33 Derek’s recent blog posts, have forced a bit of reflection in me on the “Chemistry fatigue” often felt by people who file in and out of college classrooms. The chemistry they encounter is not the chemistry the world does. The way chemistry is taught in collegiate settings is not the way chemistry is taught in the lab. Chemistry pedagogy is to blame – often antiquated methods of teaching chemistry with no obvious purpose would (and should) lead anyone to surmise that the subject is (1) hard (2) academic and unpractical and (3) used more to “weed out” kids from premed programs than to teach them fundamental skills on problem solving that will help them later in life.
For instance, not but 9 years ago my chemistry lab course, which was taught by a pioneer in alene chemistry, contained only compound characterization labs using chemical elucidation techniques. (Tollins, flame tests, etc…) The class was not useful for me as a chemistry major and it was undoubtedly less useful for those that were taking it for their own purposes.
While the ACS has done their bit to fill the airwaves with “chemistry touches all our lives” commercials, I’m not entirely sure they were effective. When I sit down to read SciAm, there may be one article devoted to chemistry with a preponderance of bullshit on the latest paradigms used to explain the nonsense of deep space tissue penetration and the obligatory article on some cloned or transgenic critter. There isn’t much of a market on the wonders of chemical magik; even the more user-friendly chemistry that comes prepackaged with pretty pictures like those out of the labs of Stoddart, Rebek and Anslyn get no attention. Somehow the uselessness of the deep mysteries of invisible matter in the cosmos is more compelling than the efforts of man right here on Earth.
There may be an absence of a strong voice. Physics did have charismatic men like Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman who were relentless advocates for science education of the masses. I have heard suggestions of Carolyn Bertozzi being such an advocate, and I myself could think of few more capable, but hitherto, I have not seen her advocate for chemistry on a national scale, though her advocacy on behalf of women in science and the GLBT community in general has been highly admirable.
So, what’s to be done?
I wonder if the time for a Carl Sagan like figure to appear to children and mesmerize them with a soft voice in their living rooms is passed its time. Back in the day, we watched PBS because that was one of 10 channels, unless you were lucky to grow up with cable (I wasn’t), it was PBS or daytime soaps. There are entertainers like Bill Nye, but advocacy for science in general doesn’t really help the cause of making chemistry more accessible, even though it can’t hurt.
In short, I feel as though the problems are many and splendored. Everything from a lack of advocacy (which has lead to ignorance), to poor pedagogy from high school through college has shaped chemistry to be the monster and bane of premeds and premed dropouts alike. The subject isn’t inherently easy, but I’d wager it’s no more difficult than physics (if physics were easier, I assume I’d have gone into that) and I’m not suggesting making it dumber (though, I question the amount of sincerity with which it is taught – sophomore organic chemistry should not be the intellectual gate through which all must pass before getting their membership to the Intelligentsia.)
Back to top
In my mind, the last major contribution toward the betterment of chemical education (in its broadest sense) was Pauling’s “General Chemistry.” I recall hearing that early editions actually cited primary literature for findings (i.e., the synthesis of urea would cite Wolher’s seminal publication).
“allene” not “alene” Allenes are fun for being stretched tetrahedra re chirality and tectons in synthesis.
If you do nominate a chemistry spokeshominid it should have a large hideous growth on its neck for two good reasons: 1) to establish credability, and 2) to discourage homosexual rape in prison after Homeland Severity plus the EPA bust a cap up its butt for spewing national security, War on Drugs, and Enviro-whiner heresies. Owning a Pyrex beaker in NY State could get you 20 years hard time for being a de jure drug cooker.
Go ahead, rig a small garage lab bench. Fractionally distill some Two-Buck Chuck (no MSDS required!). See how long you last after BATF claims priority for “dynamic entry” (speed, surprise, and violence of action).
Credibility not credability
One could argue that the way chemistry is taught in graduate school labs bears little resemblence to the way it is practiced in the real world.
We just need to hire some rockstars
Jonas Brothers’ guide to aromaticity!
Chemistry is just not “sexy” so to speak. The biological sciences are sexy because the results are visual, cures seem closer and DNA testing has pushed it more mainstream. Computer science and engineering produce great gadgets and cool websites that make younger people rich, it’s sexy. Physics can be sexy in the mainstream because of all the visual elements, pictures of the cosmos and just the charisma of many physicists, despite their job opportunities, jk.
Can chemistry be sexy? Maybe not, especially organic chemistry. I once told an old high school teacher I was studying chemistry and all he had to say was “Why? It’s so boring.” That was a computer science instructor. Even my own chemistry instructor held a lot of disdain for the field “No money, should have went to pharmacy school” he told me, he later started teaching at my university but still held the same attitude, guess what attitude his classes probably had. When I tell people I’m in grad school for chemistry, sometimes they ask “Why didn’t you go to med-school?” That was my girlfriend’s brother, I feel lucky to have a girlfriend anymore.
Chemists seriously need to change something. Even I want to get out of this field sometimes (I’ve already stopped paying for ACS dues) and do something a lot cooler, instead of run columns all day. I think we need a new generation of chemists that is willing to challenge everything about chemical education and research. Make it sexy, open source, whatever needs to be done, try it at least once attitude.
Research needs to be more efficient. Students quickly leave research once they find out how time consuming a column is and how every boss complains about having no money. No money here, not money later a student will conclude. Chemical education needs to be more practical, giving students a better reason to learn this stuff then a pre-req to med-school. If we can’t find a better reason then make it an elective and let this shit die from lack of enrollment.
sophomore organic chemistry should not be the intellectual gate through which all must pass before getting their membership to the Intelligentsia
Physicians, in general, are not considered members of the intelligentsia.
sophomore organic chemistry should not be the intellectual gate through which all must pass before getting their membership to the Intelligentsia
Why not?
At what point in a person’s college education do we tell them that they just don’t have enough brain power to be a scietist?
Physicians, with the exception of those who do research, are nothing more than mechanics.
As a former TA for both general and organic chemistry, I can proudly say I’ve done my part to save the world from scientifically illiterate doctors. That was my job, right?
By teaching them or failing them?
There’s something to be said for organic chemistry being “the hard class” for pre-meds. Frankly, it’s the only new class.
What are the science requirements for med school admission? 1 year each of gen. chem. organic, physics and biology. The only thing you’re not very likely to have taken in high school? Organic chemistry.
I wonder whether there are stats available on what percent of the folks teaching chemistry in high school have a degree (or significant college coursework in) chemistry, as compared to, say, biology or physics. That might go a long way toward Kyle’s thought about sincerity. I was very lucky- my high school chemistry teacher was ABD from Northwestern. But man, I don’t know how she put up with a lot of the crap students gave her, behavior and otherwise.
I had a brief dalliance with the idea of teaching HS chemistry. But I realized I wasn’t cut out for it. I think it’ll take major reform in how we compensate teachers (and prepare them for the classroom) before you’ll see too many more chemists taking the plunge there.
Carmen, would you consider teaching at the salaries that Michelle Rhee has been pushing for in the DC area (~100K, sounds like)? At that rate, it makes me pause a little bit (or think a little bit) before I say “no.”
I’d teach high school for 100K and increases based on inflation. Maybe not in the DC area… but it would be tough to turn down. I do like the DC area very much. I’ve also volunteered in some schools with pretty troubled students in the past and it worked out alright. Don’t know if I can put up with it my entire life though.
“splendored? ” WTF?
I know, I’m being a wise ass. But splendored?
What’s wrong with being splendored?
It might not be filling the pages of Nature and Science, but maybe because chemistry is seen as more practical and a bit less sexy. More newsworthy pictures would definitely help.
Regardless, here are some typical news worthy questions that come up when we do school visits. Go to any place when these topics arise and watch the people turn towards the all-knowing chemist – then go home and talk to their friends.
Diet coke and Mentos
Greenhouse gases
Oil spills
Molecular gastronomy
Recycling
Drug resistance
Public communication is not that great but slowly seems to shifting. A few chemistry-rockstars would be nice too.
is there any reason that basics of physical science cannot be taught in more detail than currently done in the elementary schools? i think the late exposure to real science is one factor in the lack of interest of adults. instead of chemistry/physics being fundamental explanations of the workings of the world, they are subjects of material that suck in high school. the kids get religious explanations at a little age and most people continue through life with a continuous belief in those precepts. why would it be different to expect an early start with science to be any different? i realize one significant barrier to this idea is the lack of qualified science teachers at the elementary level, but lobbying school districts to include more rigorous curriculum, coupled with increased science training could be one avenue to turning young minds on to science.
also, the science involved in consumer supply chains is another thing that needs to be much more detailed. a novel and useful weekly lesson could be “where did this come from?” choose any object, starting simple (a pencil, a ruler, a stapler) and explore the mining, machinery, and delivery associated with that item. the only science tv shows that get a big audience right now are things like dirty jobs and the deadliest catch – these display the backstories of stuff people don’t even think about and find interesting.
a novel and useful weekly lesson could be “where did this come from?”
Have you seen “The Story of Stuff”? A former Greenpeace activist came up with it — and we as chemists get all sorts of credi, I mean, blame.
ahem. apparently you haven’t seen the “world of chemistry” videos?
don showalter and roald hoffman are exactly the kind of dreamboats the chemistry world needs.
Too little, too late. =\
In my opinion one of the problems that students have with chemistry is that they don’t have a good mental picture of what the molecules are doing. This makes chemistry very abstract to them.
One way to address this is by using molecular modeling to generate animations, preferably interactive ones, to illustrate behavior at the molecular level. The quality of the (free!) software is such that anyone can do this, with a little effort.
I have just started a .
http://molecularmodelingbasics.blogspot.com/
voops: the last sentence should be “I have just started a blog on this general topic”.
Chemistry does not have the deep, mysterious aura of physics or the origin-of-life flavor of biology. And yet it underlines both. It underlines everything. Also, the most basic level at which we hope to gain a practical underastanding of biology is at the level of chemistry. What distinguishes chemistry quite simply from every other science is its ability to make things that did not exist before. Chemistry will always be the lights, sound, camera, editing and costumes behind the film.
Nicely put.
“While the ACS has done their bit to fill the airwaves with “chemistry touches all our lives” commercials, I’m not entirely sure they were effective.”
The ACS is doing everything it can to undermine the people it claims to represent. It actually only represents university professors and chemical company executives.
That being said most people realize what a depressing dead end field chemistry is. It does not empower the individual who studies it, it enslaves and weakens them. A chemist is always a slave to one of the aforementioned: the snotty professor or the arrogant executive. You get a ten year career if you’re lucky in this world. Chemistry is interesting in the same way Astronomy is interesting: Gee wiz! Wonders of the universe sense.
Earning a degree in chemistry is perhaps once of the most dangerous things a person can do today! While wasting time acquiring eclectic skills, you are diverting resources from other areas of your life. In the end chemistry will chew you up and spit you out.
I suggest all readers of this blog take as many business and law classes as you can. Although these fields are competitive, there is always the potential to be able to create an independent enterprise.
This is a very 3rd-4th-year Graduate Student mentality. There is chemistry beyond big-pharma and big university research. If you attended a regional ACS meeting you would see the face of the ACS that you claim doesn’t exist.
Rest assured that chemistry careers with no snotty professor or arrogant executive exist. They pay well and allow you to be as creative as you want to be. I know because I have one of those careers. I used to feel the same as you, but that was back when I thought that my advisor owned me. Get past that and you will be a happier person. Trust me.
I disagree with your astronomy-chemistry comparison. Astronomy has no useful (lifestyle changing) application yet. Chemistry, however, is the basis of everything. Our understanding of chemistry has a profound on every possible aspect of life. That is not a Gee Whiz factor.
Believe me, I hope you’re right, I haven’t heard anyone that optimistic for a couple of years now. I’ve loved science since I was a kid, but most days I just feel like I’m enslaved to this profession, the wonder is gone for now.
Some people say chemistry is not sexy. I take issue with that claim. I am just getting started in chemistry, and I find it amazing. Over on a different blog, a fellow invovled with drug discovery maintains a category entitled “Things I won’t Work With”. The compounds he describes are astounding. One, is so reactive that it makes fluorine gas look inert. Another is so unstable that *crystalizing* causes it to detonate.
There’s chemicals like sulfur hexafluoride, so dense that you can float an aluminum foil boat in it. Every time I work with sodium hydroxide I’m amazed. I add it to the water and watch steam rise from the beaker, just because I added this powder. If you want to get people interested in chemistry, just show them these things. The field is full of so many cool things it’s unbelievable.
Hello smart people. I am working on Periodic Table. And it will be finished till 2009/09/01
I would like to get some visitors there and you could help me with it. I hope visitors will help me to find mistakes I have done there, but it is till in production. So soon if you will have any need you could enjoy it!
Website address is: http://www.periodictable-online.com