concern social life in its widest aspects (the economic order, poverty, vice, crime, immigration, wealth, marriage and divorce, world peace, for example), with such analysis of causes and effects as to locate responsibilities. Between these two extremes will appear the persons who minister to the household from outside it (the butcher, the baker, the grocer, the milkman, the letter-carrier); then the persons and institutions that the child encounters when he begins to go to school and to execute errands for father and mother (the teacher, playmates, the street railroad, the fire department, the policeman); then the industries of the community, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial; then the social institutions of the community (schools, libraries, churches, the local government); then the activities of the county, state, and federal government; then institutions like railroads, water and light companies, banks, newspapers, theaters; at last the specialized professional and technical occupations. Here is a genuinely progressive order that coincides substantially with the growth of the child's social experience from the kindergarten to the end of the high-school course. In addition, there will be woven into these topics the social aspects of health and disease, sexual hygiene, and preparation for marriage.

Let us see, now, whether this material is appropriate for awakening a sense of obligation within free individual growth. Under exceptional circumstances you may evoke effective moral emotions by sharply defining a virtue or a fault and adducing biographical examples of it. But the only generally valid method consists in causing the child to define to himself his own purpose in situations that he actually experiences. When I ask myself what I am really after and why, I compare and contrast one purpose with another, and inevitably I begin to estimate values and to approve and condemn. Now, the curriculum that I have sketched is based upon the changing social contacts and reactions of the pupil. Lead him to ask, What does a street railroad do for the community? and then, What do I do in this situation? and he will almost inevitably appreciate the obligation to pay his fare. A boy was throwing stones at a street lamp. A passer-by said, "Why do you wish to break your father's lamp ?" "It isn't my father's lamp," replied the boy. "Who pays for street lamps, then?" was the rejoinder. A not less pointed example of the effect of defining one's purpose to one's self is this: Get a boy to tell you what he really wants in the next game of baseball that he plays, and you will draw out of him the right material for awakening indignation and scorn, admiration, and social purpose. I would have in the curriculum the subjects of doll play and other make-believe plays; marbles, tops, mumblety peg, and jackstones; tag, leap frog, and baseball; running races, tournaments, picnics-not as applications of principles brought from who-knows-where, but as living tissue of morals. Just so the entire series of the child's extending social contacts can be so used as to awaken intelligent approvals and condemnations, and analysis of one's own conduct.

Is it not evident, finally, that here is the solution of the problem of

co-ordinating moral instruction with other subjects? Many of our teachers, perhaps most, doubt the wisdom of a specific course on morals. It is likely, they think, to become abstract. Besides, is not every subject that is well taught a moral discipliné? Does not arithmetic, because it requires. accuracy, train to truthfulness? And so on. Now, it is true that everything in the school can be made serviceable to character. But it is easy to overestimate the value of merely formal discipline. With our lips we all profess that the pupil's interest and motive for study should be found in the thing studied. Yet the asserted moral value of mathematics resides not in the content, but in the way it is studied-in the mere form of the act, not the content of it. The assertion that such merely formal training in mathematics appreciably conduces to truthfulness is open to the gravest doubt. You lose most of the moral value of anything when you separate it from the functions in which it has its origin. Scoring a baseball game accurately or keeping an accurate expense account does train to truthfulness, however, because here form is not separated from content. Why, now, should teachers longer consent that arithmetic or any school subject whatever shall be abstracted from the social functions to which it belongs in real life? Why should the school not recognize that arithmetic is a phase of buying and selling, planting and harvesting, building a house, cooking, trimming a gown, even playing the games of boys and girls? Now, give us really vital material thruout the school, and the course in morals that I have outlined will not seem to be lugged in. It will deal with the primary phase of all the material of all the subjects; that is, with the co-operative purposes and functions of men in subduing nature and in enriching social existence. Language-study, number-study, earth science, history, literature-these exist at all because they minister to the ends of a rational will. Study of the ends of a rational will is the study of morals. Therefore the study of morals is not only not foreign to the other school studies, it is the most natural introduction to every one of them, and it alone can lend to them the complete concreteness that modern educational theory demands. Here, then, is the principle requisite for the co-ordination of morals with other subjects. The study of morals presents the material of education in its wholeness as human experience in a purposeful social life; the other studies have to do with parts or phases of this material.

MORAL TRAINING OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

DAVID STARR JORDAN, PRESIDENT OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CAL.

(Synopsis)

We have troubled ourselves a great deal because college students did not want what the college offers. Under the old curriculum some students found just what they wanted to receive a high degree of culture thru the study of the classics.

When the great discoveries in science were made and the wonderful developments of this new field were organized into matter for study, the college curriculum was made into a sort of patchwork, samples of all knowledge were put into it, and it was assumed that the educated man was one who knew a little of everything. It was soon discovered that this plan had little value, because nothing could be done thoroly. The old classical curriculum was much better because it had continuity.

The next change in the curriculum was the introduction of the elective system. By this system it was the object to offer every student something that he desired, which operation had the effect of greatly increasing college attendance.

In the enlarged college new problems developed. Because of the new problems some colleges threatened to go back to the old fixed curriculum.

It is found that in large institutions about one-third of the students study because they like it; one-third study because they see some vocational end; one-third are in attendance because of the various affairs connected with the college, such as the social life, fraternities, and athletics. With this last third little can be done.

The college student should study some one thing long enough and deeply enough to master it. This special study subject should become the backbone of his intellectual equipment. He should have at all times in his college work competent and expert advice. No one is better able to give this advice than the professor in charge of the subject which is the student's specialty.

The moral problems of the college center around the third who do not come for any real purpose. Many of the faculty members do not care enough for the individual student. They assume that the college student is old enough to know his own business and that he should be allowed a free range. This attitude is not right. The faculty must not bow to the morals of the student body nor the morals of any individual student. If individual help and advice fails to induce the student to right action he should be sent away from the institution and not allowed to menace the welfare of the other students.

SOME INSTINCTIVE ROOTS UPON WHICH THE TEACHING OF MORALS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS MAY BE GRAFTED CHARLES E. RUGH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, CAL.

The invitation to the conference of the Religious Education Association to discuss this excellent report has caused me no little embarrassment. The material prepared in the hope of helping promote the special interests of that Association was not foreign to the special interests of this Council, and was in perfect harmony with the spirit of this report, but after reading

the report it seemed best to continue the discussion from the standpoint of the public school's immediate problem. Accordingly I celebrated the anniversary of our American independence by preparing another paper. It was my first intention to spend the time commending some of the excellent features and recommendations of this report, but the spirit of the day seemed to give an independent turn to the discussion.

The American Declaration of Independence was founded upon what were believed to be inalienable, inherent rights. The declaration of intellectual independence in Emerson's American Scholar calls upon us to do our own thinking, and to work out our own solutions to our own American problems. Let us hope for a new Jefferson or a new Emerson who may arouse us to the achievement of moral independence. In the moral life slavish imitation is suicide. The universe is a moral order. There are eternal principles of morality, as true and imperative in Germany and France as in America, but one of these principles is the fact that each social group makes special demands upon the individual members. There is a local, temporal aspect to the problem of moral adjustment.

I trust it is with due respect to Hegel and with due apologies to Dr. Brumbaugh that I make bold to suggest another analysis for the solution of the problem of teaching morals in the public schools. This analysis is not at variance with that of Hegel, but it looks in another direction. It looks to the child's instinctive life and the social order in which it must live, as sources of immediate suggestion of ways and means of moral education.

The problem of moral education is to graft social forms and achievements upon the child's native tendencies. If this be the problem, the three analyses required are: first, the individual child's native tendencies. Here we may now get some guidance from the achievements of genetic psychology. Second, an analysis of the present social order. In this field history, social psychology and sociology are pointing out social requirements and social demands. Third, an analysis of the processes of developing self- and social control. For this analysis we must frankly admit that all the knowledge of the world has not yet yielded satisfactory guidance. This last is the supreme problem of teaching and social reform.

This report does a great service to the cause of education by assuming that the question whether morals be taught in the public schools is settled and that the problem now upon us is that of the system. I take it that the descriptive term "tentative" applies only to the system, the means, and methods suggested. Here, too, I find myself in active disagreement with some of the recommendations of the report. In paragraph 2, page 31, occurs the statement that the "old dogma, 'it matters little what you teach a child provided it is well taught,' is giving way to a saner doctrine, 'what you teach is of prime importance; how it is taught is secondary."" In moral education the "how" a thing is taught is one of the chief factors in

the "what." The fallacy in the doctrine announced in this paragraph grows out of the monistic disease of making correlatives alternative. Probably this disease comes from the focal nature of consciousness. When we speak of school education, often when we think of it, we emphasize either the content of the curriculum or the method of employing it. But these are not alternatives, neither are they identical. Their relation is organic; neither can be subsituted for the other; neither can be secondary. Moral education must make both the "what" and the "how" the best-the only kind good enough for a child.

This statement is probably only a way of emphasizing the need of reorganizing "the body of knowledge. . . . constituting the course of study." But we must remind ourselves at once that the "how" in teaching is the life principle organizing and using this body of knowledge. We may excuse this method of emphasizing the content of the curriculum since in the next paragraph the report says that the "still greater changes" are not by "accretions" but in ways that are "structural and fundamental." Now the structural and fundamental changes in education produce their results immediately thru changes in the teacher's teaching consciousness.

The immediate problem of education, then, is to awaken the individual teacher to the consciousness of the responsibility, the possibility, the glorious opportunities for the moral development of each child. This responsibility and possibility is upon the teacher without a single amendment to the constitution or by-laws, without a single new statute, without another resolution from the board of education, without a new announcement from the superintendent or principal, without an addition to the curriculum, or without another period in the program. Let this not be misunderstood. All these things may aid in the movement, but they cannot cause it. When each teacher consciously and with determined purpose sets up good moral character as the inspiring and directing aim in all her work, then there will often be another and different period in the program. Such a teacher might keep the pupil in, not after school, without the principal charging her with "failure to dismiss promptly." If principals and superintendents knew and felt their teachers working under such an impelling motive, there would be new kinds of announcements and resolutions of confidence and approval from boards, and new statutes and amendments. But in the last analysis, these means can only be efficient thru their effect upon the individual teacher. Immediate improvement lies in two directions:

First, the "supers"-the superintendents and supervisors, including principals must hold up and emphasize the super aims of education, and not "supervise teachers to death" by prescriptions and regulations emphasizing details that crush out much of the personality of the teacher. In short, school administration must become democratic in fact as well as theory from the playground up to and including the superintendent's office. The present demand for tangible, measurable results puts a fearful stress