CHEMISTRY.

Chemistry, after math, is the most logical starting place for premeds for several reasons:

(1) The chemistry sequence is two or more years long and should be completed by the beginning of senior year;

(2) Bio 2 and Nat Sci 5 as well, require familiarity with chemistry;

(3) Many advanced biology courses require or recommend chemistry courses; and,

(4) Since Chem 20 is the Waterloo of so many premeds, (and, since it promises to be the Waterloo of many more premeds since the recent prerequisites have been added), it is best to prepare for Chem 20 early along in college and avoid leaving it for the senior year.

Fallacies in thinking have led to the conclusion of both the Biology Department and those professors teaching Chem 20, that Chem 6 is better preparation for Chem 20 than Nat Sci 3 with either Chem 40a or, now, Chem 5. Thus, a recent flyer entitled "Information for Freshmen Considering Concentration in Biology" states:

...WHAT TO TAKE YOUR FRESHMAN YEAR...

3). If you are qualified to take Chem 6, you should do so. Statistics have shown that it is substantially better preparation for Chem 20.

And, at the initial meeting of Chem 20, Professor Doering stated that one in four students who fail to have the prerequisites as listed in the catalogue under Chem 20 (i.e., an A or A-in Nat Sci 3, an average of B-or better in Nat Sci 3 and Chem 40a, or a C or better in one semester of Chem 6) will earn a grade below C-in Chem 20 on the basis of previous years' data.

OBVIOUSLY, more capable science students and those students with stronger science backgrounds elect the more difficult science courses (i.e., Chem 6). Thus, it is not surprising that those students who have taken Nat Sci 3 do less well in Chem 20 than others. While one-fourth of those lacking the stated prerequisite for Chem 20 do lower than C-work in the course, it would be helpful to know first how that compares with other students enrolled in the course, and second, how well the other three-fourths of students without the prerequisites do. It would be especially interesting to know whether other factors, for example, SAT scores in Math, explain Chem 20 performance.

The real issue, it seems to me, is a moral one. While I entirely sympathize with the professors teaching Chem 20 about the need for better preparation before doing Chem 20, I do not agree with a set of prerequisites that may preclude certain students from enrolling. According to yesterday's Crimson, "the prerequisites for Chem 20 have been overhauled, presumably to reduce the unmanageable size of the course."

As a premedical advisor, I might tell a senior applying to a certain medical school that I fear he will be rejected or that he has a very slim (or virtually no) chance of being admitted; I could not tell that same student not to apply. Similarly, I can explain to a student that he has a poor chance of doing well, but I cannot tell him not to enroll in a course that is required for concentration in both Biology and Biochemistry and that is required for application to medical schools. Some students were frightened away from the first session of Chem 20 because of the prerequisites as listed in the catalogue, and many were phenomenally discouraged after the first meeting because of the tone set by Professor Doering. It is in no way consoling to hear, as stated in the Crimson yesterday, that

...due to the abruptness of the prerequisite policy change, students who have been adversely affected by the new requirements may find it easier than ever to talk themselves into the course...

Because of the prerequisites, some students will be greatly inconvenienced in having to rearrange their schedules--schedules that are often planned two to three years in advance. Perhaps some students will fail to enroll in Chem 20 at a time that would optimize their chances at gaining admission to medical school. I must agree with the Chem 20 instructors that good performance in Chem 20 is desired outcome. However, to suggest that performance in Nat Sci 3 or Chem 6 is a good indicator of projected performance in an organic chemistry course ignores both the initial factors determining who takes which introductory chemistry sequence and the backgrounds and aptitudes of those various students. While individual cases may have been leniently considered this year, permitting most students interested to enroll in Chem 20, the attitude of the teachers is somewhat disheartening. It is known that the need to teach Chem 20 is regarded as a "chore" and probably is resented by those chemistry faculty who see premeds as a drain on their time. This was reflected in what I felt was a harsh tone in the initial class of Chem 20. All of the students failing to meet the prerequisites as stated in the catalogue were called together in a single room, and thereby, rather inappropriately I feel, singled out during the last 20 minutes of the class. Certainly the increasing enrollment in Chem 20 is a problem of large dimensions that needs solutions; such solutions might include two levels of Chem 20 or a condensed double course offered in one semester, such as those offered in the languages.