BE Board:VisitingCom08

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Research Areas)
(Department Spirit)
Line 80: Line 80:
*Increase in number of semesters as TA?
*Increase in number of semesters as TA?
-
===Department Spirit===
+
===Department Spirit (Robbie)===
-
Do the younger years feel the same association and investment in the department that the older years felt?  If not, is this unavoidable as the department grows and matures?  Can anything be done about this?  Centralization of labs, common areas?
+
Do the younger years feel the same association and investment in the department that the older years felt?  If not, is this unavoidable as the department grows and matures?  Can anything be done about this?  Centralization of labs, common areas?
==Visiting Committee Meeting 2006==
==Visiting Committee Meeting 2006==
[[BE Board:Visiting committee|Notes from previous Visiting Committee Meeting]] - have these issues been addressed significantly?
[[BE Board:Visiting committee|Notes from previous Visiting Committee Meeting]] - have these issues been addressed significantly?

Revision as of 10:09, 25 February 2008

This page is part of the discussion forum, edits are actively encouraged!

Contents

Visiting Committee Visit Planning '08

Faculty Size/Curriculum (Robin Volunteers to do this one)

  • Increase number of electives
  • From Survey:
    • Statistics Class focused on Biology
    • Tissue Engineering
    • Graduate Lab Technique class:Imaging,Biochemistry,Basic Biology
    • Cellular,Physiological,Organ level biology
    • Genetics
    • Metabolics
    • Mathematical modeling
    • Ethics
  • Impact of faculty spending time in Singapore/Thailand on advising time and class offerings

Advisor Selection Process (Scott)

  • Students are generally pleased with the advisor selection process.
    • Most students feel that one semester is enough time to select an advisor. About 15-20% felt that it was not enough time.
    • Students find the 1st semester faculty presentations to be useful and effective.
    • The most common concern is availability of funding. Over half of students report that their advisor selection was adversely affected by funding issues (19/37). We feel that this could be addressed by greater transparency in the selection process (see below).
  • The number of cross-listed faculty creates some competition with students from other departments.
    • Almost half of students reported some competition for research positions with students from other departments (although only about 10% reported that their selection was "very much" impacted).
    • Some engineering departments, notably ME, expect students to select advisors immediately. This can cause positions to fill up before BE students have started talking to advisors.
    • Our advisor selection process creates a similar issue for Biology and CSB because they don't select advisors until after a year of rotations.
    • Harmonizing department processes does not seem to be realistic. An incomplete but realistic solution is to ensure that students in all departments are informed about advisor selection schedules throughout the Institute.
  • Guaranteed 1st-year funding remains important to the students
    • It ensures sufficient time to select an advisor and reduces pressure to start research immediately so we can focus on classes and the written qualifying exam.
    • The current 1st-year class is significantly smaller than previous years because of funding constraints (16 compared to 24 last year). We understand the funding issues but are also concerned that small classes will make it difficult to maintain our current level of student activity.
  • There is a continual low level of interest in a formal rotation system. Most students seem to be well-served by the current system of allowing informal rotations.
  • Many issues with advisor selection could be mitigated by greater transparency early in the process.
    • The department could provide a list of professors with space and funding (for example, a professor could say they expect to take one or two students and are drawing from three departments).
    • Students should be informed of other departments' schedules so that they can move quickly to secure spots that might get filled early in the year.
    • Potential advisors is the single most important reason that students choose to come to BE. It is frustrating to discover that prefered advisors do not have space or funding. Prospective students could be encouraged to contact potential advisors about likely availability of space and funding. Professors should be encouraged to answer such questions honestly (say so upfront if funding is uncertain or contingent).
    • The BE Board and Professor Lauffenburger are talking about implementing improved communication for next year's incoming class.

Research Areas

What research areas are lacking?

  • Synthetic Biology
  • From 2006 survey:
    • Strengthen core subjects already emphasized
    • Neuroscience
    • Metabolic engineering
    • Energy/Environment
    • Epigenomics
    • Immunology

Space (Sonia + HD)

  • Currently de-centralized,lack of collaborations?,social interactions?
    • Labs in the Biology Building can definitely feel isolated from department
  • Tech Square people generally happy over there, would not necessarily want to move
  • Not enough space for new faculty
  • Prevents conversations about the future direction of the department

Link title

BE Department Staff

  • Compared to other engineering departments, less staff; asking them to wear a lot of hats
  • minimal web site activity, low student input, other departments seem to do more self-promotion (related to staff issue)
    • BE: 7, ChemE: at least 9, EECS: at least 9
    • ChemE has dedicated Web Site developer, Communications/Events people
    • EECS has Alumni Relations

Jobs (Rachel+Nick)

  • Current grads are finding jobs, but new web portal might offer more help
    • How to attract recruiters - currently Merck actively recruits, but few others
    • Alumni contacts/database? - Dan says will try to incorporate into web portal, infinite connection has many
    • Where are current graduates working? (John Kisiday - faculty at Colorado State, Nora Szasz - start-up, Jon Fitzgerald - Merrimack, Jon Szafranski - Guidant, Laurel - industry, Ali K - HST faculty, Jenny Lee - Wyeth, Csani Varga - Millenium, Dan Erickson - Sales/Consulting, Kevin Janes - post-doc/academic, Maxine Jonas- BioTrove, Nate Tedford- Epitome, Erik Krauland- Adimab, Inc., Kathryn Armstrong- Schrodinger, Inc., Ricardo Brau- L.E.K. Consulting, Jon Behr- PureTech Ventures, Helene Karcher - Novartis, Lisa Joslin - Merck, Sriram Kosuri - , Siddhartha Jain - Bristal-Myers Squibb, Ale Wolf-Yadlin - Post-doc Harvard, Rouzbeh Taghizadeh - Post-doc (now, not sure), Shawdee Eshghi - Post-doc UC Berkeley, Bambang Adiwijaya - Vertex, Jan Lammerding - Lecture position (i think) at Harvard, Marita Barth - post-doc, Megan McBee-Post-doc)
  • Is the department paying sufficient attention to helping people get academic/post-doc positions?
  • Are more people going to biotech or pharma in industry? Is BE training better received in one sector versus the other?

Undergraduate Effects

  • Increase in number of semesters as TA?

Department Spirit (Robbie)

Do the younger years feel the same association and investment in the department that the older years felt? If not, is this unavoidable as the department grows and matures? Can anything be done about this? Centralization of labs, common areas?

Visiting Committee Meeting 2006

Notes from previous Visiting Committee Meeting - have these issues been addressed significantly?

Personal tools