4. Toward constructive differentiation of the two terms under discussion, I should offer the following suggestions:

First: That the distinction between vocational and liberal education which is now current in our discussions be replaced by a distinction between specific education on the one hand and general education on the other hand. Here the differentiating principle would be extremely simple: Educational materials and processes which are of chief or exclusive value in training for specialized occupations or modes of life will comprise the materials and processes of specific education. Those materials and processes which will be of probable value to every individual, whatever his specific occupation or mode of life may be, will constitute the content of general education. If desired, specific education may be divided into subordinate types, of which vocational education, as we now understand the term, may be one. General education may also be subdivided into at least three well-recognized types. The first of these is most clearly represented by the typical elementary program of studies. It comprises those habits, skills, knowledges, and ideals which must be made the common property of all: (1) the arts of speaking, writing, and reading; the fundamental arts of computation; (2) the specific habits that make up the universal social amenitiesgood behavior, deference to age and womanhood, respect for the authority of the law as representing the collective will of society, and social service; (3) the habits and ideals that make for personal and social health; (4) the habits and the information representing the fundamentals of good citizenship; (5) the basic facts of geography and of national history; and (6) those methods of work that are applicable to all types of human endeavor so far as these can be made the common property of all. This type of general education should have a name which I am not ready to propose, but I shall call it for the sake of convenience fundamental education.

A second type of general education I shall call liberal education. Its primary aim will be to make the individual adaptable to changing situations. It will equip him, not so much with specific skill in the narrower sense, for this is the function of fundamental and vocational education which prepares for situations that can be predicted with reasonable certainty. Liberal education will deal rather with explanatory principles which will give him the possibility of a rational control over new situations which we cannot foresee, but which we are morally certain will arise in his life. It will aim to make the world just as meaningful to him as possible. It will aim to give him the power to detect new situations and to devise methods, implements, and devices for their solution. It will furnish him with standards of value, thru which he can view his problems in their proper proportions-not distorted by local, selfish, sectional, or partisan points of view. It will rid his mind of the fallacy of the immediate; thru the study of history, it will give him a time-perspective upon his own life and upon the issues of his own generation which he must help to meet. Thru science,

it will rid his mind of superstition and fraud and error-those soul-destroying and energy-destroying forces that reduce strong men to the helplessness of infancy. Thru literature and art, it will reveal the finer and more subtle forces which dominate human motives and so often determine human conduct-forces so subtle that only the masters can detect them and interpret them—but which, once caught and crystallized, are available to all who can appreciate and understand.

How much of this liberalizing or "liberating" education we can give to every individual will depend upon a variety of factors: how long we can keep him in school; how clearly we can connect these materials and processes with the motives and interests that dominate him at the time; how skilfully we can stimulate effort to the systematic mastery of recorded knowledge; with what economy we can meet the demands of fundamental education on the one hand and of vocational education on the other hand. My contention in the present connection is that we have here a type of training, coeval in its importance with fundamental education and vocational education. From the point of view of a national policy of education, this type needs perhaps the greatest emphasis-for it is the liberal education, interpreted in this way, and made universal among the people, that makes a nation truly great. It is because an education of this sort inevitably leaves its stamp upon every act of a man's life-it is for this reason that I protest against identifying liberal education exclusively with the training of the consumptive or utilizing capacities. I protest, too, against the theory that this type of education is merely for adornment or for enjoyment. It lies at the very basis of progress. It furnishes very frequently the compelling motive of toil and sacrifice and effortful achievement. It is fighting today the world's great battles-it is in the very van of the struggle against corruption and evil and exploitation and injustice. It is not alone unfair to liberal education to give it (in the eyes of the young and the untutored) a subordinate position; it is a sin against the children of the land, and it is a crime against posterity.

As I have suggested, there is here a large need for a much more adequate analysis of functions and values than has hitherto been attempted. We must learn to think clearly from the details of subjects, methods, and requirements to the ultimate goal that we have in view. The steps must be worked out just as carefully as possible, and what each step may bring with it must be determined. But this is far from saying that everything that we teach will inevitably fulfil the function that we have in mind. In the very nature of liberal education, something-perhaps much-that is taught will fail to influence life. For here we must imitate Nature, we must be prodigal. The organs of the body are commonly larger and stronger than the normal demands require. Of the forty thousand or more sensations which can bring us information about our environment, we commonly use but a small fraction. Nature thruout her realm has been

prodigal, for Nature must provide against crises; and we also in education must provide against crises. And that, I believe, is the peculiar function of liberal education as contrasted with the other types.

A third subtype of general education I should call cultural, and while the distinction between the liberal education and the cultural education should not be sharply drawn, I should think of the latter as essentially the education that prepares for leisure. Literature and art and music and healthful sport all have a function here, altho each may also have a function under one or another of the heads already discussed. This is the type of education that does train the consumer in the sense in which Dr. Snedden and Dr. Weeks use this term. It is important and must not be neglected; but again it is a mistake to think that all education which cannot be justified upon the basis of its specific vocational value must either seek justification as a preparation for leisure or surrender its claim to a place in our schools.

And now a final word with regard to the bearing of these distinctions upon the problem of educational administration. Dr. Snedden argued from the distinction between productive and consumptive activities to the conclusion that vocational and general education are essentially different in aim, content, and method, and therefore demand separate schools and, some would add, separate administration. If my own analysis is correct, all forms of education are most intimately connected and correlated. Nay, more than this, every curriculum proposed for a boy or a girl should represent in a fair proportion each of these distinctive types of training. We shall grant the necessity for intense specialization in vocational subjects; we should not grant for a moment the wisdom of making any vocational curriculum so intense that the liberal or the cultural should be neglected.

The arguments for separate vocational schools are commonly arguments from expediency. Dr. Snedden's plea is more fundamental than this, for he urges these basic differences between the two types of education to support his contention. The aims are different, he says, and the methods must consequently differ. But, as I have attempted to point out, the aims differ only in degree and not in kind. With the more adequate analysis of the remote aims of liberal education, we shall have these interpolated aims approaching in definiteness the aims of vocational education. And one reason why I should protest against the proposed division lies in the fact that competition with the definite and tangible vocational subjects will hasten this analysis and compel the formulation of these interpolated aims. This process is already going on in some schools, and one of the most successful attempts that has thus far been made to formulate concrete values for a traditional subject has been in connection with that bugbear of the secondary program, Latin. If I mistake not, it was this very competition that worked this desirable miracle.

Nor should we overlook the influence which concrete vocational interests may have in making meaningful and vital the more general and abstract

principles and processes with which liberal education deals. That correlations between vocational and liberal subjects may be worked out with great profit to both and without destroying the integrity of either I have no doubt. I know that it has been effectively accomplished in certain

cases.

Against the danger of social stratification that are inherent in separate vocational schools, even upon the secondary level, warnings innumerable have been voiced; and so far as I know they have never been answered except by the question-begging statement that such stratification already exists. Even granting its existence, we can see no good reason for extending it or for making it still more rigid. A stratified society and a permanent proletariat are undoubtedly the prime conditions of a certain type of national efficiency. But wherever our people have been intelligently informed regarding what this type of efficiency costs, they have been fairly unanimous in declaring that the price is too high. As a people we are pretty clearly committed to the theory that talent is distributed fairly evenly among the masses and that it is the special prerogative of no especial class or group. As a people, we are fairly firm in our faith that this latent talent may be trained to high efficiency in practically every case. We mean to keep open the door of opportunity at every level of the educational ladder. It is a costly process, but so are most other things that are precious and worth while.

DISCUSSION

EDWIN HEBDEN, director, Bureau of Statistics and Research, Department of Education, Baltimore, Md.-Permit me for a moment to present one or two points in this discussion from the viewpoint of the student of statistics. Recently, at the request of the Board of School Commissioners, I sent a questionnaire to a number of cities in this country, seeking for information as to what was being done along vocational lines. The replies showed that almost every subject in the curriculum was, in one place or another, considered as entering into vocational education. One can see the confusion that must necessarily result. My point is that there should be agreed upon a terminology that would be interpretable by all alike. In this way the experience of all would become available without misinterpretation. It seems to me that thus at the threshold of this comparatively new branch of educational activity such an agreement might be reached by a properly constituted committee of this Association.

At the same time, and as a result of the questionnaire above referred to, there was shown the greatest need for scientific basis and organization of the course of study for the vocational work. In this subject educators are not enthralled by tradition and inheritance as they have always been in the course of study for the regular academic branches. Here again there should be worked out a course of study based upon scientific data and in terms that would be uniformly understood thruout the country.

SCHOOL AND SHOP-WORK AND STUDY

RANDALL J. CONDON, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, CINCINNATI, OHIO In an old Cincinnati directory which has recently come into my hands, I read these words: "Attached to the institution is a farm of one hundred and ten acres; and the students are required to labor either on the farm or at some mechanical business three hours a day." The principal of the school is given as Rev. Lyman Beecher, D.D.; the institution, Lane Theological Seminary; the date of the old directory is 1836.

In the same directory I read that the Woodward High School offers the means of education for all pursuits. The parent who designs his son for the bar, the medical profession, or for the sacred desk may find for him [in this school] as thoro a classical and philosophical training as can be obtained in any other [institution] in the West. And those intended for mercantile pursuits, civil engineering, or any other of the departments of business life may enjoy [in the high school] all those advantages for the acquisition of the preparatory education which is so essential to their future respectability and success.

Here, then, is the "Cincinnati idea" of 1836: Shop and school; work and study combined-education for different vocations with differentiated courses of study: classical and philosophical training for the law, for medicine, and for the ministry; industrial training for mercantile pursuits, engineering, and other departments of business life; and vocational guidance those "designed" by their parents for the professions and those "intended" for industrial pursuits; and the end or purpose of education, "future respectability and success."

We haven't been able to improve much on that program in eighty years. It all has a very familiar sound; it might have been written in 1914 instead of in 1836 as an expression of what Cincinnati and many other cities are trying to do in adapting education to the needs of individual pupils, helping them to prepare for the occupations of their choice-doing it that they may be respectable and successful, and hoping to accomplish this thru a union of mental and manual activity.

This "Cincinnati idea" is further emphasized by one of the symbolic windows in the city hall, before which I often pause as I mount the stairs to my office. It bears these significant words: "Labor and Education." But in spite of this constant reminder that the two must be united, in spite of the fact that they had been combined in actual practice in the early days, they had been divorced in Cincinnati, as well as elsewhere, until Dean Schneider, of the University of Cincinnati, again brought them together in 1906 in his co-operative courses in the college of engineering, by which the students were to spend alternate weeks working in the shops or out on the road with the construction crew. And he added this one new and important principle: The work was to be not merely work, but work that was an application of the study; and the study not merely study, but