Specialty Chemistry Forums > Chemical Education and Careers

Key practical competencies

<< < (5/6) > >>

Donaldson Tan:
The Australian flag does look like a cross between the Union Jack and the American Flag. LOL.

 ::)

mike:

--- Quote ---The Australian flag does look like a cross between the Union Jack and the American Flag. LOL.
--- End quote ---

Yes, I never though of it that way before.

It is strange how the american flag is red, white and blue, and these are their national colors aren't they? Our flag is also red, white and blue yet our national colors are green and gold!

mike:
I now have a list of "generic" skills required/expected of chemistry graduates (not necessarily practical skills), let me know what you guys think as chemists/enthusiasts yourselves:

*Advanced research planning skills
*Occupational health and safety
*Intellectual property
*Scientific writing skills
*Communication
*Ethics
*Professionalism
*Scientific integrity

Are these things that are "taught" or learnt along the way? Are we even able to teach these things to students? I think we can teach things like OH&S scientific writing and probably communication.

Are these all attributes that you think you have? and did you learn them yourselves or from a structured class?

Maybe you have some other generic skills that are important?

Mike

AgG:
First off, I think the term "chemist" as it was initially stated is a bit too broad for this conversation. Chemistry is such a large field that what may be a practical skill for one chemist may be absolutely useless for another chemist.  The original thoughts that sprang to my head were the differences between the ab initio quantum chemist and the synthetic organic chemist.  A purely theoretical chemist has little need for schlenk techniques, crystallization ability, or steady hands (easy on the coffee!). Likewise a synthetic organic chemist has little use for programming skills, or abilities in advanced mathematics.  Granted, the chemist who is able to combine both of these attributes efficiently may be better off than the chemist who speciallizes only in one, however, the question arises, is the chemist specialized in everything better off than the chemist specialized in one thing?  My answer and the answer of most people I know would most certainly be 'absolutely not'.  The people I know have enough trouble becoming experts in one tiny portion of their field that I think be an expert in all things (or even more than a few things) is utterly impossible no matter what your age or intelligence.  The progression of the science is just too quick to stay on top of all subjects at any one time.  My opinion is, then, is that there are no "most important skills" that can be obtained at the end of a degree as the choice of one or more skills would decidedly be favored by my own chosen path as a chemist. No, I think the best thing a chemist can take from there degree, the most important thing a chemist can take from there degree is good, moral, scientific character. andale.

-

Mitch:
AgG: The first day in graduate school in my physical organic chemistry class was a very involved elaboration of quantum mechanics. The ability to program is still useful even for synthetic students. Whenever I had to model the transition state of a reaction or calculate the thermodynamic properties of a useful molecule to a degree higher that that of using Spartan, Titan or any other package, a basic level of programming is a must. All p-chemist should know how to program, period, synthetics might be allowed to get off the hook.

mike: Your list of required/expected generic skills for graduate students is great. The only problem with them is that they are just not taught well in a classroom setting. I learned most of all those things by interacting with professors in a laboratory setting. If you mandated undergraduates to do some research, if only for a term for some professor. I think they'll be better off than all the classes on OH&S combined.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page