Confchem 2000

Response to questions from Pam Mabrouk on the paper "Igniting students....."

Pam Mabrouk asks:

SQ#1: How many of these student projects result in publications?

I don't have the figures, I'm afraid. I don't think they are collected. Projects my own students have undertaken usually, but not invariably, lead to conference or journal papers. The record for someone in my group was six papers in refereed journals, but a more typical figure is one or two. A fair proportion of projects will not generate papers because the work is not substantial enough. Frequently the work then ends up as a part of papers to which others in the group have contributed.

Are projects designed for students with an interest in eventual publication or are they designed more to give students hands on experience with instrumentation and/or techniques?

Although the need to publish is not overriding, few supervisors will be able to spend the best part of a year teaching students about research, without the prospect of some tangible benefit to the research of the group. If the work adds to that research effort, that will be sufficient justification for the project. However, I find the thought that there is a good chance one's work will appear in print acts as a spur to most students, and helps focus them on the work.

Given the pace I wonder if students are involved in the preparation of these papers or whether the faculty advisor writes most of those that result?

It is rarely possible for students to prepare papers during the course of Part II, since by the time the work is substantive enough to possibly merit publication, the student may be writing the thesis. Almost always it is the supervisor (or a postdoc) who will be responsible for the preparation of the paper, in consultation with the student.

SQ#2: I realize that you have a different heirarchical system than we do here in the US but I wonder how does Oxford value the efforts of a young faculty member in working with these UR students. Is work with undergraduates valued in a young faculty member's promotion?

Work with undergraduates is not, I think, accorded a special place in assessing promotion. Implicitly, though, it will be taken into account, since if the faculty member has taken on many Part II students, and done a good job with them, his or her research will have benefited as a result, and research record is one of the principle factors in determining promotion.

What is the breakdown of the Supervisor's by rank for those listed in Appendix A?

There is a fairly even split across the ranks, with representation from the Head of Chemistry, several Professors, several established lecturers and one or two recently-appointed lecturers. The selection of what to put into the Appendix was made entirely on the basis of who responded to an e-mail from me requesting titles of recent theses. Thus there has been no filtering by division within chemistry or rank of supervisor.