Theres a guest post on the Washington Post Answer Sheet blog by David Bernstein entitled Why are you forcing my son to take chemistry? in which the author argues against his 15-year-old sons schools requirement that all its students take a year of chemistry.

Derek Lowe provides a concise summary of the gist:

My son will not be a chemist. He will not be a scientist. A year of chemistry class will do nothing for him but make him miserable. He could be taking something else that would be doing him more good.

Bernsteins post is a slurry of claims about chemistry, secondary education, and the goals of education more generally with respect to human flourishing in other words, the kind of thing I need to take apart for close examination before responding.

So, thats what Im going to do here.

Lets start with Bernsteins account of the dawning of the horror:

I discovered that my 15-year-old son must suffer through a year of chemistry because a Committee of Ten academics was assembled in 1892 in order to standardize the curriculum (hows that for a bad idea?) and recommended that chemistry, among other subjects, be taught to everyone everywhere.

Bernstein is right that tradition is not in itself a good reason to require that all high school students take a year-long chemistry course. On the other hand, tradition is not in itself a good reason to assert that a year-long chemistry course is a wrongheaded requirement.

The author proceeds to make noises acknowledging that he is glad that someone in our society is doing chemistry, what with all the goodies it delivers to enhance our modern lifestyles. He even writes:

[M]y very own mother, who if I am lucky will never lay eyes on this article, is a chemist, and believes that chemistry is the most noble of human pursuits and doesnt understand how I, a former philosophy major, was able to eke out a living.

Read more here:
On the apparent horrors of requiring high school students to take chemistry.