Selection of Thesis Research: The Most Important Course
I
In recent years, there has been a great deal of discussion about new courses and curricula (e.g., the much-heralded "Hammond curriculum") intended to modernize and streamline undergraduate training of chemists. Likewise, many articles have appeared about appropriate courses in environmental chemistry, in chemical ecology, and for nonscience majors, etc. During this same period, much has been heard about the lack of motivation among many current graduate students and the seeming lack of creativity and commitment among persons with doctoral and post-doctoral experience when they appear as candidates for academic and industrial positions. It is possible that these problems arise in part from a lack of concern by university and college faculty members about advising seniors who have decided upon advanced study what criteria to consider when selecting graduate schwls and, most vitally, their major professors. When one realizes the extensive thinking that goes into selection of a single one-quarter or one-semester course, it is appalling how little thought and encouragement is given to choosing judiciously who will be one's "teacher" for doctoral reearch, a three-to-four-year "course"! Nowadays careful selection of one's mate is propounded as the key to a happy, mutually compatible marriage. A satisfying "scientific marriage", wherein professor and student interact optimally, also requires careful planning and choosing! The process now operative at most universities varies from assault bordering on rape to eloping after the first date! In other instances the "scientific marriage" is essentially arranged by the "academic parent", e.g., the Department Chairman or Director of Graduate Studies. Little wonder that there are increasingly more "scientific divorces" and/or "unhappy marriages" with students (both pre- and post-doctoral) going through the motions to keep their major professor happily supplied with publishable data! In this paper, the present academic recruitment system, which emphasizes attracting potential students into one's department, and little thereafter, is briefly examined. This is followed by some necessary measures which could he taken by faculty and students to make the actual selection process more meaningful. Finally, a description is given of Chemistry 740: "Selection of' Thesis Research," now a requirement for all graduate students "cleared" for doctoral research a t SUNY/Buffalo. The Current Situation There is currently a relatively limited pool of bona fide undergraduate chemistry majors and consequently most graduate departments are recruiting these students actively to some degree. After establishing contact, often hy worthwhile seminar exchange programs wherein faculty members represent their department as a whole, completed applications with transcripts and/or letters of recommendation are assembled. Once it is ascertained that the applicant is a t least a "warm body," the "selling job" begins! Depending on how good the applicant looks on paper, he or she is usually invited for an expense-paid visit, which is unquestionably an ideal way to meet the individual faculty in a given department and gauge in preliminary fashion whether a suitable spectrum of research activity is available from which to later select a 510 / Journal of Chemical Education
provocative opinion problem. Unfortunately, this beneficial type of recruiting is often followed by less savory practices, including telephoned or written promises of x publications and y employment offers (even academic tenure!) before the entering student has ever lifted a finger in the lab! Once the student shows in his graduate courses and teaching activities that he is gwd PhD material he is encouraged to "get started" in his research with a half-hearted and vague enjoinder to "check around" the faculty before signing up. Even worse than no enlightening advice is the all-too-frequeut practice of bringing a new student into one professor's group for summer research before he has taken his "core" courses and been cleared to begin selection of his major professor! When that process occurs, such a student invariably feels obligated to remain in the same group and clearly is unlikely to evaluate other faculty members with a truly open mind! Is this a good way for students to undertake a three-to-four-year commitment, the success of which depends crucially on one's general independence and self-motivation? Not when academe and industry are primarily searching for a limited number of creative self-starters, rather than larger numbers of "good lab men"! Some Necessary Reforms Before focusing on some ways to improve selection of doctoral research by optimizing student-faculty interplay, a few words about earlier stages of science education are in order. While pre-medical students are all too plentiful, especially in our freshmen and sophomore classes, it is no secret that by comparison relatively few talented students are electing to study chemistry. Perhaps such factors as pessimism about job opportunities as perceived by others, anti-science attitudes in society at large, or the greater "sex appeal" of biomedical sciences versus "pure" chemistry are responsible. These attitudes are often bred more as a result of hearsay and misinformation than up-to-date facts. Therefore, academic and industrial chemists ought to get right into the high schwls and talk, from first-hand experience, with students considering college careers in chemistry! This type of "advisement" is now usually handled by high school science teachers and, worse yet, professional guidance counselors. Once students are in the beginning two years of college, usually before they formally choose a major field, chemistry faculty should go out of their way to give much-needed information on the central role of chemistry outside of the immediate discipline, e.g. in engineering and environmental sciences as well as the various biomedical sciences. This is probably not as much appreciated by novice chemistry students, whose horizons have not yet expanded much beyond the doors of their department! The next level where more guidance would not hurt is the junior year (or before), where stressing the challenges of undergraduate research, whether for just a semester or for over a year, is of paramount importance. As desirable as it is to hwst chemistry a t the high school and beginning college levels, it is then vital that upperclassmen be made to realize that advanced study is totally different from the typical undergraduate diet of formal courses and carefully planned laboratory assignments that
always work! Several years ago, this author introduced an ungraded "Junior Chemistry Seminar" (Chem. 378) into the undergraduate curriculum a t SUNY/Buffalo wherein weekly lectures by departmental colleagues and scientists from chemical companies and research institutes introduced our upperclassmen to the real world of chemistry. Enrollments in senior research have subsequently climbed; consequently our graduating seniors are in some cases more certain of what to expect in graduate school, having elected to go that route, and, in other cases, surer that they should not go to any graduate school. This brings us to the major theme, dealing with evaluation of graduate research opportunities by apprentice chemists. A good department whose faculty members are justifiably proud of their scholarly accomplishments and confident that they offer a well-rounded selection of advanced courses and diversified research opportunities should certainly recruit actively. If athletic coaches do it, certainly we should be heavily involved in the search for talented scholars! The main emphasis of such recruiting ought to be the overall strength and diversity of the department even though we all like to talk about our own work. The prospective student should he encouraged to visit the campus and find out that there are eight organic chemists, six inorganic chemists, etc., etc., and that collectively these individuals offer a great variety of interesting research opportunities. At the same time, if such overall talent attracts a student to enter one's department, he should do so with all his options open. First-year students ought to be provided ample time and encouragement to carefully evaluate research problems offered by various professors with an open mind and free of subtle pressures "not to procrastinate!" The importance of allotting up to several months if necessary for students already having a semester of advanced course work behind them to select their research adviser cannot he overemphasized. Yet such a need is often ignored and even opposed by many university professors, especially those of established reputation. In the following section, a description of a new "course," a t SUNY/Buffalo, Chem. 740: "Selection of Thesis Research," is given. Its goal is to ensure that each incoming doctoral student has the opportunity (and major respousihility) tn choose his adviser carefully and a t his own pace. Chemistry 740 at SUNY/Buffalo As is the practice a t many other graduate schools, firstyear students at this institution in past years have had to satisfactorily complete some "core" graduate courses before receivina clearance for doctoral research. Specifically, after three courses during the first semester, the student would pick a major professor before registering for the spring semester, a t which time 4x credit hours of courses could be replaced by 4x credit hours of research (in most cases, x = 1).Thus, if one wanted to delay that decision ( x 0) he would have to take one or more courses than his peers in order to retain the designated full load. The clear implication was that a little thinking was a dangerous thing! Beeinnine in the 1974-75 academic vear. . . we are reauiring & secohsemester students to register for chemistry 740. "Selection of Thesis Research." for up to four semester 'hours. The essential requirements for the course, having the "pass-fail" grading option, can he completed within a few weeks or the time may he extended to the end of the semester, depending on each individual's needs. We exnect each student to have nreliminaw discussions with as many faculty as possible and then choose a t least three of them for in-depth evaluation of research philosophies and specific ideas. The student not only has access to reprints of past work but can and should ask for pre-prints
-
and rough drafts of forthcoming articles as well as research proposals detailing present and future interests. The latter material is obviously the more important from the student's point of view and its availability from the faculty allows younger staff members whose programs are just getting underway to compete more equitably with their established senior colleagues who are armed with lona publication lists. An additional stimulus to the department resulting from the student's requests to examine research proposals is the not-so-subtle impetus for facultv memhers~to~maintain a more active fund-raising posture! Professors who are reluctant to allow prospective collahorators a confidential look a t their oronosals. alone with related discussion of specific plans,.etc., sho&d beregarded with cautious skepticism as potential intellectual m r u s for what lies ahead! Once the- student has complete> his study of three major clusters of research, and hopefully learned a little chemistry along the way, he must submit three relatively brief written reports to the Graduate Student Affairs office. These are separately checked by the three relevant faculty members involved and after each report is judged satisfactory by the appropriate professor, the student is allowed to designate the professor he wishes to work with. It is reasonable to expect that the beginning researcher now has a better feel for what a significant prohlem is and how one goes about attacking it in practice. Those students who complete the above requirements within the first weeks of the semester then begin actual research with their new-found preceptor, and the latter can then assign a research grade as usual. In those cases where the student uses most of the semester to prepare for and complete the three reports, to the satisfaction of the faculty concerned, the department will assign a "Pass" grade, which is no less desirable from the departmental viewpoint than the research grade assigned by an individual professor. Clearly the success of such a course depends on the commitment of both groups involved to the underlying purposes of the experience, not just to satisfying the "ground rules". Professors obviously will want to convey enthusiasm for their problems, but they should also insist on the student exploring as many alternatives as possible, and without feeling any prior commitment or obligation. The student is also doing himself a great favor by keeping an open mind, remembering that the right move at this point may have a great bearing on whether he becomes a truly exceptional scientist or just a satisfactory one. Concluding Remarks Most of us would agree that creativity and motivation are prized attributes for pre-doctoral and post-doctoral chemistry students pursuing careers in teaching and research. Furthermore, these qualities are not as well developed in today's candidates as they could he. This author feels that getting off to a good start in scientific research and maintaining momentum along the way are most apt to occur if the student has carefully picked a problem that is initially well understood and greatly appeals to his scientific curiosity. Whether we are advising our seniors about grad school or our incipient doctoral students about applying for post-doctoral positions, the biggest favor we can do them is to emphasize their responsibility to look after themselves hecause others will not necessarily do it for them! The more thought and planning, before starting one's apprenticeship, the better the chances for attaining the skills and rewards of the master craftsman.
Peter T. Lansbury State University of New York Buffalo. 14214
Volume 52,Number 8, August 1975 / 511
