DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of Loans on Time to Doctorate Degree: Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Field of Study, and Institutional Characteristics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of Loans on Time to Doctorate Degree: Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Field of Study, and Institutional Characteristics Dongbin Kim Cindy Otts The Effect of Loans on Time to Doctorate Degree: Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Field of Study, and Institutional Characteristics Introduction Graduate schools prepare students not only for fu- ture careers in academia, but also for leadership positions in govern- ment, business, non-profit organizations, and other industries. Given the likelihood of doctoral degree recipients being active in research or lead- ership positions, they may have considerable opportunity to influence public policy. In a global, knowledge-driven economy, the need for a highly educated workforce is vital to maintaining the nation’s status and economy. Doctoral-granting institutions, therefore, play an important role in educating academicians and professionals alike who can take the lead in this highly interdependent world. Unfortunately, the nation’s graduate schools fail to fully educate many students who enter doctoral programs because the programs are plagued by high attrition rates. This material is based upon work supported by the Association for Institutional Re- search, the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Science Foundation, and the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative under Association for Institu- tional Research Grant Number 223. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom- mendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association for Institutional Research, the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Science Foundation, or the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Authors thank the anonymous reviewers for comments and encouragements on ear- lier drafts. Dongbin Kim is an assistant professor in the department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Kansas. Cindy Otts is a doctoral student in the department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Kansas. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 81, No. 1 (January/February 2010) Copyright © 2010 by The Ohio State University 2 The Journal of Higher Education According to the Council of Graduate Schools (2008), about half of all students pursuing a doctorate actually complete it. In this context, Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) argue that time to degree is an important component of doctoral degree completion. Although relatively few stud- ies have examined time to doctoral degree, it has been found to nega- tively affect degree completion (Bair & Haworth, 2004; De Valero, 2001). The longer it takes to complete a doctorate, the more prone stu- dents are to attrition. During the 2005 academic year, over 400 U.S. col- leges and universities awarded doctorates to over 43,000 students (Hof- fer et al., 2006). Of those, just over half were female (Hoffer et al.). Underrepresented minority students accounted for 20% of earned doc- torates, the largest percentage to date (Hoffer et al.). The number of de- grees conferred in 2005 represents a 2.9% increase over the previous year which demonstrates not only significant interest among institutions in offering doctorate degrees but also interest among students in pursu- ing terminal degrees (Hoffer et al.). It also elucidates the need for heightened awareness of the time it takes students to earn doctoral de- grees (Hoffer et al.). From the student perspective, the decision to pursue a doctoral degree cannot be taken lightly. In addition to the academic responsibilities, pur- suing doctoral study often means a lengthy delay in entering, or a tem- porary stop out from, the workforce. Moreover, doctoral study can be stressful and may lead to role conflicts with other obligations, such as family and job responsibilities. Although it is true that individuals with doctorate degrees are more likely to have higher earnings and lower un- employment rates than those with bachelor’s or master’s degrees (Bu- reau of Labor Statistics, 2003), financing doctoral studies is challenging for many graduate students. A recent report from the Council of Gradu- ate Schools (CGS) (2006) indicates that the average cost of education for doctoral programs increased more than 50% from 1995 to 2003, re- gardless of institutional control. For instance, the average price of at- tending private institutions at the doctoral level in 2003 was $29,703, a 79% increase from $16,631 in 1995 (CGS, 2006). Nevertheless, the amount of financial assistance provided through grants or assistantships has not kept pace with the increased educational expenses, thereby lead- ing to increases in student loan borrowing among graduate students dur- ing the same time period. Among White doctoral students, the percent- age of borrowers increased from 21% in 1995 to 34% in 2003 (CGS). The percentage of borrowers increased more significantly among under- represented minority students, jumping nearly 20%, from 25% to 43% over the same time period (CGS). The median accumulative federal loans for doctorate recipients was $44,743 in 2003/04, more than triple The Effect of Loans on Time to Doctorate Degree 3 the amount of $12,310 in 1995/96. This increase was higher than that for associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, or professional degrees (American Council on Education, 2005). It is noteworthy that percentages of borrowers and average loan amounts are substantially different by field of study and race/ethnicity (Hoffer et al., 2006). Among doctorate recipients in 2005, graduates in engineering and physical sciences were the least likely to borrow while graduates in social sciences and humanities were the most likely to have loans (Hoffer et al.). Black, Hispanic, and American Indian doctorate re- cipients had substantially higher education-related debts than Whites and Asians (Hoffer et al.). In 2005, Asian doctorate recipients outnum- bered Blacks in physical sciences (241 to 84) and engineering (242 to 85), and Black doctorate recipients outnumbered Asians in social sci- ences and humanities (296 to 198 and 172 to 140, respectively) (Hoffer et al.). Given that many federal research grants and other funding oppor- tunities have been targeted toward science and engineering, it is clear that the differences in loan amounts by race/ethnicity are partly due to the disparities in the distribution of different racial/ethnic groups across fields of study. However, even among those in the same field, Black and Hispanic doctorate recipients were still more likely to have higher levels of debt than their Asian and White counterparts, and this pattern is con- sistent across all broad fields of study (Hoffer et al.). Similarly disturbing racial/ethnic group differences in the same field exist in differing time to doctorate degrees (Hoffer et al., 2006). Among 2005 doctorate recipients in physical sciences, for instance, the median number of years from baccalaureate to doctorate award for Asians and Whites was 7.5 and 7.0 years respectively, compared to 8.0 years for Blacks (Hoffer et al., 2006). Despite the significant disparities in the lev- els of debt and time to degree by race/ethnicity even among students in the same field, little is known about the specific factors that affect time to doc- torate degrees and the reasons for such significant disparities by race/eth- nicity. Much of the focus of research on the impact of financial aid (debt in particular) has focused on undergraduate students. It is equally impor- tant to understand the impact of financial aid on graduate students, partic- ularly since graduate students incur much higher levels of debt due to their prolonged time in higher education and because the rate of increase in debt level is significantly higher for graduate than undergraduate students. Research Questions This study seeks to examine factors that affect time to doctorate de- gree and to discern whether any significant differences exist among 4 The Journal of Higher Education various fields of study, with a particular emphasis on the effect of debt level. The research questions in the study are: 1. What are the factors that affect time to doctoral degree? Are there sig- nificant disparities by race/ethnicity, field of study, and institution? 2. What are the impacts of undergraduate and graduate debt levels on time to doctorate degree? Are there significant disparities by race/ethnicity, field of study, and institution? Theoretical Background Biglan (1973) provides a framework for explaining differences in aca- demic fields. He suggests that academic fields are distinguished along three dimensions: (a) paradigm consensus in which all members sub- scribe to a particular body of theory, (b) degree of practical utility (hard versus soft or basic versus applied fields), and (c) concern with life as opposed to inanimate objects. The first two are of interest to this study. Regarding the first dimension, Biglan posits that the social and behav- ioral sciences, humanities, and other nonscience fields have less well es- tablished paradigms than the hard sciences (i.e., physical and biological sciences). In terms of utility, he identifies fields such as engineering, computer science, education, and health as having practical application. As such, those fields have specific requirements that must be included within academic programs. Furthermore, he indicates that because norms, structure, and output of the academic fields vary, student experi- ences are also likely to vary (Biglan, 1973). Such differences may result in variable times to doctoral degrees. It is expected that time to doctoral degree for students who enter fields that have well established para- digms will be shorter than for students who enter less delineated fields. Because there is general consensus regarding content and research de- sign in fields with established paradigms, students become acculturated to the accepted research methodologies and practices. Students in the “softer” fields such as social sciences and humanities may have more options available in terms of what to study and what methodologies they can use. The greater flexibility and openness may lead to lengthier time to select a research topic and/or design, and ultimately, longer time to doctoral degree.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PEILING CHEN EDUCATION Doctorate of Optometry May 2018
    PEILING CHEN EDUCATION Doctorate of Optometry May 2018 Salus University, Pennsylvania College of Optometry, Elkins Park, PA ​ Bachelors of Science in Biology May 2013 College of Chemical and Life Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD ​ EMPLOYMENT Assistant Faculty of Ophthalmology January 2019- present Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Medicine ◾ Provide comprehensive eye services specializing in the diagnosis and management of ocular diseases, conditions and post-operative surgical care in areas such as: dry eye, ocular allergy, macular degeneration, retinal pathologies, diabetic retinopathy, hypertensive retinopathy, glaucoma, LASIK care, and cataracts; as well as, eye examinations and contact lens fittings Optometrist August 2018- December 2018 National Vision, Inc. ◾ Provide comprehensive eye exams, contact lense fittings and assistance in the referral and management of glaucoma, diabetes and cataract patients ◾ Treat minor ocular service conditions like blepharitis, ocular allergy and dry eye Optical Principles and Ophthalmic Application Teaching Assistant August 2015-May 2016 Pennsylvania College of Optometry, Elkins Park, PA ◾ Assisted first year optometry students at the Pennsylvania College of Optometry with challenging course topics ◾ Mentored underclassmen on how to succeed in the course based on prior experience Vision Therapist September 2011-2014 Appelbaum Eye Care Associates, Bethesda, MD ◾ Provided assistance on vision therapy exercises to patients with binocular vision and ocular motor dysfunctions ◾ Performed
    [Show full text]
  • AAAA Statement on Clinical Doctorate Degrees
    AAAA Statement on Clinical Doctorate Degrees The American Academy of Anesthesiologist Assistants is dedicated to maintaining the standards of the profession and the specialty by remaining current with the ongoing changes and emerging needs in health care delivery while promoting the safety and upholding the rights of all patients undergoing medical treatment involving an anesthesia provider. A recent proliferation of entry-level clinical doctorate degrees into the educational models of non-physician providers has caused a commensurate increase in the use of the title “doctor” in the healthcare system. Inappropriately, the title "resident" and "doctor" has been used in the clinical setting by students and graduates of these programs despite their non-physician status. This trend is a recognized source of potential confusion for patients concerning their medical care and has potential negative implications with respect to scope of practice infringement and conflict of interest, decreased professional diversity, increased health care costs, and aggravation of provider shortages. The AAAA believes that the practice of medicine remains the domain of physicians and that the entry-level doctorate degree for the practice of medicine is the MD/DO. Physicians are integral members and leaders of the health care team. In the interest of patient safety, Anesthesiologist Assistants practice exclusively in, promote, and are dedicated to the Anesthesia Care Team as defined by the AAAA and ASA. The AAAA is committed to instilling confidence in the public by encouraging practitioners to adhere to established ethical norms and regional legal constraints. Furthermore, we believe in optimizing the use of all provider resources to deliver health care to everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Professional Doctorate: What Are We Waiting For?
    FROM THE PA EDITOR-IN-CHIEF The Professional Doctorate: What Are We Waiting for? he increasingly complex health care it matured from the “first-generation” con- system in the United States relies cept (which was quite similar to the PhD in T heavily on quality improvement, in- structure) to “second-generation,” which is terprofessional collaboration, patient out- more focused on discipline and workplace comes, health policy legislation, and advo- realities.3,5 In general, these professional cacy. While important, most of these factors doctorates can be earned in less time are outside the scope of the traditional mas- than a PhD and do not require original ter’s-level education program—necessitat- research. ing the development of methods to help Over the past two decades, more than advanced practice providers, including NPs 500 unique professional practice doc- Randy D. Danielsen, and PAs, obtain additional skills. The solu- torate programs have emerged across PhD, PA, DFAAPA tion of choice, for many professions, has the US, in fields ranging from nursing to been the introduction of the “professional bioethics. One of the most prominent is doctorate” as a complementary alternative the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), to the typical research-focused doctoral designed for RNs seeking a post-profes- program, such as the PhD. sional degree in nursing. In 2004, follow- Traditional PhD curricula prepare in- ing three years of research by a task force, dividuals to perform re- the American Associa- search that is typically tion of Colleges of Nursing specialized and confined To be recognized (AACN) endorsed the DNP, to their field of study.1 as a full professional, with the goal that it would While this research does one must be equipped become the minimum produce new knowledge, educational standard for it usually remains in the to address practical advanced practice nurses realm of academia and problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Transfer Students and General Education Requirements January 30, 2018
    Transfer Students and General Education Requirements January 30, 2018 Transfer Action Status 1. FYE and HPLW 105 are satisfied. With Associates 2. All breadth areas of GE and corresponding overlays (Artistic Expression, Communication, and from State Global Diversity and Citizenship) are marked as satisfied. System 3. Any accepted transfer courses outside of the GE breadth area whose ESU course fulfills an University overlays (i.e. WII, WIII, or I) will need to be reviewed by the Transfer Office and the relevant Academic Dean/Dept Chair before being used to fulfil the overlay (See example A). 1. Full “junior standing” 2 2. FYE and HPLW 105 are satisfied. With Associates 3. ESU will “fully accept general education course work when comparable (though perhaps not (Part of P2P) identical” to GE at ESU. There is “not a course to course equivalency requirement.” 1 Review conducted by the Transfer Office and relevant Academic Dean/Dept. Chair. (See examples B & C) With Associates 1. FYE satisfied and HPLW 105 satisfied. (Not part of 2. Course to course credit review by Transfer Office and relevant Academic Dean/Dept. Chair to P2P) fulfil breadth and overlay areas. 1. If 24 credits or more FYE satisfied; 60 credits or more HPLW 105 satisfied. 2. If the GE program at the prior state system university is complete, the GE program at ESU will be marked as complete.2 Without Degree 3. If the GE program at the prior system system university is not complete, then Course to course from a State credit based on review by the Transfer Office and relevant Academic Dean/Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Granting Docent Status
    UPPSALA UNIVERSITY GUIDELINES 11 June 2015 JURFAK 2015/49 Appendix 1 UPPSALA UNIVERSITY DECISION Board of the Faculty of Law 17 October 2013 (revised on 11 June 2015) Guidelines for granting docent status 1. Purpose of appointing docents at the Faculty of Law The purpose of granting the title or position of ‘docent’1 at the Faculty of Law is to clearly recognise a person’s special academic expertise. Docent status may be conferred if it may be beneficial to the research and education. A docent is required to be active in education at postgraduate (research) level in various ways, such as providing proficient supervision and undertaking the role of ‘opponent’ in disputations (public defences of PhD theses). Obtaining docent status therefore presupposes academic qualifications over and above a doctoral degree. Docent status may normally be conferred only in a subject in which education at postgraduate level is provided at the Faculty. A person who has gained docent status at another higher education institution may not be granted docent status in the same subject at the Faculty of Law in Uppsala. 2. Consultation A person wishing to be granted docent status is recommended first to raise the matter informally with the Chair of the Research Committee. The Chair must then consult one or more subject representatives on the matter. Advice not to continue does not constitute any formal impediment to proceeding with the application. 3. Conferral requirements for applicants lacking positions at the Faculty of Law If applicants have no permanent or time-limited appointment at the Faculty of Law, subject representatives must issue special statements of opinion regarding the manner in which the grant of docent status could benefit research and education at the Faculty.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Affairs Guidelines
    ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GUIDELINES Section 2: Academic Programs and Curriculum: Guidelines and Procedures Title: Curriculum and Program Definitions Number (Current Format) Number (Prior Format) Date Last Revised 2.1 II.F.1 10/2018 Reference: BOR Policy 2:25 – Articulation of General Education Courses: South Dakota Technical Institutes without a Memorandum of Agreement with the Board of Regents BOR Policy 2:29 – Definition of Credits and Related Institutional Requirements BOR Policy 2:23 – Program and Curriculum Approval BOR Policy 2:7 – Baccalaureate General Education Curriculum BOR Policy 2:26 – Associate Degree General Education Curriculum Related Form(s): 1. Undergraduate Degree Programs 1.1. Bachelor’s Degree Universities award a bachelor’s degree to a student for satisfactory completion of a prescribed course of study. Bachelor’s degree programs shall require one hundred twenty (120) credit hours. The Board of Regents may grant exceptions those cases in which a program must comply with specific standards established by external accreditation, licensure or regulatory bodies or for other compelling reasons approved by the executive director in consultation with the Board of Regents’ president (Board Policy 2:29). A diploma and transcript signify the measure of achievement and verify the degree. The bachelor’s degree enables a student to acquire a certain amount of general learning and become proficient in a particular field of study or a profession. The curricular structure of a bachelor’s degree program includes a system general education core curriculum (thirty [30] credit ours per Board Policy 2:7), support courses, major courses, and electives. 1.2. Associate Degrees 1.2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Educational Terms 2Nd Edition Now with Farsi
    INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION ® Index of Educational Terms 2nd Edition now with Farsi 1969-2019 Celebrating 50 years of service Index of Educational Terms We are pleased to present this 2nd edition of the Index of Educational Terms, as part of IERF’s 50th anniversary celebration. This handy resource can trace its beginnings to the 1979 publication of The Glossary of Foreign Educational Terms. Developed by Theodore Sharp, IERF’s co-founder, The Glossary focused on a selection of languages from Europe and Latin America. The Index of Educational Terms, compiled by IERF evaluators, provides glossaries from 11 major languages around the world, including Arabic, Chinese and Russian. This new edition, which now also includes Farsi, is intended as a handy tool for admissions officers, credentials analysts and registrars, the Index of Educational Terms focuses on the most commonly used terms found on international academic records. We are grateful for the enthusiastic feedback we have received over the years, since its first release in 2012. I would like to give special thanks to the following individuals for their hard work and for making this possible: Editors: Emily Tse Alice Tang Contributors: Liana Amelova Andrej Molchan Andrea Ben Zion Maryam Rawson Daniel Borhanian Irene Romo Joshua Everett Amy Santiago Matthew Fisher Traci Wells Victoria Haydenko Alvin Yin I-Hsing Lin Nina Zhao Finally, I would also like to express my appreciation to our colleagues, Ujjaini Sahasrabudhe and Herman de Leeuw, for their kind support and feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernizing the Scope of Practice of Optometry Will Improve Access to Needed Eye and Vision Health Care for All Maryland Citizens
    P.O. Box 350, Stevenson, MD 21153 ! T: (410) 486-9662 ! F: (443) 378-8845 ! www.marylandoptometry.org Modernizing the scope of practice of optometry will improve access to needed eye and vision health care for all Maryland citizens. It will ensure patients receive the best quality of care available, improve overall patient health outcomes and lower health care costs for both patients and insurers alike. SUMMARY OF SCOPE EXPANSION OBJECTIVES By removing outdated prohibitions in current statute, the bill seeks to better serve optometric patients by allowing Maryland optometrists to: • Prescribe all FDA Approved Therapeutic and Diagnostic Agents (e.g., oral and topical drugs, vitamins, and other therapies) • Independently Treat Glaucoma (development of patient treatment plan & delivery of pre/post operative care) • Perform In-office Diagnostic Testing (e.g., genetic testing via cheek swab and blood glucose testing for diabetes) • Order Diagnostic Tests (e.g., blood work, MRI, x-ray, sonogram, other lab work related to diseases of the eye and ocular system) • Remove Foreign Bodies “STATE OF THE STATE” SCOPE OF PRACTICE FACTS • Doctors of optometry order diagnostic tests in 45 states • Doctors of optometry prescribe controlled substances in 44 • Doctors of optometry to use oral drugs to treat Glaucoma in 42 states • Doctors of optometry prescribe anti-fungal oral medications in 41 states EDUCATION & TRAINING Optometrists receive a minimum of eight 8 years of education and training to obtain the required undergraduate and doctorate degrees necessary to practice optometry. All optometrists are required to pass a three part comprehensive national exam administered by the National Board of Examiners in Optometry prior to receiving their doctorate degree.
    [Show full text]
  • CGS Task Force Report on the Professional Doctorate
    CGS Task Force Report on the Professional Doctorate COUNCIL OF GRADUATE SCHOOLS CGS Task Force on the Professional Doctorate Carol Lynch, Co-Chair CGSINSF Dean in Residence Clark Hulse, Co-Chair Dean of the Graduate College, Executive Vice Provost, University of Illinois at Chicago Richard Attiyeh Vice Chancellor for Research and Dean of Graduate Studies, University of California, San Diego Robin Bowen Interim Dean, School of Graduate and Professional Studies, Rockhurst University Martin Cadwallader Vice Chancellor, Research and Dean of the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin-Madison Linda Dykstra Dean, The Graduate School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School, University of Georgia Daniel Denecke CGS Managing Editor Copyright © 2007 Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, D.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced or used in any fonn by any means-graphic, electronic, or mechanical including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution, or information storage and retrieval systems-without the written permission of the Council of Graduate Schools, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 430, Washington, D.C. 20036-1173. ISBN 10: 1-933042-11-7 ISBN 13: 978-1-933042-11-4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 08 07 TABLE OF CONTENTS ••• 4 •••••••••••••••• _••••• ~ f ~ ••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . .. " ......... ~ ......................... ',' ...... , ..... ~ ............................. Executive Summary . • . • . iv Foreword
    [Show full text]
  • 08-22-2017 Agenda
    Board of Governors’ Meeting Boardroom Administration Building Dixon University Center 2986 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1201 Tuesday, August 22, 2017 4:00 p.m. via conference call Agenda Call to Order and Roll Call of the Members Public Comments Board Action 1. Policy Dispensation a. Policy 1985-01-A: Requirements for Initiation or Change of Credit-Based Academic Programs b. Policy 1999-01-A: Student Transfer Policy 2. Cheyney University of Pennsylvania Loan Forgiveness Adjournment (NOTE: An Executive Session may be called during the meeting as needed.) Board Members: Cynthia D. Shapira (Chair), Senator Ryan P. Aument, Representative Matthew E. Baker, Audrey F. Bronson, Secretary Sarah E. Galbally (Governor Wolf’s designee), Representative Michael K. Hanna, Shaina M. Hilsey, Donald E. Houser, Jr., Jonathan B. Mack, David M. Maser (Vice Chair), Barbara McIlvaine Smith, Daniel P. Meuser, Thomas S. Muller, Guido M. Pichini, Secretary of Education Pedro A. Rivera, Senator Judith L. Schwank, Harold C. Shields (Vice Chair), Brian Swatt, and Governor Thomas W. Wolf. For further information, contact Randy A. Goin, Jr. at (717) 720-4010 BOARD MATERIALS - PAGE 1 ITEM #1A Board of Governors Meeting August 22, 2017 SUBJECT: Special Dispensation to Board of Governors’ Policy 1985-01-A: Requirements for Initiation or Change of Credit-Based Academic Programs (ACTION) UNIVERSITIES AFFECTED: Cheyney University of Pennsylvania BACKGROUND: Section B. Moratorium of the Board of Governors’ Policy 1985-01-A: Requirements for Initiation or Change of Credit-Based Academic Programs states “Students currently enrolled or admitted will be allowed to complete the program.” The university is seeking Board approval for an exception to this sentence of the Board Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Researchers – Biographies
    Clinical Researchers – Biographies Benjamin Backus, PhD Dr. Benjamin Backus is currently a Research Staff Member at SUNY College of Optometry specializing in visual neuroscience. He has served as a Principal Investigator on many studies and mentored a number of Masters, PhD and post doctorate students. He has been Chair of the Graduate Program Committee at the Graduate Center for Vision Research since 2008. Dr. Backus received his PhD from UC Berkeley and continued his post‐doctoral research at Stanford University. He recently co‐developed an NIH funded clinical trial titled Light Deprivation Utilized to Mitigate Amblyopia (LUMA), which tested the effects of binocular visual deprivation as a pre‐ treatment to enhance perceptual learning during treatment of adults with amblyopia. Alexandra Benavente‐Perez, MCOptom, MS, PhD Dr. Alexandra Benavente‐Perez is currently an Associate Clinical Professor at SUNY College of Optometry as well as a Research Staff Member where serves as a Principal investigator on clinical trials and has mentored over a dozen undergraduate, OD and Master students. She specializes in visually guided eye growth and myopia development/control. Dr. Benavente‐Perez received her Doctor of Optometry from the University of Valladolid in Spain, Masters in Investigative Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences from UMIST in Manchester, UK and her PhD in Vision Sciences from Aston University in Birmingham, UK. She completed her post‐doctoral research training at City University in London and at SUNY College of Optometry. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry and a member of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO). Kenneth Ciuffreda, OD, PhD Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Declaration of a College Major and Its
    EARLY DECLARATION OF A COLLEGE MAJOR AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COLLEGE STUDENT PERSISTENCE by DAVID BRENT SPIGHT FRANKIE SANTOS LAANAN, CHAIR NATHANIEL BRAY DAVID HARDY CLAIRE MAJOR CHARLIE NUTT A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2018 Copyright David Brent Spight 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED i ABSTRACT Completion of a college degree, as reflected by graduation rates, is a priority for campus administrators, politicians, families, and students. When students do not graduate, it has an effect on students, families, institutions, and surrounding communities. Colleges and universities, whether public or private, may find financial support declining when graduation rates do not improve. Debt acquired during college can be costly for students who drop-out before earning a degree. Some students, parents, administrators, faculty, and staff perceive that students making an early decision about a major is necessary for success in college. Many believe that enrolling as undeclared contributes to student attrition from college. Significant numbers of first-time in college students enroll each year without having chosen a major. Previous research examining undeclared students, however, is limited, conflicting, and dated. Still, increasingly, administrators and other stakeholders agree on two things: students should persist to graduation and
    [Show full text]