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.

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 cases. 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 impractical, 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

ligent freshman himself, but attacks unhesitatingly questions which have taxed the powers of our foremost students of economics and constitutional history. The reason is that he knows there is on the second kind of topic a wealth of published material; that on the first topic very little has been printed. The undergraduate of today has an undue regard for what is in print; for what other people say, as contrasted with the value of what they say. If my classes are discussing a question involving engineering, I can never be sure that some debater will not attempt to meet evidence of an authority on engineering with a quotation from a magazine article contributed by a hack writer or by a man who has made his reputation in a totally different field. Ever since "McAndrews' Hymn" Mr. Kipling has been for the undergraduate an authority on engineering. Very recently a professor in one of the leading medical colleges of the country said to me: "You college teachers must do more to make your graduates understand that not everything in print by a student of a subject is indubitable. I spend hours which I need for other purposes in making college graduates grasp that seemingly self-evident fact." To this very attitude of mind may be traced a large part of current inaccuracy. It is so much easier to repeat, parrot-like, than to examine, weigh, and adjudge. Yet in many departments of knowledge the discovery of new facts is well-nigh impossible, tho there is hardly a field of human thought in which facts, so called, when subjected to rigid scrutiny, will not reveal error or wrong emphasis, and bring the critical investigator contributive. results and reputation.

Probably, too, the intense activity of our people manifests itself in this would-be debater in a feeling that at twenty-two he must be for some reason a marked man among his college mates. But, instead of winning slowly a reputation in some one of the many activities which college life offers, he rushes into all which open before him. Constantly I meet youths of much promise as speakers who so dissipate their energies in at half-dozen interests that they accomplish little even in the subject for which they have inborn capacity. Like many others in the college world, they have not the power to select, to distinguish what, with their equipment, they may do from what they may not. Our secondary education, then, develops the memory; it creates a zest for acquiring information; but only rarely, apparently, does it train youth to think for the pleasure of thinking. Watching the undergraduate in his restless activity, one is reminded of the wise words of Richard Brinsley Sheridan: "Now and then, be idle. Sit and think!" and wishes that they might be written. large where the undergraduate should see them daily, and, seeing them, obey.

Who is responsible for these conditions-this narrow-mindedness, this lack of constructive thinking, this inability to see proportions justly? Both the college and the school, I think. Certainly, for years we of the

colleges have, in our teaching of English composition, been dwelling too much on the presentation of thought, too little on training our pupils to think. No normal boy wants a vocabulary for its own sake: he wants it when he has ideas which he cannot express with the words at his command. Recognizing this, we of the colleges are trying to rectify our past error; but that is not enough. What I have been describing in the undergraduate is an attitude of mind, well developed or even set by the time he can begin in college his special study of argumentation. Every year I spend a large amount of time battling bad methods of thinking which have, at least, not been rectified by the training of the student in the secondary school. I believe, therefore, that in the boarding schools and the high schools of the country much more attention should be given to training boys and girls to think, and that, as the quickest means to this end, the teaching of argumentation should be developed in these schools; for, properly taught, it creates or develops a love of thinking for its own. sake, fair-mindedness, and a just sense of proportion.

Of course, I know the objection which instantly arises-that already the high-school curriculum is crowded; that to remove any subject is to take from a student what is as valuable as the study I suggest, or even more valuable. But must we crowd out anything? Possibly some readjustment may be made. Moreover, I doubt if, during the next five years, teachers in high schools will find themselves perfectly free to say whether or not the subject shall be taught to their pupils. Even now debating societies in the schools are increasing; and inter-scholastic debating gains recruits each year. For some time, I am told, there has been a successful inter-scholastic debating league of the schools in and about Chicago; and recently the Greater New York Inter-Scholastic Debating League has been organized. The history of inter-collegiate debating shows that certain results of this rapidly growing interest are inevitable. Defeat, especially repeated defeat, leaves its sting, and even its effect, on the reputation of the school. Sooner or later some teacher or teachers must take a hand, and show the ineffective debaters how to work. The better the work of the debaters and the more absorbing it is, the more it attracts attention from the regular course. Recognizing all this, some schools have yielded to the inevitable and made debating a part of their curriculum. And why not yield? In any course in preparatory English you face the great division, argumentation, as a subdivision of exposition. Usually in our high schools it is lightly touched; yet by argumentation you can teach structure in composition as you can in no other way. Now, the tendency of the past ten years in the teaching of English composition has been from a study of parts to a study of the whole. Train a boy to a proper sense of structure in argument, with its necessarily careful marshaling of facts, theories, and evidence, and you will find little difficulty in making him understand the freer structure of description, narration, and exposi