Click for next page ( 242


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 241
10 CHAPTER Conclusions and Recommendations It is often said that research and graduate educa- tion are inextricably related. For predoctoral work this statement is most ap- plicable to the terminal or dissertation stage. However, there is no question but that the statement is true of postdoctoral education. In fact, it is fair to say that research and postdoctoral education are virtually identical. The validity of this description accounts for both the successes and the problems of postdoc- toral education as it has developed in this country. Proficiency in conducting research in most of the sciences is learned, or at least improved, in an apprenticeship to a master researcher. For a few who are exceptionally able and who take their graduate work with such a master, the graduate experience is sufficient to convert them from novice to proficiency status. For many, a longer apprenticeship is required. What form this extended experience should take depends, according to conventional wisdom, on the goal the apprentice seeks. If he desires to teach in an undergraduate college, he may want some teaching experience; further research is not as important. If he plans a career in industry, it might be wise to attach himself immediately to an indus- trial research laboratory where he can learn the appropriate styles of applied or project-oriented research by working with those who are committed to it. For the man who wants to become a master researcher, i.e., to train other stu- dents in research by joining the faculty of a graduate-degree-granting university, the postdoctoral appointment is the common route to follow. The problem with the above prescriptions is that they are too neat. As we have seen, only in some of the fields is postdoctoral work a major enterprise 241

OCR for page 241
242 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and a prerequisite for employment in even the better universities. Some indus- trial and government laboratories find that they prefer employees with post- doctoral backgrounds. In fields such as engineering, many departments seem to want faculty with "postdoctoral" experience in industry. In short, we are dealing with a complex phenomenon concerning which every statement must be qualified. However, overemphasis on the exceptions should not be allowed to obscure the pattern. In the main, in fields like physics, chemistry, modern biology (in- cluding biochemistry), and medicine, postdoctoral education is virtually a neces- sity for subsequent employment in a highly research-oriented university. Further- more, the reasons are not simply that the postdoctoral system serves as a sieve that removes the less able, but that something positive happens and that the man who completes postdoctoral study is a better researcher than he was before. He has become better prepared and more likely to succeed as a teacher of grad- uate students. Whether other fields should embark on postdoctoral activities or expand them is a matter that must be decided field by field. There is danger of blind imitation, which should be avoided. The criterion should be whether only by postdoctoral study can the PhD recipient be expected to perform independent research in his chosen area of investigation. If the graduate or even the under- graduate curriculum can be arranged to make this unnecessary, then it ought to be so changed. Postdoctoral education should not be established to circum- vent a needed alteration of predoctoral training.1 Conversely, we find no evidence that postdoctoral education has resulted from a failure of graduate education to fulfill its function. One need only read the Proceedings of the Association of Graduate Schools, going back to the turn of the century, to realize that many of the problems and criticisms of graduate education are seemingly insoluble and unanswerable. If the date were not printed on the page, one would find it difficult to establish the year by the tenor and content of the discussion. As Berelson seems to imply,2 what is im- portant is the awareness of the problems; perhaps no solutions exist. If the function of a graduate education is to produce a finished independent re- searcher, it has always failed in some fields. It would be more surprising if it had succeeded not only today but even earlier. There is a tendency to look at the growth of knowledge today and to explain postdoctoral education in terms of the impossibility of absorbing all that need be learned during a graduate program of standard duration. There is a concomitant tendency to look back 1There is a special place for postdoctoral work when the field is undergoing a rapid evolu- tion. The recent surge of interest in mathematical methods in some of the social sciences, for example, has outstripped the ability of the schools to reorganize their curricula to cope with the change. 2 Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States, p. 41.

OCR for page 241
243 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to earlier times and to conceive of them as simpler and of science then as being more easily grasped. This is likely to be more nostalgic than realistic. The major advances of science have been those that consolidated knowledge by the per- ception of unifying principles. Before the discovery of quantum mechanics physicists had to learn the bewildering variety of atomic spectra and myriad empirical laws of limited validity. Today, atomic spectra are relegated to tables and the physicist need only know in principle how their frequencies can be deduced from the equations of quantum mechanics. To be sure other vistas have opened up, but it is far from obvious that today things are complicated whereas yesterday they were simple. It is more likely that postdoctoral education has arisen in some fields be- cause those fields are so rich in subtleties of technique and sophisticated ideas that the single research project required for the doctoral thesis does not pro- vide the student with a sufficient grasp of his field to permit him to become an independent faculty member. On the other hand, not everyone who earns a PhD in those fields intends to continue in research on the frontier. To re- quire that everyone spend another two years to acquire the mastery that is essential for further research contributions is both inefficient and redundant. The present system allows the college teacher and the nonacademic researcher to get about their business and permits the potential academic researcher to have the additional benefit of experiencing research in a new environment. If this means that the theoretical definition of the PhD degree must be changed, that might be the direction in which to move. Our fundamental conclusion, therefore, is that postdoctoral education is a useful and basically healthy development. Although our discussion to this point has been concerned with the postdoctoral experience immediately following the PhD, the conclusion is valid for postdoctoral study at more senior levels as well. We shall return to this area in more detail later. Having stated our favorable attitude toward postdoctoral education, we are also convinced that current practices can be improved and that changes in atti- tudes and policies are desirable. The merging of research and training is critical for postdoctoral education, but when the training aspect is ignored or neglected the experience may not be as useful for the postdoctoral and for his subsequent employer as it could be. The origin of the difficulties lies in the indirectness of the support of much of postdoctoral activity, both by the federal agencies and by the universities. The problem is exposed most clearly when one tries to answer the question: "Are there too many or too few postdoctorals?" Lacking a clear statement of why there need be postdoctorals in the first place, such a question is in princi- ple unanswerable. There are two extreme cases where the dilemma can be re- solved. They are typified by considering the postdoctoral first as a "means" and second as an "end." The more realistic case where he is both means and end is more complicated.

OCR for page 241
244 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS If the postdoctoral is solely a means, i.e., he exists and is supported simply to assist a principal investigator in performing research, the number of postdoc- torals will be related to the level of research activity. Once it has been decided how much research is desirable and affordable and with what urgency the re- search is to be done, the number of postdoctorals there "should be" can be determined. Perhaps we should not in this case refer to them as postdoctorals but as professional research-staff members who hold the doctorate. Whatever one decides about the postdoctorals, such professional researchers might be desirable. There are PhD's for whom a career as a junior associate to a principal investigator is not only attractive but possibly constitutes the best use of their talents. Support for such full-time researchers may or may not be in the coun- try's interest, but they should not be confused with postdoctorals who are de- fined as seeking an appointment "of a temporary nature . .. which is intended to offer an opportunity for continued education and experience in research." At the other extreme, if the postdoctoral is solely an end, i.e., he exists and is supported simply to prepare him for a particular kind of position (or possibly several kinds of positions), then the number of postdoctorals would sensibly be related to the number of appropriate positions expected to be available at the conclusion of his appointment. The nature of the research activities under such an appointment would be such as to provide the postdoctoral with the techniques, the vision, and the independence that are required for the success- ful filling of the anticipated position. Under these conditions it might not be possible to have the research program of the mentor proceed as smoothly or as efficiently as under the concept of the postdoctoral as a means. Efficiency, however, would not be the point; it would be education. In practice neither extreme predominates, although some postdoctorals supported by faculty research grants approximate the former and some of those supported by training grants the latter. What is desired and what occurs much of the time regardless of the support mechanism is a combination of the two. The possibility of a mutually satisfactory relationship between the mentor and the postdoctoral is often realized, but grants and contracts in sup- port of research at universities should be consciously given with the purpose of achieving simultaneously both the research objectives and the training of pre- and postdoctorals. The consciousness should extend not only to the fac- ulty and administration of the university, but also to the granting agency. There may be some loss of efficiency implied in such a policy, but it would serve the mission of the university without hurting the mission of the agency. In some cases congressional action would be necessary to free the agency from current restrictions on support of training or education. The only criteria that the program officers may legally apply to requests for support for research assistance at either level must relate to the "level of effort" or to the need to achieve the research goals expeditiously. The university and, more particularly,

OCR for page 241
245 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS the faculty member is forced to focus its justification on these issues, not em- phasizing the educational possibilities that the research might involve. Where such a practice might be appropriate for an independent or industrial research laboratory, it is a distortion of the full responsibilities of the faculty member. The fact that many program officers do in practice concern themselves with support of graduate education despite the restrictions in no way vitiates the desirability of removing the restrictions. Education on both sides of the PhD should be supported by design rather than by accident. The training-grant approach to postdoctoral education appears to have all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks of the research-grant mechanism. Here the training is emphasized, although, since it is training in research, it im- plies a setting in which the faculty is fully involved in research. The trainees often play the part of research assistants and the research effort of the mentor is augmented. There is as well a more subtle, but important aspect of the train- ing grant proposal that makes it attractive. The department or proposed training- grant faculty must justify the awarding of the grant in part because of a need for people trained in the manner proposed. Thus the faculty have an awareness of what is happening to the manpower picture in their discipline and of their responsibility to respond to it. There is, however, a potential weakness in the training-grant approach that the research-grant mechanism does not share. Of crucial importance to the postdoctoral experience is the adequacy of the faculty member as a mentor. Unless the mentor is a master scientist capable of contributing not only skills but also a critical spirit to the relationship, the postdoctoral period may pro- vide the apprentice with merely more research experience and not necessarily better experience. The training grant is generally awarded to an entire depart- ment or to a group of faculty. Although usually there are exceptional men in the group, few departments can boast of having only such men. In many de- partments there is overwhelming pressure to spread the largesse of money and trainees among the entire group, without the hard decisions that would re- serve the postdoctoral support only for those investigators with something special to give. There is an aristocracy of excellence in science that is ignored only at the risk of mediocrity. The research grant tends to be awarded on the basis of such excellence. Those who construct and monitor federal programs should give thought to ways of combining the best of both approaches. Before returning to the question of how many postdoctoral positions there should be, we must consider the third important mechanism of support, the postdoctoral fellowship. Fellowships differ from the other modes in concen- trating attention on the postdoctoral himself. The great strength of the fellow- ships is that they identify the potential leaders in research and instruction. Since the fellow carries his own stipend with him, he is much better able to select his mentor and the mentor is usually able to accept him as an appren-

OCR for page 241
246 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS tice. For these exceptional people the fellowship permits, in principle, the exceptional experience. Again, however, the real world modifies the abstract and admirable princi- ples. Although the award is usually based not only on the scientific potential of the applicant but also on the proposed research, the grants do not in general have nearly enough support for research expenses to allow the fellow actually to carry out the anticipated research. He is forced to depend on the resources of his mentor, usually derived from research grants the mentor has won, to ac- quire the equipment and supplies necessary. Since the fellow is a superior indi- vidual, the mentor is usually happy to provide the funds if the purpose falls within the purview of his grant. At times, however, whether because of the restrictions on the mentor's grant or because of the mentor's own lack of inter- est in the research proposed by the fellow, the latter finds it to his advantage to shift his project to align it more closely with the mentor's research. The free- dom of the fellow to pursue his own research is thus frustrated; nor is it clear that additional research support alone would rectify the situation. The mentor should be brought into the decision-making process, perhaps by being asked to endorse the proposed research at the time of the application for the fel- lowship. Involvement of the mentor (now seen as the proposed mentor) in the appli- cation and judging process would have other advantages. Although the fellow has only himself to blame for choosing an inappropriate mentor, the review by the panels of the adequacy of the mentor as well as the quality of the appli- cant might avoid unfortunate experiences. Moreover, the group of possible mentors might be expanded. Present restrictions in the federal programs im- posed by legislation permit fellowships to be held only at universities and at certain nonprofit and governmental institutions. If the desire is to match the fellow with the mentor, it is conceivable that the best mentor for the particu- lar applicant is at an industrial research laboratory. Evaluation of the mentor as well as the applicant would go far to eliminate any fear that the postdoc- toral might be exploited or that the program might be compromised. We are not prepared to answer the question of how many postdoctoral posi- tions there should be in quantitative terms, but we do have some suggestions about what should be taken into account in determining that number. The first suggestion relates to the fact that, in spite of the differences in approach, the individual postdoctoral and his mentor do not attach the significance to the special properties of the fellowship, the traineeship, and the research associate- ship that the sponsors of these programs often do. They are all seen as means to the same end, namely, the postdoctoral experience. We believe that this fact of life should be accepted, without suggesting that the differences among the programs are unimportant or that these different mechanisms of support should not continue. Their importance lies, however, outside of the postdoc-

OCR for page 241
247 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS toral-mentor relationship and nothing would seem to be gained by trying to intrude these values into that relationship. It follows that, as far as postdoc- toral education is concerned, the numbers of postdoctorals is measured by considering the sum of the numbers on fellowships, on traineeships, and on project assistantships. A second suggestion is that a distinction be made between the person hired on a research grant who is looking for a permanent position as a research asso- ciate and the bona fide postdoctoral, who is seeking a temporary educational experience. Such a distinction represents a polarization rather than a dichotomy and probably can be made only by the mentor. It depends not only on the qualifications and goals of the "postdoctoral," but also on the qualifications of the principal investigator, qua mentor, and on the nature of the research activities to be undertaken. Host institutions and faculty members must take it on themselves to evaluate each situation and to ensure that the postdoctoral is not treated simply as an employee. The number of fellowships should be limited so that a distinctive element of the fellowship will be the recognition of exceptional quality. This means that the number of fellowships will have to be set at some modest fraction of the number of PhD's produced. The pattern in the biological sciences, where approximately one third of the postdoctorals are in each of the categories of fellowship, traineeship, and project associateship, might well be duplicated in the physical sciences. If this were done the number of fellowships in physics and chemistry would have to be increased over the number currently available and a traineeship program would have to be initiated. In addition, the total number of postdoctoral opportunities of all kinds should have some relationship to the number of people with postdoctoral backgrounds required by universities, by specialized industries, and by govern- ment laboratories and to the number of doctorate-holders who would benefit by the experience. Such a determination would necessitate some planning of manpower requirements. We do not agree with those who argue that manpower planning is unnecessary, that the market place will determine the numbers needed, and that the society will accommodate whatever numbers of postdoc- torals are available. Society will, of course, adjust to the number of postdoc- torals. However, unless this number approximates the number of subsequent opportunities to utilize their special aptitudes and training, we will have one of two consequences. If there are too many postdoctorals, we will have wasted the funds required to train them; we will have raised their expectations without being able to satisfy them; and we will have created pressures in the institutions that hire them to permit them the opportunities they desire, whether there is a social need or not. If there are too few postdoctorals, the consequences are more subtle. Universities and other natural employers of postdoctorals will ob- viously adapt to the situation, but we can expect a drop in quality and in pro-

OCR for page 241
248 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ductivity that will be hard to measure. Discoveries not made and excellence not realized are never missed, but we are the poorer for their absence. An effort should also be made to ensure that a steady flow of foreign post- doctorals to the United States is maintained. We leave to those charged with foreign-policy management the task of justifying the flow in terms of our respon- sibility to the development of other countries less well endowed. Even if that were not an issue, the visiting and studying in our laboratories by foreign scien- tists could be justified by their contribution to American research alone. Ameri- can science is and has been improved by the ideas and techniques these people have brought from their home countries. Our graduate students, and indeed our faculty, are better for the association. The foreign postdoctorals who return home often constitute for the mentor a network for the informal exchange of ideas and scientific news that stimulates research long after the postdoctoral experi- ence itself. On the other hand, some control on the numbers of foreign postdoctorals needs to be imposed, both for their benefit and for ours. The essentially Ameri- can atmosphere of our graduate schools should not be lost through an exces- sive concentration of foreign scientists. Foreign postdoctorals of marginal qual- ity should not be encouraged to make the investment in coming to this country when their talents might be better used at home and, in general, foreign post- doctorals should be urged to return home. However, we should not allow too great a concern for the relevance of the American postdoctoral experience to the needs of the home country to prevent an exceptional foreign scientist from participating in our programs. The next Einstein may come from Indonesia or Mali; we should welcome that possibility. It is important that American PhD's have opportunities to work and study abroad. If the best mentor for a particular young scientist happens to be in a foreign country, then both the postdoctoral and American science will gain from his taking his appointment overseas. Familiarity with the best work being done in other countries is critical if American scholarship is not to become isolated. Moreover, the presence of American scientists in foreign laboratories will often stimulate research there. The recent reduction in the number of Ful- bright fellows and the elimination for at least a year of the National Science Foundation Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship Program are severe and regrettable blows to the international character of American scholarship. With regard to the overall support of postdoctoral activity, there is the need for more opportunities for study at the senior level. This need extends not only over all fields from the humanities to the natural sciences, but it encom- passes those in industry and government as well as those in the universities. There is ample evidence that innovation and renewal take place best when individuals move into new environments and interact with new stimuli. The senior postdoctoral appointment, usually in association with a sabbatical leave

OCR for page 241
249 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS with or without pay, is highly desirable both for the research and study that it permits and for the perspectives that it awakens in people who may have grown somewhat stale in their positions. This again is an area where we may not miss the benefits but we are the poorer for the lack.3 Finally, with regard to the numbers of postdoctorals, care must be taken that decisions made by Congress or the federal agencies to satisfy one purpose do not carry with them undesirable secondary effects. The case in point is the current budget squeeze that has resulted in a cutback in funds for research. Although the postdoctoral was not a target in this decision and the reduction of his numbers was not intended even as an accompanying side effect, there is evidence that he is one of the most vulnerable components of research budgets. In Table 58 we give the results of a survey taken in the fall of 1968 to measure the impact of federal research cutbacks on the postdoctoral population in physics and chemistry.4 Although the reduction in numbers is not as severe as had been anticipated, it must be remembered that the demand for postdoctoral TABLE 58 A Comparison of the Physics and Chemistry Postdoctoral Population in 1967 and 1968 Type of Academic Physics Postdoctorals Percent Chemistry Postdoctorals Percent Institution 1967 1968 Change 1967 1968 Change Ten leading 260 212 -18.5 379 356 -6.1 Twenty other major 311 330 +5.9 557 319 -6.9 Established 233 221 -5.2 406 433 +6.7 Developing 143 155 +8.3 358 415 + 16.1 Total 947 918 -3.1 1,700 1,723 +1.4 Source: NRC, Office of Scientific Personnel, follow-up survey for the postdoctoral study. The need for greater appreciation of the senior postdoctoral appointment is reflected in the decision of the National Science Foundation to drop their senior program temporarily in favor of the regular program during the present federal restrictions on funds. The sen- ior program, with only 55 fellowships, represented 6 percent of all senior postdoctoral appointments, while the regular postdoctoral program with its 120 fellowships supports only 3 percent of the postdoctorals within five years of their PhD.s. The relative impact of the decision on the senior postdoctorals is twice what it would have been on the more junior postdoctorals. 4The numbers in this Table cannot be compared with earlier data as the returns are not complete. The relative changes from 1967 to 1968 are real, however, and are probably representative. An attempt was made to obtain figures for biochemistry, but an insuffi- cient number of responses made the data unreliable.

OCR for page 241
250 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS appointments has been increasing. If the number of positions had remained constant, the effect would be a 7 percent to 9 percent reduction in available positions. Furthermore, most of the respondents testified that in the fall of 1969 the figures will show a significant downward change. Postdoctoral posi- tions are being excised from budgets coming up for renewal. Apparently the investigators, the agencies, and the agency review panels did not give postdoc- toral education as high a priority as predoctoral education. Most of the preceding comments and recommendations are directed at the supporters of postdoctoral education and, in particular, the federal supporters. The universities have concomitant responsibilities with regard to postdoctoral education. The primary need is for the recognition of postdoctoral activity as an activity that is as central to the university purpose as undergraduate or grad- uate education, on the one hand, or faculty research and public service on the other. Distinguishing again between professional researchers, who are employed more or less permanently in departments and institutes, and the education- seeking postdoctoral, the university must assure itself that it has created the proper environment for the postdoctoral-mentor relationship to take place. Because of the somewhat delicate nature of that relationship and because of the effectiveness of the informal nature of postdoctoral work, there is probably little that could be done to improve the relationship by making it more formal or by trying to structure it from the outside. Nevertheless, we have a few sug- gestions that should reduce abuses and possibly increase effectiveness. Conceiving of the postdoctoral as an "end," regardless of the nature of his support, implies that the experiences provided for him will be such as to pre- pare him for the future. It is not self-evident that every research project or every faculty member will or can provide the proper setting. The number of qualified postdoctoral mentors is smaller than the number of all faculty qualified to di- rect graduate research. The university has the responsibility of identifying these people either internally or with advice from outsiders in the disciplines. In part, this is done by the review panels who recommend the grants, but not always with this particular focus. To provide the proper setting, attention should be paid to the physical as well as intellectual environment. Because the growth of the postdoctoral popu- lation on most campuses has been relatively slow and because it was seldom planned but simply occurred, few universities have adequate space, facilities, or equipment for postdoctorals. The postdoctoral activity has had to "piggyback" on the graduate and research program, acquiring whatever space the faculty member could sequester or squeeze out of existing space. Because postdoctoral education has not received an institutional commitment, only a license to exist, the rate of acquisition of equipment or, conversely, the limiting of numbers of students and faculty members in accordance with the availability of equipment has not generally been determined with the postdoctoral in mind.

OCR for page 241
251 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The universities are not solely to blame for these conditions. The donors and controllers of construction funds have been either indifferent or actually hostile to postdoctoral education. We know of no state legislature that permits its state university to include the anticipated number of postdoctoral s along with the number of faculty and students when planning new academic build- ings. Similar problems exist at private universities with their boards of trustees. These problems are not likely to be resolved until these bodies are educated by the universities concerning the importance of postdoctoral education to the university committed to research. Before that can happen, there must be a prior consensus within the university. We hesitate to suggest imperatives for other details of the postdoctoral ex- perience, because the making of a scientist-professor is such an individual mat- ter. Each postdoctoral comes with his peculiar background of experiences and insights and the most effective program will be one that is tailor-made. There are, nevertheless, some aspects that should be considered. These include the opportunity to teach with supervision, the participation in administrative problem-solving, and the setting of limits on the duration of the postdoctoral appointment. The compulsion to teach and to create knowledge in others is a strong one and one that is especially acute for the new PhD. For more than twenty years he has been taught, and he often wishes to return the favor. Some have had the experience as teaching assistants while in graduate school, but some have not. Even though the prime purpose of the postdoctoral appointment is a research apprenticeship, the ability to communicate one's new knowledge is also important. We recommend that the postdoctoral be given the opportunity to do limited teaching at some time during his appointment. It would also be helpful if his teaching could be criticized. Once he becomes a professor, he is less likely to receive peer criticism of his teaching. One of the first tasks the postdoctoral will have when he becomes an assist- ant professor will be to write a proposal to some agency or foundation for sup- port of his research. If he is successful, he will then be charged with administer- ing the grant. He will be much better prepared for such responsibilities if he has participated in grant administration while a postdoctoral, at least to the extent of sitting in while budgets are constructed or while expenditures are being planned. The question of how long the postdoctoral period should last is also diffi- cult to specify uniformly for all postdoctorals. In some fields for some individ- uals, a year is sufficient time to make the transition from student to professor. For most fields and most postdoctorals, two years will permit the achievement of the educational objectives. Occasionally, for the rare individual, a longer period would be effective, including possibly a change of mentor and host insti- tution. Again the question must be decided in terms of the individual. What

OCR for page 241
•o if # ~t t K O i i -. 0- — .0 ^ in -. — -• — «n -t ^ rf\ o- r- i i i i i •8 1 CD m O« -• Z > — »- < u ID Ouji/l — D kO X C>0 ^ It« Qt- — Z -D S^ U>-^cO»- — — UOOul< — ZIvoo"z< u. uo aeZZZZZZ >>ot I 1 .2 303

OCR for page 241
304 APPENDIX B: COMPILATIONS OF DATA B-3 Distribution of Foreign Postdoctorals by Country In this study data on the foreign postdoctoral were presented for the most part by gathering the home countries into four groups determined by the per capita gross national product. The rationale was that degree of educational development is more likely to be a function of national wealth than geographi- cal location. As with any categorization, there are flaws, and countries like Kuwait will be ranked as a rich country although its educational development does not match its wealth. (There is not much distortion in this case, however, as we detected no postdoctorals from Kuwait.) The classification of countries by per capita GNP is based on World Bank figures,4 and the nomenclature we used is: Classification Per Capita Gross National Product High income More than $750 Medium income $250-$749 Low income $100-$249 Very low income Less than $100 In Table B-3 we provide data on postdoctorals, listing each country sepa- rately. The per capita GNP classification is given with the code: High — 1, Medium — 2, Low - 3, Very Low - 4. Escott Reid, The Future of the World Bank, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, September 1965.

OCR for page 241
305

OCR for page 241
5 3 CO CD CD 2 X Q Z (M i«i IM .a •r tr rv -s -t -• — « m m — m — «n iM UN in —i — f"lQr\J--.CI- -a .a uj 'U a. ° Z a !ii|i§!|ii * ^ 4 Z Z « ~i in OCR for page 241
ss — -« rv — PJ - 3 -si C UJ 307

OCR for page 241
31 s ec — 3 Q z O u. D O 308

OCR for page 241
APPENDIX iibJtography American Medical Association, The Graduate Education of Physicians, The Report of the Citizens' Commission on Graduate Medical Education, 1966. Berelson, Bernard, Graduate Education in the United States, McGraw-Hill, 1960. Postdoctoral Work in American Universities, Journal of Higher Education, March 1962. Bush, Vannevar, Science, the Endless Frontier, a Report to the President, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945. (Also reprinted by the National Science Foundation, 1960.) Cain, Arthur S., Jr., and Lois G. Bowen, The Role of Postdoctoral Fellowships in Aca- demic Medicine, The Journal of Medical Education, Vol. 36, No. 10, October 1961. Cartter, Allan M.,An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, American Council on Education, 1966. Ingraham, Mark H., The Outer Fringe: Faculty Benefits Other Than Annuities and Insur- ance, University of Wisconsin Press, 1965. Journal of the American Medical Association, annual education numbers. (Contain de- tailed information each year on the postdoctoral population in medical schools.) Manpower Resources for Science and Technology, The Brain Drain, Her Majesty's Sta- tionery Office, London, 1967. Miller, John Perry, Under the Tower, the Postdoctoral Fellow, Ventures (magazine of Yale Graduate School), Vol. 5, No. 2, Fall 1965. The Modern Language Association of America, Recommendations Concerning the PhD in English, PMLA, Vol. 82, No. 4, September 1967. National Academy of Sciences, Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities, 1958-1966, Publ. 1489, Washington, D.C., 1967. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Doctorate Production in United States Universities, 1920-1962, Publ. 1142, Washington, D.C., 1963. 309

OCR for page 241
310 APPENDIX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Profiles of PhD.s in the Sciences, Publ. 1293, Washington, D.C., 1965. (Summary report on follow-up of doctorate cohorts, 1935-1960.) National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Chemistry: Opportunities and Needs, Publ. 1292, Washington, D.C., 1965. (A report on basic research in United States chemistry by the Committee for the Survey of Chemistry.) National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Physics: Survey and Outlook, Publ. 1295, Washington, D.C., 1966. (A report of the present state of U.S. physics and its requirements for future growth.) National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, The Plant Sciences: Now and in the Coming Decade, Publ. 1405, Washington, D.C., 1966. (A report on the status, trends, and requirements of plant sciences in the United States.) National Research Council, Office of Scientific Personnel, Proceedings of the Conference on Postdoctoral Fellowships and Research Associateships in the Sciences and Engi- neering, Williamstown, Mass., Sept. 10-12, 1967. National Science Foundation, Graduate Student Support and Manpower Resources in Graduate Science Education, Washington, D.C., 1968 (NSF68-13). Perkins, Dexter, John L. Snell, and the Committee on Graduate Education of the Ameri- can Historical Association, lite Education of Historians in the United States, McGraw- Hill, 1962. Research Policy Program, Brain Drain and Brain Gain, Lund, Sweden, 1967.

OCR for page 241

OCR for page 241

OCR for page 241
LB 2371 .154 1969 The Invisible university: postdoctoral education ir 71 .154 1969 The Invisib1e university: postdoctoral education in