We are now in year 5 of 6 (including automatic no-cost extension).

About 25 students have received IGERT fellowships.

A few are entering "pre-doc" or "finishing school" years--i.e., the craftsperson stage of our program.

The report by Abt (the company selected by NSF for the January, 2004 site visit) has been finalized and distributed to faculty.   All students will receive a copy.   In general, we did very well.  Some problems were identified, maybe communication being the most common, and they are being addressed.   The panel found, however, that ours was a model of graduate education that deserved attention as a possible example for other universities. 

 

Renewal consists of a two-part competition, with about 25% chance of success at each stage.  One has to be invited to the second round of the competition.  That means about 6% chance of success overall.  These statistics are similar to those at the time of our original proposal--IGERT's are competitive.  Everyone involved in this program is part of a special effort. 

One month before the deadline, it was decided to give it a try, even though it is perhaps one or even two years too early to evaluate how our program is working (we didn't have the Abt report in hand or even our 2nd internal panel visit, not one student has graduated yet, etc.).  This decision was motivated by a sage comment from Colorado IGERT PI, Jim White, to wit:  "Those (review) panels are crazy."  White's IGERT is brilliant and creative, but he was planning an early renewal, too. 

One new feature of our renewal was the student-led IGERT, which we continue to develop, but about which we could offer little in the way of results.  There was also a shift in emphasis to include more colloid and colloid-polymer interactions.  New participants were identified. 

The review of the pre-proposal contained positive and negative comments.  Although some reviewers were enthusiastic, none of them gushed...one can easily be damned by faint praise in this business.  One reviewer was confused by what we were trying to do and scored us a "Good" (the kiss of death).  This was an individual who just did NOT get what we're trying to do.  However, it is up to writers of proposals (that's us!) to make the project transparent in just a few pages even to an IGERT beginner.  We did not do that, even though other reviewers were more complimentary.  The reviews were not particularly critical of the scientific content (there is little in this) but I don't think we made the sale on the interdisciplinary nature of the science, either.  We more or less forgot that the pre-proposal panels contain experts who want to be stunned by the the greatness of the science.  Such experts are not generally present in the second round of evaluation where, ironically, much more technical information is required.  Another general theme might be that we need to demonstrate more in the way of concrete results (a corollary for IGERT's would be to explain why "concrete results" are pretty hard to ascertain!). 

This means far more publications.  We may look poor compared to other IGERT's in this regard because we started with "fresh students" in every case.  (Other IGERT's have appointed 3rd and 4th year students).   The PI is not one to worry about sheer numbers of publications, but please do publish stuff when it's:  a) very good;  b) has reached a state of equilibrium, such that new improvements will not come quickly; and, c) is scientifically significant.  Of course, projects displaying special creativity and innovation should be published promptly, even if improved results might soon follow.  In most cases, such urgency is not appropriate.  It is then often better to wait, say, another 6 months and produce a solid work than to rush some preliminary result to press.  Not everyone agrees with this philosophy, but probably everybody agrees that procrastination about publishing is a bad thing.  I will be happy if we just avoid that. 

Bottom line:  the PI is very happy we gave renewal a try.  We learned much about ourselves and developed new leadership or a strong attempt next year. 

 

It's gospel at IGERT Central that "cohort teaching" is the most effective way to learn material.  This represents the opinion of the old NSF management, at least.  We haven't got a bearing on the NSF's new leaders of the IGERT project.  Indeed, they have not yet selected a permanent Program Director to lead all 130 sites.   There have been major changes at the Division of Graduate Education, which funds IGERT's. 

Cohort teaching/learning will require even more commitment from IGERTians.   

I need senior volunteers for guest lectures, too!  This is a good time to repair some of the deficiencies and imbalances in our course (absence of mechanical engineering and biological material).   I will assist students wishing to prepare lectures. 

Cohort teachers  can also request assistance from off-campus experts.  For example, visits of reasonably long duration might be suggested for a minicourse on certain subjects we are poorly prepared (or too busy) to teach.  IGERTians would help that visitor do his or her job and serve as "interpreter" for lower-level students. 

IGERTian's should show up occasionally at 5 pm on Wednesdays just to lend a hand in the Integrative Experience.  This might just be saying "Hi" to new students, pointing out that you had a problem with that experiment, too.  It is NOT a major commitment--more a willingness to let new students know that old students are on their side and willing to help.   The PI believes there is much to gain by providing an environment that inspires confidence in new students that our program can help them meet their goals. 

IGERTian's who visited the Anaheim ACS meeting last year should write a minigrant that will enable us to renovate and greatly improve the Integrative Experience, especially its laboratory component.  Once established with some help from the 4010 TA and other volunteers, the new polymer chemistry lab would host a few visits from local K-12 students to show them what a modern chemistry lab does.  This is consistent with community service requirements. 

New IGERTian's will be assigned senior partners who can help explain how the program works.  Such senior partners are encouraged to get their facts straight by talking closely to the PI and co-PI's, including the NextGen PI's.  This is part of our plan to establish a wealth of traditions. 

Students were strongly positive on the content and spirit of the workshop. 

It may not have been necessary to hold that event in Biloxi.  Students understood the reasoning that getting off-site would assist with team-building and cordiality, but it wasn't really effective. 

The food was not very good. 

We still have to learn how to run a "retreat"

The PI announced that this IGERT will execute more of its stated objectives and do so on-time:  altruistic values are insufficient.  For example, monthly meetings will mean just that.  Students will be taught to schedule and run meetings, including posting reports not different from this one on a separate IGERT student website being devised by the Computer Subcommittee.  

IGERT Student meetings will be monthly events.

Even the faculty and co-PI's will buckle down and meet montly, with emphasis placed on identifying unique themes for the IGERT renewal and other programmatic funding efforts.