Graduate Program Review
2001-2006
Department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry
Dominick Casadonte, Chair
College of
Arts and Sciences
Lawrence Schovanec, Interim Dean
November 2008
11/15/2008
PROGRAM REVIEW OUTLINE
Chemistry and BioChemistry
I.
Program Overview – A one to two-page summary of department’s vision and goals.
II.
Graduate Curricula and Degree Programs
A. Scope of programs within the department
B. Number and types of degrees awarded
- Degrees Awarded – Academic Year (chart)
- Total Degrees Awarded – Academic Year (chart)
- Comparison of Degrees Awarded – Fall Data (Peer info table)
- Program Degrees Awarded (table)
C. Undergraduate and Graduate semester credit hours
- Semester Credit Hours – Academic Year (chart)
- SCH compared to Budget - Academic Year (chart)
D. Number of majors in the department
- Enrollment by Level – Fall Data (chart)
- Total Enrollment by Year – Fall Data (chart)
- Comparison of Enrollment – Fall Data (Peer info table)
- Program Enrollment (table)
E. Course offerings and their enrollments over the past six years (enrollment trends by course)
- Course Enrollments by Academic Year (table)
F. Courses cross listed
III.
Faculty
IV.
Graduate Students
A. Number, rank and demographics of the faculty (tenured and tenure track), GPTI’s and TA’s
- Teaching Resources (chart)
- Tenured and Tenure-Track by Rank - Fall Data (chart)
- Comparison of Full-time Faculty (Peer info table)
B. List of faculty members (graduate and non-graduate) (table)
C. Summary of the number of refereed publications and creative activities (table)
D. Responsibilities and leadership in professional societies
- Professional Leadership (table)
- Committee service (table)
E. Assess average faculty productivity for Fall semesters only (use discipline appropriate criteria to
determine)
- Faculty Workload (table)
- College SCH/FTE – Fall Data (chart)
- Department SCH/FTE – Fall Data (chart)
A. Demographics of applicants and enrolled students
- Graduate Student Summary by Category – AY (chart)
- Graduate Student Summary by Year – AY (chart)
- Graduate Applicants by Region – Fall/Summer Data (chart)
- Graduate Applicants - Fall Data (table)
Chemistry and BioChemistry
11/15/2008
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
V.
- Admitted Graduate Students - Fall Data (table)
- Enrolled New Graduate Students - Fall Data (table)
- Demographics of Enrolled Graduate Students - Fall Data (table)
- Demographics of Enrolled Undergraduate Students - Fall Data (table)
Test scores (GRE, GMAT or TOEFL) of enrolled students
- Average GRE Scores for Enrolled Graduate Students – Fall Data (chart)
GPA of new students
- New Graduate Students GPA by Level – Fall Data (chart)
Time to Degree in Years (chart)
Provide a breakdown of how many enrolled graduate students are RA’s. TA’s or GPTI’s
Initial position and place of employment of graduates over the past 6 years (table)
Type of financial support available for graduate students.
Number of students who have received national and university fellowships, scholarships and
other awards
- fellowships awarded (table)
Percentage (%) of full time students receiving financial support – percentage of FTS (≥ 18 SCH)
with support / the number of FTS
Average financial support provided – the average financial support provided per full-time
graduate student (including tuition rebate) including research assistantships, teaching
assistantships, fellowships, tuition, benefits, etc. that is out-of-pocket. -Graduate Student Publications and Creative Activities (table) – rolling three year average of the
number of discipline-related refereed papers/publication, juried creative/performance
accomplishments, book chapters, books, and external presentations per year per student.
Programs for mentoring and professional preparation of graduate students.
Department efforts to retain students and graduation rates
Percentage of Full Time students – Rolling three-year average of the FTS (≥ 9 SCH) / number
student enrolled – Fall data
Student–Core Faculty Ratio (rolling 3 YR average of full time student equivalent
(FTSE)/rolling) Fall Data
Department
A. Department operating expenses
- Department Operating Cost - Academic Year (chart)
- Department Operating Cost as a Fraction of Employees - (table)
B. Summary of Proposals (Submitted)
- Summary of Number of Proposals Written and Accepted (table)
C. External Research expenditures
- Summary of Faculty Awards (table)
- Research Expenditures (chart)
- Peer Institution Info (if available) (table)
D. Internal funding
- Source of Internal Funds (TTU) - (table)
E. Scholarships and endowments
F. Departmental resources for research and teaching (i.e. classroom space, lab facilities) - (table)
G. HEAF expenditures (table)
H. External Program Accreditation – Name of body and date of last program accreditation review
including description of body and accreditation specifics.
Chemistry and BioChemistry
11/15/2008
VI.
Conclusions – a one- to two-page summary of the observed deficiencies and needs identified by
your review. Highlight areas of greatest need and areas of significant contributions.
VII.
Appendices – should include, but not be limited to, the following:
Table of Contents
A. Strategic plan
- Attachment from Strategic Planning website
B. Course Offerings (table)
C. Recruiting Materials
D. Graduate Student Handbook
E. Graduate Student Association(s) - Description and information
F. Graduate Faculty Information (current Confirmation/Reconfirmation forms for all tenured and
tenure-track faculty)
Chemistry and BioChemistry
1
I.
Program Overview
The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Texas Tech University offers the
Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and in Biochemistry, the Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry
and Biochemistry, the Master of Science in Chemistry, and the Doctor of Philosophy in
Chemistry. For the graduate degree programs, students may select from one of seven areas of
specialization: analytical chemistry, biochemistry, chemical education, chemical physics,
inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry.
The master’s and doctoral degree programs are both rigorous and offer a degree of
flexibility. Both are research degrees, and culminate in the preparation and defense of a thesis
and dissertation, respectively. In addition to research activities, the master’s student takes six
formal graduate-level courses and presents a seminar based on topics from the chemical
literature. Ordinarily, two to three years are required to complete a master’s degree in the
Department. The doctoral program requirements include a total of eight graduate-level courses,
the presentation of two literature seminars, passing a written and oral examination based upon
his/her research at the end of the second year, the passing of six cumulative examinations by the
end of the third year, the presentation and presentation of an original, independent research
proposal on a topic from an area different from his/her dissertation research, and the presentation
of the research dissertation. Ordinarily, four to five years are required to complete the doctoral
program in the Department. In most cases, the doctoral student will work toward the terminal
degree without taking a master’s degree first.
Prior to choosing a research mentor, incoming graduate students are advised by the
Graduate Advisor. Once a student has picked a research mentor, the student is supervised by
them, with information about policies and procedures, and regulations provided by the Graduate
Advisor.
All graduate students are supported with a teaching assistantship or a research
assistantship. Usually, an incoming student serves as a teaching assistant during the first two
long semesters. Ordinarily, graduate students are supported on research assistantships during the
summer months. Whether a student is a teaching assistant or research assistant after the first
year of study depends upon the success of his/her research mentor’s success in obtaining external
research grant and/or contract support.
For 2008-2009, the Department’s faculty consists of 27 tenure or tenure-track faculty
members, including three Horn Professors, one Welch Professor, one Piper Professor, five other
Full Professors (ten total), eight Associate Professors, and nine Assistant Professors. All are
members of the Graduate Faculty and most supervise the research of graduate students. All
faculty members are research-active, and most have external funding for their research. A
significant number of the faculty bring in more than $200,000 per year in research grant and
contract funds. Publication in scientific journals and presentation of research results at
professional meetings are expected. The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry is one of
the most research-active departments in the College of Arts and Sciences, with an average annual
research income of $3.7M over the past six years and an average number of 74 graduate students
performing research within the department each year. We are one of the top 100 departments in
Chemistry & Biochemistry
2
Chemistry in the country in terms of annual federal R&D funds, according to the National
Science Foundation (2004: 98th, 2005: 91st, 2006: 100th, 2007: 69th).
The mission of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Texas Tech University
is elucidated in the department’s mission statement, which indicates that the department “is
committed to advancing the inclusion and participation of a diverse group of individuals in the
research, teaching, and learning activities of the chemical and biochemical sciences.” Our
Strategic Plan states that the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Texas Tech
University aspires to be a department which values and respects broad participation in the
chemical and biochemical sciences at all stages and placements within the academic
environment.
The departmental goals were most recently codified during the 2008 meeting of the
department’s advisory council, known as the Chair’s Council, which was held in April. Among
the departmental goals are:
• The Department aspires to be among the top 50 chemistry and biochemistry
departments in the country in terms of extramural federal funding.
• The Department would like to see growth in its research portfolio, including
* An increase in number of endowed chairs
* An increase in number of centers and institutes
* An increase in faculty size, with improved retention
* An increase in quality and number of graduate students
* An increase and improvement in research infrastructure
* An increase in industrial and external collaborations
* A reduction in teaching loads to be competitive with R1 institutions
* An increase in the number of block grants
• The Department, during its 2006 spring retreat, identified targeted areas of excellence in
Computational Chemistry, Chemical Biology/Bio-organic Chemistry, and Materials
Chemistry. The Department would like to improve its national reputation in these areas.
• The Department would like to become a leader in student education at both the
undergraduate and graduate level.
• The Department would like to move toward the development of a significant
endowment fund ($20M)
During 2007, the Department enjoyed mixed progress in departmental activities.
Research funding was significantly down from 2006. This was due to several factors. The first
was that this was not an ARP funding year. The second was that several of our faculty were in
the middle of a three-year grant cycle and did not apply for additional funding. The third, and
perhaps most crucial, was the loss of our two largest grant holders, Horn Professor Purnendu
“Sandy” Dasgupta, who went to the University of Texas at Arlington to become Department
Chemistry & Biochemistry
3
Chair in January of 2007, and Dr. Shaorong Liu, who left Texas Tech to take a post at the
University of Oklahoma. Our Welch Professor, Dr. William Hase, received a $2.M NSF PIRE
grant, the largest single grant awarded to a faculty member in the department. Dr. Dominick
Casadonte, Chair, of the Department, received as PI a $2.7M NSF GK-12. These two grants will
increase research grant income production numbers significantly over the next two years
(providing a combined base of over $1M per year). Several faculty members have received
national recognition, most notably an NSF-CAREER award [Morales] and the covers of two
nationally prominent research journals [Hase and Quitevis] as well as national recognition for
outreach activities [Casadonte]. One of our undergraduates received international recognition by
receiving a Gates Cambridge Scholarship to Cambridge University for graduate school as well as
a National Science Foundation Pre-Doctoral Fellowship.
The health of our graduate program is partially assessed by the numbers of graduates
receiving advanced degrees in our department. The number of M.S. graduate students has risen
from 6 in 2003-4 to 9 in 2004-5 and 2005-6. It was down by 50% during the 2007 year. We
attribute this to a number of students who were unable to pass our diagnostic exams that are
administered during the first year of graduate school. The number of Ph.D. students receiving
degrees has risen from 15 in 2003-4 to 16 in 2004-5 to 18 in 2005-6. This number was down by
10% in 2007, and probably represents the results of two large recruiting classes followed by two
smaller recruiting classes in the past five years.
Of particular note at the end of 2007 was a very successful Southwest Regional Meeting
of the American Chemical Society that was held in November. The event, which had more than
600 chemists from around the region visiting Lubbock and Texas Tech, was almost entirely put
on by the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. We put on this meeting once every 10-12
years, and the effort, energy, and enthusiasm displayed by the department over a two-year
planning and implementation period was herculean. One of the most pressing problems that we
will face in the coming years is the lack of space and instrumentation to offer quality services
and education as a result of the significantly mushrooming population of incoming students
taking our service courses and our ever-increasing numbers of majors. Both are increasing at a
rate of 18-30%, compared to an increase in the university population of 2-4%. If we cannot find
additional money for facilities or a mechanism for offering distance courses (a proposal which,
for the lab courses, is untenable at this time), we will be physically out of space to house our labs
by the fall of 2009 in their current formats. The problem also spills over into the teaching
domain, in that we are significantly understaffed with regard to the number of graduate students
that we need as teaching assistants for our undergraduate labs. We have had to begin to use
undergraduates as teaching assistants. This situation must also be rectified if we are to continue
the improvement in quality education that our program has enjoyed over the past three years.
The biggest single problem that has been identified by the faculty to move the
Department forward to the next level with regard to its graduate programs is the lack of ability of
the Department to guarantee a twelve-month stipend for incoming graduate students, due to the
vagaries of the summer budgets. The Department is the only one out of the top 100 chemistry
and biochemistry departments that is unable to make this guarantee (we can currently only
guarantee a nine-month stipend), and it significantly impedes the ability of the Department to
compete for qualified and exceptional graduate students.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
4
II. Graduate Curricula and Degree Programs
A. Scope of programs within the department
At the undergraduate level, the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry offers the
following degree programs: CHEMISTRY: Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science (the latter
is certified by the American Chemical Society); BIOCHEMISTRY: Bachelor of Arts and
Bachelor of Science. The Department offers the following graduate degree programs:
CHEMISTRY: Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy, in which students may select from
seven different areas of specialization: analytical chemistry, biochemistry, chemical education,
chemical physics, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry.
Each division within the Department has a cadre of at least four faculty members (with
the exception of Chemical Education, which only has one faculty member (Dr. Blake)) who
supervise graduate-level research, as follows: Analytical (Drs. Korzeniewski, Pappas, Shelly,
Thompson), Biochemistry (Drs. Knaff, Nes, Pare, Shaw, Shi, Weber), Inorganic (Drs. Bradley,
Casadonte, Hope-Weeks, Krempner, Whittlesey), Organic (Drs. Bartsch, Birney, Fuertes, Li,
Mayer, Niwayama), and Physical (Gellene, Hase, Morales, Poirier, Quitevis).
In addition to research activities, the master’s student takes six formal graduate-level
courses and presents a seminar based on topics from the chemical literature. Ordinarily, two to
three years are required to complete a master’s degree in the Department. The doctoral program
requirements include a total of eight graduate-level courses. Certain courses are required for
students specializing in an area of chemistry (Analytical: CHEM 5314, Biochemistry: CHEM
5333, 5335, 5336,5337, 5339, Inorganic: CHEM 5301, 5302, Organic: CHEM 5321, Physical:
CHEM 5342). Special requirements are in place for Chemical Physics and Chemical Education
(including physics courses in the case of the former and education courses in the latter). In
addition, a variety of special topics courses are available for graduate student in the department
to take to fulfill their course requirements. Also required for the Ph.D. is the presentation of two
literature seminars, passing a written and oral examination based upon his/her research at the end
of the second year, the passing of six cumulative examinations by the end of the third year, the
presentation and presentation of an original, independent research proposal on a topic from an
area different from his/her dissertation research, and the presentation of the research dissertation.
Ordinarily, four to five years are required to complete the doctoral program in the Department.
Graduate student credit hours are normally capped at ten hours per semester, in order not
to exceed the 99-hour rule for Ph.D. student credit hours. In the first two years of the program,
the majority of these hours are taken as course work hours. After the second year, the majority
of hours are taken as research credit hours. In most cases, the doctoral student will work toward
the terminal degree without taking a master’s degree first. There has been some suggestion that
requiring all students to register initially as master’s degree candidates only would functionally
raise the ceiling on student credit hours to 135, and allow students to take more credit hours per
semester. This is generally not a problem, as the total time to graduation is approximately 4.5
years for Ph.D. students, which is slightly less than the current national average (which is,
according to American Chemical Society estimates, slightly more than 4.5 years).
Chemistry & Biochemistry
5
B. Number and types of degrees awarded
The numbers and types of degrees awarded to chemistry students are shown in figure
2.B.1. The number of undergraduate degrees awarded has risen sharply in the past two years,
almost doubled from the amount in 2001, to be at a level more consistent with the latter half of
the 1990’s. This is consistent with an annual average increase in the number of incoming
declared majors of 17.4% during the past three years. We anticipate that the number of degrees
awarded to undergraduates will continue during the foreseeable future. There are three reasons
that we can attribute the increase in undergraduate majors. The first is an aggressive letter
writing campaign on the part of the department starting in 2003 to high school students who have
indicated chemistry as a possible major. The second is the re-establishment of a majors section
of general chemistry (CHEM 1307-1308), which targets chemistry and chemical engineering
majors, and allows for early cohort formation. The third is the establishment of a Chemistry
Scholars peer mentoring program that allows majors to teach discussion sections in courses that
they have already taken at the first-year level.
Figure 2.B.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
6
As indicated in both figures 2.B.1 and 2.B.2, the numbers of master’s degrees has remained
relatively constant at 7 ± 1 during the first five years of the program review period. The lower
number in 2006 is attributed to recruiting from institutions that did not provide a rigorous enough
undergraduate degree program, so that a number of potential degree candidates did not pass the
incoming diagnostic exams. Failure to pass three diagnostic exams during the first year in the
program results in disqualification from the gradaute degree in chemistry or biochemistry. The
number of Ph.D. degrees has also remained relatively constant at 9 ± 2 graduating per year, with
the exception of the 2002-3 academic year, for reasons that are similar to those that resulted in a
lower number of master’s degree for the same year. Our numbers in general compare favorably
with the peer institutions listed in tables 2.B.1 and 2.B.2., with the exception of Wayne State,
which displays, in general, larger number of graduates in all degree programs.
Figure 2.B.2
Program Degrees Awarded – Grad Programs Only
Source: Institutional Research Services
Name of Program
20012002
20022003
20032004
20042005
20052006
20062007
Chemistry
16
12
15
16
18
13
Table 2.B.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
7
Comparison of Degrees
Awarded - Fall Data
01/02
Northeastern University
4
Bachelor
5
Master
9
Doctoral
Southern Illinois
University
Bachelor
20
Master
2
Doctoral
1
University of Cincinnati
10
Bachelor
14
Master
10
Doctoral
Wayne State University
26
Bachelor
12
Master
24
Doctoral
Oklahoma State
University
5
Bachelor
2
Master
4
Doctoral
Texas Tech
Bachelor
13
Master
7
Doctoral
9
Table 2.B.2
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
8
8
10
6
10
5
6
13
3
5
19
13
9
14
4
18
4
4
13
5
0
16
2
3
16
5
3
14
3
6
6
7
16
9
9
17
14
8
13
14
11
11
28
9
13
19
11
16
32
10
13
22
9
16
31
12
14
26
10
21
4
1
2
4
1
2
11
4
4
9
8
1
4
3
9
5
7
5
12
6
9
7
9
7
21
8
10
23
4
9
C. Undergraduate and graduate semester credit hours
Figure 2.C.1. details the semester credit hour generation of for the Department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry. This information is useful, in that student credit hours (SCH) are
related both to enrollment within the department and formula funding. The latter is particularly
important with regard to graduate SCH generated, due to the large multiplier involved for
science Ph.D. SCH within the state of Texas. Our undergraduate SCHs have been steadily
increasing over the past six years. This is reflective of an increase in the number of both
undergraduate majors as well as numbers of students enrolling on our service courses. The
number of graduate SCHs has remained essentially flat at 728 ± 32. This is partially due to the
Chemistry & Biochemistry
8
ten credit hour cap per semester that we have imposed because of the 99-hour rule, as well as the
fact that the total number of Ph.D.-level graduate students in our program has remained
essentially constant at 62 ± 5 during the review period.
Figure 2.C.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
9
Figure 2.C.2
Figure 2.C.2 presents some disturbing information. Despite the fact that our SCH
generation at the undergraduate level has increased by 23% overall since 2001, our departmental
operating expenses has decreased by 31% over the same period. If the Department’s enrollment
continues to (and is expected to) increase over the next few years, the operating expenses for the
department need to be increased proportionally in order to allow us to provide quality education
for our students.
D. Number of majors in the department for the fall semesters
As indicated in figures 2.D.1 and 2.D.2, the number of bachelor’s chemistry majors has
increased by nearly 250% in the past six years, with the largest increase being noted during the
2004-5 academic year. We attribute this increase 1) to an aggressive letter writing campaign on
the part of the department starting in 2003 to high school students who have indicated chemistry
as a possible major, as well as a similar letter campaign to pre-professional health career majors
must pick a discipline major at the end of their second year, 2) to the re-establishment of a
majors section of general chemistry (CHEM 1307-1308), which targets chemistry and chemical
engineering majors, and allows for early cohort formation, and 3) to the establishment of a
Chemistry Scholars peer mentoring program. Our number of Ph.D. students has remained
Chemistry & Biochemistry
10
relatively flat over the reporting period at 62 ± 5, while our number of master’s students has
gradually decreased by a factor of two since 2001. In comparison to other institutions, our
undergraduate majors number is more than 150% higher than any of the reporting institutions
(Table 2.D.1 and 2.D.2). Even though our graduate numbers are flat, they are comparable to all
of the peer institutions with the exception of Wayne State. One of the reasons that our numbers
are relatively unchanged is due to the fact that most of our incoming graduate students are
supported on teaching assistantships their first 1-2 years, and the budget to support these
assistantships has remained relatively constant. Increasing the number of teaching assistantship
slots to reflect rising numbers of majors and service courses and labs as well as working to
increase our research expenditures to be able to hire more incoming students as research
assistants would allow us to grow the size of our graduate program.
Figure 2.D.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
11
Figure 2.D.2
Program Enrollment - Grad Programs Only
Source: Institutional Research Services
Masters
Doctoral
20012002
20022003
20032004
20042005
20052006
20062007
14
16
12
13
9
7
59
58
65
71
63
61
Table 2.D.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
12
Comparison of Enrollment
- Fall Data
Northeastern University
Bachelor
Master
Doctoral
Southern Illinois University
Bachelor
Master
Doctoral
University of Cincinnati
Bachelor
Master
Doctoral
Wayne State University
Bachelor
Master
Doctoral
Oklahoma State University
Bachelor
Master
Doctoral
Texas Tech
Bachelor
Master
Doctoral
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
36
55
31
54
22
49
27
62
27
57
27
64
79
23
23
97
15
25
109
17
30
115
18
31
119
21
34
100
17
41
67
28
76
57
18
103
67
10
100
81
6
100
98
7
102
115
5
99
no data
12
139
59
10
156
64
6
149
67
20
132
76
11
154
95
14
161
41
15
49
49
12
52
55
13
39
44
16
37
51
17
43
50
10
49
69
14
59
87
16
58
86
12
65
141
13
71
138
9
63
171
7
61
Table 2.D.2
Chemistry & Biochemistry
13
E. Course enrollments over the past six years (enrollment trends by
course)
Figures are totals – classes may be offered more than once a year
Dept
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
Subject
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
CHEM
Course
5010
5101
5102
5301
5302
5304
5310
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5349
5360
5361
6000
7000
8000
200102
9
45
55
12
0
0
22
5
0
0
9
0
19
0
11
7
2
2
13
18
0
20
12
1
0
0
7
8
0
0
15
0
0
8
0
4
0
0
0
0
19
29
208
51
200203
6
51
58
0
0
16
0
8
0
0
10
23
0
0
11
8
0
0
12
22
0
26
7
4
0
16
0
0
11
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
15
12
45
247
44
200304
6
52
47
9
11
17
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
7
1
0
0
12
8
21
13
3
11
0
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
195
62
200405
12
52
49
10
8
34
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
11
19
17
0
0
0
18
0
21
6
0
0
0
9
0
10
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
20
14
24
208
68
200506
3
54
52
6
9
60
19
8
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
9
1
1
0
0
0
18
6
3
17
0
5
11
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
16
213
71
200607
17
58
68
0
5
11
0
0
0
0
0
8
6
0
10
10
0
0
0
11
12
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
8
0
13
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
203
39
Total
53
312
329
37
33
138
41
34
0
10
19
31
25
11
71
58
4
3
25
81
20
106
44
11
28
40
26
19
29
0
46
5
1
13
10
4
8
5
1
35
45
150
1274
335
Table 2.E.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
14
Table 2.E.1 provides all of the courses and their enrollment over the past six years. The majority
of our graduate students have followed graduate research tracks in the areas of organic and
biochemistry, and, as a result, it is not surprising that many of our organic (e.g. CHEM 5321) and
biochemistry (e.g., CHEM 5339) graduate courses have larger enrollments. Enrollment in
seminar (CHEM 5101) and research (CHEM 6000, 7000, and 8000) are high, showing the
relative importance of these two types of courses in our graduate program. Some of the larger
enrollments are also displayed by graduate biochemistry courses (e.g., CHEM 5330) that have
graduate enrollments from outside of the Department (typically from Agricultural Sciences).
F. Courses cross listed – UG and Grad – need syllabus for both
undergraduate and graduate individual courses
The graduate courses that are cross-listed with undergraduate courses are shown in table
2.F.1. The syllabus for each of the courses is given for the most current presentation of the
course in Appendix VII.G. Many of the courses that are cross-listed are undergraduate courses
that are required for graduate students in other departments. The majority of these courses do
not satisfy requirements for our undergraduate majors. One significant exception is Polymer
Chemistry (CHEM 4310 and CHEM 5310). This course is open to both undergraduate and
graduate students, with different requirements for each cohort.
CHEMISTRY CROSS-LISTED COURSES
GRADUATE
COURSE
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5349
TITLE
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
SPRING 2007
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5331
CHEM 5332
CHEM 5335
CHEM 5341
FALL 2007
SPRING 2006
DATE
FALL 2008
UNDERGRAD
COURSE
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 4311
TI
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry for
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry II
Biochemistry III
Physical Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry Principles II
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3312
CHEM 3314
CHEM 4312
CHEM 3308
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry II
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5349
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 4311
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry for
CHEM5310
CHEM5323
CHEM5324
CHEM5331
CHEM5332
CHEM5335
Polymer Chemistry
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry II
Biochemistry III
Physical Biochemistry
CHEM4310
CHEM3305
CHEM3306
CHEM3312
CHEM3314
CHEM4312
Polymer Chemistry
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Biochemistry
Chemistry & Biochemistry
15
CHEM5341
Physical Chemistry Principles II
CHEM3308
Physical Chemistry II
FALL 2006
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5332
CHEM 5340
CHEM 5349
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Biochemistry II
Physical Chemistry Principles I
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 3314
CHEM 3307
CHEM 4311
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry for
SPRING 2005
CHEM5323
CHEM5324
CHEM5331
CHEM5332
CHEM5335
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry II
Biochemistry III
Physical Biochemistry
CHEM3305
CHEM3306
CHEM3312
CHEM3314
CHEM4312
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Biochemistry
FALL 2005
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5340
CHEM 5349
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Physical Chemistry Principles I
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 3307
CHEM 4311
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry for
SPRING 2004
CHEM5323
CHEM5324
CHEM5324
CHEM5331
CHEM5332
CHEM5335
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry II
Biochemistry III
Physical Biochemistry
CHEM3305
CHEM3306
CHEM3306
CHEM3312
CHEM3314
CHEM4312
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Biochemistry
FALL 2004
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5340
CHEM 5349
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Physical Chemistry Principles I
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 3307
CHEM 4311
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry for
SPRING 2003
CHEM5323
CHEM5324
CHEM5324
CHEM5331
CHEM5332
CHEM5335
CHEM5341
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry II
Biochemistry III
Physical Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry Principles II
CHEM3305
CHEM3306
CHEM3306
CHEM3312
CHEM3314
CHEM4312
CHEM3308
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry II
FALL 2003
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5340
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Physical Chemistry Principles I
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 3307
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry I
SPRING 2002
CHEM5310
Polymer Chemistry
CHEM4310
Polymer Chemistry
Chemistry & Biochemistry
16
CHEM5323
CHEM5324
CHEM5331
CHEM5332
CHEM5335
CHEM5341
CHEM5341
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry II
Biochemistry III
Physical Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry Principles II
Physical Chemistry Principles II
CHEM3305
CHEM3306
CHEM3312
CHEM3314
CHEM4312
CHEM3308
CHEM3308
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry II
Physical Chemistry II
FALL 2002
CHEM 5349
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5340
CHEM 5349
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Physical Chemistry Principles I
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
CHEM 4311
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 3307
CHEM 4311
Physical Chemistry for
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry for
SPRING 2001
CHEM5323
CHEM5324
CHEM5324
CHEM5331
CHEM5332
CHEM5341
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry II
Biochemistry III
Physical Chemistry Principles II
CHEM3305
CHEM3306
CHEM3306
CHEM3312
CHEM3314
CHEM3308
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry II
Physical Chemistry II
FALL 2001
CHEM 5321
CHEM 5323
CHEM 5324
CHEM 5330
CHEM 5340
CHEM 5349
Advanced Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry I
Modern Principles of Organic Chemistry II
Biochemistry I
Physical Chemistry Principles I
Physical Chemistry Principles for Biological Sciences
CHEM 4302
CHEM 3305
CHEM 3306
CHEM 3311
CHEM 3307
CHEM 4311
Structure and Mechanis
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Biological Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry for
Figure 2.F.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
19
III.
Faculty
A. Number, rank, and demographics of the graduate faculty
The number of faculty, instructors (non-tenure track) and graduate student teaching
assistants (both teaching assistants (TAs) and graduate part-time instructors (GPTIs) is shown in
figure 3.A.1. The average number in each position has been remarkably consistent during the
past six years, deviating by less than 10% (faculty = 26 ± 2, instructors = 5 ± 1, graduate
teaching assistants = 45 ± 3). As can be seen from the data, non-tenure track faculty account for
less than 20% of the total number of teaching faculty each year. The numbers have remained
relatively constant since the last reporting period (1996-2001), when the total number of all
faculty was 32 (compared to 31 ± 3 over the six year period of this study). Clearly, given the
burgeoning number of undergraduates enrolled in our service courses, a constant number of
teaching faculty over the past ten years is straining our ability to deliver all of the courses and
sections of courses that our students require. During the last reporting period, a large increase
(from 27 to 32) total faculty was noted, primarily due to the ability of the department to hire
more temporary or part-time faculty. A similar increase has not been possible during this
reporting period, even though, again, the number of students enrolled in service course
continues to increase at a rate more than nine times that of the increase in general student
population at Texas Tech.
Figure 3.A.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
20
Table 3.A.2 displays the distribution of faculty by rank. The numbers have relatively
small variations (full professor = 12 ± 1, associate professors = 7 ± 1, assistant professors = 7 ±
2), and have a relative ratio of approximately 1.5:1:1. There are some inaccuracies in the table
that must be pointed out. Until 2005, there were four Horn Professors in the Department
(Professors, Bartsch, Dasgupta, Knaff, and Shine). In 2005, Professor Shine retired. However,
in 2007, Professor Nes was given Horn Professor status. In 2006, Professor Dasgupta left Texas
Tech to become department chair at the University of Texas at Arlington. The current number
of Horn Professors in the Department stands at three (Bartsch, Knaff, and Nes). It should be
noted that with the imminent retirement of Professor Bartsch in 2011 and the possibility of
retirement for Professor Knaff shortly thereafter, the number of Horn Professors may see a
significant drop in the near future. During the reporting period, several full professors left the
institution (Bornhop, Dasgupta, Liu), several full professors retired (Redington, Roundhill,
Shine, Holwerda), and several associate professors left or retired (Flowers, Harman, Headley).
The department has been relatively successful recently (especially in 2004, 2005, and 2008) in
recruiting assistant or associate professors to fill the gaps produced by retirement or departure,
although the number of unfilled positions has been as high as five during the reporting period.
A number of faculty have been tenured or promoted as well during the period from 2001-06,
such that relative numbers and distribution of the faculty at the various ranks has remained
remarkably constant.
Figure 3.A.2
Chemistry & Biochemistry
21
Comparison of the total number of faculty and the relative number of instructors
between institutions (table 3.A.1) indicates that Texas Tech compares favorably in faculty size
with Wayne State University, the University of Cincinnati, and Northeastern University, and is
substantially larger than Southern Illinois and Oklahoma State. Texas Tech is in the middle of
the pack with regard to the ratio of graduate student TAs to full-full time faculty. Southern
Illinois has a ratio of 1.33:1, while Texas Tech has a ratio of approximately 1.8:1. Wayne State,
by comparison, has a ratio of approximately 3.1:1.
Comparison of Full-time
Faculty
Northeastern University
Tenure/Tenure Track
Non-tenure track
TA's
Southern Illinois University
Tenure/Tenure Track
Non-tenure track
TA's
University of Cincinnati
Tenure/Tenure Track
Non-tenure track
TA's
Wayne State University
Tenure/Tenure Track
Non-tenure track
TA's
Oklahoma State University
Tenure/Tenure Track
Non-tenure track
TA's
Texas Tech
Tenure/Tenure Track
Non-tenure track
TA's
01/02
02/03
20
20
0
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
21
21
22
25
0
0
0
0
0
26
26
25
26
28
38
12
12
15
15
16
18
3
22
4
22
3
22
3
24
4
24
3
24
26
27
26
26
26
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
58
59
60
57
55
27
27
25
26
25
27
4
3
4
4
5
4
75
81
78
80
80
85
15
16
15
14
14
14
31
20
23
27
40
39
24
25
29
27
27
25
6
5
7
4
4
4
40
45
16
15
11
47
Table 3.A.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
22
B. List of faculty members
List all faculty who were employed by your department during the six years of this review
As may be seen from the data in table 3.B.1, approximately 1/3 of the faculty departed
from the Department from 2001 through 2007, either by leaving the university for another
position or through retirement. This high turnover rate and the consequent instability that it
generates are of real concern with regard to growing the Department’s graduate program.
Another significant concern is the lack of ethnic and gender diversity within the Department.
During the reporting period, only 9% of the faculty (3/34; 12% currently) were female, and less
than 10% (again, 3/34) were Hispanic or African American. Although the current number
compares favorably with the national average for female faculty (14%, according to the
American Chemical Society’s study of faculty gender diversity in 2007), both statistics could
stand significant improvement. Although considerable effort has been made in recent faculty
searches to recruit additional female and minority chemists and biochemists, it is difficult to
compete with universities located in or near major metropolitan areas where spousal
accommodations and diversity of cultural opportunities are considered to be superior.
FACULTY NAME
Dr. Richard A. Bartsch
Dr. David M. Birney
Dr. Robert E. Blake
Dr. Darryl Bornhop
Dr. Dominick J.
Casadonte, Jr.
Dr. Pernendu K. Dasgupta
Dr. Michael Fuertes
Dr. Robert A. Flowers II
Dr. Gregory I. Gellene
Dr. James G.Harman
Dr. William L. Hase
Dr. Allan Headley
Dr. Robert A. Holwerda
Dr. Louisa Hope-Weeks
Dr. David Knaff
JOB TITLE
HIRE
DATE
END
DATE
Member of
Grad
Faculty?
Y or N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1974
1989
2001
1994
1989
Dr. Carol Korzeniewski
Paul Whitfield Horn Professor
Professor
Assistant Professor
Professor
Minnie stevens Piper Professor
and Chair
Paul Whitfield Horn Professor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor and Associate Chair
Associate Professor
Robert A. Welch Professor
Professor
Professor
Assistant Professor
Paul Whitfield Horn Professor
and Director, Biotechnology
Center
Professor
1995
Y
Dr. Guigen Li
Dr. Shaorong Liu
Dr. John N. Marx
Dr. Michael Mayer
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
1995
2002
1967
2004
Y
Y
Y
Y
1985
2005
2001
1992
1987
2004
1989
1974
2004
1976
2003
2007
2003
2003
2004
2007
2008
2004
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Chemistry & Biochemistry
23
Dr. Jorge A. Morales
Associate Professor
2001
Y
Dr. W. David Nes
Dr. Satomi Niwayama
Dr. Dimitri Pappas
Dr. Paul Paré
Dr. Lionel William (Bill)
Poirier
Dr. Edward L. Quitevis
Dr. Richard Redington
Dr. D. Max Roundhill
Dr. Robert Shaw
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
1993
2004
2005
1999
2001
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Professor
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor and
Associate Chair
Associate Professor and
Director, Leather Research
Institute
Assistant Professor
Paul Whitfield Horn Professor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
1984
1967
1996
1981
Y
Y
Y
Y
Dr. Dennis Shelly
Dr. Huazhong Shi
Dr. Henry J. Shine
Dr. Joachim Weber
Dr. Bruce Whittlesey
2006
2004
1996
Y
2004
1952
2004
1987
Y
Y
Y
Y
2005
Table 3.B.1
C. Summary of the number of all publications and creative activities.
One set of metrics that relate to the health of a graduate program in the chemical and
biochemical sciences is the number of publications and presentations produced by the faculty.
As table 3.C.1 indicates, publication activity is high, with an average publication level of 3-4
papers per year per faculty member in the department. The number of poster and oral
presentations, with the exception of the first reporting year, averages more than 100 per year
(more than four per faculty member), although there is significant fluctuation in the numbers.
The number of patent applications has increased during the reporting period, perhaps partially
due to re-staffing of the Office of Intellectual Property at Texas Tech.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
N=
N=
N=
N=
N=
N=
Publication Type
F=24
F=25
F=29
F=27
F=27
F=25
Refereed Articles/Abstracts
88
92
97
107
91
96
Books/Book Chapters
1
0
0
1
0
0
Other Publications
1
4
0
0
1
3
Presentations/Posters
86
139
112
103
102
123
Patents Issued
1
1
0
1
3
7
Refereed Articles/Faculty
3.67
3.68
3.34
3.96
3.37
3.84
Presentations/Faculty
3.58
5.56
3.86
3.96
3.77
4.92
N = # of full time faculty contributing
F = # of full time faculty in department
Table 3.C.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
24
Snapshots of the number of papers published, numbers of times that the papers have been cited,
and the number of citations per paper are shown in figures 3.C.2, 3.C.3, and 3.C.4, respectively,
with the data being obtained from the Web of Science (only chemistry data is included here;
Web of Science combines biochemistry with biology). Although the numbers of papers are
slightly down during the last reporting period (primarily due to the loss of Professor Dasgupta,
one of our most prodigious publishers), the overall number of papers is up 10% relative to the
1996-2001 graduate review period. The numbers of times the papers are being cited as a well as
the numbers of citations per paper are up from the last graduate review period.
Figure 3.C.2
Figure 3.C.3
Chemistry & Biochemistry
25
Figure 3.C.4
The actual numbers from the graphs are shown in table 3.C.2. The number of times our papers
have been cited is up is up by almost 30%, while the citations per paper has increased by about
20%. Using Web of Science data again, a comparison can be made with our peer institutions
(table 3.C.3) on the basis of these three criteria cumulatively for the past ten years. The
chemistry portion of the Department is in the middle of the pack with regard to numbers of
papers published and numbers of citations, but is second to last with regard to numbers of
citations per paper, indicating that perhaps the Department could improve with regard to
publishing in journals in general with higher impact factors. Relative to the 875 chemistry
departments worldwide that were surveyed, Texas Tech ranked roughly in the middle of the
group.
Citation Data (In 5-year Intervals) for Texas Tech (Chemistry Only):
5-year
Intervals:
19982002
19992003
20002004
20012005
20022006
20032007
20042008
# of Papers
354
387
401
423
467
465
460
Times
Cited
Citations
per Paper
1,451
1,808
2,070
2,264
2,622
2,600
2,862
4.09
4.67
5.16
5.35
5.61
5.59
6.22
Table 3.C.2
Chemistry & Biochemistry
26
Institution
No.
Papers
860
348
Rank*
(peer)
465 (3)
786 (6)
No.
Citations
8878
3822
Northeastern
Southern
Illinois
University
1145
344 (2) 12851
University of
Cincinnati
1175
330 (1) 19762
Wayne State
University
513
667 (5) 6920
Oklahoma
State
University
860
456 (3) 9155
Texas Tech
University
(* Out of 875 total institutions in the survey)
Rank*
(peer)
415 (4)
738 (6)
Citations/
Paper
10.32
10.98
Rank*
(peer)
453 (6)
398 (4)
307 (2)
11.22
375 (3)
191 (1)
16.82
101 (1)
507 (5)
13.49
225 (2)
399 (3)
10.65
431 (5)
Table 3.C.3
D. Responsibilities and leadership in professional societies
The faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry are very active in
professional societies (most notably, National American Chemical Society (ACS) boards, and
the South Plains Local Section of the ACS) and editorial boards, as shown in table 3.C.4. In
fact, several of the faculty are editors or on the editorial board of more than one publication.
The number of professional society awards and local Texas Tech awards has increased in recent
years due to aggressive efforts by a revitalized departmental awards committee.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
N=
N=
N=
N=
N=
N=
Professional Leadership
F=24
F=25
F=29
F=27
F=27
F=25
Editor/Editorial
7
11
7
10
11
18
Executive Board
0
0
0
0
1
1
Officer in National Org.
1
1
1
1
2
3
Committees
3
3
3
4
4
4
Fellows
0
0
0
0
1
1
Phi Beta Kappa Members
7
8
8
8
7
7
Professional Society Awards
5
5
8
7
6
11
Texas Tech Awards
3
3
6
3
6
10
N = # of full time faculty contributing
F = # of full time faculty in department
Table 3.C.4
Chemistry & Biochemistry
27
Table 3.C.5 indicates the number of master’s and doctoral committee upon which the
faculty serve. As a representative sample, the table lists data for committees for which the
faculty provided service during 2006. The data indicates that faculty members are serving on a
large number of committees each year. The average number of committees upon which the
faculty served in 2006 was 7.8 per faculty member. Given that service on these committees
includes, besides day-to-day mentoring, an annual review of graduate student status,
participation in research exams, research proposals, thesis and dissertation defenses (as
appropriate), the writing of cumulative exams, etc., the participation by the faculty in such a
large number of graduate student committees is both time-consuming and admirable.
Faculty Name
Dr. Richard A. Bartsch
Dr. David M. Birney
Dr. Robert E. Blake
Dr. Dominick J.
Casadonte, Jr.
Dr. Pernendu K.
Dasgupta
Dr. Michael Fuertes
Dr. Gregory I. Gellene
Dr. William L. Hase
Dr. Louisa HopeWeeks
Dr. David Knaff
Dr. Carol Korzeniewski
Dr. Guigen Li
Dr. Michael Mayer
Dr. Jorge A. Morales
Dr. W. David Nes
Dr. Satomi Niwayama
Dr. Dimitri Pappas
Dr. Paul Paré
Dr. Lionel William
(Bill) Poirier
Dr. Edward L. Quitevis
Dr. Robert Shaw
Dr. Dennis Shelly
Dr. Huazhong Shi
Dr. Joachim Weber
Dr. Bruce Whittlesey
Committees
Committees
Committees
Served in
Served outside
Chaired
department
department
Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral
3
1
0
6
2
0
0
1
0
4
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
7
0
2
0
0
1
0
7
3
2
2
0
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
3
1
3
2
5
1
4
2
4
4
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
3
2
2
10
9
2
1
4
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
1
3
10
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3.C.5
Chemistry & Biochemistry
28
E. Assess average faculty productivity for Fall semesters only (use
discipline appropriate criteria to determine)
The department workload for the fall semester of each year (actually measured as
workload/FTE) is given in table 3.E.1. Although the numbers for Chemistry and Biochemistry
are below the average for both the college and the university during the initial portion of the
reporting period, this is attributed to the inclusion of graduate student teaching assistants (TAs)
and GPTIs in the numbers for FTE. Given the large number of graduate students in our
department who are involved in the teaching of over 120 lab sections in the fall, the
denominator was excessively large. In 2004, the university began to count the FTE from nongraduate student instructors and faculty only. As such, the workload/FTE ratio increased at all
levels. Of particular note is that with the exclusion of TAs and GPTIs, the Department is much
more in line with the college and university. We have also (since 2004) instituted a policy that
faculty are now instructor of record for our laboratory courses. This has also provided a bump
in the numbers in the second half of the data table as well.
FACULTY WORKLOAD
2001
University
College
Department
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
11.45
11.34
12.24
16.23
15.82
16.08
10.68
10.43
10.63
17.37
17.18
17.09
8.97
9.31
9.24
16.54
17.82
16.52
Table 3.E.1
When the number of student credit hours per FTE are plotted for the college (figure
3.E.1) and compared with the analogous data for the Department (figure 3.E.2), it is apparent
that there has been a general decrease in the number of SCH/FTE for the college since 2002,
while there has been a significant increase throughout the analysis period for the Department. It
may be the case that for the college the numbers appear exceptionally lower in 2004 due to the
change in FTE reporting (vide supra). However, it is of note that even before the change in
reporting of FTE, the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was enjoying a substantial
increase in the SCH/FTE ratio. This is in part due to the large increase in both the number of
students enrolled in service courses (up 18% per year for the past three years at least) and a
substantial increase in the number of majors (for example, up 17.4% in 2007), leading to an
increase in upper-division SCH generation.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
29
Figure 3.E.1
Figure 3.E.2.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
30
IV. Graduate Students
A. Demographics of applicants and enrolled students
The number of applicants for graduate positions in the Department has increased during
the reporting period, with the most significant increase occurring during the past two years, as
shown in figures 4.A.1 and 4.A.2. The Department has admitted approximately 40% of the
applicants who have applied. Of the students who are admitted, approximately 25%
matriculate. More than 80% of the students who matriculate and are able to pass the diagnostic
exams and cumulative exams go on to receive a Ph.D. degree.
The number of students who are admitted each year is dependent upon the number of
teaching assistantships that are available for incoming students. This, in turn, is partially
dependent upon the number of students who graduate to free up teaching assistantships among
the senior students. A larger number of teaching assistantships for incoming students and an
increase in grant income to increase research assistantships are keys to increasing the number of
students whom we can admit.
Figure 4.A.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
31
Figure 4.A.2
As figure 4.A.3 and table 4.A.1 indicate, the overwhelming majority of the applicants
for a graduate degree in chemistry or biochemistry at Texas Tech are international ( by a factor
of 3.8 compared to all other total applicants and 5.3 relative to identified domestic applicants).
With regard to gender differences among applicants, men outpace women by approximately 2:1
on average. As table 4.A.2 indicate, among the admitted students, the ratio of international to
domestic students is lower (approximately 2:1 on average). This is due to the fact that
preference is given to qualified domestic students in general, due to our need for students with
acceptable English speaking skills to act as teaching assistants during their first year. The
gender ratio among admitted students has improved over the reporting period, from a
male/female ratio of 2.7 early on to 1.7 in 2005 and 2006. Table 4.A.3 shows that among
students who matriculate, in general there are about twice as many international students as
domestics, except for 2006, when the total number of domestic students were more than three
times that of international students. For reasons unknown to us, very few students from China
accepted our offers that year.
Our ability to attract historically underrepresented students is in strong need of
improvement. Throughout the reporting period, only four African American students have
Chemistry & Biochemistry
32
applied. Of these, only one was accepted, and none matriculated. With regard to Hispanic
graduate students, sixteen applied, seven were admitted, and only one matriculated. Clearly,
additional strategies to recruit minority graduate students need to be implemented.
Figure 4.A.3
Chemistry & Biochemistry
33
Graduate Applicants - Fall Data
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
Amer Ind
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Non-Resident
Unknown
White
0
1
1
0
19
1
4
0
0
1
1
34
0
12
0
0
0
0
19
1
4
0
1
0
2
30
2
8
0
1
0
1
26
1
4
0
3
1
1
52
1
6
0
1
0
2
23
3
4
1
1
0
0
39
4
7
0
5
1
1
13
4
7
0
11
0
6
33
14
5
0
0
0
0
33
6
5
0
0
0
2
54
8
9
Gender Total
26
48
24
43
33
64
33
51
31
69
44
73
74
Total Applicants
67
97
84
100
117
2004
2005
2006
2007
M
F
M
F
M
F
F
M
Table 4.A.1
Admitted Graduate Students - Fall Data
2002
2003
F
M
F
M
Amer Ind
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Non-Resident
Unknown
White
0
1
0
0
7
1
2
0
0
1
1
18
0
10
0
0
0
0
8
1
2
0
0
0
2
18
1
6
0
0
0
1
14
0
3
0
2
0
1
31
0
6
0
1
0
0
14
0
2
0
0
0
0
22
2
6
0
2
0
0
5
2
5
0
4
0
2
8
4
5
0
0
0
0
10
4
3
0
0
0
0
19
2
8
Gender Total
11
30
11
27
18
40
17
30
14
23
17
29
Total Admitted
41
38
58
47
37
46
Table 4.A.2
Chemistry & Biochemistry
34
Enrolled New Graduate Students - Fall Data
2002
2003
2004
F
M
F
M
F
M
2005
2006
2007
F
F
F
M
M
M
Amer Ind
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Non-Resident
Unknown
White
0
1
0
0
5
1
2
0
0
0
0
7
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
1
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
4
Gender Total
9
12
7
6
10
14
10
15
3
8
2
11
21
Total Enrolled
13
24
25
11
13
Table 4.A.3
While the demographics of enrolled graduate students (table 4.A.4) indicate that the
majority of our graduate students are international and male (by about 2:1), the demographics of
our undergraduate majors (table 4.A.5) are skewed by almost 4:1 toward Caucasian students
(although there is a higher concentration of Hispanic students among our undergraduate
majors). Gender diversity is better among our majors, with parity for the majority of the
reporting period and a higher number of female students enrolled as Chemistry and
Biochemistry majors in 2004, 2005, and 2007.
Demographics of Enrolled Graduate Students - Fall Data
2002
2003
2004
2005
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
2006
2007
F
F
M
M
Amer Ind
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Asian
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
2
1
Black
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
Non-Resident
15
33
20
32
21
38
21
42
14
32
12
30
Unknown
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
1
2
2
1
3
White
5
15
3
15
5
9
5
10
6
10
4
14
23
49
26
47
29
47
30
54
25
47
19
49
Gender Total
Graduate
72
73
76
84
72
68
Table 4.A.4
Chemistry & Biochemistry
35
Demographics of Enrolled Undergraduate Students - Fall Data
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
2007
M
F
M
Amer Ind
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Asian
1
3
2
3
4
2
8
3
3
2
9
6
Black
2
1
1
2
2
3
5
4
6
2
10
4
Hispanic
3
9
10
9
8
7
12
10
12
9
13
20
Non-Resident
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
Unknown
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
White
24
24
28
31
29
30
48
45
44
55
57
46
Gender Total
30
38
41
45
44
42
76
65
67
71
92
77
Undergraduate
68
86
86
141
138
169
Table 4.A.5
B. Test scores (GRE, GMAT and/or TOEFL) of enrolled students
The average combined GRE scores dropped by slightly more than 10% during the
reporting period (until 2006), and have begun to show an increase in 2007 (figure 4.B.1). The
principal reason for the drop after 2002 (when there was a significant drop in the quantitative
score) is due to lower verbal scores. This may be somewhat correlated with the respective
increase and decrease in the number of international students for whom English is not the native
language. In general the overall GRE scores are above the university average.
Figure 4.B.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
36
C. GPA of new students
Surprising, as the data in figure 4.C.1 indicates, the GPA of incoming Master’s students
has been higher than the GPA of incoming doctoral students (Master’s: 3.62 ± 0.22, Ph.D.: 5.56
± 0.12). This may be due to the lower (and possibly more selective) pool of applicants for the
Master’s degree relative to the Ph.D.
Figure 4.C.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
37
D. Time to Degree in Years – Average years to graduate for all
students graduating each year
The time required for a Master’s degree (figure 4.D.1) is 3.13 ± 0.75 years, which is
longer than the national average (~2.5 years (ACS, 2005). The time required to obtain the
Ph.D., on the other hand, 4.41 ± 0.38 years, is slightly less than the national average (~4.5 years,
ACS, 2005). The data for the 2002-03 year for receipt of a Master’s degree appears anomalous
relative to the other data presented.
Figure 4.D.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
38
E. Number of RA’s, TA’s or GPTI’s, with total number of graduate
students in the program.
The first thing to note is that the total number of graduate students each semester that we
claim from our directory files is larger than that obtained earlier from Institutional Research.
The average number of teaching assistants that we have employed during the reporting period is
47 ± 8, while the average number of research assistants is 34 ± 12. The average number of
graduate students employed by any means in the department per year is 81 ± 6 according to our
records. The fact that the number of TA’s has a lower standard deviation relative to the number
of RA’s is reflective of the relative constancy of the All Other Faculty (AOF) and Course Fee
budgets during the study period. These budget numbers drive our ability to hire new, incoming
graduate students (vide supra). The larger variability in the number of RA’s that we can offer is
somewhat indicative of the vagaries of the grants obtained in the department. Clearly, the total
number of graduate students that we can enroll in our program is driven by these factors. An
increase in the total number of undergraduate students that we serve and an increase in the
number of grants that contain graduate student personnel that we can obtain will help to
increase the total number of graduate students in our Department.
Semester
T.A.’s +
GPTI’s
R.A.’s
Total No.
of
Graduate
Students
F 02
41
S 03
33
F 03
44
S 04
48
F 04
41
S 05
60
F 05
56
S 06
50
F 06
44
S 07
49
F 07
53
48
89
58
91
36
80
26
74
44
85
24
84
28
84
36
86
31
75
27
76
19
72
Table 4.E.1
Figure 4.E.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
39
F. Initial position and place of employment of graduates over the past 6
years
Table 4.F.1 displays a representative sample of the places of employment of our M.S.
and Ph.D. graduates during the past five years. It should be noted that many of our MS students
go on to graduate schools as doctoral students at some of the top 50 universities in the country.
Some take staff scientist jobs at some of the leading chemical and pharmaceutical companies.
Our Ph.D. students tend either go on for postdoctoral work at major universities in the chemical
sciences or become assistant professors. In general, when our students become assistant
professors, they typically take positions at four-year institutions. Some have gone on to faculty
posts at Ph.D. granting institutions after a postdoctoral period (for example, Kun Kim below. He
completed a postdoctoral assignment at Texas Tech before becoming an assistant professor at
Baylor).
Name
Initial Position
Initial Employer
Location
Korea Science and
Engineering
Foundation
Department of
Chemistry and
Biochemistry
R. W. Johnson
Pharmaceutical
Research Institute
Global Sales,
Services and Supply
Chain
Bristol-Meyers
Squibb Medical
Imaging
Department of
Chemistry, Korea
Military Academy
Department of
Chemistry, Columbia
University
Lockheed Martin
Taejon, Korea
2001-2002
Chunkung Park (PhD
May 2001)
Program Manager in
Chemistry
Postdoctoral Associate
Myeongseob Kim (PhD
December 2001)
Research Associate
Qingxiang Zhao ((MS
May 2001)
Program Manager
Evgueni V. Kobzar
((MS August 2001)
Hui Hu ((MS August
2001)
Associate Research
Scientist 11
Instructor
Sangki Chun (PhD May
2002)
Postdoctoral Associate
Sergei V. Dzyuba (PhD
May 2002)
Carrie L. Bates (MS
May 2002)
Kun Kim (PhD 2002)
Jason Montgomery
(MS May 2002)
Research Engineer
Assistant Professor
Doctoral Student
Baylor University
University of
Chicago
Texas Tech
University
Raritan, NJ
Dell, Inc., Austin,
TX
North Billerica,
MA
Seoul, Korea
New York, NY
New Orleans, LA
Waco, TX
Chicago, IL
Chemistry & Biochemistry
40
2002-2003
Nathan A. Ross (PhD
August 2002)
Group Leader
Doctoral Student
Dazhan Liu ((MS
December 2002)
Adesis, Inc.
New Castle, DE
Department of
Chemistry,
University of Alberta
Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada
Department of
Pharmaceutical
Sciences, Wayne
State University
Pantex
Detroit, MI
University of Texas
Austin, TX
Ethanol Plant
Muleshoe, TX
Oklahoma Christian
University
Hardin Simmons
Oklahoma City,
OK
Abilene, TX
Department of
Chemistry
University of
Houston,
Houston, TX
Levelland, TX
2003-2004
Postdoctoral Associate
Fernando A. Fernandez
(PhD May 2004)
A. Christine Gwyn (MS Chemist
August 2003)
Ganesh Vijayaraghavan Doctoral Student
(M.S. 2004
2004-2005
Sharon L. Willia(MS
(MS December 2004)
Howard F. Vogel (PhD
December 2004)
Kent Chambers: (PhD
May 2005)
Chemist
Assistant Professor
Assistant Professor
Postdoctoral Associate
Wei Zhou (PhD May
2005
Mitchel Cottenoir (MS
May 2005)
Instructor
Science Department,
South Plains College
Postdoctoral Research
Associate
Department of
Biomedical
Engineering,
University of
California at Davis
College of Business,
University of
Michigan
Sam Houston State
University
Metron Technology
Amarillo
2005-2006
Chuqiao Tu (PhD
December 2005)
MBA Student
Xin Shen (PhD May
2006)
Rukma Basnayake
(Ph.D. 2006
Mohsina Islam (Ph.D.
2006
Lecturer
Staff Scientist
Davis, CA
Ann Arbor, MI
Houston, TX
Fremont, CA
Chemistry & Biochemistry
41
Xiaodong Liu (MS
May 2006)
2006-2007
Gaurav Arora (MS
December 2006)
Scientific Associate 11 Genomics Institute of
Novartis Research
Foundation
Research Scientist 11
Instructor
Dongmei Zhang (PhD
December 2006)
Richard Lombardini
(PhD July 2006)
Cody Timmons (PhD
May 2007)
Lauren M. McPherson
(MS 2007)
Postdoctoral Research
Associate
Assistant Professor
Staff Scientist
Doctoral Student
Junying Liu (MS, 2007)
Qingjang (Vince) Li
Doctoral Student
(MS 2007)
San Diego, CA
Pfizer
Pharmaceuticals
Department of
Chemistry and
Biochemistry
Rice University
Groton, CT
Southwestern
Oklahoma State
University
Pfizer
Weatherford, OK
Carnegie Mellon
University
Case Western
Reserve University
Pittsburgh, PA
Texas Tech
University
Houston, TX
Boston, MA
Cleveland, OH
Table 4.F.1
G. Type of financial support available for graduate students
The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry offers two types of financial support.
Incoming students are typically supported on a teaching assistantship, while senior graduate
students are normally supported by research assistantships (dependent upon the grant status of
the faculty member with whom the student works). Every student in the Department is
financially supported each year during their matriculation at Texas Tech. While teaching
assistantships are usually awarded during the academic year, some of our students are supported
during the summer as T.A.’s as well. Many of our students are supported during the summer as
research assistants, either from faculty support or through indirect cost money that is returned to
the Department.
The stipends that students receive are dependent upon their ability to speak English well
enough to act as teaching assistants for our general and organic chemistry labs. Domestic
students and international student who pass the SPEAK test administered by the Comparative
and Modern Languages and Literature department receive an incoming stipend of
$1,750/month. Exceptional students will often receive a PLUS offer from the Department, with
a stipend of $1,850 - $1,861.11/month. Students who do not pass the SPEAK test receive a
stipend of $1,400/month ($1510 for PLUS offers), until such time as they pass the SPEAK test,
when the stipend is raised to $1,750/month. Students who do not pass the SPEAK test are
employed as course graders rather than as students who teach in front of a lab or classroom.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
42
The Department or the research mentor covers the Texas Tech portion of tuition, health
insurance, and fees (typically 50% of the total cost to the student). The lack of ability of the
Department or the Institution to pay the complete cost of tuition, fees, and health insurance is a
very strong detriment in our attempt to improve the quality and number of our students.
H. Number of students who have received national and university
fellowships, scholarships and other awards and the amounts.
Table 4.H.1 displays the fellowships and scholarships awarded to our students by Texas
Tech. The Department does not have an additional source of graduate scholarship money or
fellowships. Even with the availability of the Chancellor’s Fellowships for exceptional
students, we are often not competitive with the annual stipends offered by highly rated
institutions. This is exacerbated by our inability to guarantee a twelve-month stipend for our
students.
01/02
AWARD
AT&T Chancellors
02/03
$
#
Stud
$9,000
3
03/04
04/05
05/06
$
#
Stud
$
# Stud
$
# Stud
$6,000
2
$6,000
2
$3,000
1
Cash Fellowship
Hazlewood
$3,000
1
$4,600
2
06/07
$
#
Stud
$
#
Stud
$3,000
1
$3,000
1
$3,000
1
$6,975
3
$500
1
Helen DeVitt Jones
Health/Social Svcs
Jones Part-time
Junction
McNair
Smith
Summer Dissertation
$8,000
4
$4,000
2
Urbanovsky
Water Conservation
Waterman
Chemistry & Biochemistry
43
I. Percentage of full time master and doctoral students who received
financial support - in the prior year, the percentage of full-time
students with support divided by the number of total FTS.
The Department guarantees financial support to 100% of the Master’s and Doctoral
students who matriculate for the duration of their time at Texas Tech. Although we cannot
guarantee financial support to our students during the summer (partially because of the
separation of summer and academic year budgets and the small number of teaching assistants
required for summer school), we nonetheless have always found money (through return of
indirect cost money, graduate school fellowships, etc.) to support all of our graduate students
during the summer periods as well.
J. Average financial support provided to master and doctoral students
- For those receiving financial support, the average financial
support provided per full-time graduate students (≥ 9 hours),
including tuition rebate, for the prior year, and including RA’s,
TA’s, fellowships, tuition, benefits, etc. that is ‘out-of-pocket’.
Domestic students and international student who pass the SPEAK test administered by
the Comparative and Modern Languages and Literature department receive an incoming stipend
through a teaching assistantship of $1,750/month. PLUS offer students receive a stipend of
$1,850 - $1,861.11/month. Students who do not pass the SPEAK test receive a stipend of
$1,400/month, until such time as they pass the SPEAK test, when the stipend is raised to
$1,750/month. Students who do not pass the SPEAK test are employed as course graders rather
than as students who teach in front of a lab or classroom. The Department or the research
mentor covers the Texas Tech portion of tuition, health insurance, and fees (typically 50% of
the total cost to the student). No differentiation is made between Master’s and Doctoral
students.
The average fee waiver for 9 hours of classes is approximately $1450-1475. The
average salary for TAs who have passed the speak test is approximately $1800-1830.
Consequently, the average graduate support is (1830 TA salary X 9 = 16,470 + (1462.50 fee
waivers per semester x2) / 9 months = $2155 per month during the academic year.
K. Graduate Student Publications and Creative Activities – Number of
discipline-related
refereed
papers/publications,
juried
creative/performance accomplishments, book chapters, books, and
external presentations by Master and Doctoral students in the
department.
Virtually all of the publications produced by the faculty are refereed and include
graduate students, as shown in table 4.K.1.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
44
Publication Year:
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Refereed
90
89
105
97
92
88
86
Poster
presentations
123
102
103
112
139
86
61
Figure 4.K.1
L. Programs for mentoring and professional preparation of graduate
students
Entering graduate students are initially mentored and advised by the Graduate Advisor.
After the student chooses his/her mentor, that faculty member becomes primarily responsible
for mentoring the student. Mentoring is also provided by the student’s two-person (M.S.) or
three-person (Ph.D.) advisory committee throughout their matriculation at Texas Tech (once
and advisor and area are decided).
Professional presentation is also provided by a rigorous program that includes formal
coursework (knowledge base), experience in the research lab, attending weekly departmental
seminars, attending divisional literature seminars, presenting at divisional literature seminars,
presentation in research exams and research proposals, and the presentation of a final research
defense.
Students are encouraged to join professional societies, such as the American Chemical
Society. Students are often partially supported by the Department, their research mentors, and
the Graduate School to travel to professional meetings and give presentations. In addition to
professional societies, there is a departmental Chemistry Graduate Student Organization (started
in 2005) that provides travel funds and peer mentoring opportunities for students.
M. Department efforts to retain students and graduation rates.
A student and his/her research supervisor are informed in writing by the Graduate
Advisor annually concerning requirements in the student’s degree program that have yet to be
met. The research mentor and other members of the graduate student’s advisory committee
provide counseling and guidance to the student. In addition, the Graduate Advisor is available
for consultation about policies and procedures. Since the recruitment of graduate students is
highly competitive, strong efforts are made to retain students to graduation once they enter the
Departmen.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
45
N. Percentage of Full-Time Master and Doctoral students – Rolling
three-year average of the FTS (≥ 9 SCH) divided by the number of
students enrolled (headcount) for the last three fall semesters.
All of the graduate students in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry enroll for
ten credit hours each semester, unless they are within one semester of graduating, and even then
most students register for 10 hours. The percentage of full-time Master and Doctoral students is
very close to if not 100%.
O. Student-Core Faculty Ratio – Include data for masters and doctoral
students - The rolling three-year average of full-time (≥ 9 hours)
student equivalent (FTSE) divided by rolling core faculty. ‘Core
Faculty’ is full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty who teach 50
percent or more, (or other individuals integral to the program) and,
for doctoral programs, those who can direct dissertation research.
Table 4.0.1 provides the requisite data. The average student-core faculty ratio is 3.1 ±
0.2. While this number is likely comparable to the majority of our peer institutions, the top 30
departments in chemistry and biochemistry will most probably have a ratio approaching 6.5 –
7.0 (indeed, a cursory look at data for Wayne State (assuming a comparable ratio of TA’s to
RA’s as Texas Tech) would place the ratio at approximately 6.2).
Both advantages and disadvantages are apparent for a smaller student-faculty ratio at the
graduate level. Smaller numbers in general mean more one-on-one mentoring, which is of
benefit to the student. A larger ratio, however, would be typical of a laboratory with a critical
number of senior and more junior graduate students to allow mentoring of the younger students
by the older ones. Also, a larger number of graduate students provides for a workforce that
typically allows for more manuscript production per year. However, a larger ratio also requires
more grant support for student salaries.
Year
Graduate
Students
Core
Faculty
GS/CF
Ratio
01
85
Student-Core Faculty Ratio
02
03
04
84
85
81
05
80
06
76
25
26
27
28
26
26
3.4
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.1
2.9
Table 4.O.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
46
V. Department
A. Department operating expenses
Figure 5.A.1 indicates that Departmental operating expenses have dropped by 33% since
04/05. However, the numbers in this figure do not match the numbers that we have in the
Department. Also, the university began to cull out the maintenance and operations budgets
(M&O) from its operating cost figures in 2005, which is the reason for the profound drop in
05/06. Included here is data from TECHFIM (table 5.A.1, figures 5.A.2 and 5.A.3) that indicate
the Department’s expenses in terms of faculty salaries, staff salaries, and maintenance and
operations. We did not include graduate tuition return in the calculations (which has been
relatively constant at $48K per year for the past five years at least).
Figure 5.A.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
47
Based on original budget
Fiscal
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Staff (007444-0085)
$412,980.00
$427,017.00
$444,533.00
$477,473.00
$498,952.00
$520,055.00
$527,456.00
Operating
(0379-449417)
$136,821.00
$104,322.00
$104,322.00
$104,322.00
$104,322.00
$104,322.00
$104,322.00
Faculty and
Instructors (007044-0246)
$2,225,306.00
$2,132,197.00
$2,128,213.00
$2,046,866.00
$2,373,913.00
$2,722,869.00
$2,791,224.00
$3,308,466.00
$762,753.00
$16,420,588.00
Sum of all
$2,775,107.00
$2,663,536.00
$2,677,068.00
$2,628,661.00
$2,977,187.00
$3,347,246.00
$3,423,002.00
Sum of All M&O
$2,638,286.00
$2,559,214.00
$2,572,746.00
$2,524,339.00
$2,872,865.00
$3,242,924.00
$3,318,680.00
$20,491,807.00 $19,729,054.00
All information extracted
from TechFim OLE2.
Table 5.A.1
Figure 5.A.2
Chemistry & Biochemistry
48
Figure 5.A.3
The data from table 5.A.1 and figure 5.A.2 indicate that with regard to our Maintenance
and Operations budget (0379-44-9417 in TECHFIM), after a 24% give back in 2001, has
remained the same during the past six years. This has severely hampered our ability to grow,
especially given the increases in prices in chemicals, glassware, instrumentation, repairs, service
contracts, teaching supplies, etc. This has been exacerbated by a flat rate of return of graduate
tuition. Increases of 28% and 23% have been seen in our staff and faculty lines. This is mostly
related to consecutive 2-3% pay raises each year during the reporting period.
Table 5.A.2 indicates the Departmental Operating Cost as a function of the number of
faculty and staff. Since the operating costs are divided by the total numbers of faculty and staff
in the Department, we have replaced the data from figure A.5.1 with the numbers for the total
salary budget from table A.5.1. The data is graphically represented in figure 5.A.4. It is clear
from the data that there has been an overall drop of approximately 10% in the operating cost
spent on essential departmental personnel over the past few years. This drop in average cost per
person is especially increasing the difficulty that we have in hiring trained, competent staff.
Dept
Operating
Cost
Faculty
and Staff
Operating
Costs/FS
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$2,638,286.00
$2,559,214.00
$2,572,746.00
$2,524,339.00
$2,872,865.00
$3,242,924.00
$3,318,680.00
47
48
48
52
50
54
51
$56,133.74
$54,964.29
$54,964.29
$50,736.27
$52,765.72
$48,857.15
$51,731.10
Table 5.A.2
Chemistry & Biochemistry
49
Figure 5.A.4
B. Summary of Proposals (submitted)
Summary of Number of Proposals Written and Accepted (From Institutional Research)
Successfully
Foundation
State
Federal
Others
funded
D
M
D
M
D
M
D
M
D
M
23
2
6
1
26
16
1
41
16
2006
27
1
2
29
26
3
40
4
2005
15
3
7
2
24
21
6
37
4
2004
15
5
2
26
24
3
62
8
2003
20
3
30
24
7
1
66
8
2002
9
15
2
24
11
2
44
9
2001
D = proposals written by CO-PI’s from your department only
M = proposals written by CO-PI’s from multiple departments
Table 5.B.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
50
Summary of Successful Proposals Written and Accepted
Successful
Total
Percentage
Proposals
Proposals
Successful
75
76%
2006 57
88
50%
2005 44
78
53%
2004 41
75
93%
2003 70
85
87%
2002 74
63
84%
2001 53
Average
57
77
74%
Std Dev
±13
±9
±18%
Table 5.B.2
Using the numbers from Institutional Research shown in table 5.B.1 and 5.B.2, the
department has been highly successful in obtaining external grant money to perform research.
The number of foundation grants applied for has increased on average by a factor of two since
2001, while the number of federal individual investigator grants that have been applied for has
remained relatively constant at 26.5 ± 3. It is significant that the number of multiple user grant
applications has also increased, on average, by a factor of two during the reporting period.
Again, using the data from table 5.B.2, the indication is that on average, approximately three out
four proposals that are submitted are funded. This is a strong indicator of the research
productivity of the faculty. On average, each faculty member is producing approximately 2.2
successful proposals per year, as shown in table 5.B.3. However, using Department generated
data from our Strategic Planning and Assessment Reports, the number and percentage of total
successful proposals are significantly lower (about one out of three successful), but are still
above current national trends (i.e., less than 20% of federal grants submitted are successful), as
shown in table 5.B.4. It is also important to note that more than three-quarters of the faculty
have external grant support for their research programs. Although the Robert A. Welch
Foundation in the state of Texas has been a strong supporter of TTU chemical sciences, less
than half of the faculty currently has Welch support.
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Average
Successful
Faculty
Proposals
Numbers
57
44
41
70
74
53
57
25
27
27
29
25
24
26
Successful
Proposal
Per Faculty
2.28
1.63
1.52
2.41
2.96
2.21
2.17
Table 5.B.3
Chemistry & Biochemistry
51
Year
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Average
External
Grants
60
64
59
55
78
62.15
101
Submitted
68.5
External
Grants
32
18
17
14
19
20
57
Awarded
25.3
%
53.3
28.1
28.8
25.5
24.4
32.2
56.4
Successful
32.6
% of
Faculty
with
External
Research
76
73
87
80
71
78
75
Support
77.1
Table 5.B.4
C. External Research expenditures
SUMMARY OF FACULTY AWARDS BY HOME DEPARTMENT
Source: Office of Research Services
Year
Number of
Awards
Facilities &
Administrative
Award
Amount
01/02
67.29
$827,383
$4,138,437
02/03
60.01
$697,967
$3,710,342
03/04
48.12
$703,771
$3,857,137
04/05
41.06
$573,550
$3,017,519
05/06
50.42
$686,169
$3,941,386
06/07
37.94
304.84
50.81
± 11.17
Totals:
Average
Standard Deviation
$670,779
$4,159,619
$693,270
± $81,249.96
$3,265,506
$21,930,327
$3,655,055
± $428,424.55
Table 5.C.1
As table 5.C.1 indicates, the department has averaged about $3.7M in grant funding per
year during the reporting period. This places Chemistry and Biochemistry as one the top two
funded departments in the College of Arts and Sciences (and, in many years, the top funded
Chemistry & Biochemistry
52
department). The number of total proposals funded (average = 51) according to the Office of
Research Services is much more in line with the numbers from Institutional Research given in
table 5.B.1 and 5.B.2, and probably represents the multi-user and “other” proposals that are not
routinely counted in the department. The F&A return from the grants is approximately
$700,000 per year over the reporting period. The amount is not higher due to private foundation
grants (e.g., the Welch Foundation) and state grants that do not allow for F&A. The oscillatory
nature of the funding pattern (seen in figure 5.C.1) is largely due to the vagaries of state
Advanced Research Program (ARP) and Advanced Technology Program (ATP) funding. These
competitions occur every other year (odd years). Our success in the state programs has waned a
bit during the past five years.
A comparison with our peer institutions (table 5.C.2) indicates that we are significantly
ahead of the other institutions with respect to research expenditures, with the exception of
Wayne State. There, as in the case of numbers of graduate students (170 vs 75), we are lower
by a factor of 2-3. There is, of course, a correlation between the amount of grant funding in a
department and the number of graduate students who can be supported. However, a check of
the Wayne State chemistry department website indicates that 1) the number of teaching
assistants are also nearly double, and 2) the department guarantees a twelve-month stipend for
all of its graduate students (this is specifically mentioned on the website). A healthy increase in
internal funds would certainly bolster our ability to become more competitive with top 50
institutions in chemistry and biochemistry.
Figure 5.C.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
53
Comparison
of Research
Expenditures
01/02
02/03
03/04
did not
did not
did not
Northeastern
supply
supply
supply
University
$150,746
$120,498
Southern
Illinois
University
University of $1,630,000 $2,380,000 $1,980,000
Cincinnati
$6,548,000
Wayne State
University
$437,656
$4,041,331
Oklahoma
$3,976,450
State
University
$4,138,437 $3,710,342 $3,857,137
Texas Tech
University
04/05
05/06
06/07
did not
supply
did not
supply
did not
supply
$88,842
$304,557
$348,080
$3,500,000
$2,240,000
$2,670,000
$6,442,000
$7,267,799
$9,490,000
$1,770,987
$1,084,895
$3,017,519
$3,941,386
$1,437,588
$3,265,506
Table 5.C.2
D. Internal Funding
Source of Internal Funds (TTU)
Source: Institutional Research Services
01/02
$61,535
02/03
$46,978
03/04
$65,985
04/05
$49,002
05/06
06/07
Research Enhancement
Research Incentive
$199,787 $326,581
Line Items
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Interdisciplinary Seed
Grants
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $30,000
New Faculty Start-ups
$0.00
$0.00 $738,000 $253,000
$0.00
$0.00
Matching from VP of
Research
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Special needs and
opportunities
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Research Promotion
$499,692
Graduate School
Fellowships
$9,000 $14,000 $10,000
$10,600 $13,475
$3,000
HEAF (Start Up)*
$311,000
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTALS: $381,535 $60,978 $813,985 $312,602 $213,262 $859,273
* Included in New Faculty Start Up line after 02/03
Table 5.D.1
Chemistry & Biochemistry
54
The internal funds reported in table 5.D.1. were used in 03/04 to hire five new faculty
(with an average start-up package of approximately $150,000), and in 04/05 to hire two new
faculty members. The graduate school fellowships were used to fund students for one summer
session each. The research incentive funds (overhead return) were funded from the research
enhancement fund until 2005, and have been lumped together with the research enhancement
fund through 04/05. In 2005, VPR Dean Smith decided to return 30% of the Facilities and
Administration costs (F&A) back to the colleges that generated them, and in 2006 returned 50%
of the F&A money generated from grants, resulting in the dramatic increases observed in the
research incentive funds on the last two years of the reporting period. The College of Arts and
Sciences has a history of returning all of the F&A generated back to the units that generate
them. This resulted in a dramatic increase in the amount of overhead return that the Department
received. The Chair has retained 50% of the funds received to put into start up for new faculty,
and has returned 50% to the Principal Investigators (PI’s) who generated the F&A as an
incentive to continue to write grants that produce overhead money to Texas Tech. No F&A
return has been kept by the Department during the reporting period, although 20% of the F&A
return given to the Department will be kept by the Department in 2008 to cover acute research
needs within the Department. The research promotion money was awarded to one of our
faculty for the purchase of a major research instrument (MALDI-TOF).
E. Scholarships and endowments
The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry has the following endowments and
scholarships available:
* Departmental Chemistry and Biochemistry Endowment
* G. Wilse Robinson Lecture Series Endowment
* Henry J. Shine Lecture Series
* Robert A. Welch Chair in Chemistry Endowment
* Song Prize Endowment
* Unrestricted (To be used at the Chair's discretion)
* Welch Chair Endowment Matching Fund (The Welch Challenge)
* Scholarships for Undergraduate Majors:
• Alumni Scholarship Fund-Chemistry
• Chemistry/Biochemistry Undergraduate Scholarship Endowment
• Craig Memorial Scholarship
• Department of Chemistry Scholarships
• H. Earl & Countess Fore Archer Scholarship Endowment
• Jeanette and Joe Dennis Endowed Scholarship
• Jerry Mills-ACS Student Affiliate Award for Academic Excellence Scholarship
• Jerry Mills Endowed Scholarship
• Paul and Alta Cates Endowed Biochemistry Scholarship
• Robert C. Goodwin Memorial Endowed Scholarship in Chemistry
• Walter J. Chesnavich Scholarship
The department has close to $600,000 in scholarship monies devoted to undergraduate
scholarships. There are unfortunately no scholarships devoted strictly to graduate students,
except for the Song Prize, which provides $1,000 to the graduate student with the best Ph.D.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
55
dissertation. There are also small recognitions (~$100) for outstanding teaching assistants in the
general chemistry, organic chemistry, and upper-division chemistry courses.
F. Departmental resources for research and teaching (i.e., classroom
space, lab facilities)
As shown in table 5.F.1, approximately 59% of the space in the Department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry is devoted to research labs. The next largest portion of space
(18%) is used for teaching laboratories. With an 18% growth rate in our incoming student
population and a 17.4% increase in the number of our majors, coupled with 10 new faculty hires
since 2004, the amount of space in the department is rapidly becoming woefully inadequate. By
the fall of 2009, all assignable space for general chemistry and organic chemistry labs will be
utilized during our regular lab periods. This will potentially force the adoption of evening
and/or weekend laboratories for our first- and second-year students.
Type of Space
OFFICES:
Faculty &
Administration
Clerical
Graduate Assistant1
Technician
Emeritus
LABS:
Special Instruction Labs
Research Labs
STORAGE:
LIBRARY:
CENTERS & OTHER
FACILITIES: PPPHC2
Office
Lab (Instruction &
Research)
TOTAL
1
2
Number of
Rooms
Total Assignable Square Feet
34
5
1
8
2
6,691
875
214
1,287
377
16
98
17
-
14,048
45,130
6,774
-
3
827
184
76,223
Most graduate student offices are located in research labs.
Pre-professional Health Careers Advising.
Table 5.F.1
G. HEAF expenditures
Until 2004, the department typically received $25,000 per year in HEAF funds, which
was typically used to add a small instrument to one teaching lab each year (the choice of the lab
Chemistry & Biochemistry
56
for which supplies were purchased occurred through a rotation between teaching divisions). In
2005, a more targeted approach to begin upgrade of our general and organic chemistry teaching
labs occurred, and more HEAF money was acquired (table 5.G.1). The amount of HEAF
money that the College of Arts and Sciences receives is absolutely inadequate to do any more
than the most routine upgrades or patches to undergraduate labs, and is certainly incapable of
providing for the more modern, authentic laboratory experiences using state-of-the-art
instrumentation as required by chemical industry employees.
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Labs
$44,000
$89,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
Classroom
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Other
(identify)
TOTAL
$44,000
$89,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
Table 5.G.1
H.
External Program Accreditation – Name of body and date of last
program accreditation review, if applicable. Include description of
body and accreditation specifics.
The accrediting body for Chemistry is the American Chemical Society (ACS), through
the Committee on Professional Training (CPT). The B.S. degree is specifically accredited. The
biochemistry degrees within the department are not accredited through the ACS, as no such
option exists. There are no analogous accrediting bodies for the graduate degrees. The
department undergoes a full accreditation procedure every five years (the next accreditation is
scheduled to occur in 2009). The Department’s B.S. degree was last accredited in 2004.
The American Chemical Society is the largest professional organization in the world,
with over 600,000 members. The Committee on Professional Training sets standards for the
B.S. degree (numbers and distribution of courses required), and insures compliance with these
standards for accreditation. The CPT is currently examining the implementation of new
standards with broader distribution requirements. These new standards will be fully deployed in
2009. The Department is required to fill out a report each year in the fall to continue
accreditation between major reviews.
Chemistry & Biochemistry
57
VI.
Conclusion – a one- to two-page summary of the observed deficiencies
and needs identified by your review. Identify areas of greatest need
and areas of significant contributions.
The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry is one of the most active units among
those in the College of Arts and Sciences at Texas Tech. It has continued its pattern of growth
and productivity since the last graduate program review.
With regard to research, in 2007 the Department was ranked 67th in the nation in terms
of NSF funding received, ahead of all institutions in Texas with the exception of the University
of Texas and Texas A&M. Two of our faculty members (Morales and Niwayama) have
received prestigious NSF CAREER awards to financially support scientists and engineers early
in their careers. Bill Poirier also received a DOE CAREER award during the initial years in the
reporting period. Several of our faculty members have had their research displayed on the cover
of some of the most prestigious chemical journals in the world during the past three years. The
department is generating more than 100 research papers per year, and receives almost $4M per
year on average in research grant money.
In the area of teaching, one of our most recent graduates received a Goldwater
Scholarship, a Gates-Cambridge Scholarship, and an NSF Pre-doctoral Fellowship. This places
the student among the top graduates in the nation in 2007. Many of our graduate students go on
to postdocs at some of the finest institutions in the country and eventually to significant
industrial or faculty positions. The population of students taking chemistry and biochemistry
courses is increasing at a rate almost one order of magnitude faster than the increase in
population at the university as a whole. This brings with it a wealth of both challenges and
opportunities. Our majors are increasing at a rate of 17.4%, which bodes well for the health and
future of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
Many of our faculty members have won university-wide and national teaching and
research awards during the reporting period. One member of our Department (Casadonte) was
the first faculty member to receive the Chancellor’s Council Distinguished Teaching Award in
2001, and has received every teaching award offered at Texas Tech. Four of our faculty
members (Flowers, Liu, Li, and Poirier) have received the Chancellor’s Council Distinguished
Research Award. In fact, members of our Department faculty have received 50% of the total
number of Chancellor’s Council research awards offered since the awards were first developed
in 2001.
There are numerous areas of need within the Department that, if addressed, will allow
the Department to move to the next level with regard to productivity, and will help us to meet
our goal of becoming a top-50 chemistry and biochemistry department in the nation. There are
also things that we as a department can do to help in this regard, as identified in this review.
These areas of need and potential activity are bulleted below:
• First among our priorities, we need to be able to guarantee a twelve-month stipend for
our graduate students.
• We need to increase the stipend rates and financial packages for the T.A.’s and R.A.’s
Chemistry & Biochemistry 57
58
in the Department. We are currently not competitively on a monthly basis with the top50 institutions with regard to stipends, and most of the highly-ranked schools pay for all
of the tuition and fees of their incoming and continuing students. Our ability to attract
top-quality graduate students is strongly dependent upon our ability to offer competitive
aid packages.
• We need to be able to increase the number of graduate students in our programs. We
have more than three times the number of graduate students apply than we can accept.
Our ability to grow our program is hampered by the number of teaching assistantships
that we can offer to incoming and continuing students. The number of graduate students
that we have been able to bring in based on T.A. and R.A. support has been flat during
the reporting period.
• We need to increase the diversity of our graduate student population. Currently, our
graduate students can be largely characterized as international males. Additional
recruiting resources, especially for domestic recruiting, would be very helpful in this
regard. The Department is currently considering reinstating recruiting trips by faculty to
some of the four-year schools in the states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Arkansas. However, our ability to find an appropriate budget to allow for these trips is
problematic.
• We need to increase the size of our faculty. We currently have 27 tenured or tenureacquiring faculty. The average number of faculty in the Big 12 conference in chemistry
and biochemistry departments is 35. Given the history of the Department in hiring
productive faculty members, a larger faculty number will increase help us to increase
our federal funding and allow us to successfully mentor a larger graduate student
population.
• We need to increase the number of endowed chairs within the Department. We are the
only major Chemistry and Biochemistry department in the state of Texas without at least
two endowed chairs.
• We must improve our ability to retain productive faculty. Two of our largest grant and
research paper producers have left the Department within the past three years. The
resource drain in starting up replacement faculty and the drop in productivity from the
loss of the departing faculty members make it very difficult for the Department to move
forward in any kind of strategic fashion.
• One of the keys to retaining quality faculty and staff are competitive salaries. We are
currently approximately $1K below the national average for Assistant Professors, $20K
per year below the national average for Associate Professors and $30K below the
national average for Full professors with regard to salaries. This is a large gap that
needs to be addressed, not only for the Department to retain its outstanding faculty
members, but also for the Department to be able to attract faculty at senior levels in the
Department.
• We need to improve the diversity of our faculty. Although we have made some
headway in the past six years in this regard, we are still inadequate with regard to the
Chemistry & Biochemistry 58
59
number of females and woefully inadequate with regard to the number of underrepresented minority members of our faculty.
• Coupled with a need for an increase in the size and diversity of our faculty and
number of graduate students, we are severely in need of an increase in our physical
space due to increasing numbers of students taking our courses and increasing research
and instrumentation demands. Ideally, this space increase would be manifested in the
addition of a new wing to our building, or of a common wing between the Chemistry
Building and the Science Building.
• The faculty need to publish corporately in research journals with higher impact factors
to improve our research portfolio.
• The faculty need to obtain more federal grants, and need the ability to manage the
grants effectively (secretarial aid, postdoctoral support, research support staff,
appropriate instrumentation, etc.) once they are in place. Incentives should be put
in place to facilitate this process.
The Department has been doing a very good job over the reporting period of being
productive with regard to teaching and research, especially of our graduate students. We also
realize that many of the needs raised here require access to large amounts of capital that are not
often available. However, with support for the areas of need indicated above, the Department is
poised to take the step from being a very good department to a nationally competitive, great
Department.
Chemistry & Biochemistry 59
Graduate Program Reviews 2008‐2009 FACULTY AND STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS College: Arts & Sciences Department: Chemistry & Biochemistry Conducted by: Institutional Research Services
1 FACULTY SURVEY RESULTS – CHEMISTRY & BIOCHEMISTRY Number of faculty participated in survey Professor 7
Asso.Prof 10
Asst.Prof 2
Emeritus 1
PARTICIPANT TOTAL 20
SCALE 5 Strongly Agree 4 Agree 3 Neutral
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree ‐ N/A Average
Q‐1 The facilities and equipment available to teach graduate courses are adequate.
8 8 2
2
0 0
4.10
5
0 1
3.68
0 0
3.15
1
0 0
4.25
2
0 1
4.00
0
4.30
0 0
4.20
0 0
3.75
1 1
4.05
2 0
3.80
2 0
3.60
Q‐2 I have adequate access to facilities and equipment needed for my graduate work
6 6 2
Q‐3 The quality and availability of departmental graduate student office space is adequate for my needs 1 9 2
8
Q‐4 Library resources available to me are adequate 8 10 1
Q‐5 Teaching resources (faculty, teaching assistants) are adequate to my needs
7 7 3
Q‐6 The program offers an adequate selection of graduate courses, sufficient for timely completion of a full graduate program 8 10 2
0
0 Q‐7 The graduate courses available are taught at an appropriate level and are of sufficient rigor.
11 4 3
2
Q‐8 The graduate teaching assistants avaiable to faculty in the program are of appropriate quality
4 9 5
2
Q‐9 Graduate courses in other fields, needed to support your program or minor, are sufficiently available
5 12 1
0
Q‐10 There is adequate communication about policy and program changes in your department
7 7 3
1
Q‐11 There is adequate communication from the upper administration regarding policy changes. 4 9 4
1
2 Q‐12 I am satisfied with the professional interaction with faculty throughout TTU.
6 8 1
5
0 0
3.75
Q‐13 Graduate courses in other fields, needed to support your program(s) or minors, are sufficiently accepted. 5 10 2
0
0 3
4.18
Q‐14 Graduate courses in other fields, needed to support your program(s) or minors, are sufficiently recommended by your advisor(s). 6 5 2
1
0 6
4.14
Q‐15 Graduate courses in other fields, needed to support your program(s) or minors, are sufficiently recommended by your advisor(s). 6 4 5
0
0 5
4.07
Q‐16 I am satisfied with the professional interaction with the graduate program coordinator(s). 9 4 3
1
1 2
4.06
Q‐17 I am satisfied with the professional interaction with other faculty within the program(s). 9 5 3
3
0 0
4.00
Q‐18 I am treated as a respected contributor to the graduate program in which I am involved. 10 6 2
1
1 0
4.15
Q‐19 I have been given an opportunity to be engaged in decisions regarding changes in the program(s). 12 3 3
0
2 0
4.15
Q‐20 Course and program changes are evaluated by all faculty and voted upon by those faculty. 6 9 2
1
2 0
3.80
Q‐21 Sufficient graduate teaching assistantship stipends are available. 2 6 4
7
1 0
3.05
Q‐22 The program offers adequate opportunity for its faculty to gain teaching training. 3 8 6
2
1 0
3.50
Q‐23 Graduate teaching assistantships assignments are made equitably, based on established criteria. 5 7 4
1
1 2
3.78
Q‐24 Graduate program policies are clearly defined and readily available to me. 10 4 2
1 0
3.95
1 4
3.75
3
Q‐25 Graduate program policies clearly identify petition and appeals procedures available. 6 4 3
2
FACULTY COMMENTS: What do you consider to be the strengths of your graduate program(s)? 1) Our students are the core of the graduate program and ultimately they learn a great deal and go on to work in good jobs in the chemical industry. 2) We have a rigorous set of academic requirements including extensive course work, cumulative exams, written and oral presentations on literature and student research. 3) Many students are supported by research grants and most have publications in the peer‐reviewed literature based on their research at TTU. 4) We have areas of research strength including biochemistry, computational chemistry and organic chemistry, with promise in analytical and inorganic chemistry. Excellent graduate research programs in a wide variety of areas of chemistry and biochemistry. 3 Excellent teachers, students benefit from great one‐on‐one involvement with the faculty, great and varied research opportunities. Relative to cost of living at other institutions, graduate stipends enable students to live extremely well, and students are always paid stipends. Large variety of courses a good mix of different researchers with different research areas. quality of students in the program is generally good. Rigor, breadth. Rigorous courses taught by highly competent faculty. Some of our graduate faculty are excellent and well‐funded. The ability of our faculty to obtain extramural funding and to support our graduate students during their time at Texas Tech toward a productive degree. The physical chemistry and biochemistry programs; the graduate training and research programs of the majority of the programs. We do the best we can with the available resources. We have a good range of course offerings available for the graduate students. The topics are current, broadly applicable, and relevant for a wide range of students. We have many talented students, who publish well in our field. What changes, if any, could be made to improve the quality of your graduate program(s)? 1) Better graduate student stipends for TA and RA positions. 2) More research equipment and well trained technical staff to run these instruments. 3) More staff in general, with higher pay and more training opportunities 4) More faculty to teach and conduct research ‐ this requires additional salary lines and startup funds. We specifically need faculty in organic chemistry, biochemistry and experimental physical chemistry. A significant increase in graduate stipends and the ability to guarntee new students 12 months of supporty are both crucially needed. We need more high quality domestic applicants. This has been a highly competitive area in recent years, that requires aggressive recruiting efforts for success. It also requires that our offer packages include guaranteed funding for 12 months, which currently they do not. Also, more online journal access would help tremendously. ordering structure could be better increasing the number of grad. students is always a plus. infrastructure for experimental science research needs improvement. Reduce number of courses required by University. Provide 12 month salaries. Better quality students brought in with higher stipends. Better recruiting of graduate students. Better support of graduate students. Leadership in the College of Arts and Sciences that is interested in and has an understanding of graduate education and research; a promise of 12 month stipends for our graduate students for their first two years; a department in which the research areas are not so divergent in strength and interest in research. The organic program is particularly problematic; more faculty with leadership skills. I am not sure if the department understands how a head should function; on‐line access to the chemistry journals; a departmental faculty and staff that understands the expectation level required to have a quality graduate program. At present the level of communication within the Department is too low. It's difficult to find out what is going on. We need 12‐month stipend for graduate students to make us more competitive in attracting domestic students. The proportion of international students in our graduate program is too high. For a university the 4 (cont’d) size of Tech, the number of faculty in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry should be 35. We currently have 28. Better publication activities by some faculty are needed. Access to major instrumentation continues to be a problem. We badly need instrumentation and support staff. We need, as a University, to solve the 'summer budget' problem and offer 12‐month stipends to our incoming students. No other school in the country has this problem, and we lose good applicants solely because of this issue. All of my graduate students (8 total) have come to TTU specifically to work with me, and I still lose some of those interested because of the summer stipend issue. Please feel free to add any additional comments or questions in the space below. We make decisions about graduate courses offered based on the workload of faculty, seemingly without considering what would be best for the students. We are a vERY faculty‐centered Department. Jane Winer is a problem. program is basically sound and in my experience the faculty generally cooperate well with each other. I enjoy working here. Dom Casadonte and the Associate Chairs have made dramatic improvements in many areas (the shops, the seminar program, development, instrumentation, teaching assignments). We need more support from upper administration in the way of development so that we can acquire instrumentation and funds for endowed chairs and scholarships to advance our program to a higher level. TTU is poised to either rise up in the rankings, or fade into obscurity. As a new professor, I struggle with this every day. On one hand, I get good students. On the other, the university as a whole is unwilling or unable to support research at a level that our competitors do. As much as I like my program, my colleagues, and the city itself, I can't see myself staying here once I land my first large, Federal grant. Other schools are not as welcoming and supportive as Tech, but they also don't have Chancellors trying to increase teaching loads, or an administration that can't figure out how to work around state limitations like UT and TAMU can. It is time for the administration to support GRADUATE RESEARCH. If they want to increase student enrollment from 29,000 to 40,000, then I suggest they put up the money and make that 11,000 increase mostly (>80%) graduate students. 5 STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS –
CHEMISTRY & BIOCHEMISTRY Number of students participating in survey Student participant: Years in program Doctoral 1 year
22
Master’s Thesis 8
Other PARTICIPANT TOTAL ST
16
nd
2
rd
2
th
6
th
4
th
2
2 year
2
3 year
32
4 year
5 year
6 year
SCALE 5 Strongly Agree 4 Agree 3 Neutral
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree ‐ N/A Average
Q‐1 The research facilities and equipment available for my graduate research meet my needs 10 17 2
1
0 2
4.20
Q‐2 I have adequate access to facilities and equipment needed for my graduate work 10 19 1
1
0 1
4.23
Q‐3 The quality and availability of departmental graduate student office space is adequate for my needs 8 16 3
3
1 1
3.87
Q‐4 Library resources available to me are adequate for my needs 6 12 4
9
1 0
3.41
Q‐5 Teaching resources (faculty, teaching assistants) are adequate to my needs 6 17 7
2
0 0
3.84
Q‐6 The program offers an adequate selection of graduate courses, sufficient for timely completion of a full graduate program 7 13 7
2
0 0
3.86
Q‐7 The graduate courses available are taught at an appropriate level and are of sufficient rigor. 9 20 3
0
0 0
4.19
Q‐8 The graduate teaching by faculty in the program is of appropriate quality 12 17 3
0 0
4.28
Q‐9 Graduate courses in other fields, needed to support my program or minor, are sufficiently available 5 19 5
1
0 2
3.93
Q‐10 Program seminars are adequate to keep me informed of developments in my field 11 14 5
2
0 0
4.06
Q‐11 The initial advising I received when I entered the program was an adequate orientation 4 14 8
3
2 1
3.48
Q‐12 I have a department mailbox or other form of communication with faculty & graduate students 17 9 2
1
1 2
4.33
0
6 Q‐13 I have adequate access to my major professor 17 9 3
0
1 2
4.37
Q‐14 I am receiving the research and professional development guidance I need 10 14 4
1
1 2
4.03
Q‐15I am satisfied with the professional interaction with my major professor 11 13 4
0
1 3
4.14
Q‐16 I am satisfied with the professional interaction with faculty both within the program and at TTU 10 17 4
0
0 1
4.19
Q‐17 I am treated as a respected contributor to the research program in which I am involved 11 12 4
1
0 4
4.18
Q‐18 I have been given an opportunity to be engaged in significant research for my thesis or dissertation 11 9 4
1
0 7
4.20
Q‐19 If I decide to change my major professor, the mechanism for doing so is suitable 7 8 4
3
0 10
3.86
Q‐20 I am informed of opportunities for professional development and contacts outside TTU, such as attendance at professional meetings 6 9 7
4
3 3
3.38
Q‐21 Graduate teaching or research assistantship stipends are adequate 7 4 5
8
5 3
3.00
Q‐22 The program offers adequate opportunity for its graduate students to gain teaching experience 6 10 7
3
3 3
3.45
Q‐23 Graduate teaching assistantships, assignments are made equitably, based on established criteria 7 5 9
5
3 3
3.28
Q‐24 Program policies are clearly defined and readily available to me 11 12 7
0 0
4.00
1 2
3.60
2
Q‐25 Graduate program policies clearly identify petition and appeals procedures available to me 7 10 8
4
Q‐26 There is a well‐established mechanism for regular graduate student participation in decisions affecting students, whenever this is appropriate 6 10 8
3
1 4
3.61
STUDENT COMMENTS: What do you consider to be strengths of this program? All equipment/instrumentation needed to conduct research is available, whether you are a laboratory and/or computational chemist. The active research groups seem to be well funded by grants. As my program include both masters and doctoral, it helps me to be thorough with the concepts of chemistry and also develop my research and analytical skills and also my presentation skills by participating in various academic seminars. caring faculty, dependable support. 7 Curriculum is very good especially introduction to biotechnology course. . The one year internship gives us an invaluable practical experience during masters itself. Excellent quality of classes. Flexibility to choose electives and Rigorous course curriculum covering almost all major aspects of Biotechnology and relevance of what is being taught to the demands of the Industry. generally okay. graduate courses are fine. good assistantship is given. research work is good. Great professors. High quality professors for a school of this rank. I can find a good jot after graduation. Its a broad perspective program, the intership requirement. nothing in particular..just gettinga Phd degree. Teaching assistantships. The availability of the equipment and the ability to learn many different techniques. The support staff also make it all possible! You should consider including them in your next survey... The faculty are very helpful and insightful. There are many times when research can lead to roadblocks, but there are a wide array of methods to look up previous works to help get past the barriers too. The internship program is beneficial. The strengths of this program are definitely its people. What do you consider to be the weaknesses of this program? Initial advising as regards which courses to take and when, if available. Availability of time for various things like research along with masters and also teaching.It's difficult to manage time with three things at a time. no teaching experience outside of labs, TA program is not run in an organized manner tuition fee is very high and number of students are getting shifted to other departments after 1st semester. Excessive teaching load. Insufficient financial support. Have a clear mechanism for changing planned program of study (including changing advisor) outlined in the handbook. Too many credit our requirements per semester and Lack of financial support in the form of TA's and RA's. generally okay. not applicable. Not enough time or resources devoted to non‐academic careers after obtaining advanced degrees. Grossly inadequate TA/RA compensation. Too many student fees. the stipend for the research is not enough. Getting intership and adequate funding, also it being interdisciplinary the available funding is less compared to program intake. The course taught are not at all job oriented. No one cares to take the initiave to have a placement support program for their graduate students. The job fair that University Career Services holds does not cater to theneeds of graduate students especially the basicscience graduates. The syllabus needs to be more informative. 8 There are too many requirements for the program: Diagnostic tests, eight classes, cumulative exams, research exam, proposal exam... A PhD program is supposed to be about advanced research! The most important things I learned during the program were from literature references. These cannot be measured using various tests such as cumulative exams. It would be more helpful if the online library resources were expanded to include many more accessible journals. There is no separate department for it as such and absolutely no funds. Since many courses have to be taken at a time.. it is a disadvantage to keep up the grades high. Certain people and the leadership of this department are its weaknesses. What changes, if any, could be made to improve the quality of this graduate program? I'm happy with the way things are. Change the head TA system, establish guidelines for TA's outside of the general chemistry program, fund travel to meetings for students with newer professors Tuition fee must be decreased A separate department should be there for Biotechnology also. Cut down the teaching load to two sections, or have to TA's in a section. Pick up more fees such as the health center and rec center fee. make sure the internship in an industry a compulsory requirement for every student generally okay. Increase the pay of grad students to be at least competitive with other schools. forming a seperate biotech department. Have more job oriented courses included, introduce dual degree programs so that the student can make their degree more marketable eg would be Phd plus MBA or Phd plus JD‐Law etc. The courses offered could be made more contemporary and interesting. Eliminate Cumulative exams. Once again, expanding the online journal accessibility. Provide appropriate place for the dept. The administrative support staff has lagged in recent years. This is because certain faculty members treat the support staff inappropriately. Furthermore, the leadership of the department will not step up and tell certain professors when they are acting inappropriately. Please feel free to add any additional comments or questions in the space below. TTU is marvellous which doesnot somehow reflect in its Ranking but again. Industry should respect its strength in Arts and Science courses as well . Dr. Dominick Casadonte is really not. because continously deceive the students without provide enough experiment materials and finally never give the Ph.D. degree. I hope all the feedbacks would be considered seriously. Everyone knows this survey won't tell anybody anything new. And it wastes my time. Plus some of my answers are wrong because there is no 'I don't know' button. 9