Professor Harry Kroto, 1996 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry believes that “British Chemistry faces extinction”

Is chemistry a dying subject?

UK universities are not attracting enough students to study chemistry. Some universities are closing their Chemistry Departments.

Chemistry teachers are becoming a dying breed.

What is going wrong?

Is this just a UK problem?

Is it not alive and well in its applied form?

Apart from the students who have to take chemistry for the study of medicine, there are others studying pharmacy, biochemistry, and chemical engineering.

Thirty years ago, no-one was studying, say, genetics as a first degree. The subjects change over time, but nothing that is valuable really dies. Maybe there is not such a great need for so many people to take a general chemistry degree.

This situation is a reality in many countries.
Andry says that what is valuable does not die. And I think chemistry is valuable and the mankind needs chemistry in its several applications.

What will be genetics or cosmetics or the biological process without chemistry? And I could go on in citing the all aspects in which chemistry is essential .

Nevertheless it is true that this science is going through a critical period.

One of the cause could be the fact that in Europe the chemical industry is not too developed.
Another cause probably can be found in the curricula or in the teaching/learning process.
It could be interesting to compare these aspects among the European countries.

Like it or not, the popularity of pursuing academic subjects is likely to be driven in part by market forces. If it is really true that the popularity of chemistry is falling then I would suggest this is as a direct result of its usefulness in relation to employment, not in relation to its usefulness (if you see what I mean!?). For proof, one need only take a look at the number of lawyers being produced by the USA and the correspondingly large number of utterly ridiculous/trivial/frivolous law suits being filed.

On a train from Brussels to Bruges, I was joined by three young organic chemists on their way to a symposium. Two were Spanish, one Italian, but they used English as their lingua franca, and I was fascinated by their accounts of their research. One was testing the toxicity of various plastics when dissolved in artificial saliva - work that would be invaluable to toy manufacturers in knowing that babies could chew the toys, without significant risk.

And at this point, in case you are thinking of three men in white coats, I will add that these chemists were young women, and far from any of the stereotypes we see in the UK.

The city near where I live has an economy that depends on chemistry for pharmaceuticals, household products, paints and petroleum derivatives - there is work there, and they continue to need people.

Given the need to understand and manipulate materials, there is no chance that chemistry will die out. But it may, and probably will, develop in new directions. And one effect of computer technologies could be that fewer people need some kinds of expert knowledge, as they can share it more easily. But the number of people needed in the manufacture of new fuels or drugs will not necessarily decline.

It is possible that more people qualify with general chemistry degrees than there are jobs for in Europe. And maybe some universities cannot sustain a viable faculty. But the suggestion that the study of chemistry is dead seems not at all plausible.

I can well believe that few qualified chemists become teachers, though. The attractions of industry may be greater. Maybe we are getting the numbers right.

Of course, in the UK's booming economy almost every kind of worker is supposedly in short supply. Well, that's good news for all employees.

Andrew you as always maintain a positive outlook.

In the Radio 4 interview. Harry Kroto seemed a lot less optimistic about the future of chemistry. He did stress the importance of chemistry to the economy and suggested intervention measures to encourage take up of the subject.

Obviously chemistry is an extraordinarily important subject, but the market will drive the number of graduates that the industry requires. This is turn will drive the number of students applying to do chemistry related first degrees and this in turn will influence the number of undergraduates and ultimately chemistry departments, at universities.

Of course the subject will never "die" but through greater efficiency the number of "chemists" required by the market will probably continue to decline.

More fundamentally (and this will upset many) I see no point in encouraging the study of any subject purely for the sake of it, there should always be a point. If the market does not require chemists what's the point in producing them?

Hmmm, I wonder what use 'the market' has for historians, or sociologists, philosophers, or an abundance of musicians......

but wouldn't the world be a dull place if it was peopled solely by engineers and dentists?!

I like to think that curricula are designed with more in mind than filling factories with willing workers. Promoting social harmony for example... but perhaps we need less of that because economies so often thrive during times of conflict. ...

A world driven purely by market forces would surely be a dismal place,

Rowena

Many students perceive chemistry and physics as being very hard A levels and often opt for biology which they perceive as the 'easy' science A level. Even after choosing chemistry I often had more than average drop out rates. HOWEVER in my last 7 years of teaching I'd changed to Salters Advanced Level Chemistry and although the recruitment did not improve dramatically the drop out rate became minimal. They loved the applied nature of the course (except the coursework - VERY demanding, but good for university entrants), the 'weakest' students hung in and 90-95% of all students passed and the biologists appreciated the 'biochemistry aspects' from Aspirin to enzymes to DNA.

Most of my students went on to to a science/medical degree but rarely pure chemistry BUT most needed a good chemistry background. There is a need for students with A level chemistry background but they are more interested in applied acience eg medical sciences and forensic science. I hope there will not be a continued shortage of chemistry specialist but it could be difficult in the future with less pre chemists needed than when I was a student.

When it came to teach A level chemistry I'm VERY glad of my traditional pure and industrial chemical education background from ONC night class to being on the very 1st HND chemistry sandwich course in 'Widnes Tech'!!! in the 60's and finally graduating with a 'GRIC', the 'professional' degree of the (as it was then) Royal Institute of Chemistry after 1 years full-time education. We need good pure chemists in education because I feel thery can apply themselves to any chemical situation required, as well of course, as having good teaching and communication skills.

I am interested in the improvements attributed to a change of A'level Chemistry course. When I first joined the chemistry department of my school I persuaded the then Head of Chemistry to introduce the Nuffield scheme. Within 12 months we had doubled the number of students taking the A'level Chemistry option. This effect continued for number of years.

Over the last few years the numbers opting have slipped to near those prior to the change of course.

We now have a new Head fo Chemistry who is going to introduce the Salter's scheme to the school. I look forward to the results and the challenge.

Will it be a case of change bringing about new vitality to the department or is the new course significantly better than alternative options?

Back in the news again – the demise of chemistry

What are we chemistry teachers doing wrong in schools?

Is it our fault?

To me Chemistry is the only real scientific subject because it is the only one that involves reasoning and logic as opposed to regurgitating facts (biology) or plugging numbers into formulae (physics). This is of course why kids find it difficult - because its one of the few subjects where they really need to use their brains and THINK!

We have the choice of either breaking chemistry down into such bite sized chunks that the students find it palletable, or selling it for what it is - a really interesting challenging subject that you need to work hard at to pass.

Rowena

Does this mean that chemisty as a subject should only be offerred to the more able students?

Has watering the subject down made it seem trivial and therefore less interesting to the students who could be the future chemistry graduates?

There was an interesting article about this in yesterday’s Guardian. It argued that Chemistry was indeed in crisis. It pointed out that university departments are closing (Exeter, King’s, Queen Mary’s, Swansea, De Montfort, Anglia, etc.) whereas others are reducing their numbers (down by a third at Leeds). Since 1996, 28 universities have stopped offering chemistry degrees. In 1994, 4,104 people applied to study chemistry. By last year it had fallen to 2,434, despite an increased number of students overall. There has been a decline in the number of students studying the subject at ‘A’ level.

Rowena -

There is MUCH more to biology than "just regurgitating facts". I regard chemistry as crucial to understanding much of biology, and physics as crucial to understanding much of chemistry. You won't help your cause by downplaying the importance of either physics or biology.

We have a very small number of chemistry students here, but we have a very small number of students (about 530) in the whole college, so we're not very representative. None of our chemistry teachers (we have two - organic and inorganic) waters anything down. All of our biologists (the largest population of students in the sciences here) HAVE to take at least 4 semesters of chemistry - and I try and get them into 2 semesters of physics. That, of course, means a couple of semesters of calculus as well.

It's not easy to be a science student - regardless of one's major

Mike,

I didn't understand Rowena as "downplaying" physics or biology. But none of these narrow physical sciences will tell us anything about the micro or macro worlds (which strangely reflect each other) without an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates all and everything. And then of course, in this new and little understood postmodern world, it is all viewed through colored lenses and subject to the Uncertainty Principle. Academically, it is unfortunate that so many humanities students escape dealing with the mental rigors and precision of the physical sciences, in which, as a statistics professor once said to me, that "touchy-feely stuff" won't get you by here.

Tim

>it is unfortunate that so many humanities students escape dealing with the mental rigors and precision of the physical sciences, in which, as a statistics professor once said to me, that "touchy-feely stuff" won't get you by here. <

As a former "humanities student" myself - I teach foreign languages - I can assure you that a predilection for "touchy-feely stuff" won't get you far in that branch of knowledge either! My own experience of studying the French and German languages and literatures was one of rigour and precision: I found myself applying the same exactitude to literary study as I had done when I learned school Chemistry, which I also enjoyed immensely. In the 1960s, there was a lot of talk about the "two cultures" of the arts and the sciences. Many students nowadays understand the "complementarity" of the arts and the sciences, often choosing to combine the two before and when they enter higher education. We certainly need more numerate arts specialists with a deeper understanding of scientific principles, laws and methods. But we also need more literate scientists who can appreciate drama, history and music and who know how to explain complex concepts and ideas to lay people. A broad and balanced curriculum in secondary education without premature specialisation is an indispensable preparation for the world of today.

David Wilson
http://www.specialeducationalneeds.com/

I used to work at a Department of Applied Science as a teacher of technical English, and the head of the Engineering programme had a very nice way of introducing the subject on the first day.

He put up two lists of words on the board, one on the left where they nearly all ended (in Swedish) with '-i' or '-ik'; and one on the right where they all ended with '-a' (the Swedish infinitive ending).

He then said to the new students "you probably think that being an engineer is all about the left-hand words (such as Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry), but actually it's really all about the right-hand ones (such as explaining, formulating, planning and arguing)". His point was that anyone who could only do the left-hand list would never be much good as an engineer in the real world, since the problems engineers face are only partially to do with scientific theory.

As an undergrad, I majored in biology and literature. When I tell people about that combination, they think it's pretty unusual - and I guess it is. But I've had a number of biology students over the years with the same attraction to the arts, which I regard as a very good thing.

Many of our students interested in medicine wind up majoring in both biology and chemistry - partly for practical reasons (they have to take so much chemistry anyway, why not get a major in it?). My college lacks a physics major - which I regard as a real tragedy in a liberal arts college. We never could get enough students to populate that major. Maybe physics is dead?

Hello again,

I have to say, when I'm talking about the difficutly of studying chemistry versus other science subjects, that I am thinking more of the earlier grades (GCSE and 'A' level). I have absolutely no idea how difficult Biology or Physics are at university level having studied Geology, with Chemistry! And I imagine that all of the sciences are difficult at the level.

What I am trying to say is that at earliers levels biology is broken down into nice bite sized facts such as 'A cold is a virus' and ' Viruses cannot be treated with anitobiotics', and so the biggest piece of reasoning a student will have to do is 'can a cold be treated with antibiotics?'.

In Physics, you simply have to remember 2 or three formulae per topic and practise applying them in different ways. More complex than Biology, but still achieveable by many.

Then take chemistry. You spend several weeks teaching kids about the reactions of different substances and oxygen, such as combustion, and then the exam comes along and they are asked to explain why old copper coins are black. This is much harder to do than either of the above situations because you need to recall a number of facts and then string together a sensible arguement.

Most kids fail to score full marks for a question such as this and so consider chemistry to be difficult....and so as they move through school the pressure to perform well in exams pushes them towards subjects that they can perform better at such as Biology - they still have the caché of the science subject, but although most will tell you that they study biology because it is interesting (and of course it is) the underlying reasoning behind studying it is that it is a science that they can pass. Experience tells them this.

In response to Nicks questions about whether we should only offer Chemistry to the 'bright' or make it more simple I don't think we should do either. Its important that all students study a subject that involves some reasoning. What use do we have for random science facts later in life??? Reasoning however is a process that we can all use and is a skill that should not be removed from learning just to make things easier.

A solution to the chemistry is hard problem? Mix it all up. Students know even at KS3 whether a topic is essentially çhemitry, or physics or biology. We need to teach topics that are a mixture of all of these things, as in real life, so that students stop seeing the sciences as being discrete, which of course, they are not.

Rowena

On the sciences vs arts front, I, like many, opted for scientific subjects because it was what the 'smart kids' studied. The serious kids who wanted to do something with their lives.

With hindsight I would say that there is more touchy feely stuff going on in science teaching than in a typical history or German class. I believe that I learnt more about logic from my arts classes than any of the scientific ones (which at the time were trying to make science more 'fun' and manageable by breaking it down into simple facts. History on the other hand was much more about looking at the bigger picture, linkages, causes and effects and not treating anything in isolation).

(I stress that this is referring to secondary (high school) and not college).

Rowena

I don't have much experience teaching at elementary and secondary levels - though I do have some (mostly private schools, so probably atypical). My daughter is currently in high school. One factor that seems to steer students one way or another is the teacher. A teacher with a reputation as "fun" (not necessarily easy) often attracts pupils to whatever subject she teaches.

If biology is typically taught as "a cold is caused by a) a virus b) a bacterium c) a protozoan" we're in trouble. The essence of science is asking "how" and "why" - and neither of those questions is multiple choice.

Hi Mike,

my point exactly, and in high schools in the Uk the multiple choice exam IS the way science is tested and therefor teaching is geared up to that kind of 'knowledge'. For as long as GCSE science exams are multiple choice, what hope do science teachers have?

Rowena

Hi Tim,

of course there is more to any science subject than just regurgitating facts, but in terms of actual science teaching and learning, often that is pretty much all there is to it. Science teaching in schools does not reflect science. That is the problem.

Rowena

Hi all -

It seems there's a connection between our discussion here and the one in "Finnish education is the best". I refuse to use standardized tests in my classes, though we're under some pressure to "assess" what we're doing and to connect that to national norms. The pressure comes from accrediting bodies (who appointed them the overseers of education?), and - because of that - the faculty assessment committee. I have the liberty to get away with my refusal (so far) because I'm at a private college. In public schools, one has to tow the line.

This is not to say that all assessment is bad, or that teachers shouldn't be held responsible for what happens in the classroom. But the "No Child Left Behind" nonsense and the move towards "McDonaldification" of education will give us very poor results.