1
-1-
Physics Department Internal Review Report
E. Beise, S. Anlage, N. Hadley, K. Kiriluk, E. Redish, R. Russ and S. Wallace
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
Overview
Faculty and Research
University Financial Support
Graduate Program
Undergraduate Program
Outreach
State of Department’s Infrastructure
Departmental Operations
Planning for Physical Science Complex
Faculty Concerns
Summary and Recommendations
Current Physics Faculty 2003-2004
2
I. Overview
The Department of Physics at The University of Maryland is large, well funded, and
typically ranked as one of the top 20 physics departments in the country. Our goal is to
become one of the top ten departments in the country. The department includes a Nobel
Laureate and five members of the National Academy, as well as eleven Distinguished
University Professors. Fifty of the current seventy-one tenured faculty members are
Fellows of the American Physical Society. During the years 1999 through 2004,
approximately 74 tenure track faculty members obtained a total of $118M in external
research funding.
The department has 18 joint appointments with other academic units: Institute of Physical
Science (IPST), Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), Astronomy, Materials and
Nuclear Engineering, Institute for Research in Electronics and Applied Physics (IREAP),
Curriculum and Instruction and the Center for Scientific Computation and Mathematical
Modeling (CSCAMM). There are joint programs (and adjunct faculty) with the National
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), Goddard Space Flight Center (GFSC),
and the Laboratory for Physical Science, a research unit of the National Security Agency
that is located on University property. The partnership between the department and the
Institute for Physical Science and Technology has provided a successful support structure
for many of our most distinguished faculty.
Starting from a faculty of fewer than six in 1954, the department grew rapidly under the
initial leadership of John Toll. The core research areas of the department in the growth
years were: High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Plasma Physics, Space Physics,
Gravitation, and Condensed Matter Physics (then called Solid State Physics). By the mid
1970’s, the department was one of the largest in the U.S. The Department of Astronomy
began as a subunit of the Department of Physics and Astronomy and split from Physics in
1990 to become an independent unit. Also, in 1990, the Center for Superconductivity
Research (CSR) was created within Physics with significant new support from the State
of Maryland. A Director and five additional faculty members were recruited for CSR,
which helped to position the department to participate in the growing research
opportunities in applied physics and Condensed Matter Physics. In 1996, the Materials
Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) was started with NSF funding and
significant startup financial support from CSR, the Physics Department, other campus
units and the University. More recently, the department has created a Condensed Matter
Theory Center headed by Professor Das Sarma and a Center for Particle and String
Theory co-directed by Professors Gates and Mohapatra.
The department offers an undergraduate and a graduate program, awarding B.S., M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in physics. The last 50 years generated nearly 3000 alumni and the
current enrollment (~200 undergrad and ~200 graduate) is growing gradually yet
consistently. GPA’s as well as SAT and GRE scores indicate that these are also higher
caliber students. The department also houses the Physical Sciences degree program.
Recently, new undergraduate areas of concentration (i.e., professional physics, education
3
physics and meteorology physics) and a physics citation (minor) have been added to the
undergraduate program. Curriculum developments and improvements have also been
made to both the graduate and the undergraduate program.
II. Faculty and Research
The department is diverse and intentionally is not a clone of other leading departments,
which tend to concentrate their efforts on High Energy Physics and Condensed Matter
Physics. At Maryland, there are substantial concentrations also in Plasma Physics,
Nuclear Physics, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Gravitation, and Atomic and
Molecular Physics as well as Physics Education. Section X provides a list of faculty for
the 2003-2004 year. Numbers of faculty, research staff, post docs and students in the
various research areas are shown in Table 1.
In 1992, the department elected a Priorities Committee with the charge to recommend a
plan for future hiring. This committee hears requests from researchers that share a
common vision for future appointments and recommends hiring priorities for a rolling
five-year plan that is tied to retirements and University initiatives. Generally each new
edition of the hiring plan is presented at the department’s annual retreat or at a special
faculty meeting in order to assess the degree of approval of the faculty and to get
feedback. The faculty assembly does not have the power to amend or otherwise revise
the plan but the Priorities Committee may make adjustments if it deems appropriate.
The first Priorities Committee recommended in 1994 that the department hire faculty in
order to maintain strengths of the department in the face of a wave of retirements and also
to create a nontraditional experimental program. The latter could be in Nonlinear
Dynamics and Chaos, in order to build upon the widely noted work of theorists Ott and
Yorke, or it could be Atomic and Molecular Physics, Cosmology, or something else. The
department moved first in the area of Nonlinear Dynamics as part of a university-backed
initiative, hiring Professor Lathrop and later Professors Roy and Losert.
Other hires have been more evolutionary. Following the departure of Professor Yodh,
research in Cosmic Rays migrated to Particle Astrophysics under the leadership of
Professor Goodman. Professor Sullivan was hired to get into Super Kamiokande. We
hired Professor Roberts in order to beef up our HEP group’s participation in BaBAR, and
we hired Professor Ji in order to evolve our Nuclear Theory effort into QCD (the group is
now called Theoretical Quarks, Hadrons and Nuclei). Professor Luty was hired to add
new blood in Particle Theory and later Professor Becker was added in order to strengthen
string theory efforts. When John Layman, our joint appointee with Curriculum and
Instruction retired, he was replaced by David Hammer from Tufts University, shifting the
emphasis in the Physics Education Research Group more strongly toward basic research.
Professor Fuhrer was hired in order to add strength in nanostructures. Professor Dorland
was hired in order to add new blood to our plasma theory program and to participate in
the college’s new Center for Scientific Computation and Mathematical Modeling
(CSCAMM). It recently was announced that the Department of Energy has awarded a
4
Table 1. Faculty, Research Staff and Students in Research Areas
Research Area
Research Post APS
Ph.D.s in
Abbreviation Faculty Scientists Docs Fellows Students last 5 yrs.
Atomic, Molecular Optical
AMO
3
2
3
9
6
Condensed Matter Experiment
CM EX
7
1
9
3.5
23
10
Center for Superconductivity
CM EX & CSR
7
2
14
5.5
32
21
Condensed Matter Theory
CM TH
4
10
4
5
7
Gravitation Experiment
GR EX
1
1
2
1
Gravitation Theory
GR TH
3
2
3
5
6
High-Energy Experiment
HE EX
6
6
4
8
3
Particle-String Theory
HE TH
6
3
4
12
4
Nonlinear Dynamics
NL
6
3
6
4
35*
19
Nuclear Physics Experiment
NP EX
4
1
1
2
3
5
Quarks, Hadrons Nuclei Theory
QHN TH
4
1
2
4
4
5
Partcle Astrophysics
PA EX
3
1
4
1
5
2
Physics Education
Phys. Ed.
2
1
1
1
8
4
Plasma Experiment
PL EX
2
3
4
1
5
7
Plasma Theory
PL TH
7
7
2
5
16
6
Space Physics Experiment
SP EX
4
2
2
2
1
2
Statistical Physics Theory
StatP TH
3
Other
Other
4
Totals
76
174
107
Notes.
1
2
23
68
50
Data as provided to Priorities Committee April 2004, except new faculty hires added.
* Includes 12 students from other departments.
5
$6M grant to Maryland and UCLA, with Professor Dorland being the Maryland PI and
Professors Drake, Antonsen and Hassam being co-PIs.
A second nontraditional area for the University of Maryland was added recently with the
hiring of our new AMO group, which is anchored by Professor Phillips. Professor
Phillips maintains his employment at NIST, where he has strong allegiances and enjoys
excellent infrastructure support, and he is a Professor in the department, with an
appointment as Distinguished University Professor. He headed the search committee for
AMO experimentalists that recommended hiring Professors Rolston and Orozco. Inspired
by the success of JILA, a joint institute between NIST-Boulder and the University of
Colorado, our AMO physicists are working to form a Joint Quantum Institute between
the University of Maryland, NIST-Gaithersburg, and the Laboratory for Physical
Sciences. The focus will be on research in quantum systems where coherence is of
primary concern, predominantly in AMO, condensed matter, and quantum information
areas.
In Fall 2004, four new faculty members joined the department. Professor Chubukov,
formerly of U. Wisconsin, came as a full professor in order to strengthen Condensed
Matter Theory, and to provide opportunities for graduate students in that area. Assistant
professor Ouyang was added in the nanotechnology area and assistant professor Hoffman
joined the department in Particle Astrophysics, with the intent to participate in
ICECUBE. Associate professor Seo was appointed jointly with IPST in order to avoid
losing her valuable work in Space Physics.
Plans for future hires are discussed in detail in the 2004-2008 Priorities Committee
Report, which is included as an appendix to this document. Plans for the next several
years include hires in condensed matter experiment with an emphasis on nanotechnology,
as well as in condensed matter and particle theory. The department also plans to enhance
recently started efforts in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics through creation of a
Joint Quantum Institute, which would be supported by NIST and the University.
Biophysics is a joint initiative identified by the Institute for Physical Sciences and
Technology and the Physics Priorities Committee. In addition, there are plans for
opportunistic hiring in Cosmology, QCD theory and Nuclear Experiment, as well as two
hires to be spread among Nonlinear Dyamics, Space Physics, Plasma Physics, and
Physics Education. The Center for Superconductivity Research plans to hire a senior
person in Materials Science.
Six of our seventy-six faculty members are women: Professors Becker, Beise, Eno,
Hoffman, Seo and Williams. One of our Distinguished University Professors is a woman
(Williams). One faculty member is African American (Gates). He holds the John S. Toll
Professorship. Professor Orozco is Mexican American.
The department has substantial strengths in a large number of research directions within
physics as shown in Table 1. One measure of strength is the external funding for
research over the six-year period 1999 through 2004, which is shown in Table 2.
6
Table 2. Physics Department External Funding 1999-2004
Area
PI
Faculty Co-PIs
Dept.
Grants
ACC TH
Dragt
AMO
Orozco, Rolston
CM EX
CM EX
CM EX
CM EX
CM EX
Bhagat
Drew
Fuhrer
Webb
Williams (MRSEC)
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
CM EX & CSR
Anlage
Fuhrer
Greene
Lobb
Ogale
Ramesh
Takeuchi
Venkatesan
Vispute
Wellstood (QC)
CM TH
CM TH
CM TH
CM TH
Das Sarma
Einstein
Ferrell
Yakovenko
$2,560,827
$208,005
$553,664
$753,000
GR EX
GR EX
GR TH
GR TH
Moody
Paik
Hu
Misner
$564,500
$1,770,000
$1,546,085
$230,000
HE EX
HE EX
HE EX
HE TH
HE TH
HE TH
Baden
Eno
Skuja (HEP)
Becker
Greenberg
Mohapatra (HET)
NL EX
NL EX
NL EX
NL EX
NL TH
Lathrop
Losert
Roy
Sreenivasan
Ott
$2,414,106
$1,076,302
$672,331
$233,686
$1,334,683
NP EX
NP EX
NP EX
QHN TH
QHN TH
QHN TH
Beise
Chant
Roos (NP)
Cohen
Ji
Wallace (TQHN)
$126,212
$103,362
$3,448,939
$24,188
$48,863
$3,640,625
Group
Total
$2,192,000
$658,245
Das Sarma
Anlage, Das Sarma, Einstein, Drew, Greene,
Ramesh, Venkatesan
Lobb, Dragt, Anderson
$406,192
$6,212,172
$850,006
$3,014,703
$15,260,601
$25,743,674
$875,036
$864,297
$1,283,047
$674,450
$105,183
$930,819
$244,888
$1,289,298
$23,880
$3,429,950
$9,720,848
$4,075,496
Jacobson
$4,110,585
Baden, Eno, Hadley, Jawahery, Roberts, Pati
Becker, Gates, Luty
$1,555,523
$75,889
$11,253,769
$40,000
$112,446
$1,933,000
$14,970,627
$5,731,108
Beise, Chang, Kelly
Cohen, Ji
$7,392,189
7
Table 2. continued
Area
PA EX
PA EX
PI
Faculty Co-PIs
Goodman
Sullivan
Dept.
Grants
Group
Total
$5,837,508
$1,594,725
$7,432,233
Phys. Ed.
Phys. Ed.
Phys. Ed.
Phys. Ed.
Elby
Hammer
Hodari
Redish
$217,851
$1,022,034
$72,500
$1,481,142
PL EX
PL TH
PL TH
PL TH
PL TH
PL TH
PL TH
PL TH
Ellis
Antonsen
Dorland
Drake (PL TH)
Hassam
Liu (PL TH)
Papadopoulos
Sagdeev
$1,972,630
$337,000
$297,000
$3,395,625
$410,109
$2,140,000
$1,733,222
$2,275,095
SP EX
SP EX
SP EX
SP EX
Gloeckler
Hamilton
Ipavich
Mason
$4,737,161
$1,893,011
$2,422,914
$5,608,231
StatP TH
StatP TH
StatP TH
Dorfman
Fisher
Kirkpatrick
$326,000
$1,140,000
$546,000
CM EX EE
APS
Astro. Met.
CM EX LPS
CM EX NIST
CM EX LPS
CM EX
CM TH
Mayergoyz
Park
Currie
Kane
Lynn
Schwab
Stanishevsky
Desai
$403,051
$555,578
$50,307
$2,778,734
$430,671
$159,624
$40,000
$24,707
$2,793,527
Antonsen, Dorland, Drake, Hassam
Antonsen, Dorland, Drake, Hassam
$12,560,681
$14,661,317
$2,012,000
$4,442,672
Six Year Total
$118,497,202
External funds adding up to $118M were awarded to our faculty members over the
period, including the contracts and grants of faculty members with joint appointments.
If the external funds were averaged over 74 faculty members, the result would be about
$265K per person per year. However, the distribution of funding is far from uniform as
shown in Table 2. Condensed Matter Physics has emerged over recent years as the
leading recipient of funds with about $35M in CM experiment and $4M in CM theory.
8
Experimental Space Physics has been very well funded for a long time at Maryland, with
$14.6M over the six-year period actually representing a significant decline from the peak
years. Professor Gloeckler alone has attracted approximately $50M of funds for Space
Physics over his career at Maryland. High Energy Physics attracted $13M for
experimental research and $2M for theoretical research. Maryland has an unusually large
investment in Plasma Physics, covering laboratory and space plasmas, which has
attracted about $10.5M in research funds for theory and about $2M for experiment over
the past six years. Nuclear Physics has attracted $3.6M for experimental research and
$3.7M in the Theoretical Quarks, Hadrons and Nuclei research area. Nonlinear
Dynamics attracted about $5.7M including both experiment and theory and Gravitation
has attracted $4.1M including both experiment and theory.
Research in Physics Education is strong at Maryland through the efforts of 1.5 FTE
faculty, with $2.8M of funding over six years. Statistical Physics research has received
about $2M in funds over the same period. The balance of funding is for a variety of
efforts, including Accelerator Physics studies based on nonlinear Hamiltonian dynamics
($2.2M), Neutron Scattering at NIST ($0.35M), research at LPS ($2.5M), etc. In addition
to the external support for research, there is significant State support within the Center for
Superconductivity Research budget. The CSR spent about $1.4M per year, or a total of
about $8.4M over the six-year period 1999-2004, for staff salaries, student salaries and
research operations.
A quite different measure of achievement is prizes and awards. Table 3 lists the prizes
and awards and other recognition of the faculty. The list includes a Nobel Prize, Japan
Prize, Wolf Prize, two Goeppert-Mayer Awards, Langmuir Prize, Heinenam Prize and
Maxwell Prize as well as many others.
Table 3. Faculty Recognition
Fellow of Am. Assn. Adv. Science
Fellow, Am. Acad. Arts & Sciences
Member, Nat. Acad. Sci.
Fellow, The Royal Society
Member, Am. Philosophical Society
Melba Newell Phillips Award (AAPT)
Hildebrand Award in Chemistry of Liquids
David Adler Award
Joseph A Burton Award
Maxwell Prize (APS)
Buckley Prize (APS)
Maria Goeppert-Mayer Award
Leo Szilard Award (APS)
Visiting Minority Lectureship Award (APS)
Wolf Prize
Michelson-Morley Award (Case Western)
Robert A Millikan Medal (AAPT)
Dannie Heineman Prize (AIP,APS)
Institute Science Medal (Hungary)
Fulbright Scholars
DOE Outstanding Junior Investigator
Toll (2000), Gates (2003), Langenberg, Misner, Park, Redish
Fisher (1979), Webb (1998), Misner (2000), Williams (2003)
Fisher (1983), Sagdeev (1987), Webb (1996), Gloeckler (1997), Phillips (1997)
Fisher (1971)
Fisher (1993)
Layman (1998)
Fisher (1995)
Williams (2001)
Park (1998)
Griem (1991)
Webb (1992)
Beise (1998), Williams (1990)
Sagdeev (1995)
Gates (1994)
Fisher (1980)
Fisher (1982)
Redish (1998)
Misner (1994)
Redish (1979)
Greim (1954), Griffin (1955), Griem (1987)
Hadley (1988), Eno (1995)
9
Dirac Medal (ICTP)
Guggenheim Fellowship
Humboldt Research Awards
IEEE Plasma Sci. & Appl. Award
Japan Prize
David Turnbull Lectureship (MRS)
NASA Achievement Award
James Murray Luck Award (NAS)
Presidential Early Career Award (NSF)
National Young Investigator Award (NSF)
National Technical Achiever & Physicist of Year
Hulbert Award for Science (NRL)
Edward Bouchet Award (APS)
Phys. and Math. Sci. Award (N. Y. Ac. Sci.)
Nobel Prize in Physics
ONR Young Investigator Award
Arthur Schawlow Prize (APS)
Irving Langmuir Prize (APS)
Onsager Prize (APS)
Meggers Award (Opt. Soc. America)
Fellow, David & Lucille Packard Foundation
Cottrell Scholars Fellowship
Richtmayer Memorial Lecture Award
Fellow, A. P. Sloan Foundation
Superconducting SuperCollider Fellow
Mueller Award (Univ. Wisconsin)
Distinguished University Professor (Univ. Md.)
Excellence in Mentoring (U. Md. System)
Univ. of MD System Regent’s Professor
Kirwan Award (U. Md. System)
Forman Teaching Award (Vanderbilt U.)
Sci. Achievement Awd. (Washington Ac. Sci.)
Dist. Career Award (Wash. Ac. Sci.)
Leo Schubert Awd. (Wash. Ac. Sci.)
Distinguished Scholar Teacher (U. Md.)
Pati (2000)
Weber (1955), Toll (1958), Snow (1965), Langenberg (1966)
Sucher (1968), Greenberg (1968), Griem (1968), Griffin (1972)
Misner (1972), Pati (1979), Fisher (1970, 1978)
Brill (1972, 1984), Griffin (1975), Gloeckler (1977), Mohapatra (1980)
DeSilva (1984), Einstein (1993), Drake (1994), Banerjee (1995), Ramesh (2000)
Antonsen (2003)
Yorke (2002)
Williams (2003)
Space Physics Group (1998)
Fisher (1983)
Lathrop (1997)
Kirkpatrick (1984), Williams (1984), Hadley (1988), Cohen (1990)
Skiff (1990), Anlage (1992), Beise (1994)
Gates (1993)
Papadopoulis (1977)
Gates (1994)
Fisher (1978)
Phillips (1997)
Williams (1986)
Phillips (1998)
Fisher (1971)
Fisher (1995)
Gloeckler (1988)
Yakovenko (1995)
Lathrop (1997)
Fisher (1973), Goodman (2000)
Misner (1958), Langenberg(1962), Greenberg (1964), Gloecker (1969)
Korenman (1971), Paik (1981), Skiff (1990), Wellstood (1992)
Yakovenko (1994), Luty (1997), Becker (2001)
Baden (1991)
Williams (1996)
Fisher (1988), Sagdeev (1990), Das Sarma (1995), Ott (1995)
Yorke (1995), Webb (1997), Gloeckler (1998), Williams (2000), Phillips (2001)
Sreenivasan (2001), Ramesh (2003)
Gates (2004)
Fisher (1993)
Goodman (2004)
Redish (1996)
Greenberg (1971), Pati (1973), Papadopoulis (1978), Kirkpatrick (1985)
Glover (1988), Bhagat (1988), Lynn (1988), Sucher (1996)
Sagdeev (1996)
Redish (1988), Gates (1999)
Dragt (1985), Dorfman (1986), Pati (1987), Snow (1989)
Sucher (1990), Fisher (1999), Goodman (2000), Lobb (2001)
Mohapatra (2002), Gates (2003)
Research at the Physics Department has been excellent for many years and plans for
hirings are in place to improve it. Nonetheless, further improvements in the department’s
national ranking will not be easy. The universities above us in the rankings are
outstanding and are not resting on their laurels. The universities immediately below are
very good and are making their own efforts to improve. The department’s research
10
diversity and overall excellence are its greatest strengths. The aging infrastructure
(physics building) is a notable weakness.
We note with regret that two distinguished faculty members have been recruited away
from Maryland recently. In the last year, Professor Webb has accepted a position at
Univ. of South Carolina and Professor Ramesh has accepted a position at Berkeley. Both
Table 4. Publications in past five years
Name
Alley
Anlage
Anderson
Antonsen
Baden
Becker
Beise
Bhagat
Boyd
Brill
Chang
Chant
Chen
Cohen
Dorfman
Das Sarma
Dorland
Drake
Drew
Einstein
Ellis
Eno
Fisher
Fuhrer
Gates
Gloeckler
Goodman
Greenberg
Greene
Griffin
Hadley
Hamilton
Hammer
Hassam
Hu
Journal
Articles
Conference
Proceedings
And Talks
3
3
18
39
15
37
60
7
67
1
9
3
15
40
24
0
0
1
3
10
14
1
15
10
30
22
88
16
19
16
21
3
67
45
19
31
23
5
133
22
25
25
42
10
6
100
9
106
24
9
82
44
11
22
2
3
11
29
10
26
67
18
4
14
27
Name
Jacobson
Jawahery
Ji
Kelly
Kim
Kirkpatrick
Lathrop
Lobb
Losert
Luty
Mason
Mohapatra
Orozco
Ott
Paik
Papadopoulous
Park
Pati
Phillips
Ramesh
Redish
Roberts
Rolston
Roos
Roy
Sagdeev
Skuja
Sullivan
Venkatesan
Wallace
Webb
Wellstood
Williams
Yakovenko
Yorke
Journal
Articles
Conference
Proceedings
And Talks
14
39
77
1
35
53
24
27
8
42
20
8
14
36
40
19
27
35
18
11
32
73
51
25
23
37
43
26
12
23
29
15
0
17
10
5
20
120
55
12
14
95
77
8
25
49
16
17
30
30
127
55
76
3
2
21
10
9
43
40
24
25
16
33
42
3
11
are on leave of absence but are not expected to return. Professor Sreenivasan has
accepted a five-year term as director of the International Center for Theoretical Physics,
Trieste, and Professor Liu has accepted a term as president of National Central
University, Taiwan. These two faculty members are expected to return at some point.
Professor Phillips is formally on leave of absence from the University but he is
spearheading the effort to build up a strong AMO group in the department.
Table 4 provides data on the numbers of scholarly works produced by faculty members
over the past five years.
III. University Financial Support
State support for the Physics Department has two components: a budget for the Physics
Department and another for the Center for Superconductivity Research. Due to
reductions of State revenues, both budgets have experienced reductions during the period
FY 2002-2004. These reductions have reduced the Physics state budget (including the
Center for Superconductivity Research) by approximately $1 million. This represents a
9.5% budget reduction over 3 years.
Table 5 shows the Physics Department budgets for FY 1999-2003. Listed are the budget
amounts at the beginning of each year, reductions that occurred during the year and the
revised state budget. Additional funds listed as DRIF are earned each year based upon a
percentage of overhead charged to grants in previous years. DRIF stands for Designated
Research Incentive Funds. Originally a portion of DRIF funds was returned to PIs for
support of the research programs that generated the external funds. They now largely go
to support departmental operations, and such costs of research groups as copying,
postage, supplies and telephones. Finally, the department receives some income from
summer school tuition.
Table 5. Physics Department State Funds
Year
Income
State Budget
Less State Budget Reductions
Revised State Budget
DRIF Allocation
Summer School
Total Non-Restricted Income
FY 99
FY 00
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
$6,976,511
$0
$6,976,511
$571,487
$36,764
$7,584,762
$7,323,071
$0
$7,323,071
$558,931
$25,735
$7,907,737
$7,919,067
$0
$7,919,067
$532,965
$29,217
$8,481,249
$8,337,355
$116,426
$8,220,929
$557,883
$31,746
$8,810,558
$8,448,667
$448,802
$7,999,865
$527,387
$26,566
$8,553,818
Expenses
Faculty Salaries
Staff Salaries
Teaching Assistants
Operations
Teaching Labs
Commitments to Faculty
Total Non-Restricted Expenditures
$4,093,028
$1,340,896
$820,793
$708,254
$125,424
$425,691
$7,514,086
$4,334,483
$1,454,375
$855,861
$745,806
$177,439
$263,136
$7,831,099
$4,622,916
$1,632,170
$726,574
$822,762
$119,955
$65,728
$7,990,104
$4,877,414
$1,624,391
$693,708
$1,162,207
$100,645
($116,407)
$8,341,958
$4,959,920
$1,569,306
$671,749
$876,088
$69,938
$1,679,168
$9,826,169
12
About 75% of the department’s budget goes to fund faculty, staff and student (TA)
salaries. Mid-year cuts to the budget hit particularly hard on the operations side: staff
support for business and other operations, equipment for teaching laboratories,
electronics and machine shops. The Department has handled the recent reductions
through a series of cost cutting measures, staff reductions, new revenue-producing
programs and increasing operational efficiency.
Cost Cutting Measures, Staff Reductions and Increases in Operational Efficiency
The Department has 










Reduced its subsidy to its Electronics Shop by approximately 75%;
Shifted some of the salaries of staff associated with the Physics shops and
stores to overhead of these units;
Reduced staff through attrition in the business office by 21% (3.5 FTEs)
Reduced staff through attrition in the teaching labs by .5 FTEs;
Reduced the number of TAs required to assist in teaching;
Reduced the number of instructors being used for teaching;
Reduced support to the teaching labs by 50%;
Reduced the amount of DRIF distributed to faculty for administrative
expenses;
Established new procedures on the purchase of liquid helium to reduce the
rental costs of containers;
Eliminated excess telephone lines;
Required that all expenditures greater than $1,000 be approved by the
Department’s Director of Business and Finance.
Revenue Production – The Department has increased revenues by :


Establishing a royalty fee for the publication of lab manuals;
Increasing the cost of faculty buyouts of their teaching and administrative
obligations.
These measures have resulted in positive results. The Department remains solvent and
will be able to absorb additional expected budget reductions of 1-2% in FY 2005. It will
also be in a position to hire new faculty in a variety of areas.
There have been negative effects. Teaching loads have been increased for faculty without
external research funding. Hourly rates for work in the Physics shops and stores have
been increased dramatically, which has impacted negatively on research budgets. Staffing
levels have been reduced. Teaching labs are deteriorating due to the lack of funding for
replacement and additional equipment. Support for teaching assistants has been reduced
significantly.
In the FY99 to FY03 period, the department spent less than its income by an amount of
$1,107,059. In FY04, the department spent more than its income by $1,272,357, largely
13
because a number of commitments to faculty over several years were actually spent in
FY04. The separate State budget for the Center for Superconductivity Research also has
been reduced significantly as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Center for Superconductivity Research State Funds
Year
Income
State Budget
Less State Budget Reductions
Revised State Budget
Total Non-Restricted Income
FY 99
FY 00
FY 01
FY 02
$2,295,604 $2,420,510 $2,508,589 $2,617,359 $2,578,771
$0
$0
$0
$25,848
$128,939
$2,295,604 $2,420,510 $2,508,589 $2,591,511 $2,449,832
$2,295,604 $2,420,510 $2,508,589 $2,591,511 $2,449,832
Expenses
Faculty Salaries
Staff Salaries
Operations
Total Non-Restricted Expenditures
$995,541 $1,136,965 $1,135,678 $1,017,696 $1,244,054
$298,101
$275,985
$321,177
$361,875
$377,789
$987,306
$820,498
$729,388 $1,057,883
$812,854
$2,280,948 $2,233,448 $2,186,243 $2,437,454 $2,434,697
In the Center for Superconductivity Research, about 50% of funds support the salaries of
CSR faculty (Greene, Anlage, Lobb, Wellstood, Fuhrer, Ramesh, Venkatesan, Webb),
15% goes to salaries of administrative and research staff and 35% goes to support for
research operations. Support for graduate students comes partially from external research
grants and partially from the research operations item in the budget. Recent budget
reductions have caused reduced support for research operations. Over the years CSR has
provided funds to assist the department in hiring and supporting new faculty and in
providing matching support for the startup of the MRSEC.
There is pressure on CSR funding because it includes discretionary research funds that
are not present in the Physics Department budget or in most other College units. The
result is that CSR faculty must rely more on external funds for research. However, the
CSR still enjoys a large amount of State support for research that is not present in other
research areas.
IV. The Graduate Program
At the time of the last Departmental Review, several recommendations emerged that
we note here and will comment on further below. These are:

Continuing efforts to increase the number of students from under-represented
groups should be pursued.

The Department should appoint an Associate Chair for the Graduate
Program.
FY 03
14

Better and more advertising and recruitment efforts should be pursued,
particularly targeting domestic students.

The Department should offer some guarantee of financial support for a fixed
period of time for incoming students.

Efforts should be undertaken to understand and improve the 60% retention
rate.
We are pleased to report significant progress on several of these points. Most notably,
the positions of Associate Chair for the Graduate and for the Undergraduate programs
were established about 10 years ago. This has provided many benefits, including an
ability to better carry out aggressive recruitment activities, the establishment of a single
point of contact, as well as some improvement in graduate advising. More aggressive
recruitment targeted at under-represented groups is also carried out, although with limited
success. There has been some restructuring of financial support for students, as well as
changes to the Graduate Academic requirements in order to improve the retention rate
and decrease the length of time to Ph.D.
Numerical data for this part of the review were collected primarily from the Chair’s
office. According to the original schedule of the review process, there was insufficient
time to conduct a detailed survey of the graduate student population, but input and
feedback from the graduate students was obtained through an open discussion period in
Spring 2004, and through solicited e-mail. All student comments were treated
confidentially, with one faculty member present during the discussion. In each section
below we provide some remarks that reflect student perceptions of the program along
with the data, as a reality check to our assessment and an indication of the overall
graduate student climate.
Table 7. Composition of the entering graduate class
Entering US
International
Totala
class
students students
2004
26
16
42
2003
30
14
44
2002
27
11
38
2001
19
19
38
2000
19b
19
38
Graduate School Admissions and Recruitment
At the time of the last internal review, entering classes consisted of roughly equal
numbers of international students and US students, with significantly more
applications coming from foreign students. Since Fall 2000, enhanced recruitment
15
of US students has been aimed at increasing the number of domestic applicants.
The total number of graduate applicants increased from approximately 400 in 1993
to 600 in 2004, mostly from an increase in US applications. Starting with the Fall
2001 admissions, US applicants were recruited by waiving the $50 application fee
for those students who self-reported a high undergraduate GPA. The composition of
the entering class is shown in Table 7. It is likely that part of the increased fraction
of US students can be attributed to increased difficulties foreigners have had
obtaining visas, but this trend began earlier. The total number of entering students
per year remains typically about 40 with of an acceptance rate of about 30% for
both US and foreign students.
The quality of the entering class, measured in terms of GRE score and grade point
average, has remained more or less constant over the last 5 years. The Physics GRE
score has averaged around 759. The average GPA of the incoming graduate classes
is about 3.74.
Efforts are being made to increase the diversity of our graduate student population,
although with limited success. In the admissions process, all minority students interested
in Physics, from lists such as the National Name Exchange and others provided by the
Graduate school, are contacted, as well as those on lists who have taken the GRE.
Minority students are contacted via phone and e-mail. It is worth noting that there are
very few African American students on these lists and direct contacts by Prof. Gates have
been our most effective recruitment method. The Department pursues Department of
Education GAANN fellowships (Graduate Assistants in Areas of National Need), which
specifically target under-represented groups. These are generous three-year fellowships
restricted to US citizens and permanent residents, and presently support 9 students
including 4 African Americans. We note that the national average of African American
graduate student enrollment is about 3%.
The percentage of women students in our program has increased a bit over the last
decade. The Fall 2004 entering class is 16% women, to be compared with the national
average, which has steadily increased from about 9% at the time of our last review to
13% in 2001. The women graduate students already in the program have expressed an
interest in helping to recruit more women.
Students who chose Maryland over other schools cited two deciding factors. One is
the wide range of research opportunities that our department, being one of the
largest graduate programs in the country, has to offer. The other was a very positive
experience at our annual open house, at which students get introduced to most
research areas of the department, have dinner at the Chair’s house, and get a chance
to socialize with the older students in an informal setting. We take the success of the
open houses as an indication of the welcoming and supportive environment that our
department offers to our graduate students.
16
Stipends and Summer Support
Before the last departmental review it became a policy to grant admission only to
students for whom financial support could also be offered. This policy remains in
effect. Summer support is offered to all incoming students, including international
students, with exceptions only for the few who are part-time or supported by some
other means. Currently, all entering students are offered support for two academic
years, subject to satisfactory progress.
An ongoing issue is our ability to remain competitive with other universities in
terms of the stipends we offer. Some entering students have noted that their offer
from Maryland was the lowest one they received yet they chose to come anyway.
Starting in Fall 2002, we decided to increase the Teaching Assistant stipends and
reduce the total number of available TA positions, at the expense of an increase in
faculty teaching load. While this has made our stipends more competitive, it has
resulted in an increased difficulty to provide support for students carrying out (usually
theoretical) research in areas where there is a perennial shortage of externally funded
research assistantships.
First year teaching assistants are given several days of intensive training at the
beginning of their first year, and they take a mandatory weekly teaching seminar in
the fall. The seminar is largely discussion, focused on understanding common
problems and misconceptions in the introductory course material. While this
provides important ongoing support to TAs throughout the first semester, the
students expressed a desire to address more practical issues during this time to help
them become more comfortable with running a class.
The Graduate Curriculum
Since the last review, the course requirements for the Ph.D. degree have been
modified with a view to encourage students to become active in research earlier in
their careers. Unfortunately, this has not led to a decrease in the mean time to
degree, which is presently 6.25 years and has not changed significantly in the last
decade. It is nearly identical to the national average: a distribution from the
American Institute of Physics is shown in Figure 1. The most significant change has
been in the Graduate Qualifying Exam, which currently consists of two four-hour exams,
one on classical physics, the other on quantum physics. For about 8 years, students have
been able to pass one part at a time rather than both parts at once. The level of the exam
has been reduced slightly, focusing somewhat more on senior-level undergraduate
physics rather than more advanced graduate work, and one more problem is offered on
each part than is required to be completed, giving students a little bit of an option on the
topics. The failure rate of any given exam is about 15%. Typically a few students who
are close to the cutoff are given an additional opportunity to pass through an oral
examination. The Qualifying examination is offered in August and January each year,
although the vast majority of the students take the exam in August. Preparation of the
17
questions and grading of each exam involves 20-25 faculty members. In talking with the
students, we were pleasantly surprised to hear that this exam is generally considered a
fair and valuable milestone in the Graduate Program.
Figure 1: The number of full-time equivalent years of physics graduate study for U.S.
students in the combined Ph.D. classes of 2001 and 2002. Taken from the American
Institute of Physics Statistical Research Center.
There have been only minor changes in the formal curriculum offered by the
Department. The first year consists of a standard set of six courses designed to
prepare students for the qualifier exam. Second year courses include more advanced
quantum mechanics, field theory, and a selection of topical survey sources. Because
of the breadth of research interests in the Department, there is a substantial selection
of advanced specialty courses. However, due to existing faculty teaching loads,
most of these specialty courses can only be offered on an approximately three year
rotation schedule, unless someone chooses to teach a course as an overload
assignment. A number of courses have been added reflecting the research interests
of current and new faculty. These include PHYS 715, Chaotic Dynamics, PHYS
721, and PHYS 722 Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics. The students generally
feel that the first-year courses are taught well and provide good preparation for the
qualifier exams. An issue they raised is one of coherence in the two -semester
sequences: sometimes material is duplicated or omitted. More effort should be
made by the faculty to coordinate from one semester to the next and the Department
should look into mechanisms for encouraging coordination, such as a Graduate
Course Committee or long-term mentor.
There is also a Graduate Laboratory Requirement, which must be completed by the
end of the students’ 2 nd year. The Department recently implemented an optional
alternative to this course, entitled “Research Electronics”, which has increased
throughput and has given students with some experimental background an
18
opportunity to develop skills in electronics design that they can take back to their
research work. The standard Graduate Laboratory course has undergone significant
revision in the last five years: a LabView-based data acquisition system was
implemented for many experiments, the number of experiments that needed to be
maintained was greatly reduced and resources were focused on improving and
updating the equipment in the remaining ones. Many of our faculty members
believe that the laboratory requirement is an important component of the program,
particularly for foreign students, many of whom have had little laboratory
experience, and for theory students for whom this course may be their only exposure
to Experimental Physics. However, running a good advanced laboratory course
requires significant resources, in space, money and faculty time. This requirement
is thus the subject of an ongoing review, particularly in times of very tight budgets
and with the limited space in the building.
Students also take a mandatory research seminar in the spring semester of the first
year, entitled “Frontiers in Physics”. It was implemented in order to familiarize
students with the various research activities in the Department and hopefully move
them more quickly into research groups. It is unclear whether this seminar has had
an influence, but students generally had positive remarks about the talks.
Table 8. Graduation Rates – PhD’s
Academic
year
Left
with
PhD
1998–1999
1999–2000
2000–2001
2001–2002
2002–2003
2003–2004
Total
22
26
15
16
16
37
132
Left did
not
attempt
Qualifier
4
4
4
1
2
2
17
Left did
not
pass
Qualifier
5
3
3
4
4
2
21
Left
other
reason
Total
Left
without PhD
Total
4
7
4
9
6
1
31
13
14
11
14
12
5
69
35
40
26
30
23
42
201
Retention and Graduation Rates
There are approximately 200 registered graduate students enrolled. This number
has varied between about 185 and 205 over the last 5 years. Table 8 provides a
breakdown of graduation rates and other departures.
Over this time period, 66% of our students left with a PhD degree. This is a modest
improvement over the figure of less than 60% quoted in the last Internal Review,
which is probably not statistically significant. Only 10% depart due to failure of the
qualifier exam, down from 16% since the last review. While it is hoped that the
upward trend of graduation rates seen in 2003–2004 will continue, the factors
influencing the departure rate prior to Ph.D. need to be better understood.
19
Advising
Every incoming student is assigned and meets with an academic advisor approximately
10 days prior to the start of the Fall semester. Many students are advised by the
Associate Chair with the remainder being advised by volunteers from the faculty. For the
majority of students, advising is straightforward, but the students feel that problems can
arise with those students who have an unusual background for some reason. Possible
improvements are more frequent training of the volunteers, and/or by pairing the faculty
advisor with a senior graduate student, as has been done in the past.
With the exception of the Associate Chair, the academic advisors do not, in general, help
the student get connected to a research group, nor do they interact with the incoming
students in this capacity beyond the first year. Students are expected to be proactive in
identifying research opportunities. Presently there are many more experimental RA
positions (82%) than theoretical ones. Students have expressed a desire for more
help/guidance in identifying RA openings, perhaps through more advertising by faculty
or by a centralized listing on the web. However, in many cases a student will start
research with a faculty member while a TA with an agreement that if progress is
acceptable a RA position will be offered when one opens. Generally those positions are
not advertised.
Placement of graduates
Placement information for our grad students is not formally tracked and is thus largely
anecdotal. Exit interviews are now conducted for students who leave with a Ph.D. but
long-term placement is not tracked. Nationally, a large fraction of graduating Ph.D.’s go
to temporary post-graduate positions (postdoctoral researchers), and anecdotal
departmental information from exit interviews is consistent with this. Nationally over the
longer term roughly 1/3 of graduates end up in an academic setting, 1/3 in an industrial
setting and 1/3 in national/government laboratories. Again, the departmental anecdotal
information is consistent with this. We note that it might also be useful to conduct exit
interviews with students who leave prior to obtaining a degree in order to better
understand the retention rate.
Students generally indicated that most of their advice about jobs and opportunities come
from older students, others in their research groups, or through personal contacts. The
department does not offer organized activities for job placement, but the nature of the
field is such that it is unclear whether this would be helpful. The general sense of the
students is that the faculty members are very supportive of having students attend and
give talks at meetings and conferences where they are able to network and make job
contacts. Below is some recent placement information based on exit interviews and
faculty advisors.
Placements as Post Doctoral Research Associates at University and Government Laboratories
Georgetown, Maryland (6), UCLA, Argonne National Laboratory, Columbia, Boston
University, Naval Research Laboratory, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, NIST, Ecole Normale
Superieur - Paris, U. Alabama – Dept. of Radiology, UC Berkeley, Yale, Weizmann
Institute, Lorentz Institute for Theoretical Physics, Leiden, Duke (2), Cantabria – Spain,
U. Washington, Max Planck Institute for Physics of Complex Systems – Dresden, U.
20
Illinois (2), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, NRL, U. Texas – Austin, Johns Hopkins
School of Medicine, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology - South Korea, Cal
Tech, Dartmouth College, U. Queensland – Australia, U. Rochester, U. Brescia – Italy.
Placements as Tenure Track Assistant Professor
Francis Marion University - SC, U. Central Florida, U. Maine, Ohio State, Carnegie
Mellon, Penn State (2), U. Maryland - Materials Science, Kings College – London, Cal.
State, Towson, Tsinghua University, Yonsei University – South Korea, Universidad de
Chile – Santiago
Placements with Companies and Government Agencies
Constellation Energy Group, Institute for Defense Analysis, Intel, NSA, National Center
for Bio Informatics – NIH (2), Intel (3), Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
laboratory, Cable & Wireless Inc, Brookhaven National Lab, Seagate (4), Plasma Quest,
Wafer Technology, JPL (2), Beckman Instruments, McKinsey & Co, premier consultant
company, Bell Labs.
Student Climate
According to the graduate population, the student climate is generally quite good,
although students do not feel a strong sense of camaraderie. We believe that this is due in
part to the building infrastructure. There is a graduate student lounge but it is too small to
serve as a gathering place for social activities, and no departmentally based graduate
student association, although there is a general Graduate Student Association on campus.
There is insufficient space in the building for good TA offices, so they often are crowded
and students are moved from one office to another during the first two years. There is
insufficient desk space to give offices to Fellowship students. Although students taking
classes in their first year do have the opportunity to meet, there are few social activities
that connect the older students to the younger ones. Some of these issues can be
addressed immediately by the department, but several would require more space and the
pressures on space in the building are severe.
V. Undergraduate Program
Physics Majors: Basic Demographics
1. How has the number of graduating majors changed since the last review?
Figure 2 shows the total number of majors for the last 25 years. The number of majors in
the Department grew in the ‘80s to a high of about 215. From 1987 to 1999, there was a
significant drop (from about 180 to about 140). In the last five years there has been a
steady growth to the current 190 majors. The number graduating has increased
significantly from a low of below 20 to about 35, but the numbers fluctuate significantly.
The details are shown in figure 3.
21
Figure 2. Numbers of majors and degrees awarded from 1962 to 2004.
2. What is the loss rate of majors from entrance to graduation?
For the Fall 1998, Fall 1999 and Fall 2000 freshman cohorts, approximately 60% of those
students that entered the University as freshman physics majors completed a degree at the
University within 4 to 6 years. About 36% completed their B.S. in physics. Of those
who completed the B.S. in physics, approximately 50% (or 18% of the original cohorts)
entered graduate school for physics.
Retention and graduation rates over the past ten years show substantial fluctuations.
After four years, only 18% of the Fall 1992 cohort had graduated. For the 1993 cohort,
38% had graduated four years later. This success rate improved for the 1998 cohort and
is now about 50%. For students that entered as physics majors, the six-year graduation
rate has risen from 58% for the Fall 1992 cohort to 89% for the Fall 1998 cohort. This is
a significant improvement and it compares favorably to the six-year graduation rates for
the College of CMPS (58% for the 1992 cohort and 65% for the 1998 cohort). The sixyear rates for the entire university have risen less significantly than those for physics
(64% for the 1992 cohort and 70% for the 1998 cohort).
About 60% of physics graduates at UM start in majors other than physics or transfer to
Maryland from other institutions. Thus the number of students graduating with a B.S. in
physics is higher than the numbers of entering physics majors would suggest. The
number of B.S. degrees has fluctuated from 23 during '91-'92 to 28 during '93-'94, down
to 9 during '97-'98 back up to 29 in '00-'01.
22
Figure 3. Number of Physics B.S. degrees awarded.
Figure 3 shows the number of Physics B.S. degrees on a finer scale. From the late 1970's
to the late 1980's, the number of B.S. degrees ranged from 12 to 22. In the last five years,
the number of degrees awarded has increased from 16 to 34, roughly consistent with the
increase in the total number of physics majors. About 15% of the total number of majors
graduates in a typical year. With a perfect retention and graduation rate, and a steady
class size, one would expect about 25% of the total number of students to graduate each
year.
The structure of the majors program
3. Has the Department made any significant changes in the major’s program?
Since the last review, the Department has reconsidered aspects of the major’s program
and a number of changes were made.

A new introductory course for professional physics majors (Physics 170)
was created to provide students an overview of current research topics in
physics during their first year of study.

The introductory sequence for majors was reorganized to increase the
coherence of the presentation. The themes were identified as Particles (171),
Fields (272), and Waves (273). These courses provide much smaller class
sizes than in the introductory sequence for engineering majors.

A bridge class (Physics 374) was created to help students develop the
mathematical sophistication that is needed in the 400-level classes. Physics
374 focuses on developing mathematical tools in physical contexts and
includes introduction to the use of programming languages such as
Mathematica.

Two new courses have been developed to help create a bridge with
information technology: an introductory course on programming (Physics
23
165) and a senior level course on Physics Foundations of Information
Technology (Physics 499I). These courses are electives. They are expected
to assist in the development of the Computational track described below.
4. Has the Department created other options for joint majors? Have these been
successful? Are more planned?
Five years ago, the physics program offered only a standard B.S. degree. A minor in
physics was not offered. Today, the physics program has three "Areas of Concentration"
that students can follow to get a B. S. in Physics.
1) The Professional Physics Area of Concentration. The Professional track is intended
for students who want to go on to graduate school in Physics and eventually research.
The great majority of our majors are enrolled in this track.
2) The Education Physics Area of Concentration. This track is intended for students
who intend to go on to teach Physics in High School. This track was built so that students
can complete a double major in Education and in Physics in a timely fashion. This type of
technical and education double major is now required in order to be certified to teach
high-school physics in Maryland. There currently are about 6 students enrolled in this
track. While this number is small compared to the total number of physics majors, it is
much greater the number of students that were previously preparing for careers as high
school teachers. It is a very positive development given the shortage of highly qualified
high school physics teachers in the state.
3) The Meteorology Physics Area of Concentration. This track was created in
collaboration with the Department of Meteorology and is intended for students who want
to go on to graduate school to do research in atmospheric science. Presently one student
is enrolled in this track. The meteorology Department does not presently offer an
undergraduate degree, and we expect that this track will get spun off to the Meteorology
Department at some point in the future.
In addition to the B.S. program, starting in Fall 2003, a Physics Citation was created. At
Maryland, a Citation is essentially a minor. A proposal for converting the Physics
Citation to a Physics Minor has been submitted and we anticipate approval. The minor is
primarily intended for students who are interested in Physics but are majoring in other
subjects, in particular Engineering, Computer Science, or Mathematics.
Two additional tracks are under development, a Computation and Physics Area of
Concentration and a Biophysics Area of Concentration. It is worth remarking that the
Education and Meteorology tracks were expected to have a relatively small enrollment
and this was why they were put in place first. We could gain experience with additional
tracks without incurring much overhead or risk to students. The upcoming tracks are
expected to have a significantly larger enrollment, and produce a significant increase in
the number of Physics majors
5. What evidence does the Department have as to the success or failure of the
physics majors’ classes?
The Department collects student evaluations in each class for the overall class, the
instructor, and the teaching assistant, if there is one. The Associate Chair for Education
reviews all the reports and comments in order to identify successes and possible
problems.
24
The Department also carries out peer reviews of faculty who are being considered for
promotion.
6. Does the Department have sufficient resources to provide the quality of education
they want to offer to majors?
The resources required for delivering a high quality undergraduate education include
faculty, teaching assistants, support staff, funds for equipment (demonstrations and
laboratories), and space.
The Department typically has approximately sufficient faculty to cover the majors’
course load. However, heavy loads in the service and other areas have led to a reduction
in the number of times majors’ classes are offered. For example, the junior level courses
are only offered once a year instead of every semester. This creates an inflexibility that
impacts some students adversely. Either they have to take a course and its pre-requisite
simultaneously, or wait a year rather than a semester to take the second course. This is
livable but not ideal, especially with the campus exerting pressure on students to graduate
promptly.
The funding for laboratory support and equipment has been significantly reduced since
the last review. This and the impact of the limitations of the amount and quality of
classroom space is discussed in the next section.
Laboratories and Classrooms
7. Has the Department made changes to laboratory programs for the majors since
the last review?
Since the last review, the introductory laboratory sequence has been modified to produce
a more coherent introduction to laboratory techniques and analytical tools such as error
analysis. A first term lab was created (Physics 174) and Physics 275 was totally revised
in 1998. An attempt is being made to have all the majors’ labs done as individual
experiments rather than in groups in order to be certain that every student has a complete
learning experience.
The space for Physics 375 was expanded two years ago so permit expansion from 8 to 12
setups to allow individual experiments. The equipment to do this is not yet available for
all the experiments in the class.
8. Are the resources supporting the majors’ laboratories and classrooms adequate
and are the classrooms appropriately equipped?
The funding for the majors’ labs has been cut back substantially in the recent rounds of
budget cuts. As a result, it is difficult to provide appropriate upgrades and to develop
new laboratories on a regular basis. Upgrades and new experiments have been created
sporadically and on an ad hoc basis as a result of occasional contributions of time,
equipment, and funds from faculty.
The upper division labs (375, 405) are in need of significant modernization. There are
chronic problems in providing robust funding for laboratory equipment. Consequently,
most of the experiments and critical equipment are multiple decades old. The optics lab
(375) has obtained computers with data acquisition boards and photosensors, but they are
being used with old and out of date equipment designed for use by eye. This lab needs a
major upgrade to more accurately represent modern optical technology.
25
Much of the space for the majors lab is both inadequate and of low technological quality.
The 174 and 276 labs share a space and are quite crowded. The 375 and 405 labs are in
rooms whose power is controlled by 15 amp fuses. With computers and other equipment,
these labs run close to the edge of what can be done with the available power.
The major’s classrooms are supplied with demonstrations, portable computer projectors,
and computers when needed. Only the two main lecture halls (1410 and 1412) and the
new “high tech” classroom (1201) are provided with built in computer projection. Room
1201 also includes an opaque projector.
The lecture demonstration facility is widely recognized as one of the world’s best. The
Department continues to provide substantial resources to maintain its quality.
Approximately 1500 demonstrations are available, most “off-the-shelf.” Selection and
ordering is facilitated by an excellent website that includes descriptions of each demo
with a picture (often with a video clip) and a discussion, as well as lists of appropriate
demos for different courses
Alumni
9. What happens to Departmental alumni? Where do physics majors go after they
graduate?
From 2000 to 2003, we had 96 students graduate with a B.S. in Physics. Our records
show 45 of these students went on to graduate school in Physics or other subjects:
32 - Graduate School in Physics
5 - Graduate School in Astronomy
8 - Other Graduate School
The schools include some top ranked schools such as: Chicago (2), Harvard (1), Illinois,
Urbana-Champagne (3), MIT (2), Stanford (1), UC-Berkeley (3), and Yale (1).
The rest of the students (19) went on to jobs in labs, industry, or high-school teaching (2)
10. How does the Department maintain contact with alumni?
The Department maintains a fairly aggressive program for maintaining contact with
alumni. A database of alumni addresses is maintained. They are regularly sent the
Department’s newsletter, the Photon, which appears 10 times a year (8 regular issues and
2 end-of-term supplements). They receive periodic mailings including announcement of
Maryland Day and a development letter each December. The regular issues of the
Photon each contain an interview with an alumnus and the Department give a
Distinguished Alumnus award each year. The Award winner is invited to give a
colloquium. Alumni are occasionally invited to return to speak to students about
opportunities in the workplace.
The Department is planning to embark on a more aggressive alumni interaction program
in the next few years.
Research
11. What fraction of majors participates in research?
12. What fraction of majors completes senior theses?
13. How does the Department encourage participation in research?
26
14. How does the Department assure that students have good research experiences?
One of the main advantages that Physics students get at Maryland, compared to a smaller
teaching college, is a wealth of opportunities to do research. What students get from
undertaking research is the chance to create new knowledge, rather than just learn about
what has been already understood. Maryland not only has a relatively large number of
faculty, but these faculty are fairly uniformly spread out over almost all of the main
research areas in Physics. Students thus have a wide range of opportunities, from
Astrophysics, to String theory to Experimental Condensed Matter Physics. In addition,
students can get much stronger and better-informed letters of recommendation from a
professor they have worked with than one they have taken classes from. Finally, research
gives students the chance to see what it really means to be a physicist, what it takes to do
the job as well as deeper insight into the specific area they are working in.
During student recruiting, we highlight undergraduate research, since it is a significant
advantage of the Maryland program compared to many smaller schools.
Although doing research is not a required part of the program, it is strongly encouraged.
There are three ways we encourage students. First, in order to graduate with High
Honors, students must complete independent research, write up a thesis, and give an oral
presentation of their work to two faculty members. Second, students can get course credit
(Phys 499) for their research. Finally, many groups have paid research positions
available. Since research is not a required part of the program, and many students do not
elect to get Phys 499 credit, it is difficult to get precise numbers. We assess the number
of students doing research each semester by questioning students during advising. At any
given time about 30-40% of our students are engaged in research projects. By the time
they graduate, over half of our majors have been engaged in research at some point.
The “climate” for majors
15. What does the Department do to provide support outside the classroom to
improve the experience of physics majors?
The primary outside-of-class support mechanics for majors is through the Student
Services office, which provides regular advising for all majors. This produces a known
contact. The office’s open-door policy and friendly atmosphere encourages students to
come in and talk when they have problems. The details of the advising environment are
as follows.
The Department makes contact with each undergraduate Physics major through
mandatory advising with a faculty advisor and our Assistant Director of Student Services
(presently Tom Gleason) each semester. Students meet with both their advisors at least
once a semester during the registration period. Entering freshmen and transfer students go
through a separate orientation and advising process during the summer before they start.
This advising process generally involves meeting with both Department and College
advisors. Advising serves several purposes:

Ensures that students are aware of the program requirements

Checks that students are making satisfactory academic progress

Advises students on the selection of courses and instructors
27

Provides information about and contacts for potential research openings or jobs

Encourages students to take advantage of opportunities for physics students, such
as research or the SPS or the GRE review

Obtains information about students’ expectations and experiences in the program,
including feedback on particular courses, whether or not the students have been
doing independent research, and what their plans are for the future.
16. How does the Department get feedback from majors about problems?
The Student Services office has an open-door policy for complaints and the Chairman has
been very willing to be supportive in helping solve problems. A regular meeting with the
majors also provides feedback to the Department.
17. What does the Department do to promote a community of physics students?
The Department supports an active SPS organization. About half of the upper division
majors participate in SPS activities. SPS has a faculty advisor (currently Prof. R. Berg).
The SPS has been given space in the main lobby of the Department to run a coffee and
donuts sale every morning. This has been running now for a number of years and
provides both funds for SPS activities and a venue where students can interact socially.
For many years, the Department has provided space for an undergraduate majors’ lounge
in the Physics Building. In the fall of 2002, this was moved from the third floor (hidden
behind a closed door) to the main corridor of the first floor (with glass windows). This
has resulted in more visibility for the lounge and hence increased use.
The Department runs undergraduate socials for new students at the beginning of the year
and at least once a semester thereafter.
18. What role do majors play in Departmental governance?
The role of undergraduate majors in governance is fairly limited. There is an
undergraduate on the Physics Council and its Executive Committee. There is an
undergraduate appointed to the Internal Review Committee and one serves on its
Undergraduate Education Subcommittee. There is no undergraduate on the Department’s
Undergraduate Education Committee.
19. What does the Department do to improve the climate for women and minority
students?
20. What is the attitude of majors’ towards the Department and their experience?
In the Spring of 2004, the Internal Review Committee held a two-hour feedback session
for physics majors. It was attended by 28 majors. On overview, the students appeared
very satisfied with the major. They showed a strong identification with the Department
and were very supportive, though they had many ideas and suggestions for detailed
changes.
The students at the session expressed the view that the Student Services office of the
Department provided excellent and valuable support. They also expressed the view that
the faculty were highly accessible. Some issues regarding coherence of the program were
28
identified by students. They find it difficult to know what the various courses are
intended to cover, or what prerequisite skills may be assumed by teachers. Complaints
included the sense that many of the majors classes were too mathematical, failing to
make the connection to “the physics.” There were also complaints that the labs were too
crowded.
Open feedback sessions with majors are very valuable and help to give the students a
sense that the Department is concerned with their welfare and success. These sessions
have been held in the past by the Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education once
every few years.
Recommendation: The Department should continue to hold feedback sessions for
undergraduate majors but on a more frequent and regular basis, at least once a year.
Service Courses
The Department provides instruction in Physics to students majoring in sciences or
engineering that require physics courses. These include Astronomy, all the engineering
disciplines (Aerospace, Mechanical, Electrical, Computer Science), Biology, Fire
Protection, and Education. The courses provided to meet these needs (121-122, 141-142,
and 161-260-270) provide the bulk of the Department’s total student-hours delivered.
The Department also provides introductory physics courses for general university
students trying to meet science breadth requirements.
Basic Demographics
21. What is the number of students in the service courses (Phys 121, 141, 161)?
The department provides three sequences of service courses. Physics 121-122 is taught
without a calculus prerequisite, Physic 141-142 is for tailored for chemistry and
architecture students but also does not require calculus, and the Physics 161-262-263
sequence is for engineering students, with a calculus prerequisite. Enrollments in these
courses are shown in Figure 4. One notable point is that the enrollments in the
engineering sequence have increased by about 25%.
Physics 121-122
Physics 14 1- 14 2
1400
250
1200
200
1000
150
800
600
100
400
50
200
0
0
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
29
Engineering Physics
2000
1500
1000
500
0
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
Figure 4. Enrollments in Service Courses
What is the dropout rate in these courses?
The percent of students that receive either a grade of D or lower, or drop or withdraw
from the service courses is shown in Figure 5.
141-142 & DWF
121-122 & DWF
20.0%
25.0%
16.0%
20.0%
12.0%
15.0%
8.0%
10.0%
4.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
Figure 5. DWF Rates for Service Courses
The DWF rate for the engineering sequence somewhat lower, with recent DWF rates in
the range 10% to 16%.
Quality
22. What does the Department do to monitor and maintain the quality of the service
courses?
The Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education reviews the course evaluations. Since
the last review, the Department has established “sequence mentors” to provide long-term
course continuity.
23. What improvements has the Department made to the service courses (in the past
10 years)?
There have been few changes made to the main service courses in the past decade. The
Physics Education Research group introduced group-learning tutorials as a test in the
some of the sections of the calculus-based sequence (161-260-270) from 1993-99. These
30
proved successful in comparisons with a control group, but were not propagated beyond
the test.
The Physics Education Research Group developed modifications to some of the sections
of the algebra-based sequence (121-122) including group-learning tutorials, design labs,
and in-lecture responses using remote electronic communications devices as part of a
research project from 2000-2004. In the fall of 2004, the tutorials and laboratories
developed for this project are being adapted and delivered for the entire sequence.
The remote electronic communication devices for lecture have been extended to all the
121 sections and are being tried in the 141 and 161 classes. Problems appropriate for use
with these devices in lecture have been made available on the web.
24. What evidence does the Department have as to the success or failure of the
service classes?
Little or no information is collected about these classes beyond the campus’s end-ofsemester surveys.
25. Does the Department have sufficient resources to provide the quality of education
they want to offer in the service classes?
On some occasions the numbers of faculty needed to provide coverage in the service
courses have fallen short as a result of faculty leaves or buyouts. On these occasions, the
Department has been able to supplement the faculty from the large number of
postdoctoral research associates, some of whom are anxious to obtain teaching
experience. On the whole, this practice has been rare and successful in providing good
teaching.
Since the last review, there was a significant cutback in the total number of teaching
assistants hired by the Department to assist with the undergraduate teaching program,
from about 60 to about 50. This was in part a result of having to raise the TA stipends in
order to remain competitive with peer institutions and of failing to receive additional
funds from the University to support this raise. It has resulted in an increased workload
for the TAs, for example, increasing the number of contact hours from 4 to 6. The
implications of this increased workload are that each TA is responsible for more students.
Individualized grading has been reduced. In some cases, this has been compensated by
the adoption of computer-based homework and automated grading. At present (in the
absence of clear and compelling research on the topic) it is not clear whether this
produces an improvement or a deterioration of the educational quality.
26. Is the space provided for service classes adequate and appropriately maintained?
Most of the service classes are held in the large lecture halls in the Physics Building,
rooms 1410 and 1412. These were designed in the late ‘60s to provide state-of-the-art
lecture demonstration delivery through rotating stages and a large storage and
development space adjacent to the lecture halls. This facility has been upgraded a
number of times and the halls now include high quality rear projection computer screens,
internet access, and facilities for collecting responses from student remote control
devices. The seats in these halls have been replaced within the past 10 years and are
adequate. Although the facility is old and does not compare to a newly-built state-of-theart high-tech lecture hall, it is satisfactory for most needs in these classes.
31
27. Does the Department provide any outside-of-class help for service students?
The Department provides a help clinic, named for Zak and Milton Slawsky, two
physicists who established and ran the clinic for many years and provided support for it
in their wills. The Department provides modest support for several retired physicists who
staff the Slawsky Clinic.
Laboratories
28. Has the Department made changes to laboratory programs in the service
courses?
The laboratories in the 261-271 sequence were redesigned since the last review and now
include eight laboratories and two individual “cumulating laboratories” (lab exams) per
semester.
The laboratories for the 121-122 sequence have been recently (2002-2004) redesigned by
the Physics Education Research Group as part of an NSF research project. The
traditional protocol-based labs have been replaced by “Scientific Community Labs.” The
goal is to replicate some of the features of real scientific research in order to engage the
students with the process of experimental design and analysis. The new goals for these
labs were chosen as a result of interviews with two biology researchers who hire
undergraduate students in their research labs and suggested a focus on developing a more
global view of experiments, something not done in introductory chemistry and biology
labs. Each experiment takes two weeks. Students are given a short paragraph describing
a goal or topic to explore. They then design and carry out the experiment. In the second
week, they analyze the data using spreadsheets and present their results to the entire class
in order that the methods and accuracies obtained can be compared. Students work in
groups of 4 to facilitate creative interactions. These labs are being delivered for the entire
121 sequence for the first time in the fall of 2004 and will be delivered for the entire 121122 sequence in the spring of 2005.
29. Are the laboratories and classrooms in the service courses appropriately
equipped?
Since the last review, some new equipment has been provided for the service course labs.
Most of the rooms have computers and the 271 lab has been outfitted with (reasonably)
modern digital oscilloscopes that feed data into the computers. The 121 labs have old
computers but no suite of detectors for taking digital data. The 261 labs have computers
and motion detectors. The 141 labs have no computers.
The lab rooms for the service courses are antiquated and badly designed. This causes
numerous problems in both the layout of the rooms and the delivery of the labs.
Specifically:
 There is frequent water damage and restriction of space from leaking pipes and
condensation that overflows from drip pans with clogged drains.



The power delivery in each room lacks flexibility limiting design of the room
arrangements.
Circuit-breaker boxes within the rooms require space, forcing positioning of
tables sometimes blocking blackboards.
Many of the rooms cannot be darkened adequately for optics experiments.
32
A long-term problem has been to provide funding for upgrades of laboratory equipment.
Communication
30. What does the Department do to maintain communication and get feedback from
the departments served?
There is no regular contact with the departments and colleges served.
Recommendation: The Department should have a mechanism for regular interactions
with the main units served.
31. What does the Department do to get feedback from students in service courses?
Nothing special. The Internal Review Committee had an open session for engineering
student comments in the Spring 2004. A dozen students attended. Overall, the students
were very positive. They felt that good professors were assigned to the engineering
physics sequence and some were given high praise. The equipment in the laboratories
was said to be of high quality and to be sufficiently modern. On the negative side,
students complained about the recitations. They felt that the TAs were often unprepared
or did not give good help. They reported that when attendance was not required for
recitation (e.g., via a required quiz) that attendance was low (~25%). They complained
that the laboratory was not coordinated with the class. [This arises because there is no
laboratory associated with Phys. 161. As a result, the labs taken when students are in 260
(oscillations and waves, fluids, heat and thermodynamics, electrostatics) cover mostly the
161 topics, such as standard Newtonian mechanics.] Finally, they complained that
although the professors were good lecturers, they did not appear to be aware of the
breadth and diversity of student knowledge, sometimes hitting too high and sometimes
too low. Many of the students attending the session voiced the opinion that more
connection needed to be made to the real world and to engineering examples.
General
Teaching
32. What does the Department do to encourage innovation in teaching?
The department encourages professors to develop new courses and revamp old ones. For
example, we offer special topics courses from time to time, and, as was discussed earlier,
we have, due to the efforts of the Physics Education group, revised the teaching of
Physics 121 and 122, the algebra based introductory sequence, in accordance with
modern physics teaching theory. In addition, the department occasionally assigns two
professors to teach one of the laboratory classes, so that the experiments can be upgraded
and new lab manuals written. This was done to start 174, and to revamp 262a, 263a (now
261 and 271), 275 and 276, which were dramatically improved and modernized as a
result. The labs were also changed so that the work required for the lab courses is much
more commensurate with the credit given. A typical problem with lab courses is that they
require more time per credit hour than a typical lecture course. This problem has been
fixed in the above courses.
33. What does the Department do to evaluate its teaching and provide feedback to its
faculty?
33
34. What does the Department do to help new faculty members establish good
teaching skills?
The department has a system of "peer review" in which all assistant and associate
professors have their teaching reviewed by a team of two senior faculty members every
two years. The reviews consist of class room visits and discussions with the faculty
member being reviewed as well as reviews of course materials such as assignments and
the syllabus. Each review generates a report which goes to the Chair and the associate
Chair for Undergraduate Education.
35. What does the Department do to encourage communication among instructors in
order to provide stability and the transmission of positive innovations in
teaching?
There are long term mentors for the introductory sequences who are charged with
providing long-term stability and with ensuring that positive changes do not get lost as
different faculty members are assigned to teach the courses. In addition, there is a
laboratory committee, which discusses the laboratories for the physics majors, and
reviews the laboratory sequence from the introductory lab, Physics 174 through the
senior level course, Physics 405. It should be noted that the effectiveness of the mentors
depends on the individuals assigned and that of the laboratory committee on its chair.
Little checking is done of the actual activities of the committee and the mentors.
Recommendation:
The issues above need to be considered in detail in an ongoing basis. Mechanisms for
establishing a more innovative, interactive, and supportive teaching environment should
be developed. Courses, both lecture and laboratory, need to be monitored so that positive
innovations are not lost, and problems are recognized early and solved before they
become acute.
Staffing
36. Does the Department have adequate faculty to handle the courses that need to be
taught without creating overly large classes?
Yes. The large lecture classes have been maintained at a reasonable level (typically 150200).
37. Does the Department have adequate staff to handle the infrastructure needs of
undergraduate teaching, especially technological?
The computational services staff supports the laboratory computers satisfactorily. The
new technology of computer homework and remote access devices has caused some
difficulty and confusion. A general system needs to be set up and managed by the staff.
Recommendation: Consider whether a new staff member is needed to handle new
technology needs in education.
34
VI. Outreach
The University of Maryland, Department of Physics operates several successful outreach
programs that work to garner interest both in the overall field of physics and in the
specific physics program we offer here at Maryland.
Physics is Phun
Under the direction of Professor Richard Berg, the department hosts Physics is Phun, a
series of free public lecture-demonstrations. The programs use hands-on demonstrations
from our world-class lecture demonstration facility to illustrate physics concepts. Some
programs are held here at the University and others are held at public schools across the
region, reaching more than 5000 parents, children and teenagers each year.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/physphun.html
Physics Olympics
Each year, thirty teams from Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. high schools
come to the University of Maryland for the Physics Olympics. The teams compete in
eight events demonstrating physics principles to determine the championship school.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/physolympics.htm
Summer Girls Program
The Summer Girls Program, supported by MRSEC-NSF and the Department of Physics,
works to raise interest in science among young women through free summer day camps
for area 8th grade girls. We currently offer two sessions each summer. The sessions run
two weeks each and host 20-25 girls in each session. An all-female team of faculty, staff
and students use our world-class lecture demonstration facility to illustrate physics
concepts through fun activities like making liquid nitrogen ice cream, constructing model
roller coasters, developing photographs and much more. The girls also learn to keep a
laboratory notebook and present their work to their parents at the end of the session. The
program targets girls who have just finished the 8th grade, since research shows that this
is the age when young women begin to lose interest in science.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/outreach/summgirls.html
Question of the Week
The Department of Physics hosts an online “Question of the Week” program, which posts
a physics question on the front of our Web site each week. The answer and explanation to
the question is posted the following week. This program is a resource for high school
science teachers here in Maryland and across the nation.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/qotw/
Physics Classroom Outreach
Individual faculty periodically visit science classrooms in public and private elementary,
middle and high school classrooms to talk about physics in order to generate interest in
the field. The faculty generally use simple lecture demonstrations for the younger classes,
but combine these demonstrations with a presentation about their own research for the
35
high school classes. Faculty members have visited schools in the Greater BaltimoreWashington, DC area as well as some of the prestigious science high schools across the
East Coast, including Stuyvesant High School and the Bronx High School of Science in
New York.
MRSEC Outreach
The Materials Research Science & Engineering Center (MRSEC), funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF), is an interdisciplinary research center housed within the
Department of Physics. The MRSEC hosts many successful outreach programs for a
variety of ages. http://mrsec.umd.edu/Outreach.html
GK-12 Program
Through the MRSEC GK-12 program, graduate and advanced undergraduate students
from the fields of science, engineering and math are matched with public schools in
Prince George’s, Montgomery and Howard counties, where they serve as resource
consultants for teachers. The GK-12 fellows spend at least 20 hours per week planning,
developing and presenting science, math and technology-related activities for their
classrooms. http://mrsec.umd.edu/GK12.html
Home School Program
The MRSEC’s Home School Program invites students from the Greater Washington, DC
area to learn about science through teamwork and hands-on activities from our worldclass lecture demonstration facility. The program includes labs, Physics is Phun shows, a
science fair and more. http://mrsec.umd.edu/Outreach/HomeSchool.html
Summer Camps
The MRSEC also hosts several summer camps that work to support and extend academic
year learning for a variety of age groups. http://mrsec.umd.edu/Outreach/Summer.html






Science, Engineering and You! (Grades 3-6, learning about the science of the world
around us)
Roller Coaster Workshop (Grades 10-12, learning about the science and engineering
of roller coasters
Math for Physics Workshop (Students entering high school, learning the math to help
them excel in high school physics courses)
Aeronautics and the Age of Flight Camp (Grades 4-6, learning about the science
behind aviation and space flight)
The Materials of Sports (Grades 6-8, learning about the materials science behind
sports)
Engineering Design Camp (Grades 11-12, learning AutoCad design for engineering)
Development
The Department’s faculty, staff and alumni contribute approximately $20,000 each year
(most of that from faculty and staff). The majority of this amount supports the
Scholarship and Award Fund, which provides laptop computers as recruitment incentives
36
for top undergraduate students. The remaining funds are put into a discretionary account
that supports myriad departmental activities. We have also recently been given funds
(which could add up to about a $1 million) from the will of a former professor Angelo
Bardasis to fund a hearty undergraduate scholarship program. On a much larger scale, the
Department is also just beginning to establish a campaign to fund a much-needed new
Physics Sciences Complex, a construction project that will require multiple donations,
including a multi-million dollar gift to anchor the project.
VII. State of the Department’s Infrastructure
The Physics department has faculty located in five buildings: Physics, Space Sciences,
IPST, IREAP and the A. V. Williams building. The primary infrastructure is in the
Physics building and it has endured great changes over the past 10 years. The number of
staff members has been reduced, the building has been aging in a less-than-graceful
manner, and the departmental shops have significantly re-vamped themselves.
Staff
Our staff members are hard working and loyal. Most have been with us for 10, 15, or
20+ years. The number of staff members has dropped over the past 10 years partly
because of improvements in efficiency and technology, and outsourcing of work to
faculty and students (e.g. the on-line PHR payroll system). Most groups have only one
staff member to handle all their technical and clerical issues. With the exception of CSR,
such positions typically are funded by contracts and grants. Several groups have no
clerical support. Temporary student help is used to “fill in the gaps” or to perform work
that would be done by full time employees that we cannot afford to hire. A 1 or 2% cut
in the budget (which has happened several times in the past 10 years) has a
disproportionate impact on staff and operations because faculty salaries are fixed and take
up a large fraction of the budget. The department has implemented electronic business
processes in order to handle some of the workload with fewer staff, but the workload on
staff also has increased.
Stores (Electronics, Raw Materials)
The electronics store was run capably for many years by Al Roderick. After he retired in
2001, the electronics store was re-evaluated. After nearly being disbanded, the store is
now leaner (selling fewer items), but is run more efficiently. There is now an on-line
inventory listing. The raw materials store is also healthier than 10 years ago and is run
capably.
Purchasing
The purchasing (Z-order) department is more efficient than it was 10 years ago. The use
of internet purchasing channels has been an important improvement. The use of
purchasing credit cards has streamlined the acquisition process and eased the burden on
the purchasing department. Raising the limit of Z-order purchases to $10,000 has
allowed us to avoid the painful university purchasing process.
37
Shops (Electronics, Mechanical Development Group, Physics Student Shop, Copy)
The shops are generally smaller and healthier than 10 years ago. However, the machine
shop now has only 1.5 full-time positions supported by state funds. One full-time staff
member runs the student shop, teaches machining, and acts as a technical consultant for
the students. The rest of the shop activities (floor supervisor, and all the machinists) must
be supported through the rates charged for services. This has led to an increase of rates to
the level where they can be comparable to, or up to a factor two higher, than off-campus
sources. Because of the need be self-supporting, the machine shop devotes a significant
amount of its resources to outside jobs. It is a good sign that our department machine
shop can attract so much outside work. However, this can lead to unreasonably long
delays for Physics department customers.
The machine shop must be able to deal effectively with “one-of-a-kind” machining.
Often this means working with students who have never machined or drawn up plans,
building unconventional and difficult pieces, and building them in very small quantities,
usually 1. Most machine shops survive through volume production of identical pieces.
That business model does not work here. The department needs to maintain a number of
“model builders” with experience in “one-of-a-kind” machining. These people are
extremely valuable to the department.
In general, better web visibility for our shops and stores has and will make them more
attractive to outside and inside users, and could help them to be more “profitable”.
Physics Computer Services and Networking
The department has a staff of five computer support personnel that provide services such
as PC support for faculty, staff and teaching laboratories, operating departmental and
research group servers and supporting networking.
A variety of research efforts have increasing demands for high-speed networking. The
current 10 base-T wiring should be upgraded to “Cat6” to achieve 100 MB/sec or 1 GB/s.
The department could save money and resources by stopping support of physics e-mail
servers and moving users to the @umd.edu servers.
Space
The department has run out of research laboratory space in the Physics building. We
have renovated many out of the out-of-the-way places and “undesirable locations” in the
building. We have truly filled in this building and it is literally bursting at the seams (a
large crack in the building showed up in the last year). One consequence of the tight
space situation is that a significant fraction of startup funds that the department provides
to new experimentalists goes into renovating lab space. This reduces the amount
available for purchasing equipment and seeding the research. There is a shortage of office
space that may be even more critical. For example, a faculty recruit in particle theory
(Wells, 2003) decided to go to Michigan partly because of the lack of “nice space” here
vs. a brand new physics building in Michigan. The perception was that the physics
department here is not supported as well.
38
Physics Building Electrical Explosion
An electrical explosion and fire took place inside the Physics building in October 2002
while workers were performing diagnostic work on the north switchgear room. One
worker was killed. The switchgear room was destroyed by fire and extensive smoke
damage occurred in the building. The Department was without stable electrical power for
~3 months while a temporary generator provided power to half of the building. Classes
were restored in the building within 2 days of the explosion. Research suffered. The
experimental nuclear group was displaced (and they still are not in their new lab, after 2
years). A main concern in the cleanup was chloride chemicals due to smoke deposits in
electronics that could cause long-term damage. Belfor, Inc. had cleanup personnel in the
building for a period of ~4 months. They wiped down all the walls and took apart and
cleaned many pieces of equipment and computers. The total cost for Belfor’s services
was $1,315,642.57, which includes $441,332.72 for building cleanup and repair plus
$874,309.85 for cleaning of scientific equipment.
We now have all new equipment in the north switchgear room. One panel has power for
hall lighting and sump pumps from the new South Campus Utility Building (SCUB), an
emergency power system. Transformers in the south switchgear room were moved out to
the street.
Loss of a National Academy of Sciences Member
Richard Webb has moved to the University of South Carolina at least partly because of
deep and persisting frustration over keeping basic infrastructure operating in his
laboratory. We characterize this, at least in part, as a failure on the part of the University.
Essentially, the University/Department were unable to create and maintain an
environment for low-noise, high-stability, long-term experiments. The issues concern
HVAC (stable temperature and humidity), electrical (stable voltage, back-up power),
leaks (from steam re-heat pipes), and proper maintenance of this infrastructure. Professor
Webb felt that overall design, and long-term maintenance have been poor on a consistent
basis. Webb specifically identifies AEC (Architecture, Engineering and Construction) as
the source of many problems in our building and all over campus. About seven years
ago, another faculty member (Fred Skiff) left in part because of problems with his
laboratory space, which was in the Institute for Research in Electronics and Plasma
Physics.
Electrical / Alarm Systems
There are now two electrical feeds into the building (North and South). We are also
partially hooked up to the SCUB emergency power system. There are still manual fuses
being used in part of the building. Only recently have all 5 zones of the fire-alarm system
in the building been interconnected. The sub-basement and sub-sub basement fire alarms
were not connected during a recent fire in the passenger elevator that trapped occupants
of the elevator. The alarm system is not state-of-the-art. When the alarm goes off the
fire department is not automatically called. Someone must pick up the phone and dial
39
911. Installing a panel that shows where the fire is located will cost ~$300k and is not
approved.
Safety is still an issue for all the occupants of the Physics building.
HVAC
There are multiple independent HVAC systems (~34) in the building that are maintained
by the university. In many cases there is a single thermostat for an entire hallway of
offices, classrooms, labs. This can create unbearable conditions for classrooms when
they are full of students, and the room becomes hot. Opening the door and windows
allows noise (from neighboring TA offices, street noise – liquid He deliveries,
jackhammers, etc.) to come into the room, which further disrupts the class. We need
basic infrastructure improvements, such as an independent thermostat and HVAC in each
room. Even in the “high technology” classroom improvements that the university favors
over basic infrastructure improvements, students complain about being too hot or too
cold.
Many labs are retrofitted over time to meet the needs of research groups. The addition of
a fume hood or any lab exhaust system typically creates an imbalance in the lab. The air
handler cannot maintain proper climate control with the additional load placed on it. This
building was not designed to handle the additional heat loads of the computers and
uninterruptible power supplies that are commonplace in the labs and offices. In many
cases, rooms originally designed as offices are now labs and labs are now offices.
Pipes/Leaks
The steam, compressed air, and water infrastructure of the building is in less-than-ideal
condition. For example, classroom 1402 has had a leak in the ceiling in front of the
blackboard since October 2002. This creates a hazard for the lecturer as well as reduces
the useable blackboard space. The Work Control Requests (WCRs) to fix this problem
have been closed repeatedly before the work was done. The leak was declared fixed, and
then subsequently leaked again. This is typical of situations found all over the building.
Maintenance
The campus maintenance office now has more buildings to maintain and fewer resources
than ten years ago. This campus-level problem has significant impact on our physics
department. We are sending more and more Work Control requests with time, as is
shown in Figure 4. The problem is that the maintenance work provided by the university
is sometimes shoddy, incomplete and slow. We find that many Work Control Requests
are closed out before any work actually is done.
There is a very low level of global preventive maintenance in the building. The tendency
is to fix only those things that fail or break and are followed up by persistent complaints.
By and large things only get fixed when we say it is a “Life Safety Issue.”
The long-term solution to many of these problems is a new building. That has been
discussed for many years. In the past five years, the Chair and Associate Chair for
Facilities have worked hard to promote the plans for a new Physical Sciences Complex
40
(see Section VII). However, a move to a new building may be 6 or more years from
now. Maintenance of the existing Physics building is expensive but we need the
University to give it a high priority until we have a new building. There are substantial
costs associated with lab renovations, recovery from the explosion, fire alarms and safety
Work Control Requests per Year for the Physics Building (082)
1400
1200
1000
800
# of WCRs
600
400
200
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004* (up to
10/21 only)
Year
Figure 4. Work Control Requests versus time
issues. Advancing the construction schedule of a new Physical Science Complex would
provide substantial savings over maintaining the aging infrastructure for a longer time. It
also would help in recruitment and retention of faculty.
VIII. Departmental Operations
The department has a Chair (Professor Jordan Goodman), an Associate Chair for
Graduate Education (Professor Nicholas Chant), an Associate Chair for Undergraduate
Education (Professor Douglas Roberts) and an Associate Chair for Facilities and
Personnel (Professor Andrew Baden). There also is a Director of Business and Finance
(Dean Kitchen). The Chair’s office includes a Departmental Coordinator (Reka
Montfort) and Coordinator for Communications and Public Information (Karrie
Hawbacker) and an Executive Administrative Assistant (David Watson). A list of
administrative personnel is available at:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/people/administration.html
Additional personnel are employed in the department’s Mechanical Shop, Electronics
Shop, Lecture/Demonstration facility and the oversight and management of teaching
laboratories.
41
Several administrative innovations have been introduced over the past five years that are
noteworthy.
Electronic Office
The Chair and the Departmental Coordinator have embraced the principles of the
electronic office and have provided a comprehensive web presence for the department,
with both public and private aspects. Information about faculty meetings, including
promotion materials, is provided to faculty members through the password-protected
Physics Intranet. Committee reports are provided via the Physics Intranet to the
committee members, again with password protection while the report is being written,
and final distribution of reports is also generally provided through the department’s web
pages. A number of forms that are required to be filled out by faculty members and other
personnel are provided as web pages, with the expectation that people will print out their
own copy, fill out the required information and submit the form. Most communication
between the Chair and the Chair’s office is sent via e-mail. In general, this has worked
well. A few faculty members complain that it takes more of their time and resources. It
definitely saves on the paperwork in the office.
The Business and Finance personnel of the department provide very valuable services to
principal investigators of research grants, such as preparation of budgets and submission
of electronic forms to funding agencies. This area of operations has also increased its
efficiency through use of electronic processes. Teachers generally provide course syllabi
through web pages, often homework assignments and solutions, and sometimes copies of
lecture notes for each class. The Lecture-Demonstration Facility has moved to a
completely electronic sign-up for demonstrations.
Physics Building Coffee/Snack Bar
Space was provided in the Physics Building for Campus Food Services to set up a
Coffee/Snack Bar. It is now possible to purchase Starbuck’s coffee in the building,
which has been appreciated by many occupants and others. This initiative was pushed
by a number of people, notably Professors Goodman and Baden.
Planning for Physical Science Complex
There has been a concerted effort, led by the Chair, the Associate Chair for Facilities and
Personnel and Ms. DeSalvo, to advance planning for a new building. This effort has been
underway for about five years and has been successful in moving the plan forward.
Section IX is devoted to this important plan.
Leadership Issues
No concerns have been expressed to the committee about the leadership of Professor
Goodman. In general, his term as Chair is viewed as energetic, forward looking and
successful.
The Associate Chairs have performed well over the past five years. Professor Fred
Wellstood served admirably as Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education for a five-
42
year term and recently Associate Professor Doug Roberts was recruited to replace him.
Associate Chair for Graduate Education Chant has run the graduate admission process
well and has ushered in some improvements to our Ph.D. Qualifying Examination, in
coordination with the Graduate Committee. Associate Chair for Facilities and Personnel,
Baden, has provided leadership in the planning for the Physical Sciences Complex and
has overseen the departmental shops through some difficult budgetary times.
Dean Kitchen, the department’s Director of Business and Finance, came to the
department about five years ago from a position in State government. He has been
instrumental in leading the modernization of the Business and Finance area and has dealt
successfully with several budget cuts to the department.
The administrative team generally gets high marks for moving the department forward
during difficult times.
IX. Planning for Physical Sciences Complex
Because the physics faculty is distributed over five buildings, and many faculty members
owe allegiance to another department due to joint appointments, there is a lack of
coherence with regard to departmental affairs. One major reason for a new Physical
Sciences Complex is to bring this large faculty together into a more coherent unit and
also to bring the IPST faculty together with the Physics faculty. Of course the basic
reason is to provide the laboratory, classroom and office space that is needed by a first
class physics department.
We are now on the university’s 5-year plan for the new building. The 5-year plan goes to
the Governor for consideration along with other state building projects. When it is
advanced to the 1-year plan it will go to the Legislature for appropriation of funds.
However the plan is now for a building that is 10% smaller than originally proposed and
construction is split into three phases. University officials have expressed a very strong
desire to have a donor provide ~10% of the cost of a new building before moving it to the
top of the list for State funding. So far, a suitable donor has not been identified. Recent
events convince us that the project needs to be given the highest priority in order 1.) to
avoid losses of distinguished faculty members, and 2.) to avoid expensive maintenance
and refurbishment that would be comparable to the amount a donor would provide.
X. Faculty Concerns
The committee invited faculty members to provide input to the internal review through
an e-mail process. There were only a few responses and only a few other comments were
obtained through direct contacts.
43
One faculty member thought that the department was not moving with sufficient priority
towards hiring a cosmologist. This has been discussed in the Priorities Committee report.
Recently the Chair has formed a committee to consider possible hires.
Another faculty member was concerned that it takes students too long to obtain the Ph.D.
degree. As is noted in Sec. V., the department’s average time to Ph.D. is 6.25 years,
which is close to the national average, and we have not had much success shortening it.
Relatively recent changes to the Ph.D. Qualifying Examination may help. Some students
change research after a year or two and consequently take a long time to finish research.
Others work as teaching assistants or at other jobs in order to do their thesis research in
areas that cannot provide grant support. If all students were to finish by seven years, the
average time to Ph.D. might decrease by about a half year.
Some other concerns were expressed privately to the senior professors of the committee.
Several senior faculty members believe that CSR State funds have not been leveraged to
yield the greatest effect on the department’s standing in Condensed Matter physics and
the direction of the center has not been subject to periodic reviews of the type that are
normal for externally funded research. Succession planning is another concern.
XI. Summary and Recommendations
The chief strengths of the Physics Department are that faculty’s research has attracted
strong external funding, the faculty’s distinction has been increasing and the department
provides a diverse array of good research opportunities to graduate students. The chief
weaknesses are that the faculty members are distributed over five buildings, which causes
a lack of coherence in departmental affairs, the Physics building provides an outdated
infrastructure for research and there is too little space. One bright spot in the
infrastructure is the excellent lecture/demonstration facility and associated lecture halls.
The loss of Professor Webb to the University of South Carolina is very unfortunate. The
University tried but ultimately failed to provide the infrastructure that his research
depended upon.
The planned Physical Sciences Complex would solve many problems and we believe that
this project should be given the high priority that is needed to move forward quickly.
Until there is a new building, the department will experience problems retaining some of
its best faculty members and recruitments of new faculty members will suffer.
The department’s graduate and undergraduate education programs have been evolving.
At this time, the graduate students are relatively content with the program and the
modifications to the Ph.D. Qualifying exam have both reduced the number of student
complaints and increased the pass rate. Our recent recruits cite low salaries as a negative
factor in their decisions to accept our offers. A few items have surfaced that should be
considered in more detail. Firstly, the graduate students do not have a strong sense of
camaraderie. Establishment of a graduate student lounge, comparable to the
undergraduate lounge, could help. Secondly, some students have noted that some of the
44
entry-level graduate courses could be planned and taught as parts of a more coherent
whole. This issue should be addressed by the Graduate Committee. Thirdly, while there
have been significant improvements in the quality of the entering class, this has not yet
led to better retention rates. This fact needs to be better understood, both by identifying
the important factors and understanding the national trends. Improving the statistical
database for the department would likely help, as well as regular exit interviews for all
students, particularly those who leave prior to graduation.
The numbers of undergraduate majors has shown a steady increase in the last five years.
This is in part the result of aggressive and successful recruitment by the department,
particularly aimed at the best students. A chronic problem of the undergraduate program
has been the funding of laboratories, particularly for up-to-date equipment. Other
departments, such as Chemistry, have instituted a laboratory fee in order to provide
dedicated funding for laboratories. A laboratory fee has been proposed by the Physics
Department, but University officials have been loath to institute new fees at times when
tuition is rising rapidly. Recent budget reductions have once again substantially reduced
the allocations for laboratories and the current situation is ripe for positive action.
Students and faculty members do not have a convenient web-based resource that provides
descriptions of the undergraduate or graduate courses. In fact, such a departmentally
controlled resource has been missing in any form for a long time. Individual faculty
members have created substantial web sites for their courses, but what is missing is the
overview of the entire program that would provide a common understanding of what each
course should include and what prerequisites are needed. There should be a concerted
effort by the Graduate and Undergraduate Committees to create and maintain a web
resource with a one- or two-page description of each course.
45
XII. Current Physics Faculty 2003-2004
Middle
First Name Name
Last Name
Carroll
O.
J.
Robert Anderson
Steven
Alley
Current Rank
Research Group 1
Full Professor
Quantum Electronics: Relativity & Quantum Mechanics
Full Professor
Condensed Matter Experiment
Anlage
Full Professor
Center for Superconductivity Research
Thomas
M.
Antonsen
Full Professor
Plasma Physics Theory
Andrew
R.
Baden
Associate Professor
High Energy Physics Experiment
Becker
Assistant Professor
Elementary Particles Theory
Melanie
Elizabeth
J.
Beise
Full Professor
Nuclear Physics Experiment
Satindar
M.
Bhagat
Full Professor
Condensed Matter Experiment
Derek
A.
Boyd
Full Professor
Plasma Physics Experiment
Deiter
R.
Brill
Full Professor
Gravitation Theory
Chang
Full Professor
Nuclear Physics Experiment
Chant
Full Professor
Nuclear Physics Experiment
Chen
Full Professor
Plasma Physics Theory
Cohen
Full Professor
Theoretical Quarks, Hadrons & Nuclei
Das Sarma
Distinguished University Professor
Condensed Matter Theory
Full Professor
Statistical Physics
Chia-Cheh
Nicholas
S.
Hsing-Hen
Thomas
D.
Sankar
J.
Robert Dorfman
William
Dorland
Assistant Professor
Plasma Physics Theory
James
F.
Drake
Full Professor
Plasma Physics Theory
Dennis
H.
Drew
Full Professor
Condensed Matter Experiment
Theodore
L.
Einstein
Full Professor
Condensed Matter Theory
Richard
F.
Ellis
Associate Professor
Plasma Physics Experiment
Sarah
C.
Eno
Associate Professor
High Energy Physics Experiment
Michael
E.
Fisher
Distinguished University Professor
Statistical Physics
Fuhrer
Assistant Professor
Center for Superconductivity and Condensed Matter
Gates
Full Professor
Elementary Particles Theory
Gloeckler
Distinguished University Professor
Space Physics Experiment
Michael
Sylvester
J.
George
Jordan
A.
Goodman
Full Professor
Particle Astrophysics Experiment
Oscar
W.
Greenberg
Full Professor
Elementary Particles Theory
Richard
L.
Greene
Full Professor
Center for Superconductivity Research
James
J.
Griffin
Full Professor
Theoretical Quarks, Hadrons & Nuclei
Nicholas
J.
Hadley
Full Professor
High Energy Physics Experiment
Douglas
C.
Hamilton
Full Professor
Space Physics Experiment
David
M.
Hammer
Associate Professor
Physics Education Research
Adil
B.
Hassam
Full Professor
Plasma Physics Theory
Bei-Lok
B.
Hu
Full Professor
Gravitation Theory
Theodore
A.
Jacobson
Full Professor
Gravitation Theory
Abolhassan
Jawahery
Full Professor
High Energy Physics Experiment
Xiangdong
Ji
Full Professor
Theoretical Quarks, Hadrons & Nuclei
James
J.
Kelly
Full Professor
Nuclear Physics Experiment
Y.
S.
Kim
Full Professor
Elementary Particles Theory
Theodore
R.
Kirkpatrick
Full Professor
Statistical Physics & Condensed Matter Theory
Daniel
P.
Lathrop
Associate Professor
Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos Experiment
Chuan
Sheng Liu
Full Professor
Plasma Physics Theory
Christopher J.
Lobb
Full Professor
Center for Superconductivity Research
Wolfgang
Losert
Assistant Professor
Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos Experiment
46
Markus
A.
Luty
Associate Professor
Elementary Particles Theory
Glenn
M.
Mason
Full Professor
Space Physics Experiment
Rabindra
N.
Mohapatra
Full Professor
Elementary Particles Theory
Luis
Orozco
Full Professor
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics
Edward
Ott
Distinguished University Professor
Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos Theory
Ho Jung
Paik
Full Professor
Gravitation Experiment
Dennis
Papadopoulous
Full Professor
Space Physics Experiment
Robert
L.
Park
Full Professor
Condensed Matter Experiment
Jogesh
C.
Pati
Full Professor
Elementary Particles Theory
William
D.
Phillips
Distinguished University Professor
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics
Ramamoorthy
Distinguished University Professor
Center for Superconductivity Research
Ramesh
Edward
F.
Redish
Full Professor
Physics Education Research
Douglas
A.
Roberts
Assistant Professor
High Energy Physics Experiment
Rolston
Full Professor
Atomic, Molecular & Optical Physics
Roos
Full Professor
Nuclear Physics Experiment
Roy
Professor and Director
Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos Experiment
Sagdeev
Distinguished University Professor
Plasma and Space Physics Theory
Steve
Philip
G.
Rajarshi
Roald
Z.
Andris
Skuja
Full Professor
High Energy Physics Experiment
Katepelli
R.
Sreenivasan
Distinguished University Professor
Institute for Physical Science and Technology
Gregory
W.
Sullivan
Associate Professor
Particle Astrophysics Experiment
Venkatesan
Research Full Professor
Center for Superconductivity Research
Thirumalai
Stephen
J.
Wallace
Full Professor
Theoretical Quarks, Hadrons & Nuclei
Richard
A.
Webb
Distinguished University Professor
Center for Superconductivity and Condensed Matter
Frederick
C.
Wellstood
Full Professor
Center for Superconductivity Research
Ellen
D.
Williams
Distinguished University Professor
Condensed Matter Experiment
Victor
M.
Yakovenko
Associate Professor
Condensed Matter Theory
James
A.
Yorke
Distinguished University Professor
Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos Theory
.