Between the turn of the century and World War I, science departments increasingly emphasized laboratory work, adopted and assimilated Darwin's theories, and began sending ever greater numbers of students on to graduate studies in science. Despite the resignation of Henry Hopkins '58, and the inauguration of President H. A. Garfield '85, slow and steady growth marked this period of stability for science at Williams.
On the back cover of the October 1895 issue of the Williams Literary Monthly appeared an advertisement for Williams College. The half-page ad, placed below an advertisement for the Fitchburg Railroad and the Hoosac Tunnel Route, highlighted the college's science facilities. Science and mathematical subjects made up four of the College's eleven departments of instruction: Mathematics, Chemistry & Physics, Natural History, and Astronomy. The advertisement copy praised the science laboratories:
Laboratory work had become an essential component of science courses which were otherwise taught in the traditional lecture and recitation format. In chemistry, lab work occupied about one-third of the course time, about as much as it does nearly a century later. In physics, "experimental demonstrations" supplemented oral and written recitations and lectures. The Physics Department also offered a course in drawing "for those who may be entering teaching school", and a course entitled "Surveying and Theory of Equations of Practical Physics", which dealt with "physical measurements in the lab...with reference to scientific literature bearing on the problem." Such courses began to have two distinct texts, one for lecture-recitation and one for laboratory.
In 1903, Professor Leverett Mears published Outlines of Lectures on the Non-metallic Elements and Their Compounds, a book of lecture notes for use in chemistry courses at Williams College.[2] Such a book would usually be the only text for a science course, but it is not like late twentieth century textbooks. Mears' book is simply an outline of concepts, meant to be elaborated upon by the student after listening to the professor in class. To that end, every other page was left blank so the student had space to make additional notes. Professor Mears also published Outline of Qualitative Analysis.[3] Also a book of lecture notes, it outlined various strategies of qualitative analysis. Qualitative Analysis, however, was for laboratory use. Indeed, on the days when experiments required a good deal of acidic reagents, the owner of one surviving copy seems to have been nervous, spilling reagents all over his book. Some of the pages for those labs are completely eaten through.
Activity in the chemistry labs could apparently be exciting in the early years of the twentieth century. One student wrote his brother in 1904, telling him how busy he had been in the lab. He had spent a great deal of his time one week "analyzing some caustic soda sent in by a firm in Shelburne Falls."[4] Presumably the firm had been experiencing difficulties with a batch of soda. The student writes, "It appears, after analysis, that it has 20% or more impurities."[5] In the student's estimation, the caustic soda supplier had cheated his client. Ninety years later, student laboratory work is rarely as practical.
The same student continued to tell about the "fine explosion" in his lab the past week, claiming that some oxygen had somehow gotten into his hydrogen generator, causing it to "blow up gloriously."[6] Luckily, he writes, the only damage to his own person was "a dose of acid and glass in my face and on my sweater... None of the glass slivers lodged in my face, though it scratched me in several places around the eyes and nose."[7]
Laboratory exercises in physics also used books similar to Mears' Outline of Qualitative Analysis. Between 1903 and 1912 the department published several lab manuals, each by anonymous author(s), for different physics courses.[8] The titles, heat and light, mechanics and sound, magnetism and electricity, indicate that basic topics and experiments occupied students' time, much as they continue to do in the present.
The emerging importance of laboratory work had been underscored by the construction and renovation of the laboratory facilities at Williams College. Through the gift of Mrs. F.F. Thompson of Poughkeepsie, New York, work began on the Thompson Chemical Laboratory in 1892, the Thompson Biological Laboratory in 1893 and the Thompson Physical Laboratory in 1893. Each building cost approximately $60,000.[9] The Williams College Catalogue of 1895-1896 described the laboratories as follows:
The Biological Laboratory contains a laboratory for each class of work, a lecture room, library, collection room, and aquarium room. The laboratory is well equipped with microscopes, microtomes, collections, and all the appliances for general and advanced work. The Chemical Laboratory contains three large laboratories, lecture and recitation rooms, private laboratories and a reference library, all of which are supplied with the best modern appliances. The Physics Laboratory contains, in addition to a well appointed lecture room, a recitation room, separate laboratories for the work of the different classes, a department library, and rooms especially arranged for advanced work in electricity, magnetism, light, and chemical physics. Power is furnished by a Westinghouse engine of fifteen horse-power, and the electrical equipment includes a five-kilowatt dynamo, types of small dynamos and motors, Western measuring instruments, and galvanometers.[10]
Figure 11: Thompson Laboratories (c.1900-09), L to R: Physics, Chemistry, Biology
With time, the new laboratories gradually acquired additional instruments and apparatus. The 1912-1913 Williams College Catalogue description of the Biology Laboratory highlighted the "large series of charts, models, and illustrative collections, which are continually being increased."[11] The Biology Laboratory also had a "complete stereopticon outfit, with projection microscope and arc light."[12] Standard instruments for the measurement of voltage, capacitance and the like were added to the inventory of the Physics Laboratory.[13]
Figure 12:Thompson Biological Laboratory, ca. 1903
Figure 13: Thompson Physics Laboratory, ca. 1903
Figure 14: Thompson Chemistry Laboratory, ca. 1903
In 1912 renovation began on the Thompson Chemical Laboratories, about 20 years after their construction, and only 3 years before the fire which would destroy them in 1915. On January 18, 1913 the Williams Record reported that the renovation of the boiler room into a new Organic Chemistry laboratory was nearing completion. The new lab, "thoroughly fireproof," was fitted with modern improvements, including stairs, asphalt floors, and lighting from large windows. Laboratory desks were Georgia pine with slate backs and maple tops; all would be supplied with water, gas, and pressurized steam.[14] The renovations would revolutionize the safety and comfort of the Organic Chemistry labs, at least for the next two and one-half years.
Figure 15: Renovation of Thompson Chemical Laboratory
On December 7, 1915, the Williams Record's headline read: "Night Fire Completely Destroys Thompson Chemistry Labs-- Total Loss Estimated at nearly $100,000." Spontaneous combustion was initially blamed, but later investigation determined that an unextinguished cigarette in a waste pail from a northwest corner shop had started the blaze.
The leveling of the Chemistry building affected the whole college community, administrators, professors, and students. Personal losses to professors included lecture notes, records, and calculations. The greatest loss was suffered by Leverett Mears, who had lived in an apartment at the top of the laboratories. He lost forty years of accumulated data, records, notes, and calculations.[15] Some of Mears' acquaintances would later speculate that the blow from that loss may have hastened Mears' death in June, 1917.[16]
The fire posed the Administration two problems: how to rebuild and where to hold classes. For a time, chemistry classes were shifted to the Physics laboratory.[17] The insurance company awarded the college $47,000 in damages.[18] The Record reported on February 14, 1916 that Mrs. Frederick F. Thompson would donate $40,000 to help rebuild the laboratory, whose final cost on completion was estimated at $86,000[19]. The efficient floor plan of the rebuilt laboratory would allow space for a library and a larger recitation room. The building would be in a colonial style with very little wood, cement floors, pressed steel framework and modern labs with the most up-to-date equipment in the country.[20] By October 1916, in less than one year, the building was once more complete and ready for use.
A rapid rise in American graduate education in the sciences began to take place a decade after the Civil War. By 1876, when Johns Hopkins was founded as a research university without undergraduate students, only 44 doctorates in science had been granted by 25 American universities, since the first one at Yale in 1863.[21]
Always strongly represented in the curriculum, science attracted Williams students to professional post-graduate study; they, too, as mentioned in the preface, took part in the growth of professional research training in early 20th century America. The following table illustrates the plans of graduating Williams seniors in the early years of its second century.
Table 2: Graduate-Study and Williams Students[22]
| Class | 1897 | 1904 | 1909 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Science & Engineering | 16 | 12 | 15 |
| Business | 12 | 19 | 26 |
| Law | 21 | 15 | 16 |
| Other/Undecided | 24 | 34 | 36 |
| Total | 73 | 80 | 93 |
These data reveal a strong interest in the graduate study of science on the part of graduating seniors at Williams students.[23] In 1902, a statement by President Hopkins and the Trustees reflected concern that interest in graduate school had become perhaps too substantial: "A college should not become simply a preparatory department for the professional schools... " If still less popular than other professions, science, for William students, had nonetheless become an attractive professional study.
If for science at Williams, little significant institutional change other than growing emphasis on laboratory instruction and graduate training mark the pre-World War I years, one feature of the surrounding atmosphere had changed remarkably. Darwin's Origin of Species had appeared in 1859, and gone through six editions before Darwin's death in 1882. Darwinism, or the theory of descent with modification by natural selection, together with all its implications, including Social Darwinism, did not go unnoticed at Williams.
Students published essays on evolutionary biology and sociobiology in various Williams publications. In November 1895, W. D. Shannahan's "The Biologist's Standpoint" testified to his faith in science and evolutionary theory. He stated that the goal of the biologist is "to determine the whole truth fairly and accurately."[24] A complete believer in evolution, he wrote, "And as to the evolution theory there is not a shadow of doubt in the biologist's mind."[25]
Although some students and professors had accepted Darwin's theory, Darwinism only slowly made its way into the curriculum. The description of a Biology course in 1898 includes evolution, but just barely: "At the close of the course lectures are given on the work of Mr. Darwin and some related problems now attracting attention." In 1906 a new course, "Theory of Biology," treated the "general problems of biology" and considered "Lamarck and the Neo-Lamarckians... (including a full) discussion of the Theory of Natural Selection of Darwin and Wallace, on which the science of biology is based. (emphasis added). Attention is given to early criticism of the theory".[26] Judging from this description, it appears a radical paradigm shift had taken place, at least among the biology faculty; evolution had conquered the biological sciences at Williams.
It seems Darwin's theory may have conquered the students as well. In 1910, one student, reflecting on the expeditions of the Lyceum of Natural History noted first that "never once did the great theory of evolution as we know it to-day, direct the leaders." He went on to note, however, that "...Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace advanced the results of their investigations in 1859, but the change to the new belief came slowly at first and then swept madly aside everything of the old methods."[27]
Figure 16: Animal collection of the Biology Department
But despite intimations that Darwinism was atheism, one influential biologist at Williams maintained his religious faith, as the following letter to Professor Samuel Fessenden Clarke, Ph. D. (1851-1928) shows:
Dearly beloved Professor Clarke: " In the course of a conference of five neighboring colleges yesterday one of the speakers referred to you as "one who has taught biology for the glory of God." The statement elicited applause, and brought delight to my heart, renewing as it did the many little talks and walks we used to have together for the inspiration of the present." -- J.M.W. [28]Clarke's faith is further demonstrated by his own words:
"Violets and primroses--are they not good examples of the Creator's two flower color elements, the yellow granules and the purple liquid? What a world it is, and how a man does want to be worthy of it![29]
The minutes of faculty meetings reveal Clarke's appointment to be a leader of morning prayers, and his role, with Professor Mears and another, of making announcements following Thursday morning chapel services.
Unfortunately, Professor Clarke apparently burned all his lecture notes when he retired.[30] It would have been interesting to see how or whether in his teaching, he reconciled his twin faiths in biology and religion. If Clarke remained deeply religious, so did many other professors, some of whom managed to make accommodations between religious and scientific beliefs. Such accommodations were often uneasily maintained, however, and evolution would remain a controversial subject for many years to come.
In late 1902, Dr. Henry Hopkins, son of Mark Hopkins, became president of Williams College. He set for himself the task of reforming the curriculum of the College. The Williams curricular design was increasingly out of step with other leading colleges, because it had yet to offer any system of electives for Freshmen and Sophomores. For this reason President Hopkins thought that "'the present plan of study has become so cumbersome as to make some change necessary.'"[31]
In his inaugural address Hopkins noted the place of the sciences in the liberal arts curriculum, stating:
"Williams College stands unequivocally for that specific thing which we call the liberal education, and proposes to continue to stand for just that... What to include, what to require, where to bound the field of electives,... how to balance the humanities against the sciences, these are the delicate and difficult questions which continually recur; but the aim does not change."[32]In 1902, as one of his first acts of office, President Hopkins proposed a new curriculum based upon the group system. Under the new system, students were still required to take certain specified courses their first year. New, however, were the course 'groups' (what were later labeled 'divisions'). Each student, once he had passed the first year, was free to roam about the curriculum. Though there were what one might call 'distribution requirements,' they were not very constrictive. Thus, Williams joined the great majority of colleges in which the elective system and the absence of course requirements had led to curricular disarray.[33]
Figure 17: Williams College Curriculum 1903-1904
Five years later, although the President and the Trustees had stated that,
"a college should not become simply a preparatory department for the professional schools, but should claim for the full course in Liberal Arts ... an independent dignity and worth... [Thus, it is] By the grouping of subjects and the regulation of the number of choices in each group, it is believed that this curriculum, as compared with that now in use, will be conservative in the direction of the preservation of the college idea of a liberal education as distinguished from ...university courses."[34],Hopkins' idea for a new curriculum full of the dignity of the Liberal Arts ideal was nowhere to be found.
When H. A. Garfield became president in 1908, "only the foreign languages, the sciences, and one other department ... still stood out with organized sequences of courses. The rest were a hodgepodge of unconnected electives. It was generally recognized that a student who did not wish to work after sophomore year did not need to do so. By choosing the right electives ... he could be sure of his degree without opening a book... The demoralization of the student body was complete."[35]
Uniformity and coherence had disappeared from the curriculum and needed to be brought back.[36] Garfield's plan, submitted to the faculty on May 2, 1910, was to organize all of the departments of the College along the lines the sciences and the foreign languages employed: each course in a successive year was to contain "more advanced material and could be entered only through the preceding course."[37]
The faculty approved the plan on April 4, 1911, after a year's debate and argument, by a vote of 17 to 10: "they committed themselves to working under the control of an ideal education that compelled order, progression, and reasoned relations between courses in each department."[38] A year later, students protested in the Spring, presenting to the President a petition signed by 488 individuals demanding a return to the Old Curriculum; then they threatened to strike. Nonetheless, Garfield's New Curriculum stuck. President Garfield had "extricated the College from an educational system that had practically broken down and set [Williams] on a course that ultimately left it in a somewhat unique position among American collegiate institutions."[39]
Figure 18: Williams College Curriculum 1909-1910
Thus, during a period of great curricular upheaval[40], the science departments at Williams not only remained stable, but ultimately served as the administration's model for the liberal arts education. Perhaps they, like the foreign languages, had done so only by virtue of functional prerequisites, or the demonstrable accumulation of knowledge and skill that seemed then, and now, to characterize the learning of their disciplines.
[1] The Literary Monthly, vol. 11, No. 3 (October 1895), p.viii. It is
likely that the recent completion of the Thompson Laboratories helped stimulate production of the advertisement. | Back |
[2] Leverett Mears, Outlines of Lectures on the Non-metallic Elements and Their Compounds, (Williamstown, Massachusetts: Williams College, 1903). | Back |
[3] Leverett Mears, Outline of Qualitative Analysis, (North Adams, Massachusetts, 1907). | Back |
[4] Robert Wood to his brother Horace, 26 February 1904. (Williamsiana, Williams College). | Back |
[5] Ibid. | Back |
[6] Ibid. | Back |
[7] Ibid. Safety measures such as goggles would not be required in the laboratory for nearly another 70 years. | Back |
[8] Directions for Laboratory Work in Physics 1, (Williamstown: Williams College, 1903). Directions for Laboratory Work in Physics 1, (Williamstown: Williams College, 1903), Heat and Light. Directions for Laboratory Work in Physics 2, (Williamstown: Williams College, 1906), Magnetism and Electricity. Directions for Laboratory Work in Physics 1 and 2, (Williamstown: Williams College, 1911), Mechanics and Sound. Directions for Laboratory Work in Physics 1 and 2, (Williamstown: Williams College, 1911), Heat. Directions for Laboratory Work in Physics 3 and 4, (Williamstown: Williams College, 1911). | Back |
[9] Williams College Catalogue, 1899-1900, p.21. | Back |
[10] Williams College Catalogue, 1895-1896, p.48. | Back |
[11] Williams College Catalogue, 1911-1912, p.107. | Back |
[12] Ibid. | Back |
[13] Williams College Catalogue, 1911-1912, p.108. | Back |
[14] The Williams Record, Vol. 26, No.73 (January 18, 1913), p. 3. | Back |
[15] The Williams Record, Vol. 29, Extra, (December 7, 1915). | Back |
[16] Other publications lost included volumes of Chemische Berichte, a leading research journal of the Chemical Society of Berlin, valued at $1500; two sets of the Journal of the American Chemical Society; the Journal of the London Chemical Society from 1880-1915; and Liebig's Annalen 1834-1914. Chemical supplies and apparatus valued at $15,000 were also lost. See The Williams Record, Vol 29, No. 75, 1 January 17, 1916. Subscription to such leading research journals indicates that information about thoroughly up-to-date research was available, and apparently useful to the faculty. | Back |
[17] The Williams Record, Vol 29, No. 75 (January 17, 1916), p. 1. | Back |
[18] The Williams Record, Vol 29, No. 66 (December 9, 1915), p. 1. | Back |
[19] E. Herbert Botsford, Fifty Years at Williams.Vol. 4: Twenty-Six Years of Progress. Administration of Harry Augustus Garfield 1908-1934, (Williamstown, Mass., The McClelland Press, 1940) p. 198. | Back |
[20] The Williams Record, Vol 29. No. 82 February 14, 1916. | Back |
[21] R. V. Bruce, op.cit., p.335. | Back |
[22] Figures taken from plans as reported in The Class Book for those years. | Back |
[23] Data occasionally revealed years when no seniors planed to continue in science. Despite somewhat mercurial annual interest, the overall numbers of those interested are represented well by the years reported in the table. | Back |
[24] Williams Literary Monthly, vol. 11, No. 4 (November 1895), p.130. | Back |
[25] Ibid., p.131. | Back |
[26] Williams College Catalogue, 1898-9, p. 44; 1906-7, p. 81. | Back |
[27] J.A. Lowe, op. cit., p. 41. | Back |
[28] Charlotte Bertisch Stimpson, Comp. Samuel Fessenden Clarke (New York, Privately Printed [The Marchbanks Press], 1932), p. 20. J.M.W. is Doctor John M. Warbeke. | Back |
[29] Ibid., p. 41. | Back |
[30] "Supplement," to Samuel Fessenden Clarke, a one page typewritten letter from Mrs. S. F. Clarke. (Williamsiana, Williams College). | Back |
[31] Williams Literary Monthly, Vol. 26, No. 8 (March 1911). p. 334., citing the President's Report of 1903. | Back |
[32] ] E. H. Botsford, Fifty Years at Williams, Vol. 3: John Haskell Hewitt - Henry Hopkins. (Pittsfield, Mass., The Eagle Printing & Binding Company, 1932) p.60. | Back |
[33] Rudolph, Curriculum, p. 196. | Back |
[34] Williams Literary Monthly, Vol. 26, No. 8 (March 1911) p. 334, citing the President's Report of 1903. | Back |
[35] Smith, Theodore Clarke, "The Curriculum 1908 - 1934," in Botsford, op cit., Vol. 4, p.45. | Back |
[36] Rudolph, Curriculum, p. 227. | Back |
[37] Smith, op. cit., p. 45-46. | Back |
[38] Smith, Ibid., p. 47-48. | Back |
[39] Smith, Ibid., p. 43. | Back |
[40] See Rudolph, Curriculum, Chapter 5, "Disarray", and Chapter 6 "Remedies." | Back |