Biology grad programs move needle on diversity

First-year molecular biology grad students Matt Howard, front; Wenyang Li; and Whitby Eagle during the summer MOL500 course.

First-year molecular biology grad students Matt Howard, front; Wenyang Li; and Whitby Eagle during the summer MOL500 course.

Frank Wojciechowski

Placeholder author icon
By W. Raymond Ollwerther ’71
3 min read

In the fall of 2007, Liz Johnson, a senior biology major at Spelman College in Atlanta, knew where she wanted to attend graduate school: Harvard or Vanderbilt.

But a visit to Spelman by Princeton staff and faculty, including genomics institute director David Botstein, began a series of contacts with professors that led to Johnson’s arrival at Princeton the following year.

The Princeton group listened as Johnson presented her honors thesis research. “The interactions I had with the faculty really got me excited about attending graduate school at a place that had so many resources,” said Johnson, a fourth-year molecular biology Ph.D. candidate who is a former president of the Black Graduate Caucus.

At a time when the graduate school is emphasizing diversity, initiatives by two programs — molecular biology and quantitative and computational biology (QCB) — are drawing attention for their results in recruiting underrepresented minorities (Hispanic, black, and Native American students).

The impact is shown by statistics that look at entering Ph.D. students in molecular biology, QCB, and the year-old neuroscience program compared with the previous five-year period (when all were part of molecular biology). Underrepresented minority applicants increased from an average of 13 to an average of 41 per year; the number admitted increased from about four to 15 per year; and the average number accepting admission jumped from fewer than one to six per year.

Overall, the average percentage of underrepresented minority students in each entering class increased from just 3 percent in the 2003–07 period to 24 percent in 2008–11, which the department said is above the percentage for college biology majors nationally.

Though the graduate school has put staff and money into recruiting talented minority students, the ratio of underrepresented minority students to all enrolled students has remained about half of the same ratio for Princeton undergraduates. Over the last five years, underrepresented minorities at the grad school have made up between 8.5 and 13.5 percent of incoming U.S. students. This year’s entering class includes 53 black, Latino, and Native American students, up from 33 last year. The yield was up sharply, from 46 to a record 72 percent.

What those numbers don’t show, said William Russel, dean of the graduate school, is the increasing quality of minority applicants. Five to 10 years ago, few underrepresented minority applicants were among the students recommended most highly by departmental committees for admission, he said; today, they often are.

At the same time, Russel said, the degree-completion rate is more consistent for minority graduate students than in the past, reflecting the impact of professional-development programs spearheaded by Karen Jackson-Weaver ’94, associate dean for academic affairs and diversity.

The key to success of diversity efforts is to keep building faculty attention and support, Russel said. That’s echoed by Lynn Enquist, chairman of the molecular biology department, who said “the old system doesn’t work.” What’s needed, he said, is to “get out of Princeton, get off your computer, and get into the undergrad schools with diverse populations.”

The diversity program that serves molecular biology and QCB was created in 2007, with senior lecturer Alison Gammie chosen as director. At the time, University funding from the National Institutes of Health that supported about 28 training slots for grad students was up for renewal, and the NIH was “exerting pressure to increase the diversity,” Gammie said. The department’s plan to increase diversity in the biology programs, backed by funding that Botstein helped to secure, cleared the way for the grant’s renewal.

“The bottom line is that the government made clear what we already knew — that the University had a moral obligation to do better,” Botstein said.

The diversity program set out to increase applications from minority students, improve the matriculation rate, and provide support and mentoring to ensure the success of admitted candidates.

Among the initiatives were strategic recruiting and establishing long-term relationships with minority-serving institutions such as Spelman and Morehouse colleges; admission decisions that rely more on letters of recommendation, research experience, and stated “passion for research”; offers to waive admission fees; expanding minority participation in a popular Princeton summer research program for undergraduates; and creation of a summer course for incoming students called MOL500, taught by Gammie and focused on the research culture and skills for success in graduate school.

“You can transform a department,” Gammie said. “It’s important to have a diversity of viewpoints and per­spectives in science, and by actively ­recruiting students who reflect the ­general population, it can be done.”

3 Responses

Patrick Krug ’92

8 Years Ago

A nonlevel playing field

Russ Nieli decries efforts by the molecular biology department (Campus Notebook, Dec. 14), from which I graduated 20 years ago, to recruit graduate students from underrepresented ethnic groups. I am a faculty member at a minority-serving university in east Los Angeles. Our students usually are the first in their family to attend college, work multiple jobs, have English as a second language, see few minority role models in science, and are under pressure to pursue more lucrative careers. Some nevertheless pursue graduate degrees in biology, showing the creativity and fortitude that are as essential as intellect for a lasting career in science. I’m proud the molecular biology department recognizes what such ­students bring to the table, and salute efforts to broaden diversity in the ­sciences.

Moreover, I’m sick of hearing from straight white guys outraged that someone, somewhere, has an advantage over them. Indeed, life is just not fair; the hegemony of wealth and power may hold you down, or efforts to fix centuries of discrimination may lift someone else up. My advice: Seek counsel from a friend who may be gay, female, non-Christian, or a person of color; I’m sure you will receive suggestions on how to cope with the unfairness of it all.

Russ Nieli *79

8 Years Ago

Base admissions on merit

Racial balancing for incoming molecular biology grad students (Campus Notebook, Dec. 14)? The very idea in saner times would have been considered an outrage — and an injustice to all those better-qualified applicants from “overrepresented” groups who lose out in the racial-balancing game. There was a time not long ago when Americans who considered themselves the most liberal and most advanced segment of the community believed that discriminating against people because of their ethnicity or race was deeply offensive.

It was almost universally believed that our premier research universities, especially in their natural-science programs, should only seek out “the best and the brightest” regardless of race or ethnicity, letting the demographic chips fall where they may. If Asians and Jews were grossly “overrepresented,” and other groups substantially “underrepresented,” then that’s just the way it is. In academia as in other areas of American life (cf. professional basketball and professional ice hockey), merit-only selection systems work that way. And that’s why little Caltech, organized exclusively on the merit-only principle, often is ranked ahead of Princeton in rankings of world-class universities.

When are we going to end this madness of racial-quota thinking and return to the naive idea that talent, hard work, and achievement should be the only criteria for advancement in academia?

Andreas Berlind ’95

8 Years Ago

A nonlevel playing field

Most of us in the graduate-admissions game agree with Russ Nieli *79 (Inbox, Feb. 8) that talent, hard work, and achievement ideally should be the only criteria for advancement in academia. However, it would be extremely naive to think that abandoning considerations of diversity in the admission process would lead to this ideal state.

As a science faculty member (physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt) who has been heavily involved in graduate admissions for several years, I have seen up close how students from certain demographic groups face an uphill battle in the pursuit of a science Ph.D. Poor undergraduate preparation, lack of role models, and lack of economic resources for some groups create a highly nonlevel playing field that does not reward hard work and talent equally. As a direct result, representation of these disadvantaged groups in physics Ph.D. programs is appallingly low. Considering diversity in the admission process is an attempt to somewhat level the playing field.

Join the conversation

Plain text

Full name and Princeton affiliation (if applicable) are required for all published comments. For more information, view our commenting policy. Responses are limited to 500 words for online and 250 words for print consideration.

Related News

Newsletters.
Get More From PAW In Your Inbox.

Learn More

Title complimentary graphics