April 8, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



571 



five or fifty years. It is as impossible to- 

 day to know all chemical science, even in a 

 general way, as it was fifty years ago to 

 know all the sciences. Chemistry has so 

 wonderfully developed in so many different 

 directions that it is impossible for any one 

 to cover the whole field. It is necessary, 

 therefore, for the colleges to choose, in this 

 large field, what shall be taught. Now, 

 the basis of the training for the technical 

 chemist and for the chemist of all kinds, 

 must be a thorough training in analytical 

 chemistry. I believe that the training 

 in this particular field has become in- 

 ferior to what it was a few years ago. Re- 

 sults that have come to my knowledge, and 

 no doubt to the knowledge of others of you, 

 during recent years, of the way in which 

 chemists fail in comparatively simple ana- 

 lytical problems, show that the training of 

 the- chemist is not always what it should 

 be. Another important question which 

 comes before the teacher in the college is, 

 How much training in industrial chemistry 

 can be given to the student. It seems to 

 me that comparatively little in that par- 

 ticular direction can be done, especially in 

 a four years' course. It is important that 

 the student shall have a thorough training 

 in the fundamentals of the science and a 

 thorough training in analysis. If that 

 training is given, it is impossible to crowd 

 into the four years' course any very con- 

 siderable training in industrial questions. 

 Another fact which makes any long or ex- 

 tended training in industrial questions in- 

 advisable, as well as impossible, in the col- 

 lege course, lies in the extremely wide 

 range of work in which these young men 

 are going to engage, and, in a majority of 

 cases, from the difficulty of telling what 

 work the particular individual will do after 

 he gets out of your hands. It is manifestly 

 impossible, therefore, to train him for that 

 particular field into which he will go. He 



must of necessity gain his special training 

 in that field after he enters it. 



Professor C. F. Chandler. 



The difficulty is that our students come 

 to us for four years. They never know 

 what particular branch of chemistry they 

 intend to pursue in after life. We are 

 compelled, therefore, to treat them all sub- 

 stantially alike, and give them all sub- 

 stantially the same chemical education. 

 Now, it is not possible in four years to do 

 a great deal more than to lay the founda;- 

 tions of a chemical education, particularly 

 if you want to devote some time to giving 

 the students a good training in mathe- 

 matics and various other branches which 

 go to make up a complete chemical educa- 

 tion. It seems to me as if the work of 

 making the chemist was put entirely upon 

 the instructors. The student expects the 

 instructors to do the work. We suggested 

 that we might increase the number of as- 

 sistants, and let them make the analyses 

 for the students. When I was a student 

 I went into Wohler's laboratory. He gave 

 us a lecture every morning and we Avere 

 expected to attend that lecture and make 

 the most of it. Then we went into the 

 laboratory. He handed me a piece of 

 triphyline and said: 'I want you to get 

 some lithia out of that.' He did not give 

 me an hour's lecture and tell me how to 

 make lithia and have me write it down. 

 He gave me a piece of the mineral and I 

 had to hustle and find the solution of the 

 problem myself. He said: 'You have to 

 make some lithia out of that, and after 

 you have made up your mind, come to me 

 and I will look over your proposition and 

 see whether it is right. ' That was the way 

 chemistry was taiight in Wohler's labo- 

 ratory. There was a small number of stu- 

 dents and that method of instruction was 

 carried out. We had seven hixndred stu- 

 dents working in our chemical laboratories 



