Symposium on PhD Education in Chemistry
Introduction Peter Beak University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, Urbana, IL 61801 The educational aspects of PhD programs are less visible than the research nrohlems with which thev are inexorablv intertwined. Yet professors who are involved with PbD rlsearch are fundamentally concerned with the education of their students, and the development of the student is closely tied to progress in research, ~ b ~ p r o ~ r have a m sthe goal of producing new investigators who will have successful independent careers. These individuals must be capable of going beyond what they learned as students and continuing the processes of selfeducation that they have developed in doing their thesis research. I t is clearly essential to the future of chemistry that we attract the best students and that they become the committed, competent, and flexible investigators who will lead chemistry to and in the future. By many measures PhD education in this country is a highly successful enterprise. The programs attract wellqualified students from a wide variety of backgrounds, they are doing forefront research, and students from the programs are leading science and technology. The accomplishments cited in the Westbeimer and Pimmentel Reports are largely based on work done in PhD research, and the programs are recognized as world leading. An important issue, however, is whether the past provides the optimal pattern for the future (Chem. Eng. News 1987, (Sept. 28),24, 1987, (Oct. 26)). A symposium hvld at the New Orleans ACS meeting under thr auspices uf the Diviiioli of Chemical Educntion a i t h the support of the Monstanto and Rohm and Haas Companies brought together Jerry Mohrig (Carleton), Du Shriver (Northwestern), Ned Arnett (Duke), Larry Overman (UCIrvine), Richard Fenske (Wisconsin),Jim Burke (Rohm and
588
Journal of Chemical Education
Haas), Mark Wrighton (MIT), George Atkinson (Arizona), and Ken Hancock (NSF) for a discussion of their nersnectives on PhD education ih chemistry. The individual research erouDs - . that are the foundations of PhD programs have communicated much more effectively on science than on education. Discussions in the symposium did reveal a number of educational issues that are of common concern. Two such issues are the increasing time for the degree and decreasing flexibility of the programs. A pervasive factor seen as contributing to both problems is the competitive pressure under which all PhD programs operate. A research group must be highly productive to he funded, and individual students must have publications and often postdoctoral work to he considered for desirable positions. The strone focus and oroductivitv. reauired can . increase the timert takes for &dents to become independent investieators and reduce the breadth and flexihilitv of their education. These problems, like others discussed inthe symposium, are easier to identify them to resolve. The competitive mode has been successful, and competitive pressures seem likely to increase. The following articles, based on lectures given in the symposium, present issues that should be on the agendas of those concerned with PhD education. Mohrig (page 588) gives voice to the students, Arnett (page 590) outlines the qualities a program should have, Burke (page 592) gives a plan of a four-year program, Wrighton (page 594) highlights the promise of chemistry for some nontraditional areas and calls for change. The response to the present challenges, for better or worse, will play a major role in determining the role chemists will play in science in the future.
. .
