} EDUCATION J. C. WARNER President, American Chemical Society
While engineering education has been revolutionized, chemical education has only become more specialized
Is Chemical Education Too Specialized? A man w h o has I spent 25 years i n I university teachJing and research I before becoming ^a chief administ r a t i v e officer does not look down from his office in an ivy-covered tower with indifference upon the educational processes and practices of his institution. H e must, of course, be concerned with ensuring that the physical facilities and educational resources of his institution, always inadequate, are put to efficient and effective use. But, more important, he must give leadership in setting educational goals and objectives and in encouraging such curriculum developments and procedures in instruction as will lead to the desired educational objectives. In the institution I have the honor to head, w e are concerned almost exclusively with professional education in the physical sciences, engineering, industrial administration, the fine arts, and a few professional fields for women, such as home economics. We are convinced that education in all of these fields, indeed in all professional fields, must have common characteristics if it 4786
C&EN
OCT.
I.
19 56
is to b e truly professional education and if our graduates are to grow t o full professional stature during their careers. C h a n g e s in Engineering Education During the past two decades in America, a tremendous change has been brought about in engineering education. Actually, change has been so rapid that it is almost accurate to speak of it a s a revolution in engineering education. Today, in our better institutions, education for the engineering professions has most of the characteristics I have described—an effective program of liberal studies as an integral part of professional education; a substantial reduction in descriptive, specialized and "know-how" courses with a corresponding increase in emphasis on basic science; a n emphasis throughout o n developing the will and the ability to use basic knowledge in a creative way t o understand and find solutions to n e w problems; and an endeavor to make i t second nature for the student to learn from each experience and to go o n learning. And the end is not yet in sight—the recent report of the American Society
for Engineering Education committee on the evaluation of engineering education recommends still less specialization in the various engineering disciplines, and the inclusion beyond the basic physical sciences and mathematics in all engineering curricula of the following six engineering sciences: • • • •
Mechanics of solids Fluid dynamics Thermodynamics Transfer and rate mechanisms (heat, mass, and momentum transfer) • Electrical theory (fields, circuits, and electronics) • Nature and properties of materials (relating particle and aggregate structure to properties) If these latest recommendations of our leading engineering educators are implemented, no more than 25% of a curriculum would b e devoted to studies characteristic of a particular engineering discipline. Thus, in the past two decades w e have made great progress in formulating t h e objectives of engineering education and in designing curricula and instructional procedures in light of these
objectives. As a consequence, I feel confident the engineer is gaining stature as a professional man and the status of the profession is steadily improving. I believe the leaders in chemical education can leani some important things from the engineers. W e hear many voices these days expressing a desire for an improved status for the profession of chemistry, and I am convinced that the fundamental and sound way to achieve this desire is to improve education for the profession of chemistry. During the 2 0 years in which w e have had such a rapid change in education for the engineering and many other professions, there has been no substantial change in chemical education at either the undergraduate or graduate level, except possibly a trend toward greater specialization. I think it is time to take a good serious look at chemical education from the standpoint of what are n o w considered sound objectives of education for any profession. I am convinced that w e can do a better job than we are now doing. If we do, we will improve the status of the profession and more gifted students will be attracted to it. The
AMERICAN CHEMICAL
SOCIETY
is interested in doing anything it can to improve the status of chemists and the profession of chemistry. It would seem proper, therefore, that the study I suggest be made under the auspices of the Society, and I believe our Committee on the Professional Training should accept t h e responsibility. It has been interesting to me that the principal effort in t h e reconstruction of engineering education did not come from professors of engineering; it came primarily from engineers who had fallen to the low academic station of deans of engineering or to the still lower status of college president. Perhaps, therefore we should include some w h o have fallen from active participation in the chemical profession among the group asked t o study our problem.
W h a t Is Needled? I have no well-formulated pattern for the reconstruction of chemical education to propose, but I do have some suggestions to make and some questions to raise. First of ail, chemical education should have the characteristics of good professional education; an effective and
Characteristics of Good
onaf Education * •
p In each field there xnust be provision for adequate and effective education in iibcrsl studies s o that the graduate will understand his environment; will be &kble to communicate in oral and written language; will be able to take in*o proper account die social, economic, and political aspects and implications of his professional work; and will be able to discharge his duties as a responsible citizen ett"**-ct^vftiv. To make t h i s part of t h e student's professional education adequate and effective, the faculty in t h e student's professional field must play a part in organizing an integrated curriculum of studies in the humanities and social sciences; must have a concern about the effectiveness of instruction; and must help convince the student that this part of his program is an integral and important part of his professional education. N o faculty in science or engineering, f o r example, can take the attitude that the English faculty has sole responsibility for developing the student's skill in oral and written communication. Science and engineering professors must feel a responsibility for developing their student's skill in this area throughout their college careers. ^ In each professional field, die scientific-technical part of the curriculum should b e designed and taught with emphasis o n giving the student a thorough understanding of basic principles, ideas, and theories, and skill in the use of t h e s e in solving problems and situations which are n e w to the student. Highly specialized, descriptive and "know-how" courses must be sacrificed to a substantial extent to accomplish the above objectives. Indeed the latter type of course is more appropriate to the trade school or technical institute than to professional education. • Professional education should provide the student with the basis and motivation for- ( 1 ) learning something from each experience, and ( 2 ) for continuing: to learn throughout his career so h e will grow to full professional stature. It seems clear that the more fundamental a student's education in college, t h e better equipped will h e be tc master the new science, methods, and techniques of his professional field throughout his career.
adequate program of liberal studies as an integral part o f the student's professional education; a curriculum which in its scientific content emphasizes basic principles, i d e a s and theories, and the development o f skill in their use in finding creative solutions to new problems; and the development of die desire and habit of? learning from each experience, and o*f continuing to learn. It is my impression that, in most colleges and universities, the liberal studies required o f chemistry students are a hodgepodge of electives—the chemistry faculty rarely takes an inter-
est in what they are, or how they are taught; the humanities and social science professors would rather b e teaching major students; and the poor student sees n o relation between t h e credit requirements in liberal studies and his professional education. Surely this part of the professional education of chemists needs careful study and improvement in most mstitutions. Concerning the scientific-technical part of chemical education, what questions 5-LiGiii.vx I>B raiscvxi xS iiiivi.oi"gra%u.uate education too speciaHzed? Within chemistry itself, I think not. Few OCT.
I.
1956
C&EN
4787
EDUCATION
"They fail to provide the student with an a d e q u a t e command of mathematics or a proper understanding of classical a n d modern physics"
schools offer options permitting specialization in a field of chemistry to undergraduates. However, I think many undergraduate curricula are too specialized on chemistry at the expense of the other physical sciences and mathematics. They fail to provide t h e student with an a d e q u a t e command of mathematics or a proper understanding of classical and m o d e r n physics. This lack is a great Handicap to t h e student in t h e precise statement of a new chemical p r o b l e m and in being able to marshal basic scientific principles a n d theories to find a creative solution to the problem. Most serious, I believe, is t h e effect of this inadequate command of mathematics and physics on the student's capacity to learn from experience and to gco on learning throughout his career. If w e provide the student with a better education in mathematics a n d physics, will we still have time to give him a sound education in chemistry? I believe so, if w e a r e willing to d o what the engineers h a v e done—throw out much descriptive and know-how material and keep t l i e emphasis on basic principles, ideas, theories, techniques, and the development of skill in the use of these, p l u s physics a n d mathematics in the experimental or theoretical solution of chemical problems.
Start with Generalization It seems to me that in chemical education w e almost always start with specific phenomena or a narrow range of phenomena and t h e corresponding limited generalizations a n d theories, working up gradually to t h e broader generalizations a n d theories. Couldn't we save time a n d do a better job b y the more general approach? Let m e give you an example: It is common to study, as separate phenomena, t h e solubility of solids in liquids, t h e solubility of gases in liquids and solids, the vapor pressure of liquids a n d solids, the distribution of a solute between immiscible liquid phases, e t c . A t a later dale Liic Phase Rule is introduced as an empirical generalization a n d a descriptive study 4788
C&EN
OCT.
I.
1956
is undertaken of phase diagrams for binary systems and a few simple ternary systems. Finally, if the student is very lucky, he will find that thermodynamics gives a broad generalization governing all heterogeneous equilibria, and t h a t each of t h e phenomena referred to above, including the Phase Rule, fall out of this broad generalization very neatly as special cases. M y question here is, why can't w e find a way to start with the broad generalization and then go to the special cases? Wouldn't this b e more efficient and better professional education? This is but a limited illustration of the way in which we should examine any present practices and procedures in chemical education. In the main, chemistry is that part of science which deals with (1) the laws of thermodynamics applied to certain types of e n ergy transformations and to equilibrium in chemical processes and in some types of physical processes; (2) the kinetics of chemical processes and some types of physical processes; (3) atomic a n d molecular structure and the relation of structure to the properties of atoms and molecules as separate particles a n d in the aggregate; and (4) the interaction of radiation with atoms a n d molecules. If we add to this t h e basic techniques necessary in the experimental or theoretical solution of chemical problems, we have pretty well d e fined the area of scientific endeavor— reaching all the way from the basic t o the applied—for which we have t h e responsibility of preparing young m e n and women. I would suggest that we look at all parts of chemical education as I h a v e looked at a little piece—heterogeneous equilibria. Perhaps we should e n courage more symposia and articles o n h o w to teach the more basic a n d more general principles and theories. W i t h reference again to my illustration, I would suggest a symposium to explore the means whereby chemistry students could be given a thorough understanding Oi tuG ittW's Gi thermodynamics n e t later than at the beginning of their junior year.
In studies which we hope would lead to a reconstruction of chemical education, it would, be important, of course, t o reach some conclusions about t h e goals it would be reasonable to achieve in undergraduate schools.
Graduate Education Static And this leads m e to graduate education in chemistry, which is more and more considered a necessary part of the education of professional chemists. There h a v e been n o very significant changes in g r a d u a t e chemical education during t h e past 20 years. We have a d d e d a few n e w areas of specialization—nuclear chemistry, chemical physics, physical-organic chemistry, and the chemistry of macromolecules. And t h e r e may well be others. I have omitted any discussion of biochemistry because education in this specialty is more often t h e responsibility of schools of medicine o r schools of agriculture than of schools o r departments of chemistry. I k n o w of no comprehensive study and evaluation of graduate education in chemistry during the past 20 years except t h e study initiated a few years ago by our Committee on Professional Training, and this study has not yet gone very f a r beyond the stage of collecting information on present practices and standards. As w i t h undergraduate education, I have some comments to make and some questions to raise about graduate education for the profession of chemistry. I s it t o o specialized? I believe it is in a great majority of our graduate schools. It i s my impression that in most g r a d u a t e schools the graduate student's time is too completely monopolized by graduate courses in his specialized field of chemistry and he is not guided into a program which will give h i m a sound understanding of the modern principles, ideas, and theories of the science as a whole. There is, of course, justification for varying degrees of specialization depending upon the u n i q u e fields in which facult v roembers are distinguished and have at their disposal unusual research equipment.
EDUCATION There must be room for diversity. However, I feel t h a t in most schools specialization has gone too far. As a result, these specialists are not equipped to make the best, most creative a p proach to problems in their special field, and are not properly prepared to go on learning n e w science throughout their careers. It has always been interesting to me that one of our excellent and largest graduate schools in chemistry, t h e University of California at Berkeley, offers only seven semester courses for graduate students; in addition tliere is a n active seminar, t h e opportunity for individual nonlaboratory study under t h e guidance of a professor, and, of course, dissertation -esearch. On t h e other hand, I find many graduate schools which offer 3 0 to 4 0 , or more, semester courses for graduate students in chemistry, exclusive of t h e usual seminars a n d dissertation r e search. Recently I ran across t h e catalog of a little known school with a chemistry faculty of six, none of whom h a s made a significant contribution through r e search. I w a s much surprised t h a t this department offers a program leading to t h e Ph.D. i n chemistry. Twenty-six semester g r a d u a t e courses plus t w o graduate seminars and dissertation research are listed in t h e catalog. Fortunately, no school can thwart t h e ambitions of a m a n with a first-rate mind and a strong motivation for a career in science, but I would guess that, on t h e average, the Ph.D.'s from this department, if any, are not likely to contribute much toward improving t h e status of chemistry as a profession.
Liberation from 3 Dimensions I would strongly advocate t h a t three first-rate, full-year courses be required of all graduate students in chemistry —advanced organic chemistry, with emphasis o n structural theory a n d mechanisms; advanced physical chemistry and chemical physics; a n d advanced modern inorganic chemistry a n d nuclear chemistry. I n addition I would require of all graduate students such a command of mathematics, classical physics, a n d modern physics as is needed to understand the modern state of our science a n d make a creative attack upon its unsolved problems. Every entering graduate students preparation i n mathematics and physics
should be carefully reviewed a n d steps should b e taken immediately to correct any deficiencies. Somewhere along t h e line in the education of a professional chemist, he should b e liberated from three dimensions—from t h e limitation of thinking only about problems for which he can construct a physical model. I speak of mathematics and physics with some feeling because of m y personal experience. My undergraduate and graduate training in chemistry fell short of the type of professional education I have advocated here tonight. My chemistry courses were without exception descriptive and I certainly obtained no real understanding of t h e principles, ideas, and theories of t h e science as they existed at the time. I say this with due apology to m y alma mater where great things have been happening in recent years in building a first rate center of learning in chemistry. For some reason—not because I w a s required to, or encouraged to—I guess just because I found them interesting, I did prepare myself quite well in mathematics and physics. I'm sure I was able in the early part of my career to learn modern chemical science a n d then to keep on learning n e w science, primarily because of this better than average equipment in mathematics and physics.
Room for Some Specialization Beyond the basic advanced courses in chemistry and adequate provision for mathematics and physics, I'm sure there is a place for a few more specialized graduate courses, b u t I believe we will b e producing better professional chemists without too m a n y of them. Proliferation of graduate courses, excessive specialization, a n d neglect of physics and mathematics probably have their origin in a n u m b e r of things. I believe I can name a few: • The desire of every chemistry faculty member to give a separate graduate course in his only specialty. • T h e fact that in some large departments, the staff in a specialized field operates almost as a separate independent faculty. • The tendency in some places to use graduate students to get t h e professor's research done instead of placing emphasis on educating the student to
enter upon his career as a truly professional chemist. • The vested interests certain faculty members are assumed to have in certain graduate courses and certain areas of research. • In some quarters, it appears that the desire for large numbers of graduate students has led to admission standards which permit serious deficiencies in undergraduate preparation. The character of undergraduate education and graduate education for t h e profession of chemistry must not b e determined by one or a few men w h o may for various reasons have narrow views, vested interests, or are advocates of a high degree of specialization. It must be the bus", ess of t h e entire chemistry faculty, the dean of the college, the dean of the graduate school, the employers of chemists, and our professional society—the AMERICAN C H E M I C A L SOCIETY.
Obligations to Professions We have t h e obligation to formulate our educational goals and reconstruct chemical education to provide t h e best professional education we can devise. Many other professions are doing it or have been doing it for the past two decades. I am convinced that we can devise an education so that our graduates will b e liberally educated in t h e arts of communication, human relations, and citizenship; will have a sound understanding of the principles, ideas, theories, and techniques of our science, and skill in their use to fnd creative experimental or theoretical solutions to chemical problems; and will b e motivated to learn from experience and to go on learning. W e will then have better chemists—men and women who will a d d to chemical knowledge at an accelerated rate; men and women who will b e capable of solving our chemical problems of ever increasing complexity; and men and women who will grow to full professional stature during their careers. Nothing, in my opinion, could do more to improve the status of the profession, a n d nothing could be more important to the national welfare and the national security. • Address to the general meeting AMKBTCANT CHEMICAL SOCIETY, Atlantic City, N. / . ,
Sept. 19, 1956 OCT.
I, 19 56 C&EN
4789
