-
Graduate Student Life Annual Report
Northwestern University November 1, 2011
-
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS About The
Graduate Leadership Council 3
The Graduate Leadership Council
2011-‐2012 4
Letter from the Co-‐Chairs 5
Summary of Report Recommendations 6
The Value of the Graduate Student
8
Demographics 9
Transportation 13
New Graduate Student Orientation 16
Student Life and Community at
Northwestern 20
Graduate Student Representation 23
Conflict Resolution 26
Appendix A: Acknowledgements 31
Appendix B: Fellowship Awardees,
2010–2011 Academic Year 32
Appendix C: Graduate Education
Expectations 35
Appendix D: Conflict Resolution Letter
37
-
3
ABOUT THE GRADUATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
The Graduate Leadership Council (GLC)
is the voice of graduate
students in academic and
administrative matters at Northwestern
University. The GLC is comprised
of delegates from the six
graduate student associations recognized
by The Graduate School (TGS) as
listed below, and the McCormick
Graduate Leadership Council (MGLC).
Graduate Student Association (GSA)
Chicago Graduate Student Association
(CGSA) Black Graduate Student
Association (BGSA) Chinese Students
and Scholars Association (CSSA)
Graduate Student Association for
Latino and Spanish Activities
(G-‐SALSA) Queer Pride Graduate
Student Association (QPGSA)
Through regular meetings and
ongoing dialogue, the GLC brings
the concerns of graduate students
to the attention of the deans
and administrative staff of The
Graduate School, as well as
other stakeholders on both campuses.
The GLC also implements the
annual GLC Graduate Student Life
Survey, supports advocacy initiatives,
represents Northwestern at the
National Association of Graduate and
Professional Students, and co-‐hosts
the TGS Night Out, all while
serving as a place for student
leaders to discuss best practices
on representing graduate students
within their individual associations.
To contact the GLC, email
[email protected].
-
4
THE GRADUATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
2011–2012
CO-‐CHAIRS: Alexandra Amick, CGSA
Neal Oza, MGLC
([email protected])
([email protected])
ANNUAL SURVEY SUBCOMMITTEE COORDINATORS:
Eduardo Europa, QPGSA
Sarah Mann-‐O’Donnell, QPGSA XiaoHan
Zeng, CSSA
DELEGATES: Paul Arendt, MGLC
Yamil Colon, G-‐SALSA Alejo Lifschitz,
G-‐SALSA
Ka Tat Siu, CGSA Kantara
Souffrant, BGSA
Casey Spruill, BGSA Nick Huffmaster,
CGSA Stacey Parrott, GSA Yongli
Wang, CSSA
2010-‐2011 DELEGATES: Pria Young, MGLC
Kate Bjorkman, GSA
Christine McCary, CGSA Courtney
Patterson, BGSA Kimberly Singletary,
BGSA
Anna Terwiel, GSA Jiadong Gong,
CSSA
-
5
LETTER FROM THE CO-‐CHAIRS November
1, 2011 On behalf of the
delegates of Northwestern University’s
Graduate Leadership Council (GLC),
we would like to thank you
for the opportunity to share
with you our Annual Graduate
Student Survey and Report. The
list of people that the GLC
have to thank is extremely
extensive and can be found in
Appendix A. Without them, this
Survey and Report would not
have been possible. This
report, the survey on which this
report is based, our ongoing
dialogue with The Graduate School
(TGS), and our annual presentation
to Northwestern’s Board of Trustees
have guided the actions and
advocacy that the GLC has
undertaken each year. We are
very pleased by the increased
interest of this report for
students and University administrators.
Despite administering our survey in
summer quarter for the first
time this year, we generated
responses from over 30% of the
graduate student body, thus we
feel confident that we have
conveyed the diverse voices of
the graduate student community.
We are extremely proud of our
accomplishments in the previous
academic year. GLC has collaborated
with TGS on a number of
initiatives to improve student
community, including the TGS website
redesign, Graduate Student Orientation,
and co-‐hosting the quarterly
TGS Night Out. After much
collaboration with faculty and
administrators, our Expectations Document—a
set of best practices that
will guide academic relationships—was
ratified by the graduate
faculty. This year, we hope to
build on the Expectations
Document by working with TGS
administrators to establish clear
procedures to address conflicts that
occur between graduate students,
faculty, and staff. The
GLC also contributes to the
visibility of Northwestern University
on the national level. Last
year, NU joined the National
Association of Graduate-‐Professional Students
(NAGPS), which represents the
interests of graduate students on
the state, regional, and
national levels. Some peer institution
members of NAGPS include Harvard,
MIT, and Carnegie-‐Mellon. During
the regional conference, GLC delegates
presented a talk about administering
surveys of the graduate body at
“best practice” sessions which
generated much interest from
delegates from other universities.
Currently, GLC plans to submit
a bid to host an upcoming
NAGPS conference, to highlight that
Northwestern is an innovator and
a leader in addressing the
concerns of its graduate student
population. The 2011–2012 academic
year is especially exciting for
the GLC as we have redefined
our mission from advocacy to
a leadership collaboration forum. The
GLC will serve as the
central meeting point for collaboration
on campus-‐wide advocacy activities,
predominantly led by GSA. GLC
will continue to be a liaison
between student leaders and
administrators from TGS and elsewhere
on both the Evanston and
Chicago campuses on issues affecting
students. We look forward
to addressing the concerns and
questions you have from reading
the results of this report.
We hope that this report will
continue to generate the kind
of conversations, and produce the
tangible results that have made
Northwestern a world leader in
graduate education. Sincerely,
Alexandra Amick and Neal Oza
[email protected]
-
6
SUMMARY OF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Please
refer to each Section for
detailed recommendations
PROFILE OF THE NORTHWESTERN GRADUATE
STUDENT
• 86% full time PhD student, 8%
full time masters, 6% joint
degree students • Average annual
stipend of $20928 (fellowship) or
$21576 (assistantship) • Evanston campus
students outnumber Chicago students
by 4:1, but those who live
in Evanston
(46%) are nearly equal to those
living in Chicago (47%) •
International students make up 24%,
and 1 in 4 are non-‐native
English speakers • Although Northwestern
graduate students are a globally
diverse mix, almost half (47%)
of
respondents indicated that they belong
to under-‐represented groups • Northwestern
graduate students are also diverse
in their family situations; among
respondents,
24% indicated that they are
married, and 14% have at least
one dependent
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC RELATIONSHIPS TO
AVOID CONFLICT:
• Implement yearly “Improving Academic
and Professional Relationships” seminar
on both campuses
• Require yearly completion and
submission of the Expectations
Document throughout all TGS academic
programs
• Develop conflict resolution policies
and procedures to be published
in the TGS Handbook and on
the TGS website
• Request that each academic program
describe steps to resolve conflicts
based upon the developed TGS
policy, and describe these steps
in Program Handbooks
• Add existing, non-‐TGS resources by
which students can report conflict
(e.g Office for Research,
EthicsPoint) to TGS website
TO MAKE NORTHWESTERN ATTRACTIVE TO
POTENTIAL STUDENTS:
• Ensure that the average graduate
student stipend remains competitive
compared to other peer institutions
• Consider hosting a database or
message board for graduate student
housing • Maintain the U-‐Pass
program as-‐is, and consider
expanding NU Intercampus Shuttle
service to
weekends to allow students to
access Chicago and research
locations/offices in Evanston
TO BUILD GRADUATE STUDENT COMMUNITY:
• Start as early as TGS
Orientation by expanding social
events, working with GSAs to
put on social events, and
improving student awareness of online
resources available at NU
• Plan cross-‐school and cross-‐campus
mixers to allow TGS students to
meet non-‐TGS students to enhance
the spirit of collaboration
-
7
• Consider refitting existing Chicago
campus student space or designating
a new, multi-‐functional graduate
student space in the in the
Ward/Tarry/Morton/Searle buildings
• Continue “Coffee Chats” and “Dinners
with the Dean” to obtain
student feedback; consider holding a
biannual “Town Hall Meeting with
the Dean” to provide an
additional channel for feedback to
TGS
• Continue to heavily publicize the
Graduate Student Commons and ensuring
online room-‐scheduling resources are
up to date on website
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GLC AND GRADUATE
STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS
TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC RELATIONSHIPS TO
AVOID CONFLICT:
• The GLC and GSA should work
together to host several
informational events where existing
conflict resolution resources are
represented and described
• The efficacy of EOA mediation
services, EthicsPoint, and Office of
Judiciary Affairs in resolving
graduate student-‐advisor conflicts should
be monitored by the GLC and
GSA
TO BUILD GRADUATE STUDENT COMMUNITY
AND IMPROVE FEEDBACK:
• Heavily advertize Association’s functions
and events to constituents through
listservs, and to other non-‐target
constituents through the GLC
• Existing program councils led by
students should make their actions
more transparent and reach out
to students in their program
• Student associations and councils
should identify committees at the
department and program level where
student representation is needed
DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES The GLC and Kellogg
Student Association will present to
the NU Board of Trustees on
November 11, 2011 to discuss
commonalities in graduate and
professional student life, and to
discuss program-‐specific strategies and
challenges. The following is a
brief synopsis of talking points
designed to garner insight from
the expertise of the Board and
to focus on opportunities for
continued improvement.
• Formal and Informal walls make
it particularly challenging to build
relationships across programs:
o Minimal visibility or connectivity
across programs today o Minimal
connection to the University as
a whole o Various solutions include
taking advantage of current
strategies on a larger scale;
applying new technological platforms
such as social media, websites
• Integration of academics and
intellectual environment challenging:
o Unrecognized demand for greater
inter-‐discipline dialogue o NU could
lead the way on interdisciplinary
efforts
• Graduate students are very different
from undergraduates in terms of
life stage, etc, but University
policies are not graduate-‐specific
-
8
THE VALUE OF THE GRADUATE STUDENT
Graduate students are a vital
constituent of the Northwestern
University community. They play an
integral part of Northwestern
University’s research and academic
community by devoting their time
and effort to research, teaching,
and mentorship at Northwestern.
Moreover, graduate students foster
the university’s reputation by
publishing in internationally renowned
journals, participating in academic
conferences, winning national
fellowships and awards, and securing
job placements in prestigious
academic, industrial, and government
institutions. The graduate students
also help maintain the active
atmosphere, strong sense of
community and diversity at
Northwestern. It is in these
capacities that graduate students
contribute to Northwestern’s reputation
as a premier institution throughout
the world.
TEACHING & MENTORING Graduate
students interact with their peers
and undergraduate students regularly
as teachers on knowledge and
skills, as mentors in career
development, and as supervisors on
research projects. Nearly 70% of
the graduate student community
serves as teachers to either
their graduate student peers and/or
undergraduate students. The 2011 GLC
Survey indicates that 18% of
the graduate students are funded
by teaching assistantship. The
results of the 2010 GLC Survey
indicate that overall, students are
satisfied with most aspects of
their teaching experience, with
the exception being that nearly 20%
of students are either moderately
or very dissatisfied with training
for teaching.
RESEARCH As the major scientific
workforce, the graduate students
contribute to the high scientific
productivity of Northwestern through
their devotions to research projects
and publications. In conjunction with
faculty advisors, graduate students
conduct a large part of the
research done at Northwestern. More
than 70% of the respondents to
the 2008 survey reported that
at least 60% of their working
hours are spent on research.
In the 2009 survey, 3 out of
4 graduate students reported
working more than 40 hours per
week on their degree. Responses
were similar for this year’s
survey, with 1 out of 5
spending more than 60 hours per
week. Nearly 3 in every 4
graduate students participate in
departmental seminars at least once
per quarter, demonstrating that the
“typical” Northwestern graduate researcher
is engaged in a continual
conversation with his or her
peers on campus.
FELLOWSHIPS AND AWARDS Northwestern
graduate students’ commitment to
research is demonstrated not only
by their well-‐respected, high
quality research with significant
disciplinary impact, but also by
the millions of dollars in
research grants obtained for
Northwestern as well as prestigious
fellowships, scholarships and awards
for graduate researchers. The
2011 GLC Survey shows that 11%
of the respondents are funded
by external fellowship/grants that
they applied for. For the
2010-‐2011 academic year, 126 graduate
students are funded by external
grants or fellowships (for a
complete list of award
recipients, please refer to Appendix
B of this report).
-
9
DEMOGRAPHICS The initial questions in
the 2011 Graduate Student Survey
serve to determine basic
demographic information, including the
student’s program, financial information,
and their housing situation. The
majority of respondents are in
doctoral programs (84%), while 10%
are enrolled in a Master’s
degree programs and 6% are in
joint programs such as MD/PhD,
JD/PhD and BS/MS. Among all of
the graduate programs, students
represent a variety of disciplines,
including physical sciences (38%),
social and behavioral sciences
(23%), life sciences (21%), arts
and humanities (15%). Figure 1
illustrates the disciplines across survey
respondents.
Figure 1. Percentage of survey
respondents by discipline.
International students represent 24%
of graduate students, and
correspondingly, 25% of the
responding student body are
non-‐native English speakers. Although
Northwestern graduate students are a
globally diverse mix, almost half
(47%) of respondents indicated that
they belong to at least one
or more of the following
under-‐represented groups: ethnic (15%),
racial (14%), gender (16%),
religious (10%), sexual orientation
(8%), and socioeconomic (8%).
Northwestern graduate students are also
diverse in their family
situations; among respondents, 24%
indicated that they are married,
and 14% have at least one
dependent. Moreover, 69% of
respondents indicated having
experienced difficulty in transitioning
to graduate student life in at
least one or more of the
following categories, including student
health insurance (34%), establishing
a social network (30%), financial
procedures (22%), housing (20%),
academic requirements (18%), language
barrier (6%), finding a lawyer
(5%) and visa requirements (4%).
HOUSING Although the majority of
respondents primarily conduct their
research in Evanston (78%) compared
to Chicago (20%), the number
of graduate students residing in
Chicago (47%) is nearly equal
to students living in Evanston
(46%). These results are
consistent with the 2010 GLC
Survey results. Most respondents indicate
that they rent alone (44%) or
share rent (40%). Figure 2
illustrates housing options for
graduate students. Interestingly, 79%
of respondents also indicated a
demand for the creation of a
TGS-‐sponsored website to search
for off-‐campus housing options. Many
COFHE schools operate university-‐run
searchable listings databases; one
example is the University of
Pennsylvania.
15%
23%
38%
21%
3%
Disciplines of Survey Respondents
Arts & Humaniqes
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Physical Sciences
Life Sciences
Other
-
10
Figure 2. Living situations of
survey respondents.
STUDENT FUNDING One way in which
Northwestern is able to maintain
competitiveness against other institutions
is through an attractive stipend.
The tuition and stipend of NU
graduate students are funded by
several sources including
department/university fellowships, external
grants (provided by the student
or his/her advisor) and research and
teaching assistantships, shown in
Figure 3. The distribution of
funding sources is similar to
the 2010 GLC Survey.
Figure 3. Primary Sources of
Graduate Student Funding The
amount of post-‐tax graduate student
stipend levels by discipline is
shown in Figure 4. The
data shows that there is a
measurable difference between post-‐tax
stipend levels between the different
student disciplines. Graduate Students
in the Life Sciences and
Physical Sciences, Mathematics &
Engineering are more likely to
have higher stipend levels than
students in the other TGS
affiliated graduate programs. This is
mostly due to the sources
of funding for each major
discipline: Graduate students in the
fields with relatively larger sources
of government funding (i.e.
Engineering, Life/Physical Sciences)
receive more funding from their
academic advisors and often work
as Research Assistants (data not
shown).
1%
11%
40%
44%
4%
Student Living SituaBons
Rent free
Own
Rent alone
Share rent
NU
18%
20%
26%
13%
14%
9%
Primary Source of Student Funding
Teaching Assistantship (TA)
Research Assistantship (RA)
Department/university fellowships
External grants/fellowships
Funds from advisor
No fellowship
-
11
Figure 4. Graduate Student Stipend
by Discipline
For the purpose of comparing
our stipend level against other
peer COFHE institutions, we present
stipend levels accounting for cost
of living. Compared to peer
institutions, the stipend level
received at Northwestern falls
towards the middle; however, the
cost of living index for
Northwestern is the fourth highest
of the peer institutions in
Table 1. In the future, it
may be prudent to revisit the
competitiveness of our stipends,
especially for recruitment purposes.
Institution City Stipend for Academic
Year
(Range or Average) Cost of Living
Index1
Cornell Ithaca, NY $21,800 to
$36,825 103.31 Duke Durham, NC
$18,936 to $20,385 94.54 Georgetown
Washington, D.C. $18,580 138.35
MIT Cambridge, MA $19,719 to
$22,104 129.53 Princeton Princeton,
NJ $23,250 to $25,450 100.00
University of Chicago Chicago, IL
$27,500 113.46 University of
Michigan Ann Arbor, MI $17,200
100.00 Yale New Haven, CT
$26,000 to $30,200 129.53 Northwestern
Evanston, IL $22,800 113.46
Table 1. Comparison of average
NU graduate student stipend with
COFHE stipends
Students who take outside loans
to offset the cost of
graduate school represent 14% of
respondents, and the main uses
for loans are “cost of living”
and “school expenses” (data not
shown). Figure 5 shows the
amount of loans taken out by
discipline. Interestingly, the survey
results indicate a correlation
between those students that took
out loans and those students
with relatively lower stipend
levels in disciplines such as Arts
and Humanities and Social and
Behavioral Science.
1*Based on
national average of a cost of
living value of 100.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Less than $1,300
$1,301-‐$1,600
$1,601-‐$1,900
$1,901-‐$2,200
More than $2,200
SBpend by Discipline
Arts and humaniqes
Life sciences
Physical sciences, mathemaqcs, engineering
Social and behavioral sciences
-
12
Figure 5. Dollar amount of
loans taken out by students, by
discipline
School costs are not the
only costs that students may
incur. In the 2010 GLC Survey,
35% of graduate students reported
that they had failed to seek
out or follow up on healthcare
visits. Among those, 66% had
done so due to high costs.
To get a better idea of
how much students are spending
on healthcare as an indication
of the overall need (including
provider visits and medical tests),
students were asked what percentage
of their monthly stipend was
spent on these costs. Strikingly,
Figure 6 shows that 60% of
respondents spend up to 20% of
their stipend on healthcare-‐incurred
costs per month.
Figure 6. Percentage of monthly
stipend spent on healthcare costs
When stratified by campus,
slightly more Chicago campus students
tend to spend their monthly
stipend on healthcare than
Evanston students as shown in
Figure 7 (69% versus 61%,
respectively). Chicago campus students
also tend to spend more than
Evanston students on healthcare; no
Evanston students spent more than
31% of their stipend on
healthcare per month, compared to
2% of Chicago students. These
differences could be due to a
number of factors, for example,
the higher operating costs of
the student health service in
Chicago contracted to Northwestern
Medical Faculty Foundation, compared
to the Northwestern-‐run facility in
Evanston. The GLC suggest that
University Health Services continue
to negotiate contracts with NMFF
that take into consideration the
cost to the student.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Less than or equal to $5,000
$5,001-‐$10,000
$10,001-‐$15,000
$15,001-‐$20,000
More than or equal to $20,001
Loans Taken Out by Discipline
Arts and humaniqes
Life sciences
Physical sciences, mathemaqcs, engineering
Social and behavioral sciences
37%
49%
10%
2% 1% 1%
Percentage of Monthly SBpend Spent
on Healthcare Costs
None
Up to 10%
11-‐20%
21-‐30%
31-‐40%
41-‐50%
More than 50%
-
13
Figure 7. Percent of Monthly
Stipend Spent on Healthcare, by
Campus
FOR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, GLC
RECOMMENDS:
• TGS continue to monitor average
stipend in relation to living
costs, and increase stipend
accordingly.
• University Health Services continue to
negotiate contracts with NMFF that
take into consideration the cost
to the student.
TRANSPORTATION Northwestern graduate students
have at their disposal a great
variety of modes of transportation
both in Evanston and Chicago,
including public transportation (METRA,
CTA and PACE) and shuttles
provided by the University.
Students were asked a range of
questions about usage of
transportation, and satisfaction with the
UPASS. As transportation options
offered by the University should
be as convenient as possible
for students, feedback from graduate
students is essential in shaping
future transportation endeavors. As
shown in Figure 8, most
students attending classes and
carrying out research in Evanston
live in Evanston (62%), although
a significant percentage live in
Chicago (38%). Conversely, almost
all Chicago campus students live
within the Chicago city limits
(97%).
Figure 8. Campus attended compared
with living location.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None
Up to 10%
11-‐20%
21-‐30%
31-‐40%
More than 50%
Percent of SBpend Spent on
Healthcare, by Campus
Chicago
Evanston
Chicago Campus
Evanston Campus
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Campus AWended vs. Living LocaBon
Live in Evanston
Live in Chicago
-
14
When asked about the mode of
transportation they use, CTA services
(bus and train) were voted as
the primary means of
transportation, with 35% of
respondents. CTA services were followed
by walking (25%), driving (13%),
NU shuttle (13%), bicycle (10%),
or other means such as
carpool, Metra or a combination of
services (3%) (data not shown).
Figure 9 compares the travel
statistics for the students who
travel to the Evanston campus
to the Chicago campus. More
Evanston based students use shuttle
services than Chicago students (14%
vs. 7%) suggesting that Evanston
students living in Chicago use
the shuttles to access the
Evanston campus. Conversely, more
Chicago students use the CTA
compared to Evanston students (54%
vs. 31%). These results are
consistent with results from previous
years.
Figure 9. Modes of transportation
graduate students use travel to
campus, by campus.
INTERCAMPUS SHUTTLE The Intercampus
Shuttle (IS) provides transportation
between the Evanston and Chicago
campuses to accommodate students,
staff and faculty who conduct
research/business at either campus,
free of charge. The IS serves
to unite the two campus
communities, to ease congestion, and
to decrease the demand for
parking on both campuses. The
service runs between 6:40 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. on weekdays
only. The purpose of the
survey questions regarding the IS
was to gather information about
graduate student usage. The
results reveal that equal numbers
of graduate students either use
the IS services infrequently
(1-‐10 times per month) (38%) or
are aware of the IS, but
do not use this service
(39%) (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Monthly frequency of
Intercampus Shuttle rides taken by
graduate students.
2%
54%
11%
1%
1% 7%
13%
31%
14%
14%
1%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
60%
Bicycle
CTA (bus/train)
Drive by myself
Drive in a carpool
Metra
NU shurle
Other (please specify below)
Walk
Modes of TransportaBon Used to
Travel to Campus, by Campus
Evanston
Chicago
38%
8% 7%
39%
8%
Number of Trips Taken on IS
Per Month
1-‐10
11-‐20
21 -‐ 30
I am not aware of the
intercampus shurle.
-
15
U-‐PASS PROGRAM Since 2007, The
Graduate School and the CTA have
collaborated to provide an
unlimited-‐use transit pass, called a
“U-‐PASS”. Originally offered at
$56 as part of a mandatory
“activity fee”, due to CTA
budget crises, the U-‐PASS cost
to the student has risen over
the past four years from $60
per quarter in 2007 and 2008,
to $78 per quarter in 2009,
2010, and 2011. Included in the
fee increase to students was
the added benefit of a
year-‐round unlimited pass; before
the fee increase, transit was
not covered for 4 weeks in
the year, when classes were not
in session. The fare increase
was supported by results from
the 2008 GLC Survey which
indicated that graduate students
would be willing to pay a
higher activity fee if the
U-‐PASS included year-‐round service.
The current U-‐PASS costs
students $6 per week, assuming
a typical usage of 10 rides
per week. A single subway ride
using the CTA costs $2.25,
so a student must use the
U-‐PASS an average of 3
times per week to fully take
advantage of the services.
Almost all of the students who
answered the survey answered that
they receive a U-‐PASS (94%).
These students were then inquired
about their usage of the
U-‐PASS. Figure 11 reveals that
87% of students use their
U-‐PASS at least once a week;
just more than 50% of students
use the U-‐PASS more than 5
times per week. Furthermore, when
looking at the results divided
by campus, it is clear that
those on the Chicago campus
utilize the U-‐PASS more than
those in Evanston (54% compared
to 29%) (data not shown), which
may be due to the accessibility
to multiple lines in Chicago,
compared to solely the Purple
and Red lines in Evanston.
Although only a slight
majority of the students use
the U-‐PASS more than 5 times
a week, when asked to rate
their satisfaction with the U-‐PASS
services on a scale from 1
to 5, 1 being not satisfied
and 5 greatly satisfied, only
11% of all students answered
with a rating of 2 or
less (data not shown). When
asked to comment, some of
these students said that they
have no use for the U-‐PASS
and expressed their discontent
with having to pay for the
U-‐PASS. On the other hand,
students who approved of the
U-‐PASS often commented that they
would have to move closer to
campus if the UPASS was
discontinued.
Figure 11. Frequency of
U-‐PASS usage among graduate
students.
FOR TRANSPORTATION, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• The Intercampus Shuttle have full
service on the weekends to
allow graduate students that use
the IS to travel between
Chicago and Evanston for work
and/or recreation. On the weekend,
CTA runs trains less frequently
and without the Purple Line
express option.
• TGS continue to investigate
alternatives for students who do
not wish to take advantage of
the U-‐PASS program. Although the
majority of students are satisfied
with the U-‐PASS program as is,
there are some who are being
charged for a service they do
not use.
• TGS find a way to subsidize
the increasing cost for a
U-‐PASS for graduate students.
13%
32%
21%
33%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
30% 35% 40%
0
1-‐4
5-‐10
More than 10
Number of Rides Using UPASS Per
Week
-
16
NEW GRADUATE STUDENT ORIENTATION The
first contact that the graduate
student has with Northwestern
University is the day-‐long
Orientation organized by The
Graduate School. Hundreds of
incoming graduate and professional
students attend Orientation at the
start of fall quarter in
Evanston. Morning and afternoon
break-‐out sessions give students the
opportunity to learn more about
topics relevant to the graduate
community, such as health insurance,
financial support, and university
career services. Graduate student
organizations and university offices
showcase their role in the
university at the Graduate Resource
Fair, and the University Library
also holds tours during the
afternoon. The purpose of
the survey questions regarding
Orientation is to gauge graduate
student satisfaction and attitudes
toward these annual proceedings.
Orientation is meant to be
both informative and social in
nature; feedback from graduate
students is essential in shaping
future programming and making the
event relevant for all incoming
students.
GENERAL ATTENDANCE The majority of
students (84%) attended Orientation
event during their first year
of graduate school, as shown in
Figure 12. Of those who did
not attend Orientation, 17% were
not yet in Chicago or Evanston,
26% did not want to travel
and 28% were not aware.
Respondents who cited other reasons
for not attending (29%) mentioned
either personal or work
obligations, deciding to only attend
their departmental or program-‐specific
orientation, or exhibited general
disinterest.
Figure 12. Student responses to
attending Orientation in their first
year, and reasons for
non-‐attendance.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS WELCOMING
ATMOSPHERE Orientation not only
serves the purpose of familiarizing
new students with university
procedures and policies, but also
allows them to network with
each other, current students,
and staff. Based on satisfaction
ratings using a scale from
1-‐5 (1= least satisfied, 5 =
most satisfied), Figure 13 shows
that over half of the
respondents were pleased (ratings of
4 and 5) with the welcoming
atmosphere during Orientation. Over
one-‐third were pleased with the
opportunities available to socialize.
Networking during Orientation was
neither difficult nor easy for
about one-‐third of the
non-‐international and domestic students
(Figure 14), yet students gave
higher ratings with regard to
the ease of meeting
Arended Orientaqon
84%
I was not aware of Orientaqon
28%
I was not yet in Chicago/Evanston
17%
I was on another Campus and
did not
want to travel 26%
Other 29% Did not arend
Orientaqon 16%
OrientaBon AWendance and Reasons for
Non-‐AWendance
-
17
people during Orientation. With
respect to the social aspect of
Orientation, Northwestern does an
overall satisfactory job of fostering
a welcoming atmosphere for the
incoming students and provides an
especially conducive networking environment
for new international students.
Figure 13. Students rated satisfaction
on a scale of 1 -‐5
(1 = least satisfied, 5 =
most satisfied), with the welcoming
atmosphere of NU and TGS staff
and students and the social
activities.
Figure 14. Students rated satisfaction
on a scale of 1 -‐5
(1 = least satisfied, 5 =
most satisfied), with the ease
of meeting new people during
Orientation.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS ORIENTATION
RESOURCES The Graduate School
prepares a number of workshops
and lectures for Orientation. The
major topics addressed include
finances, health care, academic
advising, recreation, housing and
student-‐parents. When students were
asked which of these resources
they felt well-‐informed about
following orientation, the maximum
frequency of students that felt
they were well-‐informed was no
more than 47% (Figure 15), and
20% did not feel well-‐informed
about any of the major
resources, suggesting that TGS could
improve the communication of
resources at Northwestern, including
health insurance, finances, academic
advising, housing, recreation, and
resources for student parents. Students
also expressed suggestions such as:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Welcoming atmosphere of NU and TGS
staff and students
Social acqviqes during orientaqon
SaBsfacBon with Welcoming Atmosphere
and Social AcBviBes
5 4 3 2 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Non-‐Internaqonal Students
Internaqonal Students
SaBsfacBon with the Ease of MeeBng
New People (DomesBc vs.
InternaBonal Students)
5 4 3 2 1
-
18
“MORE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY [DURING
ORIENTATION] TO LEARN HOW
HEALTH SERVICES, FINANCIAL SERVICES
WORK, WHERE TO GO FOR FUTURE
QUESTIONS, ETC.”
“SHORTEN THE FINANCE AND HEALTH
INSURANCE LECTURES, BUT HAVE
MORE STAFF AROUND TO INDIVIDUALLY
ADDRESS QUESTIONS.”
Figure 15. Percentage of students
feeling well-‐informed about certain
resources.
VARIATION IN ORIENTATION ATTITUDES
BETWEEN CAMPUSES Overall most
Northwestern students found TGS
Orientation to be useful and
satisfactory, as seen in Figure
16. In fact, the distributions
of usefulness and satisfaction ratings
were similar and correlated
positively with each other: those
who highly rated its usefulness
also gave high satisfaction ratings.
In addition, department-‐ and
program-‐specific orientations were
consistently lauded. About one-‐third
of graduate students found TGS
Orientation to be “useful” or
“very useful”. Those who rated
it neutral, not really useful,
or not at all useful
criticized it for being too
general or specifically catered to
Evanston campus graduate students.
For example, for those working
primarily on the Evanston, about
50% felt that orientation informed
them of the locations of
buildings of importance in Evanston
(data not shown). By contrast,
only 25% of those working
primarily on the Chicago campus
felt that TGS Orientation informed
them of the locations of
important buildings in Chicago.
Examples of such comments include:
“ORIENTATION WAS INTERESTING, BUT
THE INFORMATION WAS FAIRLY
GENERIC. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
MORE USEFUL IF SESSIONS MORE
SPECIFIC TO DISCIPLINE AND LIFE
STAGE WERE OFFERED (I.E.,
FELLOWSHIPS FOR SOCIAL SCIENTISTS,
RESOURCES FOR PARENTS, ETC.)”
23%
23%
20%
16%
6%
2% 10%
Percentage of Students Feeling
Well-‐Informed About Resources
Finances
Health Care
Academic Advising
Recreaqon
Housing
Student Parents
None of the above
-
19
“I AM A STUDENT ON THE
CHICAGO CAMPUS AND I PERSONALLY
FELT
THAT MOST OF THE ORIENTATION
WAS CATERED [TO] THE EVANSTON
CAMPUS RESOURCES”
“A LOT OF THE INFORMATION
PROVIDED WAS TOO VAGUE TO HELP
ME
WITH MY PARTICULAR SITUATION. THE
ORIENTATION PROVIDED BY MY
DEPARTMENT WAS MORE USEFUL BECAUSE
IT WAS MORE SPECIFIC TO MY
SITUATION. THERE WERE INTERESTING
SESSIONS DURING THE [TGS]
ORIENTATION AND I STILL GOT
SOME USEFUL INFORMATION OUT OF
IT,
BUT NOT AS MUCH AS I WOULD
HAVE LIKED.”
Figure 16. Students rated overall
usefulness and satisfaction on a
scale of 1 -‐5.
FOR ORIENTATION, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• Certain breakout sessions may be
better suited if students are
grouped by discipline while other
sessions are not. For example,
sessions on academic advising and
fellowships opportunities will be
more informative if speaking to
students in the same discipline
(e.g. Life Sciences), while
sessions on healthcare and
student-‐parents will be better off
with a mixed crowd.
• TGS should emphasize the online
location of many resources at
Orientation; often, students are
simply to overwhelmed by all
the information provided in the
sessions, and would rather follow
up online. Online resources should
be up-‐to-‐date.
• TGS should consult with CGSA
and Chicago-‐based programs to
identify Chicago-‐specific Orientation issues,
and to develop a separate
orientation for incoming students in
Chicago-‐based programs.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
30%
Usefulness
Saqsfacqon
Usefulness and Overall SaBsfacBon with
OrientaBon
5 = very useful/most saqsfied 4
3 2 1 = not at all
useful/least saqsfied
-
20
STUDENT LIFE AND COMMUNITY Orientation
is the first point of
contact for graduate students at
the University community, but the
building of community continues
long after Orientation. Northwestern
has long realized that a
community that embraces different
voices and opinions is the
foundation to academic success. Like
many institutes of higher
education, Northwestern University has
committed time and resources to
create a friendly and productive
work environment for its
students, faculty, and staff. The
Office of Student Life and
Multicultural Affairs (SLMA) within
TGS has worked closely with the
Graduate Student Associations recognized
by TGS to organize various
events to build community and
promote diversity and understanding
at Northwestern. This year's
survey asked respondents about their
perceptions of the Northwestern
University graduate student community
in order to understand how
people interact, where they
congregate, and their reasons for
making such decisions on both
the Evanston campus and the
Chicago campus.
LOCATION OF GRADUATE STUDENT
SOCIALIZATION In terms of socializing
on campus, almost half of
respondents tend to socialize in
their Department or respective buildings,
while 37% do not socialize on
campus at all, as shown in
Figure 17. Furthermore, 50% of
respondents agree that there is
adequate space on campus to
socialize, while one quarter of
respondents do not agree (data
not shown).
Figure 17. Locations of where
graduate students tend to socialize.
SATISFACTION WITH DIVERSITY A majority
of respondents (75%) expressed
satisfaction with the gender and
racial/ethnic diversity within their
programs or departments. At the
other end of the spectrum, up
to one quarter of respondents
are moderately or very dissatisfied
with the gender and racial/ethnic
diversity within their
programs/departments.
1% 3%
37%
3% 3%
4%
2%
15%
33%
LocaBons of Graduate Student Socializing
Graduate Student Commons/Seabury Hall
(Evanston Campus) Gym
I primarily socialize off campus
Lurie Atrium (Chicago Campus)
Norris Student Center
On-‐campus cafes (i.e, cafes in
Norris, Tech, Pandini's) Other
(please specify below)
Your building
Your department
-
21
COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS AT NORTHWESTERN
The survey found that an
overwhelming 81% of respondents
indicated that they feel a sense
of community within their own
programs or departments. However,
only 45% of respondents feel a
sense of community among NU
graduate students (data not shown).
Therefore, students define the
Northwestern graduate student community
based on their experiences within
their departments. For example,
respondents stated,
“THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY DOES NOT
GO BEYOND INDIVIDUAL
DEPARTMENTS.”
“I FEEL THERE IS COMMUNITY
AT A DEPARTMENT LEVEL BUT
IT IS FAR
LESS COMMON FOR THIS TO EXIST
ON A LARGER LEVEL…[IT] IS
RARE
BECAUSE MOST OF THE OPPORTUNITIES
THAT ARE IN PLACE TO DO
SO ARE
SOCIALLY, RATHER THAN ACADEMICALLY,
ORIENTED, AND STUDENTS
DON'T ALWAYS WANT TO BUILD
COMMUNITY THROUGH GENERIC
SOCIALIZATION AS MUCH AS THEY
WOULD PREFER TO BUILD AND
MAKE
TIES WITH STUDENTS BECAUSE THEY
SHARE A COMMITMENT TO
ACADEMIC IDEAS AND PURSUITS.”
These two comments reaffirm
the data that graduate students
define their own programs and
departments as their domains, which
could possibly be due to
limited interdepartmental interactions. In
conclusion, programs and departments
are the central players in
establishing community for their
graduate students, and the GLC
suggests that more
academically-‐oriented social programs could
be established to bring together
students from similar disciplines who
may not interact otherwise.
GRADUATE STUDENT SPACE IN EVANSTON
AND CHICAGO The Graduate Student
Commons in Seabury Hall on
the Evanston campus opened in
the summer of 2010 and is
the only space devoted solely
for the use of graduate
students on the Evanston Campus.
In addition, Northwestern is a
leader compared to other COFHE
institutions in terms of having
a sole space dedicated to
graduate students. In addition to
graduate students who use the
room to study, relax, and
attend lectures or workshops, many
GSA groups utilize the space
for meetings and community building
events. About 30% of graduate
students have used the space
since it opened. Among those
who have used the space, 85%
are moderately, or very satisfied
with the Graduate Student Commons.
However, 48% of graduate students
have not used the space, while
20% are unaware of its
existence. The lack of awareness
of the Commons was also evident
in the responses; for example,
one student was unaware that
the Commons were accessible after-‐hours
by a Wildcard swiper. Several
students suggested the Commons may
be made more useful by
providing a computer with printing
facilities. The Chicago
campus graduate student space is
located in Abbott Hall where the
University Career Services hold
office hours. The space is
small, with room for two tables,
several chairs, and no other
resources. Approximately 96% of
Chicago graduate students have not
used the Abbott Hall graduate
student space. In terms of
reasons for non-‐use, 68% of
respondents are unaware of the
space, 11% are aware of the
space but have not needed to
use it, and the remaining
respondents are aware of it
but
-
22
have not used it because of
its location away from the main
research buildings. Among the
respondents who have used the
Abbott Hall graduate student space,
75% are satisfied whereas 25%
are not satisfied. One respondent
stated,
“IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE... THE
SPACE HAS TO BE RESERVED. THE
SPACE IS
NOT SOLELY FOR GRADUATE STUDENT
USE.”
While another respondent wrote,
“[IT’S] TOTALLY OUT OF THE WAY
OF THE OTHER CAMPUS BUILDINGS,
YOU
HAVE TO GET A KEY FOR
THE MAIN DOOR... TOO SMALL FOR
MEETINGS,
NO FACILITIES, NO COMFY CHAIRS.
IT REALLY MAKES YOU NOT WANT
TO
USE IT! ALSO, NO STUDENTS
KNOW ABOUT IT! HAVING A
DEDICATED
SPACE WITH A COMPUTER, A
MICROWAVE, WATER COOLER AND COMFY
CHAIRS (SIMILAR TO THE MED STUDENT
LOUNGE) WOULD BE FANTASTIC.”
FOR STUDENT LIFE AND COMMUNITY,
GLC RECOMMENDS:
• The University continues encouraging
departments diversify its faculty,
staff, and students. Almost 1/5
of the respondents are dissatisfied
with the racial/ethnic and/or gender
diversity of faculty and students
in their departments, which means
that a significant amount of
people may be unhappy, feel
isolated, feel disconnected from, or
be dissatisfied with the
graduate community at Northwestern.
• TGC continue publicizing social events
to build a sense of community.
One example would be to improve
the online graduate student event
calendar to include non-‐community
building grant events.
• TGS continue to heavily publicize
the Graduate Student Commons,
its resources, and the reservation
system. Introducing the space as
part of Orientation would be
highly beneficial. Further improvements,
including the addition of
computers and printers would increase
the appeal and frequency of
graduate students using the space.
• A designated, multi-‐functional space
in Ward/Tarry/Morton/Searle Research
Complex be set aside specifically
for the graduate student body
to interact on the Chicago
campus. This facility should include
space that allows students to
socialize, eat, study in individual
and group settings, and hold
office hours. The current Abbott
Hall space is shared with the
University Career Services during
office hour. Many students have
not used the space because it
is far away from the other
campus buildings.
-
23
GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATION
PERCEPTIONS OF REPRESENTATION The
perception of community among
graduate students at Northwestern
led the GLC to ask students
about the extent to which they
feel represented within the
University. The GLC believes that
students who feel well-‐represented
will perform better academically and
feel more connected to the
University as a whole. To gauge
whether students feel like they
are represented at various levels,
the GLC asked whether students
think there are adequate resources
to give feedback. Three-‐quarters of
respondents agreed that there are
adequate resources and opportunities
to provide feedback to graduate
programs, departments, or TGS, while
one quarter do not agree (data
not shown). Among those that do
not agree, students wrote,
“I'VE BEEN MAKING MY VOICE
HEARD, AND TRYING TO GET
RESOURCES
TOGETHER FOR MYSELF, BUT I FEEL
LIKE I'VE BEEN IGNORED.”
While another respondent mentioned,
“I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY
MEANS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK BESIDES
THIS
ANNUAL SURVEY.”
Based on these comments, it
seems as if the channels
to provide feedback are limited.
Furthermore, several students indicated
that they rarely receive responses
from administrators in their program
or in TGS. One student wrote:
“USUALLY STUDENTS WITH ADVISORS,
ESPECIALLY IN THE SCIENCES,
CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT POOR WORKING
CONDITIONS/CONFLICTS TO
THE PROGRAM OR TGS BECAUSE
THEY ARE FUNDED BY THE ADVISOR'S
GRANTS AND ULTIMATELY THEIR FATE
IS IN THE HANDS OF ONE
PERSON
SO ANY CONFLICT-‐RESOLUTION THIRD-‐PARTY
CANNOT DO MUCH ABOUT
THE SITUATION IN A PARTICULAR
LAB/GROUP.”
This comment raises a concern
about students whose funding is
directly supported by their advisors.
In the case when these
students have conflicts with their
advisors, their voices and
opinions might be ignored because
of their funding situations.
STUDENT REPRESENTATION AT THE PROGRAM
LEVEL In this section, the GLC
wanted to learn about the
student’s awareness of student groups
that represent them at their
program level. These questions were
designed to determine the efficacy
of the current feedback and
input structure available for
graduate students. We also
asked whether students feel that
they are well represented, and
what recommendations they had in
order to improve the efficacy
of the representative groups
-
24
When asked whether their program
has a graduate student council,
association, or other representative
body, most students reported that
their program did (65%) (Figure
18). Interestingly, about a quarter
of respondents did not know
whether their program had student
representation, speaking to a
lack of awareness of existing
student representation. Of students
that reported a council, the
majority of these students were
in the Physical Sciences, Mathematics
and Engineering discipline, with the
remaining 60% split equally between
the Life and Social Sciences,
and the Arts and Humanities.
Only 11% of respondents indicated
that their program has no
student representation.
Figure 18. Students reporting that
their program has a student
council or association, stratified by
discipline. To determine whether
the frequency of student
representation differed by campus, we
stratified students that indicated
that they had a council
by their primary campus. We
identified that more students are
represented by program councils on
the Chicago campus compared to
the Evanston campus (75% vs.
61%) (data not shown).
FEELINGS OF REPRESENTATION AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT To gauge
whether students feel that they
are well-‐represented by their
council, we asked students that
had indicated that they had a
student council. As shown in
Figure 19, we determined that
the majority of the students
that gave a definitive answer
were happy with their representation
by the student council.
Interestingly, half of the students
were “indifferent”, i.e. they did
not agree nor disagree with the
question, suggesting that there may
be a lack of knowledge about
what the student council does,
or that there is general
disinterest. Future questions such as
“what does your student council
do?” may be a way of
gauging whether students are aware
or not. Possible strategies for
increasing awareness would include
outreach of the student council
to the student body.
No; 11%
Unknown; 23%
17%
27%
11%
10%
1%
Yes; 65%
Frequency of Student Councils
RepresenBng Students to Graduate
Programs
Life sciences
Physical sciences, mathemaqcs, engineering
Social and behavioral sciences
Arts and humaniqes
Other
-
25
Figure 19. Student responses when
asked whether they feel like
they are well-‐represented by their
council, of students reporting a
council
Next, we sought to identify
whether students that had council
representation could had suggestions
for improvements to the efficacy
of their council. As shown
in Figure 20, recommendations were
mostly equally split among the
answer options. More than 20%
of students thought that
students representation on existing
committees (faculty or departmental)
would be an improvement. About
35% of students thought that
funding of either social events
to promote mixing or funding
for student council meetings would
enhance the council. Lastly,
students were also interested in
outreach to fellow students as a
way to increase the efficacy of
the council (17%). These findings
suggest that there are a number
of strategies that could be
used to improve the efficacy of
these counils, and can also be
applied to the existing graduate
student organizations on campus to
encourage outreach.
Figure 20. Recommendations to
improve efficacy of student council
by students that are currently
represented by
a council.
REPRESENTATION ON COMMITTEES Northwestern
is a member of the Consortium
on Financing Higher Education
(COFHE), a group of elite
institutions which has made it
a priority to share information
which is valuable to maintaining
and improving higher education
standards. Ensuring that there is
adequate student representation at
all
38%
11%
51%
Student Opinions on Whether They
Are Well-‐Represented by Student
Council
Yes
No
Indifferent
2%
13%
12%
15%
19%
17%
10%
12%
Improvements to Efficacy of Student
Council
Other
No need for any changes
Communicaqon with program leadership
Funding for social events to
foster community
Funding for student council meeqngs
Outreach to students to get
involved in council
Representaqon during faculty meeqngs
Representaqon on departmental commirees
-
26
levels of decision making has
been a goal of several COFHE
institutions. One interpretation of
representation which several
institutions have implemented is having
students sit on committees
responsible for making decisions
which will affect other students.
At many institutions this process
is formal in that committees
solicit student representatives and
student organizations make filling
committee positions part of their
constitution. A brief
survey of the websites of COFHE
institutions, including Northwestern,
reveals that all institutions that
have a graduate student council
also have student representatives
on committees. However, Northwestern
and Stanford are the only two
institutions that do not have a
formal process for student
representation on committees. Student
representation at all levels is
critical for Northwestern University
to uphold the standards of
COFHE and to keep ahead of
its peer institutions. Although
Northwestern has had graduate
students on TGS committees in
the past, the process has been
ad-‐hoc and there has been
little continuity between individuals,
graduate student organizations, and
committees.
FOR STUDENT REPRESENTATION, GLC
RECOMMENDS:
• TGS should improve avenues for
student feedback by publicizing
existing strategies such as “Coffee
Chats” and “Dinner with the
Dean”. New strategies to enhance
feedback could be forms on the
TGS website and departmental
websites where students can submit
comments. However, these comments
will need to be responded to
in a timely manner to ensure
students feel well-‐represented.
• Existing student program councils
and student associations should reach
out to students to become
involved, and to advertise their
strategies for communication with
Administration.
• Each TGS committee have a
student representative affiliated with
either GLC or a graduate
student association with representation
on the GLC.
• TGS provide a list of both
new and standing committees to
GLC at the beginning of each
academic year so that GLC can
identify committees that need student
representation and can then fill
those positions.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION Over the past
few years, there have been a
number of incidents that have
raised the profile of graduate
student-‐advisor conflicts and the
complex relationship that makes such
conflicts difficult to resolve. Last
year, 10% of respondents indicated
that they have experienced a
major conflict with their advisor,
and more than half of all
student respondents indicated that
they did not know what steps
they would take to resolve
conflicts that may arise with
their advisor. Only 35% of
total respondents indicated that they
knew the procedures for handling
conflicts if they should arise,
and 16% know where to find
information if one should arise.
Based upon this data, in
2010, the GLC developed a
Graduate Expectations document that has
now been ratified by the
graduate faculty (Appendix C), wrote
a letter to Dean Wachtel
describing the situation, and
recommended to the Board of
Trustees that Northwestern establish an
Ombudsperson Office to act as
an independent third party to
mediate conflicts.
Concurrent with but independent of
the GLC’s efforts, the Office
of Equal Opportunity and Access
(EOA) began to offer mediation
services in November 2010, and
the GLC decided to monitor this
resource and gauge whether it
was meeting the needs of
students rather than try to
reinvent the wheel if adequate
resources already existed. The
GLC presented this resource
through the GSA general meeting in
Fall
-
27
2010 to representatives from over
twenty departments, and a provided
a link to the EOA on
the TGS website. The
2011 survey data reflect that
11% of graduate students report
having a major conflict with
his or her advisor, shown in
Figure 21. This is 1% higher
than the rate in the 2010
GLC Survey (10%). This rate of
occurrence is higher amongst
women, under-‐represented minorities, and
non-‐native English speaking graduate
students (A). By discipline,
Life Sciences and Social Sciences
had a higher rate of
student-‐advisor conflict than the Physical
Sciences and the Arts and
Humanities (B).
Figure 21. Percent of
students reporting conflicts among
varying populations of the graduate
student body.
The 2010 Annual Report detailed
a feeling of despair that these
graduate students involved in
conflicts often feel, and this
sentiment was mirrored in the
2011 data. Students indicated
that:
“NOTHING CAN BE DONE IF YOUR
ADVISER HAS ISSUES WITH YOU,
THEY
CAN ALWAYS COME UP WITH
GOOD/ACADEMIC REASONS TO HIDE
THEIR
REAL/PERSONALLY-‐BIASED ISSUE AGAINST YOU.
“
“NONE OF THE … RESOURCES DO
MUCH TO SOLVE THE GROSS
PROBLEM
OF ADVISOR [CONFLICT], NEGLECT, AND
OVERALL GRADUATE STUDENT
INEQUALITY ON CAMPUS.”
“ONLY STUDENTS WHO ALREADY HAVE
THE WILL TO STAND UP FOR
THEMSELVES [WILL,] WHILST THE MOST
MARGINALIZED OFTEN REMAIN
[WILL] EITHER FALL THROUGH THE
CRACKS, OR SUFFER WITH CAMPUS
LIFE
AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE.”
0% 10% 20%
Sexual Orientaqon Minority
Religious Minority
Ethnic Minority
Racial Minority
Internaqonal Students
Non-‐Naqve English Speaker
Women
Overall Average
A. Reported Conflict Rates Amongst
Selected Groups
0% 5% 10% 15%
Arts and Humaniqes
Social and Behavioral Studies
Life Sciences
Physical Sciences
Overall Average
B. Conflict Rates Within Disciplines
-
28
The reasons that students give
for conflict are depicted in
Figure 22 with over 50%
of students experiencing conflict
reporting personality differences, poor
communication, and unclear expectations
as reasons for conflict.
Figure 22. Stated reasons for
conflict amongst students reporting a
major conflict with their advisor.
As mentioned earlier, the GLC
identified in the 2010 report
several resources on campus
available to graduate student to aid
with resolving conflict between
students and advisors. Our data
suggests that graduate students are
still not aware that these
resources exist:
“WHILE THERE MIGHT BE [RESOURCES
ON CAMPUS], THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE I WOULD
GO.”
When asked if there are
adequate resources for dealing with
graduate student conflicts, only
13% of students who have experienced
a conflict and 22% of all
students say that there are.
These figures are disheartening, but
can be rationalized in the
context of the data represented
in Figure 23, which demonstrates
the low level of awareness
of students, both with and
without conflict, of different
university-‐wide resources that are
available to them in the
event of conflict. Indeed, less
than 25% of students are aware
of the resources that currently
exist at Northwestern University.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
60% 70%
Other
Lack of Communicaqon
Time Off (vacaqon, medical, etc.)
Unclear Expectaqons
Choice of Research Project
Difference in Personality
Difference in Opinion
Asked to perform non-‐research tasks
Workload Issues
Given Reasons for Conflict
-
29
Figure 23. Student awareness
of resources available to them
in the event of a conflict.
These data suggest that the
efficacy of these different
offices towards meeting the need of
graduate student resources cannot be
gauged by GLC in the 2011
Survey, because students who are
engaged in conflict do not know
where to go for help so
therefore are not using the
resources that currently exist.
When asked where they would
most like to resolve conflicts
if and when they arise,
students generally preferred to
handle the conflict within their
own department, shown in Figure
24.
Figure 24. Student response
when asked through what venues
they would prefer to handle a
conflict with an
advisor.
The GLC acknowledges that the
range of conflicts that students
may encounter may differ from
case to case. As Northwestern
prides itself on fostering a
collaborative and intellectual graduate
community in which its graduate
students work alongside faculty
members to produce cutting-‐edge
research, there not only needs to
be accessible resources, but
also visibility and promotion of
these resources at all levels of
the graduate experience.
Based on the data presented
herein, the GLC believes that
an ideal, transparent, and accessible
process for conflict resolution
should be developed at the
university level and established within
each department, as well as
being advertised to students. A
multi-‐level response would indicate
the commitment of administrators,
departments, and faculty to a
collegial and collaborative environment
at Northwestern University. Such
policies would streamline the conflict
resolution procedure, increasing
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
EOA Mediaqon
Office of Human Resources
Office of Judicial Affairs
EthicsPoint
Conflict Resource Awareness
Students with Conflicts
All Students
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
60%
Mediaqon in Department
Mediaqon with EOA
University Confidant
Independent Confidant (Ombuds)
Preferred Resource to Handle Conflicts
-
30
the ease at which the student
can access the appropriate resources,
and enhancing the speed at
which the student and advisor
can get help.
Within the GLC conflict
resolution recommendations for 2012, we
emphasize increased publicity of
existing resources, and in parallel
with student sentiment, we have
shifted away from advocating for
an Ombudsperson Office towards a
more department-‐oriented approach. The
GLC believes that the first
step in this approach is
implementation of the Expectations
Document, designed by the GLC
with TGS input in 2010.
FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION, GLC RECOMMENDS:
• TGS implement yearly “Improving
Academic and Professional Relationships”
seminar on both campuses.
• TGS require yearly completion and
submission of the Expectations
Document throughout all TGS academic
programs.
• TGS develop conflict resolution
policies and procedures to be
published in the TGS Handbook
and on the TGS website.
• TGS request each academic program
develop procedures for conflict
resolution to mesh with the
developed TGS policy, and describe
them in Program Handbooks. These
procedures should reflect the
following: how students and faculty
can raise grievances, how these
procedures will be handled by
the Department, how students can
switch advisors if the conflict
cannot be resolved, and the
timeframe for which students will
hear a response about the
grievance. These procedures should
also include processes for appealing
the decision of the committee.
• TGS request that each university
Department should have a
Department ombudsperson or a committee
of faculty and students who are
tasked with resolving any grievances
or conflicts that may arise in
the Department between faculty and
students.
• TGS add existing, non-‐TGS
resources by which students can
report conflict (e.g Office for
Research, EthicsPoint) to TGS
website.
• The GLC and GSA should work
together to host several
informational events where EOA,
Judicial Affairs, and EthicsPoint are
represented and described.
• The efficacy of EOA mediation
services, EthicsPoint, and Office
of Judiciary Affairs should be
investigated by the GLC and
GSA, with special consideration being
to the ability of each resource
to protect graduate students’
identities and ability to effectively
resolve conflicts and support
students. If it is found
necessary, the GLC strongly suggests
that a replacement resource must
be implemented immediately to give
students anonymous mechanisms to
report conflicts that will then
be investigated in a serious
manner with the potential for
serious ramifications for repeat
offenders.
-
31
APPENDIX A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Graduate Leadership Council (GLC)
has many individuals and groups
to thank. Firstly, we are
very grateful to the
administrative team with whom the
Graduate Leadership Council has
the pleasure of interfacing. Their
tireless efforts have addressed
and resolved a number of our
most important initiatives. This
administrative group includes but is
not limited to: Dwight McBride,
Simon Greenwold, Andrew Wachtel,
Penny Warren, Kate Veraldi, Josie
Whetstone, Patricia Delgado, and
Natalie Hudson (The Graduate School),
Patricia Telles-‐Irvin, Carretta Cooke,
and William Banis, and (Division
of Student Affairs), and Lonnie
Dunlap and Kamilah McCoy (University
Career Services). We would
like to thank the Northwestern
University Board of Trustees for
their continued commitment to
dialogue with graduate students. We
appreciate the opportunity to share
our visions for graduate life
with you and to work with
you towards solutions. We are
also indebted to Lisa
Metzger-‐Mugg and Nick Alena (TGS)
for their helpful feedback and
excellent
