THE IXTERPRETATIOX OF NATURE 135 



Only a few days ago, in a discussion of the perennially debated, 

 but never settled, nature-study question, a gentleman affirmed with 

 considerable warmth that as to subject-matter the teacher must teach 

 what " is interesting to her."' There we have in a nut-shell one of the 

 chief factors in the sore inadequacy of nearly all our efforts at formal 

 instruction. The supposed needs of the future men and women rather 

 than the present capacities, curiosities and activities of the children 

 determine both subject and method. What is interesting, not to the 

 child, but to the teacher, is the thing to be taught from the vast stores 

 of physical nature. 



Unfortunately even this topsy-turvy theory does not get much 

 chance to show itself at its best, for too often what the teacher is really 

 interested in is her pay. Thanks to the alertness and omnivorous 

 curiosity of most children, things would go better if each teacher could 

 handle subjects that do genuinely interest her. As a matter of fact, it 

 is often true that the topics taught are not those which thoroughly in- 

 terest any one in particular; they are rather those which, it is held, 

 ought to interest everybody. The course of study, like the famous Mr. 

 Herbert Spencer, " goes fishing with a generalization " for the interest 

 of the " average child," which has not yet been shown to exist in the 

 flesh. No wonder the actual Jacks and Jills fail to rise to the highly 

 rational and theoretically attractive bait. 



I have recently examined a large number of elementary text-books 

 in zoology and botany, and several general works on the theory and 

 practise of teaching, and have been much interested to find how un- 

 mistakably and almost invariably they reflect biological and psycho- 

 logical doctrines which are thoroughly antiquated. The word " anti- 

 quated " I use with deliberation. Basal conceptions have to be over- 

 hauled now and then ; that is the way civilization gets ahead. 



It is obvious to me that Dr. Boris Sidis is on the right road doc- 

 trinally, and the example he has given us in educating his own son is 

 most important. Looking at young Sidis through the eyes of a biol- 

 ogist, I see not necessarily a " mutant," or " sport," but the result of 

 a carefully worked out demonstration in nurture. It is an experiment 

 I am able to verify at any time by giving the feral, stunted plants of 

 our dry mesa lands about San Diego a better chance through stirring 

 the soil around them, or summer watering. 



There is no doubt in my mind that under a thoroughly natural edu- 

 cational procedure carried on partly in the home and partly in the 

 school, any boy or girl capable of being well educated might be better 

 educated at seventeen than any but very exceptional students are now 

 when they are invested as bachelors by our best universities. By " bet- 

 ter educated " I mean more broadly educated, more accurately, and, 

 above all, more sympathetically and growingly educated. One of the 



