Confchem 2000

Response to question from Bob Bruner on the paper "Igniting students....."

Bob Bruner asks:

1. Is this program, with its year of research in Part 2, typical of (science at) Oxford, or something special for Chemistry?

As far as I am aware, the Part II year was, for many years, unique to chemistry. It has now been copied by one or two other science departments, but I don't think any arts departments have followed.

1.a. If the latter (ie, if this is a chem program)... how is it viewed by other science departments at Oxford? What kinds of discussions do you have with colleagues in other sciences, with similar quality of students, about having or not having this research program?

I think most other science departments regard it with a degree of jealousy. The costs of running a large program are considerable, but the University meets much of this. In the longer term, the costs are probably more than covered, since the research done by undergraduates adds to the department's research record and thereby leads to more funding from the research councils and from industry.

Other departments in Oxford, and more particularly chemistry departments in other Universities, have discussed setting up such programs, but have sometimes balked at the size of the task. Starting such a program from scratch would require substantial adjustment to the way a department operates, from funding to research space, and from changes in the course syllabus and prospectus to changes in the way the degree was assessed and awarded. Some chemistry departments in the UK have decided the change is worth the effort, and I think in the long term will believe it was the right decision, but the change is a major one.

2. Much of the thrust of the earlier papers and discussion involved UR at an earlier stage of the academic career. (By your own description, you have essentially tacked a year of research onto the end of the regular undergraduate degree program.) Is such earlier research available at Oxford?

I am sure there is a place for research earlier in an undergraduate career, particularly if there is no opportunity for an extended project later. We allow students to do shorter research projects in 2nd or 3rd year (but not in 1st year), but - at least in Physical Chemistry - do not promote such projects. Consequently, only a small proportion of students, perhaps 10%, will undertake them.

2.a. If not, why not -- especially since you find UR so successful?

One point of view is that students may not be able to accomplish a great deal in a project lasting just a few weeks, and that they would therefore be better of spending their time on the taught parts of the course. Were it the only chance students had to experience research, short projects might be promoted more, but with the Part II year to come there is little reason to push them.

On a more practical note, my own experience is that constructing a useful and satisfying short project is as demanding as producing one that will last a year; I suspect this is an important reason why few faculty offer such projects on a regular basis.