574 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XIX. No. 484. 



tempt to reduce the amount of time given 

 to quantitative analysis. 



Dr. Hugo Schweitzer. 



Until now we have been a happy family 

 and I hate to sound the discordant note. 

 I am absolutely against the introduction 

 of chemical engineering in the education of 

 chemists and want to restrict the same to 

 pure chemistry. You have heard from 

 Professor Chandler and from Professor 

 Noyes and the other gentlemen who are 

 teaching at our universities and colleges 

 that it is impossible to make a chemist and 

 a chemical engineer in four years. This 

 is not to be wondered at, as Mr. Herreshoff 

 stated in his paper, and it was this that 

 struck me most, that chemical engineering 

 embraces more kinds of engineering than 

 any other branch of engineering. Now, 

 since he, the most successful, the most in- 

 genious, the most prominent chemical engi- 

 neer in this country, has been able to master 

 both sciences, he thinks that we average 

 people of little brains and little minds 

 should also succeed. Gentlemen, the proof 

 of the pudding is in the eating. Let us be 

 open and frank! What have American 

 chemists originated in chemical manufac- 

 turing? 'You will find that we have been 

 pioneers in only a very few instances. It 

 is true we manufacture acids and alkali 

 just as well and perhaps better than they 

 do in Europe, but, as I say, we have been 

 pioneers only in a few things, and the rea- 

 son for it is in our method of education. 

 Who asks that we should be both chemists 

 and engineers 1 Do we chemists ask for it 1 

 No, we have trouble enough with chem- 

 istry. Do the teachers of chemistry ask 

 for it? No, because they tell us to-night 

 that it is impossible for them to convert 

 their students into chemists and chemical 

 engineers. You remember Dr. Noyes said 

 that 'to-day chemical science requires as 

 much detailed knowledge as did all sciences 



together fifty years ago.' Do you think 

 that with such a broad iield we can also 

 master chemical engineering? Most de- 

 cidedly not. 



It is the manufacturer who asks that we 

 should be both chemists and chemical 

 engineers. In my opinion, the education 

 of the chemist, gentlemen, is entirely a sec- 

 ondary question. As far as they are not 

 educated chemically, it is the employers of 

 chemists who need education. They engage 

 a chemist, and paying him the generous 

 salary which we chemists are wont to get, 

 they think he ought to be a chemical engi- 

 neer besides. What the manufacturers 

 ought to do is : they should take the gradu- 

 ates from the universities as they are edu- 

 cated in pure chemistry and train them in 

 their works at their expense during one or 

 perhaps two years to become technical 

 chemists and technical engineers. So, gen- 

 tlemen, I urge upon you most sincerely to 

 abandon the idea of educating chemists to 

 be also chemical engineers, and now let us 

 all work for the education of the chemical 

 employer and the capitalist. 



Mr. Maximilian Toch. 



A student can study languages before 

 he enters into his course of chemistry. 

 German is essential, but French is not. 

 When a student is admitted to college he 

 is about seventeen years of age and he 

 should then have a fundamental training 

 in mathematics and languages; in fact, at 

 the age of seventeen a student can be fairly 

 well trained in elementary chemistry and 

 in mathematics and drawing, so that the 

 four years at college can be applied to 

 chemistry, physics and electricity. 



My suggestion would be that the colleges 

 invite men to lecture who have been suc- 

 cessful in manufacturing industries and 

 they naturally can impart knowledge to 

 students such as a professor is not expected 

 to have. 



