00:00:00 The generation of Americans in science is under siege.

00:00:06 The general education of non-scientists in college is grossly inadequate,

00:00:11 based, as it usually is, on a small number of special courses

00:00:16 that cannot possibly achieve their goal.

00:00:19 The time has come for some leadership in American education to put it on a forward track.

00:00:25 We, as scientists, cannot teach enough science in two half-courses to make sense.

00:00:31 One more half-course, as Professor Walser pointed out, will not help much.

00:00:38 But MIT and Caltech demand that their science students

00:00:43 take 20 to 25 percent of their courses in the humanities.

00:00:47 If the humanists would invest 20 to 25 percent of their effort in science,

00:00:52 we could lead them up a gentle slope to a considerable level of learning.

00:00:58 Thank you.

00:01:16 Thank you, Professor Westheimer.

00:01:18 We are left with many thoughts,

00:01:22 and as chemical educators, I think he has challenged us.

00:01:28 We have a few moments, and Dr. Westheimer will be gracious enough to field a couple of questions.

00:01:34 So if there are any questions.

00:01:42 Yes.

00:01:44 Dr. Westheimer, it seems to me that one of the problems we face in our college

00:01:50 is that science and mathematics are in the same basket.

00:01:56 And the experimental scientist needs mathematics as a language,

00:02:01 but mathematics simply cannot replace the experimental science requirement or need.

00:02:11 And I don't know how you convince college faculty

00:02:16 of the need for mathematics and science in college.

00:02:20 Could you all hear that question?

00:02:23 The question was whether it is appropriate to lump mathematics and science together,

00:02:33 since the needs for the two are really quite different,

00:02:40 and in particular, the sciences depend upon laboratory, which mathematics does not.

00:02:49 Since mathematics is really needed in much of science,

00:02:55 I think it's appropriate to teach them together.

00:03:00 I would think that among the appropriate core courses

00:03:06 in a curriculum that had much more science in it

00:03:10 would be a combined calculus and physics course,

00:03:14 where one would, I think, give life to the calculus by showing what it's used for

00:03:23 and make the physics much easier by teaching the needed mathematics along with it.

00:03:32 The only way in which we are going to be able to solve

00:03:37 the problem that was brought up by this question

00:03:40 is to have much more science teaching for non-scientists in college

00:03:46 so that we can do such things as teach physics and calculus as a combined course,

00:03:58 nowhere near the rigor in the calculus that one would get in a pure mathematics course,

00:04:04 not anywhere near as much physics as one would get in a pure physics course.

00:04:10 But I think we could show students the connection between calculus and physics

00:04:19 to the great benefit of both subjects.

00:04:27 Professor Westheimer, you have in your list of elite colleges and universities,

00:04:34 isn't there a bias there?

00:04:36 It might be those are the worst places to look for the real experimentation that's

00:04:41 going on in this country.

00:04:43 Perhaps it's going on in many of the public universities that are not so elite

00:04:47 and in many of the private schools.

00:04:49 And maybe it's the other way around, that the elite universities will

00:04:53 get their ideas from there.

00:04:58 Was that heard throughout the?

00:05:00 No.

00:05:01 No?

00:05:02 The question was whether my choice of a few elite universities

00:05:07 was not a very bad choice, and whether the leadership in American education

00:05:12 may not really come from some of the less prestigious institutions in America.

00:05:27 I would certainly hope so.

00:05:30 What I said here was that it is time for some leadership.

00:05:35 I know where that leadership is not coming from.

00:05:39 And if it could come as a groundswell from the public institutions,

00:05:46 we in America would be enormously benefited.

00:05:52 Perhaps one more, if there is one more.

00:05:55 Yes, sir.

00:05:58 If it's true that learning science is a vertical process,

00:06:02 and since students learn at different rates,

00:06:05 aren't we making a mistake by throwing any collection of students into one class

00:06:10 and expecting them all to learn at the same rate?

00:06:12 Wouldn't something like a more self-paced approach be reasonable?

00:06:17 The question was whether self-paced learning might not be much better

00:06:23 in the sciences just because of the vertical nature of science.

00:06:32 My answer is, I think so.

00:06:35 I think that self-paced learning has a great place in science.

00:06:41 It's difficult to go completely over to self-paced learning

00:06:50 when you have laboratories to teach

00:06:54 because you want students to be at a certain level

00:06:57 when they take the laboratory,

00:06:59 and it's hard to have a self-paced laboratory.

00:07:01 You have to, for economy,

00:07:04 you really have to run the whole class doing one thing at the same time.

00:07:08 But I'm quite sure that there is a great place

00:07:15 for self-paced learning in science.

00:07:18 And I also suspect that there's going to be a great place

00:07:23 for really reactive computer-assisted instruction in science

00:07:29 for the same reason,

00:07:31 that it will allow a lot more self-paced instruction.

00:07:41 Thank you again, Professor Westheimer,

00:07:44 for a very stimulating address.

00:07:47 The awards symposium will continue at 1.50 this afternoon.

00:07:52 We will hear from Dr. Marjorie Gardner, Dr. Leo Yaffe.