Graduate Education: Sentiment for Change
There are many good reasons for the growing sentiment that graduate education must change. Most of these also pertain to graduate education in chemistry. Foremost among them are three with unusual cogency. The first is that graduate education is, for the most part, out of touch with social reality and that, as a consequence, the products of graduate education-its students and its research-more often than not are more alien than akin to the society on which they must depend for support and upon whose survival their own survival depends. This has been apparent in chemistry for sometime and it has led some industrial chemists and administrators to adont the cvnical but ho~efullvsatiric thesis that "chemistry is not what academic chemists do, or what students are taueht in colleees and universities." A senior chemistadmini&ator withone of the larger chemical companies in this country recently told us, with much bitterness, that if no academic chemical research were conducted during the next ten years the industrial research community would continue a t the present level of creativity, hampered not one bit by the loss. This is far from an isolated view. The telling point here is not whether our bitter colleague is right or wrong or even whether most of his industrial peers would agree. The point is the degree to which academic chemistry has lost touch with social reality. If it has moved this far from chemists outside the academy, how far has it moved from its other scientific and social "constituencies?" How long can it survive on such a course? A second compelling reason that graduate education must change is that its propensity for specialization and isolation also jeopardizes its survival-and not only its survival but that of a very important tenet of our culture, namely, that the ultimate test of human intelligence is the degree to which its application can assure the stability and progress of our institutions. To the extent that specialization leads more and more of our best minds further and further from intimate involvement with the broader problems and vital issues that determine the direction and the fate of our institutions and of the society a t large, its once bountiful assets could become crippling liabilities. Observers proport to recognize several manifestations of this generalization in graduate education in chemistry. For example, there are too many good minds that evidently never see beyond experimental thermodynamics (organic reaction mechanisms or coordination chemistry) to the broader problems and vital issues in physical chemistry (organic or inorganic chemistry). There are too many other fine minds that apparently never see beyond physical chemistry (. . .) to the broader problems and creative dialogue that could lead to more effective cross-fertilization within the science of chemistry itself. There are still
editorially speaking too many others who never see beyond chemical science to the applications of chemistry, whether in other scholarly disciplines or in the commercial world. There are very few who even attempt to see beyond science to the sciencesociety interface where the life or death issues for this and future generations now are being wrestled with. While high quality research, specialization in the form of disciplined, absorptive study, and the acquisition of highly technical intellectual skills must remain the sine qua non of graduate education, it is important that this be tempered by broader knowledge and a commitment to using one's knowledge and talents to the benefit of all. All of which leads to a third reason graduate education should change: The present format has emphasized productivity a t the expense of product quality. This is as true in the caliber of the research reported as in the development of the students graduated. Advanced degree holders are characterized as having been programmed to find intellectual satisfaction in pursuing narrowly conceived, highly technical, low risk, minimally controversial, but publishable activities. Programmed out in the course of graduate education are curiosity-especially about other disciplines; creativity-except possibly in a single specialty; individualism-particularly when it comes to developing one's own talents and expressive abilities; participating skills-except in a master-apprentice relationship. As an e x a m ~ l eof this kind of nroerammine in chemis. " try, we recentiy heard an organic chemist (wh; is over 45) comment on how all the new introductory organic chemistry texts were purported to be radical departures from one that has been the most popular in recent years. "The more you read of the new texts, the more you see of the philosophy and pedagogy of the text the authors presumably have departed from," he said. The need for change in graduate education is very well documented and abundantlv clear. However. in makine changes certain features of existing programs must not be lost. Included among- these are: obiective intellectual standards, peer group criticism, reasonable periods of isolation from the social sphere, experience in intensive, absorptive, disciplined study, and a perspective on knowledge that brings together an appreciation for what has been accom~lishedin the Dast. . . what is beini done now uith what might be accomplished in thc, future. " A s experimentalisti, rhr.mists should be eaueciallt. challenged by the opport&ity to attempt something new in graduate education. We definitely must reestablish better relationships with our industrial colleagues. Our students could benefit from greater participation in planning their research and graduate studies, from more opportunity for individual expression, and from a broader perspective on how best to use their talents and skills. Faculty members who become involved might even find that all this adds a dimension or two to their own creativity. WTL
Volume 51, Number 3,March 1974
/
145
