Persistence and Uncertainty in the Academic Career

Understanding how institutional changes within academia may affect the overall potential of science requires a better quantitative representation of how careers evolve over time. Since knowledge spillovers, cumulative advantage, competition, and collaboration are distinctive features of the academic profession, both the employment relationship and the procedures for assigning recognition and allocating funding should be designed to account for these factors. We study the annual production n_{i}(t) of a given scientist i by analyzing longitudinal career data for 200 leading scientists and 100 assistant professors from the physics community. We compare our results with 21,156 sports careers. Our empirical analysis of individual productivity dynamics shows that (i) there are increasing returns for the top individuals within the competitive cohort, and that (ii) the distribution of production growth is a leptokurtic "tent-shaped" distribution that is remarkably symmetric. Our methodology is general, and we speculate that similar features appear in other disciplines where academic publication is essential and collaboration is a key feature. We introduce a model of proportional growth which reproduces these two observations, and additionally accounts for the significantly right-skewed distributions of career longevity and achievement in science. Using this theoretical model, we show that short-term contracts can amplify the effects of competition and uncertainty making careers more vulnerable to early termination, not necessarily due to lack of individual talent and persistence, but because of random negative production shocks. We show that fluctuations in scientific production are quantitatively related to a scientist's collaboration radius and team efficiency.Comment: 29 pages total: 8 main manuscript + 4 figs, 21 SI text + fig

Can a five minute, three question survey foretell first-year engineering student performance and retention?

This research paper examines first-year student performance and retention within engineering. A considerable body of literature has reported factors influencing performance and retention, including high school GPA and SAT scores,1,2,3 gender,4 self-efficacy,1,5 social status,2,6,7 hobbies,4 and social integration.6,7 Although these factors can help explain and even partially predict student outcomes, they can be difficult to measure; typical survey instruments are lengthy and can be invasive of student privacy. To address this limitation, the present paper examines whether a much simpler survey can be used to understand student motivations and anticipate student outcomes. The survey was administered to 347 students in an introductory Engineering Graphics and Design course. At the beginning of the first day of class, students were given a three-question, open-ended questionnaire that asked: “In your own words, what do engineers do?”, “Why did you choose engineering?”, and “Was there any particular person or experience that influenced your decision?” Two investigators independently coded the responses, identifying dozens of codes for both motivations for pursuing engineering and understanding of what it is. Five hypotheses derived from Dweck’s mindset theory7 and others8,9 were tested to determine if particular codes were predictive of first-semester GPA or first-year retention in engineering. Codes that were positively and significantly associated with first-semester GPA included: explaining why engineers do engineering or how they do it, stating that engineers create ideas, visions, and theories, stating that engineers use math, science, physics or analysis, and expressing enjoyment of math and science, whereas expressing interest in specific technical applications or suggesting that engineers simplify and make life easier were negatively and significantly related to first-semester GPA. Codes positively and significantly associated with first-year retention in engineering included: stating that engineers use math or that engineers design or test things, expressing enjoyment of math, science, or problem solving, and indicating any influential person who is an engineer. Codes negatively and significantly associated with retention included: citing an extrinsic motivation for pursuing engineering, stating that they were motivated by hearing stories about engineering, and stating that parents or family pushed the student to become an engineer. Although many prior studies have suggested that student self-efficacy is related to retention,1,5 this study found that student interests were more strongly associated with retention. This finding is supported by Dweck’s mindset theory: students with a “growth” mindset (e.g., “I enjoy math”) would be expected to perform better and thus be retained at a higher rate than those with a “fixed” mindset (e.g., “I am good at math”).7 We were surprised that few students mentioned activities expressly designed to stimulate interest in engineering, such as robotics competitions and high school engineering classes. Rather, they cited general interests in math, problem solving, and creativity, as well as family influences, all factors that are challenging for the engineering education community to address. These findings demonstrate that relative to its ease of administration, a five minute survey can indeed help to anticipate student performance and retention. Its minimalism enables easy implementation in an introductory engineering course, where it serves not only as a research tool, but also as a pedagogical aid to help students and teacher discover student perceptions about engineering and customize the curriculum appropriately

Improvement Research Carried Out Through Networked Communities: Accelerating Learning about Practices that Support More Productive Student Mindsets

The research on academic mindsets shows significant promise for addressing important problems facing educators. However, the history of educational reform is replete with good ideas for improvement that fail to realize the promises that accompany their introduction. As a field, we are quick to implement new ideas but slow to learn how to execute well on them. If we continue to implement reform as we always have, we will continue to get what we have always gotten. Accelerating the field's capacity to learn in and through practice to improve is one key to transforming the good ideas discussed at the White House meeting into tools, interventions, and professional development initiatives that achieve effectiveness reliably at scale. Toward this end, this paper discusses the function of networked communities engaged in improvement research and illustrates the application of these ideas in promoting greater student success in community colleges. Specifically, this white paper:* Introduces improvement research and networked communities as ideas that we believe can enhance educators' capacities to advance positive change. * Explains why improvement research requires a different kind of measures -- what we call practical measurement -- that are distinct from those commonly used by schools for accountability or by researchers for theory development.* Illustrates through a case study how systematic improvement work to promote student mindsets can be carried out. The case is based on the Carnegie Foundation's effort to address the poor success rates for students in developmental math at community colleges.Specifically, this case details:- How a practical theory and set of practical measures were created to assess the causes of "productive persistence" -- the set of "non-cognitive factors" thought to powerfully affect community college student success. In doing this work, a broad set of potential factors was distilled into a digestible framework that was useful topractitioners working with researchers, and a large set of potential measures was reduced to a practical (3-minute) set of assessments.- How these measures were used by researchers and practitioners for practical purposes -- specifically, to assess changes, predict which students were at-risk for course failure, and set priorities for improvement work.-How we organized researchersto work with practitioners to accelerate field-based experimentation on everyday practices that promote academic mindsets(what we call alpha labs), and how we organized practitioners to work with researchers to test, revise, refine, and iteratively improve their everyday practices (using plando-study-act cycles).While significant progress has already occurred, robust, practical, reliable efforts to improve students' mindsets remains at an early formative stage. We hope the ideas presented here are an instructive starting point for new efforts that might attempt to address other problems facing educators, most notably issues of inequality and underperformance in K-12 settings

Low-Income Single Mothers at Community Colleges: Recommendations for Practices to Improve Completion

Low-income, single mothers beginning or returning to higher education overwhelmingly choose to pursue their goals at community colleges. These schools often provide the best fit of available institutions because of their relative affordability, variety of offerings, ease of entry, and proximity to the student. Like other higher learning institutions, however, many community colleges struggle to address the challenges low-income, single mothers can face. Colleges often unwittingly place more obstacles in the path of these students.Many colleges are taking action and trying a variety of approaches to improve their institutions and better serve low-income, single mother students. While some interventions have been rigorously studied, most have not. Many promising interventions, though so far lacking empirical support, have shown great success based on student and provider testimony. When taken as a whole, it is clear that community colleges can undertake effective interventions to help student parents complete their programs and meet their goals

RISK AVERSION AND MAJOR CHOICE: EVIDENCE FROM ITALIAN STUDENTS

Does the choice of the field of study depend on individual risk aversion? The direction of the relationship between individual risk attitudes and type of college major chosen is potentially ambiguous. On the one hand, risk adverse individuals may prefer majors allowing high returns on the labour market; on the other hand, if these majors expose students to a higher probability of dropping out, those who are more risk adverse may be induced to choose less challenging fields. Using data from a sample of students enrolled in 2009 at a middle-sized Italian public University, we find that, controlling for a large number of individual characteristics, including cognitive abilities, personality traits and family background, more risk adverse students are more likely to choose any other field (Humanities, Engineering and Sciences) compared to Social Sciences. We interpret this result considering that some of these fields, such as Humanities, allow to reduce the risk of dropping out, while others (such as Engineering and Sciences)involve a lower risk on the labour market. It also emerges that the effect of risk aversion on major choice is related to student ability. Risk adverse students characterized by high abilities tend to prefer Engineering, while the propensity of risk adverse students to enrol in Humanities decreases when ability increases, suggesting that the attention paid to labour market risks and drop out risks varies according to student skills.Risk aversion, College choice, Education

Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads

Recommends investing in research, innovation, and a dynamic science and engineering workforce with the participation of underrepresented minorities. Suggests ways to improve access, motivation, affordability, and supports to raise degree completion rates

Breaking Through: Helping Low-Skilled Adults Enter and Succeed in College and Careers

Examines the capacity of community colleges to enable low-income, low-literacy, low-skilled adults to acquire the skills and credentials necessary to succeed at work. Identifies strategies that are transferable from one school or program to another

Need-Based Financial Aid: A Tool for Supporting Ohio's Education and Workforce Goals

In 2009, Ohio cut in half the General Revenue Fund appropriation for the Ohio College Opportunity Grant (OCOG) need-based financial aid program and ended the program for students in public 2-year institutions. This study examines the impact on Ohio students of these cuts and recommends strategies to strengthen need-based aid programs and policy in Ohio. To show the impact of the OCOG cuts, the research compares a variety of indicators before and after the cuts, including Ohio's need-based aid per student relative to neighboring states, state aid as a percentage of federal Pell grant awards, and average student debt. Each of these indicators worsened significantly in the wake of the cuts. Recommendations include: (1) Increasing total funding for need-based aid; (2) Restoring aid for students at 2-year public institutions; (3) Implementing approaches to financial aid that support low and moderate-income students' enrollment in college and attainment of a certificate or degree