1 / 22

CLOSING THE GAPS

CLOSING THE GAPS. RESEARCH ( PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE) Advisory Committee on Research Programs April 24, 2008. CLOSING THE GAPS. Research -1 of 4 goals in Closing the Gaps Does not stand alone Interacts with/impacts other 3 goals Participation - impacts teachers and students

edith
Download Presentation

CLOSING THE GAPS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CLOSING THE GAPS RESEARCH (PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE) Advisory Committee on Research Programs April 24, 2008

  2. CLOSING THE GAPS • Research -1 of 4 goals in Closing the Gaps • Does not stand alone • Interacts with/impacts other 3 goals • Participation - impacts teachers and students • Success - produces graduates ready to produce • Excellence-contributes to national rankings • Builds the future for Texas

  3. Goal 1Participation • For example--the Advanced Research Program supports science and mathematics teachers with summer grants to do research with ARP grantees • Impact: Strengthens the curriculum with relevant experience, improves teacher retention, renews teacher enthusiasm, spurs students’ interest in and access to STEM higher education

  4. Teacher Comments • “I think that this is a wonderful opportunity for high school teachers. Students gain so much from us when we have hands-on experience, real life examples to teach. My students have been impressed to find out that I have actually done research in a laboratory.”

  5. Teacher Comments • “This project was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I was able to work with some of the most inspiring and cutting edge scientists in the world. This made for an incredible learning experience.”

  6. Goal 2Success • ARP/ATP have involved over past 20 years: • Undergraduate students - 10,605 • Graduate students - 17,498 • Impact: Strengthened the educational process, improved post-graduate employability

  7. Educational Impacts: Training Students Data suggest ARP is fulfilling its role of educating students: • 96% of PIs and 90% of graduate students said the ARP program significantly contributed to educating students for their future • 67% of graduate students said their ARP experience was more important than most of their classroom education • 71% of students felt their ARP work made them a more attractive hire to potential employers ARP projects contribute significantly to producing graduates properly trained for their intended job markets and future career tracks.

  8. Educational Impacts: Attracting Talent Data indicate ARP attracts outstanding students and faculty: • 89% of PIs agreed that the ARP was important to attracting outstanding graduate students to Texas • 44% of the out-of-state graduate students (pre-matriculation) stayed in Texas immediately after ending their university program • 83% of PIs said the ARP was important to attracting faculty How important is the ARP grant program in attracting outstanding graduate students to your institution?

  9. Goal 3Excellence • Using R&D funding as measure of excellence, Texas in 2006 had: • Public InstitutionsPrivate Institutions • 4 of top 50 5 of top 100 • 9 of top 100 • 14 of top 150

  10. WHERE DOES TEXAS STAND? • All university/college R&D expenditure in 2006 was $3.27B • #3 in US - behind #1 CA, #2 NY • Federal R&D $’s expended in 2006 totaled $1.8B • ~47% increase over 5 years (not adjusted for inflation) • #4 in US - behind #1 CA, #2NY, #3 MD • Different if we consider on normalized basis • Texas below US average in number of metrics and more than competition

  11. Comparison of Selected Indicators: R&D

  12. Points to Ponder (Drs. David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail) • Science Technologic Innovation  Wealth • Raised standard of living in America • Developer of new technology is best positioned to benefit • Young, energetic scientists are the seed corn • Research grants are the life blood

  13. Points to Ponder(National Science Board) • Basic research -- major driver in the future for innovations new industries and new jobs enhanced global competitiveness. • Recent three-year decline in Federal obligations for academic research poses significant problems for academic researchers • Interrupts the steady stream

  14. Points to Ponder(THECB Research Committee) • Dr. Hackerman: The 3 most important things needed for the Texas research enterprise: • Produce a steady stream of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. • Produce a steady stream of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. • Produce a steady stream of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. • Research is not a system of great discoveries but of consistent discoveries over a long time and the ability to make use of them.

  15. Points to Ponder(THECB Research Committee) • Dr. Smalley:. • ARP/ATP: very beneficial --not big enough. • Vital that Texas be a player/leader in the transition of science to technology and to utilization. • We need to attract and produce outstanding people • Be bold/think big!

  16. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? • Improve Advanced Research Program funding • Reactivate the Advanced Technology Program • Develop a new Competitive Enhancement Program focused on new, young faculty

  17. ADVANCED RESEARCH PROGRAM • Increase ARP Funding - Current level $18M • Program is peer reviewed • Solid accountability • ROI - approx 5:1 • Publications • Student involvement • Post-graduate employment • Support a $40M program to the legislature

  18. Advanced Technology Program • Reactivate Advanced Technology Program • Provide a better link between academia and industry • Peer reviewed approach • Past efforts had positive ROI:~5:1 • Enhance technology transition process • Support a $40M recommendation to the legislature

  19. COMPETITIVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM • Support for academic research by the federal government currently lagging • Success rate at NIH ~12% • Average age for first RO1 grant ~43 yrs • Opportunity exists to position our people to be more competitive earlier by funding, on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis, research proposals from young faculty

  20. COMPETITIVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM • This program would: • Increase our ability to attract young faculty • Enhance the environment for careers in science • Provide that initial support to get young faculty involved in research • Develop a cadre of winners • The key success metric would be federal funding of future proposals at a rate above average U.S. success rate

  21. COMPETITIVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM • Funding level to be determined, with a tentative range of $20-30M, depending upon academic hiring plans • ACORP would be pleased to develop this idea further if the Board desires

  22. SUMMARY • OPPORTUNITY exists to shape the future for Texas. • Research leads to technology which leads to innovation which leads to wealth generation for all Texans.

More Related