The document discusses a Master's Candidate Program (MCP) at a university with over 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The MCP has 600 sophomore through senior students who need a 3.2 GPA to enroll. The program aims to help these students transition to graduate school by providing orientation, mentoring, advising and evaluating the effectiveness of these supports. Key goals are for students to understand academic and professional expectations, interact appropriately in diverse settings, and develop a sense of their role and identity in a graduate program.

1. Master’s Candidate
Co-Curricular Program (MCP)

2. Student Population Characteristics
 Driven and focused student population geared
mainly towards business
 Primarily residential students
 4,157 full time undergraduates
 1,399 graduate students
 600 students in the “Master’s Candidate
Program”

3. Who: Students in the Master’s
Candidate Program
 Students in their Sophomore through Senior Year
 General Characteristics of the Program
 Need a 3.2 GPA to enroll
 Required internship (for select programs)
 GMAT test scores waived
 General Characteristics of Student Population
 Call themselves “five-year students”
 Poor group dynamic skills
 Unprepared for graduate school
 Unprepared to declare major

4. General Learning Outcomes
 The Master’s Candidate Program will gain an identity to
which the students can relate
 The students who have enrolled in the Master’s Candidate
Program will create professional partnerships with students
who are currently enrolled in graduate school
 The students who participate in the co-curricular program
as a part of the Master’s Candidate Program will have a
better understanding of the Master’s degree they plan to
pursue
 Students will understand the key differences in academic
rigor of undergraduate and graduate programs
 Students will understand the importance of working within
a diverse learning community

5. Goals from a Self Authorship
Perspective
 Cognitive: Students will understand the
differences between academic expectations in
undergraduate and graduate programs
 Intrapersonal: Students will understand their role
in a master’s program
 Interpersonal: Students will interact with
classmates, faculty, and staff appropriately
 Students will gain a sense of self understanding
in relation to the program and other Master’s
Candidates.
Baxter Magolda& King, 2004, p. 312.

6. Discrepancies Between Goals and
Students’ capabilities
 Master’s students with several years of work
experience openly express disdain about sharing
class with recent college graduates
 New college graduates express high levels of
discomfort participating in a class with seasoned
professionals
 Faculty favors opinions of the mature students
 Differing views and approaches from faculty and
different functional areas
 Top down pressure to achieve public recognition and
rankings by encouraging students in the graduate
school direction
 Disagreement about admissions requirements
Thompson, G. (2011).

7. Differences
Undergraduate Graduate
 Attention from faculty  Faculty expect more
autonomous abilities
 Classes mainly  Classes include a
comprised of peers variety of ages,
experience levels, and
 Campus life backgrounds
 First time away living  Commuting to school,
away from financial responsibilities
 Transition into a
family, initial transition professional in your
into adulthood field

8. Points of Contact
 Undergraduate admissions and application
processes
 Orientation
 Faculty
 Mentor Program
 Advising

9. Program Identity
 Why?
 Students need to “make meaning” through the Master’s
Candidate program
 They need to bring the identity of the program closer to their
core (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007)
 Learning Partnerships Model- assumption 2: self is central
to knowledge construction (Baxter Magolda, & King, 2004)
 How?
 Typical events such as orientation, social gatherings, and
informal meetings may be able to accomplish this
 We believe it will also be effective for students to not only
meet with everyone who is pursuing the five year program
but those who are pursuing specific masters degrees

10. Admissions Process
 Changes in the Application Process
 One set deadline
 Students must submit their application for enrollment by the end of their sophomore year (or
end of first semester junior year at the latest)
 Required materials
 3.2 GPA
 Internship set up to run concurrently with the co-curricular program
 Admissions Essay #1
 Why do you want to be in enrolled in the Master’s Candidate Program? What do you
think you will gain in achieving a Master’s degree in five years?
 Admissions Essay #2
 Please interview a professional in the field of study you wish to pursue. Please include
the following in your essay:
o Why is this the field of study you have chosen?
o What did you like and dislike about their career?
o What did you find surprising about their career?
o What do you think you can contribute if you became a part of this career field?
 Application Committee
 Faculty members of each Master’s degree (6)
 Graduate School Advisors (3)
 Currently enrolled students (2)

11. Why change the Admission Process?
 In general, students don’t know what they want to
pursue in their lives (Pizzolato, 2003)
 Going out into the field creates a learning
environment that is intentionally structured to
generate their own idea of program benefits
(Ignelzi, 2000)
 Helps establish a set a sequence of
developmental goals that leads students towards
self-authorship (Taylor & Hanes, 2008)

12. Evaluate Effectiveness: Admissions
Process
 Evaluations by the faculty of the caliber of the
students that are in the program
 Assessment to occur once the students who
participate in the new admission process
matriculate into the graduate program
 Assess the number of students who change the
degree they decide to pursue once accepted into
MCP

13. Orientation
 Week before students start masters program
 Expectations (Faculty)
 How you are expected to behave
 How the work will be different
(Ignelzi, 200). (Taylor & Haynes, 2008).

14. Orientation
 Alumni Panel
 Get faculty recommendations as to who to invite
 Guide the conversation topics
 Discuss how they apply their classroom knowledge
 Discuss how students can utilize graduate school to their
advantage
 Goal Setting
 Faculty member facilitate goal setting for what
students hope to gain personally, academically, and
professionally over the next year
 At end of first semester, students will reevaluate
their initial goals and determine progress thus far
Baxter Magolda&
King, 2004, p. 323

15. Mentoring Program: Fast Facts
 Mentors: First year graduate students who were
accepted into the Master’s Candidate Program
(MCP) as undergraduates
 Mentees: Junior year students who have been
accepted into the MCP
 Mentor Requirements:
 First year graduate students are required to serve
as mentors.
 Mentor training will occur in the summer during
Graduate School orientation

16. Mentor Program: How it works
 Mentees are paired up with Mentors based on their
degree choice
 Structured events throughout the year with facilitated
programs and workshops to discuss current topics
 Monthly check-in meetings with professional staff
 All mentors are required to be present at meetings
 Opportunity to set up one-on-one’s with professional
staff if needed
 Purpose of meetings:
 Monthly status checks on how relationship is progressing
 Ability for pro-staff to share any vital information mentors may
need
 Ability for mentors to create relationships with one another and
bounce ideas/concerns/questions about mentoring

17. Why a Mentoring Program?
 Build a bridge for students of support and challenge from
undergraduate to graduate school
 Mentees are challenged through their graduate level coursework
 Mentees are supported through interactions with mentors and
peers
 Addresses the three assumptions of learning (Baxter Magolda&
King, 2004)
 Allows knowledge to be socially constructed
 Allows expertise and authority on knowledge to be shared among
peers
 Puts self as central to constructing knowledge
 Mentees may want to strive to perform better academically with
the guidance of their mentor (Fries-Britt, 2000)
 Mentor self-reflection
 Allows Mentors to realize their own personal development
towards authoring their own like (Ignelzi, 2000)

18. Evaluate Effectiveness: Mentor
Program
 Self reflection essays
 Occur twice during the program (mid year and end of the
year)
 Reflecting on the value of the mentor relationship
 The ability of the mentor program to prepare themselves for
graduate school
 Reflect on the merits of the mentor program
 Required by both mentors and mentees
 Faculty evaluations
 Did the mentor program allow for an easier transition
from undergraduate to graduate?
 Are the new graduate students more prepared to play
integral roles in group work?

19. Advising
 Academic Advising
 Paper writing and research
 Learning how to select a program: What Does it Mean to
be a Graduate Students
 Career Services
 Resume writing
 Internship Searching
 Professional Behavior and Correspondence
 Career exploration
 Types of Interviewing styles: What to Expect and How to
Prepare
 Networking and Informational Interviewing
 Residence Life
 Living on your own (apartment hunting)

20. Advising
 Junior/senior year meet with advisor on a regular
basis
 Am I taking the appropriate classes?
 Am I in the right mindset to be entering into the master’s
program?
(Pizzolato, 2008)
 Building the Bridge Workshop
 Facilitated by a faculty member who teaches in the
master’s program and a student affairs professional
 Master’s candidates reflect with their peers about
academic and personal success and failures
 Facilitators help students see how they have grown
during their undergraduate careers and what will change
in a master’s program
(Ignelzi, 2000)

21. Recommendations
 Students have to have at least a full time internship
between years 4 and 5
 Students should have a set deadline to apply to the
program that is at the end of first semester Junior
year at the very latest
 Application should include essays
 Students must have an informational interviews with
different masters programs
 Students must attend 80% of the programming we put
together
 Students should be required to participate in the
mentor program
 Specialized Housing

22. Questions

23. References
 Abes, E.S., Jones, S.R. & McEwen, M.K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the Model of Multiple Dimensions of
Identity: The Role of Meaning-Making Capacity in the Construction of Multiple Identities. Journal of
College Student Development, 48 (1), 1-22.
 Baxter Magolda, M. B. & King, P. M. (Eds). (2004). Learning Partnerships: Theory and models of practice to
educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
 Fries-Britt, S. (2000). Identity development of high ability Black collegians. In M. B. Baxter Magolda
(Ed.), Teaching to promote intellectual and personal maturity: Incorporating students’ worldviews and
identities into the learning process, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 82 (pp. 55-65). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Ignelzi, M. (2000). Meaning-making in the learning and teaching process. In M. B. Baxter Magolda
(Ed.), Teaching to promote intellectual and personal maturity: Incorporating students’ worldviews and
identities into the learning process, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 82 (pp. 5-14). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Pizzolato, J. E. (2003). Developing self-authorship: Exploring the experiences of high-risk college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 797-812.
 Taylor, K. T. & Haynes, C. (2008). A Framework for Intentionally Fostering Student Learning. About
Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience.

24. References
 Baxter Magolda, M. B. and King P.M. (2004). Creating learning partnerships in higher
education: Modeling the shape, shaping the model in M. B. Baxter Magolda& P. M. King
(Eds.), Learning Partnerships:Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship.
Sterling, VA: Stylus. Chapter 11 (pp. 303-332).
 Baxter Magolda, M. B. & King, P.M. (2004). Learning Partnerships Model: A framework for
promoting self-authorship. In M.B. Baxter Magolda& P. M. King (Eds.), Learningpartnerships:
Theory and models of practice to educate forself-authorship Sterling, VA: Stylus. Preface (pp.
xvii-xxvi), Chapter 1 (pp. 1-35), and (Chapter 2; pp. 37-62).
 Ignelzi, M. (2000). Meaning-making in the learning and teaching process. In M. B. Baxter
Magolda (Ed.), Teachingto promote intellectual and personal maturity:Incorporating students’
worldviews and identities into thelearning process, New Directions for Teaching
andLearning, No. 82 (pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Pizzolato, J. E. (2008). Advisor, teacher, partner: Using the Learning Partnerships Model to
reshape academic advising. About Campus: Enriching the Student
LearningExperience, 13(1), 18-25.
 Taylor, K. T. & Haynes, C. (2008). A Framework for Intentionally Fostering Student Learning.
About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience.
 Thompson, G. (2011). 5 Year program review [Class handout]. Graduate Student and
Academic Services, Bentley University, Waltham, MA.