B. R. Siebring The University of Wisconsin M~lwaukee
Institutional Influences in the Graduate Training of Eminent Chemists
Defining the term "eminent chemist" is an extremely difficult and hazardous task. Certainly no individual could arrive a t a definition satisfactory to everyone. However, various organizations and publications have methods of recognizing outstanding accomplishments in chemistry. By making use of these recognitions of achievement it is possible to arrive a t a list of eminent chemists who have been selected by authorities in the field. This, of course does not eliminate entirely the judgment of the writer, since it was necessary to select the awards and recognitions. For the purposes of this study, chemists in one or more of the following categories have been classified as eminent chemists: 1. Nobel prize winners. 2. Members of the chemistry division of the National Academy of Science (1948-1960). 3. Persons listed as Dist.inguished Chemists in the first edition of "Leaders in American Science." 4. Winners of a recognized American award for accomplishments in chemistry. The reader will be familiar with the citations of the first two categories. The membership of the National Academy of Science has been reported by division in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science since 1948. The third category can best he described by quoting from the preface of Volume I of "Leaders in American Science." I n speaking of their Poll of Distinguished Scientists, the authors state: The purpose of our compilation is to list the opinions of the scientists themselves as to the most distinguished men and women in their own specialized fields . . Again, this list of distinguished scientists is not of our own choosing; it is based on the choices of thousands of reputable scientists who themselves did the choosing.
.
The list of recognized American awards in chemistry was compiled from lists in "Handbook of Scientific and Technical Awards in United States and Canada 1900-1952"2 and "The Blue Book of award^."^ Those awards which were primarily for the purpose of education or training were not included. Of course, many
' COOK,ROBERTC., "Leaders in American Science," 1st ed., Who's Who in American Education, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee 1955. ' FIRSH,MARGARET A,, "Handbook of Scientific and Technical Awards in United States and Canada, 1900-1952," Speeid Libraries Association, New York, 1956. BROOK,HERBERT,"The Blue Book of Awards," Marquis Who's Who, Chicago, 1956. B. R., "Institutional Influences in the Under~SIEBRINO, 31, graduate Training of Ph.D. Chemists," J. CHEM.EDUC., 195-200 (1954). 630
/
Journal o f Chemical Education
names appeared several times, some as many as seven or eight times. For example, Glenn T. Seaborg was listed in all four categories and five times in the fourth category. Certainly it can be argued that there are eminent chemists who have not acquired any of the distinctions in the above categories. However, it seems reasonably safe to conclude that chemists in the above categories have made significant contributions to chemistry and are correctly classified as "eminent chemists." These categories are sufficiently diverse so that chemists from almost any field could qualify, although the ease of qualification is probably not the same in all areas of chemistry. Xevertheless, the writer felt that the four categories were sufficiently widespread so that they could be used as a means of comparing institutions as doctorate sources of eminent chemists. 1nfol.mation as to where these individuals received their doctorates was obtained from various biographical sources such as "American Men of Science," "Chemical Who's Who," and Chemical and Engineering News. Four hundred fifty-six eminent chemists received doctorates from American universities. The distribution for the leading doctoral sources of eminent chemists is presented in Table 1. One out of 12 received his Ph.D. degree from Harvard. Approximately 117 got their doctoral degrees from one of the top 10 institutions. Table 1 .
Doctorate Origins of 456 Eminent Chemists
Chicago Columbia Illinois California Wisconsin Yale Princeton Cal. Tech. Cornell Johns Hookins Ohio State Mess. Inst. Tech. Minnesota. Pennsylvania
24
11
If the chemistry members of the National Academy of Science are considered as a group by themselves, the doctorate training is concentrated even more. Of the 117 in this category, 70 received their graduate training in the top six universities listed in Table 2. The writer has published a paper evaluating nndergraduate chemistry departments by determining the proportion of baccalaureate chemistry graduates who later earned a Ph.D. in chemi~try.~In the present
Table 2. Doctorate Origins of Chemistry Members of the National Academv of Sciences I 1 948-1 9 6 0 )
Institution
Number of National Academv of Science. 1 9 5 9
Institution
Table 3. lnstitutions Ranked b y Proportion o f Chemistry Doctorates, 1930-1 9 4 9 , Who Later Received Recognitions Which Classified Them as Eminent Chemists
Eminent chemists (11
Cal. Tech. Princeton Harvard California Rrown Chicago Minnesota Wisconsin Yale Pennsylvania Columbia. Michigan Iowa State
12 13 16 17
Total no. of doctorates (21
:2
Table 6 lists the leading institutions by percentage of staff members classified as eminent chemists. The total number of staff members was determined by counting the professors listed in the ACS Research Directory for 1959.6 Similar data for the National Academy of Science chemistry members (exclusively) is presented in Table 7. Table 6. Institutions Ranked b y the Proportion of Chemistry Staff Classified as Eminent Chemists (1 9 5 9 )
Eminent chemists (1)
Institution Columbia Harvard Cal. Tech. Virginia. California (Berkeley) Mass. Inst. Tech. Northwestern Wisconsin Princeton Illinois
9 12 9 4
10 8 5 7 4 9
Total (2)
(1) (2)
21 28 29 13 37 33 21 30 21 48
100
42.9 42.9 31.0 30.8 27.0 24.2 23.8 23.3 19.0 18.8
Table 7. lnstitutions Ranked b y the Proportion of Chemistry Staff who are Members of the Chemistry Division of the National Academy of Science
3
12 8 14 6 3 10
Institutions
6 5
Harvard Columbia Cal Twh Wisconsin California (Berkeley) Rochester Cornell Mass. Inst. Tech. Illinois Princeton ~~
By consulting the ACS "Directory of Graduate Research for 1959,"6the writer determined the employment of eminent chemists by institution for that year. The leading institutions in terms of number of eminent chemists employed are listed in Table 4. Table 4.
Number
8 7 5 4 4 4
article the writer has attempted to evaluate graduate departments in a similar fashion by determining the proportion of doctorate graduates who later received the distinction which classified them as eminent chemists as defined above. The data for the leading institutions in the 1930-39 and 1940-49 decades ia listed in Table 3. This list includes only those institutions which had three or more doctorate graduates who later qualified as eminent chemists. The number of chemistry doctorates granted by each institution for the 1930's was obtained from A Guide to Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools in United 8 t ~ t e . s . ~ The data for the 1940's was obtained from Progress Reports published by the ACS Committee on Professional Training in the Chemical and Engineering News.
Tnstit,nt,inn
5. Institutional Employment of Chemistry Members
Table
Harvard California Columbia Cxl. Tech. Illinois Wisconsin Mass. Inst. Tech. Yale Chicago Pennsylvania. Princeton
~~
members of the National Academy of Science is presented in Table 5.
Academy members (1)
Staff total (2)
8 4
28 21 29 30
5
5
28 6 1'1 0 17 2 16.G
G 2 3 4 5 2
Institutional Employment of Eminent Chemists,
1959 Institution
Number
Iowa State Mass. Inst. Tech. Wisconsin Chicam ~orthktern Penn State
The distribution of employment for the chemistry
The Chicago Tribune in its articles on the nation's top ten universities selected California (Berkeley), Chicago, Yale, Harvard, Wisconsin, and Cornell as the universities with ouktanding departments in chemistry.' These choices were based on the eminence of the faculty in these departments. Cal. Tech. and V., "A Guide to Colleges, Universities, and GOOD,CARTER Professionit1 Schools in the United States," American Council on Education, Washington 6, D.C., 1945. American Chemical Societv. " . "Directow of Graduate Research," 1959. 7 MANLY, CEESLY,Chicago Sunday Tribune, April 21, 1957. Volume 38, Number 12, December 7 9 6 1
/
631
MIT were not considered as universities by the Chicago writers. The reader will note that four of these universities (California, Chicago, Harvard, and Wisconsin) rank high in nearly every ranking of this study.
632
/
Journal of Chemicol Education
There is not such complete agreement concerning Yale and Cornell. Columbia ranked high in nearly all situations hut was not listed hy the Chicago mriters as an institution with a top chemistry faculty.
