What is the issue we are trying to address and how do we know that it is a key element of graduate training? In polling our alumni and other members of the Duke Neuroscience community about the best and most enduring features of their own graduate school experience, we discovered that many researchers felt that what mattered was mentoring and their experience in their mentor's laboratory. Core courses and learning techniques were not the key elements that seemed to have lasting impact. Therefore, we feel that Good Mentorship is the key feature of graduate training. Our goal is to increase mentorship practices.

What is the change or innovation that is intended to address this issue? We have altered our graduate training to increase the involvement of the student's committee. The committee will now serve as an team of advisors and mentors throughout his/her graduate career. We propose that each student consult with the Director of Graduate Studies and their mentors to form their committee (4-5 members) by the end of their first year. Interactions with the committee members will occur more frequently throughout a student's graduate career. At a minimum, meetings will occur at the following occasions: a. soon after formation for curriculum selection b. early in second year to discuss MAP topic and focus c. late in second year for presentation of MAP and preliminary exam d. individually to discuss revising MAP for publication e. during 3rd/4th year in an iterative process to develop a dissertation proposal f. Dissertation defense

Why did we select that approach? We wanted to increase the involvement in the student's committee to beyond just the MAP. It is beneficial for students to have more than one faculty member which they can talk to about their research and career goals. We also recognize that for some a measure of academic growth is by publishing, so by enouraging and making it the norm that students publish their MAPs this will help alleviate the feeling that the MAP is not a productive exercise (even though most graduate students don't feel this way).

What is the intended effect of the innovation? The intent is to increase the intellectual community that supports each graduate student. Students will feel connected to several faculty members, not just their mentors. This will provide students more scholarly interaction as well as personal and professional support. As well, this process will increase faculty engagement with graduate students who are not working in their laboratories.

What data or evidence will demonstrate the effect of our innovation? Student's will now meet with members of their MAP committee at several points throughout their career, and these meetings will be tracked so that we are sure that this increased interaction between committee members and graduate students is taking place. We will also look for an increase in published MAPs in a few years, after these changes have been in effect for long enough to see such an alteration in publishing rate. We will also poll our graduate students to see what they are gaining from the increased interaction with their committee members.