Best Cross Dj Effects Download Free Mp3
Download https://shurll.com/2xUJ2t
PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations. Hence, best practices for training the future biomedical workforce are of national concern. Complementing coursework and laboratory research training, many institutions now offer professional training that enables career exploration and develops a broad set of skills critical to various career paths. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded academic institutions to design innovative programming to enable this professional development through a mechanism known as Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST). Programming at the NIH BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job search workshops, site visits, and internships. Because doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, an initial concern was that students participating in additional complementary training activities might exhibit an increased time to degree or diminished research productivity. Metrics were analyzed from 10 NIH BEST awardee institutions to address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity. Comparing doctoral students who participated to those who did not, results revealed that across these diverse academic institutions, there were no differences in time to degree or manuscript output. Our findings support the policy that doctoral students should participate in career and professional development opportunities that are intended to prepare them for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.
__________Brandt PD, Sturzenegger Varvayanis S, Baas T, Bolgioni AF, Alder J, Petrie KA, et al. (2021) A cross-institutional analysis of the effects of broadening trainee professional development on research productivity. PLoS Biol 19(7): e3000956.
The overall length of doctoral training has long been an issue of concern. The NIH and other funding agencies, as well as policy makers, recommend exploring ways to embed career training into graduate education and postdoctoral training without increasing the time in training [5,6]. Indeed, doctoral programs struggle to shorten the time to degree, prevent attrition, and guide doctoral students to meaningful careers after training [22]. More than 85% of graduate deans surveyed in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the US have taken steps to establish supervisor guidelines to help PhD students complete their programs in a timely fashion [23]. Amid the drive to shorten doctoral training periods, a persistent and understandable faculty concern is that to add such programming during training might take focus away from the laboratory and could potentially slow research progress, which might negatively impact grant funding, publication output, and time to degree [24]. Nonetheless, data across universities show that time to degree for US students has remained relatively stable over the past 15 years [5,25].
Hence, participation in career development at NIH BEST awardee institutions was examined to determine whether there were differences in time to degree as well as productivity (measured by published manuscripts) of doctoral students. BEST was an NIH grant program that funded 17 institutions across the country to develop programming that could bridge the gap between research training and the job market, a transformative effort to catalyze career development change nationally [32]. All 17 institutions were invited to participate in this study, but only 10 collected data related to program participation, publication output, and doctoral degree duration had an institutional review board (IRB) approval to share that data in this study. Our study is unique in that it compiled doctoral degree durations at these 10 universities, recorded individual participation in career and professional development activities in terms of dosage, and tracked individual engagement in real time rather than relying on surveys sent to trainees after graduation. Each of these 10 BEST institutions developed distinctive program formats and structures. Data collected from these unique programs show that there was no difference in publication output or time to degree for doctoral students who participated, even quite actively, in career and professional development activities during their academic training.
Throughout the duration of BEST funding, institutions collected data about biomedical PhD trainee time to defense and level of participation in internships and BEST activities (e.g., career panels, skill-building workshops, job-searching workshops, site visits, and internships). Data were submitted annually to NIH over a 5-year period using common forms, standardized data collection procedures, and compatible reporting methods to allow for cross-institutional comparison. Meetings to discuss evaluation of program design were held with all BEST consortium members, including a data summit to finalize common definitions and standardize BEST data collection methods (detailed collection methods including baseline data survey design and results included) [8]. Cross-institutional definitions for methods of instruction/delivery and agreements on common criteria for data were instrumental in developing the data collection methods.
Primary predictors included the amount of professional development participation (binary or control/low/high dosage). Primary outcome variables of interest included productivity as measured by time to degree and publications (total and first author). Finally, all outcome measures were tested against internship participation, the highest dose of professional development implemented across sites for the subset of institutions able to provide these data.
Power calculations verified whether our sample sizes were sufficient to detect relevant effect sizes [39,40] across each mega-analysis using SAS (v9.4). For the time to degree mega-analysis, the post hoc power was calculated using a minimum effect size estimate of 3 months; for total publications and first-author publications, a minimum effect size estimate of 1 publication was used. Post hoc power analyses determined that >80% power was achieved for each mega-analysis for these effect size estimates, indicating that a sufficient number of subjects and studies were included. Exact power calculations are reported alongside the relevant mega-analyses in the results section.
Although all 17 BEST institutions were invited to participate in this study, only 10 chose to participate and had the data needed for this analysis, and, thus, the results of this study may not represent the complete impact of the program. In addition, a significant limitation of this type of analysis is the self-selection bias that exists because individual doctoral students volunteered to participate and were not randomly assigned to control and participant groups. IRB constraints limited some data sharing on the individual characteristics of the doctoral students (e.g., demographics, degree program, and pre-BEST program academic achievements); in addition, some data were not consistently available across all institutions (e.g., pre-BEST program academic achievements) so we were not able to fully assess the factors that may contribute to students selecting themselves into the program. The effect of self-selection bias could be more pronounced in highly selective application-based cohort models and competitive internship programs (programs are described in 1__________________). Highly motivated students may have been more likely to apply and thus more apt to succeed, but this seems unlikely to account for bias across institutions. While selective cohort models may be at a higher risk for this type of selection bias, the la carte models were utilized so widely by trainees as to make this explanation implausible. Among the 10 institutions in this study, all offered la carte program components to all trainees, and 4 incorporated selective components (e.g., internships). It is also possible that these selected individuals were organized multitaskers before participating and became better informed and motivated as a result of participation in BEST events.
We predict that as additional evidence-based support for professional development comes to light, more faculty members will feel confident in encouraging their students to participate in such programming. As an example, consider the policy change of instituting rotations into the first year curriculum of PhD programs. Historically, biomedical sciences faculty expressed concerns about time spent in first year laboratory rotations when this change was first instituted, yet doctoral time to degree tracking at Cornell University revealed no statistically significant lengthening across comparison groups before and after rotations were mandated in 2003 for 3 graduate fields (2__________________). Now, rotations are a widely accepted best practice within the biomedical sciences. We hope that similarly, our data will encourage widespread adoption of professional development training as an accepted foundation of PhD training.
Although this study focused on doctoral students from biomedical fields, we anticipate that the major conclusions of this study are likely applicable to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, as well as to other fields including those in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to extend these conclusions across disciplines. Likewise, comparative studies between innovative biomedical PhD programs and other graduate and professional programs that have historically included embedded professional development and internship components (e.g., economics, computer science, engineering, law, to name a few) would be illuminating. Future lines of research also include measuring the long-term beneficial effect of career exploration and professional development during graduate training on such things as time in postdoctoral training; trainee mental health; time to first nontrainee job placement; fit between career exploration, skill development in training, and first career placement; career satisfaction; and salary profiles. 5376163bf9
download keep your eyes on mine mp3