SFPD EVALUATION Page five "The students tend to sense that I am giving them information based on /Field/ experience gained as a result of the fellowship support/, and not repeating textbook material, and they pay more attention." "The experience improved my effectiveness since I gained a much more complete I was able to learn much about recent research and put that into proper . a chance to acquire knowledge and put it in teachable form." Independent Colleges Office The Independent Colleges Office is the Washington Office of the Great Lakes Colleges 63-392 O - 80 - 42 Mr. PEASE. Thank you very much, Dr. Powell. I would like to ask some questions. We now have been joined by the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Brown, who would ask some questions also, and perhaps Dr. Powell and Dr. Nelsen can take turns. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to turn to you, if you like. Mr. PEASE. I gather both of you would agree that the NSF budget for the faculty development and renewal is inadequate. Will you comment as to the magnitude of the inadequacy? Dr. NELSEN. I will jump in first and say very strongly, yes, it is inadequate, and I think that when you look at the 1980's the inadequacy will become even worse as both of us have mentioned in our testimony, there simply are forces at work in higher education which mean that the rate of turnover will be much less, will need to work with those faculty members, there would be some new faculty members coming in but certainly not at the rate of earlier years. So development is the key. Renewal is key. And you ask the magnitude. I think that a total of $4 million we are talking about is a very, very small amount and must be doubled, tripled in the very near future. Mr. PEASE. Both of you seem to report as do some of the reviewers of these two studies and indeed these two studies themselves a mix of long-term and shorter term faculty development programs. Would you agree to that even if the amount of funding is relatively minimal and, therefore, the number of grants for long-term programs must fall even farther below the minimal 84 which is compared to this year? Dr. POWELL. Yes, I would agree with that. I would refer to a quote from one of our faculty who said, "NSF should terminate any other program and leave SFPD alone." I think that is my position. This program I believe is so valuable it should survive no matter what happens. We all wish we didn't have to make these kinds of tough decisions. I think you pointed out quite accurately this morning the science education budget is going up 9.6 percent, less than inflation. Mr. Atkinson agreed to that while the total budget is going up 15.5 percent, so it seems there is a prima facie case that support for science education relatively has declined. I think that should be the reverse and I think that the tendency to relegate the time extended mode to the last priority or really no priority at all, also should be reversed. Dr. NELSEN. I would like to comment on that same question. I don't think there is major disagreement on that question. It is a matter of emphasis. I would readily agree that the sabbatical leave mode is still the best mode for affecting individuals. It has the greater impact over a long period of time, not only on the individual, but on what that individual does when he or she returns to the institution. But I am also concerned with numbers. I interviewed last year large numbers of faculty who haven't been touched at all, either by NSF or by some other kind of program, and that has to have some effect on science education-in fact, I think a great deal of effect. So that is why I emphasize that we need to have some of each approach. I would not like to see the time-extended mode eliminated altogether-particularly if we are going to look toward building up a program in years to come (which NSF seems to indicate they are going to strive to do). I don't think it needs to be eliminated. At this point, let's keep it on the books. At the same time, they are trying to reach more faculty members through the shorter term kind of experiences. (By shorter term, I mean at least 2-week experience, or longer.) Mr. PEASE. I know there is a good deal of concern about retaining good scientists as teachers as opposed to sending them off to a graduate school, graduate university, some place where they can do research, or going to the industrial sector. Do you feel these time extended modes are an important factor in the retention of good scientists as undergraduates? Dr. POWELL. I know from my own experience with colleagues from Oberlin that these opportunities to get away, to go out and retool, to learn what's happened in the last 5 or 6 years in the way you can't learn in any other mode because of teaching and other responsibilities, is just invaluable. Dr. NELSEN. I think that many times persons have a false view of science faculty who teach at undergraduate institutions, thinking they are not involved in research. That is not true at all. We stress teaching and research at St. Olaf College and feel that research involvement is an important continuing part of faculty renewal and faculty development. There are various modes to encourage research. That is why I mentioned, for example, the URP program, which is seen primarily as a student oriented program. It does also allow the faculty member to take charge of a research area and have funds in the summer to help carry out that research. So these kinds of support-whether time extended or this particular program, yes, they are very important in retaining good faculty at our institutions. Mr. PEASE. Dr. Nelsen, you mentioned your feeling that although time extended programs are very important, you also are aware that there are a lot of college faculty members who are not touched at all and that the shorter term institutes would be helpful in extending some kind of contact with those people. Do you think that the shorter term institutes can serve anything like the same function in terms of renewal in and retention of the good scientists I mentioned as undergraduate teachers? Dr. NELSEN. I think that is a very important question. I would say that you must keep in mind that shorter term institutes will have a different purpose basically, than that afforded by the longer term sabbatical leave activities. I think they are extremely useful for providing faculty members with opportunities to update knowledge, for bringing them into contact with other persons in the field, for a rejuvenation of interests, for finding out new ways of teaching, etc. But they are never going to replace the other mode. And I don't think that is really the question here, at least in relation to what it does to faculty members. On the other hand, I wouldn't say shorter term institutes don't have some impact on keeping good faculty at your institutions. Take the example of what NEH has done. NEH has used summer institutes for some years, at least the last 3 or 4 years. And that has worked, I think, quite well with our faculty and has been seen as a special reward and acknowledgement of their work, and they gained some very useful intellectual growth out of these institutes. I think that has had an impact on retaining good people. Retention of good faculty, of course, is a different ballgame than previously. There simply isn't that much maneuvering of faculty among our colleges and universities in general. Mr. PEASE. Let me turn now to another aspect of my concern about these programs, and that is, I'd like to just explore with the two of you the question of where do we get our really top scientists of the future, persons who will be on the cutting edge of science, will be the innovators, people making really startling new discoveries. I suspect one could make an allegation about the longer term science faculty development program, that since only 1 out of 11 or 12 applicants gets a grant, there may be a little sense of elitism to the program. I would assume if the competition is keen and the NSF chooses on the basis of merit, that there probably will be some concentration of the awards to the best colleges, which have the best faculty members. I don't know that to be the case. I think it is conceivable. I wonder if you have any experience or study to indicate whether that is indeed the case. Do you have any evidence in that direction at all? Dr. POWELL. I don't know of any specific evidence that bears on that point. You are really referring to a study of the recipients of the SFPD. I have a feeling that they are pretty widely distributed. There are a lot of colleges in every State, so that is just a hunch. I don't have data to back that up. Dr. NELSEN. I haven't comparative figures either. But just from interviews I did last year, which were at what I think you would call leading liberal arts colleges around the country, I know there is obviously a high percentage of these grants that go to faculty at these institutions. Maybe I am anticipating the second part of your question, but you were raising the question of elitism. I know that that can be raised, but I think that if you look at the record of colleges of this type as to numbers of persons turned out who have gone into graduate school work, who have gone on into research and teaching in the sciences, that number is quite significant and I think in the past few years testimony has been presented before this committee that indicates that. But the charge of elitism is going to be there, no matter what mode you select. You are going to end up with good people who come out of the competition, and I think NSF has been pretty good in the way it structured its competition, using peer review. That charge may always be there. L According to a recent article in Science magazine, there are 200,000 faculty that teach undergraduates in the sciences. So in competitive programs, for relatively few awards, there may always be the charge of elitism. Mr. PEASE. Well, I am wanting to turn that charge around and use it as an advantage. I think if there is anything everybody agrees on this morning and this afternoon, it is that our funding for science education is inadequate and the question has got to arise, Where do we spend the money if we have a limited amount? It seems to me that if you go for numbers of faculty members rather than small groups, in order expose more people to it, that means also exposing a greater number of institutions and a greater number of students. But a real argument can be made, if you have a limited amount of funds, for focusing those funds and programs that make better teachers at the best institutions, who are going to be teaching the best students who are likely to be the leading scientists of next year and 10 years from now and 20 years from now. We are not engaged at this moment in a sputnik-like competition with the Soviets for scientific and technological superiority, and I think all of us have to be concerned about where our really outstanding scientists are going to come from. For that reason, I don't blush at all about any indication that a lot of these grants go to the very best colleges in the United States because I assume that they are the ones from whom students go predominantly to graduate school and who are going to be the best scientists of the next generation. Dr. Powell? Dr. POWELL. I have an appendix to my testimony that bears a little bit on this question. Appendix C lists the number of graduates of certain liberal arts colleges who went on to receive Ph. D.'s. I think if you have time to refer to that, you will find it instructive. The percentage is very large indeed, as I am sure you are already aware. It is clear that among Ph. D. scientists turned out by the major research universities are a lot of those people who got their undergraduate training and formed and completed their commitment in science while they were at liberal arts colleges. I would also like to go on the record as supporting not necessarily elitism that word hasn't been well received these days-but certainly quality. I think NSF should continue to emphasize quality and should use their peer review process right down the line in every single program to establish it. Mr. PEASE. Let me turn now to where the money comes from to fund research sabbaticals. Right now, at NSF that comes out of the funds of the education directorate. We have all been told that more money and more emphasis in NSF and in the whole Government is going into research activities outside of the education directorate, and since faculty members who go on sabbaticals with science faculty professional development grants, do do research, I wonder if it wouldn't be practical to get money from the research directorate of NSF to fund these grants. Does that sound appealing to you? |