The Revision of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Curricula INTRODUCTORY REMARKS' LAURENCE L. QUILL Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan
OURBDUCATIONAL system is adjusting itself from the abnormal programs of wartime to the abnormal programs of a so-called reconversion era. In the war period many problems had to be surmounted. In most colleges the student bodies were composed iargely of young women and of men from the armed forces. Supplies, especially permanent apparatus, were difficult to get because teaching did not carry a triple A priority. Teaching $laboratories became restricted areas, with armed guards checking passes of those privilegedto enter the laboratories. Now, the emergency is over; 'reconversion to normal is supposedly under way. New problems have to be surmounted. Student bodies' now include large numbers of veterans; young men again exceed the young women by a two- or three-to-one count. Supplies are more difficult to get than earlier because decreased inventories must be replenished and the greater student enrollment requires more apparatus. Teaching laboratories are still restricted areas-restricted in the sense that they are too small to accommodate properly the enrolled students. There is no need to devote time to the'widety discussed problem that our system of training professional scientists has broken down. We have lost a generation of chemists. The heavy pressure on applied chemistry to win the war has taken its toll. It has caused the loss of the one generation because the group was diverted from the scientific training giounds to the war training fields. It has caused a loss by diverting a large number of trained chemists from fundamental programs to applied problems or to administration. Those of us who supervise groups of chemists or are teachers recognize the effectsof convertmg good research men to other lmes of endeavor. Oace the enthusiasm for research thought is dampened, it is difficult to re-instill the spirit. Thus, another group is lost to research or teaching. The time has come when we must take stock of plans for the future. We must ask ourselves what lmes to follow. The experiences of the last few years have shown that chemists need a good fundamental training in science; they also must obtain a background in the humanistic subjects so they may better fit into the environment in which they live and work and loaf. As a matter of fact, in most schools the better balanced curricula '
Presented before the Division of Chemical Education a t the 111th meeting of the American Chemical Society in Atlantic City, April 14-18, 1947.
are those leading to bachelor of science degrees in chemistry, since these programs afford a mixture of chemistry, mathematics, physics, foreign language, English, and the hurganistic or cultural subjects. We ask, therefore, how much of a cultural program should be interwoven into the scientific curriculum? The war period saw the employment of many persons as technicians in ordnance plants and other chemical industries. These persons prefer to be called chemists. The success of many chemical projects in the winning of the war effortserved to glamorize chemistry. Young people are registering for training in our profession because it is thought there will be a great need for chemists in these immediate .future years. However, most of these people are not qualified to become chemi s t s t h e y are better suited to be trained as laboratorians or technicians. Should we develop tradeschool types of courses as part of our college programs? Each year, many departments of chemistry face another complex problem. It deals with the large number of young people who have started premedical programs, hoping t,hey may be among.the lucky few who will be accepted i~ Medical School.' After frustration because of not gettmg into Medical School, many desire to become professional chemists. For the same reasons that they did not qualify as potential doctors,'they are not suited for chemistry. True, they have taken numerous chemistry courses, along with some mathematics, physics, languages, etc. However, they lack that intangible factor-the spirit, the love, and the enthusiasm which marks the difference between being a chemist and not being a chemist. This group will be good future citizens; they will have a good educational background. We should provide for them. How should we plan our programs to recognize these persons by a suitable collegiate degree? Inquiries arise ahout the integration of our chemistry courses. How closely should first- and second-year courses of study be interwoven? To protect the professional chemistry program from becoming a tradeschool course for technicians, should we adopt a fiveyear comprehensive program leading directly to a master's degree? This latter type of program can meet all of the requirements of the American Chemical Society; it can include phases of study not possible in an unintegrated four-year program on which is superimposed a master's program. Can programs of study in large schools be as closely coordinated as those of small schools, where the faculty is smaller and hence better
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
370
adapted to participating in all phases of a four-year schedule? We learn that chemical engineering curricula are being developed into five-year programs. The student public must be educated to the facts that well-trained chemists or chemical engineers need more than four years of training to become qualified for their professions and that there is nothing sacred about the customary four-year course of study. The methods and the objectives of engineering curricula are being re-examined. To develop a broad engineering program, there must be an early concentration on fundamental science, mathematics, and English. How much inorganic, analytical, organic, and physical chemistry should be included in the chemical engineering programs? Horn much engineering as such should be included? For chemical engineering, should major emphasis be placed on the master's degree and less on the doctorate, or vice versa? Industry obtains its annual supply of young scientists and engineers from the colleges. In preparing our curricula, attention should be paid to the criticisms of those who hire the product of the colleges. Industry should help the colleges and universities by outlining both the strong and the weak points of the curricula. However, it should be stressed that the purpose of the collegiate programs is to give training in fundamentals, not to
'
give extended training in routine techniques. Pressure is sometimes brought on colleges to give a trade-school type of training for technicians. Such programs have their place, but the b3sic courses in chemistry, mathematics, physics, and English must not be sacrificed. For over a decade the American Chemical Society h s been interested in the development of curricula for the professional training of chemists. The Committee has performed a tremendous task. Individuals have benefited, schools have benefited, the profession has benefited by the study. Problems are still unsolved in connection with the professional training of chemists. There is still agood demarcation line between the laboratorian and the chemist. We still have the task of cbnviucing a large lay public that chemistry is a 'learned profession," comparable to medicine and law. We still have the job of developing the profession of chemistry to the stage that the profession advances parallel to the progress of chemistry as a science. In the papers listed on this symposium, we may have the answers to a few of the questions. Certainly, all of them will not be answered. Our frank discussions will enable all to broaden their views on chemistry and chemical engineering, their places in our changing educational scheme, their functions inour present and future society.
.
