Diversity in the scientific community 9780841232341, 0841232342, 9780841232365, 0841232369

Table of contents :
Content: Volume 1. Quantifying diversity and formulating success --
volume 2. Perspectives and exemplary programs.

Citation preview

Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1256

Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2: Perspectives and Exemplary Programs Donna J. Nelson, Editor University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma

H. N. Cheng, Editor U.S. Department of Agriculture New Orleans, Louisiana

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Distributed in print by Oxford University Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Nelson, Donna J., editor. | Cheng, H. N., editor. Title: Diversity in the scientific community / Donna J. Nelson, editor (University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma), H.N. Cheng, editor (U.S. Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana). Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2017]- | Series: ACS symposium series ; 1255, 1256 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: volume 1. Quantifying diversity and formulating success -- volume 2. Perspectives and exemplary programs Identifiers: LCCN 2017045513| ISBN 9780841232341 (v. 1) | ISBN 9780841232365 (v. 2) Subjects: LCSH: Science--Social aspects. | Diversity in the workplace. | Equality. Classification: LCC Q175.5 D548 2017 | DDC 306.4/5--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045513

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48n1984. Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society Distributed in print by Oxford University Press All Rights Reserved. Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed for internal use only, provided that a per-chapter fee of $40.25 plus $0.75 per page is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Republication or reproduction for sale of pages in this book is permitted only under license from ACS. Direct these and other permission requests to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. The citation of trade names and/or names of manufacturers in this publication is not to be construed as an endorsement or as approval by ACS of the commercial products or services referenced herein; nor should the mere reference herein to any drawing, specification, chemical process, or other data be regarded as a license or as a conveyance of any right or permission to the holder, reader, or any other person or corporation, to manufacture, reproduce, use, or sell any patented invention or copyrighted work that may in any way be related thereto. Registered names, trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Foreword The ACS Symposium Series was first published in 1974 to provide a mechanism for publishing symposia quickly in book form. The purpose of the series is to publish timely, comprehensive books developed from the ACS sponsored symposia based on current scientific research. Occasionally, books are developed from symposia sponsored by other organizations when the topic is of keen interest to the chemistry audience. Before agreeing to publish a book, the proposed table of contents is reviewed for appropriate and comprehensive coverage and for interest to the audience. Some papers may be excluded to better focus the book; others may be added to provide comprehensiveness. When appropriate, overview or introductory chapters are added. Drafts of chapters are peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection, and manuscripts are prepared in camera-ready format. As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes. Verbatim reproductions of previous published papers are not accepted.

ACS Books Department

Contents Preface .............................................................................................................................. ix

Examples of Diversity Programs in Science 1.

Educational Outcomes from MARC Undergraduate Student Research Training ..................................................................................................................... 3 Alison K. Hall

2.

The Undergraduate Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) Program at the University of Texas at San Antonio ........................................... 13 Gail P. Taylor, J. Aaron Cassill, and Edwin J. Barea-Rodriguez

3.

Xavier University of Louisiana: Routinely Beating the Odds ........................... 35 Stassi DiMaggio

4.

The Brandeis Science Posse: Building a Cohort Model Program To Retain Underserved Students in the Sciences .................................................................. 45 Melissa S. Kosinski-Collins, Kim Godsoe, and Irving R. Epstein

5.

The Chemistry Diversity Initiative at Purdue University .................................. 59 Jean Chmielewski, Colby M. Adolph, Stella K. Betancourt, Reena Blade, and Christopher J. Pulliam

6.

Accelerating Change: #DiversitySolutions on Social Media .............................. 67 Dontarie Stallings, Srikant Iyer, and Rigoberto Hernandez

Stories from Stanley Israel Awardees 7.

Diversifying the STEM Professional Workforce by Building Capacity at a Two-Year College on the U.S.-Mexico Border ..................................................... 79 David R. Brown

8.

Diversity Efforts: University of California, Berkeley, and Other ..................... 91 William A. Lester, Jr.

9.

From Introductory Chemistry at the Community College Level to Post-Undergraduate Success: Strategies at Queensborough Community College that Secure the Success of Ethnically Diverse STEM Students ........... 95 Paris Svoronos

vii

10. Increasing Diversity in the Chemical Sciences: Experiences and Lessons ..... 115 Luis A. Colón 11. Making Education and Careers in Chemistry Accessible and Successful for Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Students .......................................................................... 125 Todd Pagano 12. Wanted! Diverse STEM Professionals Seek Like-Minded Mentors, Coaches, Advocates, and Sponsors ..................................................................... 133 Gloria A. Thomas and Zakiya S. Wilson-Kennedy 13. Taking Charge of the Lack of Diversity in STEM from Graduate School to the Professoriate: Developing a National, Non-Profit Organization ............... 145 Crystal E. Valdez and Steven A. Lopez 14. Empowering Effect of Leadership Roles in Undergraduate Education ......... 155 Pratibha Varma-Nelson

Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusivity 15. Critical Mass Takes Courage: Diversity in the Chemical Sciences ................. 165 Sibrina N. Collins 16. Alphabet Soup and the ACS: The History of LGBT Inclusion ....................... 179 Christopher J. Bannochie 17. Diversity: The ACS Senior Chemists Committee and Delaware’s ChemVets .............................................................................................................. 189 Allen A. Denio 18. Why Are There so Few Doctorates with Disabilities in Chemistry? Thoughts and Reflections .................................................................................... 195 Karl S. Booksh 19. The Non-Conventional Chemist ......................................................................... 205 Ashley Neybert 20. Energizing Global Thinking as a Dimension of ACS Diversity/Inclusion Efforts .................................................................................................................... 215 Ellene Tratras Contis, Ricardo McKlmon, and Bradley D. Miller Editors’ Biographies .................................................................................................... 227

Indexes Author Index ................................................................................................................ 231 Subject Index ................................................................................................................ 233

viii

Preface The two volumes of this book are partially based on three symposia held at the ACS Spring National Meeting in San Diego, March 2016. • • •

Diversity-Quantification-Success? How to Foster Diversity in the Chemical Sciences: Lessons Learned & Taught from the Stories of Recipients of the Stanley C. Israel Award My Experience with & Advice for Improving Diversity in Chemistry

These symposia were part of the 2016 ACS activities relating to Diversity, which represented one of 2016 ACS President Donna Nelson’s presidential themes. The symposium speakers included scientists reporting original research on various aspects of diversity in science, ACS leaders, accomplished professionals, and past winners of the Stanley Israel diversity awards. Data were presented which pertained to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with a particular emphasis on chemistry. The symposia were very well attended and the comments from the audience very positive. Many symposium participants felt that it would be exceedingly useful to compile the diversity-related data and case stories presented in the symposium in one book so that scholars and students interested in diversity can conveniently draw on the book for further research, self-study, class instructions, and reference. Thus, soon after the symposia, we invited the speakers to contribute chapters to this book. In addition, several diversity researchers and opinion leaders were also invited to participate. Contributors to this book included many representatives of ACS committees and divisions related to diversity, e.g., Committee on Minority Affairs (CMA), Senior Chemists Committee (SCC), Chemists with Disabilities Committee (CWD), International Activities Committee (IAC), and Division of Professional Relations (PROF). This book is aimed: 1) to assess the current status of diversity in the scientific community, 2) to gather ideas on how to improve diversity in science, 3) to document personal stories and perspectives relating to diversity, and 4) to make the information available to the public and to a broad spectrum of scientists, including chemists and chemical engineers. A goal is to increase awareness of the importance of diversity, the immediate need for change, and the changes which are possible and most practical to achieve the desired results. A total of 28 chapters are included in this book with contributions from most speakers in the three ACS symposia. For convenience, this book is divided into two volumes. The first volume contains an overview (Chapter 1), three chapters in a section on “Using Data to Quantify the Problem, Formulate Solutions and ix

Measure Success”, and four chapters on “Workplace Environment and Work Styles for Women.” In this volume (Volume 2), 20 chapters on perspectives and exemplary diversity programs are presented. These are grouped into three sections: 1) Examples of Diversity Programs in Science, 2) Stories from Stanley Israel Awardees, 3) Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusivity. The authors are all accomplished members of the scientific community, and there is valuable information in each of the chapters. A major audience for this book will be working chemists and chemical engineers, graduate and undergraduate students, and chemistry teachers. Because the diversity data cover so many disciplines, this book should appeal to a wider audience than merely chemists. Scientists and engineers of all disciplines, and other related professions, such as medicine and law, may find the information useful. In addition to the data, the perspectives and the personal stories will inspire readers to support diversity and to champion diversity programs. All the chapters illustrate the importance of diversity and inclusivity in STEM. We appreciate the efforts of the authors who took time to prepare their manuscripts and our many reviewers for their cooperation during the peer review process. We also thank Arlene Furman, Tracey Glazener, Elizabeth Hernandez and their colleagues at ACS Books for their patient and effective handling of the manuscripts. It is the editors’ hope that the readers will find the information given in the two volumes of this book useful, and they will have long-term impact on the scientific enterprise.

Donna J. Nelson Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Oklahoma 101 Stephenson Pkwy Norman, OK 73019-9704, USA

H. N. Cheng Southern Regional Research Center USDA – Agricultural Research Service 1100 Robert E. Lee Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70124, USA

x

Examples of Diversity Programs in Science

Chapter 1

Educational Outcomes from MARC Undergraduate Student Research Training Alison K. Hall* National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 45 Center Drive MSC 6200, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

The Maximizing Access to Research Careers (MARC) program is one of several initiatives from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) designed to support undergraduate students from underrepresented groups to improve their preparation for doctoral research degrees and the biomedical workforce. Trainees must be honors students majoring in the natural sciences planning to pursue a research doctorate in the biomedical sciences. Each institution designs its own two-year program of academic, research and professional development and all programs must provide trainees with a summer research experience at a research-intensive institution outside the home institution. A recent analysis of multisite outcomes indicates that MARC alumni achieve their educational goals. There was substantial variability in outcomes at different institutions, but overall, among recent alumni, 29.2% earned a Ph.D., 11.7% earned an M.D., and another 25.8% completed or are enrolled in other advanced degrees.

MARC U-STAR Program The Maximizing Access to Research Careers (MARC) Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research (U-STAR) program (1) is part of a larger effort at NIGMS to promote, support and sustain the development of a highly © 2017 American Chemical Society

skilled, creative and diverse biomedical workforce. This program is designed to assist undergraduate institutions to provide academic, research and professional development activities to eligible trainees. The goal of the program is to increase the number of undergraduates from underrepresented backgrounds who earn a science baccalaureate and matriculate into and complete a biomedical science Ph.D. program. MARC U-STAR grantee institutions are expected to design 2-year programs for the junior and senior (or final two) years of college that involve trainees in academic enhancement, research training and professional skills development. Institutions incorporate programmatic interventions widely recognized for promoting persistence in the science baccalaureate, including early research experiences, active learning in introductory courses, membership in learning communities, participation in a research culture on campus and other experiences that contribute to scientist identity and belief in one’s capabilities (2–5). In addition to these on-campus enhancements, MARC U-STAR institutions are also expected to provide each trainee with a summer research experience at a research-intensive institution. Trainees receive a stipend and tuition remission during program participation, and the awards provide support for program leaders and programmatic activities. Participant eligibility is determined by awardee institutions and conforms to NIH’s Interest in Diversity (6) although specific eligibility requirements have changed over the history of these awards. Current eligibility focuses on individuals from groups nationally underrepresented in biomedical sciences (7) and generally includes individuals from certain racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities and individuals with specific educational or financial disadvantage. The MARC U-STAR program encourages appointment of honors students who have high grade point averages or other achievements as designated by their institutions. The MARC U-STAR program has evolved from its inception almost 40 years ago, and continues to evolve. The MARC Honors Undergraduate Research Training (HURT) program was established in 1977 to develop strong undergraduate curricula in bioscience and to stimulate undergraduate interest in the biomedical sciences. In 1996, the program was recast as the MARC Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research with the focus on junior and senior level honors students and an emphasis on continuous improvement of program goals and specific measurable objectives. In 2013, the expectation that over half the MARC U-STAR alumni nationally will enter biomedical Ph.D. programs was made explicit in the Funding Opportunity Announcement. For more information on the current program, see the MARC U-STAR Funding Opportunity Announcement PAR-16-113 (8). The geographical distribution of the participating institutions is shown in Figure 1. For example, in fiscal year (FY) 2014, NIGMS supported 59 MARC U-STAR programs with 597 MARC trainees and a program budget of almost $17 million.

4

Figure 1. MARC participating institutions (July 2016). Reproduced from MARC website (1).

Approach Award information for MARC institutions funded between 1986 and 2013 was collected from the NIH IMPAC-II database, reconciled, and a frozen file of approximately 9,000 unique appointees to a MARC U-STAR program was used as a basis for subsequent outcomes. This file was compared with the NSF Doctorate Record File that included Ph.D. degrees granted through June 30, 2012 with assistance from the NIH Office of Extramural Research. This initial comparison suggested that for MARC alumni in each five year cohort from 1986-1999, just over 20% earned a Ph.D. (9). In a second approach, a subset of MARC U-STAR alumni appointed between 2001 and 2005 (n=1,810) was tracked by grantee reports and individual look-ups in public sources, performed between June and December 2015. In some cases, no subsequent educational or career information was available, and these unknowns are indicated. Undergraduate and graduate institution names were compared with the Carnegie Research Classification Basic 2010 as well as lists of institutions that enroll many students from underrepresented groups.

5

Figure 2. The number of institutions with a MARC U-STAR program is shown over time by A. Carnegie Research Classification, and B. Institutional Enrollment. Abbreviations: Research includes research institutions; Master’s includes all sizes of master’s institutions, Doctoral includes Research Doctoral institutions; Bacc indicates any baccalaureate institutions. B. The number of Institutions with substantial enrollment of students from underrepresented groups, including Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI), American Indian Alaska Native-Serving Institutions (AIANSI), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) are indicated. Reproduced from ref. (9).

6

Educational Outcomes NIGMS recently performed a retrospective analysis (9) to better understand the educational outcomes achieved by MARC U-STAR alumni and how the program meets the goals described in the funding announcement. This report describes the educational outcomes from over 9,000 MARC U-STAR alumni appointed between 1986 and 2013 at 114 institutions. This analysis joins several earlier studies of the MARC program, and contemporary analyses of the NIGMS postbaccalaureate research education program (PREP (10)) and NIGMS diversity supplements to research grants (11). Others have provided institutional outcomes from programs that included MARC U-STAR or PREP support (12–15). The key findings have been summarized by Hall (16) and are shown below: 1. Institutions with MARC U-STAR programs differ in their characteristics (Figure 2). In terms of research strength, MARC programs were split almost equally into research universities, master’s universities and baccalaureate institutions. Many contemporary MARC U-STAR programs are at institutions that enroll substantial numbers of individuals from underrepresented groups. At any particular institution, MARC U-STAR programs are often complemented by another student development program from NIGMS or elsewhere. 2. Student participation in MARC. Students who participated in MARC programs reported that they were from well-represented groups, from one of several underrepresented groups or chose not to report. From the mid-1990s to the present, about 85 percent of MARC participants reported they were from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Figure 3). Among the recent MARC U-STAR alumni (2001-2005) for whom we reported educational outcomes, 42 percent were African-American, 29 percent were Hispanic, 8 percent were AANAPI or AIAN and 9 percent were unknown or withheld.

Figure 3. MARC Alumni Demographics. The percentage of MARC alumni are reported for the 1977-1984 cohort in the IOM-85-08 report and for the 2001-2005 cohort described in this report. (reproduced from ref. (9)). 7

Table 1. Educational Outcomes from Recent MARC USTAR Alumni. Alumni initially appointed between 2001-2005 (n=1,812) were tracked for their highest educational outcomes. Research doctorate, health professional, clinical doctorate, master’s degree, and other outcomes are indicated, as well as the small number of alumni reported as terminated from the program (Term), deceased (Dec), or who had MARC appointments less than six months (Short). Among those who had earned a baccalaureate, many were currently enrolled in a graduate program (grad student), were employed (workforce), or were not traceable (unknown). Reproduced from ref. (9). Educational Outcomes of Recent MARC U-STAR Alumni Degree

Number

Percent

Ph.D.

504

M.D.- Ph.D.

25

Doctorate (Other)

17

D.D.S/D.M.D./D.V.M.

35

Pharm.D.

42

M.D./D.O.

212

11.7%

J.D.

11

0.6%

M.A./M.S.

202

Masters (Other)

59

Baccalaureate

632

34.9%

71

3.9%

1810

99.9%

Grad Student

101

Workforce

244

Unknown

287

Term/Dec/Short Total

29.2%

5.2%

14.4%

3. Among MARC U-STAR alumni appointed between 2001 and 2005, 70 percent are enrolled in or have completed a graduate degree (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent earned a Ph.D. or M.D.-Ph.D., 12 percent earned an M.D. or D.O., 5 percent earned a doctorate in another professional/clinical field, 14 percent earned a master’s degree, and some were still enrolled in a graduate program. The percentage of students obtaining a Ph.D. is about twice that for undergraduates supported by the NIGMS Diversity Supplement Program (11). 4. Ph.D. matriculation by MARC alumni proved challenging to quantify since the degree of detail and completeness of the grantee reports varied considerably. Grantee-reported Ph.D. matriculation rates for MARC alumni appointed in 20012005 represented about 59% overall (ref. (9)). This value is likely to include matriculation into any non-medical, higher degree programs, and may also include 8

those who start out on a Ph.D. path, but end up with a Masters. Similarly, if one assumes all masters students originally matriculated into a Ph.D. program, Ph.D. matriculation imputed from Table 1 is also over 50% (including all non health doctorates, masters, and currently enrolled). It will be important to obtain more detailed trainee information to improve our understanding of the program. Using the grantee-reported average of 59 percent for overall Ph.D. matriculation, and 29 percent for earned Ph.D.s collected from public sources, we can estimate that two-thirds of MARC U-STAR trainees completed the Ph.D. degree they began. Reports from the Council of Graduate Schools indicate that the 10-year cumulative Ph.D. completion rates in the life sciences have been between 50 and 58 percent for students from underrepresented groups and in the range of 59 to 69 percent for all students (17). MARC U-STAR trainees who earned doctoral degrees attended research-intensive universities and medical schools at comparable frequencies as all Ph.D. students nationwide.

Conclusions The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Maximizing Access to Research Careers Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research (MARC U-STAR) program is designed to enhance the diversity of the biomedical research workforce by assisting undergraduate institutions to provide academic, research and professional development activities to eligible trainees. Overall educational outcomes of MARC U-STAR alumni appointed between 1986 and 2013 at 114 institutions, and detailed outcomes from an alumni cohort appointed 2001-2005 were used to better understand the impact of this program. This report provides support that the MARC U-STAR program meets the overall educational outcome goals outlined in the FOA, but there are several limitations. Available data suggest that over half the MARC U-STAR alumni nationally enter Ph.D. programs as specified in the funding announcement, but educational outcomes differed among participating schools. This retrospective study does not include relevant control groups of students with similar capabilities at the same institutions, and cannot describe what program factors were important for success. Future studies may explore any additional benefits from the MARC U-STAR program to students or faculty. Readers interested in getting more information on this program and other NIGMS diversity-related programs may wish to visit the webpage (https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/Pages/default.aspx).

Acknowledgments Much of the data in this manuscript were reported in non-peer reviewed blogs and reports cited in the text. This project involved analytic work performed by the author, Hall, A.K.; Miklos, A.; Oh, A.; Gaillard, S.D. and Sheih C-Y. 9

References 1.

MARC Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research (U-STAR) Awards. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/MARC/Pages/USTAR Awards.aspx (accessed October 24, 2016). 2. Graham, M. J.; Frederick, J.; Byars-Winston, A.; Hunter, A. B.; Handelsman, J. Increasing Persistence of College Students in STEM. Science 2013, 341, 1455–1456. 3. Hurtado, S.; Cabrera, N. L.; Lin, M. H.; Arellano, L.; Espinosa, L. L. Diversifying Science: Underrepresented Student Experiences in Structured Research Programs. Res. High. Educ. 2009, 50, 189–214. 4. Kuh, G. D.; Kinzie, J.; Buckley, J. A.; Bridges, B. K.; Hayek, J. C. What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature. Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016). 5. Hensel, N., Ed. Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research (COEUR); Council on Undergraduate Research: 2012. http://www.cur.org/ assets/1/23/COEUR_final.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016). 6. Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity, NOT-OD-15-053. http:// grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-053.html (accessed August 22, 2016). 7. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering; 2015. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/start.cfm (accessed October 24, 2016). 8. Maximizing Access to Research Careers Undergraduate-Student Training in Academic Research (MARC U-STAR) (T34) PAR-16-113. http:// grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-16-113.html (accessed October 24, 2016). 9. Hall, A. K.; Miklos, A.; Oh, A.; Gaillard, S. D. Educational Outcomes from the Maximizing Access to Research Careers Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research (MARC U-STAR) Program. https:// www.nigms.nih.gov/News/reports/Documents/MARC-paper031416.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016). 10. Hall, A.; Mann, J.; Bender, M. Analysis of scholar outcomes for the NIGMS Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program; 2015. https:// www.nigms.nih.gov/News/reports/Documents/PREP-outcomes-report.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016). 11. Hall, A.; Miklos, A.; Mickey, O.; Oh, A.; Shoemaker, J. NIGMS Analysis of Supplements to Enhance Diversity; 2015. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/ Research/mechanisms/Documents/DSPOutcomesReport5282015.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016). 12. Maton, K. I.; Pollard, S. A.; McDougall Weise, T. V.; Hrabowski, F. A. Myerhoff Scholars Program: A Strengths-Based, Institution-Wide 10

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Approach to Increasing Diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Mt. Sinai J. Med. 2012, 79, 610–623. Slovacek, S.; Whittinghill, J.; Flenoury, L.; Wiseman, D. Promoting Minority Success in the Sciences: the Minority Opportunities in Research Programs at CSULA. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 199–217. Schultz, P. W.; Hernandez, P. R.; Woodcock, A.; Estrada, E.; Chance, R. C.; Aguilar, M.; Serpe, R. T. Patching the Pipeline: Reducing Educational Disparities in the Sciences Through Minority Training Programs. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2011, 33, 95–114. Remich, R; Naffziger-Hirsch, M. E.; Gazley, J. L.; McGee, R. Scientific Growth and Identity Development during a Postbaccalaureate Program: Results from a Multisite Qualitative Study. CBE Life Sciences 2016, 15 (8), ar25. Hall, A. NIGMS Feedback Loop Blogs. https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2016/ 03/educational-outcomes-of-the-nigms-maximizing-access-to-researchcareers-undergraduate-student-training-in-academic-research-marc-u-starprogram/ (accessed October 24, 2016). Sowell, R., Allum, J., Okahana, H. Doctoral Initiative on Minority Attrition and Completion, Council of Graduate Schools. http://cgsnet.org/ ckfinder/userfiles/files/Doctoral_Initiative_on_Minority_Attrition_and_ Completion_2015.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016).

11

Chapter 2

The Undergraduate Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) Program at the University of Texas at San Antonio Gail P. Taylor,* J. Aaron Cassill, and Edwin J. Barea-Rodriguez Center for Research and Training in the Sciences, The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, Texas 78249, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

The NIH-funded University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) program provides funding and developmental support for undergraduates and doctoral students to assist them in the completion of a doctorate in biomedical or behavioral research. Active at UTSA since 2000, the UTSA RISE Undergraduate Program has served 66 trainees on its active renewal, of whom 90% are Hispanic. Over 50% of undergraduate trainees have entered doctoral training programs or are poised to do so. In this article we provide insight into how programmatic “Best Practices” in trainee cultivation, selection, and training, as well as evolution of the UTSA campus environment, enable us to accomplish matriculation goals and develop exceptional candidates for doctoral training. There is still room for improvement in our program, however, and this is also addressed.

Purpose There are a number of federally-funded research training programs designed to promote the success of students from underrepresented groups (generally ethnic minorities, the financially disadvantaged, and those with disabilities) in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. This chapter provides a brief introduction to the NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)-funded Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) Program, the goal of which is to increase the number of underrepresented students who © 2017 American Chemical Society

earn biomedically-oriented doctoral degrees and contribute to national research efforts. The chapter also provides insight into how the UTSA RISE program has evolved, and continues evolving, its programmatic “best practices” to meet or exceed agency minimums for student matriculation (50% entry into doctoral training). At present, our major focus is to reduce undergraduate (UG) trainee attrition in the program, while increasing the proportion of trainees who begin and complete their doctorate. Achieving doctoral matriculation goals is of critical importance to RISE, because it is a major determinant for renewal of the local program and, ultimately, justifies the continuation of RISE as a viable training mechanism for the NIGMS. Thus, programs must consider the potential impact of each new trainee on its program performance. UTSA RISE can no longer induct research-naïve students or those with strong alternative career goals, to “try out” research; they do not “convert” into scientists with sufficient frequency. However, underrepresented students with great potential to be scientists seldom arrive at UTSA with knowledge about research as a career, research experience or Ph.D. aspirations. In response, we have developed programs and fostered partnerships to cultivate populations of underrepresented “pre-RISE” students who make an informed decision about pursuing a Ph.D. when applying to RISE. We also continue to explore means for selecting students who are most likely to pursue and complete a Ph.D., as well as enhanced developmental strategies so that our students approach doctoral training as well-prepared and well-informed young scientists who will excel in their programs. We believe that the “snapshot” we provide here of the UTSA RISE program, and the strategies we are using to enhance our applicant pool, select our trainees, and develop them for doctoral education, may assist others to create or enhance RISE or similar research training programs.

General Introduction to the NIGMS R25 RISE Training Program “RISE (R25) is a developmental program that seeks to increase the capacity of students underrepresented in the biomedical sciences to complete Ph.D. degrees in these fields. The program provides grants to institutions with a commitment and history of developing students from populations underrepresented in biomedical sciences as defined by the National Science Foundation. By supporting institutions with well-integrated developmental activities designed to strengthen students’ academic preparation, research training and professional skills, the RISE Program aims to help reduce the existing gap in completion of Ph.D. degrees between underrepresented and non-underrepresented students” (1). “The over-arching goal of this NIGMS R25 program is to support educational activities that enhance the diversity of the biomedical, behavioral and clinical research workforce” (2). Ethnic underrepresentation in STEM careers is dramatic; although Hispanics, African American and Native American/Alaskans make up 30% of the total U.S. population (3), they earn only 8% of doctorates in science and engineering (4). There are a variety of federal programs in place to address this deficiency in the 14

biomedical and behavioral sciences, including the NIH-funded Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) program. The RISE program and its goals are best described by its parent institute, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), above. The current NIGMS RISE research training program grew out of “diversity” programs first developed by the National Institutes of Health in the early 1970s, to enhance research access and success at minority serving institutions (5). RISE is a continuation of the MBRS-RISE (Minority Biomedical Research SupportResearch Initiative for Scientific Enhancement) program, which was implemented in 1997; its name was changed in 2014. RISE is housed in the Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity Division (TWD) of the NIGMS. There are there are 48 active RISE programs in institutions throughout the continental U.S., Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Hawaii. Total RISE awards in 2016 (including direct and indirect costs) amounted to $28.3 million. RISE programs generally include intensive laboratory research experiences, academic enhancement, and professional development training for trainees, as well as activities that serve to enhance the research readiness of students in general and to cultivate “pre-RISE” students who later are inducted into RISE. Universities have great latitude for developing and carrying out RISE-sponsored activities (2). Principal Investigators (PIs) assess their local environment and tailor their programs to best serve their students and maximize program impact. Training generally takes place year round for RISE-supported students at undergraduate (A.D, B.A., B.S.) and/or graduate levels (M.S., Ph.D.). While participating in student development or research training activities, trainees receive program-supported salary or wages as employees of the institution. Programs at schools with insufficient research infrastructure often partner with Tier One universities to host their students for summer research experiences funded by RISE, while locally providing research-preparatory, academic enrichment and professional development courses and workshops during the academic year. Although content is flexible, RISE programs operate within a framework that ensures quality training experiences and effective program outcomes (2). Trainees must be American (U.S.) citizens, non-citizen nationals, or permanent residents. The Program Director (PDs) must “be an established full-time faculty member with a strong record in research, training, and teaching.” RISE institutions must have a sufficient recruiting population from underrepresented groups identified as having low representation in health-related sciences (4, 6), including racial and ethnic minorities or individual with disabilities; undergraduate (UG) trainees may also be financially or educationally disadvantaged. Additionally, the university must show considerable commitment to the program through direct financial support or course releases or similar extra support. Indirect (F&A) costs are low (8%) and program related expenses are capped at $10,500 per student. Most significantly, in 2006, the NIGMS established minimum program expectations for student retention and matriculation (7). On the current Funding Opportunity Announcement, PAR-16-361 (2), these expectations include: a) an increase in the overall number of underrepresented (UR) students that complete a Ph.D. and continue biomedical research careers; b) at least 50% of UG and 75% of master’s 15

RISE-supported students will enter into a Ph.D. program within three years after graduation; and c) at least 80% of RISE-supported Ph.D. students will complete the degree.

Introduction to RISE at UTSA “The RISE program at UTSA has definitely helped me understand what is needed to become a successful part of the scientific community. It certainly changed my career perspective and was the best part of my undergraduate career.” ~RISE Chemistry Undergraduate A RISE-predecessor MBRS (Minority Biomedical Research Support) program was first awarded to UTSA in 1980 and the active RISE program was awarded in 2000. We are presently in the fifth year of our third renewal, which was awarded in August 2012, and have a proposal currently under review. Since 2006, Dr. Edwin Barea-Rodriguez has been the Program Director and Dr. Aaron Cassill, the Associate Program Director. Dr. Gail Taylor has been with the program since it was awarded in 2000, is Assistant Program Director and serves as the Professional Development and Training Specialist; she generally spends half of her time on RISE duties and activities. The program also has a half-time coordinator and a half-time administrative assistant. The Specific Aims of the active program include: 1) enhance existing and implement new outreach and training activities to promote awareness of biomedical/behavioral research as a career and the development of pre-RISE, pre-Ph.D. UG populations; 2) enhance existing and implement new activities to develop RISE UG and Ph.D. trainees, to promote their preparedness for the next stage of their research education; and 3) develop activities that broaden access to research and promote student and faculty research skills at UTSA. Through these Aims, we desire to enhance UG research participation at UTSA, while cultivating a pool of strong RISE applicants and improving program effectiveness. Our UG training components support students in three colleges and five departments. UG majors include Biology, Microbiology/Immunology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Psychology; Ph.D. trainees are selected from Biomedical Engineering, Cell and Molecular Biology, Chemistry, Neurobiology, and Physics. For this chapter, we focus on our RISE UG training program.

The UTSA Training Environment “The UTSA Chemistry department has a strong research culture focused on training undergraduates. Since the graduate program is mostly master’s students and only a small amount of doctoral students, the labs often have multiple undergraduate students working on research.” ~Recent Chemistry Graduate In several ways, the UTSA RISE program has become more effective as the UTSA campus environment has evolved. UTSA was established in 1969 as the first public, state-supported, four-year university in San Antonio. UTSA’s purpose was to provide the majority Hispanic South Texas population access to quality higher education. UTSA has now been recognized by the Texas 16

Higher Education Coordinating Board as an emerging research university. This designation, and UTSA’s drive towards Tier One status, has spurred expansion of research infrastructure, doctoral training programs, and the hire of new research-oriented faculty. UTSA has recently received the basic Carnegie Classification of “Doctoral Universities: Higher Research Activity” (8). The UTSA RISE recruiting population has been enhanced by the increase in the student population, which swelled from 18,830 to 28,787 (Fall 2015) since RISE was first awarded. Presently, 60% of UTSA students are ethnic minorities, with the Hispanic population exceeding 50% of the total population. In fact, UTSA was ranked 6th nationally for the total number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic students in 2015 (9). The RISE recruiting population has also expanded due to inclusion financially disadvantaged or disabled white or Asian trainees, who are among the 44% of UTSA UGs who receive federal Pell grants, although they represent only 9% of the RISE training population of the active grant. UTSA’s UG environment recently became even more conducive to RISE program success, through enhancement of admissions requirements in fall 2013. Through these and other university efforts, by fall 2015, 17% of the new freshmen class was in the top 10% of their high school graduating class, a nearly 7% increase since fall 2012. At about the same time, UTSA completed its first capital campaign and the number of merit-based scholarships greatly expanded. RISE departments have also developed several attractive and competitive new majors, including Biochemistry, Microbiology/Immunology, and Biomedical Engineering, which have attracted students to UTSA. These changes are beginning to be reflected in the increased strength of our application pool. At the same time, even in light of academic and population shifts, UTSA has retained its long-time emphasis on UG student training in its laboratories. Indeed, even with research-focused new faculty, laboratory culture remains very friendly to UGs. Particularly, with postdoc and the doctoral student populations still relatively low, it is not uncommon for UGs to grow as leaders in their lab and take on graduate-student level responsibilities. UTSA provides considerable support for the RISE program to promote its success. RISE is housed within the Center for Research and Training in the Sciences (CRTS), a component of the UTSA College of Sciences (COS). The CRTS partially supports the program staff (5% of 50% effort), provides space for our “Techlab” (a professional development classroom and computer laboratory), and an additional study room for pre-RISE freshmen. CRTS also covers a majority of costs for external evaluation, provides staff support to maintain the program’s several websites, and its Access database. Finally, the CRTS provides thousands of dollars in food, annually, for RISE and its ancillary activities, and approximately $10,000 annually in scholarships for participants in the summer and fall Rising Researchers pre-RISE programs.

Training Positions and Trainee Characteristics RISE currently has 20 UG training positions, of which approximately 14 come open each year. To be admitted to the program, applicants must commit to earning 17

a Ph.D. (discussion below). Entry requirements include a 3.0 GPA, sophomore through senior standing, and at least one year remaining prior to graduation. The trainee composition of the RISE UG program is at least partially influenced by the NIGMS-funded T34 UTSA MARC U-STAR (MARC) program, which is also directed by the RISE PD team and uses a common application. MARC has twelve training positions, is considered a more prestigious “Honors” program, and has about 7 openings annually. MARC trainees must have a 3.4 GPA or higher, make a two-year training commitment, and are paid a National Research Service Award (NRSA) stipend and tuition benefits, which replace most other financial aid awards except for Pell grants or Veteran’s benefits. RISE trainees with strong credentials often transition into MARC during their final two years. However, there is agency concern about schools with both RISE and MARC programs, regarding overlap of activities and trainees. As a result, it is important to note that RISE trains UG students from several exclusive, and very diverse, populations. Particularly, RISE trains sophomores; upper division students with GPAs down to 3.0; upper division students less than two years from graduation; recipients of high-dollar merit-based scholarships; and financially vulnerable students who must retain their financial aid and use RISE funding to replace outside employment. Thus, RISE has a broader range of trainees, including some of the academically strongest students and those with greatest financial need or academic challenges. The flexibility of RISE also allows us to begin the training of students who will not have enough research experience to be accepted into doctoral programs at graduation but are ideal candidates for post-baccalaureate training programs, such as the NIGMS PREP or Bridges to the Doctorate programs.

Numbers Trained and Student Retention Please note that in the analyses presented below, we are following the NIGMS policy and counting all students who entered the program and received payment, even if they exited the after receiving minimal training. As shown in Table 1, UTSA RISE has assisted a considerable number of ethnically underrepresented (UR) students to earn a doctorate. Since March of 2000, RISE has supported 218 UG students, 92% of whom are ethnically underrepresented and the remaining, financially disadvantaged. Hispanics make up 86% of the UR group. Sixty-four former trainees have entered doctoral or combined (DDS/Ph.D.) doctoral programs and another 17 are on a path towards the doctorate in other training mechanisms. Between 32% and 40% will matriculate from all cohorts. Nineteen of the 64 have completed their Ph.D., 29 are in progress, and 16 withdrew (8 of these earned MS degrees at withdrawal or later in another field). This matriculation rate is lower than we desire and lower than the 50% goal currently set for the program.

18

Table 1. Historic Undergraduate UTSA RISE Outcomes All Years

GY1 2001

GY5 2005

GY9 2009

GY 2013

16.5

4

4

4

5

Positions

varied

14/18a

16

24

20

Trained

218

41

44

66

67

In Training

18

0

0

0

18

BS in Progress

42

0

0

6

36

Graduated

165

41

43

51

30

Matriculation Goal (Ph.D.)

Varied

75% all grad

45%

50%

50%

On Path for Matriculation

17

0

0

5

12

Matriculation Ph.D.

64

19 (46%)

18 (42%)

13 (20-27%)

14

Earned Ph.D.

17

6

9

2

0

PhD in Progress

26

2

3

10

14

PhD Attrition

16

9 (47%)

6 (33%)

1 (8%)

0

Duration (Yrs)

a

Supplemental positions increased training slots during the grant cycle.

A clearer story of UTSA RISE performance emerges when we break out the funding cycles, which shows a program that is largely meeting its goals, except for the grant year (GY) 9 in 2009 renewal. Problems that arose with our GY9 “freshman experiment,” how these problems were countered, and what we learned from them are discussed more extensively below. In the GY1 (2001) renewal, 46% doctoral matriculation was achieved. Matriculation was a bit lower in the 2005 renewal (42%), but we nearly reached program goals. In the GY9 (2009) renewal, PhD matriculation largely occurred with the Jr/Sr population in 4 supplemental positions and who were admitted after a later scope change to admit more upper division students. Overall matriculation presently sits at 20% and may reach 27% when students in post-baccalaureate or master’s programs complete their education. Fortunately, our reviewers and NIHMS recognized programmatic and university efforts to correct the program and we were able to renew the grant. The active GY13 renewal is on target to meet, and even exceed, NIH goals. Of its 67 trainees on the active grant (GY13), 49 have exited the program and 32 have completed their degree (Table 1). Fourteen have begun doctoral programs at Boston University, Emory University (x2), Michigan State University, the Stowers Institute, University of Minnesota, UTSA, Tufts University, UC Berkeley, and The UT Health Science Center at San Antonio. Our two chemistry graduates train at the University of Georgia and UC Berkeley. Additional outcomes data from the active renewal are included in Table 2. Six graduates are in academic 19

M.S. programs at UTSA and the University of Michigan; at least four of these are extremely committed to subsequently pursuing a Ph.D. Seven other trainees transitioned to MARC or another internship and continue their degrees and research efforts. One of our former psychology majors will be reapplying for her doctorate. It will be several years before all students have entered terminal degree programs and final outcomes can be tallied. However, the doctoral and master’s matriculation patterns of graduates and the continued commitment of the MARC trainees indicate that we are on target to meet, and even exceed, the 50% matriculation goals, with matriculation rates of 53% or even higher. In addition, the active trainees have been vetted through increasingly stringent selection criteria, so we expect continued improvement.

Table 2. Undergraduate RISE Outcomes Details GY13 Renewal Number of: Training positions awarded

20

Trainees supported

67

Women

42

Underrepresented minorities

61

Exit Status (all degrees) Active trainees

18

Exited into MARC or other internship

14

Exited at graduation

17

Exited prematurely

18

Degree status-all trainees B.S. - Continuing/completed/withdrew

36/30/1

M.S. - Entered/continuing

6/6

Ph.D. - Entered/continuing

14/14 0

MD/Ph.D. – Entered MD - Entered/continuing

1/1

Entered other prof. degrees (DDS, PharmD, VMD, PhD PT) How many more non-active trainees at any level are likely to enter PhD?

0 12

The data reported in Tables 1 and 2 also reveal three other interesting trends. First, very few former trainees pursued a medical degree or combined medical/ Ph.D. programs. This is a mixed result; students who desire an MD have not been admitted to RISE for many years, but MD/Ph.D. was a valid career goal for first three years of the active renewal, and none matriculated. Second, doctoral program attrition for former RISE trainees has fallen to extremely low levels. All 20

trainees have been retained, with 5 completing one year and 2, two years. Of the 13 doctoral trainees from the GY2009 cohort only one has ceased his training. Nationally, seven-year attrition rates for Hispanics in doctoral programs stands at 35%, with a 21 month median time to attrition (10). From the combined cohorts of this and the prior renewal, only one (6.7%) of the 15 trainees who were in their programs for two years or longer has ceased training. These findings suggest that our former RISE UG trainees are currently beating national averages for retention. Finally, and unfortunately, 18 RISE trainees have exited RISE prematurely.

Evolution of RISE Selection Criteria To understand the RISE trainee outcomes above, particularly related to RISE program attrition, we explored the most common reasons that trainees left the RISE program and/or failed to pursue their Ph.D. These included changes in interest or career goals, as well as problems related to program or lab performance, academics, finances, or family and personal concerns. Frequently, several of these stressors were combined. The most profound realization is that, barring unexpected personal or financial hardships in highly skilled trainees, improvement of RISE program retention and doctoral program admission and retention, is largely accomplished on the “front end” of the program. Indeed, identifying a future Ph.D. can be likened to “panning for gold,” to find rare “nuggets” who are impassioned by science and learning, have the drive needed to invest the time and effort needed to obtain a Ph.D., and are academically strong enough to do so.

Selection of Trainees When the active grant started in August 2012, RISE had already become more selective than in prior renewals. In the early years of RISE, we had some success in inducting and “converting” pre-meds or funding students to “try out” research. These conversions do not occur at rates sufficient to renew a RISE program under today’s standards and these populations are no longer admitted. Students are explicitly asked if they may transfer out of UTSA. GPA requirements have been increased from 2.7 to 3.0, which is nearer minimal levels for Ph.D. admission. Finally, an application question was recently added, asking students if there is anything occurring in their life that makes them unlikely to finish their RISE training. The admissions requirements, application, and interview questions have been further revised during the active grant to exclude students who desired combined professional degrees (M.D./Ph.D.). For those who claim to desire a Ph.D., RISE requires that they demonstrate that they are making an “informed commitment.” Trainees are more likely to be considered to be informed and committed if they are presently working in a lab, have participated in a summer research internship, or participated in any of the pre-RISE training programs that are discussed in a subsequent session. They must provide consistent narratives about their desire for 21

the Ph.D., how this desire originated, knowledge of the research career path, and similar measures. We have also implemented a deeper examination of applicant’s grades. We have found that Cs in major courses during the prior semester is often a strong negative predictor for academic success, and we delay serious consideration for admission until performance has improved. Similarly, we have also begun to exclude most first-semester transfer students because of the frequency with which academic performance problems appear during their transition. Like many RISE programs, we have been seeking to identify selectors for students likely to pursue a Ph.D. Several questions were added to the RISE application designed to tease out the characteristics identified by McGee and Keller (11), for students likely pursue a Ph.D. following participation in the summer program at the Mayo Clinic. These include curiosity to discover the unknown, enjoyment of problem solving, a high level of independence, desire to help others indirectly through research, and a flexible and minimally structured approach to the future. At present, the predictive value of these attributes on doctoral program matriculation has been inconclusive but this exploration is ongoing. Most interesting to us, however, has been the fact that we have identified a considerable overlap of Gallup StrengthsFinder (12) themes in our trainees while writing letters of recommendation for doctoral program entry; we have proposed to study this on our renewal. The Gallup StrengthsQuest Assessment and an associated training session has long been taught to RISE trainees by Dr. BareaRodriguez, to promote their self-knowledge and help them to achieve success by harnessing their talents. Interestingly, the attributes identified by StrengthsQuest go beyond identifying what a person is “good at” and actually detects the top five “themes” by which they live and which seem to drive them. It was not surprising, therefore, that many RISE and MARC students who pursued a Ph.D. have one or more strengths that are related to enjoyment or motivation by the following: learning new things (Learner), achievement (Achiever), thinking (Intellection), collecting ideas (Input), pondering the future (Futuristic), strategizing (Strategic), and resolving problems (Restorative). These attributes have obvious application in doctoral education and alignment with research as a career. We have integrated questions into our application and interview form which seek to identify these themes in our interviewees and are now exploring them as predictors for doctoral program matriculation.

General Training Philosophies and Practices “As I see it, the great value of these programs is that they expose students to research careers. Many first generation students never considered this (I know from firsthand experience). For some students, research captures their imagination. Programs like RISE free up student time so that they can try it out. And the RISE program provides students with a broad range of professional development activities that reinforce and complement the lessons that they are learning in the lab.” ~UTSA RISE Chemistry Mentor 22

Theoretical Considerations Like many of the RISE programs with roots extending back several decades, the UTSA RISE UG program evolved and developed activities and practices now identified in the social science literature to promote the persistence of underrepresented students in STEM fields. These include academic and social integration, knowledge and skill development, support and motivation, and monitoring and advising (13, 14). To further develop the program, however, we have intentionally considered additional social science constructs/concepts, to enhance our training experiences. RISE UG training provides opportunities that allow trainees to develop a scientific identity and self-efficacy as scientists, to help them gain the confidence needed to apply for and persist in doctoral programs (15–17). In addition, the program now introduces the concept of cultural capital (18) and informs trainees that science truly has a culture and we are providing valuable information and experiences that will help them to excel within it. At the same time, we have become more aware of the level of acculturative stress (19) that some of the trainees are experiencing. Not only are our trainees navigating a new scientific culture where they may see themselves as outsiders, many are doing so with little family understanding and support. A recent personal statement also revealed that they may also have feelings of disloyalty towards their culture as they become scientists. We now convey the idea that our trainees become “bi-cultural,” and enter an international culture of science. We also make sure that visiting underrepresented scientists share how they navigated familial and cultural pressures and expectations. Finally, at the recommendation of a prior trainee, RISE is now integrating explicit information on how their successes in science and achievement of a Ph.D. can have strong positive effects on both their families and community. Guidance and Motivating Factors Because RISE trainees have dramatic differences in starting points and training needs, formal Individual Development Plans (IDPs) have been included in the renewal and have been implemented in the past year. Trainees are driven by the need to accomplish various activities of science, such as scientific authorship and conference presentations, so that they would gain entry to a Ph.D. program. They chart out their path during individual meetings with program directors in collaboration with their research mentors, and perform the activities of science that would expand their CVs and prepare them for doctoral training. In addition, the program has recently begun to focus trainees on future opportunities for independent grant funding, particularly the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) award. Although one-year trainees are unlikely to be competitive by the October deadline, others have trained for several years and have made submission of the GRFP their primary goal. This interest in the GRFP has been spurred by the fact that for the last two years, with little intervention from the program, four current and former RISE trainees have become GRFP fellows, and two of these wrote their grants as UGs. RISE trainees have now been given the option to participate in newly-developed 23

MARC-sponsored GRFP writing activities, and those who desire to submit a proposal will be helped to do so. GRFP training is supported by MARC to reduce overlap in activities and distinguish the “Honors” nature of MARC. However, advanced RISE trainees are strongly encouraged to participate.

RISE Laboratory Research Training “My research experience at UTSA was awesome. I have been fortunate to gain fundamental research skills that can be applied to any field. I was able to grow and become a leader in the lab I am in to train other students. I submitted many abstracts and presented poster and oral presentations at various local, regional, and national conferences. In addition, I completed a bachelor’s thesis and I am preparing several manuscripts for publication.” ~UTSA Undergraduate Researcher The rigorous, year-round laboratory research experiences that our RISE trainees receive at UTSA prepare them for success during subsequent extramural summer experiences and doctoral studies. In helping them to grow into the various milestones that they will encounter while applying to and beginning doctoral training, we seek to give the trainees responsibility and autonomy from the beginning of their journey, while offering substantial guidance. This is particularly true as they seek out research mentors. Trainees identify prospective faculty members with guidance from the program directors, the RISE mentor list, and our “How to Find a Research Mentor” publication. They are instructed on how to investigate the research performed by prospective mentors, how to create a CV, and how to approach faculty via email or during office hours. At trainee request, we have also implemented a “highly-recommended” option that trainees perform two- to three-day “mini-rotations” in several laboratories. Once they have selected a mentor, RISE trainees work in UTSA labs for 15 hours/week during the academic year and 40 hours/week in their first summer. Information in our “Take Charge of Your Training” and “Starting Life in the Lab” lectures and publications provides the trainee with insight on how to start strong in the lab and avoid common laboratory mistakes. Most importantly for our student research trainees, we emphasize that although the actual research accomplished and techniques learned are important, these do not matter if not accompanied by a very strong letter of recommendation from their research mentor. We then advise them how to impress Ph.D.-level researchers and provide them with a list of skills and attributes commonly rated by mentor recommendations for doctoral programs. During this training, RISE trainees learn that they must: • • • •

maintain their integrity in their labs and classes, under all circumstances. learn and be conversant on the fundamentals of their field, related to their project AND coursework. learn the literature related to their project. enjoy and take ownership of their project, and fully understand its origins, goals, experimental design, controls, strengths and limitations of their data, implications of their result, and importance to their field. 24

• • • •

•

• • •

cultivate a high level of skepticism and take no scientific result, even their own, on faith. responsibly show up when they say they will, manage time well, and put in a strong effort to complete their project. independently attempt to identify and solve project problems and conceive of their next experiments. participate fully in lab meetings, disagree with others as needed, and not hesitate to point out errors and contradictions, all while remaining respectful and “collegial.” recognize that everyone is going to fail, make mistakes, and possibly break things in the lab; a positive reaction to problems and frustrations is what is important. learn to convey their work in written and oral format, to both professional and lay audiences. be willing, and even eager, to work collaboratively, teach others in the lab, and mentor newer researchers. seek to be the “mature and reasonable” one during interpersonal exchanges in the lab and not escalate problems.

A second major theme related to the trainees’ research experiences is that they should not set limits on themselves by thinking that they are “only an undergraduate.” Instead, they are a young scientist and should view themselves as full members of the lab, who will help the “lab family” to reach its research goals. They are instructed to attend lab meetings and social activities. To help with acclimatization, they are notified that, like everyone else who has entered a lab, they will overcome the early feelings of feeling like a “fish out of water.” Also, like everyone else, there will be times that they will feel like an “imposter” and have insecurities. At the same time, we strongly convey the idea that as they mature, they are free to evolve and behave like what they want to “officially” become: a strong young doctoral student with increased laboratory responsibilities and a deep understanding of their project. For additional guidance in their maturation, trainees are instructed to study a well-respected doctoral student and model what they do, as much as circumstances allow. Extramural summer research is recommended for trainees whose appointment extends over two summers, and most RISE trainees pursue extramural training. Summer training is a great confidence-builder for RISE trainees, who have generally spent a year in their UTSA lab and readily adapt to their new circumstances. In addition, since RISE trainees select their own extramural programs and apply while receiving advice from the program directors, the experience serves as a “run through” for doctoral program applications. If any trainee who desires an extramural experience is not admitted through normal application processes, they will be admitted by program partners at T32 institutions. Trainees tend to return from summer programs with buoyed confidence and an even stronger drive onwards towards their Ph.D. There are circumstances, however, when RISE trainees are not required to attend a summer program. The student and UTSA mentor can petition for a student to stay in town to complete work that will result in a scientific paper. Permission 25

is usually granted with the stipulation that the students be engaged with additional PIs via collaboration or part time work in an additional laboratory, to cultivate a second research-oriented letter of recommendation. This strategy has worked well in the past; it was employed by a 2016 GRFP recipient who entered an extremely prestigious doctoral program, and had used the summer to explore a second lab, write her grant, and gain authorship on an upcoming publication.

RISE Professional Develop Training “…The RISE program supported and instructed me in the appropriate way in which to approach professors about joining their lab, a definite barrier to undergraduates as they try to enter research labs. Many of the programs offered through RISE teach "soft skills," such as poster presentation and are not often taught in the research setting. Therefore, additional training such as poster presentations, personal essay writing, and interview techniques helps to build skills that are important for outside of the laboratory.” ~Recent Chemistry Graduate Individual Guidance and Mentoring Above, we introduced the IDP and CV creation as guiding and motivating factors for our trainees. The individual mentoring associated with the creation of these documents is a cornerstone of the program. Trainees meet with the program directors regularly during the semester and also take advantage of Dr. Taylor’s open door policy. Having Dr. Taylor readily available to provide guidance and to review drafts of abstracts, CVs, and statements is highly valuable to the trainees. Finally, new trainees are peer mentored by more mature trainees in their major. Academic Achievement To help trainees optimize their schedules around research and program activities, RISE trainees have been given the same pre-enrollment privileges as athletes and Honors students. The UTSA curriculum in all participating majors is sufficient for admission to doctoral training in trainees’ major fields, although while developing their IDP, trainees will investigate course recommendations for individual graduate schools that interest them. UG RISE Trainees must complete at least a basic biology course, statistics or data analysis, two semesters of Honors Research (culminating in thesis creation) and at least one upper division course pertinent to their research. They are strong recommended to take a graduate level journal club or seminar in their field of study. Trainees are also highly encouraged to seek entrance into the UTSA Honors College where they can achieve Highest Honors or to seek Honors through their college or department. RISE trainees having academic difficulties are required to contact Dr. Taylor. Faltering students meet with Dr. Taylor and another of the PDs who try to discern the cause. Trainees are referred to free tutoring and the free individual academic coaching provided by the Tomas Rivera Center for Student Success. 26

They are also loaned Schaum’s Outline study guides, may receive study strategy recommendations from Dr. Taylor, and are often matched with advanced RISE trainees who can give study advice and tutoring as needed. Training Sequence RISE UG professional development training is extensive and presently in flux. Expansion of summer training resulted in redundancies with a long-standing 3-credit Research Career and Professional Skills Development course taken soon after program entry. In addition, we desired greater contact with senior-level students, to provide greater assistance with doctoral program applications and to convey timely doctoral program survival skills for graduating students. Now, the RISE UG training is being reorganized into two tracks of stage-dependent training sessions that will be running at all times (Table 3). Four of these sessions will be approved as one credit courses. This training cycle progressively teaches trainees the skills needed to pursue and succeed in doctoral studies. Notable Training Sessions and Strategies RISE Jumpstart Summer Program: One of the most significant changes to the RISE Schedule over the past few several years has been the expansion of its summer activities and their incorporation into what is essentially a RISE-sponsored summer program. Jumpstart was developed to encourage mentors and first year students to quickly begin a research project that could be presented at the end of summer, as well as at fall conferences. In addition, RISE trainees now receive their “basic training” in CV creation, finding and reading papers, and scientific writing by the end of this first summer session. Scientific Conferences: RISE trainees are funded to attend one scientific conference per year. For their first conference, all first year students attend either the Annual Conference of the Society for Advancement for Chicanos and Native Americans and Science (SACNAS) or the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) as a group. At these conferences students gain a broadened view of fields and opportunities; insight into career and graduate opportunities; experience presenting their work in a stimulating national forum; and networking opportunities with graduate programs, summer programs, potential mentors and like-minded students. Trainees submit abstracts of their summer work in collaboration with their research mentors, under the guidance of the program directors. Before the national conference, trainees receive extensive Individual Poster Coaching on their presentation by the program directors. The trainees will also receive instruction on how to get the most benefit from the conference during a Conference Orientation session and are provided with paper business card blanks and a MS Word business card template. In their second year, UGs attend a professional conference in their field, generally with their mentor and lab mates. San Antonio is also a conference destination and hosts an array of regional, national, and international conferences in science and engineering. Trainees are encouraged to attend these as well and the program pays for their registration when funds are available. 27

Table 3. UTSA RISE Undergraduate Research Training Schedule Year Round: Laboratory Research, Friday Career Path or Recruiters Seminars, Conferences

28

Summer 1 Jumpstart*

Fall 1

Spring 1

Intro to RISE Program (Booklet) Finding a Research Mentor Take Charge of Training & Notebook Scientific Papers Research Plan Building a CV Laboratory Reports Poster Creation & Presentation Grad Student Round Table Intro to Oral Pres: Making, Giving Scientific Identity Experimental Design & Reproducibility Sessions Writing & Abstracts Sessions

PhD Program Preparation Preparing for Grad Grants StrengthsQuest Local Conference SACNAS or ABRCMS Sum. Prog. Prep: Apps and statements, LoRs, Strategizing Science Career Paths 101 Individual Dev. Plan

Sum. Prgm II: Complete Apps Critical Thinking Series II Ethics Refresher w scenarios Teaching 101 (2 sessions; piloted) Networking in Science Three Minute Thesis Meet with Doctoral Interviewees Tech Transfer & Biotech Budgeting 101 Three Minute Thesis

Summer 2 Summer Prog. (or Local Res. & Networking)

Fall 2 Funding Doctoral Education Intro to Journal Club Grant Writing Sessions (Optional) Summer Research Orals PhD Application Series Interviewing 101

Spring 2 Mock Interviews Successful Transitions: academics, selecting rotations, mentor choice, professional behavior, survival skills Meet w Former UG PhDs Final Presentations

Graduate Program Application Preparation Sessions: We have developed a series of weekly training sessions over the last two years to encourage RISE trainees to prepare doctoral applications and to assist us in tracking their progress. These sessions are currently offered twice per week to allow trainees with diverse schedules to attend. The sessions are associated with a Program-related Blackboard class, to which the trainees are enrolled individually. An application-tracking excel file, useful links, and sample essays from prior trainees are available on the site. RISE Three Minute Thesis (3MT) Presentations: RISE trainees now prepare a presentation of their research following the requirements of the University of Queensland Three Minute Thesis (3MT) competition (20). It is extremely important that young scientists learn to communicate their research effectively to all possible audiences. 3MT presentations require that trainees distill their work down to a single slide and develop an engaging three minute lay audience talk. Consistently, when trainees have subsequently spoken to groups of students or the public, they mention that they had just given part of their 3MT talk.

Cultivating and Selecting the Right Trainees − Pre-RISE Programs “Research has become something that I am very interested in as a career choice now that I have actually seen the actual labs and talked to the scientists at UTSA” ~UTSA Freshman Rising Researcher As introduced above, a RISE program is not effective, and may be lost to a university, when too many students prematurely exit or cease their path towards the doctorate. To protect and enhance the impact of the RISE UG program at UTSA, we have progressively tightened our RISE trainee selection criteria, described above. At the same time, we have expanded mechanisms by which we can inform potential trainees about research as a career, broaden their access to research laboratories, and help future trainees to maintain strong academic credentials. Our original Rising Researchers program was developed as a first-semester bridge program for freshmen, as a result of our “freshman experiment" that began in fall 2008. Briefly, we conceived of “completing the research training pipeline” (21) at UTSA. The plan was to progress freshmen into MARC (the next segment in the pipeline) as juniors and then a doctoral program at graduation. Instead, we experienced firsthand the variability and vulnerability of low income, underrepresented, first generation college freshmen; none of whom completed this sequence. In our second year, we created a “buffer” semester-long program to screen the freshmen and the COS provide stipends for participants. Outcomes improved slightly, but year 3, we changed our scope to more mature students, but the COS has continued to fund Freshman Rising Researchers stipends. The two active Rising Researchers programs include the Freshman Rising Researchers (FRR) program and the summer Rising Researchers Boot Camp (RRBC). FRR occurs each fall and engages between 20 and 25 incoming students in hour long weekly training sessions. Students receive a $300 scholarship 29

for successful completion of the FRR. Trainees must be interested in scientific research, but we also now admit pre-health students, because ‘physician’ tends to be the default career choice of academically strong freshman. Two to three of FRR students, annually, have chosen to pursue RISE training as sophomores or juniors. Its training is designed to introduce students to the RISE program at UTSA. It also promotes academic success through connection with campus support systems and information on GPA calculation. Networking or seminars sessions with research UGs, graduate students, and faculty, and laboratory tours are also provided. RISE UGs have long served as peer mentors for the program, but for the last three years FRR session has been managed, enhanced, and partially taught by RISE UGs, particularly Psychology students eager to build experience that may help them bypass master’s training. The summer RRBC program is a four-day, full-time introduction to research as a career for 16 sophomores through seniors and offers a $200 scholarship. It has similar training topics to the FRR, but replaces the academic support lectures and journal club with a hands-on DNA footprinting experiment. Summer applicants are also vetted through the RISE program. The RR programs have served several notable trainees who are currently in doctoral program, and helped us avoid applicants who did not engage with the training. RISE PDs have also sought additional means of connecting with potential RISE trainees. One is a partnership the San Antonio Community College District’s NSF-funded Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation Ciencia, Ingeniería, y Matemáticas Aliados (CIMA) program. The RISE program staff helps facilitate CIMA summer trainees at UTSA, and Dr. Taylor connects with the trainees and teaches some of their professional development sessions. RISE PDs also wrote or assisted with two NSF-STEM grants, to further cultivate prospective applicants. Drs. Cassill and Taylor recently developed an S-STEM grant titled Retaining Emerging Alamo Colleges Talent in STEM (REACT-STEM) to assist community college transfer students as they transition to UTSA. REACT-STEM particularly focuses on former CIMA students who are already familiar with UTSA laboratories. REACT trainees must desire at least a bachelor’s degree in biology, physics, chemistry or biomedical engineering and have career goals in science, not health careers. REACT provides its trainees with $10k scholarships per year for up to three years, coaches them to help them avoid academic pitfalls, and guides them towards careers in science. Dr. Taylor is also a Co-PI on a freshman-oriented S-STEM program called Facilitating Access to Scientific Training (FAST) with similar aims. Two trainees from each program have now entered RISE, and we expect several more to follow in the future. RISE also developed an additional mechanism by which UGs can obtain a paid research experience, with a small Work Study Research Training Program (WSRTP). WSRTP students participate in all RISE activities but receive their pay ultimately through their own financial aid allotment. The WSRTP can accept students who are yet uncommitted to a Ph.D., or those with academic insufficiencies, and allow them to work in a laboratory and fully engage in professional development activities. Trainees may reactivate their application for RISE once they meet entrance requirements.

30

Additional RISE Impact at UTSA The RISE Program at UTSA has had a substantial impact on both students and the university. In fact, in UTSA’s early days, the historical MBRS program supported the first seminar series on campus, in biology. The current RISE program has similarly made its mark on campus. Its career path seminars are the sole organized source of this type of information in the COS. The RISE PIs helped spur the development of UTSA’s Office of Undergraduate Research, and RISE expertise was critical for the development of the College of Sciences Research Conference, for which RISE staff continue to run the poster competition. We also developed web-based materials that now assist COS students outside the program to engage with laboratory research (22), as well as new content in the UTSA Undergraduate Catalog, with information on how to pursue a Ph.D. (23). RISE also has a considerable impact on non-RISE students through the various pre-RISE activities described above. We routinely “adopt” students who are ineligible for the program, provide them with a program calendar, and allow them to participate. RISE has also been instrumental in the development of the new UTSA BIOS program, a late summer, five-day residential training program for incoming freshmen, designed to enhance their study skills and improve performance in BIO 1, a critical gateway course for many science majors.

Conclusions In this article, we have provided the reader with a snapshot of our RISE UG training program and some of its activities. There are many strong RISE programs and ours has grown and evolved over time through discussions and interactions with others. We are pleased to share our successes and challenges here, in hopes of helping others to design future UG interventions and training programs. Many of the RISE training materials, including the IDP document, are available on the program Resources page online (24) and the remaining are available upon request.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, for RISE and similar programs, which enable underrepresented students who otherwise might never have stepped foot in a lab, to pursue their dreams of a doctorate (GM060655). We would like to recognize RISE program officer Alexandra Ainsztein for her assistance and information related to current program status. Finally, RISE is only possible in its current format due to support from the UTSA Center for Research and Training in the Sciences, and its Director and Dean of the UTSA College of Sciences, Dr. George Perry.

References 1.

National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) Program (R25) Home Page. https:// 31

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

www.nigms.nih.gov/training/RISE/Pages/default.aspx (accessed Aug. 20, 2016). Department of Health and Human Services. Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) (R25) PAR-16-361 Program Announcement. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-16-361.html (accessed Aug. 1, 2016) American FactFinder. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates–20102014 American Community Survey-5-Year Estimates. United States Census Bureau. [online] 2016. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/ jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_DP05&src=pt (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2015, Special Report (NSF 15-311). National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. [online]. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/tables/pdf/tab7-4-updated2016-08.pdf (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Important Events in MARC and MBRS History Web Page. https://publications.nigms.nih.gov/mpu/ summer02/history.html (accessed Aug. 10, 2016). National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation; America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011 [online]. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record id=12984 (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). Department of Health and Human Services. MBRS Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) (R25) PAR-06-548 Program Announcement. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-06-548.html (accessed Aug. 1, 2016) The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Home Page. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/index.php (accessed Sept. 5, 2016) Cooper, M. A. HO Presents the Top 100 Schools for Hispanic Enrollment and Degrees Granted. The Hispanic Higher Outlook in Education Magazine 2016, 26, 15–23. Sowell, R.; Allum, J.; Okahana, H. Doctoral Initiative on Minority Attrition and Completion; Council of Graduate Schools: Washington, DC, 2015. McGee, R.; Keller, J. L. Identifying Future Scientists: Predicting Persistence into Research Training. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2007, 6, 316–331. Gallup StrengthsQuest Home Page. http://www.strengthsquest.com/ home.aspx (accessed Aug. 20, 2016). Summers, M. F.; Hrabowski, F. A., 3rd. Diversity. Preparing Minority Scientists and Engineers. Science 2006, 311, 1870–1871. Hernandez, P. R.; Schultz, P. W.; Estrada, M.; Woodcock, A.; Chance, R. Sustaining Optimal Motivation: A Longitudinal Analysis of Interventions to Broaden Participation of Underrepresented Students in STEM. J. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 105, 89–107.

32

15. Chemers, M. M.; Zurbriggen, E. L.; Syed, M.; Goza, B. K.; Bearman, S. J. The Role of Efficacy and Identity in Science Career Commitment among Underrepresented Minority Students. J. Soc. Issues 2011, 67, 469–491. 16. Estrada-Hollenbeck, M.; Woodcock, A.; Hernandez, P. R.; Schultz, P. W. Toward a Model of Social Influence that Explains Minority Student Integration into the Scientific Community. J. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 103, 206–222. 17. Carlone, H. B.; Johnson, A. Understanding the Science Experiences of Successful Women of Color: Science Identity as an Analytic Lens. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44, 1187–1218. 18. Ovink, S.; Veazey, B. More than “Getting Us Through:” A Case Study in Cultural Capital Enrichment of Underrepresented Minority Undergraduates. Res. High. Educ. 2011, 52, 370–394. 19. Rodriguez, N.; Myers, H. F.; Morris, J. K.; Cardoza, D. Latino College Student Adjustment: Does an Increased Presence Offset Minority-Status and Acculturative Stresses? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 30, 1523–1550. 20. Three Minute Thesis Home Page. http://threeminutethesis.org/ (accessed Sept. 6, 2016). 21. Jolly, E. J.; Campbell, P. B.; Perlman, L. Engagement, capacity and continuity: A trilogy for student success [online]; General Electric Foundation: 2004; http://www.campbell-kibler.com/trilogy.pdf (accessed Sept. 7, 2016). 22. UTSA College of Sciences – Undergraduate Research Page. https:// www.utsa.edu/sciences/ugresearch/ (accessed Sept. 7, 2016). 23. Undergraduate Catalog 2016-2017; The University of Texas at San Antonio [Online] http://catalog.utsa.edu/undergraduate/bachelorsdegreeregulations (Preparation for Doctoral Programs/preprofessionalcourses/ doctoralprograms/) (accessed Sept. 7, 2016). 24. The University of Texas at San Antonio RISE Program Resources Page. http://www.utsa.edu/mbrs/resources.htm (accessed Sept. 6, 2016).

33

Chapter 3

Xavier University of Louisiana: Routinely Beating the Odds Stassi DiMaggio* Department of Chemistry, Xavier University of Louisiana, 1 Drexel Dr., New Orleans, Louisiana 70125, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

Xavier University of Louisiana has developed into the recognized leader in producing African-American graduates earning undergraduate degrees in Chemistry and is consistently ranked in the top 25 universities awarding Bachelor’s degrees in Chemistry overall. The methodology for its success in these areas is a result of a multi-faceted, gradient system that encourages students’ development from freshmen to seniors, teaching them how to be successful in a challenging college setting and beyond. This is accomplished through extensive faculty advising, early academic alert systems, peer-instruction, and abundant, timely classroom feedback. As a community of faculty, staff, and students, the Chemistry Department continues to strive to keep Xavier a national leader in promoting diversity within the professional Chemistry community.

History of Xavier Xavier University of Louisiana, founded in 1925 by the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, is the only historically Black and Catholic institution of higher education in the United States. Xavier’s founding mission was to offer higher education to Black youth, who were denied admission to area colleges and universities at the time. Today Xavier continues its traditional commitment to produce well-educated graduates positioned to become leaders in the community. Xavier continually promotes the mission of creating a more just and humane society by preparing its students to assume roles of leadership and service globally. Xavier students are equipped in a diverse learning and teaching environment that © 2017 American Chemical Society

incorporates all relevant educational means, including research and community service.

Demographics Xavier University is a predominantly undergraduate institution (PUI) and is also classified as one of the 107 remaining Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the country. The Carnegie classification of Xavier places it in the category of Master’s Colleges & Universities: Small Programs, while the university focuses on providing a liberal arts education. It has over 200 full-time faculty members and offers courses in over fifty majors at the undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional degree levels with an average total enrollment of around 3,000 students. Interestingly, over 80% of the 2,000 students enrolled as undergraduates in the College of Arts and Sciences are STEM majors (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), and 25% of undergraduates are Chemistry majors. In addition, most of the students are considered underrepresented in science and engineering because they constitute smaller percentages of science and engineering degree recipients, and of employed scientists and engineers than they do of the population (1). 70% of the total student body is African American, 13% are Asian American (mostly Vietnamese), and 3-4% are Hispanic. The Xavier student body is typically 70% female and more than 93% of Xavier’s undergraduates qualify for need-based as well as other forms of financial aid (2).

History of Xavier’s Growth in Chemistry and the Biomedical Sciences Xavier’s reputation and success in the sciences is unique. It is rare that a small, liberal arts university, especially an HBCU, has over 80% of its students as STEM majors. Moreover, the Chemistry Department played a major role in securing this reputation with 25% of the campus majors being Chemistry or Biochemistry, and the vast majority of other STEM majors minoring in Chemistry. The groundwork for Xavier’s reputation and success in the sciences began in the 1970s. This campaign was spearheaded by Chemistry Professor, Dr. J.W. Carmichael, who came to Xavier in 1970 as an Assistant Professor. He took the job, he says, under two conditions “I told them I needed to be able to go home [to New Mexico] in the summer to get some real Mexican food, and that I only wanted to teach freshmen.” He immediately understood the importance of establishing success in the first year for students coming to college underprepared from high school. He decided that instead of compelling students to compete against one another, better-prepared students should be encouraged to help their classmates. Accordingly, Dr. Carmichael and his faculty colleagues established a Chemistry curriculum that fosters an environment of collaboration between faculty and students, and among students with their peers. During that time Dr. Norman C. Francis, currently President Emeritus of Xavier, appointed Dr. Carmichael to be the Pre-Medical Advisor. Here, he continued to work with fellow faculty members 36

to overcome the disparities found in the education and preparation of young, Black students that resulted in a significant underrepresentation of African-American medical doctors. Dr. Carmichael, working with fellow Chemistry Professor Dr. John Sevenair, developed a coordinated, uniform curriculum in freshman General Chemistry courses as well as Organic Chemistry courses. This was a drastic change, recalls Dr. Warren Ray, Professor of Chemistry and Xavier class of 1965. “When I was a student, class was [solely] lecture-based, and [still] even as [I was] an early faculty member. Carmichael greatly improved instruction.” This course coordination serves as the cornerstone for the multi-faceted, gradient system (Figure 1) that develops students from freshman to seniors and teaches them how to study and be successful in a challenging college setting and beyond. The Chemistry Faculty work together to write supplemental, tailored workbooks for use by all faculty teaching these courses. The faculty write and grade weekly tests and drills, not only to assess students but also to evaluate whether they need to adjust their teaching. The faculty collaborate to make departmental midterms and finals as a method of internal quality control. They also provide students with shared syllabi and office hours so that students may seek out the help of any faculty teaching that course, not just their own instructors. Faculty submit early alerts several times throughout the semester informing academic advisors of any issues the students may have. The academic advisors meet regularly with students to keep them on track. Additionally, the freshman Chemistry course sequence gives the students incentives to meet with their advisors each week.

Figure 1. Model for year-specific support, early intervention, and advising of students. Furthermore, faculty meet weekly with the peer drill instructors, the student tutors, tutoring center coordinators, and the undergraduate laboratory teaching assistants to develop a peer-led supplemental teaching environment. These actions are supplemented by a formalized peer-mentoring program that creates the studentcentered, collaborative environment envisioned by Dr. Carmichael (Figure 2). 37

Figure 2. Model for faculty feedback, through the classroom and advising, for student success at Xavier. It begins and ends with student collaboration and mentorship. Permission received for the use of Xavier’s logo.

While these efforts require an enormous amount of work, the faculty commit because of the proven track record of success this system enjoys. The programs were designed by faculty and have been expanded and sustained by faculty over the years. Faculty see first-hand, every day the results of their efforts which encourage them to continue these interventions. Dr. Sevenair writes in his seminal publication, “As a result of introducing a nontraditional course structure, students significantly improved their performance in Organic Chemistry. Sustained improvement for six years strongly suggests the improvement is real, and not the result of a Hawthorne Effect.” In fact, after adopting this system, students’ percentile ranking on the ACS exam increased by 15 percentile points and the pass rate of Organic Chemistry increased from 41% to 64% (3). This model has been so successful in Chemistry that it has spread to other departments in the University, as well as to other universities seeking to mimic Xavier’s success. Xavier alumni regularly attribute their post-graduate preparation in part to the structure and philosophy of the department. Ms. Dominique Benson, Chemistry Doctoral student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and Xavier class of 2015, states, “The best thing about the Chemistry Department at Xavier is becoming a part of a department that feels like family. The faculty have an open door policy and there are numerous resources on campus to aid students in being successful. Xavier’s Chemistry Department offers a vigorous program that will prepare any student for the next stage.” To this day, faculty follow in the footsteps of Dr. Carmichael, whose dedication to the students is indisputable. He states his only motivation was whether or not he could “wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and feel good about what I did the day before. Did I do the best for the students?” It is safe to say that in his 46 years at Xavier, the answer is undoubtedly “Yes.” 38

Graduate and Professional School Statistics According to the U.S. Department of Education, Xavier continues to rank first nationally in the number of African-American students earning undergraduate degrees in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Specifically, Xavier is consistently ranked by the American Chemical Society (ACS) as #1 in awarding Bachelor’s degrees in Chemistry to African Americans. Xavier is also consistently ranked among the top 25 universities in the nation in awarding Bachelor’s degrees in Chemistry overall. These are astounding statistics, considering that Xavier has an undergraduate student body of approximately 2,000, where many of the other universities in the top 25 have enrollments 10-times that size. Recent data also show that Xavier is a national leader in the number of its STEM majors who go on to receive PhDs. According to the National Science Foundation statistics, Xavier regularly ranks in the top ten in the nation in producing African American students who go on to earn Science and Engineering PhDs. Within the divisions of Mathematical & Physical Sciences and Social & Behavioral Sciences, approximately 1 out of every 3 students is enrolled in a graduate or professional school during the fall semester after graduation. Chemistry, the largest major of those divisions, is responsible for the bulk of those numbers. And while Xavier was not always known for the quantity of its STEM undergraduates, it seems it was always known for the quality. When Dr. Leonard Price, Professor of Chemistry and Xavier class of 1957, was a student, he was encouraged by his Physics professor to pursue graduate school. He chose the University of Notre Dame and recalls, “in the early 60s there were very few African Americans at [Notre Dame] and fewer in graduate school. There were even fewer in the sciences, but those who were, were all from Xavier.” Nearly all undergraduate students who intend to apply to Xavier’s College of Pharmacy are Chemistry majors. It is therefore unsurprising that Xavier is consistently among the nation’s leaders in awarding Doctor of Pharmacy degrees to African Americans. In fact, it is estimated that 25% of all of the Nation’s Black Pharmacists graduated from Xavier’s College of Pharmacy. In addition to leading the nation in awarding Chemistry degrees, Xavier’s Chemistry Department has played a significant role in the University’s national reputation in producing health professionals. Since 1993, Xavier has consistently led in the nation not only in placing African American students in medical schools but more importantly, placing students who successfully complete their medical education. By comparison, as seen in Table 1, the #2 school for undergraduate students who complete medical school, Howard University, has over 7,000 undergraduates and the third ranked school, University of Florida, has over 32,000. In fact, the acceptance rate of Xavier graduates is almost twice the national average, and over 90% of those who enter medical school from Xavier complete their degrees. Students see direct links from their Xavier education to their career success, as exemplified by this statement from Asia and Ashley Matthew, MD/PhD Candidates at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and Xavier class of 2012. “Majoring in Chemistry at Xavier University of Louisiana has equipped us with the ability to see a problem, analyze the problem, and develop a solution; 39

all of these are skills that great physicians acquire during their studies. We owe many of our successes to the great education we received as Chemistry majors at Xavier.”

Table 1. Top undergraduate institutions producing Black or African-American medical graduates (4) vs undergraduate enrollment (1, 5–13). In 2011, a total of 60 medical school graduates were Xavier alumni. By comparison, 22 were Harvard alumni. Undergraduate Institutions Producing Black or African American Medical School Graduates, 2011

# of undergraduates (recent year)

1. Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA

2,185

2. Howard University, Washington, DC

7,013

3. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

32,781

4. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

6,700

5. Duke University, Durham, NC

6,485

6. Stanford University, Stanford, CA

6,980

7. Spelman College, Atlanta, GA

2,135

8. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI

28,395

9. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

18,415

10. Yale University, New Haven, CT

5,453

Chemistry Department Demographics These successes are a result of more than just tailoring classroom instruction and providing supplemental resources for students. Xavier’s success springs from a community within the Chemistry department that promotes not only knowledge in the field, but also the professional development of the students, and the insistence on community service by all members of the Department. The Chemistry Department at Xavier has 26 faculty members, and currently over half of the faculty are women compared to most universities, where female faculty are still a significant minority (14). About two-thirds of the faculty are research active and most have federally-funded research projects, totaling on average $2-4 million in research funding each year. In addition to individual research grants, Chemistry faculty also serve as PIs of multiple university-wide grants such as the NIH BUILD, NIH MARC, NIH RISE, NSF PREM, and NASA grants. These and other grants provide scholarships to students each year and, together 40

with the individual research grants, provide paid research training opportunities for students to conduct cutting edge research in Chemistry and Biochemistry. There are, on average, 60-70 students actively pursuing scholarly research in the Department during any given semester, including summer. The faculty host (and even sometimes cook for) weekly research seminars year- round where outside chemists and students present their current findings. Students who do research in the department also travel to a variety of national conferences to present their work to the community at large, and there is always a large group of Xavier students who attend the national ACS meeting in the spring of each year. The Chemistry Department faculty publish about 40 papers on average per year in scholarly journals, and undergraduate student co-authors are common. This, however, was not always the case at Xavier. Like many other predominantly undergraduate universities, and in particular HBCUs, the facilities and resources at Xavier were not always state-of-the-art. In the 1970s, Xavier’s Chemistry Department was still housed in army barracks lacking air-conditioning. Dr. Joyce Corrington, then a Professor of Chemistry and the Director of Research at the University, decided that Xavier could do better than those early buildings which were occasionally inhabited by stray cats and their fleas. Through her grant writing efforts, Xavier was awarded federal funding that ultimately resulted in the Norman C. Francis Science Building which houses the physical and biological sciences today. Even with the beginnings of rapid growth and expansion of the university, the members of the Xavier community remained focused on their original mission. Dr. Corrington recounts that faculty meetings were more like “sitting around the breakfast table with family” as like-minded individuals working towards a common goal. The Chemistry department continues to foster the feeling of family by specifically recruiting scholarly faculty who are committed to teaching undergraduates and training them in the lab. And most importantly, by recruiting those faculty who are committed to Xavier’s mission. Dr. Cheryl Stevens, former Chair of the Department of Chemistry and the former Associate Dean of Scholarship at the University, helped to build a highly competitive department for research funding and create a “culture that focuses on student engagement” by assuring faculty had access to a modernized “physical infrastructure and the financial resources to support their work.” She worked to ensure faculty were able to reduce their teaching loads through funded research proposals so that they could successfully develop their scholarship, but more importantly, “to have the time to give students a good quality experience in the lab.” This is an area in which Xavier excels, and as she succinctly states, “everybody wants to put money into that.”

Chemistry Club and Other Departmental Outreach Xavier is proud to have a large and active ACS student member chapter. The chapter has been recognized by the ACS as an Outstanding Chapter for 10 41

of the past 12 years, with annual student participation exceeding 100 members. The student chapter and the Department regularly send 25 or more members to the ACS national meeting each year, where most attendees present their research projects. The club also has an enthusiastic program of outreach activities in local schools, with many of these projects funded by grants that have been written and managed by students. Members have a strong dedication to community service, with a particular focus on introducing science to younger students and generating enthusiasm for Chemistry among underrepresented groups. The members also serve as peer-mentors to new freshmen, supporting Xavier’s philosophy of student collaboration and peer-support. They work closely with the faculty in activities, from making recruitment calls to high school students to performing safety inspections in the research labs. The Xavier ACS student chapter is an integral part of the Chemistry Department and enhances the departmental community greatly. Xavier faculty are also extremely committed to service and model the commitment expected from the students. Each year, faculty contribute to dozens of activities and programs that foster enthusiasm and advance knowledge in Chemistry in K-12 students. This is done through a variety of ways, including bringing high school students to campus and the Department, going to high schools through the “Speaking about Science” program, providing information about careers in Chemistry to high school students, attending college and career fairs, and participating in monthly STEM NOLA activities. STEM NOLA is a monthly hands-on workshop for K-12 students created to inspire and engage members in the surrounding communities about the opportunities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Volunteers design and deliver activities, programs & events that bring inspiration, motivation and training to all STEM stakeholders, specifically focusing on underserved communities, across the city of New Orleans. Faculty know that many of the reasons African-American and Black students pursue STEM degrees at lower rates have to do with unequal education in the K-12 years. They see this outreach as an extension of St. Katherine Drexel’s mission for members of the Xavier community. In turn, many graduates continue to support the mission of Xavier by choosing careers that allow them to mentor underrepresented students in all parts of the STEM pipeline. Dr. Nyote Calixte, Director of Academic Engagement, Natural and Quantitative Sciences at Duke University and Xavier class of 2007, recalls her undergraduate environment as she fulfills her role as an academic advisor to new, undergraduate STEM students, particularly women of color. "The chemistry department was more than just a place for majors- for me, it was a place I felt supported. As a first-generation student with ambitions to study chemistry, this support made all the difference in my success. Through the department I was challenged to be my best self, whether as an emerging scientist, scholar or peer mentor. I had the unwavering support of ALL the instructors in my department, each of which knew and greeted me by name, making it feel more like family. My preparation, achievements, and wellbeing mattered to my department. So, I have no doubt that the reason I am successful today is because of the familial and genuinely supportive environment created by the chemistry department and its faculty.” 42

Commitment to Local Section and National ACS The Xavier Chemistry Department has had a long history of supporting the Local Section of the ACS. Seven faculty members and one student have served on the Louisiana Local Section Executive Board in the past decade alone. These individuals have developed new programming such as the Science Café and the Chemistry on Tap series, both of which are held biannually. They are also responsible for many of the student member offerings such as dinner talks, awards banquets, travel grants, Earth Day events, and National Chemistry Week outreach. Xavier faculty and student members were heavily involved in planning and volunteering for the 2010 66th SWRM/62nd SERMACS Joint Regional Meeting and have already begun planning the 2020 meeting. In fact, due to aggressive fundraising, marketing, and attendance the 2010 SW/SE Joint Regional Meeting was one of the most financially successful ACS regional meetings to date. Both the Finance Chair and the Fundraising Chair were faculty members at Xavier. The Xavier ACS student chapter, supported by a programming grant, planned and implemented the undergraduate program in partnership with Loyola University of New Orleans, which produced a robust program with keynote speakers focused on various careers in chemistry, effective community outreach, an undergraduate poster session, graduate school sessions, and a social. In the past decade alone, the National Meeting of the ACS has been held in New Orleans twice, with a third being held in 2018. Xavier traditionally provides the vast majority of student workers and volunteers for these meetings. Xavier faculty members have started and continue to chair the local chapter of the Younger Chemists Committee. Regular events and speakers are planned that are tailored to the students’ needs. The committee also compiled and maintains a list of contacts at local and regional businesses that serve as potential employers for recent Chemistry graduates. Xavier and the Chemistry Department continue to make a strong commitment to educating African-American students in the Sciences and preparing them for careers in the Chemical, Biomedical, Pharmaceutical, and STEM-related fields. Since 2005, Xavier has weathered one of the largest natural disasters in U.S. history, the largest economic downturn since the great depression, and fundamental changes in the college financial aid programs which disproportionally impact HBCUs. Despite these unprecedented challenges, the Xavier Chemistry Department has awarded over 550 Bachelor’s degrees in Chemistry during this time period, with the vast majority going to African-American students, and most of those are women. The Chemistry Department continues to strive to keep Xavier a national leader in promoting diversity within the professional Chemistry community.

Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Teresa Birdwhistell for her help facilitating and conducting the personal interviews sited as well as for her keen eye for proofreading. She would also like to thank Dr. Michael Adams for providing information on the student chapter as well as for his fact-checking. 43

References 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

DiversityDefinitions; University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. http:// www.ninds.nih.gov/diversity_programs/definitions.htm (accessed June 29, 2016) Xavier University of Louisiana University Profile. http://www.xula.edu/ opira/ir/ir.html (accessed June 1, 2016). Sevenair, J. P.; O’Connor, S. E.; Nazery, M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1989, 18, 236–239. AAMC Data Warehouse: Student data, Applicant and Matriculant File. https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/86042/ factstablea2.html; 2012 (accessed June 8, 2016). Howard University. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/bestcolleges/howard-university-1448; 2014 (accessed June 8, 2016). Enrollment and Demographics, Univ. of Florida. http://ir.aa.ufl.edu/ enrollment; 2016 (accessed June 8, 2016). Harvard at a Glance. http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance; 2016 (accessed June 8, 2016). Quick Facts about Duke. http://newsoffice.duke.edu/all-about-duke/quickfacts-about-duke; 2016 (accessed June 8, 2016). Stanford Facts at a Glance. http://facts.stanford.edu/; 2016 (accessed June 8, 2016). Spelman College Fact Book. http://www.spelman.edu/academics/office-ofthe-provost/institutional-research-assessment-and-planning/fact-book; 2015 (accessed June 8, 2016). Enrollment by Full-Time and Part-Time Status, School or College, Class Level, and Gender, Univ. of Michigan. http://ro.umich.edu/enrollment/ enrollment.php; 2015 (accessed June 8, 2016). Fall 2015 Headcount Enrollment, Univ. of North Carolina. http:/ /oira.unc.edu/facts-and-figures/student-data/enrollment-and-studentcharacteristics/fall-2015-headcount-enrollment; 2016 (accessed June 8, 2016). Yale Facts. http://www.yale.edu/about-yale/yale-facts; 2015 (accessed June 8, 2016). Rovner, S. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 92, 41–44.

44

Chapter 4

The Brandeis Science Posse: Building a Cohort Model Program To Retain Underserved Students in the Sciences Melissa S. Kosinski-Collins,1 Kim Godsoe,2 and Irving R. Epstein3,* 1Department

of Biology, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02454-9110, United States 2Office of the Provost, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02454-9110, United States 3Department of Chemistry, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02454-9110, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

Retaining minority students or students from under-resourced backgrounds in the science professional pipeline is a challenging problem of national concern. For the past eight years, the Brandeis Science Posse program has recruited and retained students from under-resourced groups in STEM disciplines. In collaboration with the Posse Foundation, we have facilitated the formation of a close-knit, mutually supportive learning community, a “science posse,” for eighty students to date from New York City public high schools. The Brandeis Science Posse model includes a two-week pre-collegiate summer immersion program and two years of mentoring by a graduate student majoring in STEM. Additionally, the students provide each other with group support throughout their undergraduate experience. To date, 84% of the Science Posse scholars have graduated with a major in STEM, and they have achieved a 96% overall graduation rate. Assessment has shown that all of the above program elements contribute to engagement and retention in STEM of the Science Posse Scholars.

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Introduction For some time, the scientific community has recognized the need to increase the number of minority and under-resourced students majoring in the sciences. Within selective institutions of higher education, 55% of White students and 63% of Asian-American students are retained in the sciences, compared to only 38% of underrepresented racial minority students (1). Specifically, the number of African-American and Latino students pursuing careers in STEM fields is relatively small in comparison to White or Asian students (2). Discussions are ongoing as to why minority students and students with fewer socio-economic resources tend not to study science at the collegiate level and why those who do begin as science majors often do not finish their undergraduate or graduate STEM degree (3). One study (4) found that although “black students have stronger initial preferences than whites for majoring in the natural sciences, engineering or economics, they are significantly less likely to choose one of these majors for their final major.” The authors attributed this phenomenon to the tendency of students with weaker academic preparation to gravitate toward less challenging majors. Their results have led some to suggest that less well-prepared students, particularly minorities, who are interested in the sciences would be better served by attending less competitive institutions (5, 6), a viewpoint that has generated considerable controversy. Several studies point to a number of factors that may influence minority retention in STEM. These include the development of faculty and peer relationships, the prevalence of faculty guidance and mentoring, cultural or societal influence, self-perception of ability, and overall academic preparation (7–9). The academic preparation a student brings when entering the university environment is an extremely important predictor of university success. We have observed that students from under-resourced schools tend to perform significantly lower on university level exams and assignments and may require remediation efforts. Many programs have been established to help under-resourced students succeed in the sciences. Some offer advanced, intensive laboratory experiences for minority students during their undergraduate education, either during the school year or in intensive summer research programs (reviewed in (10)). Others aim to provide students with academic preparation in advance of their undergraduate coursework. Still others make available mentoring networks, long-term career advice, and help with college admissions (11). Research has also demonstrated the importance of having a positive peer group in science. Astin and Astin (12) found that when a student had a greater number of peers majoring in STEM fields, the student was more likely to be retained in STEM. Similarly, McGee (13) found that underrepresented minority students were more likely to be retained in STEM fields when the students had “likeminded friendships.” The efficacy of these individual programmatic elements has been analyzed, with most findings suggesting that diverse target groups respond differently to each type of intervention (14).

46

These issues cut across all of the sciences. Chemistry, as the gateway course to medicine as well as to several other STEM disciplines, plays a disproportionate role in STEM retention, or the lack thereof (15). Through a collaboration with the Posse Foundation, we have designed the Science Posse Program to retain urban scholars in STEM disciplines at Brandeis University. This program provides students with a cohort of like-minded scholars from similar communities, a graduate student mentor, a pre-collegiate training program and access to research opportunities.

The Brandeis Science Posse Model Brandeis University Profile Brandeis is a private, liberal-arts research university in Waltham, Massachusetts with an entering first-year class of about 850 students. Based on current admissions applications, approximately 45% enter with an intention to pursue a career in the allied health professions and/or in the sciences. However, enrollments in entry level science courses suggest that more than 60% of Brandeis students actually explore such career paths. About 380 students graduate each year with a major in a STEM discipline. The STEM majors offered at Brandeis include Biology; Biochemistry; Chemistry; Computer Science; Health: Science, Society and Policy (HSSP); Mathematics; Neuroscience and Physics. The largest enrolled STEM major is Biology, with approximately 130 graduates per year. Students are not required to declare majors until the end of their sophomore year; however, most students intending to pursue a degree in a STEM discipline (except for mathematics, physics and computer science) enroll in the general chemistry lecture and laboratory their freshman year. Similar to many universities, general chemistry, organic chemistry, introductory physics and introductory biology at Brandeis are taught in a large lecture format, with classes ranging in size from 150 to 300 students. Most courses consist of three hours of lecture led by a faculty member and weekly recitations and labs directed by a graduate student or advanced undergraduate teaching assistant. Introductory chemistry is the exception to this, with recitations being led by faculty members. Often, students report feeling detached or removed from the faculty member, interacting primarily with their TA. History of the Science Posse Brandeis began a partnership with the Posse foundation to establish the first Science Posse in 2008. In this program, ten high school seniors from New York City schools are admitted each year to Brandeis with full tuition scholarships. The Scholars retain this scholarship whether or not they major in a STEM discipline. The students come to Brandeis as a cohort and are encouraged to rely on one another for emotional and academic support throughout their college career. Although not specifically designed as a minority retention program, the 47

demographics of the Science Posse students are markedly different than those of the general Brandeis undergraduate population (Table 1). Within the first seven years of Science Posse, 74% of students are classified as racial minorities, compared to 13% in the overall Brandeis population. Additionally 67.5% of students in the Science Posse are need-based federal grant eligible, while this is true of only 21.5% of all Brandeis students; 68.75% of Science Posse Scholars are first-generation compared to 15% for all Brandeis students.

Table 1. Characteristics of Brandeis Science Posse Students as Compared to Traditional Brandeis Students from 2008-2015 Science Posse

Brandeis Population

Male

46%

43%

Female

54%

57%

African-American

34%

4%

Asian-American

20%

14.4%

Latino/Hispanic

39%

6.1%

White

4%

49.4%

Native American

0%

0.3%

Unknown

2.5%

12%

Multi-racial

1%

2.3%

Average SAT score

1174

1371

Need-based federal grant eligible

67.5%

21.5%

First generation status

68.75%

15%

Demographic Characteristic Gender

Race

Other characteristics

To be selected for Science Posse, students need to be nominated by their school, a guidance counselor, another scholar, a non-profit organization, etc., based on their academic success, leadership and demonstrated interest in the sciences. The formal selection process, which is coordinated by the Posse Foundation, then takes place over several months. This process emphasizes leadership, communication, and problem solving skills rather than the traditional admissions metrics of standardized test scores, such as the ACT or SAT, or grades. 48

After being nominated, students are chosen for the scholarship through a three-step process. The Dynamic Assessment Process is a group interview consisting of guided activities that allow trained observers to identify students with outstanding communication and problem-solving skills (16). The top 50% of students who participate in the Dynamic Assessment Process are invited to the second step in the admissions process, an individual interview with two members of the Posse staff. At these interviews, students select their top three choices of partner colleges and universities and can express an interest in being in a Science Posse (or in a standard “liberal arts” Posse in which there are no expectations about college major). To be in the Brandeis Science Posse Program, a student must plan to major in Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Math, Computer Science, HSSP, Neuroscience and/or Physics. From these interviews, a finalist group of approximately twenty students is selected. Representatives from Brandeis and the Posse Foundation then conduct another group interview involving a set of structured exercises with the twenty finalists, and the cohort of ten Science Posse Scholars is selected in the middle of December of the students’ senior year of high school. The selection process for Science Posse is quite rigorous. Nonetheless, some of the students who are accepted as Posse Scholars would not be admitted to Brandeis through the regular admissions process because of their relatively low test scores. From 2008 through 2015, the average SAT score for Science Posse Scholars was 1174 compared to 1371 for other Brandeis students. Although there are no racial or ethnic criteria, 34% of the Science Posse Scholars at Brandeis have been African-American, 39% Latino, 20% Asian-American, 4% White, 1% multiracial and 2.5% race or ethnicity unknown. The demographic information for the Science Posse and the entire Brandeis student population is summarized in Table 1. We have selected and sponsored a Science Posse cohort each year since 2008, totaling 80 student scholars to date, 48 of whom have graduated from the university and 31 of whom are currently enrolled.

Elements of the Science Posse Program All Science Posse students receive a four-year full tuition scholarship. The Posse Program contains several mandatory elements, each of which has been found to contribute to scholar success and retention (17). Upon accepting their nomination to Posse, the scholars agree to participate in each of the activities summarized in Table 2. Once selected, the Science Posse Scholars participate in a number of individual and group activities focused on exposure to the culture of college and college level science before they enroll at Brandeis. The students attend an eight-month pre-collegiate training program at the Posse Foundation. They meet together for weekly sessions that include three science workshops led by Brandeis staff and other activities run by Posse staff, such as a discussion of race, an activity about religious beliefs, and a Myers-Briggs personality test. Most of these workshops emphasize problem solving and the building of relationships between the scholars to facilitate the cohort mentality. 49

Table 2. Activities Associated with the Brandeis Science Posse Program Event

Time of Year

Time Commitment

Mandatory or Optional

Weekly Pre-Collegiate Training (PCT) with Posse staff emphasizing leadership and communication skills

January through August of the Scholars’ senior year of high school

2 hours per week

Mandatory

Three STEM workshops within PCT are devoted to science, 1 chemistry, 1 biology and 1 math

1 workshop per month in February, March and April

2 hours for each workshop

Mandatory

Summer Science Immersion Program

July

12 days

Mandatory

Weekly group meetings of the scholars, emphasizing leadership skills and the transition to college

September through May for the first two years of college

2 hours per week

Mandatory

Individual meetings with the Science Posse mentor

September through May for the first two years of college

1 hour every other week

Mandatory

Research lab experience

September through May

Varies

Optional

The students also participate in a twelve-day Summer Science Immersion Program in late June/early July on the Brandeis campus. The program emphasizes exposure to college-level work in the sciences. It does not provide science remediation. In the Summer Science Immersion Program, Posse Scholars have their first experience with the intensity of college level science, the grading curve that is used, feelings of competition, scientific communication and issues with time management. Because of the diversity of intended STEM majors in the incoming cohort, the summer immersion exposes the students to short courses and laboratories in biology, chemistry, computer science and physics. Additionally, students learn about the many academic resources on campus, including the Writing Center, Library and Technology Services, science faculty and tutoring services, in the context of a research project whose results they present at a final poster session attended by many members of the Brandeis science community. Many science retention programs focus on providing students with a greater understanding of scientific concepts. The Science Posse Summer Immersion Program differs from most other models in this respect. It can be viewed rather as socializing students into the sciences. Once Science Posse Scholars are enrolled as full-time students at Brandeis, they continue to meet as a cohort under the guidance of a mentor for their first two years of college. Prior research has found that having a mentor in the sciences can positively impact retention in STEM, and the effects of mentoring 50

can be even more significant for African-American and Latina/o students than for White students (18). The mentor meets weekly with the cohort as a group as well as individually with each scholar every other week to discuss personal development. Little if any time is spent on science remediation, and the group meetings are not used as formalized study groups. Almost all mentors for the Brandeis Science Posse program have been graduate students pursuing PhDs in various STEM disciplines, including Biophysics, Neuroscience, Chemistry, and Molecular and Cellular Biology. The mentor of the Class of 2015 cohort was a postdoctoral associate in Neuroscience. All mentors participate in mentor training provided by the Posse Foundation and are given regular guidance and support by Brandeis faculty and staff. Although only two of the eight mentors have been racial minorities, the Science Posse mentors are typically from under-resourced or first-generation backgrounds. In addition to meetings with their mentor, Science Posse Scholars are given the opportunity to work in a faculty member’s research lab. Like mentoring, participating in a research lab has been found to positively impact retention in STEM (19, 20). Any interested Science Posse student is offered a paid position in a research lab on campus. STEM faculty work closely with the mentors to appropriately match the students to research opportunities that reflect student interest and will provide appropriate guidance and support. In a typical year, five to seven members of each ten scholar cohort participate in laboratory research during their first and/or second year of college. Historically, about half of these students have continued working in these labs through graduation. Students are encouraged and provided resources to present their research at both on- and off-campus STEM conferences to facilitate further networking opportunities.

Research Design In order to determine which elements of the program were most closely correlated with student retention in the sciences and student perception of these elements, both a quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted. The quantitative analysis used data that was collected through a science survey given to students in selected introductory and mid-level science classes. Then the data was matched with student records data which provided demographic information about who was completing the survey and allowed for comparison of different groups of students. The science survey data provided an understanding of students’ attitudes and experience in the sciences. The students’ record data The qualitative analysis was conducted with data from 87 student interviews, including 38 Science Posse Scholars, 24 students from backgrounds similar to the Scholars (Underrepresented Students) and 25 students from well-resourced backgrouds. All students who participated in this study were enrolled at Brandeis between January 2012 and May 2013. Table 3 shows the demographics of the three comparison groups. For the purposes of this paper, only results from the Science Posse Scholars are discussed. 51

Table 3. Overview of the Comparison Groups for Qualitative Research Comparison Group 1: 38 Brandeis Science Posse Scholars

Comparison Group 2: 24 Brandeis Students from Backgrounds Similar to Science Posse Scholars (Underrepresented Students)

Comparison Group 3: 25 Brandeis Students from Well Resourced Families

• Students who were Science Posse Scholars • 90% were first-generation college students and/or low-income • 9 white or Asian-American students, 29 racial minority students • First-years, sophomores, juniors, and seniors • Students entered college with the intention to major in biology, biochemistry, chemistry, neuroscience or HSSP and who attempted at least one semester of sciences intended for these majors (Science Posse students who leave the sciences are still part of the program and participate in all program activities) • Students not in Posse (Science or Liberal Arts) • 100% were either first-generation college students and/or Pell grant recipients • 10 white or Asian-American students, 14 racial minority students • First-years, sophomores, juniors, and seniors • Students entered college with the intention to major in biology, biochemistry, chemistry, neuroscience, or HSSP and who attempted at least one semester of sciences intended for these majors • Students not in Posse (Science or Liberal Arts) • Students from families with adjusted gross incomes of $80,000 or more (one-third of these students were not receiving need-based financial aid) • Students had at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree (most students had one parent with a graduate degree, approximately half came from families in which both parents had graduate degrees) • 21 white or Asian-American students, 4 racial minority students • First-years, sophomores, juniors, and seniors • Students entered college with the intention to major in biology, biochemistry, chemistry, neuroscience or HSSP and who attempted at least one semester of sciences intended for these majors

Student Outcomes At Brandeis, the rates at which students declared majors in STEM fields vary enormously by racial comparison group. These same types of variations have been found in previous research that examined which students declared a major and/or graduated with a major in a STEM discipline at selective colleges and universities (1). The observed university-wide major declaration rates demonstrate that a significant number of students of all races who are interested in STEM decide not to declare a STEM major. In contrast, 86% of Science Posse Scholars declared a major in a STEM discipline. 52

From the Science survey, we learned that the experiences of Science Posse Scholars were very different from the experiences of other students. Science Posse Scholars were much more likely to identify with the statement “I worry I am not as academically strong as other students,” with an average 4.16 for Science Posse Scholars and of 3.52 for other students (p