JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
CHEMISTRY ANDiCHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULA IN THE POSTWAR ERA' WALTER 1. MURPHY Chemical and Engineering News, Washington, D. C .
WORLD WAR11,like all past wars, has left many problems to be solved. Chemists and chemical engineers, in common with everyone else, have problems which they cannot escape and which they must lose no time in solving. Scientists have demonstrated their .value in a great emergency, and if they are to assume the position to which their past performances entitle them, they must gird themselves for the still greater responsibilities that now confront them. They unlocked Nature's secrets to win the war, and the immediate task is to prove that the scientist has not reached.the limit of his capabilities, but instead has merely openedJhe door to the great world of tomorrow with its untold opportunities. They have made the world cognizant of the horrible life-destroying powers of the atom and now they must direct their energies to developing the potentialities of nuclear energy in the battle for life and the alleviation of suffering. Scientists brought the Atomic Age into being and they will fall far short of their responsibility if they do not prove that the energy they have unearthed is a boon instead of a menace to humanity. Stock must be taken to determine whether we are geared to cope with the situation. The question inevitably arises: are our institutions of learning in step with the demands of an Atomic Age? As my work takes me about the country and as I interview the educator on the one hand and the industrialist who is hiring the man out of college on the other, or when I talk with the students themselves, I sense an unmistakable feeling of uncertainty as to what should be done. Presented before the Division of Chemical Education at the 111th meeting of the American Chemical Society in Atlantic City, April 14-18, 1947.
Wherever the subject is discussed, it raises a lot of questions. G. 1,'sare pouring into our colleges, many of them older and more mature than the average college student. This Atomic Age has made students more conscious of their responsibilities, and scientists have become aware bhat what they are developing is for both destructive and constructive purposes, and feel that they should have some voice in what is done. But are our curricula adapted to our present-day life and outlook? How much is it the responsibility of the cbllege or university to plan a man's career? Should the college professor be there merely in an advisory capacity? Should he assume that a man or woman who enters college knows what he or she wants and that the province of the college is merely to provide the courses selected by the individual? Or should the college recognize that each student brings with him individual needs which must be met? Is it not a question of realizing that education is an over-all job for the entire day and that the college must effect controls over the student's social day? In other words, can the student acquire in the classroom all that is necessary to equip him for life, or should provision be made for other parts of his day spent outside the classroom? In the 1920's the trend in chemical engineering and in chemistry was towards specialization and away from cultural subjects. When I went to college, Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute was one of the few schools where that trend had not taken hold. This is no doubt attributable to the fact that the school originally vas a emall liberal arts college which ultimately switched to one wholly devoted to science and engineering. When
AUGUST, 1941
371
I was a student there between 1917 and 1921 the effect of having been a liberal arts college was still much in evidence. The president was a liberal arts man, whereas other schools of engineering had brought in as heads of their colleges men who were engineers. I have always had a great respect for a good foundation training in liberal arts, no matter what pursuit one may later take up as his life's vocation, and believe that we are making a grave mistake by not placing emphasis on these cultural subjects in the training of our chemists and chemical engineers. If cultural subjects are to be added to our curricula, what shall they be and how far shall we go in this regard? How much of the cultural background is the responsibility of the college or university, and how much should beTiupplied by home environment? Have we become critical of our colleges for the products they turn out when in reality the trouble goes back much farther and the deficiencies should have been supplied in the home or high school? How broad a cultural education is the college justified in expecting of a.college entrant? The idea seems to have become quite prevalent that the college or university should give a good course in music, art, literature, languages, humanities, etc., andif students do not have a working knowledge of these subjects, it is the fault of the college. In my opinion, a t least 75 per cent of such training must and should come from the home environment. It is too much to expect the university or even the high school to assume it. In addition to the cultural and scientific program, there is a third consideration worthy of attentionnamely, that our graduates maintain at least a passing acquaintance with patent law and business. Even if the chemist or chemical engineer continues to work in those fields, he will be better qualified for such work if he has a rather detailed knowledge of patent law, business administration, and even .salesmanship. Most chemists and chemical engineers, I believe, will find their pay check substantially larger if they have an understanding of sales technique in its broader applications. Fundamentally there have not been a g r e a t many changes in our curricula for the past 10 pr 15 years. The time now seems ripe to go into this matter from every angle and try a t least to begin to evolve a plan and to set an ultimate goal. We can never hope for complete unanimity. The fact that the Division of Chemical Education has seen fit to deyote a half day's symposium to the Revision of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Curricula is a healthy, sign and indicates that those responsible for training college students sense the necessity of revamping our college curricula. Statistics reveal that approximately 2,000,000 students-an increase of 30 per cent over the prewar peak--are now enrolled in our universities, colleges, and junior colleges, 800,000 of whom are there under the G. I. Bill of Rights. If this increase in university enrollment continues, and there are those who predict that our total college enrollment will reach the 3,000,000 mark within the decade, it will lessen the earning '
power of college training, which will be a prerequisite for more positions, and admission to the more desirable positions will be more and more restricted to those who have received more than a bachelor's degree. In the past only about half of those who matriculated continued in college more than two years. Is it possible, therefore, that a t least a large portion of those who make up our greatly augmented enrollment could be better equipped for their l i e work by a well-planned and carefully developed two-year course in a junior college or technical school? Are we accepting students who really should be steered away? Are our courses geared for the less capable man? What should be our method of attack? What types of students will be acceptable in our universities and colleges? . Should marks obtained in college entrance examinations be the sole criteria for deciding whether a person should be accepted in a college or university? What should be our aptitude tests for those who a& pire to be chemists and chemical engineers? Do our institutions, especially State, accept more students than their budget is capable of properly handling and include courses on highly specialized subjects because alumni or citizens of the state ask for them? Is it a question of what to cut out of our curricula rather than what to add to i t ? Should we be more selective in the number.of students admitted and restrict them to the elasticity of the budget and the staff? Should there be an orientation program for first-year students? Is the present four-year college course inadequate to do all that we would like to do totrain our young people for the work that lies ahead? Are we attempting to pack too much in the undergraduate program? Shall w e decrease the rigidity of prescribed curricula? Or is life being made too soft and are our students having things too much their own way? Some of our foremost institutions, including Yale, have gone back to basic principles and require students to'do more real studying, and the faculty takes a hand in deciding what they will study. Certainly 20 years ago, students went to school for longer hours and worked much harder than 'the average college student does today. Has the time come for less specialization? Should our curricula be planned looking toward a five-year or even six-year course? Should there be less of science and engineering in the first four years and more of the cultural subjects, or should there be no science for the first two years and then go into it later for specialization? Can we pickout inthe entering freshman class those men whoare worth four, five, or six, or even eight years' training? The criticism has been made repeatedly that we are not sufficiently careful about screening out those who desire to go into graduate work. Instead, anybody who cares to do so seems to be admitted. The demand of the age for high speed has produced corresponding demands in the field of technology which for the most part can only be supplied by graduate training. Does
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL. EDUCATION
318
this mean that education a t the master ievel will be- of them go into plant operation, design, technical servcome even more specialized and that undergraduate ice, market development, sales engineering, advertiscurricula will have to be revamped for better support ing, patents, administration, executive and managerial of these specialties? work. Should this be taken into account and given Should we have one type of graduate development a t specific consideration in preparing the curricula? If. one university and others a t other universities? Ob- schools of chemistry and chemical engineering would viously, one university cannot hope to meet the widely make a study of their graduates over 25 years, they diversified and rapidly growinginterests of industry. would find that a relatively small percentage of their Shall we provide a group of courses having specific total graduates remain as research men for any conhumanistic purposes of clearly defined significance in siderable length of time. On the other hand, the ourthe education of technical students? ricula seem to be designed with the idea that every reCan the humanities be taught or are they not some- search, design, and plant man will remain as research thing that must be acquired in everyday practice? If' chemists or production men the rest of their lives. In we want human Ph.D.'s, should we not first require the past graduates have had a woeful lack of the inthat they live in a human way in a human organization? dustrial side, yet that is where most of them expect to Some of our fonvard-looking colleges are now follow- seek employment. They have very little appreciation ing the recommendations of the American Assckiation. or understanding of patent law, business administration, for Engineering Education and have already added or psychology to direct the activities of and get along more nontechnical subjects, such as English: history, with others. Can the teachers who have been instructgovernment, psychology, etc., to their undergraduate ing.for ten years or even five years teach the new decurricula. In most instances, they leave very little velopments the students demand? choice in these nontechnical courses to the student. I feel very strongly that there must be a closer liaison He is required to take the course prescribed by the between industry and the teaching profession, possibly faculty. The present practice a t Brooklyn "Poly" is an exchange of some sort. This is now obtained by to plan a four-year curriculum for the degree of chemical those teachers who are doing consulting work.in indusengineering and distribute the cultural subjects through try, but it must be borne in mind that this number is the four-year program. "Poly" has always emphasized relatively small as compared with the total teaching cultural subjects. Only recently have many other engi- staff in our colleges. neering schools required as much English as that traShould there be more emphasis placed on the comditionally required a t "Poly." The same is true with bination of work in industry and the college course berespect to German and economics. In the old days fore a degree is granted? Should we stress principles the senior option course was usually in modern drama. and place less emphasis upon isolated facts? As of this year the choices are usually public speaking, I s it bettex for those who want to go into g ~ a d u ~ t e psychology, or advanced history and government. work first to have some actual experience in industry or Brooklyn "Poly" probably will not adopt the five-year research in the field in which they want to specialize? program since the boys entering there are carefully se- Should our courses be extended over a period of time lected from the excellent high schools of the area, and and include experience in industry? Some of our unithe Admissions Committee a t present selects each fresh- versities are pioneering in this, but it will require generman from about ten applicants. Students are encour- ous and wholehearted cooperation of industry to accept aged to follow the Bachelor's degr& with paretime people in minor jobs who have not completed their graduate study during employment leading to the training. Master's degree, and it is the feelimg that this fits better Do we attempt to make practical the knowledge that the metropolitan conditions than would the five-year a man is learning as,he 1eai.n~it? program. It seems equally satisfactory for the limited Should therebe part-time places on university staffs number of chemical engineering students who continue for top-flight executives who-could deliver an occasional on for a Doctor's degree. lecture or preside over a round-table discussion group? Other universities, for instance, .Columbia, Cornell, This would enable students to see businessmen at close Minnesota, and Ohio, have extended their under- range. In this way, the businessman would learn the graduate courses in chemical engineering to live years. need of the college and could critically examine what he Purdue, on the other hand, has continued with the four- expects of young men and junior executives. year and one summer course, which it regards as adeShould we have men, perhaps from the appropriate quate for the ordinary graduate who is going into sales department of the college itself, in law, philosophy, or the less technical aspects of production. political science, economics, or an engineer in practical The practice in most colleges seems to be that where work, an architect, patent attorney, etc., address the the four-year courses are adhered to, the faculty recom- chemical or chemical engineering students or head an mends that the better students continue on for a M.S., occasional seminap on their specialty? in which they will concentrate largely on their specialty, Does such a program need an entire semester? and that the best students stay for a Ph.D. Would a two-hour-a-week course in practical humanities A great many graduates in the field of chemistry and be the answer? Such courses, although admittedly chemical engineering do not remain in research. Many superficial, could start where the problem arises in the
.
AUGUST, 1941
practical humanities and give a working- basis for solvthem. Regardless of how well trained a man is in calculating heat-transfer coeffiaients, originating new ideas, and designing equipment, he still has to sell his ideas and himself to his management, client, or customer, and must convince them that the data he is attempting to obtain and interpret prove his point. Should he not, therefore, get more thorough training in how to speak and to mite, how to dictate reports and get his ideas across? We must recognize that there is bound to be a demand for men with good personalities, theoretical training, plus practical use of experience to take executive positions. During the past few years, men who would ordinarily come up slovvly as junior chemical engineers have been placed in positions of greater responsibility. The definite trend in the chemical industry is to promote technically trained men into managerial positions. Is this fact as fully recognized in our colleges as it should be and special emphasis given in curricula? Should there be special courses given with this in mind? Would it be advisable for a few colleges to provide courses leading to a Master's degree in chemical business administration? Industry generally starts its new employees in the broad, general fields of production, sales, or rese%rch. Frequently one of the complaints made by men doing research in industry is that they are not allowed to follow their own bent and continue with a piece of research which to them may be intensely interesting but which holds no possibility of ultimate value to the employer. If such men had a better understanding of the economics involved, they would appreciate that research, no matter how interesting, cannot be carried on indefinitely for th6 sake of research alone, but that it must be remunerative. Do the men who emerge from our universities have an appreciation of the human factors in life and the relationship of t& chemical and chemical engineering profession and the products of their profession on human life? Our democratic traditions demand that citizens assume civic responsibilities. Are all our students receiving sufficient managerial training? What about their equipment to cope with industrial relations problems? Are we prepared to advance the standards of living by the further development of chemistry and chemical engineering? Should our students be given a better understanding of world affairs? Should our young men whom the universities are planning to put in charge of their courses be given courses themselves which would steer, them away from
the pitfalls into which more experienced research men often fall-that is, using terms with which students are not familiar or presenting ideas which the students are not prepared to absorb? Does it come back to the old question of our institutions' paying high salaries to attract andkeep good men? I do not expect this symposium to decide on a fraction of what can or should be done. I am merely trying to crystallize the idea that these problems are ours and that me must find a solution for.them before they are eliminated. They have to be brought out into the open and their proper solution found. They are of immediate concern, not only to the educators and students, but to the employers of the latter. I t is too much to hope that one half day or even a full day spent very pleasantly in discussing these questions will achieve any permanent results or get answers to all the questions propounded. I feel very strongly that this should be a continuing symposium a t A. C. S. meetings, so that every angle of the questions propounded and answers developed can be followed through thoroughly and in detail. In the symposium being held this morning, we are hearing for the most part from educators. The problem is broader than that. I cannot stress too strongly that this symposium should be followed by another which will place emphasis on what industry wants. The viewpoint of the recipient of the training should also be sought, as well as that of the man a few years out of school and those who have been 10, 15, and even 25 years out of college. But even that is not enough. Although a great miny sympasia of this kind have been held by dierent organizations, nothing concrete has as yet resulted. Educators may attend the spmposia and return to their respective colleges and institute some changes, but is it not time that a more definite approach be made to this subject? Curricula in different colleges have different purposeband serve dierent types of students. If these symposia are as important as is indicated by the number that have been held, would it not be advisable to take some more formalized action-possibly appoint a committee to consider the data presented a t these symposia, and make detailed recommendations? The c o e i t t e e should consist of teachers, industrial leaders, students, and alumni, and might be a subcommittee of a committee that will report to the Society's Committee on the Professional Training of Chemists. I8 other rords, should we not begin to plan now to translate words into action? Our goal should be the maximum development of every student and we should lose no time in attaining it if we are to play our part as valuable citizens in insuring the peace, as we did in winning the war.
