| |
 |
| 解读 4.15协议 |
|
| |
The Council of Graduate Schools has published a statement entitled "Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows, Trainees and Assistants" since the mid 1960s. The Resolution is concerned with the conditions surrounding the acceptance of offers of certain kinds of graduate student financial assistance, namely, scholarships, fellowships, traineeships, and assistantships. The general spirit of the Resolution is that students should have an opportunity to consider more than one offer and should have until April 15 to do so, that institutions and students should be able to view acceptances in force after April 15 as binding, that everyone should know what the rules are, and that an offer by the institution and its acceptance by the student constitute an agreement which both expect to honor. The Resolution acknowledges that students, after having accepted an offer, may change their minds and withdraw that acceptance. The intent of the Resolution is to provide a uniform and widely acceptable framework for so doing, one that provides protection for both student and institution.
There are several issues to be considered:
Students may be waiting for offers from several institutions so that they can compare and make a decision. One of the complaints we hear is that some departments make offers quite early and insist that students respond quickly or lose the offer. According to the Resolution, the option available to the student in this situation who wishes to review several offers is to accept each one and then, by April 15, resign from all but one. But this places the student in an awkward position and really violates the spirit of the Resolution, that is, that acceptances should not be made casually.
A better approach is for institutions to give students until April 15 to make decisions regarding appointments. Students often consider multiple offers, and this option provides a reasonable opportunity for them to do so. This would not preclude institutions asking students to accept or reject offers in a timely manner. Particularly in the case of some prestigious fellowships, institutions would like to know quickly if the student is going to decline so that the offer can be extended to someone else. An example of one university's approach to this issue is the following statement, which is sent along with the CGS Resolution:
"The Graduate School would appreciate your decision concerning the acceptance or rejection of our award as soon as you are able to give us a reply. In asking a student for an early reply, we wish it understood that the [Your University] Graduate School is not asking the student to relinquish any privilege, if it is felt necessary to wait until April 15, 20xx. However, your early response would be helpful to us in planning for the coming year.
[Your university] will consider the accompanying award offer valid until April 15 unless declined at a prior time. If your reply is not received by April 15, the Graduate School may rescind the offer of financial award."
Another part of the Resolution concerns what happens after April 15. The intent seems clear: commitments in force after April 15 can be considered by the institution as binding. Students may still change their minds but this now requires obtaining a written release from the institution. Similarly, institutions that make offers to students after April 15 are to require the student to present a written release from any previous offer.
The effectiveness of this part of the Resolution in providing universities with some assurance about who will actually be in their programs is totally dependent on how seriously it is taken by participating institutions. Obviously, if a student decides, for any reason, that he or she does not wish to attend your institution, there is not much point in insisting on it. But the language of the Resolution makes it clear that changes after April 15 constitute reneging on a commitment and are not to be taken lightly by any of the concerned parties.
The Resolution states that a copy of the Resolution should accompany every scholarship, fellowship, traineeship, and assistantship offer. This ensures that each student understands what the options are and knows which institutions subscribe to this Resolution.
The role of the graduate dean in this matter is twofold. First, from time to time--probably each year--this Resolution should be brought to the attention of graduate councils, departmental graduate committees, and other relevant groups and individuals to ensure that everyone understands and supports the Resolution. Second, when graduate deans are informed that other institutions appear to be violating the Resolution, they should contact their counterparts at those institutions to resolve the matter.
The CGS Board reviews the Resolution on a regular basis and is interested in your comments and suggestions. The long history of this Resolution, and its widespread acceptance in the graduate community, is recognition that it is regarded as a fair statement of good practice and that it serves a useful purpose. If your institution is not currently a signatory to the Resolution and you wish it to be, please let us know and we will add it to the list the next time the Resolution is reprinted. Conversely, if your institution does not wish to comply with the provisions of the Resolution, we will delete it at your request. There is no need to alert CGS if you intend to remain as a signatory. |
| 责任编辑:
wangying |
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
