966 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXI. No. 



instruction in secondary schools are, in 

 general, not in a condition to take up work 

 in chemistry which is more advanced than 

 that of the first year in the college, and 

 for students who have had but a single 

 year there is at present so little that can 

 be regarded as common knowledge that the 

 present apparent duplication of work 

 seems unavoidable. Regarding this dupli- 

 cation more will be said presently. 



Let us next face the question, Why is it 

 that secondary-school courses have failed, 

 and, as it seems to me, are likely to fail, to 

 serve as substitutes for any considerable 

 amount of college instruction in chemis- 

 try? The reasons are far from simple, 

 and they need some analysis. We may 

 distinguish, I think, at once between cer- 

 tain factors which, since they are inherent 

 in the nature of our science or in the period 

 in the pupil's life in which the instruction 

 is given, are common to all schools, and 

 those elements in the situation which are 

 the outcome of varying fitness on the part 

 of the instructors. 



Is it not true that chemistry itself pre- 

 sents some peculiar difficulties 1 It is 

 often said that "physics is taught better 

 in the secondary schools than chemistry." 

 I am inclined to think that, as a general 

 statement, it is essentially true. But 

 might not the full truth be better stated 

 in this form : ' ' Physics is more effectively 

 taught than chemistry in the secondary 

 schools because physics is an easier science 

 to teach"? It is true that chemical phe- 

 nomena are plentifully at hand, and that 

 our very life processes are dependent upon 

 them; yet they are not recognized as such 

 and are essentially unfamiliar. The 

 teacher of chemical science, and the prac- 

 titioner who seeks recognition for his 

 achievements, are alike forced to realize 

 that the tools which he employs, the work- 

 ing conditions which he establishes and 



the terms in which the results of his labors 

 are to be expressed are unusual and 

 strange and, because of this, more difficult 

 of comprehension by his fellow men. 



The beginner in chemistry is at a similar 

 disadvantage as compared with the be- 

 ginner in physics. In his work in physics 

 the pupil handles, for example, the bal- 

 ance, the mirror, the pendulum or the bat- 

 tery, and he makes his measurements in 

 units which are largely familiar to him; 

 and the phenomena which he observes are 

 not foreign to his daily life. On the other 

 hand, the very test-tube and beaker to 

 which the student of chemistry is immedi- 

 ately introduced are unaccustomed objects, 

 the bottle of acid is still more so, and we 

 often accentuate the situation by asking 

 him to don breast-plate and armor for his 

 personal protection, in the shape of aprons 

 or rubber sleeves. While, on the one 

 hand, the concepts and laws of physics 

 may not be properly alluded to as "easy," 

 yet it seems to me evident that they make 

 less demands upon the intellect and the 

 imagination than the fundamental prin- 

 ciples of chemistry, if these principles are 

 to mean more to the pupil than mere 

 memorized statements. 



With the growth of the holes in the 

 pupil's clothing the strangeness of the 

 beaker, test-tube and acid bottle lessens, to 

 be sure, but he is coincidently introduced 

 to increasingly complicated phenomena; 

 he is asked to conceive of molecules, atoms, 

 ions, even of electrons ; he is asked to form 

 some notion of valence, to construct chem- 

 ical equations, and to "state all that they 

 express"— a thing which you and I with 

 our greater wisdom and experience may 

 well hesitate to attempt. He must master 

 the principles of stoichiometry, that 

 branch of chemical science which seems to 

 baffle the human intellect to a degree that 

 never ceases to amaze even experienced 



