Advertisement

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Undergraduate Education

Reactions: Undergraduate chemistry

January 9, 2025 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 103, Issue 1

 

Letters to the editor

Undergraduate education

The nagging question of the roles of educators and higher education has resurfaced since the global pandemic. We are scrambling to provide accessible and meaningful education to a diverse student population using all available tools. This time of uncertainty holds incredible promise, but failing to think outside the box could turn this opportunity into a disaster. Historically, because of geopolitical and economic reasons, US academia did not need to look outward for learning and inspiration. When we did, it was often from an Orientalist perspective, aiming to examine and fix the “other.” With the changing demographics of academia, we must now look outward with humility and a genuine intention to learn.

One problematic outlook is the rhetoric and “objective” research data that assign perceived lower math proficiency or interest in science to specific races and genders, particularly students of color and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Such conclusions reflect Orientalist views that undermine African and Asian students who excel in math in their home countries. For example, in West Bengal, India, high school students learn advanced math topics, enabling chemistry majors to apply complex mathematics from the start.

This also oversimplifies the racism and sexism that make it nearly impossible for these students to find a place in STEM. These flawed conclusions have led to interventions that either force students of color to self-segregate in teamwork or place them in mixed-race teams without support to discuss race and gender dynamics.

Misunderstanding equity often results in what some pejoratively refer to as “dumbing down” the chemistry curriculum or removing math from introductory courses to level the playing field. This creates resentment among faculty and students and exacerbates the wealth and class divide, especially in economically disadvantaged areas. To understand this better, one should look up the idea of cognitive capitalism by Yann Moulier-Boutang.

Effective changes are required but must be global in outlook and embody humility and equity. As humanity faces wars, the aftermath of a pandemic, and political polarization, it is crucial for US academia to look outward and learn from otherized countries. While no education system is perfect, failing to challenge university students in the name of equity risks the future of students in the US and adds to their insurmountable debt.

Sambuddha Banerjee
Greenville, North Carolina

I really agree with the letter written by Ara Jeknavorian concerning the crisis in undergraduate chemistry that appeared in the Dec. 2/9, 2024, issue (page 5). The importance of a good teacher cannot be understated.

In my high school chemistry class in 1963 in the small town of Scranton, North Dakota, I had such a teacher. His name was Sidney Lambert. He used the CHEM Study textbooks written by George Pimentel.

I did not realize it at the time, but Lambert started a path to my PhD in physical chemistry and a very fulfilling career in industry.

Glenn E. Martin
Firestone, Colorado

I am writing in response to the letters in the Dec. 2/9 issue about the article in the Oct. 21 issue concerning the crisis in undergraduate chemistry. I believe that of these letters, the one by Ara Jeknavorian points to an excellent approach to this problem. It suggested connecting scientific concepts to real-world situations, including exposing students to practitioners of the subject. Put in other words, teaching chemistry in context. Such an approach would demonstrate that there is value in knowing more about the world in general by studying the science.

After 49 years as a chemistry professor, now retired, I have seen decades of approaches to presenting chemistry to high school students and college-level undergraduates with little or no connection to context and history of what the students are asked to learn. I often asked myself when standing before a class why many, certainly not all, of the students, no matter how well I was presenting the material, would want or need to know what I was presenting to them beyond getting a grade for whatever purpose. There are innumerable principles of the science that are linked to practical aspects of our life and, moreover, to the fascinating lives of the scientists who discovered and created the principles we are teaching. The key to making the subject more attractive and therefore to increasing enrollment is to give the students a reason to know what we are teaching beyond the academic consequences. To be successful, this has to be done not by putting the context and history in a box separate from the material, which is sometimes done in textbooks, but by weaving them into the presentation of the subject.

Mark M. Green
New York City

Advertisement

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

0 /1 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.