THE WORK OF THE EXCEPTIONALLY GIFTED STUDENT IN CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING* This subject may be considered under two headmgs-first, as a general educational problem-second, as a problem in connection with education in chemistry and chemical engineering. I shall first consider the matter under heading one. The time allotment in the college course given to class work, laboratory work, and study, is generally made on the basis of the average student. The upper ten per cent of unusually gifted students, and the lower ten to fifteen per cent of students who for one reason or another find their work difficult, require special treatment. The remainder of the average class, constituting something like three-fourths of the total, is usually taken care of without special treatment. While this is the general status, there is considerable variation in practice. To a large extent the content of the subject and the standard of achievement is fixed by the individual professor and, a t least from the standpoint of the student, courses may be divided into three classes as follows: (a) Stiffcourses. The standards are fixed by the ability of the upper ten per cent of the class or in a few cases by the ability of the professor who persistently overrates the ability of his students and demands that they all come up to an unusually high standard. (b) Easy or snap courses. The standards are fixed by the ability of the lower ten per cent of the class or in some cases by the ability of the professor who is not brilliant and who carries on his work according to the methods which he himself pursued, possibly as a student. (c) Well-balanced courses. The standards are fixed by the medium third of the class. Let us hope that most of our courses as given belong to class c. I t is of course true that some subjects are inherently more difficult than others and some are relatively easier but it must be admitted that efficient teaching would require that any such inherent difference in individual subjects should be equalized by the time allotment or method of presentation; that is, that in relatively easy subjects the student should be called on for a great deal of work, while in the d i c u l t subjects a good deal of help should be given by the professor. I t is also true that courses may be divided into these three classes according to the relative ability of the student. This in general produces the following results particularly with reference to able students: (a) In the stiff course the able students pass the course and have plenty to do. In other words, the stiff course is ideal for the able students. For *Read at the Greater New York and Northem New Jersey Section of S. P. E. E. Meeting at Princeton University, Princeton, N. J., Saturday, May 14, 1927.
VOL.5, NO. 10
WORK OR EXCEPTIONALLY GIFTEDSTUDENT
1283
this class of students all courses should be ''stiff m s e s . " The students of average ability have difficulty in passing and there are numerous flunks in the course resulting in repetition and discouragement on the part of the less able students. (b) In the easy or snap course the able students loaf, seldom or ever study, get little of educational value out of the course, the reason for taking such courses being to acquire credits toward getting degrees. There are few flunks in such courses and possibly they serve to encourage the lower ten or fifteen per cent of the class, give some discipline to the average students, and for this reason are justified. (c) In the well-balanced course the able students do not put forth their greatest effort and do not acquire the educational discipline to which they are entitled. Such courses are very satisfactory for the average student, undoubtedly are for the greatest good to the largest number, and for this reason the giving of such courses is justified. But i t leaves the problem unsolved as to how the able student should he taken care of and this is the question which has been suggested for discussion a t this conference. The situation with reference to the college, whether cultural or technical, is complicated and made more difficult so far as the exceptional student is concerned by general educational conditions in the United States. College education has become popular with us, and is within the means of a large number of people because of the widely diiused material prosperity in our land today. We encourage and commend the self-supporting college student. This does not seem to be trne in Europe where the college is run to produce gentlemen, members of the leisure class. We have three times as many college students in proportion to population as the colleges do in Europe. We get a larger proportion of students from homes without good educational background. Our students in many cases do not have the natural endowment which is possessed by those coming from a different class of the population. It is of course true that in the aggregate we get in our classes a larger number in proportion to population of exceptionally gifted students because we make it easy for the talented son of a poor man to get a college education as well as offering education to the sons of the well-to-do. While it may be true that in proportion to numbers there are fewer talented sons of poor men than come from families of the higher classes of society, still the numbers are so great in the lower class that we undoubtedly conserve to a much greater degree the occasional boy of ability. I believe this is one of the reasons for our great national prosperity. Possibly out of sympathy, we have lowered our educational standards in order to educate as many as possible and also to secure the benefits of education to all, hut that emphasizes all the more the need of making special provision for the student of exceptional ability.
Under conditions as they are, the result with reference to the exceptional student is that: these young men soon learn that the best policy in college is to maintain a fairly high average in all courses as no adequate reward is usually held out for exceptionally high-class work in a few subjects. He, therefore, works hard enough in subjects for which he does not have unusual ability to make good grades but does not do the best work of which he is capable in subjects for which he has the greatest talent. This system produces men of all around development but does not develop men of exceptional ability. The poor student is trained up to the average while the unusually endowed man is leveled down. The question before us today is whether it would not be worthwhile to develop the unusual powers of the exceptional man-produce geniuses by our educational process as well as average men. This would involve, you will object, producing a lopsided man who may know a great deal of mathematics but no language, or a great deal of science but no history. This is inevitable because some subjects must be neglected if others receive undue emphasis. Education has been defined as the development of one's mental powers. Why neglect the most promising while putting forth great effort to develop ability along lines where only the most mediocre results may be expected? Please note that I am not arguing for the average student nor for the dull student but for the relatively few exceptionally gifted students whose unusual endowments if cultivated might develop into genius. We have plenty of mediocrity. Outstanding pioneering leaders are all too few. I know you will answer that the all-around man should be developed. Let me answer that only a generation ago the college course was not much better than a first-class high-school education of today. We demand twelve years of education ending with the high school before admission to college. It would seem that we could well afford to provide special instruction in college for the relatively few who have the natural endowment fitting them to do exceptional work. It might be admitted that such a plan would be feasible for cultural study but not advisable in the technical school. Here the student is fitting himself for professional work and the curriculum presumably includes only subjects essential to the future work of the student so that it would not be possible for the student to omit any of the prescribed courses and concentrate on others. A study of chemistry and chemical engineering courses as offered does not sustain this point of view. I n a study, made by the Committee on Chemical Engineering Education of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers headed by Arthur D. Little, of the courses given in 78 institutions offering courses in chemical engineering, it was found that these courses included 210 separate subjects
VOL.5, NO. 10
WORKOF EXCEPTIONALLY GIPTEDSTUDENT
1285
in the various institutions. There would seem to have been few college courses not required by some institutions as a preparation for work in chemical engineering. The Committee found it exceedingly difficult to see why Irish history, zoology, Italian, Latin, or Greek should be required as a preparation for work in chemical engineering. While more agreement was found on fundamental courses, undoubtedly a very large proportion of the courses were added for reasons other than preparation for future work in any specific sense. The student might be given a very wide choice from this range of subjects without materially injuring his preparation for his chemical engineering work. It might be thought that even in the fundamental subjects there would be no opportunity for modification, but the Committee was astounded to find that even here there was the widest variation in requirements. For instance, in such a fundamental course as general chemistry, the requirements as to hours were as follows: General Chemistry
Lecture Laboratory
Maximum
Minimum
Average
204 216
48 24
104 120
The subject which usually follows, namely, qualitative Analysis, was not treated any better, possibly worse, as is indicated in the following: Qualitative Analysie
Lecture Laboratory
Maximum
Minimum
204 324
10 32
Average
46 145
No doubt all of the 78 institutions studied turned out successful chemical engineers; in fact, we have many eminently successful chemical engineers who have had only partial courses in college or even none a t all. One is a t times tempted to conclude that some successful exceptional men would have been even less successful if they had been subjected to the leveling and pruning process of a college education. Some independent, strong minds cannot endure the restraints of college work. Some of these colleges might well be likened t o the giant in the fable who fitted all men t o the same bed by cutting off the legs of the long ones and stretching out the short ones. These remarks must not be taken to imply that an educational program could not be developed which would still further develop the powers of the gifted student and make of a him a better chemist than he would be if he did not subject himself to the pruning process of our present college course. I have only intended to say that our present college courses do not provide adequately for the exceptional student and that we should in some way modify our courses for such exceptional men. A successful career in the chemical field requires the ability to do original
1286
JOURNAL OR' CRBMICAL EDUCATION
O C ~ B S R , 1928
work. In this respect the work of the chemist is almost unique. Such work can be done only by intense concentration on a given subject. Our most brilliant investigator, Irving Langmuir, brought out this point most forcibly in his Perkin Medal address. I t is for this reason that the author is firmly convinced that, as a preparation for a career in chemistry, thorough and exhaustive work along selected lines is the best possible form of preparation for the few who have the talent and initiative to do such work. He also does not believe in the sacredness of our curricula as laid out to the extent that the exceptionaSly gifted stndent might not omit quite a few of our present requirements and devote himself to courses in which he could do exceptional work to the great benefit of himself and the profession. The small college generally offers the most favorable atmosphere for this kmd of work. The machine of the big institution is apt to clip the wings of such ambitious spirits. The faculty of the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn has, through one of its committees, made a study of the possibility of making provision for the exceptionally gifted stndent in the chemical engineering course and has decided to make a trial of a plan designed to do this for the coming year. The plan as outlined is wholly tentative and experimental. I t is quite modest in its proposals, far from revolutionary, but if it shows some measure of success we are prepared to modify and change it in accordance with our experience in the endeavor to give the exceptional student an opportunity to develop along lines in which he has the greatest talent. The plan as outlined and adopted by the faculty is as follows: 1. The faculty shall each year select a number of students from among those completing their junior or senior years in chemical engineering who shall be eligible for honor work in their senior or 5th years. 2. The number of such students shall not exceed three in each of the four major departments of the school except by special action of the faculty. 3. All candidates shall be nominated by the department in which a student is enrolled. 4. Honor students shall consult the head of the department regarding the subject in which they wish to do honor work, which shall be assigned by the head of the department, and shall consist of semi-independent study or research beyond the requirements of the regular course. 5. The required work of regular courses may be wholly or partly replaced for honor students by the special work done a t the discretion of the department. 6. The list of honor students shall be read a t the annual commencement immediately following election by the faculty.
