The NRC Report

NRC’s report, “Evaluation of the NSF’s Program: Grants for Vertical Integration of Research and Education in the Mathematical Sciences,” was released in August 2009 and is available from the National Academies Press. It is the result of four meetings over two years during which the study committee interviewed NSF program managers; leaders (and some students) involved with VIGRE programs that were successful (renewed); leaders of some programs that either were not renewed or were canceled before the scheduled five-year expiration); and individuals involved in site visits preliminary to the selection of awardees or to VIGRE grantees at their three-year evaluation point.

The committee was also able to review a substantial amount of data collected by NSF and data in site-visit reports and proposal evaluations, although it was denied access to data that NSF is required to keep confidential. The committee conducted an independent survey of all doctorate-granting departments in the United States to determine faculty and administration attitudes toward VIGRE, and the committee used much of the data collected annually by the American Mathematical Society.

The first VIGRE grants wrapped up only five years ago; some of them were renewed and are only now finishing. Because change of the sort envisioned by VIGRE is necessarily slow (as are trends in enrollment and composition of mathematics student bodies), neither NSF nor NRC expected that this evaluation would be able to discern strong indications of the effectiveness of the program. In addition, data and impressions from interviews are often contradictory, or at least not sufficient to draw firm conclusions, which adds to the difficulties in attributing effect to cause in the presence of so many confounding variables. Nevertheless, the committee was able to reach a number of conclusions and recommendations for the VIGRE program.

The program’s instances of clear success suggest that it provides real value, but its instances of failure suggest that some change is needed, and so the committee recommended that the VIGRE program be continued with some programmatic changes. The two most important of these changes are that (1) NSF is to allow greater flexibility in the design of individual grants by giving consideration to proposals that address only some of the goals of the VIGRE program—to date, such proposals would not be entertained, and (2) that there be scope for greater local initiative in finding ways to achieve these goals.

Vertical Integration

It is a worthy aspiration for VIGRE program RFPs to call simultaneously for vertical integration from undergraduate education to postdoctoral research; for departmentwide change across all subdisciplines; and simultaneous and significant change in a department’s undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral programs. However, this call should not be seen by NSF as the only path to achieving the goals of the program or to realizing the recommendations of the national panels. The committee has seen many examples of benefits to education, breadth of experience, and culture from interactions across some vertical divisions, such as postdoctorals mentoring graduate students or graduate students mentoring undergraduates.

The sense of the committee members is that there are benefits to connectivity; but the committee did not see evidence that all of those elements of vertical integration need to be present in a department in order to see any benefits. For example, proposals that build on the particular strengths of a department might not necessarily span all educational levels from undergraduate to postdoctorals, and they might involve fewer faculty members but with more release time for each.

Another possibility is for VIGRE to include students preparing to apply advanced mathematics to nonacademic settings, such as in a professional master’s program. Allowing for greater flexibility might encourage institutions with innovative but less inclusive ideas to submit proposals to the VIGRE program. It is notable that NSF has independently broadened its offering of workforce programs through initiatives that complement the VIGRE program, and this recommended broadening of VIGRE is consistent with that larger trend.

The committee recommended that the goals of any future VIGRE program be clear, consistent, and well publicized. In all phases of the award process, the focus must be on both programmatic quality and scientific quality. Data required from proposers and awardees should concentrate on a small number of carefully chosen benchmarks.

Some departments that responded to the committee’s email survey felt that the burden of proposal preparation—requiring extensive departmental participation and coordination—was not commensurate with the likelihood of receiving an award. A less burdensome preliminary process might also encourage greater institutional participation. For this reason, the committee recommended that a preproposal step be inserted into the VIGRE application process.