 |
NIGMS > Minority Programs Update > Winter 2003 > Taking the Risk Out of Taking Risks |
|
|
|
FROM THE MORE DIRECTOR Directors of training grants or other student development
programs want to have superior outcomes to show for
their efforts, especially when the time comes to submit
a grant renewal application. The obvious, “risk-averse”
approach is to select students who appear
to be the most likely to succeed. However, by doing
so, we reduce the size and diversity of the pool by
not accepting students with different credentials
who may be capable of making major contributions
to science.What strategy would minimize
the risk and optimize the success of a program
that is willing to accept the latter type of student?
As a scientist whose career started when a
professor was willing to take a risk on me as a graduate
student, I have a bias in favor of thinking
broadly and boldly when considering students for
admission to graduate programs. My
undergraduate grade point average was
just that—average. I am fortunate that
a program took a risk in admitting me
(and supporting me on an NIH training
grant). Years later, I asked my graduate
advisor why he had taken a chance on me.
His response was that I had earned 98th
and 99th percentiles on the GRE and
As in organic chemistry and genetics.
He figured that my being a football
player as an undergraduate might have impacted
my grades. He also saw that I was successfully
completing a master’s degree with no scholarship
support (I took out loans). The notion of risk is very subjective. It involves
an interplay between the probability that an adverse
event will occur and the severity of its perceived
consequences. There are high financial stakes
when funds are committed to supporting a student
for multiple years, which must be weighed against
the risk of accepting a student who might not
complete the course of study. Perhaps more important,
the failure of a student is often traumatic and
demoralizing, not only to the student and his or her
advisor, but to the whole department. The risk of
that trauma is reason enough for some to err on
the side of selecting only those students who are
likely to succeed. In such a case, the value of giving
someone a chance is outweighed by the value of
avoiding failure. Assuming that we want to reap the potential benefits of accepting into our programs students who have unorthodox credentials, are there ways to minimize the risk of taking risks? I believe so, provided that three elements are in place:
In order to provide the most effective assistance,
it is necessary to determine the initial skill
levels of the applicant and develop a plan for
guiding needed improvements. Is the applicant
a self-learner and a self-starter? Does he or she
possess good critical-thinking skills? Is the applicant’s
background knowledge well-rounded?
Does he or she have good communication skills?
These and similar questions will help identify a
student’s relevant strengths and weaknesses and
guide the development of an individually tailored
course of study. In order to ensure that progress is being made,
take periodic measures of the student’s skills to
provide individualized, constructive feedback and
reinforcement. If a program takes risks, there will be a certain
amount of fallout. Conscientious career guidance
can help mitigate the trauma of failure and the
distress this causes to the entire program.When
students have multiple options before them, they
will see that many paths can lead to success as
long as they utilize their energy and talents. I knew
that with my master’s degree I could become a
high school science teacher, which was a whole lot
better than some other jobs I could imagine. One of
the great skills of my advisor/mentor was his
enthusiastic support that instilled self-confidence.
He helped people see where they could make the
best match between their dreams and realities. He
did this for everyone—from students to technicians
to postdocs—without passing judgment,
guiding individuals to their own decisions. He was
taking risks, but calculated ones—he was admitting
students of varying background levels and variable
career trajectories, then helping them to become
successful. How can programs look beyond the “risk-free”
student pool and take calculated risks with some
students who have unconventional, but potentially
valuable backgrounds? Should the quality of our
training programs be judged on more than the
high credentials of the incoming class and the high
credentials of the graduating class? I invite your
comments and suggestions on how the “value-added”
aspects of a program could be evaluated and how
risk-taking could be addressed in review and award
criteria. Dr. Clifton Poodry, poodryc@nigms.nih.gov,
Director, MORE Division, NIGMS, Room 2AS.37,
45 Center Drive MSC 6200, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200,
301-594-3900 |
| << Previous Article | Next Article >> |
