Traditions in University Teaching
.
Manv of the ner~lexities o f t h e contemnorarv . . American . university apparently are the result of its attempt to effect the marriage of the higher education systems of 19th century Germany and England. Despite untold complexities and subtleties. the essential differences in these systems centered on the focus of loyalty of the professor. In Germany i t was primarily to his suhject; in England i t was primarily to his students. History offers much to recommend both systems and, while both were designed to educate only a relativelv small number of verv brieht students (in contrast with the American commitme& to the masses) and while neither system had to deal with the consequences of either the knowledge explosion or the participatory imperative (the pressure to participate in society's affairs fostered by instantaneous and exhaustive news coverage and analysis), they remain the most compelling approaches t o higher education available to us. In certain American universities where excellence has primacy and where objectivity and common sense have prevailed over arrogance and obstinance, the marriage of the two may he realizing its promise. At other institutions, however, the marriage never has been consumated. At some i t has led to an energy-sapping power struggle benefiting no one, and at still others the result is little more than a parody on either or both of the original systems. Chemistry teachers are at least as much involved in all this as are those in other disciplines. Much has been written on the advantages and disadvantages of the German system. Essentially i t was derived from the idea that the university provide a chair for the eminent man who hopefully could he persuaded to take some time off from his work to pass on his knowledge to those who are willing to "sit a t his feet." Clearlv. his "work was primary and his teaching centered on it. students who were dissatisfied could go elsewhere. Those who remained acquired a specialized knowledge and valuable experience in doing scholarly work. The system produced many excellent scholars, hut there were never enough great men to fill the chairs a t the universities. The lesser men who did so evidently were responsible in large measure for the authoritarianism and the other abuses that crippled the system. Certain of these abuses are still a plague on our house. One is the delusion that knowledge of the suhject matter is sufficient in itself-that extensive knowledge automatically confers on the individual the ahility to do acceptable research or to he an acceptable teacher, for example. The second is the notion-well instilled in many who have
I editoriallv
I
speaking
come un in this tradition-that intellectual s~ecializationis equivaient to intellectual maturation, that'to be a whole man (or woman) one need know onlv his own field. perhaps the beatest advantage of the German system rs that i t can develop scholars and thinkers of the highest quality; its fatal flaw may he its failure to recognize that man does not live by subject matter alone. The Enelish svstem. while recoenizine and rewardine " scholarship, was designed to identify and develop individuals with ahilitv. At no d a c e was this more apnarent than in the undergraduate colleges where the a&ity centered around the dons, who were primarily tutors, taking as their principal mission the passing on of their knowledge, their enthusiasm, and even their veneration for this heritage to the bright youngsters entrusted to them. Seldom was a don concerned with advancing the knowledge in his subject; yet many students from this svstem became eminent scholars i n d many others made substantial contributions in other areas. Obviously the success of this approach rested largely on the knowledge and teaching skilii of the dons, and on the relatively small number and strong ability of the students involved. No doubt abuses arose as the system was weakened by instructors who were poorly prepared or who failed to keep abreast of advances in the field. While this system, with its emphasis on instructors who are committed to students and to teaching the subject, has much to commend it for the modern American university, it has experienced extraordinary difficulty in being accepted widely in the sciences. Much of this difficulty is related to the dominance of the Germanic influence among faculties, and much to the recognition that in the sciences research is vital to professional growth. Moreover, those interested in teaching have not always acted so as to favorably influence their colleagues. ~ h tendency k of some science educators to become unproductively involved with educational gimmicks at the expense of currency and creativity in helping students acquire the knowledge and understanding they desperately need, has done nothing to mitigate matters. In nearly all departments of the universitv there are some faculty members k h o are primarily subject"matter oriented and some who are primarilv student oriented. While we mav wish for a more favorable iatio toward student orientation, what really is needed are faculty members who know the material and sincerely want to get it across to the students. In doing so we hope more will realize that students do not become creative by learning only subject matter. WTL
-
Volume 50. Number 5, May 1973 / 305
