Education
Quality of chemistry grad students falling Survey of chemistry majors that have pursued advanced degrees finds that smarter students are choosing medical school instead of chemistry Graduate students of chemistry aren't as smart as they used to be, according to Douglas C. Neckers, chairman of the chemistry depart ment at Bowling Green State Uni versity, Bowling Green, Ohio. One reason they aren't, he adds, is that the smarter chemistry majors are now going to medical school instead of pursuing advanced degrees in chem istry. Furthermore, he's compiled numbers to support his thesis. Neckers notes that the number of chemistry majors "certified" annually by the American Chemical Society, after having doubled in the years be tween 1955 and 1965, has remained fairly constant for the past 10 years or so. In contrast, the yearly crop of "noncertified" chemistry majors has roughly quadrupled during the period from 1955 to 1978. Meanwhile, the number of Ph.D. degrees in chemistry awarded annu ally in the U.S. grew steadily until
Γ
1970, when it reached a maximum of about 2150. Since then, the trend has been downward; 1978 brought only about 1500 new Ph.D.'s in chemis try—about the same as 1966. That last fact in itself bodes ill for the profession of chemistry, Neckers says. Even worse, there's been a growing "gut feeling" that it's no longer the best of the undergraduate chemistry majors who do go on to graduate study in chemistry. But, Neckers adds, although there's a wealth of information on science and scientists, very little of it deals with "ability indicators." Supported by a grant from the Al fred P. Sloan Foundation, Neckers set out to gather such information and to prove or disprove his "gut feeling." He wrote to chemistry departments at 214 schools, asking for information on chemistry majors: aptitude test scores, grade-point averages, class rankings, and career goals at gradu ation. More than 120 schools re sponded and nearly 75 endeavored to provide the information requested. Neckers and his coworkers subjected the information from 26 of the schools to detailed statistical analyses. The schools were selected at random, he says; however, they com prised a fairly representative sample of state universities, private univer sities, and liberal arts colleges.
Smarter chemistry students go to medical school Mean grade-point average 3.7 Chemistry majors who chose chemistry as a career 3.6 " M M Chemistry majors who chose medicine as a career 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9
of 1964
65
66
67
J
L
J
68
69
70
J
L 71
Source: Data from 26 schools compiled by Douglas C. Neckers
72
73
L 74
75
76
77
5 78
The statistical question was simple, Neckers says: How have the indica tors (grade-point average, class rank, and mathematical and verbal apti tude test scores) changed with time for chemistry majors who chose graduate study in chemistry— "chemists"—vs. chemistry majors who chose medical school— "medics"? The analyses of all four indicators told the same story. Over the 1964-78 time period, grade-point averages, class ranks, and test scores for medics increased dramatically. For the chemists, there was little change in grade-point averages but downward trends in class ranks and test scores. For chemists, the mean grade-point average was 3.15 in 1964, 3.08 in 1965, and 3.28 in 1978. Medics had mean grade-point averages of 3.05 in 1964 and only 2.94 in 1965 but almost 3.60 in 1978. For both groups some of the increase could be attributed to "grade inflation." Nevertheless, Necker says, the trend is obvious. Class ranks show the same trend. In 1964, the mean was in the 25th percentile for chemists, the 24th percentile for medics. But by 1978, the medics had risen to the 16th per centile, whereas the chemists had slipped to the 39th percentile. Similarly, the mean mathematical Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score for chemists was over 680 in 1964, below 660 in 1978. The mean math SAT score for medics climbed from 640 in 1964 to 680 in 1978. Verbal SAT scores also showed a drop for chemists, an increase for medics. "The conclusion seems obvious to me," Neckers says. "Students of lesser ability are being fed into the American research establishment in chemistry. The trend is unmistakable and nearly 10 years old." What to do? For one thing, Neckers suggests, the scientific community should give more attention to science education, particularly at the junior high and high school levels. Also, there should be more incentive pro grams for high-ability students. In addition, the high-ability stu dent must be shown the career op portunities in chemistry and the di verse uses to which a chemistry degree can be put. G Dec. 17, 1979 C&EN
17
