Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Why Shrinking the Pay Gap is a Question of Dollars, Not Percentages

The gender wage gap shows no sign of improving any time soon. If anything, evidence suggests it’s growing in the United States. Recent stats show that for every dollar earned by men, women in the same job earn just 92 cents—that equates to one month of salary less in a given year. That gap widens even more for Black and other minority women. In the meantime, men’s wages are increasing—just shy of 4% in the last two years—while women’s income hasn’t budged. Organizations should take note, warn Goizueta’s Karl Schuhmacher and Kristy Towry. Wage inequity is an issue that undermines the concept of equal pay for equal work. It’s also bad for business. Employers that don’t pay or play fair with their workers stand to lose talent to competitors who offer better conditions, not to mention customers or investors who care about fairness. And that’s not all. In meritocracies, employees are incentivized to engage more, care more, and create more value because they understand their compensation is pegged to the effort they make and outcomes they achieve—to merit itself, regardless of demographics. The gender wage gap in the United States is inherently unmeritocratic. And fixing it has proved elusive—at least until now. In their new study, co-authored by Goizueta PhD graduate, Hayden T. Gunnell 25PhD of the University of Texas in Austin, Schuhmacher and Towry have come up with a novel approach to addressing the gender wage gap; one as practicable as it is simple. And it’s all down to percentages. Pay Gaps Baked In Most employers review employee salaries on an annual basis—usually yoking them to performance reviews. Overwhelmingly, managers will frame raises in terms of percentages: those doing well might be awarded a five or even 10 percent pay raise, for example. The problem with this, argues Schuhmacher, is that percentage-based raises are tied to initial salaries. And if that baseline is biased from the start, handing out similar percentage raises will only compound the problem, and perpetuate inequities—whatever the intention. If women start out getting paid less than men for the same job, and your raise budgets are framed in percentages, you end up baking those gaps in more, even if you don’t mean to. Karl Schuhmacher, Assistant Professor of Accounting “That five percent raise you’re giving everyone for the same job well done sounds fair and effective,” says Schuhmacher. “But it’s only actually fair if the initial salary is equitable—if Jane has been making the same as John from the off. And if she hasn’t—if John is being overcompensated relative to Jane—then all you’re doing is perpetuating that gap.” Awarding similar percentage raises doesn’t recognize or acknowledge preexisting, unfair discrepancies in initial salaries. A better approach, he and Towry argue, is to reframe pay raise budgets in terms of absolute dollars. “Budgeting for raises in absolute terms—a $150,000 pool for all raises in a group, say, versus a budgeted pool of 5% per person—automatically unshackles raises from preexisting unfairness in people’s pay,” says Schuhmacher. “You reduce the risk of perpetuating pay gaps by giving managers a way of assessing and evaluating work and assigning a dollar value that recognizes that work. It’s a fairer, more meritocratic approach.” It also has the effect of “nudging the cognitive processes” that employers use. Percentages are a ubiquitous way of determining raise budgets because they feel fair and easy to use, says Towry. A five percent raise for employees sounds reasonable, equitable, and doesn’t tax managers cognitively, making it simple to implement again and again—a norm or procedural “anchor” within most organizations. Substituting dollars for percentages, however, should provide enough of a nudge that managers focus more on the actual value their employees contribute to the organization. And it shouldn’t require a major rehaul of the system: a win-win for employees and organizations looking to retain talent, says Towry, where the gains significantly outweigh the effort involved. Thinking in Dollars, Not Percentages To put this idea to the test, Towry, Schuhmacher, and Gunnell enlisted Goizueta MBA students to participate in a lab experiment, taking on the role of manager at a hypothetical bank. Participants were given the salary details of four high-performing employees—two male, two female—with gender discrepancies baked into initial pay. Importantly, in this setting, male and female employees do the same job and perform equally well. Participants were divided into two camps: the first instructed to hand out percentage raises, the second dollar raises. All participants had to allocate the same pay raise budget of $30,800—5% of total salaries—among the two male and two female employees, the sole difference being that one group received a percentage budget, while the other group received a dollar budget. The results support the theory, says Towry. When participants use percentages, the individual pay raises cluster around the 5% mark, meaning that existing pay gaps are perpetuated. Kristy Towry, Professor Emerita of Accounting “Our fictional male employees, Jason and Gary, walk away with higher overall raises than Martha and Sarah, because they are already earning more than the women,” says Towry. “And this happens even though our participants know about initial pay discrepancies, and women and men perform equally well in the same job.” When participants use absolute dollars, however, this clustering effect around the 5% mark disappears. Participants give pay raises that better reflect employees’ value contributions to the organization. As such, pay raises are less dependent on initial pay gaps. In some cases, participants even award more cash to the women than the men to counteract the initial gap. “Martha ends up with a higher raise than Gary, but their initial salaries are $116,000 and $192,000, respectively,” says Towry. “So, what we’re seeing here is that our managers are asked to take out the percentage and think in dollars, they effectively redress the balance. The preexisting pay gap is reduced in recognition of equal merit.” Reproducing this in real-word settings shouldn’t be difficult for organizations. And at a time when gaps are becoming more entrenched and progress on equitable pay is stagnating in the United States, there is a clear imperative ahead of employers interested in sending clear signals to existing and future male and female talent, says Schuhmacher. Pay that reflects performance fairly is inherently meritocratic and we know that being a meritocracy is attractive to employees—to your existing workforce and to the workforce that you want to attract. Karl Schuhmacher “When people know they’re being evaluated based on their results, regardless of their gender or background, they are more motivated to work hard,” says Schumacher. “The beauty of this solution is that it supports a more meritocratic way of rewarding talent. It’s also easy to implement—easier than interventions like bias training or organizational audits that consume time and resources. Using dollars instead of percentages is something that organizations can do that translates into real impact. And it’s something that they can do in a day. Our advice: start tomorrow!”

Survey says: Senior leaders are using AI, but they could use more direction

Over the years, study upon study has shown that senior leaders are slower to adapt to new technology – email, the Internet and social media – than younger employees. That’s not necessarily so with AI, according to the University of Delaware’s Saleem Mistry. Mistry, associate professor of management at UD's Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics, recently conducted a survey of more than 200 university alumni, 75% of which had more than 16 years of professional experience. He found that senior leaders are actively adopting AI to solve their biggest challenges. However, they are doing so largely without structured support or guidance. Here are four findings from Mistry's survey that shows how AI is actually being used at the top. Senior Leaders Are Overwhelmingly Self-Taught Mistry said his most glaring finding is the gap between high AI adoption among senior leaders and the near-total absence of formal corporate support. Although a majority use these tools, they are almost entirely self-taught, which highlights visible opportunity that organizations aren’t really steering the AI conversation for leaders: • High usage. 62% of all senior leaders surveyed use AI tools "regularly" or "occasionally" in their work. • Training gap. Of those users, an overwhelming 80% report their organization provides "Never" or only "Sometimes" (mostly never) adequate training. Mistry said this shows that leaders from VP level down are using tools like ChatGPT and Copilot informally to keep up with heavy workloads, without any real organizational guidance. The stakes are high. In the survey, a vice president of legal was using AI for compliance tasks and a manager of three was using it for performance reviews, both with no formal training. “These are senior leaders handling sensitive work while essentially figuring it out on their own,” Mistry said. There is a clear ladder of AI use Leaders are not using AI randomly. There is a clear progression in how they use it, moving through three levels. • Tier 1 (The Drafters) This is the most common starting point. Leaders use AI to improve writing and communication. They draft emails, shape documents, and refine tone. As one Director of Product put it, it helps him "polish phrasing" and adjust tone and voice. • Tier 2 (The Synthesizers) At this stage, leaders use AI to manage information overload. They summarize meetings, condense documents, and pull together research so they can keep up with large volumes of input. As one leader managing a team of 200 said, "Being a leader requires attention in a variety of areas. AI helps me manage the vast amounts of information I need to consume." • Tier 3 (The Architects) Here, leaders move beyond writing and summarizing. They use AI to automate parts of their work. This includes building agents, creating custom GPTs, or designing tools that track work and performance. One leader managing 300 people said, "It will eliminate half or more of my overhead." Managers and individual contributors use AI for different reasons People managers and individual contributors (IC) are using AI for very different reasons based on their roles. • For people managers, their main challenge is scale. They are overloaded with communication and administration, so they use AI to reduce noise and keep up. They lean heavily on summarization and tone adjustment tools. • For project leads and ICs, their focus is output. They use AI to produce work faster, including drafting content, building decks, writing code, or generating ideas. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. Resistance to AI is mostly intentional Among the 38 percent of leaders who do not use AI, resistance is usually not based on lack of awareness. It falls into three groups: • The Ethical Objectors. Some avoid AI due to concerns about its broader impact. • The Quality Skeptics. Some do not trust the output and feel it is not reliable enough for important work. • The Blocked. Some are not allowed to use AI due to company policy. Mistry concludes that there is a clear overall pattern: Leaders are using AI in practical ways, but mostly without structured support or guidance. “If it feels like you are figuring this out as you go without much help from your organization, that is consistent with what most leaders are experiencing,” Mistry said. To connect directly with Mistry and arrange an interview, visit his profile page and click on the "connect" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

The Biggest Study Yet on School Cellphone Bans Shows Results Aren’t So Simple

As more schools move to restrict or completely ban smartphones in classrooms, the largest study ever conducted on school cellphone bans is challenging assumptions about what these policies actually achieve. The new U.S. study, involving roughly 4,600 schools and researchers from institutions including Stanford, Duke, the University of Michigan, and the University of Pennsylvania, found that strict cellphone bans dramatically reduced phone use during the school day. In some schools, classroom phone use dropped from 61 percent to just 13 percent. It's a popular topic and media coverage of the results has been extensive. But the findings became more complicated from there. Researchers found little immediate evidence that phone bans significantly improved test scores, attendance, classroom attention, or bullying rates. Some schools even saw short-term increases in student discipline issues and declines in student well-being immediately after bans were introduced. Still, the study suggested that longer-term outcomes may improve as students adjust and schools refine enforcement strategies. Teachers consistently reported fewer classroom distractions and stronger learning environments. Mizuko Ito is a cultural anthropologist of technology use, focusing on children and youth's changing relationships to media and communications. She recently completed a research project supported by the MacArthur Foundation a three year ethnographic study of kid-initiated and peer-based forms of engagement with new media. View her profile The findings arrive as governments across North America continue expanding school cellphone restrictions amid growing concerns about distraction, screen addiction, anxiety, and the impact of social media on youth mental health. The study highlights a growing debate among educators, parents, and researchers: while limiting phone access may reduce distractions, the relationship between young people, technology, mental health, and learning is far more complex than simply removing devices from classrooms.

Gritty like his city: How the Philadelphia Flyers' mascot went from punchline to sensation

How did Gritty, the fluffy, orange, menacing whatchamacallit that backs the Philadelphia Flyers, go from a punchline when he was rolled out in 2018 to one of sports' most well-known and beloved mascots? The University of Delaware's Matt Robinson took a shot, and scored, with some answers. Robinson, a professor of sport management at UD's Lerner College of Business & Economics, said Gritty embodies the tough attitude that Philadelphia is known for. Also, some of his bizarre features and personality traits go straight to the heart of the demeanor and history of the Flyers, who are currently battling their way through the NHL playoffs. Those are among the ingredients that go into marketing and launching a successful mascot.  Robinson can discuss the following: • Why some mascots take off and others flop. After his launch, Gritty was ridiculed as a concept on late night TV and "Saturday Night Live." But he was still garnering billions of views on social media and millions in earned media for the franchise. The Flyers kept pushing the concept despite its early unpopularity, which led to his eventual success. "Any public relations is good public relations," Robinson said. • Mascots need to be authentic. Gritty embodies the team he represents and the city that team plays in. Robinson noted Philadelphia's "grit" and love of players who play hard, like the Broad Street Bullies – the nasty group of Flyers' players who led the team to two Stanley Cup wins in the 1970s.  • The best mascots transcend sports. Robinson pointed to the film and character "Rocky," whose statue sits in the front of the city's Art Museum, as well as the city's reputation as one with a bit of an edge. "We're the ones who threw snowballs at Santa Claus," Robinson said, referring to the infamous 1968 incident when Philadelphia Eagles fans pelted Kris Kringle from the stands. • Players and coaches come and go, but the mascot stays the same. Mascots can be part of ticket sales and community engagement in the offseason, when players may not be in the city or moving to another via free agency. • Mascots offer an attachment point for fans that is not sport related. Kids respond to mascots and, from there, connection with the team, players and the sport can grow. To contact Robinson directly for an interview, visit his profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Hantavirus cruise ship outbreak: Epidemiologist discusses causes and challenges

A deadly outbreak of hantavirus on a cruise ship currently stuck off Cape Verde, Africa, has put the virus on the national radar for the first time since 1993. University of Delaware epidemiologist Jennifer Horney can talk about the potential for a larger outbreak and the challenges associated with responding to the emergency. There have been nearly 1,000 cases of hantavirus in the U.S. since surveillance began in 1993. That year, an outbreak of the severe respiratory disease in the four corners area of the U.S. Southwest was linked to domestic exposure to rodents, Horney said. Horney can discuss the following points in reference to the Dutch vessel M/V Hondius, which has seen three people die since departing from Argentina on April 1. • The response to this global public health emergency will be challenging given the cuts to U.S. public health and extensive leadership turnover at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. • Climate change and global transit likely contributed to the new cases, as rodent populations thrive during certain weather conditions. • When humans inhale rodent feces, urine or saliva, often when dust is aerosolized through cleaning, they can become infected. While symptoms may develop up to two months after exposure, the disease has a mortality rate of up to 50%. To reach Horney directly and arrange an interview, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested media can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

From Amateur Passion to Global Science: How Meteorites Tell the Story of Our Solar System

A recent article in Texas Highways traces how Oscar Monnig, a Fort Worth businessman with no formal scientific training, built one of the most significant meteorite collections in the United States. Beginning in the 1930s, Monnig identified and acquired rare space rocks, often working directly with scientists and collectors, ultimately assembling a collection that would later be donated to Texas Christian University. Today, that legacy is carried forward, and elevated, by Rhiannon Mayne, curator of the Oscar E. Monnig Meteorite Collection and Gallery. Mayne frames Monnig not just as a collector, but as a foundational figure in modern meteoritics whose contributions continue to enable global research. As she notes, his collection ensures that “decades from now” scientists worldwide will still be able to study these materials. “He was definitely one of the most important meteorite collectors of the 20th century,” says Rhiannon Mayne, the curator of the Oscar Monnig Meteorite Collection and Gallery at TCU. She adds that, although he was not a scientist, his gift enables ongoing research in meteoritics. “Decades from now, people all over the world will get to request samples to study because of him.”  Expert Insight: Turning a Private Collection into a Global Research Engine Mayne’s role is central to transforming Monnig’s passion project into a living scientific asset. Under her leadership, the collection, now one of the largest university-based meteorite repositories in the world supports both cutting-edge research and public engagement. Her work highlights a key insight: meteorites are not just curiosities, but critical records of planetary formation. By studying them, scientists can access information about the early solar system, and even Earth’s own origins that is otherwise impossible to obtain. Rhiannon Mayne is the curator of the Oscar E. Monnig Meteorite Collection, one of the world’s largest university-based meteorite collections, which also includes a world-class museum. View her profile The article ultimately becomes a story about continuity—how individual curiosity evolves into institutional impact. Monnig’s amateur pursuit laid the groundwork, but it is experts like Mayne who translate that legacy into ongoing discovery, education and global collaboration. In that sense, Mayne embodies the bridge between past and future: preserving a historic collection while ensuring it remains scientifically relevant, accessible and inspiring for the next generation of researchers.

U.S. National Debt: How to Stop the Bleeding

The U.S. national debt exceeding the size of the American economy is a dubious milestone that has sparked alarm and confusion among policymakers who are asking how worried they should be and what can be done to stop the bleeding. David Primo, a political scientist and professor of business administration at the University of Rochester and a fiscal policy expert who has testified before Congress on the national debt, says Americans should be very concerned about the debt and, at the same time, know there is a solution. “The federal budget outlook is grim and threatens the economic future of the United States,” says Primo, the author of Rules and Restraint: Government Spending and the Design of Institution (University of Chicago Press). “If Congress waits to act, Americans will need to give up a bigger piece of the nation’s economic pie to stabilize the country’s finances.” Primo says a solution lies in a constitutional amendment restraining the federal budget. Specifically, such an amendment would clearly define spending and revenue, set spending limits based on a multiyear period, and allow for waiving the limit only with a large supermajority in Congress. “As it stands, Congress is constitutionally incapable of tying its own hands, making it difficult for legislators to implement durable changes to the federal budget,” Primo says. Recent data show the national debt has crossed 100% of the GDP threshold — roughly $31.27 trillion versus $31.22 trillion in economic output — marking the highest peacetime level in U.S. history. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that debt levels, if left unchecked, could reach 181% of GDP in the next 30 years. Primo says delaying implementing a solution raises the risk of increased interest rates, which would, in turn, reduce investment and, ultimately, economic growth. For journalists covering deficits, tax policy, and the long-term economic outlook, Primo offers key expertise and a clear lens on: • The implications of national debt exceeding GDP • Constitutional and institutional approaches to fiscal reform • Fiscal policy and political incentives “The United States is in precarious fiscal health,” Primo told Congress in 2023. “In the absence of a constitutional amendment, I fear it will take a fiscal crisis before Congress acts. Nobody wants that.” Connect with Primo by clicking on his profile.

Get Over It: Pluto Isn't A Planet!

Put down the protest signs already. Retire the “Save Pluto” pins. Step away from the planetary outrage. Seriously. So says University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank in his latest column in Forbes. Frank explains that the real story behind Pluto being stripped of its planetary status in 2006 isn’t about what Pluto lost, but what scientists found. Pluto made news recently when NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman replied to a Florida girl’s handwritten plea to restore Pluto’s designation as a planet, saying he supported such a move. Frank has one word for Isaacman: Stop! “Now Isaacman seems like a good guy and I sure don’t want to make little kids cry,” Frank writes. “Still, there’s an amazing science reason why Pluto got kicked out of the planet club.” For decades, Frank explains, we thought the solar system ended with the nine familiar planets, with Pluto being the most distant. But beyond Neptune lies the Kuiper Belt, a vast expanse filled with icy remnants from the birth of the solar system. These objects are essentially the leftover building blocks of planets. Pluto, it turns out, is one of them. That matters because this cosmic debris holds crucial clues about how planets form. Studying Pluto and its neighbors helps scientists understand the origins of Earth and the potential for life elsewhere in the universe. So, Pluto isn’t an outcast; it’s a key witness to our cosmic history. It belongs to a newly understood class of worlds that are central to modern astronomy. Rather than mourn Pluto’s status and push for restoring its former title, Frank suggests we celebrate its reclassification as the moment astronomers realized the solar system is far richer than they had ever imagined. If you’re a journalist looking for an expert to talk about Pluto — or planets and worlds formerly known as planets — Frank is your scholar. He is a frequent contributor to the likes of CNN, The New York Times, The Atlantic, and MSNBC, and can help your audience make sense of our vast universe.

TCU Chemistry Researcher Named a Big 12 Faculty of the Year

Kayla Green has built an internationally recognized research program while mentoring the next generation of scientists at Texas Christian University, and her efforts are getting noticed. The chemistry professor and assistant dean of undergraduate affairs at the Louise Dilworth Davis College of Science & Engineering represents TCU among this year’s Big 12 Faculty of the Year honorees. The Big 12 Faculty of the Year Award honors outstanding faculty who excel in innovation and research at each of the athletic conference’s 16 universities. Honorees represent and reflect the best attributes that make a Big 12 college campus a bastion for learning and growth. “In my view, Professor Green exemplifies the fact that student success cannot happen without research, and world-leading research cannot happen without authentic, student-centered experiences,” wrote a nominator when Green was named the 2025 winner of the Chancellor’s Award for Distinguished Achievement as a Creative Teacher and Scholar. “Professor Green has maintained a vibrant, externally funded research program throughout the past 15 years, a distinction shared by very few TCU faculty.”  Green was chosen in part for her international reputation in the field of inorganic chemistry as applied to neurodegenerative diseases and catalysis, as well as her leadership in a growing research program that has brought in more than $2.5 million in external support. This includes work with Ben Janesko, professor and chair of chemistry and biochemistry, and biology professors Giri Akkaraju and Michael Chumley on a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Green’s collaborative work with students highlights her ability to weave together research and mentorship. “Dr. Green’s vision and drive have strengthened the foundation of our college,” said T. Dwayne McCay, interim dean of Davis College. “Her ability to inspire students and colleagues alike reflects the kind of leadership that propels our mission forward.”  One of her most impactful initiatives is Chemistry Boot Camp, a program she developed with colleagues Janesko and Heidi Conrad to help incoming students build confidence before their first chemistry class.  The Big 12 Faculty of the Year Award is intended to showcase the diversity of research breakthroughs and educational opportunities afforded to students attending Big 12 institutions and helps attract future students. This year’s award recipients stretch across a vast array of departments. “We are constantly looking for ways to highlight how Big 12 faculty continue to educate and inspire the next generation of leaders,” Jenn Hunter, Big 12 chief impact officer said. “From the arts and filmmaking to business and engineering, this year’s cohort showcases the vast opportunities available to students pursuing an education on Big 12 campuses.” Faculty members were nominated by their institutions in conjunction with conference faculty athletic representatives, provosts and other university leaders. “I’m very honored to represent TCU as a Big 12 Faculty of the Year,” Green said. “I hope that I am not expected to exhibit any athletic skill sets but am happy to cheer on the Frogs in all they do in our classrooms and competitions! Congratulations to the honorees from across our great conference. TCU has the best faculty, and I am happy to represent them in this capacity.”

Seeing Green: Chemistry Professor Transforming Undergraduate Research at TCU

When it comes to advancing both student success and world-class research, Kayla Green embodies how the two can go hand in hand. The chemistry professor and assistant dean of undergraduate affairs at the Louise Dilworth Davis College of Science & Engineering has built an internationally recognized research program while mentoring the next generation of scientists and reshaping how chemistry is taught at Texas Christian University. Her leadership weaves together research and mentorship in ways that have elevated the department’s impact. With more than $2.5 million in external funding and a track record of collaboration around the globe, Green’s work has not only advanced the field of inorganic chemistry, particularly as applied to neurodegenerative diseases and catalysis, but also strengthened TCU’s standing as a hub for undergraduate research excellence. “In the summer heading into my junior year, I began working on what would be my research project in Dr. Green’s lab … that would use iron as a catalyst in molecules. I would end up presenting that research in my senior year,” said Jack Bonnell ’24, a John V. Roach Honors College laureate. Iron is more affordable, more available and less societally problematic than preexisting palladium- or platinum-based molecules. “By the end of my senior year, I was able to achieve comparable results with my iron catalyst as you could achieve with palladium or platinum,” said Bonnell, now a second-year medical student at the Anne Burnett Marion School of Medicine at TCU. “That was a pretty cool moment in my research, to be able to put it up there in comparison to those.” Since joining TCU in 2010, Green has mentored more than 50 undergraduate students in her lab, many of whom have gone on to publish their work, present at national conferences and pursue medical or doctoral degrees. She has also been instrumental in creating programs that prepare students to succeed in challenging classes and stay the course in scientific disciplines. “Dr. Green’s vision and drive have strengthened the foundation of our college,” said T. Dwayne McCay, interim dean of the Davis College of Science & Engineering. “Her ability to inspire students and colleagues alike reflects the kind of leadership that propels our mission forward.” Lifting Them Up One of Green’s most impactful initiatives is Chemistry Boot Camp, a program she developed with colleagues Ben Janesko and Heidi Conrad to help incoming students build confidence before their first chemistry class. “The boot camp helps lift them up, and it’s really helped with retention of students in pre-health and science fields,” said Timothy Barth, psychology professor and associate dean of graduate affairs in Davis College. “She didn’t have to do this; she created it because of her commitment and dedication to the students.” Green’s innovative use of grant funding has expanded laboratory resources, supported student travel to conferences and strengthened research collaborations. The result is a department that rivals larger institutions in both output and opportunity. “Davis College does a fantastic job on undergraduate research training,” Green said. “We are a powerhouse.” For Green, teaching and research are inseparable. Her classroom and laboratory experiences are deliberately interconnected, allowing students to see how chemistry concepts play out in the real world. “Going into a lot of these complicated diagnoses and being able to break them down into digestible pieces of information for patients is a skill that I definitely can see as useful in my future as a physician,” Bonnell said. As much as the material itself, he credits Green’s mentorship and the opportunities she provided for his preparation for medical school. “I had only taken Dr. Green’s general chemistry course in my first semester as a freshman at TCU. I joined her lab in the spring semester of my freshman year, and I knew only the bare minimum about chemistry. I was in meetings with graduate students who had been working on projects for years,” Bonnell said. “At the beginning, she bounced me around, and I worked with different graduate students to learn all the different things they were doing to find my best fit.” That blend of rigor and encouragement has become a hallmark of her approach and a model for other departments seeking to integrate research more deeply into the undergraduate experience. Building on Success Green’s excellence has earned her wide recognition, including honors from the American Chemical Society (Emerging Investigator and Women Chemists Rising Star awards), TCU’s Deans’ Award for Research and Creative Activity and, most recently, the Chancellor’s Award for Distinguished Achievement as a Creative Teacher and Scholar. She now brings that same analytical insight and collaborative spirit to her position as the college’s assistant dean of undergraduate affairs, a role she began this academic year. “We’ve already begun to experience her decision-making and analysis as part of the dean’s team,” Barth said. “In a short period of time, she’s proving to be an amazing and remarkable administrator.” Looking ahead, Green continues to build on her success through a National Institutes of Health R15 AREA grant, which supports undergraduate research and provides students with opportunities to contribute to federally funded science. “TCU Chemistry has an incredible record of placing students in medical school, Ph.D. programs and research labs across the country,” Green said. “It’s rewarding to see our students thrive in environments that started with their hands-on experiences here.”