Revival of the Chemistry Set

Hard core A-levels are back in fashion, with a revival in students wanting to study chemistry Only five years ago the sense of despair among the chemistry teaching community in England and Wales was almost overwhelming. The numbers of applicants for the so-called real A-Levels in maths, physics and biology had been in relentless decline, but chemistry was suffering the most in terms of numbers choosing courses.

This relentless downward spiral was like a virus. It spread to the chemistry, physics and biology departments in colleges and universities throughout England, threatening them with closure or swinging cuts. The Government, under Labour, failed to come to their rescue in terms of fiscal, cultural and ‘spiritual’ support.

Any young scientific talent coming through the A-Level system would have to compete for a drastically reduced number of places in fewer universities offering these degree courses. The feeling in sixth forms five years ago was: “If there was no certainty of obtaining a place on a chemistry or physics degree course, why bother with the grind of pure science A-Level?” Some teachers feared that chemistry might disappear altogether from school timetables.

Those lucky and clever enough to be invited onto these classic courses would be an elite – and that could only be positive for the students fortunate enough to gain entry to those universities still in the ring – but not good for the economy in the longer term.

Bodies like the Institute of Physics were persistently crying foul – but it seemed they were crying in the wilderness. The Royal Society of Chemistry – with its 47,500 members – felt chemistry had suffered most from this corrosive attitude. It had been calling for input into the teaching of chemistry for 25 years but any influence it had in the corridors of power seemed to have little effect.

Professor Phillips is urging the Government to build modern, well-equipped school laboratories to ensure that young people have access to practical work and experiments in inspiring surroundings

Soon came a chain reaction – in the early part of the last decade university chemistry departments began to fold, with the demand for science degree places crumbling. Pupils baulked at taking on the challenge of a science degree or were distracted by “sexier” courses in media, computer graphics or gaming. At the heart of this skewed thinking seemed to be the idea: “better a Level 3 award in hair styling than a three or four year struggle to grasp the concepts of a pure science”. Exeter, Swansea and Coventry decided to ditch chemistry and insiders were gloomily predicting there would only be six universities offering pure chemistry degrees by 2015. And all this was under new Labour, a Labour Party which in the sixties famously trumpeted the slogan White Heat technology as a banner for UK prosperity.

This year, education secretary Michael Gove has been calling for a return to real A-Levels and tougher examinations. There were signs that Gove was behind the curve as students themselves began to comprehend that to gain places at the best universities they have to meet the challenges of the tougher subjects head on. Now Mr Gove is fully in sync with them.

Leading universities have too long been operating lists of subjects that they say are not academically rigorous enough. Students taking more than one A-level in areas including media studies, dance, sports studies and travel and tourism are unlikely to be given a place at some top universities.

However the tide really seems to have turned according to recent figures: A-Level biology entrants are up 4.1%; physics numbers are up 5.2%; and maths entrants are up 6.2% on last year. The figures for chemistry have been a revelation with an increase of 9.2% from 44,051 last year to 48,082. Over five years the increase is 19.4%.

It seems to be a bottom up change in attitude, with evidence that students themselves are aware that if they are to be rewarded with sound meaningful careers with decent rewards reflected in juicier pay packets, they will have to tackle tougher A-levels.

President of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), Professor David Phillips, welcomed this sea change in attitude and the apparent revival of interest in chemistry at A-Level. He said there had been previous attempts to make science relevant, by linking it to contemporary concerns such as climate change or food scares.

But Professor Phillips maintains: "What [students] need is a rooting in the basic scientific principles, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics and Boyle's law etc."

When he appeared recently on the BBC’s Desert Island Discs Professor Philips had on his wish list the need to “encourage learning by allowing pupils to think and to make links, and not merely to cram facts."

Complacency about the nature of chemistry teaching could still be a problem as the young chemists once again flock to the school laboratory. Professor Phillips is urging the Government to build modern, well-equipped school laboratories to ensure that young people have access to practical work and experiments in inspiring surroundings.

"The revival is wonderful news and highlights the importance young people are placing on subjects of great value and academic rigour," he said.

"This International Year of Chemistry has been a great opportunity for the RSC to demonstrate to students how essential chemistry and chemistry research is in overcoming the challenges of sustainable food, water and energy, and maintaining the good health and economic prosperity of the country.

"Chemistry touches all our lives in ways we don't often realise and it is great so many students are taking up the subject, giving themselves a huge range of career options to decide on should they continue to study chemistry at university." Professor Phillips said: "If this can be achieved, along with dynamic professional training for teachers, the UK will be able to match the best in the world.

"If we fail now, by reverting to old-style learning-by-rote, by dampening pupils' enjoyment though grim laboratory experience, and by allowing teachers' skills to atrophy and stagnate, then we will stumble and fall back.

In the spring SCORE* – the 'science alliance' of Learned Societies – submitted its response to the Department of Education's call for evidence for the National Curriculum Review, with contributions from the RSC.

Pupils baulked at taking on the challenge of a science degree or were distracted by “sexier” courses in media, computer graphics or gaming

It urged the Government to develop a curriculum for the sciences that will be 'cultured, coherent, consistent and authentic' and they stressed the importance of fostering scientific thinking, encouragement of laboratory work and 'progression without needless repetition’.

Teaching standards need boosting too. In 2009, 9.7% of all teacher trainees (1,744 out of 18,030) had not gained at least a second class degree. However, the comparable figure is 26% for physics, 21% for maths, and 17% for chemistry according to the Centre for Education and Employment Research.

Perhaps the debate needs to be widened further though. Chemistry as a pure subject has changed since the days when pupils dabbled in rudimentary chemical distillation, fractionation and separation with basic bench-top equipment. Practical chemistry in the last fifty years has become more about mathematical modelling and molecular structure and this has left the traditional image of the kitchen chemist slightly in the shade.

Quantum chemistry has opened up a new world in which computers predict the behaviour of molecules in different structural environments and help design subtle catalysts and drugs to suit our needs. Men such as Nobel Prize winner, the late Sir John Pople and SF Boys at the height of their powers were instrumental in the drift from the study of pure and applied chemistry to one where mathematics pulls all the strings.

The paradox for chemistry as a study subject has always been that the more successful we are at understanding it, the less we appear to need test tubes, reflux devices and Bunsen burners.

Even so, if Britain is to compete effectively in the industrial and manufacturing arena we need to cultivate our young people in the skills of spectroscopic analysis and chemical synthesis earlier than at present. To get to that point they do need the basic chemistry which is at the core of all environmental science, geology, biochemistry and genetics. So it is wonderful to report that chemistry is again inspiring young people. Now we need the Government to bolster this revival by ensuring that the funds are in place to lift chemistry teaching to a higher level.

That way the next John Pople, Fred Sanger, Linus Pauling or Richard Synge may well be waiting in the wings.

Author Dermot Martin Dermot is a writer on Chemistry and media adviser for Bournemouth and Poole College