In catching up on my reading I was struck by a juxtaposition of the Editor's comments on "The End of Education as We Know It" (J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1255) and Richard Zare's Commentary on "Online Learning" (J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1106). Both of these authors spoke of the impact of computers on college/university teaching, and both from the perspective of one who loves teaching and helping young minds to reach their full potential.

I came away from reading these two articles with the feeling that both authors had missed emphasizing the most important part of teaching, however. They referred to three processes of education: the presentation of content, the transmission of information, and the assessment of achievement. Both seemed to agree that computers can be effectively utilized in these activities, and perhaps can result in increased efficiencies. I agree.

As a result of my 35 years of teaching organic chemistry to undergraduate and graduate students, to chemistry majors and nonmajors, I conclude that the most important part of education is not one of the three processes mentioned above. Instead, the major purpose of education is to teach students to think, and to give them something to think about! A good teacher uses information (content) to develop understandings and to explain concepts, which, it is hoped, the student will apply both in the classroom/laboratory and in the real world. Can this be accomplished through online learning?

My experience tells me that students have a more difficult time grasping concepts than memorizing information such as organic reactions. I spent a lot of my time dissuading undergraduate students from memorization, an apparently inbred standard approach to "learning". When I could convince them to not copy an example reaction from the blackboard but instead to follow along the thinking and reasoning I was elaborating, often I could literally see "the light go on" in their faces as they grasped the concept. Those moments provided me with the thrill of teaching, and more importantly, they provided the student with a lifelong understanding.

I am of the opinion that the unique capability of a faculty member outlined above is seldom accomplished using "online learning". It is for this reason that I agree with Professor Zare that "we should never lose the human touch." While computers and technology can be wonderful tools for assisting in the educational process, I question whether they can provide a full education, and certainly not in a field such as chemistry. I too encourage continued development of applications of available technology to assist in education, but I do not believe such approaches can effectively replace the teacher in the classroom or laboratory, at least for the majority of students.