88
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
JANUARY, 1931
THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CHEMISTRY TEACHERS IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES* NEIL
E. GORDON. TEE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
A plan for the preparation of college teachers, where the students are selected for their personal qualifications as well as for their scholastic record i s outlined. The plan has four main objectives: ( I ) mustery sf content of the subject to be taught; (2) experience in research within the field of the subject taught; (3) adequate training in methods of teaching as applied to chemistvy; (4)practice teaching under supervisors. It is hoped that this plan 70ivil result i n a n imprmement in chemical educution through the cooperation of the chemical industries and the chemistry department of The Johns Hopkins University.
. . . . . .
The subject assigned to me is one involving questions identical with many which confront us in the work in which we are engaged at The Johns Hopkins University. Hence I shall discuss these problems largely from the standpoint of our own attack upon them in so far as it has already proceeded. The time at my disposal might he emp'oyed in outlining for you a verbal portrait of the ideal university instructor in chemistry-but to what profit? Others have already done the same thing and, no doubt, better than I could do it. Most of us will recognize this rara avis if we ever encounter him but few of us have any idea where his natural habitat may be or how he may be bred in captivity. The question which may profitably engage our attention at the present time is not: "What constitutes an ideal college chemistry teacher and where can we trap some?" I t is: "Can we produce better college teachers
* Contribution to the symposium on "The Qualifications d Chemistry Teachers" held by the Division of Chemical Education at the 80th meeting of the American Chemical Society, at Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 10, 1930.
VOL.8. No. 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF CHEMISTRY TEACHERS
89
than we are now producing and, if so, how?" Practical suggestions are needed-not daydreams. Any one who is a t all skeptical about the inteiest taken by presidents of colleges and universities in the qualifications of their faculties should read the March, 1929, issue of the Bulletin of the Association of American Colleges. I t is clear that the colleges and universities are considering the teaching problem from every angle. Fifteen colleges reported that they have speci6c committees established for the improvement of college instruction. Twenty-one reported that they are planning the establishment of such committees. In other colleges similar work is being accomplished through deans of colleges or heads of departments. Besides the Association of American Colleges there are many other national, regional, and local organizations which have been making a special study of college teaching during the past two years. Also some universities are making it a special issue. I understand that the University of Minnesota has been making a very special study of college teaching, and that Stanford, Harvard, New York, and Columbia have definitely organized plans for the preparation of college teachers. The University of Chicago is about to embark upon some definite program for the special preparation of college teachers, if we are to judge from the following statement by President Hutchins (I): The graduate schools of arts, literature, and science are, of course, in large part professional schools. They are producing teachers. A minority of their students become research workers. Yet the training for the doctorate in this country is almost uniformly training in t h e acquisition of a research technic, terminating in the preparation of a so-called original contribution t o knowledge. Whether the rigors of this process exhaust the student's creative powers, or whether the teaching schedules in most colleges give those power.; no scope, or whether most teachers arc without them is unwrtain. N'hat is certain is thxt most doctors of philosophy become teachers and not productive scholars. Their productivity ends with the dissertation. Under these dr&mstances the University of Chicago again has a dual obligation; to devise the best methods of preparing men for research and creative scholarship and t o devise the best methods of preparing men for teaching. Since the present work of graduate students is arranged in the hope that they will become investigators, little modification in i t is necessary t o train those who plan to become investigators. I n the course of time i t will doubtless become less rigid and more comprehensive, involving more independence, and fewer courses. But the main problem is a cumculum for the future teacher. No lowering of requirements should be permitted. No one should he allowed t o be a candidate for the Ph.D. degree who would not now be enrolled. I n fact the selection of students in the graduate schools on some better basis than graduation from college seems t o me one of the next matters the University must discuss. But assuming that this is settled, and assuming that a student who plans t o he a teacher has been given a sufficient chance at research t o determine his interest in it, his training should fit him as well as may be for his profession. This means, of course, that he must know his field and its relation t o the whole body of knowledge. It means, too. that he must he in touch with the most recent and most
90
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
JANUARY,
1931
successful movements in undergraduate education, of which he now officially learns little or nothing. Haw should he learn about these movements? Not in my opinion by doing practice teaching upon the helpless undergraduate. Rather he should learn about them through seeing experiments carried on in undergraduate work by the members of the department in which he is studying, with the advice of the Department of Education which will shortly secure funds to study collegiate education Upon the problems of undergraduate teaching his creative work should be done. Such a system places a new responsibility upon the departments, that of developing ideas in colleae education. But it is n responsibility which I am sure they will accept i n \,irw of the hiitory and p w tion of the Cmvrriity of Chicaau. Such a system mezns, too, that diffcrmt drmrra %.ill doubtless have t o be given to research workers, the Ph.D. degree remaining what it chiefly is today, a degree for college teachers. But however opinions may differ on details, I am convinced, as are the Deans of the Graduate Schools, the Deans of the Colleges, and the Chairman of the Department of Education, that some program recognizing the dual objectives of graduate study-the education of research men-must be tried a t the University of Chicago. ~
~
We are not inclined, a t Hopkins, to agree with President Hutchins that differentiation in training should be made between prospective teachers and prospective research men. Too often any attempt a t such differentiation demands powers of prophecy beyond those which we or the student himself are qualified to exercise. Furthermore, we believe it desirable that the teacher should be as thoroughly trained in the fundamentals of his subject and in methods of creative work as the non-teacher. However, the broad general outlines of the situation which confronts us are well set forth in the foregoing quotation. With these conditions before us i t seems very fitting that we should assemble here today as chemistry teachers and take stock, as i t were. What are our college and university chemistry departments doing to meet this situation? Do we as chemistry teachers need to heed this movement, or are our departments so well manned by good teachers that the presidents of our respective institutions will pass us by. Personally, I believe that our college and university chemistry teaching can be improved. And if this is the case no stone should be left unturned to bring about this improvement, for every thinking chemist realizes that the destiny of our American chemistry is in the hands of our college and university chemistry teachers. How is this? The type of students attracted into our chemistry departments and the superiority of their education depends on the type of men doing the teaching and the type of men attracted to our profession and their training determines the future of American chemistry. During the past few years millions have been appropriated for research and large research institutions have been built and equipped. Every one should realize, however, that these appropriated millions may be squandered without productive results unless we can furnish a perpetuity
VOL.8, No. 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF CHEMISTRY TEACHERS
91
of properly qualified men and women to direct the activities of these institutions and lay out plans for the expenditure of the appropriated money. Good teachers a t the college and university level constitute our only assurance that such a supply of properly qualified workers will be available. It was the realization of this fact that caused Francis P. Garvan to establish the Chair of Chemical Education in the chemistry department of The Johns Hopkins University, and to encourage us to do everything possible to produce some outstanding men in chemistry, hoping that some of them a t least would enter the teaching profession. A brief ontline of our plau at The Johns Hopkms University will give you the best concept of the qualifications which we believe college and university chemistry teachers should possess. Our program has resulted in a so-called National Fellowship Plan, supported through the coijperation and generosity of various chemical industrial firms and of a few enlightened and public-spirited individuals.* In the study we have undertaken, equal emphasis is laid upon the selection of men to be trained and the training of men selected. In order to limit the project and, a t the same time, place it upon a truly national basis, the plau adopted makes ultimate provision for one student from each of the forty-eight states. I n order that men of unusual promise hut limited means shall not be debarred by lack of funds, a four-year fellowship of one thousand dollars annually is offered in each state. Selection is made from the sophomore, junior, or senior classes of the colleges and universities of the respective states. The time of selection is indicated by the desirability of obtaining students as soon as possible after they have had reasonable opportunity to determine the field in which they desire to specialize. It is, furthermore, in harmony with the present general plan of The Johns Hopkins University, which affordsstudents an opportunity to begin t'leir studies leading to the doctor's degree after the completion of the sophomore year in college provided they have had the requisite preparation. The selection is accomplished through state committees which evaluate the student's complete previous scholastic record and personal qualities as rated by his instructors on the chart on page 92. To illustrate the table let us select the heading "Creative Ability." The five columns mean that there are a t least five types of students. F i s t , there is the type of man who can really discern a problem and solve it. * AMERICANCANCO. (31, J. T. BAKERCHEMICAL CO., BILLRASKOB FOUNDATION, BROWNCO. (2), CARBIDEAND CARBONCHEMICALS CORP.,CENTRALSCIENTIETCCO., THE CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, INC.( Z ) , COCACOLACO.,H. A. B. DUNNING, du PONT Co., FIRESTONE TIRRAND RUBBERCO.. FLEISCHMANN YEASTCO.,FRANCIS P. GARVAN (3), GENERAL MOTORS CORP.RESEARCH LABORATORIES. JOHN M. HANMCK,HORMEL KEWAUNEE MANURACTUR~NG CO.,ELILILLYCO.,W. A. PATRICK, G. A. FOUNDATION, PPEIPRER, WILLIAMSHALLCROSS SPEED, U. S. INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOLCO.,WILLIAMR. WARNER & CO.,JOHN WILEY& SONS. INC.
92
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
JANUARY, 1931
RATING CHART I N . = .
* IP*l
