University of Wisconsin-Madison Skip navigationUW-Madison Home PageMy UW-MadisonSearch UW
UW-Madison > Provost > Plan 2008  

 

UW Home page

Home

Provost units

Diversity and Climate

Enrollment management

Office for Equity and Diversity

Extended Programs

Faculty and Staff

Teaching and Learning

Special initiatives

Strategic planning

Department Chair's Toolkit

Policies, reports, memos

Academic Planning and Analysis

Assessment of Academic Programs and Student Outcomes


Plan 2008

APPENDIX E: GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL ENROLLMENT PROFILES

GRADUATE DEGREE COMPLETIONS

Minority Cohort Degree Completion, as of August, 1998
Year Total Entering Cohort Completed PhD Completed Master's % of Cohort Completing PhD % of Cohort Completing Master's Completed Master's and/or PhD % of Cohort Completing Master's and/or PhD
1992 130 15 105 11.54% 80.77% 110 84.62%
1991 148 33 108 22.30% 72.97% 125 84.46%
1990 145 30 116 20.69% 80.00% 126 86.90%
1989 352 131 263 37.22% 74.72% 314 89.20%
1988 307 115 218 37.46% 71.01% 272 88.60%
1987 338 118 242 34.91% 71.60% 296 87.57%
1986 332 126 225 37.95% 67.77% 288 86.75%
1985 336 126 219 37.50% 65.18% 293 87.20%
1984 343 123 236 35.86% 68.80% 306 89.21%
1983 402 139 269 34.58% 66.92% 342 85.07%
1982 368 112 247 30.43% 67.12% 312 84.78%
Non-Minority Student Cohort Degree Completion as of August, 1998
Year Total Entering Cohort Completed PhD Completed Master's % of Cohort Completing PhD % of Cohort Completing Master's Completed Master's and/or PhD % of Cohort Completing Master's and/or PhD
1992 1123 167 867 14.87% 77.20% 942 83.88%
1991 1096 219 843 19.98% 76.92% 926 84.49%
1990 1121 264 854 23.55% 76.18% 960 85.64%
1989 1278 341 965 26.68% 75.51% 1103 86.31%
1988 1264 335 971 25.08% 73.34% 1081 85.52%
1987 1325 332 923 25.28% 69.66% 1065 80.38%
1986 1324 348 912 27.53% 72.15% 1100 83.08%
1985 1359 327 937 25.59% 73.32% 1110 81.68%
1984 1359 343 913 30.60% 81.45% 1098 80.79%
1983 1406 396 958 36.13% 87.41% 1184 84.21%
1982 1373 355 934 31.61% 83.17% 1108 80.70%
Minority Cohort Degree Completion Excluding Asians as of August, 1998
Year Total Entering Cohort Completed PhD Completed Master's % of Cohort Completing PhD % of Cohort Completing Master's Completed Master's and/or PhD % of Cohort Completing Master's and/or PhD
1992 72 7 57 9.72% 79.17% 59 81.94%
1991 79 18 53 22.78% 67.09% 63 79.75%
1990 79 13 64 16.46% 81.01% 66 83.54%
1989 99 29 75 29.29% 75.76% 85 85.86%
1988 79 21 53 26.58% 67.09% 66 83.54%
1987 96 24 73 25.00% 76.04% 82 85.42%
1986 89 26 59 29.21% 66.29% 74 83.15%
1985 99 25 77 25.25% 77.78% 88 88.89%
1984 117 29 84 24.79% 71.79% 99 84.62%
1983 132 36 91 27.27% 68.94% 112 84.85%
1982 124 31 85 25 00% 68.55% 105 84.68%

FROM UW-MADISON GRADUATE PROGRAMS

Graduate Student Enrollment by Heritage Code, 1988-89 - 1998-99
Source: UW-Madison Ethnic Enrollment Reports
Fall Sem African Amer Asian Amer Amer Indian Hisp/Latino All Minorities INDEX-
All Min		 White/Other INDEX-
White/ Oth		 All Grad INDEX-
All Grad		 Inter-national
1988‑89 132 200 35 178 545 100.00 6,806 100.00 9,401 100.00 2,050
1989‑90 160 194 34 187 575 105.50 6,821 100.22 9,653 102.68 2,257
1990‑91 153 209 39 187 588 107.89 6,932 101.85 9,848 104.75 2,328
1991‑92 140 222 45 193 600 110.09 7,147 105.01 10,145 107.91 2,398
1992‑93 157 232 42 214 645 118.35 7,283 107.01 10,414 110.78 2,486
1993‑94 182 257 55 244 738 135.41 7,234 106.29 10,372 110.33 2,400
1994‑95 171 291 53 262 777 142.57 7,018 103.11 10,065 107.06 2,270
1995‑96 180 288 48 253 769 141.10 6,717 98.69 9,684 103.01 2,198
1996‑97 185 285 46 244 760 139.45 6,207 91.20 9,112 96.93 2,145
1997‑98 181 275 46 258 760 139.45 5,934 87.19 8,811 93.72 2,117
1998‑99 179 289 49 251 768 140.92 5,745 84.41 8,524 90.67 2,011
As Percent of All Graduate Students
1988‑89 1.4% 2.1% 0.4% 1.9% 5.8%   72.4%   100.0%   21.8%
1989‑90 1.7% 2.0% 0.4% 1.9% 6.0%   70.7%   100.0%   23.4%
1990‑91 1.6% 2.1% 0.4% 1.9% 6.0%   70.4%   100.0%   23.6%
1991‑92 1.4% 2.2% 0.4% 1.9% 5.9%   70.4%   100.0%   23.6%
1992‑93 1.5% 2.2% 0.4% 2.1% 6.2%   69.9%   100.0%   23.9%
1993‑94 1.8% 2.5% 0.5% 2.4% 7.1%   69.7%   100.0%   23.1%
1994‑95 1.7% 2.9% 0.5% 2.6% 7.7%   69.7%   100.0%   22.6%
1995‑96 1.9% 3.0% 0.5% 2.6% 7.9%   69.4%   100.0%   22.7%
1996‑97 2.0% 3.1% 0.5% 2.7% 8.3%   68.1%   100.0%   23.5%
1997‑98 2.1% 3.1% 0.5% 2.9% 8.6%   67.3%   100.0%   24.0%
1998‑99 2.1% 3.4% 0.6% 2.9% 9.0%   67.4%   100.0%   23.6%
Professional* Student Enrollment by Heritage Code, 1988-89 - 1998-99
Includes students in the Law School, Medical School, schools of Pharmacy and Veterinary Medicine.
Fall Sem African Amer Asian Amer Amer Indian Hisp/ Latino All Minorities INDEX - All Min White/ Other INDEX - White/ Oth All Prof INDEX - All Prof Inter- national
1988‑89 53 44 15 40 152 100.00 1,650 100.00 1,821 100.00 19
1989‑90 48 49 19 54 170 111.84 1,637 99.21 1,822 100.05 15
1990‑91 53 55 24 56 188 123.68 1,607 97.39 1,809 99.34 14
1991‑92 53 76 25 65 219 144.08 1,548 93.82 1,789 98.24 22
1992‑93 73 76 29 79 257 169.08 1,561 94.61 1,836 100.82 18
1993‑94 93 93 26 92 304 200.00 1,530 92.73 1,852 101.70 18
1994‑95 113 98 37 91 339 223.03 1,510 91.52 1,867 102.53 18
1995‑96 128 92 35 107 362 238.16 1,467 88.91 1,845 101.32 16
1996‑97 137 104 38 113 392 257.89 1,435 86.97 1,848 101.48 21
1997‑98 114 105 41 105 365 240.13 1,513 91.70 1,910 104.89 32
1998‑99 111 126 45 92 374 246.05 1,653 100.18 2,069 113.62 42
As Percent of All Students in Professional Schools
1988‑89 2.9% 2.4% 0.8% 2.2% 8.3%   90.6%   100.0%   1.0%
1989‑90 2.6% 2.7% 1.0% 3.0% 9.3%   89.8%   100.0%   0.8%
1990‑91 2.9% 3.0% 1.3% 3.1% 10.4%   88.8%   100.0%   0.8%
1991‑92 3.0% 4.2% 1.4% 3.6% 12.2%   86.5%   100.0%   1.2%
1992‑93 4.0% 4.1% 1.6% 4.3% 14.0%   85.0%   100.0%   1.0%
1993‑94 5.0% 5.0% 1.4% 5.0% 16.4%   82.6%   100.0%   1.0%
1994‑95 6.1% 5.2% 2.0% 4.9% 18.2%   80.9%   100.0%   1.0%
1995‑96 6.9% 5.0% 1.9% 5.8% 19.6%   79.5%   100.0%   0.9%
1996‑97 7.4% 5.6% 2.1% 6.1% 21.2%   77.7%   100.0%   1.1%
1997‑98 6.0% 5.5% 2.1% 5.5% 19.1%   79.2%   100.0%   1.7%
1998‑99 5.4% 6.1% 2.2% 4.4% 18.1%   79.9%   100.0%   2.0%

Current Best Practices and Challenges in Professional and Graduate Schools

Successes and Challenges in the Recruitment and Retention of Students in the Professional Schools
(School of Pharmacy, Medical School, and the School of Veterinary Medicine)

DOCUMENTATION ON GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL STUDENT ISSUES

Successes in Recruitment
  1. Pre-college enrichment opportunities and other pipeline programs have been moderately successful. The Schools of Nursing and Pharmacy, Medical School and School of Veterinary Medicine have all sponsored research opportunities for high school students that involved both faculty and research staff. The Medical School, for example, has sponsored the High School Research Apprentice Program for 18 years. While a comprehensive study to track those participants is underway, preliminary findings indicate that many of those participants have majored in the sciences. Additionally, a sizeable number have matriculated and graduated from medical school or graduate school. The other schools have not been as successful in attracting their former participants into careers in the health sciences or biomedical research.
  2. Identification of target recruitment areas (i.e., geographical areas, school districts, inter-institutional linkage colleges). The Medical School makes a special effort to recruit students from colleges that the University has an ongoing relationship with and a long standing reputation in the recruitment of minority students for graduate and professional programs.
  3. The development of partnerships with K-12 schools and colleges. The School of Pharmacy has a special outreach to students (K-12 plus community college level) at four of the Wisconsin Native American reservations. Also, the Medical School and School of Nursing have developed a "Health Professions Partnership Initiative" with the Milwaukee Public Schools. Both academic year and summer programs have been developed for middle school and high school students. Additionally, professional development activities have been provided for some of the science teachers.
  4. Outreach to minority students who have indicated an interest in the field. Letters and e-mail messages are sent to prospective students from all three schools. Also, follow-up phone calls are made to them. Additionally, outreach is made to students through special student organizations such as AHANA Pre-Health Professions organization, the Pre-School of Pharmacy Club, and the Pre-Veterinary Association.
  5. Campus visits for prospective students. The School of Veterinary Medicine has an open house in the spring for prospective students. This activity has been very successful in introducing out of state students to the campus. The Medical School has a 2 day campus visit/interview program that has been successful in recruiting minority students. Also, the Medical School has a "second campus visit program" for applicants who have received an offer of acceptance. A number of activities are planned for the students including a breakfast with the Dean.
  6. Faculty and student involvement. Faculty and students have played critical roles in the recruitment of minority students.
  7. Participation in recruitment fairs. The Medical School has been successful in identifying competitive students at recruitment fairs that have a medical and/or health professions focus. Each year the Medical School participates in recruitment fairs sponsored by the National Association of Minority Medical Educators (NAMME) and the national meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).
  8. Financial aid has been used as a recruitment tool. The School of Veterinary Medicine and the Medical School have been moderately successful in using financial aid to attract students.
Challenges of Recruitment
  1. Small minority applicant pool. For example, in the 1996-97 academic school year there were only 111 (8%) minority applicants in the pool of 1,303 applications to the School of Veterinary Medicine. Of the 111 applicants, only 25 were eligible to be reviewed. Ten minority applicants were invited to the School and 9 were placed on the alternate list. Three students accepted the School of Veterinary Medicine's offer and matriculated in the fall of 1997. Likewise, the Medical School and School of Pharmacy have limited students in the applicant pool. In 1997-98, only 9 percent (211) of the 2,381 Medical School applicants were minority. One hundred and nine of the minority applicants were competitive, but 73 of the applicants withdrew before they were made an offer of acceptance. In the end, 24 of the competitive minority applicants were made offers, but only 14 matriculated this fall.
  2. Inadequate of preparation in the sciences yields a limited pool of students. All three schools are faced with a limited pool of students.
  3. Limited financial aid resources put the Schools at a disadvantage in trying to recruit the limited pool of students. Some of our peer institutions are able to offer students a very good financial aid (scholarship) package.
Successes in Retention
  1. Competitive students accepted into the academic programs tend to yield high retention rates.
  2. Student academic support programs for all students.
  3. Close monitoring of students' academic progress.
  4. One on one advising and follow-up on a regular basis.
  5. Lecture series in the School of Pharmacy that are designed to facilitate student understanding of the application of theory in clinical and/or laboratory practice.
  6. Lecture series in the Medical School that focus on race and ethnicity in medicine.
  7. Monthly TGIF gatherings for students in the health professions.
  8. Orientation program for new students.
  9. Welcoming picnic for new minority students at one of the local physician's home.
  10. The Dean has a dinner or breakfast for different medical student organizations. A dinner for the Medical Students for Minority Concerns organization is usually held at the Dean's home.
  11. Counseling services are available to students.
  12. Faculty and student mentoring program in the School of Veterinary Medicine.
  13. Formation of study groups to promote sharing of ideas and group problem solving.
  14. Academic support services (i.e., tutorials and national board review sessions) for all students.
Challenges to Retention
  1. Lack of diversity within the faculty.
  2. Feelings of isolation.
  3. The curriculum does not adequately address the issues of diversity.
  4. Limited financial aid.
  5. A limited number of students who are inadequately prepared for rigorous science based programs.
  6. Pursuing the major or profession for the wrong reason (i.e., because of parents, financial gain, etc.).

Successful Recruitment, Retention, and Pipeline Programs with Cost Estimates

UW Medical School Funding Proposal for 2008 Diversity Plan
  1. Merit-based Scholarships for Under-represented Minority Medical Students: 4 merit-based $25.000 scholarships per year = 4 X $25,000 = $100,000
  2. Summer Science Enrichment Program and Clinical Research Program for Undergraduates: The science enrichment program will be open to sophomores and the clinical research program will be restricted to undergraduates entering their junior and senior years.
10 participants in the science enrichment program
(4 UW-Madison undergraduates and 4 students from other institutions)
Housing and food costs at $1115 per student, for 10 students 11,150
Stipend per person at $1500, for 10 students 15,000
Subtotal $26,150
10 participants in the clinical research program
(4 UW-Madison undergraduates and 4 students from other institutions)
Housing and food costs at $1115 per student, for 10 students 11,150
Stipend at $2000 per student, for 10 students 20,000
Subtotal $31,150
Salaries for 3 instructional staff persons for both programs $18,000
Subtotal $75,300
Grand Total $175,300

School of Education

  1. Summer Research Opportunity Program This program would provide minority undergraduate students with the opportunity to conduct research with a faculty mentor in education during the summer. Besides undertaking research, participants would attend seminars dealing with standardized testing taking, research methods, library search, the graduate school application process and fellowships. Budget: 10 students at $4,070 per student, or $40,700 each summer.
  2. Research Training Fellowships This program would prepare first- and second-year minority graduate students for a career that emphasizes educational research. It will provide students with rigorous training in theory and research methods, early independent research, mentoring by a faculty committee, and opportunities to present research findings to multiple audiences. Budget: 7 students at $16,000 per student per year, for 3 years, $336,000 total.

The Graduate School

Advanced Opportunity Fellowship (AOF)

The State, the University, and the Graduate School share the goal of increasing participation in higher education of under-represented and educationally disadvantaged groups. For many years, the State and the Graduate School have provided funds, reaching over $2 million in 1997-98, to help support students in these categories.

This year (1998-99), the Graduate School began a new initiative to increase the following:

  1. Stipend level of awards to incoming students
  2. Flexibility of departments to recruit
  3. Mix of other dollars (TAs, PAs, RAs) supporting under-represented and educationally disadvantaged students.

In order to do this, the Graduate School increased its contributions. Because of this, the number of incoming students supported on AOF went up from 79 supported in 1997-98 to107 in 1998-99 (a 35.4 percent increase). The Graduate School is also pleased to report that the number of total new minority student enrollment also increased this year. The overall new minority student gain is 10 percent (18 new minority students).

The Graduate School anticipates year two of this initiative (1999-2000), which has potential of multi-year/multi-package AOF distribution, to target incoming Ph.D. students. The departments, however, will have to commit to provide one year of funding from their sources for the two years that the GS promises. In other words, in order for departments to secure a second year of AOF funding for a student, departmental funds will have to be committed.

Summer Research Opportunity Programs (SROP)

Since 1986, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has provided summer research opportunities to under-represented groups not only on campus but to students from other universities. In 1997, the LEAD Center Report (June 30, 1997), entitled "Final Report: Integrated Analysis of Program Outcome Data, Student Surveys, and Student and Mentor Interviews," established that the summer programs at UW-Madison and those offered at other CIC institutions were successful in attracting minority students to graduate and professional programs. In 1997, the Graduate School began providing application fee grants for admission to any UW-Madison SROP student who applies for graduate study at UW-Madison. Additionally, the Graduate School solidified its commitment by offering a guaranteed one-year fellowship for all AOF eligible students from SROPs.

The SROP operates from an annual budget of $125,000. The major source of these dollars is state funds. These funds match existing grants and college/faculty and Foundation support. The SROP budget matches dollar support for summer programs such as Summer Undergraduate Research Experience - Engineering (SURE), Summer Research Program for Undergraduates in Biology (CBE), etc., as well as it provides a summer research opportunity for McNair Scholars. Nine programs at UW-Madison (see brochure), plus 1 in the Forest Products Laboratory, serve approximately 98 students per year. The number of students impacted in the last five years range from 83-107. The potential for other SROP program start-ups is good.

McNair Scholars Program (McNair)

The Graduate School submitted a proposal for a grant to start-up a McNair Scholars Program at UW-Madison in February, 1995. The grant targeted students who have interests in the science, psychology, and business fields. The purpose of the McNair Scholars Program is to prepare low-income/first generation and targeted minority students for graduate education, particularly the Ph.D. program and then into the teaching fields. A four-year McNair Grant was awarded to the Graduate School in October 1, 1995. The Annual Grant Award is $199,000. The attached copy of the 1997-98 budget reflects the GS actual and in-kind dollar matches.

The number of McNair students served per year at UW-Madison is 30. Twenty of these students will be funded for and will participate in summer research programs (SROP). In 1998, the number of students served by McNair across the United States is approximately 2500.

Other Initiatives (Works in Progress)

These are other Graduate School initiatives to recruit and advance minority students:

  1. Inter-institutional Linkages (Note: Dollars do not currently reside in the Graduate School)
  2. Clark-Atlanta University/UW-Madison Linkage Initiative
  3. NSF Minority Graduate Student Participation Initiative (joined with Rice University)
  4. Wisconsin Tribal College Initiative
  5. Streamlined Recruitment Plan
  6. Marketing: Advertising in select minority publications
  7. Improved Publications
  8. Proposal for National Black Graduate Student Association Conference in 2000 (title)
  9. Graduate School Student Council to increase community within student body
  10. Recruitment Workshops for departments
  11. Individual and group training for recruiters

Policy and Procedures for Identifying Best Practices in the Graduate and Professionals Schools

Best Practices are initiatives which have resulted in tangible improvements in managing and delivering graduate education at UW-Madison. Best Practices serve to strengthen our learning experience, learning community and our learning environment. Best Practices do not depend on scale of activity or the level of authority charged with implementation. A Best Practice might be a scheme that provides multi-year funding to a majority of graduate students in a department. It might be a way a department secretary tracks alumni. It might also be a process for reviewing application files.

The process for identifying and selecting Best Practices will provide an opportunity to define and clarify our priorities in meeting the needs of the graduate school community at UW-Madison. Departments and Programs at UW-Madison will be able to use Best Practices to study how each other are meeting the challenges of graduate education today. Learning from each other's Best Practices can promote productive partnerships between disciplines, departments & programs, business & industry, government, and the full range of groups interested in improving the process of graduate education.

Suggested format for collecting best practices:

  1. Category (e.g., recruiting minority students, programs for mentoring minority students, etc.)
  2. Office/department/program submitting:
  3. Title of "practice"
  4. Summary (one descriptive paragraph) of practice.
  5. What process(es) have improved since refining this practice?
  6. Do you have any data to show the fact that the process is sustainable? Please elaborate.
  7. Are there any other applications you can foresee or suggest for this practice?
  8. Are there specific departments/programs on campus you think could use this practice successfully?
  9. Did this change/practice have any impact on time, budget, or efficiency in your department? Please elaborate.

Upon receipt and review of above information, the committee would invite several individuals to be part of a panel discussion/workshop on promoting & sharing best practices within a particular category (again, e.g., recruiting minority students, or mentoring activities). Campus community would be invited to listen/participate. Draft agenda of this activity:

  1. Introduction of "category"/purpose of session.
  2. Presenters would each give brief overview of practice and then demonstrate how it has impacted department & on the sustainability. Presenters would be encouraged to bring data to support their comments.

    Or, we thought about designing these workshops along more specific questions, .for example: Describe an instance in which you recruited a particular graduate student of color to your department and you felt everything really worked. What made this instance special/different? Did funding play a part in this success story? How? More broadly, what did you do this past year that worked? How do you track your applicants? Do you ask students why they came here? How do you communicate with your minority applicants/students? What do you do differently for minority applicants?

  3. General Q&A for all presenters.
  4. Facilitator would ask audience to give in writing or, if time, to discuss one thing that they learned that they could take back and use. These would be recorded for the best practices "document." by key words

Questions/Issues that we've raised include:

  1. How can we capture the ongoing process, or things that people just do, that they don't think of as special - or as "best practices?"
  2. How can we ask people about sustainability if we want to capture new initiatives (experiments) that may not be tested, or easily assessed yet?

  
 
Office of the Provost | UW Home

File last updated: November 18, 2005
Feedback, questions or accessibility issues: comments@uc.wisc.edu
Copyright © 2004 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.