An earlier editorial noted that the CPT is working on a new set of guidelines for undergraduate programs and a call for input was included in that same issue (1). The CPT is now proposing significant changes in the guidelines (2). The CPT has listed four major goals for this effort:

• Make the guidelines simpler and streamline procedures for ACS approval of programs
• Provide for greater flexibility in design of certified programs and degrees
• Encourage innovations in curricula and pedagogy by approved departments
• Define attributes of faculty and infrastructure required for excellent undergraduate programs

Changes in the CPT guidelines require much input from a broad range of chemists and considerable effort to reach consensus. Major changes do not happen very often. When they do, it is important that everyone involved in chemical education make certain that the goals for the new guidelines are reasonable and that the new guidelines actually meet those goals.

The proposed new guidelines define “foundation course work” to consist of a one-semester course (at least three semester credit hours) in each of five major areas: analytical, biochemistry, inorganic, organic, and physical. A one- or two-semester introductory course precedes that foundation but is not part of it. Following the foundation courses there must be the equivalent of four semesters (12 semester credit hours) of “in-depth course work”. This might include the second semester of courses such as organic or physical that are normally offered as a two-semester sequence, or it might involve a course that integrated several foundation areas (and had the corresponding foundation courses as prerequisites), or it might be a specialized course—even one taught in a different department—that would support a department-defined “degree track”. In-depth courses are broadly defined so that departments can offer specialized degrees that focus on a subdiscipline or are interdisciplinary.

Where the current guidelines list several degree options (Chemistry, Biochemistry, Chemical Physics, Environmental Chemistry, Materials, Polymers, and Chemical Education), the proposed guidelines provide for degree tracks. A degree track is a specialized curriculum that meets the foundation, in-depth, and laboratory requirements and focuses on a target area that might be interdisciplinary. Examples of degree tracks are any of the degree options already listed, bioanalytical chemistry, forensic chemistry, and green chemistry. Departments are encouraged to be imaginative in using the expertise of their faculty, their symbiotic relations with chemical industry, interactions with other departments or programs in the same or other institutions, or other unique aspects of their programs to create new degree tracks.

The proposed new guidelines require “laboratory experience equivalent to 400 hours beyond introductory chemistry”. At least 180 of these laboratory hours should accompany the foundation course work and should preferably involve all five foundation areas. This is a change from the 500 contact hours required for core and advanced laboratory courses in the current guidelines, but the 400-hour total does not include laboratory in the introductory course(s). Undergraduate research that produces a “comprehensive written report” can count toward in-depth laboratory hours.

The proposed guidelines are less specific than the current version in many areas. For example, chemical information resources are dealt with in a single paragraph where nearly a full page was devoted to chemical literature and library requirements previously. Mathematics and physics requirements are listed as two semesters of calculus and two of calculus-based physics where previously knowledge of linear algebra and statistics were mentioned. The requirement of a foreign language has disappeared. On the other hand, an excellent list of process skills lists abilities that graduates should gain from an ACS-certified degree program. Five, rather than four, faculty are expected in an approved program in order to span the diversity of modern chemistry. The proposed guidelines intend to “facilitate change in the way chemistry courses are taught”. Finally, a major section on program evaluation is included with the goal that regular departmental self-study with input from students, faculty, graduates, and outside assessors should continuously improve curricula and programs.

It is impossible to list all of the differences between the existing and the proposed guidelines in the short space of this editorial. Consequently I strongly encourage you to visit the CPT Web site (2), read the proposed guidelines, and respond with your comments before the June 1 deadline. The greater the input from the chemistry teaching community, the better an already good set of guidelines will become.

Literature Cited

1. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1687; Crim, F. Fleming; Polik, William F. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1695.
2. ACS Committee on Professional Training, Proposed Revision of the ACS Guidelines for Undergraduate Chemistry Programs [PDF] (both accessed Mar 2006).