A reference to pioneering physical organic chemist Jack Roberts in a C&EN article again brought the following question to my mind: Why has MIT, over several decades, managed to lose some of the best chemists in the world to other departments? This question has been nagging at me for several years and resurfaced recently when Dan Nocera moved to Harvard from MIT.
I understand that my information is largely anecdotal, but it seems to me that the school has lost more highly accomplished chemists to other departments than pretty much any other top school.
Of course, since these chemists were attracted to MIT in the first place that says something about the caliber of the department, but why lose them then?
Here's a tentative list of MIT chemists who have been successfully lured away. What is striking about the list is that it spans at least four decades and includes some of the most distinguished scientists of those four decades.
Jack Roberts (Caltech)
George Whitesides (Harvard)
Chris Walsh (Harvard)
Barry Sharpless (Scripps)
Peter Seeberger (Max Planck)
Greg Fu (Caltech)
Dan Nocera (Harvard)
Who else am I leaving out? I don't want to speculate on the reasons; a simple one could be that not every school focuses equally on all its disciplines. And nobody can deny that MIT chemistry has still been top notch over the decades; as I indicated before, the very fact that all these people launched their careers there vouches for the quality of the department. But the track record seems to indicate that MIT is much better at attracting people than retaining them. And there's got to be a reason for that.
Image may be NSFW.I understand that my information is largely anecdotal, but it seems to me that the school has lost more highly accomplished chemists to other departments than pretty much any other top school.
Of course, since these chemists were attracted to MIT in the first place that says something about the caliber of the department, but why lose them then?
Here's a tentative list of MIT chemists who have been successfully lured away. What is striking about the list is that it spans at least four decades and includes some of the most distinguished scientists of those four decades.
Jack Roberts (Caltech)
George Whitesides (Harvard)
Chris Walsh (Harvard)
Barry Sharpless (Scripps)
Peter Seeberger (Max Planck)
Greg Fu (Caltech)
Dan Nocera (Harvard)
Who else am I leaving out? I don't want to speculate on the reasons; a simple one could be that not every school focuses equally on all its disciplines. And nobody can deny that MIT chemistry has still been top notch over the decades; as I indicated before, the very fact that all these people launched their careers there vouches for the quality of the department. But the track record seems to indicate that MIT is much better at attracting people than retaining them. And there's got to be a reason for that.
Clik here to view.
