JOSÉ A. COLUCCI-RÍOSChemical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Puerto Rico- Mayagüez

JULIO BRIANOChemical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Puerto Rico- Mayagüez

ABSTRACT

In the last decade rapid advances and complex nature of new andimproved technologies and fierce competition are demanding amore profound expertise at all professional levels in Chemical En-gineering related industries. Graduate programs are an attractiveoption to fill this need. This and other factors led the chemical en-gineering department at the University of Puerto Rico Mayagüezcampus to implement several programs and initiatives in order toencourage students to pursue doctoral degrees. A key componentof this strategy is the Sloan Foundation Undergraduate Scholar-ship Program. During the first three years a significant increase(from 2 to 10% of the graduating BS class) resulted in those contin-uing to graduate school. The main components of the program arementoring, undergraduate research, summer internships, andgraduate school orientation seminars.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1997 the Chemical Engineering department at the Universi-ty of Puerto Rico Mayagüez (UPRM) campus was awarded a SloanFoundation Grant (Phase I) in order “to improve the efficiency ofthe department related to identifying and encouraging students toobtain Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering. The long-term ob-jective is that some of these students will continue to an academiccareer.” A key component of the proposal was to establish a men-toring program in order to guide and motivate the undergraduatestudents to pursue a doctoral degree in Chemical Engineering. Fiveprofessors volunteered and participated in the program. In addi-tion, there were several mentoring related programs that were suc-cessfully implemented or improved.

The department has approximately 750 students of which 60%are females. In the 1990’s over 100 undergraduate (BS) and 10graduate (MS/ME) students graduated per year. The GraduateProgram has 30–40 students. In 1996 the department made thecommitment to pursue the establishment of a Ph.D. program. Thisgoal was attained in December 1999 when the Puerto Rico Boardof Higher Education approved the program. The Ph.D. programofficially started with three students in January 2000. As will be

seen in the next sections, the Sloan Scholarship Program and relat-ed initiatives resulted in a substantial increase in the number ofstudents that are pursuing doctoral degrees. In addition, morestudents are participating in undergraduate research and summerexperiences.

II. SLOAN PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ANDCOMPLEMENTING INITIATIVES

Since 1994 the Chemical Engineering department at UPRMimplemented or improved a wide variety of initiatives in order toeducate and encourage students regarding pursuing doctoral de-grees. A key component of this strategy was the Sloan FoundationScholarship program. Students were recruited starting at the junioryear. Their selection was based on academic performance, research,professional experiences, and graduate school interest. Each select-ed student was assigned a mentor. The four main components ofthe program were:

• Spring/Fall Undergraduate Research @ UPR• Summer Internships @ National Laboratories, Top 20 Uni-

versities, Industry Research Centers & UPR• American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)/Ameri-

can Chemical Society (ACS) National Meeting Presentations• Graduate School/Career Orientation & Technical SeminarsThe main objective was to increase the number of students

pursuing doctoral degrees from two (historical) to six in a three-year period. It should be mentioned that ninety percent of theSloan Foundation Scholarship program funding was assigned tostudent stipends and attending technical conferences. In addition,there were other related activities and/or initiatives that also con-tributed in providing scholarly activities for the students includingCareer Orientation, Open Houses, Summer Camps, and PosterPresentations.

These initiatives have been very successful in involving under-graduate students in a wide variety of activities that provide them abroader perspective in deciding their careers. In addition, the de-partment has become more effective in its interaction with thecommunity and K-12 students. A brief description of some of theprograms follows.

The Freshmen Career Orientation & Open House, 3rd YearStudents Department Welcome, and Career Orientation andGraduate School Orientation Seminars are designed to inform andmake students aware of the opportunities that they will haveavailable in their future careers. Topics that are emphasized arechemical engineering careers (entry level and long term), résumés,and importance of extracurricular activities and professional experi-ences during their undergraduate years. In the Graduate SchoolOrientation Seminar the emphasis is towards school selection,

July 2001 Journal of Engineering Education 295

Sloan Foundation Scholarship Program:Mentoring Undergraduates toward Doctoral Degrees

assistantships, and application procedures. The freshmen and 3rd

year presentations involve over 200 students per year. TheGraduate School Orientation is attended by approximately 20–25students per year. Figure 1 shows the participation of students incourses with close interactions with professors. It includesChemical Engineering Summer Practice (InQu 4036), COOP(InQu 4995), Undergraduate Research (InQu 4998), and SpecialProblems (InQu 5995). Notice the substantial increase in studentparticipation. We believe this is due mainly to the orientation andmentoring initiatives that were established in the department. Itshould be mentioned that during the summers of 1998 and 1999 allthe Sloan Scholars were involved in summer internships in either auniversity research laboratory or an industrial environment.

Another accomplishment was success in motivating students topursue doctoral degrees. Table 1 provides a summary of thestudents that were accepted to graduate schools during the lastthree years. Relevant retention data are also provided. Notice thedramatic increase in students that were admitted to graduateprograms, especially doctoral. It should also be mentioned thateleven students received GEM fellowship for the 2000/2001semester. Three GEM fellowships were awarded in the previoustwo years. Most of these students are at mainland Universities suchas the University of Wisconsin-Madison (2), Illinois-UrbanaChampagne (1), Michigan-Ann Arbor (1), Delaware (3), Florida(2), Alabama (1), Mississippi (2), South Carolina (3), ColoradoState (1), U-Penn (1), Purdue (4), Northwestern (1), Arizona StateUniversity (2), MIT (2), Carnegie Mellon (1), Rutgers (1), Cornell(1), IIT (1), Ohio U (1), and West Virginia University (1). Nine at-tended the University of Puerto Rico.

Other Sloan Foundation sponsored activities and achievementsincluded:

AIChE Student Project Competition, April 2000, Kentucky; 7Sloan Scholars competed and obtained two first place awards(poster and ChemE Car).

AIChE National Student poster Session, October 30 – November2, 1999, Dallas, Texas, 15 Sloan Scholars attended, 5 Posterswere presented, 3 obtained awards (one 1st and two 3rd places).

2nd Forum for the Promotion of Engineering Research in PuertoRico, October 7–8, 1999, University of Puerto Rico-

Mayagüez. 11 Sloan Scholars students co-authored 7posters.

XVIII Interamerican Congress of Chemical Engineering, SanJuan, Puerto Rico, December 16–20, 1999 ~10 Sloan Scholarsattended, 2 co-authored papers.

IV Sigma Xi Student Poster Night, UPR-May, April 23, 1999,~10 Sloan Scholars attended and/or presented posters.

Also as mentioned earlier, all the Sloan Scholars were involved inSummer Internship activities during the summers of 1998–2000.Their participation, we believe, had a snowball effect on otherstudents since during the summer of 1999 fifty-seven studentsparticipated in internship programs out of which 21 were SloanScholars. This indicates that on average more than 40% of our grad-uates are involved in non-traditional educational activity courses.Based on the above information, especially Table I, we believe thatthe Sloan Scholars program has been instrumental in creating an en-vironment where students are better educated regarding GraduateSchool opportunities and its long-term benefits. In the next sectiona description of the phase II program and other Initiatives is given.The specific objective is to improve the initiatives and otherprograms that were started during phase I in order to maintain thelevel of students pursuing Ph.D. degrees at six at least. Also a

296 Journal of Engineering Education July 2001

Figure 1. Nontraditional courses enrollment.

Table 1. Graduate school admissions & retention.

simplified benchmark study was performed in order to identify thelevel of success of other Universities. This will be used to establishcompetitive targets for our program. This is also discussed in thenext section.

III. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS AND STRATEGICALLIANCES (PHASE II)

Based on our interactions and exit interviews with the SloanScholars it is evident that emphasizing undergraduate research ex-periences at UPRM, Industrial R&D sites, National Laboratoriesand Research Experiences for Undergraduate (REUs) programs atmainland universities is a critical variable in encouraging studentsto pursue doctoral degrees. It is recognized that participation inresearch activities help students:1

i) attain a higher level of competence in science, mathematics,engineering, and technology

ii) understand the methods and process of researchiii) make informed judgments about technical mattersiv) communicate and work in teams to solve complex problemsAlso, the National Laboratories and Industrial Summer Intern

programs are very important since they address certain areas betterthan in a University environment such as communication skills,safety and health training and team building.2 Also, in recent studiesit was found that familiarity with a campus and/or graduate pro-gram was identified as one of the top reasons for students joining agraduate program.3–5 In the next five years emphasis will be given toformalize and increase the interactions and collaborations of theundergraduate students with doctoral granting institutions. Itshould be mentioned that students were very aggressive seekingthese opportunities with 5–10 applications being very common. Inaddition, the department administration is very efficient providingthis information to the students. Specifically, both the AssociateDirector and the Undergraduate Students Academic Counselor(Lourdes Fábregas) facilitated this information to the students. Itshould also be noted that previous Directors and Associate Direc-tors were mentors in the Sloan Scholarship program. Also, LourdesFábregas is the Sloan Freshman Orientation Coordinator.

Another improvement to the original program is that more em-phasis will be given to the establishment of Strategic Alliances withPh.D. degree granting institutions especially those with SloanScholarship programs. These efforts were already initiated with theUniversity of South Carolina, Alabama, UPENN, NCA&T andVanderbilt University. It is suspected that as more students partici-pate in REU programs and are accepted in Doctoral programs thiswill familiarize more Universities with our department. Other Uni-versities that are also very aggressive pursuing our undergraduatestudents for their REU programs are Purdue and University ofIllinois-UC. It should be mentioned that interactions with theIndustrial sector will be continued. In general, companies with veryeffective Summer Internship/COOP programs such as UnionCarbide, Procter & Gamble, Shell, Kodak, Eastman, Dupont,Kraft and Xerox are very interested in the Sloan Scholars. Thesecompanies on average recruit 2 to 3 UPRM students for their Sum-mer Internship programs. Another key program modification inphase II is the establishment of targets based on the best practices attop ranked Universities. The main results of the bench mark studyare shown in figures 2–4. Figure 2 shows the number of bachelor

and Ph.D. chemical engineering degrees awarded by US Universi-ties between 1977 and 1996. These data was obtained from theOctober 19, 1998 issue of C&EN.6 Also in the graph the ratio ofPh.D. to BS is shown. Two key assumptions were used to calculatethis ratio. First, it was assumed that there is a five-year lag time be-tween a BS and a Ph.D. degree. The second assumption was that44% of doctorate recipients came from US Institutions. This wasbased on a 1996 report from NSF.7

As can be seen in figure 2 the historic Ph.D./BS ratio is approxi-mately 4.0%. However, during the last decade it increased toapproximately 7.0%. On a related study a National Science Foun-dation (NSF) report was used to determine the “same” ratio andcomparing it to the department’s Gorman Undergraduate (GU)and National Research Council (NRC) rankings of 1993. Theresults are shown in figures 3 & 4. It should be mentioned that thePh.D. graduates are based on the school of origin for the period1991 to 1995. Also the 1996 BS graduation data was used to calcu-late the ratio. It can be seen that the ratio apparently is independentof GU ranking and may be slightly higher for top ranked NRCgraduate programs. Nonetheless, the average for that period was7.4% consistent with the C&EN data.

Based on the above results, maintaining a level of six undergrad-uate students pursuing Ph.D. degrees will position our departmentslightly below the average. Our midterm (3–5 years) target is toreach ten students per year (~10% of BS degrees granted). This willposition our department in the top 35% in this category. The phaseII UPR-RUM Chemical Engineering Sloan Scholarship Programwill allow us to establish the infrastructure, alliances, and culturalchanges necessary to achieve this aggressive target. It should bementioned that a Ph.D. program was started in our department inJanuary 2000. This will increase even further the opportunities forour undergraduates to participate in undergraduate research activi-ties at our department. As part of the Ph.D. program initiation ac-tivities, the department is evaluating the establishment of a SummerResearch Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) program. Thelong-term objective is to Institutionalize Undergraduate Researchas a key component of the Undergraduate curriculum. This will be amultidisciplinary proposal including the Mechanical and Electrical

July 2001 Journal of Engineering Education 297

Figure 2. Chemical engineering; Ph.D. - BS comparison, USUniversities.

Engineering departments and the Chemistry department from oursister campus in Rio Piedras located at the Metropolitan Area. Allof the above efforts are part of the infrastructure and culturalchanges that must be implemented in order to achieve the 10% peryear target.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The Sloan Scholarship Program has been instrumental in devel-oping an atmosphere where graduate education is considered acompetitive option for our undergraduates. A stronger researchprogram at our department combined with summer internshipsprovide students with several opportunities that enable them toevaluate more effectively their post undergraduate degrees alterna-tives. The graduate school orientation seminars also clarify some ofthe misconceptions about doctoral degrees. In addition, the closerinteraction between professors and students is invaluable not onlyfrom the role model perspective but also results in excellent letters ofrecommendation and provides the student access to the professor’snetwork.

In the next five years the program will be expanded to formalizealliances with other universities and the industrial sector. In addition,

the Chemical Engineering department model will be migrated toother departments at UPRM. This we believe is necessary to achievea higher level of success.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mentors: Federico Padron, Lorenzo Saliceti, Carlos Ramirez,and Nelson Cardona

Sloan Foundation Program Director: Ted Greenwood

REFERENCES

1. Gates, A.Q., et al., “Expanding Participation in Undergraduate Re-search Using the Affinity Group Model,” Journal of Engineering Education,vol. 88, no. 4, Oct., 1999, pp. 409–414.

2. Bayless, D.J., “Using Industrial Summer Intern Programs as a Toolfor Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 88, no. 4,Oct., 1999, pp. 465–469.

3. Narayanan, R.M., “Use of Objective-Based Undergraduate ResearchProject Experience as a Graduate Student Recruitment Tool,” Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 88, no. 3, July, 1999, pp. 361–365.

4. Oakes, W.C., et al., “Equipping Undergraduates for the GraduateSchool Process,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 88, no. 3, July, 1999,pp. 353–359.

5. Graduate Study in Engineering: To go or not to go, That is the Question!,ASEE Student Chapter, Purdue University, http://widget.ecn.purdue.edu/~asee/undergrad/whygo.pdf, downloaded 10/14/99.

6. Chemical & Engineering News, Universities and Colleges Report,October 19, 1998, p. 76.

7. NSF-334, Undergraduate Origins of Recent (1991–95) Science &Engineering Doctorate Recipients, December 1996.

298 Journal of Engineering Education July 2001

Figure 4. Chemical engineering Ph.D. Benchmark study;Ph.D. origin 1991–1995, BS – 1996.

Figure 3. Chemical engineering Ph.D. Benchmark study;Gorman undergraduate ranking basis.