And What Did You Learn in Your PhD Program? Jerry R. Mohrig Carleton College, Northfield. MN 55057
Since I teach a t an undergraduate, liberal arts college rather than a research university, I was a t first reluctant to speak out on the state of PhD education. However, over a third of our chemistry majors do go on to PhD programs in chemistry and biochemistry. The total number was 106 in the 1975-1985 period, an average of 10 each year, so I have seen through their eyes what is occurring in graduate chemical education. There has been a good deal of discussion recentlv on the effectiveness of undereraduate education. hut littie on the effectiveness of graduateeducation in chem: istrv as far as I know. I t seems wise to take stock from time to time, and my comments are offered in that light. The perceptions and suggestions in this essay come from Carleton chemistry majors who have completed or are working on PhD degrees in chemistry or biochemistry, filtered
588
Journal of Chemical Education
through my experience. It is not intended to be a sociological analysis, but simply the opinions of some talented people who have chosen careers in chemistry. My son David, a graduate student himself, suggested that I write to anumber of my former students and ask them what worked and what did not work in their graduate education. I sent 66 letters to graduates of 1970 to 1985, mainly from the 1975-1985 period. Forty-six responded, or 40% of all graduate-school-bound senior chemistry majors who graduated during this period; about half of them had already earned their PbD degrees while half were still in graduate school. Since perspectives may well change relative to the time away from the graduate school years, it seemed important to survey both PhD candidates and graduates. Over 90% of the respondents went to PhD programs in chemistry de-
partments, and the 18 departments represented in the survey are among the strongest in the nation. A third of the respondents were women. T o my knowledge, all hut eight respondents had a significant undergraduate research experience before entering their PhD programs, so almost everyone had some prior knowledge of what research involved. The operative paragraph in the letter that I sent out was I feel that the dissertation research is the heart of the PhD, and the selection of a research mentor is a key choice. Do you agree? What about the role of formal courses, seminars, exams, and lecture series? Was the allocation ofyour time designed for you to learn in the best wavs? Did "our research erouo .. . function effectivcly asn learning team" What was thequality of rhe intrrartion with y w r major profesarr'! Were the goals of your I'nl) edumt~on ever outlined t o you, or did you implicitly s m s p them? There were many 3-4-page, thoughtful responses to my request. Perhaps it was the way in which I stated the charge, but the fact is that very few respondents commented on the increasing leneth of time that has becume the norm for the completi& o f a PhD program. They were far more concerned with the aualitv . . of the experience. The great majority of the responses were positive in tone; only three of them expressed substantial bitterness. That is not a had hatting average given the great diversity in the students and their personal goals, as well as the discouragement experienced by ;irtuallv" i l l eraduate students a t one time or another. It was " clear that the experience of some graduate students is excellent. and that some PhD research advisors do an outstanding job.'^^ overall conclusion is that PhD education in chemiitrv is. lor the most Dart, healthy, but that attention to some t&bling areas couid &ke i t healthier. What then are the goals of a P h D education? Learning how to initiate and carry out research should be and is its central focus, and the PhD experience is an important factor for success in those professional careers where the initiation and direction of chemical research programs are important. Such careers include teaching a t the college or university level, as well as many industrial and governmental research noritions. a t manv universities the auestion "What =.-- ~ ~ - Indeed. - - ~ are you learning'in y o u r - ~ hprogram?" ~ is translated as "How isvour research eoine?" The modelof graduate education de&loped by ~ i e k at i ~Giessen over 150 years ago, in which a master teaches the science and art of research to a small group of student research colleagues, has been very successful. PhD education rests on the belief that the principles of independent problem solving one learns by doing research have broad application. One former student put it this way: A PhD in chemistfi to me means vou have shown vourself to he a chemist: you can think, do, and talk as a chemist doer. A I'hl) chemist should be able t o develop a project, do appropriate research to tackle the prohlem, and communicate the results. Others said the goal of PhD education is "tomaster cbemistry well enough so that we can actually change the field itself", and simply "to make me a first-class scientist". Of course, these general statements need to he fleshed out. A PhD research project needs to he considered in the context of the graduate program as a whole. Yet only 10%of those resoondine said that the goals of their PhD programs had ever heen'butlined to them. Perhaps they were stated in a eraduate school handbook that the students did not bother turead,or thestudentsdid not pay attention when thev were discussed. Rur I think that thegoals are important enough to can always stress a t the outset. The "whybother" he addressed with profit. Just two student comments on this point were: I don't think thegoals of my PhD education were ever outlined to me. When I passed my preliminary oral, my advisor told me 'you have two papers; when you have two more, you can leave.' The general features of a PhD program were never explicitly , and I'm afraid I was rather spelled out here at ~
~~~~
~
~
slow on the uptake in that I spent a lot of time drifting with the tides rather than developing a coherent strategy for gaining the knowledge necessary to he classified a PhD chemist. Graduate school has been a tremendously frustrating experience mostly because I did not address early on the questions you posed and spent too much time waiting for direction. Virtually every respondent felt that the choice of a research advisor was the single most important decision in their graduate school experience. By a 3-to-1 ratio, they felt that the personality and habits of the research advisor and the way the research group was structured to operate were crucial. Informal conversations within the research group were seen as an important learning tool. The three major criteria cited most often for choosing a graduate school research group were 1. Field of research. 2. Advisor's personality, research ideas, and degree of interaction that can be expected. 3. Characteristics of the co-workers in the major professor's laboratory. Graduate students need either the right advisor or the right group, as one letter put it. Sometimes advice to college seniors considering their graduate school choices may stress the field of research and the research ideas of professors to the virtual exclusion of the other criteria. This may do a disservice to many undergraduate students. One cannot easily assess personal characteristics a t long distance, hut i t is important to recognize their importance early. It is clear that the personal chemistry, as well as the professional chemistrv, must match for the student to have a trulv successful research experience. But peode are different. Different graduate students need different things from their advisors. It is difficult to make general rules on picking a research advisor. All students want the "right" degree-of advising, concern, and enthusiasm. Some students learn best when they have the freedom to desien their ex~erimentswith minimal suoervision and contactwith their>esearch advisors; others p;efer a highly structured research experience. Two comments that I received bring out the difference: The hulk of advice and solutions to practical lab problems comes from fellow grad students and from hands-on experience. I have found that there is no better way to learn how to perform science than to royally screw up an experiment; then I'm guaranteed never to make the same mistake again. I know of studentsaround here who chat with their advisors every month or so. I preferred something different; daily discussions with my advisor allow me to explore and stumble on my own, hut provide support when I need it. I believe this attention is most important to a successful graduate school career. Consider the impact to the profession when the studentresearch advisor matchup is poor, and the program does not make it feasible to make a change. A number of the respondents commented on attrition. Here is just one: There are many examples of extremely talented people who did not finish due to conflicts with their research advisors. In a sense, one is struck hv a sort of arbitrary abilitv of some to get . a PhD degree, while oiher talented peopie do noi. A maior criticism was that first-vear graduate students a t some universities were pushed in& maicing their choices of research advisors very quickly. A third of the respondents were concerned about it. It seems clear that students going to these programs need to leave their undergraduate institutions with agood grasp of what area of research they want to pursue and have two or three potential research advisors in mind:. vet " that has not alwavs been the case with Carleton students. From my perspective there seems little disadvantaae fur a department to delav the decision of the research ad;isor/student match until *year the end of the first term, since a good match is so important. Even if there is not r. Volume 65 Number 7 July 1988
589
requirement to choose within the first few weeks, students often get the idea that groups might close if they do not choose immediately. As one respondent wrote: The department didn't pressure students to decide on advisors, but every student had decided by late October, since faculty can choose to accept students when they wish. The numbers and pattern of requirements vary widely from deoartment to deoartment. and this diversitv seems healthy t o me. Not a l i graduate students need the same approach. Some student respondents took a full year of required courses and learned an "incredible amount of chemistry" from them. One former student put course requirements in a useful perspective when he wrote The disadvantage of formal requirements was that they distracted many students from getting a good start on their research until after their second or third year, and as a result six or seven year stays werenotuncommon. On theother hand, I think the requirements were very useful to me in broadening my exposure to chemistry. There is so much more to chemistry than what you can vaurself touch on in a sinele - thesis nroiect. that I feel channeline-. exclusively into research too early unnecessarily restricts the scope of your education. Other respondents liked very few requirements. In some research groups in departments with few requirements, each graduate student must develop, write, and present a research proposal outside his or her own research area. This looks like an excellent way to help students develop writing and speaking skills, as well as some of the breadth necessary to research scientists. Another wav of achievine breadth is an active seminar program. ~ a n respondent i were convinced that a strong and diverse lecture series is crucial to a successful graduate program, and that an effort should be made to attend arminars consistently both in and outside me'sarea of specialization. ~ e s ~ o n d e nalso t s found giving formal seminars a very
590
Journal of Chemical Education
useful experience, and no one complained about being asked to write reports, grant proposals, and manuscripts that are critiqued by thefaculty. Indeed, few students felt that development of the ability to write and speak was emphasized enough in their graduate programs. I am concerned about the persistent comments in the responses that some faculty do not appear to be interested in educating graduate students, but onlv in ~ r o d u c i n research e results. individual faculty.advisor iniere;t in the quality and breadthof their researchstudents'1'hl)education must varv widely. Some respondents wrote that they were encouraged by their advisors not to "waste time" by attending departmental seminars. Others were discouraged from doing anything that would take time away from the lab bench. Consider two comments that respondents made: Many chemists are so wrapped up in keeping up in their own fields, that they don't see what is going on around them. Grad school experience has gotten very narrow; synthetic and physical organic chemists no longer even recognize each other's problems. Suchnarrowness m a s help the career of the research advisor, but the human coit and the cost to the profession are high. 1would be interested to know the kindsofadvice young faculty memhers receive as they start their teaching careers. With the pressure to get started on their own research, i t must be verv"easv.to lose sieht of some of the eoals of PhD education. In this essav I have tried to articulate the eoals of the PhD program in chemistry as seen by my former students and mvself and to orohe the role of research and the important advisor-student match. I have attempted to point obt what seems to work well and express concern about what does not. At the very least, this survey will make me a better advisor to Carleton seniors considering the complexity of graduate school choices.
-
