Perceptions of Engineering Doctoral Programs

Joy Watson; Jed S. Lyons

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Publication Date: June 10, 2012
Start Date: June 10, 2012
End Date: June 13, 2012
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Educating Students for Professional Success
Tagged Division: Graduate Studies
Page Count: 15
Page Numbers: 25.1034.1 - 25.1034.15
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--21791
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/21791
Download Count: 561

Paper Authors

biography

Joy Watson University of South Carolina

visit author page

Joy Watson is currently a STEM education consultant working with private industry, academia. and the U.S. Navy to develop a logistics/IT course for low-income, high potential middle and high school students. She completed her Ph.D. in the College of Engineering at the University of South Carolina in Aug. 2011. She obtained her B.S. and M.S. in chemical engineering from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Before entering the doctoral program, she worked as a process engineer in the pulp and paper industry and as patent examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. At the University of South Carolina, Watson worked in two different middle school classrooms as a NSF GK-12/Pi Fellow. While at the University of Tennessee, she participated in the co-op (industrial internship) program and was appointed a co-op ambassador to mentor undergraduate students pursuing industrial internships. She also has mentored undergraduate research assistants during her master’s and Ph.D. programs. Her primary research interests include preparing doctoral students for industry and academic careers and the rheology of ionic liquids and cellulose solutions.

visit author page

biography

Jed S. Lyons University of South Carolina

visit author page

Jed Lyons is a professor of mechanical engineering and the Faculty Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of South Carolina.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

PERCEPTIONS OF ENGINEERING DOCTORAL PROGRAMSDoctoral education in the United States prepares the next generation of highly skilled workerswhile creating new knowledge vital to the US competiveness in a global knowledge-basedeconomy [1]. Yet only 64% of students who begin engineering doctoral programs completetheir degrees within ten years according to the Council of Graduate Schools [2]. Research showsthat many doctoral students leave programs because the program was a “wrong fit” suggestingthat incoming doctoral students may have misconceptions about the degree programs [3]. Thebroad objective of this study is to determine the potential Ph.D. candidates’ expectations ofdoctoral programs. This objective was accomplished by surveying over 150 potentialengineering Ph.D. candidates, including undergraduate engineering students and engineers whohad completed their undergraduate degree.The survey had two parts. The first part was based on previous research that identified a list of32 skills Ph.D.s need in industry. Participants were asked to rate how well they thought a Ph.D.program would prepare them in each skill. This list of skills was created by reviewing jobsolicitations for industry positions requiring a Ph.D. It included technical skills, such as solvingproblems and designing experiments, and non-technical skills such as communication andteamwork.The second part contained a list of techniques used in doctoral education. Participants wereasked to rate the extent that they were interested in each technique listed. The list of techniqueswas also based on previous research which involved a systematic program review of engineeringdoctoral programs in the United States such as independent research and major area courseworkand techniques less frequently found such as industrial internships. The survey included anopen-response question asking participants what would make an engineering Ph.D. moreattractive. Additionally, demographic information was collected from the participants.Results indicated that participants felt that doctoral programs would be prepared to doeverything, including things not taught. Potential Ph.D. candidates were most interested in majorarea coursework, industrial internships and attending conferences. On the other hand, onlinetraining and qualifying exams were the least appealing. These results have implications for howdoctoral programs are advertised in graduate handbooks. Potential Ph.D. candidates most oftenmentioned financial concern where considering doctoral programs. They often stated that they“did not want to teach” reflecting a lack of understanding that the doctoral degree is relevant toindustrial jobs. The full paper will include responses by different demographic groups. Resultsfrom this study can be used to inform doctoral programs and enhance the recruitment efforts ofengineering doctoral students in the United States.[1] ""National Science Board: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010." Arlington, VA, pp. 2-24.[2] R. Sowell, "The CGS Ph.D. Completion Project," in 95th Annual Meeting AACRAO, Chicago, April 14, 2009.[3] J. Boulder, "A Study of Doctoral Students' Perceptions of the Doctoral Support and Services Offered by their Academic Institution," Ph.D., Mississippi State University, 2010.

Citation
Format

Watson, J., & Lyons, J. S. (2012, June), Perceptions of Engineering Doctoral Programs Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--21791

TY - CPAPER
AB - PERCEPTIONS OF ENGINEERING DOCTORAL PROGRAMSDoctoral education in the United States prepares the next generation of highly skilled workerswhile creating new knowledge vital to the US competiveness in a global knowledge-basedeconomy [1]. Yet only 64% of students who begin engineering doctoral programs completetheir degrees within ten years according to the Council of Graduate Schools [2]. Research showsthat many doctoral students leave programs because the program was a “wrong fit” suggestingthat incoming doctoral students may have misconceptions about the degree programs [3]. Thebroad objective of this study is to determine the potential Ph.D. candidates’ expectations ofdoctoral programs. This objective was accomplished by surveying over 150 potentialengineering Ph.D. candidates, including undergraduate engineering students and engineers whohad completed their undergraduate degree.The survey had two parts. The first part was based on previous research that identified a list of32 skills Ph.D.s need in industry. Participants were asked to rate how well they thought a Ph.D.program would prepare them in each skill. This list of skills was created by reviewing jobsolicitations for industry positions requiring a Ph.D. It included technical skills, such as solvingproblems and designing experiments, and non-technical skills such as communication andteamwork.The second part contained a list of techniques used in doctoral education. Participants wereasked to rate the extent that they were interested in each technique listed. The list of techniqueswas also based on previous research which involved a systematic program review of engineeringdoctoral programs in the United States such as independent research and major area courseworkand techniques less frequently found such as industrial internships. The survey included anopen-response question asking participants what would make an engineering Ph.D. moreattractive. Additionally, demographic information was collected from the participants.Results indicated that participants felt that doctoral programs would be prepared to doeverything, including things not taught. Potential Ph.D. candidates were most interested in majorarea coursework, industrial internships and attending conferences. On the other hand, onlinetraining and qualifying exams were the least appealing. These results have implications for howdoctoral programs are advertised in graduate handbooks. Potential Ph.D. candidates most oftenmentioned financial concern where considering doctoral programs. They often stated that they“did not want to teach” reflecting a lack of understanding that the doctoral degree is relevant toindustrial jobs. The full paper will include responses by different demographic groups. Resultsfrom this study can be used to inform doctoral programs and enhance the recruitment efforts ofengineering doctoral students in the United States.[1] &quot;&quot;National Science Board: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010.&quot; Arlington, VA, pp. 2-24.[2] R. Sowell, &quot;The CGS Ph.D. Completion Project,&quot; in 95th Annual Meeting AACRAO, Chicago, April 14, 2009.[3] J. Boulder, &quot;A Study of Doctoral Students&#39; Perceptions of the Doctoral Support and Services Offered by their Academic Institution,&quot; Ph.D., Mississippi State University, 2010.
AU - Joy Watson
AU - Jed S. Lyons
CY - San Antonio, Texas
DA - 2012/06/10
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Perceptions of Engineering Doctoral Programs
UR - https://peer.asee.org/21791
DO - 10.18260/1-2--21791
ER -