The Mathematics Doctorate: A Time for Change

896 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 50, NUMBER 8 O ne can argue, with ample evidence, that in U.S. universities the system of producing mathematics doctorates is doing very well and needs no major overhaul. It is widely recognized that however poor our K–12 mathematics education— and perhaps also our undergraduate mathematics education—might be, our graduate programs in mathematics are the best and the envy of the world. Top students from around the world are still beating on our doors to get into our doctoral programs. We train them well, and many of these students become international leaders in their research fields. Take, for example, the two 2002 Fields Medalists and the Nevalinna Prize winner. Even though the press (at least the press in Beijing, where I read the news) referred to them as French, Russian, and Indian, two received their doctoral training at U.S. universities. We also seem to be succeeding in getting new support from the federal government for mathematical sciences. The recent increase in funding for the NSF [National Science Foundation] specifically targets the Division of Mathematical Sciences, and doctoral training, in particular for U.S. students, is a core part of this new funding program. Even Hollywood seems to be working in our favor, in view of the generally positive image of mathematics generated by movies such as A Beautiful Mind. However, there are many signs that not all is well with our doctoral programs. Top, talented students, especially those born in the U.S., are choosing fields other than mathematics for graduate study. Many mathematics departments, especially those outside the “top tier”, are having trouble filling their graduate programs with reasonably prepared and talented students. As a field of science, mathematics is underfunded compared to other sciences. Most of our doctoral students are supported by teaching assistantships rather than by fellowships or research assistantships. Our doctoral students are taking too long to get their degrees, and they are not sufficiently and broadly trained for career paths outside of academia. Other scientists and academic administrators perceive us as an insular and, worse, irrelevant community. Tony F. Chan is professor of mathematics and the dean of the Division of Physical Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. His email address is chan@math. ucla.edu. The Carnegie Foundation commissioned a collection of essays as part of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID). Essays and essayists represent six disciplines that are part of the CID: chemistry, education, English, history, mathematics, and neuroscience. Intended to engender conversation about the conceptual foundation of doctoral education, the essays are a starting point and not the last word in disciplinary discussions. Those faculty members, students, and administrators who work in the discipline are the primary among multiple audiences for each of these essays. © 2003 by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Reprinted with permission. Comments on the essays and on the CID are welcome and may be sent to cid@ carnegiefoundation.org. Further information may be found at the website http://www. carnegiefoundation.org/cid and in the article “The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate”, by Allyn Jackson, Notices, May 2003, pages 566–8. The other Carnegie essay about mathematics, by Hyman Bass, appeared in the August 2003 issue of the Notices, pages 767–76.