sekction of a mesis Research Advisor: A Most Important Course of Action
I provocative
I t is gratifying that this neglected aspect of the academic scene, which is the suhject of much informal comment, has been set down for scrutiny by Lansbury in his article on "Selection of Thesis Research: The Most Important Course."l The comparison of advisor selection to courting and marriage is an apt one. Although, as pointed out, the process may entail rape and elopement, my feeling is that seduction is the technique more often employed. I was disappointed hy the lack of follow through on this general theme. Lanshury discusses in detail the aspect of thorough examination by the student of the various research options, including funding, which are available. Of course, this is commendable, and is analogous in the nuptial area to careful inspection of the career objectives and economic potential of one's possible spouse. However, merely dealing with research topics and finances is equivalent to selecting a mate solely on the basis of "business like" considerations. What about the important intangibles involving the personal characteristics of the faculty member, such as personalitv. .. ethical and moral considerations. treatment of students, and compatibility with the student? From my own observations a t five universities and conversations with colleagues a t many other schools, I conclude that this area can be of greater importance, and indeed is probably a more frequent factor underlying divorce and unhappiness in the scientific marriage. Often in the selection process, the student pays little attention to this variable on the false premise that if the person is a professor, then these intangible qualities must he in good order. In some instances, the unsatisfactory relationship is suffered because he does not wish to offend his undergraduate advisor who sent him to work with a particular colleague. In other cases, the student is loath to speak out or take action for fear of retribution or lest other faculty might be reluctant to accept him as a transfer and thus become involved in a messy situation. In certain instances, amount of the towel is not thrown in since an a~oreciahle .. research work might then go down the drain, or because of the desire to he identified with a "name" chemist. Complaints by graduate students derive from many sources: excessive pressure in relation to research output. . . lack of openness, false promises, unwillingness to permit a reasonable deeree of inde~endence,viewine the student primarily as aumeans of achieving &nore o;a reputation,. insufficient concern for the long.range . welfare of the student, and little assistance in job placement. Additional considerations also ~ e r t a i nSince . some students emulate their advisors, these behavior patterns are passed on from generation to generation. In departments where the problem is particularly serious, a number of the well-qualified students shun academic careers, thinking that the home-hase setup is representative. Involvement in such a situation can
144 / Journal of Chemical Education
opinion have a serious adverse effect on motivation and creativity. In particularly traumatic cases, a promising career in chemistry is completely abandoned. In a way, Lanshury might he giving a broad hint to this subject when he emphasizes "their responsibility to look after themselves hecause others will not necessarily do it for them!" Although the numher of 'advisors in this category is fortunately in the minority, nevertheless the amount of unnecessary misery is considerable when the numbers of students and the time involved are taken into account. It should he stressed that speaking out on behalf of fair treatment for students does not imply coddling. All will concede that some students require firm guidance, and in certain cases strict discipline or even termination. Certainly there are examples in which students try to take advantage of an advisor who attempts to he fair, thinking he is a "soft touch." I would suppose that a balanced approach is desirable. includine treatment of each oerson as an individMany drpartmcnts astutely place an impurtant value o n thew lntang~hlesand hence the prahletn is avoided. On the other hand. in some schools, such undesirable characteristics on the part of the faculty member are looked upon as unimportant, harmless idiosyncrasies, or are admired. I surmise there is the feeling that a certain amount of ruthlessness is needed, "nice guys finish last," and one's reputation in the chemical world-af-large is the primary consideration. In some extreme cases, no discussion of these traits is contained in letters of recommendation for the prospective faculty member, even when the characteristics were quite evident at the graduate level. Surely, the mores and general attitudes which are prevalent in society have an impact on academia. Recent years have seen changes in the direction of greater emohasis on eood teachine and more incorooration of " r e l e v k ' chemistry into the curriculum. perhips with declining graduate enrollments, the time is ripe for changes in the area under discussion. Over the years, I have carried out an informal poll concerning the reasons why students select chemistry as a career. Although scientific competence and teaching ability are mentioned, almost invariably the personal characteristics of the teachers who primarily influenced them are stressed. Accounts of the lives of truly great scientists generally reveal persons well endowed with these important intangibles.
Peter Kovacic University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 (1) Lansbury, P., J. CHEM. EDUC., 52,510 (1975).
