We must start with what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to produce quality chemists who are independent learners.
We must now look at ways of achieving this goal. A prerequisite is having a graduate chemist with sound subject knowledge, which is in depth, in front of the students. This was the case when I started teaching in 1970 but sadly, is no longer so.
I should like to mention two points here.
1) As chemistry now has to be studied by all students as part of the National Curriculum, the difficulty of
content has had to be reduced. Nowadays more topics are studied but in far lesser depth. It is the
depth that aids to understanding.
2) As more students are now studying chemistry, more teachers are needed to deliver this chemistry
teaching. However, again no fault of their own, many asked to teach chemistry have insufficient
subject knowledge to meet our prerequisite above.
I believe only the chemistry specialist has the 'depth of knowledge' to enthuse the students, which in turn leads to an increased uptake in the subject.
When I was looking for teaching posts in chemistry in the early 70s, there were up to 90 graduate chemists applying for each post.Students from the start of secondary school age were taught chemistry by a chemistry graduate. I remember teaching atomic structure to 1st year (now year 7) students.
If we believe the news, only about 25% of secondary schools have a graduate chemist. Hence the decline in chemists coming through to universities. Check the article here.
I began by saying my criticism was of the education systems. Had 'the decision makers' looked at what they should have been trying to achieve, ie. quality chemists who are independent learners, they would never have come up with the systems (which have led to a decrease in chemists and university chemistry departments closing down) they have.