THE TRAINING OF A CHEMIST (INORGANIC)

EnmY in 1948 the authors began a study of the con- tent of the usual course in freshman chemistry in the United States. We hoped at the same time to gather a good deal of information about the status of inorganic chemistry in relation to chemistry as a whole. Accord- ingly, a survey questionnaire was sent to 60 departments of chemistry accredited by the A. C. S., selected from the list published in Chem. Eng. News, 25, 3888 (1947). Fifty replies mere received, although some were not complete. All figures are for the year 1947.

PART I-FACTS OBTAINED IN REGARD TO FRESHMAN CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTION

(1) Total Faculty (Asst. Prof. and up) = 671 (49 de- partments reporting).

(2) Total faculty (Asst. Prof. and up) teaching fresh- man chemistry = 220 (49 departments reporting).

(3) The major interests of these 220 faculty members are as follows:

Phvsied Chemistrv = 91 Inirgmic Chemist"ry = 73 Organic Chemistry = 43 Analytical Chemistry = 13

(4) 48 departments reported 40,850 students com- pleted the freshman chemistry courses. These students were taught by 214 faculty members for an average ratio of 191 students per faculty member. The stu- dent-faculty ratio varied from 17 to 1 up to 733 to 1.

(5) Of 45 departments reporting, 15 teach qualitative analysis in the freshman year.

(6) The names given to courses a t the freshman level: General Chemistry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 General and Analytical Chemistry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Inoreanic and Analvtioal Chemistrv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - Inorranic Chen~istrv.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

(7) Textbooks used: One of the two texts by McPherson, Henderson, et al.. 7 "Smith's College Chemistry," by Ehret. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 "Essentials of General Chemistrv." bv Honkins and " , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bailar

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "General Chemistry " by Pauling.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Basic College che&istry," by Bahar..

"College Chemistry," by Briseoe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Principles of Chemistry " by Hildebrand..

"General College Chekitry," by ltichnrdsan and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scarlett..

"General Chemistry," by Timm.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "General College Chemistry," by Sneed rtnd Maynard.

S. YOUNG TYREE, JR., and SAMUEL B. KNIGHT - -- - - - - - - University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Other departments reporting used their own texts. Interpretation and Discussion. Admittedly the year

1947 saw most universities swamped with lower-level undergraduates, giving a peak load in the first two years, but present national recommendation would expand, not curtail, this number of students ( I ) . During 1947, however, the prevailing situation was approximately 200 students for each permanent faculty member in fresh- man chemistry. Because of the fact that only those students completing the courses are included in the sur- vey, this ratio is probably 25 per cent too low. Since it is improbable that one man can give individual atten- tion to 200 students, this high ratio means that graduate students and instructors are being employed in large numbers. These serve as the actual contact between the freshman student and the faculty. Perhaps it is thought by some that graduate students and instructors are better able to understand the beginner's point of view. These authors have not found this to be the case. On the contrary, the introductory course in chemistry is a more difficult teaching assignment than advanced courses, where interest and motivation have already been established.

We mould not argue that more technical knowledge can be imparted in a small class than in large lecture sections. However, the present large ratio of students to permanent faculty means that the experienced teacher cannot give the individual attention which would help in the awakening of professional interest and this must be left to subordinates.

I t is impossible to analyze the content of freshman chemistry courses in detail. Most of the reporting departments gave information sufficient to yield gen- eralizations, however. This content varies widely. Less than a handful of departments continue to give the classical freshman course in descriptive inorganic chemistry. That is to say, the bulk of the courses con- sist of chemical principles, such as atomic theory, theory of the gaseous, liquid, and solid states, solutions, and chemical equilibria. There is, of course, a smattering of inorganic descriptive chemistry, such as oxygen and hydrogen (usually incidental to the study of the theory of the gaseous state and oxidation-reduction), nitrogen and sulfur. Less than a smattering of organic chemis- try remains in the course content. In those institutions where qualitative analysis is taught during the freshman year, the amount of descriptive chemistry is small in- deed. Thus, it would appear that instruction in fresh- man chemistry is tending toward a very elementary

308 JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION

study of physical chemical principles, with such descrip- tive material as is necessary to understand these prin- ciples. This trend amounts to a gradual, though none- theless definite divorce of inorganic chemistry from freshman subject matter. There is every justification for such a divorce, although the subject of inorganic chemistry has not been placed definitely elsewhere in the curriculum (see Part 11). The divorce has long been recognized by a t least one organ of the American Chemical Society, namely Chemical Abstracts, where General and Physical Chemistry make up one section and Inorganic Chemistry occupies an entirely separate section. A few of the teaching profession still refer to freshman chemistry as their "freshman inorganic sec- tions (2)," hut it is felt that this is only a holdover from the classical courses in freshman chemistry.

PART 11-FACTS OBTAINED IN REGARD TO INSTRUCTION IN INORGANIC CHEMISTRY

(1) Of 48 departments reporting on this point, 20 offer no course in inorganic chemistry.

(2) Of the 28 departments that do offer courses in inorganic chemistry, only 18 require their chemistry majors to take such courses.

(3) Of the 28 departments that do offer courses in in- organic chemistry, only 16 include laboratory work.

(4) Of these 28 departments: 24 offer only inorganic courses labeled "advanced inorganic chemistry," taken almost without exception in the senior year; 3 offer courses in analytical chemistry and call them courses in inorganic chemistry; 1 offers an introductory course in inorganic chemistry.

Interpretation and Discussion. For some time the au- thors have been seriously concerned over the status of inorganic chemistry in the undergraduate (also gradu- ate) curricula of chemistry departments throughout the country. This concern is shared by others (5, 4, 5). Most students spend an entire year with a survey of de- scriptive organic chemistry. Where is the field of in- organic chemistry introduced? At one time (many years ago) freshman chemistry performed this function. This is no longer so (see Part I), nor is it desirable. It has been said that the classical second-year analytical chemistry courses introduce inorganic chemistry to the student. This is no longer fully true, either. More and more, qualitative analysis is introducing "spot- testography," using about as many organic as inorganic reagents, which is justifiable on many counts. Also much of qualitative and quantitative analysis deals with mass-law equilibria and stoichiometry, which are no more inorganic than organic or physical in scope. But where does this leave descriptive inorganic chemis- try? In many departments it is simply omitted, prob- ably due in no small measure to the present shortage of adequately trained inorganic chemists. Where it is taught, it is put a t the senior level as a combination senior-graduate course, frequently not required.

I t would appear that the position of inorganic chemis- try in the undergraduate curriculum needs serious re6valuation. This need is further emphasized by the

background of the average entering graduate student who does not and could not be expected to know much inorganic chemistry since he has hardly been exposed to it. This situation is shown by examinations (9, 5).

It is our belief that the American Chemical Society could help correct this situation. At the 113th meet- ing of the Division of Chemical Education, the Com- mittee on Examinations and Tests reported that it would "continue to construct objective-type tests for general chemistry, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, organic chemistry, physical chemistry, and biochemistry. . . " (6). No tests on inorganic chemistry were mentioned. If the committee were to undertake the construction of such tests, departments of chemistry might take advantage of such a service and discover what is believed to be a serious weakness in the under- graduate curriculum.

The Fourth Southwest Regional Meeting of A. C. S. local sections was held in Shrevevort. Louisiana. on December 9, 10, and 11 of 1948. symposia were held on the topics (7):

The Training of a. Chemist (First Year) The Trainine of a Chemist (Anahtical) The Training of a Chemist (Organic) The Training of a Chemist (Physical) The Training of a Chemist (Graduate)

Again, no mention was made of the Training of a Chemist (Inorganic). I t would appear from the results of this survey that this latter topic needs more discus- sion than any of the others.

The Department of Chemistry a t Brown University has undertaken a bold reorganization (4), aimed in part a t changing the position of inorganic chemistry in the undergraduate curriculum. The need for an under- graduate inorganic course (including laboratory) has long been felt a t the University of North Carolina, and we have organized such a course, with the same pre- requisites as organic chemistry. It is required of all B.S. candidates and is usually taken in the sophomore or junior year. Needless to say, no text is available for such a course.

I t has been said that inorganic chemistry cannot be taught without the background of a sound course in physical chemistry. Yet, organic chemistry is uni- versally introduced either before or coincident with phys- ical chemistry. The type of inorganic chemistry taught in the departments reporting is admittedly of an advanced nature. As such, these courses not only re- quire physical chemistry as a prerequisite but organic chemistry as well, if they are really advanced courses. Furthermore, such courses presuppose introductory courses in inorganic chemistry which are nonexistent.

With the expansion of chemical knowledge it is a p parent that one cannot intelligently work in one branch of chemistry without a modicum of knowledge of all the other branches. Thus it behooves the entire profession to scrutinize its attitude toward inorganic chemistry as a branch of the chemical profession.

The authors wish to express their appreciation of the cooperation shown by the faculty of the fifty depart-

JUNE, 1949 309

ments of chemistry vho gave of their time to answer (2) DUNBAR, R. E., J. CHEW. EDUC., 25, 35 (1948). the auestions submitted in the survev. (3) BROWX, H. C., Chem. Eno. News, 27, 104 (1949).

LITERATURE CITED

. . . . (4) COLES, .T. S., L. B. CLAPP, AND R. P. EPPLE, J. CAEM.

EDUC., 26, 10 (1949).

(1) "Higher Education for Amerioan Democracy." Report (5) Rocnow, F:. G., ibid., 24, 490 (1947). prepared and issued by a Commission on Higher Education ( 6 ) A. C. S. Official Reports, Chem. Ew. Hews, 26, 1633 (1948). appointed hy President Truman in 1946. (7) Anonymous, ibid., 26, 3286 (1948).