[stewie griffin]

This may not be the best forum for this question, but I'm interested in what organic folks have to say. Feel free to move this to a different forum if needed. Anyway...
I'm curious as to what you think about teaching organic chemistry in high school either as a replacement for the standard high school curriculum in the US or perhaps as an advanced junior or senior year science elective (students would have already taken the normal high school chemistry).
It seems to me that high school chemistry and first year college chemistry (gen chem) is a mash-up of physical, analytical, and inorganic chemistry. I don't see these concepts as being any easier to understand than organic, and in fact for those that aren't math studs I imagine organic could be more comprehensible than some physical and analytical topics. IMHO organic is more "relatable" than most of what's in the high school. I recall not knowing what Gibbs free energy was when I was just a wee high school level chemist-in-training. However, I understood the idea of protiens/DNA/carbons bonded to hydrogens/etc. Sadly any and all "organic" chemistry I got in high school came from my AP biology course when we covered macromolecules. I just don't understand the seemingly arbitrary decision to leave out organic.
My thinking is that after covering atomic structure and bonding, why not move into the realm of organic chemistry rather than talk about gas laws, colligative properties, electrochemistry...? Those are interesting, but for students that are thinking about becoming future doctors/nurses why not expose them to chemistry that's perhaps more biologically relevant. I of course am very biased towards organic and I don't mean to step on anyone's toes.
So again, do you think teaching organic could work at the high school level?

[408]

Speaking as technically an inorganic/materials chemist, that likes organic theory, but has a low experimental tolerance for columns....  

I Agree mostly.  In High school I was only briefly introduced to organic and I enjoyed it very much.  Likewise with electrochemistry.  I found these the most hands on and the type of learning that would allow me to learn how to do something.  Gas laws and thermodynamics, not so interesting.
Mind you I disagree that the focus must be solely biological....as an early undergraduate I enjoyed learning about how to make medicine/drugs, explosives, polymers, superconductors, semiconductors, organic LEDs, solar cells, semiconductor nanoparticles etc. ( The mention of proteins/DNA puts me to sleep.  )  Chemistry for a purpose, not just mental masturbation(in ref to physical, not biological   ). But this may just be my materials background biasing me of course.

I think if there was more of a focus on the chemistry that goes into everyday life, than mundane uninteresting  material (cough physical) interest in introductory chemistry would be much higher.


But after reading my post, and your post, I think both of us are coming from the background of "why do they not teach more of MY chemistry"

[tmartin]

I am also biased, being a synthetic organic chemist, however I don't see why organic would not, or should not be introduced at the high school level.  My old high school (a run of the mill public school in the middle of nowhere Pennsylvania) had three levels of chemistry, the traditional general chemistry 1 and 2 and a special topics course.  In my general chem 2 class, my teacher referred to organic chemistry as crap, because it's the chemistry of C, which stands for crap (I'm assuming he was an inorganic chemist at heart, but I don't know, and in his defense he was one of the best teachers I've had), I wonder if that is a view of organic common in high schools?  I took the special topics course not knowing what to expect...it was taught by a retired analytical chemist from industry, and he focused mainly on organic chemistry (IR, MS, grignard reagents are the few that really stand out in my memory).  I enjoyed it, and it helped guide me into the field (a little, anyway). 

I think along the lines of what 408 said, it would be interesting to learn more about real world chemistry and how it applies to the here and now (especially for a high school student), on a broader scope at first.  I also wonder how much of it is left to the individual teachers, I'm sure you have some freedoms as to what is incorporated into a lesson plan, and what anecdotes you choose to tell.

After my wall of text that may or may not be relevant,  I'd say yes I think it should be taught in high schools, with a focus on basic principles and applications and maybe a little less on the nuts and bolts (so long as it's not taught incorrectly the rest can be filled in in more advanced settings).

[stevet]

Hi people!
A little different perspective...I'm from South Africa, and after a recent national syllabus change for the high school science science programme (we work on a different system), there has been a move to incorporate more organic chemistry into the syllabus. When I finished school (in 2005) we did the absolute basics: naming of basic functional groups (alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, alcohols etc) and some of their basic reactions, like ester formation, combustion etc.
Now, as far as i know, they have really expanded the syllabus, to include more reactions which I find quite interesting. However, this is still covered in the space of about 3 weeks, which when compared to the other 'main' branches of chem, is relatively little.
I have a friend studying with me from Zimbabwe, which as far as I have seen, has potentially the best school organic chemistry syllabus I have seen (it was a good school in Zim, so it may have been beyond the normal syllabus), however, it included topics like carbonyl chemistry, nucleophillic addition, basics of NMR, electrophillic addition and more!
But, like you have all said, its gunning for what you enjoy most (mine's organic)
Regards
Steve

[Doc Oc]

I TA'ed a summer program for high school students and we introduced them to several concepts of organic chemistry.  They got to do some real cool and simple experiments like acetylating salicylic acid and making soap from coconut oil and aqueous NaOH, and most of them absolutely loved it.  A good lot of them came in brooding and sulky because it was clear their parents were forcing them to do something academic for the summer (what high school kid wants to spend a month of their summer doing THAT?)  But by the end most of them were real happy they came and a good number of them have stuck with chemistry/science in their college educations.

[dunno260]

Though I went to a private college prep high school, there was often an OChem elective offered of some sort.  Either it was a more traditional organic chemistry type lecture or a course on psychoactive compounds that would hit on organic chemistry, biochemistry, and biology, it would be offered.  I never got to take them due to some health complications with our chemistry teacher at the time, but i know it worked well.

I don't see how it would be that problematic.  In many ways, organic chemistry can be easier than some of the topics in general chemistry.  And there are certainly plenty of examples to show where/how its used in the real world.  But I think you can do the same thing with a lot of general chemistry.  Some units are harder to relate things to than others, but as often as you can try to relate it to something in the real world. 

[stewie griffin]

Thanks for all the replies thus far  . I agree with all the general comments thus far. BTW 408 I certainly didn't mean to suggest that we should just cover bio-related organic chemistry  (I just picked that as an off-the-cuff example). I agree that there are so many cool real world applications of organic chemistry and these would really get kids interested in science. Well I'm glad to see it's not unheard of to have some organic in high school. Unfortunately for me my high school and the surrounding schools didn't touch organic.

 

In many ways, organic chemistry can be easier than some of the topics in general chemistry. 

This leads into my next part of the question (which is probably more rhetorical than anything else) but why then aren't more and more high schools having organic chemistry be THE chemistry curriculum instead of something that gets added on as an elective or special topics course?

[orgopete]

I was in the agrochemical industry. Don't touch the chemicals. We did to plants what doctors do to humans. The logical extension should be, "Don't take any drugs." The gap is enormous. That is the reason I would like to see organic chemistry taught to everyone. My objection to the way chemistry is taught is that generally, students cannot relate from their H.S. chemistry to the real world chemistry. What is the point?

I also had the opportunity to teach an introduction to science course. I was not particularly fond of how it was taught. For me, I preferred to focus on the need to think scientifically and I tried to address instances in which the world of science applied to the average person. Organic chemistry seems like it should fill the bill. If you go to the drug store, the garden store, go to the doctor, read the newspaper, listen to Oprah, etc., the chemistry being discussed is usually organic chemistry. Teaching organic chemistry seems like a no-brainer.

The problem I see is a pedagogical one. Organic chemistry can be a notoriously difficult class. It is one for which, "If you don't understand it, memorize it" is common. This forum attracts a range of questions to exemplify this pedagogical difficulty. I think that teachers would prefer the rules and mathematics of general chemistry.

It is my opinion that even for teaching organic chemistry at the college level, a wide range of styles are being used. I find retrosynthesis currently fashionable (yet many of the students cannot predict the products of the reaction if given the starting material) while other professors emphasize quantum mechanics, spectroscopy, etc., etc.

As much as I too would like to see organic chemistry to be taught at the high school level, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. I think this is a pity as the analogy I like to suggest is that organic chemistry is like the vocabulary of chemistry, while general chemistry is like the grammar. Start with the vocabulary.

[Borek]

One thing that so far nobody has signaled is that chemistry is seen as similar to biology - no math, just a bunch of more or less (un)related facts. A lot of people coming to study chemistry have no idea that they may need math and what for. Unfortunately, organic chemistry - with a lot of hand waving - will only support this way of thinking.

[408]

I just checked a couple university program guides.  One of the two does not require any organic chemistry experience to get the degree required to teach high school.  It was optional, and undergraduate organic widely has the perception of being the toughest class (at least where I come from).

[Dan]

Unfortunately, organic chemistry - with a lot of hand waving - will only support this way of thinking.

I see where you're coming from here. The problem with teaching real organic chemistry at high school level is that without a bit of background in quantum and other core general chemistry concepts it often feels like a collection of isolated observations, rules and exceptions for young students. It is difficult to join the dots when you don't really have the knowledge required to see the links, but is possible to teach some aspects without generating too much confusion - the key is mechanism and basic ionic mechanisms can be rationalised in terms of simple Coulombic interactions most of the time.

When I did my high school education here in the UK there was almost no organic chemistry, and even less mechanism. I think we learned that acid catalysed esterification existed, dichromate oxidised alcohols and lithium aluminium hydride reduced carbonyls. Maybe addition of HBr to alkenes too. I was doing some private tuition last year for a high school student and things have improved. The exams covered electrophilic aromatic substitution mechanism (albeit in a simplified form) and had students interpret simple NMR spectra. Although the mechanisms were simplified it was still enough for the student to make sense of what was going on and, with a bit of prodding, learn to apply the "- attacks +" approach to other reactions and start demystifying some of the less straightforward transformations. The student found this helpful and said that after learning why the reaction happens it was easier to remember the material - the emphasis on teaching kids to pass exams at the expense of understanding can be shameful here.

Basically, I think organic could be effectively taught before University but it has to be done carefully with properly qualified teachers.

[stewie griffin]

I'm gathering so far for reasons why organic isn't the standard high school chem course:
1) If organic were to be taught then you'd have to pick and choose wisely so that the students don't perceive the course to be just magic and hand waving. Chose new topics carefully so as to build off of previously learned topics rather than just sloshing through seemingly random facts.
2) There's potential problems with not having the proper background from gen chem (quantum/bonding/others) to explain/understand certain concepts for organic chem.
3) How to prevent students from simply resorting to memorization (which BTW I did heavily for physical chemistry... got an A both semesters in college but couldn't tell you a thing about what I was actually solving or what it meant)
4) It requires more effort on the teacher's part to find solutions to the above problems, whereas it's easy to just stick with the status quo. Why introduce organic chemistry when you can build off of a student's current knowledge of math in order to explain some math related chemistry concepts..
5) Lack of qualified teachers. Come to think of it, all of the folks from my college that went on to be either high school or community college teachers were the ones that hated/struggled with organic chemistry. So I'm sure there's no way they'll be touching organic chemistry in their courses.
Very interesting. I wonder if more "qualified" organic chemists would be willing to teach a modified organic course for high school if the pay were better. IMHO most organic folks perceive the good salaries to be in either big pharma or faculty appointments at research universities.

[Biopolmonkey]

I took my A-levels in the UK about 7yrs ago. I feel our chem syllabus was pretty balanced; in org we learnt naming conventions, functional groups, aromaticity, maybe 5-10 mechanisms and interpreted some simple NMR (and maybe more, but this is what I remember).

I think the post above hit the nail on the head. Almost my whole class hated organic because it seemed to come from nowhere, and we found it very difficult. It was only when I started my degree that I finally 'got' org, once some of the underlying concepts had been explained in greater detail. Up to that point, I relied heavily on just memorising things and even considered giving up chem because of how well I didn't cope with org at school.

[OrganicSynthesis]

You need people who can actually teach organic chemistry. It is not that difficult to learn things such as Gibbs free energy calculations and potentially answer any question a student poses, however, if you are teaching organic chemistry, there are way too many questions that could result that only people who really took organic chemistry deeply could answer.

Despite how much I would like organic chemistry to be more strongly in the curriculum, I don't think there would be enough teachers up to the challenge. Organic chemistry, I think, is one of the most sensitive of all subjects in chemistry. If you teach one little thing wrong, the student will get confused in the entire subject. On the other hand, a little error in something such as physical chemistry can easily be corrected.