[jjwinkle]

While I'm interested in what everybody has to say about this, I'm especially interested in what people who have worked or have tried to get a job after their degree have to say.

[mjc123]

When I did chemistry at Oxford in the 80s, a notable absence from the curriculum was polymer chemistry. My first job was in polymers - for which I needed to know about not only polymer chemistry, but also engineering properties of materials, something else we chemists weren't taught. Also, although the practicals included a wide range of analytical techniques, there was no taught course on "analytical chemistry" as such, to inculcate the analytical mindset.
I don't know what it's like now, but I assume it's changed a lot and even includes some topics that scarcely existed in those days. I think it's important that curricula are regularly revised to reflect changes in the subject, and particularly to draw awareness to what's happening across traditional subject boundaries, with e.g. physics, biology, materials science. We don't want this sort of thing happening...

[curiouscat]

I'm not a Chemistry major. I'm a ChemE.

If there was one thing I could change about US bachelor's degree curriculum I'd add faculty with actual industrial experience. Not industrial R&D PhDs but plant floor, troubleshooting or engineering design experience.

I think our Department had Professors with fantastic Thermo or Organic Chem or Combustion fundamentals but scarcely any Professor who had worked with an API code or interacted with a DCS control panel.

Professors were at ease reading a Entropy-Volume graph but few that could decipher a P&ID or a GA drawing.

[Corribus]

When I did chemistry at Oxford in the 80s, a notable absence from the curriculum was polymer chemistry.

Still absent in the 2000s.

Also, although the practicals included a wide range of analytical techniques, there was no taught course on "analytical chemistry" as such, to inculcate the analytical mindset.
I don't know what it's like now,

I can't speak for every university, but there was no analytical chemistry course at my university. One gets the feeling that at major research institutions, analytical chemistry is treated with a half-step above disdain. Which goes along with the whole "university faculty is the only chemistry career we give a s#*$ about" mentality.

Getting back to the original question, and going along with these suggestions - a course on statistics and experimental design would have been immensely more useful than most of the garbage courses I had to take in graduate school, and would have been a nice elective for undergrad.

[Dan]

When I did chemistry at Oxford in the 80s, a notable absence from the curriculum was polymer chemistry.

Still absent in the 2000s.

Also, although the practicals included a wide range of analytical techniques, there was no taught course on "analytical chemistry" as such, to inculcate the analytical mindset.

I did my undergrad there 2003-2007 - no (or very little) analytical chemistry. There was certainly some polymer chemistry at some point, but I think only one or two lecture courses in the first 3 years.

The final year is full time practical chemistry, which is great, but I would say that the practical course up to that point was very weak when I was a student. Too much following instructions with little understanding of what was actually happening. Underprepared students and often underprepared demonstrators too. I know they were in the process of re-vamping the practical course around 2010 though, so I expect it is better now.

[mjc123]

One gets the feeling that at major research institutions, analytical chemistry is treated with a half-step above disdain.

And yet in another thread, it is asserted that the only jobs you can get with a bachelor's degree are analytical ones (at least in N California).

[Corribus]

And yet in another thread, it is asserted that the only jobs you can get with a bachelor's degree are analytical ones (at least in N California).

Which is, of course, the ultimate irony. The most famous, elite research universities are only interested in training students for jobs that aren't available....

[jjwinkle]

I sent an email to the American Chemical Society (ACS) recently criticizing them for requiring little instrumental analytical coursework in their accreditation of chemistry bachelor’s degree programs, while requiring for them (I thought) a year of organic chemistry (excessive given that bachelor’s degree chemists in the US never design organic synthesis).

An ACS Assistant Director replied that in 2008 the ACS reduced its organic chemistry coursework requirement for the bachelor’s degree from one year to one semester and asserted out that in the 400 hours of laboratory instruction they required “much of the hands-on experience with lab equipment and instrumentation” would be obtained.

In my 30-year chemistry career I have never encountered anyone in a job or an interview who brought up the issue of whether my or anyone else’s bachelor’s degree was ACS-accredited, but I have found university chemistry departments to be concerned with it.

Interestingly, the chemistry department of my alma mater was unaware of ACS’ change in the organic requirement to one semester. I have an appointment with the chemistry dept. chair next week to discuss it, argue for more instrumental analysis courses and lobby for a system of getting, and adjusting to, as appropriate, alumni feedback. I would also like to enlarge the now almost non-existent connection between chemistry departments and engineering, because the disconnect has resulted in significant lost opportunities.

Before going to that appointment I wanted to get input from other people who have taken a chemistry bachelor’s degree into the work world, so I appreciate your comments.

Also, I looked at the chemistry undergraduate curricula of 4 other US universities I randomly picked and saw that they also require a year of organic and are weak in analytical chemistry.

[Corribus]

Also, I looked at the chemistry undergraduate curricula of 4 other US universities I randomly picked and saw that they also require a year of organic and are weak in analytical chemistry.

This is, I surmise, primarily driven by the premedical curriculum. There is very little true analytical chemistry on the MCAT, but a crapload of organic and general chemistry.

[curiouscat]

This is, I surmise, primarily driven by the premedical curriculum. There is very little true analytical chemistry on the MCAT, but a crapload of organic and general chemistry.

What percent of students that Major in Chemistry attempt the MCAT? Just curious.

[curiouscat]

 I have an appointment with the chemistry dept. chair next week to discuss it, argue for more instrumental analysis courses and lobby for a system of getting, and adjusting to, as appropriate, alumni feedback.

If you can, try finding out what percent of the faculty have any industrial experience.

[DrCMS]

If you can, try finding out what percent of the faculty have any industrial experience.

I'll take a wild guess and say a big fat zero.  I'm quite confident that will be correct for all the "elite" universities as they think industry/safety/profit are beneath them.

Which is, of course, the ultimate irony. The most famous, elite research universities are only interested in training students for jobs that aren't available....

That's because they think the only jobs worth having are their own teaching/research position in those same elite universities see above.

I'd like to see more emphasis on safety, particularly reaction hazards along with an understanding of business & profit. 

[curiouscat]

I'd like to see more emphasis on safety, particularly reaction hazards along with an understanding of business & profit.

+1 for that DrCMS.

[Corribus]

What percent of students that Major in Chemistry attempt the MCAT? Just curious.

I have no idea. Where I went to undergrad, I'd put it at about 50%. But that's just a wild guess, and it was a small college, so it may not be reflective of undergraduate programs everywhere.

[kriggy]

Its very interesting what you write. Im from Europe and it seems that our system is totaly different:
I had two semesters of analytical chemistry + 4hr/week analytical labs, same for organic, inorganic, physical. We had one semester of biochemistry intro + biochemistry labs.
If we are talking about analytics we have non-compulsory courses that include "instrumetal analysis" and "introduction into separation techniques" there is also possibility of labs for intro into separation techniques where they teach you TLC/colums/prep HPLC etc.. but thats mostly for organic chemists, its very useful knowledge in a lab. We also had the option for instrumental analysis labs but I didnt go for it.
There are also options for courses that focus on the single technique - LC, GC, MS, NMR.. but those are mostly for grad students.

Since I studied inorganic, we had additional labs from inorganic chemistry.

What I would like to change: definitely the inorganic chemistry course it was very focused on the reaction and preparation of inorganic compounds but we didnt cover coordination chemistry that much. It seemed that the curicullum is some 50 years old (Enjoy having Chemistry of elements as a recommended book for the course)