There are significant differences in the recruitment, training, and expectations of graduate students in the US from those in the UK. Not the least of these differences is the training of graduate students: the US is considerably more formal than the UK. However, because the level attained by US undergraduates is perhaps a little lower than in the UK, the students need further taught courses to get them to the stage at which they have sufficient background knowledge with which to start research. Furthermore, the US system goes beyond this minimum and continues to develop and broaden student’s knowledge of chemical engineering in general throughout their time as a Ph.D. student. The benefits of this approach are clear: US Ph.D. graduates: have significant and broad understanding of how the various branches of chemical engineering interact (promoting interdisciplinarity), are scientifically and academically more mature, and are far more scientifically and academically independent, than UK Ph.D. graduates. In the US it was remarked several times that industry was very interested in trained postgraduate students, and for this reason supported the academic staff and the department. This is despite the fact that some commented that a Ph.D. does not give students directly ‘industry relevant’ skills. The perception that UK industry is chasing our Ph.Ds is not widespread amongst students.

In a similar fashion to undergraduate admission, students are recruited into a general ‘Graduate School’ programme, but a departmental one, rather than a faculty-wide scheme. The recruitment round is a very serious business in the US. For example, Michigan invites the favoured candidates for a weekend assessment and interview. The whole process often takes 3-4 months. Applications are buoyant, with most of the top schools receiving ten to twenty applications per place. This is in part because postgraduate students are paid at the appropriate rate for their age in industry, after completion of their degree, which means that there is no disincentive to take graduate courses. The average starting salary for a B.S. holder was $41,400, and for a Ph.D. holder $62,800, and lifetime earnings have been shown to be marginally better for Ph.Ds than first degree holders (Feehan and Mascone, 1998). Despite the apparent sellers market situation, there is significant competition between the top departments for the best students. Approximately 50% of the Ph.D. applicants are from overseas, though only about 10%-20% of the overall cohort is non-US nationals. It is very important to note that US departments do not take their own undergraduates into their graduate programme. One of the reasons is that the educational benefits to the student are considered to be overwhelming.

At the start of the year students undertake advanced courses offered by the department (and elsewhere) for the whole of the first semester, and into the second. Towards the end of the year the students may take comprehensive written examinations on the courses, which may be the first of this type that they have ever taken. During the first semester, potential supervisors will start to advertise the projects they have on offer; students will then spend time informally talking to staff and existing students. The department then goes through an allocation exercise. Although this whole process may take about two months, the outcome is that there is a much better match between student and supervisor. Some postgraduates were initially uneasy about entering a department without knowing what project they would be working on, though they did recognise that the end result is more satisfactory. There was some evidence that admission without commitment to a particular project was thought to increase the quality of student attracted to the programme, i.e. the strongest and most able students preferred this method. This idea was particularly supported by U.C. Santa Barbara, which converted from a different system. Following the courses and the preparation of a plan for the thesis research, there is a qualifying exam for Ph.D. candidacy towards the end of the second year. Whilst failure at candidacy is infrequent, often students may take two attempts at completing all of the requirements. Failure may lead to a diversion to a Masters, which would be finished in a total of about 2-3 years. Candidacy examinations vary and may be oral with a written dossier on the research plan, or may include written papers.

The general course requirement for a Ph.D. is about 10 whole-semester courses, with 3-6 of these being core chemical engineering subjects. It is normal, or essential, for students to take subjects outside of the chemical engineering department, as often there are not enough chemical engineering courses to make the total required. Some senior level undergraduate courses were able to count for credit, usually those external to the chemical engineering department. Many departments had a course pattern similar to that shown in table UM.1. It was normal for students to take at least one course per year for the duration of their Ph.D. Some staff wanted the courses spread more equally over the whole Ph.D. period.

Table UM.1. Course Distribution for US Ph.D. Students

Such rigorous conditions make it very hard for those with non chemical engineering backgrounds to complete the core courses – so almost all postgraduate students have a chemical engineering undergraduate degree. As a result, many staff co-supervise students from other disciplines in their ‘home’ departments (and vice-versa).

In the US, students are funded in the main by research grants obtained by the advisor in the ways discussed elsewhere. The wealthier departments can provide funding for at least the first semester, and possibly the whole first year, from central funds or endowments (e.g. M.I.T, Minnesota, R.P.I.) This sometimes may be in the form of a teaching assistantship, which is a form of postgraduate ‘work-study’ programme. After this period, students are then supported via their advisors research grant. Some departments supported graduates for the whole period from research grants, but staff are wary in order to maximise the efficacy of the grant (i.e. if a student is taking courses full time, he or she is not doing research). All domestic US students are supported, though some will be so externally through scholarships, for example, from the NSF, or a charitable foundation.

Generally there is evidence that are used for their own educational benefit, rather than as a financial imperative. The exception is in the first year for institutions where the department, rather than the research supervisor, provides the support. Teaching assistants are used for grading of the less important exams, demonstration and problems classes, but rarely are they used as lecturers. Postgraduate students will usually only do one year (or less) as a teaching assistant, though there were instances of students doing an extra session in order to help their supervisor in supporting an overseas student (for example).

Regardless of the imposition of the fees, the US still takes the very best non-US students; and the US is often the first choice destination for overseas students, which has implications for the UK (and for Europe as a whole). Overseas students can be supported via the same routes as US nationals, or on international fellowships. The average annual stipend is all fees plus about $14,300, and it should be noted that all graduate students have the same rate of pay, with only a small absolute range of $12,800-$16,300 (Council for Chemical Research Annual Survey of Chemical Engineering Departments 1997/98). This avoids the anomaly of

Table UM.2. Annual Tuition Fees for Some Engineering Faculties we Visited (in $).

the UK system where some may be on special studentships such as CASE or on Research Assistantships with very different rates. In addition to having higher fees for overseas students, state (and some private) universities have lower fees for in-state students - examples are given in table UM.2. For fees purposes, overseas students are treated as ‘out-state students’

It is common practice for students to have joint advisors, though there are varying regulations for eligibility to supervise students outside the staff members’ ‘home’ department. Some institutions use joint appointments which are honorary, to allow academics to advise a student in another department. Many staff commented that being a co-advisor lead to further collaborations, and that it would appear that this form of networking might be the most commonly successful. This was particularly true when considering co-supervision of students from a different department, and some staff would actively seek out a co-advisor from a different department for their students.

The examination of the Ph.D. is through ‘thesis committees’, which are appointed at the time of candidacy. These could have five members of academic staff with three of them acting as ‘readers’. One member must be external to the department; however, there is no requirement to have an examiner from outside the institution.

The important point here is that one of the examiners must be from outside of the student’s ‘home’ department, because a number of staff in the US said that they had started successful multidisciplinary collaborations as a result of being on a thesis committee.

It is usual for the Ph.D. to take 4½ - 5½ years with the higher end being normal (Figure PG.1). There has been a tendency in all US Ph.D. programmes in all subjects to increase in length over the last 30 years, though this now seems to have stabilised.

In some institutions, funding may be ramped down to 90% for the 12^th semester (end of year four), 50% for 13^th and 0% thereafter (or some similar arrangement). However, this is at the discretion of the advisor (who has to find the money), and there are no formal sanctions. It is normal in chemical engineering to use graduate students for research rather than postdocs or technicians, and there are about four postgraduate students to one postdoctoral worker in the US. The flexibility in the US graduate programme of combined course-

work together with a longer period of funded research, allows for a deeper understanding of interdisciplinary fields, which results in higher quality research. As a result of this arrangement, the work of senior postgrad in the US compares with that done by postdocs in the UK.

The rigorous structure of the US Ph.D. is believed to be one of the attractions to industry (hence the high regard and high salaries for Ph.D. graduates). Clearly the system is good for both universities and industry. Building advanced coursework of a substantial amount into the current UK three year system will be extremely difficult, but we believe that such breadth and knowledge to be the cornerstone of the future prosperity of not only chemical engineering, but science and engineering as a whole. This is a goal, we believe, to be worth immense effort.