>> Thank you for coming today. I've been working
with undergraduate research at Michigan State
now for about 11 years. In fact, Rob was on
my hiring committee way back when. And the
topic, "How Does Undergraduate Research Affect
Faculty Productivity?" has been one on my
mind for probably six or seven years. There's
a lot of information in higher education studies
that look at why it's really important for
undergraduate students to engage in undergraduate
research, but there's very little information
as to why faculty decide to work with undergraduates,
and even less information as to if it's helpful
for them. And so this has been on our to-do
list for several years and we finally, in
the last year, got around to trying to take
some action on it. So, just an overview of
what we'll be talking about today. We sought
to better understand the motivations, the
barriers, and the rewards for faculty at research
intensive universities to work with undergraduate
students in a research capacity. What we did
is -- to find our sample, we sought mentors
who had worked with students through the Undergraduate
Research and Arts Forum, URAF. You may have
heard of that. It's a large research forum
for undergraduates that occur every spring.
Now we have close to a thousand students who
are across all 14 undergraduate colleges participating
in it on an annual basis. So, it was a good
way to get a diverse pool of students and
we had hoped it would also provide some diversity
for research mentors. We narrowed down our
list for students who had monitored 15 or
more students over a five year period. And
then we applied three different filters to
this particular population. We looked at faculty
rank. We wanted a system associated with full
professors. We looked at gender and you can
see we had a nice divide of men and women.
We sought for racial and ethnic diversity
and were fairly successful considering the
composition here at MSU. And then we also
looked for disciplinary variety to achieve
maximum variation. So, we wanted folks who
worked with STEM students as well as humanities
and social sciences. For our conversation
today, we're focusing mainly on our discussions
with STEM faculty. We've pulled a few quotes
and discussions from folks who are doing some
social science work that is somewhat related
or has -- or the organization mirrors, I guess,
STEM laboratory, but primarily it will be
from our conversations with STEM -- we STEM
folks. So, we conducted one hour interviews
with each of these faculty mentors who are
really respected researchers, but also work
with a fair amount of undergraduate students.
We each independently coded our work and then,
together, we reconciled our differences uses
an online software system, and have started
to interpret the different themes that have
reoccurred during these conversations. That's
kind of the nitty gritty of it. Here are the
questions that we talked about. We were really
interested in learning how they interacted
with undergraduate researchers both from beginning
when they first brought them on to their laboratories,
what happened in the middle with training
and different types of feedback and evaluation,
and then also how it impacted their research,
were these side jobs they were doing or were
these students being utilized in a very meaningful
way. We talked about challenges and barriers
and then also asked them for advice regarding
what they would tell a new faculty member
in their department about working with undergraduates
and advice they would give to current undergraduate
researchers. So, our objectives for today.
You see them up here. We have a mountain of
data that we've been sorting through. It yielded
very rich discussions. For the time that we
have today, we're focusing on four major objectives.
We're going to talk about the benefits of
working with undergraduate researchers. The
data revealed very clear benefits in ways
that were surprising to us about how these
faculty are utilizing undergraduates in very
meaningful ways. We'll present some emerging
models of how to effectively utilize them.
We'll look at -- we'll dig down into how you
can assign tasks for them and what kind of
work these faculty assigned to the research
mentors. And then, finally, we'll conclude
with what we call kind of a practical model
of how research mentors should think about
their research enterprise in regards to undergraduate
researchers, but also the other people who
help them in the laboratory. We've left ample
time for questions, but we're both very interactive
so if you see something as we're presenting,
please stop, raise your hand, and interject
and ask your question. I know some of you
in here and some of you work with undergraduate
researchers so, if we say something that resonates
with you and you want to add your two cents,
we welcome that as well. Don't feel like you
have to save that for the end. Any questions
before we dive into our talk? All right.
>> Great. So, as we've been analyzing our
work and trying to make sense of the themes
we've been seeing among faculty conversations
about how to work with undergraduates, it
became very clear that, you know, the context
was really important. Obviously, research
intensive universities have a particular context
that faculty have to navigate in terms of
juggling their work. You know, in the literature
it talks about, you know, the teaching research
and service, but also became clear to us that,
you know, just within the research enterprise
itself, there are all these issues that faculty
are constantly juggling. You know, generating
the ideas, designing the experiments, pursuing
funding, publications, and trying to keep
all these things moving at one time. And one
of the motivations for us pursuing this, you
know, Karin and I both oversee various undergraduate
research programs, is we are constantly asked
by faculty, you know, ones that don't necessarily
use undergraduates that often is, "I don't
know how to fit them in. You know, and how
do I do this without dropping a ball particularly
when I'm on the tenure clock?" In so really,
you know, what we were hearing from our faculty
is that in this context they're making sense
of where do undergraduates fit in these various
compartments and how do they actually facilitate
this process moving forward. So, we wanted
to acknowledge that. But the second thing
that emerged in terms of making sense of the
data was that, as a result of kind of this
complex environment in which they're operating,
is that it really took on a more of a management
perspective in our minds. So, if you kind
of distilled very crudely our major findings,
you know, what we -- and put them into compartments,
you would hear faculty talking about, you
know, how do they set clear goals and a vision
for their research, you know, their line of
research, how do they adjust that as they're
moving forward and maturing as faculty to
continue to be doing cutting edge research.
How are they making sense of the people who
are there and empowering them to do meaningful
work and to feel like they have a voice in
the direction that they're going? And then
a lot of that leads into, you know, "How do
we manage personnel effectively?" And a lot
of what we heard is thinking about it from
a strengths perspective in the sense that
they thought strategically about how are they
taking students, you know, graduate students
-- postdocs as well -- how are they taking
them in and how are they recruiting and screening
them effectively, but then how are they capitalizing
on their unique skills and strengths? And
I think this was particularly true for how
they worked with undergraduates. And we'll
talk more about that. In then, finally, what
we realized is that a lot of what faculty
talked about in terms of what was successful
were a lot of management practices that we
hear in the business literature. And so if
you're not familiar with it, but even if you
listen to pop culture references around, you
know, effective organizations, you're going
to hear a lot of these same themes. And so
we wanted to frame our conversation today
largely around this concept of that it's not
sufficient just to think of it as successfully
mentoring students, but actually it's about
being a successful manager of your research
enterprise. And is we think that that -- that
come might be a useful frame shift for some
people who may not necessarily have thought
of it that way. But then also I think it helps
us think through where we can look in terms
of other research that's been done in other
areas to make sense of how people can do this
better. And so when we think about this, we're
going to -- we kind of categorized our talk
into these three following areas around effective
practices of business. So, the first is kind
of you can think of the HRR of leading a research
laboratory. Kind of this talent management.
Right? How do you identify effective talent?
How do you bring them onboard? What's kind
of your philosophy of using people, essentially?
The second we'll be talking about projects
like -- something we hear a lot are questions
around, "What do I do with them? Like, would
do I let them do? Or what do I empower them
to do and how do you pick that?" and we have
some models that emerged. And then the final
one is nuts and bolts of everyday management.
Right? How do I effectively make sure that
the work is getting done and done well? And
so we'll kind of go through some specific
examples and kind of hopefully contextualize
that for you.
>> All right. Starting off going with the
talent management theme. The intake is very
important. And what was very striking to us
from the very beginning these members believed
that undergraduate researchers were very competent
and capable contributors, that with some training
they would become valued contributors to their
research laboratory. And if you look at this
first quote, I won't read the whole thing,
but this sentiment that I underline at the
very end, "I think they're doing as good or
better work than any of the graduate students
or even some of the postdocs I've seen." Time
and time again, across the disciplines, but
especially in our [inaudible] STEM faculty,
these faculty didn't view these students as
just something extra in my laboratory. If
they decided to make a commitment to take
them on, they are going to be very -- they
treated them equitably and they were going
to be high quality contributors. They often
refer to them as there graduate students.
Accordingly, because of that, they worked
really hard, were very intentional about making
each undergraduate researcher feel like a
valued lab member. And this next quote, I
think, summarizes that really well. This particularly
professor said, "I always tell them, 'you
don't work of me. You work with me.' I'm in
the lab with them." And then she was talking
about a dissection they were going to be doing
later in the week, "I'll be doing that dissection
right next to them. That is the sense I'd
like to permeate my lab with, that no one
is too good to do something, no one is more
important than another." Undergraduate researchers
were not treated like second class citizens.
They were expected to attend lab meetings
and engage in lab meetings. very often, especially
if they were a first year student or new to
the research setting, they kind of gave them
a transition semester where they were partnering
with someone and they would just attend lab
meetings and ask questions. They wanted to
model what a good presentation was like, how
we ask questions, how we contribute and move
our research forward. But once they were up
to speed, they were expected to function like
every other person in that lab. And we were
a little surprised for that because I think
too often in my conversations I felt like
undergrads had been just an add-on. And with
all of these faculty in STEM, it was something
quite different. They're like, "they're valued
contributors and their right on and they'll
do everything else that people in our lab
do." Related to that, now, I want to talk
about why they valued them. So, this first
part talked about the attitude they had when
hiring them and bringing them onboard, and
now there were three major reasons why they
valued undergraduate researchers. The first
one was that they brought a lot of energy
to class -- or to the lab -- and they first
line, I think, summarizes it all, "The other
thing I like, they just bring such a youthful
kind of energy." Time and time again we heard
this throughout the discipline -- or throughout
our interviews. We probably have 30 or 40
quotes that are these short one liners. They
just liked their enthusiasm. People would
say, "We've run this lab experiment how many
times, but these students come in and they're
just is excited to do some of these very basic
things." And they valued that type of energy.
A second point as to why they were valued
is they brought new ideas and perspectives.
And this bottom quote here begins to address
that. Focusing on those last few lines, "but
they have these ideas. I just love to interact
with people who have these brains who are
not bounded by what things cannot be done,
but rather what should we do. Right?" Undergraduate
researchers aren't bounded by some of the
constraint that some of your graduate students
might have. They're not competing against
the dissertation clock. And they don't -- they
don't possess the disciplinary knowledge,
at least the deep disciplinary knowledge,
and all of the knowledge about research processes.
They're coming in rather naive and because
of that they provide a fresh set of eyes.
This next quote I think really talks about
their new perspective. And then if you focus
in on the middle there, "Sometimes I find
that we're diving so deep into the nitty gritty
details that sometimes we lack the big picture.
And somebody else comes in who has no knowledge
of what you're doing and they ask some really
smart question and you're thinking, 'Well,
why didn't I think of that?' again." And,
again, we heard this. You've heard that phrase,
"you can't see the forest for the trees."
A lot of these faculty use undergraduate researchers
to kind of help them bring them out of the
weeds, to provide some different perspectives.
They just found that they asked some very
basic, but some very good questions that helped
ground their laboratory. So, in summary for
this section, you know, they asked different
kinds of questions. They brought energy. They're
less risk adverse. They can spend some time
on a risky project and if it blows up and
doesn't work, it's not like they're a year
behind on their research. They're excited
to get that research experience. It should
be noted, though, that for this to happen,
OK, you have to have that good attitude of
that research mentor. They work very hard
to provide a safe and welcoming environment
where students felt comfortable to ask these
questions and to participate at this type
of level. A third benefit for working with
undergraduate researchers that we heard was
that they provided accountability and motivation.
First, they really encouraged faculty to kind
of plan and work ahead. And you can read the
quote here. In this particular one, the faculty
member is talking about how we have so many
ideas. He has his main line of research, but
he also has all these other ideas that are
burning. And he works with undergraduates
and if someone can attach onto one of those
ideas, it helps him bring that project online
and to put it on track. For others, working
with undergraduate researchers helped them
gain traction on some other projects. Interestingly
enough, also, in addition to help keeping
the faculty member on task and to keep the
momentum going, they also helped their graduate
students stay on task. And I really like this
quote. "They make my graduate students work
faster." And then she was talking about the
URAF deadline and that wasn't why I like this
quote, but she said, you know, "The URAF deadline
is in February. Our conference is in September.
So, if you have that URAF deadline, they have
to do part of this project in time in order
for us to be able to submit something in time
for our own presentation, you know, the following
fall." So, I think the takeaway here for us
then is working with undergraduate researchers
helped faculty produce tangible next steps.
They had to plan ahead. It also helped them
keep better track of their graduate students.
And we'll talk about monitoring in a little
bit, but it helped them see how their graduate
students were working or mentoring their undergraduate
students. Some of them would ask the undergraduates
a question and if they are like, "You don't
really know what you're doing," that was a
good reason to bring the graduate student
back in and say, "OK. This person's having
some problems. How are you working with them?"
So, they have energy. They provide new perspectives.
And they help people stay on task. These artificial
timelines, I think, help just keep the project
moving forward. And for us, this positive
attitude about undergraduate researchers helped
us counter some of the negative perceptions
of working with undergraduates. Justin alluded
earlier, "What can I do with them? How can
they possibly help me?" These are faculty
who are well-funded. Most of them have received
tenure. And they have found a way to incorporate
them and a very manageable way into their
laboratory. So, we'll transition now from
why they're so good and focus more on project
selection and how they manage them.
>> Yeah. So, I think this section is something
that we consistently hear from our perspective
as program directors and helping faculty coming
to us and saying, "OK. Yeah. Sure. Let's work
with them. But what do I do with them?" And
I think we want to acknowledge initially off
the top that there are these kind of simple
tasks that obviously undergraduates tend to
get engaged with. And, you know, depending
on your situation and your context, that means
different things for different people. What
was interesting with the folks that we met
with, time and again what we heard is that
in their minds that was a temporary phase.
And they really thought strategically about
how do I very quickly move a student from
these kind of basic techniques, these basic
trainings, these basic jobs that need to be
done and empower them to do more meaningful
work? So, we selected a couple quotes there.
You know, this idea that they're not just
making -- you know, they're not just prepping
plates. That they're actually integrated into
what I do and the actual rhythms have the
entire research process. And we chose the
second quote because I think sometimes we
received feedback where they feel like they
-- like faculty has expressed to us a concern
that they feel like they have to make work
for the undergraduates. And I think what we've
heard from these faculty is that by thinking
strategically about how to leverage this capacity
that they can actually identify ways that
it will advance their [inaudible] and that
it won't become this kind of task. Now, I
think there's a tension there, right, between
these, as she mentioned, this accountability
and a piece where it forces you to think it
through. What am I researching? How do I express
this to someone? And then what are the logical
next steps that I can put someone on? But
in doing that, these faculty expressed that
in a very positive sense in terms of how do
they continue to move the science forward.
And so in thinking through precisely how we
would categorize it, we've identified kind
of three categories of projects. And the first
is actually a description we received from
one of our participants, the minion argument.
This is the very like, you know, they're free
or relatively cheap labor. And so you can
really deploy them to kind of, you know, get
going on things. So, what we heard is things
like, "Yeah. They can help with the basic
lab tests, but they're also really useful
for reproducibility." One of the things that
we heard often was this issue of, "Well, you
know, I try to tell my graduate students and
postdocs, you know, you have to replicate
these findings. Why not give it to an undergraduate
and if they're able to replicate it, then
that, you know, further underscores the fact
that it worked and then you don't have to
do it." And so thinking about generating more
hands in the laboratory. You know, and kind
of an acknowledgement that that's a piece
of the puzzle. And so, you know, not shying
away from this and obviously, you know, you
have deadlines and you have priorities and
you need to advance them, so thinking through
how you do this. But they I think -- like
time and again we wanted to return this idea
and that's why we chose the second quote there,
which is they're generating more hands, but
then this idea that there's a developmental
process and constantly hearing about how do
we push them towards greater levels of autonomy,
independence as researchers. And there seemed
to be this underlying belief -- going back
to the philosophy Karin articulated -- is
that they have greater capacity than just
the labor piece. There's more potential than
just the basic labor. And so it was interesting
is -- you know, we kind of knew this a little
bit. We didn't really know how the faculty
were thinking about it. And this is where
the next two come from. What we heard from
these faculty is that the role that they saw
undergraduates playing in this more autonomous
or independent researcher role was a function
of diversifying their research enterprise.
As one faculty put it, "I'm not going to put
them on anything that can do harm." Right?
So, it's this issue that they have certain
deliverables from, you know, grants that have
been outlined. They didn't feel necessarily
comfortable putting most undergraduates in
that position. If there's something that they're
counting on publications or, you know, seeding
grants, they're not going to put their undergraduates
on those. But they felt like the undergraduates
played a key role in helping to diversify
their research in two ways. And so the first
that we thought of is this issue of kind of
a catalyst. And the way we're thinking about
these sets of projects are, you know, you
probably have a wish list of projects you
want to get to. You know? And so maybe, you
know, you have someone thinking about one
are two or three on your list, but there might
be, you know, seven, eight, or nine where
you're thinking, "I don't know when I'm going
to get to this. It might be years or more
before I have the capacity to go there." And
what we heard from these faculty is that once
the students are trained sufficiently in the
techniques of the laboratory, that they can
kind of say, you know, "Why don't you try?
You know, go -- go off and try to lay the
groundwork for this. Try to do some of the
foundational work." And from the faculty's
perspective, they say, "OK. Well, this could
be a really great research experience for
the student." Right? They get independence.
They're training themselves to do this by
themselves. If it flops, if they decide it's
too much for them -- you know, but there's
not a lot of cost to the faculty in terms
of their immediate deadlines. And the flip
side of that is that if it does pan out and
things go really well, then it brings those
projects closer to reality in terms of faculty
being able to get going faster on these projects.
And so these faculty had expressed that they've
had positive experiences in terms of, you
know, moving more lines of inquiry forward
as a result of undergraduates kind of laying
this foundational work and going forward.
And even to the point where some undergraduates,
particularly ones who started early in the
lab, and a lot of our faculty, probably not
surprisingly, expressed a preference for students
early in their career were saying in some
cases when the students really engaged and
were really motivated, they're even able to
see it all the way through and get to publication
by the time they're a senior. They said, you
know, that's a best case scenario. That doesn't
always happen with a first author. But it's
kind of on that continuum and seen as a benefit
just to allow students to have that opportunity.
The second one is another actually image that
came from a faculty interview, which is these
fishing expeditions. And they kind of take
two forms in terms of origination. One, kind
of these unorthodox ideas that students would
float. You know, Karin talked about how they
bring these new ideas, these unorthodox, out-of-the-box
ideas. And so sometimes these arrive, you
know, initially with a student thought, or
sometimes they're actually from the faculty
in these conversation. And perhaps you can
relate to this where you're like, "Well, you
know, it would be great if I could pursue
this kind of crazy, wacky idea, but realistically,
if this flops, I can't invest time and resources
in that. I can't set my graduate student who
is trying to complete a dissertation on that.
I can't invest my postdocs on this." And so
what they said is that a number of times where
they saw a student developing autonomy, developing
independence, that if they had a crazy idea
or the faculty had a crazy idea and the student
was willing to try, they would kind of send
them off on these fishing expectations and
seeing what they pull in. And they might pull
in nothing, like a complete flop. And so they
said at a minimum the student leaves with
all this research experience. Right? They
may have, you know, worked to design the experiment.
They may have, you know, completed the whole
thing and found nothing, but at least when
they're writing letters of recommendation
or are talking about the student's time in
the lab, they can point to all this work that
was done that resulted in nothing. But it
demonstrated skills and experience. Yeah?
>> So, I've totally done this before and so
I think what -- I like what you guys are saying,
but I have a question. So, when I was -- I
had a undergrad working for me last summer.
I felt a little scared putting them on a project
that I wasn't sure it was going to work. And
part of it didn't work. And it was kind a
bummer to see the kid like, "I worked all
summer on this and it didn't work." Like is
there any idea of what kind of damage? Because
you're trying to set them up, theoretically,
for a positive STEM view going forward. And
if they worked all summer on a project that
flunks, like, what -- does that have some
sort of negative repercussions or not?
>> Tell them to Thomas Edison story [laughing].
>> Well, I tell them that story. I've got
to reinforce that [inaudible].
>> He learned about 10,000 that didn't work.
>> In I haven't looked at the research and
what happens with that, but I think part of
it is how you explain it. And I think it's
-- we -- this is not -- it's a critique of
higher education, but we -- our students are
so trained to go for that A, to go for that
B like failure is not acceptable. But failure
happens all the time. And so I think it's
how you explain it and how -- and something
that's not significant, well, that could be
important too because it kind of redirects
where you're going.
>> You're successful in baseball 30% of the
time, you're in the Hall of Fame.
>> Yeah. That's true. Yeah.
>> I was just going to say there's some evidence
in the literature from a mentoring perspective
that it's what you set up as the goals on
day one. So, if you establish goals that are
not linked to experimental outcomes, they
still have an opportunity to see success independent
of whether the experiments work or not. But
you have to do that at the beginning so that
it doesn't seem like you're telling them it's
OK, this is an alternative, but this is the
goal to start with. And there are some defined
ways to do that that really can't fail.
>> That's a good suggestion. Other comments?
>> Well, and I think getting back to that,
which is, you know, I think it's easy to say
[inaudible], but obviously you could do all
the framing you want and unfortunately some
students are going to be devastated. But they're
going to be pretty disappointed and I think
[inaudible] makes a great point, which is,
you know, how do you do this framing. And
I think part of this -- you know, hopefully
that's part of the development of the student.
Right? Which is that they may be horribly
disappointed, but they do get exposure to
the realities of what scientific research
looks like, which is sadly it doesn't always
work out. And your job would be a lot easier
if it did. And so helping them kind of see
that. But I think that's a challenge. But
yeah. So, these fishing expectations I think
we heard time and again were, you know, faculty
had seen this as really beneficial. And one
thing to think about is perhaps who you put
on these projects. What we had heard consistently
is that these are students who had already
achieved some level of success in the laboratory
and kind of were wired in this way. You know,
they were the students who kind have had these
ideas, were really kind of firing, had some
success kind of, you know, engaging in other
projects. And so the risk, you know -- they
were very aware of what the risk meant and
maybe that might be part of the framing, which
is kind of contextualizing in the larger part
of the research training. So, it's something
to consider, but I think it is a challenge
working with these students particularly if
they're coming out of, you know, typical scientific
laboratories where it's very prescriptive
and like the -- we know the result and the
result comes out and how close you are to
the result or the yield demonstrates how well
you've done it. Not really what our reality
is. Right? And so, you know, we chose this
quote where one faculty was pretty about this
or very forward about it. She said, you know,
if other factor don't want to work with undergraduates,
I don't care. You know, because I figured
out a way to kind of deploy them to advance
my research and really kind of send them off
on all these different tangents. And, in particular,
I don't think we've necessarily talked through
where we -- you know, how much faculty have
used these techniques. But she was definitely
on the high end of this where, you know, often
times she would talk about, "Oh, yeah. We
were talking about these ideas. I said go
try that. Go try that. Go try that." And obviously
it's discipline and context specific. Perhaps
some have you are in a context where you can't
just try a million things. Right? But I think
the point is are there ways that you can employ
students in this way whether it's to catalyze
ideas that you already have or send them off
on these fishing expeditions that could potentially
yield new tangents or, you know, new pathways
for your research.
>> So, while Justin talked about some of the
functions of undergraduate researchers, now
I want to spend a few moments looking at how
you manage them specifically. It starts with
the intake process. Even before you assimilate
them into your labs. Everyone had a screening
process. No one said they really screened
undergraduate researchers, but we were looking
at our conversations there was a very clear
screening process. For some people -- I'd
say for a lot of people -- it's students they've
had in class. I've had you in class. I've
seen your work. I like how you work. You come
and talk to me. We'll have a conversation.
I'll bring you onboard. That was probably
the most common way people find undergraduate
researchers to work in their labs. Another
way was through an external program and they
vetted students for them. The example we heard
most often was the professorial assistant
program that Justin runs in the Honors College,
or the PA program. They knew these are the
top 1% of students in the nation. They come
here, I hire someone who seems to fit with
me, that works. Others did a combination of
interest, resumes, personality and they would
-- for some, they would bring them into the
lab and have them meet with people and shadow
them for a couple days and then they would
have the lab have a conversation about, "Do
we like this person? Do we want them to come
in?" But that intake process was really important.
Everyone had that. The second key feature
of management was measuring for interest.
And I think this -- this -- actually both
quotes are really important here, but it's
this idea that it wasn't a random assignment.
Everyone looked for genuine interest. And
even though a lot of these students don't
really understand your specific research area,
if they had some understanding and had excitement
and enthusiasm, that was really -- that was
really important for them. The second quote
takes it one step further because -- this
particular faculty member really tried to
match student's interest onto what he was
researching. And that was another common theme
is that if they showed some interest in a
specific project, we try to intentionally
place them. And this was surprising for us
because in other conversations we felt like
it was kind of like, "Yeah. I bring an undergrad
in and we'll try to figure out how to integrate
him or her into whatever we're doing." But
these faculty took a lot of time to try to
match them to the right graduate student,
to the right project that would keep their
interest going. They also -- and for some,
the -- I call this the premed weariness option
-- there are several faculty in STEM areas
who are very weary of med school. They're
like, "These students are coming in because
they want to put something on their resume
to say they've done research for me." Someone
said, "I don't want them." You know? If you
want to go to med school, that's fine, but
you've got to like what I'm doing and be invested
in what we're carrying forward. So, there
was this medical school caveat. Others, they
really like younger students, freshmen or
sophomores. That was really easy to do in
the PA program, but in a lot of our majors,
a lot of the students aren't taking these
upper level classes until their junior or
senior year. So, a lot of folks were like,
"You know what? If they're a senior, I'm not
going to take them because it's going to take
me a good semester to get them trained and
I don't want to carry them forward." Others
had the sympathy card. "I didn't do undergraduate
research until my senior year so this person
did well in my class and I like them. They
have an interest. We're going to -- we'll
try to bring them onboard and maybe keep them
on for the summer." So, there is a vetting
process and then there's this interest process.
They took a lot of time to try to match students
to the right person and to the right project.
The third point related to management and
monitoring was how they kept track of their
[inaudible] students. There was a very clear
tension between providing a lot of structure
and monitoring versus allowing them some flexibility
and to see how they would roll with a project.
All of the faculty, especially the associate
professors and the full professors, talked
about how at one point they were very involved
in their research in the lab all the time,
but now they were more removed because they
were writing, you know, articles, writing
grants, and they had to rely on their postdocs
and graduate students to move this forward.
All of them, though, found some way to stay
connected to what was happening and they listed
some examples. The first one was lab meetings.
That was an obvious one. You come to a lab
meeting, everyone participates, I can monitor
and see how you are doing. Others talked about
managing by walking around. They would intentionally
make time to pop into the lab and talk to
the undergraduates and talk to the grad students
and figure out where they were. Kind of like
a pop quiz. They didn't do it to cause any
anxiety. But just at random times they would
just drop in to see what was happening and
how things were moving. A third approach that
was talked about was Google Docs. And so this
one faculty member talked about how for all
his undergraduate researchers, they had to
maintain a Google Doc that talked about, on
a weekly basis, the hours they worked, what
they accomplished that week, and what they
intended to do for the next week. And this
was due like every Friday and on Sunday he
would provide feedback. And he said the feedback
was the key. He didn't view this as a laboratory
notebook and it wasn't as a substitution for
a lab notebook, but seeing how they wrote
about what they were doing, what they had
planned to do, and his way of providing feedback
in the Googled Docs proved to be a very effective
way for him to manage the lab. Another faculty
member was the virtual observer by e-mail.
I kind of called her the e-mail spy. She had
her team -- each person on her team had a
very specific responsibility and were experts
in certain areas. And so when they would e-mail
about the project, she had to be CCed on everything.
She wouldn't respond to most of the e-mails,
but she kind of lurked and she looked at things.
And when something was overlooked or there
needed to be a correction, then she would
insert that. And then the last way to kind
of manage these students was called -- I called
them grad student deputies. And, obviously,
on -- in a team setting, everyone is working
together, but this faculty member on a regular
basis would kind of survey her graduate students.
"How is this undergraduate doing? What's he
like? Or so-and-so and having problems doing
this type of experiment or mechanism. What's
happening?" So, this particular faculty member
really relied upon those graduate -- kind
of a spider web of graduate students to report
back and to keep tabs have what was going
on. So, takeaway points from here, input matters.
They very carefully selected who they brought
into the lab and then they thoughtfully placed
them. It just wasn't a random assignment.
And then it was really important to stay connected
to the undergraduate students through these
-- we provided four or five examples. But
keeping that connection was -- was really
critical to keep the team kind of operating
at that maximum capacity. All right.
>> Yeah. So, we wanted to bring it kind of
full circle. And, as we're kind of wrapping
up kind of the findings that have emerged
is this issue of really pushing this model
of faculty as CEO. Thinking about what are
effective management principles that can be
adopted into practice to be able to more effectively
mentor undergraduates. Interesting, this was
a theme that, you know -- only one person
mentioned it explicitly, but it was worth
putting up there. But, you know, I think there's
this paradox and, you know, when we talk about
various elements of graduate student training
and even postdoc training, and this seems
to be an element that maybe we need to think
more explicitly about. You know, a lot of
the characteristics that tend to promote excellent
research, are, independent worker, self-starter,
good ideas, hardworking, very driven, those
don't necessarily translate well into a managerial
situation. And as this faculty put it really
crudely, it could be an appalling research
[inaudible] and horrible managers. And, you
know, I think what we're -- the hypothesis
we're starting to float between the two of
us as we're looking at these data, which is
how critical this management piece is. Which,
you know, you could be a brilliant researcher
in terms of generating ideas and doing experiments,
but if you can't figure out how to up your
capacity and build this, you know, successful
research organization, you're going to struggle.
And particularly in our context at a research
intensive where those expectations are pretty
clear. So, we wanted to come back around and
just think about, you know, what does it mean
to be a successful mentor and what is out
there in terms of effective management practices?
And so this graphic that's displayed on the
screen actually comes from some work that
[inaudible] they have a global human research
arm that looks like human resources essentially.
And what they did is they surveyed companies
that outperform the S&P by four fold over
the last 30 years ending in 2009. You know,
so, I mean these are the high end of the distribution.
And they've been working on trying to identify
what are the characteristics of these organizations
that have enabled them to perform at such
a high rate. And so they kind of developed
this schema as a way to understand the various
components of that. And what was shocking
to us [laughing] -- or maybe it shouldn't
have been shocking -- but we were surprised
to see just how many of the words that they
use and the terms and the categories echo
what we had been hearing from these successful
faculty researchers. Right? This idea of how
do you get people engaged in meaningful work?
How do you link what they're doing to kind
of the ultimate vision? How do you employ
management practices that work in a larger
organization that still have a bit of a hands-on
feel so people feel accountable and tied in?
You know, how do you cultivate a positive
work environment? We didn't talk about that
too much today, but that is a theme that we
saw in terms of the culture of the laboratory
as being a place where people wanted to be.
You know, faculty talked about that in different
ways. Some talked about it as a family. Some
talked it as being, you know, kind of a hangout
space that people felt like this was almost
like a home to them. And then this growth
opportunity. Right? Seeing the potential to
develop all levels of researchers whether
they're undergraduates through postdocs. And
how that all funnels into this issue of leadership
and developing trust in the leadership and
kind of seeing the vision and buying in essentially
to be engaged in that work. And so that's
kind of one of the major takeaways we hope
will be hopefully in terms of, you know, you
leaving here and being able to put into practice.
The second one we wanted -- we have been talking
about it a little bit implicitly and wanted
to make it explicit, which is this issue of
kind of phase and stage of your research enterprise.
I think what we heard time and again is that
particularly early career faculty, but this
may also be a bit discipline specific based
on size of your team, may feel more like a
startup culture. What faculty tended to share
with us about that is, you know, "When I got
here, I didn't have graduate students. You
know, I didn't have time to recruit graduate
students. I didn't have a postdoc. My -- you
know, maybe my startup package wasn't significant
enough to allow that or even just the timeline
wasn't enough for me to get those type of
people in. So, I had to grab whoever I could
and those were my undergraduates." And, as
a consequence of that, they really felt like
they had developed an efficient [inaudible]
structure where there were a few delineated
roles. It was kind of like, whoever wants
to do it, and whoever has the energy to do
it, whoever wants to do it, go do it. Let's
see what happens. And a lot of it was kind
of out of necessity. And for us it really
resonated with the startup culture where it's
kind of, you know -- it's not like, "Oh, you're
an undergraduate. Well, you can do this."
You know? "Oh, you know, you have this much
training, you can do this." It was very much
dependent on motivation and what was available.
And the idea that the faculty was very open
to kind of, "how do I just get this machine
going?" But what we saw is that, as they translated
into, you know, kind of later on in their
faculty career, is that a lot of those kind
of artifacts of that initial stage stayed
with them. So, they had a desire to have some
of the components of a [inaudible] structure
where they were still finding ways be, you
know, connected to their undergraduates, finding
ways to promote leadership and kind of give
greater leadership responsibilities to folks.
And thinking through how do you develop leadership
whether it's undergrad, graduate, or postdoc
students to take on some of that management
responsibility? So, we thought we would leave
you with some things to consider and hopefully
these are kind of like apparent from what
we talked about today. But just kind of thinking
through like what is your philosophy of working
with undergraduates? You know, how do you
view them? What do you think their roles could
be? And are there ways that you 
might reconsider that or reframe that in light
of what we shared today that may impact your
practice? The second is, you know, kind of
what are your management practices? Have you
thought about it? We found sometimes we'd
be sitting with a faculty member for an hour
and 45 minutes in they'd look at us and say,
"Wow, this has been really helpful. I've never
tried to actually process this or think about
what I'm doing. I've just done it." But I
think that also spoke to us in terms of where
-- where have you learned your management
practices whether they're implicit or explicit?
And how effective are they? And thinking through
where are ways -- where are places you can
turn for ideas on how to do that better? We
think some of our [inaudible] at this, but
obviously there's been work in effective management
principles and work theory and business management
that may be helpful. And then the final thing
is kind of this phase and stage, which is
kind of thinking through the ebbs and flows
of the research career. I mean, some of it
obviously trajectory wise in terms of moving
early career, you know, assistant to being
tenured and full. But I think also the ebbs
and flows of your research cycle in terms
of where ideas are and how they're going and
what does that mean in terms of the various
roles that people play? And perhaps, you know,
thinking through what a more dynamic structure
might look like to accommodate that variance.
So, we wanted to pause there and kind of give
people in the audience -- I mean, looking
around, we see some people who we know are
doing this a lot. We'd be curious to hear
how this resonates with your experience or
maybe doesn't? Challenge what we're presenting
today. And maybe help others think through
some of [inaudible].
>> I just wanted to say that as you were talking
about the -- how you think about your own
research management in addition to something
you said on the last slide about as your -- you
advance in your career, thinking about if
you're maintaining that structure or using
it as an opportunity to delegate leadership.
I think there's also an opportunity there,
in addition to delegating leadership as you
advance, to think about it intentionally when
you are [inaudible] graduate student, postdocs,
and undergraduates as an opportunity to mentor
them on how they're thinking about their management
and mentoring philosophy. And, in doing it
in that way, you have to think about what
yours is, but also think about how do you
structure a training environment so that people
can be reflective and intentional about how
they mentor. And have opportunities to develop
that before they're in the position of a PI
practicing it on people without an intentional
or thoughtful process.
>> That's a really good point and we didn't
include that into this presentation. But there
were several faculty who talked about that.
How -- you know, they're concerned for the
graduate students. They see that they can't
mentor well and that's going to set them behind,
you know, when they go out and land their
first position at a university. So, I think
that's a really important -- another venue
that adds into that management session -- section.
It's just not the undergraduates, but that
graduate piece and how do you cultivate them
to start thinking about these management and
organization practices.
>> I like the idea of giving them something
that someone else has worked on to reproduce
it. Especially because that could give them
confidence. Yes, I can do this and if things
fail later, that's not my fault. Sometimes
the answer to an experiment is no way. You
know? So, that tends to give them a little
bit of a confidence boost. Like say you have
some loose ends of, you know, studies that
need to be done for a paper, you can put them
on that, you know, from -- you know, put them
on as an acknowledgement just finishing up
some things. Replicating, I think that's a
good first step.
>> In I've even done the reproducibility in
parallel. So, you can do two undergrads working
on the same project, but they're both independent.
And so they can bounce ideas off each other
[inaudible]. They can ask the other person
who has the same experience, is in the trenches
with them doing the same thing. And so that
is helpful.
>> That peer mentor, you know, someone who
is another undergraduate or graduate student,
but the undergraduate especially. Some of
these people had quite extensive groups of
undergrads working with them. That was a really
powerful tool and they -- I think they were
less intimidated by talking to someone who
was on the same level as they were.
>> I was just wondering if you could say a
little more about the screening processes
that people used. One of the things that I
find is that I have a lot of students, a lot
of students, be interested in working. And
so figuring out -- one is like -- like is
it explicit? Like, "we're doing interviews
now. And so some of you are going to be cut
and some of you won't." Versus like having
to actually say, like, "No. I don't think
you're a good --" Like I struggle with just
saying, "No. I don't think you're a good fit
for this lab." And like what other processes
people use to have that happen.
>> Sure.
>> Do you want to start and I'll add [inaudible].
>> Sure. OK. I think first it's OK to say
no. And people were quite clear on that. For
some it was a personality issue or there wasn't
that passion or that genuine interest and
so they would say no to some and yes to others.
A second point that we didn't mention, but
we should have, that came up was know your
limit of undergraduate researchers. None of
these people had problems finding undergraduate
researchers. They all turned people away on
a regular basis. Which means we need more
faculty to take on more undergraduate researchers.
But knowing that balance or that limit, for
a lot of these people it was, "I take on the
number of undergrads that equal the number
of graduate students I have at my shop. So,
if I have three, I -- my cap is three unless
there's a superstar who has been with me for
a couple years who kind of functions as that
junior graduate student." And then, you know,
the cycle varies. Sometimes it's by semester.
Sometimes it's in the summer. Sometimes it's
in the fall when students come back. But people
would say, "I say 'no.' And sometimes if I
know -- if their interests align with someone
else in the department, I might say, 'I don't
have an opening. It sounds like you're more
interested in this. Why don't you look over
here?' But other times it's, 'No, thanks.
We just don't have the space right now.'"
>> I think in terms of some specific screening
practices that we saw, we were actually quite
surprised at the variance that existed. And
so some of you might be able to resonate with
some of these and some of you think, "This
would never work in my lab situation." So,
we heard everything from the extreme of -- some
said, "I'm an all comers advocate. You walk
in my door, you say you want to do research,
I let you try." And they have this kind of
test and observe. We even had one that was
much more dark in the end, sort of survival
of the fittest [laughing]. Like if they stick
around after a certain amount of time, then
I sit down with them and try to think of [inaudible]
project. I say, "Well, how long is that?"
And they say, "Well, it depends if I remember.
You know, a few weeks, a semester. But usually
by a semester, if they've continued to, you
know, stay --" I mean, they kind of put them
some place, you know, and gave them a home.
But he said, "You know, if they continue to
be productive, they continue to show up, they
kind of willing to grunt it out essentially,
you know, doing this work and get up to speed,
then all right. Then I'll start investing
in you." So, that was on the far extreme.
We had others who, you know, did have a formal
interview process. A lot of them struggled
with the CV review, resume review. Right?
Because they said, you know, "What do I end
up looking at is grades." And then they very
weekly say, "Well, grades are not necessarily
a good indication of a good researcher." You
know, so they kind of -- there was a little
inner turmoil on that, but it seemed to be
at least some sort of [inaudible]. And then
I think this is where the genuine interest
conversation comes in, which is very often,
you know, students would come in and say,
"I want to do research." I say, "Well, why
me?" And if the student just kind of stares
blankly and says, "Oh, you know," whatever
your -- "Oh, I want to do biochemistry." "Great.
Well, there are, what, 40, 50 faculty to choose
from. Why me?" You know? And definitely we
felt like the faculty -- some of them -- felt
very comfortable having that as -- just that
process being really a learning experience
for the student to say, "don't just walk in
my door." You know, not -- you know, not being
short with them, but saying, "You know, you
need to do some preparation. I need to know
that you want to be engaged in this. I'm going
to invest in you. You know, if I'm going to
train you, that's my time or someone else's
time in my laboratory. But I'm going to let
you touch my materials. That could be an investment
if you destroy them." And saying -- you know
-- and kind of generating this kind of sense.
So, you know, they use the interview in that
way. A third mechanism, and Karin I think
alluded to this in part, was one of them actually
would have an interview process or do it over
e-mail and then actually have them meet with
the lab, sometimes just send them to lunch
together. And -- because for this faculty,
the dynamic mattered. And, you know, the sentiment
was, you know, "if they don't get along, this
is not going to work." "So, I send them out
to lunch and oddly enough that's really worked
for us between our undergraduate -- our other
undergraduates and our graduate students.
They very quickly have had a good sense."
And this faculty felt like it was a pretty
good hit rate in terms of identifying promising
researchers. So, I don't know if you see yourself
anywhere in those various mechanisms, but
I think that kind of captures the continuum
we saw.
>> And then this is very unscientific, but
someone would say, "Just follow your gut."
Like, they could tell during an interview,
they could just -- and I was also surprised
by that because I thought there would be more
of a definite process.
>> I just wonder if I could [inaudible]. One
thing that I do worry about is -- um -- people
who've been mentored into knowing how to ask
for researcher are the people who get the
research experiences. And I worry about people
who actually really need those experiences,
but don't yet know how to navigate that process.
And so these screening processes really raise
flags for me of like how do I make sure that
I'm giving broad sets of experiences.
>> You know, that's a really good point and
I had a conversation with a faculty member
from [inaudible] this summer about implicit
bias and how we choose undergraduate researchers.
And, you know, time and time again -- like,
we do a lot of coaching in my office. We have
a group of ambassadors that go out and preach
the gospel of undergraduate research. Do this
because this is good. Here's how you go about
it. But there are a fair amount of students
that don't know that they need to do research
despite whatever my office does or whatever
they hear. And I don't think they realize
that a lot of faculty will -- will look at
class performance as a first step towards
my screening process if I'll take someone
onto my team. And so this faculty member and
I were talking and I said, "You should talk
about that in your syllabus or at some point
in the semester. You're performance and what
you're doing in my class may be a way for
me to determine if you're a good fit or if
you have the capability." The other part is
that we need to embed research into the curriculum.
And you're going to be hearing more about
this in my -- in my -- if I do my job correctly
over the next few years. But the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, NSF, and other people have
talked to me about -- that we need to find
a way to create -- to embed research into
courses that are required for major degree
requirements. That's going to be the best
way to expose students to research skillsets,
students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds,
more diverse students, is students who haven't
had the best preparation in high schools,
they have to take a class and it's built into
the curriculum, that's how we're going to
diversify and spread this research experience
with students [inaudible]. That's a really
good point.
>> You had a comment on that.
>> Yeah. I think one of the other cool ideas
for a screening process I've heard some faculty
talk about is the two e-mail method. So, we
get a lot of blanket e-mails from students
that say, "I'm interested in your lab because,"
and then they cut and paste your research
description right in the e-mail. So, OK, that
one goes in the trash. And if you're really
interested, you know, you'll send another
e-mail. And then [inaudible]. So, it kind
of weed our process too. But it really is
the students that are genuinely interested
that tend to [inaudible].
>> What I also find in that case, though,
is that students -- some students are very,
very, very easily discouraged. And the ones
who are are the ones who often need the experience
the most. So, I definitely see the merit in
that, you know, some of them have been coached.
But, yeah, it's sort of like, you know, a
student from a lower socioeconomic background
or one from -- whose high school was boring
are more apt to take that first, "OK. They
ignored me. I'm useless." So.
>> Well, you don't have to send a response.
>> No. I know. Exactly! No. That's exactly
-- that's exactly what -- my concern.
>> I would venture [inaudible]. I mean it
kind of sucks to make this generalization,
but they don't have the persistence to say,
"I'm going to try again, maybe he just didn't
get my e-mail [inaudible]." It kind of raises
that threshold, OK, this kid actually has
[inaudible] to see something through.
>> One thing I would add too if you're worried
about opportunities, and if you're in the
classroom we did hear from a lot of faculty
who purposefully tried to identify those students
who may not approach them and say, "Have you
thought about research?" So, that's another
[inaudible]. There was a comment in the back.
>> Yeah. You alluded to the fact that there
was a lot of interest, pressure from funding
agencies at the national level to integrate
research into everything, and so I've been
on the committee of the national academies
to synthesize the -- what we know about undergraduate
research, undergraduate research experiences
for students. And what we know about how that
impacts students, how that impacts faculty,
and the report will be -- it's passed review.
It's out of review. So, it should be I think
this month coming out. So, it's something
that I think people will be interested in.
And I'm going to make myself very unpopular
now by saying that the research is actually
not there. The evidence about undergraduate
research being the panacea for everything
-- I'm not saying it isn't, but we don't have
that research. So, we have to be really careful
about what we say about the benefits of undergraduate
research, because we don't actually know it.
It's one of those self-fulfilling prophecies.
You know, students who benefit from research
benefit from research and we hear about it.
So, I think it's -- I think it's an important
thing to bear in mind. But I do want to say
that when we were looking for evidence for
-- about impact on faculty, there was almost
nothing out there. So, this will be a good
addition.
>> Oh, I just had a comment back to the parallel
projects. On the other end, we see that when
the students come present at URAF or [inaudible]
summer forum and they have similar titles
and similar abstracts, like our office will
say, "Oh, are you together? Do you want to
present together?" and the students will say,
"No! They're separate." And then they will
be standing across from each other with two
different posters and to watch each other
unpack their research differently and to hear
each other is really phenomenal. So, it even
say -- even to think about what that's going
to do for the student in the professional
development sense when they're out presenting
to their peers on campus. Because, you know,
they got dressed up, they showed up to do
this, and they're like, "That person's project
is just like mine. That's how they're talking
about it. Look at the questions they're getting."
It's, "Look at their visuals on their poster."
There are all these benefits beyond just the
project that they've done in the lab.
>> And that's usually when they find converging
projects.
>> Yeah.
>> Some [inaudible].
>> [inaudible] did you have something?
>> Yeah. I just want to -- getting back to
the screening process. I'm lucky I have a
senior postdoc who has done some undergraduate
teaching and stuff like that. So, I use him
a lot in the screening process both for his
own edification and to relieve some of the
burden. I'm in the neuroscience program and
we have like the undergrads, it's exploded,
right, and every one of them wants research
experience. So, I get like 60 applicants a
year. And I can't deal with that. So, I'll
e-mail each one of them back and ask for CV
and that cuts about half of them out already.
But once they send back a CV, I'll have my
postdoc go through them, pick 15 or 10 that
he likes and interview those kids. And then,
you know, maybe three or four of those that
I'll talk to and interview. In then we'll
take two -- one or two of those to actually
work in the lab. And that's -- you know, I
think our hit rate is way higher doing that
than it would be just saying, "You sound good."
So, that's been the process that's worked
well for us as far as getting -- as far as
vetting the kids that are genuinely interested.
>> Well, and as far as vetting goes too -- because
I -- I got my graduate student, my undergraduates
from to SROP program, which already kind of
-- my understanding is it ducktails towards
pulling kids from under represented backgrounds
and stuff. And I don't know what -- how URAF
works. But that's the other side of it. Instead
of waiting for people to e-mail you or come
by your office, you can go and get them from
some sort of a, you know, agency if you will.
>> Yeah. There's a bunch of really good grants
that are doing that. I've -- our neuroscience
one, Phil Agitson [assumed spelling] has a
couple that bring in underrepresented kids
from the Caribbean and from the southern U.S.
that are generally Latino folks. And we've
hit home runs with every one we've got.
>> The Dow Scholars Program is also -- that's
a new one [inaudible] and that has a research
endowment. Yeah. And as that gets going, I
think there'll be more opportunity to bring
students with weaker backgrounds, with interventions
and onramp programs to get them up to speed
to have research opportunities for them at
no cost.
>> I'm just curious. I don't know if this
came up in any of your conversations or discussions,
but what we used to hear about faculty's lack
of interest in engaging an undergraduate in
research was directly tied back to their promotion
tenure process. In I'm curious based on -- I'm
assuming you hopefully got people from the
various colleges that are represented [inaudible].
Did you get any sense of what the faculty
were actually hearing about how -- if they
engage in undergraduate research [inaudible]
their promotion documents and whether or not
they actually felt it was valued by the upper
administration, department, college, university.
>> Well -- do you want me to take this?
>> Go ahead. It's a loaded question.
>> It is.
>> And I think the frank answer in STEM is
that it's not. You know, they -- time and
again what we heard from the faculty is it
might be a line on [inaudible]. That's probably
the max. It was kind of seen as a small positive
in a category that technically didn't matter
that much. They are at least able to say they're
doing it. So, they got, you know, a small
pat on the back. But time and again what these
faculty said was that the real value in [inaudible]
is thinking through how do they advance my
research? How do I get more publications?
More patents? More [inaudible]? And that,
you know, they didn't really think about the
mentoring part as necessarily a positive [inaudible].
>> I think from an administrative perspective,
it's a shame. I think that something, especially
if we try to -- if we value this as an institution,
we have an office, the provost puts money
towards -- a half million dollars towards
undergraduate research each year. We've got
a preeminent program in the Honors College
and these small programs that operate in the
summer time, I think departments and colleges
need to have a conversation about how they
value this. Because there's only so much -- there's
only so much time in a day and some folks
-- and we need to include it in this presentation
-- talked about that, "If I spend time on
this, that's time not spent on something that
might count towards tenure promotion." The
flip side of that is these faculty were really
productive and they said, you know, "This
is a time investment. If I do this, I'm going
to achieve these benefits by having these
people help me push my research forward and
produce more articles and publications and
I can work on grants and whatnot." So, it's
kind of a double edged sword, but it's an
area we need to address.
>> One of the things that hasn't panned out
for me that I kind of wished would have more
-- you know, I've had some wonderful undergrads
and they've been productive. But my hope was
that some of them would turn into graduate
students. That has never happened. Has anybody
else ever had it happen for them? Or [inaudible].
Yeah.
>> [inaudible] having them go off [inaudible].
>> I've had -- I've had eight or 10 so far
that have been really good. And everyone's
got to med school without exception, DO or
MD. Not one has gone to even do a PhD. They've
all gone straight med school every time.
>> During the time that they're with you,
do you talk about potential career pathways?
>> Yeah. Also -- I don't want to be a jerk,
though. I don't want to make them feel like
they're not successful if they don't go -- have
the same career I have. That's not [inaudible].
But it would have been nice to see a little
bit of that and I see zero. Is it me? Does
anybody else have [inaudible]? Maybe they're
all [inaudible].
[ Laughter ]
>> But you're in neuroscience. Right?
>> Yeah.
>> That's why I think. I'm in ecology and
evolution.
>> Oh, right.
>> And the two undergraduates I've had both
I think are applying to grad school, so. So,
I think you're flirting too close to the med
school line.
>> Need to move over [inaudible].
>> Yeah. You need to do like brain structure
in mice or something or lizards.
>> I think there's also an element too -- like
academia is looking like kind of a shittier
and shittier option for many people. Like,
I mean, I've worked with two undergraduates
and both of them thought about grad school
and then just got the impression that, "If
I do that, like, what's my job?" Like it's
not looking or feeling good for anything other
than becoming a professor and that market
is so saturated right now. So.
>> Unless they're willing to consider liberal
arts education.
>> Right. But they're also -- most grad programs
are not even advertising that they even give
any flying F's about that. Right? So, we're
not actually training people that go into
grad programs to do anything other than becoming
professors.
>> Researchers.
>> So, they're looking at that as one track
and not five.
>> You know, the college of engineering -- the
ENSURE program, which is their summer undergraduate
research opportunity program, Katie Culvry
[assumed spelling] runs that and I know during
the summer she has these weekly seminars.
And she spends one week talking about industry.
And she has people coming in saying, "OK."
I mean, it might be different in engineering,
but she says, you know, being a faculty member
is one route, but there are also these other
viable options. And they take time to do that.
I don't know how you would do that with your
particular group, but I think -- and we didn't
talk about this either -- but there's just
a lot of faculty engagement, what we called
holistic mentoring. Yes, it's the, "You need
to learn how to be a good scientist, how to
be a good [inaudible] in my lab, but let's
talk about the next steps. You know, here's
my career path. Talk to some of the graduate
students. Talk to some of the postdocs." Having
them -- like they don't understand that who
your -- who you worked for when you were in
graduate school or the people who were in
your program together are your networks and
they may be at places that they want to go.
That's a concept that's really hard to get
across to a lot of undergraduates with and
I don't know why. This is networking capacity.
So, it may be you need more intense conversations
about other options and what you can do with
an advanced degree in X field. I think students
are very -- they're very monocular in their
things in regards to career paths.
>> One thing I would add to your come, AJ,
is what we've heard actually is that faculty
were hoping that -- I think your question
was -- are they coming back to MSU for grad
school. And they said, "Unfortunately not."
You know, some of them go elsewhere. So, even
if -- when they are producing graduate students,
the tendency seems to be that they're moving
elsewhere. And the fact is that, well, you
know, I want them to go where they think they
can have the best experience, but selfishly
they're thinking, you know, "I've got you.
Why don't you stay?" So, a lot expressed that
frustration. But it sounds like you're more
in the premed weariness thing. But at least
they work it out as undergraduates.
>> I don't mean to imply -- I feel very -- I
went to -- I took my kid to -- she hurt her
ankle and we get to the doctor's office and
there's one of my students. She's -- you know,
she's there for her first year rotation. So,
it's awesome. I feel very successful about
that. But, yeah. I do wish a few of them [laughing].
>> Stick around.
>> Yeah.
>> I think that it seems like there's been
a change in the attitude about how -- how
mentors also feel about taking an undergraduate
from MSU and then bringing them back to grad
at MSU . You feel as a faculty member like
you pushed them out there. Right? Like you're
inbreeding if you stay at school. You know?
So, that may be part of it. Like they're hearing
that from -- around them.
>> I've even been told that like you have
a CV where you did undergraduate and graduate
school at the same university, people will
judge you on that.
>> Right.
>> Right. Yeah.
>> So. So, it's frowned upon from [inaudible].
>> Which is, you know, sad [inaudible].
>> Yeah. The program that I helped run, it's
a summer research program. The students always
said that going to conferences [inaudible]
respect to what they could do with career.
I don't know. Going to an undergraduate closing
session at your own institution, that's one
thing. But [inaudible] blown away by how vibrant
the field is. We also had people going out
and being successful, we bring back in former
graduates and they talk about what they're
doing, in particularly, in mathematics. We
work hard to get [inaudible] into industries.
It's very easy to stay comfortably in mathematics
[inaudible] teaching. But we've had people
come in from NASA [inaudible].
>> And it kind of goes back to this holistic
mentoring piece. There was one conversation
we were having with a faculty member and he
was saying, "Yeah. The student wanted to go
to graduate school so she gave me the list
of schools she was applying for. And I looked
at them and I said, 'why aren't you applying
to Stanford, Princeton, and, you know, Harvard?'
and she's like, 'Do you think I could do that?'"
And he's like, "Yeah! You've been working
for me for almost three years. Of course you
could do that." Now, I think she's at Chicago
or something, but there's also this element
of -- it's career pathways. I don't think
they understand how their research experience
is preparing of them and -- and also, you
know, what kind of schools they should be
applying for. And that's another thing you
have to do, but that maybe also something
you can build into some meeting what your
postdocs or your grad students. Like talk
about how you got here and the decision making
process you made. And that provides a type
of guidance that I think they need.
