Review of Specialized Degree-Granting Graduate Programs of the Department of Defense in STEM and Management (2014)

2

Overview of Current Department of Defense STEM and Management Graduate Education

STEM+M GRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN THE COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW

For the purpose of this report, “graduate education” is defined to be an educational program at a post-baccalaureate level that (1) uses previous academic preparation and performance as one of the admission criteria; (2) is either individually accredited or provided by an accredited educational institution; and (3) leads to an advanced degree which, in accordance with the terms of reference, is defined to be at the master’s degree level or higher (e.g., Ph.D.).¹

Therefore, although clearly critical to the Department of Defense (DoD), as outlined in Chapter 1 and presented in various reports, many important postgraduate, nondegree educational and training programs taken every year by DoD military and civilian personnel are outside the scope of this study. ²,³ Thus, this report does not examine or evaluate the large number of excellent certificate-granting, Intermediate Development Education, or training and short-course programs. For the reasons mentioned above, this report does not include detailed analysis or assessment of the following:

_________________

¹ See Appendix A for the terms of reference.

² National Research Council (NRC), Assuring the U.S. Department of Defense a Strong Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2012

³ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Joint Military Education: Actions Needed to Implement DoD Recommendations for Enhancing Leadership Development, Washington, D.C., October 2013.

• The many nondegree programs offered by the Services’ various war colleges (their degrees are not STEM-specific);

• The non-master’s and non-Ph.D.-granting programs at the Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy, Defense Acquisition University, and at the various institutions comprising the National Defense University;

• Programs that do not fall within the definition of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and management (+M) for the purposes of this report—for example, in military leadership, operations, strategy, doctrine, etc.; and

• Academic programs that are explicitly labeled as certificate programs or those that have as the sole purpose the preparation of personnel to undertake a specific responsibility that arguably would require recertification in the future.

Similarly, because the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) has the extremely focused, unique, and critical mission of educating military doctors and other medical personnel, this report does not include an assessment of its nationally and internationally respected postgraduate degree programs. For the purposes of this report, STEM+M programs are considered to be those that grant master of science (M.S.) and doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees having the designations (or similar ones) shown in Table 2-1.

It should be noted that life science and social science disciplines are not included in Table 2-1. This is not an indication of the lack of regard for those disciplines. Indeed, life sciences and social sciences are growing in importance to the military and belong in any reasonable compilation of STEM+M disciplines. However, other than to confirm that DoD fills its need for graduate life and social science degrees through civilian institutions, the committee’s sources were unable to provide data pertaining to specific needs, sources, current numbers of degrees, and degree levels, among other factors. Because AFIT and NPS, which do not offer life and social science programs, were the only DoD institutions capable of providing quantitative education data, the committee was unable to substantively address life and social science education issues in this report.

In accordance with the terms of reference, postgraduate programs in management are addressed only to the extent that they relate directly and explicitly to the effective and efficient operation of STEM-driven enterprises, such as laboratories, technical systems, life-cycle planning and operation, complex systems acquisition, strategic and tactical activities and logistics, and contract management. For this reason, such programs are referred to as “STEM+M.”

TABLE 2-1 M.S. and Ph.D. Degree Designations Defined as “STEM+M” for the Purposes of this Report

Academic credentials, typically represented by college degrees, are normally considered to be “valid for the lifetime of the person to whom they are issued,”⁴ although to remain proficient, the knowledge required to obtain the degree must be periodically refreshed and updated. Other professional and/or training certifications are “normally valid for a limited number of years, based on the pace of change in the certified profession, and require periodic recertification through reexamination (to demonstrate continuing competency as occupational standards of practice evolve) or continuing professional development (to demonstrate continually enhanced competency).”⁵

STEM+M GRADUATE EDUCATION DELIVERY MODELS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps share many common characteristics in the way they provide STEM+M graduate education to their military and civilian personnel.⁶,⁷,⁸,⁹ STEM+M graduate education needs for military officers are collected and prioritized by centralized, enterprise-level organizations. These organizations also select military officers for graduate education programs, determine where the officer will obtain his or her education, and provide funds for the officer’s education.¹⁰ A significant number of military officers selected by these offices for graduate STEM+M education programs are sent to AFIT and NPS. A much smaller number are sent to civilian institutions. The criteria for determining if an officer will be sent to a DoD-funded or a civilian institution include the availability of

_________________

⁴ Institute for Credentialing Excellence website, http://www.credentialingexcellence.org/p/cm/ld/fid=14, accessed April 23, 2014.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Col Jeffrey White, Chief, Air Force Learning Division, AF/A1DL, “Air Force Education Requirements Board,” presentation to the committee on September 10, 2013.

⁷ Pat Hogan, Chief, Acquisition Career Management and Resources Division, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, “Advanced Academic Degrees (AADs) for Military Scientists & Engineers,” presentation to the committee on September 11, 2013.

⁸ CAPT Michael Davis, Director, Information, Analysis and Development Division (N15), and CMDR Paul Acquavella, Head, Education Branch (N153), “Navy’s Specialized Degree-Granting Graduate Programs,” presentation to the committee on September 10, 2013.

⁹ Col Lawrence Miller, U.S. Marine Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA), H.Q. U.S. Marines, personal communication with the committee on May 29, 2014.

¹⁰ Although the Marines have a centralized office for selecting officer graduate education candidates, the Department of the Navy pays for the Marine officer’s tuition and fees. A large majority of Marine officers selected by this office for graduate STEM+M education attend NPS.

degree programs in the required discipline, the desire to broaden the intellectual diversity of the workforce, and cost.¹¹

AFIT and NPS do not offer degree programs in several militarily vital disciplines, including law, medicine, and the life and social sciences. In fact, AFIT and NPS leaders insist that none of their sponsors have stated a need for life science curricula. Hence, students selected for these degree-granting programs are largely sent to civilian institutions. Officers are also sent to civilian institutions to increase the intellectual diversity of DoD’s workforce. In this regard, civilian institutions are heavily used to educate future members of the AFIT, NPS, and Service Academy faculties. The cost to send an officer to a civilian institution includes indirect costs factored into tuitions and fees. Many indirect costs to maintain AFIT and NPS are paid for by other organizations. For example, building construction and maintenance are typically funded out of military construction and base operating budgets, respectively. Because these costs are not included in AFIT and NPS tuition rates, the centralized graduate education management offices typically pay less to send an officer to AFIT and NPS than to a civilian institution. However, as discussed in Chapter 3, the cost to send officers to AFIT and NPS from a “total DoD cost perspective” are generally no less than civilian institutions.

Enlisted members of the Air Force, Navy, and Marines; military officers not selected for graduate education programs by their centralized Service offices; and all Service civilians either pay their own costs to attend graduate school while they hold full-time jobs, or they take advantage of various DoD and Service programs that fund all or portions of their educational expenses. These include the military tuition assistance programs and the DoD Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation program discussed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 4. Nearly all students who fall into these categories are educated at civilian institutions. Unlike the data available from the centralized military officer graduate education management offices, the committee was unable to find anyone in DoD responsible for aggregating and analyzing data associated with graduate education and needs for all employees in these categories, which constitute the vast majority of military and civilian employees pursuing and holding graduate STEM+M degrees.¹² This may not be true for the Marines, where unlike the Air Force and the Navy, more military members hold graduate STEM+M degrees than their civilian counterparts.¹³ It was therefore

_________________

¹¹ The Marines require that officers who obtain STEM+M graduate degrees serve a “payback” assignment immediately following their degree program that requires their technical skill. This ensures the Marines achieve a return on their education investment. This requirement can be waived on a case-by-case base.

¹² This may not be true for the Marines. Anecdotal evidence suggests more Marine military members hold graduate STEM+M degrees than do Marine civilians.

¹³ Col Lawrence Miller, U.S. Marine Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA), H.Q. U.S. Marines, personal communication with the committee on May 29, 2014.

impossible to satisfactorily address the terms of reference requiring analyses of the need for and sources of graduate STEM+M education across DoD’s workforce.

Finally, with the exception of a single, high-level presentation offered by one of many Army organizations responsible for meeting the graduate STEM+M education needs of their assigned employees, the committee did not have the opportunity to learn or offer substantive observations about the Army’s graduate STEM+M education delivery model.¹⁴ From the single briefing the committee received, it appears that the Army employs a model that differs in two major ways from the other Services. First, it appears that the Army does not have a centralized, enterprise-level office for managing the graduate education needs of its military and civilian workforces. Instead, the Army model is decentralized, relying on an individual organization (e.g., the Corps of Engineers) to define graduate education needs and select and fund employees to meet these needs. As a result, the committee was unable to find someone in the Army capable of addressing graduate education approaches for the entire Service. And the Army did not offer representatives to discuss alternative approaches beyond those offered by the organization briefed to the committee.

Second, as shown in Chapter 3, the Army sends nearly as many officers in absolute numbers to AFIT and NPS as do the other Services. However, given the relative size of the Army, the committee was left with the impression that a much larger percentage of the Army officer population attends civilian institutions than the other Services. Later in the report, the committee recommends that the DoD conduct a subsequent study of the Army graduate education deliver model(s) to determine if sharable best practices exist between the various Service approaches. The next two sections briefly discuss civilian and DoD-funded (AFIT and NPS) graduate STEM+M education sources.

STEM+M GRADUATE PROGRAMS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL AT CIVILIAN INSTITUTIONS

The majority of DoD civilian and military personnel holding graduate STEM+M degrees have obtained them at civilian education institutions, both on-campus and by distance learning. These institutions vary in geographical diversity, cost, and educational quality. For example, NPS sends students for degrees they do not offer to universities ranging from major Tier I schools to emerging research universities, as well as highly specialized institutions. Benefits of degree programs offered at civilian institutions compared to those offered at AFIT or NPS include

_________________

¹⁴ Nancy Harned, Executive Director, Strategic Planning and Program Planning, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics),“STEM and Army S&T Enterprise,” presentation to the committee on January 9, 2014.

greater course diversity, exposure to a diverse student body, and exposure to best practices from industry, with its broader perspectives than DoD. Chapter 3 contains a fuller discussion of the trade-offs inherent in a degree from a civilian institution as compared to one from AFIT or NPS.

What is most striking about DoD’s attitude toward civilian universities in providing graduate education for DoD military and civilians is the lack of availability (within DoD and the individual Services) of consistent and comprehensive data on the number of graduate degrees granted, the specific types of programs (e.g., STEM+M or not), and the identity of the granting institutions, among other factors. Yet, outstanding military leaders have pursued—and current potential leaders will continue to pursue—graduate degrees in civilian universities, although not necessarily in STEM+M. For example, of the past 15 current and recent chiefs of staff of the Air Force, Navy, and Army, 11 have earned master’s degrees, but only one was granted by a DoD graduate institution.

STEM+M GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMS AT THE AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

DoD currently depends on two educational institutions to provide the bulk of DoD “in-house” postgraduate STEM education for active duty military personnel: AFIT and NPS. Both of these institutions

• Enroll students outside their own military departments, as well as from the U.S. Coast Guard, DoD civilians, foreign military, the U.S. Army, and other agencies;

• Have management and monitoring responsibilities for many DoD military members who pursue postgraduate STEM degrees at civilian institutions;

• Offer STEM-related management degree programs; and

• Have academic components of master’s and Ph.D. programs (e.g., admission requirements, foundational courses, credit hour requirements, completion time limits, academic performance evaluation processes, research projects, qualifying examinations and procedures for candidacy, and thesis and dissertation defenses consistent with those used in civilian institutions.

These factors, which are critical to providing quality educational experiences, are discussed further in Chapter 3.

The NPS mission statement is: “[to provide] high-quality, relevant and unique advanced education and research programs that increase the combat effectiveness of the Naval Services, other Armed Forces of the U.S. and our partners, to enhance

our national security,”¹⁵ and AFIT’s is: “Advance air, space, and cyberspace power for the Nation, its partners, and our armed forces by providing relevant defense-focused technical graduate and continuing education, research, and consultation.”¹⁶ Within the context of the terms of reference for this study, these mission statements make clear that graduates of their postgraduate (STEM+M) programs are expected to use their new knowledge, experience, and skills to improve the effective and efficient operations of STEM-driven DoD enterprises. The STEM+M graduate degree programs offered by AFIT, with 3-year averages of degrees granted per year, are shown in Table 2-2 (master’s degrees) and Table 2-3 (Ph.D. degrees). The STEM+M graduate degree programs offered by NPS, with 3-year averages of degrees granted per year, are shown in Table 2-4 (master’s degrees) and Table 2-5 (Ph.D. degrees).

Tables 2-6 and 2-7 show the number of graduate degrees granted by NPS in 2009 to 2013 with theses/dissertations that were either classified or CUI (controlled but unclassified information).¹⁷Tables 2-8 and 2-9 show the number of graduate degrees granted by AFIT in 2009 to 2013 with theses/dissertations that were either classified or CUI. Because both NPS and AFIT adhere to the academic norm of requiring Ph.D. students to publish their theses/dissertations, the percent of classified or CUI Ph.D. theses/dissertations, although not broken down in these tables, is extremely low.

A number of interesting observations can be made from the preceding tables, as well as other information provided by AFIT and NPS.

• There are no STEM-specific graduate degrees offered in NPS’s National Security Affairs department or its Department of Defense Analysis.
• The only graduate degree granted in the NPS Department of Oceanography is a joint program with Meteorology.
• The mathematics departments at both NPS and AFIT are used primarily as “Service course” providers.
• AFIT and NPS Ph.D. programs are small (typically around 30 Ph.D.s per year are awarded in all STEM+M fields for AFIT and around 14 per year for NPS), compared to the roughly 10,000 Ph.D. degrees awarded in the United States each year in engineering alone, or compared to the 50-60 Ph.D.s awarded per year by a typical midsize civilian university.
• Over the past 3 years, 5 of AFIT’s 23 STEM+M master’s programs provided more than 50 percent of its degrees, whereas 9 programs in total provided

_________________

¹⁵ NPS mission statement, see http://www.nps.edu/academics/generalcatalog/701.htm, accessed May 23, 2014.

¹⁶ AFIT mission statement, see http://www.afit.edu/ABOUT/index.cfm, accessed May 23, 2014.

¹⁷ CUI is defined to be “products containing unclassified information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls, pursuant to and consistent with applicable laws, regulations and government-wide policies” (NPS “Combined Responses,” p. 27).

TABLE 2-2 Air Force Institute of Technology STEM+M Master’s Degrees Granted (Averaged over AY 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013)

^a Joint program.

^b DL program starts January 2014.
NOTE: AY, academic year; DL, courses via distance learning; R, courses in residence; STEM+M, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management.
SOURCE: Data from the Air Force Institute of Technology.

TABLE 2-3 Air Force Institute of Technology STEM+M Ph.D. Degrees Granted per Year (Averaged over AY 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013) by Department

^a Program closed in 2011.

^b Program began in 2012.
NOTE: AY, academic year; STEM+M, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management.
SOURCE: Data from the Air Force Institute of Technology.

TABLE 2-4 Naval Postgraduate School STEM+M Master’s Degrees Granted Per Year (Averaged over AY 2010-2011 2011-2012 and 2012-2013)

^a Possibly not STEM-related.
NOTE: AY, academic year; DL, all courses via distance learning; R, all courses in residence; STEM+M, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management.
SOURCE: Data from the Naval Postgraduate School.

TABLE 2-5 Naval Postgraduate School STEM+M Ph.D. Degrees Granted per Year (Averaged over AY 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013)

^a Possibly not STEM-related.

NOTE: AY, academic year; DL, all courses via distance learning; R, all courses in residence; STEM+M, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management.
SOURCE: Data from the Naval Postgraduate School.

TABLE 2-6 Naval Postgraduate School Classified STEM+M M.S. Theses

NOTE: STEM+M, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management.
SOURCE: Data from the Naval Postgraduate School.

TABLE 2-7 Naval Postgraduate School STEM+M CUI M.S. Theses

NOTE: CUI, controlled, unclassified information; STEM+M, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management.
SOURCE: Data from the Naval Postgraduate School.

TABLE 2-8 Air Force Institute of Technology Classified M.S. Theses and Ph.D. Dissertations

SOURCE: Data from the Air Force Institute of Technology.

TABLE 2-9 Air Force Institute of Technology CUI M.S. Theses and Ph.D. Dissertations

NOTE: CUI, controlled, unclassified information.
SOURCE: Data from the Air Force Institute of Technology.

• fewer than 10 percent of AFIT degrees. At NPS, 3 of the 14 STEM+M departments provided about 50 percent of its degrees, whereas 3 departments in total provided fewer than 10 percent of NPS degrees.

• Of the more than 700 STEM+M postgraduate degrees NPS granted per year, only around 20 theses—fewer than 3 percent of all master’s degree theses—were fully classified, and around 80 (10 percent) were CUI.
• The percentage of NPS degrees granted to U.S. Navy personnel declined from 51 percent in 2010 to 42 percent in 2012, whereas the percentage of civilian degrees granted has gone up from 11 percent in 2010 to 29 percent in 2012.

Two rationales for having Ph.D. programs at AFIT and NPS are that they help in recruiting and retaining faculty and provide Services focused benefits to those master’s degree students who interact with Ph.D. students. A potential trade-off is that these Ph.D. students, per se, would arguably have a richer and deeper research experience in a larger Ph.D. program at a civilian university.

Through an alliance between NPS and AFIT, which was established by the Navy and Air Force via a December 4, 2002, memorandum of agreement,¹⁸ the size of AFIT and NPS Ph.D. programs can be expanded by offering a wider range of courses and research experiences.

Finding 2-1. AFIT and NPS are primarily master’s degree-granting institutions because the number of Ph.D. degrees they confer is less than 3 percent of the number of master’s degrees.

Recommendation 2-1. The Air Force Institute of Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School should proactively seek to expand the December 4, 2002, memorandum of agreement between the Navy and Air Force so as to increase collaboration with each other, as well as to partner with other selected universities to create a critical mass of Ph.D. students. This will enable a deeper and wider range of courses and research experiences, particularly for some of the smaller Ph.D. programs.

Finding 2-2. At both AFIT and NPS, STEM+M master’s and Ph.D. students pursuing degrees on campus at AFIT or NPS, not explicitly in distance-learning pro-

_________________

¹⁸ The Memorandum of Agreement Forming an Educational Alliance between the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force, December 4, 2002, discussed in detail in Chapter 4, is available at http://www.nps.edu/WASC/Docs/WASC_ReferenceFiles/11-20/REF18.pdf?return=2/report/sect3.aspx.

grams, generally do not take for-credit courses via distance learning from either their sister institution or at civilian institutions.

Recommendation 2-2. In an era of rapidly developing distance learning technology and opportunity, the Department of Defense should seriously explore the possibility of combining the networking and bonding benefits of military officers in residence at the Air Force Institute of Technology or the Naval Postgraduate School with the benefits of exposure to other institutions and learning opportunities at civilian universities by using distance learning.

Finding 2-3. AFIT and NPS do not have complete control over their admission process and are asked to take students assigned to them by other elements of DoD. For this reason, the range of preparation of their students is wider than many civilian universities, particularly at NPS. Both schools provide remediation help to incoming students who have been away from school for an extended time period due to operational demands.

Finding 2-4. AFIT confers about 30 STEM+M Ph.D. students each year, while NPS achieves about half that number. This difference may reflect, to some extent, a difference in the perceived needs of the two Services, and possibly the closer proximity of AFIT to the substantial research sources of the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Finding 2-5. NPS appears to place an emphasis on admitting personnel with non-STEM undergraduate degrees. Via a sequence of intense noncredit remedial courses, these students are offered an opportunity to go on to pursue a STEM-related master’s degree. On the other hand, AFIT normally requires an undergraduate degree in a STEM field for admission to their graduate programs.

CURRENT STEM+M GRADUATE EDUCATION PROVIDED TO U.S. ARMY ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL

Although many U.S. Army active duty personnel clearly take advantage of various STEM+M postgraduate programs at AFIT and NPS (see Table 3-2), no detailed information about enrollments at civilian institutions—for example, identity, degree programs, nature of their delivery, numbers of degrees granted—was provided to the committee by the Army. Without this information, no meaningful recommendations relating to the current status of the Army’s STEM+M graduate degree education could be made. ¹⁹

_________________

¹⁹ This situation is discussed further in Chapter 3 and Finding 3-2.

Finding 2-6. There is no centralized source, within DoD, of clear and consistent data on how many STEM+M degrees are being obtained by military and civilian DoD personnel at civilian universities.

Recommendation 2-3. The Department of Defense (DoD) should centrally collect clear and consistent data on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and management (STEM+M) degrees being obtained by military and civilian DoD personnel at civilian universities and share it widely with those involved in planning and directing STEM+M education programs.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This chapter presented an overview of the existing structure, scope, and availability of STEM+M graduate degrees currently available to DoD personnel, with a focus on the two major DoD institutions that provide the educational structure for delivery of these educational experiences. Definitions of basic terms and concepts were presented, along with a review of AFIT’s and NPS’ student populations, number of degrees granted, and the diversity of degree programs. These definitions and assessments were used to delineate the boundaries of the terms of reference for this study, to refine its scope, and to help identify unique features and opportunities to improve each type of institution. Chapter 3 provides a more in-depth discussion and evaluation of the value proposition for graduate programs at AFIT and NPS, along with more specific findings and recommendations for improving and strengthening these programs. Chapter 4 then offers suggestions for enhancing STEM+M graduate education outcomes for all members of DoD’s workforce.