girlhood, now almost a curiosity in some of our communities, might to some extent be restored by co-operation of girls' high schools and parents. Parents often deplore the precocity of their daughters and lay the blame upon the schools, while the schools plead want of jurisdiction and inability thru moral influence alone to accomplish what belongs to the domain of authority.

Another matter worthy of consideration: Many girls have been injured by the nervous strain due to their ambition to do all the work of the high school at a period of their physical development when strains are dangerous. In the school for girls alone, sagacious teachers can so arrange the work as to remove all stigma from those pupils who are doing all they should, but not all that others are doing. In the coeducational school an easy course for girls only would be contrary to theory.

Several notices to the effect that this paper must not exceed seven minutes have terrified it into even smaller compass, and into a sententiousness excusable only on the score of extreme brevity. It merely contends that coeducational high schools are good, but that separate high schools, if they can be maintained in accessible proximity to pupils' homes, are better. The boy and the girl are different, with different natural interests, thru the agency of which they can be best developed. If the girl grows to womanhood amid womanly activities, and the boy hammers out his much more toilsome process of growth toward manhood among boys and men, it is thought that both will emerge from puberty with a better contribution to society. So short a paper does not venture to hint that separate high schools might slightly counteract the strange feminization of employments, which is, indeed, chiefly an economic phenomenon.

J. A. BIVINS, principal of High School, Charlotte, N. C.-In treating the subject of coeducation in the high school, I should like to place some limitations on the term "high school." By it I do not mean the boarding school, which, for various reasons, should be restricted to one sex or the other. It is rather of the public high school that I wish to treat. Being irresponsible for the home life, and to a large extent for the social life, of the pupils, such a school is exempt from some of the drawbacks attending coeducation, while it affords a field for the display of many of its advantages.

In the consideration of this subject we are not at a loss for statistics. The Commissioner of Education recently sent a circular letter to the leading high schools thruout the country asking for definite information regarding separate and mixed schools. An examination of the replies shows that coeducation has held its ground during the past decade. It is a matter of record that the great majority of the secondary schools in America are at present attended by both sexes. In 1891 only fifteen cities out of 628 reported separate schools; and in 1902 three of these fifteen had joined the ranks of coeducation, no change being reported in the others. It seems, too, that mixed schools have proved satisfactory in the main. In England, France, and Germany, where the conventionality of centuries may not be changed in a day, separate schools are still the rule. It is often a matter of surprise to our foreign visitors to see boys and girls sitting together in the same class-rooms, reciting the same lessons, engaging in the same calisthenic drills. Is America, with her greater freedom, in the right? Is coeducation, despite the fact that it is seemingly well intrenched, an unnatural and an unhealthy system?

To study the subject in all of its necessary phases we shall have to consider the physical, social, moral, and intellectual effects of coeducation upon the well-being of the pupils.

From the physical standpoint, it is argued that girls cannot, in the nature of the case, follow the same regimen as the boys without serious detriment to their health; that girls are naturally prone, during the high-school age, to contract nervous disorders, especially if they are subjected to severe mental or physical strain. The last word on this subject seemed to have been uttered when Dr. Clarke published his Sex in Education. But subsequent inquiry and experience have served to show that many of his contentions

are overdrawn, or are unsupported by facts. Recently the editor of the Ladies' Home Journal endeavored to help the cause of nervous and overworked schoolgirls by publishing a page of so-called letters from mothers. The artificial and uniform style of these letters, however, stamped them as coming largely from the same "mother." Their general tenor went to show how "Mary, just budding into sweet womanhood, entered the high school. She became ambitious in her studies, and now she is an angel in heaven." If these melodramatic epistles were half true, we should close the doors of our schools against girls and go to feed them on Mellin's Food. No one denies that the girl sometimes makes shipwreck of her health by working too hard at her studies. But he who asserts that the majority of cases of ill-health among girls can be traced to the school would perhaps find it difficult to verify his assertion. It was pointed out by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, in reply to Dr. Clarke's book, that "in country villages where there are only very poor district schools, kept for less than half the year, the traveler constantly observes among the farmers' daughters cheeks as pale and vitality as deficient as in the best-educated metropolis." My own observation bears out the truth of this statement. In fact, I should be inclined to assert that, according to population, there were more cases of debility among females in the country than in the city. Mr. Higginson further observes that of the wealthy classes who attend private schools, as compared with the middle class who go to the public schools, we should expect to find, on the basis of Dr. Clarke's contention, a higher degree of health among the former than the latter. But, despite the fact that the daughters of the rich may study as little as they please, one would have a hard time proving that they were better favored in point of health than their more humble sisters. Study, when not carried to excess or pursued in violation of all the laws of hygiene or common-sense, promotes rather than hinders physical development. It adds tenfold to one's capacity for appropriating and enjoying the good things of life, and thus promotes a happy reaction between the mental and the physical Now, it would seem on examination that the mixed high school is an advantage rather than otherwise from the health standpoint. All courses of instruction are arranged to suit the capacity of the average pupil. Furthermore, it is generally conceded that up to the age of eighteen a boy's mental development is slower than that of the girl. Therefore, while this condition serves as an intellectual stimulus to the boy, who can stand to be stimulated, it also operates to lower the standard for the girl at a time when she ought not to be taxed to the full limit of her powers.

On the other hand, it is fair to infer that girls receive physical stimulus from association with boys. A normal, healthy boy is nothing if not active. One cannot be long in his presence without feeling the magnetic influence that arises from his overflowing animal spirits. His very attitude is an unconscious banter to go out for a frolic. It is worthy of note that the girls who have brothers are far more natural and unaffected than those who do not. Such a girl may be something of the tomboy, but what of that? Along with her romping, her horseback riding, her tennis, and her golf, she is getting health, self-reliance, happiness, and that style of beauty that needs no cosmetic art to enhance it. Girls are today far more inclined to outdoor sports than they used to beand much to their advantage. And to what can we attribute this more than to our natural, free, American way of educating the sexes together?

To say that boys and girls attend the same school is not equivalent to saying that the same regimen must be required of both. There is sufficient variety in the courses offered by our high schools to suit the most exacting requirements of sex or of individual taste. For the boys there may be shop-work, mechanical drawing, laboratory work, and the more strenuous exercises of the gymnasium; for the girls, cooking and sewing, music, painting, and the lighter Swedish gymnastics. But there will be many things which they may take in common, to their mutual benefit.

In considering the social side of this question, we note first that coeducation makes for better manners, especially among the boys. When a boy is ready to enter the high

school he is neither "fish nor flesh." He is just emerging from the semi-barbaric state of the grammar school, where he has a downright disgust for girls. Soon, however, he begins to take them as a matter of course, and even progresses so far as to wish to appear well in their sight. Hence more attention to his shoes, his hair, and other details of dress. His shyness and awkwardness disappear after a while, and he learns to speak to a girl without stammering or blushing to the roots of his hair. The innate sense of chivalry that every manly heart has for woman finds daily expression, in a mixed school, in little acts of courtesy, until what is innate becomes a fixed habit of life. And by the time the boy leaves the high school he is transformed into a courteous, self-respecting young gentleman, with pleasing manners and address, and with the knowledge of how to appear natural and unaffected in the presence of ladies.

cases.

Needless to say, girls also gain by such social relations at school. It is good for the shy and distant girl who, perhaps, has not much social life at home. It is good even for the melodramatic girl who reads novels and sighs for a lover. It is far better for her to contemplate the boy present than the boy absent. The chances are that if she sees him every day he may appear less desirable. But in the monastic seclusion of the boarding school she may eat out her heart on his account; she may even grow desperate and try to elope at the first opportunity. Similia similibus is by no means a bad remedy in such A few stolen glances, a few sighs — and the symptoms gradually subside. Closely associated with the question of manners is that of discipline. Having had experience in teaching both separate and mixed classes, I am free to declare that discipline is a far easier matter when boys and girls are together. They somewhat act to the mutual restraint of each other. When boys are alone with a male teacher, unless that teacher has the genius of Napoleon for command, or the power of Apollo to charm, they are more than apt to give him his hands full. But when girls are present things are different. The rough horse play, the coarse jest, the rude trick are rarely thought of. It is the evident disposition in each sex to appear to the best advantage in the eyes of the other. One educator declares that a motion of the hand or a flash of the eye is all that is necessary to control disorder in a mixed school.

It is perhaps upon moral grounds that the opponents of coeducation object to it most strongly. And in city districts where there is a large and vicious foreign element this objection is doubtless well urged. But where the population is homogeneous, and of average stability, the criticism no longer has weight. After an experience of twelve years in a mixed high school, I have failed to find a single instance of improper conduct resulting from the mingling of the sexes. On the contrary, the better elements of human nature under such circumstances have seemed to be dominant. In addition to the corrective tendencies that the presence of each sex has upon the conduct of the other, there is the further advantage that comes from their dwelling together in an atmosphere of books and of mental activity. No wonder that Dr. Harris had noticed that the atmosphere of mixed schools was desexualized, whereas that of separate schools generally tended toward immorality. The often-quoted statement of Richter on this point is as forcible as it is true. He said: “To insure modesty I would advise the education of the sexes together, for two boys will preserve twelve girls or two girls twelve boys innocent amidst winks, jokes, and improprieties, merely by that instinctive sense which is the forerunner of natural modesty. But I will guarantee nothing in a school where girls are alone together, still less boys." From the foregoing we fail to see where the separate school has any advantage over the mixed school in point of morality. Rather it is true that both theory and practice confirm the opposite view.

As regards the intellectual phase of the question, the objection has been raised by some that girls require a different kind of training from boys, and should therefore be educated by themselves. There is no question that the majority of women are destined to the sphere of the home. This would naturally require some differentiation in their training, but not so much as was once thought necessary. It has been found, not only

that women can measure up with men in the so-called masculine studies, but also that such studies are beneficial to them; beneficial not only in the lines of independent activity that many women, either from choice or necessity, are now pursuing, but beneficial mentally. Shall the education of women be such as to make her visionary and impracti cal, full of sentiment and gush, simply because her nature is finer and more sympathetic than man's? Would it not be better, along with the poetry and music, to have some training in the exact sciences? But since these questions have been thoroly argued and generally agreed upon, it is not my purpose here to discuss them. Most assuredly, as I have before pointed out, the fundamental nature of the courses in our high schools permits that the sexes may study the same subjects together, while there is latitude enough to allow for varying conditions. This being granted, we may ask whether there is any intellectual gain to the pupil in coeducation. It is a well-known fact that girls are, as a rule, more studious than boys and more conscientious in their work. They thus set a high ideal for the class. A boy naturally feels ashamed to be outdone by a girl, and will spur up his efforts to prevent it. I have known cases in which girls have had a good influence over their boy admirers in arousing their ambition.

Somehow a subtle but distinct influence is felt in the schoolroom that contains both boys and girls. Each sex seems desirous of winning respect from the other, both in regard to behavior and work. Of course, there are exceptions; classes differ from each other almost as much as individuals. The mere fact that classes are mixed by no means insures perfection. But I fully believe that, all other things being equal, there is more interest, better behavior, better work in the class where the sexes recite together than where they are kept separate.

This mutual stimulus of the sexes keeps the routine work of the schoolroom oftentimes from becoming humdrum. It may sound like a bit of sentimentalism, but there is little doubt that a sort of romantic interest springs up along with the Latin and mathematics as a result of this sex-association. There is that in the fervid imagination of youth which makes of each lad a hero and of each lass a heroine, and transforms the prosaic schoolroom into a 'field of cloth of gold." Nor do the Latin and the mathematics suffer on this account, but rather gain. Pleasure adds zest to work and work to pleasure. These young people do not have to fall in love to be interested in each other. The possibilities of the future lend a romance to the present, and that is sufficient. Affection under such circumstances is not the "master passion," and need not cause the slightest alarm.

Another good advantage of coeducation is that it permits teachers of both sexes. That instruction is necessarily more or less one-sided and incomplete which comes from teachers exclusively of one sex. What a misfortune, for instance, to be placed under the absolute dominion of a set of old maids who have very decided convictions and are terribly set in their ways. I hasten to correct the impression that may be formed that I think lady teachers are all of this class. Far from it. But I mention a condition by no means impossible or unheard of.

I believe thoroly in the coeducation of the sexes. It is the natural way. Nor do I believe that it cheapens woman to be associated with man in intellectual endeavor. If woman's charm is essential and not artificial, there is no danger that she will lose any of it or that it will be any the less appreciated. Besides, there is so much that she can impart to man as well as receive from him. In the earlier ages, when man had to contend with the elemental forces of nature, he had no time or need to cultivate the gentler graces of character. But now he finds that he needs more of patience and of the moral virtues, and less of brute strength and animal courage. So with woman. The ruder ages forced her to stay by the fireside. But advancing civilization and changing standards have made it possible for her to do a different service, for which she needs practical wisdom and intelligent training. So one by one have the pales of prejudice and convention been beaten down, until now man and woman stand together, distinct in individuality, but

helping each other to completer living, and blessing the world with their joint labors. If this new order of things indicates true progress, and not retrogression, then is coeducation a necessity, and will never depart from among us.

DR. G. STANLEY HALL, being called out by the audience, said that coeducation transforms and idealizes home and school influences. We cannot quite fairly compare the two kinds of education, because the old arguments must be used to justify things that are expedient. Newer arguments for the separation of the sexes in education are more difficult. Coeducation in the middle teens tends to sexual precocity. This is very bad; in fact, it is one of the subtlest dangers that can befall civilization. There are momentous changes in boys at the age of fourteen. Adolescence is a crisis in their lives. The first danger to a woman is over-brainwork. It affects that part of her organism which is sacred to heredity. This danger is seen in the diminishing number of marriages. The postponement of marriage is very unfortunate in its influence upon civilization. Many men neglect marriage with no adequate excuse.

THE TEACHING OF ARGUMENTATIVE discourse IN HIGH SCHOOLS

I

GEORGE P. BAKER, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

The attitude toward an opponent of a college undergraduate preparing to discuss a topic of the day was forecast with mortifying accuracy by Oliver Goldsmith in his "Good-Natur'd Man." When Leontine begs his father, the lachrymose Croaker, to listen to reason, Croaker replies: "Come then, produce your reasons. I tell you I'm fixed, determined, so now produce your reasons. When I'm determined, I always listen to reason, because it can then do no harm." To such a beginner in the study of argumentation too often the man who can differ from him is either a fool or a dullard. You will find that a college student of the best sort has an opinion on many subjects; that, if you cross-question him skillfully, perhaps he will tell you clearly just what he thinks; that possibly he may with equal clearness tell you why he thinks as he does; but ask him to state why his opponent ventures to hold a different opinion! "The rest is silence." Surely, the danger, in a republic, of this attitude of mind is evident.

Moreover, when this undergraduate is assigned a topic for discussion, he rushes forthwith to the library. His train of thought is well illustrated by the fact that, if he is assigned a topic arising from conditions of college life, he is all at sea. He ranges thru the college publications, and if they contain little or nothing on the subject, he probably comes to his instructor asking to have the topic changed, because there is no evidence on it accessible. He hesitates to accept such topics as, "Should Work in the Gymnasium be Prescribed for Freshmen ?" tho he was once an intel