Graduate Assistant/Associate Workload Survey 2019 · day window to complete the survey. Three email reminders were sent to all GAs who had not completed their survey every 3-4 days,

Graduate Assistant/Associate Workload Survey 2019

Public Version (Comments and results have been anonymized)

Thomas Rhodes, M.S, Director, Graduate Research Dianne Horgan, Ph.D. Senior Consultant, Graduate Education Andrew Carnie, Ph.D, Dean of the Graduate College

University of Arizona GA Workload Survey 2019 2

Executive Summary One thousand two hundred and forty-five GAs responded to surveys (response rate = 46%). The surveys covered basics of their contract, their duties, their level of satisfaction as well as questions about workload, training and resources. Students were provided opportunities for comments. The results are very similar to results from our 2017 survey, indicating that the results are both reliable and valid. The results are also consistent with the literature on Job Satisfaction (discussed in section 4) and GPSC’s report on GA workload1. Satisfaction. Ninety-two percent of RAs and 91% of TAs were satisfied or mostly satisfied with their GA experience. For both RAs and TAs, questions related to mentoring, supervision and resources were strongly related to satisfaction. Questions of workload were less strongly related. The applicability of GA duties to their professional development were moderately related to satisfaction for RAs and strongly related for TAs. Workload. For GAs at .5 FTE, 45% of RAs reported working more than 20 hours in a typical week while only 16% of TAs reported working more than 20 hours. Twenty-six percent of full time RAs reported working more than 30 hours in a typical week versus just 1% for TAs. Despite the very heavy workload for RAs, 70% felt their hours were fair for their FTE. Perceived fairness for RAs was correlated with hours worked. Fairness was also correlated with receiving appropriate training and support, with receiving adequate resources, and with receiving clear instructions and expectations from their supervisor. Training. Quality of training appears to differ strongly across units and across individual supervisors. Twelve percent of RAs and 13% of TAs felt they had received inadequate training and support. Comments suggest some startling gaps in training. Lack of training for GAs appears to be related more to individual mentors while training for TAs may show departmental trends. Supervision/Mentoring. Comments as well as quantitative results emphasize the strong role that mentoring plays in terms of setting expectations, providing instructions and feedback, and providing training and support. Only 57% of RAs reported their supervisors had provided a clear idea of expected workload; 20% reported never having had an opportunity to discuss their workload with their supervisor; 9% reported never receiving any clear instructions. Twenty-eight percent of TAs were not told what to expect regarding their workload. The Take Away. Departments, colleges, and central administration need to put policies and practices in place to ensure GAs receive the mentoring, training, and resources they need and to prevent excessive workload. The problems appear greater for RAs. Individual faculty members who provide inadequate mentoring must be held accountable.

1 https://arizona.app.box.com/v/GPSC-surveys/file/98089933574


1. Methods Workload surveys were emailed March 18 to all GAs appointed for the Spring 2019 semester with a 14-day window to complete the survey. Three email reminders were sent to all GAs who had not completed their survey every 3-4 days, with a final reminder sent 1 day before the survey closed. The complete surveys are in Appendix A and B.

2. Research Assistants/Associates Results One thousand twenty-five emails were sent to RAs and 436 responded. Table 1 below shows responses rates by college and that women were more likely to respond.

Table 1. RA Survey Response Rate

Surveys solicited Responses Percent Response College M F Total M F Total M F Total

AZ Health Sci Ctrs & Divisions 6 6 2 2 33% 33% Col Arch Plan & Landscape Arch 4 7 11 2 3 5 50% 43% 45% College of Agric and Life Sci 44 50 94 20 26 46 45% 52% 49% College of Education 6 16 22 2 11 13 33% 69% 59% College of Engineering 148 45 193 72 23 95 49% 51% 49% College of Fine Arts 2 2 0% 0% College of Humanities 1 4 5 1 2 3 100% 50% 60% College of Medicine - Phoenix 2 2 1 1 50% 50% College of Medicine - Tucson 30 21 51 13 9 22 43% 43% 43% College of Nursing 3 3 3 3 100% 100% College of Optical Sciences 78 22 100 19 10 29 24% 45% 29% College of Pharmacy 14 11 25 8 6 14 57% 55% 56% College of Public Health 10 17 27 2 9 11 20% 53% 41% College of Science 200 100 300 72 51 123 36% 51% 41% College of Social & Behav Sci 38 44 82 12 22 34 32% 50% 41% Eller College of Management 28 9 37 8 4 12 29% 44% 32% Graduate College 22 22 49 13 5 19 59% 23% 39% Honors College 1 1 1 1 100% 100% RDI Centers & Institutes 4 8 12 1 2 3 25% 25% 25% RDI Museums Division 1 1 0% 0% RDI Research Infrastructure 1 1 2 0% 0% 0%

TOTALS 629 391 1025 245 190 436 39% 49% 43% The survey covers

• the terms of the RA's contracts, • the percentage of time spent on various duties, • the extent to which students are aware of and have utilized various resources,


• “outcome” or dependent variables: Perceived Fairness (Question #14) and Overall Satisfaction (Question #19),

• time spent on RA duties, • supervisory/mentoring behavior, • the extent to which duties relate to the RA's professional development.

Among the analyses, we evaluate the extent to which the last three sets of variables contribute to the dependent variables of Perceived Fairness and Satisfaction. (Correlations are shown in Appendix C.) We consider gender differences. Results are reported for both quantitative and qualitative responses.

2.1 Overall Results Ninety-seven percent of RAs work in only one department and 70% were .5 FTE. The College of Engineering and College of Science had the most RAs who were less than .5 FTE. The variation for most questions, as measured by the standard deviation, was large. This means that differences between groups are not likely to be statistically significant. We expect most of the variation is due to differences among individual supervisors or perhaps departments. Table 2 shows activities of RAs. None of the gender differences below reach statistical significance, due to very high variation in responses. Table 2. Average Percent Time Spent for Various Activities (Question 13)

M F Total Meeting with supervisor/research Group 9.7% 8.9% 9.4% Running experiments/doing active Research 37.7% 32.8% 35.6% Preparing/planning for research activities 14.0% 12.5% 13.4% Reviewing Literature 13.0% 10.5% 11.9% Writing up Results 11.0% 10.3% 10.7% Maintenance/upkeep of lab facilities or similar work outside of a lab 4.9% 5.5% 5.2%

Other 3.8% 4.4% 4.1% Students were asked “What is the TYPICAL number of hours you worked in any one week?” Table 3 shows those results for students with .5 FTE (N=302).


Table 3. Typical hours RAs worked in a week. Hours reported Percent reporting

Fewer than 5 hours 1% 5 to 10 hours 2% 10-15 hours 9% 15-20 hours 21% 20-25 hours 23% 25-30 hours 12% More than 30 hours 32%

While RA workloads appear excessive, 72% reported that their RA duties will either be the main or part of their thesis or dissertation. Thirty-two percent reported their maximum number of hours per week to exceed 30 hours; 67% report their maximum to exceed 20 hours. Despite almost a third of RAs report working more than 30 hours per week, responses were generally positive:

• Ninety-two percent were either satisfied or mostly satisfied with their RAship. • Ninety-five percent agreed or mostly agreed with the statement “I was provided adequate

resources to do my RA job.” • Seventy percent of RAs reported that the hours they worked were fair for their FTE. • Sixty-five percent felt their workload was about the same as their peers. • Seventy-one percent felt their duties were directly applicable to their own professional training

and another 27% reported they were mostly applicable. • The average percent of time spent as a RA that supports their own research agenda was 72%. • Eighty-eight percent agreed or mostly agreed that they received adequate training and support

Besides excessive hours, some areas where there is room for improvement involved supervision and mentoring:

• Only 57% reported that supervisors provided a clear idea of expected workload. • Twenty percent reported never having an opportunity to discuss their workload with their

supervisor. • Forty-six percent reported frequently receiving clear instructions and 45% reported receiving

clear instructions on occasion. Nine percent reported never receiving clear instructions.

2.2 Perceived Fairness Hours. Consider the questions that cluster around hours first. Do hours worked predict how students will perceive fairness? Question # 14 asks RAs if their hours are fair for their FTE. Seventy percent said yes. Not surprisingly, their responses strongly correlated2 with their reports of typical hours worked,

2 Correlations are measures of the strength of the relationship, with higher absolute numbers indicating a stronger relationship. The sign indicates whether the values increase together (a positive correlation) or whether one increases while the other decreases (a negative correlation). Thus how the variables are coded will indicate the sign. The sign has no relationship to the strength of the relationship. For our purposes, correlations of about .25 (or


with fewer hours seen as more fair (r=.47). Question #11 (do you work less than, more than, or about what you expected) was also strongly correlated (r=.47). There was a moderate correlation between feeling one’s hours to be fair and Question #12 (I worked fewer total number of hours/about the same total hours/more total hours than my peers (r=.21).

Supervision/Mentoring. Perhaps more surprising are correlations with questions relating to supervision: a moderate correlation (r=.29) with Question # 17 (“I received appropriate training and support to succeed as an RA”) and with Question # 18 (“I was provided adequate resources to do my RA job”), r=.27. Receiving appropriate training and support overlaps with receiving adequate resources, (r=58). Clear instructions and a supervisor sharing expectations show a modest relationship, r=.28 and r = .27, respectively. Thus, even though the fairness question specifically asked if their work hours are fair for the FTE, the supervisory experience is moderately related to their views of fairness. It is probable that good supervision makes even long hours feel fair. Relationship to student development. Several questions concern the extent to which the RA duties relate to the student’s own research or to their own professional development. The assumption is that students will be more satisfied with experiences that relate to their own needs and interest. There were three such question: Question 3 (classified primary duties in terms of no relationship to student’s dissertation, some overlap, or duties will be the main research for the student’s dissertation), question 15 (“The RA duties I performed with directly applicable to my own professional training as an Academic”), and question 16 (“Approximately what percentage of your time as an RA was spent on projects that support your own research agenda…”). Surprisingly these items are not strongly correlated with each other. Only Question # 16 (% time on own work) and Question # 15 (duties related to professional development) are moderately correlated, r = -.33. The average percentage of time spent on projects related to the student’s own research agenda was 72.1%, but the standard deviation was very large (31.0) indicating a wide variation. None of these three questions had correlations with Perceived Fairness that exceed r=.14. Thus Perceived Fairness of Workload appears to be a function of actual and expected workload, supervision and to a much lesser degree, relationship of the work to students’ professional development. Not surprising is a strong correlation between perceived fairness and satisfaction (r=.44). Clearly feeling that one is treated fairly is a prerequisite for feeling satisfied. (Thirty percent felt they were treated unfairly in terms of hours).

-25) to about .35 (or -.35) indicate a moderate correlation. Correlations with absolute values greater than .4 are considered strong. Correlations reported as moderate or strong are all statistically significant in this sample.


2.3 Satisfaction Variables relating to supervision/mentoring were the best predictors of satisfaction. Interestingly questions concerning the applicability of RA duties to the students’ research (Qs 3 and 16) were unrelated (r=-.04) or in the case of question 16, weakly related (r= -.16). Question 15 asked about applicability to students’ professional development and that showed a strong relationship (r=. 43).

Strong Correlations between Satisfaction and various items:

• Q 17, Appropriate Training/support, r=.61 • Q 18, Adequate resources, r = .60 • Q 7, Clarity of instructions, r = .51 • Q 13, Perceived fairness of hours, r = .44 • Q 15, Duties applicable to my prof training, r = .43 • Q 5, Clear expectation of work load r = .36 • Q6, Opportunity to discuss workload r = .35

Moderate correlations between Satisfaction and various items:

• Q 11, expected hours versus actual hours, r = .28 Clearly the key to increasing satisfaction lies with improving mentoring: providing appropriate resources, training, support, clear instructions, good communication about expectations and a fair workload. Appendix C shows the correlations among selected questions for RAs.

2.4 Hiring Unit Level Results We divided hiring units into 3 groups, based on their mean satisfaction scores. We eliminated units with fewer than 3 respondents. The number of respondents in each department varied significantly, so looking at individual department scores is not meaningful. The 17 most satisfied departments for Ras are listed below, in alphabetic order, with the number of respondents in parenthesis. Their means varied from 1.0 to 1.4 on the Satisfaction measure. One hundred and sixteen RAs are in this high satisfaction group.

Cellular & Molecular Medicine (3) Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics (7) College of Nursing (3) College of Optical Sciences (29) Economics (3) Immunobiology (3) Interdisciplinary Graduate Program Admin (17) Linguistics (7) Management and Organizations (3) Management Information Systems (3)


Molecular and Cellular Biology (8) School of Anthropology (6) School of Information (4) School of Plant Sciences-Res (5) Speech Language & Hearing Science (4) Teaching Learning Sociocultural Studies (6) Tree Ring Laboratory (3)

The 17 least satisfied departments for RAs are listed below, in alphabetic order, with the number of respondents in parenthesis. Their means varied from 1.7 to 2.3 on the Satisfaction measure. There were 120 students in these least satisfied departments.

Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering (19) Agricultural Resource Economics (3) Biomedical Engineering (7) Biosystems Engineering (6) Chemical & Environmental Engineering (11) Community Environment & Policy (4) Disability and Psychoeducational Studies (3) Ecology & Evolutionary Biology (3) Educational Policy Studies (3) Epidemiology and Biostatistics (5) GIDP Neuroscience (6) Materials Science & Engineering (3) Mathematics (4) Medicine (4) School of Natural Resources & Environmental Research (17) School of Government & Public Policy (5) Systems and Industrial Engineering (17)

Table 4 dramatically shows some of the differences between units with high and low satisfaction.


Table 4. RAs in High and Low Satisfaction Units

RAs in High Satisfaction Units

RAs in Low Satisfaction Units

Were you given clear instructions by your supervisor about how to go about your duties and how much effort to put into each task? Frequently 58% 31% On occasion 36% 58% Never 6% 12% Which statement best describes your experience? The number of hours I worked over the course of the semester was fair for the FTE for which I was hired.

83% 62%

The number of hours I worked over the course of the semesters exceed the FTE for which I was hired.

17% 38%

The RA duties I performed were directly applicable to my own professional training as an Academic. TRUE 78% 58% Mostly TRUE 21% 37% FALSE 1% 5% I received appropriate training and support to succeed as an RA. AGREE 60% 40% Mostly AGREE 32% 42% Disagree 3% 10% Strongly disagree 4% 8% I was provided adequate resources to do my RA job AGREE 68% 47% Mostly AGREE 30% 45% Disagree 1% 3% Strongly disagree 1% 6%

More details are in the appendices..

3. TA Survey Results As of Fall 2017, TAs teach 13.8% of our Student Credit hours (down slightly from 15% in 2016) and represent 29% of our undergraduate instructors of record. Improving the TA experience, therefore, is not just important for TAs but also for our undergraduate teaching mission. One thousand six hundred and ninety-five surveys were sent and 809 returned. Table 5 shows response rate by college and gender. As with the RA results, women were more likely to respond (55%) versus men (41%).


Table 5. TA Survey Response Rate

Responses Solicited Responses Percent Responses

College M F Total M F Total M F Total Academic Inits & Stdnt Success 1 1 0 0% 0% CALS Cooperative Ext 1 1 1 1 100% 100% Col Arch Plan & Landscape Arch 18 12 30 9 7 16 50% 58% 53% College of Agric and Life Sci 26 57 83 11 36 47 42% 63% 57% College of Education 12 38 50 4 22 26 33% 58% 52% College of Engineering 79 10 89 52 9 61 66% 90% 69% College of Fine Arts 63 67 130 19 33 52 30% 49% 40% College of Humanities 65 110 178 25 59 86 38% 54% 48% College of Medicine - Tucson 11 10 21 5 7 12 45% 70% 57% College of Nursing 1 6 7 1 1 0% 17% 14% College of Optical Sciences 19 10 29 9 7 16 47% 70% 55% College of Public Health 26 45 71 15 26 41 58% 58% 58% College of Science 257 159 417 97 87 184 38% 55% 44% College of Social & Behav Sci 174 228 402 73 123 196 42% 54% 49% Disability Resource Center 2 2 0 0% 0% Eller College of Management 93 67 160 27 30 57 29% 45% 36% Graduate College 10 13 23 4 8 12 40% 62% 52% University of Arizona South 1 1 1 1 100% 100%

TOTALS 855 836 1695 351 456 809

41% 55% 48%

The TA surveys covers much of the same material as the RA survey. Appendix B shows the survey. Appendix D shows the correlations among the questions.

3.1 Overall Results Like the RAs, 94% of TAs work in only one department. Fewer TAs than RAs were .5 FTE: 56% versus 70%. The variation in responses to all questions were large, so as with the RAs, there are few differences between groups which are meaningful. TAs’ reported primary duties are:

• 27% were sole instructor for a course • 19% ran lab sections • 9% ran discussion groups • 36% were graders • 9% reported other duties

Not surprisingly, those who had been TAs for more semesters were more likely to be sole instructors. Like for the RAs, responses were generally positive:


• Most reported being satisfied (58%) or mostly satisfied (33%) with their TAship. • 94% felt their duties were directly applicable or mostly applicable to their own professional

training. • 87% agreed or mostly agreed with the statement “I received appropriate training and support

to succeed as a TA.” • 92% agreed or mostly agreed with the statement “I was provided adequate resources to do my

TA job.”

Seventy-two percent reported that their “supervisor told me what was expected and gave me an estimate of the number of hours I’d likely be working each week.” This is better than what RAs reported, but still shows room for improvement.

3.2 Workload Table 6 shows responses to “What is the TYPICAL number of hours you worked in any one week?” for only those TAs who were .5 FTE (N= 450).

Table 6. Typical Hours TAs Worked in a Week.

Hours reported % reporting Fewer than 5 hours 4% 5 to 10 hours 20% 10-15 hours 23% 15-20 hours 30% 20-25 hours 15% 25-30 hours 6% More than 30 hours 2%

Twenty- three percent of those working .5 FTE reported working more than 20 hours in a typical week and only 8.4% reported working more than 25 hours. This is in sharp contrast to the results for RAs, about a third of whom reported working more than 30 hours in a typical week. Two percent reported that the maximum number of hours they worked exceed 30 hours. Forty percent reported that their maximum number of hours exceeded 20. These results are consistent with Question 11 in which 68% (of all TAs no matter their FTE) said they worked about the number of hours they expected. Twenty-two percent reported working more than they had expected. Question 12 asked how their workload compared to peers: 67% reported working about the same as other students in their unit. Twenty- five percent reported working more hours.

3.3 Perceived Fairness Seventy-seven percent of TAs felt their hours were fair. This was moderately correlated with having been given clear expectations of workload (r=.31), clear instructions (r=.31) and the opportunity of discuss workload (r=.27). Perceived fairness was strongly correlated with having maximum of hours


(r=.50), minimum hours (r=.42), typical hours (r=.51), and having higher than expected hours (r=.57). Surprisingly none of the questions were correlated with perceiving that their hours were fair compared to their peers.

3.4 Satisfaction Satisfaction was strongly correlated with having

• Q17, Adequate resources (r=.56), • Q16, Received appropriate training and support (r=.54), • Q7, Clarity of instructions (r=.44) • Q14, Fairness of workload (r=.44) • Q15, The work related to their professional development (r=.43), • Q11, Having worked about the number of hours they expected (r=.43) • Q10, The typical number of hours they worked (r= .38). • Q5, Clear idea of expected workload (r=.37).

Satisfaction was moderately related to • Q6, Opportunity to discuss their workload (r=.34)

3.5 Results by Hiring Units We divided hiring units into 3 groups, based on their mean satisfaction scores. We eliminated units with fewer than 3 respondents. The number of respondents in each department varied significantly, so looking at individual department scores is not meaningful. The 22 most satisfied departments are listed below, in alphabetic order, with the number of respondents in parenthesis. Their means varied from 1.0 to 1.33 on the Satisfaction measure. Note the total number of TAS in these units equals 170.

Accountancy (11) Africana Studies (4) Animal & Biomedical Sciences-Ins (8) Architecture (11) Biomedical Engineering (3) Biosystems Engineering (3) Chemical & Environmental Engineering (4) Communication (10) Computer Science (5) Economics (12) Family & Consumer Science (10) Hydrology & Atmospheric Science (7) Information Sciences (7) Management Information Systems (9) Management (19) Mining & Geological Engineering (5)


Molecular and Cellular Biology (3) Optical Sciences 16) Planetary Sciences (3) Planning Degree Program (3) Religious Studies and Classics (9) Speech Language & Hearing Science (8)

The 22 least satisfied departments are listed below, in alphabetic order, with the number of respondents in parenthesis. Their means varied from 1.6 to 2.1 on the Satisfaction measure. Note the total number of students in these units equals 321, suggesting that departments with more TAs are more likely to be dissatisfied. Note this was not the case for RAs. About the same number of RAs were in the satisfied group as the satisfied group. The differences between TAs and RAs and between satisfied and dissatisfied TAs is statistically significant (Chi-square with Yates correction=13.5, p<.05). It may be that TAs involved with larger classes are faced with special challenges.

Anthropology (11) Art (18) Chemistry & Biochemistry (52) Cognitive Science (3) English (69) Epidemiology and Biostatistics (5) French and Italian (4) Gender and Women’s Studies (3) Geography & Development (13) Government & Public Policy (12) Linguistics (15) Marketing (3) Middle Eastern and Mid- African Studies (10) Music (24) Natural Resources (3) Nutritional Sciences (6) Philosophy (8) Physics (20) Plant Sciences-Ins (6) Sociology (13) Teaching Learning and Sociocultural Studies (15) Theatre Film & Television (8)


Table 7. TAs in High and Low Satisfaction Units

TAs in High Satisfaction Units

TAs in Low Satisfaction Units

Were you given clear instructions by your supervisor about how to go about your duties and how much effort to put into each task? Frequently 67% 36% On occasion 30% 49% Never 2% 15% Which statement is most true for you? In general, I worked fewer hours than I’d expected

16% 8%

In general, I worked about the number of hours that I’d expected

69% 63%

In general, I worked more hours than I’d expected.

14% 29%

Which statement best describes your experience? The number of hours I worked over the course of the semester was fair for the FTE for which I was hired.

88% 70%

The number of hours I worked over the course of the semester exceeded the FTE for which I was hired.

12% 30%

The TA duties I performed were directly applicable to my own professional training as an Academic. TRUE 57% 49% Mostly TRUE 41% 43% FALSE 2% 7% I received appropriate training and support to succeed as an TA. AGREE 72% 39% Mostly AGREE 23% 43% Disagree 2% 9% Strongly disagree 2% 8% I was provided adequate resources to do my TA job. AGREE 81% 44% Mostly AGREE 19% 41% Disagree 0% 7% Strongly disagree 0% 8%

4. Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction is one of the most researched areas in workplace psychology and can inform our work with GAs. We know satisfaction is determined not just by characteristics of the job, but also by the individual’s disposition. As part of the extensive Twin Studies done at The University Of Minnesota,


Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, and Abraham (1989)3 looked at identical twins reared apart and found that approximately 30% of the observed variance in general job satisfaction resulted from genetic factors. That is, twins reported similar levels of satisfaction even though the jobs they held were quite different and in different companies. Presumably the other 70% of the variance in job satisfaction is influenced by characteristics of the job and the workplace environment. In other words, even perfect environments will not yield 100% satisfaction. There are various models of job satisfaction. Field (2008)4 is a standard one:

GAships have many of the factors leading to dissatisfaction and our results show a strong relationship between the factors listed above and satisfaction. In addition to these aspects of jobs, Equity theory says people compare their job situation to others and feel dissatisfaction if they do not believe they are treated fairly. Our data, too, show that students who believe they work more than their peers are lower in satisfaction. Comments, too, include statements that TAs in other departments or other universities are treated better or that adjuncts and instructors are paid more for the same work. Comments show that some students believe in an unfair system whereby, for example, the university classifies them as ‘exempt’ to exploit them. (The federal government specifically classifies GAs as exempt.) Such misconceptions need to be corrected. Departments can help by providing students with appropriate

3 Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N.L., & Abraham, L.M., ‘Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 7,4, 1989, pp. 187.

4 Field, J. (2008). Job Satisfaction Model . Retrieved from http://talentedapps.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/job-satisfaction-model-for-retention/.


comparison data and context. Departments should also monitor student concerns so that discontent does not spread.

5 Improving the GA experience The Graduate College is working on several initiatives with an eye toward improving the GA experiences: (1) creating a Graduate Faculty with criteria for membership and evaluation to include the quality of GA supervision. (2) developing new graduate policies for GA workload. The Graduate Center continues to add new programing, much of which is directed at GA and GA supervisors. Mentoring is key, with emphasis on clarifying expectations and ensuring students know how to perform the required tasks. We need to control expectations. As much as possible, offer letters need to lay out expectations and student rights. The Graduate College provides model letters. We are adding links to resources to that letter. Graduate Handbooks need to spell out expectations and what students should do when demands exceed expectations. Orientations for GAs need to address expectations; Appendix G shows guidelines for orientations. We have created an expectations form for faculty to communicate with students their expectations for the upcoming assistantship. Appendix H shows a suggested form. Our results show 28% of TAs and 43% of RAs were not told what to expect regarding workload. These numbers are alarming and suggest that we cannot rely on voluntary compliance.

GA mentoring must include evaluation. We now require that GAs be given written feedback at the end of their assistantship (https://grad.arizona.edu/funding/ga/end-term-evaluations), but not all programs follow through with this. Many faculty do not know of this requirement. We are developing a system whereby faculty must submit a copy of these evaluations to the Graduate College. In addition, the Graduate College has developed the voluntary TA and RA conversations form: “The University of Arizona requires that each person occupying a Graduate Assistant/Associate Teaching (GAT) or Graduate Research Assistant/Associates (GAR) position must receive a written performance evaluation from his or her faculty supervisor at the end of each term, regardless of the specific duties.

“The end of the term GAT or GAR evaluation is intended to be a tool for both the student and the department to monitor and facilitate teaching improvements and assist with the GA’s professional development. The Graduate College has designed a Career Conversations form that emulates the one used for other University employees (TA Conversations and RA Conversations). However, individual departments are welcome to designate the flow, format and rubric for the end of the term evaluations that meets the department’s needs. The hiring unit is responsible for keeping the individual assessment forms on file (making sure to give a signed copy to the student), and are also responsible for completing the GA Teaching Evaluation Form to show the overall assessment of all GATs hired for the entire department.” https://grad.arizona.edu/funding/ga/end-term-evaluations

The TA/RA Conversations form is currently optional, but the Graduate College is considering making it obligatory.

Training for faculty must be enhanced and must be mandatory. Optional workshops for mentors are inadequate since the problem mentors are least likely to go. Training for RA supervisors should include


Project Management Training. The Graduate College will reach out to Discovery, Research and Innovation to develop appropriate training. Faculty and departments must be held accountable. All faculty must be responsible for treating their GAs fairly and ensuring they are given good mentorship. Departments should include GA supervision in annual evaluations and provide help for faculty who are below par. GA supervision should be included in annual reviews as well as in the promotion and tenure process. Deans should consider GA satisfaction in their evaluation of department heads. The Graduate College will work with Provost’s Faculty Affairs office to develop a plan on how to hold faculty accountable for GA supervision ideally through annual faculty evaluation and P&T. The APR self study should also include information on GA training and supervision. Accountability cannot be only at the program level; problem individuals must be confronted and their behavior addressed. Policies and procedures must support good GA practices. The Graduate College is committed to finding ways to create structures to monitor and evaluate assistantships. Our GA/RA conversations form, our proposed GA Expectations Form, and our enforcement of written supervisor evaluations are first steps. We call on the Provost Office to enhance faculty and departmental evaluation to include GA supervision. We also will reach out to the Office of Research, Discovery, and Innovation for ways to improve the RA experience. Culture must be changed so that we shift our thinking from an assistantship is financial aid to an assistant ship is professional development. GA support within departments needs to link assistantships to a student’s academic career as well as their long term employment goals. For example, TAs need to know the realities of the job market—what courses are they likely to be teaching once they find academic jobs? Some have the expectation that, even as TAs, they should be teaching only in their research areas. Some seem to think that as faculty members they will not be grading. GAs want to be treated as partners in instruction or research. TAs being closer to the undergraduates they teach, their input into course content and structure should be encouraged and valued. RAs can bring fresh perspective to research. Mentoring for both TAs and RAs needs to include non-academic employment. Workload issues musts be addressed. While most students feel their workload is fair (70% of RAs and 77% of TAs), it is clear that some supervisors exploit students. While the number of exploited GAs is relatively small, the problem is widespread, across programs. The responses to open-ended questions should be a wake-up call to advisors and departments. Some faculty and departments view working excessive hours as paying one’s dues. This attitude must change. We believe an expectations form to communicate with students their expectations for the upcoming assistantship will help. The Graduate College will also create a workload management module for TATO. We must find what departments are doing right and what they are doing wrong. To that end, the Graduate College will visit departments with high satisfaction and low satisfaction to discover beneficial practices as well as problematic ones. Results from these discussions will lead to better training for faculty and to better GA policies. We must find ways to incentivize programs and faculty to follow best practices.


TA training needs to be improved. TA training appears to vary widely by program and some programs provide very little. Central efforts can be improved, but there is no substitute for discipline-specific training and close supervision of TAs. All TAs need feedback and processes need to be in place to ensure frequent and extensive feedback. We anticipate that our conversations with programs with highly satisfied GAs will lead to ideas for improving training. The Graduate College will review current TATO modules with the goal of improving them. Results from this survey, for example, suggest one hole in TA and faculty training: how to deal with the unique challenges of large classes. Students need help to advocate and negotiate for themselves. While we can help by working with mentors, DGSs need to serve as resources to students on workload issues and help them negotiate with supervisors. Formal clarification of expectations needs to come through offer letters and departmental policies. The Graduate Center will work with the GPSC to train students to work more effectively with their mentors and to ensure that students are aware of resources to help them do so. Communication must be improved. The Graduate College will identify more ways to communicate to students and programs about resources and policies related to GAs. The university offers a range of resources for graduate students, yet survey results show that many students are unaware of them. This is likely because they are distributed across many offices and advertised individually. Our website http://grad.arizona.edu/new-and-current-students is clearly insufficient. Orientations must include this information. Graduate Handbooks need to include this information since for most students, this is their main source of information about policies and resources. APRs now require departments to have the Graduate College review their handbooks. We find many are lacking and/or have incorrect information. Many are sorely out of date. We created guidelines for Graduate Handbooks (https://grad.arizona.edu/policies/academic-policies/departmental-graduate-handbooks), but despite concerted efforts most departments are not aware of this resource. We are slowly bringing Graduate Handbooks into line, but this is a slow process. Program coordinators and DGSs need to reinforce the availability of resources. Besides adding a link to offer letters, we will send an annual reminder to DGSs and Graduate Coordinators with links to resource information, links to our guidelines for handbooks and GA orientations, reminders to use the new expectation form and the new RA Conversations tool as well as an end of semester evaluation. Our stipends are too low. The Graduate College has been able to increase stipends modestly, but we lag behind our peers. Not only does this negatively impact our recruitment, retention, and satisfaction, it also leaves our students with serious debt. The Survey of Earned Doctorates shows we have fewer students without debt (50.6%) compared to other R1s (58.4%). We also have more students with debts over $30,000 (24.8%) versus other R1s (21.0%). The Graduate College cannot solve this problem alone. We need institutional action. In sum, overall most GAs are satisfied, but there are pockets of dissatisfaction that must be addressed. The Graduate College cannot solve these problems alone. As the proverb says “It takes a village.”


Appendix A

RA Survey 2019 Dear Graduate Research Assistant/Associate (RA), we are studying workload of all RAs and need your input to improve the RA experience. Your responses will be confidential. 1. How many semesters have you been an RA at UA? • This is my first semester (1) • This is my second semester as an RA (2) • This is my third semester as an RA (3) • This is my fourth semester as an RA (4) • I have been an RA for five or more semesters (5) For the next questions, please answer based on your Spring 2019 RA experience. 2. Were you hired most recently as an RA by more than one department or program? • Yes . If so, consider the department or program with the higher FTE. If the FTEs are the same, consider your home department or program. (1) ____________________ • No. What department or program hired you? (2) ____________________ 3. What were your primary duties? • Conducting research that will be the main research for my dissertation or thesis. (4) • Conducting research that will be part of my dissertation or thesis. (3) • Conducting research for a PI which will not be part of my own dissertation or thesis. (2) • Other (1) ____________________ RAs are classified as ‘exempt’ which is a category for professional level employees. This is distinguished from hourly employees who are paid by the hour. As an exempt employee, you are hired for a job and you are expected to work whatever hours are necessary to accomplish the job. You are guaranteed your whole salary no matter how few or how many hours you work in a particular week. So, individuals in the same unit, at the same level are paid the same but will most likely differ in how many hours are necessary to complete their research duties. Further, workload may differ at different times of the semester. So some weeks you may work fewer hours and more in other weeks. Typically RAs are hired either as .25 (about 10 hours/week) or .5 FTE (about 20 hours/week) which serves as a general guideline for workload expectations. 4. What FTE (full-time equivalent) were you hired for: • half time (.5 FTE) (3) • quarter time (.25 FTE) (1) • one third time (.33 FTE) (2) • Other (0) ____________________ 5. When you were hired, were you given a clear idea on your expected workload? • Yes, my supervisor told me what was expected and gave me an estimate of the number of hours I’d likely be working each week. (1) • I learned from other students what workload to expect. (2) • No one talked to me about expected workload. (3)


6. During the semester did you have an opportunity to discuss your workload with your supervisor? • Yes (1) • No (2) 7. Were you given clear instructions by your supervisor about how to go about your duties and how much effort to put into each task? • Frequently (1) • On occasion (2) • Never (3) 8. Thinking back over the whole semester, what is the MAXIMUM number of hours you worked in any one week? • Fewer than 5 hours (1) • 5 to 10 hours (2) • 10-15 hours (3) • 15-20 hours (4) • 20-25 hours (5) • 25-30 hours (6) • more than 30 hours (7) 9. Thinking back over the whole semester, what is the MINIMUM number of hours you worked in any one week? • Fewer than 5 hours (1) • 5 to 10 hours (2) • 10-15 hours (3) • 15-20 hours (4) • 20-25 hours (5) • 25-30 hours (6) • more than 30 hours (7) 10. Thinking back over the whole semester, what is the TYPICAL number of hours you worked in any one week? • Fewer than 5 hours (1) • 5 to 10 hours (2) • 10-15 hours (3) • 15-20 hours (4) • 20-25 hours (5) • 25-30 hours (6) • more than 30 hours (7) 11. Which statement is most true for you? • In general, I worked fewer hours than I’d expected. (1) • In general, I worked about the number of hours I’d expected. (2) • In general, I worked more hours than I’d expected. (3)

12. Which statement is most true for you? • I worked about the same total number of hours as other students in my unit (with the same FTE). (2) • I worked more total hours than other students in my unit (with the same FTE). (3)


• I worked fewer total hours than other students in my unit (with the same FTE). (1) 13. Estimate what percentage of your time you typically spent each week on the following tasks (should total 100%): ______ Meeting with your supervisor/research group (1) ______ Running experiments/doing active research (2) ______ Preparing/planning for research activities (3) ______ Reviewing literature (4) ______ Writing up results (5) ______ Maintenance/upkeep of lab facilities or similar work outside of a lab (6) ______ Other (7) 14. Which statement best describes your experience? • The number of hours I worked over the course of the semester was fair for the FTE for which I was hired. (1) • The number of hours I worked over the course of the semester exceeded the FTE for which I was hired. (2) 15. The RA duties I performed were directly applicable to my own professional training as an Academic. • TRUE (1) • Mostly TRUE (2) • FALSE. Please explain: (3) ____________________ 16. Approximately what percentage of your time as an RA was spent on projects that support your own research agenda (including, for example, papers and presentations on which you will be an author or for your dissertation research)? ______ (1) 17. I received appropriate training and support to succeed as an RA. • AGREE (1) • Mostly AGREE (2) • Disagree (3) • STRONGLY disagree. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed, please elaborate: (4) ____________________ 18. I was provided adequate resources to do my RA job. • AGREE (1) • Mostly AGREE (2) • Disagree (3) • STRONGLY disagree. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed, please elaborate: (4) ____________________ 19. Looking back over my most recent RA experience, • I am satisfied with the experience (1) • I am mostly satisfied with the experience (2) • I am dissatisfied with the experience. Please elaborate: (3) ____________________ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. We appreciate your assistance in helping us improve the RA experience at the University of Arizona.


Appendix B. TA survey TA Survey 2019

Dear Graduate Teaching Assistant/Associate (TA), we are studying the workload of all TAs and need your input to improve the TA experience. Your responses will be confidential. 1. How many semesters have you been a TA at UA? • This is my first semester (1) • This is my second semester as a TA (2) • This is my third semester as a TA (3) • This is my fourth semester as a TA (4) • I have been a TA for five or more semesters (5) For the next questions, please answer based on your Spring 2019 TA experience. 2. Were you hired most recently as a TA by more than one department or program? • Yes. If so, consider the department or program with the higher FTE. If the FTEs are the same, consider your home department or program. (1) ____________________ • No. What department or program hired you? (2) ____________________ 3. What were your primary duties? • Being the sole instructor for a course (5) • Running lab section(s) (4) • Running discussion group(s) (3) • Grading (2) • Other (1) TAs are classified as ‘exempt’ which is a category for professional level employees. This is distinguished from hourly employees who are paid by the hour. As an exempt employee, you are hired for a job and you are expected to work whatever hours are necessary to accomplish the job. You are guaranteed your whole salary no matter how few or how many hours you work in a particular week. So, individuals in the same unit, at the same level, are paid the same but will most likely differ in how many hours are necessary to prepare to teach a course or to grade papers. Further, workload may differ at different times of the semester. Some weeks you may work fewer hours and more in other weeks. Typically TAs are hired either as .25 (about 10 hours/week) or .5 FTE (about 20 hours/week) which serves as a general guideline for workload expectations. 4. What FTE (full-time equivalent) were you hired for: • half time, 20 hours/week (.5 FTE) (3) • quarter time, 10 hours/week (.25 FTE) (1) • one third time, 13 hours/week (.33 FTE) (2) • Other (0) 5. When you were hired, were you given a clear idea as to the expected workload? • Yes, my supervisor told me what was expected and gave me an estimate of the number of hours I’d likely be working each week. (1) • I learned from other students what workload to expect. (2) • No one talked to me about expected workload. (3)


6. During the semester did you have an opportunity to discuss your workload with your supervisor? • Yes (1) • No (2) 7. Were you given clear instructions by your supervisor about how to go about your duties and how much effort to put into each task? • Frequently (1) • On occasion (2) • Never (3) 8. Thinking back over the whole semester, what is the MAXIMUM number of hours you worked in any one week? • Fewer than 5 hours (1) • 5 to 10 hours (2) • 10-15 hours (3) • 15-20 hours (4) • 20-25 hours (5) • 25-30 hours (6) • more than 30 hours (7) 9. Thinking back over the whole semester, what is the MINIMUM number of hours you worked in any one week? • Fewer than 5 hours (1) • 5 to 10 hours (2) • 10-15 hours (3) • 15-20 hours (4) • 20-25 hours (5) • 25-30 hours (6) • more than 30 hours (7) 10. Thinking back over the whole semester, what is the TYPICAL number of hours you worked in any one week? • Fewer than 5 hours (1) • 5 to 10 hours (2) • 10-15 hours (3) • 15-20 hours (4) • 20-25 hours (5) • 25-30 hours (6) • more than 30 hours (7) 11. Which statement is most true for you? • In general, I worked fewer hours than I’d expected. (1) • In general, I worked about the number of hours I’d expected. (2) • In general, I worked more hours than I’d expected. (3) 12. Which statement is most true for you? • I worked about the same total number of hours as other students in my unit (with the same FTE). (2) • I worked more total hours than other students in my unit unit (with the same FTE). (3)


• I worked fewer total hours than other students in my unit unit (with the same FTE). (1) 13. Estimate what percentage of your time you typically spent each week on the following tasks (should total 100%): ______ Being the sole instructor for a course (1) ______ Running lab section(s) (2) ______ Running discussion group(s) (3) ______ Grading (4) ______ Meeting with supervisor (5) ______ Other (0) 14. Which statement best describes your experience? • The number of hours I worked over the course of the semester was fair for the FTE for which I was hired. (1) • The number of hours I worked over the course of the semester exceeded the FTE for which I was hired. (2) 15. The TA duties I performed were directly applicable to my own professional training. • TRUE (1) • Mostly TRUE (2) • FALSE. Please explain: (3) ____________________ 16. I received appropriate training and support to succeed as a TA. • AGREE (1) • Mostly AGREE (2) • Disagree (3) • STRONGLY disagree. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed, please elaborate: (4) ____________________ 17. I was provided adequate resources to do my TA job. • AGREE (1) • Mostly AGREE (2) • Disagree (3) • Strongly disagree. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed, please elaborate: (4) ____________________ 18. Looking back over my most recent TA experience, • I am satisfied with the experience (1) • I am mostly satisfied with the experience (2) • I am dissatisfied with the experience. Please elaborate: (3) ____________________ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. We appreciate your assistance in helping us improve the TA experience at the University of Arizona.


Appendix C. Correlation Matrix--RAs

semes

ters R

A> 1

depa

rtmen

tpri

mary du

ties re

late

FTE

clear

idea o

n exp

ected

work

load

opp t

o disc

uss w

orkloa

dgiv

en cle

ar ins

tructio

ns

Max ho

ursMin

hours

Typic

al hou

rsex

pecte

d vs a

ctual

hours

hours

fair a

mong p

eer R

As

my h

ours

fair

dutie

s app

licable

to tra

ining a

s

acad

emic

% of

time s

uppo

rt own

rese

arch

agen

da

appro

priate

trainin

g and

supp

ort

adeq

uate

resou

rces

satis

factio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 191 1 0.09 -.171** -.118* 0.08 .102* .107* .198** .209** .228** 0.06 0.06 .122* 0.05 .096* 0.04 0.00 0.082 0.09 1 -0.033 -0.003 0.053 -.105* -0.002 0.024 0.012 -0.016 -0.055 -0.006 0.011 -0.041 0.089 -0.049 -0.082 -0.0313 -.17** -0.03 1 .159** -0.070 -0.092 .105* -.421** -.381** -.458** -.148** 0.009 -.161** .238** -.557** .102* 0.044 0.0384 -.12* 0.00 .16** 1 -0.047 -0.020 -0.058 -.342** -.222** -.345** .127** -0.024 -0.055 0.023 -.134** 0.051 .121* 0.0425 0.08 0.05 -0.07 -0.05 1 .307** .484** .185** .155** .178** 0.084 .118* .266** .246** 0.053 .368** .348** .357**

6 .10* -.11* -0.09 -0.02 .31** 1 .337** .197** .222** .195** .191** 0.086 .306** .198** 0.008 .335** .263** .347**

7 .11* 0.00 .11* -0.06 .49** .34** 1 .172** 0.081 .128** 0.082 .198** .284** .249** -.124* .541** .446** .508**

8 .20** 0.02 -.42** -.34** .19** .20** .17** 1 .600** .822** .337** 0.042 .431** 0.017 .312** .149** .128** .205**

9 .21** 0.01 -.38** -.22** .16** .22** 0.08 .60** 1 .801** .315** -0.010 .464** -0.037 .292** .114* 0.059 .160**

10 .23** -0.02 -.46** -.35** .18** .20** .13** .82** .80** 1 .348** 0.001 .472** -0.027 .336** .113* 0.046 .180**

11 0.06 -0.06 -.15** .13** 0.08 .19** 0.08 .34** .32** .35** 1 0.019 .466** 0.075 0.021 .172** .169** .279**

12 0.06 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 .12* 0.09 .20** 0.04 -0.01 0.00 0.02 1 .209** 0.084 -0.021 0.094 .122* .168**

14 .12* 0.01 -.16** -0.06 .27** .31** .28** .43** .46** .47** .47** .21** 1 .106* 0.092 .291** .266** .436**

15 0.05 -0.04 .24** 0.02 .25** .20** .25** 0.02 -0.04 -0.03 0.08 0.08 .11* 1 -.329** .447** .394** .431**

16 .10* 0.09 -.56** -.13** 0.05 0.01 -.12* .31** .29** .34** 0.02 -0.02 0.09 -.33** 1 -.213** -.163** -.156**

17 0.04 -0.05 .10* 0.05 .37** .34** .54** .15** .11* .11* .17** 0.09 .29** .45** -.21** 1 .578** .607**

18 0.00 -0.08 0.04 .12* .35** .26** .45** .13** 0.06 0.05 .17** .12* .27** .40** -.16** .58** 1 .600**

19 0.08 -0.03 0.04 0.04 .36** .35** .51** .21** .16** .18** .28** .17** .44** .43** -.16** .61** .60** 1

** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


Appendix D. Correlation Matrix—TAs

Appendices E and F, RA and TA Comments. Many GAs provided important and significant qualitative commentary on their experiences as TAs and RAs. The comments were largely negative because they were prompted in the survey by negative questions. Because these comments more often than not contained information that would make the contributors identifiable, and we guaranteed a confidential experience, these comments have been omitted from this public version of the report. But they helped shaped the content and recommendations of this report and they have been read and will significantly inform the decision-making of Graduate College and Institutional Leadership.

semest

ers TA

> 1 de

partm

ent

primary

duties

FTE

clear

idea o

n exp

ected

workloa

dop

p to d

iscus

s work

load

given

clear

instru

ctions

Max ho

ursMin

hours

Typic

al hou

rsex

pecte

d vs a

ctual

hours

hours

fair a

mong p

eer T

As

my hou

rs fai

rdu

ties a

pplica

ble to

trainin

g

as ac

adem

ic

appro

priate

trainin

g and

su

pport

adeq

uate

resou

rces

satis

factio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 181 1 -.124** -.253** -.127** .104** 0.057 .181** .213** .127** .197** 0.050 .082* .120** .088* .072* .133** .141**

2 -.12** 1 0.033 -0.052 0.023 -0.030 0.039 -0.031 -0.052 -0.042 -0.007 -0.022 -0.001 0.011 0.028 0.038 0.047

3 -.25** 0.03 1 .254** -.170** -.240** -.256** -.347** -.357** -.385** -.228** 0.044 -.229** 0.063 -.157** -.176** -.172**

4 -.13** -0.05 .25** 1 -.116** -.101** -.136** -.330** -.221** -.283** -0.044 0.021 -0.055 -.078* -.113** -.154** -.138**

5 .10** 0.02 -.17** -.12** 1 .364** .481** .221** .153** .193** .217** .100** .311** .215** .398** .397** .371**

6 0.06 -0.03 -.24** -.10** .364** 1 .464** .259** .195** .257** .216** .091** .274** .197** .329** .336** .340**

7 .18** 0.04 -.26** -.14** .48** .46** 1 .285** .190** .268** .205** .148** .309** .164** .495** .452** .437**

8 .21** -0.03 -.35** -.33** .22** .26** .29** 1 .621** .825** .503** 0.021 .504** .180** .267** .297** .410**

9 .13** -0.05 -.36** -.22** .15** .20** .19** .62** 1 .782** .445** -0.010 .416** 0.031 .177** .222** .288**

10 .20** -0.04 -.39** -.28** .19** .26** .27** .83** .78** 1 .551** 0.017 .511** .133** .260** .292** .380**

11 0.05 -0.01 -.23** -0.04 .22** .22** .21** .50** .45** .55** 1 -0.010 .567** .149** .237** .275** .428**

12 .082* -0.02 0.04 0.02 .10** .09** .15** 0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 1 .097** 0.043 0.030 0.019 0.048

14 .12** 0.00 -.23** -0.06 .31** .27** .31** .50** .42** .51** .57** .10** 1 .152** .274** .263** .437**

15 0.09* 0.01 0.06 -0.08* .22** .20** .16** .18** 0.03 .13** .15** 0.04 .15** 1 .328** .286** .425**

16 0.07* 0.03 -.16** -.13** .40** .33** .50** .27** .18** .26** .24** 0.03 .27** .33** 1 .613** .535**

17 .13** 0.04 -.18** -.15** .40** .34** .45** .30** .22** .29** .28** 0.02 .26** .29** .61** 1 .563**

18 .14** 0.05 -.17** -.14** .37** .34** .44** .41** .29** .38** .43** 0.05 .44** .43** .54** .56** 1

** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


Appendix G. Guidelines for GA orientations All departments must provide an orientation for their GAs. The orientation must include the following information:

• Any student who materially and actively participates in teaching or research cannot be hired as staff or student worker; they must be hired as a Graduate Assistant or Associate.

• All GAs must receive appropriate training. If students require additional training, they should ask their supervisor and/or DGS.

• Prior to beginning an assistantship, students must be given a clear description of the duties and workload. The hours must correspond to the FTE (Full Time Equivalent). A .5 FTE corresponds to half time or about 20 hours/week.

• Departments must use the attached GA expectation form or some similar instrument. This form must be signed by both the GA and the supervising faculty member before the assistantship commences. The student should receive a copy. These documents must be on file in the departmental office.

• Departments should explain the role of a GA and how it differs from various staff in the department. For example, adjuncts do not receive tuition. GA duties are part of training for their degree.

• Departments should explain the relationship of the work they are assigned to their career goals. For example, not all students, especially in their first or second years, can expect an assignment directly related to their areas of interest.

• Departmental expectations for continuation of the assistantship. • Departmental priorities and procedures for assigning assistantships, when they can

expect to know their assistantship assignment. • GAs should be told the resources available to them and how to access them. • Research Assistants hired at .5 FTE whose assignment overlaps with their own

research may work beyond their GA FTE, but that additional work should be covered by credit hours for directed research, individual studies, or thesis/dissertation hours.

• Research Assistants hired below .5 FTE may not work additional hours on the same research project for credit hours.

• Students must receive feedback throughout their assistantship and an evaluation at the end through the TA/RA conversation system.

• If students do not receive adequate feedback or supervision, they should report this to their DGS.

• GAs should use the TA/RA conversation system to provide feedback to their supervisor.

• Hours may vary slightly from week to week, but the average hours cannot substantially exceed the FTE. GAs should report to their DGS if they are required to work beyond their FTE.

• Departments must explain that the U.S. government through the Fair Labor Standards Act (and NOT the university) determines GAs to be exempt employees. Exempt status means GAs are paid salaries for the job, and unlike hourly employees, are not paid for each hour they work. They are exempt from overtime rules. Hours worked may vary somewhat from week to week and among different


GAs, but the work should average the approximate number of hours corresponding to their FTE.

• Departments should have a plan to assist students with time management so that they can successfully complete their GA duties within the hours corresponding to their FTE.

• A successful assistantship requires open communication between the student and the supervisor. Should a student have communication issues, they should discuss this with their DGS.

• Concerns about their assistantship should be brought to their DGS. If issues are not resolved, students should bring their concerns to the Graduate College.


Appendix H. GA Expectations Form (To be put online)

Workload Expectations Plan for Graduate Assistants/Associates GA name__________________________ Faculty Supervisor _____________________________ Dates of the assistantship: _____________________________________________________________ Student’s Major ___________________ Department or unit of GAship ___________________ Indicate the student’s FTE: __ .5FTE = 20 hours/week __ .33FTE = 13.5 hours/week __ .25FTE = 10 hours/week I agree to work the appropriate hours for this assistantship. ______________________________________ Student signature I agree to monitor the student’s workload so that the work does not, on the average, exceed the assigned FTE. In addition, I agree to provide regular feedback and supervision for this student. _______________________________________ Faculty supervisor signature. The supervisor should list the major duties to be performed: Supervisor Signature _____________________________ Date: ______________________________

Documents

Graduate Assistant/Associate Workload Survey 2019 · day window to complete the survey. Three email reminders were sent to all GAs who had not completed their survey every 3-4 days,