EDITORIAL
Snobbish scientists Science teaching at precollege level should be a noble calling, but snobbery has shifted top science talent in other directions
B
ack in July (C&EN, July 13, page 5) we wrote of the "silent scientists"—those of us who seem unwilling or incapable of communicating science to the public at large. Admittedly cloaked with elements of editorial hyperbole, the thesis, we think, has a core of validity. Now we'd like to take a crack at the snobbish scientists, another group that in a different and more fundamental way has been crimping our lines of science communication. The snobbish scientist aims high. Only the esteemed university with its well-equipped and formerly well-financed laboratories or the wellheeled not-for-profit establishment will do, though in a pinch some have stooped to seek sustenance at the door of crass industry. For these high priests of science, only the most esoteric scientific problems hold any fascination. An exaggeration? To be sure, but perhaps not grossly off the mark. One result of this attitude has been a stigmatizing and even a maligning of what should be the noble calling of teaching science at the secondary and primary levels. Ironically and tragically, we have tended to breed an educational system that puts a premium on the "back" or graduate end of the process, giving short shrift to the "front" or precollege, and in large sense, more critical end. Our best scientific talent has been conditioned and urged to shun teaching at the "lower" levels in favor of a "higher'' calling. At its worst, it's an inbred academic cultism. Small wonder, then, that the public should grow increasingly disenchanted with science. Their token exposure to science courses at college and precollege levels has been lackluster. We're happy to report that the problem is at last receiving critical attention. In this issue (page 40) C&EN editor Bob Hadsell reports some of the special science programs getting under way this fall that are designed for students aiming at careers in science teaching in high and elementary schools.
We wish these programs and their backers well, for the need is critical. We must have good science teachers at precollege levels in the interest both of good science and good science public relations. And most of these teachers should—in fact, must—come from the ranks of our top science graduates—people who are now too often repelled by the low repute (and low pay) associated with these jobs. Even the terms "secondary" and "elementary" have a poor connotation. The task is formidable, not so much because of any inherent difficulty in designing suitable programs but because of people problems and entrenched ideas and notions. As Hadsell points out in his story, "Even Cotter Tharin, [Hope College geology department head] deeply involved in Hope's program, admits that he tends to persuade good students to go on to graduate school rather than into secondary teaching. He expresses some doubt that similar, long-held attitudes among college professors will be easily changed." The preliminary report of the Snowmass International Conference on Education in Chemistry ( sponsored last summer by the ACS Division of Chemical Education) also states the problem: "For science graduates, and especially for new Ph.D.'s, instructing in secondary and primary schools was considered not quite respectable. Hindsight now tells us that the result was predictable. You cannot expect many of the best people to make a career of communicating science if you treat them as outcasts." Isn't it about time that we bury that old shibboleth: "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"? We can't afford the kind of snobbery and myopia implied in that sort of statement.
^A^JT^
M*C-
^
C&EN editorials are signed and represent only the views of the signer. Unless tated to the contrary they do not represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Bather they are aimed at focusing attention on some controversial point, at sparking intelligent discussion, at raising legitimate questions. NOV. 16, 1970 C&EN 5
