Micro or Macro for chemistry lab

[midorifamily]

Hello:seeya:

 

I see the so-called "chemistry kits" nowadays are all microchemistry, and that's what I was heading to initially. However, it also looks like some facility with "macro" lab equipment is considered as a norm in high school chemistry, as suggested by the contents of SAT chemistry test. Just how important is learning about how to use burettes, transferring liquid over a stirring rod and so on? Would our dc have a difficult time in transitioning to a macro lab at the university level? Or is it something she can pick up easily after a few weeks of experience?

 

I read even some universities are shifting to "green chem", preferring less chemical waste after the lab. So my gut feeling is she'll be OK with micro in the high school level, but I thought I'd ask you experienced moms. Thank you for your input!

 

Midori

[TheHomeScientist]

Hi, Midori

 

I see no one else has responded, so I'll give it a shot.

 

First, the "norm" in high school chemistry nowadays is pretty hard to define. A few public high schools still have traditional semi-micro/semi-macro lab work, with students working with test tubes, beakers, flasks, burettes, and so on. That's the exception. Many public schools that have any actual lab work done by students have converted to microscale chemistry for its many advantages, including safety (it's a lot less dangerous to work with a few drops of a concentrated acid or base than with a test tube or beaker full), cost, ease of disposal, and so on. Many, probably most, public schools no longer have students doing many (if any) hands-on labs at all, for various reasons including legal liability, lack of formal lab facilties, and so on. For most of those schools, chemistry labs are demonstration-only, with the teacher standing up front doing the demonstration and the students watching directly or on video displays. Even worse, a lot of high schools no longer even do demonstrations. Instead, they use videos. Learning lab work by watching a video of someone doing it is kind of like learning to drive a car by watching a video of someone driving.

 

The best answer I can give you is that exposing your daughter to actual hands-on lab work, whether microscale or traditional scale, is going to give her a good leg up on most other students. If you have the space and budget to do traditional scale labs, by all means do so. If you don't have a space you can set aside for a lab and/or the budget to buy all of the equipment and chemicals you'll need (typically, $500 to $2,000 or more, depending on what you want to do), go with a microscale kit. There are lots of those available, ranging in price from $100 or so up to maybe $500, again depending on scope.

[mjbucks1]

Back when I was in college (biology major with bichemistry minor in the late 80's/early 90's), we used microchemistry experiments (at least for organic chemistry. I can't quite remember general and biochemistry). It is so much more cost effective. Even with microchemistry, the student still must understand the important concepts, as well as learn proper measuring skills. My ds is doing ChemAdvantage next year for Ap Chemistry and he will be doing microchemistry labs. I am more than fine with this.

[snowbeltmom]

My son also used a micro-chem kit for chemistry this year. I was concerned that he might be at a slight "disadvantage" by not having the hands-on experience of working with some of the macro-scale chemicals and equipment.

 

I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to discuss this issue with a handful of AP Chemistry teachers from both public and private schools. I was reassured to discover that some of these schools also used the microscale chemicals because they are considered safer and easier to dispose of. The teachers that used the macro-scale chemicals in their labs said that the students do not perform any of the "upfront" procedures - the very steps that I thought my son was missing out on. The teachers prepare the chemicals solutions before the lab.

[angela in ohio]

We went with macro this year, though dd will use the micro kit next year with Chem Advantage for AP Chemistry. I almost didn't sign her up for ChemAdvantage because of the micro kit, but in the end, I figured that she had already had a year of the macro labs. I will probably have her repeat some of the experiments on our regular equipment. Because she is going into engineering, the schools we have talked to so far have asked questions about her labs at home, and I didn't want to raise any unnecessary red flags.

[kroe1]

Setting up a macro lab at home costs some big bucks. Digital scales, hot plates with magnetic stirring rods, etc. can run into the $1000's if added all up. I believe our distillation set up was about $80, but I don't remember exactly. So, if money is no object, and your kiddo is headed into a science career, then I'd go macro.

 

But if finances are more of a concern, then going micro really won't give her much of a disadvantage. Much of the macro equipment does have a learning curve, but not that big of one. Using it a few times in a college lab should do it.

 

We have a macro lab at home, but only because I've been collecting the equipment for over 6 years. When this last kiddo graduates, some school somewhere is going to be getting a fabulous donation.

 

:)

[HollyDay]

We went with the MicroChem kit for BJU chemistry this year.

[In The Great White North]

. Because she is going into engineering, the schools we have talked to so far have asked questions about her labs at home, and I didn't want to raise any unnecessary red flags.

 

Which schools?

[midorifamily]

Thank you ALL for the invaluable replies! I think we can now go for Microchemistry without too much trepidation. It's just that the Macro looks so interesting... And yet both money and space do matter here, so our dc will have to save the fun until she gets her hands on those things in a university.

 

Thanks so much!

 

Midori

[Colleen in NS]

Thanks for this thread - I've been wondering about the same thing.

 

A local university gives high school credit classes in chemistry, but I could not figure out why it didn't include labs!

[Candid]

Hello:seeya:

 

I see the so-called "chemistry kits" nowadays are all microchemistry, and that's what I was heading to initially. However, it also looks like some facility with "macro" lab equipment is considered as a norm in high school chemistry, as suggested by the contents of SAT chemistry test. Just how important is learning about how to use burettes, transferring liquid over a stirring rod and so on? Would our dc have a difficult time in transitioning to a macro lab at the university level? Or is it something she can pick up easily after a few weeks of experience?

 

I would find out what the colleges she will be attending will expect. I walked into college chem lab thinking I wanted to be a chemistry major, I left NOT because I had such a hard time dealing with both the huge giant bottles of dangerous chemicals and the titrations. It's possible if I had had a better chem lab in college that wouldn't have happened.

 

Years later when I told my dad about this experience he told me he was hired for his first job out of college because he was the only one to complete the titration correctly the first time.

 

So my experience says if she is going into a tough chem lab without a lot of hand holding then she needs to be prepared now.

[EKS]

I have some macro lab equipment and my kids have used it over the years. Learning to deal with that sort of thing is really no big deal, even with the more specialized equipment. (FWIW, I was a biochemist in a former life.)

 

I'd go micro for a home lab. The last thing you need is a load of extra chemicals around. Proper disposal is not simply a matter of dumping them down the drain or sticking them in the garbage.