Click for next page ( R2


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 R1

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Tfa3 nvisibb • 4 Postdoctoral Education in the United States Report of a Study Conducted under the Auspices of the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Washington, D.C. 1969

OCR for page R1
Standard Book Number 309-01730-0 A vailable from Printing and Publishing Office National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D. C. 20418 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 70-601489

OCR for page R1
Foreword Postdoctoral studies fulfill the desire of the advanced scholar to pursue research for a time often in close association with a distinguished mentor or colleague. They provide education-capping experi- ences for the younger scholar and reinvigoration and new directions for the established investigator. One of the earliest formal recognitions of the importance of postdoctoral studies in the United States was the establishment in 1919 of the National Research Fellowship Program by the National Research Council with the sup- port of the Rockefeller Foundation. Over 1,300 young scientists in the physi- cal, mathematical, biological, and medical sciences received fellowship awards for postdoctoral research in the three decades during which the program was in operation. The fellows were selected for unusual ability and for promise of future leadership in scientific research. They went on to distinguished careers in educational institutions and industrial and governmental laboratories, taking with them their enthusiasm for research and their high competence. The pro- gram played a major role in establishing for the United States the eminence in science that it now enjoys. Postdoctoral studies have undergone major growth since World War II. At an increasing rate, new PhD's have sought temporary postdoctoral research appointments as a preliminary to careers in universities and, to a lesser extent, in industry and government. Increasingly, universities have expected those appointed to their faculties to have had postdoctoral research experience and,

OCR for page R1
vi FOREWORD in turn, they have been willing to serve as hosts to postdoctoral scholars. More established investigators also have sought the renewal provided by postdoctoral studies and have continued to seek such opportunities. Interest in postdoctoral studies is strongest in the fields of the natural sciences, but it is increasing in the social and behavioral sciences, in the humanities, and in some of the pro- fessional fields. With the impetus given by the availability of federal research funds during the last two decades, postdoctoral studies have reached institu- tional status and may justifiably be referred to as the newest stratum of higher education in this country. The present report is the result of a concern within the National Research Council and elsewhere about the scope of postdoctoral education in the United States. Although postdoctoral appointees were present on many cam- puses, their numbers and functions were not known nationally and, in many instances, were not even known to the host universities. Postdoctoral educa- tion, as the title of this report suggests, had grown to institutional status with- out study or planning. In the absence of information, the costs and benefits of this development to the universities, to the postdoctoral appointees, and to the nation could not be adequately assessed. The financial uncertainties asso- ciated with reductions in the federal research budget during the last several years added to the urgency of the need for information. A national study of postdoctoral education in the United States was first suggested by Sanborn C. Brown of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sponsored by the National Research Council and housed administratively within the Office of Scientific Personnel, the study got under way in 1966. It is indicative of the widespread interest in the problem that financial support was provided by five agencies of the federal government and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. An advisory committee, representative of the academic community and of other sectors affected by postdoctoral education, determined policies for the study and established directions for it. The members included Sanborn C. Brown, Chairman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; G. M. Almy, Uni- versity of Illinois; Kenneth E. Clark, University of Rochester; Bryce Craw- ford, Jr., University of Minnesota; H. Bentley Glass, State University of New York; Thomas F. Jones, University of South Carolina; Arthur R. Kantrowitz, AVCO-Everett Research Laboratory; Eugene M. Landis, Harvard Medical School; H. W. Magoun, University of California; John Perry Miller, Yale Uni- versity; Hans Neurath, University of Washington; Colin S. Pittendrigh, Prince- ton University; Moody E. Prior, Northwestern University; and Gordon T. Whyburn, University of Virginia. Members of the committee were generous with their time, and we are greatly indebted to them. They were assisted by consultants drawn from the academic world, from industry, and from govern- ment. A series of conferences, interviews, and interim reports provided further

OCR for page R1
VII FOREWORD means of registering a wide spectrum of opinions and evaluations during the course of the study. Staff leadership during the first half-year was provided by Robert A. Al- berty, then at the University of Wisconsin and now at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who served as the first director and gave the project its initial impetus. He was succeeded as director in March 1967 by Richard B. Curtis of Indiana University, who was given leave of absence by his university to serve as full-time director of the study. Dr. Curtis carried out the analysis of results, the interviewing, and the consultations reported here and was the principal author of this report, with the close collaboration of the advisory committee. We are exceedingly grateful to him for his hard work and insightful leadership. Other staff responsibilities were met by Robert K. Weatherall of Massachu- setts Institute of Technology, who served as associate director for institutional studies, and by Lindsey R. Harmon of the Office of Scientific Personnel, who was associate director for manpower studies. M. H. Trytten and William C. Kelly of the Office of Scientific Personnel provided general administrative supervision of the study. The information, evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations contained here are offered to all who are concerned with postdoctoral education. It is hoped that the report will lead to greater understanding of a rapidly develop- ing sector of higher education. FREDERICK SEITZ,President National Academy of Sciences April 15, 1969

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This study was made possible by the financial support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the United States Office of Education. Their assistance is gratefully acknowl- edged. The program officers of each have been most helpful throughout the course of the study. The Committee on Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences has provided encouragement and advice. In particular, Harry Eagle and Mark G. Inghram of that committee sat with the Advisory Committee and served as wise counselors. In an undertaking of this magnitude it is impossible to thank individually everyone who has made a contribution. Thanks are owed to the many post- doctoral appointees, departmental chairmen, faculty members, university ad- ministrators, directors of research in industrial and government laboratories, and foundation or agency officers, who provided helpful information. Special acknowledgment must be made of the assistance of approximately 400 coor- dinators for the study, appointed at each of the responding universities and organizations by their presidents. The Director and Associate Director were graciously received on twenty university campuses and at a number of indus- trial laboratories and scholarly organizations. Several dozen program officers ix

OCR for page R1
X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in federal agencies provided information as to their policies on postdoctoral appointments. Several groups of individuals assisted the study by providing advice on various aspects of the postdoctoral phenomenon. From the social sciences were 0. Meredith Wilson (Center for Advanced Study on the Behavioral Sciences), Robert E. Lane (Yale), Donald W. Taylor (Yale), Elbridge Sibley (Social Sci- ence Research Council), Gardner Lindzey (University of Texas), Raymond J. Balester (National Institute of Mental Health), and Charles R. Wright (National Science Foundation). In the humanities were Virgil Whitaker (Stanford Uni- versity), C. Hugh Holman (University of North Carolina), Frank Ryder (Indi- ana University), John Fisher (Modern Language Association), Frederick Burk- hardt (American Council of Learned Societies), Gordon Ray (Guggenheim Foundation), Barnaby Keeney (National Endowment for the Humanities), and James H. Blessing (National Endowment for the Humanities). In the study of the costs of postdoctoral education advice was provided by Adrian Harris (University of California at Los Angeles), George Pake (Washington University at St. Louis), Marshall Sittig (Princeton University), Rashi Fein (then of the Brookings Institution and now at Harvard University), Carl Kaysen (Institute for Advanced Study), and William Bowen (Princeton University). Raymond Bowers (then at the Office of Science and Technology and now at Cornell University) provided invaluable advice in the organization of the project. Francis Colligan (Department of State), Charles V. Kidd (then at the Office of Science and Technology; now at the Association of American Uni- versities) and Andre Rheault (Education and World Affairs) helped with the problem of foreign postdoctorals. Assistance in the area of the postdoctoral fellows in medicine was provided by Robert Berson (Association of American Medical Colleges), by Leland Powers (Association of American Medical Col- leges), by Walter Wiggins (American Medical Association), by Herbert Rosen- berg (National Institutes of Health), and especially by Howard H. Hiatt (Har- vard Medical School) and Jonathan Rhoads (University of Pennsylvania). John Caffrey (American Council on Education), Harriet Zuckerman (Columbia University), Lewis Slack (American Institute of Physics), and Alice Shurcliff (Education and World Affairs) provided useful data and information.

OCR for page R1
Ek For many graduate students in science today there is little question about the nature of their first positions after they re- ceive their PhD's. They will seek to work full time in research for a year or two with a senior investigator. If the graduate student is pointing toward a career as a faculty member at one of the established universities, such a post- doctoral appointment will be almost required to acquire new skills and experi- ence in research and to join the pool from which new appointments in the major universities are almost always made. The period spent in such an appren- tice role is for the most part an enjoyable one for the young scholar. He is re- lieved from the predoctoral pressures of graduate requirements and almost poverty-level stipends. The mentor of such young men finds them almost indispensable. Knowing that his laboratory is in the charge of one or more of these recent PhD's, the faculty member is able to attend to his other responsibilities of teaching and committee work. The research goes on, with higher quality (and quantity) and the professor's contribution can be more in the realm of ideas than in day-by- day mechanics. Furthermore, these bright young scientists often bring ideas and techniques from other laboratories that the faculty member himself might find it necessary to take a leave of absence to learn. In view of this almost idyllic relationship it is perhaps not surprising that at the beginning of the study, I was asked by a senior professor in physics why a study was necessary. He expressed the opinion that postdoctoral education xi

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contsnts CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2 AN HISTORICAL VIEW 7 Beginnings of Doctoral and Postdoctoral Research in the United States 7 Research in the Medical Schools 10 National Research Fellowships 16 International Fellowships 21 Fellowships in the Humanities and Social Sciences 22 The Association of American Universities 26 The Federal Government 27 National Cancer Institute, 27 National Institutes of Health, 29 National Science Foundation, 33 Career Awards in the Medical Sciences 34 Epilogue 37 CHAPTER 3 THE STUDY 39 The Available Facts 40 Definition of Postdoctoral Appointment 41 Strategy of the Study 45 xv

OCR for page R1
XVI CONTENTS CHAPTER 4 THE DEMOGRAPHY OF POSTDOCTORAL EDUCATION 49 The Composition of the Postdoctoral Population 51 The Postdoctoral in U.S. Academic Institutions 54 Immediate PhD Postdoctorals, 58 Intermediate PhD Postdoctorals, 94 Senior PhD Postdoctorals, 98 Long-Term PhD Postdoctorals, 101 Post-Professional-Doctorates (MD's), 105 The Postdoctoral in Nonacademic Institutions 115 Nonprofit Institutions, 118 Industrial Laboratories, 119 Federal Government Laboratories, 122 Postdoctorals Abroad, 124 CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE POSTDOCTORAL 126 Comments of Former Postdoctorals 128 Quantitative Aspects of the Postdoctoral Experience 133 CHAPTER 6 IMPLICATIONS FOR ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS 143 Effect on the Department 149 Teaching by Postdoctorals 161 Contribution to Research 170 Implications for the Research Group, 177 Recruitment of Postdoctorals as Faculty 179 Implications for the Disciplines 183 Summary 193 CHAPTER 7 IMPLICATIONS FOR NONACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS 194 Employment of New Doctorate Recipients 195 Research Funds and Recruitment of Postdoctorals 197

OCR for page R1
xvii CONTENTS CHAPTER 8 THE FOREIGN POSTDOCTORAL 205 Impact on United States Universities 207 Countries of Origin 212 Return to Countries of Origin 217 CHAPTER 9 THE FINANCES OF POSTDOCTORAL EDUCATION 224 Stipends 225 University Costs 230 Sources of Support 233 CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 241 Summary 254 APPEND1X A THE QUESTIONNAIRES 259 1 Postdoctoral Census Questionnaire 259 2 Departmental Questionnaire 263 3 Faculty Questionnaire 267 4 Postdoctoral Experience Questionnaire 272 5 Institutional Questionnaire 278 APPEND1X B COMPILATIONS OF DATA 283 1 Fine Field Distribution of Postdoctoral s 283 2 Distribution of Postdoctoral s among Universities 296 3 Distribution of Foreign Postdoctoral s by Country 304 APPEND1X C BIBLIOGRAPHY 309

OCR for page R1
Tabbs and Figures CHAPTER 2 TABLES 1 Number of National Research (NRC) Fellows holding teaching positions in 1950, by field 19 2 Number of NIH postdoctoral and special fellowships, fiscal years 1946-1967 30 3 Appropriations for NIH training grant programs, fiscal years 1946-1967 31 4 Number of NSF regular and senior postdoctoral fellowships and science faculty fellowships, 1953-1969 35 FIGURES 1 Percentage of PhD recipients receiving National Research (NRC) Fellowships, by field, 1920-1939, and percentage of 1967 PhD's receiving postdoctoral appointments 18 CHAPTER 4 TABLES 5 Number of postdoctorals by level of appointment and percent foreign 52 xviii

OCR for page R1
XIX TABLES AND FIGURES 6 Number of postdoctorals by field and percent foreign 54 7 Concentration of postdoctoral s among academic institutions in selected fields 57 8 Percentage of academic institutions having postdoctoral s by type of institution and department 58 9 Distribution of postdoctorals at U.S. academic institutions by level of appointment and field 59 10 Number of PhD's and percentage taking immediate postdoctoral appointment, by field of doctorate, 1962-1967 60 11 Next anticipated employer of immediate U.S. postdoctorals, by type of host institution 62 12 Next anticipated employer of immediate U.S. postdoctorals at universities, by field 63 13 Work activity of assistant professors in selected departments, by type of academic institution 66 14 Immediate previous experience of newly appointed junior faculty in selected departments, by type of academic institution 68 15 Geographic location of immediate postdoctorals (with U.S. baccalaureates) at three training levels, all host institutions 73 16 Migration of immediate postdoctorals at U.S. academic institutions from PhD to postdoctoral institution for selected fields 74 17 Percentage of PhD's taking postdoctoral appointments in selected fields, by type of PhD institution 76 18 Migration of postdoctorals by reputation of PhD and postdoctoral institutions, by field 77 19 Mean years elapsed (total time) from baccalaureate to doc- torate for PhD postdoctorals in selected broad fields, by type of academic institution 78 20 Average quality index of postdoctorals at academic institu- tions, by type of postdoctoral institution, by field 80 21 Average quality index of postdoctorals at academic institu- tions, by type of doctoral institution, by field 82 22 Field and subfield changes of immediate U.S. postdoctorals, all host institutions 84 23 Types of appointment of all postdoctorals at U.S. academic institutions: A comparison between departmental and postdoctoral responses 91 24 Distribution of intermediate postdoctorals among host institutions, by field and citizenship 96

OCR for page R1
XX TABLES AND FIGURES 25 Percentage of intermediate postdoctoral s at academic and nonacademic host institutions on employment leave, by field and citizenship 97 26 Distribution of senior postdoctorals among host institu- tions, by field and citizenship 100 27 Number and percentage of long-term postdoctorals at U.S. academic institutions, by sex and citizenship 105 28 Comparison between Office of Scientific Personnel (OSP) census and AM A data on postdoctorals in the clinical specialties at U.S. medical schools 106 29 Enrollment of postdoctorals at U.S. academic institutions in regular courses and in degree programs, by field and citizenship 107 30 Distribution of post-MD's among fields, by type of host institution and citizenship 113 31 Anticipated employment of post-MD's, by citizenship and level of degree 114 FIGURES 2 Profile of U.S. postdoctorals 50 3 Distribution of 1967 postdoctorals among U.S. academic institutions and comparison to 1960-66 PhD production and 1966 federal academic science obligations 56 4 Geographic location of PhD institutions and academic host institutions of immediate postdoctorals 72 5 Percentage of immediate postdoctorals, by field of PhD, who changed from the field or subfield of their PhD's 85 6 Types of appointment of postdoctorals at U.S. academic institutions 92 7 Percentage of enrollees, by level, in dentistry, medicine, and basic medical sciences, 1966-67 110 8 Distribution of U.S. and foreign post-MD's, by degree level, postdoctoral field, and host institution 112 9 Nonacademic host institutions: Percentage of post- doctorals by field of postdoctoral, sex and citizenship, and level of appointment 116 CHAPTER 5 TABLES 32 Type of employer in 1967 of natural scientists, by postdoctoral background, PhD's of 1950, 195 5, and 1960 134

OCR for page R1
XXl TABLES AND FIGURES 33 Rank or position in 1967 of academic scientists (U.S. males only), by year of PhD and postdoctoral background 136 34 Type of work activity in 1967 of academic scientists (U.S. males only), by PhD year and postdoctoral back- ground 136 35 Research activity of academic scientists (U.S. males only), by year of PhD and postdoctoral background 137 FIGURES 10 Evaluation of immediate postdoctoral experience by academic scientists (U.S. males only) 140 11 Evaluation of delayed postdoctoral experience by academic-scientists (U.S. males only) 141 CHAPTER 6 TABLES 36 Participation in postdoctoral education in three fields, by type of academic institution 144 37 Faculty and students in selected graduate departments with and without postdoctorals, by type of academic institution 154 38 Graduate degrees granted per year per faculty member in departments with and without postdoctorals, by type of academic institution 156 39 First employment of 1967 doctorates from departments with and without postdoctorals 157 40 Percentage of faculty with postdoctoral background and percentage who are postdoctoral mentors in departments with and without postdoctorals 158 41 Previous position of newly appointed junior faculty in departments with and without postdoctorals 160 42 Degree of faculty involvement in research in departments with and without postdoctorals 162 43 Involvement of postdoctorals in teaching, by citizenship and field 167 44 Percentage of postdoctorals who teach, by level and types of teaching and by citizenship 168 45 Evaluation by the chairmen of doctoral departments without postdoctorals of the desirability of having postdoctorals 175 46 Composition and size of research groups with and without postdoctorals, by field 176

OCR for page R1
xxii TABLES AND FIGURES 47 PhD production by research groups with and without 178 postdoctorals, by field 48 Average amount of research support per research group with and without postdoctorals, by field and type of 180 academic institution FIGURES 12 Percentage of departments by highest level of educational 150 activity, by type of academic institution 13 Faculty time and departmental space requirements for postdoctorals as compared with requirements for 159 graduate students 14 Percentage of postdoctorals who teach, by level and type 169 of teaching and by citizenship 15 Contribution of research group—graduate students, postdoctorals, professional research staff—to natural 171 science professors' teaching responsibilities 16 Contribution of research group—graduate students, postdoctorals, professional research staff-to faculty 174 research in the natural sciences CHAPTER 7 FIGURES 17 Percentage of 1965-66 PhD's in selected fields from the 30 leading universities entering various employment 196 categories 18 Percentage of 1965-66 PhD's from the 30 leading universities by type of employer, including postdoctorals distributed according to their subsequent employers 198 CHAPTER 8 TABLES 49 PhD postdoctorals at U.S. academic institutions, by type of institution and citizenship 209 50 Distribution of foreign postdoctorals among U.S. academic institutions, by GNP rating of foreign country of origin 210 51 Percentage of foreign postdoctorals by field, from six leading countries 214 52 Future location as projected by 1967 foreign postdoc- torals and present location of 1961-62 foreign postdoctorals 221

OCR for page R1
XXIII TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURES 19 Number of postdoctoral s from the 13 countries that were the source of three-quarters of all foreign post- doctorals 213 20 Previous training of foreign postdoctoral s compared with American postdoctorals, by per capita GNP of foreign country, all fields combined 218 21 Relevance of the foreign postdoctorals' experiences to their countries' needs, by per capita GNP of country of origin 220 CHAPTER 9 TABLES 53 Number and percentage of postdoctorals, by reported source of support 234 54 Number of postdoctorals, by source of support and postdoctoral field 235 55 Number of postdoctorals, by source of support and type of host institution 236 56 Number of postdoctorals, by source of support and level of appointment 238 57 Number of postdoctorals, by source of support and citizenship 239 FIGURES 22 Median annual (12-month) stipends of postdoctorals compared with salaries of assistant professors, by field, 1967 227 23 Annual (12-month) stipend of postdoctorals by citizenship, type of host institution, and level of postdoctoral appoint- ment 229 CHAPTER 10 TABLE 58 A comparison of the physics and chemistry postdoctoral population in 1967 and 1968 249

OCR for page R1