SPECIAL REPORT
Survey
of Graduate Education in Analytical Chemistry G. A. RECHNITZ Department of Chemistry State University of New York Buffalo, N.Y. 14214 TΉΕ
TION
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCA-
h a s conducted t w o studies
(1, 2) t o assess t h e quality of grad uate education in chemistry and other disciplines. These studies make no a t t e m p t t o assess subdis ciplines such as analytical chemis t r y . Y e t i t would be interesting and, perhaps, helpful t o have a measure of t h e quality and effec
Results:
tiveness of graduate education in analytical chemistry a s a n a i d t o future planning and a check on cur rent efforts. C r a m (3) has viewed the present situation in terms of a challenge t o educational institu tions. T h e present survey was con ducted along t h e lines of the C a r t t e r (1) report, using a questionnaire
Table 1. Summary of Survey Institutions Ranked "Good" or Better
Institutions scoring above 3.50 in Institutions scoring 3 . 2 5 - 3 . 4 9 in rank order alphabetical order Rank
Institution
Average Score
1 2 3 4 5
Purdue Wisconsin N o r t h Carolina Illinois Iowa State
4.59 4.54 4.44 4.26 4.12
Cornell SUNY, Buffalo M i c h i g a n State Indiana Florida Arizona Massachusetts Michigan Kansas Oregon State Georgia Louisiana S t a t e , B a t o n Rouge
4.00 3.88 3.87 3.80 3.77 3.70 3.69 3.61 3.58 3.56 3.53 3.52
6 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
California a t Los Angeles California a t Riverside Louisiana S t a t e , New Orleans Minnesota Texas, A u s t i n Wayne State
Institutions scoring 3 . 0 0 - 3 . 2 4 in alphabetical order Cal. T e c h . Clarkson Colorado State Florida State Iowa K a n s a s State Northwestern Pennsylvania State
1 Ranking should be regarded as tentative since survey was conducted from this in stitution.
constructed with information from the 1969 edition of t h e American Chemical Society's "Directory of G r a d u a t e Research." T h e ques tionnaire listed in alphabetical or der t h e 122 institutions which offer an analytical P h . D . program a c cording t o t h e 1969 ACS Directory. This questionnaire was mailed t o each individual identified as an analytical chemist in t h e Directory. Respondents were asked to indi cate: ". . . . which of the terms be low best describes your judgment of the quality of graduate education in analytical chemistry a t each in stitution listed?" with responses t o be selected from "Distinguished," "Strong," "Good," "Adequate," " M a r g i n a l , " and "Insufficient I n formation." Replies were received from some 120 individuals representing a p proximately 4 0 % of t h e analytical chemists listed in t h e A C S Direc tory. Results wyere tabulated a c cording to t h e scoring system Rating
No. of Points
Distinguished Strong Good Adequate Marginal
5 4 3 2 1
and averaged for each institution; responses of "Insufficient Informa-
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 43, NO. 4, APRIL 1971 ·
51 A
Special Report
tion" were tabulated but not included in the computation. Following the practice of the C a r t t e r (1) report, the principal results are presented (Table I) in three groups. T h e first group lists, in r a n k order, those institutions receiving average scores of 3.50 or higher. T h e second and third groupings list, in alphabetical order, those institutions with average scores in the ranges 3.25 to 3.49 and 3.00 to 3.24, respectively. All other institutions in the survey received average scores of less t h a n 3.00 and are not listed. (Individuals a t the institutions not listed in Table I but included in the survey m a y receive confidential information regarding their institution by writing to the author on official letterhead.) T h e results thus indicate t h a t approximately one-fourth of the 122 institutions nominally offering an a n a l y t ical P h . D . program are judged "Good" or better by analytical chemists in fellow academic institutions. I t would be interesting to know how the results of Table I compare with the judgment of a n a lytical chemists in four-year colleges, industry, and government laboratories ; such an investigation is beyond the scope of the present study, however. T a b l e I I compares the results of the present survey with the r a n k ings of the most recent American Council on Education study (2) for chemistry as a whole. Institutions with high overall ranking generally fare well in the analytical survey but strong analytical programs also are found in several less highly ranked institutions, and several institutions with high overall rank do not offer major analytical programs. T a b l e I I I indicates t h a t the leading analytical programs are not distributed evenly geographically. A heavy concentration of institutions in the top category is found in the Midwest; however, several strong contenders appear to be arising in both the South and Northeast. "Insufficient Information" responses for individual institutions ranged from zero to more t h a n 8 0 % of replies. As Table I V shows, the leading institutions also receive the smallest "Insufficient I n f o r m a t i o n " response. As a result, none of the institutions listed in Table I re-
Table II. Comparison of Ranked Institutions with Overall "Chemistry" Rating Institution
Rank in present survey
Rank in 1970 ACE studyi
Purdue
1
Wisconsin
2
15 8
North Carolina
3
Not ranked by n u m b e r
Illinois
4
6
Iowa State
5
15
Cornell
6
8
SUNY, Buffalo
7
Not ranked by n u m b e r
Michigan State
8
24
Indiana
9
20
Florida
10
35
Arizona
11
Not ranked by n u m b e r
Massachusetts
12
Not ranked by n u m b e r
Michigan
13
20
Kansas
14
Not ranked by n u m b e r
Oregon State
15
Not ranked by n u m b e r
Georgia
16
N o t r a n k e d by n u m b e r
Louisiana State, Baton Rouge
17
Not r a n k e d by n u m b e r
1
See Reference (2).
Table III. Geographical Distribution of Ranked Institutions Region
No. of institutions
Midwest South Northeast West
8 4 3 2
Table IV. "Insufficient Information" Responses for Ranked Institutions Percent "Insufficient Information" responses
Institution
Purdue
0
Wisconsin
4
North Carolina
8 2
Illinois Iowa State
7
Cornell
15
SUNY, Buffalo Michigan State
9 6
Indiana
10
Florida
16
Arizona Massachusetts Michigan
17 21 6 12
Kansas Oregon State Georgia Louisiana State Baton Rouge
35 20 18
ceived their high rankings as a consequence of a small number of averagable votes. I n addition to the formal questionnaires, a large number of letters, notes, and verbal comments were received in response to the survey. Several useful suggestions emerged from these comments—e.g., that the survey be repeated in three to five years ; t h a t an assessment be made of undergraduate education in analytical chemistry, as well; and, t h a t evaluations of quality be solicited from alumni and employers of analytical chemists. Furthermore, there appears to be a general consensus t h a t the profession needs to define the nature of a superior analytical program, set the minimum standards of personnel for such a program, and encourage lagging institutions among the major universities to meet these standards. I t is hoped t h a t this survey will contribute in some small w a y toward these goals. References
(1) A. M. Cartter, "An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education," American Council on Education, Washington, D. C, 1966. (2) K. D. Roose and C. J. Anderson, "A Rating of Graduate Programs," American Council on Education, Washington, D. C, 1970. (3) S. P. Cram, Res.I Develop. 21 (7), 16 (1970).
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 43, NO. 4, APRIL 1971 ·
53 A
