Graduate Student Life Annual Report
Northwestern University November 1, 2011
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS About The Graduate Leadership Council 3
The Graduate Leadership Council 2011-‐2012 4
Letter from the Co-‐Chairs 5
Summary of Report Recommendations 6
The Value of the Graduate Student 8
Demographics 9
Transportation 13
New Graduate Student Orientation 16
Student Life and Community at Northwestern 20
Graduate Student Representation 23
Conflict Resolution 26
Appendix A: Acknowledgements 31
Appendix B: Fellowship Awardees, 2010–2011 Academic Year 32
Appendix C: Graduate Education Expectations 35
Appendix D: Conflict Resolution Letter 37
3
ABOUT THE GRADUATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
The Graduate Leadership Council (GLC) is the voice of graduate students in academic and administrative matters at Northwestern University. The GLC is comprised of delegates from the six graduate student associations recognized by The Graduate School (TGS) as listed below, and the McCormick Graduate Leadership Council (MGLC).
Graduate Student Association (GSA) Chicago Graduate Student Association (CGSA) Black Graduate Student Association (BGSA) Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) Graduate Student Association for Latino and Spanish Activities (G-‐SALSA) Queer Pride Graduate Student Association (QPGSA)
Through regular meetings and ongoing dialogue, the GLC brings the concerns of graduate students to the attention of the deans and administrative staff of The Graduate School, as well as other stakeholders on both campuses. The GLC also implements the annual GLC Graduate Student Life Survey, supports advocacy initiatives, represents Northwestern at the National Association of Graduate and Professional Students, and co-‐hosts the TGS Night Out, all while serving as a place for student leaders to discuss best practices on representing graduate students within their individual associations. To contact the GLC, email [email protected].
4
THE GRADUATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL 2011–2012
CO-‐CHAIRS: Alexandra Amick, CGSA Neal Oza, MGLC
([email protected]) ([email protected])
ANNUAL SURVEY SUBCOMMITTEE COORDINATORS: Eduardo Europa, QPGSA
Sarah Mann-‐O’Donnell, QPGSA XiaoHan Zeng, CSSA
DELEGATES: Paul Arendt, MGLC
Yamil Colon, G-‐SALSA Alejo Lifschitz, G-‐SALSA
Ka Tat Siu, CGSA Kantara Souffrant, BGSA
Casey Spruill, BGSA Nick Huffmaster, CGSA Stacey Parrott, GSA Yongli Wang, CSSA
2010-‐2011 DELEGATES: Pria Young, MGLC Kate Bjorkman, GSA
Christine McCary, CGSA Courtney Patterson, BGSA Kimberly Singletary, BGSA
Anna Terwiel, GSA Jiadong Gong, CSSA
5
LETTER FROM THE CO-‐CHAIRS November 1, 2011 On behalf of the delegates of Northwestern University’s Graduate Leadership Council (GLC), we would like to thank you for the opportunity to share with you our Annual Graduate Student Survey and Report. The list of people that the GLC have to thank is extremely extensive and can be found in Appendix A. Without them, this Survey and Report would not have been possible. This report, the survey on which this report is based, our ongoing dialogue with The Graduate School (TGS), and our annual presentation to Northwestern’s Board of Trustees have guided the actions and advocacy that the GLC has undertaken each year. We are very pleased by the increased interest of this report for students and University administrators. Despite administering our survey in summer quarter for the first time this year, we generated responses from over 30% of the graduate student body, thus we feel confident that we have conveyed the diverse voices of the graduate student community. We are extremely proud of our accomplishments in the previous academic year. GLC has collaborated with TGS on a number of initiatives to improve student community, including the TGS website redesign, Graduate Student Orientation, and co-‐hosting the quarterly TGS Night Out. After much collaboration with faculty and administrators, our Expectations Document—a set of best practices that will guide academic relationships—was ratified by the graduate faculty. This year, we hope to build on the Expectations Document by working with TGS administrators to establish clear procedures to address conflicts that occur between graduate students, faculty, and staff. The GLC also contributes to the visibility of Northwestern University on the national level. Last year, NU joined the National Association of Graduate-‐Professional Students (NAGPS), which represents the interests of graduate students on the state, regional, and national levels. Some peer institution members of NAGPS include Harvard, MIT, and Carnegie-‐Mellon. During the regional conference, GLC delegates presented a talk about administering surveys of the graduate body at “best practice” sessions which generated much interest from delegates from other universities. Currently, GLC plans to submit a bid to host an upcoming NAGPS conference, to highlight that Northwestern is an innovator and a leader in addressing the concerns of its graduate student population. The 2011–2012 academic year is especially exciting for the GLC as we have redefined our mission from advocacy to a leadership collaboration forum. The GLC will serve as the central meeting point for collaboration on campus-‐wide advocacy activities, predominantly led by GSA. GLC will continue to be a liaison between student leaders and administrators from TGS and elsewhere on both the Evanston and Chicago campuses on issues affecting students. We look forward to addressing the concerns and questions you have from reading the results of this report. We hope that this report will continue to generate the kind of conversations, and produce the tangible results that have made Northwestern a world leader in graduate education. Sincerely, Alexandra Amick and Neal Oza [email protected]
6
SUMMARY OF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Please refer to each Section for detailed recommendations
PROFILE OF THE NORTHWESTERN GRADUATE STUDENT
• 86% full time PhD student, 8% full time masters, 6% joint degree students • Average annual stipend of $20928 (fellowship) or $21576 (assistantship) • Evanston campus students outnumber Chicago students by 4:1, but those who live in Evanston
(46%) are nearly equal to those living in Chicago (47%) • International students make up 24%, and 1 in 4 are non-‐native English speakers • Although Northwestern graduate students are a globally diverse mix, almost half (47%) of
respondents indicated that they belong to under-‐represented groups • Northwestern graduate students are also diverse in their family situations; among respondents,
24% indicated that they are married, and 14% have at least one dependent
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC RELATIONSHIPS TO AVOID CONFLICT:
• Implement yearly “Improving Academic and Professional Relationships” seminar on both campuses
• Require yearly completion and submission of the Expectations Document throughout all TGS academic programs
• Develop conflict resolution policies and procedures to be published in the TGS Handbook and on the TGS website
• Request that each academic program describe steps to resolve conflicts based upon the developed TGS policy, and describe these steps in Program Handbooks
• Add existing, non-‐TGS resources by which students can report conflict (e.g Office for Research, EthicsPoint) to TGS website
TO MAKE NORTHWESTERN ATTRACTIVE TO POTENTIAL STUDENTS:
• Ensure that the average graduate student stipend remains competitive compared to other peer institutions
• Consider hosting a database or message board for graduate student housing • Maintain the U-‐Pass program as-‐is, and consider expanding NU Intercampus Shuttle service to
weekends to allow students to access Chicago and research locations/offices in Evanston
TO BUILD GRADUATE STUDENT COMMUNITY:
• Start as early as TGS Orientation by expanding social events, working with GSAs to put on social events, and improving student awareness of online resources available at NU
• Plan cross-‐school and cross-‐campus mixers to allow TGS students to meet non-‐TGS students to enhance the spirit of collaboration
7
• Consider refitting existing Chicago campus student space or designating a new, multi-‐functional graduate student space in the in the Ward/Tarry/Morton/Searle buildings
• Continue “Coffee Chats” and “Dinners with the Dean” to obtain student feedback; consider holding a biannual “Town Hall Meeting with the Dean” to provide an additional channel for feedback to TGS
• Continue to heavily publicize the Graduate Student Commons and ensuring online room-‐scheduling resources are up to date on website
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GLC AND GRADUATE STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS
TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC RELATIONSHIPS TO AVOID CONFLICT:
• The GLC and GSA should work together to host several informational events where existing conflict resolution resources are represented and described
• The efficacy of EOA mediation services, EthicsPoint, and Office of Judiciary Affairs in resolving graduate student-‐advisor conflicts should be monitored by the GLC and GSA
TO BUILD GRADUATE STUDENT COMMUNITY AND IMPROVE FEEDBACK:
• Heavily advertize Association’s functions and events to constituents through listservs, and to other non-‐target constituents through the GLC
• Existing program councils led by students should make their actions more transparent and reach out to students in their program
• Student associations and councils should identify committees at the department and program level where student representation is needed
DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES The GLC and Kellogg Student Association will present to the NU Board of Trustees on November 11, 2011 to discuss commonalities in graduate and professional student life, and to discuss program-‐specific strategies and challenges. The following is a brief synopsis of talking points designed to garner insight from the expertise of the Board and to focus on opportunities for continued improvement.
• Formal and Informal walls make it particularly challenging to build relationships across programs:
o Minimal visibility or connectivity across programs today o Minimal connection to the University as a whole o Various solutions include taking advantage of current strategies on a larger scale;
applying new technological platforms such as social media, websites • Integration of academics and intellectual environment challenging:
o Unrecognized demand for greater inter-‐discipline dialogue o NU could lead the way on interdisciplinary efforts
• Graduate students are very different from undergraduates in terms of life stage, etc, but University policies are not graduate-‐specific
8
THE VALUE OF THE GRADUATE STUDENT Graduate students are a vital constituent of the Northwestern University community. They play an integral part of Northwestern University’s research and academic community by devoting their time and effort to research, teaching, and mentorship at Northwestern. Moreover, graduate students foster the university’s reputation by publishing in internationally renowned journals, participating in academic conferences, winning national fellowships and awards, and securing job placements in prestigious academic, industrial, and government institutions. The graduate students also help maintain the active atmosphere, strong sense of community and diversity at Northwestern. It is in these capacities that graduate students contribute to Northwestern’s reputation as a premier institution throughout the world.
TEACHING & MENTORING Graduate students interact with their peers and undergraduate students regularly as teachers on knowledge and skills, as mentors in career development, and as supervisors on research projects. Nearly 70% of the graduate student community serves as teachers to either their graduate student peers and/or undergraduate students. The 2011 GLC Survey indicates that 18% of the graduate students are funded by teaching assistantship. The results of the 2010 GLC Survey indicate that overall, students are satisfied with most aspects of their teaching experience, with the exception being that nearly 20% of students are either moderately or very dissatisfied with training for teaching.
RESEARCH As the major scientific workforce, the graduate students contribute to the high scientific productivity of Northwestern through their devotions to research projects and publications. In conjunction with faculty advisors, graduate students conduct a large part of the research done at Northwestern. More than 70% of the respondents to the 2008 survey reported that at least 60% of their working hours are spent on research. In the 2009 survey, 3 out of 4 graduate students reported working more than 40 hours per week on their degree. Responses were similar for this year’s survey, with 1 out of 5 spending more than 60 hours per week. Nearly 3 in every 4 graduate students participate in departmental seminars at least once per quarter, demonstrating that the “typical” Northwestern graduate researcher is engaged in a continual conversation with his or her peers on campus.
FELLOWSHIPS AND AWARDS Northwestern graduate students’ commitment to research is demonstrated not only by their well-‐respected, high quality research with significant disciplinary impact, but also by the millions of dollars in research grants obtained for Northwestern as well as prestigious fellowships, scholarships and awards for graduate researchers. The 2011 GLC Survey shows that 11% of the respondents are funded by external fellowship/grants that they applied for. For the 2010-‐2011 academic year, 126 graduate students are funded by external grants or fellowships (for a complete list of award recipients, please refer to Appendix B of this report).
9
DEMOGRAPHICS The initial questions in the 2011 Graduate Student Survey serve to determine basic demographic information, including the student’s program, financial information, and their housing situation. The majority of respondents are in doctoral programs (84%), while 10% are enrolled in a Master’s degree programs and 6% are in joint programs such as MD/PhD, JD/PhD and BS/MS. Among all of the graduate programs, students represent a variety of disciplines, including physical sciences (38%), social and behavioral sciences (23%), life sciences (21%), arts and humanities (15%). Figure 1 illustrates the disciplines across survey respondents.
Figure 1. Percentage of survey respondents by discipline.
International students represent 24% of graduate students, and correspondingly, 25% of the responding student body are non-‐native English speakers. Although Northwestern graduate students are a globally diverse mix, almost half (47%) of respondents indicated that they belong to at least one or more of the following under-‐represented groups: ethnic (15%), racial (14%), gender (16%), religious (10%), sexual orientation (8%), and socioeconomic (8%). Northwestern graduate students are also diverse in their family situations; among respondents, 24% indicated that they are married, and 14% have at least one dependent. Moreover, 69% of respondents indicated having experienced difficulty in transitioning to graduate student life in at least one or more of the following categories, including student health insurance (34%), establishing a social network (30%), financial procedures (22%), housing (20%), academic requirements (18%), language barrier (6%), finding a lawyer (5%) and visa requirements (4%).
HOUSING Although the majority of respondents primarily conduct their research in Evanston (78%) compared to Chicago (20%), the number of graduate students residing in Chicago (47%) is nearly equal to students living in Evanston (46%). These results are consistent with the 2010 GLC Survey results. Most respondents indicate that they rent alone (44%) or share rent (40%). Figure 2 illustrates housing options for graduate students. Interestingly, 79% of respondents also indicated a demand for the creation of a TGS-‐sponsored website to search for off-‐campus housing options. Many COFHE schools operate university-‐run searchable listings databases; one example is the University of Pennsylvania.
15%
23%
38%
21%
3%
Disciplines of Survey Respondents
Arts & Humaniqes
Social & Behavioral Sciences Physical Sciences
Life Sciences
Other
10
Figure 2. Living situations of survey respondents.
STUDENT FUNDING One way in which Northwestern is able to maintain competitiveness against other institutions is through an attractive stipend. The tuition and stipend of NU graduate students are funded by several sources including department/university fellowships, external grants (provided by the student or his/her advisor) and research and teaching assistantships, shown in Figure 3. The distribution of funding sources is similar to the 2010 GLC Survey.
Figure 3. Primary Sources of Graduate Student Funding The amount of post-‐tax graduate student stipend levels by discipline is shown in Figure 4. The data shows that there is a measurable difference between post-‐tax stipend levels between the different student disciplines. Graduate Students in the Life Sciences and Physical Sciences, Mathematics & Engineering are more likely to have higher stipend levels than students in the other TGS affiliated graduate programs. This is mostly due to the sources of funding for each major discipline: Graduate students in the fields with relatively larger sources of government funding (i.e. Engineering, Life/Physical Sciences) receive more funding from their academic advisors and often work as Research Assistants (data not shown).
1%
11%
40%
44%
4%
Student Living SituaBons
Rent free
Own
Rent alone
Share rent
NU
18%
20%
26%
13%
14%
9%
Primary Source of Student Funding
Teaching Assistantship (TA)
Research Assistantship (RA)
Department/university fellowships
External grants/fellowships
Funds from advisor
No fellowship
11
Figure 4. Graduate Student Stipend by Discipline
For the purpose of comparing our stipend level against other peer COFHE institutions, we present stipend levels accounting for cost of living. Compared to peer institutions, the stipend level received at Northwestern falls towards the middle; however, the cost of living index for Northwestern is the fourth highest of the peer institutions in Table 1. In the future, it may be prudent to revisit the competitiveness of our stipends, especially for recruitment purposes.
Institution City Stipend for Academic Year
(Range or Average) Cost of Living
Index1
Cornell Ithaca, NY $21,800 to $36,825 103.31 Duke Durham, NC $18,936 to $20,385 94.54 Georgetown Washington, D.C. $18,580 138.35 MIT Cambridge, MA $19,719 to $22,104 129.53 Princeton Princeton, NJ $23,250 to $25,450 100.00 University of Chicago Chicago, IL $27,500 113.46 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI $17,200 100.00 Yale New Haven, CT $26,000 to $30,200 129.53 Northwestern Evanston, IL $22,800 113.46
Table 1. Comparison of average NU graduate student stipend with COFHE stipends
Students who take outside loans to offset the cost of graduate school represent 14% of respondents, and the main uses for loans are “cost of living” and “school expenses” (data not shown). Figure 5 shows the amount of loans taken out by discipline. Interestingly, the survey results indicate a correlation between those students that took out loans and those students with relatively lower stipend levels in disciplines such as Arts and Humanities and Social and Behavioral Science.
1*Based on national average of a cost of living value of 100.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Less than $1,300
$1,301-‐$1,600
$1,601-‐$1,900
$1,901-‐$2,200
More than $2,200
SBpend by Discipline
Arts and humaniqes
Life sciences
Physical sciences, mathemaqcs, engineering
Social and behavioral sciences
12
Figure 5. Dollar amount of loans taken out by students, by discipline
School costs are not the only costs that students may incur. In the 2010 GLC Survey, 35% of graduate students reported that they had failed to seek out or follow up on healthcare visits. Among those, 66% had done so due to high costs. To get a better idea of how much students are spending on healthcare as an indication of the overall need (including provider visits and medical tests), students were asked what percentage of their monthly stipend was spent on these costs. Strikingly, Figure 6 shows that 60% of respondents spend up to 20% of their stipend on healthcare-‐incurred costs per month.
Figure 6. Percentage of monthly stipend spent on healthcare costs
When stratified by campus, slightly more Chicago campus students tend to spend their monthly stipend on healthcare than Evanston students as shown in Figure 7 (69% versus 61%, respectively). Chicago campus students also tend to spend more than Evanston students on healthcare; no Evanston students spent more than 31% of their stipend on healthcare per month, compared to 2% of Chicago students. These differences could be due to a number of factors, for example, the higher operating costs of the student health service in Chicago contracted to Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, compared to the Northwestern-‐run facility in Evanston. The GLC suggest that University Health Services continue to negotiate contracts with NMFF that take into consideration the cost to the student.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Less than or equal to $5,000
$5,001-‐$10,000
$10,001-‐$15,000
$15,001-‐$20,000
More than or equal to $20,001
Loans Taken Out by Discipline
Arts and humaniqes
Life sciences
Physical sciences, mathemaqcs, engineering
Social and behavioral sciences
37%
49%
10%
2% 1% 1%
Percentage of Monthly SBpend Spent on Healthcare Costs
None
Up to 10%
11-‐20%
21-‐30%
31-‐40%
41-‐50%
More than 50%
13
Figure 7. Percent of Monthly Stipend Spent on Healthcare, by Campus
FOR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• TGS continue to monitor average stipend in relation to living costs, and increase stipend accordingly.
• University Health Services continue to negotiate contracts with NMFF that take into consideration the cost to the student.
TRANSPORTATION Northwestern graduate students have at their disposal a great variety of modes of transportation both in Evanston and Chicago, including public transportation (METRA, CTA and PACE) and shuttles provided by the University. Students were asked a range of questions about usage of transportation, and satisfaction with the UPASS. As transportation options offered by the University should be as convenient as possible for students, feedback from graduate students is essential in shaping future transportation endeavors. As shown in Figure 8, most students attending classes and carrying out research in Evanston live in Evanston (62%), although a significant percentage live in Chicago (38%). Conversely, almost all Chicago campus students live within the Chicago city limits (97%).
Figure 8. Campus attended compared with living location.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None
Up to 10%
11-‐20%
21-‐30%
31-‐40%
More than 50%
Percent of SBpend Spent on Healthcare, by Campus
Chicago
Evanston
Chicago Campus
Evanston Campus
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Campus AWended vs. Living LocaBon
Live in Evanston
Live in Chicago
14
When asked about the mode of transportation they use, CTA services (bus and train) were voted as the primary means of transportation, with 35% of respondents. CTA services were followed by walking (25%), driving (13%), NU shuttle (13%), bicycle (10%), or other means such as carpool, Metra or a combination of services (3%) (data not shown). Figure 9 compares the travel statistics for the students who travel to the Evanston campus to the Chicago campus. More Evanston based students use shuttle services than Chicago students (14% vs. 7%) suggesting that Evanston students living in Chicago use the shuttles to access the Evanston campus. Conversely, more Chicago students use the CTA compared to Evanston students (54% vs. 31%). These results are consistent with results from previous years.
Figure 9. Modes of transportation graduate students use travel to campus, by campus.
INTERCAMPUS SHUTTLE The Intercampus Shuttle (IS) provides transportation between the Evanston and Chicago campuses to accommodate students, staff and faculty who conduct research/business at either campus, free of charge. The IS serves to unite the two campus communities, to ease congestion, and to decrease the demand for parking on both campuses. The service runs between 6:40 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on weekdays only. The purpose of the survey questions regarding the IS was to gather information about graduate student usage. The results reveal that equal numbers of graduate students either use the IS services infrequently (1-‐10 times per month) (38%) or are aware of the IS, but do not use this service (39%) (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Monthly frequency of Intercampus Shuttle rides taken by graduate students.
2%
54%
11%
1%
1% 7%
13%
31%
14%
14%
1%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Bicycle
CTA (bus/train)
Drive by myself
Drive in a carpool
Metra
NU shurle
Other (please specify below)
Walk
Modes of TransportaBon Used to Travel to Campus, by Campus
Evanston
Chicago
38%
8% 7%
39%
8%
Number of Trips Taken on IS Per Month
1-‐10
11-‐20
21 -‐ 30
I am not aware of the intercampus shurle.
15
U-‐PASS PROGRAM Since 2007, The Graduate School and the CTA have collaborated to provide an unlimited-‐use transit pass, called a “U-‐PASS”. Originally offered at $56 as part of a mandatory “activity fee”, due to CTA budget crises, the U-‐PASS cost to the student has risen over the past four years from $60 per quarter in 2007 and 2008, to $78 per quarter in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Included in the fee increase to students was the added benefit of a year-‐round unlimited pass; before the fee increase, transit was not covered for 4 weeks in the year, when classes were not in session. The fare increase was supported by results from the 2008 GLC Survey which indicated that graduate students would be willing to pay a higher activity fee if the U-‐PASS included year-‐round service. The current U-‐PASS costs students $6 per week, assuming a typical usage of 10 rides per week. A single subway ride using the CTA costs $2.25, so a student must use the U-‐PASS an average of 3 times per week to fully take advantage of the services. Almost all of the students who answered the survey answered that they receive a U-‐PASS (94%). These students were then inquired about their usage of the U-‐PASS. Figure 11 reveals that 87% of students use their U-‐PASS at least once a week; just more than 50% of students use the U-‐PASS more than 5 times per week. Furthermore, when looking at the results divided by campus, it is clear that those on the Chicago campus utilize the U-‐PASS more than those in Evanston (54% compared to 29%) (data not shown), which may be due to the accessibility to multiple lines in Chicago, compared to solely the Purple and Red lines in Evanston. Although only a slight majority of the students use the U-‐PASS more than 5 times a week, when asked to rate their satisfaction with the U-‐PASS services on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being not satisfied and 5 greatly satisfied, only 11% of all students answered with a rating of 2 or less (data not shown). When asked to comment, some of these students said that they have no use for the U-‐PASS and expressed their discontent with having to pay for the U-‐PASS. On the other hand, students who approved of the U-‐PASS often commented that they would have to move closer to campus if the UPASS was discontinued.
Figure 11. Frequency of U-‐PASS usage among graduate students.
FOR TRANSPORTATION, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• The Intercampus Shuttle have full service on the weekends to allow graduate students that use the IS to travel between Chicago and Evanston for work and/or recreation. On the weekend, CTA runs trains less frequently and without the Purple Line express option.
• TGS continue to investigate alternatives for students who do not wish to take advantage of the U-‐PASS program. Although the majority of students are satisfied with the U-‐PASS program as is, there are some who are being charged for a service they do not use.
• TGS find a way to subsidize the increasing cost for a U-‐PASS for graduate students.
13%
32%
21%
33%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
0
1-‐4
5-‐10
More than 10
Number of Rides Using UPASS Per Week
16
NEW GRADUATE STUDENT ORIENTATION The first contact that the graduate student has with Northwestern University is the day-‐long Orientation organized by The Graduate School. Hundreds of incoming graduate and professional students attend Orientation at the start of fall quarter in Evanston. Morning and afternoon break-‐out sessions give students the opportunity to learn more about topics relevant to the graduate community, such as health insurance, financial support, and university career services. Graduate student organizations and university offices showcase their role in the university at the Graduate Resource Fair, and the University Library also holds tours during the afternoon. The purpose of the survey questions regarding Orientation is to gauge graduate student satisfaction and attitudes toward these annual proceedings. Orientation is meant to be both informative and social in nature; feedback from graduate students is essential in shaping future programming and making the event relevant for all incoming students.
GENERAL ATTENDANCE The majority of students (84%) attended Orientation event during their first year of graduate school, as shown in Figure 12. Of those who did not attend Orientation, 17% were not yet in Chicago or Evanston, 26% did not want to travel and 28% were not aware. Respondents who cited other reasons for not attending (29%) mentioned either personal or work obligations, deciding to only attend their departmental or program-‐specific orientation, or exhibited general disinterest.
Figure 12. Student responses to attending Orientation in their first year, and reasons for non-‐attendance.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS WELCOMING ATMOSPHERE Orientation not only serves the purpose of familiarizing new students with university procedures and policies, but also allows them to network with each other, current students, and staff. Based on satisfaction ratings using a scale from 1-‐5 (1= least satisfied, 5 = most satisfied), Figure 13 shows that over half of the respondents were pleased (ratings of 4 and 5) with the welcoming atmosphere during Orientation. Over one-‐third were pleased with the opportunities available to socialize. Networking during Orientation was neither difficult nor easy for about one-‐third of the non-‐international and domestic students (Figure 14), yet students gave higher ratings with regard to the ease of meeting
Arended Orientaqon
84%
I was not aware of Orientaqon
28%
I was not yet in Chicago/Evanston
17%
I was on another Campus and did not
want to travel 26%
Other 29% Did not arend
Orientaqon 16%
OrientaBon AWendance and Reasons for Non-‐AWendance
17
people during Orientation. With respect to the social aspect of Orientation, Northwestern does an overall satisfactory job of fostering a welcoming atmosphere for the incoming students and provides an especially conducive networking environment for new international students.
Figure 13. Students rated satisfaction on a scale of 1 -‐5 (1 = least satisfied, 5 = most satisfied), with the welcoming atmosphere of NU and TGS staff and students and the social activities.
Figure 14. Students rated satisfaction on a scale of 1 -‐5 (1 = least satisfied, 5 = most satisfied), with the ease of meeting new people during Orientation.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS ORIENTATION RESOURCES The Graduate School prepares a number of workshops and lectures for Orientation. The major topics addressed include finances, health care, academic advising, recreation, housing and student-‐parents. When students were asked which of these resources they felt well-‐informed about following orientation, the maximum frequency of students that felt they were well-‐informed was no more than 47% (Figure 15), and 20% did not feel well-‐informed about any of the major resources, suggesting that TGS could improve the communication of resources at Northwestern, including health insurance, finances, academic advising, housing, recreation, and resources for student parents. Students also expressed suggestions such as:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Welcoming atmosphere of NU and TGS staff and students
Social acqviqes during orientaqon
SaBsfacBon with Welcoming Atmosphere and Social AcBviBes
5 4 3 2 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Non-‐Internaqonal Students
Internaqonal Students
SaBsfacBon with the Ease of MeeBng New People (DomesBc vs. InternaBonal Students)
5 4 3 2 1
18
“MORE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY [DURING ORIENTATION] TO LEARN HOW
HEALTH SERVICES, FINANCIAL SERVICES WORK, WHERE TO GO FOR FUTURE
QUESTIONS, ETC.”
“SHORTEN THE FINANCE AND HEALTH INSURANCE LECTURES, BUT HAVE
MORE STAFF AROUND TO INDIVIDUALLY ADDRESS QUESTIONS.”
Figure 15. Percentage of students feeling well-‐informed about certain resources.
VARIATION IN ORIENTATION ATTITUDES BETWEEN CAMPUSES Overall most Northwestern students found TGS Orientation to be useful and satisfactory, as seen in Figure 16. In fact, the distributions of usefulness and satisfaction ratings were similar and correlated positively with each other: those who highly rated its usefulness also gave high satisfaction ratings. In addition, department-‐ and program-‐specific orientations were consistently lauded. About one-‐third of graduate students found TGS Orientation to be “useful” or “very useful”. Those who rated it neutral, not really useful, or not at all useful criticized it for being too general or specifically catered to Evanston campus graduate students. For example, for those working primarily on the Evanston, about 50% felt that orientation informed them of the locations of buildings of importance in Evanston (data not shown). By contrast, only 25% of those working primarily on the Chicago campus felt that TGS Orientation informed them of the locations of important buildings in Chicago. Examples of such comments include:
“ORIENTATION WAS INTERESTING, BUT THE INFORMATION WAS FAIRLY
GENERIC. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE USEFUL IF SESSIONS MORE
SPECIFIC TO DISCIPLINE AND LIFE STAGE WERE OFFERED (I.E.,
FELLOWSHIPS FOR SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, RESOURCES FOR PARENTS, ETC.)”
23%
23%
20%
16%
6%
2% 10%
Percentage of Students Feeling Well-‐Informed About Resources
Finances
Health Care
Academic Advising
Recreaqon
Housing
Student Parents
None of the above
19
“I AM A STUDENT ON THE CHICAGO CAMPUS AND I PERSONALLY FELT
THAT MOST OF THE ORIENTATION WAS CATERED [TO] THE EVANSTON
CAMPUS RESOURCES”
“A LOT OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS TOO VAGUE TO HELP ME
WITH MY PARTICULAR SITUATION. THE ORIENTATION PROVIDED BY MY
DEPARTMENT WAS MORE USEFUL BECAUSE IT WAS MORE SPECIFIC TO MY
SITUATION. THERE WERE INTERESTING SESSIONS DURING THE [TGS]
ORIENTATION AND I STILL GOT SOME USEFUL INFORMATION OUT OF IT,
BUT NOT AS MUCH AS I WOULD HAVE LIKED.”
Figure 16. Students rated overall usefulness and satisfaction on a scale of 1 -‐5.
FOR ORIENTATION, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• Certain breakout sessions may be better suited if students are grouped by discipline while other sessions are not. For example, sessions on academic advising and fellowships opportunities will be more informative if speaking to students in the same discipline (e.g. Life Sciences), while sessions on healthcare and student-‐parents will be better off with a mixed crowd.
• TGS should emphasize the online location of many resources at Orientation; often, students are simply to overwhelmed by all the information provided in the sessions, and would rather follow up online. Online resources should be up-‐to-‐date.
• TGS should consult with CGSA and Chicago-‐based programs to identify Chicago-‐specific Orientation issues, and to develop a separate orientation for incoming students in Chicago-‐based programs.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Usefulness
Saqsfacqon
Usefulness and Overall SaBsfacBon with OrientaBon
5 = very useful/most saqsfied 4 3 2 1 = not at all useful/least saqsfied
20
STUDENT LIFE AND COMMUNITY Orientation is the first point of contact for graduate students at the University community, but the building of community continues long after Orientation. Northwestern has long realized that a community that embraces different voices and opinions is the foundation to academic success. Like many institutes of higher education, Northwestern University has committed time and resources to create a friendly and productive work environment for its students, faculty, and staff. The Office of Student Life and Multicultural Affairs (SLMA) within TGS has worked closely with the Graduate Student Associations recognized by TGS to organize various events to build community and promote diversity and understanding at Northwestern. This year's survey asked respondents about their perceptions of the Northwestern University graduate student community in order to understand how people interact, where they congregate, and their reasons for making such decisions on both the Evanston campus and the Chicago campus.
LOCATION OF GRADUATE STUDENT SOCIALIZATION In terms of socializing on campus, almost half of respondents tend to socialize in their Department or respective buildings, while 37% do not socialize on campus at all, as shown in Figure 17. Furthermore, 50% of respondents agree that there is adequate space on campus to socialize, while one quarter of respondents do not agree (data not shown).
Figure 17. Locations of where graduate students tend to socialize.
SATISFACTION WITH DIVERSITY A majority of respondents (75%) expressed satisfaction with the gender and racial/ethnic diversity within their programs or departments. At the other end of the spectrum, up to one quarter of respondents are moderately or very dissatisfied with the gender and racial/ethnic diversity within their programs/departments.
1% 3%
37%
3% 3%
4%
2%
15%
33%
LocaBons of Graduate Student Socializing
Graduate Student Commons/Seabury Hall (Evanston Campus) Gym
I primarily socialize off campus
Lurie Atrium (Chicago Campus)
Norris Student Center
On-‐campus cafes (i.e, cafes in Norris, Tech, Pandini's) Other (please specify below)
Your building
Your department
21
COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS AT NORTHWESTERN The survey found that an overwhelming 81% of respondents indicated that they feel a sense of community within their own programs or departments. However, only 45% of respondents feel a sense of community among NU graduate students (data not shown). Therefore, students define the Northwestern graduate student community based on their experiences within their departments. For example, respondents stated,
“THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY DOES NOT GO BEYOND INDIVIDUAL
DEPARTMENTS.”
“I FEEL THERE IS COMMUNITY AT A DEPARTMENT LEVEL BUT IT IS FAR
LESS COMMON FOR THIS TO EXIST ON A LARGER LEVEL…[IT] IS RARE
BECAUSE MOST OF THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE IN PLACE TO DO SO ARE
SOCIALLY, RATHER THAN ACADEMICALLY, ORIENTED, AND STUDENTS
DON'T ALWAYS WANT TO BUILD COMMUNITY THROUGH GENERIC
SOCIALIZATION AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD PREFER TO BUILD AND MAKE
TIES WITH STUDENTS BECAUSE THEY SHARE A COMMITMENT TO
ACADEMIC IDEAS AND PURSUITS.”
These two comments reaffirm the data that graduate students define their own programs and departments as their domains, which could possibly be due to limited interdepartmental interactions. In conclusion, programs and departments are the central players in establishing community for their graduate students, and the GLC suggests that more academically-‐oriented social programs could be established to bring together students from similar disciplines who may not interact otherwise.
GRADUATE STUDENT SPACE IN EVANSTON AND CHICAGO The Graduate Student Commons in Seabury Hall on the Evanston campus opened in the summer of 2010 and is the only space devoted solely for the use of graduate students on the Evanston Campus. In addition, Northwestern is a leader compared to other COFHE institutions in terms of having a sole space dedicated to graduate students. In addition to graduate students who use the room to study, relax, and attend lectures or workshops, many GSA groups utilize the space for meetings and community building events. About 30% of graduate students have used the space since it opened. Among those who have used the space, 85% are moderately, or very satisfied with the Graduate Student Commons. However, 48% of graduate students have not used the space, while 20% are unaware of its existence. The lack of awareness of the Commons was also evident in the responses; for example, one student was unaware that the Commons were accessible after-‐hours by a Wildcard swiper. Several students suggested the Commons may be made more useful by providing a computer with printing facilities. The Chicago campus graduate student space is located in Abbott Hall where the University Career Services hold office hours. The space is small, with room for two tables, several chairs, and no other resources. Approximately 96% of Chicago graduate students have not used the Abbott Hall graduate student space. In terms of reasons for non-‐use, 68% of respondents are unaware of the space, 11% are aware of the space but have not needed to use it, and the remaining respondents are aware of it but
22
have not used it because of its location away from the main research buildings. Among the respondents who have used the Abbott Hall graduate student space, 75% are satisfied whereas 25% are not satisfied. One respondent stated,
“IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE... THE SPACE HAS TO BE RESERVED. THE SPACE IS
NOT SOLELY FOR GRADUATE STUDENT USE.”
While another respondent wrote,
“[IT’S] TOTALLY OUT OF THE WAY OF THE OTHER CAMPUS BUILDINGS, YOU
HAVE TO GET A KEY FOR THE MAIN DOOR... TOO SMALL FOR MEETINGS,
NO FACILITIES, NO COMFY CHAIRS. IT REALLY MAKES YOU NOT WANT TO
USE IT! ALSO, NO STUDENTS KNOW ABOUT IT! HAVING A DEDICATED
SPACE WITH A COMPUTER, A MICROWAVE, WATER COOLER AND COMFY
CHAIRS (SIMILAR TO THE MED STUDENT LOUNGE) WOULD BE FANTASTIC.”
FOR STUDENT LIFE AND COMMUNITY, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• The University continues encouraging departments diversify its faculty, staff, and students. Almost 1/5 of the respondents are dissatisfied with the racial/ethnic and/or gender diversity of faculty and students in their departments, which means that a significant amount of people may be unhappy, feel isolated, feel disconnected from, or be dissatisfied with the graduate community at Northwestern.
• TGC continue publicizing social events to build a sense of community. One example would be to improve the online graduate student event calendar to include non-‐community building grant events.
• TGS continue to heavily publicize the Graduate Student Commons, its resources, and the reservation system. Introducing the space as part of Orientation would be highly beneficial. Further improvements, including the addition of computers and printers would increase the appeal and frequency of graduate students using the space.
• A designated, multi-‐functional space in Ward/Tarry/Morton/Searle Research Complex be set aside specifically for the graduate student body to interact on the Chicago campus. This facility should include space that allows students to socialize, eat, study in individual and group settings, and hold office hours. The current Abbott Hall space is shared with the University Career Services during office hour. Many students have not used the space because it is far away from the other campus buildings.
23
GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATION
PERCEPTIONS OF REPRESENTATION The perception of community among graduate students at Northwestern led the GLC to ask students about the extent to which they feel represented within the University. The GLC believes that students who feel well-‐represented will perform better academically and feel more connected to the University as a whole. To gauge whether students feel like they are represented at various levels, the GLC asked whether students think there are adequate resources to give feedback. Three-‐quarters of respondents agreed that there are adequate resources and opportunities to provide feedback to graduate programs, departments, or TGS, while one quarter do not agree (data not shown). Among those that do not agree, students wrote,
“I'VE BEEN MAKING MY VOICE HEARD, AND TRYING TO GET RESOURCES
TOGETHER FOR MYSELF, BUT I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN IGNORED.”
While another respondent mentioned,
“I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY MEANS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK BESIDES THIS
ANNUAL SURVEY.”
Based on these comments, it seems as if the channels to provide feedback are limited. Furthermore, several students indicated that they rarely receive responses from administrators in their program or in TGS. One student wrote:
“USUALLY STUDENTS WITH ADVISORS, ESPECIALLY IN THE SCIENCES,
CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT POOR WORKING CONDITIONS/CONFLICTS TO
THE PROGRAM OR TGS BECAUSE THEY ARE FUNDED BY THE ADVISOR'S
GRANTS AND ULTIMATELY THEIR FATE IS IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON
SO ANY CONFLICT-‐RESOLUTION THIRD-‐PARTY CANNOT DO MUCH ABOUT
THE SITUATION IN A PARTICULAR LAB/GROUP.”
This comment raises a concern about students whose funding is directly supported by their advisors. In the case when these students have conflicts with their advisors, their voices and opinions might be ignored because of their funding situations.
STUDENT REPRESENTATION AT THE PROGRAM LEVEL In this section, the GLC wanted to learn about the student’s awareness of student groups that represent them at their program level. These questions were designed to determine the efficacy of the current feedback and input structure available for graduate students. We also asked whether students feel that they are well represented, and what recommendations they had in order to improve the efficacy of the representative groups
24
When asked whether their program has a graduate student council, association, or other representative body, most students reported that their program did (65%) (Figure 18). Interestingly, about a quarter of respondents did not know whether their program had student representation, speaking to a lack of awareness of existing student representation. Of students that reported a council, the majority of these students were in the Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Engineering discipline, with the remaining 60% split equally between the Life and Social Sciences, and the Arts and Humanities. Only 11% of respondents indicated that their program has no student representation.
Figure 18. Students reporting that their program has a student council or association, stratified by discipline. To determine whether the frequency of student representation differed by campus, we stratified students that indicated that they had a council by their primary campus. We identified that more students are represented by program councils on the Chicago campus compared to the Evanston campus (75% vs. 61%) (data not shown).
FEELINGS OF REPRESENTATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT To gauge whether students feel that they are well-‐represented by their council, we asked students that had indicated that they had a student council. As shown in Figure 19, we determined that the majority of the students that gave a definitive answer were happy with their representation by the student council. Interestingly, half of the students were “indifferent”, i.e. they did not agree nor disagree with the question, suggesting that there may be a lack of knowledge about what the student council does, or that there is general disinterest. Future questions such as “what does your student council do?” may be a way of gauging whether students are aware or not. Possible strategies for increasing awareness would include outreach of the student council to the student body.
No; 11%
Unknown; 23%
17%
27%
11%
10%
1%
Yes; 65%
Frequency of Student Councils RepresenBng Students to Graduate Programs
Life sciences
Physical sciences, mathemaqcs, engineering
Social and behavioral sciences
Arts and humaniqes
Other
25
Figure 19. Student responses when asked whether they feel like they are well-‐represented by their council, of students reporting a council
Next, we sought to identify whether students that had council representation could had suggestions for improvements to the efficacy of their council. As shown in Figure 20, recommendations were mostly equally split among the answer options. More than 20% of students thought that students representation on existing committees (faculty or departmental) would be an improvement. About 35% of students thought that funding of either social events to promote mixing or funding for student council meetings would enhance the council. Lastly, students were also interested in outreach to fellow students as a way to increase the efficacy of the council (17%). These findings suggest that there are a number of strategies that could be used to improve the efficacy of these counils, and can also be applied to the existing graduate student organizations on campus to encourage outreach.
Figure 20. Recommendations to improve efficacy of student council by students that are currently represented by
a council.
REPRESENTATION ON COMMITTEES Northwestern is a member of the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), a group of elite institutions which has made it a priority to share information which is valuable to maintaining and improving higher education standards. Ensuring that there is adequate student representation at all
38%
11%
51%
Student Opinions on Whether They Are Well-‐Represented by Student Council
Yes
No
Indifferent
2%
13%
12%
15%
19%
17%
10%
12%
Improvements to Efficacy of Student Council
Other
No need for any changes
Communicaqon with program leadership
Funding for social events to foster community
Funding for student council meeqngs
Outreach to students to get involved in council
Representaqon during faculty meeqngs
Representaqon on departmental commirees
26
levels of decision making has been a goal of several COFHE institutions. One interpretation of representation which several institutions have implemented is having students sit on committees responsible for making decisions which will affect other students. At many institutions this process is formal in that committees solicit student representatives and student organizations make filling committee positions part of their constitution. A brief survey of the websites of COFHE institutions, including Northwestern, reveals that all institutions that have a graduate student council also have student representatives on committees. However, Northwestern and Stanford are the only two institutions that do not have a formal process for student representation on committees. Student representation at all levels is critical for Northwestern University to uphold the standards of COFHE and to keep ahead of its peer institutions. Although Northwestern has had graduate students on TGS committees in the past, the process has been ad-‐hoc and there has been little continuity between individuals, graduate student organizations, and committees.
FOR STUDENT REPRESENTATION, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• TGS should improve avenues for student feedback by publicizing existing strategies such as “Coffee Chats” and “Dinner with the Dean”. New strategies to enhance feedback could be forms on the TGS website and departmental websites where students can submit comments. However, these comments will need to be responded to in a timely manner to ensure students feel well-‐represented.
• Existing student program councils and student associations should reach out to students to become involved, and to advertise their strategies for communication with Administration.
• Each TGS committee have a student representative affiliated with either GLC or a graduate student association with representation on the GLC.
• TGS provide a list of both new and standing committees to GLC at the beginning of each academic year so that GLC can identify committees that need student representation and can then fill those positions.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION Over the past few years, there have been a number of incidents that have raised the profile of graduate student-‐advisor conflicts and the complex relationship that makes such conflicts difficult to resolve. Last year, 10% of respondents indicated that they have experienced a major conflict with their advisor, and more than half of all student respondents indicated that they did not know what steps they would take to resolve conflicts that may arise with their advisor. Only 35% of total respondents indicated that they knew the procedures for handling conflicts if they should arise, and 16% know where to find information if one should arise. Based upon this data, in 2010, the GLC developed a Graduate Expectations document that has now been ratified by the graduate faculty (Appendix C), wrote a letter to Dean Wachtel describing the situation, and recommended to the Board of Trustees that Northwestern establish an Ombudsperson Office to act as an independent third party to mediate conflicts. Concurrent with but independent of the GLC’s efforts, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Access (EOA) began to offer mediation services in November 2010, and the GLC decided to monitor this resource and gauge whether it was meeting the needs of students rather than try to reinvent the wheel if adequate resources already existed. The GLC presented this resource through the GSA general meeting in Fall
27
2010 to representatives from over twenty departments, and a provided a link to the EOA on the TGS website. The 2011 survey data reflect that 11% of graduate students report having a major conflict with his or her advisor, shown in Figure 21. This is 1% higher than the rate in the 2010 GLC Survey (10%). This rate of occurrence is higher amongst women, under-‐represented minorities, and non-‐native English speaking graduate students (A). By discipline, Life Sciences and Social Sciences had a higher rate of student-‐advisor conflict than the Physical Sciences and the Arts and Humanities (B).
Figure 21. Percent of students reporting conflicts among varying populations of the graduate student body.
The 2010 Annual Report detailed a feeling of despair that these graduate students involved in conflicts often feel, and this sentiment was mirrored in the 2011 data. Students indicated that:
“NOTHING CAN BE DONE IF YOUR ADVISER HAS ISSUES WITH YOU, THEY
CAN ALWAYS COME UP WITH GOOD/ACADEMIC REASONS TO HIDE THEIR
REAL/PERSONALLY-‐BIASED ISSUE AGAINST YOU. “
“NONE OF THE … RESOURCES DO MUCH TO SOLVE THE GROSS PROBLEM
OF ADVISOR [CONFLICT], NEGLECT, AND OVERALL GRADUATE STUDENT
INEQUALITY ON CAMPUS.”
“ONLY STUDENTS WHO ALREADY HAVE THE WILL TO STAND UP FOR
THEMSELVES [WILL,] WHILST THE MOST MARGINALIZED OFTEN REMAIN
[WILL] EITHER FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS, OR SUFFER WITH CAMPUS LIFE
AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE.”
0% 10% 20%
Sexual Orientaqon Minority
Religious Minority
Ethnic Minority
Racial Minority
Internaqonal Students
Non-‐Naqve English Speaker
Women
Overall Average
A. Reported Conflict Rates Amongst Selected Groups
0% 5% 10% 15%
Arts and Humaniqes
Social and Behavioral Studies
Life Sciences
Physical Sciences
Overall Average
B. Conflict Rates Within Disciplines
28
The reasons that students give for conflict are depicted in Figure 22 with over 50% of students experiencing conflict reporting personality differences, poor communication, and unclear expectations as reasons for conflict.
Figure 22. Stated reasons for conflict amongst students reporting a major conflict with their advisor.
As mentioned earlier, the GLC identified in the 2010 report several resources on campus available to graduate student to aid with resolving conflict between students and advisors. Our data suggests that graduate students are still not aware that these resources exist:
“WHILE THERE MIGHT BE [RESOURCES ON CAMPUS], THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE I WOULD GO.”
When asked if there are adequate resources for dealing with graduate student conflicts, only 13% of students who have experienced a conflict and 22% of all students say that there are. These figures are disheartening, but can be rationalized in the context of the data represented in Figure 23, which demonstrates the low level of awareness of students, both with and without conflict, of different university-‐wide resources that are available to them in the event of conflict. Indeed, less than 25% of students are aware of the resources that currently exist at Northwestern University.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Lack of Communicaqon
Time Off (vacaqon, medical, etc.)
Unclear Expectaqons
Choice of Research Project
Difference in Personality
Difference in Opinion
Asked to perform non-‐research tasks
Workload Issues
Given Reasons for Conflict
29
Figure 23. Student awareness of resources available to them in the event of a conflict.
These data suggest that the efficacy of these different offices towards meeting the need of graduate student resources cannot be gauged by GLC in the 2011 Survey, because students who are engaged in conflict do not know where to go for help so therefore are not using the resources that currently exist. When asked where they would most like to resolve conflicts if and when they arise, students generally preferred to handle the conflict within their own department, shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Student response when asked through what venues they would prefer to handle a conflict with an
advisor.
The GLC acknowledges that the range of conflicts that students may encounter may differ from case to case. As Northwestern prides itself on fostering a collaborative and intellectual graduate community in which its graduate students work alongside faculty members to produce cutting-‐edge research, there not only needs to be accessible resources, but also visibility and promotion of these resources at all levels of the graduate experience.
Based on the data presented herein, the GLC believes that an ideal, transparent, and accessible process for conflict resolution should be developed at the university level and established within each department, as well as being advertised to students. A multi-‐level response would indicate the commitment of administrators, departments, and faculty to a collegial and collaborative environment at Northwestern University. Such policies would streamline the conflict resolution procedure, increasing
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
EOA Mediaqon
Office of Human Resources
Office of Judicial Affairs
EthicsPoint
Conflict Resource Awareness
Students with Conflicts
All Students
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Mediaqon in Department
Mediaqon with EOA
University Confidant
Independent Confidant (Ombuds)
Preferred Resource to Handle Conflicts
30
the ease at which the student can access the appropriate resources, and enhancing the speed at which the student and advisor can get help.
Within the GLC conflict resolution recommendations for 2012, we emphasize increased publicity of existing resources, and in parallel with student sentiment, we have shifted away from advocating for an Ombudsperson Office towards a more department-‐oriented approach. The GLC believes that the first step in this approach is implementation of the Expectations Document, designed by the GLC with TGS input in 2010.
FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• TGS implement yearly “Improving Academic and Professional Relationships” seminar on both campuses.
• TGS require yearly completion and submission of the Expectations Document throughout all TGS academic programs.
• TGS develop conflict resolution policies and procedures to be published in the TGS Handbook and on the TGS website.
• TGS request each academic program develop procedures for conflict resolution to mesh with the developed TGS policy, and describe them in Program Handbooks. These procedures should reflect the following: how students and faculty can raise grievances, how these procedures will be handled by the Department, how students can switch advisors if the conflict cannot be resolved, and the timeframe for which students will hear a response about the grievance. These procedures should also include processes for appealing the decision of the committee.
• TGS request that each university Department should have a Department ombudsperson or a committee of faculty and students who are tasked with resolving any grievances or conflicts that may arise in the Department between faculty and students.
• TGS add existing, non-‐TGS resources by which students can report conflict (e.g Office for Research, EthicsPoint) to TGS website.
• The GLC and GSA should work together to host several informational events where EOA, Judicial Affairs, and EthicsPoint are represented and described.
• The efficacy of EOA mediation services, EthicsPoint, and Office of Judiciary Affairs should be investigated by the GLC and GSA, with special consideration being to the ability of each resource to protect graduate students’ identities and ability to effectively resolve conflicts and support students. If it is found necessary, the GLC strongly suggests that a replacement resource must be implemented immediately to give students anonymous mechanisms to report conflicts that will then be investigated in a serious manner with the potential for serious ramifications for repeat offenders.
31
APPENDIX A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Graduate Leadership Council (GLC) has many individuals and groups to thank. Firstly, we are very grateful to the administrative team with whom the Graduate Leadership Council has the pleasure of interfacing. Their tireless efforts have addressed and resolved a number of our most important initiatives. This administrative group includes but is not limited to: Dwight McBride, Simon Greenwold, Andrew Wachtel, Penny Warren, Kate Veraldi, Josie Whetstone, Patricia Delgado, and Natalie Hudson (The Graduate School), Patricia Telles-‐Irvin, Carretta Cooke, and William Banis, and (Division of Student Affairs), and Lonnie Dunlap and Kamilah McCoy (University Career Services). We would like to thank the Northwestern University Board of Trustees for their continued commitment to dialogue with graduate students. We appreciate the opportunity to share our visions for graduate life with you and to work with you towards solutions. We are also indebted to Lisa Metzger-‐Mugg and Nick Alena (TGS) for their helpful feedback and excellent