We regret exceedingly that the gentleman appointed to lead this conference has been prevented by sickness from attending. We regret this the more because he would have spoken of that which he himself has learned by actual experience. It is sometimes asserted that physiology should not be taught in secondary schools, because it cannot be taught in such schools in a scientific way or by the laboratory method. The age of the pupils and the feelings or prejudices of pupils and parents prevent its presentation after the manner employed in medical colleges. Dissection of animals is repugnant to most pupils of high-school age, and it is not to be supposed that it would be at all suitable or possible to study physiology by the dissection of the cadaver. The disgust aroused by the sight and touch of the muscles and organs of dissected animals is largely sentimental and may be overcome by the awakening of a truly scientific spirit of investigation. The similarity of the structure and organs of other animals to those of the human species makes it possible easily to secure from the market-house the specimens necessary for a laboratory treatment of the subject. The human skeleton, from frequent presentation, has largely lost its offensiveness, and the study of the bones can be pursued with but little opposition in the mental attitude. The lens, the stereopticon, the microscope, the microtome, the slide, may be made to serve the same useful purpose as in botany. The subject, tho at first to some not pleasing, with proper treatment may be relieved of its repulsiveness, and from the very fact of its nearness to the pupil may become interesting and attractive. Physiology has long been accorded a place in the curriculum of the high school. Its importance has been recognized, but those who have taught it have not as yet devised the means for its study by the methods now regarded as essential to proper scientific teaching. That the same thing can be done for physiology as has been done for botany and physics and chemistry is not to be questioned. It is for those who are present to outline for the help of each other the methods they have found serviceable and to describe the devices they have invented and contrived for the scientific study of physiology by the laboratory method. In this science, as in others, it must be borne in mind that in the high school the elements of the several sciences are to be taught in a truly scientific way. It is not for the high school to teach physiology as it is taught in the medical college. If teachers of physiology would secure for their study the recognition its importance deserves, they must teach it in such a way as to command respect. DISCUSSION DR. LOUIS MURBACH, Central High School, Detroit, Mich., expressed the opinion that, while it is more difficult to teach human physiology in high schools by the laboratory method, the combination of physiology, hygiene, and sanitation can readily be treated in this way, because it is more amenable to experimentation, and material for laboratory work can easily be obtained. He considered this combination of subjects desirable for high-school work under the name of physiology. He laid stress upon the division of time between laboratory and recitation or demonstration work, claiming that at least half the subject should be taught by the laboratory method. The laboratory work should be done in connection with the text and preceding each subject. Thus, the study of the vascular system and the functions of the blood may be preceded by observing first the vessels in a living earthworm, then the blood-flow in a frog's foot, and so on. When physiology is properly taught, it should be recognized by higher institutions as an equivalent of a zoology course covering the same time. The youth of the pupils who study physiology increases the difficulty of properly presenting it. MRS. L. BASSETT, of Detroit, spoke of the difficulty of teaching physiology to pupils of the ninth grade on account of their immaturity and the consequent trouble they have in grasping the subject or in understanding the text. MISS E. PETTIE, speaking from her own experience, favored the use of the laboratory method in teaching physiology. T. O. MAST, Holland, Mich., gave his experience in the introduction of a laboratory course in physiology. He found Peabody's Laboratory Exercises an admirable book for the purpose. The course was entirely successful, and need not cost more than twentyfive cents for each pupil. He emphasized the fact that the text-book should not be neglected, but should be used fully half the time, after the observation and experimental work. DR. F. BARROWs, Central High School, Buffalo, N. Y., was asked to give his opinion as to the proper sequence of zoology and physiology. He thought that, from the standpoint of zoology, physiology should come first, tho much physiology can be taught in a course of zoology. S. B. MCCRACKEN, Buffalo University, suggested that the pupils might study physiology thru the medium of their own bodies. The pupils might learn much by a careful examination of themselves and each other. The boys could furnish models for the class, or boys might examine boys and girls examine girls. MISS GRACE ELLIS, Central High School, Grand Rapids, Mich., described a spirometer of simple construction, consisting of an inverted bell jar filled with water and balanced in a glass vessel of water by means of weights and pulleys, and having a tube entering from below, thru which, by means of a rubber hose, the air from the lungs might be forced into the jar. On the side of the outer vessel there is pasted a scale to show the amount of air forced into the inverted jar. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARY'S MINUTES FIRST SESSION.-WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1901 The Department of Higher Education met in Room No. 314, Central High School, at 3 P. M., the president, Charles F. Thwing, president of Western Reserve University, of Cleveland, O., in the chair. Music-vocal solo, "In Maytime" - Miss Clara Vollbreche. The first paper-subject, "The Function of the State University"- was presented by President R. H. Jesse of the University of the State of Missouri. The paper was discussed by J. H. Canfield, librarian, Columbia University; President William F. King, Cornell College, Iowa; President William L. Prather, University of Texas; President Miller, Ruskin College, Missouri. By vote of the department, Dr. J. E. Gilbert, of Washington, D. C., was given an opportunity to present the interests of the Society of Religious Education. He extended an invitation to the members of the department to attend the meeting of said society Thursday afternoon. Professor John William Perrin, of Western Reserve University, presented a paper on "The Rise of National Education in the Sixteenth Century." Professor Elmer E. Brown, University of California, and Professor F. C. French, of Vassar College, spoke in discussion. The following Committee on Nominations was appointed by the president : William F. King, Cornell College, Iowa. Samuel G. Derby, Ohio State University, Ohio. The department adjourned. SECOND SESSION.- FRIDAY, JULY 12 The department met in the Central High School at 3 P. M., and was called to order by President Thwing. Music-vocal solo, "Angus Macdonald," Roeckel- by Miss Minturn. William E. Chancellor, superintendent of schools, Bloomfield, N. J., read a paper on "Education for Social Control." Questions were asked, and remarks on the paper made, by Charles C. Ramsay, principal of high school, Fall River, Mass.; Miss Pomeroy, Ann Arbor, Mich.; J. L. Goodknight, of James Milliken University, Illinois; and Walter H. Nichols, of the University of Colorado. "The Moral Element in Education" was the subject of a paper read by W. H. P. Faunce, president of Brown University, Providence, R. I. The Committee on Nominations reported as follows: For President-W. H. P. Faunce, Brown University, Providence, R. I. For Vice-President - C. W. Dabney, University of Tennessee, Nashville, Tenn. For Secretary-John William Perrin, Western Reserve University, Cleveland, O. The report was unanimously adopted and the officers declared elected. WM. H. BLACK, Secretary. PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS THE FUNCTION OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY RICHARD HENRY JESSE, PRESIDENT UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE of MISSOURI, COLUMBIA, MO. Wherever in this paper the word "university" occurs, it means state university; wherever the word "college" is used, it means a private or denominational institution. Let me describe the function of the state university as it appears to me. I. It should be within: 1. Non-partisan, but patriotic to the state and to the nation. 2. Non-sectarian, but religious. 3. Free as to tuition in all departments, academic and professional. 4. Every inch a university. 1. While the obligation named first binds every institution of learning in our country, it binds the state universities in a peculiar degree. Their foundations are federal land grants. The funds for their maintenance come from their respective commonwealths. In the highest and broadest sense they should be nurseries of patriotism, but they should shun partisan politics as they shun death. 2. Non-sectarian, but religious. The state universities have not yet realized their opportunity for developing in students a life that is religious and yet not sectarian. Freedom from denominationalism is apt to be construed as license to subordinate unduly religion in education. No good reason appears why the universities should not each maintain one professor, at least, to lecture upon sacred literature, natural religion, and practical morals, and to serve as chaplain of the students. If, unfortunately, the law or constitution forbids such teaching at public expense, an appeal should be made for an endowment by private benefactions. What a blessing for a long time has Dr. Peabody been to Harvard! Such a man ought to be at every seat of higher learning. Moreover, why should not a large state university maintain a department of theology, without which it is not complete and which does not belong necessarily to any denomination. In Germany, in spite of an established church, theology is non-sectarian. Men of all creeds go there for training. Why should not our American state universities show that ethics, religion, and even theology of the highest and best type may be divorced entirely from denominationalism? 3. Free as to tuition in all departments, academic and professional. This proposition ought to be established by the mere statement that in every commonwealth the university is the head of public instruction, which is free up to the higher learning and ought to be free there also. The reasoning that people have indulged in as to free tuition is very curious. In early times the doctrine was preached that schools should be maintained at public expense, but should be limited to the elements of learning reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and United States history. A little learning the public might give the individual, but no more. After strenuous opposition, this doctrine was established in New England, in the middle states, in the West, and finally in the South. Then came the second step forward, in which in many places high schools were smuggled in. In Kansas City, for example, the first high school, now one of the best in America, was for years maintained rather surreptitiously. Later the people thruout the union came to the belief that a chance at secondary education also, without charge for tuition, was due from the commonwealth to every soul on its soil; but it was still argued generally that college or university training should be paid for by the individual. Not long ago some western states reached the third stage of progressive belief, that free instruction should be given thru the college of liberal arts, but that professional training should be paid for. In the process of evolution, however, the fourth era is near at hand, in which it will be recognized, I think, that the discrimination between academic and professional instruction is wholly specious. If it be granted that the state owes to every soul on its soil a chance at free instruction thru the college of liberal arts, by what legerdemain of logic can it be denied in medicine or engineering? In these so-called professional courses, perhaps half the studies are academic and the other half are applications of the academic. Is it reasonable for the state to teach a man freely physics, chemistry, mechanics, drawing, and mathematics, but refuse to teach him freely their applications to engineering? Should one learn at public expense such academic subjects as physics, chemistry, neurology, embryology, anatomy, histology, physiology, physiological chemistry, and bacteriology, but learn at personal expense their applications to medicine? All such reasoning is, to my mind, artificial. It is said that law, medicine, and engineering are gainful pursuits, and, therefore, the beneficiaries should pay for training in them. The argument is not worth refuting, but, if it were, it might be pointed out that bachelor of arts is a gainful degree. Moreover, academic graduates are not more useful to the people than are lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, etc., of superior quality. As soon as you admit that the commonwealth must furnish its people free instruction in any degree, you are compelled to admit that it must furnish free instruction in every degree and in every useful form. But the same argument, it is said, might be advanced for free clothing or board or books. To my mind. this does not follow at all, but if any man will demonstrate that they |