THE CHEMISTRY TEACHER AND SERVICE COURSES IN THE LAND-GRANT COLLEGE*
The Land-Grant College Sumey proposes a n experimental study of "the different effects upon subseguent student work of teeching certain sciences in the College of Agruulture and i n other basic science divisions." Similar queries are woiced or implied in the sections on engineering and on home economics. The problem of the "service" courses i s one that i s often discussed in Public by deans and directors, but seldom by the teachers who hawe to teach the classes. The problem i s not so different i n the several land-grant institutions as the authors of the sumey seem to imply. I t i s largely a matter of objectives in education. I f the leaders of the technological divisions will clarify their objectiwes, the task of the chemistry teacher will be much simplified. T k i s will demand serious a t h t i r m to the guidence, selection, and retention of thestudents of these divisions. I t will also require a realignment of curricula on a functional rather than a subjectmatter basis. Although the h a d c r a f t objectiwe is disclaimed by all Divisions of Home Economics and the preparation of farmers i s no longer classed as a major objective by Colleges of Agriculture, the practices derived from these antiguated conceptions sumre. Too often academic standing i s sought for courses persisting from the days when these objecthes were recognized by specifying chemistry courses as a prerequisite when neither the students nor teachers use the chemistry in the courses. New and scient$ic content i n the specialized courses in agriculture and h e economics wil2 make such demands on the prerequisite courses in chemistry that mere descriptive chemistry will never suruiue. I f handicraft courses are to persist in agriculture and home economics, there shonld be frank recognition of the fact that chemistry is not a prerequisite thereto.
. . . . . .
In the "Proceedings of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities'' one often finds reference to "service courses." The problems involved in the utilization of the basic sciences (for example) in the professional training of workers in the fields of agriculture, home economics, and engineering seem to have been rather adequately discussed by the deans, directors, and presidents who frequent the meetings of this association. It is, however, not easy to find published articles on this subject written by the teachers of "service courses." Nevertheless, one often hears the question discussed in the lobby or over the luncheon table at the meetings of the American Chemical Society. I t may perhaps serve a useful purpose to bring the subject to the floor of the meeting of the Division of Chemical Education.
* Presented before the Division of Chemical Education of the A. C. S. at the Buffalo meeting, August 31September 4, 1931. 538
VOL.9,
No. 3
COURSES IN LAND-GRANT COLLEGE
539
The troubles of the instructor in such courses are hinted at by Osborn (1) and by Brill (Z),as well as by Webster (3). Excellent advice concerning the choice of subject matter designed to challenge the attention of the student of agriculture without making the course one of "skim milk" has been published by Gortner (4). The same well-known scientist has also discussed the topic of chemistry for students of home economics (5). An article by Kiik and Heisig (5a) describes an attempt to adapt to the professional interest of engineering students the typical first-year university course in chemistry. The recent survey of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities (6) now proposes, in its section on agriculture, an experimental study of "the different effects upon subsequent student work of teaching certain sciences in the College of Agriculture and in other basic science divisions." On page 766 of this same report (6),one finds the following sentences: When, for instance, agricultural chemistry is given by the college of agriculture, it is entirely likely that the teaching st& is selected partly on the basis of its appreciation and understanding of the relations between so-called pure chemistry and chemistry applied to agriculture and that these relations are made more clear in the classroom and laboratory than if the subject is given in a department of chemistry in which the purpose may be to develop chemists and chemical engineers. On the other hand, when chemistry is taught in the agricultural division it may be that the broader aspects of the subject are not sufficiently emphasized and that the relation of agricultural chemistry to industry is not brought out as clearly as when taught in a division that serves students in a number of allied fields. Careful detailed study should be made upon a comparative basis in order to determine the facts with reference to these matters and the effects of different practices upon the subsequent work of students. There is, I believe, no tendency on the part of any chemistry teacher to belittle the r81e that is being placed by applied science. One of the triumphs of pure science is the impetus it has given to invention and industry. One is, however, inclined to question the implied assumption that one trained in any applied field can with certainty select the subject matter needed for the training in pure science of the entrants to that field. The Land-Grant Survey (6) describes the way in which conferences about "service courses" are usually held. Let us, however, inspect some of the accusations that are commonly leveled against the "service courses" in chemistry. The fist one always is, "you teach them all to be chemists." In most cases this means that the professor or dean voicing this protest has found out that certain items of subject matter presented were not included when he studied a similar course as an undergraduate!
540
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
Mmcn, 1932
A professor who has earned a well-deserved reputation in some highly specialized field of agriculture or engineering is apt to think that his own success has proved that his undergraduate training was the best possible and that present undergraduate curricula should be fashioned in exactly the same way. He rather resents the assurancefrom the chemistry teacher that a study of ions and ionic reactions is fundamental to the training of students in agriculture or engineering. He has designed bridges or carried out variety test experiments without any information about hydrogen ions. Surely such "impractical" things are not needed by any one but a chemist! One fmds, at times, deans or professors of home economics who have achieved their posts by virtue of reputations made in extension work or vocational education on the secondary level, who question the selection of structural organic chemistry as a prerequisite to the study of carbohydrates or proteins. These good ladies have achieved their present posts without studying the aldehydic function; therefore it can have no significance in training the home economic specialists of tomorrow. One often hears, in connection with the charge just cited, the general admonition, "teach only those parts of chemistry that will be used." But what is often overlooked is that the use is not that of today but of tomorrow. It seems rather likely that the applied work of tomorrow will be built on the pure science of today. The subject matter that was adequate in the training of the worker of today is not adequate to train the worker of tomorrow. This is as true in the pure limes as in the applied ones. Many of us remember the "corn shows" of yesterday-they are said to persist in some states yet-their abandonment was forced only when their uselessness was overwhelmingly established. "Pure line" breeding, a product of science, has rendered them obsolete. It seems likely that, in like fashion, the chemical aspects of the agriculture, the engineering and the home economics of tomorrow will require much more of scientific fundamentals than is the case today. The "service courses" in chemistry must not then be based on the applied fields as they have existed in the past. These courses must supply the entrants into these professional fields of applied science with the basic methods for thorough study. They must prepafe people who are increasingly better qualified to push forward the boundaries of knowledge in these fields. By this method will the desired cross-fertilization of knowledge reach these newer fields of knowledge. One admits a t the same time the great desirability of enlisting the professional aspiration and zeal of the student in the manner so well described by Gortner (4). The writer very much favors the organization, wherever the size of the group will warrant it, of separate sections for those students of different and definite professional aspirations. He does, however, deplore and condemn the tendency to expect these to be "one-
VOL.9. No. 3
COURSES IN LAND-GRANT COLLEGE
541
syllable" courses or "farmers'-institute" courses. The young people in the land-grant colleges and universities are capable of handling and deserve to be given the very best scientific instruction available. I wish to quote Dean Metcalf of North Carolina (7)Teachers of science in agricultural colleges should be cognizant of the fact that they should correlate their science with agriculture. For fear some of you get the wrong slant on my objective, I hasten to assure you that I do not mean that they should teach agricultural botany, agricultural chemistry, agricultural mathematics, agricultural physics or agricultural zoology. These are hybrids. The only hybrid I ever had any dealings with was a Missouri mule. I am afraid of hybrids. I want my sciences to be just as scientific as any science can be. But sciences are composed of a number of things, some of which are fundamental to agliculture and some of which are not. Science teachers should not -teach apiculture but fundamental sciences correlated with actriculturc. Neither should it be assumrd bv the science teacher that szence is something so rarefied that i t can h&ve no contact with the world of practical everyday affairs. If this is to become an age of science, there must be correlation between our sciences and technical subjects. On the other hand, teachers of agriculture should teach technical agriculture; that is, agriculture coordinated with science so that the student erects a structure of technical agriculture on a scientific foundation. Teachers of agriculture in agricultural colleges are hired to teach technical agriculture, not science, and certainly not practical agriculture, regardless of what thoughts the fathers may have had on this subject. Several years ago, in my youth and inexperience, I remarked to a friend that I was afraid that if the tendencies then prevalent continued with further and further subdivisions of agriculture, we would have American colleges offering courses in Billy Goat Production, A. H. 27, and in Gooseberry Raising, Hort. 112, just as if the fundamental principles involved in producing billy goats were any diierent than those for other animals, the sheep for example; or as if raising gooseberries differed fundamentally from raising other small fruits. I don't think we ever had either of these two courses offered and it seems to me, as I scan the pages of our agricultural college catalogs, that I see a decided improvement in this direction. Some courses similar to those mentioned have disappeared. There are still some that I am sure ought to go but I may be mistaken. It seems to me that there is a trend for better technical agricultural teaching during these past seven lean years. If so, the reduced budgets will not be in vain. Teachers of technical agriculture should be constantly alert to see that their subjects are taught from the standpoint of the best agricultural practices as well as founded on the most advanced discoveries of the sciences which touch those subjects. The fallacy of the idea that the selection of the subject matter in "service courses" can be made by deans and directors in applied fields is well illustrated from the field of chemistry. One finds in the preface of a text-
542
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCH,1932
book of organic and biological chemistry issued in 1923 from a prominent department of agricultural chemistry the following statement, "in this small book will be found those facts and principles of organic and biological chemistry that should be known by all students of those sciences wbich deal with plant or animal life--brief as it is, i t contains as much of organic and biological chemistry as the ordinary student, who is not primarily interested in chemistry is likely to need." One of a critical mind would find it instructive to inspect this book. It represents the organic and biological chemistry that covered, in 1923, the fads and principles deemed by a professor and a dean to he "as much--as is needed-." But it is more instructive to compare the contents of that book--date 1923-with the contents of another book-date 1931-issued by another professor in the same department. In this book one finds many things that are now thought to be "needed" by students in the same college under the same dean. One even finds some mention of hydrogen ions and of their importance in biological phenomena. One is surprised to discover what a difference the eight-year interval has made in what is "needed." Evidently, in 1923 a discussion of "the chemical and physical nature of living matter" was "needed" only by chemists. Now i t is "needed" by the "student who merely wants to know about it as a man or woman of broad interests and culture." Functional groupings are now "needed," but Geneva nomenclature is not! The contrast is interesting! But let us rather place here the following quotation from Gortner (8): "The greatest advances in the biological sciences can take place only when the chemists are fully aware of certain of the biological problems and biological point of view and only when the biologists appreciate the assistance wbich chemical knowledge and chemical technic can offer to the solution of the major problems." One finds here no claim to the possession of a prophetic discriminatory ability between that which is "needed" and not needed by "students of those sciences that deal with plant or animal life." One can hardly feel that the training of deans and professors in the applied departments is such that they are fully qualified to determine the subject matter of chemistry "needed by the entrants into the fields. May I quote from "Agricultural Education in the United States" by Whitney Shepardson, Director of the General Education Board (9)Let us look a t some aspects of the present situation. Fist (and we are speaking of the agricultural divisions of universities), the average directing head, the dean, though in other respects well qualified for the duties of his many-sided office, has not the scholastic training of his "opposites" in other divisions. Of twenty-four deans of agriculture, ten have never gone beyond the ordinary undergraduate course, ten have taken an extra year for the master's degree, but only four out of twenty-four have the doctorate. In most of the institutions of this type the dean is also director of the experiment station.
VOL.9. NO.3
COURSES IN LAND-GRANTCOLLEGE
543
In the few cases where this is not so, the scientific training of the director has been less than one would expect. Out of six such special officers, three have stopped a t the bachelor's degree, two have gone on to the master's, and only one of them has attained the doctorate. No special importance attaches either to the final degree itself or the discipline which leads to it; but it is the best we have, and in academic circles it seems to be an objective of those who profess to be scholars. The man who does not take his doctorate may be considered, under the prevailing view, as lacking some appreciation of the place of sheer scholarship in the scheme of agricultural education. Let us next note the statement in the recent Land-Grant Sumey (6) as regards the situation in the field of Home Economics (pages 870-1)Training.-Although the effect of training is in many individual instances inadequately represented by the academic degrees obtained by members of a college staff, the fact remains that for a relatively large group in educational work the degrees held are, in many respects, the most valid basis for estimating the degree of scholarship represented. The home economics staff in the land-grant colleges is no exception. It is, therefore, of special interest that, of 697 individual records of the training of home economics st& members, only 30, or 4.7 per cent., have doctor's degrees. Inasmuch as the Ph.D. is the most commonly recognized badge of scholarship and of academic superiority, home economics and institutional administrations may well take measures to employ new members with the doctor's degree or to encourage study while in service which will enable present members of the home economics staff to obtain the Ph.D. Experience of responsibility for a home, including both married women and those who have had such experience in some other relationship, is also very limited. Only about 35 per cent. of the total report any such home-making experience. Such experience should be valuable for understanding of the problems involved and as a balance to too theoretical teaching of subject-matter to undergraduate students. A very much larger proportion of the home economics st& has obtained the master's degree, 254 out of 697 cases reported, slightly over 39 per cent. This is encouraging although it is not special cause for pride on the part of a college subject-matter division in view of the rapidity with which the master's degree is being required as a preliminary qualification for employment in the better secondary schools. But a really serious deficiency in the academic training of home economics staffs becomes evident when it is realized that 314, or 48 per cent. of the persons employed in this division of the colleges hold no degree higher than the bachelor's degree. When the product of onlv a 4-vear undermaduate course is brought into a division of the rolfege &ching staff in such large numbcrs,'it becomes fairlv obvious that no verv hieh standard of scholars hi^ can be maintaincd. This is true even Chouih the persons selected ior such service represent the highest type of undergraduate ability and ambition. The situation apparently becomes even more distressing when 49,
544
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MAXCH, 1932
or 7.5 per cent., of the home economics staiT is shown by the individual reports not to have attained even the bachelor's degree. But when the additional fact is determined that of these, 41 are distributed among only 12 institutions, criticism for such low standards of employment must be confined to this group of land-grant colleges rather than applied to home economics standards as a whole. Even though all of the persons without degrees may hold teachers' certificates the criticism is but slightly ameliorated since in higher educational opinion teaching certiiicates are not as yet regarded as acceptable substitutes for college degrees. One may certainly admit that the counsel and advice of these ladies and gentlemen should be freely sought by those scientists who teach the "service courses." Their desire to hold the whip hand is to be M y resisted. The selection of subject matter must be left to those competent to select fundamental ideas and principles, whether new or old, and to combat all attempts to make these courses encyclopedic presentations of certain chemical fads thought to be "needed" in certain applied fields. Why should a course in organic chemistry for students from the colleges of agriculture and home economics be a catalog of the carbohydrates and the proteins? Surely this student needs, instead, the principles of structural and functional organic chemistry. Why contine this to courses "for chemists only"? Why should one deny to the student of mechanical engineering the training in the principles of aystal structure that are now so universally used in metallographic studies? Why object to teaching the embryo engineer about the electronic structure of matter? Are these needed only by chemists? Let us quote again from Shepardson (9)-"Surely any matter as basic as agriculture requires the best that our educational regime affords." The same can be said as regards engineering and home economics. As one who is a firm believer in the importance of the training given in the land-grant colleges and universities, I wish to protest against themovement not only to accept but to demand less fundamental training in the basic sciences. Let me again quote as regards agriculture from the hook by Shepardson (9)The agricultural college is the nucleus of agricultural education. Its chief duty, to which all others should be subordinated, is to prepare men and women for responsible posts in agricultural research, teaching, and extension. . Agriculture, therefore, must maintain its higher work a t the university level. One promising way of doing this is by promoting fundamental research in the field of the natural sciences and particularly in those that deal with plants.
.
Can we say any less about the other fields represented in the land-grant institutions?
VOL.9, NO.3
COURSES IN LAND-GRANT COLLEGE
545
One claim often made by the critics of "senrice courses" in chemistry is that a "survey" of graduates or practitioners has shown that the material taught in service courses is not "needed." Whiie one could question the validity of such "questionnaire research," it will perhaps suffice to quote again the Land-Grant Survey (6) (page 195)-
It is, therefore, significant that so many institutions assert their allegiance to occupational analysis as a method of determining content; it is perhaps just as significant that no written accounts of studies of this sort were submitted in support of protestations of adherence to the principle although a second request for such studies was made. The seriousness and thorough character of the studies reported may be regarded with some skepticism. Those of us who have taught in the land-grant institutions are also familiar with another plaint. It is, "The chemistry taught in the 'service courses' is not practical; it is not applied." To consider this point we must at once inquire about the objectives of the instruction. Let us quote page 786, the section on Agriculture, of the Land-Grant Survey (6)-
(1) Preparing students for general farming is no longer a primary function of the resident undergraduate work of colleges of agriculture in the land-nant institutions. Social, economic, and educational advances requ&e that this fact be recognized frankly by the institutions and by their constitueucies. (2) The objectives of higher education in agriculture are increasingly and properly those of preparing: First, research workers in the scientific and social fields related to agricultural production and distribution and to rural life; second, extension workers for service in the dissemination of knowledge concerning the applications of scientific and economic truth to the problems of rural living; third, workers in all types of business and commercial activities related to agricultural production, distribution, and service; fourth, teachers of vocational agriculture and science in the public high schools; fifth, public servants in the investigating and regulatory departments of the State and National Governments; and sixth, overseers and managers of specialized and large-scale farm enterprises. The section on Engineering of the same Land-Grant Survey (6) states (page 800)When the Mom11 Land-Grant Act was passed there was little understanding of the scientific problems underlying industry. For many years after the passage of this act the industries were unprepared to use scientifically trained engineers. The entrance requirements were low in most of the land-grant colleges, and the facilities in s M and equipment were very meager. As a result, the earlier cumcula
546
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MAR^, 1932
of the land-grant colleges stressed shop practice, drawing, surveying, and similar subjects in order to relate instruction to the opportunities available immediately after graduation. Instruction was mainly vocational and practical training was stressed. These immediately practical objectives have survived under conditions and standards of education unknown to the earlier forms of engineering instruction in the land-grant colleges. The staff and equipment have also been greatly improved. Entrance requirements have been raised, the number of special students reduced, and the time devoted to the humanities, to science, and to mathematics has been increased and the time given to descriptive and practical subjects reduced. The situation in Home Economics is described in that section (page 980) as follows: "No institution today admits that the major objective of its home economics work is that of developing handicraft skill in the operations of home making." It would seem from these statements that the admitted tendency is toward the scientific rather than the "practical." The colleges of engineering have long disclaimed any desire to serve as trade schools; the agricultural extension service and the Smith-Hughes schools have taken over the vocational aspects of agriculture and home economics. Wby should these notions persist at the college level? Let us quote from Dean Kyle of the Texas A. and M. College (10)The time has undoubtedly come when our agricultural curriculum should be built with the primary object of training for leadership in agriculture and related industries. This means that the entrance requirements should be raised; that the most thorough training possible should be given in the fundamental sciences; that trade courses in agriculture should be eliminated; that all technical agricultural courses should be raised to the highest possible scientific standards; and that economical and sociological subjects must he given more recognition. With the develo~mentof the Smith-Lever and the Smith-Hnvhes work, and in some instances, junior agricultural collrges, the land-grant colleaes should delerratc to these forces the handlineoi all non-colleeiate worE except a t times and under conditions that Gll not interferekith the standard courses. Rather than turn out graduates who are experts in budding or stock judging, the agricultural colleges should turn out men qualified to think and reason soundly on the great problems confronting agriculture. I do not want to give the impression that agricultural graduates should not go into practical agriculture. The point I want to make clear is that our graduates should be prepared to become recognized leaders, whether it be in practical agriculture, in agricultural teaching in colleges and high schools, in extension work, in research work, or in professions related to agriculture.
-
Dean E. C. Johnson of the State College of Washington says (11)-
VOL.9, NO.3
COURSES I N LAND-GRANT COLLEGE
547
Many still thmk that the principal purposes of collegiate agricultural courses are to train young men to milk cows, harness horses, adjust plows, prune trees, run biders, or perform other common operations on the farm. in other words. that the maior concern of a colleee of a ~ ~ c u l t uisr eto gi\.e instruction in the simpler acti\.ities and processes of the farm. . . . .Were oroficiencv in conductine the various farm operations the main ohjktive, ndt only do ourYcolleges fall short in attaining it, but no state would be justified in appropriating any considerable funds to colleges of agriculture for this purpose.
~.
Then, too, one might inquire of the complainant, why applied departments should not do their own work. It is their responsibility to apply the fundamentals of the pure sciences. From the students in certain of the applied departments comes the complaint that the material taught in the "service courses" is never "needed" in the advanced professional work. Here, too, we may quote the Land-Grant College Survey (page 849) (6)The handicraft objective.-No institution admits today that the major objective of its home economics work is that of developing handicraft skill in the operations on home-keeping. Long after creation of good cooks, home dressmakers, and housekeepers by teaching skill in household operations and by imparting rule of thumb information is recognized as an inadequate objective for college home economics the practices derived from this conception may survive and the objective itself persist in an obscured form. Most frequently this obscurity arises from the addition of well-recognized and respectable academic requirements that bear an attenuated relationship to subject matter prescribed to attain the old objective. Thus, since cooking involves chemical changes, since pattern mak'mg requires knowledge of measurements, curves, and irregular volumes, and since a house must be provided for housekeeping, it would easily be possible to attain academic standing for home economics by insisting that science be taken through organic chemistry, that mathematics be pursued through solid trigonometry, and that the elements of architecture should precede the course in house furnishing. Yet the cooking, sewing, and household work might be modified in only the slightest degree by all these additions and the essentially home economics instruction might remain upon the same old handicraft level. When students who have failed in the "prerequisite" chemistry take courses in foods and nutrition and receive the highest possible grades, one is permitted to question whether the setting of the prerequisite was anything other than an attempt to obtain "academic standing" for the courses in question. If the chemistry is not necessary or if the modicum of chemical facts acquired from reference books is all that is needed, let us abandon organic chemistry as a prerequisite.
648
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCH,1932
Even those students who are "majoring" in foods and nutrition seem not to need organic chemistry. Let us quote again from p. 946 of the LandGrant Survey (6)Examination of the content of these so-called foods and nutrition cumcula aids in distinguishing distinctive purposes in the case of only a few institutions. The facts summarized by Table 22 merely serve to emphasize the lack of correlation between specific functions and multiplication of claims to cumcular development. If these curricula had as objectives the specific preparation of research workers in food and nutritional areas, of consulting nutritionists, or hospital dietitians or of public-health workers, the fact should be indicated clearly by emphasis upon chemistry requirements since all these employments obviously demand concentrated training in this subject. This is not the situation, however. While all require general chemistry, only 15require organic, 6 quantitative, and 4 qualitative. On the other hand, four require household chemistry which was clearly developed to adapt pure chemistry to the less precise and systematic needs of students of home economics without professional or technical purposes. Only 12 of the 20 require physiological chemistry. The emphasis in certain of these "foods" courses with more or less formidable chemistry prerequisites seems rather often to be, as disclosed by student conversation, the serving of "formal dinners," "luncheons," and "breakfasts." These are all, no doubt, very commendable features. It is, however, difficult to understand why organic chemistry should be a prerequisite. These courses are often described in the college catalog in very scientific terms. Let us note the following from the catalog of a State University that s h d remain unnamed-"An introduction to the study of the principles involved in the selection and preparation of food." This is followed by another course which involves "additional planning, preparation, and serving of meals for the family group." At the same institution only "advanced undergraduates and graduates" may take an additional course in foods, with many prerequisites, that "considers problems of the modern homemaker concerning th purchase of food and the planning and preparation of meals." On comple mg t h.~ course, s the aspirant to further knowledge may enrol for a 5-credit course that "provides an introduction to research through the application of scientific principles to problems involved in food preparation." An even more exclusive course is one where one may engage for an additional 5 credits, in "a study of foods with reference to buying for institutions." After this a limited (five students) class, with proper scientific prerequisites, may take a 10-credit course in "the preparation of food in large quantities." One looks in vain, however, for any instruction in the selection and preparation of food for husbands who are over six feet tau!
1.
VOL. 9. No. 3
COURSES IN LAND-GkANT COLLBGE
549
A somewhat similar situation may be found in certain "advanced" courses in agriculture. Despite the fact that the course is required of junior or senior students, the prerequisites listed can only be construed as an attempt to gain "academic respectabiiity" for the course. One rather usual example can be found in the courses in "Farm Machinery" often listed in agricultural curricula. One state college requires seniors to enrol for such a course that deals with "the place of machinery on the farm; methods of operating and making field adjustments." A more detailed description of this course shows that it involves solely a recapitulation of the types of farm implements that are used in that state. Need we wonder that chemistry is not "needed" in such a course. Another state college requires of all juniors a course that involves "a detailed examination and comparison of plows and other more important implements." Still another state college requires all seniors to engage in "a study of the types of field machinery and their use with especial attention to their adaptability to. .agriculture." This same institution also enrols all its seniors in agriculture, regardless of their field of specialization, in a course in swine production where, "laboratory exercises consist of marking, ringing, and castrating pigs; butchering, cutting, and curing of meats." These students may, if they wish, elect geology or plant pathology but they are all required to study "feeding, care, and management of dairy herds with special emphasis on. . ..conditions." The writer realizes that these courses may be both necessary and desirable. They are certainly not courses that involve the use of scientific principles. Why should chemistry, physics, and the biological sciences be listed as prerequisites to work of this character? Why call them "advanced" courses? If these courses are to be taught, let us strip them of their prerequisites and their "advanced" numbers! It seems more likely, however, that these courses are survivals from the earlier days of land-grant instruction when the subject matter of such curricula was drawn rather largely from practice. Surely the time is a t hand m e l e g a t e such instruction to the secondary schools of vocational agriculture and home economics! New and scientific content in the specialized courses in agriculture and home economics will make such demands on the prerequisite courses that mere descriptive chemistry will never survive. If teachers of chemistry will face frankly the facts they must admit that chemistry is not "needed'' in many of the specialized fields as they are now organized. If the fault lies in the chemistry courses being merely descriptive, let us boldly change them. If it be in the lack of scientific trainmg of the teacher in the applied field or in the paucity of scientific applications in the fields in question, let us just as boldly place the facts before the highest admiistrative authorities.
..
550
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
MARCH,1932
The situation has been well summed up by Dean Ferguson (12) from the point of view of the College of Engineering-
I shaU defend the view that it is better for the engineering student if he can be taught his general subjects in classes with students from other groups or colleges, by instructors whose ratings are in terms of those general subjects rather than in terms of engineering, under the moral influence of the engineering college rather than within the control of it. I will admit in advance that there are many little openings through which flies may creep into the ointment. The man should be rated as an engineering student from the first. No pre-engineering standing is satisfying to his longings or expectations. His classification as an engineer is both encouraging and gratifying to him. With this indulgence come the attendant dangers that he may lack in appreciation of the values of general subjects and may fail properly to avail himself of his opportunities to form friendships across that imaginary line which is presumed to separate men from other men who are wearing different labels. These dangers must be guarded against by the conscious effort of his engineering teachers to broaden his svmnathies. A; a keshman, the student should be in both engineering and service courses. The former mav be eneineerin~drawing. orientation courses. shop, etc. The latter are ~nglish,mGhematics, chemistry; and physics. His engineering instructors should be men who value highly the general subjects he is taking; who speak English correctly; who do not avoid the use of mathematics. They should have, and exhibit, a desire for increased familiarity with and proficiency in those subjects. Noth'mg more effectively undermines the morale of the service-course classroom, and destroys the engineering student's interest and desire to make good therein, than to have technical instructors assume an air of superiority and imply by either word or action that in the broader teaching of service courses in the curriculum much time is wasted, Vut that this must be tolerated as a sop to those who control educational policies. Upon the other hand, it is quite possible for engineering instructors to help distinctly in promoting interest in the general subjects by mak'mg direct application of them to the work in progress, and by showing that any great advancement of the art must be built, not on current practice, but on fundamental science. Then, too, there must be some reciprocity in this matter. The service-course instructor must, to some extent, apprehend engineering imports, and must be appreciative of their values in modern civilization. He must know and acknowledge that there is much in heaven and earth that is not dreamed of in his philosophy; that even within his own horizon there lies much of practical application which he cannot comprehend or evaluate. It has been my observation that these conditions of mutual respect and sympathy can be established and maintained if care and thought
VOL.9. No. 3
COURSES IN LAND-GRANT COL1,EGE
551
are expended upon this particular phase of the ~rohlem. On both sides, ihe teachek must b'e philosop6ers, a t least in rudimentary form. The technical instructor must not preach avdication and results to the exclusion of imagination, fancy,&d ideaiikm. The service-course instructor must not deny the fact that we learn a truth in order to use it-whether i t he the Golden Rule or Ohm's Law. The problem becomes, therefore, first, one of mutual appreciation on the part of those in positions to exalt and expound, each, his own learning. This is a great, reciprocal responsibility, which neither party can shirk. Second, of bridging the gap between theory and application, or better, between the general and the concrete. And the burden of this liaison rests squarely upon the shoulders of the technical instructor who would use the earlier teachings. Definite applications are his duty, and he alone should he blamed if the counection falls short from reaching a reasonably well prepared foundation on the other side of the chasm. With these ideas clearly in mind, and with individual responsibility accepted, there is no reason for limiting the contacts of engineering students to engineering class-groups, taught by instructors with strong bias toward the so-called "~ractical"courses. There is no reason whv engineers in the making should not have the benefits of the same breadth of contacts and training by which other men profit. Another angle is presented by Dean Kimball (13)Let us take first these three major and important courses, physics, mathematics. and chemistrv. In a lonn ,.ex~erieucein a larne eneineer
