~ i v e r s i f ~ the i n ~Doctorate
To the Editov: I endorse fully the sentiments expressed in the editorial, "Doctoral Chemical Education: Diversify or Die." The problem is a large one, however, requiring not simply changes in curricula, hut changes in our own way of thinking. We, as members of graduate faculties prodncing PhD's have to recognize the fact that we have goals other than the reproduction of our own images. Recognition and acceptance of this principle may, in many instances, he traumatic. My main purpose in writing, however, is to comment on the suggested solution to the problem. The "name game" has been played and discussed many times by many universities and professional organizations. The net result always appears to be the same. A PhD equivalent described by some other name, such as Doctor of Letters, Master of Philosophy, etc., invariably carries with it a connotation of second-class citizenship. This connotation defeats the very purpose of the program. Why can we not learn a lesson from our professional colleagues in the area of medicine? All physicians receive the same degree, Doctor of Medicine. Under that aegis they operate as general practitioners, specialists, teachers, or pure researchers. All of these individuals have the same degree that carries with it the same sense of status and recognition in the eyes of the general public and thc profession. The individual physician simply follows the track best suited to his capabilities and interests. Why can we not do the same thing with tho PhD? The PhD degree should he a "broad spectrum" degree that consists of individuals who have followed educational paths preparing them to be primarily teachers or primarily researchers, etc. The system that seems to work best and. hold the greatest promise of achieving the equivalent status concept is a program in which all students follow the same curriculum up to the dissertation. I t is at this point that the program is tailored to the student's specific interests and abilities. Tailoring is done by the student in consultation with either a single adviser or a dissertation committee. The latter is more appropriate when the dissertation is other than the traditional, pure research type. A teacher-oriented dissertation, for example, might involve the preparation of a syllabus and extensive course notes for a new course, or a course opening up a new area. There is an almost infinite number of possibilities. The student would not he hound by his career decision if he found upon graduation that he should have concentrated more on pure research because he is not happy teaching in a junior college or four-year college. He can, always, via a postdoctoral education, reorient his direction. (The reorientation can also he demonstrated by an WID analogy.) One of the important aspects of this approach is that 594 / Journal of Chemical Education
the student upon earning his doctorate and going out to teach in a four-year college, two-year college, or community college does not suffer the feelings of inadequacy, or lack of fulfillment, that our current products tend to feel, if they select that type of career. We frequently handicap our own students and prevent them from serving in the capacities for which they are best suited by infusing into them the feeling that working towards any goal other than a Nobel Prize is unacceptable. They would not have this feeling if their own faculty encouraged them and designed a program to satisfy their interests and talents. The general practitioner is not ashamed of his activities.
To the Editov: I have read your editorial, "Doctoral Chemical Education: Diversify or Die," in the February issue of the JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION with a great deal of interest. I completely agree with both you and Linnell and Chapin that the background received by a PhD who wishes to emphasize undergraduate teaching is too narrow and research-oriented. However, until the institutions which would do the hiring of well-rounded individuals can get away from the idea that a researchoriented scholar is what is needed on their staffs, the problem will continue to exist. It is possible in the existing PhD programs to receive a broad science education in only five years, which should prepare one for a career of undergraduate teaching and some research. I expect to receive a PhD with a joint major in chemistry and the history of science this June. I have completed all of the requirements for a doctorate in inorganic chemistry at the University of Wificonsin except for the thesis. When I realized that I was not interested nor frankly suited to spend my career in the PhD-producing labs of some large university, I began a program of study in the history of science, which considerably widened my views of science. During my graduate study (which I began in September, 1965) I have had experience teaching freshman chemistry and general physical science for nonmajors from an historical, methodological, and philosophical viewpoint. We spent a large amount of time on the problems of science and society. Consequently, I am qualified to teach all general and inorganic chelristry courses and laboratories as well as the interdisciplinary "relevant" subjects of science and society and the philosophy and history of science. My background is not unique, since a t Wisconsin the history of the science department has many students who received substantial graduate training in "pure" science.
Unfortunately, in the tight job market of the past couple of years there has been no large demand noticeable for people with theae qualifications. Most chemistry vacancies involve research positions, and there do not seem to be many advertisements for undergraduate teaching in the journals such as Chemistry and Engineering News, except for experienced PhD's. Perhaps educators should he made aware of the fact that people with this background do exist at present, and if a noticeable demand existed more people would consider this option as a graduate school career.
Facts Needed to Understand Theory
To the Editor: I n his provocative and amusing comments on the consequences of deleting too much factual material from elementary chemistry courses, D. A. Davenport (J. CHEM.EDUC.,47, 271, 1970) signals the changing mood of those who teach the more advanced courses. Soon some of the latter will have sufficient courage to confront the former without trepidation, even though they may be branded "old-fashioned." Davenport's encounter with a student who believes in the greenly gaseous silver chloride had a sequel which I believe he may have misread. His colleague who remarked, "what a pity he got the theory wrong," could have meant that it is sad but true that students in elementary courses not only don't learn facts (because these are not sufficiently emphasized), hut neither do they know theory (as demonstrated by their poor performance). There are many reasons for this; I shall list a few obvious ones. First, I believe that the trend from the study of "facts" to discussions of concepts is based on a misunderstanding of the learning process. Very few students can grasp abstract concepts without establishing frequent correspondences with objects and ideas which are already within their experience. Most students learn by extension; they follow inductive paths. For example, the manifold manipulation of a variety of metallic salts is an essential laboratory exercise which endows the term "salt'! with meaning. Second, I seriously question whether there are enough brilliant teachers who could present the basic theories in a way which differs essentially from the recitation of a list of statements, and thus avoid dull teaching. How many can give their students an understanding so deep so that they could apply these theories to cases which were not used by the instructors as illustrations? Third, there seems to have developed an attitude which in the absence of a charitable name I must call intellectual arrogance. This hinges on the notion that by repeating certain key words or phrases enough times (such as, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, entropy, free energy, orbitals, resonance, etc.) the discussion becomes illuminated. Then one may view all experience in the physical sciences by starting with first principles. Frankly, I have yet to find a current elementary chemistry text in which the relations between
the equilibrium constant, the free energy change under standard state, and the free energy change for the system as specified, are clearly and correctly presented. Yet, I have not seen one which omits all discussion of the Gibbs free energy function. I won't attempt to guess what fraction of elementary teachers can offhand state the difference between the temperature dependence of AGO and of (AG0/T), nor why one should bother with this distinction. Yet many second and third year students believe that they "have had" thermodynamics. The full significance of the fact that chemists almost always deal with tremendous numbers of molecules, and that many properties of their samples have no counterpart in the models we accept for individual molecules, very often comes as an enlightening surprise to the good students, sometime during their third or fourth year; others never really grasp this e s sential point. One may cite many examples of mismanaged emphasis which relate to symmetry, quantum theory of honding, molecular dynamics, etc. For these topics the underlying concepts apparently sink in slowly. Perhaps, only when the student is repeatedly confronted with facts which he must correlate and fit into a unifying framework, does he indeed think hard enough. S. H. BAUER
Fact, Not Theory Should be Starting Point
To the Editor: I must agree with Derek A. Davenport [J. CHEM. EDUC., 47, 271 (1970)l about the current ignorance of students of simple inorganic facts. My favorite story is of the senior who wrote Mg(OHja, of which a distinguished acquaintance said: "Gee, I'd love some of that." The blame lies partly with the authors of college general chemistry texts. Only Sienko and Plane attempt to give factual chemistry the prominence it should have. But much worse than this is high school chemistry. How I wish our freshman majors would come to us with a well-mastered body of facts (and of simple calculation skills), so that we might build upon it. But the craze for some years has been the "conceptual" approach. As a result there is an ineradicable sense that the facts are trivial, unimportant; even that they do not matter because they can be calculated. Now I readily concede that in the process of growing up, facts as facts do become less interesting to students, who naturally get more selective in their enthusiasms. It is also true that no one below the senior level in college has the mathematical background for a proper study of, say, honding theory. So it seems to me that there is no doubt in which order our curriculum should progress: descriptive first, theory later. Why do the high schools not do their part? Maybe it is the emphasis which the teachers learned in college, which then becomes .nos~el. . Mavbe it is the desire to impress colleagues with their "high-power" professional commitment. (Colleges have this problem.) But not entirely. Volume 47, Number 8, August 1970
/
595
I have here "Chemistry, a Syllabus for Secondary Schools" [State Education Department of New York, 1966, 1968, Supplement 19671, subtitled ". . .with major emphasis on fundamental concepts". This is a document which has or should have a profound influence in schools in the state. Unfortunately, they got their fundamental concepts wrong. All 79 pages of the body of the Syllabus are divided into three columns: Topics -Fundamental ConceptsSupplementary Information. Unless he is sufficiently aware of this strait jacket to resist it, the teacher automatically teaches a theory and then merely illustrates it. The contents read: introduction 9 pages, atomic structure 9, bonding 7, periodic table 8-at last something about chemicals-math 10, various physico-chemical concepts 27, organic 9, and as a supplement, industrial 4. Now this might be an appropriate outline for a freshman college course. It comes close to several texts. This is in itself bad, as college students tend therefore to take the same course twice. But at the lower level the whole emphasis is wrong. High school is not college. Its function is quite different. The Syllabus should read more like: chemicals (acids, bases, salts, simple reactions, household, industrial) 30 pages, math 20, P. chem. 10, atoms and bonding 10, organic 9. How boring, will say the theoreticians. Yet what for instance could be more boring, frustrating, and utterly without relevance, than the mumbo-jumbo of halfunderstood bonding theory? And should not the accent be towards teaching very little very well? This is the point which needs the strongest emphasis. What can be more delightful than the simple relationships between common chemicals? If we teachers will only believe in the fascination that descriptive chemistry can hold for the young, and in its relevance to living and working. This is how I for one was attracted to chemistry. I am thirty-five, but many of our older chemists would say the same, and their lives' work often proves it. I do not want to turn back the clock. But let us have a care for the work which most of our students are likely to do; and a bigger care for the picture our children may get of chemistry before most of them specialize in some other occupation.
decidedly inadequate, especially the freshman texts. On this point, Lippman and Yager [J.CHEM.EDUC.,45, 749 (1968) ] state that such texts are "appallingly bad." I suggest that the pedagogical level of chemistry textbooks generally would be raised si~ificantlyif more teachers in the liberal arts colleges could find time to write them. This statement is based on over a quarter of a century of attendance a t meetinge of the Division of Chemical Education, and many years at meetings and conferences of the California Association of Chemistry Teachers. By and large, the most imaginative approaches to the presentation of subject matter and the most lucid presentation of papers have been displayed by teachers a t small colleges. They may not have the time to devote to such a demanding project as writing a text, but their minds are not idle. They have a special committment to teaching, and their enthusiasm and competency have been much in evidence. Obsolescence and isolation may be a problem at some colleges, but the teachers I have listened to have certainly escaped these handicaps. I n a recent report of a conference sponsored by the Advisory Council on College Chemistry, "The Role of the Liberal Arts Colleges in the Education of Chemists" (Serial Publication No. 45, October, 1969, p. 19) it is stated that "surprisingly little" textbook writing has originated from such institutions. I t is my contention that it is not surprising at all. Regardless, something must be done about it. I suggest that government agencies and private foundations could make a significant contribution to chemical education by providing funds to a sufficient number of outstanding liberal arts faculty for the purpose of writing texts. Not only would this provide an academic morale booster for those teachers who could qualify, but the resulting texts would offer a healthier variety of choice than is now available.
Shadow Projection Method for Dipole Moments
Improved Texts
To the Editor: Professor Robert 1. Walter recently called attention to the fact that authors from liberal arts colleges are poorly represented in the field of chemistry textbook writing [J. CHEM.EDUC.,47, 184 (1970)l. Among the obvious reasons for this situation are a heavy teachiig load, lack of secretarial help, and inadequate library facilities. According to some teachers, many modern texts are
596
/
Journal of Chemical Education
To the Editor: In our article, "Calculating Dipole Moments and Atom Coordinates Using Molecular Models: A Shadow Projection AIethod," [J. CHEM.EDUC.,47, 359(1970)], we neglected to mention a previous reference to a similar work [ALLINGER, N. L., DAROOGE,14. A,, MILLER,M. A,, AND WAEGELL, B., J. Org. Chem., 28, 780(1963)]. This reference was overlooked because the subject in question appeared as an appendix to a longer paper and, therefore, was not abstracted by the authors or by Chemical Abstracts.
CENTERFOR RESEARCH AND ADYANCED STUDIES NATIONAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE A.P. 14-740, MEXICO14, D.F.
