I
Examination Systems at the Graduate Level
Arnold J. Gordon' Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20017
1
A survey and analysis o f chemistry and biochemistry in the U.S. and Canada
T h e use of letter or numerical grades as a measure of a student's performance during a course is a subject of continuous debate at all levels of education (1). Assignment of course grades is fairly standard throughout academe, although there is some tendency to adopt a pass-fail grading system. The situation in graduate school is somewhat different, since in addition to following a prescribed curriculum, the student must also demonstrate ability through separate systems of written and/or oral examinations in his major and allied fields, as well as in foreign languages. Of considerable importance to any graduate chemistry program are the nature and efficiency of the particular examination practices employed. Yet there is no general information available on the sometimes widely differing systems in use for assaying a graduate stiudent's ability from the time he enters graduate school until he leaves with (or without) an advanced degree. I t would he of considerable interest and use, especially to young departments and those intending changes, to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the nature and success of existing systems at other colleges and universities. For example, comprehensive versus cumulative examinations, language requirements, oral examinations, etc., are subjects of perennial debate; knowledge of actual data on their use can make discussion and decision more meaningful and rational. With the above in mind, an extensive survey has been conducted; questionnaries were sent to chairmen of all chemistry and biochemistry departments in the USA (295 and 108, respectively) ( 2 ) and Canada (43 and 22, respectively) (5) that offer graduate degrees a t the master's or doctoral level. The questions asked were concerned with: size of faculty and graduate student body; qualifying (placement), comprehensive, cumulative. oral, and laneuaae examinations: thesis requiremeits; use of ACS standard examinations; and related topics, including an opinion survey on comprehensive versus examinations' Answers On current ~racticewere requested (as of November, 1967). The data were stored on IBM 5081 cards and were an&zed with an IBM 1620 computer.2 There was a total of 20 numbered questions, several with more than The last item was reserved for gellera' 'OmOne part. ments (if desired) by the respondeilt. I n order to avoid infringing on the privacy of an individual participant's replies, each respandc?Ilt was askeCl for his preference concerning anonymity of all or specific mswers. Particiuation was a r a t i f ~ i n d yvery extensive (70-75% except,for ~anadinyl~ioche%stry,about40%).
-
Degrees Offered and Department Populafions
The first question was concerned with degrees offered and was made the basis of category division as follows (No. gives the number of pa~ticipatingdepartments in the survey) : 1)iviaion
Canada; Cbemistyy; Ma3ter's and Ik,ct,oral USA. Riachemislrv. 1)oetoral onlv USA; l(iochemistr$; Master's srrd Ihctoml Canada, Riochemialry, Master's and 1)octorrtl
AbbreviationS No.
CC-MD UB-I)
22
UB-MI)
61
CB-MI1
8
13
The above eight are the only combinations observed; the abbreviations will he used throughout this paper. It is noteworthy that on the average, the student to faculty ratio for chemistry is about double that for biochemistry within each country. I n this connection, it is found that those USA universities receiving the largest share of Federal support (at least through 1966) (4) invariably have student-faculty ratios greater than 4.5 (for chemistry); the ratio for more than 80% of all UC falls between 0 and 4. I n the CC category nearly 50% of the departments have 2-3 students per faculty member; 1 Presented in part at the 155th National Meeting of the ACS, San Francisco, California, April, 1968. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the Small Grants Program, Division of Chemical Education, ACS for partial support of this work. The full report on this survey runs 66 pages, includes 24 tables, and contains many more details than those herein, including student and faculty population data. and a master list of all known chemistry and biochemistry graduate departments (with addresses) m the United States and Canada. For a. CODY of the full report, a. self-addressed, Us/. X 11-in. envelope with at least 20 cents postage h x ~ l be d sent. A standard frequency count program was used; for some of the tabulations involving numerical sums and ratios, a special program was prepared. For technical assistance and use of the C.U. Com~utinaCenter facilities, I thank Mr. Richard Morgan, Direcaor d the3enter. ~ e t a i l dstatistical analysis of all-the data was deemed i w p r o ~ r i a t e . Throughout this report, cornparisons are made between two "independent" samples (for example, between practices in master's and doctoral programs in USA chemistry departments). As a test, chi square anelyses were performed for several of the cases, showing that rrtndom Occurrence of the comparative data is expected less than 5% of the time (in some cases, p < 0.001) for USA chemistry. In the other the sample was smaller in some cases '0 > ax precise aumtitative analvses are not intended and the results should be examined in that, light.
."
~~~~
.~
~
~~
~
.
Volume 45, Number 9, September 1968
/
591
the remainder fall between 0-2 and 3 4 . The largest, single department was in the UC-ILZD division and had about 400 graduate students and 50 faculty members.4 The smallest department (UC-11) had 1 student and 5 faculty members.3 Results
Henceforth, a statement of the question posed to the respondents will be followed by a discussion of the tabulated data. Note that departments offeringboth M and D degrees often do not distinguish between these categories in certain areas, such as examinations for entering students. However, the questions were designed so as to elicit answers according to 1\.I and D divisions, artificial though they may be in the initial stages of a graduate student's career. Except where indicated the data for UC-ME are included under UC-IM. Are Placement Examinations Administered to Entering Graduate Students?
Greater than 90% of all UC-MD use some kind of placement examination compared to only 66% of UC-M and a much lower 40-45% for CC-11 and CC-R'ID (Table 1). In both countries, very few biochemistry departments use such examinations.' Some USA departments (mainly UC-M) not using placemerit examinations indicate heavy reliance on GRE scores and grade transcripts to aid in the design of student curricula. Table 1 .
Division UC-M UC-MD % of T O W CC-M CC-MD % of Total Un-D UII-MD % of Total CR-MD
Placement Examinations to Entering Graduate Students 7 M % . . Usea
66 92 82 40
-
..
% ACSb
41 41
79 87 85 50 22 27
...
...
7
D
." ...
9. UBB ~
-
~~
~
94 94
...
..,
58
31
58
13
...
13
37
30 30 07 68 68
If Placement Examinations Are Given, Are ACS Standard Examinations Used? ( 5 )
Table 1shows that about 85% of all UC departments t,hat answered Yes to the first question use ACS Examinations at least some of the time. As expected, very few departments in Cariada (CC or CB) make use of the Examinations; absence of formal affiliation with the ACS is probably a major reason, as indicated by specific comments on some returns. Table 2 shows the number of departments using a given ACS Examination. Clearly, the Graduate Level series is used much more frequently a t UC-MD than the College Level series; the most popular (77% of all departments using ACS tests) is the Organic Chemistry Examination. A bit surprising is the small number of UB departments (-20%) that makes use of the College Level Biochemistry Test. The College Level General, Qualitative Analysis, and Biochemistry Tests are the least used among UC departments.
/
Journal of Chemical Education
UC-M (38). CL a'
UC-MD (I?)* C
UB-MD (I,$)* C
Analytical Inorganic Organic Physical General Quantitative Qualitative -Bioohemioai ....... T I r numlwr nf drperlrm8ls that l t w ( . S exam881 1-8, 8~01etitased. T l r I ~ U I nl C ~ c l w~ a r l m r n v I M ~ W the Co'lege I.cI.PI ,l or the Gradtosle L w r . 1 ; .\('.5 ~:rsrmr.alron Uofs m l t r a l e n~ ACS exam of that rspr.
Are Special Examinations Offered to Allow Exemption from Specific Graduate Courses?
The practice of granting "advanced standing" through course exemption examinations is not widespread; in both chemistry and biochemistry only 1& 15% of all departments, USA and Canada, use such a device. In contrast, credit examinations are now widely offered in the public domain (USA) at the undergraduate level through the College Entrance Examination Board's new College-Level Examination Program (6). What Written Examination System, if Any, Is Used to Evaluate the Degree Candidate?
This inquiry was predicated on the notion that most departments use either a "comprehensive" (single long examination(s)) or a "cumulative" examination system (staggered series of short examinations) to assay a graduate student's ability and/or progress in his major and allied disciplines. Both systems can be and are d e signed and administered in many different ways, but it is still convenient to classify them under these two
~
The percent of departments requiring placement examinations. The percent of thoserequiring such e x a m that uae ACS standard t e s t s
592
Eramination
Use of Standard ACS Examinations
% ," ACR
... 87 87
45 45 23 39
31
~
Table 2.
"he specific degrees offered by various departments are: MS, MSE (Education), MA, MAT (Teaching), MPh, PhD, DSc, and D P H (Public Health); the last two are offered by biochemistry departments only. Some schools offer only master's degrees in Education or Teaching, often as part of the NSF Summer Institute Program (chemistry). There are also a t least six departments whose Doctoral degrees are offered only through a nearby, larger imiversity; e.g., Mount Holyoke, Amherst, and Smith Colleges through the Universit,~of Massachusetts; Miami University (Ohio) through Ohio State University; Ssn Diego State College through University of California. a t San Diego; and Institute of Paper Chemistry through Lawrence University (Wisconsin). Many schools offer Biochemistry as a discipline within the Department of Chemistry; these cases are included wit,h chemist,ry departments. Generally, Departments of Biochemistry offer only biochemistry as a major discipline. The Depart,ment, of Chemistry a t New Mexico Institute of Mining end Technology grants a PhD in biochemistry only, hot master's degrees in other disciplines. The University of Illinois College of Medicine has a Department of Biolagied Chemistry (UB-MD). Unlike biochemistry, no chemistry departments offer a l y B doctoralprogram. ' When specific data are cited without identifying the in~titution, it signifies that anonymity was requested for that item. Detailed, separate studies are in progress of faculty, graduate student, and postdoctoral student populations as well as the amount and nature of financial support received by chemistry and biochemistry departments in the USA. These include "Doctoral Education in Chemistry," R. H. Linnell and D. S. Chapin, Nabions1 Science Foundation (J. CHEM.EDUC.,to be published) and "Funding of Chemical Research a t Universities," N R C and ACS (an extension of the Westheimer Report; to be published). 'The sample obtained for CB-MD is undoubtedly too small to warrant firm conclusions, and the data throughout should he interpreted in that light.
Table 3.
Written Examination Systems Used b y Chemistry Departments for Evaluation of Degree Candidates*
Maior Discipline
Comp
Weighted average, all disoi~dines(%)
40
Analytical
Bioohemistw
Inorganic Orpanic Physical Other
Cum
8
6 3 6 6 6
1 1 3
0
3
5 3
Master's Prowama Both None
-0
52
0 0 0 0
0 0
15
11 16
14
16 8
Eb
...
(@I.
The data collected in Tables 3-6 summarize current practice. The "major disciplines" indicated are arbitrary choices and all may not be meaningful for some departments. Respondents were asked to indicate "Other" major disciplines, if offered; nuclear chemistry, polymer chemistry, geochemistry, space science, and chemical physics were mentioned. A few departments use "Both" comprehensive ("Comp") and cumulative ("Cum") examinations, while some use "None." Departmats .oj"Chemistry a) Slightly less than one-half of all chemistry departments in the USA or Canada offer degrees in biochemistry. This discipline has the largest percent of departments reqniring no formal written examinatton in M or D programs in the USA or Canada;
The figure from Tahle 3 (48'%) combines both UC-M and UC-MD cases; the point is that UC-MD departments lower the average. The entire question of the "best" method for examining graduate students is, of course, subject to debate. Comprehensive, cumulative (7), and oral examinations or original research propositions (see below) may serve completely different purposes and may measure different things depending on how they are designed and administered. On the other hand, the same might be said of any examination, in a course or otherwise. The comprehensive (or preliminary) examination is generally used to test a candidate's over d l knowledge and his success in assimilating material from all his coursework; cumulative examinations (7) usually treat specific topics and may be used to direct a student's attention to current literature or to gauge indepth knowledge in an ares. A few respondents expressed the opinion that oral examinations are superior to any written system; the pros and cons of this sentiment are obvious and too complex to discuss here. 7
Comp
Cum
...
42
49
5
9
3 2 5
0
B. Canada 22 0 15 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 11 0
definitions. There are some departments whose methods do not fall neatly into a simple category; participants were asked in a later question if any other exam system were in use and some are described below. The only other discussions of examination practices I am aware of are a local critique of cumulative examinations a t UCLA (7); a personal, unpublished survey in 1960 by C. H. DePuy on graduate work by organic chemistry students a t 13 departments (8); a brief discussion in the Xavier Conference report on master's programs and in its subsequent updating (Qa); and the results of a brief study on examinations at the A45 and MA levels
Doctoral Pmgram. Both None
ACSc
e.g., in 42% -- ,".
5
8
8 8 0
0 0 0 0 0
8 6
2
S
ACS.
4
...
...
7 6 7
19 13 20 21
0 0
7
0
5 7 5
1 1
21
1
Table 4A, (20/28) (100) or 72%, compared to the average,
h ) On the average, a cumulstive is slightly more popular than a comprehensive system in UC doctoral programs; the opposite is true, m d by a much wider margin, for UC-M programs. At the Xavier Conference (9) most participants favored (but were not using) only oral examinations; however, 10 out of 13 schools were using written comprehensive examinations. c) I n the same connection, Table 4 shows that UC-M de8 = partments use a. written examination more often (50 58%) than UC-MD depmtment,~ do in their M program.' d ) Cumulatives are nsed more for orgenie chemistry than for any other discipline; this is particularly true for D programs. A small number of department,^ use both systems for a given field; organic is again favored in this respect. e) The results for Canada require special comment. Even in D programs no formal written examination is required in 36% of the eases (Table 3B). However, the graduate education system in Canada is closer to the British than to the American. Entrance to a g r a d u t ~ t eprogram in Great Britain is based on baccalaureate performance; up to perhaps 90% of all science graduate students receive financial support from the Science Research Council. The equivalent of a. Master's degree is offered, but infrequently pursued. The PhD program consists almost entirely of research and seminars, with no formal course work or examinations, except for a. final oral. Several Canadian respondents indicated that their system relies heavily on course grades, major problem assignments, and student seminars. Therefore, the high percent using no written examination should not he constructed as reflecting a lenient s y ~ t e m . ~
+
Table 4. Written Examinotion Systems Used b y Chemistry Departments Granting Only Master's Degrees. Maim Discinline
Como
Cum
A. Anslytics1 Biochemistry Inorganic Organic Physical
34 6 37 38 38
Weighted average, all disciplines (V0)
50
other
organio l'hysieal Other
weighted average, all dia. o i ~ l i n e s(%) a
0
36
0
25
0
2
0 25
6 6 6
0 0
n
25 25
8
0
0
R. 2 1 2 2 2
None
6 2
0
Analyticel ilioohemistry .Inor.an.e
Both
ACS
Z
USA
0
Canada 0 0 0 0 0
0
1
0
0 2
0 0
8
0
2
65 2
8
0 4
68
69 69
4 4
7
0
42
...
...
3 2 3
5
0 0 0 0
7
3
3
5 S 5
56
...
2
0
0
2
0
...
For use of table, see footnotea. Tshle 3.
Volume 45, Number 9, September 1968
/
593
Toble 5.
Written Exominotion Systems Used by Biochemistry Departments for Evoluotion of Degree Condidatera Cum
Comp
Diaoipline
Master's Pmgrams Both None A.
Biochemistry Analytical 1norgmio Organic Phyeioai Other Weiahted average (%I Weighted svera=e, "onBioehemiatrv (%)
34(60%) 4 1 7 7 2 44
:(10%1
15(22%) 10 10 9
0 0 0 0 2
3 44
9
0
60
31
Biochemistry
:(8%1
1 2 2 0 10
0
Z
ACS
USA 57 15 12 18 18 5
Comp
Cum
2
?(77%)
0
6 14 2 2 55
0 1 8 1 10
0 0 10 0
37
14
12
0 0
0 0
...... . . . .
:(LO%)
Dootoral P m g r a m s Both None
z
ACS
36%)
'a
2(25%1 0
Ansivtiosl
...... Weighted average (%I
10
" For nee of table, see footnotes, Table 3.
Toble 6. Written Examinotion Systems Used by USA Biochemistry Departments Granting Only Doctoral Degrees& Diacioline
Como
Cum
Both
None
I:
ACS
Weidlted average
(7%)
a
82
'a
4.5
4.5
For use of table, see footnotes. Table 3.
dynamics, kinetics, molecular structure, and advanced preparative methods. At University of Connecticut (Storm Campus) (UGMD), all doctoral candidates take the same "qualifying" cumulative exams (in addition to placement examinations) and then a. comprehensive in their major (cumulative for organic). e) The University of Southern California (UC-MD) requires comprehensives for the MA degree but no formal written examinations for the MS and PhD; special, limited written exams and orals are used instead. f ) At DePauw University (UC-M, Indiana) the master's candidate must pass "satisfactorily" the Graduate Record Examination in chemistry before starting his last year or semester; the only other examinations are general and thesis orals. Montclair State College (UC-M, New Jersey) also uses the GRE, hut only on a placement basis for questionable students. Similar use of the GRE is made by Brock University (Ontario, Canada) i.,-r-L.Llr. ,
Departmats of Bwchemigtry I n addition to biochemistry, students are examined in other subjects, principally organic and physical chemistry. s) The numbers in parentheses (Tables 5 and 6) beside Biochemistry give the percent of departments using that exmination system. A minority (10-20%) uses a cumulative system, the majority (60-80Yo),fworing comprehensives for biochemistry .. itself (USA). For UB-D programs (Table 6) only comprehensives are b) used for non-biochemistry fields and all departments require an examination ("None" = 0%). However, no examinations are given in these fields in more than half the master's granting depsrtments (60%, Table 5). D programs in UB-MD departments me also less demanding in this aspect compared to those in UB-D, as reflected in the 377%"None" figure in Table 5. e ) Biochemistrv de~artmentsoverwhelminalv -. favor (or a t least u s e s e e below) comprehensive examinations.
" .
General Consi&ratwns a ) There are some departments that use only comprehensive or only cumnlative systems for all disciplines. A fairly large number (52) in UC, representing 38Yo of all doctoral granting departments, use only cumulative examinations for their PhIl programs; 51 (or ahont 24y0)of UC me only comprehensives for their M programs. b) Some chemistly departments, such as that a t University of Califarnis a t Santa Barbara, offer joint, inter-field cumulative examinations; combinations found are physical chemistry/ chemical physies, physicdl/organie, hioehemistry/organic, and inarganic/analytical. e ) At one UC-MD the MS candidate is excused from comprehensive examinations if he does a thesis. d) I t is not known how many department,^ reqnire a "minor" concent,ration or whether the candidate is t,ested in that field. One U G M D , a t the University of Wisconsin, requires for the PhD two comprehensives. Rntgers University uses comprehensives for a minor and cumulatives for the major. In the U G M department a t Furman University (South Carolina) a. student is required to t,ake one comprehensive in his major plus a general exam that covers quantum mechanics, statistical thermo-
594
/
Journol of Chemical Education
xrt
g) The UB-MD department a t Haward University bas abandoned comprehensives and cumulstive e x a m and now relies on course grades and orals. When Comprehensives Are Given, Are Any of the ACS College or Graduate Level Examinations Used?
A very small number of departments always use ACS tests for comprehensives; a slightly larger number use them sometime. In general, no greater than 10-15% of chemistry or biochemistry departments use them at all. The actual usage is found under the columns "ACS" in Tables 3-6. I f Cumulative Examinations Are Given, Is the Student Required to Pass a Pre-Exominofion?
To judge a student's "readiness" for entrance to a cumulative system, some departments require his passing a "pre-cum" examination. A fairly large percent (34%) follow this practice in UC-MD departments; no UC-%l departments do, and it is assumed that the 34% figure for UC-ILZD applies completely (or nearly so) to doctoral program^.^ A few schools use the results of preliminary (entering) examinations (see above) as the basis for admittance to a cumulative system. The Department of Chemistry, Montana State University ("all-cum" system) requires the passing of three (out of eight) general cums followed by three (out of eight) in the major field. About 15 of the total UC departments using an all cum system for Some departments that use cumulatives and a "pre-cum" conceivably might consider the latter s. type of comprehensive exam; thns, some of the "Bath" category in Tables 3-6 may include this possibility. I t is not known to what extent this i~ tme.
the PhD require written "pre-cum" exams for each field (usually analytical, inorganic, organic, physical); one department (UC-MD) requires "pre-cum" orals for all fields. "Pre-cums" are used principally (USA and Canada) for organic, but also commonly for inorganic and physical chemistry. Table 7.
An Opinion Survey Based on The Questionl: Which Examination, Comp or Cum:
(a) Is better for judging a student's ability? ( b ) Is the better pedagogical tool? ( c ) Puts less "pressure" on the student? ( d ) Interferes less with student research? (e) Is more efficient in eliminating incompetent students? (f) Eliminates the incompetent student more quickly? (g) Requires more faculty effort in preparation and execution? ( h ) Is more diffiucult to evaluate, in terms of results? USA Chemistry USA Biochemistry Canada Chemistry (142)* (441. 85). Cum N S D W o m p Cum NSDb Comp um NSD' (%) (%I (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%I (%)
Comp
Question (a)
(d) (4)
8. . (hl
18 16 13 33 28 45 14 45
44 68
73 55 36 33 69 29
38 16 14 12 30 22 17 26
59 37 24 56 33 31 20 33
25 41 64 32 37 46 66 17
16 22 12 12 30 23 14 50
43 30 36 47 42 36 13 64
43 50 50 33 29 57 74 29
14 14 14 20 29 7 13 7
-Number in parentheses ia total *ample (number of departments) on which poll is baaed. NSD-no significant difference.
Opinion Survey on Comprehensive versus Cumulative Systems
Most of us have argued about the merits and demerits of each examination system; based on comments from individual respondents, debate is rather extensive and important, since many departments are considering trial adoption of a cumulative system. Each survey participant was asked to obtain a departmental poll on answers to eight questions comparing the comp and cum systems. Several departments had very little or no experience with cumulative examinations and could not honestly offer meaningful opinions. Therefore, the sample obtained was less than total returns. In surveying the results (Table 7) several points should be kept in mind. Assuming the average number of faculty per department is about 15, the samples represent roughly 2100 "opinions" for UC, 650for UB, and 220 for CC. An individual's choice of answer to a given question may depend on the department's specific system-timing of cumulative examinations, number of passes required in how many attempts; breadth of comprehensive exams, their timing; are some of the parameters that could influence a "vote."lo Finally, like all polls, this one is subject to the influence of word definitions and interpretations; the best example, perhaps, is the word ability (creative, recall, analytical, etc.?) in question (a). The only good agreement between UC, UB, and CC is found for questions b, c, and g. Further interpretation is left to the discretion of the reader. Interestingly, more departments requested anonymity for their results of this poll than for any other question. One somewhat curious finding was that 10 UC and 5 UB departments overwhelmingly favor cumulative examinations on the poll, but are using comprehensives almost exclusively.
Table 8. Division
Yea
UC-M UC-MD Totals % .- of Total CC-M CC-MD Totala %of Totala UB-D UB-MD
3 5
Totals % of Totals CB-MD
-
Original Proposition Requirements No
M
SDO*
%' ..
0 0 0
4 4
8
7 1 133 204
2 0 2
3 2 1 24
0 1 1
...
4 40 4
...
No
Yea
D----.
W '..
800-
. . . . . . . . . . . . 65 65
63 63
12 12
...
54
...
...
...
...
54
4 4
1
7 17
1 1
2
...
... 7 7
53 53
0
8
...
...
0
...
0
12 12 0
0
24 28
8 36 44
0 0 0
1
7
0
4
3
...
11
23 33 40
... 1
39 3
SDO specific diaoipline only. % = 100 (Yes SDO)/(Yea
+
+ No + SDO).
Is the Individual Student Required fo Submit an Origin01 Research Proposal Not Connected with Actual Thesis Research?
Some departments require a written report (or more than one) which may or may not be subject to an oral defense; others may use only an oral examination to examine the student's prepared original research proposal. Table 8 shows that the general requirement is associated mainly with doctoral programs, and is used in more than half the UC-MD departments. Not all departments employing this device require it for all fields of study. Some original proposition systems warrant individual description: Oral defense of one proposition for the master's and six for the PhD are required a t Princeton University (UC-MD); oral defense of four is required for the PhD a t another institution (UC-MD); the proposition requirement at one large department (UC-MD) is left to the discretion of the PhD student's thesis committee; a t two departments (UB) the proposition requirement is optional for the student. Is a Formal Thesis Required for the Master's Degree? I f so, Library or Original Research?
The master's thesis requirement is somewhat more stringent in Canada than in the USA, as shown in the %-column, Table 9. A total of 32 UC departments (15%) make the thesis optional; 12 departments (6%) require no thesis at all.11 Under type of thesis, virtually no departments insist on a Library thesis; however, some (e.g., 15 or about 8% of those UC departments requiring a thesis) allow the student an option between Library or Research. The 9% difference between UC-M and UC-MD departmental divisions (Table 9, % column) is not large enough to infer that, a t least on the basis of thesis requirements, the MS is a "consolation prize" (9) a t UC-MD departments. Michigan State University (UC-MD) excuses foreign students, while Northeastern University (Massacbu'0 See footnote 8. Also, for some discussion on these points and on a similar poll at UCLA, see (7). "Included in this last figure are some departments whose only master's degrees are those in teaching or education or those offered through NSF Summer Institutes. For example, SUNY at Cortland (MS in Education) and a western university (MS in Teaching) have no written or oral examinations, or language and thesis requirements; degrees are based solely on course requirements.
Volume 45, Number 9, September 1968
/
595
Table 9.
Thesis Requirements for Master's Degrees Type of Thesis
op-
Division
Yes
tional
UC-M UC-MD UC Totala
63 105 188 5 21 26 50 8
9 23 32 0 1 1 7 0
CC-M CC-MD CC Totals UR-MD CB-MD
%
= 100 Yes/(Yes
Li-
.Op-
brarv Research 0 0 0 0 0 0
tronal
No
W
3 12 15 0
2 10 12 0 0 0 4 0
85 76 79 100 96 97 82 100
69 116 I85 5 21 26 54 8
1
0
1
1 2 0
+ No + optional).
setts, UC-RID) and Rochester Institute of Technology (New York, UC-RI) excuse part-time students from the MS thesis (the last cited, on the basis that part-time students are exposed to research experience a t work). The University of Nebraska (UC-MD) (and probably others) remove the MS thesis requirement if the student qualifies for the PhD program.
tion, aside from a thesis defense oral. The results (Table 11) may be difficult to interpret since many consider oral defense of research propositions a "general" oral; others routinely use the thesis defense oral to test a candidate's "general" knowledge. However, a large number of departments did stipulate usage of a separate, general oral especially for master's programs. From comments received, there appears to be a trend toward greater reliance on oral examinations. It is not known if this is due to mistrust of or disenchantment with conventional, written systems; certainly the differentexam types are not equivalent to or substitutes for one another. USA biochemistry departments employ the general oral much more so than chemistry. I n general, about half the UC departments use an oral that is general. Table 11.
The data summarized in Table 10 are read as for the following example. There are 128 UC-MD departments requiring a master's thesis; in 11% of these only the research supervisor (RSO) officially reads the dissertation. The other 89y0 (N = 113) make use of a committee; 58% of these use a three man committee. In addition, 29y0 of the "committee users" employ one outside reader (within or outside the school) in addition to the department committee. I n summary, very few departments in all divisions rely on RSO. I n chemistry and biochemistry most departments have two to four man committees for master's and three to five for PhD theses. However, for doctoral theses, many biochemistry departments in the USA favor larger committees, as well as larger numhers of outside readers; other divisions most often have one outside reader, if any. Canadian schools use outside readers considerably more than the American.
UC-M UCMD Total or % of Total CC-M CC-MD Total or % of Total UB-D UB-MD Total or % of Total CB-MD
(%I
111 3 16 19
...
...
47 47 3
136 22 13 61 74 8
2 0 0 0 0 0
133 22 13 58 71
7 9 8 2 3
8
28
14 14 5
3 A.
4
Master's Thesis
8 10 9 25 25 25 11 34 B. PhD The& 38 34 41 23 54 15 0 9 10 10 63 58 60 25 55 50 51 33
29
28
+
/
Journal of Chemical Education
(%-)
...
..
...
...
i0' 80
48 40 27 30
58 58
... 15 15 9 56 65 6
... 77 77 38
7 7 4 5 9 2
58 58
68 68 69 92
88 75
Reader* (%)---2
-Outside 0
1
25 0 4 2 0
63 65 65 25 62 56 52 29
36 29 31 50 38 40 36 43
1 5 4 25 0 4 8 14
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14
20 18 15 48 42
1 9 8 41 35
29 0 31 20 22
55 55 31 40 38
15 41 38 37 37
1 4 0 3 3
14
0
0
75
25
0
5
>5
10 2 5 0 0 0 4 0
3 0 1
No. = number of departments requirinp a theais; for master's. No. = ( Y u Optional) in Table 9. R S 0 = researoh supervisor only. (y 0. 1. . . .). Gives % of departments using a committee of X members (X = 1. 2, . . .) ~ " dv outside N = number of departments on which are baaed t h e % figures under Committee and outside Readam.
596
38;
No
Yea/(Yea + No).
Committee of:r (%)
R
ii
Yea
Official Dissertation Reoden
2 16 30 25 25 20 21 32 33
UC-MD CC-MD UB-D UB-MD
d
Nd 62 113 175 4 20 24 47 6
72 128 200 5 22 27 57
b
(%I
8 11 10 20 9 11 10 0
UC-M UC-MD Total or % of Total CC-M CC-MD Total or % of Total UB-MD CR-Mn ...-
Totd or % of Total CB-MD
RSOd
46 55 101 2 6 8
(%)*
This traditional practice is apparently more widespread for master's degrees in the USA (80-90%) than in Canada (60%). Nearly all schools require it for the PhD; Princeton (UC-MD) is one of two UC-1LZD exceptions. Comments received indicate that many orals are theoretically open, but are not publicized or well attended; others are open to all intra- and extra-school faculty but are closed to students. Biochemistry (USA) orals appear to be the most open.
Before this survey was made, it was not known if departments require an all-encompassing oral examina-
No:
= 100
No
Is an Oral Thesis Defense Required far fhe Degree? Is fhe Oral Open to the Public?
Is a General Oral Examination Required for the Degree?
Table 10.
D
M
Yea
Division
Who Officially Reads the Dissertotian?
Division
General Oral Examination Usage
-
>2
Table 12.
-....
niviaion
UC-M UC-MD %of TotalUC CC-M CC-MD %of Total CC UB-D UB-MD % of Total UB CB-MD
J
0
a, ."1
2
30 34 32 40 57 54
70 63 05 20 38 35
0 3 3 40 5 11
4" 20 28 50 25 31
...
...
...
... 14 14 14
49 49 57
49 49 43
2 2 0
Foreign Language Examination Requirements %
% Bothd
50 75 69
4 30 20 0 0 0
0 8 5 0 0 0
...
...
...
CTSI 00
42 47
40 40 86
33 33 0
13 13 0
*
... 0 0
...
...
...
...
...
9 9 0
0 0 12
14 14
23 23 23 37 34 38
86 86
68 08 77 63 60 50
Discussions with colleagues from many universities and comments on the questionnaires indicate a wide consensus on the feeling that in most cases (particularly a t the doctoral level) the oral thesis defense is a perfunctory exercise, sewing no real purpose. It is extremely awkward for a department to have allowed a student to proceed as far as an oral thesis defense, only to be placed in the position of "failing" him. There may be exceptions but a more attractive approach would he to require a completely open, formal, thesis seminar--the culmination of the student's residence in the department. This is not too different from the practice in many European schools (10).
an MS candidate may be required to pass a Michigan Standard English Language Examination. Based on the notoriously poor writing habits of American scientists, some form of English writing training and examination might also be in order in the USA (12 ) . Many departments have introduced non-language options; these are "tools-of-the-trade" skills, such as computer science or programming, and statistics (which could be referred to as a computer language and a mathematics language, respectively) as well as electronics and tracer techniques. The following details illustrate this trend; the practices described refer mainly to PhD programs, but several schools have incorporated them into master's programs.
How Many Foreign Longuages Are Required? Are the Longuoge Exominotions Prepared by the Chemistry (Biochemistry) Department, another Deportment, or ETS (Princeton)?
1 ) York University (Toronto, Canada) (CC-MD) requires Fortran instead of a foreign language for the PhD. 2 ) Departments of biochemistry at the fallowing allow one language plus statistics and/or computer science: U. of Arizona (Tucson), Indiana U. School of Medicine, U. of Kansas, U. of Missouri, Princeton U., St. Louis U., UCLA Medical Schnol (Biological Chemistry), and U. of Maine (tracer techniques is an option). 3) Statistics and/or computer science are options at the chemistry departments of the following: American U. (Washingt,on, D.C.), George Washington U. (Washington, D.C.), U. of Iowa, St. Louis U., Wayne State U. (Detroit), and U. of Wyoming (electronics is an option).
The subject of foreign language requirements is a hotly debated one (11) and involves the following questions, and more: how many and what languages, if any; who should prepare the examination; what kind of examination should be given; when should the requirement be fulfilled; should language or non-language options be offered; are current requirements adequate for the needs? As discussed below, many interesting variations have evolved, but the basic issue on the necessity for the graduate school foreign language requirement remains to be aired. I refer the reader to the very critical and penetrating discussions already in print (11). Current practice is summarized in Table 12. The data in Table 12 apply to all institutions in the survey. Unlike the case in Canada, there are no USA chemistry departments that forego the language requirement for doctoral students; 86% require 2 languages. I n general, Canadian schools have a less demanding language requirement. UC and UB departments use OD exams on the average more than the others; no Canadian departments use ETS. UB-D departments use selfprepared (DP) more than the other exams. Departments granting only master's degrees (UC-M) make more use than UC-MD of D P exams. One large, eastern UC-WID department requires for the PhD, reading and speaking ability in one, or reading ability in two languages. In Canada, many students have facility in both French and English before entering graduate school and are often required to pursue a third language (usually German or Russian). I n some cases, such as at Brock University (Ontario, Canada) (CC-At),
In this context, a fundamental and logical question arises: if these non-language subjects are truly "toolsof-the-trade," then why are they not required in the curriculum rather than provided for under the guise of a non-language option? I n the not too distant future these subjects, especially computer science, will become as mandatory as say, calculus; eventually they will be taught routinely a t the undergraduate level or earlier. It appears, at least to me, that non-language options merely provide a vehicle for escaping the basic questions on language requirements. Special Examination Sy~ternr'~
A typical and quite common sequence for the graduate student is as follows (in chronological order) : 1) A battery of entering (placement) examinations-more than one chance to pass an exam in a given field is usually granted, allowing the student to make up "deficiencies." 2) UC-M departments then offer comprehensive or cumulative exams in the major. Many UC-MD departments offer,
Comments in this section refer to practices at USA departments. Volume 45, Number 9, September 1968
/
597
instead, written qualifying exams embracing the four major areas; this serves to determine PhD candidacy. 3) Once P h D cand~dacy is established, a comprehensive (sometimes called a preliminary) or cumulative system is required in the major. 4) Oral defense of the thesis.
Interspersed among the above h a y be additional requirements (original propositions, general orals, etc.). The specific details are variable, particularly as to timing of exams; also, PhD candidacy may be decided by course performance rather than by special qualifying *YR."?R. -..-.. .-.
There are some systems that demand individual descrintion. These are offered not merelv for the record. but to make other departments aware of practiced alternatives. The handling of very poor and very good students is relatively simple; it is the grey area in which faculties have awesome trials of decision. No examination or selection system is optimum for every case and often each student must be dealt with individually. Imaginative change~hopefullyimprovements-in the traditional systems are worthy of earnest consideration. The systems described below, if not necessarily the best or better, provide ample food for thought. All refer to PhD programs for students already admitted to graduate school. As much detail as possible is provided. U. of Rochester (UB-MD) 1. No entrance exams. 2. Three part oral: organic, physical, biochemistry. 3. Two research propositions and oral defense of each, at which two other departments are represented. 4. Oral thesis defense. Johnson Research Foundation, U. of Pennsylvania (UB-D) 1. No entrance exams. 2. Laboratory training projects, for which each student must submit short "protocols!' 3. Six three-hour questions, given over two days after two years of study, covering physics, physical chemistry, biochemistry and biophysics; also, a. preliminary oral exam. 4. One-half to one year later, orsl exam on student's ideas and general knowledge of his thesis project (snhmitted as a written "protocol"). 5. Final thesis oral. Examining a student on his chosen thesis topic before as well as after the fact is particularly appealing.
Boston U. (UC-MD) 1. General entrance exams, taken only once; remedial work may he prescribed. 2. Students must select research advisor and register for research within one year of entrance. They then immediately begin an examination sequence under the aegis of a committee (including research supervisor): a. Oral exam based on an assigned literature paper. b. Written report and oral exam on student's thesis research problem. including an account of research progress io date. ' c. Written original proposition, not connected with thesis topic; oral exam on its content and implications. 3. Final (thesis) oral.
A Large, Well-Known UC-MD Department 1. General entrance exams. 2. Preliminary oral exam in thesis field. Prior to this oral, organic students must pass a specified number of exams (a cumulative system) which are based on presentations at student seminars. 3. No final thesis defense. Gemgetown University (UC-MD) 1. Phase I procedure: three tries in one year to reach "excusing" level (no pass or fail ggrdes) on exams in four major
598
/
Journal of Chemical Education
areas covering undergraduate material. After reaching "excusing" level and based on exam results, course record, seminar performance, and research ability, student is declared qualified for PhD, qualified for MS only, or asked to withdraw. (Phase I is the only exam procedure for the MSI. 2. students completing Phase I work out a detailed "outline of study" with their mentors. 3. PhD qualified students enter Phase 11, in which most divisions give a single written comprehensive and require a written original proposition on which the student is examined a t a general oral. A student may then be passed on Phase 11, asked to withdraw, or returned to MS status. 4. Final, public, thesis oral. The Institute of Paper Chemistry (UC-MD) 1. General entering exams. 2. "Preparation For Research": student must prepare two proposals of research, one in chemistry and one in another discipline (programs a t this Institute are heavily interdisciplinary; students take courses in chemical engineering, physics, and biology in addition to chemistry); the entire spring term of the second year is devoted to the problems and students are encouraged to discuss them with faculty members. Detailed written reports and oral defense of the problems are evaluated; admission to doctoral candidacy depends largely on the performance. 3. Oral thesis defense. About the above system, the department chairman states: "It is a challenging program to administer, hut we feel that it is a vduahle educational tool. Borderline decisions are not any easier, but we believe that this approachprovides us with a sounder basis for evaluating a. student's potential than a series of comprehensive examinations would." Louisiana State U. (New Orleans) (UC-MD) 1. General entering exams. 2. Cumulative system (all disciplines) in which s. particular exam may be oral, take-home, or written. 3. General oral. 4. Oral thesis defense. Miscellaneous Practices 1. Stanford U. (UC-MD) requires second-year PhD candidates in organic to perform sstisfrtctorily on six "advanced organic problem sessions." These are two-hour written problem, take-home assignments, and an original research proposal. After a. student's performance is evaluated, he is told he has satisfied the requirement, to continue the problem sessions into his third year, or to terminate a t the XbP
,,.z.A
2. I t would be almost impossible to gather the details of cumulative systems as implemented a t different departments; Robertson has discussed this subject in part (7). I would like to cite the current system a t one UC-MD department. a. General entering exams. b. Cumulative system (all disciplines) as follow: begin anytime (even first semester); one exam given per month (eight per academic year); to remain in the PhD program, two must be passed by end of second year; eight must he passed in all to achieve candidacy. (Students are not supported after five years of fulltime study). c. Generd oral. d. Oral thesis defense.
Conclusion
To summarize the data gathered would be unwieldy: however, recapitulation of certain highlights is appropriate. A) About 19,000 students in 295 chemistry departments and 3200 in 108 biochemistry departments are pursuing graduate degrees in the USA; the figures for Canada are 1800 students in 43 departments, 600 in 22 departments. The majority of chemistry departments has 2 4 students per faculty member; for hiochemistry, 1-3. B) Greater than 80% of all UC departments administer placement exams to entering graduate students; of these, 85-90yo
make use of ACS standard exams a t least some of the time, mainly the Graduate Level series. The organic chemistry are the most often used tests. Less than 40% of UB and less than 50% of CC departments administer any placement exam. C ) Master's Programs. I n more than half the master's programs in the USA and Canada, no formal written exam is required for the degree. Those that require such an exam use mainly comprehensives; less than 15% of these use ACS standard tests in this connection. On the other hand, about 50% of U G M programs and nearly 80% of UB-M programs make use of a general oral examination. In about 16 USA programs, a cumulative exam system is used for all disciplines; an dl-camprehensive system is used in 51. Very few programs (at most 10%) require submission of an original research proposition. About 80% USA and nearly all Canadian departments require a master's thesis: a few USA departments (32 UC and 7 UB) make the thesis optional. About 1.5 UC departments (8%) that require a thesis allow an option between research and library theses. Nearly all thesis reader committees are composed of 2 or 3 members, and almost all theses must he defended a t a final oral. Foreign language requirements are: UC-65Y0 require one, 32% require none; UB-50% one, 50% none; CC-35% one, 65% none, and 10yo two. D) Doctoral Programs. Comprehensive and cumulative systems are used almost to the same extent (on the average) for all fields in chemistry; in USA biochemistry departments, however, comprehensives are overwhelmingly more prevalent. While only 4% of UC departments use no formal written exam system, the figures are much larger for CC (36%) and UB (37%). More than 50 UC departments use a cumulative system for euery discipline; this is more than half the number of departments that use cumulative exams a t d l . Thirty-three use only comprehensives. Mare than 50% of UC, zhaut 40% of UB, and 20% of CC require original research propositions, most of which must be defended a t an oral exam. This requirement is most popular in organic chemistry, followed by physical and inorganic. A large number (-60% UC, 70% CC, 90% UB) require a general oral-which is often in conjnnction with proposition defen8.e and is given during the student's second or third year. Virtually all departments require oral thesis defense in addition. In ehemisBy, 3-5 man reader committees me most common; however, 4-5 and more are the most common in biochemistry departments. Foreign language requirements me: UC-14Yo require one, 86% require two; UB-34% one, 66% two; CC-9% none, 23% one, 68yo two. Non-language opttons far the second language are becoming popular; these include: computer science (moarammina, - etc.), statistics, electronics, and tracer tech. niques. E ) Most faculty members feel that cumulative exams (1) are better pedsgogical tools, (2) put less pressure on the student, and (3) require more effort in preparation and execution than do comprehensives. F ) There is a definite trend toward more reliance on oral examinations and on exercises requiring development of original thought (research proposals, take-home problem assignments). If m y future studies of this type are made, I advise the incorporation of a question on student seminar requirements, a subject which rightly could have been included here.
Acknowledgments
Many people have provided both encouragement and useful suggestions during my preparation and execution of the survey; to the following go my sincerest thanks: Drs. Theo. A. Ashford, R. C. Bowers, D. Britton, D. S. Chapin, E. Eliel, R. G. Johnson, R. H. Linnell, H. A. Neidig, and 11.Paul. The secretarial staff at this Department was patient and tolerant in its prompt and commendable execution of mv demands. Finallv. ", a special notmeof thanks to the individual participants whose returns and helpful comments have made this study possible. Literature Cited (1) For a recent, engaging discnssion of "Examinations and Grades in College" see RAMI, R. A., A A U P Bullelin,
53, 309 (1967): ej. the report on educat,ional testing and the "NAEP" (Natiand Assessment of Educational Progress), Science, 156, 622 (1967). (2) Sources used for names and addresses of schools were: "Directory of Graduate Research," American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1965; "College Chemistry Faculties," and "Supplement, College Chemistry Faenlties," American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1965 and 1966, resp.; WALLING,C., et al., "Progre~s Report Number 40, Committee on Professional Training," Chem. Eng. News, 45, 69 (March 20, 1967); "Institutions Offering Master's Degrees in Chemistry," and "Graduate Level Schools," two private lists kindly supplied by Miss Bonnie Blazer, Librarian, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. (3) Sources used far names and addresses of schools were compiled mainly from special lists, as follows: "Degree Conferring Universities and Colleges in Canada," edited for me by RICHARDGREENE,Librarian, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (Ottawa); "Statistical Summary of Graduate Departments in Chemistry," prepared by MRS. A. I. BUDD, Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta. (Edmonton); R. D., "Cmadim Universities and Colleges," MITCHENER, Reference Paper No. 106, Department of External Affairs, Ottawa, Canada (July, 1964). To all the above people I extend grateful thanks. (4) "Federal Support to Universities and Colleges, Fiscal Years 1963-1966," NSF 67-14, US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 27-29, 50-53. The assumption here is that institutions receiving the largest amount of Federal support for a12 departments, will also have the leading chemistry departments in this respect. The validity of this assumption has been verified by the opinions (based on factud knowledge) of K. Wilson (NSF), M. Paul (NAS) and R. H. Linnell (NSF). (5) Data. were kindly supplied by Dr. T. A. Ashford, Chairman, Examinations Committee, ACS. For information on ACS Cooperative Tests, write Division of Chemical Education, ACS, Examinations Committee, University of South Florida, Tamps, Florid* 33620. For descriptions of five new ACS tests currently available, see Chem. Eng. N m s , 45,47 (March 6, 1967). (6) "College Level Examinations," J. CHEM.EDUC.,44, 546 (1967). (7) ROBERTSON, G. R., J. CHEM.EDUC.,41, 212 (1964). (8) EISCH,J., private communication. R. G., AND GARASCIA, R. J., "Report of the (9) (a) JOHNSON, Xavier Conference on Master's Degree Programs in Chemistry a t Nan-Doctorate-Granting Institutions," Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio, November, 1965, pp. 7, 8, 4 5 4 8 . This report deals mainly with mid-USA schools and covers data from 13-.50 departments (depending on the subject under discussion). For recent discussion about this report and master's programs in general, see "M.S.-Granting Schools Refute 'Prize' Epithet," Chem. Eng. N m s , 45, 44 (February 27, 1967), particularly p. 51 for comments on testing uniformity in U G M departments. For s sympbsium in writing on R. G., "The Master's Degree Program," see JOHNSON, et al., J . CHEM.EDUC.,44, 442 (1967): pp. 447 and 448 are concerned with some aspects of testing. (b) DUNBAR, It. E., A N D BROIIERG, J. W., J. CHEM.EDUC., 37, 254 (1960). (10) For example, see POZIOMEK, E. J., J. CHEM.EDIJC.,44, 25 (1967) far a. description of the Netherlands' system of education. (11) The extent and heated nature of debate are quite evident, from the exchange in Letters to the Editor, Science, 154, 1603 (1966): 155, 1492 (1967): 156, 1178, 1549 (1967): 157, 626, 1373 (1967). Far comments on Latin in higher education, see WALSH,J., ibid., 157,47 (1967). 112) W ~ O D F ~ R . Science., 156. 743 11967). For an arlirle F.DP.. on " ~ h e ' A r toi Talking About ~cience-' see BRAGG,L.; Science, 154, 1613 (1966).
.
Volume 45, Number 9, September 1968
/
599
