G. W. Robinson Coliiorn~alnstttute of Technology Pasadena 91 109
I
A Profile of Chemistry Degree hBolders in Acadeinic Jabs
The distribution of various institute's Bachelor and
PhD chemistry graduates in faculty positions a t research oriented schools is examined. I t is proposed that these data provide a measure of excellence of an institution's undergraduate and graduate programs based on the "quality of students." Both Bachelor and PhD rankings are constructed. and the PhD rankinas are compared with suhjective rankings based on the ~ m e r i c a nCouncil on Education survey of the "quality of graduate faculty." Introduction One's own measure of the oualitv . . of science education must by its very nature be somewhat suhjective, often beine based on eeneralized im~ressionsobtained from interacting with &e's colleague^ a t other institutions, their students, and their scientific work. Sometimes i t is based entirely on second hand information. Yet the quality of contemplated education is of great concern to the serious student. Along with other factors, it is used to make the decision that plunges him into the formative part of his life's career. Data compiled by the American Chemical Society (ACS) allow a more ohiective measure of quality in chemical education. I t is well recognized within academic circles a t research-oriented universities that the most attrac-
-
Table 1. The Thirtv-Four "Sam& Schools" Used in the Study CalifmfornialnstofTeeh California. Uof. Berkeley Calilomia, U of, Lm Angeles California, U,of, San Diego Chicago, Uof Colorado, U of Columbia U Cornell U Duke U Florida State U Hsrvsrd U Illinois. U d Indiana, U lows State Uof Scieoee sndTech Johns Hopkin$ U MassachusettsinstofTech Michisan State U
Michigan. Uof
Minnerofa, U of NorthwesternU Ohio Stale U Oregon. U of Pennsylvanis state U Pennsylvania. Uof Princeton U
PurdueU
Riceu
Rochester. Uof Southern California. U of Stanford U Texas, Uof Washiogtna. U of. Seattle wismnsin. Uaf Yale U
tive jobs open to students are academic positions a t the "better" universities. Of course, not all the hest students take uu academic careers. but certainlv the abilitv of its students to gain attractive academic p&tions is one rather objective measure of the quality, real or reputed, of an institution. The analysis presented in this article pertains to the distribution of an institution's graduates, both a t the Bachelor and PhD levels, in such academic positions.
Is te ie
Is re
worry about the significance of the statistics. Thus there might be rwm to argue the point made by Robinson that "these data provide a measure of the excellence of an institution's under~aduate and graduate programs based on the quality of students." The nature of the educational beast is such that some institutions emohasize academic careers for their eraduates whereas others dace much stronger emphasis on industrial orcupatwns. Thus a1 bast two of the unirerrltwr listed art. known lo placr strong emphasis on industrial carrrrr, rvcn for rhrir hrst students 586 /Journal of Chemical Education
talent and ability. They are not hired (I believe) because they have been marvelously trained in some school; in fact, they are sometimes hired in spite of less than marvelous training because they are believed to have great potential. Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Malealm E. Kenney
Table 3. Foreign Areas Contributing to the Faculty of the Sample Schools
Table 2. Origins of Uniled States Degree Holders on the Faculty 01 the Sample Schools
PhD
Bachelor
Auotrslia,N.Z. Far East Middle East Bueknrll U
3 0 0 1 0 4 . Californielod ofTeeh 7 5 4 4 4 2 4 1 Califomia,Uof,Berkdey 11 6 7 19 10 53 Cahfomia. Uof. la$Angeles 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 Califomin, U o t SanDiego 0 0 0 0 0 0 Csrn~gie-MellanU I 0 1 2 0 4 Case westernRe.erveu 2 1 1 0 0 4 Chicsga, Uof 3 3 6 9 9 3 0 Cineinnsfi. Uof 0 0 0 2 1 3 City University of NewYmrk 4 2 7 8 3 24 Colorado. Uof 2 1 0 3 1 7 Columbia U 4 4 2 7 3 2 0 Cornell U 4 2 5 5 3 1 9 Dartmouth C 3 0 2 4 2 1 1 Duke U 0 1 1 1 2 5 Emory U 1 0 1 1 1 4 Florida State U 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida, Uof 1 0 0 0 1 2 George Washington U 0 0 1 1 1 3 &or@ lnst ofTeeh 3 0 0 2 0 5 Haward U 12 7 12 11 11 53 Illinoislnsf ofTeeh 1 1 1 0 1 4 Illinois, Uof 5 3 6 10 8 32 Indiana U 0 1 0 2 0 3
Iowa state Uof Science and Tech Iowa, U or Johns Hopkins U Kansas. Uof Maryland, U of MassachusettsInstofTeeh Msssachusetts. Uof Michigan State U Michipan. Uof Minnesota, U of Nebraska, Uof New York. State U o t
. . . . . . .
..
. 7 20
9 13
6 3 0 2 7 1 0 L 9 S
1 0 1 0 7 0 0 O 5 3
9
ZU
15 36
7 16
BritainBlreland Csnsda W. Eumpe E. Eumpe LatinAmerica Indie,Pakistan S. Africa
57 105
1 5 5 16 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 $ 1 5 1 1 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 3 1 5 8 4 0 7 1 0 2 30
. . . . . . . . .
. 1 0
1 0
1
1
1 1 1 33 0 13 2
1 0 0 26 0 9 4
1 0 1 0 0 0
30 0 9 3
2 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 17 0
1 6 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 1 0 1 21 134 0 0 15 63 2 1 1
Buffalo
New York U
camrina,U of Northwetern U Notre Dame, U of Oberlin C OhioStateU Oregon state U Oregon U Penn~ylvsniastate U Pennsykania, Uof pomona C North
Pnneetonu Furdue U
FadC Renaolaer Polytechniclnst Rxce U Rochester, U of St. Ohf C Stanford U Swsrthmare C Texan, Uof vanderbilt U Virginia, Uaf WabashC Washington U Washington, Uof, Seattle wer1eyan U Wisconsin, Uof Yale U ',"6UtYnOnl "OX on move ,,st mnmauong ar icasc rwo aacaerors v e g e e noraers w the youngor faculty of the sample sehmls: Akron U; Canisius C: California, U of, Riucrside; Carleton C: Connecticut, U of: Davidson C: Georgetown U; Hswey Mudd C: Louisiana State U; Louisville, U of: Loyola, U of, Chicago: Manhattan C; Marquette U; Marshall U: Maryland. U of: Memphis State U; Rutgers C; South Dekata Schml of Mines and Tech: Southern Illinois U: Southern Methodist U; Texaa Tech l J Virginia Polytechnic Inst; Washington State U: West V i ~ i n i aU: Wenern Kentucky U: Whittier C; WorcesterPolytechnie Inst. 00- indicate a school did not confer Ph.0 Degrees duringperiadofthuatudy
The Analysis
The raw data used in the analysis were obtained from the ACS's 1971 "Directory of Graduate ResearcW1 and annual reports of the Committee on Professional Training. The latter are puhlished each year in the Chemical and Engineering News.2 Reprints of a large numher of these reports were kindly sent to the author by Mr. H. G. Walsh of the ACS. Attractive academic positions in chemistry are defined as positions in 34 high ranked research-orieot-
1
2
3
5 1 0 9 5 5 2 0 1 0
1 3 0 10 2 4 2 1 0 1
2 2 5
4 5 T 0 , l 4 4 3 6 1 2 1 1 I I 1 0
11
1 6 0 0 0 0
0 12 1 1 1 1 9 6 12 4 2 4 5 3 1 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 L
3 0 0 14
0 3 2 0 0 0
2
3
0 0 0 11 0 3 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 3 15 10 5 55 0 5 0 5 5 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
4
5T0t
BaehelorTolals Total AllStaff Ifi) = 139 Total Younger Staff (/>I = 79
perecntagps lW n /,/I060 = 13.1% IW x /I582 = 13.6%
PhDTot.de Total All Stsff(F0 = 94 TotalYounger Staff IF,) =MI
Percentages IW x F,/1060 = 6.9% IW x F7/562 = 10.3%
ed institutions in the United States ("sample schools"). These institutions are listed in Tahle 1. The initial analysis of the raw data consisted simply of a compilation of the Bachelor and Ph.D. origins of the faculty of these 34 schools as reported in the 1971 "Directory of Graduate Research." The choice of sample schwls is somewhat arbitray. The choices in Tahle 1 were based partly on the number of PhD degrees granted in chemistry and the numher of postdoctoral appointments in chemistry a t the institution. However, the choices were made so that there was essentially equal division between eastern, midwestern, and western thirds of the country in order not to slant the results in favor of any one geographical area. Another method that could have been used, hut was not, is a sort of predictor-corrector method whereby the results of the survey are used to determine the sample schools. Actually, such a list would differ in only three or four institutions from the one used. In an earlier unpublished study by the author, it was found that the use of a larger numher of sample schools flattens out slightly the peak in the distribution that occurs in the top five or ten schools without appreciably altering their numerical ranking. Such a result is not entirely unexpected since all it means is that graduates of hieh " ranking institutions constitute the majority of faculty in the high ranking institutions. The facultv of the samnle schools were subdivided into five categories: (1) instructors and assistant professors (2) "active" associate professors (3) "active" full professors born in 1928 or later (4) "active" full professors born earlier than 1928 (5) "inactive" associate and full professors Groups 1-3 combined are defined as "younger staff." Emeritus professors were not considered. The adjective active applies to research only and its criterion was arhitrarily taken to he four or more published papers for organic chemists and two or more published papers for persons in other fields of chemistry as listed in the 1971 "Directory ."
-
-
Results The results of the initial analysis are given in Tables 2 and 3. Listed in Tahle 2 in alphabetical order are all United States institutions contributing a t least four faculty members to the 34 sample schools together with associated numerical data. As a footnote in Tahle 2, there are listed further institutions represented by a t least two Bachelor's Degree holders on the younger faculty of the Directory of Graduate Research (American Chemical Society, 1971).
C h e m and Engr News, 40, 65 (1962); 41. 79 (1963); 42, 68 (1964); 43, 58 (1965); 44, 78 (1966); 45, 68 (1967); 46, 61 (1968); 47.15 (1969); 48,59 (1970).
Volume 50, Number 9. September 7973 / 587
Table 4. Bachelor's
Degree Holders from
Bachelor's Institution
nt
%
Indicated lnstitutic dt
i
Harvard Berk' lllino Chic; Yale Calte City 1 MIT UCL.
prj"""'"" Wi Co Co
Mi An
Da Ka
Mi Ric Ob
10"
Pel No
St; Co
Ne Oh Pu
Ro Te
Wr
wc
i
Ge Re St.
6 5 5 5
6
Bn Ne
5
Wr
W;
Top 20
Number of faculty %of total
5
446 42
n , = total faculty; O/r = 100 x ,a, + lffiu: a( = numoer or A L celtified ~ Bachelor's Degrees in chemistry conferred by indrcated institution for 15-yr period. 1951-65; n, = 316 x n, - d , . !otd faculty nurrnalird hy d,, hasis Harvnrd's r z , = .,R.n, = numherof iaculty incdrcgnries I, 2. ,3: % = IOlr x n.< + %2: d , = number of eerthwd Hnchehr'i D p r r c e in chrmirtrs conferred bv indicated ~ n i t ~ r u t mrcrr n five-scar period. faculty normali&d by d y , basis ~arvard'snt = 53; numbers in parentheses show the rank l96i-65; fiy= (73 X 53 X &i + (31 x d,), for each of the top approximately 25 institutions in the respective listing, the asterisk meaning a tie rank; top 20 refers to respective listing. ~~
sample schools. Tahle 3 presents data for foreign areas. The tables thus contain a nrofile of the wav that graduates from U. S. and foreign institutions a;e distributed throughout the faculties of the 34 sample schools. It was of further interest to determine the ranking of institutions based on the study. The institutions contributing the largest number of Bachelor's Degree holders to the faculty of the sample schools are listed in Tahle 4. Besides the numher of such degree holders, Tahle 4 lists a percentage contribution. This is the percentage of the total of 1060 faculty of the sample schools contributed by the institutions named. For example, there are 32 University of Illinois Bachelor's Degree holders out of the 1060 total leading to the 3.0% figure. The same type of analysis was carried out for the younger faculty in combined categories 1.. 2.. 3. The oercentaee here are based on the 582 " fieures " faculty members in these three categories. T o normalize the data, so that some measure of aualitv may he distinguished from mere quantity, account should he taken of the sizes of the undergraduate chemistry classes in the various institutions. To obtain the necessary information for past years one is forced to use the data on earned certified degrees awarded in chemistry as puhlished by the ACS. These numbers, however, may give a distorted picture, not only because many non-certified degree holders should be considered in the analysis, but also because many so-called chemistry majors a t the undergraduate level simply have no intention of pursuing a career in chemistry, and the extent to which this is so varies from school to school. Pre-medical students, agricultural 588 /Journal of Chemical Education
students, or pharmacists may desire or be required to take a major in chemistry. Another problem in ohtaining meaningful normalized data a t the Bachelor's level is one of poor statistics. In some cases when the average size of graduating classes in chemistry is very small, a contribution of only two or three to the faculty of the sample schools is enough to inflate the normalized ranking considerably. These normalized results are therefore presented in Tahle 4 with strong qualms as to their quantitative meaning, hut with the hope that some value may he derived from them. For the younger faculty the number of Bachelor's Degrees conferred only during the five-year period 1961-65 was used in the analysis, since this was thought to he a better representation of size during the actual period of residence of the graduates in this category. In Table 5, PhD Degree holders are analyzed in the same way as the Bachelor's Degree holders. Here, of course. the normalized rankines are much more reliable. The &her of PhD's conferre; during the 19-year period 1951-69 was used to normalize the figures related to total staff while the number during the 9year period 1961-69 was used for normalization of younger staff. Discussion
There are some notahle omissions from the lists of schools in Table 2. These omissions tend to emphasize the difficulty of ohtaining a current measure of quality by any method. Many of the omitted institutions have fine graduate schools, some relatively new and some where a recent strong effort has been made to improve their graduate
Table 5. PhD Degree Holders from Indicated Institutions on Faculty of the Sample Schoolso
-
D"
PhD Institution
N"
-
Harvard Berkelev Illinois Caltech MTT Columbia Princeton Cornell Stanford Minnesota Iowa State Michigan Ohio State Northwestern Yale UCLA Purdue Texas Indiana Johns Hopkins U ofwashington, Seattle Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Brawn Michigan State Kansas Rochester Duke Brandeis Rice Number of faculty Tap 20 %of total .-
-
3, - 1060; D, = number of Phl) degrees in chemistry conierred by indicated insutution lor 19 year perlod 1951-69; .V, = 415 x .Y, - 0,. total fauul~ynormnlircd bv L),. harm Hoyrd's .V, = 13.1; Y, = numher uflaculry in categories 1, 2. 3: % = IRI 3., + 582: D. = numberofI'hD decrees in rhernrrtrv conferred by ind~mtedmstnut~unfory-yearperiod 1961-69; .V, = ,211 x 131 x N , ) . .. x + 189 X D..).vouneer facultv normal& hv D,. basis ~ i r v a r d Nt s 134; numbers m parentheses show the rank for each of the top approximately 25;"stkuticks in the;espective listing,
