By Annamarie Leske and John T. Nardini

Every summer, many undergraduate students spend 8 weeks conducting projects as part of a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program. Many colleges and universities host their own REU programs and invite several students from all over the nation to participate. Once students come to campus, they are often paired with a research mentor and assigned on a project, which they may work on individually or in groups.

During the summer of 2021, Annamarie Leske participated in Northwestern University’s Quantitative Biology REU, which was hosted by the NSF-Simons Center for Quantitative Biology. Due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, this program was hosted virtually. Annamarie and I recently talked about her experience in this program, her advice for future REU applicants, and what’s coming next in her career.

Annamarie, please tell us a little bit about yourself.
Sure! My name is Annamarie and I am a junior at North Carolina State University (NC State). I study applied mathematics and physics (my new minor!). In November of 2020, I began undergraduate research in the Belmonte Lab at NC State. When I am not in class or researching, I am performing on the football field as one of the Pack Twirlers, here at State. Sushi is my favorite food. Yellow is my favorite color. Most importantly, my favorite karaoke song is “I Will Survive” by Gloria Gaynor (check this out if you ever need performance tips and/or outfit inspiration).

Could you tell us a little more about Quantitative Biology and Northwestern’s Quantitative Biology REU program?
Quantitative Biology is an exciting field that involves attacking biological problems from a mathematical or statistical point of view. Historically, much of biological research has been done qualitatively, presumably due to the overwhelming complexity of life. Today’s technology and big data processing capabilities have opened up biology’s horizons for new, more robust means of research. An example of a booming field in computational biology is the mathematical modeling of gene regulation, which is a highly complex system involving many, many components. We are getting better at quantifying gene regulation with the help of computers and big data processing (but it’s still a very complex task). Northwestern’s Quantitative Biology Undergraduate Summer Research Program aims to expose undergraduate students from all backgrounds and fields to mathematical techniques that they can use to further our understanding of such biological phenomena. For more info on this REU, check out this link as well as the NSF-Simons Center for Quantitative Biology webpage to learn more about the awesome work that’s being done there!

There are so many REUs held each year. How did you approach finding REU programs, and what excited you about Northwestern’s Quantitative Biology Program?
It can be a little overwhelming to navigate the REU application process. I began searching for REU programs when I started undergraduate research in the fall of 2020. I had some mathematics research experience at that point, but I felt very drawn to biological applications. For example, I had recently undergone a tonsillectomy and became beyond interested in the body’s healing process as well as intercellular function! I searched through some relevant keywords in The National Science Foundation’s REU Site Search tool and found many programs that fit my interests of biological applications in mathematics.

I also planted the REU bug in some of my professors’ ears: I mentioned being interested in research and somehow applying math to solve biological problems. Sure enough, one of my professors came across Northwestern’s Quantitative Biology REU program and sent the information my way. The rest was history!

What is the typical timeline for an REU application, and what materials did you have to send to each program? How did you ensure your application stood out from the others?
I sent in my application on January 19th and heard back on March 11th! The application materials were straightforward: a standard questionnaire containing the usual logistics (name, age, year, etc.), a few essay questions pertaining to what my research interests were and why, university transcripts, a resumé, and one letter of recommendation. All programs were a little different however; some required two or three letters of recommendation, and others required short answer questions instead of essays.

I think the most important things that helped me stand out from other applicants were (a) my letter of recommendation and (b) my essays expressing my intentions for the program. I was fortunate enough to have my research advisor write my letter of recommendation, which I think helped demonstrate that I was familiar with research, though that is not necessary for an REU. Lots of students participate with no previous research experience! More importantly, my research advisor was able to write about how passionate I am about quantitative biology from our work together on the analysis of cytoskeletal dynamics with mathematical models!

The essays were also important because they gave me the chance to share my goals for an REU and why Northwestern’s Quantitative Biology was the right choice to help me achieve these goals. I knew that I wanted more interdisciplinary experience and was looking for a program that would expose me to new fields of biology, cutting-edge mathematical methods and how to apply my previous experience to these areas. I made sure to highlight this goal in my essays with special emphasis on what meaningful progress means to me: having the ability to grow to understand concepts that were once foreign and complex. I also spent ample time researching the program’s participating faculty so that I could confidently write about those who I felt would best help me reach my goals. I referenced multiple faculty in my essays and wrote about why I was interested in their work or mentorship. I even ended up having the chance to work with a few of my choices over the course of the summer, even if they were not my principal mentor!

In terms of the writing process, some of my advisors and professors from NC State graciously looked over my essays. They helped me refine my message into exactly what I wanted to portray. Asking for help from trusted faculty definitely made a huge difference!

What is one piece of advice you would give any future REU applicants?
Ask for help! I always feel bad asking professors or advisors to look over essays or write recommendation letters because I know how much they have on their plates. Truth is, many faculty want to help you in any way they can. As my research mentor, Dr. Belmonte, put it, “We wouldn’t be where we are if our professors and advisors hadn’t written us letters of recommendations!”

Once the program started, how did you find your project and mentor? Did you work individually or as part of a team? How did you navigate all of this over Zoom?
My mentors and projects for the summer were assigned to me at the beginning. One of our essay questions prompted us to explain which participating faculty we’d be most interested in working with and why. Once the program started, I ended up working directly under three mentors (one graduate student, one post-doc student and the head PI). Some students in the REU cohort worked in the same lab group on joint projects, but most of us had our own individual tasks. It was a little tough to adjust to a new project, especially virtually, but daily Zoom meetings and frequent Slack messages made it all possible and surprisingly comfortable! Surely, the REU faculty played the largest role in creating an effortless virtual environment.

I’d love to hear a bit more about the project you were working on. Could you tell us the project your worked on, the long-term goal, and why math is necessary to answer this biological problem?
The title of my research project this year was “Topological Variation in Ommatidial Precluster Formation.” In simpler terms, my group and I were interested in how the compound eye of the fruit fly is able to develop highly organized photoreceptor patterns. We used bifurcation theory to try to uncover where bifurcation might exist within data obtained from image processing. The data involved in this project is very high dimensional and consists of vectorized pixel matrices from movies of photoreceptor clustering. Bifurcations in the data exist when the principal covariance eigenvalue of the data is significantly different from the null (randomized re-sampling) data. This data usually forms a peak in bifurcation events, but appears plateau-like in null data. This bifurcation is indicative of a state change (from an unorganized structure to an organized structure) that may hint at the mechanism causing patterning in the first place. Uncovering said mechanism is the long-term goal of this project! If, eventually, we can understand this driving force, we may be able to understand what happens in instances of “mispatterning” and thus know how and where to direct reparation efforts. This would be helpful way beyond fly eyes because patterning plays a critical role in ALL organisms’ development, including us! Mutations in patterning can affect the overall function of an organism for the worse, so learning to identify mechanisms associated with said mutations could be significant. Attacking this problem mathematically allows us to view the phenomena from a different vantage point and provides a more feasible way to determine the mechanisms causing patterning (as opposed to expressing every individual gene involved in this patterning, for example).

You mentioned you had conducted research previously. Was this project related to your previous work? Did your previous experience help you during this new project?
Technically, no. But maybe I should say not yet? My previous research with the Belmonte Lab has been on cytoskeletal dynamics, where the cytoskeleton is a network of fibrous filaments located in the cytoplasm that gives rise to cell structure and function. It’s very different from quantifying morphological differentiation in fly eyes. However, one of my Northwestern REU mentors is quite versed in cytoskeleton networks and did admit (to my excitement) that there are components of the photoreceptor clustering system where understanding cytoskeletal dynamics may be especially important! For example, there are areas of cellular contraction in the fly eye tissue with interesting dynamics – this is where there’s room for cytoskeletal dynamics analysis!

While my work in Dr. Belmonte’s lab is not directly related to what I did over the summer, the programming abilities that I learned with him and other courses proved to be extremely helpful. In fact, I was able to nearly skip over the“learning a new programming language” portion of the REU and started working on my project, thanks to my previous experience in Matlab, Unix, Python, etc. Also, the self-efficacy I developed in Dr. Belmonte’s lab became a critical feature of my summer program at Northwestern; learning to be self-sufficient was tremendously helpful for working on a research project virtually!

What does undergraduate research look like for you one a day-to-day basis? Do you spend a lot of time reading books and research articles, putting pen to paper, and/or coding on the computer?
My experience in undergraduate research has been solely computational so far. I started research at the height of the COVID pandemic where computer work was part of my daily life, so computational work was a logical option. I am lucky that I love it despite previously despising both coding and computers. A lot of my day-to-day work in research involves coding,running scripts on the high performance computer, Henry2, at NC State, and analyzing results with a combination of Python and Matlab scripts (Matlab will always have my heart, sorry Python junkies). During the academic year, I meet with my mentor every week, and we all meet with my entire lab group every few months or so.

A huge part of REUs is getting to know a cohort of your peers in the program. How did you and your peers bond during a virtual program?
The Northwestern Quantitative Biology faculty, namely Dr. Bill Kath and Tiffany Leighton-Ozmina, were incredible in providing our cohort with many opportunities to communicate and collaborate together. We had meetings every day, which were themed. For example, Mondays were seminar days, Wednesdays we did co-working, Thursdays were “Tea with Faculty” days, and we had social hours on Fridays where we got to bond, play games, and chat about life! Our cohort shared phone numbers and created a group chat to meet at other times outside of those planned. It was always great to have people to relate, vent, brag, joke, and work with!

Did you have a final report or research presentation that you gave at the conclusion of your program?
Yes! Because our cohort (QBio REU) combined forces with the Synthetic Biology REU at Northwestern, we had a large symposium to share our summer’s findings! Each student had 15 minutes to present with 5 minutes allotted for questions. It was a little intimidating to present in front of all of my very successful mentors and peers; however, my mentors made sure to help me thoroughly prepare beforehand so I knew deep down that I would be okay! The hardest part was answering the audience’s questions as you never fully know what they will ask. Despite everyone’s nerves, I think all the mentees did well! It was really impressive to hear all the progress we made over just eight short weeks.

How do you see your experience in this REU program shaping your career as a Mathematician?
This REU gave me so much more than just the tools to succeed in mathematical research – it gave me the confidence to brazenly start my career! I becameclose with and learned so much from all my peers, mentors and participating faculty in the program. I learned important new scientific and quantitative skills during the program and participating in the REU energized me and has helped me gain a new sense of trust within myself. The participants, faculty, and mentors at Northwestern made me feel like an important contributor to not only their program, but the future of research as a whole.

Now that the program has concluded, what is next for you? Will you return to your research lab at NC State, continue collaborating on this project at Northwestern, or something entirely different?
I am excited to return to Dr. Belmonte’s Lab at NC State this fall to pick up where I left off! I look forward to integrating some of the skills I have learned in Dr. Carthew’s Lab to my work with cytoskeletal networks. Who knows where it will take me!

Annamarie Leske

Biography. Annamarie Leske is a junior at North Carolina State University (NC State) studying applied mathematics and physics. When Annamarie is not in class or researching, she performs on the football field as one of the Pack Twirlers at NC State. Sushi is her favorite food, and yellow is her favorite color.

By Adam Dionne

Personally, I’ve found that there are two important ingredients to improvement: making goals and reflecting regularly. Goals are the more obvious component, since to improve you must be working towards something. But there is an important nuance in how you construct goals. Perhaps the ol’ reliable mnemonic serves best. Goals should be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time based. None of these components can be understated, and all work towards preventing an all too common pitfall: setting yourself up for failure with nigh impossible goals. For math, understanding and avoiding this pitfall is essential. Some days you will solve all the problems you face and feel like a mathematical wizard. However, most days are spent being stuck, getting questions wrong, and seemingly making “no progress”. But as a detail oriented mathematician, you might retort and ask: how does one measure “progress”? It is natural, and even built into our education, to measure progress on problems solved and correct answers given. But in math, one can make a tremendous amount of progress while failing to solve a problem. Or, dare I say, getting a problem wrong. In fact, I would argue that is precisely when one makes the most progress. So, if you want to improve at math, I’d suggest constructing goals that embrace failure, getting questions wrong, and being stuck. But this is all a lot easier said than done. This mentality is difficult, to say the least, and is most difficult precisely when it is the most important. So, to remedy this, I suggest making use of a truly critical resource for anyone: community.

So, how do we incorporate these ideas into our community? Well, I suggest that we make goals together. I also suggest that we hold each other accountable for making realistic and healthy goals, as discussed. Importantly, these steps help change improvement to a community based activity, which serves many purposes. For one, it is hard to recognize your own improvement, since it is a gradual process that sneaks up on you. This makes it easy to gaslight yourself into thinking you haven’t improved. But, it is much easier to recognize a peer’s improvement. So, if you share your goals with others, you can recognize each other’s growth, and by proxy your own. Even more importantly, these suggestions build upon and strengthen the community.

Let’s move onto the second ingredient for improvement: reflection. I believe reflection is absolutely crucial to improvement. For without reflection, important lessons and growth are being wasted. For example, let’s say you put a lot of time into working on a problem but made a mistake along the way. That mistake is a clear place for improvement. One should think about why they made that mistake, and more than just the surface level — truly investigate the process of what led to that mistake, and why you didn’t catch it sooner. People do this automatically — it is a natural process — but not with enough depth. As problems get harder and mistakes more intricate, it is important to actually devote time to this process. To spend time thinking about how you can improve and what to focus on. Reflection is making your improvement intentional and actionable, rather than an accidental byproduct of work.
And to incorporate this into our community, we simply need to reflect together. Talk about what is working and what isn’t, discuss what improvements you made, and talk about what specific lessons you have learned. This also allows others to learn from your mistakes, one of a community’s most incredible values. It also, again, strengthens the community and helps make lasting connections. At the end of the day, math is a difficult subject, and making improvements is never easy. But sharing the burden with a friend, or a mentor, makes it all the more realistic. So, I’d like to amend my starting heuristic: to improve at math you need three key ingredients: goals, reflection, and community.

Adam Dionne

Biography: I am a Mathematics and Physics double major at Williams college. I’m interested in math formalism, extremal graph theory, soft matter physics, and networks. In my free time I liked to play board games and watch movies.

William Yslas Vélez
Emeritus Professor, University of Arizona

This article presents four main points.

1. Promote the undergraduate mathematics major not only as entry into the workforce but also to prepare students for graduate programs in STEM fields.
2. Recognize the difference in the educational systems between the U.S. and other countries and the impact this has on graduate enrollment in the mathematical sciences.
3. Suggest that the AMS take a leadership role in leading the mathematical community towards a comprehensive look into the evaluation of graduate school applications.
4. Point out the lack of diversity in the graduate programs of our top research departments.

Just take one more math course

“Just take one more math course” was the lead sentence in the article [1] announcing that the Math Center at the University of Arizona (UA) had received the 2011 AMS Award for an Exemplary Program or Achievement in a Mathematics Department. The Math Center forms part of the department of mathematics and is dedicated to organizing the mathematics major program by providing advising, information about internships, research experiences and scholarships, and supporting recruitment efforts. The Center also records demographic information (citizenship, gender, ethnicity) in order to assess diversity efforts. I had taken over the directorship of the Math Center in 2003 with the goals of doubling the number of mathematics majors and increasing diversity. Rather than emphasizing outreach to increase the number of mathematics majors, I focused on reaching into enrollments in our mathematics classes, an activity I labeled as INREACH [2]. I sent emails to students enrolled in mathematics classes encouraging them to pursue further mathematical studies. At the UA, there were 30,000 undergraduate students enrolled, many of them in STEM fields. I advanced the view that the more mathematics a student took, the more opportunities would be available. I promoted the math major shamelessly. I learned early on not to suggest that a student change their major, but rather that they add mathematics as another major. This proved to be a successful strategy. When I retired in 2018, there were over 650 mathematics majors, 20% of them from minority backgrounds. Half of the graduating mathematics majors had another major or another degree. There were an equal number of mathematics minors with the percentage of minority students greater than 20%.

Most of the mathematics majors were not headed to graduate schools in the mathematical sciences, rather they were using their mathematics to make them more competitive in the job market or in applying for post-graduate studies. The mathematics major, combined with stellar grades in the students’ other fields of study, helped students gain admission into top graduate programs in STEM fields. This suggests that if mathematics departments encouraged undergraduates to increase the mathematical content of their curriculum and add the mathematics major or minor, this would increase the participation of U.S. students in STEM fields. As the data below shows, U.S. students do not constitute the majority of students in many STEM graduate programs. What should this percentage be? Certainly having graduate programs that would be 100% U.S. students would be unacceptable, as would 0%. A percentage of less than 50% is problematic. A reasonable percentage for U.S students would be between 70%-80%. After all, graduate programs in the U.S are part of the U.S. educational system. Graduate education is the economic engine in increasing the earning potential of its citizens.

Data on U.S. participation in STEM fields

Dependence on foreign oil, in the past, caused great concern in the U.S. because it endangered our national security. Yet, dependence on international students to power our graduate programs and our scientific enterprise appears to be acceptable. Exactly how dependent is the U.S. on international talent? In 2016-17 (the latest data available) international graduate students represent the majority (over 50%) in many STEM graduate programs, as Table 1 [3] shows.

For the mathematical sciences profession, we can obtain data from [4] and it shows that 51% of doctoral degrees are awarded to international students. I strongly support the age-old view of “everything in moderation” as a good guideline for our graduate programs. We have long since passed the point of moderation.

Differences in the educational systems of the U.S. and other countries

In most other countries undergraduate students arrive at a university already having been accepted into a major. Some mathematics majors take analysis in their first year of study and three or four mathematics courses per semester as undergraduate students. Here is a link to the program of study at the University of Guanajuato in Guanajuato, Mexico (http://www.demat.ugto.mx/index.php/estudiantes2/consejos-para-nuevos-estudiantes-2/licenciatura-en-matematicas). International students have often completed academic training comparable to students with Master’s degrees in the U.S..

A liberal arts education is a requirement for most U.S. students. It is not unusual for U.S. students to declare a mathematics major in the second or third year of undergraduate study and take 1-2 mathematics courses per semester. The liberal arts education gives students the opportunity to explore other areas of interest before deciding on a major. Students interested in pursuing a graduate program in the mathematical sciences may not take analysis until their last year of study. In the meantime they have developed the mathematical maturity to understand this abstraction.

Is there any evidence that this later arrival at mathematical maturity correlates with creativity, or determination or any of the other factors that impact students’ abilities to become successful mathematicians?

Rethinking the admissions process for graduate school

Graduate programs must consider two criteria when accepting students into a graduate program. Can students pass entry-level courses and the requisite examinations, and are they creative enough to write a strong dissertation? Departments want the “best” graduate students. However, contrary to mathematical culture, “best” is not defined.

Perhaps “best” means what is best for the nation? Historically, minorities lack representation in the mathematical enterprise. By attracting students from under-served populations, mathematics departments could play a vital role in addressing STEM diversity. Certainly, increasing diversity is an important goal, one of increasing importance in a country undergoing such dramatic demographic changes. Mathematics departments could follow the lead of the Math Alliance [5] (https://www.mathalliance.org/), an organization whose stated purpose is to increase the number of minority students applying to graduate programs in the mathematical sciences.

Could “best” mean what is best for the department? International students have completed coursework equivalent to a U.S. Master’s degree and have demonstrated that they understand entry-level courses. This preparation enables them to move quickly on to their research interests and this demands less teaching from the faculty.

Perhaps “best” means selecting students with the best mathematical creativity? Mathematics departments choose prospective graduate students with the highest grades and GRE math subject scores. Instead of selecting students with mathematical creativity, admissions committees choose students who excel in test-taking and mathematical knowledge. In this process, mathematics departments fail to recognize the differences between domestic and international educational systems when comparing students’ GRE scores.

When I became director of the mathematics graduate program at the UA I was given no instruction. This is so typical of the mathematics profession. In graduate school we are prepared to become researchers. When we accept a faculty position we are then expected to become effective teachers, mentors, evaluators and administrators. The AMS should bring the community together to investigate new methods of evaluating selection criteria for graduate school and to develop training for faculty in these methods. Departments have relied on standardized testing platforms, like GRE, for decades. Its effectiveness in predicting success in graduate school could be one of the projects initiated.

Sadly, there is evidence of even further bias against U.S. students being accepted into STEM graduate programs. In a 2017 article, Mervis [6] stated that university administrators were concerned that Trump’s administrative policies would result in a 30% drop in the number of applications from international students, compared with the number of applicants from 2016. The article went on to say that a smaller applicant pool allows “administrators the option of admitting students who previously would not have made the cut, including more domestic students. But educators are loath to move the bar if it would lower the quality of the talent pool.” I find it quite surprising that university administrators are so willing to disparage U.S. students in public.

The U.S. educational system sets forth the requirements needed for a student to earn an undergraduate degree from the university. Presumably this preparation has prepared students to continue to post-graduate study. Students from outside of the U.S. must complete more advanced mathematics courses in order to earn this same degree and are therefore at a distinct advantage when applying to U.S. graduate schools. What is the rationale for changing the bar other than the fact that so many international students are applying? The bar should be set at a level commensurate with the requirements set forth by our educational system. This higher bar places U.S. students in an inferior position as far as the graduate admission process is concerned.

No taxation without representation

Universities are supported by U.S. tax dollars, both state and federal. Part of that support comes from the minority population. What is the minority population getting out of this investment [7]? For the academic year 2016-17, 1957 Ph.D.s were awarded by 299 departments. How many minorities were part of this group of doctoral recipients? Among the US citizens earning doctoral degrees, 4 were American Indian or Alaska Native, 30 were Black or African American, 33 were Hispanic or Latino, and 4 were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander [4]. This is a total of 71 minority doctoral recipients! For decades, billions of dollars have been spent on mathematics graduate programs with a negligible return for the minority community. If mathematics departments are not going to include minorities in their graduate programs, then don’t take their tax dollars!

The situation for minorities is even worse at the top research universities. The Doctoral Math Private Large grouping in the AMS survey [8] consists of 24 departments with the highest annual graduating rate of Ph.D.s (23 of the 24 departments responded to the survery). This grouping contains some of the best research departments in the country yet the percentage of female Ph.D.s is the lowest of all the groupings. Moreover, this grouping reported a total of 2 minority Ph.D.s! for the academic year 2016-2017. How is this even remotely acceptable! Given that NSF has an explicit goal of increasing diversity, why are these departments supported by NSF grants?

Where are the top research departments going to find minority faculty if they are not producing any minority mathematicians? Our faculty do not represent the population of the U.S. and this is a problem that needs attention. By reconsidering the admissions process for graduate schools, top research departments could begin to build pathways for faculty positions.

Everything in moderation went by the wayside in our graduate programs

In [4] we see that almost all of the percentages of U.S. citizen doctorates are around 50% in the mathematics groupings. I am surprised that percentages of U.S. students are not higher in biostatistics. The mathematical requirements for applying to graduate programs in biostatistics are three semesters of calculus, linear algebra and probability theory. (Harvard Biostatistics: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/admissions/degree-programs/#research) and U of Washington Biostatistics: https://www.biostat.washington.edu/program/admissions/requirements). Biostatistics programs need to devote some energy towards recruitment of U.S. students.

In looking at graduate programs at different universities, I came across the mission statement from The Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications (CMSA) at Harvard:

The Center for Mathematical Sciences and Applications will establish applied mathematics at Harvard as a first-class, interdisciplinary field of study, relating mathematics with many other important fields. The director of CMSA Yau states, “The center will not only carry out the most innovative research but also train young researchers from all over the world, especially those from China”. How is Harvard finding the funds to support an effort specifically aimed at training international postdocs? The U.S. minority community does not have such funds to encourage Harvard to create such a program for U.S minorities. The purpose of the Harvard program is to train international postdocs who would then out-compete U.S postdocs in the marketplace. Is this what is best for our nation?
Curiously, I gave a presentation at JMM in Denver in January 2020 pointing to the CMSA website. Curiously, this mission statement at CMSA disappeared soon thereafter.

The role of mathematics in producing U.S. STEM graduate students

Undergraduates with a strong background in mathematics are competitive for STEM graduate programs. The U.S would benefit if mathematics departments increased the number of mathematics majors. However, it is important to realize that the goal of an undergraduate degree in mathematics is not necessarily to pursue a graduate program in the mathematical sciences. We need to communicate to students that the mathematics major at the undergraduate level can lead to a wide variety of employment opportunities. For those interested in pursuing STEM graduate studies the mathematics major will strengthen their applications.

In my own work at the University of Arizona, the outstanding graduating senior in department X was often also a mathematics major or minor. This occurred year after year and the administration took notice. Mathematics majors were an integral part of STEM education at the UA. This model is worth replicating elsewhere. Mathematics does not just reside in a mathematics department. It needs to be incorporated into STEM and by increasing the number of mathematics majors across campus, we provide a well-prepared workforce for the country and a larger pool of eligible students for graduate schools.

Increasing diversity requires extra work and dedication. The UA model shows how a commitment and an infusion of resources can help faculty accomplish this goal and carry out this meaningful work. The importance of these efforts cannot be over-emphasized. The changing demographics of the U.S. requires a concerted effort to re-examine the application process of our graduate programs and respect the education of our undergraduates.

References

1. Arizona’s Math Center Wins AMS Award, Allyn Jackson, Notices of the AMS, Volume 58, Number 5, 2015, pages 718-721. http://www.ams.org/notices/201105/rtx110500718p.pdf
2. Inreach is the new outreach, William Yslas Vélez, MAA Focus, Volume 35, Number 4, August/September, 2015, pages 4-5. https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/MAAFocus/Focus_AugustSeptember_2015.pdf
3. Data Tables, National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2017, Table 22. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19301/data
4. Report on the 2016–2017 New Doctorate Recipients Amanda L. Golbeck, Thomas H. Barr, and Colleen A. Rose, Notices of the AMS, Volume 66, Number 7, August 2019, pages 1151-1160.
5. 2017 Award for Mathematics Programs That Make a Difference, Allyn Jackson, Notices of the AMS, Volume 64, Number 5, pages 476-478. .https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201705/rnoti-p476.pdf
6. Drop in foreign applicants worries engineering schools, J. Mervis, Science, 17 February 2017, p. 676.
7. Broken Social Contract, Letter to the Editor, William Yslas Vélez, Notices of the AMS, September, 2020.
8. Departmental Groupings, The Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Annual AMS Survey. http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/groups

Author notes. The author thanks Helen Grundman for thoughtful comments on this article and for suggesting a less combative tone and to the reviewers for many helpful suggestions. This article was originally submitted to the Notices of the AMS, but after several revisions, it was rejected. The referees were very helpful and accepting their comments improved this article. Regarding the section “Everything in moderation went by the wayside in our graduate programs”, one referee commented, “This entire section needs to be removed from the paper. It does not add value to the paper and it is not at the professional level of the rest of the paper or the Notices in general.” On the streets of this nation, people are demonstrating against injustices, but apparently, the Notices will not allow minority voices to complain about the injustices suffered. In the end, I could not accept the revisions suggested.