Organic Chemistry A & B - Why?

I just finished grading my second exam of the semester.  Teaching a Chem and Biochem majors organic course has advantages and disadvantages, both of which are clear upon grading an exam.  The are a few students who really care and show a clear desire to understanding of the material and go beyond it.  There are also a uncomfortably large number of students who make me suspect that they have never heard of general chemistry let alone organic chemistry.  (I am not sure how this can be the case in the second semester of organic, but it is.)  This later group are only chemistry majors as a stepping stone to pharmacy school or are biochemistry majors who believe that biochemists don't need to know organic chemistry.

During the bout of mild depression that follows grading I find myself struggling with the balance between a life-of-the-mind approach to education and technical training.  In the life-of-the-mind approach I try to teach my students to think like scientists, with an emphasis on applying that thinking to organic chemistry topics.  In the technical training approach I try to give the student just those tools they need to move forward in their careers.

The technical training approach is very much in vogue today lead primarily by those who appear to believe that we have reached the end of scientific advancement and our graduates will never see anything that is not already known. Obviously, I see this, in its purest form, as a shortsighted and detrimental focus to education.  I don't understand how scientists can embrace an approach so antithetical to the idea of the scientific method.  This mode of teaching creates good technicians, not good scientists.

The life-of-the-mind approach is demeaned in our anti-intellectual society as being an ivory tower perspective, which it is, in its purest form.  Often I find myself wondering why we are covering some of the outdated and, for practical modern day purposes, useless chemistry we see in organic courses.  I can see a rationalization that points toward a training of the mind, although I am suspicious of such arguments.  This method creates people who can think-tank a problem, without dealing with the practical realities.

As I am sure many readers will agree, I think the key to a good educational system is to balance the two views.  This leads me to a questions for which I have no answers.  In a fundamental sense, what is the balance we trying to convey to students in the two semester organic course?  Do our texts and examination methods reflect that balance?

With the increased reliance on multiple choice exams and larger class sizes I fear that we are moving increasingly toward credentialing to the technical training side.  I don't believe that this approach will make either our graduates or our economy competitive in the future.

I look forward to the thoughts of readers.

T.S. Hall