Separation of Teaching Cheves Walling Columbia University
New York, New York 10027
and Student Support A faculty fellowship program
O v e r the past fifteen years Federal support in the form of contracts, grants, and fellowships has had an enormous effect on the chemistry departments of American Universities. In fact, much of the present flourishing state of graduate instruction in chemistry is a result of the well planned support provided by various government agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and its Chemistry section under the leadership of Dr. Walter Kirner. New buildings have been built, modern equipment has been provided, and, of particular concern to us here, funds have been supplied for the support of graduate students both in the form of fellowships and as grants with provisions for traineeships and research assistantships. One consequence of all of this activity has been a profound change in the structure of graduate student support. Comparing the situation now and in 1950, it is safe to say that the funds available for student support in the typical department have doubled or tripled, even on a per-student basis, not taking into account any expansion of department size. At the same time, the amount of money available from various sources has altered drastically. I n 1950 the bulk of student support was in the form of teaching assistantships, with only a few percent coming as fellowships or research assistantships. Now, at Columbia at least, and I gather typically, the three sources are of about equal size, and the relative importance of the teaching assistantship in the graduate student's view of the world has dwindled markedly. While few will deny that this increased support for graduate students has been good for them and for the development of chemistry, there are many who have been pointing out that this silver cloud has in part a dark lining. The other function of a chemistry department, and, in terms of the number of persons involved, the most important function, is its undergraduate program, in which teaching assistants or their equivalent, plav a critical role. In 1950, when most departments lacked enough money to support all students, appointments as teaching assistants could be reserved for the most able candidates, and successive reappointments depended upon successful performance of teaching duties. Now, in contrast, we hear claims that the best students, who should make the best teaching assistants and who are most likely to continue in the teaching proBased upon s. talk presented rtt the Symposium honoring Dr. Walter R. Kirner, sponsored by the Division of Chemical Education s t the 152nd Meeting of the Ameican Chemical Society, September 14,1D66.
fession, receive fellowships and escape teaching experience entirely. The balance hold appointments for a year or two, but as soon as they get the experience which should make them really valuable, they escape into research assistantships which enable them to devote their entire time to thesis research, and, they hope, will lead to quicker completion of their studies. The potential danger of such a situation to undergraduate instruction has been widely recognized, and the National Science Foundation, and other agencies, have wisely permitted fellowship holders to engage in some teaching (for extra pay) if they so desire. The matter has also been of concern to us at Columbia, and, after extensive consideration we decided that the best solution of this and several other related problems, was the complete separation in our graduate program of teaching and student support. To this end we introduced in the fall of 1965 our so called Faculty Fellowship Program, initially covering only students entering in September 1965 or later, but subsequently extended, by student request, to all students in residence. The chief features of the plan are as follows. Essentially all candidates admitted as regular students receive appointments as Faculty Fellows. These appointments are renewed annually as long as a student remains in good standing and assure financial support during the time he or she remains in residence. At present the minimum stipend is $250/month, tax free, plus fees and tuition. Support at the same level is available during the summer, and students holding national fellowships receive a supplement to bring them up to at least equality. Participation in our instructional program has been made a requirement for the Ph.D. degree. For the most part, this involves participation in the teaching of our laboratory courses, but it may also involve a number of other duties and assignments, often, for our most able students, demanding considerable originality and responsibility. This requirement formalizes a feeling which has long existed in the department, namely that communication of ideas to others is an important part of scientific training, and experience in teaching is of value to a scientist, no matter what his subsequent career. This teaching obligation is spread over a student's time in residence, and has no connection with his source of financial support. The maximum assignment at any one time is the equivalent of two afternoons a week of laboratory supervision plus related preparation and grading. This stretch out is expected to have two very Volume 45, Number I , January 1968
/
49
real positive benefits. First it lightens the teaching load for entering graduate students at the time when they are adjusting to a new environment and are taking their heaviest course load. Second, it ensures for the undergraduates in their courses a relatively large number of assistants who have already had some experience. On the other hand, entering students are generally encouraged to begin their teaching during their first year since the experience gives them insight into the operation of our Department, throws them into closer contact with other students, and sometimes provides them with a valuable review of undergraduate material. The flexibility of this arrangement enables us to arrange our teaching as efficiently as possible with no danger of the occasional need to invent an assignment to support a student. On the basis of our present and projected graduate:undergraduate ratio, the total requirement for each student approximates the equivalent of two afternoons a week for four semesters, part of which may he satisfied during summer session, and which will generally he completed well before the end of his time in residence. The financing of the Faculty Fellowship Program has required primarily reallocation of University funds from instructional salaries (teaching assistantships) to student aid (fellowships) with little net change in University commitment. Tables I and 2 compare student support in 196465 (before the plan) and estimated for 196667. In practice, the actual support of a student may come from all three sources-university fellowships, outside Table 1.
Graduate Student S u ~ ~ oart tColumbia 1 9 6 4 - 6 5
Source
Tvoe
University National Indnstrial Research
Table 2.
Amount
Totals
% 16,800 Fellowships Teaching Assistants 110,408 $127,208 Fellowships 106,000 Traininn Grants 17.480 123.430 4; 500 4:500 FellowsEips 82,833 82,833 Grants and Contracts Final t o t d $337.971
Estimated Groduote Student Support a t Columbia 1966-67
Source University National Industrial Research
Tvpe
Amount
Totals
Fellowships Teaching Assistants Fellowships Training Grants Fellowships Grants and Contracts Final Total $335,650
fellowships, and research grants, adjusted to yield at least the $2SO/month stipend which he is assured. At times this takes some juggling and requires cooperation on the part of staff in whose hands the research grants lie. In the long run, the whole scheme is predicated on the continued availability of Federal and other outside funds for the support of fellowships and research, but here it seems no more vulnerable than anv other plan. Since our Faculty Fellowship program is now entering its third year of operation we can offer the qualified judgment that it is going gratifyingly well. I've already indicated that its financing involves no unexpected difficulties, but its real measure of success is its acceptance by our graduate student body and its impact on our teaching operations. The program is described in the bulletin which wc send out to potential applicants for admission, and, contrary to some fears expressed when the program was started, the introduction of a teaching requirement has been well received. While admissions to the department for 196&67 were somewhat below our norm, the group starting in the fall of 1967 will he some 20% over our expectations. Further, there seems to be a significant increase in the really top students that all departments want. Once here, students appear to work into the program at least as well as under the previous system, and they appreciate the reduction in teaching load during the first year. Occasional inequities arising when the program first started are being ironed out as we go along, and, as I mentioned earlier, it was largely by student request that the program was extended retroactively to students already in residence. The effect on our teaching program will take longer to assess, since we are at the same time making a number of changes in the content and structure of our undergraduate courses, particularly in the laboratory. However, we do believe that the scheme provides a means for making the best possible use of graduate students in our instructional program and drawing them as closely as possible into partnership with the staff. We've certainly noticed no adverse effects to date, and, if anything, an increasing interest on the part of the graduate students in their teaching function. Here, however, a perceptive comment has been made, in one form or another, by a number of our students. This is what they get out of teaching and the interest they find in it depends, not so much on the course, but on the manner in which it is run by the instructor in charge and the time and interest which he devotes to it. In short, no scheme or program succeeds by itself, but requires the enthusiasm and hard work of the staff in charge.
Gordon Research Conferences 22-26 January 29 January-2 February
Electrochemistry Polymers
All four Conferences wiu he held in Santa. Barbara, California.
50 / journal of Chemical Education
Chemistry of Aging Science, Technology and Economic Growth
