National and International Trends in U.S. Graduate Admissions

AACRAO Annual Meeting, Boston, 2/1/07

Daniel DeneckeDirector of Best Practices andInternational Programs

Council of Graduate SchoolsWashington, DC

The Role of International Students in the US Doctoral Enterprise:

Doctoral S&E Degrees by World Region

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

S&E PhDs

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

Europe Asia USA USA Citizen

All U.S

Europe

Asia

U.S. Citizen

National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004

US citizens & permanentresidents

Three Themes

Graduate education is a global enterprise; graduate admissions policies and decisions have global implicationsInternational students play a key but uncertain role in U.S. graduate educationDomestic student interest and success in graduate education should be a matter of concern

Overview

U.S. models of graduate admissionsA graduate dean’s perspective“National Competitiveness”International higher education reformsThe changing face of domestic talentThe role of admissions in graduate degree completion

Defining “U.S. Graduate Admissions”

Centralized – 50%Decentralized – 30% Hybrid – 20%

2003 NAGAP survey reported in An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions (CGS, 2005)

A Graduate Dean’s Perspective

Quality across programsFinancial stewardshipPublic accountabilityBig picture thinking: regional, national, and international

“National Competitiveness”Domestic students choosing professional degrees and pursuing other pathsGrowing presence of international students in fields key to economic competitivenessSender countries ramping up capacityIn today’s global environment, new awareness that international events can impact US graduate enrollment and research enterpriseU.S. already losing market shareResponse to domestic challenge: Calls for an “NDEA21”Response to international challenge: Improvements to SEVIS/student visa process

Major FieldU.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents

Non-U.S. Citizens and Temporary Residents

Engineering ׀ 50% 52% ׀ 50% 48%Physical Sciences

׀ 59% 60% ׀ 41% 40%

Biological Sciences

׀ 74% 73% ׀ 26% 27%

Social Sciences

׀ 83% 84% ׀ 17% 16%

Business ׀ 83% 83% ׀ 17% 17%

International Students in Key “Competitiveness” Fields:Fall 2004 ׀ 2005 Graduate Enrollment

Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 1986-2005 (CGS, 2006) and 1986-2004 (CGS, 2005)

2004 Declines in International Graduate Applications

% Change in International Graduate Applications, Fall 2003 - 2004

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

121

Data from 123 of 130 responding institutions. Respondents enroll 51% of international graduate students in the U.S. and 35% of all U.S. graduate students.

These include 35 (among the top 50 in international graduate enrollment) that collectively enroll 67,231, or 34% of total international students.

Each bar represents 1 institution’s percent change

CGS 2004 International Graduate Student Applications Survey (2005)

International Graduate Student Decisions: Percent Changes, Fall 2003-Fall 2004

-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-50

China India Korea MiddleEast

ApplicationsAdmits1st Enrollment

Two Years Later (2006): A Dramatic Reversal

The Good News in 2006

Total international graduate student enrollment up 1% in 2006

(2005 = -3%)

First-time international graduate student enrollment up 12% in 2006

(2005 = +1%; 2004 = -6%)

First-time graduate enrollment up from: India (+32%) China (+20%) Korea (+5%) Middle East (-1%)

CGS 2006 International Graduate Student Enrollment Survey

Graduate Deans’ Top Concerns

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Graduate Student Funding (47%)

Dealing with Budget Cuts (59%)

Dealing with Budget Cuts (85%)

Graduate Student Funding (59%)

Graduate student Funding (52%)

Dealing with Budget Cuts (43%)

Graduate Student Funding (51%)

Graduate Student Funding (75%)

International Students (50%)

Enrollment Management (50%)

Grad School Mgt (Planning, Funding, Recruit) (37%)

Enrollment Management (33%)

Graduate School Management (49%)

Enrollment Management (41%)

Graduate School Management (50%)

Program Development (34%)

Graduate School Mgt (29%)

International Students (40%)

Graduate School Mgt (21%)

International Students (40%)

Enrollment Management (31%)

International Students (26%)

Program Review (33%)

Student Services/ Diversity/Budget Cuts (19%)

Student Services/Diversity/Grad. Student Culture (31%)

CGS Pressing Issues Survey, 2002-2006

International Higher Education Reforms

“The Bologna Process”Since 1999 Ministers’ meeting in Bologna, from

29 countries to 45 countries committed to:Greater mobilityGreater comparability in degree structures

Approx. 75-80% have adopted or are moving to 3-year bacholor’s degrees+2-year masters

Goal of making European universities the primary destination for top research talent

Four General Stances in U.S. Graduate Admissions Practices toward Evaluating

Three-year Undergraduate Degrees

1. Acceptance of four-year bachelor’s degree only.

2. Provisional acceptance of three-year bachelor’s with requirement for additional “remedial”courses.

3. Evaluation of three-year degrees for equivalency –(e.g. 13-year secondary ed preference).

4. Determination of competency to succeed in U. S. graduate program rather than strict equivalency.

Trends indicate greater acceptance and more nuanced admissions:

2005 & 2006 3-Year Degree Survey Results2005 2006

Single Institution-wide Policy or Policies Vary By Department

Single 62% 62%

Different 16% 18%

Combination 22% 21%

Approach to Evaluating Three-Year Degrees

Do not accept 29% 18%

Provisional acceptance 9% 4%

Evaluation for equivalency 40% 49%

Determination of individual's competency to succeed 22% 29%

U.S. Graduate School Responses to the Bologna Process and Three-Year Degrees

Top 25 All Other TotalDiscussions among graduate school staff 75% 49% 52%Discussions among graduate council members 35% 27% 28%Discussions with faculty and/or departments 55% 36% 38%Enacted admission or enrollment policy

changes 20% 11% 12%None of the above 15% 29% 28%

Source: Findings from the 2006 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey III: Admissions and Enrollment

Admissions Policies Concerning 3-year Degrees from Outside Europe

Top 25 All Other Total

Yes, Accept 56% 44% 45%

No, Do Not Accept 44% 56% 55%

Source: Findings from the 2006 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey III: Admissions and Enrollment

Trends in First-Time Graduate Enrollment (Domestic)

Avg. annual % change, 1986-2005

% change, 2004-2005

Men 0% 2%

Women 2% 3%

African American +5% 0%

Asian American +5% -1%

Hispanic/Latino +6% +10%

American Indian +3% +8%

White +1% +1%

Strategic Efforts related to Graduate Admissions and Recruitment

National Programs:Bridges to the Doctorate; AGEP (Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate) ; McNair Program; GK-12; Ford Foundation Minority Fellowship Programs; Gates MilleniumScholars Program

State and Regional Efforts:Compact for Faculty Diversity; Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)

Institutional Efforts:“CGS/Peterson’s Award for Building an Inclusive Graduate Community”; Diversity Officers (university, departments & programs); Mentoring Programs; Summer Research Opportunity Programs

Improving Admissions is Half the Battle

The CGS Ph.D. Completion Project (www.phdcompletion.org)

National completion rates about 57%Underrepresented Minorities, overall, completing at lower rates than white majority students

Across all research fields between 4 and 11 percentage points lower at 7-year mark

Women completing at lower rates than menTimes to degree among demographic groups may differ dramatically

URM differences between 7 and <1 percentage point at 10-year mark

The Role of Graduate Admissions in Degree Completion

“Fit” or “match,” not best on paperOther Indicators of Success Pre-admission and pre-enrollment visitsTransparency of Information to Prospective StudentsProgram and University OrientationSummer Research Experience integrated into admissions process

Closing QuestionsHow might greater acceptance of three-year degrees from Europe and/or from elsewhere affect US competitiveness in the short term? In the long term? For US universities? For the US graduate enterprise?Upon what bases will we distinguish degree comparability as countries emulate the best of the US system and build capacity?Have we adequately articulated the value of the four-year bachelor’s degree to the US public?If a major sender country turned off the faucet, what is “plan B”?