0
THE UNDERGRADUATE COURSEAS PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION FOR CHEMISTS1 I. E. STEINER Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio
IT
IS perhaps more than a coincidence that we should be considering the revision of chemistry curricula a t a time when chemists are showing widespread interest in their professional and economic status. In discussing professional status, chemists usually say little about deficiencies in their scientific and technical knowledge. Rather, the talk centers about the place of chemists and chemistry in society, and raises the fotlowing questions: Are chemists properly educated to fill their role as professional men in our industrial and educational life? Do they exercise the leadership their capabilities warrant? Do they know enough about men and affairs to make sound judgments when they are given administrative posts? In their talking and writing do they present their ideas adequately and convincingly to their colleagues, their boards of directors, and to the public generally? These questions bear on the general, nontechnical education of chemists, and they add a new pressure to the pressures already operating on the undergraduate curriculum. The pressure of new chemical knowledge has been on us for a long time. For years we have had to discard old course material in our basic chemistry courses whenever we introduced new. Anyone who compares a current textbook in general chemistry or physical chemistry with one of 20 years ago is impressed by the changes in course content. A corresponding study of college catalogs will show similar changes in the courses offered by chemistry departments. Even qualitative analysis is being reduced or squeezed oyt as a separate course partly because other courses are deemed more important. The pressures of the other sciences are also familiar. Chemists need to know more and more physics, and both chemistry and physics students must know more mathematics. It appears that the chemistry student who wants both general education and the fundamental courses in chemistry, physics, and mathematics has a crowded curriculum. Let us consider another fact bearing on the undergraduate program. According to the rules of the American Chemical Society a candidate is not eligible to full membership in the Society for a t least two years after he receives the bachelor's degree. Similarly, under the proposed chemist's registration acts for Ohio and other states, he needs four years of experience in addition to the bachelor's degree before he is eligible for registration. These requirements appear to indicate
that a man with a bachelor's degree alone is not qualified to be a chemist. Nevertheless, some industries and the government still hire as "chemists" men just reeeiving their bachelor's degree. Until we can agree on the minimum and optimum educational standards for professional chemists we cannot easily formulate ideal undergraduate curricula for chemists. I wonder whether i t is about time to recognize the . preprofessional character of the undergraduate program. Certainly the undergraduate course is preprofessional for the men and women who go on for the ' doctor's degree in chemistry. I t is also preprofessional for men and women with the bachelor's degree who go into industrial development or production, or chemical sales, or library work, or into administrative positions. For the bachelors hired in the industrial or government laboratories it may be claimed that the undergraduate work is professional. But nearly all these persons work as technicians a t routine, technical jobs. In the past many men starting out as chemical technicians have attained substantial positions and the corresponding financial rewards, but not for routine work. The men who were promoted from thezoitine duties had other qualities and abilities. The problem of educating men and women for the graduate study of chemistry is relatively straightforward. The undergraduate course should prepare them for the study of chemistry a t the professionallevel and should develop the personal qudities they will need as professional chemists. In their undergraduate courses prospective chemists should be taught to think straight, to express themselves clearly both orally and in writing, to obtain and interpret experimental evidence, and to understand the working theories and methods of science in general and of chemistry in particulp. They should know enough about general human experience and thought to see chemistry in its relation to the rest of human activity. Their imagination should be stimulated and not stifled because the answers to real chemical problems are not found in textbooks or lecture notes and do not appear spontaneously from raw data. Their college education should give them the . ability to meet new and unexpected situations. Fortunately for the adviser of students, the bachelor chemists who enter industry in nonroutine positions need an undergraduate education not too d i e r e n t from that best suited for the prospective graduate students. The ability to convey ideas; to lead men, to exercise ' Presented before the Division of Chemical Education at the good and sound decisions is essential lllth meeting the A~~~~~~~ chemical society in ~ ~ l judgment, ~ ~ to make i ~ for administrative work. City, April 14-18,1947. 374
.
AUGUST, 1947
375
But what of the chemical technicians for routine jobs? If industry requires technicians a t the bachelor's level, someone will train them, but they should not be our primary concern when we are considering the professional education of chemists. I propose that undergraduate curricula for chemical technicians be separated as much as prssible from the preprofessional and professional curricula for chemists: The principal reason is that the courses for chemical technicians and professional chemists should be taught differently. We train a technician but we educate a chemist. We train by work or example in the best current practice, but we educate by mak'mg the student understand so that he can improve the practice. In educating a chemist we don't give him all the answers. We put him into situations which he must solve by getting the necessary facts in the laboratory or from the chemical literature and then using them properly. Memory and ex; perimental skill may be good enough for the technician but the professional chemist requires initiative and imagination as well. The American Chemical Society's Committee on Professional Trainmg has done good work in raising the level of chemistry teaching in our undergraduate 001: leges. At the same time it has been farsighted in keepingitsminimum standards a t i level that does not interfere with the general preprofessional education a t the college level. The Committee has, however, not done corresponding work for the graduate schools where more and more of the professional education of chemists is being done. If my analysis of the role of the undergraduate program for chemists is correct, the Committee on Professional Training will in the future pay relatively more attention to the graduate work and imply to a lesser degree that the undergraduate course represents the "professional training" of chemists. I have suggested thatprofessionalchemistsand chemical technicians should be taught differently.. The techniciawto-be frequently have trouble yith mathematics, English, or other languages, or with required courses in social sciences. On the other hand, in my teaching esperience I have found that the students who do well in advanced chemistry courses did average or better work in their freshman English composition course. This result might have been predicted, for students must acquire much of their knowledge from the printed page. They can do this only if their verbal skills are reasonably well developed. In my own college the course called "English Composition" teaches skill and precision in reading as well as in writing, and i t is so well taught that many of our chemistry graduates call it the most valuable course in the college. Similarly, courses such as economics can Be taught so as to sharpen minds and develop appreciation of the uses and limitations of theory as well as to acquaint the student with our social problems. In these days industrial chemists discuss economics, and atomic scientists discuss world government. It appears that modern chemistry interacts with our political, economic, and social world and that chemists need to understand '
these relations. And, whether we like it or not the decisions made by governments have far-reaching influences on all of us. I am not advocati& that all chemists be required to take a course in economics or any other specific course. For some, courses in history, political science, or sociology would be stimulatmg. For others, a course in political economy might be better than one in the principles of economics. What is most important is that the courses be well taught. Consequently, in the undergraduate curricula there should be flexibility so that the student can take one of the best taught social science courses in his college. A required ' course in economics or English, for example, taught by a teacher without special ability in his field to a group of unwilling students taking the course only because they must is certainly to be avoided. Since the student's time is limited the courses he takes involve a number of choices. Should he take the course in differential equations or one in advanced physical chemistry; a course in advanced physics or one in water analysis; a course in advanced organic chemistry or one in history? Before we advise a student on his choices we want to make certain that his whole program is well balanced and suited to his capacities, his objectives, and his earlier deficiencies. The undergraduate who expects to go to graduate school or to qualifyfor administrative positions needs so many basic courses that he will not have time for many specialized courses in the application of chemistry. If such applied chemistry courses are to be given to undergraduates, let them be given to the technicians who do not have the ability or interest to do good work outside their own narrow &Id. Some members of the symposium are suggesting a five-year chemistry curriculum leading to the master's degree as one answer to the pressure on the undergraduate curriculum. The study of salaries of chemists made by our Society in cooperation with the~Bureauof Labor Statistics in 1942 leads me to question this proposal. The report showed that chemists with the master's degree had average salaries lower than had those with the bachelor's or doctor's degrees. The reason is probably related to the type of work the men with the different degrees were doing. If so, we are justified in considering this fact when we plan curricura for our students. The doctor's degree seems to be becoming the recognized professional degree in chemistry. In the future able men interested in research should be encouraged to take this degree. Some men should take a master's degree but I wonder whether i t should become the typical degree for the professional chemist. Observe, however, that the five-year course is proposed because chemists are becoming dissatisfied with the assumption that the graduate with the bachelor's degree in chemistry has the education required for the professional chemist. I t may help us clarify our ideas about the formal educational needs of chemists. One mark of the professional man, distinguishing h i from the technician, is the ability to bring his experience and judgment to bear on a new problem. Iu col-
376
lege we can teach our students the basic principles of our science as it exists today but we cannot predict the future. None of us, teachers or industrial chemists, have been able to rest on the knowledge we gained in college or graduate school. Chemistry is developing too rapidly. There is no reason to believe that it will cease growing. Consequently, it. is our duty to graduate men and women with the ability to grow and to assume leadership in a changing world. A finished product may he a beautiful thing, but when it becomes worn , and obsolete it loses some of its attractiveness. In the long run our graduates will he better off if t h ~ yare
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
broadly enough educated so that they can change with the times. I realize that my comments have been somewhat general, but it does not seem profitable to discuss curricular details unless the main argument is acceptahle. If the professional training in chemistry is to be a t the undergraduate level (as it is in phahnacy) we have one problem. If it is to be a t the graduate level (as i t is in medicine) we have another problem. Since we have tried toapply a single curriculum to both objectives, we find ourselves discussing the difficulties in a symposium on curricular revision.
