Predicting Career Success

We were intrigued by the 10 May article by Jeffrey Mervis about ongoing studies by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) on the relationship between mode of support for graduate study and subsequent career development (News & Comment, [p. 806][1]). The Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) has looked for differences in post-training research productivity among groups of graduate students supported through different funding mechanisms. One of our studies examined three groups of students: those who had been awarded graduate support in a national competition, those who had been turned down in the national competition, and those who had received personal awards from other granting agencies. While there were statistically significant differences in the undergraduate records of the three groups, there were no significant differences in Ph.D. achievement, pursuit of postdoctoral training, employment sector, time devoted to research, publications, or role in training the following generation of students. The critical issue is finding selection criteria that relate to the desired program outcome. Suppose that the objective of a training award program is graduates who make a useful contribution to the search for new knowledge during their subsequent career. Should awardees be selected on the basis of interest in research, academic achievement, research accomplished, or some other factor? If a variety of criteria are used, what weight should each criterion bear in the selection decision? To explore these questions, the MRC surveyed a large sample of former research trainees to obtain data on variables that might be expected to serve as useful criteria when recipients of research training funds are selected. Results suggested that personal qualities, such as a critical attitude, independence, inventiveness, and curiosity (a set of characteristics that we labeled “investigative personality” were correlated with research career activity. Likewise, a set of variables that we labeled “focused energy” (qualities of determination, organization, and energy) were good discriminators of levels of research activity. Of 11 other criteria that we examined for possible use in selecting students with a predisposition for careers involving research, only one, the research orientation of the graduate training environment, showed any promise. For the sample group, undergraduate academic grades were not correlated with post-training research activity, a finding that has sparked controversy in a community where grades carry a high weight in decisions as to who gets research training awards. The MRC hopes to develop a graduate award selection process which facilitates assessment of qualities that relate to the spirit of investigation and search for new knowledge. We look forward with great interest to learning the results of the NSF and NIH studies. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5276.806