LETTERS T o the Editor: I concur completely with Prof. Julian F. Smith's evaluation of "Russian-English Translators Dictionary" in your November issue (p. A998). I n as much as your JOURNAL is directed to students and teachers, neither class being able to overlook possible economies, it should be pointed out that one can purchase Zimmerman, "Russian-English Scientific and Technical Dictionary of Useful Combinations and Expressions-A Manual on Scientific and Technical Translation," Mir Publishers, Moscow, 294 pp. for $3.75. I n spite of the different title this is the same book (Prof. Smith's description of the nanosit' entry applies to this book exactly) a t the price! I bought my copy from Four Continent Book Corp. in New York, but I would expect other dealers speciahing in Soviet books to have it. R. F. TRIMBLE
A Reply to Professor Young's Provocative Opinion
T o the Editor: I n his article, THIS JOURNAL, 44,564 (1967), Professor Jay Young stated that chemistry is no longer best taught by the method which separates it into the traditional branches of organic, inorganic, analytical, and physical chemistry. Another approach is needed. But what kind of approach? Professor Young made some suggestions, e.g., teach the subject on the basis of structure and chemical dynamics. I think that if a student is t o be inspired to remain in chemistry it will be the result of his exposure to good inntnwtors more thrm exposure to rhr w l ~ j c c tnl:lttQr, rcg:rrdl~-;s of thc plan o i prrce~~tntion.T h c s the p r o f e w w speak with the assurance that comes only from a good command of the subject matter? It seems unlikely that a student will be stimulated by a person weak in his knowledge of the subject. Do we not lose an appreciable number of prospective chemists during the first college year because there are too many instructors in general chemistry who are trying to teach aspects of the subject which are not very familiar to them? Understandably, they lack confidence in what they are doing, and this lack of confidence does not promote a good student-professor relationship. It is important to note that the fault lies less with the instructor than with the course. The requirements on the instructor in general chemistry necessitate a knowledge of such a broad range of the subject it is surprising that we have any first rate teachers of general chemistry at all. Few can teach the entire course with confidence and more than a few lack the academic background and experience to teach with confidence even a major portion of the course.
The weak point in all the proposals presently being offered as replacements for our traditional approach seems to be that all new ideas stress strongly the integration of the subject matter into a unified whole. The thinking here seems to be strongly student-orientedwhat is best for the student-and subject matteroriented-how can it be most efficiently organized. Nowhere do I see any mention of that indispensable fixture of the educational system-the professor. How is he to acquire more than a superficial knowledge of nearly the entire spectrum of chemical knowledge? Is it not possible that without specialists the same problem which causes concern about general chemistry will be extended over the entire curriculum? Or, to use another approach, are we to become specialists in a small segment of the integrated course in chemistry? The alternative to our present plan of teaching by specialists seems to be teaching by generalists. I doubt that instructors whose training has been broad, but without much depth, can produce the kind of chemists we shall need in the future. This is a job for specialists who can speak with authority within the scope of their lectures. I prefer that our present system of teaching according to the traditional b r a n c h e ~ f a u l t ythough it may beshould be retained until some assurance can be offered that any new approach will not result in a loss of that enthusiasm which is best generated by a specialist in subject matter. I s the proposed new approach geared to the training and capabilities of the people who present it? An affirmative answer to this question should be forthcoming before any new system is put into operation. I have seen no evidence that the question is being raised nor have I heard of any plans by a graduate school to revise its present approach so as to turn out young professors who can serve in institutions offering any of the proposed new curricula. I n conclusion I should like to suggest that a first conservative step might be the abandonment of our course in general chemistry, retaining it only as a terminal course for non-science students. The problems of the unwieldy general chemistry course consumes an extraordinary amount of faculty time. Removal of the course would clear the way for discussions leading to a better integration of our present divisional offerings or even to a completely new curricula.
T o the Editor: As MacKenzie states, the traditional topical divisions of chemistry are teachable; chemists of our generation were so taught! But any good subject, divided into any reasonable set of topics, can he well taught by a good teacher who is both competent in and confident of his subject. So, this is neither a cogent argument for or against any proposed topical division of a suhject.
Volume 45, Number 2, February 1968
/
147
