From chemistry-request "-at-" ccl.net Thu Jun 11 00:27:04 1992 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 15:11:21 EDT From: "(not CPT) Christopher J. Cramer" To: chemistry /at\ccl.net Subject: Deeper issues Status: RO Well, it's hard to disagree that Americans take for granted their own (majority) language's cultural and scientific pre-eminence -- a sad if easily rationalized state of affairs. In the recent debate over the importance of a language to completion of the Ph.D. degree, and the relevance of computer programming languages, I find myself fairly mainstream, i.e. fluency in other spoken languages is inherently good, but not necessarily critical to following the course of modern science, and computer languages may be worth emphasizing separately for certain career paths. What has interested me most about the furious debate, is that in the process of explaining your views on language, many of you have offered some glimpse of what you perceive the Ph.D. degree (or its foreign equivalents) to really mean. In some cases, I've been a bit surprised. The feelings seem to range from disturbingly technocratic (who cares about original thought so long as you knock out 10 reactions a week, and so forth) to perhaps over-ambitious neoclassicism (I mean, I'd like to do a quick translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but lifespan is passing, nu?) Since I'm about to start a faculty position and ostensibly will be conferring doctoral degrees in a few years, I have some strong opinions on this question, but since I already know MY thoughts, I'm much more interested in yours. While the issue is somewhat broader than just computational chemistry, it still seems appropriate for brief commentary on the net. What constitutes a qualified Ph.D.? Looking forward to my colleagues ruminations and fulminations . . . Chris Cramer