Pmmm enough has been said about the chemist's need for better habits and better instruction in report writing to make further talk redundant. Nevertheless we have seen fit to publish the excellent contribution t o this subject t o be found on page 8. It describes an earnest effort to fill this long-felt need a t a firstclass technical college. The pit in which efforts of this sort have heretofore bogged down is the almost bottomless morass of student indifference and hostility. Anything that smacks of "English Composition" excites more student antagonism than any other curricular or extracurricular element in the college experience--unless it he compulsory chapel! A little progress seems to have been made in overcoming this. No one can very successfully defend the old-time method of report writing, according t o which the student follows meticulously the directions in a laboratory manual, and then closes it up and proceeds to "write up" his "experiment." Generally he ends up about where he began-often in understanding as well as in written copy. His "write-up" often differsfrom the laboratory manual in little other than the tense of the verbs. It is altogether unrealistic to believe that this constitutes training in any kind of "scientific method." The result has caused many a good teacher t o give up the effort to combine training in the arts of communication with the other objectives of laboratory work and to say resignedly: "What's the use?" Even under hetter circumstances, laboratory reports are equally laborious and unrequiting t o student and instructor. The student is never quite convinced that the report is a justifiable requirement of him, and feels that it is an element incompatible with the more objective aspects of laboratory work. The instructor soon finds himself in collusion with the student in defeating
the latter's best interests, anticipating the meaning of ungrammatical expression and accepting a poorly composed piece of work simply because he has no time t o d o otherwise. He excuses himself with: "Well, he apparently knows what it is all about, anyway." Consequently, we revert to time-saving devices such as a fill-in manual. If this has "tear-out" pages i t has a double advantage: it preserves the "secret" of the experiment from others who might later pick up the book, and it insures that the publisher will be able to sell a new book to the student who takes the course next year. This is "old stuff" to teachers, most of whom have certainly thought the problem through befaregenerally t o frustration. Perhaps some of those who have long since given i t up may get a new burst of enthusiasm from the article by Doody and Gibhens. I n any event, an editor will perhaps be excused for thinking this question especially important. After all, he is one of those who suffer most from its lack of solution. If our students could only be taught to write understandingly, interestingly, and restrainedly-and moreover, be somehow brought to take pleasure in doing so--we could eventually offer our readers more articles as readable and interesting as this one is. The vital art of communication is one of the necessary accomplishments of a successful scientific worker, and we too often compel our students t o learn this the hard way, in the hard-knocking world of industry and competition. The adjustment to the after-college world is hard enough a t hest; a young man should not he compelled t o attempt it without a t least some degree of competence in this important art. And so, any step we can take in this direction is worth taking--even if it be a small one.
