Deans' Weblog: Dalhousie Graduate Studies

The Legacy of Izaak Walton and Dorothy Killam

On November 1, we had the annual Killam celebration here at Dalhousie University. A big success. The Killam Scholarship and Prize Programmes were established in memory of Izaak Walton Killam through the Will of his wife, Dorothy Johnston Killam, and through gifts made during her lifetime. Their primary purpose is to support advanced education and research at five Canadian Universities and the Canada Council for the Arts. Dalhousie University is privileged to be one of the lucky five.

The Nov. 1 celebration moderated by Sunny started with the opening remarks of Dalhousie President Tom Traves, in which he recognized the Killam pre- and post-doctoral scholarships for what they are. The most prestigious scholarships at Dalhousie University. Tom's introduction was followed by a summary of Izaak Walton Killam's and Dorothy Killam's life, achievements and goals, given by George Cooper, the managing trustee of the Killam Trusts. Since absolutely nobody can tell the story better than George, I don't even try to reproduce it in my own words, but let George do the job again in an abbreviated version in the video below. This video and videos portraying Killam scholars can be found at the Killam Trusts at Dalhousie web site.

  

The value of the Killam Trusts now exceeds that of the Rhodes Foundation and approximates that of the Nobel Foundation. It has had a huge impact on Canadian research and the development of "Stars of Tomorrow," both nationally and internationally.

Following George's address, the new Killam pre- and post-doctoral scholars as well as those who successfully renewed their scholarships were recognized; the new Killam scholars received their Killam pins at this occasion. Likewise, the current Killam professors and the Killam prize winners at Dalhousie were honoured. Finally, the only thing that stood between the audience and an absolutely gorgeous reception with fantastic food was the speech by Russ Boyd, who in his younger days was the recipient of both a Killam post-doctoral and a senior Killam fellowship. It was a truly inspiring talk, well worth waiting for the food. I'm reproducing it below with Russ' permission and hope it will serve as an inspiration to our current Killam scholars as well as an appreciation of what Killam support has achieved in the past and continues to achieve today.

----------

The Influence of the Killam Legacy on my Career

 by

Russell J. Boyd

Associate Vice-President Research and Alexander McLeod Professor of Chemistry

 

Izaak Walton Killam and his wife Dorothy Killam shared a strong, indeed passionate, commitment to use their wealth for the benefit of advanced study and research in Canada.  Izaak Walton Killam died in 1955 at the age of 70 before they could bring their plans to fruition.  Dorothy Killam died ten years later, but during those ten years she very carefully laid plans to realize the dream that she and her husband had shared.  The legacy of the Killams is truly tremendous.  

In her will, Mrs. Killam established endowments to help in building Canada’s future by encouraging advanced study.  She aimed “to increase the scientific and scholastic achievements of Canadians, to develop and expand the work of Canadian universities, and to promote sympathetic understanding between Canadians and the peoples of other countries”.

Izaak Walton Killam was born in Yarmouth where he was a paperboy.  I was born in Kelowna where I was a paperboy until just before I turned 15.  Although Mr. Killam and I both worked as paperboys, the parallel in our careers ends there. 

Prior to obtaining a paper delivery route, I sold newspapers in front of the post office.  It was a hard way to make money.  As I recall, I sold the Kelowna Courier for five cents a copy, of which two cents was pure profit.  Rarely did I sell more than ten papers a day and most of those were sold to relatives or friends of my parents who felt sorry for me. 

One day I learned that there was more money to be made by delivering the Vancouver Sun, which was an evening newspaper in Vancouver, but delivered the following morning in Kelowna.  When I went to apply for a paper route, the manager of the delivery operation looked at me for a second or two and said that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” and went back to barking commands at the paperboys.   At ten years of age I was small for my age and I felt especially small that day and so I hopped on my bike and slowly pedaled home trying to figure out what was meant by his metaphor. 

I had been challenged by metaphors from an early age.  When I was about four, my parents and maternal grandparents travelled north to Vernon, a major trip in those days, to visit some relatives.  As we returned home along a dark highway, my Grandpa said, “Ed, can you pull over a minute so I can water my pony”, to which I am told I asked why Grandpa kept his pony out in the middle of nowhere.  Given the fact that I was challenged by figures of speech when I was young, I can now appreciate why I struggled with Shakespeare in high school.  Eventually, I realized that if I were to obtain a paper route I would have to persevere.  I went back to the paper shack every week until I got a paper route.  

At the age of 15, Izaak Walton Killam joined the Union Bank of Halifax.  He had a great entrepreneurial drive.  If he had lived in Kelowna when I did, he would have obtained a paper route much faster than me and in a very short time he would have become the manager and started planning to buy the entire newspaper.  He went on to have a very successful career as a financier and later he became a philanthropist.  At the time of his death, he was the wealthiest person in Canada.

Just before my 15^th birthday, we moved to the Vancouver area, where by circumstance I became more interested in academic matters.  I did well at UBC and upon graduating in 1967 I was awarded an excellent scholarship by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) with the condition that I had to pursue postgraduate studies at another university in Canada.  It was Canada’s centennial year and the country was celebrating like never before.  I decided to go to Montreal, which was the centre of the party.  In my first few weeks at McGill, I had the good fortunate to meet Susan.  We were married the following year.  In 1971, Susan and I went to Oxford to do postdoctoral research.  I was again fortunate to be supported by the NRC.

While we were at Oxford, it became apparent that the great expansion era of Canadian universities had ended and that the prospects of an academic career were slim.  I did not know what I should do and so I wrote to Charles McDowell, the legendary Head of Chemistry at UBC who had nominated me for the NRC 1967 Science Scholarship that had led to Montreal.  He wrote back and said that it was true that there were fewer positions than there had been in the recent past and that I would be in a better position to search for a position if I returned to Canada.  He offered to nominate me for a Killam Postdoctoral Fellowship tenable at UBC and said I would have the freedom to continue with the research that I had started at Oxford.  During my Killam Postdoctoral Fellowship, I published about eight papers, including a single author contribution to Nature in 1974, which likely had a huge impact on my future.

I held the Killam Fellowship from May 1, 1973 to April 30, 1975.  While I was at UBC, I jogged two days a week with a group of postdoctoral fellows and young professors and I played volleyball two days a week.  David Suzuki was in the same volleyball group.  On May 1, 1975, I went to UBC as usual and realized that I had a problem:  Susan was at home with our two very young children and we had no income for the month of May.  When my friends came by just before noon and said, “Come on, Russ, it is a beautiful spring day for a run”, I replied that I would catch up with them later.  A short time later the telephone rang and I was offered a position at Dalhousie.  I joined the Department of Chemistry on July 1, 1975.  Thanks to the wonderful legacy of Izaak Walton and Dorothy Killam, I was about to realize my dream of becoming a professor in a respected Canadian university.

In the mid to late 1980s Dalhousie University appointed several Senior Killam Fellows.  The Fellowship relieved mid-career professors of all teaching and administrative responsibilities for one year.  Jan Kwak, the Chair of Chemistry at the time, nominated me for the Senior Killam Fellowship, which I held during the 1989-90 academic year.  The Fellowship had a significant impact on my research career.  In the years that followed the tenure of the Senior Killam Fellowship, I was able to attract more outstanding people to my research group, our productivity increased dramatically, the impact our publications increased correspondingly and international recognition came in many forms, including being the first Canadian to be elected to the Board of the World Association of Theoretical and Computational Chemists.

I have been fortunate to have had eight Killam Postdoctoral Fellows in my research group, four are tenured chemistry professors in Canada and three became professors in their home countries.  I have not communicated with the eighth one since 2005, but I believe he is an active researcher.  I have also had nine Killam Predoctoral Scholars as PhD students.  Eight have completed their PhDs and like the Killam Postdoctoral Fellows have embarked on successful careers.

The generosity of the Killams has benefitted me in many ways.  In fact, I would not be standing at this podium today, if it were not for the Killams.  The Killam legacy made it possible for me to build an international reputation in the field of computational chemistry.  Furthermore, several of the Killam scholars who spent time in my research group have gone on to become international leaders in our field. 

In closing, I note that Izaak Walton Killam gave anonymously to charities throughout his lifetime.  I suspect he never forgot that he had been born in modest circumstances in Yarmouth and wanted to use his wealth to improve the lives of others and to make Canada a better country.  The Killam legacy, Dalhousie University and Canada have enabled me to enjoy a great career, but if I could have taken a different path, I might have chosen to be a philanthropist, provided that I had lots of money to work with.

----------

So, now it was time to socialize and to enjoy the excellent food and the well-stocked bar.

Before I post this blog though, I like to take the opportunity to thank all of the FGS staff at Dalhousie, whose tireless efforts made this celebration the success it was, in particular Susan Hooper and Marsha Scott. I also would like to extend our gratitude to the Killam trustees, George Cooper, John Matthews, M. Ann McCaig and John Montalbano, for a job well done in managing and growing the Killam Trusts in economically difficult times.

 

Dieter

"Writing and Thinking"

I spent much of my time over the last two to three weeks analyzing why FGS receives fewer and fewer applications for national graduate student scholarships, especially at the doctoral level (in particular for NSERC). Also, the number of departmental nominations for Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships has been low last year considering Dalhousie’s three-year rolling quota. As you are hopefully well aware, FGS with the support from the Associate Vice-President Research will be hosting a series of information sessions for students and faculty over the next three weeks. The objective of these sessions is to raise awareness of these tremendous funding opportunities for graduate students, to provide an example of successful student recruitment/mentoring strategy, to discuss the importance of graduate student research for Dalhousie’s research agenda and last, but not least, to promote and share “best practice” examples of what actually helps to put a competitive scholarship application together. Of course, we will also discuss some of the pitfalls to be avoided at all cost. Your input, ideas and questions at these sessions will be highly appreciated.

Now, you may ask yourself why the number of scholarship applications is declining, especially in a time when money is sparse and everybody is saying that we need more and better funding opportunities for the training of highly qualified personnel (i.e., you). Unfortunately, I can’t answer this question and, most likely, the answer would anyway be different for the different academic units. Likewise, there will be no single solution that fits all. That said, however, any attempt to revert this downward trend starts with you and your mentor, i.e., your potential or current supervisor.

As Stephen (a physicist who likes lasers, software, and long walks in the moonlight) says in his blog Writing Scientific Proposals in Many Easy Steps “If you’re a scientist or engineer, you’ve got a pretty good chance of having to write a scientific proposal. If you’re an academic scientist or engineer, your chance goes up to around 100%. That’s one of the downsides of getting to choose what kind of research you’re going to do: you have to convince people to give you money for it. Writing proposals is one of those skills that most of us have to learn by doing. A lot of PhD programs don’t offer any training in it, which is surprising given how critical it is to many PhD’s later work.”

Expressing scientific concepts clearly and succinctly takes a lot of work and requires exact thinking. In fact, writing generally forces clear and precise thinking: "Writing maketh an exact [woman] man" (Sir Francis Bacon).

Writing is a complex skill, and like Stephen, I can't teach you how to do it better in another few hundred words. But what I can do is to give you some general guidelines.

Most importantly, write an application that the reviewers will enjoy reading. Aim for nothing less. Remember, the reviewers are wading through a huge pile of other scholarship applications, so make yours clear, thoughtful and interesting. Good writing reflects clear and precise thinking.

Ask yourself “Who is the audience?” "What types of reviewers are on the panel?" Almost all selection panels are generally very heterogeneous. Therefore, you are usually writing for intelligent scientists/engineers who are not experts in your area, except for maybe two to three panelists who will know more. You have to write with simple clarity for the majority, but also convince the two to three experts that you really know your stuff. "Who is my audience?" is the number one issue in scientific writing, just as it is in giving a talk.

Give the big picture, don't drown the reviewer in details, and state rationales. Three of the most common weaknesses in scholarship applications are: First, failure to give the big picture (why should the reviewer care?). Second, to drown the reader in details (the reviewer doesn't want to know). Some details may be critical, but the application doesn't need equal detail everywhere. Third, failure to state rationales.

Use illustrations, figures and boxed texts to help the reader easily see the big picture. Nothing is more depressing to a reviewer than to see pages of dense text unalleviated by something visual. Illustrations help the reviewer grasp background information, be convinced of the strength of your preliminary data, and acquire a quick overview of your Research Plan.

Use the first or third person. Instead of "The samples will be analyzed for traces of...," use "I will analyze the samples for traces of..." Instead of "This result is an affirmation of Dr. Watter’s theory...," use "This result affirms Dr. Watter’s theory..."

What are “bad habits” to avoid at all cost? Actually, quite a few come to my mind.

Writing things that you don’t understand. Never add sentences that you do not fully understand (one of the pitfalls of the copy and paste ability). This is especially true for Latin abbreviations, words with Latin and Greek roots, and foreign terms.

Drowning the reader in acronyms. Granted, science uses a technical terminology that cannot avoid the use of acronyms. However, don’t pepper each and every sentence with them. Try to avoid inventing acronyms and only introduce an acronym, if you have to use it more than two or three times. Make sure, the acronym is defined when using it for the first time. Never use acronyms, which you do not understand.

Using clichés. A cliché is something that has become somewhat of a commonplace. Some terms have become such an attractive concept to use that they appear in nearly every introduction to papers in the area. Often, authors have only scratched at the surface of such an attractive concept, but they still want to sell the product by opening with the magic word. There is just no need for such marketing using a product label that does not cover the content.

Using multisyllabic words, complex phrasing, and sentences that go on for days. This is not the way to show that you're smart. Sometimes, I think, there is also the perception that, if you're making your application too clear, if your sentences are too simple, your reviewers (and peers) won't take you seriously or that you have to write the same way as others in your field.

In order to write competitive scholarship applications, you need to have good ideas, be able to define overarching proposal themes that capture what you’re proposing to do and why, be able to figure out what your readers needs to know, and be able to express yourself clearly in plain English while avoiding the pitfalls of scientific writing. Good writers write plainly so that the meaning comes through clearly. Good scientific writing does not draw attention to itself. Instead of “This person has a great vocabulary,” readers should be saying, “That’s a good idea.” Or better (in case of funding applications), “Yes, I understand.” [That is why you should always show your application to someone outside your narrow comfort zone to receive feedback!]

Like Rachel Toor did in her article in The Chronicle of Higher Education that inspired the title for this blog, it also seems appropriate for me to end my tirade with some quotations from George Orwell’s 1946 essay Politics and the English Language (First published: Horizon. GB, London. April 1946) that explains the connections between bad writing and bad thinking as well as the [political] consequences:

“Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward [political] regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.”

“Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.”

“A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that [she] he writes, will ask [her]himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And [she] he will probably ask [her]himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.”

I hope that these few passages from Orwell’s essay have sparked your interest enough to read it yourself. You can download the article by clicking here.

Orwell leaves us with six simple rules:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
   
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
   
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

If you agree with what is said here, I encourage you to try my guidelines and Orwell’s rules, practice them and be patient. A change of one’s own habits [of writing] doesn’t occur overnight. After having written numerous papers, proceedings and book chapters, reviews, abstracts, blogs, funding applications, etc. (some successful and some not so successful), I’m still struggling in any new piece I write to “send some worn-out and useless phrases, or other lump of verbal refuse, into the dustbin [nowadays called trash], where it belongs” (Orwell, 1946).

For other useful hints in putting together a competitive scholarship application to a national funding agency, please see the Deans’ Blogs from Nov. 21, 2008, Sept. 25 and Nov. 7, 2009, and Jan. 29, 2010.

I hope to see many of you at the NSRC, SSHRC, CIHR and Vanier information sessions at the end of April and beginning of May.

Dieter

Early Impressions from the 2009 Vanier CGS Competition

The Vanier homepage states “The Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships (Vanier CGS) program is designed to attract and retain world-class doctoral students by offering them a significant financial award to assist them during their studies at Canadian universities. Vanier Scholars demonstrate leadership skills and a high standard of scholarly achievement in the social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and engineering, and health-related fields.” It is obvious from this description that the Vanier program, sponsored by the Canadian government, is designed as the Canadian flagship graduate scholarship program similar to the Rhodes and Fulbright scholarship programs. Like in the latter highly prestigious international educational programs, the successful participants in the Vanier CGS program are chosen for their academic merit and leadership potential.

So why is the Vanier program different from the national tri-council CGS programs? The answer becomes obvious if one compares the selection criteria. While applicants for the national tri-council CGS programs are evaluated and selected by the University and agency-specific interdisciplinary selection committees primarily on the basis of academic excellence and research potential, nominees for the Vanier CGS program are evaluated and selected based on academic excellence, research potential and leadership (potential and demonstrated ability), which are weighted equally by the peer review committees. Each interdisciplinary selection committee will then recommend to the Vanier Selection Board the top most meritorious candidates based on the nominees’ academic and research potential, as well as their leadership skills. However, the final selection board recommendation on awardees will be based solely on the leadership component (referee letters, university nomination letter and applicant’s self-assessment of leadership potential and ability) of the applications.

After an abysmal inaugural year, the 2^nd Vanier competition is drawing to a close. The most prominent initial impressions from this year’s competition so far are (1) the relatively low total number of applications/nominations received at Dalhousie University as compared to the number of applications for doctoral tri-council CGS competitions and (2) the lack of attention given to the leadership selection criterion. The latter may have to do with the fact that if it weren’t for deadlines, nothing would ever get done. What I want to say here is that some nominations (and the phone calls and e-mail communications surrounding them) left the impression that they were last minute efforts. If this assumption is indeed correct it also means that the referees really didn't have much time to write truly effective reference letters. The take home message here is that if you intend to apply to a scholarship program such as the Vanier, Rhodes or Fulbright, you really have to start the application process well ahead of the deadline (especially if you are an international student). The same message applies to academic units that intend to nominate students for future competitions. They also have to start well ahead of the nomination deadline to identify potential nominees and work with them to make the application truly competitive. Since selection committees for Vanier, Rhodes and Fulbright scholarships will only see top students with respect to academic excellence and research potential, the ultimate decision on whether or not to award a student such a flagship scholarship often hinges on the quality of his/her reference letters and the nominee’s self-assessment of leadership potential and ability. In this context, effective reference letters mean the difference between a nominee’s acceptance or rejection. Running the risk of sounding like a broken record, here are a few pieces of advice with respect to letters of reference for both students and referees.

For Students

• Ask for a reference letter from people who know you and your capabilities, such as former employers, teachers, coaches, community or corporate leaders, influential friends who have known you a long time, etc.
• Be sure to give the people you ask enough time to write the reference letter!
• Tell the people who agree to write letters for you about your goals and what they could write that would help you to achieve those goals. Don't be shy. A reference letter is a sales letter that is intended to sell you. Now is the time to point out your accomplishments!
• Follow up your request with a review of your conversation in writing. In your letter it may be helpful to suggest specific phrases or sentences that the writer could put in your letter.
  

For Referees

• Are you the right person to write a reference letter? If you are asked to write a letter of reference, you may need to discuss this subject with the requester. Can you honestly write outstanding things about the person who has requested the letter? If not, you should bow out gracefully at the beginning. On the other hand, if you feel you qualify, brainstorm with the requester so you can write what he or she wishes to be said, and be sensitive to his/her deadlines.
• Have the person give you a list of accomplishments, organizations that he/she belongs to, or any other relevant information. It might surprise you to see how much that person has done outside of your personal contact with them. This can also help you get a more accurate picture of the individual. Having the person give you a copy of his/her resume is an easy way to have this information at hand. Keep in mind, however, that you can only vouch for what you know from your own personal experience with the individual, i.e., be prepared to provide concrete examples for attributes you mention in your letter.

An explanation for the relatively low total number of applications/nominations for Vanier CGSs at Dalhousie University as compared to the number of applications for doctoral tri-council CGSs is less straightforward. Anecdotally, according to the numbers from the national granting agencies at the Canadian Association of Graduate Studies conference this week, the low-nomination trend at Dalhousie University seems somewhat out of line with the overall national trend. Of course, there is no breakdown from which universities the majority of national nominations came from. Aside from an easy cop-out explanations here in Atlantic Canada, which is to say that the quota is low to start with and that applications for a competitive Vanier CGS require a lot more work and strategic planning on the part of nominating academic units and nominees, it seems too early to jump to conclusions. Clearly, more conversations and data are needed.

In any case, the bottom line is that much more education on how to prepare effectively for the Vanier CGS program is needed in order to make the program a success and to ensure that we capitalize on this program in the context of Dalhousie’s strategic research and graduate training mission. We’re currently contemplating a series of information and/or fact-finding town hall-type sessions for students and faculty, which may start early in the new year.

Stay tuned. Back to Carolyn and Sunny.

 

Dieter