The Ideal Graduate Program - American Chemical Society

---

analytical chemistry June 1975, Vol. 47, No. 7

The Ideal Graduate Program

Editor: H E R B E R T A. L A I T I N E N EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone*. 202-872-4600 Teletype: 710-8220151 Managing Editor: Josephine M . Petruzzi Associate Editor: Andrew A. Husovsky Editorial Assistants: Barbara Cassatt, Linda A. Ferragut GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION STAFF

Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Associate Manager: Charlotte C. Sayre Art Director: Norman W. Favin Artist: Linda McKnight Assistant Editor: Nancy J. Oddenino EDITORIAL PROCESSING DEPARTMENT, ΕASTON. P A .

Associate Editor: Elizabeth R. Rufe ADVISORY BOARD: Allen J. Bard, David F. Boltz, E . G. Brame, Richard P. Buck, Jr., Warren B . Crummett, M . A. Evenson, A. F . Findeis, Kenneth W. Gardiner, Jack M. Gill, Robert A. Hofstader, Marjorie G. Horning, R. S. Juvet, Jr., Walter C. McCrone, Oscar Menis, Eugene Sawicki INSTRUMENTATION

ADVISORY

PANEL:

Stanley R. Crouch, Robert W. Hannah, J. J. Kirkland, Ronald H. Laessig, Marvin Margoshes, Harold M . McNair, David Seligson, R. K. Skogerboe, Donald E . Smith

C o n t r i b u t i n g E d i t o r : Claude A. Lucchesi Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evaneton, 111. 60201 Published by the A M E R I C A N C H E M I C A L SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N . W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Books a n d Journals Division John Κ Crum Director Virginia E. Stewart A s s i s t a n t to t h e Director Charles R. Bertsch Head, E d i t o r i a l Processing D e p a r t m e n t D. H. Michael Bowen Head, J o u r n a l s Department Bacil Guiley H e a d , G r a p h i c s a n d Production Department Seldon W. Terrant H e a d , R e s e a r c h a n d Development D e p a r t m e n t

Advertising Management CENTCOM, LTD. (for Branch Offices, see page 727 A)

For submission of manuscripts, see page 626 A

The graduate student usually serves three functions—as a student, a junior level research person, and often as a junior teaching staff member. It is logical therefore that three points of view will lead to somewhat different versions of the ideal graduate program. To the student, the ideal program is one with minimal routine chores, a course, and examination structure of maximum flexibility to adjust to individual goals and background. It should permit maxi­ mum emphasis on research, with an orderly progression from individ­ ual attention to independence as the research proceeds. It should lead to competence in research, not just in a special research field, but in a reasonably broad area. Above all, it should lead to job oppor­ tunities appropriate to the professional interests of the student. To the faculty research supervisor, the ideal graduate program is one that provides him with an ample supply of competent junior re­ search partners. It should be competitive with other institutions to attract good students; it should provide course work sufficient to make up deficiencies in undergraduate work, but the requirement should be flexible enough not to delay early entry into research for the well prepared student. The research facilities should be adequate so that students are not forced to choose trivial thesis problems or to perform unnecessarily routine tasks to execute modern research. To the department, the ideal graduate program is one that attracts outstanding staff and students. For this purpose, research grants must somehow help generate facilities. A proper mixture of junior and senior teaching staff will ensure a quality teaching program with moderate teaching loads. It is important to recognize that first priority in graduate educa­ tion should be based on the welfare of the student. Exploitation of students, either by the department in their teaching duties, or by the faculty in their research function, will erode the quality of graduate education to the detriment of the profession and society. Both the de­ partment and the faculty have a responsibility to train graduate stu­ dents to meet a demand, and not just to fill out research groups or teaching staffs. On a nationwide basis, the capacity of graduate departments ex­ ceeds the demand for the product (C&EN, April 7, 1974, ρ 40). More­ over, there appears to be a trend towards relatively great growth in departments which have in the past not excelled in quality. It ap­ pears that the welfare of the student is not being given top priority in future planning of graduate programs. Until the supply-demand ratio comes back into balance, the postdoctoral associate should be called upon to perform some of the traditional teaching and research functions of the graduate student. In this way, the primary goals of both the department and the research faculty are met and additional job opportunities are created for the new Ph.D. graduate.

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 47, NO. 7, JUNE 1975 ·

969