PROGRAM SELF-STUDY REVIEW - TLTC...

PROGRAM SELF-STUDY REVIEW

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY

2009 Program Review Committee:

Alexander Y. Fadeev, Committee Chair

John R. Sowa, Jr. Chair of Undergraduate Advisory Committee

Cecilia Marzabadi, Chair of Graduate Advisory Committee

November-December 2009

1

Preface

This self-study document has been prepared as part of the standard process for

reviewing academic programs at Seton Hall University. It has been prepared following

the 2007 Program Review Guidelines. The previous self-study document and the

Program Review of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was completed in

2003. As per Program Review guidelines, this document reflects the activities of the

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry for the 5-year cycle AY 2003/04 to 2008/09.

This self-study includes a review of our four undergraduate programs (CHAC, CHEM,

CHBI and CHME) and two graduate programs (M.S. and Ph.D.). Our department also

teaches a series of service courses for science and non-science majors. The service

courses operate under the umbrella of our externally accredited CHAC program and,

thus, are described in the CHAC section.

To describe our programs we will follow the format suggested in our 2003 self-study

report. Since our programs have a cohesive structure, many of the questions oulined in

the Program Review guidelines have similar answers. Rather than repeat the answer, we

will reference the earlier response. In the undergraduate programs, all the questions are

addressed in the CHAC section, while the CHEM, CHBI, and CHME programs, when

appropriate, reference the answers given in the CHAC program. In the graduate

programs, complete answers are provided in the M.S. program (with a few references to

the CHAC program) and the Ph.D. program extensively references the M.S. program.

Finally, the chair would like to thank the committee members John Sowa and Cecilia

Marzabadi and all the faculty members for their input and critical comments on this

document. The chair would also like to thank the secretaries Helen Kubowicz, Maureen

Grutt. Special thank is to Rose Mercadante who prepared a comprehensive database of

our B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. alumni. Most importantly, thanks go to our undergraduate and

graduate students who participated in the review process through surveys.

Alexander Y. Fadeev

Chair, Program Review Committee

Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry

2

Table of Contents

CHAC 3

CHEM 27

CHME 37

CHBI 47

M.S. 57

Ph.D. 78

Appendix A – Faculty C.V.’s

Appendix B – Survey Forms

Appendix C – Abstracts and Program of 2008 and 2009 Petersheim Academic Expos

Appendix D – Departmental Guidelines for Faculty Promotions

Appendix E – Ph.D. Guidelines

3


2004-2009

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Seton Hall University

Chemistry Major ACS Certified (CHAC)

4

I. Goals and Objectives:

A. What are the program's goals and objectives for the next five years?

Have they changed since the last program review? If so, how and why?

The American Chemical Society Accredited Chemistry Major (CHAC) is the

leading undergraduate program in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

This program is the most rigorous curriculum of the four undergraduate programs.

This program is integrated with our M.S./Ph.D. graduate programs by providing

outstanding opportunities for research and advanced classes. Students who

participate in the CHAC program are also eligible for participation in the Chemistry

Honors program which results in an undergraduate research thesis. The CHAC

program provides a foundational structure for the three additional undergraduate

programs (CHEM, CHBI, and CHEM) and for all undergraduate service courses.

Outstanding faculty are hired to teach the demanding CHAC curriculum and the

material developed to maintain the CHAC program is the same and/or expanded to

teach the other undergraduate programs. Moreover, the curriculum for the CHAC

program is expanded and modified to provide the thorough grounding necessary for

students in disciplines requiring chemistry (biology, pre-health, pre-med and nursing

majors), and to raise scientific literacy by meeting the needs of the Core Curriculum

at Seton Hall.

The general goals for the next five years and the corresponding changes and

comments are presented below:

Program Goals (2003 Self-Study): Program Goals (2009 Self-Study): 1) to work with the University to

modernize the CHAC program through the improvement of the teaching and laboratory facilities via the New Science Building;

1) to continue to work with the University to ensure high standards for teaching, laboratory, and research elements of the program;

5

We feel that the quality of the CHAC program has been improved through the

great improvement of teaching, laboratory, and research facilities upon the

completion of the renovation of the McNulty Science Building.

2) in conjunction with the planned facility improvement, to work with the university to increase the size of the program by improved local recruiting and revitalization of the premedical program

2) to continue to work with the university to grow the program by local advertising and recruiting;

Evidence suggests that the growing number of the CHEM, CHBI, and CHME majors

has not affected the CHAC program as the number of majors in our CHAC program

has remained approximately constant over past 10 years (See the chart in Section IV.

Students). Since CHAC is our signature program, we should focus considerable

effort on growing this program. Some potential ways are: a) recruiting, b) making

CHAC a standard selection on the UG application form, c) directing/encouraging

high performing freshman chemistry majors to enter the CHAC program, d) develop

an ACS certified CHBI program. This will be under review of the Undergraduate

Curriculum and Advising Committee.

3) to continue our efforts to improve the quality of teaching equipment and instrumentation through external grants and donations

3) to continue our efforts to improve the quality of teaching equipment and instrumentation through external grants and donations. More emphasis should be placed on the use of existing instruments in the advanced labs;

Since 2003, the quality of research equipment and instrumentation has been

improved through nearly 1.5 million dollars of new grants and contracts, including

$502,000 grant from Department of Education “State of the Art Teaching and

Research in Seton Hall University New Science and Technology Center”, 2007. The

6

CHAC majors receive training and use the state of the art instrumentation in their

individual research projects. We feel, however, that we need to place more emphasis

on the repair/upkeep and use of the existing instruments in advanced labs.

4) to examine the expansion of research for undergraduate students toward a more coherent research experience program extending from freshman to senior levels

4) to expand the research for undergraduate students toward a more coherent research experience extending from freshman to senior levels

This can be done in two ways: (a) through Honors program by completing an

honors thesis and (b) monitoring of the CHEM 4891-4894 research courses and

Chemistry Honors courses. This is under review by the Undergraduate Curriculum

and Advising Committee.

B. Place the program within a national context. How do the goals and objectives relate to disciplinary norms (e.g. those provided by accrediting agencies, discipline-specific professional associations, comparable programs, elite programs, etc)?

The CHAC program is certified by the American Chemical Society (ACS). By

definition, our department is certified by the ACS as well, since we are able to offer

this certified chemistry degree. The CHAC program is also integrated with our

M.S./Ph.D. graduate programs which is typical for undergraduate chemistry majors at

many elite institutions.

The Chemistry Honors Program is run concurrently with the CHAC major. This

program is directed toward providing a structured research experience for CHAC

majors over their four years at Seton Hall. The culmination of the program is an

Honors Thesis and graduation with honors. The guidelines to this program are found

in the chemistry section of the University’s Undergraduate Catalog.

7

II. Curriculum

A. Describe the program's curriculum. Provide a list or table that clearly outlines the structure of requirements and electives in the curriculum.

Below is the outline of the four-year curriculum for CHAC majors as published in

the University Catalog. The curriculum encompasses introductory and advanced

chemistry courses with associated laboratories in all the major disciplines of

chemistry (Analytical, Biochemistry, Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry). It

also provides necessary math and physics pre-requisites and co-requisites to support

the chemistry curriculum. Finally, the curriculum is structured to provide necessary

room for research and for courses in the core curriculum of the College of Arts and

Sciences. The curriculum requires 71 credits in chemistry and related pre-requisite

and co-requisite courses.

Freshman Year

CHEM 1107-1108 Principles of Chemistry I-II 9

MATH 1401-1411 Calculus I-II 8

Sophomore Year

CHEM 2313-2314 Organic Chemistry I-II 10

MATH 2411 Calculus III 4

PHYS 1705-1706 Principles of Physics I-II 6

PHYS 1815-1816 Physics Laboratory and Data Analysis I-II 3

PHYS 2122 Physical Applications of Mathematical Techniques 4

Junior Year

CHEM 2215-2216 Analytical Chemistry I-II 8

8

CHEM 3411-3412 Physical Chemistry I-II 6

Senior Year

CHEM 3611 or CHEM 4601 Inorganic Chemistry 3

CHEM 4413-4414 Physical Inorganic Chemistry Laboratory I-II 4

CHEM 3512, 3522, or

CHEM 4501

Elements of Biochemistry

or General Biochemistry I

3 or 4

CHEM XXXX Elective Courses in Chemistry (minimum) 2-3

Total credits 70 - 72

B. How coherent is the curriculum? What is the rationale for the selection and organization of courses in the curriculum?

The curriculum for the CHAC program is very coherent. The rationales for the

selection and organization of the course in the curricula of the programs are the

guidelines of the American Chemical Society and the collective experiences of the

departmental faculty. The Undergraduate Advisory Committee reviews, updates and

monitors the program.

C. How do the program's course offerings serve the needs of students and the college/university core?

The CHEM 1107-1108 and 2313-2314 sequences and related service courses,

CHEM 1123-1124, 2311-2312, meet or exceed the needs of the students majoring in

chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. The biology majors include physical therapy,

physician assistant and related health professions. In addition, CHEM 1301, CHEM

1001 were developed as outgrowths of the CHAC program and satisfy the needs of

the Nursing program and the core curriculum, respectively.

9

III. Faculty A. In a three-column chart, list the Name, Degree, and Teaching/Research

Specialization of each faculty member in the program and years of service.

Table. Faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

# Name Highest Degree Area of Specialization /Years of Service

1 Alexander Y. Fadeev Ph.D., Moscow State University

Physical/10

2 James E. Hanson Ph.D, California Institute of Technology

Organic/19

3 Yuri V. Kazakevich Ph.D., Moscow State University

Analytical/14

4 Stephen P. Kelty Ph.D., Harvard University Physical/15

5 Joseph T. Maloy Ph.D., University of Texas Analytical/40

6 Cecilia Marzabadi Ph.D., University of Missouri

Organic/11

7 Wyatt R. Murphy Ph.D., University of North Carolina

Inorganic/24

8 Nicholas H. Snow Ph.D., Virginia Tech Analytical/16

9 John R. Sowa, Jr. Ph.D., Iowa State University Organic/16

10 Yufeng Wei Ph.D., Columbia University Biochemistry/3

B. Are the faculty sufficient in number and expertise to meet the teaching and advising needs of the program? If so, provide a rationale for maintaining, or not, for increasing the size and composition of the program faculty.

NO. We are understaffed in critical research and teaching areas due to recent

faculty attrition. The departmental teaching duties were designed for a faculty of 14,

but right now we only have 10. Over the past decade, the department has been faced

10

with a number of deaths, retirements, and resignations without immediate

replacements. Jerry Hirsch resigned in 1999/2000 – no replacement; Mark Chiu

resigned in 2001/2002 was replaced with George Turner in 2003; Linda Cline-Love

died in 2002 – no replacement; Dan Hutchital retired in 2002/2003 – no replacement;

Dick Sheardy resigned in 2006 – replaced by Yufeng Wei in 2007; George Turner left

in 2008 – no replacement.

In our 2003 self-study report, it was stated: “Returning the department over the

next five years to the ideal minimum of 14 full-time faculty is a major strategic goal

and necessary for our increased focus on seeking grants and external funding.”

Unfortunately, this did not happen. Instead, the number of faculty decreased by 28%!

Such a decline in faculty numbers is troubling, as this places great pressure on our

ability to continue offering a broad range of courses and research areas, and

effectively increases undergraduate teaching, governance and administrative

responsibilities.

C. What is the extent of reliance upon adjunct faculty? Give the percentage

of adjunct faculty employed in the program for each academic year since the last program review or over the last five years. How do-the adjunct faculty compare with full-time faculty in terms of educational and experiential backgrounds?

We do not use adjunct faculty to teach courses in the CHAC curriculum. Term

faculty are utilized in services courses, especially CHEM 1001 and CHEM 1123-

1124 (Mohan, and Antonacci), CHEM 1301 (Chen). All term faculty that we have

used have a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, and usually have five or more years of

industrial experience. Over the past five years, the involvement of adjuncts/term

faculty in these service courses have increased from 2 (Mohan, Langowski) or 15%

from the total faculty to 3 (Mohan, Antonacci, Chen) or 23% from the total number of

faculty, respectively.

D. How does the faculty composition reflect the diversity goals of the

University? If it does not, what recommendations can be made for improvement?

11

Our ability to improve diversity of the faculty composition is unfortunately

compromised by a lack of opportunity to hire new faculty and noncompetitive start-

up funds.. Prof. Cecilia Marzabadi was hired in 1999 as a Clare Booth Luce Faculty

Scholar. Sadly, in 2002, we have also lost one of our female faculty members, L. J.

Cline Love and have not had an opportunity to fill her position. Programs such as the

Clare Booth Luce program vastly improve our ability to hire female faculty and

accompanying start-up funds need to be improved so that we are more competitive

with other institutions.

E. Attach a current curriculum vita for each full-time faculty member in the

program. Make sure all CVs conform to the style required (see Table #2)

See Appendix A.

12

IV. Students A. Provide a chart that tracks the number of graduating majors

(growth/decline) from the program since the last program review or for the last five years. Provide a similar chart for graduate students if applicable. Give a rationale/explanation for the data provided, including comparison with peer institutions and/or national trends.

The graph below track the numbers of our graduates and the enrollment numbers

since the previous program review. The data is taken from (1) Seton Hall University Fact

Book (2004-07) and (2) the undergraduate advising list of the Department (2008-09).

CHAC Graduates (2004-2009)

0

1

2

3

4

5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Academic Year

CHAC

Enrollment in CHAC Programs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09

Year

# of

Stu

dent

s

The next two graphs show the ten year trends in numbers of our graduates and the

13

enrollment pattern. As one can see, the data shows steady numbers of students in the

CHAC program and an overall growth of our total majors due to growth of CHBI,

CHEM, and CHME. Enrollment numbers also show steady growth over the past

years. We are very proud of this data as it speaks for the high quality of our

undergraduate chemistry programs.

BS Graduates by Major (1999-2009)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Academic Year

CHAC

CHEM

CHME

CHBI

Total

Enrollment in Undergraduate Chemistry Programs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fall 99 Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09

Year

# of

Stu

dent

s

CHAC

CHEM

CHME

CHBI

Total

Recent increase in enrollment is similar to the national trends showing steady

14

increase in numbers of chemistry graduates for the past 4-5 years (graph below).1

BS Chemistry Graduates Nationwide (ACS report 2009)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# B

S gr

adua

tes

TotalACS certified

1 The data is taken from the 2008 ACS report of the Committee on professional training, published in Chemical Engineering News, November 23, 2009.

15

B. What is the typical class size for entry-level, advanced courses, and

seminars? Are optimal class sizes maintained for the program course offerings? If not, give a rationale for recommended course enrollments, including reference to discipline-specific norms or peer institutions if available.

Typical class size for the entry-level courses varies from ~15 to 20 students. In

the classes with labs, each lab section is capped at 16 students (Freshman General

Chemistry, Sophomore Organic Chemistry, and Junior Analytical Chemistry).

Although there are 5-8 CHAC majors per year, most CHAC majors are enrolled in

course with CHEM, CHME and CHBI majors which increases the class size for entry-

level courses.

C. What are the academic qualifications for admittance of students into the program?

Our students are very academically qualified. They must have a minimum of a 550

on their mathematics SAT to be accepted as chemistry majors. In addition, students must

pass an exam to complete MATH 1015 co-requisite.

D. Has the department put any mechanisms in place to assess student

satisfaction? If so, describe the mechanism(s) and the results.

Students satisfaction is assessed through regular course evaluation (conducted by

the university), which is performed for all courses. In addition, we perform informal

surveys to assess student’s feedback with regard to the (i) curriculum, (ii) quality of

teching, (iii) laboratory facilities, (iv) research opportunities, and (v) overall satisfaction

with the program.

The most recent undergraduate survey was conducted in the Fall 2009 among

students in CHEM 1107, CHEM 2313, CHEM 3411, and CHEM 4413 are shown below.

A total of 45 students (over 60% of our majors) participated in the survey. The survey

form is given in Appendix B. The results shown below indicate that the majority of the

students find that the program meets/exceeds their expectations.

16

Overall Students Satisfaction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

does not meet program meetsexpectations

exceeds

# of

resp

onse

s

A summary of the student’s responses regarding specific questions are given in charts

below.

Quality of teaching and labs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

poor fair average(good)

aboveaverage

outstanding

Response

#of R

espo

nses

Quality of lab facilities

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


aboveaverage

outstanding

Response

#of R

espo

nses

17

Undergraduate research experience

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


aboveaverage

outstanding

Response

#of R

espo

nses

Chem Club

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


aboveaverage

outstanding

Response

#of R

espo

nses

E. Describe the advisement process. Are there any mechanisms in place

to assess student satisfaction with advising? If so, describe the mechanism(s) and the results.

Each student who declares chemistry as a major is assigned an academic advisor

from the full-time faculty in the department. This relationship is maintained over the

student’s academic career even if the student chooses another faculty member as a

research advisor. Exceptions occur when the student’s academic advisor is on sabbatical

leave. In these situations, advising is either turned over to the research advisor or to the

chair of the Undergraduate Advisory Committee (UAC). Each member of the UAC

(Sowa, Fadeev, Maloy, Murphy) is advising ~22-25 students through the individual

meetings with the students (at least once each semester). Satisfaction of students with the

advising process is assessed through the anonymous surveys. As assessed by the results

of the most recent survey (Fall 2009), most of the students determine quality of the

advising process as “good”, “very good”, and “outstanding” (see the chart below).

18

Student's Evaluation of Undergraduate Adv ising

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

poor fair average (good) above average outstanding

Response

#of R

espo

nses

V. Assessment Assessment applies to two related areas: (1) assessment of student outcomes; (2) assessment of program success. The first is related to the second and data should be provided to address both areas, as follows:

A. Other than course grades, describe what student assessment protocols

or mechanisms are in place to establish whether student outcomes show achievement of stated program goals. Provide the data yielded by such mechanisms (i.e., student exit exams, capstone projects, senior theses, portfolios, self-assessments, etc.) in a clear format.

Perhaps, the strongest assessment of the success of the CHAC program is the fact

that it is ACS accredited. This ensures a high quality program by a highly respected

external agency. Our students score at or above the national norms on the ACS

standardized examinations that we administer at various points to our students. Our

graduates find immediate employment in any number of jobs. They usually have several

options to choose from.

The most prestigious schools accept our graduates, thus, demonstrating the high

level of our students at the national level and overall success of our undergraduate

19

programs. Table below shows the list of our graduates who have been accepted in the

graduate schools to pursue advanced degrees.

Name Present at Graduate School in Graduated from SHU

Ongeri, Valentine Baylor University 2004

Phillips, Jacqueline Erie University 2004

Garcia, Yemy University of California Berkley 2005

Meyer, Megan University of Florida 2005

Hegadorn, Maureen Pennsylvania State University 2005

Griepenburg, Julie University of Pennsylvania 2006

Satkiewicz, Emily University of California-San Diego 2006

Mostafa, John University of Medicine and Dentistry New Jersey 2006

Krumpfer, Joe University of Massachusetts 2007

Miller, Melissa John Hopkins University 2007

Hodock, Katharine University of New Mexico 2007

Kennedy, Dawn University of Colorado 2008

Danser, Mandelle University of Notre Dame 2008

Jenne, Caitlin University of Syracuse 2009

As a part of the curriculum (CHEM 1108), our majors conduct individual research

projects that are closely supervised by faculty. The results of these projects are presented

by the students at the poster session at the SHU annual Petersheim Academic

Exposition/Symposia. Often, these initial research further evolve in more thorough

projects that are presented by the students at the National Conferences and Meetings and

published in peer review journals. The list of such contributions is given below:

Peer review papers (undergraduate co-authors are in bold):

1. Batchelor, T.; Cunder, J.; Fadeev, A.Y. Wetting Study of Imidazolium Ionic

Liquids. J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 2009, 330, 415-420.

20

2. Bernardoni, F., Kouba, M., Fadeev, A.Y. The Effect of Curvature on Packing

and Ordering of Organosilane Monolayers Supported on Solids. Chem. Mater.

20(2), 2008, 382-387.

3. Krumpfer, J.W.; Fadeev, A.Y. Displacement Reactions of Covalently Attached

Organosilicon Monolayers on Si. Langmuir 2006, 22(20), 8271.

4. Mellace, A.; Hanson, James E.; Griepenburg, J. Hyperbranched Poly(phenylene

sulfide) and Poly(phenylene sulfone). Chem. Mater. 17(7) 2005, 1812-1817.

Presentations at the National Mettings (made by undergraduate students):

5. Krumpfer, J.W.; Fadeev, A.Y. Displacement of Organosilicon Monolayers

Supported on Si. Abstracts, 37th Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting of the

American Chemical Society, New Brunswick, NJ. May 22-25, 2005.

6. Sinex, J., Snow, N.H. Analyzing Pharmaceutical Residual Solvents Using GC-

MS and GCxGC-ToFMS. 2009 Eastern Analytical Symposium, Somerset, NJ,

November 16-19, 2009.

B. Have any program or curricular changes been made since the last program

review, or within the last five years, to insure that student outcomes are successful and program goals are achieved?

We feel that the CHAC program operates successfully, so no changes to

the Program have been made since the last review. We do anticipate, however,

some changes to the Program due to recent changes to the certification

requirements published by the ACS.

C. Describe alumni patterns regarding graduate education and career

choices. If possible, provide quantitative and qualitative data to show how successful the program is as measured by alumni academic achievement, alumni career achievement, standardized test results (e.g. GREs), non-standardized test results, capstone projects, portfolios, and interviews.

21

Over the past 5-7 years, our department has made a strong effort to build and

maintain a database of undergraduate alumni. The database contains contacts and

employment information for 206 of our alumni. Chart below shows the career choices of

57 graduates (CHAC, CHEM, CHBI, and CHME) in the period 2004-2009.

Distribution of Recent Graduates (2004-2009)

Graduate School

unknow n

Industry

High School Teaching

Medical School

22

The next chart shows career choices of 206 B.S. graduates over the past 35 years.

Distribution of BS graduates(June 2009 - 206 total alum ni)

Industry

Medicine/Health

Education

Government

Misc

Although the data in the 35-year chart does not represent all 624 undergraduate

alumni, it represents the results from alumni that we have successfully contacted.

Employers from industry give excellent reviews of our CHAC graduates and these

graduates command higher salaries than those of other programs.

23

VI. Program Support

A. Are the facilities adequate for the program? Please address each of the

following: office space, classrooms, laboratory space and equipment, computers/technology, library resources, and media.

Since completion of the rennovation of the McNulty Hall in 2006-2007, the

classroom and laboratory space is adequate to our needs.

Office space – the office space is not adequate. For example, term faculty

member Prof. Jiabin Chen doesn’t have an office in the our building due to lack of

office space.

Equipment – The research equipment is state-of-the-art, as a result of successful

grant applications by the faculty. However, the maintenance, upgrade and

replacement of teaching laboratory equipment is an ongoing effort. Over the next

years, we are planning to begin improving this equipment through grants, donations,

and departmental funds over the next several years.

Computer and technology – Adequate for our needs.

Library/media – on-line search engine SciFinder is a great resourse, however its

use is restricted to one user, which, in general is not sufficient. The on-line

subscriptions Science Direct and EBSCO services have been very useful additions.

We appreciate an excellent effort by the new science librarian (Dr. Lisa Rose-Wiles)

to improve our journal collection by replacing less-used journals with new

subscriptions and ordering new books as well as establising an excellent web-site.

B. Is sufficient support staff available to the program? Please address each

of the following: secretarial, technical, graduate assistants, and federally-funded work/study students and departmentally-funded assistants.

Secretarial staff – We are adequately staffed.

Technical staff – we are adequately staffed.

24

Graduate assistants – Graduate stipends are among the worst in the nation and

need to be dramatically improved to be able to recruit quality teaching assistants.

(See graduate program for further discussion.)

Teaching fellows – this represents a potential way to obtain additional laboratory

instructors when higher than expected enrollments occur, e.g., Fall 2009, we had a

much larger than traditional enrollment in CHEM 1125, 2315, 1301 and we able to

open additional laboratory sections via graduate and undergraduate teaching fellows.

Some of the positions were paid by the Dean’s office and some by the chemistry

department.

Work/study students – We lost one work-study due to the need to hire a teaching

fellow. Thus, we are short one student assistant for Helen Kubowicz.

C. List the duties of the program administrator, program chair, or director. Is

sufficient support available, such as stipend and/or release time, to administer the program responsibly?

This program is part of the departmental governance structure which consists of a

departmental chair (compensated) and director of undergraduate studies who reports to

the chair. The director of undergraduate studies chairs the Undergraduate Advisory

Committee. Currently, the director position is uncompensated, however, with the recent

growth in the undergraduate enrollment, we may request compensation in the near future.

D. What are reasonable and realistic expectations for faculty teaching,

scholarship, and service, given the present resources and responsibilities? Is sufficient support available to enable faculty research, such as release time, travel/conference funds, faculty development funds? What can be done to further support individual and program teaching, scholarship, and service?

Due to decrease of number of faculty (from 14 to 10), teaching and administrative

responsibilities per faculty member have substantialy increased. This trend is troubling,

as this places great pressure on our ability to continue offering advanced courses, mentor

undergraduate and graduate research projects, apply for external funding, upgrade

teaching and research facilities, etc.

25

VII. Problems and Proposed Solutions (Including Time-Frame)

A. Based upon all the information provided in this self-study, identify 2 – 3

major problem(s) faced by the program at the present time.

1 - Insufficient faculty in the biochemistry, inorganic, and physical subdivisions; 2 - Poor stipends and insufficient number of teaching assistants; 3 - Old equipment in service courses.

B. For each problem:

1. What can the program do to solve the problem without additional resources? 2. What additional resources might be needed to solve this problem? 3. If these solutions cannot be provided now, what is the proposed time-

frame for considering the problem and finding the solutions? 1 - The department must be permitted to replace the faculty lost through attrition.

Positions of Hirsch (resigned 1999/2000), Huchital (retired 2002), Cline Love

(deceased 2002), and Turner (left in 2008) have not been replaced. We anticipate

being allowed to hire at least one faculty member per year in the next four years.

2 - Additional support staff (TAs) is needed. No time frame is available for

addressing this problem since additional resources are needed. We are discussing

this problem with the Dean.

3 - Focus departmental funds toward improving teaching laboratory equipment. We

have had decreases in departmental budget, as have all departments in the

College. We will try to allocate necessary funds through external grants.

26

VIII. Summary

The CHAC program is very successful. It provides foundation from which our three

additional undergraduate programs (CHEM, CHBI, CHME) and highly enrolled service

courses are built. Based, on our alumni records, the CHAC graduates have proven to be

outstanding scientists, doctors, lawyers, and teachers. The CHAC program is also very

successful in achieving the institutional goals, as the students are highly recruited by

industry and graduate schools. The graduates also remain loyal to the department.

The number of students majoring in CHAC has remained approximately constant

over the past ten years. We are, however, concerned with the decrease of the number of

our faculty due to attrition. We anticipate being allowed to hire four more faculty within

next years, thus bringing the total number of faculty back to 14, which we feel is critical

for the further development and improvement of the program.

27


2004-2009


Chemistry Major (CHEM)

28

I. Goals and Objectives

A. What are the program's goals and objectives for the next five years? Have they changed since the last program review? If so, how and why?

The Chemistry Major program (CHEM) runs in parallel with the CHAC Program.

The curriculum is more flexible than CHAC as it is designed with fewer pre-requisite

requirements in mathematics, physics and fewer chemistry courses, which is desirable

for students who need to take additional courses to satisfy requirements for a double

major, a minor or a concentration/emphasis in another subject or subjects. Although

the CHEM program is not ACS accredited, 90 % of the coursework is from ACS

approved courses. The major goals of the program have not changed significantly

since our last review.

For comparative analysis of past/present goals, see CHAC Program, Section I.A.

B. Place the program within a national context. How do the goals and objectives relate to disciplinary norms (e.g. accrediting agencies, comparable programs, elite programs, etc)?

90 % of the curriculum of the CHEM program is from the ACS accredited CHAC

program, thus the CHEM majors enjoy most of the benefits the ACS approved and

evaluated courses. The dual offering of an ACS certified and a non-certified program

is a common practice at most Chemistry Departments in the country. Therefore, the

concept of the CHEM program is comparable that at other major national colleges

and universities.

29

II. Curriculum

A. Describe the program's curriculum. Provide a list or a table that clearly outlines the structure of requirements and electives in the curriculum.

Below is the outline of the four-year curriculum for CHEM majors as published in the University

Catalog. The curriculum requires 52-56 credits in chemistry and related pre-requisite and co-requisite

courses.

Freshman Year

CHEM 1123-1124 and CHEM

1125-1126 or CHEM 1107-1108

General Chemistry I-II or

Principles of Chemistry I-II

8 9


Sophomore Year


2315-2316

or

CHEM 2313-2314

PHYS 1701-1702

or

PHYS 1705-1706

PHYS 1811-1812

Organic Chemistry I-II


General Physics I-II

Principles of Physics I-II

Physics Lab I-II

8

10

6

6

Junior Year

CHEM 2215 Analytical Chemistry I 4

CHEM 3411 Physical Chemistry I 3

Senior Year

CHEM electives from the following

30

6 credits required

CHEM 2216 Analytical Chemistry II 4

CHEM 3512 or CHEM 3522 Elements of Biochemistry 3-4

CHEM 3611 or CHEM 4601 Inorganic Chemistry or Advanced Inorganic Chemistry 3

CHEM 4891-4892 Chemistry Research (maximum) 4

Electives from the following: 8 credits required

BIOL XXXX above BIOL 1202

CSAS XXXX above CSAS 1111

MATH XXXX above MATH 1411

PHYS XXXX above PHYS 1812

CHEM XXXX selected from graduate courses or from CHEM electives listed

above (not to be counted twice)

2-3

B. How coherent is the curriculum? What is the rationale for the selection and organization of courses in the curriculum (curricula)?

The curriculum for the CHEM program is very coherent. The rationales for the

selection and organization of the course in the curricula of the programs are the ACS

guidelines with the exception of slightly fewer requirements and the collective

experiences of the departmental faculty.

D. How do the program's course offerings serve the needs of students from other programs and the college/university core?

The CHEM program provides added flexibility to the chemistry major. A CHEM

major allows students to take extra courses while still allowing them to obtain a

31

degree in chemistry. This pathway is often taken by students who are interested in

careers in medicine and education. The CHEM major also provides flexibility for

students who change their major to chemistry late in their academic career and,

otherwise, could not complete the CHAC curriculum in reasonable time. Also, see

CHAC Program, Section II.D.

III. Faculty

A. In a three-column chart, list the Name, Degree, and Teaching/Research Specialization of each faculty member in the program and years of service.

See CHAC Program, Section III. A. B. Are the faculty sufficient in number and expertise to meet the teaching and advising

needs of the program? If so, provide a rationale for maintaining, or not, for increasing the size and composition of the program faculty.

NO. We are understaffed in critical research and teaching areas. See CHAC

Program, Section III.B.

C. What is the extent of reliance upon adjunct faculty? Give the percentage of adjunct

faculty employed in the program for each academic year since the last program review or over the last five years. How do-the adjunct faculty compare with full-time faculty in terms of educational and experiential backgrounds?

Term faculty are utilized in CHEM 1123-1124 (Mohan, and Antonacci). All term

faculty have a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, and usually have five or more years of

industrial experience. Over the past five years, the involvement of term-faculty in

service courses increased from 2 (Mohan, Langowski) or 15% from the total faculty

to 3 (Mohan, Antonacci, Chen) or 23% from the total number of faculty, respectively.

E. How does the faculty composition reflect the diversity goals of the

university? If it does not, what recommendations can be made for improvement?

See CHAC Program, Section III.D.

E. Attach a current curriculum vita for each full-time faculty member in the program. Make sure all CVs conform to the style required (see Table #2)

32

See Appendix A.

IV. Students

A. Provide a chart that tracks the number of graduating majors (growth/decline) from the program since the last program review or for the last five years. Provide a similar chart for graduate students if applicable. Give a rationale/explanation for the data provided, including comparison with peer institutions and/or national trends.

Over the past five years we have seen fluctuations in numbers of CHEM graduates from 0 (2005)

to 5 (2004 and 2009). The enrollment in the program, however has increased: from 14 students in

2004 to 25 students in 2009. See the charts below.

CHEM Graduates (2004-2009)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Academic Year

33

Enrollment in CHEM Programs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Year

# of

Stu

dent

s

Recent increase in enrollment is similar to the national trends showing steady increase in numbers

of chemistry graduates for the past 4-5 years (graph below).2

BS Chemistry Graduates Nationwide (ACS report 2009)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# B

S gr

adua

tes

TotalACS certified

B. What is the typical class size for entry-level, advanced courses, and seminars?

Are optimal class sizes maintained for the program course offerings? If not, give a rationale for recommended course enrollments, including reference to discipline-specific norms or peer institutions if available.

2 2008 ACS report of the Committee on professional training, published in Chemical Engineering News, November 23, 2009.

34

See CHAC Program, Section IV.B.


See CHAC Program, Section IV.C.



See CHAC Program, Section IV.D.

E. Describe the student advisement process. Do students perceive this process as being appropriate to their needs? (Data may be provided by the Office of Policy and Planning.)

CHEM majors are advised by the same process for CHAC majors. See CHAC

Program, Section IV.E.


D. Other than course grades, describe what student assessment protocols or

mechanisms are in place to establish whether student outcomes show achievement of stated program goals. Provide the data yielded by such mechanisms (i.e., student exit exams, capstone projects, senior theses, portfolios, self-assessments, etc.) in a clear format.

CHEM students score at or above the national norms on the ACS standardized

examinations that we administer at various points to our students.

Our graduates find immediate employment in any number of jobs. They usually

have several options to choose from. Our students are readily accepted by all major

graduate schools in a wide variety of fields. Students in the CHEM Program

predominantly choose careers in the chemical industry. For a cumulative survey of

careers of chemistry majors, see CHAC, Section IV. C.

See the results of the most recent student’s survey in CHAC, Section V A.

35

E. Have any program or curricular changes been made since the last program review, or

within the last five years, to insure that student outcomes are successful and program goals are achieved?

We feel that the CHEM program operates successfully, so no changes to the Program

have been made since the last review.

F. Describe alumni patterns regarding graduate education and career choices. If

possible, provide quantitative and qualitative data to show how successful the program is as measured by alumni academic achievement, alumni career achievement, standardized test results (e.g. GREs), non-standardized test results, capstone projects, portfolios, and interviews.

For the chart depicting distribution of recent graduates, see CHAC Program, Section V.C.

VI. Program Support

A. Are the facilities adequate for the program? Please address each of the following: office space, classrooms, laboratory space and equipment, computers/technology, and library/media.

See CHAC Program, Section VI. A.

B. Is sufficient support staff available to the program? Please address each of the following: secretarial, technical, graduate assistants, and federally-funded work/study students and departmentally-funded assistants.

See CHAC Program, Section VI. B. C. List the duties of the program administrator, program chair, or director. Is sufficient support

available, such as stipend and/or release time, to administer the program responsibly?

See CHAC Program, Section VI. C.

D. What are reasonable and realistic expectations for faculty teaching, scholarship, and

service, given the present resources and responsibilities? Is sufficient support available to enable faculty research, such as release time, travel/conference funds, faculty development funds? What can be done to further support individual and program teaching, scholarship, and service?

See CHAC Program, Section VI. D.

36

VII. Problems and Proposed Solutions (Including Time-Frame) A. Based upon all the information provided in this self-study, identify 2 – 3major problem(s)

faced by the program at the present time.

See CHAC Program, Section VII. A.

B. For each problem: 1. What can the program do to solve the problem without additional resources? 2. What additional resources might be needed to solve this problem? 3. If these solutions cannot be provided now, what is the proposed time-frame for

considering the problem and finding the solutions?

See CHAC Program, Section VII. B.

VIII. Summary

The CHEM program is a subset of the CHAC program. The department’s right to

grant an ACS certified degree validates the quality and correctness of the courses that

make up this program. The success of the CHEM program helps support the CHAC

program since most of courses that are required for the CHAC program are also

required for the CHEM program, and the other required courses in the CHAC

program are elective chemistry courses for the CHEM program.

The CHEM program is successful and growing. Based, on our alumni records,

CHEM graduates have proven to be outstanding scientists, lawyers, teachers, and

doctors. The CHEM program is also very successful in achieving the institutional

goals, as the students are highly recruited by industry, graduate schools. In addition,

the graduates also have opportunities in allied fields such as medicine and high school

teaching.

37


2004-2009


Chemistry/Chemical Engineering Major (CHME)

Double Degree Program with New Jersey Institute of Technology

38



The Chemical engineering major (CHME) is part of a larger double degree

engineering program shared between SHU and New Jersey Institute of Technology

(NJIT). These are 5-year degree programs that enable students to enter SHU and

work toward a BS degree in chemistry or physics. At the third year in the program,

the student transitions to NJIT to satisfy requirements in the engineering curriculum.

When the program is completed, the students receive a BS degree in chemistry or

physics from SHU and a B.Eng degree in civil, electrical, mechanical or chemical

engineering through NJIT.

The chemical engineering portion of the double degree program is housed in the

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. Chemical engineering is a major sub-

discipline of chemistry; however, courses, research and degree programs in this area

are not available at SHU. This joint program provides a unique opportunity for

students to experience SHU environment while ultimately obtaining a degree in

chemical engineering from NJIT.

For comparative analysis of past/present goals of the CHME program, see the

CHAC Program, Section I.A.


This is a relatively unique program which takes advantage of two universities in

close geographic location. For the portion of the program housed at SHU, students

have the advantage of being in an ACS accredited department and they participate in

a curriculum that conforms to ACS guidelines. Although the CHME program is not

an ACS accredited program, all of the chemistry courses taken by students in this

program are reviewed and approved by the ACS.

39

II. Curriculum


The following is a description of the double degree program as it appears in the University

undergraduate catalogue (2009/2010).

“Seton Hall University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark together offer a

five-year joint degree program that allows students interested in biomedical, civil, computer, industrial,

electrical, mechanical and chemical engineering to earn both the B.S. degree from Seton Hall in

physics or chemistry and the B.Eng. from NJIT in five years. Students in this program take the first

three years of coursework at Seton Hall, and the fourth and fifth years at NJIT. The B.S. is awarded at

the completion of four years of work and the B.Eng. after the fifth. Students interested in this program

should contact the chairperson of the Department of Physics (for biomedical, civil, computer,

industrial, mechanical and electrical engineering) or the chairperson of the Department of Chemistry

(for chemical engineering) for details regarding this program. The principal advantage of such a five-

year program is that it affords students a broader education in the humanities and the social sciences

than the typical four-year engineering program allows, and thus better prepares them for careers in

engineering, which require interaction with persons not trained in engineering. Such careers are found

both in the corporate world and in the public sector and often include high-level managerial

responsibility and communication with the non-technical public.”

Requirements for the Dual Degree Chemistry/Engineering Program

Degree requirements: 130 total credit hours. Student can minor or double major in any College of

Arts and Sciences disciplines

Core Curriculum Requirements:

A. English Language (6 credits)

B. Communication (3 credits)

C. Mathematics (3 credits and prerequisites)

D. Natural Sciences (6 credits) and Behavioral Sciences (6 credits)

E. Western Civilization (6 credits), Foreign Language (6 credits) and American

Civilization/African, Asian and Latino Civilization/Foreign Literature/Advanced Language (6

credits)

F. Ethical Questions (3 credits)

G. Philosophy and Religious Studies (9 credits)

40

Chemistry Requirements (Chemistry major ACS) – 56 credit hours:

CHEM 1107-1108 Principles of Chemistry I-II (9 credits)

CHEM 2313-2314 Organic Chemistry I-II (10 credits)

CHEM 2215-2216 Analytical Chemistry I-II (8 credits)

CHEM 3411-3412 Physical Chemistry I-II (6 credits)

MATH 1401-1411 Calculus I-II (8 credits)

MATH 2411 Calculus III (4 credits)

PHYS 1705-1706 Principles of Physics I-II (6 credits)

PHYS 1815-1816 Physical Laboratory and Data Analysis I-II (3 credits)

PHYS 2112 Physical Applications of Mathematical Techniques (4 credits)


The curriculum for the CHME program is very incoherent. The rationales for the


guidelines, consultation with the NJIT faculty and the collective experiences of the

departmental faculty. The UAC committee at Seton Hall reviews and monitors the

program.


The curricular requirements in both the chemistry major and the core

requirements satisfy requirements for a BS degree at Seton Hall and adhere to the

mission of the University. The requirements for this program are part of the CHAC

or CHEM major.

41

III. Faculty




See CHAC Program, Section III.B.

C. What is the extent of reliance upon adjunct faculty? Give the percentage of adjunct faculty employed in the program for each academic year since the last program review or over the last five years. How do-the adjunct faculty compare with full-time faculty in terms of educational and experiential backgrounds?

See CHEM Program, Section III.C.

F. How does the faculty composition reflect the diversity goals of the




See Appendix A.



Over the past five years, only one student has graduated (in 2006). Recently, however, we have

seen an increase in enrolment in the Program that, at the moment has seven students (see chart below).

42

Enrollment in CHME Program

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Year

# of

Stu

dent

s

B. What is the typical class size for entry-level, advanced courses, and seminars? Are optimal class sizes maintained for the program course offerings? If not, give a rationale for recommended course enrollments, including reference to discipline-specific norms or peer institutions if available.



Our students are very academically qualified. They must have a minimum of a

550 on their mathematics SAT to be accepted as chemistry majors. However, the

guidelines for the double degree program indicate that a minimum of a 600 should be

achieved on the mathematics.

See also, CHAC Program, Section IV.C.





CHME majors are advised by the same process for CHAC majors. See CHAC


43


G. Other than course grades, describe what student assessment protocols or


This information is not available due to the small number of recent

graduates. For a cumulative survey of careers of chemistry majors, see CHAC,

Section V. C. For the results of the most recent student survey, see CHAC, Section V

A.

44

H. Have any program or curricular changes been made since the last program review, or within the last five years, to insure that student outcomes are successful and program goals are achieved?

This has been a relatively sparsely populated program. For example, in the

1997-2003 program review, we reported zero graduates from the dual degree program

and 3 majors who were enrolled in AY 2003. In 2009, we have seen an increased

interest in this major with two students who are about to complete their degrees at SHU

and will enroll at NJIT in Fall 2010. There are 5 new freshman students. Thus, we have

updated the program to reflect the new core course requirements at SHU. In addition,

since the prior program from NJIT was developed in 1988, we have updated the

requirements for the NJIT program. The UAC closely monitor the progress of the

CHME students.

I. Describe alumni patterns regarding graduate education and career choices. If


This information is not available due to the small number of recent

graduates.

VI. Program Support




See CHAC Program, Section VI. B. D. List the duties of the program administrator, program chair, or director. Is sufficient support


45











VIII. Summary

The CHME is a subset of the CHAC program and interrelates with this program

and other undergraduate chemistry program as students take a similar curriculum.

The CHME is also a part of a larger double degree program that is administered by

the Department of Physics. Thus, a complete analysis would also have to include the

overall value of this program to the larger set of programs in Physics. The CHME

program has relatively small and irregular enrollment. However, it is likely an

attractive feature for students who apply to Seton Hall as it complements the career

opportunities for students interested in chemistry (e.g., chemist, biochemist, chemical

engineer).

46

In the past year (2009), a good deal of effort has been made by the UAC to

“revamp” this program. Careful evaluation of this program is proposed over the next

years. If (by the next program review) the enrollment stays marginal and irregular

and students do not succeed in the program, it is recommended that the department

considers termination of this program.

47


2004-2009


Biochemistry Major (CHBI)

48



Biochemistry is a sub-discipline of chemistry and a major focus of research and

coursework for undergraduate and graduate programs at Seton Hall. The

Biochemistry major (CHBI) was established in 1998 to address the increasing interest

among undergraduate and graduate students. The Biochemistry major is a suitable

discipline for students who are interested in careers in industry (especially

pharmaceutical and biotechnology), medicine, and students interested in graduate

work in the field of biochemistry.

For comparative analysis of past/present goals of the Biochemistry program, see

the CHAC Program, Section I.A.


Our CHAC program is certified by the American Chemical Society. By

definition, our department is certified by the ACS as well, since we are able to offer a

certified chemistry degree. Our biochemistry (CHBI) program is comparable to other

programs at other major universities in course content and requirements.

49

II. Curriculum


Below is the outline of the four-year curriculum for CHBI majors as published in the University

Catalog. The curriculum requires 53 credits in chemistry and related pre-requisite and co-requisite

courses.

Freshman Year

BIOL 1201-1202


1125-1126 or

CHEM 1107-1108

General Biology Organism/Cell I-II

General Chemistry I-II or

Principles of Chemistry I-II

8

8

9


Sophomore Year

BIOL 2211

BIOL 2221


2315-2316

or

CHEM 2313-2314

Genetics (Fall)

Cell Biology (Spring)



4

3

8

10

Junior Year

CHEM 2215 Analytical Chemistry I 4

CHEM 3512 Elements of Biochemistry 4

PHYS 1701-1702 or

PHYS 1705-1706

General Physics I-II or

Principles of Physics I-II

6

50

PHYS 1811-1812 or

PHYS 1815-1816

Physics Laboratory I-II or

Physics Laboratory and Data Analysis I-II

2-3

Science Elective Chosen from the electives described in the CHAC and CHEM

programs

2

Senior Year

CHEM 3411 Physical Chemistry I 3

Science Elective Chosen from the electives described in the CHAC and CHEM

programs

3-4


The curriculum for the CHBI program is very coherent. The rationales for the


guidelines for the Biochemistry major (although our curriculum is not yet ACS

approved), the collective experiences of the departmental faculty and knowledge of

biochemistry programs at other major research universities. The UAC committee

reviews and monitors the CHBI program.


CHEM 3512, Elements of Biochemsitry is required course in the CHBI program.

However, this course is also available for all other chemistry majors. For example,

CHEM 3512 is a requirement in the CHAC program. In addition, CHEM 3512 is

available as an advanced elective for biology and related majors.

III. Faculty


51



NO. We are understaffed in critical research and teaching areas. See CHAC

Program, Section III.B.

C. What is the extent of reliance upon adjunct faculty? Give the percentage of adjunct faculty employed in the program for each academic year since the last program review or over the last five years. How do-the adjunct faculty compare with full-time faculty in terms of educational and experiential backgrounds?

See CHEM Program, Section III.C.

G. How does the faculty composition reflect the diversity goals of the




See Appendix A.

52



Over the past five years we have seen steady number of CHBI graduates (~5-6 students/year) and

gradual increase in enrolment in the Program: from 25 students in 2003 to 35 students in 2009. See the

charts below.

CHBI Graduates (2004-2009)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Academic Year

Enrollment in CHBI Program

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Year

# of

Stu

dent

s

Recent increase in enrollment is similar to the national trends showing steady increase in numbers

53

of chemistry graduates for the past 4-5 years (2008 ACS Report on Professional training, see graph in

CHAC IV.A).




See CHAC Program, Section IV.C.





CHBI majors are advised by the same process for CHAC majors. See CHAC


54


J. Other than course grades, describe what student assessment protocols or


CHBI students score at or above the national norms on the ACS standardized

examinations that we administer at various points to our students.

The CHBI graduates are highly recruited by chemistry graduate schools, medical

schools, and industry. Students in the CHBI Program choose careers in chemical

industry, medicine/health, and academia. For a cumulative survey of careers of

chemistry majors, see CHAC, Section V. C.

K. Have any program or curricular changes been made since the last program review, or within the last five years, to insure that student outcomes are successful and program goals are achieved?

We feel that the CHBI program operates successfully, so no changes to the Program

have been made since the last review.

L. Describe alumni patterns regarding graduate education and career choices. If


For the chart depicting distribution of recent graduates, see CHAC, Section V.C.

55

VI. Program Support




See CHAC Program, Section VI. B. E. List the duties of the program administrator, program chair, or director. Is sufficient support






56







VIII. Summary

The CHBI program is a subset of the CHAC program. The department’s right to

grant an ACS certified degree validates the quality and correctness of the courses that

make up this program. The success of the CHBI program helps support the CHAC

program since some of courses that are required for the CHAC program are also

required for the CHBI program, and the other required courses in the CHAC program

are elective chemistry courses for the CHBI program.

The CHBI program is very successful. Based, on our alumni records, CHBI

graduates have proven to be outstanding scientists, teachers, and doctors. The

number of students elected to major in CHBI has been steadily growing since

establishment of the program in 1998. For these past years, a total number of CHBI

graduates is 47 or 43% of all our B.S. graduates.

57


2004-2009


M.S. Program in Chemistry

58




The M.S. Program in Chemistry focuses on academic development in coursework,

research, and on ethical development. Seton Hall M.S. students are challenged by

outstanding faculty in a technologically, intellectually and ethically advanced environment.

Seton Hall Chemistry M.S. graduates are prepared to become leaders in the scientific

community.

The goals and objectives for the next five years and their changes since the last program

review in 2003 with the corresponding comments are presented below:

PROGRAM GOALS (2003 SELF-STUDY): PROGRAM GOALS (2009 SELF-STUDY):

1. To enhance our outstanding teaching and research programs by substantially increasing funding for these programs via external sources.

2. A renovation and/or expansion of the Science

facilities is called-for in the Sesquicentennial Strategic Plan. We will work with the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to tap our extensive Alumni resources to help fund and equip the facility (Sesquicentennial Strategic Agenda, Strategic Objective 5.1). In addition, we plan to write a grant to the Kresge Foundation (or another similar funding source) to equip the facility with teaching and research instrumentation. Finally, we will encourage the University to seek advice and assistance of the prestigious membership of our Program Advisory Board on the design and funding of this facility.

1. To continue our efforts to enhance our outstanding teaching and research programs by substantially increasing funding for these programs via external sources.

We feel that the quality of the M.S. programs has been enhanced through the great

59

improvement of teaching, laboratory, and research facilities upon the completion of the

renovation of the McNulty Hall Science Building in 2006. Since 2003, the quality of

research equipment and instrumentation has also been improved through nearly 1.5 million

dollars of new grants and contracts, including a $502k grant from the NJ Department of

Education “State of the Art Teaching and Research in Seton Hall University New Science

and Technology Center”, 2007.

3. INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE FACULTY FROM 11 TO 14 AND INCREASING THE TA STIPENDS TO NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE LEVELS (THEY WERE NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE IN 1985 AND HAVE BEEN RAISED 5% SINCE THEN) ARE CRITICAL TO BUILDING UPON OUR CURRENT SUCCESS. WE WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO REALIZE THESE GOALS.

3. INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE FACULTY FROM 10 TO 14 AND INCREASING THE TA STIPENDS TO NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE LEVELS ARE CRITICAL TO BUILDING UPON OUR CURRENT SUCCESS. WE WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO REALIZE THESE GOAL.

In our 2003 self-study report, it was stated: “Returning the department over the

next five years to the ideal minimum of 14 full-time faculty is a major strategic goal and

necessary for our increased focus on seeking grants and external funding.” Unfortunately,

this did not happen. In fact, the number of faculty members has further decreased to only 10

as of Fall 2009. As of the curent time, we have failed to receive approval to hire a

replacement biochemist for Professor George Turner who left at the end of the 2008-2009

academic year.. Also, we feel that over the past decade the faculty responsibilities have

increased (due to growth of both undergraduate and graduate programs), however, the

number of faculty have decreased by 28%! Such a decline in faculty numbers is troubling, as

this places great pressure on our ability to continue offering a broad range of courses and

research areas, and increases undergraduate teaching loads, governance and administrative

responsibilities. These additional responsibilities also hinder our efforts to write grant

60

proposals to apply for external funding thereby making the attainment of Goal 1 even more

difficult.

4. WE HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE TOP PRODUCERS OF M.S. DEGREES NATIONALLY. ACCORDING TO THE 2003 REPORT BY THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, OUR M.S. PROGRAM WAS RANKED 10TH IN THE NATION.3 OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WE WILL STRIVE TO INCREASE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF M.S. GRADUATES SO THAT WE ARE CONSISTENTLY RANKED IN THE TOP 10 IN THE NATION.

4. WE WILL CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS TO INCREASE AND KEEP HIGH THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF OUR M.S. GRADUATES.

In the period 2005-2009, we have graduated 46 M.S. students. Although this number

is lower than that in the previous years (average of 52 graduates per 5 year period), it is still

high when compared to the other programs similar to ours (see Table in the next section).

For the long term trends (since 1958) in the numbers of the M.S. graduates, see charts in

Section IV.A.


In a national context, our M.S. programs are unique. Due to our geographical location

in the heart of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries in New Jersey, we are one of the

few M.S. programs that is designed specifically for educating active working scientists.

Nearly all other programs require potential students to leave their employment either to

attend courses or to participate in research programs.

Using the data published in http://graduate-school.phds.org/phd/chemistry4, we have 3 C&E News, February 10, 2003, p. 32. 4 Data is obtained through the surveys conducted by the National Research Council (NRC), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), and Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSPD).

61

reviewed the graduate programs in chemistry and identified peer institutions/competing

programs. The peers were identified based on four criteria:

1. Type: MS/PhD programs in Chemistry, Biochemistry, Chemical Biology, Materials;

2. Size: Small to medium size programs (up to 30 PhD graduates over 5 year period);

3. Location: Schools within 100 miles from South Orange, NJ;

4. Part-time: Significant portion of graduate students are part-timers.

Only seven schools (including SHU) meet these criateria. They are listed in the Table below.

Table. Graduate Programs in Chemistry Comparable to and Competing with SHU5

# School, Dept. %Students

part-time

# MS Degrees

awarded (2001-05)

#Faculty (2009,

from the web)

# Graduates

per Faculty

1 Lehigh U, Chem. 10 94 17 5.5

2 SHU, Chem.-Biochem. 71 65 10 6.5

3 Stevens IT, Chem.-Chembio. 56 61 15 4.1

4 Temple U, Chem. 98 38 20 1.9

5 Drexel U, Chem. 33 35 21 1.7

6 NJIT, Newark, Chem. 47 19 12 1.6

7 U Sci. Philadelphia, Chem. 44 4 27 0.1

The results indicated that the SHU program is the second largest in terms of

efficiency and productivity (number of MS graduates), yet it is the last one in terms of

number of faculty and student to faculty ratio!

5 The data was taken from http://graduate-school.phds.org/phd/chemistry , which was obtained through the survey conducted by the National Research Council (NRC), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), and Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSPD). The NSF/NIH/NEH/USED/USDA/NASA SED is an annual survey of all new recipients of doctorates from US universities at graduation. The average of the response rates for the 2000–2004 surveys was 92%.

62

II. Curriculum


The M.S. program includes four separate tracks:

Plan A: M.S. with Thesis – a traditional thesis M.S. degree consisting of 31 credits

of course work and research, concluding with a thesis and a defense.

Plan B: M.S. for doctoral candidates – a M.S. degree may be awarded to a Ph.D.

candidate upon completion of sufficient credits and passing of the matriculation

examination.

Plan C: M.S. without Thesis – a traditional coursework only M.S., consisting of 34

credits of coursework and seminar. A small amount of research (up to six credits)

may be elected.

Plan D: M.S. with Minor in Business Administration – our most popular M.S.

program, consisting of 34 credits divided between Chemistry and Business

courses, with seminar and limited research allowed.

Full descriptions of the required coursework, thesis and seminar for each of these

programs may be found in the Graduate Catalog.

C. How coherent is the curriculum? What is the rationale for the selection and organization of courses in the curriculum?

The M.S. programs are designed as challenging, advanced research and coursework-

based programs. They all require four distribution courses from four of five program

areas. These courses allow students to demonstrate proficiency in the broad science of

Chemistry and allow for remediation of any missing abilities from their previous

education. While completing the distribution courses, all Plan A and Plan C students

63

who elect to do research, select a research mentor and develop a program of study for the

remainder of the program. Plan C students may take up to six credits of graduate

research in the course of their studies. Students who do not elect research are advised by

the Graduate Advisory Committee. Plan A M. S. students may take up to 11 credits of

research. They are advised by their research mentor. For both Plan A and Plan C

Master’s students, the remainder of their credits (30 total credits and 34 total credits,

respectively) are taken in other distribution courses, in elective courses and in seminar.

For the Plan D M. S., six additional credits of graduate level chemistry coursework are

required beyond the distribution courses. In addition, they must take 15 additional credits

in business courses as required by the Stillman School of Business. Normally, in the

second year of full-time study or the third or fourth year of part-time study, a all graduate

students must present a formal literature seminar to the department. Students are required

to enroll in and attend seminar until the completion of their degree.

H. How do the program's course offerings serve the needs of students and the college/university core?

The graduate courses in Chemistry and Biochemistry are taken by the

undergraduate Chemistry and Biochemistry majors as advanced electives. Also, they

are often taken by graduate students in Biology (e.g., General Biochemistry I and II).

64



Table. Faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (repeated from CHAC,

III.A)

Name Highest Degree Area of Specialization/Years of Service

Alexander Y. Fadeev Ph.D., Moscow State University

Physical/10

James E. Hanson Ph.D, California Institute of Technology

Organic/19

Yuri V. Kazakevich Ph.D., Moscow State University

Analytical/14

Stephen P. Kelty Ph.D., Harvard University Physical/15

Joseph T. Maloy Ph.D., University of Texas Analytical/40

Cecilia Marzabadi Ph.D., University of Missouri

Organic/11

Wyatt R. Murphy Ph.D., University of North Carolina

Inorganic/24

Nicholas H. Snow Ph.D., Virginia Tech Analytical/16

John R. Sowa, Jr. Ph.D., Iowa State University Organic/16

Yufeng Wei Ph.D., Columbia University Biochemistry/3


In order to fully support the research needs of the graduate programs, the faculty

65

must be large enough to allow for regular, on-schedule sabbatical leave so that a broad

range of research and teaching areas are covered by the remaining faculty. Since the

inception of the Ph.D. program and the non-thesis M.S. program, in 1963, the faculty size

required for this has normally been a minimum of 14. This allows for two faculty to be on

sabbatical for any given year, while still meeting all teaching and other departmental

commitments and without hiring sabbatical replacement faculty. The Department has not

had 14 full-time research faculty since 1993 due to attrition and University-related

budgetary constraints. This places tremendous pressure on the faculty and is a major

concern in maintaining the size and effectiveness of the graduate programs. The current

faculty size of 10 is too small to fully support the graduate program. In the M.S.

programs, this presents itself mainly in course scheduling, as we have not been able to

schedule a sufficient number and variety of graduate courses to fully serve our students.

For example, only 9 graduate courses may be offered per year when one faculty member

is on sabbatical leave. For our biochemistry M.S., only one graduate course is currently

offered per year! The low number of faculty has also limited our ability for us to broaden

our coursework and research offerings to attract new students. There is also a concern

that the limited faculty numbers may impede student progress toward graduation as

required courses are offered with less frequency. To a lesser, yet significant extent, the

low number of faculty also limits the number of M.S. students who are able to have a

research experience in the course of their graduate studies. Since most faculty in the

department mentor sizeable research groups they are unable to take on additional students

that wish to enroll for research credits.



The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry uses few adjuncts in its graduate

programs. However, graduate programs can benefit tremendously from adjunct

professors who are highly qualified specialists. Several years ago, we developed a set of

courses (CHEM 7991-7996) as advanced topics courses to be taught on an occasional

66

basis by highly qualified adjuncts or by our own faculty, in addition to their normal

teaching loads. We have also used adjuncts to teach 3-credit special topics courses. An

increased use of adjuncts for these specialized courses is one way to leverage our

location in north Jersey, the heart of the world’s richest concentration of chemical

industry, which has many qualified adjuncts for these types of courses.

I. How does the faculty composition reflect the diversity goals of the


The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry has made an excellent effort to hire

a diverse faculty body. Professor Cecilia Marzabadi was hired as a Clare Booth Luce

Faculty Scholar. Sadly, we have also lost one of our female faculty members, L. J. Cline

Love and have not had an opportunity to fill her position. Programs such as the Clare

Booth Luce program vastly improve our ability to hire female faculty and accompanying

start-up funds need to be improved so that we are more competitive with other

institutions.



Attached in Apendix A.

67



The graph below track the numbers of our M.S. graduates since the

previous program review. The data is taken from (1) Seton Hall University Fact

Book (for 2004-2007) and (2) the graduate advising list of the Department (2008-

2009).

MS Graduates (2004-2009)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

# G

radu

ates

The next graph shows the long-term trends since the establishment of the

program in 1958. For 51 years of the existance of the program, the Department has

graduated 550 students, which averages at 52 students per five year period (~10-11

students per year). As one can see, the data shows ups and downs, which reflects the

ups and downs in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries – the major employers

of our graduates.

68

MS Graduates 1958-2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

58-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 00-04 05-09

5 year periods

# G

radu

ates

/per

per

iod

In 2003, our program was ranked by the ACS 10th in the nation based on

the number of graduates. As compared with the six programs in our peer

institutions (see Table in Section I.B.), our program is the second largest based on

the number of graduates and it is first based on the number of graduates per faculty

member.

B. What is the typical class size for entry-level, advanced courses, and

seminars? Are optimal class sizes maintained for the program course offerings? If not, give a rationale for recommended course enrollments, including reference to discipline-specific norms or peer institutions if available.

Most faculty consider the optimal class size for graduate courses to be 10-20

students. Often, the introductory courses that form our distribution requirement exceed

this and reach 25-30 students, while the more specialized advanced courses are lower in

enrollment (less than 10). This situation is typical in the operation of a graduate program

of our size.


69

Our admission requirements are that all incoming students possess a B.S. in

Chemistry or Biochemistry from an accredited institution. We also require the TOEFL for

international applicants. We do not require the GRE exam, as this often places undue

pressure on part-time applicants who have been away from school for a long time.



Student satisfaction is assessed through regular course evaluations (conducted by

the university), which is performed for all courses. In addition, we perform informal

anonymous surveys to assess student’s feedback with regard to the curriculum, quality

of teaching, laboratory facilities, and research opportunities. The most recent survey

was conducted in the Fall 2009; 13 students (54%) participated in the survey. The

results shown below indicate that the majority of the students find that the program

meets/exceeds their expectations.

Overall Students Satisfaction (MS)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


exceeds

# of

resp

onse

s

70



Students who have not selected a mentor are advised by members of the Graduate

Advisory Committee. During their first year, students are required to prepare a

program of study, in consultation with an advisor. Students who have selected a

research mentor are advised by the mentor.

Satisfaction of students with the advising process is assessed through the surveys.

As assessed by the results of the most recent survey, most of the students determined

the quality of the advising process as “fair”, “average/good”, and “above average“ (see

the chart below).

Student's Evaluation of Graduate Advising

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


aboveaverage

outstanding

Response

#of R

espo

nses

71


M. Other than course grades, describe what student assessment protocols

or mechanisms are in place to establish whether student outcomes show achievement of stated program goals. Provide the data yielded by such mechanisms (i.e., student exit exams, capstone projects, senior theses, portfolios, self-assessments, etc.) in a clear format. Many of our M.S. students have presented research at national and international

conferences prior to graduation and most have published their research in peer-

reviewed journals.

Each of our M.S. programs has a capstone project.

In Plan A, the capstone project is the masters thesis, which is research-based and is

often of quality similar to a Ph.D. dissertation. Many of these students are capable of

completing the Ph.D., but cannot perform the residency requirement. Plan A students also

complete a public, 50-minute seminar based on research in the current scientific literature.

In Plan B, which is only completed by students matriculating for Ph.D. candidacy,

success is measured by students moving-on to Ph.D. studies. The cap-stone project consists

of passing the oral matriculation exam for the Ph.D. In addition, Plan B students are required

to present one literature seminar.

In Plans C and D, which are entirely based on coursework, the 50-minute seminar is

the capstone project. We have worked to increase the effort and quality involved in the

seminars. Nearly all presenters use our state-of-the-art information technology and give high

quality presentations.

All M.S. students who have enrolled in research are required to present their research

on an annual basis at the Petersheim Academic Exposition. There were 54 poster

presentations (including those from our undergraduate students and Ph.D. candidates) at the

72

last Academic Exposition (April 2009). Abstracts of the presentations made at the Academic

Expositions in 2008 and 2009 are provided in Apendix C.

N. Have any program or curricular changes been made since the last program

review, or within the last five years, to insure that student outcomes are successful and program goals are achieved? Since last program review in 2003, there have been only minor adjustments to the

M.S. programs. All students performing research are required to annually present a poster in

a Departmental Symposium in conjunction with the Petersheim Academic Exposition. We

have added several courses: CHEM 7991-7996, which are one-credit special topics courses

that may be taught by adjuncts with special skills, regular full-time faculty and may be used

to launch new courses.

O. Describe alumni patterns regarding graduate education and career


As stated above, our M.S. students fall into two (nearly equal) categories: terminal M.S.

degree (Plan A, C, D) and M.S. with continuation toward a Ph.D. (Plan B). The vast

majority of all terminal M.S. students end up with careers in the chemical or pharmaceutical

industries. Following graduation, most remain in the same position or receive a promotion

within their own company. Obviously, the Plan B students have chosen to continue with

graduate education and stay at Seton Hall to complete their Ph.D.

The M.S. programs have an excellent track record for placing graduates in highly

responsible positions in chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Many of our graduates now

hold principal scientist and executive positions. We maintain an extensive alumni database

with contact and job position information. Distribution of the career choices of our 90 alumni

is given in the chart below.

73

Distribution of MS graduates

Misc

Government

Education

Industry

74

VI. Program Support

D. Are the facilities adequate for the program? Please address each of the


Since completion of the rennovation of the McNulty Hall in 2006-2007, the classroom

and laboratory space is adequate for our needs.

Office space – the office space is adequate for the present number of faculty.

Computer and technology – In general adequate for our needs, however, the availability

of teaching/research software such as ChemDraw and ACD labs Phys Chem Suite would

be a plus.

Library/media – on-line search engine SciFinder is a great resource, however its use is

restricted to one user, which, in general is not sufficient. The on-line subscriptions Science

Direct and EBSCO services have been very useful additions.

E. Is sufficient support staff available to the program? Please address each


Secretarial staff – We are adequately staffed. Technical staff – In addition, this position

should address the increased laboratory safety and waste management demands.

F. List the duties of the program administrator, program chair, or director. Is


This program is part of the departmental governance structure which consists of a

departmental chair (compensated) and director of graduate studies (compensated) who

reports to the chair. The director of graduate studies chairs the Graduate Advisory

Committee.

75

D. What are reasonable and realistic expectations for faculty teaching,

scholarship, and service, given the present resources and responsibilities? Is sufficient support available to enable faculty research, such as release time, travel/conference funds, faculty development funds? What can be done to further support individual and program teaching, scholarship, and service?

The accepted measures of faculty productivity in a graduate program is the

number of graduates, the number of publications, and the total value of new grants

and contracts received. For the last five years, these are summarized in the table

below.

Table. Faculty Productivity for the M.S. Programs in Chemistry and Biochemistry.6

Publications Year # of Faculty

Papers/Book Chapters

Conf. presentations

M.S. Graduates

New External Grants, 103$

2004-05 11 21 23 11 171 2005-06 11 23 19 6 149 2006-07 10 14 21 11 664 2007-08 11 14 19 13 511 2008-09 10 9 22 5

Comparing these numbers to those of the Ph.D. and M.S.-granting programs in

peer institutions (Table, Section I.B), we found that, on a per faculty basis, we

graduate significantly more M.S. students than all of the other departments. Our

teaching load is higher (~13-14 credits per faculty member per year) than almost all

Ph.D. granting departments (~9-12 credits per faculty). We publish at rate of

approximately 1-2 research papers per faculty member per year and have an

impressive research grant totals inspite of our significantly higher teaching/advising

roles..

In 1999, the Department approved internal guidelines for promotion and tenure,

which provide the best statements of our expectations. These guidelines are attached

as Appendix D. Teaching expectations are high and are described further in the

sections on assessment for all of our programs. Chemistry and Biochemistry is

6 From: College of Arts and Sciences Annual Reports.

76

perhaps the only department at Seton Hall with a formalized, written expectation that

all faculty will be active in seeking external grants, or their application for promotion

will not be approved. Continuing external funding is a requirement for promotion to

full professor. In addition, the faculty in Chemistry and Biochemistry has established

itself as one of the strongest in service. All faculty are expected to serve with

distinction on departmental and College or University committees.

The first thing that can be done to support teaching, scholarship and service is for

the University to provide optimal faculty resources to run and maintain our programs.

While faculty numbers have been as high as 14, our current number of 10 faculty is a

strain on our resources.

VII. Problems and Proposed Solutions (Including Time-Frame) A. Based upon all the information provided in this self-study, identify 2 – 3major

problem(s) faced by the program at the present time.

1. Low faculty numbers. Ten faculty is not adequate to maintain a high quality

and productive graduate program.

2. Low teaching assistant stipends and graduate recruiting. Low TA’s stipend has

made recruiting qualified full-time applicants very difficult.

B. For each problem: 1. What can the program do to solve the problem without additional resources? 2. What additional resources might be needed to solve this problem? 3. If these solutions cannot be provided now, what is the proposed time-

frame for considering the problem and finding the solutions?

1 - The department must be permitted to replace the faculty lost through attrition. We

anticipate being allowed to hire at least one faculty member per year in the next

four years.

77

2 - No time frame is available for addressing this problem since additional resources

are needed. We are discussing this problem with the Dean.

New resources would be required for increasing the number of faculty and for

increasing the TA stipends. The TA stipend increase can be partially accomplished

through adjustment of stipend and workloads and through increased external funding.

The Department will focus on seeking and obtaining external funding through

national, state, and private funding agencies and corporate research contracts.

VIII. Summary

Our M.S. program is very successful. Based on the number of graduates, it is highly

ranked among peer institutions. Based, on our alumni records, the M.S. graduates have

proven to be outstanding researchers, scientists, and teachers. We are, however,

concerned with the decrease of the number of our faculty due to attrition. We anticipate

being allowed to hire four more faculty within the next several next years, thus bringing

the total number of faculty back to 14, which we feel is critical for the further

development and improvement of the program.

78


2004-2009


Ph.D. Program in Chemistry

79




The Ph.D. program is intellectually and academically the highest level

program of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. This program educates

scientists at the highest level by providing a rigorous curriculum consisting of

advanced coursework, seminars and research opportunities that culminates in a

Ph.D. thesis. It is a dynamic program requiring one-on-one training of students in

laboratory and intellectual skills. Since this is the ultimate program offered by our

department, all undergraduate and graduate curriculum requirements including

coursework are enhanced by the presence of the Ph.D. program. Undergraduate

students especially benefit from this relationship at they participate in cutting edge

research projects and work in dynamic research environments often hand-in-hand

with more experienced graduate students.

The goals and objectives of the Ph.D. program are drawn from the strategic

plan for the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and from the

Sesquicentennial Strategic Plan for Seton Hall University (approved in 2003). The

goals and objectives for the next five years and their changes since the last program

review in 2003 with the corresponding comments are presented below:

PROGRAM GOALS (2003 SELF-STUDY): PROGRAM GOALS (2009 SELF-STUDY):

1. To enhance our outstanding teaching and research programs by substantially increasing funding for these programs via external sources.

2. A renovation and/or expansion of the Science facilities is called-for in the Sesquicentennial Strategic Plan. We will work with the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to tap our extensive Alumni resources to help fund and

1. To continue our efforts to enhance our outstanding teaching and research programs by substantially increasing funding for these programs via external sources.

80

equip the facility (Sesquicentennial Strategic Agenda, Strategic Objective 5.1). In addition, we plan to write a grant to the Kresge Foundation (or another similar funding source) to equip the facility with teaching and research instrumentation. Finally, we will encourage the University to seek advice and assistance of the prestigious membership of our Program Advisory Board on the design and funding of this facility.

We feel that the quality of the Ph.D. program has been enhanced through the

great improvement of teaching, laboratory, and research facilities upon the

completion of the renovation of the McNulty Science Building. Since 2003, the

quality of research equipment and instrumentation has been improved through nearly

1.5 million dollars of new grants and contracts, including a $502k grant from NJ

Department of Education “State of the Art Teaching and Research in Seton Hall

University New Science and Technology Center”.

3. INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE FACULTY FROM 11 TO 14 AND INCREASING THE TA STIPENDS TO NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE LEVELS (THEY WERE NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE IN 1985 AND HAVE BEEN RAISED 5% SINCE THEN) ARE CRITICAL TO BUILDING UPON OUR CURRENT SUCCESS. WE WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO REALIZE THESE GOALS.

3. INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE FACULTY FROM 10 TO 14 AND INCREASING THE TA STIPENDS TO NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE LEVELS ARE CRITICAL TO BUILDING UPON OUR CURRENT SUCCESS. WE WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO REALIZE THESE GOALS.

In our 2003 self-study report, it was stated: “Returning the department

over the next five years to the ideal minimum of 14 full-time faculty is a major

strategic goal and necessary for our increased focus on seeking grants and external

funding.” Unfortunately, this did not happen. In fact, our faculty numbers have

81

further decreased to 10 faculty members as of the 2009-2010 academic year. Also, we

feel that over the past decade the faculty responsibilities have increased (due to

growth of both undergraduate and graduate programs), however, the number of

faculty decreased by 28%! Such a decline in faculty numbers is troubling, as this

places great pressure on our ability to continue offering a broad range of courses and

research areas, and increases undergraduate teaching loads, governance and

administrative responsibilities. These additional responsibilities also hinder our

efforts to write grant proposals to apply for external funding thereby making the

attainment of Goal 1 even more difficult.

In addition, TA stipends are still woefully low compared to national averages for

doctoral programs. The low stipend associated with a teaching assistantship directly

impacts on the quality of full-time Ph.D. students in the department. This has an

impact at all levels within the department. The ability to attract quality faculty

members to the department is affected by the availability and nature of graduate

students in the department. Also, since most of our full-time doctoral students are

supported on teaching assistantships, they have direct contact with undergraduates in

their chemistry lab courses and this can have an impact on the quality of teaching the

undergraduates receive. We continue to propose that the university re-examines the

salary structure for graduate teaching assistants at Seton Hall.


In a national context, our Ph.D. program is unique due to our geographical

location in the heart of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries in New Jersey.

Seton Hall is situated in one of the richest science and technology environments in

the world. The Ph.D. program is designed to interact with this environment by

providing educational and research opportunities to scientists that work in the local

chemical and pharmaceutical industries. To accommodate the schedules of the part-

82

time graduate students, all courses and seminar programs are offered in the evenings

and weekends. To ensure that students get adequate training in an academic

research laboratory, a residency requirement must be satisfied by all part-time

students. We also concurrently run a full-time Ph.D. program where graduate

students achieve their Ph.D. degrees by working full-time in the research

laboratories at Seton Hall and are often supported by teaching and research

assistantships. This also one of the most unique programs in the nation because of

the dynamic interaction between graduate students often just out of undergraduate

schools and industrially-skilled students. It also encourages academic-industry

collaborations and, thus, a unique perspective on research initiative

Using the data published in http://graduate-school.phds.org/phd/chemistry7, we have

reviewed the graduate programs in chemistry and have identified our peer

institutions/competeing programs. The peers were determined based on four criteria:

1. Type: MS/PhD programs in Chemistry, Biochemistry, Chemical Biology,

Materials;

2. Size: Small to medium size programs (up to 30 PhD graduates over 5 year

period);

3. Location: Schools within 100 miles from South Orange, NJ;

4. Part-time: Significant portion of graduate students are part-timers.

Only seven schools (including SHU) meet these criateria. They are listed in the Table

below.

7 Data is obtained through the surveys conducted by the National Research Council (NRC), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), and Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSPD).

83

Table. Graduate Programs in Chemistry Comparable to and Competing with SHU8

# School, Dept. %Students

part-time

# PhD Degrees

awarded (2001-05)

#Faculty (2009,

from the web)

# Graduates

per Faculty

1-2 SHU, Chem.-Biochem. 71 24 10 2.4

1-2 Temple U, Chem. 98 24 20 1.2

3 Drexel U, Chem. 33 23 21 1.1

4 Lehigh U, Chem. 10 18 17 1.05

5 NJIT, Newark, Chem. 47 6 12 0.5

6 U Sci. Philadelphia, Chem. 44 4 27 0.15

7 Stevens IT, Chem.-Chembio. 56 3 15 0.2

The results indicated that the SHU program is sharing first place with Temple

University in terms of number of PhD graduates, while in terms of number of faculty

and student to faculty ratio our program ranks last!

II. Curriculum


The Ph.D. program requires a minimum of 70 credits, distributed among

coursework, research and seminar. In addition to completing the 70 credits with a

8 The data was taken from http://graduate-school.phds.org/phd/chemistry , which was obtained through the survey conducted by the National Research Council (NRC), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), and Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSPD). The NSF/NIH/NEH/USED/USDA/NASA SED is an annual survey of all new recipients of doctorates from US universities at graduation. The average of the response rates for the 2000–2004 surveys was 92%.

84

GPA of 3.0 or higher, all students are required to pass an oral preliminary

examination (i.e., matriculation exam) on their chosen research topic, complete

cumulative written examinations and a proposal, present two 50-minute seminars

and present a poster on their research each year at the Petersheim Academic

Exposition. Finally, they must prepare for completion of their Doctoral degree by

either 1) submitting a “permission to write” document to their dissertation

committee and orally defending this document; or 2) by publishing a manuscript in a

acceptable, peer-reviewed journal in chemistry or biochemistry. Once completing

this requirement they may prepare a dissertation on their original research. All

students are strongly encouraged to present their research at national and

international conferences and to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Complete details

may be found in the attached Ph.D. Guidelines (Appendix E) and the University

Catalog.

D. How coherent is the curriculum? What is the rationale for the selection and organization of courses in the curriculum?

As described in the Ph.D. Guidelines, the Ph.D. program flows sequentially,

rigorously and logically. It is designed in keeping with the ideals of providing a

challenging, advanced and ethical research-based program. It begins with the

distribution courses (See M.S. document), which allow students to demonstrate

proficiency in the central science of Chemistry and allow for remediation of any

missing abilities from previous education. While completing the distribution courses,

the student selects a research mentor and develops a program of study for the

remainder of the program, in consultation with the mentor. Normally, in the second

year of full-time study, the matriculation examination is completed and the formal

literature seminar is presented. If the matriculation examination is passed, the student

advances to Ph.D. candidacy, chooses a dissertation advisory committee, begins the

cumulative written examinations and a M.S. degree (Plan B) can be awarded. If the

matriculation examination is failed after two attempts, the student must complete a

M.S. degree (Plan A or Plan C) and either leave or apply for re-admission. Following

85

the matriculation examination, the student completes the program of study and the

research. All students are required to complete at least nine months of full-time

enrollment (residency requirement). Approximately six months prior to the

anticipated graduation date, the student must apply to their dissertation committee for

permission to write the dissertation (See above discussion of options for the

permission to write completion). While the dissertation is being completed, the

student presents the final seminar based upon their original research conducted in the

program. Upon approval of a completed dissertation by the dissertation committee

and the department chair, the student is permitted to graduate.

Our Ph.D. program curriculum is traditional, with the exception of its

scheduling to accommodate part-time students. Most departments nationwide have

similar distribution and matriculation examination requirements, and nearly all have

a seminar requirement and a final examination. Our program differs in the

accommodation of the part-time students, who often have severe job constraints, and

the use of the permission to write mechanism in lieu of a final formal defense of the

completed dissertation.

J. How do the program's course offerings serve the needs of students and the college/university core?

The graduate courses in Chemistry and Biochemistry are taken by the

undergraduate Chemistry and Biochemistry majors as advanced electives. Also, they

are often taken by graduate students in Biology (e.g., General Biochemistry I and II).

86



See M.S. Program, Section III.A.


Because the M.S. and Ph.D. programs are complementary, the rationale for

faculty size and composition is the same as the M.S. programs. See M.S. Program,

Section III. B.

One of the major goals for the Department over the next five years is to

increase the size of the faculty back to its traditional level of 14. The Department

has not had 14 full-time research faculty since 1993. This places tremendous

pressure on the faculty and is a major concern in maintaining the size and

effectiveness of the graduate programs. The current faculty size of 10 is too small

to efficiently support the Ph.D. program especially considered our plans for

increased efforts in grantsmanship and fund raising.



See M.S. Program, Section III.C.

K. How does the faculty composition reflect the diversity goals of the


See M.S. Program, Section III.D.

87



Attached in Apendix A.



The graph below track the numbers of our Ph.D. graduates since the

previous program review. The data is taken from (1) Seton Hall University Fact

Book (for 2005-2007) and (2) the A&S Department reports (2008-2009).

PhD Graduates (2005-2009)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

# G

radu

ates

As compared with our six peers (see Table in Section I.B.), our

program produces the most Ph.D. graduates per faculty member, yet is has

the lowest number of faculty.

88

The next graph shows the long-term graduation trends since the

establishment of the program in 1965. For 44 years of the existance of the program,

the Department has graduated 253 doctoral students, which averages at 28 students

per five year period (~5-6 students per year). As one can see, the data shows ups

and downs, which reflects the ups and downs in chemical and pharmaceutical

industries – the major employers of our graduates.

PhD Graduates 1965-2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 00-04 05-09

5 year periods

# G

radu

ates

/per

per

io


See M.S. Program, Section IV.B.


All students enter as M.S. candidates and only qualify for the Ph.D. program

by meeting GPA requirements and passing the Ph.D. matriculation examination.

89

This ensures very careful evaluation of all Ph.D. candidates.



Student satisfaction is assessed through regular course evaluation (conducted

by the university), which is performed for all courses. In addition, we perform

informal anonymous surveys to assess student’s feedback with regard to the

curriculum, quality of teaching, laboratory facilities, and research opportunities.

The most recent survey was conducted in the Fall 2009; 33 students have

participated in the survey. The results shown below indicate that the majority of

the students find that the program meets/exceeds their expectations.

Overall Students Satisfaction (PhD)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


exceeds

# of

resp

onse

s

The students were asked to rate specific aspects of the graduate program (quality

of teaching, research facilities, research mentorship) as poor, fair, average (good),

above average and outstanding. The results summarized in the chart below clearly

indicated above average satisfaction with most categories.

90

Quality of teaching (PhD)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

poor fai

r

avera

ge (g

ood)

abov

e ave

rage

outst

andin

g#o

f Res

pons

es

Research facilities (PhD)

0

5

10

15

20

25

poor fai

r

avera

ge (g

ood)

abov

e ave

rage

outst

andin

g

#of R

espo

nses

Research mentor (PhD)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

poor fai

r

avera

ge (g

ood)

abov

e ave

rage

outst

andin

g

#of R

espo

nses

91



Students who have not selected a mentor are advised by members of the

Graduate Advisory Committee. During their first year, students are required to

prepare a program of study, in consultation with an advisor. Students who have

selected a research mentor are advised by the mentor. Satisfaction of students

with the advising process is assessed through the surveys. As assessed by the

results of the most recent survey, most of the students determine quality of the

advising process as “average/good”, “above average“, and “outstanding” (see the

chart below).

Student's Evaluation of Graduate Advising (PhD)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

poor fair average (good) above average outstanding

Response

92


P. Other than course grades, describe what student assessment protocols

or mechanisms are in place to establish whether student outcomes show achievement of stated program goals. Provide the data yielded by such mechanisms (i.e., student exit exams, capstone projects, senior theses, portfolios, self-assessments, etc.) in a clear format. Nearly all of our Ph.D. students have presented their research at national and

international conferences prior to graduation and most have published their research

in peer-reviewed journals. All Ph.D. students are required to present their research on

an annual basis at the Petersheim Academic Exposition. There were 54 poster

presentations (including those from our undergraduate and M.S. students) at the last

Academic Expositions (April 2009). Abstracts of the presentations for the Academic

Expositions in 2008 and 2009 are provided in the Apendix C.

Q. Have any program or curricular changes been made since the last program

review, or within the last five years, to insure that student outcomes are successful and program goals are achieved?

Since the last review in 2003, there have been no major changes to the program.

Minor adjustments included the addition of several special topic courses that may be

taught by adjuncts with special skills, or may be used to launch new courses.

R. Describe alumni patterns regarding graduate education and career


The Ph.D. program in Chemistry has an excellent track record for placing its

graduates in highly responsible industrial positions. 48 of our Ph.D. graduates hold

93

executive positions (President, Vice President, CEO, Director, etc) clearly

demonstrating that our graduates are highly successful in their careers.

Approximately 85% of our Ph.D. graduates seek employment in industry,

with most of the remainder either seeking teaching or postdoctoral research

positions. We track the employment of our Ph.D. program alumni closely. Since

the inception of our program in 1963 and our first graduate in 1965, we have

graduated 253 Ph.D.’s, or an average of about six per year. The table below shows

distribution of the career choices of 229 (>90%) of our Ph.D. alumni.

Table. Forty Five-Year Employment Trends for Ph.D. Graduates in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

Employment Area Number of graduates

% from total alumni

Chemical Industry – Pharmaceutical 79 30

Chemical industry – Non-Pharmaceutical 51 19

Education – Colleges and Universities/High School Teachers

31 12

Government (Federal, State, Military) 10 4

Medicine/Health 8 3

Misc (Consultant, Foreign, Law) 13 3

Business unknown 24 9

Retired 42 16

Deceased 11 4

Less alumni listed in two areas -12

Total 253 100

94

The next table shows the outstanding career success by job title or responsibility

of our graduates. It is clear, with nearly all known graduates holding highly

responsible positions, that our graduates are highly successful in their careers.

Table. Current Careers of the Ph.D. Alumni of the Department of Chemistry and

Biochemistry.

Job Title Number of

graduates

% from total

less retired and

deceased

President/Vice President/Director/CEO 48 24

Senior Scientist/Manager/Group Leader 86 43

Professor/Academic/Post-Doc 26 13

VI. Program Support

G. Are the facilities adequate for the program? Please address each of the


The facilities are adequate for our needs. See M.S. program, Section VI.A.

H. Is sufficient support staff available to the program? Please address each


95

In the past several years, we have seen an increase in the number of undergraduates

taking introductory chemistry courses (general, organic and nursing chemistry). We

have also seen an increase in the number of undergraduates taking courses in our

CHAC major. This has resulted in the need to open additional laboratory sections

(Fall 2009). These laboratory sections have been assigned to either upper level

undergraduates or to full-time doctoral students in the program who are not being

supported by a teaching assistantship. Both groups of these students are paid a small

stipend for teaching these extra laboratory sections and the graduate students do not

receive tuition remission. If the current enrollment trends persist, we will need to

increase the number of teaching assistantships that are awarded by the department.

I. List the duties of the program administrator, program chair, or director. Is


This program is part of the departmental governance structure which consists of a departmental chair (compensated) and director of graduate studies (compensated) who reports to the chair. The director of graduate studies chairs the Graduate Advisory Committee.

D. What are reasonable and realistic expectations for faculty teaching, scholarship, and service, given the present resources and responsibilities? Is sufficient support available to enable faculty research, such as release time, travel/conference funds, faculty development funds? What can be done to further support individual and program teaching, scholarship, and service?

The accepted measures of faculty productivity in a graduate program is the

number of graduates, the number of publications and the total value of new grants and

contracts received. For the last five years, these are summarized in the table below.

96

Table. Faculty Productivity for the Ph.D. Program in Chemistry and

Biochemistry.9

Publications Year # of Faculty

Papers/Book Chapters

Conf. presentations

Ph.D. Graduates

New External Grants, 103$

2004-05 11 21 23 6 171 2005-06 11 23 19 6 149 2006-07 10 14 21 2 664 2007-08 11 14 19 3 511 2008-09 10 9 22 4 tbd

Comparing these numbers to those of the Ph.D. and M.S.-granting programs in

peer institutions (Table, Section I.B), we found that, on a per faculty basis, we

graduate significantly more Ph.D. students per faculty than all of the other

departments. Our teaching load is higher (~13-14 credits per faculty member per

year) than almost all Ph.D. granting departments (~9-12 credits per faculty). We

publish at rate of approximately 1-2 research papers per faculty member per year and

have impressive research grant totals.

In 1999, the Department approved internal guidelines for promotion and tenure,

which provide the best statements of our expectations. These guidelines are attached

as Appendix D. Teaching expectations are high and are described further in the

sections on assessment for all of our programs. Chemistry and Biochemistry is

perhaps the only department at Seton Hall with a formalized, written expectation that

all faculty will be active in seeking external grants, or their application for promotion

will not be approved. Continuing external funding is a requirement for promotion to

full professor. In addition, the faculty in Chemistry and Biochemistry has established

itself as one of the strongest in service. All faculty are expected to serve with

distinction on departmental and College or University committees.

The first thing that can be done to support teaching, scholarship and service is for

the University to provide optimal faculty resources to run and maintain our programs.

9 From: College of Arts and Sciences Annual Reports.

97

While faculty numbers have been as high as 14, our current number of 10 faculty is a

strain on our resources.

VII. Problems and Proposed Solutions (Including Time-Frame) A. Based upon all the information provided in this self-study, identify 2 – 3major

problem(s) faced by the program at the present time.

1. Low faculty numbers. Ten faculty is not adequate to maintain a high quality and

productive graduate program.

2. Low teaching assistant stipends and graduate recruiting. Low TA’s stipends have

made recruiting qualified full-time applicants very difficult.

3. Incorrect perceptions of the department among administration. We are constantly

having to expend significant effort to justify the existence of our excellent

program. This is in spite of the significant amounts of tuition revenue generated

by the chemistry graduate programs and irrespective of the longevity and

strength of our programs.

4. External funding. We have significantly increased our grant-seeking activity.

This must continue.

98

B. For each problem: 1. What can the program do to solve the problem without additional resources? 2. What additional resources might be needed to solve this problem? 3. If these solutions cannot be provided now, what is the proposed time-

frame for considering the problem and finding the solutions?

The department must be permitted to replace the faculty lost through

attrition. We anticipate being allowed to hire at least one faculty member per year

in the next four years. New resources would be required for increasing the number

of faculty and for increasing the TA stipends. The TA stipend increase can be

partially accomplished through the adjustment of stipends and workloads and

through increased external funding. The Department will focus on seeking and

obtaining external funding through national, state, and private funding agencies and

corporate research contracts. The issue of TA stipends is critical and must be

addressed immediately, as our applicant pool has seriously dwindled over the past

five years. In addition, qualified applicants frequently pursue studies at other

institutions because our stipends are too low or because we do not have an

adequate number of teaching assistantships available. An increase of faculty to the

minimum of 14 could be best accomplished over a 3-5 year period, as it is difficult

to integrate more than one or two new hires into the department at once.

99

VIII. Summary

Our Ph.D. program is very successful. The best measure of our success is

our alumni who have proven to be outstanding researchers, scientists, and leaders

in their professions. We are, however, concerned with the decrease of the number

of our faculty due to attrition. We anticipate being allowed to hire four more

faculty over the next few years, thus bringing the total number of faculty back to

14, which we feel is critical to sustain the program.

PROGRAM SELF-STUDY REVIEW - TLTC...

Documents

Transcript of PROGRAM SELF-STUDY REVIEW - TLTC...