From chemistry-request ^at^ ccl.net Wed Jun 10 18:49:21 1992 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 09:30:55 -0400 From: fredvc #at# esvax.dnet.dupont.com To: chem ":at:" chem Subject: RE: COMPUTER LANGUAGES Status: RO Imagine my surprise to login this morning and find 12 netter messages, 9 of which were devoted to the issue of FORTRAN as a "foreign" language!!! This notion seems imminently "practical" on the surface but, in my judgement, does not hold up under closer examination. I think too much is made of the foreign language requirement as an "obstacle" to getting one's degree,... and research advisors encourage the carping that goes on because they don't want their students taking time off from their research to prepare for these exams. I simply told my advisor that I was going into seclusion for ~4 weeks each time (He was decidedly NOT thrilled!!). I studied the language 8-10 hours a day, and passed each on the first try (German in 1964, French in 1965). In truth, I spent LESS time on the languages than my colleagues who (a) spent numerous hours complaining about the requirement, (b) studied half-heartedly, (c) failed the exam, and (d) wound up taking the course to meet the requirement. I HAD finished two years of German in college (1957). and my MS advisor very wisely urged me to take the first-year college French course (1959). My "success", however, stemmed from the fact that I looked upon the languages requirements as a legitimate requirement ("They" got to make the rules, after all!!), and treated it as such!! o Do I have working familiarity with either French or German??... not at the moment. I have never developed good conversational skills. o Could I manage to translate German or French text??... with the aid of a dictionary. I have, on several occasions, done my own translations of technical stuff when the wait for our translation service was longer than I could tolerate. o Have I used French or German in a cultural context???... a little: (a) I remember enough to know when opera libretti, art songs, etc., have been badly translated; (b) I am having some fun now doing my own translations of the texts of the chorales that Bach used for Der (Die?, Das?) Orglebuchlien. I do not believe that there has ever been a consensus as to the purpose of the foreign language requirement(s) for advanced degrees in the US. I have encountered two, rather different, rationales: (1) The view most often expressed within the natural sciences community goes something like this: "The purpose in gaining mastery of foreign languages is to enable one to read the literature *IN ONE'S FIELD*. The languages chosen should represent the countries most active in one's field." Thus, the options for scientists have tended to be German, and French or Russian. {My German exam was based on this view. We had to handle some simple grammar, vocabulary (Ger <-> Eng.), and general translation, but then went on to the translation (Ger -> Eng) of a technical article.} (2) From the liberal arts camp I have heard the following: "The language requirements for the Ph. D. are CULTURAL requirements. A truly edu- cated person should be able to read the great literature of the ages (meaning, usually, the great literature of western civilization!) IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, thereby capturing the nuances originally intended by the authors." This view has evolved from an earlier description of the truly educated person as one who had mastered Greek (for the study of the Bible in its original text, and Latin (to be able to follow the mass, and to read the writings of the early church fathers). {My French exam started out much like the German. However, there was no technical translation involved. The "trial by fire" was a large section dealing with *French synonyms*!!} Clearly, neither FORTRAN or C constitutes a "foreign language" under either of these rationales. One must take a rather narrow, "careerist" view of the Ph. D. degree to come up with a rationale for acceptance of programming languages in lieu of a "real" language. This may be appropriate for a "D. Chem." degree but not, I think for a Ph. D. degree. If one remembers that "Ph. D." stands for *Doctor of Philosophy*, one has to question the "careerist" view that currently prevails towards the degree, especially in the sciences, and PARTICULARLY in chemistry. How many recent Ph. D. organic chemists are truly competent to teach undergraduate physical chemistry, or vice versa??? I admit to being rather sensitive on this issue, for I benefited greatly from the older view that all Ph. D. chemists should be well schooled in the basics of all areas. My mentor went through grad school at a time when ALL students had to take the advanced courses in each area. (Yes, not passing advanced organic could derail a would-be physical chemist!!) Having gone to a small school which lost its physical chemist to industry, I thank the "old" system each day that there was someone there who could competently step into the breach for us. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FREDERIC A. VAN-CATLEDGE Scientific Computing Division || Office: (302) 695-1187 Central Research & Development Dept. || FAX: (302) 695-9658 The Du Pont company || P. O. Box 80320 || Internet: fredvc ":at:" esvax.dnet.dupont.com Wiilmington DE 19880-0320 || ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++