Academic science is constitutionally incapable of delivering the research that our nation now perceives it needs. It can, however, generate superbly trained graduates who have extraordinary technical skills, but industry now wants more--or, at least, it wants a different kind of graduate. Since the primary product of academic science is well-trained people, and since a major consumer of this product--industry--wants a change, we would be well advised to take stock of the nature of our product. Academe has historically attempted to "supply" personnel to both the industrial and academic environments. More often than not, there has been confusion as to the focus of that effort. Higher education, for the most part, has followed the educational philosophy of "what's good for academe is good for industry," with little thought about the validity of that point of view. Now, the environment is changing.

Reform attempts concerning the nature of graduate education have been evolving for at least 10 years. A conference on doctoral education was held at Columbia University in November of 1995 that was attended by department chairs that represented institutions that produced more than half of the PhD's in chemistry in this country. Attending also were ACS personnel and industrial representatives. Potential employers of PhD chemists and those who educate graduate students were in general agreement on what a doctoral education in chemistry should accomplish and, perhaps, how these goals should be reached.

Both players--industry and academe--believe that mastery of an area of chemistry is important for the student seeking a graduate degree. All agreed that a thesis or dissertation represents the best vehicle for the expression of the depth of the mastery expected. Thus, both industry and academe agree that the kind of research done and the way it is done in academe represents the best training for a graduate program whether the candidate ultimately is interested in a career in education or in industry. Of course, industry would prefer a research content more closely aligned to the student's possible future employment in industry. It appears that this is the philosophical point where the historical relationship between academe and industry could go awry in the sense that insistance on over-prescribing the details of the research content could destroy the educational process. In addition, all concerned agreed that the acquisition of fundamental knowledge could also be obtained through teaching, following the old saw that "if you really want to understand a subject, teach it."

Whereas a thesis or dissertation provides the basis for highly focused mastery according to the conferees, breadth should not be neglected. Breadth appears best achieved from advanced course work and it should not all be in chemistry. Advanced course work and seminars represent a source of information and seem to be an attempt to mimic life-long learning processes. Seminars and courses outside of chemistry reflect the recognition that academic and industrial success is often found when a knowledge of chemistry can be melded with other subjects that may make the chemistry more viable in both the academic and nonacademic workplace.

The development of communication skills--writing and speaking--also was considered important by the participants of the conference. The oral defense of a written research proposal, as well as the defense of a thesis or dissertation appeared to be a good vehicle to develop critical communication skills that both industry and academe deem important.

The conferees agreed that an active and strong mentorship program involving not only the research supervisor, but also the dissertation committee could provide guidance in obtaining information and skills in important areas that are not particularly effectively transmitted in formal courses, e.g., subjects such as ethics, nontraditional career paths, and the nature of good scientific practices. All concerned agreed that the education of graduate students as generally described above should take no more than five years; cutting off support--teaching and research--could be used as a mechanism to achieve this goal.

Many academics who attended this conference reported that the new paradigm for graduate student training was more-or-less in place through an evolutionary process. In other words, the obvious increasing unhappiness with the strictly research approach to graduate education has engendered incremental changes in most PhD-granting institutions that have changed the ambiance of graduate programs in the direction of making the students involved more viable as professionals. Forward-looking graduate programs are sensitive to the needs of the students as well as to the needs of academe and industry. The struggle will be to keep the academic system of advanced education from becoming the direct research arm of industry.