GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY Submitted to: Committee: Texas A&M University - Commerce April 11, 2013 Dr. Mary Beth Sampson Associate Dean of Graduate Studies TAMU-Commerce Commerce, TX, 75429 Dr. Dominick Casadonte, Texas Tech University Dr. Michael Castellani, Marshall University Dr. Joseph Daun, TAMU-Commerce The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry has undergone a review of its graduate program during the spring of 2013. The review was based upon an extensive self-evaluation prepared by the Department, the Office of Graduate Studies, and face-to-face meetings involving all of the stakeholders. The review committee presented its findings to the Graduate School, and on April 11th, 2013 a meeting was convened involving Interim Provost Peer, Dr. Edelman, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Blount, Dr. Horne, Dr. Sampson, and Dr. Jang to discuss the findings of the Review Committee. In order to provide a summary of the findings of the committee, this document lists a set of items of evaluation for the program in boldface. The comments of the reviewers are in italics. Executive Summary: The department has made significant advancements with regard to quality of faculty, especially with regard to research productivity. They have strong records of publication and presentation and strong grant portfolios, especially at the national level. There has been strong growth in graduate scholarships and enrollment at the graduate level, with minimal increase in faculty size. The faculty has been very productive in terms of graduating graduate students, who have gone on primarily to industrial jobs and Ph.D. degree programs. Although the department has made substantial, indeed, exceptional strides since the last program review, there are nonetheless several areas that could be improved, especially with institutional help. An increase in faculty size is a necessity, given the tremendous increase in the number of students and funding resources. A mechanism for providing either load credit or course equivalencies for faculty mentoring significant numbers of graduate students should be identified. There are several ways in which the Master s tracks could be made more marketable, including internships, co-ops, and teacher training opportunities. More domestic graduate
students should be sought. However, in order to increase the number of domestic students, stipends must become competitive. They are significantly below the national average for research-active institutions, and below the average for comparable institutions. While instrumental facilities have significantly increased in the past few years, physical space is not keeping pace with the large increase in the number of graduate students. Given the sophisticated nature of the new instrumentation, care should be given that technicians who can manage the equipment and service contracts be provided. Program Overview and Vision Rating: Good The department s theme of small scale, big impact, as espoused in its mission statement, seems to be very evident on the department s development over the past six years. There is quite a bit of evidence of the effectiveness of this, as demonstrated by a pattern of growth over the past few years. With a substantial increase in both numbers of graduate students and grant income as well as a stable faculty number and stable leadership, the department is poised to make the transition to a larger, more competitive graduate program. There has been a steady, if albeit marginal, increase in the quality of the graduate student. This is especially impressive, given the increase in the number of students by a factor of four since 2007. There has been an overall evaluation of the department, which has resulted in a reorganization of teaching priorities and the ability to handle an increasing graduate and undergraduate load. The addition of Dr. Bukuo Ni and the return of Dr. Alan Headley to the faculty ranks are to be commended in terms of increasing the ability of the department to meet the challenges of both a moderate increase in undergraduates and a substantial increase in graduate students. However the size of the chemistry faculty at Texas A&M Commerce, even with the increase to five faculty, is still approximately half that of its peer institutions, and certainly inadequate for the level of student enrollment increase that has been observed over the review period. Considerable care should be taken to increase the faculty size commensurate with the level of faculty activity. One of the concerns raised by the committee is the overt lack of a vision statement from the department, as well as a lack of a strategic plan. The committee is of the belief that, given the substantive increase in productivity noted with regard to the program, a strategic plan and vision would allow the department to develop strategic goals and help them to move toward them in a concerted manner. Although it was obvious that there is a shared vision within the department, the articulation of this vision would be very powerful for the department as it moves forward. Since the department has not gone through the development of a strategic plan previously, it is suggested that help beyond the department be sought to facilitate the process. Faculty Productivity Rating: Excellent With regard to research, faculty productivity has increased dramatically by almost every metric during the review period. In terms of scholarship, the total number of publications has increased by a factor of five, from 7 to 34. Few departments in the country can boast this kind of 2
proportional increase. The increase in the number of publications was even more dramatic, increasing by more than a factor of 15 from 10 to 156. The number of externally funded proposals doubled (from 7 to 14) during the review period. The faculty is to be commended for their efforts in increasing productivity. With regard to faculty teaching load, one must consider sch/yr as well as research mentor load. The faculty, with lab contact taken into account, more than meet the 24 sch/yr requirement. There is some concern that the use of GATs to teach undergraduate labs may be having an effect on retention between the first and second years. However, this is an approach used by most institutions that have chemistry departments with graduate programs, and it works well, so long as there is proper faculty or staff oversight. With regard to research mentoring, either the number from 2011-12 (31.6 students per faculty) or the more recent number (15.1 students per faculty) are extremely high relative to most comparable institutions. One wonders if this large number allows for adequate mentoring of all of the master s students within the programs, especially those involved in research. It also is of a concern with regard to properly ensuring and monitoring chemical safety for those students involved in research. The most effective way to reduce the ratio further is to increase the number of research-active faculty in the department. With regard to improving a faculty that has a workload much higher than many peer institutions, the committee suggests that, if possible, two additional faculty members be hired into the department. The hiring of additional faculty will not only improve retention (see below), but also reduce the faculty workload. It was suggested that one of the hires be in the area of biochemistry. Hiring a biochemist, in the opinion of the committee, is a strategic move, as a biochemist would most certainly attract possible pre-professional health career students to chemistry, and allow for the discussion of chemistry as a major for students who might want to become healthcare professionals. Concerning faculty workload, the committee also suggests that a mechanism to provide faculty with load credit for their work with graduate students be developed, as the current lack of credit for mentoring a heavy graduate research load results in a real overload for most if not all of the faculty. The quality of teaching is excellent, as given by the fact that fully 60% of the faculty members during the majority of the review period have won university teaching awards. This is also reflected in retention rates, which, for the 1 st -2 nd year transition is approximately 77% for the majors. This number is significantly higher than for many Ph.D. granting institutions, which are closer to 60%. The strong retention rate is undoubtedly due to the clarity of instruction and extramural opportunities (e.g., undergraduate research) that are afforded by the faculty members. However, the faculty themselves indicate that the current retention levels for undergraduates is unacceptable, especially with regard to minimum number of graduates required over a five year period. The committee has developed some suggestions for improvement of retention metrics, which are provided in a separate document. The level of service is reasonable for the faculty. Two faculty members serve as sponsors for the American Chemical Society Student Affiliate group, and faculty members serve on a variety of important committees within the university. With regard to salaries, they are competitive. The administration is to be commended for keeping the salaries close to those of peer institutions. Given the cost of living in the area, this is significant for the faculty. The students interviewed were unanimous and ubiquitous in their praise of the faculty, especially with regard to their research mentoring. A general trust in the faculty and in their 3
honesty was strongly articulated. Quality and Quantity of Graduate Students and Graduates Rating: Excellent As previously indicated, the department has undergone a significant growth in the number of graduate students during the review period. This is no more evident than in the number of international students, whose population has increased by a factor of seven. The quality of students has not decreased, even with the dramatic increase in population, as indicated by the stability of the median GRE scores. One area that could be improved is in minority recruitment. In order to increase minority enrollment, the department might consider factors that improve the need often expressed by diverse students for mentoring and for a family atmosphere within the discipline. It is apparent to the committee that these characteristics already exist within the department. There is a need to market these attributes outside of the department. Besides ethnic diversity, the department has done an amazing job with regard to diversity with regard to graduate areas of study. This is particularly true with regard to the introduction of chemistry education and business tracks within a three-track system that includes a research-based M.S. degree. Few schools of comparable or larger size offer the diversity of degree tracks. The diversity of degree options is reflected in what students are doing after graduation, with comparable numbers going into industry and moving on to Ph.D. programs. The number of students who are heading into teaching is also on the rise, as the chemistry education program gains momentum. The number of students receiving degrees is robust, and rivals programs with twice the faculty size (e.g., Sam Houston State). It is not clear to the committee that additional degree programs (e.g., environmental science or forensics) are necessary or tenable, given the current faculty size. The faculty members do an excellent job of preparing graduate students to be both teaching assistants and research assistants. I have had the opportunity to watch the former firsthand as the external evaluator on an NSF Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) grant. As part of the grant, graduate students and seniors were trained in the pedagogy necessary to teach groups of community college students who came in to learn various organic chemistry lab techniques. The faculty members were thoughtful in their approach to instruction, and allowed the graduate students and seniors the opportunity to practice the experiments and to teach the experiments and to revise the experiments before they were deployed to the community college students. Although the quantity of graduate students is excellent, some concerned was expressed by the various constituent groups interviewed that students, especially coming in with certain undergraduate or three-year majors, are under-prepared for the program, and that additional faculty effort is required on an individual basis to help improve both student performance and motivation. 4
Curriculum and Program of Study Rating: Good As mentioned above, the development of three professional tracks at the graduate level is to be commended. In review of the different tracks, the research based Master s degree has a requirement of eight courses. This seems a bit high. Most Ph.D. granting institutions require between 6-8 courses for a degree. Perhaps the department might consider reducing the number of courses to six, while increasing the number of research hours, if this does not violate any Coordinating Board or local policies? Also, there are apparently three faculty members on each of the M.S. thesis committees. Many universities have only two faculty members on M.S. committees, plus an outside (of the department, not the university) examiner. This would help reduce the load on an already over-taxed faculty. The chemistry education track (track III) might be further improved by requiring (if it is not already) student teaching or student observation in the grade band of the students interests. It is significant that TAMU-Commerce generates more teachers than any other institution in the state of Texas, with the exception of the University of Texas. This also aligns with the historical mission of the institution. With regard to the chemical business track, if it were possible to provide a co-op or intern experience with the degree, it would improve both the marketability as well as the visibility of this option. Although there is little in the way of chemical industry in the immediate area, a semester away from school at a Dallas-based industry (for which the student receives credit, or perhaps for which the student has to do a portfolio or reflection piece so as to receive service learning credit) might provide incentive for students to not only follow this option for their own future employment, it might also provide a mechanism, provided that the companies are willing to pay, to increase student stipends, or at least allow students to pay down loan debt. The faculty do a good job of guiding the students into appropriate tracks, as indicated by the significant level of graduates in each of the programs. Little was said in the report concerning distance education and distance courses, except to note that at least one class was distance-based. Pre-recorded lectures, lecture capture, or course flipping might be methodologies for consideration in terms of reducing faculty time in front of classes. Relatively little is contained in department documentation with regard to how student learning outcomes (SLOs) at either the undergraduate or graduate level are assessed. This will be of particular concern for accrediting bodies such as SACS in future years, and is a serious issue that must be addressed. The three-year Master s option that is discussed looks particularly attractive as well as relatively unique, and may be a mechanism for recruitment, especially from partner community colleges. The requirements for admission, nature of the screening exams, and the manner in which students choose research advisors is quite common reasonable, and is similar to the way in which most research-active schools evaluate graduate students for prior knowledge and research potential. There is discussion about the addition of environmental science faculty into the chemistry department. This should be thought about seriously with regard to the impact on the department, as it is unlikely that the additional faulty will mentor chemistry graduate students. If the environmental scientists were involved in activities that do not duplicate what other universities have historically done well for decades, the addition to the chemistry department might be viable. For example, the development of a chemistry major specializing in environmental health and safety would provide a unique major with a strong niche market, especially given the current national priority of laboratory safety espoused by the National Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and the American 5
Chemical Society Committee on Health and Safety (CHAS). The additional hire in environmental science with the ability to develop this program would be a strategic discussion the department might have. Discussion among different groups suggest that the department might examine its undergraduate labs, and especially its freshman labs, with regard to the correlation of labs with lectures as well as the ability of the particular experiments to stimulate interest in chemistry. Improvement of the freshman labs in particular may help with some of the retention issues that were articulated in both the review document and during the on-site interviews. Facilities and Resources: Rating: Fair Given the current number of graduate students, and the significant increase since 2007, the 35,000 square feet of space on the third floor of the science building is inadequate for the needs of the department. Given a graduate population of 128, this is approximately 273 square foot per student. Some of the space is taken up with instrumentation that requires peripheral free space, hood space, office space etc., so that the actual amount of space per student is considerably less. One faculty member, for example, indicated that he had 450 square feet of lab space for nine students, resulting in 50 square feet of lab space for the students, approximately a 7 x 7 space. In order to accommodate the students, they are spread out in time rather than in space, such that the students have to work in shifts from 7-3, 3-11, and 11-7. The overnight shift is particularly problematic from a safety perspective. Given the growth pattern of the department, an additional floor for research activities should be considered, as well as additional space where concurrent classrooms might be held. Given the growth also in terms of modern and more complex instrumentation, consideration should be given to hiring one or more postdocs or technicians to take care of the equipment. It is encouraging that the upper administration has committed to hiring an instrumentation tech. Service contracts, although expensive, are extremely valuable when an instrument does go down. Given the high and increasing rate of use of the newer instruments, particularly the NMR. GC-MS, and IM-TOF-MS, serious consideration should be given to the purchase of service contracts. Cuts to the operating expenses, especially in a time of growth, should be avoided, if possible. A question was raised as to whether or not college institutional fees could be used by the department in place of former lab fees to help offset any cuts in operating expenses, and perhaps to increase the amount of money provided by way of an operating budget. The stipend for chemistry GA s at TAMU-Commerce are well below the national average, especially at Ph.D. institutions. For comparison, the national annual salary for a graduate student in chemistry is $27,500. The annual salary based on $889/mo, even assuming a twelve-month stipend, is $10,632, less than half of the national average for Ph.D. granting institutions. Even among comparable graduate programs, the typical stipend averages approximately $1,500 per month. Given the relative remoteness of TAMU- Commerce and the competition with other Dallas and North Dallas universities, ways must be found to increase stipends to competitive levels. It is commendable that the faculty is shifting to research assistantships based on grant income, but this will take time to stabilize, especially given the current uncertainties in the economy, sequestering, etc. Mechanisms to improve student salaries are essential to continued growth. The on-line search capabilities through the library seem adequate to the size of the institution. It is encouraging that the university is 6
planning the building of a $50M library facility, and will repurpose the current building for additional classroom space. The committee suggests that the university consider moving some non lab-based departments and/or activities out of the science building (perhaps, for example, to consolidate the computer science department either in the new or former library) to allow room for growth by the department of chemistry. The committee was concerned that if some strategy to increase space is not found, there will be no appropriate space available should the department be able to hire new faculty. In meetings with constituency groups, it was suggested that if the outdated computers, equipment, etc. in the department could be removed from inventory and taken away, additional lab space could be freed up. There was general thought that the teaching labs, while at or near capacity, were not yet overcrowded. 7