but we will continue to need many of the best students to dedicate themselves to research in academic and nonacademic settings, and they will need the depth and quality of graduate experience that basic researchers have long enjoyed.
Furthermore, we are not espousing what some call vocationalism. The idea is not to slot every student into a particular career path and then "train" him or her accordingly. Among other problems, that would bind students to jobs that can change or decline in number while they are in graduate school. What is needed is not additional specialization. We need a graduate system that is well tuned to the central feature of contemporary life: continuous change. Change is happening both within the research world and outside, and work in both spheres requires constant readiness to adapt. Our objective, therefore, is a breadth of experience so that graduates can keep career options open and have the capacity to switch career tracks both at the beginning of and throughout their professional lives.
Controlling Time to Degree. The recommended changes should not be construed as additional requirements that would in themselves extend a student's time in a graduate program. The steadily lengthening time to degreeand, more important, the time to first employmentis already too long, for whatever reasons. Many ways of fostering versatility, including several noted above, can easily be introduced within the time that graduate students now spend after registration. An industrial assignment, for example, might replaceand not supplementan on-campus research assignment.
We are aware of some strain between broadening the graduate experience and controlling its duration. Both solutions are needed, even if considerable administrative energies are required. Although long average time to degree is often decried, faculty and administrators have not generally made the disciplined effort that is needed to tighten graduate programs.
Whatever the nature of a specific graduate program, it is crucial to establish the principle that each student is the responsibility of a department, not of a single faculty member. Thus, a small faculty group (including the adviser) should meet often with each student working for a PhD degree; this faculty group, not the student's faculty adviser acting alone, should determine when enough work has been accomplished for the PhD degree.
Some observers have suggested fixed limits-5 years, perhaps, which is about 2 years shorter than the current averagesfor a doctoral-education career. In the abstract, it is not obvious why such a period, which would allow 2 years of coursework and 3 years for a dissertation, should not suffice for most full-time PhD candidates. However, we are not prepared to espouse strict limits, in part because today's more-diverse student population requires flexibility to accommodate family and other personal factors.
However, we do believe that the "Two Plus Three Plus X" model for doctoral education ought to be evaluated and debated within the academic community. The idea is that preparation for a career in research has three discrete phases. The first, which should require no more than 2 years (assuming adequate preparation and suitable adjustment for part-time students), is for developing a broad command of the field. The second, for which the norm might be 3 years, is for making an original contribution to research as reflected in the dissertation. The third, for refining research skills and specialized knowledge that might be required for a first research
Essay about Single-sex education vs. Coeducation
962 Words4 Pages
Education has been an important factor of all of our lives for an exceptional amount of time, but unfortunately, America has been falling behind from other nations in their education system compared to other nations (Pahlke 444). Almost all of our public schools in our country are coeducational and only handful of them are single-sex educational schools. Single-sex education should be taken into high consideration for most students to attend because of the benefits they might gain from them. It is important to look at all possible ways to try and better our education system for the benefit of the children and teenagers attending school. The most important years of schooling that provide a solid background for all students would be…show more content…
Another example of students being more focused in single-sex classrooms is when Hoffman, in his article "The Effect of Single-Sex Instruction in a Large, Urban, At-Risk High School", mentions: Girls reported SSI as academically preferable because there were fewer disruptions (Parker & Rennie, 2002), better opportunities to concentrate on work (Mullholland et al., 2004), and diminished feelings of embarrassment for speaking up in class (Jackson & Smith, 2000; McCoy, 1995). Girls also have claimed that they were disadvantaged in CE classrooms (Jackson & Smith) and that SSI classes offered more support, less hassle, and less ridicule and teasing from peers (Parker & Rennie).(Hoffman 16)
It is clearly noted that the students were in fact more focused in the classrooms without the opposite sex being present which substantially will be a major benefit for our country in helping it increase our academic level back to the top or to be even with the countries that our currently ahead of us in that aspect. Not only are the students more focused in the classrooms with single-sex classrooms, but they also feel more comfortable with each other and aren't very concerned with the way they look. They don't need to be worrying about impressing anyone because everyone there is of the same gender so it would be a waste of their time if they tried to impress one another. It is common for them to be able to go