Search for: All records

Abstract This work demonstrates the capability to crystallize YAG via femtosecond pulsed laser. Challenges in using melt‐quench glass are shown to restrict glass composition and have not yielded YAG via femtosecond laser crystallization. An alternative glass‐making technique was used to fabricate a range of compositions not otherwise possible. Glasses of YAG with added silica in the range of 0–20 mol% were tested under the laser to explore the allowable deviation from stoichiometric YAG. Raman spectroscopy and Electron backscatter diffraction indicated successful fabrication of YAG, and usage of combined excitation emission spectroscopy (CEES) allowed probing of erbium doped compositions. 

Erbium doped single crystals of lithium niobate were grown within the bulk of 0.075 Er2O3 – 37 Li2O – 37 Nb2O5 – 26 SiO2 glass using a femtosecond pulsed laser. Combined excitation emission spectroscopy was used to show incorporation of erbium into the laser written crystal lattice. Laser power and scanning speed were held constant at optimized values, while bulk sample temperature was systematically varied to study the impact on the crystal growth. Using electron backscatter diffraction to study the transverse cross-sections of grown crystals, control over the lattice rotation rates and crystal size were realized. Unlike changing other parameters, a range of temperatures were found to have substantial impacts on crystal growth, without inhibiting the ability to maintain single crystal formation over long distances. 

Traditional PhD training in STEM fields places a strong emphasis on developing doctoral students' academic skills, encompassing research, academic writing, as well as sharing of knowledge through publications and conference presentations, etc. However, with the ever evolving expectations of graduate training, particularly in applied fields, the demand for PhD has transcended the confines of academia. For instance, nearly 90% of engineering PhDs will not enter academia, which underscores the discrepancy between the current PhD training programs and the preparation of students for future careers. To better support doctoral students especially for those who intend to pursue positions in industry including corporate R&D labs, national labs, defense organizations, healthcare institutes, etc., Lehigh University launched an innovative program called Pasteur Partners PhD (P3) specifically for the training of such doctoral students. It is a student-centered doctoral training program based on use-inspired research in partnership with industry. A preliminary evaluation of the P3 program, which was developed with support from NSF’s IGE program, revealed that students benefited significantly from gaining practical skills through industry involvement such as co-advising, resulting in a clearer understanding of how the industry operates, which, in turn, enhanced their employability in the industry [1]. The University administration also provided significant support for the program. However, a broader implementation of P3 encountered challenges and hesitancy from faculty members. Mostly the senior faculty who already had preexisting connections with industry and junior faculty from certain departments were more receptive to joining the P3 program than others. Could this be a result of the prevailing emphasis of the graduate education system on research output (publications) rather than the training of students for their subsequent careers? What other reasons could there be for the faculty’s lack of enthusiasm for the training of their PhD students following P3 track? To answer above questions and examine the challenges and obstacles that the faculty members feel for student centered doctoral training from an institutional and system perspective, we are conducting a survey specifically targeting faculty members in STEM fields. It seeks to comprehensively understand faculty members’ perspective on the primary objectives of doctoral training within different STEM fields. By exploring these objectives, the survey aims to uncover how they vary across disciplines and what faculty members perceive as the most significant goals in their areas of expertise. Moreover, the survey is designed to shed light on the challenges and hurdles faced by faculty members in their pursuit of these training objectives. Faculty participants are encouraged to identify and articulate the specific obstacles they encounter, whether they pertain to institutional constraints, resource limitations, demands of perceived professional success or other factors that impede the realization of these goals. In addition, the survey takes a close look at the resources that faculty members believe would be beneficial in addressing these challenges and improving the effectiveness of doctoral training. This insight is essential for designing support systems that can empower faculty to contribute to the training of doctoral workforce for the benefit of society at large. The survey seeks to gain valuable perspectives on the qualities and skills considered essential for the success of PhD students. These insights will inform curriculum development and help prepare students better for a wider range of career paths. The results of the survey, currently underway, are presented. 

If the STEM PhD were a product sold in stores, customers would have long ago called for a redesign. The National Academies, Council of Graduate Schools, and Nature have all rightly advocated for reforms to PhD training. They've echoed calls from industry and society for researchers to be more responsive and more quickly generate innovative solutions to pressing problems. We encourage our fellow engineering educators to join with us in reimagining graduate education through P3 consortia or by driving similar innovation at their institutions.