R e f r e s h m e n t for
the Weary
To the Editor: . . . That one single line on the bottom of page 311, July issue, gave me enough incentive to read the rather long article entitled, "Some Famous Balances" and enjoy it heartily when I was already t i e d out and ready to retire after a hard day. STEPHEN PUTRESKY HOPSTEA COLLEGE HEMPSTEAD, NEWYOEK Science Courses vs. Chemistry
To the Editor: I have read with a great deal of interest both the original article, "A High-School Course in Chemistry that Does Not Lead t o Repetition in College," by P. M. Glasoe, and the published responses which followed. Alert teachers of science everywhere have come face to face with the same problem: What science content and activities shall we teach, particularly to the student of somewhat limited ability, of non-academic interests, who probably won't go on to college? As many other schools have done, we have set up two kinds of science courses clear through the high school (Summit, New Jersey). The college prep people-begin with biology in the tenth year, follow with chemistry in the eleventh, and take physics in the twelfth. I n these courses we try to teach them humanely, we try to make them challenging, and when we're through, we want our students to know and understand what chemistry really is. The alternative science courses have been organized as answers to the question, "What science will it profit the average person to know?" I n other words, what functional knowledges and activities can we organize into interesting and worth-while science courses for the purpose of general education? Every teacher of science knows how little appeal there is (and functional value, too, for that matter) in valence, formula-writing, learning the details of the arc method for making nitric acid, or determining the value of g in the laboratory, especially for boys and girls in the group we are now considering. But these people do have interests and abilities, and science does have values t o contribute. It is our job to bring the two together. Perhaps it can he done in a general chemistry course, perhaps it is better done in a general science course. We incline toward the second hypothesis. It would take far too much time and space to detail what we include in our physical science course. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that this course is not chemistry, yet perhaps forty per cent of its content comes from chemistry; i t is not physics, yet another thirty or forty per cent of its content comes from physics; it is not consumer science, yet a large portion of its problems deal with consumer problems of selecting, using, and caring for materials; it is not safety education, yet this
is a major goal of instruction. (One teacher, in discussing this course, said, "I don't see how you can teach the chemistry of shutting off a gas valve." Well, you don't. Yon teach the chemistry of why you shut it off, and then safety education begins a t that point.) Other important aspects of science education are also included: conservation; the position of the nation with respect to strategic raw materials and how science can and does help; how science promotes the utilization of waste materials, etc. We think we're on the right track-r a t least a right track-there's probably more than one. R. H. CARLETON HIGHSCHOOL SUMMIT NEWJERSEY SUMMIT, D i b a s i c Acids Again
To the Editor: On page 338 of the July issue of the JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION I observe a mnemonic device for recalling the sequence of the names of the saturated aliphatic dibasic acids from oxalic to sebacic, inclusive. The phrase given, "Oh, my, such good apple pie, sweet as sugar," was, as Dr. Teeter says, long used a t M. I. T. and I believe that i t was devised by the late Professor E. Jewett Moore. Readers and teachers interested in i t may also like the one which I now employ, and which came to me under the inspiration of correcting some quiz p a p e r s "Our Many Students Groping Around Painfully Seeking A Solution." ERNESTH. HUNTRESS M n s s n m s ~ n IsN S T I TOP ~ ETECHNOLOGY WSSACHUSETTS CAMBRIDGE,
A Name
for
the Unit of A t o m i c Weights
To the Editor: It sometimes seems that one of the most striking things about the science of chemistry and all its hundreds of thousands of names is that one of the most used of all its units is without a name. That unit is the unit of atomic weights. Every freshman chemistry student struggles over the concept of the oxygen atom assigned a weight of sixteen, but no one can tell him the answer when he asks, "sixteen what?" Why hasn't this unit ever been given a name? There must be a reason, but what is it? I have seen many beginning students show relief and new comprehension when some word is assigned t o this unit and atomic weights explained in such terms. For instance, the word "pel" may be assigned as the name of the unit and the oxygen atom said to have a weight of sixteen pels, and so forth. I know of no serious objections to such usage. It is easier to think with words. Why is it we haven't one for this? FREDFORDEMWALT 323 EASTUNIONAVENUE BOUNDBnooK. NEWJERSEY
