732 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIII. No. 593. 



abstractions as the atomic theory, Avo- 

 gadro's hypothesis and so forth. 



3. (a) State your ratio of hours devoted 

 to lectures and laboratory in general chem- 

 istry. 



{h) Should individual laboratory ivorh 

 invaiiubly be required in connection ivith 

 the study of general chemistry f 



The replies to (a) show genei-al uni- 

 formity in ideal and application. The 

 theory seems to prevail that about equal 

 time limits be afforded lectures and labo- 

 ratory. In most cases the practise con- 

 forms to the theory. There are some ex- 

 tremes which, when paired, do not affect 

 the average. One college gives the ratio 

 three lectures to nine laboratories; another 

 reports five lectures to one laboratory. 



I was glad the answers to (&) were made 

 in absentia, for a majority were very em- 

 phatic in their affirmative replies— so much 

 so that italics and exclamation points were 

 in evidence. I should have been embar- 

 rassed had I asked the question of an au- 

 dience of chemists, and had their replies 

 been as vociferous as I am led to suspect 

 they would have been. The interesting 

 feature of the symposium is that some 

 answered directly in the negative, and other 

 few in a modified affirmative. Dr. Cald- 

 well, of Tulane, writes: 'Some laboratory 

 work is advisable; but laboratory work is, 

 in my opinion, often overdone' ; Dr. White, 

 of the University of Georgia: 'Not inva- 

 riably'; Dr. Wait, of the University of 

 Tennessee: 'We do not require laboratory 

 work. ' 



I am afraid we have made a fetish of 

 laboratory work. The pendulum has 

 swung too far. Twenty-five years ago 

 some good chemistry was taught by masters 

 to students who did the minimum of labo- 

 ratory work. At that time Harvard, Yale, 

 Princeton, Virginia and other similar and 

 smaller colleges gave courses in general 



chemistry with practically no laboratory 

 work. It might be said that those times 

 of laboratory ignorance could be winked at, 

 but that now all chemists everywhere should 

 be expected and urged to recjuire laboratory 

 work. 



In the evolution of chemistry teaching we 

 are facing the same problem which, in lan- 

 guage teaching, provoked a wordy wrangle 

 among the German universities fifty years 

 ago. Leipzig placed grammar before 

 literature; Berlin placed literature before 

 language. 



We must not lose sight of the fact that 

 chemistry, while an experimental science, 

 possesses likewise a large deductive value. 

 Undoubtedly, we should require laboratory 

 work in general chemistry; but if I were 

 forced to accept an alternative, illustrated 

 lectures without laboratory, or laboratory 

 without lectures, I would choose the 

 former, the lesser of the two evils. 



4. Does your course in qualitative aival- 

 ysis accompany or folloiv that in elementary 

 general chemistry f 



For the most part the consensus of cus- 

 tom everywhere, including the south, is to 

 let qualitative analysis follow general 

 chemistry. I presume that in the case of 

 this question I am also open to criticism 

 from those who consider no other place for 

 qualitative analysis. The ob.ject in asking 

 the question was twofold: First, to em- 

 phasize the fact that many text-books in- 

 clude impossible and out-of-place courses. 

 Just why qualitative analysis should be 

 mixed with general inorganic chemistry I 

 can not understand. The short references 

 to the subject are nothing more than an 

 outline, and I have never known a teacher 

 to use them in actual practise. 



The second purpose was to make a plea 

 for legitimate qualitative analysis. The 

 subject has been abused, it is true, and 

 often authors and teachers have degraded 



