A belated musing about chemistry education.
A couple months ago there was an article published in the New York Times regarding the firing of Maitland Jones, a highly respected organic chemist who taught sophomore-organic chemistry at NYU. This article was heavily discussed on twitter, with topics ranging from “why do pre-meds need organic chemistry?” to the classic “pre-meds are spoiled and entitled.” Additionally, there have been several opinion articles published in response to the original NYT article commenting on these topics and more. (some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4) I was fascinated by the widely varied responses to this article, and I discussed the situation with several colleagues, close friends in the medical field, and even my mom, who is a retired community college math professor. As someone who is passionate about education and has spent a lot of time thinking about effective teaching and what it means to have a mastery of a topic, I wanted to give my two cents, for whatever they are worth. I wrote this shortly after the article was published, but have only just decided to post it. So, here it goes:
The recent NYT article about the firing of Maitland Jones touches on several nuanced aspects of the state of chemistry education and academia. I have no commentary about whether Prof. Jones should have been fired, rather, I want to discuss what is perhaps the most interesting to me: the idea that pre-med students don’t need organic chemistry, and even further, that the course is unnecessary because students memorize their way through it. These ideas form the basis of several questions that I have reflected on throughout my time in higher education, both as an educator and student:
Generally, why are students required to take courses often deemed unnecessary post-graduation, and more specifically, why do we require pre-health majors to take organic chemistry?
What is the difference between memorizing and understanding?
The importance of general education
Through my time as an educator, I have experienced many students complain about unnecessary required courses. I’ve also had conversations with students who are in graduate programs in chemistry who don’t believe they should have to know chemistry sub-fields outside their own! I think this common notion stems from our education system failing to emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary work. Although the goal of a PhD is to become an expert in a specific field, we should not forget the importance of understanding fields outside our own. To me, it feels like we are rapidly progressing toward a society comprised exclusively of specialists. Of course, there is the old adage “jack of all trades, master of none”— but interdisciplinary work is critical to making scientific progress. One of the best examples of this is the development of MRI scanners. This instrument, critical for medical diagnostics, was born from nuclear magnetic resonance (a topic taught in organic chemistry!). However, nuclear magnetic resonance was actually developed by physicists Rabi, Bloch, and Purcell. Chemists then learned of the new technology and realized it could be applied to the characterization of molecules. Ultimately, it was chemist Paul Lauterbur whose expertise in chemistry served as the basis for translating this same technology to medical imaging. To me, the moral of this story is that the more we know, the more we are able to use our expertise to provide insight in a field outside our own. As academics, the goal should not be to know less, it should always be to strive to learn more.
As it applies specifically to pre-med students, I think it is important to focus on desired outcomes when discussing required prerequisites. What is the purpose of requiring pre-health students to take organic chemistry? Do the desired learning outcomes differ from that of chemistry majors? For chemistry majors, I believe the goal should be to provide a solid foundation to be able to understand the state-of-the-art in upper division classes and research articles. A pre-health major, on the other hand, doesn’t need to know specifics like transition metal catalyzed cross coupling reactions. So what is the utility of organic chemistry for pre-health? One reason, in my opinion, is because physicians prescribe drugs. Many drugs are small molecules, some of which are stereoisomers (another important concept learned in organic chemistry!). Prescribing medication is part of the job description, and I personally believe that physicians and other medical professionals should have a general understanding of organic chemistry for that reason alone. As an added bonus, organic chemistry also helps develop pattern recognition and problem solving skills, which are arguably also important. Should pre-health and chemistry majors take the same level organic chemistry class? Well, that’s a topic beyond the scope of this post… but I believe pre-health students should take at least a general survey of organic chemistry.
On Memorization
Many undergraduates who take sophomore organic chemistry believe that organic chemistry requires rote memorization. On the other hand, career organic chemists tend to believe that students cannot be successful if they memorize their way through organic chemistry. The foundation of the chemist’s argument is sound: you have to understand the rules that govern molecular interactions to understand reactions you haven’t seen before. However, I believe that the ability of a student to adequately apply these rules is often limited by the sheer amount of information required to understand what an organic chemistry lecture is even about!
Before I continue, I have a personal anecdote about memorization: I’m half Iranian, so I grew up speaking Farsi with my mom and her family. When I went to UCSD, I enrolled in a class called “Persian for Persian speakers” to learn how to read and write in Farsi. To accommodate all Persian speakers, the class was separated into beginner and intermediate groups. The beginner group was strictly students who didn’t know the alphabet, while the intermediate/advanced group were students who were already proficient in reading and writing. In this class, there was a student that was placed in the beginner group. Two weeks in, the professor recognized that this student already knew the alphabet and scolded them. The student responded— I don’t know the alphabet, I just memorized it! The professor then said: “knowing the alphabet and memorizing the alphabet are the same thing. If you know the name of the letter, what it sounds like, and what it looks like, then you know the alphabet.” While I think that statement alone is a bit reductionist, at its core it’s true— reading and writing begins with memorizing the alphabet.
What I’ve always found so beautiful about organic chemistry is that it is a language of its own—and I think that what I find beautiful about it is exactly what makes students so frustrated. We may learn fundamentals in general chemistry, but there is a reason organic chemistry classes start with nomenclature—students need to learn how to speak the language of organic chemistry before they can apply it to problems. So, in my opinion, to say that memorization is not a substantial component of organic chemistry is not true. Organic chemistry is a new language, and you have to memorize the alphabet of organic chemistry before you can apply it to its written or spoken word. The textbook that I learned and taught from, Vollhardt and Schore, even describe organic chemistry as a language in its first chapter: “Organic chemistry is a language where reactions are the vocabulary, and mechanisms are the grammar”.
To be clear, there is a fundamental difference between memorizing and understanding, and I agree with most organic chemists that it is difficult to succeed without understanding the fundamentals. But what does it mean to “know” something? Think about assigning R vs S— if you have not memorized the Cahn-Ingold-Prelog rules, then you will not be able to assign stereochemistry. Beyond that, you wont be able to accurately describe molecules as enantiomers or diastereomers if you do not memorize the definition of those words. The first portion of organic chemistry is filled with never before seen rules and definitions that you can’t always understand your way out of memorizing. But at some point in the middle of the course, it transitions from definition-based knowledge to chemical intuition-based knowledge. In my opinion, this distinction is not always made clear, and as a result, students tend to conflate vocabulary that they need to remember versus fundamental topics they need to understand.
So what does it mean to know something? I am inclined to believe that knowledge is memorization with understanding. That is to say, if you don’t remember something, then it is impossible to understand it. But it is possible to remember something and not know it or understand it. One way to demonstrate understanding is to apply key elements of a topic to a completely different system. Alternatively, I think one of the greatest ways to demonstrate understanding is being able to teach it at a basic level. I’ve found that explaining topics to students and mentees has allowed me to cement my understanding of complex topics, and has even exposed gaps in my understanding of topics that I believed that I “knew” for years.
Final Thoughts
Oftentimes, once a person has learned something, we forget what it was like to not know it. It becomes second nature to us— and to quote a student evaluation I once received, we hold “the burden of knowledge”. My opinion is that many organic chemists don’t remember what it was like to learn organic chemistry. I think many are so far removed from undergraduate education that they truly forget the days when they didn’t know about resonance, formal charges, and functional groups. I also believe that medical professionals don’t remember what it was like before they knew organic chemistry. Though the topics learned are not being used daily as a practicing physician, the logic and critical thinking skills gained from a properly taught organic chemistry class are invaluable.
Ultimately, I believe we should have compassion for our students, and that our biggest failing as educators is not stressing the importance of the topics that we teach. We should ensure that our classes include the bigger picture, the “why”. Because there is no point in knowing “what” if we don’t know “why”.