Workshops •  Physics chairs meeting •  REU site leaders •  Professional skills development

workshops •  Graduate education conference

•  Advocating for physics education •  Childcare at meetings •  Mentoring seminar materials •  Ethics case studies

NNatatioionalMentontoringCommunommunityity

2

PhysTEC Member Institutions

3


Percentage of Women in Physics

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Bachelors

Doctorate

Source: IPEDS

4


APS Conferences for Undergraduate Women in Physics

•  Focus on professional development, networking, understanding pathways

•  Attendance more than tripled since APS became involved

•  Awarded 3-year grants from DOE, NSF for 2014-2020 conferences

•  10 sites for 2017, 12 in 2018 •  Coordination of Canadian site in 2017 •  Directed research efforts to improve

messaging to women sees positive changes

•  National leadership group; Current chair: Pearl Sandick, Utah; Overseen by CSWP

www.aps.org/cuwip

5

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

CUWiP Attendance

US Female Physics Degrees Canada


Guide for Undergraduate Physics Program Assessment, Review, and

Improvement 1.  Develop a guide for self-assessment of undergraduate physics

programs founded on documented best practices linked to measurable outcomes

The guide should provide a physics-community-based resource to assist programs in developing a culture of continuous self-improvement, in keeping with their individual mission, context, and institutional type. The guide should include considerations of curricula, pedagogy, advising, mentoring, recruitment and retention, research and internship opportunities, diversity, scientific skill development, career/workforce preparation, staffing, resources, and faculty professional development.

2.  Recommend a plan for ongoing review and improvement of this guide under the oversight of the APS COE

6

www.aps.org ©2017, American Physical Society; Email: [email protected]

APS Statements

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.

7


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.

8


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

9


Physics / STEM Bachelor Degrees

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015

Physics

All STEM

Source: IPEDS

10


Hispanic American Bachelor Degrees

11

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

BiologyEngineeringCSChemistryMath&Sta;s;csPhysicsGeosciences

Sources:IPEDSComple;onsurveybyrace,USCensus105

570

USPopula;onFrac;on18-24yearolds


African American Bachelor Degrees

12

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

CSChemistryBiologyMath&Sta<s<csEngineeringPhysicsGeosciences

Sources:IPEDSComple<onsurveybyrace,USCensus

175172

USPopula<onFrac<on18-24yearolds


URM Bachelor Degrees

13

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Bachelor'sDegreesinPhysics

Hispanic

AfricanAmerican


Underrepresented Minority (URM) Physics degrees

Sources: IPEDS Completion survey by race, US Census

Only ~30 students!

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Deg

rees

Ear

ned

by U

RM

s [%

]

Bachelor's

PhD

66 PhDs on average

US College-age minority population

14


Bachelor and PhD STEM Degrees

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

ComputerScience

BiologicalSciences

Chemistry Engineering Mathema>csandSta>s>cs

Physics Astronomy

Percen

tageofU

RM

BS

PhD

63 6 61

386 161 639

78

15


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 1st year grad courses, apply to PhD program, research underway (Department funds)

•  Place additional students at Partnership Institutions (21): •  44 graduate programs looked at “other” applications (2016),

recruited additional students; No direct support, some travel •  “COM approved” Partnership Institutions; national recognition of

program •  Monitor student/site progress •  Research •  Disseminate / Advocate

16


Bridge/Partnership Programs in Physics

17

APS Sites : •  Cal State Long Beach* •  Florida State University •  Indiana University •  Ohio State University •  University of Central Florida •  University of South Florida Non-APS Sites: •  Bowling Green State University* •  Cal State Los Angeles* •  Columbia University •  Delaware State University •  DePaul University* •  Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University •  Fisk-Vanderbilt •  Florida International University

•  MIT •  North Dakota State University •  Princeton University •  Texas State University* •  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 N. Carolina, Chapel Hill •  University of Rochester •  University of Texas, Arlington *Master’s degree is highest awarded


Institutional Members

Member Institutions •  112 in 38 states

Partnership Institutions •  27 in 16 states •  21 PhD •  6 MS

18


Bridge Sites 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)

19


Bridge Program Achievements

Bridge Program Physics PhDs

•  23% Women (20%) •  93% URM (6%)

•  64% Hispanic •  24% African

American •  5% Native

•  88% Retention (60%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Stud

ents

Le*Program

Placed/Retained

ProjectFunding

20132014201520162017

Na+onalAchievementGap

20


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

21


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

22


Research Efforts

•  Graduate admissions study •  Doctoral institutions •  Master’s institutions

•  GRE (and other) admissions data: Correlations with student success; impact on diversity

•  Holistic admissions practices: practical use of non-cognitive measures or other practical techniques for use by physics graduate admissions faculty (parallel effort by CGS)

•  Student perspective on admissions

23


Physics GRE: Impact of Cutoff Scores

0.0#

0.1#

0.2#

0.3#

0.4#

0.5#

0.6#

0.7#

0.8#

0.9#

1.0#

400# 500# 600# 700# 800# 900# 1000#

Frac1on#(White)#

Frac1on#(Hispanic)#

Frac1on#(Black)#

Frac1on#(Asian)#

0.09 (Black)

0.34 (Hispanic)

0.44 (White)

650

0.61 (Asian)

24


NSF INCLUDES RFP

Examples of national BP objectives that have potential for scaling nationally and require regional implementation include, but are not limited to: all high schools in a state offer advanced placement courses in calculus, computer science, and engineering; a disciplinary organization launches a major initiative designed to significantly improve the diversity of PhD graduates in that discipline; creating preK-20+ pathways in major urban centers involving universities, community colleges, local schools, surrounding communities, not-for-profits, museums and science centers, local businesses and industries, and science-rich institutions designed to enable success for students from underrepresented and low socio-economic groups.

https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16544/nsf16544.htm

25

NNatatioionalMentontoringCommunommunityity


Program Components

•  Approved by APS Council: November 2014 •  Launched April 2015 •  Goal: Increasing the number of URM students who receive

undergraduate degrees in physics •  Pairing faculty and URM students •  160 mentors; 105 mentees paired •  Annual conference (21-23 October 2016) – in conjunction

with REU Site Leaders meeting, Houston, TX •  Planned: scholarship funds distributed via mentors •  Planned: recognition of mentoring

Register: www.aps.org/nmc

26


Upcoming Research on Admissions

27

Traditional Admissions Parameters Limit Access of Women, Racial Minorities, and

US Citizens to US Physics PhD Programs but fail to Predict Doctoral Completion

Casey W. Miller,1, 2, ⇤ B. M. Zwickl,3 R. T. Silvestrini,4 and T. W. Hodapp5, †

1School of Chemistry and Materials Science, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, 146232Department of Physics, University of Gothenburg, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

3School of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, 146234Industrial and Systems Engineering Department,

Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, 146235American Physical Society, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740

(Dated: March 1, 2017)

Admissions data for students entering a wide variety of physics PhD programs during 2000-2010was collected and analyzed with respect to their ability to predict PhD completion. The data setcorresponds to about 20% of students admitted to PhD programs in those years. Logistic regressionanalysis was conducted to determine the extent to which admission requirements, such as undergrad-uate grade point average and standardized tests, are predictive of PhD completion. UndergraduateGPA was the only statistically significant model, though that was limited to only males at programswith NRC rank of 20 or above; it’s practical significance is limited, though, because finishers andnon-finishers have very similar GPA distributions. Notably, none of the Graduate Records Exam-ination (GRE) tests was predictive in any combination of PhD completion. This is particularlyrelevant because the GRE Physics Subject test is a prominent tool used to admit students to PhDprograms. Together with these results and the well documented and strong GRE score di↵erencesbased on the race, gender, and citizenship of the test taker, the use of the GRE exams in physicsadmissions should end.

Physics is among the least diverse of the sciences, andrivals engineering [xxx can we expand to specific sub-fields?] for the least diverse discipline in all of STEM.Barely 5% of physics PhDs are granted annually to thecombination of African Americans, Hispanic Americans,and Native Americans; women earn only 20% of physicsPhDs. The origins of these vast under-representationsare complex and include factors such as elementary edu-cational opportunity [1], implicit bias in the classroomand research laboratories [1], and issues of climate inphysics departments [1]. As pointed out by the NationalAcademy of Sciences report Expanding Underrepresented

Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technol-

ogy Talent at the Crossroads [2], the transition to grad-uate school is a component critical to the developmentof a robust US scientific workforce. Unfortunately, thereare non-trivial barriers for underrepresented groups toaccess physics PhD programs. Groups underrepresentedin physics include women of all races, African Americans,Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans. This workaims to understand how e↵ective the graduate admissionscriteria used in physics are at identifying students thatwill complete the PhD. Through a rigorous statisticalanalysis of a sample that includes roughly one in sevenstudents that entered physics PhD programs during 2000-2010, we find that the traditional metrics, undergraduateGPA and three Graduate Records Examination (GRE)test scores, do not predict PhD completion. Togetherwith the significant race, gender, and citizenship gaps onthe GRE Quantitative and GRE Physics test, these re-sults indicate that the typical physics PhD admissionsprocess selects against certain groups with tools unable

to enhance predictions of PhD completion.xxx needs a summary of any prior GRE validity stud-

ies; anything in physics; note about Brent’s claim thatno physics department has contacted ETS for assistancewith validity studies for their program.

CURRENT STATE OF US PHYSICS

Table I gives a comprehensive view of the state ofphysics graduate education [4]. In the following discus-sion of Table I, we avoid discussing Native Americans be-cause their low numbers undermine statistical confidencein their metrics. Women are only 1 of every 5 physi-cists. For all stages of physics education, Hispanics andBlacks are underrepresented, whereas Asians and Whitesare overrepresented relative to their college-age represen-tation in the US (xxx state those population fractions?).Approximately half of physics undergraduates are ac-

tively pursuing admission to physics graduate programs,as indicated by the ratio of Physics GRE test takers toundergraduate degrees awarded. Significant exceptionsto this trend are noted for Black females and males, whotake the GRE Physics at rates of 26% and 30%, respec-tively. About one quarter of US physics majors are ul-timately accepted into and matriculate to US physicsgraduate programs. The exception is for Blacks, whomatriculate at the lower rate of 1 in 5.The overall PhD completion rate for US citizens is esti-

mated at 69%, but is bounded below by 62% [5]. This iscomparable to the PhD completion rates for non-US stu-dents. There is no overall gender gap for PhD completion

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.

st. maryÕs college of california - aps bridgeapsbridge.com/resources/smc.pdfst. maryÕs college of...

Documents