Welcome to
Where you are…and where you are not
Not in top 30 in science
research spending,
all areas, ~ $135M
4th – ranked in science
research spending,
all areas, ~ $662M
C & En News, Nov. 15, 2004
+ LSU Office of Research
By Campus
Category
LSU-Baton Rouge
Wisconsin-Madison
Founded
1853
1848
Undergraduates
24,135
28,583
Graduate
4,991
8,924 (probably doesn’t include law & med)
Faculty
1300
2060
Staff
>3000
???
Employees
???
15,770
Total cost (room, books, food,
transportation)
$12,460
$14,349
Total Grants & Contracts
135,000,000
662,000,000
NACUBO* Rankings of University
Foundations (public universities)
Not in top 25
17th ($678,000,000)
Neighboring NACUBO* university
foundations
N/A
Kansas, Georgia Tech, Iowa, Michigan State
ACT Score (25th–75th %-ile)
19-24
25-30
US News & World Rank
Nat. U., Third Tier
Nat. U, #32
Mostly from Websites
By State
(rank of 50 states in parenthesis, where appropriate)
Category
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Population
4,468,000
5,450,000
Per capita income
25,500
29,900
Average K12 Teacher Salaries
34,505 (46)
42,232 (21)
Higher Ed FTE’s statewide
8,998 (28)
15,737 (12)
Higher Ed Payroll statewide
44,779,000 (26th)
79,560,000 (13th)
Per capita expenditure for higher
education
$389 (34th)
$535 (14th)
State expenditure for higher education
$1,960,000,000
$2,411,000,000
Fully
State budget
$145/year less than
Utah!
$17,000,000,000
% Higher Education
State appropriation to flagship
university as % of total budget.
But only $11/year less than Ohio!
$24,000,000,000
11.5%
10%
$175M/$17B = 1%
$399M/$24B = 1.6%
Wisconsin Blue Book—Zillions of Useful and Useless Statistics on all 50 States
By Chemistry Department
Category
LSU
UW-Madison
NRC ranking (Chemistry, US)
66
9
NRC ranking (all disciplines,
statewide)
1
?
Neighbors in NRC Chemistry
rankings
Georgia Tech, Nebraska, VPI,
Kansas
Columbia, Illinois, UCLA, Chicago
Faculty (n. i. emeritus)
29
40
Graduate students
159
~200
Research funding in chemistry
(C&En News Rank)
$11.1M (33rd 63% Federal)
$15.2M (14th 53% Federal)
Neighbors (2 higher, 2 lower)
Notre Dame, U. Pennsylvania,
LSU, Johns Hopkins, SUNYBuffalo
CalTech, Harvard, Wisconsin,
UCSD, Ohio State
Research $/Faculty
$383,000
$380,000
Space
What’s that? (South Campus)
Out the wazoo
Fund-raising
Beginnings (again) of organized
effort
Faculty committee of six
Divisions
AIMacroOP
AIMaterialsOP
Undergraduate enrollment
>5000 each semester
>4000 each semester
Seminars
Weekly, some weeks
Weekly by division
TA’s (Fall Semester)
76
~120
Conclusion
LSU’s plan to promote 12 departments to
national prominence can work, not only in
Chemistry but other IGERT-related
departments such as ChE and BIOL
No way LSU can ever catch up as a complete
university: would require superhuman
political courage and integrity, neither of
which is in long supply.
LSU must lead in efficiency.
Opinion
The things a university should do to strengthen
interdisciplinary research, education and
training are the same things it should do to
help all students.
All those things are about efficiency.
Students will have to stifle a laugh now.
This is why IGERT is particularly important.
IGERT Basics (All ~130 IGERT’s)
Integrative Graduate Education Research Training
NSF’s Flagship Program (Rita Colwell)
Only US Citizens and Naturals qualify
Almost zero funds to faculty, postdocs, etc.
100+ Sites Nationwide Train 5% of all NSF graduate students
Started out as $2.7M grant over 5 years
Now about $700K/year (huge pay raises for students)
That’s a steady state of 15+ students (even more at LSU)
Two-stage competition, about 6% success rate
The rich get richer… when administration plays along.
• Arizona—3 IGERT’s
• UC-Davis—2 IGERT’s
• Virginia Tech—3 IGERT’s two of them in the same department
An IGERT Must Have:
1. Some scientific Focus
Well….we barely have one. Encouraging anything
macromolecular worked for first round of funding, but
may not be good enough for a renewal.
2. New Graduate Educational Model
Draw on your own experience…but consider carefully other
organizations that train people well. Afterall, really
outlandish proposals place living students at risk.
3. Evaluation & Dissemination
I is for Integrative
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research finds its way quickly to the classroom
Seminar info used in class, lab and research
Seminars & advisory panel visits = dissemination
Communications skills integrated with recruiting
Global experience that enhances ERT
Interdisciplinary infrastructure grows with program
Students as teacher/researchers: cohort teaching
Research integrated with leadership
The program itself is an integrative experiment:
involves education departments, social studies, etc.

Flexibility
• Use it to supplement scholarships,
internships
• Can spend some for recruiting
• Almost any legitimate need of students
can be funded (50 minigrants so far,
average is ~$2,000, high is $10,000)
• This advantage disappears in some
private universities (Score one for public
education)
• USM is even smarter about funding.
Does Grad School Need Change?
1970’s
Wilmer Miller
A person (and period)
worth considering.
“What’s an allen wrench?”
25 years later
Mission-oriented research.
“I don’t want to be like you.”
Grad School Wasn’t a Paradise in 1976
• Very limited travel options for students.
• Devise answer keys and grade for 50 students
(upper class TA’s)
• Devise recitation section, quiz, grade for 50
students weekly…on top of large-class grading
(lower class TA’s)
• Interdisciplinary just emerging nationally.
• TA stipend of ~ $7000 (almost $23,000 adjusted
for inflation)
• PhD starting salaries like $25K – major, stable
companies, though.
LSU’s IGERT
Apprentice-Artisan-Craftsperson Ladder
New Ph.D.
Finishing school
“predoc” or “quadratical”
Minigrants
Craftsperson
Data Defense
Community Service
Artisan
General exam
Minithesis
Old craftsperson
New apprentice
Other Central Ideas
Apprenticeship: If you could have a student free for X years (2 < X < 4)
would you be willing to work WITH that student on a side-by-side basis
for a time equivalent to writing a grant to support that student?
Better than a bootstrap.
Faculty as active scientists, not mere financiers of science.
Small science, even if team-oriented.
Vector cross products of capabilities: what new direction will the team go
into that faculty participants and their groups could not do separately?
The students become the agent (arrow) of that vector cross product.
Research is a fun activity, even for professors.
Creativity development: minigrants.
What we constantly tell students…
and remind faculty
It’s an experiment!
Do not commit to it lightly.
You don’t get something for nothing.
Create something new!
If you need it for the status quo,
you can’t have it.
If it’s inspiring and risky,
then you can probably have it.
AAC Basics (Idealized!)
Apprentice (Spring Yr1 – Spring Yr2)
Perform the side-by-side experience
with your Ph.D. team.
•Write the minithesis.
•STSC class
•Be a “normal” student for awhile.
•Pass Ph.D. candidacy exam (general).
AAC Basics (Idealized!)
Artisan (Years 3 & 4, typically)
•Continue executing the team project
•Write minigrants to exercise your creativity
•Supplies or equipment for a sole-authored
paper or preliminary results for grant
•Travel (meeting, scout a postdoc, co-op)
•Execute community service project
•Prepare for data defense
Top of the AAC ladder
Craftsperson (up to 6 months in Year 4 or 5)
•Professional Conduct & Opportunities Course
•Survive data defense
•Apply for “finishing school” (predoc)
•Final report on IGERT experience
•Final defense of thesis
The Steady Background
•Core Courses
•Weekly seminars
•Monthly meetings
•Days like today once a year
•Industrial outreach
•Annual & semester reports
•Working in a team
•Working to escape the
team environment
Projects such as...
Rods in supercrit fluids
Composites
Chem/ChE/Physics
Chem/ME
MPI Germany & Wyo.
Southern U.
Or create your own!
English & History Ph.D.’s do!
Alzheimer’s
Chem/Bio
Protein
Structure/Function
Complex Fluids
Chem/Bio/Phys
Chem/Chem/Physics
Physical & Polymer
CAMD, Stanford,
Brookhaven
Molecular Recognition
Chem/Chem Synth &
Analytical
Dupont
Drilling muds/
Chem/ChE
Environment/Composites
MIT, Wisconsin, NIH,
NHFML
Schlumberger
Many more projects at:
http://macro.lsu.edu/igert
Who’s in?
Faculty Participation by Year
Student Participation
30
25
Textiles
20
Textiles
25
Physics
Physics
ME
15
Education
10
Chemistry
20
ME
15
Education
Chemistry
10
ChE
ChE
5
BIOL
0
5
BIOL
0
Year
Year
About 1:1 faculty ratio
Growth of Engineering & Biological Sciences
Larger than your average IGERT
How do we do that?
Should we do that?
October 2002
External Panel
Report
“The IGERT Panel is genuinely excited by the LSU
IGERT “Teaching Craft for Macromolecular Creativity”
program. It is obvious to the panel that the initial
success of the program is due in large measure to
the diligence of the staff and students involved….”
“The program is certain to improve as the initial ‘bugs’
are worked out.”
Between the lines…
• Much concern that we do NOT
understand how teams work.
• Concern about inadequate interactions
with industry.
• Ratchet down the core course load.
• Faculty need to learn how to work as
teams in the courses.
More between the lines
Emphasize geographic diversity.
Develop feeder schools in the 2nd and 3rd tier.
More input and support from LSU administrators.
Collaborative ventures are working.
Students should make use of miniproposals to
escape too much team.
Confusion about how many students IGERT can
support.
Abt Report – January 2004
From Abt
Beth Boulay
Alina Martinez
Chosen by NSF
Dominic McGrath—Arizona
Robert Lochhead—USM
They interviewed: “…the PI, 10 participating
faculty, four department heads, two Vice
Chancellors, two Deans, and 20 trainees. A
total of 20 faculty and 20 students from six
departments – biological science, chemical
engineering, chemistry, mechanical
engineering, textiles, and education….”
“Both content specialists had positive
impressions of the project. One content
specialist commented, ‘the CMC IGERT at
LSU has crafted a truly outstanding program
that brings this integrative nature
to the forefront and incorporates added
benefits for the students' graduate training
that well prepares them for careers in
science, whether academia or industry or
other.’ “
“The project proposed to fund students for their entire
graduate career. However, the PI learned at an IGERT
PI meeting that the intention of the grant was not to
fund trainees for 5 years. With this in mind, he chose
to “gap” students rather than simply cut off their
funding near the end of their training. When “gapped,”
a student is taken off IGERT funding for one semester.
During this time, students revert to the funding
mechanism that is in place for other graduate students
in their department, and often take on teaching or
research assistantships. While the practice of gapping
has caused some stress and uncertainty among the
students, they all report that they found replacement
funding and that, in the end, it did not adversely affect
their progress in the program. Currently, the project
funds students for their entire graduate careers, except
for these gaps.”
We do know the solution to this now—it is partly
implemented for recently-admitted students. Future
LSU IGERT’s will have even better policy, although
other structural problems remain for LSU
administration to ponder.
“The establishment of an interdisciplinary
institute would ensure that the lessons
earned during the initial stages of this
project would not have to be relearned
by those administering future
interdisciplinary training grants.”
It is time to do it.
Rapidly shifting administrative sands last year.
There are risks associated with this, and noplace on
earth is more risk-averse than LSU. Still…
Promised Match: $539,200
“LSU has provided even more funds beyond
this promised match (approximately 30% more
funding). The PI reports that they will use these
funds largely to fund more students.”
Future LSU IGERT PI’s are well-advised to
negotiate for the USM deal instead (or on top of this).
“Many students, however, reported having
difficulty establishing their research teams;
several of the research efforts only have one
student working on them at present, and are
continuing to search for an additional team
member. Defining topics for study that appealed
to all team members and the logistics of bringing
together the team were two commonly cited
difficulties.”
Intriguing mixture of problems &
kudos are found in the Abt
report—will cover them tomorrow
morning, along with solutions to
the problems.
Revolutionary?
1861
1869
Prussian police report on Karl Marx:
“…he is an extremely disorderly cynical
human being, and a bad host. He leads a
real gypsy existence. He has no fixed times
for going to sleep and waking up. He often
stays up all night…”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUmarx.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/photo/marx/index.htm
Thanks, enjoy dinner, get some rest.
Just by being here, you have helped us
accomplish much.