D iscussions about teaching undergraduate analytical chemistry often get bogged down in disagreements over the content of the curriculum. Participants argue for a particular analytical technique or method while rarely reaching a consensus.The National Science Foundation recently funded two workshops at which participants examined the undergraduate curriculum in analytical chemistry. Chaired by Ted Kuwana of the University of Kansas, the workshops brought together representatives of two-year, four-year, and graduate institutions; professional societies; federal agencies; industry; and others with an interest in chemical education (i).What was striking about the workshops was how the group moved beyond content issues into more encompassing recommendations on how to better teach undergraduate analytical chemistry. Perhaps none of the recommendations has more far-reaching consequences than the statement that an undergraduate curriculum "... must offer a context-based education that includes problem-based learning. This approach challenges students to think critically and gives them the best preparation for careers in and outside the sciences" (1) This recommendation recognizes that analytical techniques and content continually change whereas the aViility to think critically and