Emphasis in Chemistry:
I provocative opinion
Two Views
En~mn'sNOTE: Emphasis in introductory chemistry continues to be a sou-searchmg problem. This column contains the current views of two interested chemists-the one, a distinguished undergraduate and graduate teacher early in his career, rose to head chemistry departments at two large universities and now, as associate director of research for a. major chemical company, examines the problem with the experience and disciplined sensitivity oi a thoughtful senior citizen; the second, a. teacher who having recently accepted the responsibility ior developing the chemistry program in a. newly organized liberal arts college, ponders the strategy of inspiring students to learn and to appreciate this science.
..
principles and an humanitarian mission
...
. involvement in the well-being o f mankind
W h a t should be taught in chemistry courses today? I am certain that every chemistry teacher has asked this question of himself and of others. The question is not unique to this generation but has been valid since the day formalized courses in chemistry were first offered to students. What makes the question extremely pertinent today is that the choice of material must be made from a truly vast accumulation of knowledge. The dissatisfaction being registered in many quarters is that the great preponderance of teachers is following a course of action based upon only one answer to the question when, in fact, there are several. Certainly the training of professional chemists is a worthy objective of courses in chemistry. However, we should remember that the practice of the profession is not monolithic. Chemists are practicing their profession on a very broad spectrum and who is to say that one manner of practice is more important or deserving of acclaim than another. Well withim the memories of many chemists still active today, it was widely recognized that this country was not doing its share in contributing to the reservoir of basic information on which future applications might be based. That situation no longer obtains. Consequently, although the training of chemists to contribute to the factual and theoretical body of knowledge is extremely important, this ohjective should not and must not he the sole basis for the teaching of chemistry. Further, the successful practice of the profession of chemist requires more than knowledge of scientific fact and theory. There is considerable evidence indicating that present graduate chemists possess a tremendously sophisticated grasp of chemistry but are relatively immature in human relations and professional responsibility. Further, they have a very inadequate appreciation of the position of chemistry in the economic values of our society and tend t o view the science as an end in itself rather than a means to the improvement of the well-being of mankind. I n recalling past weakness we dare not be unmindful of past strength. The chemists of no other country have a greater record of accomplishment in the application of chemistry to the benefit of mankind in a variety
During the past half generation, some chemical educntors have realized how sterile and outdated chemical education has been in the past. It is now recognized that for a long time there was virtually no change in the subject matter presented in high school and college chemistry courses. The same old facts were paraded before the students with only the words changing. One can read a chemistry text written in 1920 and recognize its age only by the yellowness of its pages and the outdated styles of the clothing worn by the people in its pictures. More recently, though, there has been a significant change in emphasis. Whereas the earlier attitude seemed to be that chemistry is a body of knowledge to he learned, the current practice is to emphasize the processes whereby chemical knowledge is obtained and to discuss the rationale of chemical facts. Modern texts and courses are heavily loaded with chemical theory and with the latest advances on the frontiers of the science. The idea of science as an ongoing process is presented in the laboratory by having students do simulated research. On the whole, the basic image being projected is that the main purpose of chemistry, or any science, is the discovery of the way the universe works. The chemist is portrayed as a selfless man pursuing truth wherever it may be and his greatest reward is the knowledge that he has pushed back the darkness of ignorance a little bit. There is a great deal of evidence that our students believe in this image we have put before them: but they won't buy it. They see chemistry as an ivory tower enterprise but they don't see themselves in it. Today's students see the misery in the world and they want to help remove it; this is shown by their enthusiastic involvement in the Peace Corps, in VISTA, and in the anti-war movements. The guiding star of the present college generation seems to be not the pursuit of truth hut the pursuit of happiness and well being. Young people come to college expecting that they will learn how to cope with the world, how to improve it and, of course, how to make a living in it. Frequently this is not what they find, and in an era when scientifically trained people are needed more than
(Continued on p. 247, col. 1 .)
(Continued on p. 247, col2.)
246
/
Journal of Chemical Education
of ways. Such achievements were once presented to chemistry students. I t is to he regretted that students today don't somewhere hear of the past success and of the future needs because the demand for chemists, of which we hear so much, is to meet the challenge of human need. This is where the action is and where it will remain. This is where many future chemists should find their professional challenge. At this point two observations are pertinent: The present courses in chemktry are not equally attractive to all types of qualified students who in thepast have become successfid practitioners. This loss to the profession, if continued, could have far-reaching adverse consequences. 2. Those who employ chemists are not seeking Ph.D.'s to the extent that many edncatols think. The great need is for people with a lesser amount of training, especially BS chemists and technicians (two years post high school training). Once on the job, t,hesepeople will have plenty of opportunity to continue their education and do so with the employer carrying the major portion of the cast. 1.
What about the course in chemistry for the nonchemist? I am not concerned so much about the course for those planning to enter professions where a knowledge of chemistry is essential to the practice of those professions. If the course for professional chemists is in order, there is little difficulty adapting it to the course for other professions. However, I am deeply concerned about the course as an integral part of a liberal education. My friends in the humanities insist that a course in science (and they mention chemistry as an example) is valuable to give a student an understanding of and, hopefully, experience in the art of experimentation and in the elaboration of a theory from observable facts. Do teachers today provide this experience or do they conceal the method in a maze of theoretical superstructure? Some critics have even asked if teachers of chemistry could do this if they were of a mind to do so. I have confidence that they could because the pursuit of chemistry in its various ramifications produces a broad outlook. I am also deeply concerned in the course designed to help the future citizen to understand better the technical age in which we presently live. Are students today gaining the insight into industry, defense, and municipal applications of chemistry to permit them to appreciate the contribution of the chemical industry to the U.S. economy, to realize the international aspects of the chemical industry, to ask significant questions of public servants and vote intelligently on bond issues, to help developing nations achieve their desires, etc.? Finally, some attention to the economics of chemicals and chemical operations won't spoil the chemistry or diminish the fun. Are our teachers of chemistry equal to this challenge? If they accept it, are administrators ready to stand against prevailing custom and restructure the reward system to encourage such courses? Will accrediting agencies set their standards so as not to discourage them? W. C. Fernelius Koppers Company, Inc. Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146
ever before, students are deserting the sciences for other fields. The proportion of college students majoring in chemistry and other sciences is decreasing and in some places the total number of science majors is going down. This is ironic since, among the academic disciplines, the sciences (and chemistrv in uarticular) are the most practical, theones most refeveni to the well being of the world's peoples. The readers of THIS JOURNAL do not need to he reminded of the many phases of life where chemistry is useful, but their students do. Tell a class that chemists are mounting an assault on the unknown and it will yawn; show how the atomic theory is as mighty an intellectual achievement as Shakespeare's plays and it will tune you out. But show how chemistry helps fight disease, hunger, poverty, and pollution, and then, maybe students will come and listen. This is not to say that chemistry courses should emphasize primarily applications; far from it. The basic principles of the science are as important in practical chemistry as in research. The teaching of classical and modern ideas of chemistry should not be diluted, it should be strengthened. What does need changing is the attitude of chemistry teachers; they should go back to the idea that science is useful and that the future welfare of humanity will rely more than ever on the use and understanding of science. Ronald S. Ratney ~
~
Bentley College Boston, Massachusetts
I fancy more physics has been taught to the present generation by the automobile than by the professors. The automobile is autacratic in its methods. I t has the habit of stopping suddenly in the middle of the highway or on a railrod crossing and giving the ohauffeur a quiz on the chemistry of combustion or the laws of mechanics. And the chauffeur is not allowed to pass until he has given a practical demonstration of his knowledge. Seventy per cent of book learning will not suffice. This spread of science to the outside world is scary to the teacher who is secretly unsure of his own knowledge and therefore prefers to cling closely to his textbook. But the competent and confident teacher will welcome the new oowrtunities i t offers for
because they fail to see the connection between school work and life work. . . . t a k a from "Educating Everybody" 1, 3 (1924) by E. E. Slosson; THIS JOURNAL,
..
Volume 45, Number 4, April 1968
/
247
