LAURENCE M. GOULD 



2. Too many courses, too heavy teaching loads. 



3. Inadequate library facilities. 



4. Lack of contact with fellow scientists, lack of opportunity of 

 rubbing elbows with people in closely related fields. 



5. Lack of trained assistants. 



6. Lack of equipment. 



7. Lack of funds, though surprisingly and hopefully this was not 

 placed at the top of the list in many cases. It is still a most important 

 item, however. 



8. Discrimination between the independent liberal arts college 

 and the university. Other things being equal, the university gets 

 preferred treatment in securing grants from foundations, corporations, 

 etc. 



By and large, it is obvious that the advantages of pure 

 research (without regard to teaching) in a liberal arts college 

 are heavily overweighed by the disadvantages. Our task, there- 

 fore, is to exploit and increase, so far as possible, the advantages. 

 Of course, now and again one comes across one of those rare 

 individuals in a small liberal arts college who can hold his own 

 at all levels with the best of his colleagues anywhere. Here is 

 a comment about one: 



Let me cite an example of a liberal arts biologist who has com- 

 peted successfully with his university counterparts. This man 

 taught between eighteen and twenty-five hours a week, advised 

 about forty students, put two sons through medical school, spent 

 every summer at a research station, worked at least five nights a 

 week in his modest, poorly equipped laboratory, published furi- 

 ously and well, retired at the age of sixty-seven, and returned to 

 teaching because he felt lost. 



Work of first-rate quality is frequently carried out at the 

 undergraduate level. Not long ago a new determination of the 

 atomic weight of fluorine was reported from Reed College. This 

 work was largely that of undergraduate chemistry majors. 



In 1957 the Chicago section of the American Chemical 



82 



