1 84 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



the subject is introduced to the boy most illogically at an age 

 when he cannot possibly understand or appreciate the grounds 

 for its introduction, thus violating a fundamental hypothesis in 

 the science of education. 



Again, it was claimed that " a boy who passes from the 

 classical to the modern side of a school has an immense 

 advantage in inductive science over those who have been 

 educated entirely on modern lines." The justice or injustice 

 of the claim obviously depends on many conditions, not least 

 among which are the standard of judgment set up and the 

 direction in which the superiority claimed was manifested ; the 

 writer for one, although a schoolmaster, has grave doubts of 

 the accuracy of the dictum and would even question Dr. Gow's 

 ability to justify his assertion. But if this superiority exist, 

 if it be a real and not an imaginary superiority due to the 

 varying natural abilities of the boys selected as representatives 

 of the two sides, it is probably not so much due to the classical 

 training the boy has had — a thorough training in Latin having 

 caused him to acquire " orderly habits of mind which make 

 inductive science easy " ! — as to the fact that the modern side 

 is not so highly developed a member of the body scholastic 

 as the classical side : its functions are little known, may even 

 be misunderstood and are certainly profoundly modified by the 

 fact that it has inferior material to assimilate and to work with : 

 in any case the unfortunate youth who chooses or is placed 

 on this side is lost between the Scylla of " commercial subjects " 

 and the Charybdis of a makeshift time-table and is too often 

 in the hands of inferior teachers. It has been argued, with 

 some element of truth, that it does not matter what subject be 

 taught but that everything depends on how a subject is taught, 

 on the way in which it is presented. Our classical headmasters 

 might consider this hypothesis and before generalising on the 

 relative efficacy of " classical " and " modern " training, should 

 ask themselves : Who is in charge of the modern side? What 

 are its aims and why was it established ? Has it been fairly 

 treated in the matter of the selection of pupils or has it been 

 made the " sink " of the school while practically all the boys 

 of ability have been earmarked for the classical side almost 

 in their infancy and their intellect bent into literary channels ? 

 Is the curriculum as liberal as is consistent with its aims and 

 the conditions of its establishment and fully adapted to the 



