ACADEMIC EFFICIENCY 493 



very apt to overestimate the value of such knowledge, and it is because 

 we have done this so much in the past that there has been so much 

 disappointment in many quarters over the results of scientific teaching. 

 It is a fact that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, and it is 

 the knowledge of such facts that is tested by such examinations as 

 Mr. Cooke proposes. But, except to a very few, such knowledge profits 

 little or nothing — what is infinitely more valuable is an understanding 

 of the method by which the facts are reached and an appreciation of 

 the spirit that compels their investigation. Here, as elsewhere, it is 

 the spirit that giveth life, and any test of efficiency that ignores the 

 spirit and deals only with the bare fact is a mockery. 



It would be a monstrous oversight to ignore the method and the 

 spirit of the teaching. Are the pupils trained by a mere grind over 

 knowledge, a mere hammering in of facts — enough perhaps to ensure 

 that they reach the requisite 50 or 60 per cent, in Mr. Cooke's exam- 

 ination? We must all know schools that would appear to be highly 

 efficient from such a test, and which are really extremely inefficient; 

 and on the other hand some of our best institutions might not make a 

 very good show when subjected to Mr. Cooke's scrutiny. At the 

 Boston Tech a method has been in vogue for long that is there deemed 

 highly satisfactory — it is known as the " do-it-yourself method." The 

 students are put as much as possible upon their own resources and 

 learning is not made easy where it seems better for a man to experience 

 the apparent hardship of overcoming a difficulty for himself. 



Then, when considering method, we should "want to know whether 

 the students are taught to master fundamental principles, or to spend 

 most of their time over details or particular examples. Is it made 

 manifest to them that the details of practise are constantly changing, 

 that what is good in that respect to-day may be antiquated to-morrow, 

 whereas fundamental principles, like the brook, go on forever? 



As to the spirit of the teaching — is it possible to overlook the 

 character of the teachers? Are they men who understand the depth 

 and breadth of their calling? Do they take a large view of the life 

 of to-da}', and have some prevision of to-morrow? Are their circum- 

 stances such as to make this larger outlook possible or probable ? Are 

 they narrow specialists or broad-minded, far-seeing men? Are they 

 paid so that a reasonably full life is a possibility, or are they so ground 

 down by poverty that they must give most of their thought to the 

 vexed question of the cost of living? 



Finally, is a successful effort made by the teachers to convey their 

 largeness of view and breadth of outlook to their pupils? Do the 

 students learn to understand that science does not affect mankind 

 merely on the material side? Do they see that all the changes that 

 science has brought about necessarily involve a profound mental and 



