HOW CAN MORE STUDENTS BE ENCOURAGED TO STUDY CHEMISTRY AS A PROFESSION? One College's Approach on the Personal Level CHARLES B. HURD Union College, Schenectady, New York
Tm
title ()f this article carries a high priority in the minds and discussions of most members of college chemistry departments and industrial organizations employing chemists. The decrease in enrollment in specialized chemical curricula in the colleges, coupled with a more active market for chemists ( I ) , and the highest salary levels ever attained in the profession (b), creates a puzzling situation. While forecasts have encouraged us t o expect more graduates within the next few years, the shortage is still acute (5). Here a t Union College we have debated this problem for several years. I n the last year and a half, we have made a study of it by going t o our source of supply, namely, the secondary schools. I am writing this report since I know many chemists are concerned and since I hope this may bring out more discussion. Results here, as in most experiments, will be in proportion to the effort expended. The plan was simple. We wrote t o each high-school principal, asking for the name of the teacher who, in the principal's opinion, had the most t o do with students in chemistry and who would contribute most t o the discussion. Upon receiving the teacher's name, we wrote a personal letter, not a mimeographed form, issuing the invitation, giving brief directions, and requesting a reply. We also pointed out that the chemical laboratory would be open for inspection before the meetiw. Of 44 who came t o attend the three meetings, only two came t o see the chemical laboratory. Those who are interested in this procedure for studying our question may ask how this was financed. These dinner meetings cost from $60 to $75 each and since Union, like most colleges, does not provide funds for such purposes, the expense would have proved a barrier if we had not had a "good fairy." Union is among the fortunate colleges whose chemistry departments have received Du Pant grants. We considered it well within the conditions of the grant t o use a small part for this purpose. The three meetings were held as follows: March 26, 1954. Fifteen high-school chemistry teachers, nine college staff, and one chemist from industry on the local American Chemical Society Education Committee. November 19, 1954. Eighteen high-school guidance
counselors, eight college staff, and one chemist from American Chemical Society Education Committee. May 6, 1955. Eleven junior high-school science teachers and seven college staff. The group met for dinner at 6:00 P.M. The meal was complimentary. It was served a t a U-shaped table in the college dining hall. Everything was informal with name tags provided for all. After dinner, the group moved t o the faculty lounge, a comfortable, home-like room, cleared for this group for the evening. The writer, as unofficial master of ceremonies, gave a brief talk, presenting the picture of the shortage of chemists. The talk was illustrated with large colored charts taken from articles in Chemical and Engineering News ( $ 5 ) . He also outlined the plan of an American Chemical Society-accredited college curriculum in chemistry, since he suspected and later was sure that many of the group did not understand these requirements. Discussion by group members followed for over an hour. A recess with refreshments then broke up the formal discussion; informal group discussions continued for another hour. Some volunteered so quickly in the discussion that the secretary had trouble keeping notes. Some were very slow. The attempt was made t o draw all into the discussion in some way. The high-school chemistry teachers were most strenuous, the junior high-school group provided the liveliest discussion, while the counselors were least active. Making contact with these teachers through their principals was difficult in several cases. There were no difficultiesonce the teachers arrived. All were friendly and most mixed easily. Interest since the meetings has continued as shown by the fact that four teachers have brought groups of students t o visit the college laboratory. We were amazed t o find during the first meeting that only three teachers knew that they are welcome t o bring high-school students t o see the laboratory in operation. The following observations taken from notes of the discussion in the first meeting, where our guests were high-school chemistry teachers, point out some of the unfortunate existing circumstances which contribute to the lack of prospective chemistry students in college. The expense of a college education was cited as a
VOLUME 33, NO. 3, MARCH, 1956
barrier. The high-school teachers thought many excellent high-school students were unable to go to college. The chairman assured them that there are so many scholarships for good students that no really able high-school graduate can afford not to go to college. The requirement of three and one-half years of highschool mathematics for admission to Union's chernistrymajor curriculum was called a serious stumbling block by the highschool teachers. It is difficult to get highschool students to take the more difficult, and consequently less popular, mathematics courses. A real difficulty in developing interest in chemistry in high-school students lies in the fact that chemistry usually comes in the last year. The student may have made up his mind about his career before this. The lack of personal encounter with chemistry was also noted. Some high schools have no student laboratory in their chemistry courses. In others, it has been drastically reduced. A very poor substitute in some schools occurs where the teacher performs the experiment and the students take notes. In the second meeting we found that the counselors also objected to the mathematics requirement. The chairman pointed out that modern chemistry and physics require spatial thinking and a good background in mathematics. The possibilities for careers in "chemistry" in contrast to those in "chemical engineering" 'were discussed. Few counselors understood the difference. The relationships between the numbers in each profession and the type of work performed was explained. One counselor suggested that chemistry is losing its glamour for teen-age students. Chemical exhibits and fairs were suggested. It was pointed out that the junior high-school level may be the place to generate enthusiasm. Unfortunately no one knew how to do it. In the last meeting, the smallest group of the three, the junior high-school teachers put up a lively discussion. They advocated testing students for scientific ability, a t least by the ninth grade. The interesting proposal was made that elementary ahemistry be given a ! part of the ninth grade general science course. They showed, however, how easily general science, including elementary life science (biology or physiology) or elementary earth science (geology), can be taught on ninth-grade level. I n contrast to this, none had equip ment or laboratory space for chemistry, and few felt that they had adequate background. The comment was made that the superior student could become bored with the pace, of necessity, set for the student of the lowest ability. This may be a very serious point. How to save these superior students was discussed, but without positive conclusions. The chairman introduced the idea that now students are less willing to work as hard as they did formerly. The group agreed a t once. Most blamed the parents, some the ease of making money. All agreed that a letdown has occurred. None knew how to correct the situation. It is difficult for a college teacher to correlate all of this discussion, but certain factors stand out. We also
133
have noted in this section a few references which have recently substantiated our findings. (1) A good college chemistry curriculum is difficult. It requires not only chemistry but mathematics and physics. Mathematics is not popular in high school. Many students lack the drive; they drift to easier programs. (2) Chemistry comes last in most high-school sequences. Those with scientific minds may have decided on their profession before they take chemistry. Engineering now has more glamour. (3) High-school teachers mostly are teachers first, and chemists second, third, or fourth. Many have not had much college chemistry. Very few belong to the American Chemical Society or receive Chemical and Engineering News. Few really are chemists. (4) We, the members of the chemical profession, have done a sadly-inadequate job of making chemistry interesting and attractive to young people. We are poor advertisers. We must rectify our mistakes (6) or chemists will become even scarcer. Industrial chemists and college teachers must both work here. (5) Scholarships must be increased, but emphasis on the very high ability may be unfortunate. We all know that not all successful chemists are geniuses, nor were they geniuses in college. More emphasis should be placed on seriousness of purpose. Industries (7) must increase their aid to earnest, hard-working students. (6) The colleges must promote more and friendlier contacts with the high schools. Too often some of our specialists look down on their high-school colleagues or, if they do not, the latter have that impression. (7) Chemistry seems to be losing out in secondary schools. Some small schools offer no chemistry (8); some offeran overly-abbreviated course. Some schools have no laboratories or a t best poor facilities. Teachers have trouble getting money for supplies to support good laboratory work. Some of our cast-off material would help many a small school. (8) Much must be done for the secondary-school chemistry teacher. Each group emphasized this point. More well-trained chemistry teachers are needed. Salary needs were stressed. The high-school chemistry teacher needs opportunities to renew his contacts with modern chemistry. The General Electric CompanyUnion College Summer Fellowship is one example of a steadily increasing number of such programs which help in this respect. (9) The superior student may be neglected in our present educational system. JVe shout so much about democracy and equal opportunity for all that we forget that not all young people are equal in ability. The slow pace set for the mediocre bores the very able student. The group recommended separate sections, even in junior high, for superior students. (10) The home environment was blamed for not b e ing able, in many cases, to inculcate a spirit of willingness to work in the present younger generation. All parents should examine themselves critically.
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
134
-
-
We have found in these dinner meetines a wav " to net better acquainted with our colleagues in the secondary schools. It is interesting to see this sort of thing recommended in an article in Science (9) devoted to discussion of the shortage of physics teachers. Perhaps, in our case, the complimentary dinner broke the ice, but I should hate to believe that the dinner was all that drew the group together. 1think the major fador was discussion of a, common problem on the same level.
LITERATURE CITED
,, ,,;,
....,,,,, ,
(1) STANERSON, B. R.,Chem. Eng. News, 33,2518 (1955). -""- , - " y x l . (3) ~ h d . 31,2376 , (1953). (4) A. C.S. COMMITTEE, Cham. Eng. News, 32,1901 (1954) (5) STANER~W OP. CG329 746 (1954). (6) ANON., Chem. Eng. News., 33, 1694 (1955). (7) Ibld., 33, 2322 (1955), (8) EDITORIAL, Chem. Eng. News, 32,4161 (1954). (9) A. A. A. S. C O ~ ~ M Sezence, ~ E E ,122, 145 (1955). \-,
--(
