An Ebbing from Success
Figurcs from a variety of colleges and universities indicate that approximately thirty percent of all college students enroll in chemistry courses. Of these no more than one in ten elects chemistry as a career, about 6.5 in ten elect other sciences or engineering, and about 2.5 in ten arc non-science majors. In addition, at least sixty percent, of college chemistry enrollments are in general chemistry, and of the undergraduate enrollments beyond gcneral chemistry, no more than one-third are chemistry majors. During the period 1963-67 the baccalaureates in chemistry dropped steadily from 2.0 to 1.6 percent of the total baccalaureates awarded by American colleges and universities. During this same period undergraduate enrollments in chemistry followed a similar trend. It has been reported by Linnell and Chapin [THIS JOURNAL, 46, 71(1969) ] that about 68 percent of chemistry baccalaureates proceed to post baccalaureate training and that of these only about one-half earn a doctorate in chemistry. During the period 1958-66 about 37 percent of the chemistry baccalaureates who earned doctorates obtained them in fields other than chemistry. These figures have an important story to tell and while they may not have the same meaning for all, they should provoke thoughtful consideration by academic chemists everywhere. To some they will say that the undergraduate chemistry program is being supported by non-chemistry majors and that therefore the undergraduate courses must be something more than the private training ground for postgraduate chemistry. To others they will say that the undergraduate program is .not holding its own in attracting and retaining chemistry majors, and that something must be done to correct this. There are a number who will view these figures as evidence of declining interest in chemistry, in science, even in intellectualism. And t,here are a few who will see them as no more than a temporary fluctuation in the normal pattern-a mere pen-scratch in the developing noise level of the times. However, even the most sanguine would admit that there are some implications here that probably should not be ignored. On tho more optimistic side, the fact that about 68 percent of chemistry baccalaureates proceed to graduate or professional schools suggests a healthy balance between those who go on to a deeper involvement in what we can call "pure chemistry" and those who will use their chemistry as a basis for careers in areas other than medicine or research. That about one-third of the
I editorially speaking
chemistry baccalauri%tes who earn doctorates get them in disciplines other than chemistry reinforces the notion that undergraduate training in chemistry can be an invaluable background for careers in areas ranging from medicine and the related biological sciences to engineering and business. There is reason to believe that this "training for chemically-related disciplines" may be at least as important a function of the entire undergraduate chemistry curriculum as is the preparation of professional chemists, and that it must increase in importance in the years ahead if chemistry is to exert the influence in the future it has in the past. Actually there is nothing really new for chemistry teachers in all this. The old problems remain: how to interest and educate young people in chemistry; how to provide the background in chemistry for those in chemically-related areas. But the priorities may be different today than they were ten or fifteen years ago. For example, the present emphasis is much more on the development of the potential research scientist and much less on the needs of those who would use chemistry in other ways. Unfortunately this reordering of priorit,ies has not resulted in more, or in the judgment of some, better chemistry graduate students. Nor is there evidence that it has enhanced the influence of chemistry in those areas that traditionally have depended on the chemistry training of their workers, except possibly in microbiology. There is a nagging uncertainty about the effectiveness of the current undergraduate chemistry program, and for those who contemplate the consequences of a continuation, of :its present, ebhingi from- success, this uncertainty changes to concern. The chemical community, and especially the academic contingent, would be wise to take a long hard look a t the undergraduate courses and curriculum. That the recently implemented changes have not come up to their high promise may be much less important than the basic philosophy which underlies the approach used in the courses and from which instructor attitudes toward both students and subject matter emerge. The best interests of the profession of chemistry can be served in more than one way, even a t the undergraduate level of instruct,ion. All the research money available will not produce better chemistry unless the interest and the talents of the students are stimulated as undergraduates or earlier. And all the good chemistry produced is barren unless it is learned and applied in areas outside the researcher's own laboratory. WTL
Volume
46, Number 4, April 1969 / 189
