GSC: Report on Graduate Student Progress / G-10 Rule

Proposals for Improving Graduate Student Progress
and Improving Implementation of the G-10 Rule

DRAFT ONLY: February 1997

1 Introduction

Graduate students wish more than anyone else to decrease time to degree. So we want to see an simple and effective mechanism for informing students about their progress on a regular basis. It is good for students to know when they are doing well. If they are not, it is crucial that they know clearly what is expected of them in order to improve. In either case it is important that at any time students and advisors have realistic (and agreed!) plans for what needs to be done to complete the Ph.D. and how long it should take.

The 10 year limit on graduate study imposed by GSAS is a blunt instrument for dealing with excessive times to degree. An excessively long graduate student career is not caused by problems in the ninth or tenth year, before which many students are blissfully unaware of the G-10 rule, but rather in the first few years in graduate school. It is in the earlier years that we should concentrate our efforts to help people finish in good time, not primarily through threats after problems are manifest.

The rule has caused concern among graduate students. It can affect those who are making satisfactory progress in a program which simply takes a long time to complete. It has been applied to students who entered before the introduction of the rule. Application of the rule results in, for example, the loss of free library privileges, higher-cost health insurance and loss of student visas for foreign students, all of which make it more difficult to finish a degree. Following discussions of these issues at a number of Graduate Student Council (GSC) meetings, the Council decided to form a small group to study (a) mechanisms for reviewing student progress and providing feedback to students, and (b) the G-10 rule and its implementation.

The group, which consisted of Paul Callan (G-3 in physics), Adam Fagen (G-4 in Molecular and Cellular Biology) and Sujay Rao (G-4 in History), presented this report to the February meeting of the Council for its approval. The report reviews current practices and makes recommendations (which are highlighted) for future improvements.

2 Survey of Departmental Practices

A survey of departments was conducted to determine their methods of reviewing graduate student progress on an ongoing basis and what they do in relation to the 10 year rule. Nineteen responses, representing about 35% of FAS departments, were received.

We asked about the procedure, if any, used in the department to regularly review the progress of graduate students. Specific questions were asked about whether students made submissions as a part of review processes and about the feedback to students on the results of reviews. All departments who responded to the survey have review procedures which takes place at least annually. Table 1 summarises the characteristics of procedures used. Five departments (29%) involve students in the review. Ten departments provide feedback to the student (including those departments having student submissions which must be signed by advisors and committees); a further 7 do so if the review produces a negative assessment.

Review of students ...	# of Depts.	Percentage
involves a student submission	4	22
involves a student-advisor meeting	1	6
by committee; result communicated to students	5	28
by committee; negative results only communicated to students	7	39
by committee; with no results communicated to students	1	6

Table 1: Procedures used by departments in reviewing graduate student progress.

The survey also asked departments about the G-10 rule: (a) whether it affects students in the department, (b) whether students get warnings in G-9 or earlier about the rule and (c) whether there is communication between departments and GSAS before the Dean's letter to G-10s is sent out. Of those who gave specific answers, 4 departments indicated that they had a deadline for completion earlier than 10 years and 10 departments responded that they have had G-10s.

Most departments said that students are told about the G-10 rule before their tenth year. Some may have been referring to mention of the rule in the Handbook for Students. This information has clearly not been effective; only 40% of those attending a GSC meeting last Fall knew about the rule, and some of those undoubtedly heard about it at previous GSC meetings! Only a few departments stated that they sent out specific warnings to G-8 or G-9 students.

A handful of departments mentioned that they communicate with GSAS before the Dean sends letters to G-10s. In one case, the department indicated that a student was making sufficient progress and the letter sent stated that the student had been granted an extra year.

3 Scope of these Proposals

The proposals in this paper will deal only with administrative methods for improving time to degree, through looking at the G-10 rule and procedures for reviewing graduate student progress on a regular basis. Of course, even the best administrative arrangements can only make a small impact. Financial aid and the size of the requirements for the degree are the significant issues which will have to be dealt with if we are to see many people complete their degrees sooner. In particular, cutting off tuition support after 6 years forces students to find other income and increases the time it takes to complete their research. But these issues will be left for discussion at another time.

4 Regular Reviews of Graduate Student Progress

We propose a procedure for the review of graduate student progress on a regular basis, at least annually. This procedure should be similar across departments; it is sufficiently flexible to allow for the variations which exist between different programs. The G-10 rule is applied to programs of different contents, modes of study and very different average times to degree; by comparison, this review system is a much less imposing standardisation. It is intended for use when the student is primarily engaged in research; when one is primarily doing courses, the grades are probably sufficient indication of progress.

The main desirable features for a regular review procedure are that it: (1) be simple, involving the minimum hassle for students and faculty, (2) allow the student input to the process, (3) provide feedback to the student (it is just as important for students to hear that they are doing well as to know when improvement is necessary), and (4) be the basis for the annual reports currently sent to GSAS on the satisfactory / unsatisfactory standing of students. The following procedure is designed to achieve these goals.

1. Graduate students should prepare a report of not more than a page on progress made and future plans. This report should be read, commented on and signed by the studentÕs advisor (and perhaps the thesis committee). The advisor should give an estimated degree date for the student.

2. The signed report should be filed by the student with the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) or departmental Committee on Higher Degrees (CHD), as appropriate.

3. The review of these reports by the DGS or CHD should be the basis for the decision on whether the student is making satisfactory progress or not. The result of this review, whether positive or negative, should be communicated to the student by the DGS. The DGS will be the first point of contact for questions from students. It should also be the basis for the progress report on the student made by the department to GSAS.

4. If the DGS or CHD returns an unsatisfactory report on a student, or if for some other reason the studentÕs report and/or advisorÕs comments seem to merit it, the DGS should arrange for a meeting between the student and whomever of his/her advisor, thesis committee and the DGS seems appropriate.

Finally, students should be reminded that they can make appeals against unreasonable expectations from their advisors. The DGS or the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs can help with advisor-student difficulties, and students need to be aware of this.

5 The G-10 Rule

Graduate students have four major difficulties with the G-10 rule. First, students have the rule applied to them even departments report them as making satisfactory progress. Second, little account seems to be taken of the huge differences in course requirements and the nature of the research in different programs. Third, not enough is being done to warn people in earlier years of the rule. Not only is this unfair to students, it also defeats the stated purpose of the G-10 rule. It is not possible to encourage students to finish earlier if they only find out about the penalties as they are being applied. Fourth, and last, the letter sent to graduate students does not mention that students who are making satisfactory progress can apply for a waiver of the rule.

In order to address these issues, we recommend the following actions:

1. The G-10 rule should only be invoked on students who have received unsatisfactory reports from their departments in the tenth and some previous year. Other G-10s should be sent letters informing them that they are being granted waivers from the rule, but reminding them of the need to finish soon.

2. Leaves of absence for non-academic reasons should not be included in counting the year of graduate study.

3. Students should be informed by mailing from GSAS at the beginning of their eighth, ninth and tenth years of the G-10 rule.

6 Conclusions

The G-10 rule and its implementation have caused concern to many graduate students. Nonetheless, the Graduate Student Council recognises that its motivation is one which we share, namely reducing the typical time for graduate study to a more reasonable level. Our proposals are designed to achieve this end more effectively, by addressing student progress throughout a graduate studentÕs career at Harvard. We also wish to see further improvements in the manner in which the G-10 rule is implemented. We wish to see these proposals adopted as soon as is possible, and then for the discussion to move on to the key barriers to student progress in graduate school, especially financial aid provisions.

On behalf of the GSC,

Paul Callan,
Secretary

29th January, 1997

Paul Callan (Paul_Callan@lucifer.harvard.edu)

[Return to Meetings]

GSC Home Page

Graduate Student Council: gsc@hcs.harvard.edu
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University

Page last updated: 11 March 1998, 10:04:35 AM.