provocative opinion

The Sophist Expounds on Chemical Education Jack L. Hedrick Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, PA 17022

During the past 10 or 15 years when I've chatted with Henry Bent, our conversations degenerated rapidly from lofty discussions of "time's arrow" to the more plebeian topic of basketball. Henry was at North Carolina State when the Wolfpack now and again won a NCAAchampion- ship. He is a firm believer in bragging rights.

I maintain that during most of those same years the Elizabetbtown Jaygals floored better teams than N.C. State. These women constituted one of the most dominant basketball teams in the country during the nine complete seasons between 1980 and 1989. In the parlance of sports commentators, Coach Yvonne Kauffman's Jaygals were a "veritable powerhouse".

These are strong assertions that need some justification. I offer this synopsis. During those nine seasons, the Jaygals had a won-lost record of 225-33. They won the national championship in 1982, the first year the tourna- ment was conducted, finished second in 1983 and 1984, then won it again in 1989. You may have heard of Michael, Magic, and Kareem. How about Page Lutz? She was voted national player of the year in 1984. Jane Meyer? She received the same honor in 1986.

I hope you will agree that this is an outstanding record, outstanding enough to give you pause as to why you never before heard of Coach Kauffman, her teams, or these two outstanding players. I offer two reasons. Curiously, both find parallels in the criticism of the education of under- graduate chemistry majors.

Reason 1. Big Time versus Small Potatoes North Carolina State competes in what the NCAA clas-

sifies as Division I, Elizabethtown in Division 111. What's the difference? If you think it refers to size you are correct only secondarily. The major difference is that Division I in- stitutions award athletic scholarships. Those in Division 111 do not. A consequence of this is that Division I institu- tions receive "media scholarships".

Division I consists of medium-sized and large univer- sities that elect to follow the path of scholarships and big time scheduling to the athletic promised land. The modern equivalent of the ark of the covenant is the television con- tract. The names of these institutions are best learned by watching television during the fall and winter months cul- minating in that Avogadro's number of Bowl games and the Final Four.

The backbone of Division 111 is the small. private, liberal arts college. There are five such institutions in my ACS section that appear on the ACS-CPT approved list: Dickin- son, Elizabe<hLown, kanklin and ~ G s h a l l , Gettysburg, and Lebanon Valley. Venturing a bit further from the Southeastern Pennsylvania Section, I can add the likes of Albright, Haverford, Juniata, Muhlenberg, Susquehanna, Swarthmore, Ursinus, and Western Maryland, while beg- ging forgiveness from the other first-class institutions I have unintentionally slighted. All in all, an impressive academic crowd; however, don't expect their scheduled

athletic events to appear with any great frequency in your TV listings.

Division I is the play-for-pay gang, Division I11 the Simon-pure. Division I employs the athlete-student, Division 111 educates the student-athlete. When an institu- tion is placed on probation by the NCAAbecause of recruit- ing violations, players receiving money sub rosa from as- sistant coaches or wealthy alumni, transcript changes or point shaving scandals, which comes to mind-Division I or Division III? A check of the institutions under NCAA sanc- tions should help you formulate answers to these self-sew- ing questions.

I t has become fashionable for blue-ribbon panels, com- missions, and learned individuals to publish-indictments of our educational system. This is nothing. new to us. Chemical educators have always spent conscderable time flogging themselves. I would like to point out which in- stitutions seem to have the greatest problem in educating undergraduate chemistry majors. The following simpleminded examples and prejudicial comments should do this. They should also further infuriate my friends and colleagues at the Division I level.

Example 1

An article in a recent issue of our ACS weekly was en- titled, "Winds of Revolution Sweep through Science Educa- tion". It reported the big "doin's" at the ACS National Meeting in Boston. Included were many remarks bv and

of representatives from gove;nment, indbstry, and education. Speakers from the following academic in- stitutions were quoted: Cal Tech, ~e lawaie , Minnesota, Oregon State, Purdue, Texas, Washington State, and Agnes Scott. Comment. Looks like an abundance of Division I

"teams" to me: Division I describing problems, difficulties, and shortcomings that have been a part of their existence for so long they can now be considered historical in nature. If these folks reallv had the answers thev wouldn't have the problems. Based on past performance and the results of orevious revolutions, the word "wind in thc title seems especially well chosen: The inclusion of Agnes Scott im- plies tha t Division I11 institutions share the same problems and provide the same pitiful educational oppor- tunities for chemistry undergraduates. I think not! With reference to Division I coaches and apologies to devotees of Grantland Rice, "And when that great athletic director or president or alumni booster comes to write against your name, he'll ask if you won or lost." The Sage of Alabama, "Bear" Bwant. put it another wav to his Crimson Tide hopefuls, 'be g g d or be gone." ~ivision I chemistry faculty perform in the shadow of a similar millotine and basket. kor them, winning is defined by the amount of grant money generated and number of publications. This sys- tem, which seems to work well for the education of graduate students, does so a t the sacrifice of under- graduate education. The business of Division 111, on the

Volume 69 Number 1 January 1992 37

other hand, is the education of undergraduates. It is the quality of the educational experience provided under- graduates that defines winning in this league, an approach and vhiloso~hy which naturally results in a better product. ~ h a i ' s right.-1'm that the graduate of a Division I11 institution receives a better education than the graduate of Hotsnort U. That's pretty harsh. Let me soften it a bit. Students at Division I11 institutions have a much better chance of realizing their full potential than those at Division I.

Example 2

Our 1989 spring break coincided with the Pittsburgh Conference, so I motored to Atlanta. While there, I at- tended the symposium arranged by "Buck" Rogers on 'Im- plementing the Analytical Aspects of the Pimentel Report in the Chemistry Curriculum, Especially for the Under- graduate". Care to guess which institutions were selected to present the academic viewpoint? Try Georgia, Washington, Illinois, Purdue, and Pittsburgh.

Comment. It's Division I-deja vu all over again! The people with the problems were asked to provide the solu- tions. Much of the speakers'time was devoted to relating how they had introduced advanced topics into the under- maduate curriculum. C'mon you guys! Introducing ad- Ganced topics to undergraduates who lack exposure to basic concepts is not a solution to educational problems. It smacks of nothing more than convenient trickle-down. It also raises this question. While Division I types are snreadine out over the countrvside nrovidine definitive solutions-to undergraduate chemical education problems, who's back at the ranch tendine the herd? Of course. the same cowhands who tend the herd even when these same faculty members are home on the range-the lowly graduate student. The lowly graduate student who is more concerned with, and rightly so, attending classes, passing "cums," teaching short courses, reading papers sent to faculty advisors to referee, and cranking out that thesis research. I'm back to square one. Undergraduate educa- tion at Division I is sacrificed on the altar of graduate education. At Division 111, faculty members are directly and constantly involved with undergraduates; hence, the higher the quality of the educational experience. But, you knew that.

Example 3

In the process of recruiting our students for their graduate programs, faculty from Division I frequently in- dicate that they prefer our graduates to their own. They state such things as our graduates are better prepared especially with respect to laboratory skills, display a better work ethic, have learned to think rather than simply memorize, and recognize that science is a process.

Comment. Because the recruitment of graduate stu- dents is involved, I know that these comments cannot be taken entirely at face value; nevertheless, my ego allows me to believe that this is an accurate description of the typical Division 111 graduate. Some of you may be thinking that research opportunities at Division I11 are quite limited and represents a handicap in the education of the student. If vou do a little homework. however. vou will find . " that this is not true in many cases. If this is still a hangup, I remind you of all those Division I institutions that have summer research programs and very actively recruit Division I11 students to fill their ranks. In this respect, the two types ofinstitutions have a symbiotic relationship that is of particular advantage to the Division I11 under- - graduate.

38 Journal of Chemical Education

Example 4

Twice during this past year I attended gatherings in Pit- tsburgh honorine mv thesis advisor. Johannes Coetzee. He is a wonderful man A d was lauded'by numerous speakers as an extraordinary teacher.

Comment. There is no doubt that Johannes deserved everv bit of vraise he received and more: however. his teackng methods and attributes are the same ones I as- sociate with a large maioritv of mv colleaeues workine the Ih\~nlon I11 side "ithe strec"t. What madL~ohannes s&h a stilndout is that he was doing these things at Division 1.

Example 5

A recent budget crisis in a nearby state resulted in aU state colle~es and universities beine ordered to cut educa- - tional expenses. The chemistry department at one large and highly respected university overcame the crunch by releasing four faculty members. All four were assistant professors involved in teaching introdudorv courses with &ollments of nearly 500 &dents. who would teach these classes became the next vroblem. The solution? You guessed it, the department requested and obtained volun- teers from among their graduate students.

Comment. Does this modus operandi deserve comment?

Reason 2. Sex This reason is probably much more obvious than the first

and is closely related. In the race for media athletic coverage, women place a very poor second to men. Is there anything given le& space on your favorite sports page or less footage on 'film at 1 1 : O O than women's athletics?

~ a r a l l e i to this, I keep reading that women are dis- couraged from electing careers in the sciences. I find this both amusing and perplexing My primary teaching load is a tww semester sophomore level sequence in quantitative and instrumental &alysis. These courses arerequired of hiology, biochemistry, and chemistry majors, including medical technolow students. Since 1984. a total of303 stu- dents have beeu&olled, 192 (63%) of them women. For the vears 1981-1990. our department has eraduated 117 - stuients of whom 77 (66%j have been women. My ex- perience suggests that men are the minority sex in the sciences. Although I don't have the necessary data to make the following statement, I will anyhow. You will find similar statistics for other Division I11 coeducational in- stitutions.

Division I seems to be a closed shop within the old boy network. Here's another anecdote associated with the chemistry department at that large and widely respected state university referred to previously. Several months ago the chairman fired off a memo dictating that the displayof sexist posters in the chemistry building would be tolerated no longer. It was directed a t the male graduate students and their favorite centerfolds. The response from both the laree number of male and small number of female graiuate students? How does this department have the eall to comvlain about sexist vosters when it has onlv one- - count 'em, one-female faculty member?!

I believe that when the statement concerning the num- - ber of women in the sciences is made, it should be under- stood that this is much morc likely to be true at Division I.

The Ultimate Solution Why don't we just admit that Division I is so dedicated to

research that it does a poor job in educating its under- graduates? Why not accept that as an educational fact of life? Like it or not, agree with it or not, why bother to tinker with the system? Let's allow Division I to do what it does best and forget about asking or expecting it to clean up its act at the undergraduate level. Rather, let's steer

those students interested in the study ofchemistry toward I l iv i~ ion I11 a n d develop formal agreements between Division 1 and 111 institutions. Let Division I encourage - - - - - ~ - - - ~~-

prospective students to attend ACS-CPT Division I11 6- stitutions. then euarantee admission to their maduate schools based onperformance and faculty recommenda- tion. I n this wav. the student will be e x ~ o s e d to the best of both worlds since both institutional types can concentrate on that aspect of education at which they are best.

We can also save wnsiderable Federal money. Let's stop pouring dollars into the Division I undergraduate educa- tion money pit and looking too long and hard for those so- called innovative programs. Division I11 is noted for having relatively little academic inert ia and changing quickly with the times. It doesn't lack for innovation. Most Division 111 institutions I know can double or triple their enrollments in chemistry without needing more space or faculty. This is particularly true at the upper level. What they lack is money for instrumentation. Let's suppose, to

select a reasonable number, there are 200 Division I11 schools i n the hinterland that will do most of the under- graduate chemistry education under this plan. Let's give them, outright, $50,000 a year for the next five years to bring their instrumentation requirements up to snuff. No lengthy g ran t application t h a t wastes untold t ime to prepare, no paper shuffling and the gathering of panels in D.C. to read and pass judgment on them, no "humungous" bureaucratic establishment consuming more money than i t dispenses-Division I11 institutions know what they need. There will be just one person i n Washington writing out checks for $50,000 when the call comes saying it's time for another shot in the instrument arm. Let's see, $50,000 for 200 schools, that's a mere $10,000,000; over five years, a measly $50,000,000. Our chemical education system will realize a high return on a low investment. The reduction in bureaucratic staff alone in this arrangement might turn out to be sufficient to fund it. $ED.

Notice to Authors: Desktop Publication of the.Journa1

Starting with the September 1991 issue, the Journal of Chemical Education will he published primarily by an in-house desktop publishing proeess. Since papers submitted fmm now on will be scheduled for after that time, the Journal is requesting that authors prepare their papers in one of the following personal computer formats whenever possible. Tbe electronic text and graphics from papers in these formats can he used directly to produce the typeset version.

Do not, however, submit a paper on disk. Wait until rhc rwieweru have accrptrd the paper, and then send the fino1 version on disk. At the time ofaccept~nce, authors will receive an instruction sheet and lbrm to accompany the disk rhcv suhmlt. Authors should st111 fdluw the instrurt~ons outlined in the NOIICL. t~ Authori lnst pubhshrd on page 535 and-536 of the June 1991 issue) for the original submission of papers.

Tbe list below indicates the formats for text and graphics accepted by Ventura Publisher, the Journal's desktop publishing system. We will be using it in the MS-DOS environment, hut we have the capacity to translate many Macintosh formats. If a system does not match any of these formats, the text can be saved in ASCII (text) format by many programs and sent in that farm. Any questions about formats should be directed to Debora Bittaker at (512)471- "m-" , ,,,&

\Phil? we encourage authors to use the following formats for preparation of their rnanuacr~pts, computer cum- pntlhility wdl have no hearing un whether n manurcnpt is accrptcd. Paperr that arc not elcnrontr.illy rumpntible *,ill be >wnned or dlreetly tped into t h ~ system.

Disk Formats MS-DOS: 3 M-in. disk, 760K or 1.44MB; 5 %-in. disk, 36OK or 720 K Macintosh: 3 %in. Superdrive (400Ii, 800K, 1.4MB)

Word Processors for MS-DOS Microsoft Word (use .DOC extension) Multimate (use .DOC extension) WordPerfect (use .WP extension) Wordstar (use .WS extension) Xywrite (use .TXT extension) ASCII (use .TXT extension). Many wordprocessors

not in this list can save files in this format. 8-bit ASCII (use .TXT extension) DCA(the following programs (any many others) can

save a file in DCA format (use .RFT as the extension)

Displaywrite I11 and IV Lotus Manuscript Volkswriter 3 Office Writer Wardstar 2000 Samna Word ChemText

Word Processors for Macintosh Maewrite Miemsoft Word (save in MS-DOS format)

Write Now

Graphics Formats on MS-DOS AutoCAD slides (use .SLD extension) AutoCAD DXF (convert to .GEM format) CGM (use .CGM extension) GEM (use .GEM extension) HPGL (use .HPG extension) Lotus 1-2-3 (use .PIC extension) PC Paintbrush (use .PCX extension) Encapsulated postscript (use .EPS extension) TIFF (use .TIF extension) Video Show (use .PIC extension) Windows (use .WMF extension)

Graphics Formats on Macintosh PICT Paint TIFF EPS (encapsulated Postscript) 9

Volume 69 Number 1 January 1992 39