Chemistry in the Army Specialized Training Program' CAPTAIN N E I L W . HALKYARD Army Specialized Training Division, United States Army
T
HE Army Specialized Training Program has been concerned chiefly with the training of enlisted men on active duty. I t will be concerned in the future chiefly with the training of reservists. This shift in emphasis is part of the larger shift in the Army's activities from preparation to action. Before December, 1942, a student's education was largely or exclusively determined by his civilian interests. Since these interests did not necessarily coincide with the needs of the Armed Forces, some provision was required to assure that those needs would be satisfied by the training of the right men, at the right time, and in the right fields. In anticipation of the reduction of the age for Selective Service to 18, a plan had been prepared for the college training of men on active duty. This plan, announced by the President early in December, 1942, has been largely identified with the Army Specialized Training and Navy V-12 programs. The Army builds upon the training its soldiers have had as civilians. Academic work at a university professional level is prerequisite to some Army training and assignments. The training and assignment of officers for military medical duties, for example, presuppose that they are graduates of medical schools. Training and assignment for other military duties presuppose education in engineering. Modern military equipment embodies abstract principles of science. The degree to which the equipment is understood depends upon the degree to which these principles are understood. It would be unreasonable, although desirable, to expect every soldier to possess a scientific nnderstanding of the complicated mechanisms with which he works; but some soldiers must have this understanding. As many as possible should have as much as possible. In addition to professionally and technically trained men, the Army needs men for general military duties who have had the post-high-school academic training which fosters more than ordinary nnderstanding and initiative. I t is obvious that training in mathematics and physics beyond the high-school level is necessary for the nnderstanding of much of the equipment used in the Army. It is less obvious, but no less desirable, that the soldier understand the historical and global aspects - of the conflict in which he is involved and the Presented before the Division of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society, 108th meeting, New York City. September 12. 1944.
human complexities of the military community in which he works. Obviously, civilian medical schools can more readily provide medical training than can the Army itself. Similarly, the required training in various fields of engineering can best be accomplished in colleges and universities. Civilian institutions also have facilities for the more elementaxy and more general post-highschool training that is preparatory to professional or technical training and that enables men better to perform any duties. The Army calls upon the civilian educational resources of the country to build up its supply of trained men just as it calls upon the country's civilian industrial resources to build up its supply of material. Because Army arsenals are able to produce only a minor portion of the needed weapons, American industry has been called upon to produce the major portion, under contract and according to specifications. The Army's own units and schools provide all but a small portion of the training it requires. As the Army has called upon industry to supply material, it has called upon civilian factory and vocational schools, colleges, and universities to provide the remaining portion, also under contract and according to specifications. With this brief background in mind, I shall now review for you the development of Curriculum B-60, the curriculum currently studied by the 17-year-olds (A.S.T.R.P.) and which supersedes curricula BE-1 and B-1. The subject-matter specialists who recommended the seqnence in which the courses were to be presented were limited by certain conditions. The trainees, better than average graduates of our high schools, were to be given essential knowledge and skills in fields which were designated hut only briefly defined. The time available was limited to three terms of 12 weeks each. The curriculum was to serve in the first two terms as common preparation for advanced training in engiueering, in medicine, and in dentistry. Nevertheless, the curriculum as a whole was to be a unit, since it was to be terminal for some trainees. Since the program was to he intensive, adjustments to make training more leisurely in one course could have been made only at the expense of other courses. The seqnence of courses established was the best that the educators consulted could devise within the limiting conditions. This sequence for the three terms of Curriculum BE-1 was as follows:
Mathemafies Phyni-
Chemistry Englirh, history, and geosaphy Ensincering drawing
0
7 3 8 0
5 7 6 0 0
5 7
0 0 6
This provided for a total of 108 clock hours of instruction in chemistry, 3 lecture demonstration hours per week the first term and 6 lecture and laboratory hours per week the second term. Some ingenious instructors working together correlated their instruction in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Such reciprocation between instructors proved highly successful. Others, less ingenious, taught as much of their regular first semester course as was possible in the 36 hours allocated to chemistry in Term 1. Others tried to teach their regular first-semester course in its entirety. The criticisms that arrived varied considerably, as might be expected. That a laboratory period was desirable was appreciated by the Army Specialized Training Division but a t the time BE-1 was written the three hours of lecture demonstration per week were prescribed because many institutions were convinced that laboratory in any elementary course could be replaced by demonstration. This would save valuable time and the educators and subject-matter specialists all agreed that in the best interests of the Army and the purpose for which chemistry was placed in the curriculum the chemistry course in Term 1 should be prescribed without the laboratory. The demand for detailed outline and syllabi was discouraging. In the first place, the War Department has no intention of interfering with the latitude which college instructors are allowed in the presentation of their subject. In the second place, the chemistry outline written by the consultants was stated in broad terms, because they felt that each institution would need leeway to experiment in developing a good three' hour-per-week elementary chemistry course. The discouraging factor was not the plea for help and clarification of objectives but the obvious lack of initiative and imagination on the part of some instructors, which was shown in such typical questions and comments as: The course outline does not agree at all with the text currently used by this institution and we preferred to follow the text. Chapter three in the text used by this institution is not suggested in the A.S.T.P. course outlines until the second term. It is absolutely impossible to teach chemistry without a laboratory period. Would i t be satisfactory to teach as much of such and such a text as is possible in the 36 hours in Term I ? Must all the suggested laboratory experiments in Term 2 be accomplished? These questions and comments are not repeated as a slur on the abilities of instructors but to show that the purpose of the course was misunderstood by them. Chemistry was made part of the curriculum not as a
.
subject designed to make chemists, but first, as an indicator course to find the potential abilities of premeds and predeuts who were to be selected a t the end of Term 2; and second, for the general principles of chemistry that would prove beneficial to any soldier in the field. In February, 1944, Curriculum BE-1, the original basic-phase curriculum was revised and renumbered. The course outlines were altered to include the proposals and criticisms which had been sent in. Curriculum B-1, as this revision was numbered, did not allow more time for chemistry, however, nor did i t include a laboratory period in Term 1. The fact that the majority of the institutions were experiencing real success with their three-hour-per-week lecture and demonstration chemistry course did not warrant the addition of the laboratory period. Curriculum B-60, which is a revision of B-l and is the basic curriculum now in effect, does include a twohour laboratory period for chemistry in Term 1. The laboratory period was added because premed and predent students, although they knew their basic chemistry, were handicapped by a lack of laboratory techniques necessary in the analytical work of their curricula. The chemistry in Terms l and 2 now provides for 132 hours, an increase over the original 108 by 24 hours. The new curriculum has made the majority of the instructors happy and the curriculum as a whole has been most favorably received. It might seem that the chemistry course of the basic curriculum had arrived a t that state where the majority of instructors felt that they can present their usual freshman chemistry course without compunction. I would, however, like to present the following facts which may again change the chemistry course in Curriculum B-l : 1. The A.S.T.P. will no longer screen E.R.C. students (the reservists between the ages of 17 and 18) for premedicine or predentistry. 2. No man after induction into the A.U.S. is eligible for assignment to the basic curriculum. He must be eligible for the engineering curricula or for area and language studies. 3. Only a handful of enlisted men are called upon to perform their military duties in the laboratory. I do not say that the chemistry course will be changed but the facts are indicative. It will be noted that the purpose for which chemistry was placed in the cuiriculum no longer exists (no future enrollment of new trainees in premedicine or predentistry). This and the fact that very few men are called upon to use the techniques of the laboratory are weighty in the eyes of the curricula experts. The trend of thought in the Curricula and Standards Branch of the School Division relative to the place of chemistry in the curriculum is pointing toward a general background course which would lay the foundations for the intelligent use of explosives, fuels, lubricants, foods, water supply, protective coatings, solvents, etc. It would be a course that has its roots in chem-
istry and that cuts across its entire field. Laboratory periods would be devoted to a new type of experiment that would be explanatory in nature rather than qualitative or quantitative. I am not aware that such a course is now offered a t the college level. The Director of Military Training, A.S.F., and the Director of the School Division (formerly Army Specialized Training Division), Office of the Director of Military Training, A.S.F., would appreciate any suggestions you might care to submit concerning
a course as just outlined. The suggestions would be most helpful if they described the possibilities of such a course, the time necessary, and the type of problem to be discussed, and not a justification of chemistry as it is now offered. This latter point must be kept in mind when it is remembered that the objective for those men who will not continue beyond the basic curriculum is an acquaintance with sufficient mathematics and science to make the maximum effective use of military equipment.
