University Affairs commentary on our CSPC panel

On November 30, University Affairs posted two articles  that summarise and discuss the major issues that came up in our session at the 3rd Annual Canadian Science Policy Conference:

  1. Is Canada producing too many PhDs? Yes, no and maybe
  2. The problem with PhD training in Canada

It was really great to have Léo in attendance at this session as his journalistic eye and his vast experience covering issues in Canadian universities allows him to clearly distil the key points from our session – I strongly encourage a read through.

After reading these, you may ask:  ”What exactly was accomplished?”, and this is a question that I have reflected on myself since the conference as well.  For one, I was very pleased that we could get a stage to present this issue – many people fail to appreciate the resources that get poured into the training of scientists and what an enormous waste it is to have the vast majority of them aiming for something they will simply not become (as opposed to those who train in medicine, law, and accounting who will generally become doctors, lawyers, and accountants).

The second item is one that the UA articles really bring home.  We need to encourage people in PhD programs (and in postdocs) to look beyond academia.  I would not suggest a mass exodus by any stretch, but with a less than 20% rate of becoming a tenure track professor, one owes it to themselves to consider what else they might do with their high level of training.  We need people to actively pursue non-academic careers, and not fall victim to labels of “failing” in academia.

Thanks to the University Affairs folks, as well as to Mehrdad Hariri and his team for putting off a great conference and a special personal thanks to one team member (Marcius Extavour) for helping the Education and Training of Scientists session get organized in timely manner.

Print Friendly
Posted in Education and Training, Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

More on Aboriginal Education in Canada

In my last blog posting, I discussed “The State of Aboriginal Learning in Canada” report and promised to talk more about potential solutions to the barriers to education faced by Aboriginal people in Canada. To that end, I have just finished reading two reports:

Both reports are quite long and detailed and I highly recommend that you check them out if you are interested in this issue. I don’t purport to be an expert on this issue – in fact, I’m really just learning a lot of this for the first time – but I thought I’d share with you some of my impressions.

One thing that jumped out at me from my reading was that both reports recommended the elimination of a 2% annual cap on spending increases for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development’s Post-Secondary Education Program (PSE), which provides funding for, among other things, eligible First Nations and Inuit students (but not Métis or non-status First Nations individuals) to obtain a post-secondary education. It was pointed out that a 2% annual increase comes nowhere near the increase in the cost of education since 1996, when the cap was put in place. Nor does it account for an increased number of eligible individuals seeking an education1, nor address the lack of support for non-status Aboriginal people. The Standing Committee’s report is dated February 2007, yet it appears that their call to remove this cap hadn’t yet happened even three years later, as the AFN report, dated June 2010, is making that exact same recommendation. I took a look around the Department’s website and couldn’t find anything to show whether or not anything has happened since that time on this front2.

Of course, it’s a time of fiscal restraint, so calls to increase funding are generally met with “where are we going to get the money?” The AFN report includes a section on “The Cost of Doing Nothing,” which notes that due to the health and social inequities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations “expenditures on First Nations postsecondary education are an investment with substantial returns in terms of reduced costs in social assistance, health care, and unemployment.” It’s a lot cheaper to provide education than it is to incarcerate a person or provide welfare; similarly, health care can be quite costly, but better education can lead to better health3<sup>,</sup>4

Another interesting point in the Standing Committee’s report was:

“Gilbert Whiteduck of Québec’s First Nations Education Council told us that the 2002 Minister’s National Working Group on Education “concluded there were 6,000 reports on First Nations education in this country”. In his view, “It is now time to stop studying the issue and take action, by developing specific programs. … [W]e should really be thinking of the young people who no longer have any hope, and yet would like to make a positive contribution to Canadian society in their own culture.”

And, of course, money isn’t the only issue. Again from the Standing Committee Report:

“We know, however, as Roberta Jamieson reminded us, that although increased financial resources are essential, “problems won’t be dealt with, nor potential liberated, if we just throw enough money at it”.

The Committee believes that government also needs to work in close collaboration with Aboriginal stakeholders in developing a comprehensive, long-term strategic approach to Aboriginal post-secondary education. Immediate measures to address present failings in existing systems in the short term need to be supplemented by the development of medium and long-term measures to ensure the cycle of disadvantage owing to inadequate financial resources is not repeated.”

The AFN report talks quite a bit the right of Aboriginal people “to exercise full jurisdiction over First Nations learning.” And I am again reminded that I’m writing about this issue as a non-Aboriginal individual. Solutions for these complex issues can and should come from Aboriginal people, working in collaboration with others in post-secondary institutions and government, towards a common goal of supporting the learning needs of Aboriginal people.

The AFN report talks about “the need for supporting post-secondary education and skills training for First Nations youth and adults, not only for them to meet their individual academic aspirations, but also that they may contribute to the capacity and nation building required to facilitate strong First Nations governance.” The Aboriginal population is the fastest growing demographic in Canada, with a lot of potential,  and it behooves all Canadians to be concerned about this issue, both from a standpoint of equity, but also with a view to the economic future of Canada.

Print Friendly
  1. The Aboriginal population is the fastest growing demographic in Canada. []
  2. If anybody happens to have information on this, please let us know! []
  3. And this is strictly from a financial point of view. It says nothing about the emotional/mental/spiritual toll of unemployment, incarceration, ill health, etc. []
  4. For an economic analysis, see Investing in Aboriginal Education in Canada: An Economic Perspective by the Canadian Policy Research Networks. []
Posted in Education and Training | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Canadian Science Policy Conference – Food for thought

For those who will be attending the conference this week and in particular those who will be attending the panel on the Education and Training of Scientists on Thursday afternoon, I have pulled together a list of popular posts on the topics that inspired the composition of the panel:

  1. The changing resources in Academia
  2. Professionals in High Demand
  3. The Rise of the Cookie Cutter PhD
  4. Hire Scientists to do Scientific Research
  5. Old Debate, more participants:  What do 80% of people do with a PhD
  6. Doctors of Philosophy?  I fear not…
  7. Say NO to the Second Post Doc
  8. The future of the PhD
  9. What do we do with all the PhDs?
Looking for to an excellent discussion tomorrow – see some of you there.

 

Print Friendly
Posted in Education and Training, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Good news from the Border – Keeping international PhDs in Canada

QUICK REMINDER:

For those that missed it, I’ll be chairing a session on the Education and Training of Scientists at this year’s Canadian Science Policy Conference in Ottawa next week.  I posted on the topic a few weeks back and would love to get more feedback from people on additional items or proposed solutions to how Canada should best deal with the increase in highly trained specialised scientists and their changing demographic.   (thanks to all those that have sent emails and commented so far – great stuff!)

Good news from the Border – Keeping international PhDs in Canada

Last week the federal government announced that they will expand the skilled workers category to include PhD students in particular disciplines (mostly science and technology) in order to fill gaps in the work force.    This news is most welcome for current PhD students looking to extend their stay in Canada post-degree.  As the CBC article quoted Immigration Minister Jason Kenney “these are folks who are pre-integrated, they are set for success” – so of course it makes sense to let them jump the queue.  It does seem reasonable, however, that the logic being used here could easily apply to PhD students in all disciplines, but for right now, I think beggars can’t be choosers and we tackle one issue at a time.

Where the water is a little murkier is what happens to postdoctoral fellows after their first work visa expires.  A ripple went through the postdoc community when Citizenship and Immigration Canada announced that a four year maximum term was to be instated and must be followed by a four year term outside of Canada before re-application.  From what I’ve been hearing from various administrative sources, it appears that academic research falls under one of the exceptions on their site.  Whether or not research positions will always be viewed as creating or maintaining “significant social, cultural or economic benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents” remains to be seen.

Interestingly, and moving in nearly the complete opposite direction, the UK government is making it quite difficult for highly trained individuals to call the UK their home – an interesting commentary on this by the UK Visa Bureau is here.  In essence though, the border in the UK is becoming increasingly tight even for highly skilled migrants.

Hopefully Canada continues on the road its currently on and keeps encouraging highly skilled labourers to make their home in Canada.

Print Friendly
Posted in Education and Training | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Quick Review of the 2009 “The State of Aboriginal Learning in Canada” report

I’ve been doing some work with the Aboriginal Health Program at my day job and it has reminded me of something that I’ve been meaning to blog about here: the rates of Aboriginal people in post-secondary education. Back when Dave and I were grad students and we were sitting around talking about “issues that face trainees” (i.e., those early discussions that originally spurred us on to start this blog), this was something we talked about. We’d heard about the low numbers of Aboriginal students enrolled in university from the Aboriginal Coordinator for some of the science-related faculties and when a group of us were sitting around talking about it we realized that, despite our fairly wide networks of grad students, none of us even knew of a single Aboriginal graduate student at our university.

The 2009 State of Aboriginal Learning in Canada report by the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) provide some stats to back up our experiences:

  • People aged 20-24 without a high school diploma:
    • Aboriginal: 40%
    • Non-Aboriginal: 13%
  • People aged 25 to 64 who have completed a post-secondary certificate, diploma or degree:
    • Aboriginal: 41%
    • Non-Aboriginal: 56%
  • People aged 25 to 64 who have completed a university degree:
    • Aboriginal: 8%
      • First Nations people living on reserve: 4%
      • First Nations people living off reserve: 9%
      • Metis people: 9%
    • Non-Aboriginal: 23%

This report didn’t differentiate which type of degrees they were talking about (i.e., undergraduate vs. graduate), but since we know that only a minority of those who do an undergraduate degree will go on to graduate school, we can surmise that of those 8%, the majority will not have graduate degrees.

All of this paints a bleak picture, because we know that high school and post-secondary education are important both for the individuals who get them (in terms of being able to go onto further education and to get jobs) as well as for society (i.e., building a “knowledge economy”). When a portion of the population is so vastly unrepresented in the academic world, it’s not only unfair to the people who aren’t, for a variety of reasons, able to access education, but it also robs society of the benefits of all the ideas and great work that those minds could have contributed to the sciences and other areas of research.

To add another dimension to the discussion, let’s look at this stat (again from the CCL report):

  • “a 2005 EKOS survey of First Nations people living on-reserve found that 70% of young people aspire to purse higher education.”

That’s a pretty big disparity. 70% of Aboriginal youth living on reserve aspire to pursue high education, but only 41% of Aboriginal adults (on & off reserve1 have completed a post-secondary education and only 4% of First Nations adults living on reserve have a university education. The main reasons given, in that same EKOS survey, for not pursuing a post-secondary education were: “lack of money,” “lack of encouragement,” and “problems with alcohol, drugs or pregnancy.” A 2006 Statistics Canada survey reported the mains reasons for not pursuing a post-secondary education among Aboriginal youth people living off-reserve as: “they got a job or wanted to work,” “financial reasons,” and “family responsibilities other than caring for own child.”

However, this report did highlight that Aboriginal people tend to take a more holistic view of education, and thus understanding and assessing Aboriginal learning requires that we look at the many ways that Aboriginal people learn beyond just the formal education system. Learning is viewed as a lifelong process, from infancy to old age, and occurs in a variety of settings beyond the classroom, including in community, the home, the workplace and on the land). Some of the measures of these other components of learning paint a fuller picture:

  • Youth participating in social clubs or groups regularly:
    • Aboriginal: 31%
    • all youth: 21%
  • Youth participating in art or music activities:
    • Aboriginal: 37%
    • all youth: 27%
  • Youth participating in sports outside of school at least once per week:
    • Aboriginal: 70%
    • all youth: 71%
  • Learning from elders is a very important part of Aboriginal culture and “approximately four in 10 off-reserve Aboriginal youth interact with elders at least once a week (outside of school).”
  • “More than 41% of off-reserve Aboriginal children and 77% of Inuit children reported having someone in the community to help them understand their culture and history.”

So, while there are some less than encouraging stats on high school and university educational attainment among Aboriginal people in Canada, there is also evidence of a culture of, and a desire for, learning. Of course, all this begs the question of how can we get past those barriers to education? That, I think, will be the topic of my next blog posting!

Also, I’m very aware that I’m writing this posting as a white person. I’m interested to hear from Aboriginal people – those who have attained an education, those who have not, and those who aspire to. What do you think of the above data and what I’ve said about it? What are your thoughts on how we can help those who wish to attain a higher education to be able to do so?

Print Friendly
  1. The report doesn’t specify, so I’m assuming they mean on- and off-reserve []
Posted in Education and Training | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What to do with all the Scientists… find out at the 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference

In a break from normal lab routine, I’ll be dabbling in the black arts of science policy this November and running a session at the 3rd annual Canadian Science Policy Conference.  The conference runs from Nov 16th-18th and features an excellent lineup of speakers that should result in a fantastic push forward for science policy in our country.  The full speaker list can be seen here, with particular highlights of having both current presidents of SSHRC (Chad Gaffield) and of NSERC (Suzanne Fortier), the founding Director of CIHR (Alan Bernstein), the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Gary Goodyear), as well as Daily Planet‘s Jay Ingram and the Science Media Centre‘s Executive Director Penny Park.

Importantly for people that are considering joining for the conference, this Friday October 21st is the final day for early bird rate, notably very low for students and postdocs who might like to find out more about science policy and get involved in the discussion.

Rather excitingly, for the panel that I’m charged with, I’ve had very positive responses from invited speakers and have a final panel lineup that I hope will stimulate a positive and productive discussion on how Canada can best deal with the demographic shift that has been occurring over the last decade.  The session will feature presentations and discussion from Alan Bernstein (Founding Director of CIHR), Angela Crawley (Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars), Suzanne Fortier (President of NSERC), and Olga Stachova (COO, MITACS) and will be introduced and moderated by yours truly. The major questions being posed are:

  1. Are we producing too many scientists?
  2. What careers can these highly trained individuals undertake and how can we facilitate the transition?
Essentially, we will try to address the fact that substantial resources are invested into the education and training of these scientists and many of them find themselves in their mid- 30s without permanent positions or even any confident notion of where they are going to be in the next five years, despite a decade of highly specialised training.

For our readers who cannot attend, it would be a real treat to hear from you about what you think the major issues are and how we might begin to address them.  We’ve certainly tried to address the points before here, here and here, but this session offers a really nice chance to table some solutions that might just get acted upon.  If you’d rather not post for the world to see, please do feel free to contact me at david.kent@scienceadvocacy.org.

I look forward to hearing from some of you.

 

 

Print Friendly
Posted in Education and Training, General, Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

A Quick Thanksgiving Post on Bad Graphs

I’m full of Thanksgiving dinner, so today’s posting is going to be a quick one!

A friend of mine recently passed along this paper to me, as she thought it might be a useful tool in teaching research methods/statistics: Graphs for Dummies: The Troubled Geometry of Tim Hudak’s “changebook” by Jim Stanford. This paper from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives critiques the graphs included in a document that was put out by the Ontario Conservative party in advance of the recent Ontario provincial election, finding fault with all 13 graphs in the document, including such issues as inconsistent scaling that made differences look bigger than they actually were, inaccurate labeling that misleads the reader, and even cases were the data presented are false. The author compares this report to “The Common Sense Revolution” document produced by the Ontario Conservative party back in 1995, which the authors notes “reflected a sober, empirically validated quantitative presentation.”

For me this brought up the importance of having a well-educated population who think critically about what is presented to them. How many people who read the “changebook” document thought to question its presentation of data and how many accepted the graphs at face value? How many times have I looked at a graph (even on something important, like a document that’s meant to influence who I vote for) and not taken the time to check it for accuracy and appropriate presentation? The basics of creating and reading graphs is something that should be covered in elementary school, but given the pleothera of bad infographics one sees, it makes one wonder how many people remember those early lessons.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Print Friendly
Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Quarterly Summary: Guest Bloggers are Great!

This summer featured our second summer series.  Last year’s “So you want to be a…” was followed up this year by “Notches in the STIC” which navigated through the key points of the Science and Technology Innovation Council’s recent report on Canadian Science.  This autumn should prove to be very busy, we’ll do our best to keep up with the pace of developments – always nice when so much is happening around you.  Interestingly this quarter, our guest bloggers Vancouver Scientist and Marianne Stanford stood out as most popular posts – always looking to increase the number of people contributing, we’d love to hear from you if you have an issue that you are passionate about.

For now, a recap of what was done this quarter:

Articles Written

Beth:

Dave:

Our Other Activities

Dave has continued to write for the Stem Cell Network blog publishing two articles this quarter:

Dave has organized and will partake in a panel at the Canadian Science Policy Conference (a post on this to follow soon) – the session will focus on how Canada should deal with the increasing numbers of highly trained scientists.

Finally, three posts are under consideration for inclusion in the Open Laboratory 2011 collection:

Identifying good scientists and keeping them honest
Reducing medical (science) waste: Thinking before doing…
Professionals in High Demand

Discussion Highlights

  • Commenting on guest blogger Marianne Stanford’s very popular post about deciding between Academia and Industry, Ali shared a personal story about the same decision-making process and emphasized the importance of city and the bonus of not having to write grants.
  • Following Beth’s quick hit on trainee stipends, Sciencegirl started an interesting conversation about the differences between SSHRC and CIHR and what other awards one is allowed to hold concurrently.
  • Fellow blogger Nassif Ghoussoub stressed to us the importance of focusing on issues directly related to trainees.  We’d posted on the NSERC success rates prior to this, but extensive follow up and interesting discussion can be found on his Piece of Mind site.
  • Liz C shared a link to Nature magazine’s story on the Canadian government’s muzzling of scientists in response to Beth’s Science in the Federal Government post.

Popular Posts this Quarter

Links Added:

Print Friendly
Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adding Shades of Grey into Science Policy

I was forwarded two articles last month (thanks Mike O!) from the world of Australian science policy.  In these articles, the debate centred on whether or not academics should be involved in making public policy.   The article that started the ball rolling was by Peter Shergold, Australia’s most senior public servant from 2003-08, who maligned the fact that so few academics had influence on public policy.  This set off a flurry of responses, most interesting of which was published by Professor Raymond Da Silva Rosa who states:

Political activity involving matters of consequence and engaging the wider public isn’t conducive to conveying inquiry that admits shades of grey… yet this is the nature of just about all scientific inquiry

While the original article concerned all academic disciplines and the latter seemed to be more focused on the sciences, the overall tug of war is similar and is based on whether or not researchers should be involved in influencing directly the policy outcome.  Both authors recognize a sharp disconnect in the worlds that academics and policymakers typically reside – best summarized by Shergold:

Many researchers feel it is better to let one’s research speak for itself rather than employ it to arrive at a negotiated, second-best, politically determined outcome. In the real world of political decision-making the rational processes meant to underpin evidence-based policy are characterised by bargaining, entrenched commitments and the complex interplay of diverse stakeholder interests.

While it is also a much debated quandary in Canada and the UK, especially in light of so much demand for evidence-based policy, the key issue seems to boil down to the process of getting the evidence from the academic lab book into the government policy book.  This can be imagined in multiple forms ranging from completely hands-off with research being collated/synthesised by a third party or as direct as the researcher putting pen to paper in policy land (maybe even as an elected MP).

A personal favourite scheme of mine (though admittedly small) was something I heard first from former national science adviser Art Carty who wanted to have professors go on sabbatical to Parliament and/or provincial legislatures – I think that for key issues which involve substantial amounts of science (climate change, healthcare, human embryonic stem cells, etc ) it would be especially useful to have experts in Ottawa constantly informing the debate.  For example, such experts could give reports to the House, make points of clarification during committee meetings, or even identify possible outcomes/solutions from the field that have not yet entered the mainstream.

In the UK, there have been many movements to encourage scientists to get involved in informing policy – particularly here in Cambridge where substantial monies have been devoted to the Centre for Science and Policy with the underlying goal of getting more science and technology into the hands of policymakers.  We’ve mentioned this group and and other interesting science/policy programs before in a post called Devils of Details.

In his argument to discourage scientists from directly pursuing public debate, Da Silva Rosa questions universities “what is the level of political engagement compatible with disinterested scientific activity?”  To me, this appears a wonderfully airy statement when one drills down to ask what exactly is disinterested scientific activity?  Everyone has biases, and scientists are no different – just read the literature of any field and you will see ideas turned on their heads (sometimes quite quickly!) after statements of remarkable confidence are made by leaders in the field.  We have to realise that while research is incredibly powerful, it is also mutable – it may have a higher degree of confidence in some cases, but it should never be taken as an absolute.  While a well-designed experiment itself can approach purity, the person doing it almost certainly falls well short as can the subsequent interpretation of the data.  As for being disinterested,  just imagine what goes through a researcher’s mind when a result contradicts their life’s work (or even their most recent research paper).

In the end however, I think that in a defined role, academics can play a considerably positive role in policymaking.  It will certainly take some adaptation to the world of compromise and political games1, but the shades of grey that academics could provide might just be brought forward into positive and productive policy in our country – and who knows, maybe they might learn a thing or two as well.

 

 

Print Friendly
  1. I suspect this isn’t miles further from what academics already experience in university administrator or grant panellist roles []
Posted in General, Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Professional Development for Graduate Students

An excellent article appeared in University Affairs last week on a couple of programs in Canadian universities that try to address Professional Development for graduate students.

In my current career as an evaluator in health care, professional development is an ongoing part of my job. In the performance planning process used by my employer, I don’t just list the projects I intend to complete (though, of course, that’s an important part of my plan), but also the areas of personal and professional development I intend to work on over the upcoming year and how I intend to work on them. And in my twice annual performance reviews with my boss, progress towards my personal and professional development goals is discussed and it makes up part of my performance appraisal results. Moreover, I’m given plenty of opportunities for professional development: through leadership and technical skills training run by my organization (and, more and more, through the other health authorities in the province), through support to join and participate in my professional organizations1, and through resources for self-directed learning, just to name a few.

When I think back to my graduate school experiences, there wasn’t really much like this, with the notable exception of opportunities for training in the area of teaching through the Centre for Teaching & Academic Growth. And, to be honest, many supervisors actively discouraged their graduate students from taking workshops on teaching, because it amounted to time you weren’t in your lab doing what was important and rewarded in academics2.  And I certainly never had anything like a performance plan or a performance appraisal as a graduate student. You’d get feedback from your supervisor on, say, some data you’d produced or a paper you’d written, but nothing formal and nothing focusing on your professional development per se.3.

Fortunately, that seems to be changing. A few professional development training programs for graduate students were cited in the UA article:

  • McGill University’s Skill Sets Program includes such areas as communication & interpersonal skills, research management & leadership, career development, creative & critical thinking, life skills, and societal & civic responsibility.
  • UBC’s Graduate Pathways to Success program includes training in such areas as success in graduate school (e.g., academic writing, grant writing), self-management, professional effectiveness, career building, constructive leadership.

In particular, I like that these programs include training in both academic-focused areas, such as applying for grants and writing academic papers, and in transferrable skills, such as leadership, stress management, and ethics, which would be useful whether an individual follows an academic or a non-academic career path.

Being that I’ve been out of graduate school for a few years, I’m a bit out of the loop on these things. Does anyone have any experience with these programs, or similar ones at their own university? If so, what do you think of them? And does anyone get performance appraisals from their graduate supervisors? Do you think it would be useful?

Print Friendly
  1. In my case, the Canadian Evaluation Society and the Canadian Public Health Association []
  2. Although mine didn’t discourage it. I felt teaching was a very important part of my career – I was a TA and an instructor throughout my PhD training – so it made a lot of sense for me to take advantage of those opportunities. []
  3. I realize that this is just from my own experience and that of other graduate students that I know, but I’m sure there are exceptions and graduate school experience varies widely. Nor am I intending to criticize my supervisor or those of other graduate students I know. I’m more making the observation that doing performance planning and appraisal, and encouraging professional development outside of the academic training in your specific lab, is not an expected role of academic supervisors, rather than saying that supervisors aren’t doing their jobs. []
Posted in Education and Training | Tagged , , | Leave a comment