Notes kindly made available by Debbie Elmegreen
At the AAS Chairs meetings (attended by 44, including 13 women), Paul Hertz (NASA SMD Astrophysics Director) and Jim Ulvestad (NSF AST Director) gave their up-to-date NASA and NSF briefings.
Paul Hertz (NASA) talked about grants and how simply diverting more allotted funds to grants doesn't help overall, since OMB examiners then think we need less money, so cut the budgets. He's instead shifted some postdoc money to R&A grants to help balance those two pots more equitably.
Jim Ulvestad (NSF) reiterated his point that he does not have a direct line to seeking more money for NSF AST. He said the current AAG success rate is ~ 21%, and that meaningful GSMT participation by NSF is not currently possible. He announced that NSF has directed AURA to unify the US parts of NOAO, LSST, and Gemini into a national astronomy center. Jim pointed out there is a search for his replacement. (If you're interested and want to discuss the position, talk to Jim or members of the search committee.)
Joel Parriott (AAS Director of Public Policy) talked about the DC scene and the need for astro advocacy if we all survive Tuesday. He cautioned against pitting fields of research (e.g., exoplanets and gravitational waves) against each other. He noted the upcoming Congressional Visits Day organized by the AAS (look for the upcoming announcement; the target is young astronomers, with past CVD participants often becoming more involved in astropolitics, sometimes as careers).
Christine Jones (AAS President) summarized the revised AAS Ethics Statement and best practices
Debra Elmegreen (IAU VP) noted the new IAU PhD Prize, with travel and accommodations for the annual PhD winners in each of the 9 IAU divisions. The deadline to apply is Dec. 15 each year, for students about to complete (or having just completed) their dissertation.
We discussed whether physics chairs ought to be invited to our meetings, and vice versa. There was agreement that having all of them meeting with us would be impractical and would change the nature of our meeting, but that inviting a limited number to come whose departments do astrophysical research or who would like to hear more about our departments (and conversely, some of us might attend their meetings, which are the day after ours).
Shardha Jogee and Steven Zepf led the discussion on the use of Physics GREs, in light of recent studies previously noted by Meg Urry in her urging departments to discontinue their use. It was an interesting discussion on pros and cons. All agree the PGRE is an imperfect and biased indicator, based on the data and their own dept. anecdotes or studies. Foreign students often have difficulty getting to a place to take the GRE, so they're disadvantaged too, along with students unable to afford sending scores to multiple places (let alone the bias in the test itself). Success in research, based on 1st-author papers, was uncorrelated with PGRE scores; if a 60% cutoff had been used for PGREs, 40% of Hubble fellows wouldn't have made it to grad schooll. Yet in Jogee's dept. survey that generated 22 replies, 63% still require the PGRE. Georgia State, Vanderbilt, and UT Austin have elminated it. U of Arizona, Kansas, Texas Christian University, Ohio Univ., U. Washington (who has accepted even single-digit PGRE percentages) have made it optional. OSU and others keep an eye out for "diamonds in the rough." Columbia is in divided dept discussions about it, as are others. Some argued that, in the absence of other supporting info, the PGRE was helpful to show that students could do the work. Some noted that reporting PGRE scores was helpful for students from unknown schools who did well, where the grades could not be assessed relative to others. Some allow the PGRE to be listed as additional information, even if they eliminated formal reporting or consider it optional. Some stress Skype interviews as part of the vetting process, but others cautioned that introverted but capable students would fare less well in that interview setting.
Only 2 schools requiring PGREs said they had a cut-off score. No others did. All said that letters of recommendation and evidence of the ability to do research through theses and summer internships were vital. When pressed, most said that any score over 20% would at least get serious consideration. (Some privately pointed out that while all scores were considered, in fact the 45% or better range was common at their schools, and of course 70% or better was great). All pointed out that, no matter how the weighing goes, getting into grad school is still very hard, long term job prospects are grim. Students should be advised with caution and realism as they consider their futures, including discussions of non-academic career options both after undergrad and after PhD.
Some schools pointed out that they have Professional Master's programs, and that sometimes those students transition into the regular graduate program. Many of the PM programs are tied to industrial experiences, thereby helping in job security afterwards. Some pointed out that the aerospace industry is hiring again in better numbers, and others pointed out the need for technical skills in government and finance jobs.
There was some discussion about motivating and retaining undergrads, including U. Washington's 30-50 majors/yr who benefit from courses in writing (also at grad level), python, data reduction, etc. and with older students helping younger ones in team research efforts.
There was some discussion about inclusivity issues at all levels, from undergrad to faculty, and the need for support groups, and some discussion about mentoring young faculty. There was brief comment on the pervasive issue of harassment, of the need for open discussions at all levels, and the need for everyone to be aware of Title IX issues. There was frustration and uncertainty about how to handle known perpetrators when they go from one institution to another, with no good resolution.