My Experience at the 2019 GREAT Group Meeting

By Jeffrey Kuniholm, PhD Candidate, Department of Microbiology 

I’ve always seen the value in being the dumbest guy in the room. When I looked up this past September, I realized I was certainly the dumbest, maybe the youngest, and without question the least experienced. I was attending the 2019 GREAT Group meeting which is run by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). I was in a large function hall in Seattle. Around me were dozens of deans, provosts, program directors, and administrators from medical colleges across the country. GREAT is an acronym for Graduate Research, Education, and Academic Training. The goal of this organization is to discuss the complex problems facing PhD students, post-docs, and graduate training programs on a national level. I was the only current graduate student in attendance. As the meeting began, I was a mixture of intimidated, reflective, and excited. The challenges currently facing PhDs, post-docs, and graduate science education are as complex as they are plentiful. What could I bring to these conversations? This question stayed with me throughout the three-day meeting and its answer continues to evolve as I learn more about the struggles of graduate school trainees and the programs to which they belong.

I was invited to join the GREAT group by Dr. Linda Hyman in 2018. As president of the Biomedical PhD Student Organization, I had some experience acting as a liaison between PhD students and the Graduate Medical Sciences administration. My membership, as I saw it, was a useful way of distilling the concerns and interests of current PhD student populations into a single voice. The challenge was to speak accurately and objectively of these perspectives. This is no easy task, as the opinions of scientists are ultimately the opinions of people and unanimity can often be hard to come by. As the date of the meeting approached, I became more and more nervous. What can I bring to these conversations? Finally, I relented to telling myself to do less. I was not going to solve, or ruin, graduate education for PhD students nationwide. So instead, I gave myself a few simple goals: 1. Introduce yourself and talk to people you don’t know every day 2. Speak honestly of the problems faced by PhD students and perceived pitfalls of their training 3. If there is a chance to say more – or ask an important question – take it.

As far as I can tell, the amount of coffee in Seattle is infinite. This makes it a perfect location for three full days of tackling the intricate problems facing graduate research and training. That’s not to say the topics aren’t interesting. Before the meeting began, I was speaking with a few graduate program administrators at a welcome dinner. We were discussing ways to address the oversupply of PhD students when considering the limited number of tenure track faculty positions in academia. I found myself fully engaged in a debate about the value of requiring a Master’s degree prior to PhD training. The caffeine was doing its job. At the same time, I was learning more about the many interests involved in PhD programs – universities, faculty members, the NIH. These interests can be easy to forget when going through your own PhD training, but considering them is a requirement for effecting real change. This type of revelation and active dialogue had me even more excited about attending the meeting and it hadn’t even started yet.

I probably should have guessed that “people I don’t know” would introduce themselves to me too. I had no problem meeting someone new each day. Likewise – I probably should’ve realized that we are all there for a similar reason. We think we can do better as scientists and science educators. I acted as a kind of ‘student sounding board’ and spoke my truth on how I think students are feeling about their training. The topics covered were expansive. They included the subjects of diversity and equity, professional development, strengthening student cohorts, tracking student outcomes, and promoting alumni networking. Each of these topics warrants multiple blog posts of their own and I won’t attempt to summarize them all here. Instead, I’ll just emphasize that I was impressed with how the GREAT meeting served as a place for strategizing and sharing. People openly talked about what worked and, importantly, what didn’t work when their home institution tried to address problems related to these subjects. People were not just having esoteric debates about the details of graduate training. I got the sense that, with each conversation, GREAT group members were actively developing a plan to bring back to their institution. I did my best to be a sponge – absorbing as much as I could.

Relevant, impressive, disappointing, and motivating. This is how I would describe the keynote addresses presented at the GREAT group meeting. The first keynote address was focused on holistic admissions in graduate training and was delivered by Dr. Julie Posselt from the University of Southern California. Dr. Posselt painted a detailed picture of how personal value systems creep into what is supposed to be a fully objective process of graduate program admissions. It is a disappointing and important realization that scientists – widely thought of as objective thinkers – are just as susceptible to their own human biases as anyone else. The second keynote address was delivered by Dr. Fazier Benya and dealt with sexual harassment in science. Dr. Benya presented truly compelling and, honestly, disappointing data on the prevalence of sexual harassment in science at all levels of training. It was motivating to hear her emphasize that this is not just a problem for female scientists – rather, it is a problem for all scientists which affects the integrity of research, recruitment/retention/advancement of talented researchers, and wellbeing of the whole scientific community.

It would have been easy to hear these keynote addresses and sadly slink back to my hotel room had it not been for the room full of fervently listening administrators. These presentations were immediately followed by very active Q&A sessions. People wanted to know more, and they wanted to know how to best fight for their students and trainees. As a PhD student, it is easy to get tunnel vision. My focus gets divided between experiments and writing and meetings and presentations. It can be tempting to write off the inadequacies of PhD training as “just the way it is” or “someone else’s problem”. Attending the GREAT meeting showed me that student voices are heard on a national level. The challenges encountered by graduate students and post-docs are often sticky, with no simple solution. I feel emboldened as a PhD student knowing that these difficulties are not ignored and there are professionals out there willing to have the hard conversations necessary to enact positive change. I am more confident in encouraging those with unaddressed problems, or potential solutions, to speak up and get involved. Graduate students and post-doctoral trainees face some staggering challenges that require deliberate teamwork. I’m looking forward to my second year of membership in GREAT and contributing more to the national conversation.