a
THE BROWN EXPERIMENT IN CHEMICAL EDUCATION ' LEALLYN B. CLAPP Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
IN1948 the Department of Chemistry a t Brown University started an experimental program for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Chemistry. Since the content has been previously de~cribed,~ only changes and an assay of the results of the experiment will be described here. Brown University has a four-course program but the B.S. degree in chemistry in 1948 required 34 courses for graduation instead of 32. Five courses were usually t,aken in the freshman year. This has been changed as a degree requirement to fall in line with the rest of the college and the four courses now taken in the first year are chemistry, mathematics, physics, and English (or an elective, if exempted). A change of more significant character was made in the fourth semester of the curriculum.= I n 1954, it was decided that two chemistry courses, mathematics (usually partial differential equations), and a fourth course (usually German) were a work load too heavy for students, in comparison with other semesters. Consequently, "Fundamentals of Chemistry V" (principally inorganic) was moved forward to semester V with an accompanying delay in the required year of analytical chemistry t o semesters VI and VII. This has obvious undesirable consequences, especially with respect to senior research, but nevertheless, was found to be the wiser path. I n 1955 the B.S. curriculum was opened to B.A. students concentrating in chemistry. The next year this was formally made the standard path for concentrators and opened to premedical students who could meet the mathematics requirement. The first year course was also opened t o students in the pre-nursing curriculum on the grounds that it was a better preparation for them than general chemistry and qualitative analysis. We have not accomplished miracles by the change from the standard curriculum hut we think we now arrive in five semesters a t a point roughly equivalent t o six standard courses. This has been done by expressing some faith in the high school chemistry course, by omitting some descriptive inorganic chemistry and the systematic scheme of analysis, and by taking advantage of the initial enthusiasm for the first course since it differs sharply from the student's high school course. Last year we endeavored to find out whether or not our curriculum was successful. There seems t o be no objective way to do this. Even though we ran parallel Presented as a part of the Symposium on New Ideas in the Four-Year Chemistrv Curriculum before the Division of Chemical Education at t h i 132nd Meeting of the American Chemical Society, New York, September, 1957. COLES,J. S., L. B. CLAPP,AND R. P. EPPLE, J. CHEM.EDUC., 26,lO (1949).
curricula during the first eight years, one could not be sure that the experimental students were of ability equal to those in the standard curriculum. A questionnaire was sent to 153 of our graduates over the eight years, 1948-56, which included students subject to the new curriculum from 1952 to 1956. The students of 1952-56 themselves recognized the meaty content of the first course in college; there were many complaints from students of 1948-52 that the general chemistry course had been a waste of time, especially in the lahoratory. Let me emphasize one thing that has been imprinted on my mind by our experience. It is not enough for the instructor to say that he is giving a course different from the high school course. The student himself must recognize it and must recognize it the first week. When the course is built around the covalent bond the student a t once sees that the course is different from high school chemistry and he starts to work. This is psychologically good and is the prime reason for a low fatality rate in the first year. The statements that follow are also conclusions from the questionnaire and comments gathered in 1956 from former students. Brown graduates felt they mere better prepared in organic chemistry than their contemporaries. We thought this might not be so in view of the nature of our first year course. Their superior knowledge in this field is probably due to the fact that most of our students take "Identification of Organic Compounds" and many take one more course in organic chemistry. Mastery of analytical chemistry has been steady over the eight years probably because we have had the same person heading this instruction. The knowledge of instruments has improved in the years 1952-56. This may be due to an improvement in the physical chemistry laboratory instruction or to the fact that all of our students now take a course in instmmental methods of analysis or both. About the same percentage of our graduates failed qualifying examinations in graduate school in 1952-56 as had in 1948-52. Three of these were in qualitative analysis. One might conclude that we ought to return to teaching the systematic scheme of analysis again. Perhaps an equally valid conclusion is that these graduate schools are no longer asking proper questions of our students. Perhaps the testimony most convincing to an outsider is that we are continuing the curriculum with confidence that we are on a right path and have made it available to B.A.'s concentrating in chemistry, premedical students, and others.
-
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
