October 5, 2006
FROM: Michael E. Green, Acting EO of
Chemistry, writing for the
Executive Officers of Biochemistry, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics
TO: Task Force on Doctoral Education in the Sciences
RE: Questions on the proposed restructuring
In the course of discussions among the executive officers of the four progr=
ams,
certain questions arose.
We begin by noting that there is one point we strongly encourage in the
planning: health insurance for all grad students. This is something that is
long overdue.
We do, however, have questions about other aspects of the program being
considered
We begin by assuming that the intent of the proposed changes is the improve=
ment
of the graduate programs, strengthening the quality of the grad students
admitted to study here and the reputation of the program itself. We proceed
with these questions in the same spirit; we too wish to improve the quality=
of
the programs. We do have some suggestions as to how this may be done, which=
we
will discuss at the end of this memo
We are, however, unsure as to exactly how the proposed reforms are to be
structured.
Our questions at this time include:
1) Will the program be permanently limited in size?
a) We have added a fairly large number of new faculty in several cluster hi=
res.
How will these faculty members get new grad students? Will these be the only
faculty members with grad students? There seem to enough in the proposal to
accommodate these, but with not very many left over.
b) There are 400 total grad students proposed, and, at a reasonable estimat=
e,
3/5, or 240 (three years out of five) actually working in labs. How many
faculty are we reporting to NRC as core faculty? How many as new faculty? Is
the ratio of new/core so large as to suggest that using the past few years
average would represent a large shrinkage in the number of students/faculty
member?
c) Will anyone really be able to form a full size research group (say 4 to 6
grad students)? If so, how? And what will be the consequences of having sev=
eral
such groups for everyone else? Chemistry, for example, has over 50 core
faculty, and close to 10 new faculty; if there were altogether 100 grad
students in chemistry (5 x 20), 60 actively doing research, and we had 5 gr=
oups
using 25 students, that would leave 75 students, about 45 active, for over =
50
faculty. Even if three out of four were willing to do no research, this is
still too few; furthermore, it does not address the question of whether the
university would be a viable academic institution with so few active facult=
y.
d) What career paths are left for faculty members who fail to rapidly attra=
ct
grad students, and are basically shut out?
i) Leave ii) Full time teaching, and no real research; possibly an occasion=
al
paper in an educational journal iii) As a consequence of the fact that there
will be many in the second category, will we actively recruit second-best
faculty who could not get jobs at a research university? What will happen w=
hen
it is time to update a curriculum, if this is the bulk of our faculty?
iv) Will the necessary favoritism (at least for some new faculty) in terms =
of
research facilities and access to grad students, lead to a lack of
collegiality, with all the costs of a high friction atmosphere?
v) The amount of money brought in on grants has already been rising over the
past decade. It is likely that limiting the size of programs would limit the
growth, and cost us severely in possible resources. Has the high likelihood=
of
losing grant support been considered?
e) Where there are understandings between affiliated institutions (such as =
the
2) Will there be serious deleterious effects on undergraduate research? We =
note
that undergraduate research has become a fundamental part of the science
curriculum.
a) Where will undergrads do their research?
i) How will they have any contact with the fraction of faculty with active
research labs?
ii) Will they be placed in groups composed primarily of undergrads, and thus
unlike any normal research group? Will "undergrad research" become
essentially advanced lab courses, repeating many of the same experiments fr=
om
one year to the next?
iii) Even if the work done is not repetitive, it will not be funded by gran=
ts.
Who will pay? How much will the university subsidize such groups? Will ther=
e be
faculty who are not research active, but are nevertheless able to do resear=
ch
with undergraduates? Will the apparatus be research grade, or will it be
cast-offs and non-functioning apparatus no longer actually usable in resear=
ch?
b) As a summary question: Will our undergraduate curriculum fall below the
level of national practice, and national standards?
3) There are also some questions that are less specific, but address the lo=
nger
range consequences of possible reforms. While we do not expect these to be
explicitly considered, they may be worth keeping in the background of
understanding where the university could be headed if the reforms are carri=
ed
out. These include:
i) No major research university separates research active faculty from a
majority of inactive faculty. Is there a good reason for this?
ii) Will the program continue to shrink?
iii) Still longer range and more speculative, but not to be ignored entirel=
y:
Will we lose the political support necessary to maintain the university if =
our
undergraduate programs are seen as below national standards?
Strengthening the doctoral programs and research We stated above that we did
have some suggestions as to what might be done to improve the doctoral prog=
rams
in the sciences, based on what we observe is holding them back now: these
suggestions include:
1) Improve maintenance. This would require having perhaps a few extra plumb=
ers
and electricians, especially some who could prepare and renovate labs. We h=
ave
had new faculty leave within a year (generally the best faculty) because th=
eir
labs could not be prepared in a reasonable time. The cost in delays in doing
the research needed for grant support, and for consideration for tenure, is
large.
2) Improve research support. When a grad student has to stop research for t=
wo
weeks because it will take the only glassblower that long to get to his app=
aratus,
this is more costly to the student than a cut in pay. It prolongs the time =
to
degree, is frustrating, and wastes both financial and human resources. It a=
lso
makes it more difficult to get grants, as it is harder to get enough data. =
In
addition to an extra glassblower, research support may include computer and
instrument technicians, perhaps a machinist or two… In any case, prob=
ably
six to ten lines would speed time to completion of degrees appreciably, and=
pay
for themselves in grant overhead.
Combining 1) and 2), we note that shortening the time to degree can be more
effective in attracting the best grad students than a few thousand dollars =
in
the initial pay package (not that an improved pay package is a bad thing,
simply that a shorter time to degree is better). The time is something that=
is
reported, and is considered in making choices. (The effect on net pay is ev=
en
better; saving six months at any possible grad student pay, compared with t=
he
pay in a regular job, is worth more than the level of the grad student pay.=
This is probably not so explicitly con=
sidered
by prospective grad students, however.)
3) The programs at the different campuses could be more strongly integrated=
by
use of electronic communications, which have improved drastically over the =
past
decade or so, and continue to improve. There is no reason any longer why a =
well
known seminar speaker cannot be heard at a distant campus. The physical
separation of the campuses no longer needs to lead to separate programs.
These suggestions would have more practical advantages than restructuring t=
he
admission of grad students. Limiting the number of grad students would, we
believe, have major disadvantages. We also believe that the complete range =
of
questions involved has not been considered.
Michael E. Green
Acting Executive Officer, Ph.D. Program in Chemistry
City University of New York
New York, NY 10016
mgreen@gc.cuny.edu