TEACHING CHEMISTRY UNDERGRADUATES ENOUGH CRYSTALLOGRAPHY. Ward Robinson.

During the past 40 years the content of undergraduate chemistry courses has not changed greatly at the introductory level. This is evident if one examines dominant first year texts in inorganic, organic or physical chemistry. These traditional divisions of chemistry were all included in Linus Pauling's " General Chemistry" first published in 1947. Indeed those 710 pages also contain an introductory chapter on biochemistry and made minor but effective use of coloured diagrams. Present day popular texts are physically larger and use colour extensively and effectively but cover essentially the same material without which it is simply not possible to advance to the serious mastery of the subject expected of chemistry graduates. It is in this advanced study that we see enormous changes reflecting the stupendous wealth of new knowledge uncovered by chemists all over the world during a golden era in which many governments invested heavily in fundamental and applied research.

One consequence of this vast proliferation of factual material, not to mention the equally vast literature of conjecture the facts generate, is the competition for teaching time deemed the minimum essential by proponents of all the different facets of the subject including crystallography. The undergraduates still have only four years, at most, during which time they must be presented a balanced view of chemistry. Where does crystallography fit in and how much of it is essential?

One minimalist view of this will be presented. The perspective will be that of a chemical crystallographer with 30 year's teaching experience in a well equipped university but tempered by 10 years involvement in teaching programs in Asia where the perceived needs can be very different.