Howdy KGL Hoops Fans,

You are witness to the dawn of a new age in G&G basketball. This season we are playing as a single united team, the Post Glacial Rebound. Gone are the days of separate G&G factions at odds with each other. We all know who the better team was anyway. Hopefully we can quell our one-time hatred for the ?other? KGL players and develop a collective vision?that is crushing any opponent that stands in our way.

Our first match up is this SUNDAY, January 21st at 2:45 p.m. We will be playing Pizolitics (Poli-Sci) upstairs on the FIFTH FLOOR court in Payne Whitney.

Please send me an email if you are planning to play basketball this season and if you will make it to this weekend?s game.

If there is interest, we can plan a shoot-around/pick-up for this Friday evening. Let me know if you?d be interested.

Schedule

Date Time Court Opponent
1/21 2:45 5th floor Pizolitics
1/28 2:45 1 Players
2/4 1:45 2 Lady Loggers
2/11 1:45 1 Loong-Ren
2/18 1:45 2 Bishop Ballers

Winter Volleyball Season begins this weekend. We are in the co-rec league and will be playing on Sunday mornings/afternoons (shouldn't conflict with basketball).

Our first game is this Sunday at 10:45AM in Room H (5th floor of the gym) against McMillan's Villains (International Relations). This is the only game in that room.... all other games will be in the Lanman Center.

If you will be coming to the game this weekend, please let me know by Friday morning so I can be sure we have enough people to play.

The rest of the season schedule is listed below.

Cheers,
Megan
Winter Vball Schedule for the Flailing Limbs:

SUN Jan 21 10:45AM vs McMillan's Villains (International Relations) Room H
SUN Jan 28 9:30AM vs McDougal Set (McDougal Center) Lanman Court 2
SUN Feb 4 9:30AM vs Divine Diggers (Divinity) Lanman Court 2
SUN Feb 11 12:00PM vs McMIllan's Villains Lanman Court 3
SUN Feb 18 1:15PM vs McDougal Set Lanman Court 3
SUN Feb 25 1:15PM vs Divine Diggers Lanman Court 3
SUN March 4 Semi-Final (9:30AM) and Final (11AM) Lanman Court 3 & 4

Hi G&G,

Thanks for taking the time to vote me in as your GSA rep. The first meeting was tonight, and I knew it was going to be spectacular because I ran into Rossi on my way down there. Damn I miss that guy... So I thought I'd give a little update after meetings, in case anyone is interested. My emails will be explicitly labeled so as to be easily delete-able if you really don't care. If anyone finds these kinds of things especially distasteful, just let me know and I'll make a separate list without you on it. Ok, so here's a list of a few things that might interest the people in this department:

1) Tax Day - there's a push to not only have outside accountants come in and give a little tax seminar for the grad students, but to also have them do our taxes. Since it has been difficult to get clear advice on how to prepare taxes like ours (for both U.S. citizens and international students), this could be especially helpful.

2) Money for grad students to play on Yale College club sports. I guess right now, you'd have to pay a lot if you wanted to participate, so people are trying to get funding for that.

3) A crosswalk at Whitney and Humphrey (!)

4) CT limo will now be $20 each way to Bradley airport in Hartford for grad students. Supposedly it's going to happen but it hasn't been implemented just yet. You'll have to make a reservation online, and the "limo" will pick you up at a few select campus locations including the science hill parking lot.

5) Some GSA people are going to do some actual lobbying in DC for the Higher Education Affordability Act. I believe this would make room and board expenses for students tax deductible, amongst other things.

6) Urban Education Studies Program - not that this applies to most of us, but a lot of you have significant others looking for jobs/grad programs in New Haven. It's a new Teach For America-like program in which you get paid $17,000/yr for 2 years of school as long as you teach in New Haven for 3 years.

7) No summer gym fee. You've probably already heard that, but if not, there it is.

8+) Lots of other stuff, like conference travel funds, an attempt to gain access to the undergraduate college dining halls for those on meal plans , dependent care, dental/health, spousal access to parking garages, and many ways to try to pad our stipends.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments, or any (relevant) issues that keep you awake at night.

Thanks for your time - -

- - Madalyn

Hi G&G,

Following is some Graduate Student Assembly information. Please take the child care survey (the link is below).

1. GSA Conference Travel Funds available

The GSA provides up to $500 for travel, housing, and registration if you are presenting a paper or poster at a conference. Applications can be found at the GSA website http://www.yale.edu/gsa/CTF.htm. The next rounds are coming up 15 Feb. and 15 April. This opportunity is supposedly under-utilized by scientists and is a pretty easy application.

2. Helping students progress through their program.

The Grad School Executive Committee recommended Dean Butler appoint a committee to examine students' transition from coursework and exams into research and dissertations. The committee will examine the impact and possible difficulties of Yale politics and practices. International students will receive particular attention, since the requirements for good standing affect visa status. This committee includes MB&B GSA rep. Kaury Eisenman and Prof. Donald Engelman. Please e-mail or approach either with your concerns regarding these issues.

3. Security

As you all know, security is an ongoing issue in New Haven. You can go to http://www.yalesecurity.yale.edu/index.htm for more about what Yale is doing to ensure the safety of all students. http://www.yale.edu/minibus/ has information about night transport and some of the improvements the university has been making over the past months.

4. Helpful resources for child-care and other quality of life enhancements

Information on child-care, self-improvement seminars, and other quality-of-life issues are available at http://www.yale.edu/hronline/worklife/. Susan Abramson, the coordinator of Yale Worklife program, spoke to GSA about some resources available and Yale's ongoing efforts to improve options. Also, please take the childcare survey at http://www.yale.edu/gpss/survey.html Even if you are not currently a parent or planning on becoming one, this is a widespread issue and it is helpful to have broad results.

5. And one other thing that few people know about are the FEAST Cards. Last semester there was a push to get this offer extended to other dining halls (KBT or SOM) but I haven't heard anything about that lately. From the website...

FEAST Cards
The Dean~Rs office sponsors the FEAST (Free Eating Attracts Students and Teachers) program to encourage Graduate School students to meet with graduate faculty members and advisers for informal conversations and mentoring. Each FEAST ticket enables one Graduate School Faculty member and 1 or 2 Graduate School Students to enjoy lunch together at HGS Dining Hall. Tickets are available for checkout at the McDougal Center Box Office, HGS 123. Each Graduate School student or Graduate School ladder Faculty member may request up to two cards per term. http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/mcdougal/Dining.html

with undying devotion,

Madalyn

I think "Brown Bag" sounds better than "lunch talk", don't you? Now we can just call it the D.C.B.B. Maybe another B. for "bazooka".

The DCBB(B)s will take place on Mondays at 12:00 noon starting Jan 29.

If you want to give a talk and haven't yet told me, you can simply be added to any one of the days (we can easily have 2 speakers on any one day). We also have a couple of slots totally open in April that would particularly suit the senior students who don't have big presentations around that time. Let me know if you can take one of these spots.

Here's the schedule of presenters:

Jan 29 Tyler
Feb 5 Tom
Feb 12 Una
Feb 19 Faysal
Feb 26 Devin
March 5 Carlos
March 26 Michelle
April 2 Jakob
April 9 Jerome
April 16 Garrett
April 23 ??
April 30 ??

I remain Most reverently, sincerely, and enthusiastically Yours,

-f

Renewing the Ph.D. . . . at Yale

The 2-4 Project

We believe that it is time to reassess our Ph.D. programs in a highly focused way, concentrating on the critical years between the completion of course work and very substantial research on Ph.D. dissertations--years 2-4 in most programs. We want our Ph.D. programs to show greater flexibility, imagination, and responsiveness to shifting intellectual needs, student aspirations, and broadening professional opportunities and demands. Anecdotal evidence and our participation in formal programs, such as the Woodrow Wilson Foundation's "Responsive Ph.D." initiative and the Ph.D. Completion Project funded by the Council of Graduate Schools, suggest that delays in years 2-4 push back direct dissertation research and writing and hinder entrance into professional life by impeding dissertation completion. Problems and successes in years 2-4 strongly influence final outcomes, most obviously in the receipt of the Ph.D. but equally profoundly in serving as students' principal models for success in their first professional positions inside and outside academia.

We therefore invite all departments to evaluate their Ph.D. programs in the fall of 2006, using the questions and suggestions below as guidelines for assessment and change. The Graduate School recognizes that the individuality of departments and programs will stimulate different responses to some of the issues suggested here. At the same time, we hope that departments and programs will tackle difficult questions because they are real and, in fact, offer opportunities for improvement. We ask that you think creatively about the futures that your students face professionally and personally rather than defend what always has been done. Mainly, we simply ask that you look at your programs in light of the desired end––Ph.D.s who are competitive in tough job markets, intellectually resilient, and even more fascinated by research and teaching as they begin independent professional life than they were when they entered graduate school.

The transition from the 2nd to the 4th year of study

In years 2-4 most Ph.D. students move from formal class work to independent scholarship. Science students complete lab rotations and exams, choose an advisor and a lab with and in which to work, write a dissertation prospectus, and begin independent research and writing. Most humanities and social science students finish their last courses, take exams, write a prospectus, and also begin teaching. When all goes smoothly, science, humanities, and social science students have advanced to candidacy by the end of the third year and are deeply engaged in dissertation research in the fourth year. The Graduate School is concerned to help students negotiate these processes as fluidly and effectively as possible.

Although inherent disciplinary differences and departmental requirements make it difficult to generalize, the time to candidacy has remained steady and relatively high, and students too frequently require extensions of the candidacy deadline. The concern is that every extension in the middle of a program risks lengthening the time to complete the Ph.D. But even when deadlines are met in a timely fashion, anecdotal evidence also suggests that students often encounter the most serious obstacles of their graduate experiences during these middle years. In too many instances, students are simply ill-prepared to begin the independent work required of them. The goal of the evaluative measures outlined below is to help students embark on the independent work of advancing to candidacy efficiently and with confidence so that the researching and writing of the dissertation is neither unduly delayed nor fraught with anxiety.

Areas of concern in the humanities and social sciences
We wish to focus on several critical areas on which to improve the experience of students in years 2 through 4.

Mentoring.
Does the mentoring in the department provide adequate guidance and feedback?

Course work.
Does course work train students to move to exams efficiently as well as conduct independent research and formulate a dissertation topic? Have students been graded realistically? Does course work prepare students to become independent researchers and writers, moving beyond criticism of the contemporary discipline?

Program structure.
Does the configuration of exams, prospectus-writing and first-time teaching enable students to make optimal progress during these years?

Collaborative frameworks.
Students beginning research sometimes feel isolated and unsure of how to proceed. Does the department have collaborative frameworks to allay this isolation?

Evaluation.
Are the department’s early evaluative structures too porous so that students reach the dissertation stage without having met essential challenges and, sometimes, even requirements?

Expectations.
Are the department’s programmatic expectations clearly stated and publicized to students early on?

Areas of concern in the sciences
Students in the sciences tend to move relatively quickly into dissertation research. There are, nonetheless, some concerns shared with the humanities and social science departments. These include issues of effective mentoring, clear and frequent evaluations, and clearly communicated expectations. Two distinct features of the science programs would benefit from substantial evaluation.


Program structure.
Does the configuration of research rotations and special projects provide sufficient experience for both faculty and students to make lab placement decisions? Evaluation. Are the research experiences formally evaluated and are results communicated to students in writing as recommended in the Engelman Committee Report? Does the department or program have a clear mechanism for evaluating research performance and potential early on?

Solutions
Some issues might be addressed centrally by the Graduate School, although none of these possibilities could be implemented without considerable discussion in and with departments and programs. Items of discussion might include the subjects below, with the understanding that changes in requirements would apply only to newly admitted students.

More stringent honors requirements than those in place

Change in the current H, HP, P, and F grading system

More efficient examination system

Written evaluations of overall performance in years one and two

Departmental or field colloquia during the preparation of exams and the prospectus

First and even second dissertation chapter conferences at set intervals

Creation of a departmental dissertation seminar or seminars meeting weekly or bi-weekly, taught by faculty, especially for students in the writing stage that might count as 1 deferred course in the required curriculum, also effectively reducing the regular seminar requirement by 1

Regular yearly departmental workshops on professional expectations in the discipline, ranging from publishing to grants, teaching, and family and professional life issues

More flexible financial aid package that would enable students to move the teaching years to the most beneficial times (see below)

A reduction of time to candidacy in 7-term departments to 6, based on the provision of much increased summer funding

Some linkage of admissions targets to total program size

Solutions responsive to the needs of each discipline and that are created by individual departments after substantial discussion probably offer the best opportunity for effective improvement in Ph.D. programs. At the same time, some departmental issues will intersect with broader Graduate School policies and practices, and departments and the Graduate School will need to be aware of these confluences.

At the departmental level, we recommend the following:

Careful examination of mentoring practices within the department and consistent guidelines about the importance of faculty meetings with students and providing timely feedback on written work

Examination of the type and amount of course work required.
This is probably the single most crucial area in which departments and programs can improve the experience of their students. Such a re-examination would not necessarily entail a reduction in the total amount of course work, but rather, a reconfiguration of when course work occurs (e.g. moving some course work to post-candidacy in the form of a dissertation seminar). It might also entail course work aimed more specifically at preparing students for field exams and independent research, particularly in the second year. Course work should also introduce students to the exigencies of shaping a proper topic and creating an argument, using large amounts of material.

Evaluating the examination system. If students rather regularly do not complete examinations and the dissertation prospectus in the third year, faculty should reconsider current examination practices. Are the exams too convoluted? Delaying exams usually delays dissertations.
Configuration of program.
Should the Graduate School make its funding package more flexible in the humanities and social sciences? For example, these departments might reconsider the order in which students complete course work, teach for the first time and prepare exams and the prospectus. Right now, the usual model is to begin teaching in year three, just when students are also preparing for exams and the prospectus. Might some students do better by teaching in the second year as they complete the last year of course work, as has long happened in the History of Art (an exception to the general humanities and social science pattern)? In addition to leaving more time available for the preparation of post-course work requirements, it would enable students to reserve a year of funding without teaching for post-candidacy research in the fourth or fifth year.

Opportunities for students to attend research groups and to present their work in more formal ways to their peers and faculty.

Discussion of the current evaluative structures in place in the department. The departments and programs should be sure that they provide sufficient formal evaluation of students in years one, two and three, up until students submit their first dissertation progress reports. Expectations should be clearly defined from the outset. Even as they enter the program, students should be made aware of the points at which they will be evaluated and on what basis these evaluations will be made. A student should never feel unsure about his or her standing in the program. Following the recommendation of the recently completed Engelman Committee report, the Graduate School will expect all departments to provide each student will a progress report at the end of each academic year in which the student is registered.

Procedures and Implementation
Evaluating your program will require several steps, and the procedures may, and probably should, differ somewhat from program to program. At a minimum, we recommend the following:

Appoint a committee to design, oversee and implement the review.

Meet with students separately by cohort and/or subfield, and also meet with them as a total group. Be sure that students understand that you really do want to hear from them and to learn from them what they believe is and isn’t working, what is frustrating, and what is successful. Recognize that students may be shy about expressing negative feedback and provide them the opportunity to speak with faculty members individually as well as in a group.

Meet with the full department faculty to discuss student feedback and each of the issues raised in this review document.

How you arrange your meetings will depend in good part on the size of your program. Small programs will handle the information gathering phase of the project differently than large programs.

You also might usefully consult a new book: Michael T. Nettles and Catherine M. Millett, Three Magic Letters: Getting to Ph.D. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Nettles and Millett assess the careers of 9000 graduate students in 21 Ph.D. programs and stress how discerning institutional changes, persistent follow-through, and effective faculty mentoring can substantially improve Ph.D. completion and graduate student success. In short, planning and effort make a difference.

Once you have gathered all of your materials, please submit a report to the Dean of the Graduate School outlining the particular areas on which your program will work and the steps you intend to take to achieve these changes. We have attached here a report recently submitted by the Political Science department after its own internal review. The Political Science review has been well received by faculty and students in the department and is meant simply as a guideline or example of what has worked in one Ph.D. program. Your report should include both what needs fixing and what works. If you are doing something that is successful, let us know so that we can share it with others.

Again, changes in requirements would apply only to newly admitted students, while everyone could take immediate advantage of curricular, mentoring, and other improvements your review produces.

Finally, your report should be circulated to all of the faculty and students in the program so that everyone has a clear understanding of the outcome of your review and a clear set of expectations about what the next steps will be.

Schedule
Departments should begin their reviews very early in the fall semester with a December completion deadline.