Some graduate students last year graded not only their undergraduate pupils, but also the departments that normally grade them. The nationwide graduate department report card--the first of its kind--is now available online and Duke's results vary from department to department.
In the online survey conducted by the National Association of Graduate and Professional Students, self-selected Duke graduate students assigned nine departments below-average scores, six above average and eight consistent with the national average. In particular, the survey highlighted preparation for a broad range of careers and for teaching assistants as areas that may need improvement.
Lewis Siegel, dean of the Graduate School, said that although this survey is important in principle, the small group of voluntary respondents detracts from the credibility and reliability of the results.
The survey's conductors ranked departments as long as 10 students responded, and most departments were evaluated by only 10 to 20 current or former Ph.D. students.
"The problem with the survey is that it is a catch-as-catch-can group of responders, and so you often only get responses from students who are despondent and feel strongly enough to reply," Siegel said.
"I'm hoping this type of survey with this type of questions--which I think are superb--can be done so that the vast majority of students respond. That way everyone will have to take the results seriously," he said.
Siegel said the survey results were not always consistent with feedback he has received from students and faculty. "In some cases, [departments] look a lot better and in some cases, they look a lot worse," he said.
The survey asked students how well their departments were implementing a set of practices for graduate education recommended by the Association of American Universities, recommendations that President Nan Keohane helped author. The online information gave ratings in the following categories: information for perspective students, preparation for a broad range of careers, teaching and TA preparation, professional development, career placement and guidance services, controlling time to a degree, mentoring, program climate and overall satisfaction.
NAGPS also compared the letter-rankings of each Duke program to similar programs nationwide.
The individual departments at Duke ranged in their rankings, but the survey consistently gave TA preparation low marks, with 15 of the 23 departments graded receiving below-average scores. Siegel said TA preparation is a recurring area of concern that he hopes the departments will continue to improve.
Some of the departments that received low marks in that category, such as pharmacology and neurobiology, said they think those grades are unjustified because the reason they do not require students to take teaching preparatory courses is that they do not mandate graduate students to be TAs.
Another area that often received low grades was preparation for a broad range of careers.
"There is a serious concern about the preparation of students and the perceived availability for support of the faculty for doing careers outside of being clones of the professor," Siegel said. "This can do a lot to make professors aware that they need to stop sneering at students [who do not want to go into academia] and be fully supportive of them."
Brian Bunton, a second-year graduate student in the Physics Department, which scored an overall B-, said this attitude hinders curriculum and communication between students and faculty.
"On the whole, it's obvious that professors care much more about their research than their instructing," Bunton said. "It reminds me of a professional sports team with all stars and no team players. No one really cares about anyone else, they're just in it for themselves."
Some other departments, including the Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences, scored well in those areas.
"Virtually everybody in [ISDS] tries to involve our graduate students in all activities in the department--with research, with social events, with mentoring," said Jim Berger, director of ISDS, which scored an A in overall satisfaction and an A- in mentoring--both above-average scores.
Forth-year ISDS student Marco Ferreira said he agreed with the high marks the department received, citing program climate, diversity, and career placement as particular assets.
The Political Science Department also garnered above average scores in all but one category, with an overall satisfaction average of an A-, compared to a national average of B-. Rom Coles, director of graduate studies in the political science department, attributed the high marks to both faculty and student involvement.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.