in their texts. Some have gone to the extreme of including descriptions of machines and apparatus which the pupils may never see and which few teachers ever see. I venture that not more than one science teacher in a hundred has ever seen a Tesla oscillator; and they are not likely ever to see one; yet some of our high-school text-books presume to discuss this machine. A description of a Gatling gun would be just as instructive and useful, and much more interesting.

'Can you name any fact of which you are absolutely sure?" This is the question with which a recent text-book begins. One might well answer that he is absolutely sure that the discussion of such a question by a high-school pupil is a sheer waste of time. Yet a metaphysical question may be as good as one which is neither physical or metaphysical. "If a tree fall where there is no ear to hear, would there be any sound produced ?" "A man drives a team of horses around a race track. Does the outer horse go around the inner one?" "If a man walk around a tree on which there is a squirrel which always keeps on the side of the tree opposite the man, does the man walk around the squirrel ?" But these questions are old. Text-book writers must be up to date. A recent author introduces something new: "If a monkey sitting on the top of a circus pole always faces a man who walks around the pole, does the man walk around the monkey?" The possibilities of this profound subject are not yet exhausted. There yet remain the owl on the limb and the woodpecker on the snag, for future authors who want to be original. "What path does a rash man describe who jumps from a moving street car?" In the first place, this question is indefinite. The path depends upon the relative velocities of the car and the man and the direction the man jumps, and not on how rash he is, or on the fact that he jumps from a street car in preference to some other kind of car. In the second place, there are pupils in every class from whom such a question invites an answer which will provoke a laugh, and thus disturb the recitation and make discipline more difficult.

"Why is it easier for a baby elephant than for a baby boy to learn to walk?" I presume that the author intends that the pupil shall recall the fact that the elephant has four legs and the boy but two. But the import of the question is almost sure to be lost by the thoughtfulness of the pupil who calls the attention of the class to the fact that a baby chicken with but two legs learns to walk more easily than either elephant or boy, while a kangaroo never becomes an expert.

"Practical education" is a much-used and much-abused phrase. The desire to be practical has produced a class of teachers who see everything thru an engineer's glasses. A recent writer urges that we teach pupils to "do the thing as it is actually being done in business every day." In illustration of his argument he cites the difficulty pupils have in calculating the specific resistance of a wire when the centimeter cube is taken as the unit. He advocates the "mil-foot" as a unit, "in order that we may get a little nearer the actual method used commercially in calculating specific resistance." He

would take a system which is consistent thruout and which the pupils can be taught to understand and admire, and substitute for it no system at all-but a multiplicity of haphazard units; for where is this thing to stop? The same argument that would change the units in which specific resistance is expressed would change the units in which we express force, energy, mechanical equivalent of heat, coefficients elasticity, expansion, etc. Because engineers use the mil-foot (not all do so) is no reason why students should use it. Indeed, it is no reason why the engineers themselves should continue to use it. Most engineers in this country use the English units, but I think the time is coming when they will not do so. Not many decades ago physicists used all sorts of units. Today they use the metric system exclusively. Granting that physicists have something to learn from engineers, it is true also that engineers have much to learn from physicists. When it comes to a question of units, it is the engineers who must do the learning. The recent widespread discussion and agitation of the question of the general adoption of the metric system show which way the tide is moving.

If we should adopt a mil-foot because engineers use it, then we should adopt a sidereal day because astronomers use it, and we should change all our watches and clocks to read from one to twenty-four instead of from one to twelve. We should use the Fahrenheit scale because most thermometers are graduated to that scale. Perhaps someone will suggest the glass as a measure of capacity, as it is in such general use in measuring ice cream soda and beer. The same author advocates also the use of tables of the various sizes of wire to save time in calculating specific resistance. Why not go a step farther and use resistance tables and save all the time? If the resistance of a certain wire is all the pupil is to discover, let him discover it from a book of tables. But if he is to be trained to reason accurately and to be self-dependent, let him come to understand physical laws and principles by learning to apply them.

Some time ago I received a letter from a prominent physics teacher asking me what I regarded as the central thought in physics. Upon inquiry I found that his recitations were given largely to the classification of thoughts-central thoughts, co-ordinate thoughts, subordinate thoughts, and so on. Method! Method!! Method!!! But no physics. His students could not well select a central thought when they had none from which to choose. A central thought must have a few others around it to make it central and keep it from toppling over. The teacher must try to inspire his pupils to have thoughtssound, sensible, serious thoughts. There is little danger that the thoughts may not take their proper rank. I do not mean to say that the teacher of physics need not be logical and systematic. I do mean to say that the getting of thoughts is more important than their classification.

DISCUSSION

AUGUST F. FOERSTE, instructor in physics, Steele High School, Dayton, O.—Any course of study which primarily subserves the interests of the few without vitally touching the lives of the many is out of place in a public school. No excellency of grades attained by a few pupils during college-entrance examinations can atone for a four-year course which fails to give to the great majority the richest and most inspiring experience of which they are capable. No brilliancy of attainment by the vanguard of the class can excuse the feeling of hopeless mediocrity and inefficiency which often settles upon the remainder. What higher attribute can a student bring with him into citizenship than a ready initiative, due to confidence in his own powers, based upon frequent successes? Each success is a source of inspiration for further effort, and begets confidence and self-reliance. It is not necessary for a public-school pupil to learn that he can do indifferently well what others can do better; but it is essential for him to realize that with his limited capacities, aided only by honest, diligent effort, he can do many things thoroly well. Frequent successes! This should be the privilege of every student. No topic should find a place in the curriculum of the public school whose study cannot be carried to a successful issue by the average pupil.

Successful issue? What is the measure of success? Is it not that thoroness of comprehension which results in ability to use, to make of service that which is the subject of study? If definitions, rules, and formulæ give a clearer understanding, if problems or the study of machines, simple of course, give a clearer insight into the operations of physical forces, they are in place. But they are in place only in so far as they increase the power to do, in so far as they increase the self-reliance of the pupil.

Physics should be made utilitarian. To quote the words of Professor Foley: "Of two subjects which give equal mental training, I should always choose the one which deals with facts that give promise of being most useful in the after-life of the pupil."

Theory? Of course, theory should be taught. What is theory but the attempt to secure an intelligent understanding of the operations of physical forces? Will anyone deny that an intelligent comprehension of phenomena is preferable to a mere knowledge of their existence?

Physics, real physics, need not be more difficult than any other study, thoroly taught, provided the subject-matter be chosen from material well within the range of the pupil's comprehension. If a teacher will insist in teaching abstract units, and laws based upon abstract mathematical deductions which the majority of pupils fail to grasp thoroly, or even to retain in verbal memory more than a few days, he has only himself to blame. When a teacher on finishing a subject is inclined to say, "Thank goodness, I am glad that is over with!" it is likely that his pupils are in a worse state of mind, and it is questionable whether or not the undertaking has been of profit.

Physics certainly can be made more interesting than most studies. Experiments should be made as showy and as striking as possible. Work is not predigested by showing striking experiments, but by failing to bring the pupil's intellect into vigorous operation, the teacher becoming so interested in the success of the display that he fatuously explains to the class what wonders he has just accomplished instead of utilizing the interest aroused by the experiment to set the pupils more actively to work.

The lack of judgment shown in the choice of experiments and the selection of apparatus may often be appalling, but is certain to pass away as the purpose of experiments becomes better understood. No experiment should be performed which does not assist in the logical development of the subject, or which does not give the class a clearer insight into the operations of physical forces than does the text-book alone. The idea that every topic discussed must be illustrated often leads to experiments so trivial as to be absolutely silly.

No experiments should be performed by the individuals of a class which are of such a trivial character that they invite play rather than study. On the other hand

experiments by the individuals of a class should not degenerate into a course in mechanics or in the manipulation of apparatus. Ample time should be allotted for attaining accuracy of results and for drawing conclusions. The object of the experiment should be stated so definitely, the use of the apparatus explained so thoroly, that the chief intellectual effort of the pupil can be centered on the investigation itself, and on the drawing of

conclusions.

Experiments do not increase in value in proportion to the number of pupils who helplessly flounder in their attempts to accomplish the task, but in proportion to the number who carry the work to a successful issue. The amount of help to be given the pupil, and the amount of work to be accomplished by him without further aid, may require delicate adjustment, but what is the teacher for ?

The most serious defect is the frequent lack of organic connection between the experiment and the logical development of the subject taught, the experiment often being essentially an interruption or repetition of the work as outlined by the text-book.

The effort of the teacher often seems to be to determine how much the pupil can do, rather than how much the pupil can do well. For this the text-books offer ample excuse. The wealth of material included in the realm of physics, the multiplicity of startling discoveries of intense public interest, have often expanded the book beyond its proper limits. For this there is only one remedy. The text-book must become the tool, not the master.

The subject-matter of physics should be determined by but one thought-its usefulness in developing power and self-reliance. In its selection the highest collegiate training, the most catholic culture, can find play; but it must be accompanied by the deepest insight into child-life, its capacities, interests, and ambitions; and the final outcome must be the reality, not the spurious imitation of education.

THE VALUE OF CHEMISTRY IN SECONDARY EDUCATION

WILLIAM M. BLANCHARD, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, DE PAUW
UNIVERSITY, GREENCASTLE, IND.

The question of the value of chemistry in secondary education is only an outgrowth of the old question of the relative value of the classics and the sciences in education in general. We have no intention of discussing this older question, but only refer to it in introducing the topic under present consideration. The rapid growth, both in number and in efficiency, of our technical and engineering schools, the increasing demand for men with a scientific training, the growing conviction that a nation's industrial progress is in a large measure dependent upon its devotion to science-all are evidences of the widespread belief that in the practical affairs of life either a knowledge of science or the possession of the training which it can best give is of great value. Furthermore, the introduction of the sciences and the opening of laboratories in all classes of educational institutions, even in those that have long placed the chief emphasis upon the classics, is proof that our educators everywhere are persuaded that in the well-ordered college curriculum the sciences must have a place. Of all the natural sciences, no one occupies today a more conspicuous position than chemistry.

If it be granted that at some period in a student's life it is well for him to

study science, how are we to determine to what stage this study must be restricted, if indeed it must be restricted at all? If there is real educational value in the proper teaching of the sciences in the college, why is there not also real educational value in the proper teaching of the sciences in the high school? Believing that high-school science does have true pedagogical value, and being persuaded that every tree will be known by its fruits, the defender of science instruction turns to the table of statistics, hoping that our Commissioner of Education will help him justify his position. But what does he find? Instead of increasing, the proportion of students studying science in our secondary schools is steadily decreasing. In 1891-92, of all the students in the public high schools of our country, 22.82 per cent. were studying physics and 10.17 per cent. were studying chemistry; while in 1901-2 only 17.48 per cent. were studying physics and only 7.37 per cent. were enrolled in chemistry. On the other hand, in 1891-92 38.88 per cent. of the total were studying Latin; while in 1901-2 this number had increased to 50.07 per cent. Again, comparing the number of students preparing for college, we find that in 1891-92, of the total number of students in our public high schools, 6.33 per cent. were preparing for a college classical course and 6.90 per cent.were preparing for a college scientific course; while in 1901-2 these numbers had fallen to 5.59 per cent. and 5.07 per cent. respectively. In ten years the percentage preparing for the classical course had fallen 0.74, while the percentage preparing for the scientific course had fallen 1.83, or more than twice as much.

But in spite of these figures, which apparently furnish an argument for those opposing the teaching of science in the high schools, there is probably no occasion for alarm on the part of those believing in the value of science instruction even in secondary education. Several suggestions have been made with a view to explaining away the apparent meaning of these figures. Someone has suggested that many of the students enrolled in 1891-92 as secondary students were really elementary, having only one study in the higher department, and that more of these elementary students were taking physics and chemistry than Latin. Someone else maintains that the cause of the decrease in the number of high-school students studying science is not to be found in any depreciation of the pedagogical value of these subjects, but is to be looked for in the increasing demands upon the science students by virtue of the greater attention now paid to the quantitative side of these subjects. We are making the requirements so rigid that, where science is elective, many students decline to take it.

May not another explanation be offered? Is it not a fact that the classical departments in our colleges require more language for entrance than they did ten years ago, while in the same institutions in many cases no entrance requirements in science are made at all? Then, again, do not many of our technical and engineering schools require language, and in most, if not all, cases Latin, for entrance, while they not only do not require chemistry or physics, but in many cases prefer that the student shall receive his first instruction in these