Navadeep Boruah, Bethany Huot, Irene Liao, and Andrew Nelson Modular Training Pilot Program: Creating active participants out of trainees Navadeep Boruah, Bethany Huot, Irene Liao, and Andrew Nelson

The current academic pipeline does not direct or encourage participants to utilize potential off-ramps 10-??? years Academic pipeline Professor Ph.D. M.S. Long post-doc Short post-doc Undergraduate ~16% of input Failure???

The current academic pipeline does not direct or encourage participants to utilize potential off-ramps Academic pipeline Professor Ph.D. Long post-doc * Undergraduate ~16% of input * * * * M.S. Ph.D. Short post-doc Short post-doc * Transition years Educated and willfully chosen non-academic career paths

Creating active participants out of trainees: Using regional training hubs to guide the way Stakeholders Academic institutions Regional Training hub Corporate research Targeting transition year scientists High school -> Undergrad Undergrad -> Advanced degree Masters -> Ph.D. Ph.D. -> Post-doc Applicants would apply in their final year of the current training. Non-profit affiliated organizations Agricultural organizations Science policy (academic/non-profit) K-12 science educators Government agencies? 1-2 regional hubs picked through a competitive process by retooling NSF’s former IGERT program

Pilot program specifics: Part I Exposure to diverse research groups (3-4, concurrent if appropriate). Trainee and mentors would negotiate on rotation goals, with emphasis on experiential learning and skill acquisition. Mentoring (committee of stakeholders, career placement advisor, and other trainees). Mentoring committee would provide advise and insight into particular career areas. Career placement advisor would assist trainees in identifying career and educational prospects. Trainees from different experiential levels would be paired to mentor one another. Soft skill development (Both program and trainee directed workshops and outreach programs). Required workshop material would be selected by stakeholders at the beginning of each program year. Additional content could be picked by trainees as the program progressed. Trainees would be required to develop some form of outreach program to present “digestible” science to the public.

Pilot program specifics: Part II Technical skill development (short modular courses developing a “skill tree”). 1-2 week introductory courses in various skill categories (NOTE, NOT NECESSARILY SCIENCE BASED). Courses would be taught along different branches of the skill tree based on trainee demand. Courses would be taught by any stakeholder (based on evidence of stakeholder experience). Assessment (Trainee and Stakeholder assessment of program success). Trainee assessment before, immediately after, and five years after program participation, how do they perceive their current and future job prospects? Costs and Sustainability (salaries for trainees and CPA) Initial costs would be supplemented by NSF (@50% of program cost), with the remainder split evenly among stakeholders (academic participants would be eligible for NSF supplements to cover costs). Direct NSF funding would decrease every year, with increased cost transferred to stakeholders. Initial costs for 20 applicants (5 from each transition year), CPA, and mentoring stipends = $719,000, with $359,000 to NSF (plus indirect costs).

Conclusions To increase the number and diversity of trainees approaching the plant sciences, we need to provide training towards diverse career outcomes. By allowing trainees to take ownership of their training, this program hopes to provide young plant scientists with the skillset and confidence necessary to actively choose their careers. Finally, we envision this program reducing time to career (instead of time to degree) by having stakeholders and trainees be active participants in the training process. Helps the training process become highly tailored based on community needs. Questions?