June 5, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



883 



So too, there are certain sufficiently 

 obvious considerations which would guide 

 us in shaping a chemical course for a min- 

 ing engineer. Chemistry is chemistry even 

 if you call it metallurgy and assaying ; and 

 those of us who have helped to frame a 

 curriculum in chemical engineering know 

 that the great problem is to keep the engi- 

 neering twin from smothering his chemical 

 brother. 



About all this a great deal has been 

 written and a great deal has been said, and 

 we are, I think, most of us, so far, in sub- 

 stantial agreement. 



But what about the chemical education 

 of the civil and mechanical engineer? "We 

 may at once admit that chemical problems 

 form but a small proportion of those which 

 confront him. It is true that the com- 

 bustion of fuel, the incrustation of boilers, 

 and the rusting of metals, the preservation 

 of timber, the setting of cement, the action 

 of explosives, all involve questions of chem- 

 istry, and their consideration forms part of 

 the daily -vyork of the engineer. But in 

 many such cases he can accept the results 

 of previous investigations without trou- 

 bling himself about the way they were ob- 

 tained, and in others he can call in the 

 chemist to his aid. The engineer is not a 

 chemist, and for him chemistry must be 

 reckoned as one of his "culture subjects." 

 It is exactly here that the difficulty of the 

 teacher begins. He is called upon to teach 

 chemistry to boys who are not going to be 

 chemists, who have no wish to become 

 chemists and who ought not to be en- 

 couraged to think that they are being made 

 chemists. 



On the one hand, he must make his sub- 

 ject sufficiently interesting to attract to it 

 a due share of that energy upon which 

 there are so many other and, in the stu- 

 dent's judgment, more pressing calls; and, 

 on the other hand, he must not lead the 



student to suppose that, after attending a 

 few lectures and performing a few labora- 

 tory experiments, he will be able to pose 

 as a chemical expert. 



This is a real difficulty ; and it is all the 

 greater because chemistry is looked upon 

 by the public as a utilitarian subject— a 

 study which is supposed to have, as of 

 course it has, a practical bearing upon 

 daily life. 



One of my teachers used to illustrate to 

 his class the value of the study of min- 

 eralogy by saying to them: "Suppose a 

 farmer brought you a bit of hard yellow 

 mineral and said to you: 'Sir, what is 

 this? You have attended a course of lec- 

 tures on mineralogy, can you tell me if it 

 is any good ? It occurs in great abundance 

 on my farm. Is it gold or what is it? ' " 

 And he went on to show how, with the aid 

 of a watch glass, the student could dis- 

 sipate the golden dreams of the credulous 

 husbandman. 



One of my colleagues, who is a gradu- 

 ate of Oxford, somewhat grudgingly ad- 

 mitted that it was desirable, in a new 

 country such as Canada, that a young man 

 should learn chemistry, because he might 

 through its aid discover a silver mine. 



The notion that chemistry is a study 

 which has a high value as a mental train- 

 ing, as a means of broadening and deepen- 

 ing the mental outlook— in a word, as 

 a means of culture on a par with mathe- 

 matics and languages and history— is still 

 very far from the point of view of the man 

 in the street. 



Now, the undergraduate is the son of the 

 man in the street; and he brings to college 

 his father's point of view, his father's 

 prejudices, and his father's limitations- 

 together with a cocksurety that is all his 

 own. 



Our first task then is to give the young 

 engineer the chemist's point of view. Our 



