Chemistry in the Liberal Arts College' WALTER B. KEIGHTON Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
I
WOULD like to begin by considering the function of the liberal arts college. Wherein does the liberal arts college differ from the technical or professional school? Some would define the liberal arts in historical terms. They point out that the liberal arts in Greek and Roman civilization were those studies that were reserved for freemen. Slaves were often given technical training so that they might be useful in the practical arts, but studies intended for the development of intellectual and moral excellence were reserved for freemen, to prepare them for the duties of citizenship. Wendell Willkie,2perhaps with these thoughts in mind, speaks of the liberal arts as "education for its own sake: to know.for the sheer joy of understanding; to speculate, to analyze, to compare, and to imagine." While this is a true definition it is an unfortunate one for it brings up the thought that here is a luxury very well for those who can afford it, but that the majority of US who will need to earn our own living must press on to more practical studies and leave the liberal arts to others. In order to show that this is quite contrary to fact, I prefer to define a liberal education in terms of three objectives.8 The first of these is training to live well. The cultivation of those habits of thought and action which are essential to the acquisition of truth are an important contribution to the good life. A capacity for esthetic delight, a knowledge of one's religious and moral heritage, an understanding of nature, are all essential for a rich and satisfying existence. The second purpose of a liberal edncation is training to take an intelligent part in society. This implies a knowledge of the various social, economic, political, and cultural forces a t work in society. The third purpose is training to earn a living. In general this implies some field of concentration but the field should neither be so narrow as to sacrifice cultural significancenor so broad that time is lacking to cultivate it to its full depth. A liberal education helps one to,understand the goals of mankind, to acquire skill in the methods of attaining them, and to provide the background which makes possible a critical appraisal of various alternatives. A liberal education should develop not only mental power, but also moral responsibility.
-
Presented before the Division of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society, 108th meeting. New York City. September 12. 1944. W ~ L K I E"Freedom . and the liberal arts." An address delivered at Duke University January 14, 1943. Published in the American Scholar. 12, 135 (1943). a A recent stimulating book an this subject is "Liberal Education Reexamined; its Role in a Democracy." THEODORE M. GRRENE AND OTHERS, Haper and Brothers, 1943.
How does chemistry fit into this? There are two reasons for including chemistry courses in the liberal arts program. They may be intended either as a part of the professional training of the chemist, or doctor, or engineer, or as a part of the general education of the nonscient'ific student. Chemistry courses intended as part of the professional training of chemists should provide a grounding in the fundamental principles of chemistry as a basis for future specialization in indnstry or in postgraduate work. While they are also concerned with the acquirement of some technical skill, in general, proficiency is not developed until later. An American Chemical Society committee has set standards for the professional training of chemists, and it is not my purpose to re-examine these standards now. I would like to point out, however, that the liberal arts college has an obligation to see that the student is prepared to become an effective citizen as well as a competent professional man. The student of chemistry must be intensively trained in his own field and in allied fields, but in addition he must be socially minded. He needs to understand the basic social problems and their significance, and he should see how his work is related to the aspuations and needs of society. Further, we must see that his sensitiveness for the enduring values in the fields of morality, the arts, and literature, is cultivated. It is important not only that our chemist learn how to make a living, but also that he learn how to live. I question whether we have yet, as a Society, sufficiently emphasized the importance of the humanities and social sciences in the professional training of chemists. The liberal arts college has two jobs: to introduce the student to the major fields of learning, and to provide relatively intense training in some one major discipline. The student will be introduced to the various major fields early in his college career so that he may wisely select a field for intensive training, one adapted to his abilities and of genuine interest to him. But this introduction to the principal disciplines has another equally important objective, Gz., to acquaint the student with some of the significant problems in each of these major fields and to orient him with regard to the methods of approach to these problems. The four-year college does not expect to produce graduates proficient in each of the major disciplines, but some groundwork in several of them is necessary if educated men are to have a common language and to understand the basic relationships between their own field of specialization and other fields. Specifically, the student with a major interest in the
humanities or social sciences should have some knowledge of science, of which a t least a part may be chemistry. There is a growing conviction to this effect, i t seems to me, among administrators and college teachers in fields outside the sciences. President Nason,&of Swarthmore College, wrote over three years ago: "We have more knowledge, and more exact knowledge in the natural sciences than in any other area. . . . It is important for the student in the humanities and in the social sciences to know something about natural science. That is a great cultural area which has perhaps the greatest prestige of any field today and which as a consequence no one can ignore and be liberally educated. But just because the fields of natufal science have been so successfully developed, a thorough understanding of the pioneer work in biochemistry or subatomic physics is beyond the reach of all but specialists. Wbat the nonscientific student needs to know is the main outline and method and spirit of the scientific inquiry." This is the problem that I wish to consider. What kind of chemistry course will best give the nonscientific student the main outline and method and spirit of chemistry? Should it be a broad survey of the whole field of chemistry? Should it attempt to impress the student with the importance of chemistry in industry, or agriculture, or in the household arts, or in the war effort? Or should it equip the student to be an interesting conversationalist? To attempt to do any of these things, in my opinion, is to risk a superficial treatment. To change for a moment to a different subject, how do we give a boy the main outline and method and spirit of baseball? Do we present him with a rule book, or outline the history of the game, or prove to him that playing baseball will build him up physically? Of course we do none of these things, except incidentally. We teach him to throw, catch, and bat the ball because these are the fundamentals of baseball, and then we start a game with a pitcher, catcher, and batter, because these are the essential positions. A knowledge of the special job of the shortstop or the fielder and a great deal of other specialized knowledge are necessary to a full understanding of the game, but we can give the boy the main outline and method and spirit of the game with a three-man team. I submit that we might well do a similar thing for the ndnscience. student who is taking chemistry as a part of his geneial.education, rather than as a part of his professional training. Our course might well be devoted to a few central concepts or principles which illustrate the methods of the chemist, which are close enough to experience to be meaningful to the student, and which can be treated thoroughly in the time available. I say concepts and principles advisedly, for I would build the course around principles with a minimum of description of properties and processes. If the conventional chemistry course has been a t fault it is because it has tried to do too much. We have
not discriminated between things of real importance and things of apparent importanck. I suspect that we teach about petroleum refining because everyone has an automobile or an oil furnace, or about synthetic rubber because the recent rapid development of that industry is a great tribute to scientific and engineering skill, or about plastics because "after the war everything will be made of plastics," not because these topics are particularly useful in explaining some fundamental principles of chemistry or in elucidating the methods of the chemist. In seeking comprehensiveness we risk superficiality, and may substitute shallowness for mastery. Of this we must beware. I do not advocate a simplified course. What we need for the general education of the nouscience student is not a simpler or easier or broader elementary course in chemistry, but one which eliminates as much as possibIe of the more technical parts of the science, e. g., much of chemical nomenclature, the balancing of oxidation-reduction equations, and the procedures of qnalitative analysis. Such topics are an essential part of the professional training of the science student but are humdrum for the student who will never take a more advanced course in chemistry. It is proposed that we limit the number of topics discussed so that each topic may be considered with the thoroughness that characterizes-scientific work. The primary purpose of this course would not be to exhibit the scope of chemistry nor to explain all the chemical phenomena that the student is likely to encounter in lie. The course would be characterized by courageous omissions rather than by complete coverage of the subject, its purpose to show the special technique or method of working in the field of chemistry. It has been my experience, and probably yours, that college freshmen depend too much upon memory and too little upon their ability to reason. They will throw experimental data into a formula without pause to consider whether the formula is applicable or the result obtained sensible. I can think of no better study than chemistry to teach the student (a) that there are too many facts to memorize, (6) that many facts may be deduced from simple theories, and (6) that "facts" remembered or deduced should be checked for reasonableness. Thus the study of chemistry should contribute to the development of precision in thinking. It is essential to such a course as I propose that the student actually work with the theories, a n d learn to make use of them. One aim of a liberal education is to cultivate those habits which are useful in acquiring knowledge. This does not mean describing the techniques of study to the student but means havinghim use those techniques. TWOfriends6 of mine from a neighboring college expressed their conviction in a paper presented to this Division a t the Pittsburgh meeting, that "one can learn to use a library only by using it and that he can learn to do research only by doing it." I * NASON,"The nature and content of a liberal education." ' M E L D R AND ~ ~ ~ JONES, "The technical library and underAssociatiotr of American Colleges Bullelin. 27, 53-61 (1941).
graduate research," J. Ceaaa. E ~ u c .20,593 . (1943).
.
would like to add that one can learn the scientific method only by using it, and one can learn how the chemist works only by doing the work that the chemist does. I will not be satisfied to have the student on the side lines watching the parade go by. He must take part in it. It is for this reason that I would feel that lahoratory work was an essential part of the course. We can show the student a lot of chemistry in demonstrations and as we demonstrate we tell him what to observe and what he should conclude from the observationand this has its place in instruction. But if he does the work in the laboratory by himself, even though we guide the course of his work by directions and the course of his thoughts by leading questions, he will have to think through the problem himself. This should cultivate his habits of observation, and encourage him to draw tentative conclusions and to test them by further experiment. Laboratory work can be an especially potent force in education because problems apparent to the senses are often more effectivein arousing curiosity-and therefore in initiating thought trains -than those apparent only to the mind. And, finally, we must beware of trying to make our course simple for the sake of avoiding difficulties. Many students do not mind difficulties if the way to overcome them is indicated, and if it appears worth while to overcome them. It is, in fact, acquiring the ability to overcome difficulties which makes a course interesting. Such a course should help supply the mental training to make the student an understanding listener, to give him some sense of what is sound science and what is quackery, and to have some insight into the methods and background of the chemist. The mechanics of working out such a course will vary with local situations but certain general observations may be made. It will he noted that I have proposed nothing for the nonscience student that one would not wish for the student with a professional interest in chemistry. It would therefore he quite practical to have the h t part of both kinds of course identical, with a common first term for both kinds of student. Such an arrangement may not be necessary, but is possible. We propose to provide for the nonscience student a thorough training in some few fundamental concepts of chemistry. We certainly wish to do the same thing for the student with a professional interest in chemistry. If the treatment is thorough there will be no need to repeat it again in the professional stndent's second term. For his second term, there w i l l be plenty of fundamental concepts which were not brought up in the first term either because of lack of time, or because they required more background than could he developed in a few months. To be specific, let me state how such a course might he worked out with a common first term for science students and humanities students. The following topics or some of them would be appropriate for the first term:
The atomic theory and weight relations in chemical reactions The kinetic theory and the behavior of gases. Solutions and the electrolytic dissociation theory. Relation of properties to atomic, molecular, and crystalline Structure. The bases for the periodic table, and its use. Elementary treatment of chemical equilibria. Sufficient descriptive chemistry to illustrate these principles and to demonstrate their usefulness.
Some of these topics might be omitted or others substituted for them. In general, the nonscientific student would end his formal +cation in chemistry a t the end of this term. The student with a professional interest in chemistry would continue with a second term perhaps more concerned with the application of principles to the professional problems of the chemist. Such topics as the application of the solubility product principle or hydrolysis equilibria to qualitative analysis, or the balancing of oxidation-reduction equations, would he appropriate to the second term. A large portion of this term would be devoted to the systematic study of descriptive chemistry. I have a feeling that in the past we have tended to consider our elementary chemistry courses chiefly with respect to their effectivenessin preparing science students for more advanced chemistty courses, that we have been too little concerned with the needs of nonscience students. For most nonscience students the first course in chemistry is a terminal course. This makes it all the more important to define clearly the aims of such a course, to seek the most effective means of accomplishing these aims, and finally to test the degree of our success. If we are successful, the student's mental growth, along the lines in which we have trained him, should continue after the completion of the course. If such growth does not continue i t seems to me difficult to justify the chemistry course as a part of a liberal education. One attempt to test such growth was reported by the Graduate Record Examination6 last year. Three hundred and eighty-three college students of liberal arts were tested in their sophomore year and again in their senior year in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, the social sciences (history-governmenteconomics), literature, and fine arts. From the tabulated results of the test i t is clear that the largest gains were in the humanities abd the social sciences, and the smaller ones in mathematics and the natural sciences. Chemistry shows the smallest gain. When the students are grouped according to their major fields the picture is even more disappointing. Among the men tested, four of the eight major field groups show a decrease in score in the chemistry test; The majors in mathematics, chemistry, biology, and literature show some gain in the chemistry score, but the gains are small. Among the women tested, each of the major field Graduate Record Eramination. Occasional Circular number I. November, 1943. A progress report on the sophomore-sen& achievement of 383 twice-tested college students of liberal arts. The Graduate Record Examination, 437 West 59th Street. New York 19. New York.
groups shows a decrease in the chemistry score. This apparent lack of growth in chemistry may be due to several factors. Perhaps, because colleges stress the sciences during the earlier years of the curriculum many of these students had little formal instruction in chemistry after their freshmen or sophomore years. Undoubtedly the newspapers, popular magazines, and the radio, are more potent extracurricular sources of education in some other fields than they are in chemistry. It seems to me, however, that these results also a t least raise the question whether we chemistry teachers have contributed as m c h as we can to the mental growth of the liberal arts student. If we have not, i t is because we do not have clearly in mind the objectives of a course for this kind of student. To summarize, it has been stated that although considerable thought has been given to the professional education of the chemist, and some to the chemists' need for a liberal education, relatively little serious thought has been given to the place of chemistry in the liberal education of the nonscientific student. I t has been suggested that courses offered for this purpose may be superficial if they attempt to cover too wide a field, and proposed that by restricting the course to a few topics thoroughness will be encouraged. Based first on the assumption that i t is more important that the liberal arts student understand the
methods and spirit of chemistry than that he have on tap an abundant flow of factual information, i t is proposed that the course deal with a few central concepts or principles. On the further assumption that on the college level it is more necessary to train to reason than to train to memorize, emphasis would be placed on the application and use of the principles rather than on the mere accumulation of chemical facts. It is not desirable to be any less thorough in teaching chemistry to nonscientific students than to those students who have a professional interest in chemistry. If we are not thorough we give a false idea of the scientific method. A first course for professional students would differ only in its greater length and in the inclusion of principles somewhat less fundamental but technically useful, in the development of certain mental and manual techniques utilized in the practice of chemistry, and in the memorization of a somewhat greater number of chemical facts because of their usefulness in the profession. The essence of my proposals is that we should reexamine our elementary course intended for nonscientific students in order to be sure of our objectives and to find the best way of attaining them. Perhaps we are fooling ourselves by thinking that what is good enough for the chemist is good enough for the humanities student.
