Editorial: A Report on the Department Chairs' Conference on
Graduate Education.
Diandra L. Leslie-Pelecky
In May, I represented the Forum on Education at an APS and AAPT jointly
sponsored Physics Department Chairs conference entitled "Physics Graduate
Education for Diverse Career Options". The conference format was composed
of presentations and smaller discussion groups. The presenters, representing
academia, government laboratories and industry, discussed the value
of the graduate degree and the overall future of physics. AAPT Executive
Officer Bernard V. Khoury provides an excellent overview of the presentations
in his column in the July issue of the AAPT Announcer.
The general outcome of the conference was well summarized by conference
co-chair David Campbell as `Quasi Status Quo': although the machine
is running, it is time to make some much-needed modifications. The
consensus was to refrain from any radical changes in the traditional
graduate program (advanced course work followed by an independent research
project), but also recognized the need for students to develop additional
skills that have not been emphasized in the traditional program. The
current system produces scientists with skills -- such as critical
thinking and problem solving--that are highly valued by academia and
industry; however, speakers emphasized that physicists do not adequately
develop oral and written communication skills and so-called `people'
skills. These missing elements become increasingly problematic as physicists
find increasing competition for employment, funding, and the taxpayers'
opinions that what we do remains important.
Increasing the breadth of experience was strongly encouraged. Some
suggestions included: meaningful minors in other sciences, engineering
or business, developing foreign language or advanced computer skills,
and internships in research and/or teaching. At the same time, however,
participants also suggested efforts be made to decrease the time needed
to complete a Ph.D. Although deliberate extension on the part of advisors
or students may be a factor, the main contributor to this problem is
poor management. Advisor, student and department must all actively
contribute to expediting the process. The requirements for the Ph.D.
must be explicitly stated, with goals and milestones set (and periodically
evaluated) by both advisor and student. Although some artificial limits
were suggested, (e.g., restricting the time the student can be supported,
making student progress a condition for the PI's grant renewal, etc.)
these were rejected as being difficult to uniformly and fairly implement.
Many felt that graduate programs implicitly suggest that most students
will find academic research positions. In reality, academia has always
employed only a small fraction of physicists. Despite the numbers,
the perception exists that a job with a title that does not include
the word `physicist' is an `alternative' career and that the person
with that career ceases to be part of the physics community. A similar
problem is that of the `terminal' Masters degree, which is often viewed
as a consolation prize for those not `good enough' to earn a Ph.D.
We were introduced to some outstanding `professional Masters' programs
that provide intensive training in response to a strong local or national
demand. It is imperative that faculty, departments and the professional
societies recognize the breadth of employment obtained by people with
graduate degrees in physics. Those employed outside academe or the
select remaining industrial research laboratories must be made to feel
welcome in the physics community. While some may perceive the emphasis
on nomenclature as a type of political correctness, students are strongly
affected by their perception of how various career paths are valued
by those around them -- who are almost always exclusively academicians.
We should take the same care with these terms as we do in differentiating
between mass and weight.
Many of the activities applauded at this conference are being pursued
in different parts of the physics world. For example, local meetings
-- such as the joint meetings of the Texas Sections of APS/AAPT and
SPS I enjoyed attending as an undergraduate -- provide students with
numerous chances to develop their presentation skills in a professional
setting. A student paper competition, which awards a cash prize to
the best presented student talk, has recently been established to motivate
student participation. Most importantly, if faculty make an effort
to introduce their students and help guide them through the conference,
students have an opportunity to begin learning the intricate rules
of the physics community early in their careers.
There are numerous other opportunities for students to develop necessary
skills: journal clubs, group meetings, oral presentations instead of
a final exam, participation in activities for the public, etc. Combined
research/teaching post-docs give the future candidate documentable
teaching experience under the supervision of experienced teachers in
addition to the research credentials. A faculty member taking a graduate
student to accompany her on a trip to granting agencies provides an
introduction to the funding process at the feet of a veteran. Although
participation in these activities takes time away from doing research
per se, the end result is a better prepared physicist -- regardless
of what the student's eventual job title is. All of these activities
have the same goal: to formalize mentoring so that the transition from
graduate student to professional physicist is second order. The conference
explicitly rejected across-the-board changes to be uniformly enacted
at all institutions. The implication of this is that the future of
the field is in the hands of the individual faculty and students, with
professional societies providing a forum for discussion of the issues.
The examination of graduate physics education initiated by this conference
is promising, but there is more to be done. Department chairs are a
relatively homogeneous group: the conference would have benefited from
the presence of more women and/or minority physicists. I encourage
AAPT and APS to not only continue their interest in this topic, but
to include a broader spectrum of physicists -- particularly those in
the early stages of their careers. It is especially important to bring
these different groups of physicists together so that they can appreciate
each other's constraints and perceptions, and share successes. As one
of those `early career' physicists, I was heartened by the seriousness,
dedication and passion of the attendees as we discussed problems and
possible solutions. I was also disappointed at the laughter in response
to a colleagues' explanation of why many junior people are angry about
the current situation. In the end, what is most important is that the
physics community has recognized that it is time to examine the process
of educating physicists.
One of the issues raised by the conference was the need for physicists to
improve their communication skills. Most often, the public is aware of what
we do through the efforts of a newspaper or magazine writer, a television
show, or a radio program. This issue of the Forum on Education Newsletter
focuses on the interaction between science and the media. I hope their comments
on how they `translate' our words and what they think the public finds interesting
will help you communicate the importance (and fun) of
what you do to non-scientists.
|