IT,'- 



THE AGRICULTURAL NEWS. 



June 14, 1919. 



lu the case ot the scholastic e.xaminations there 

 may be two aspects: the examiner may so frame his 

 questions as to ascertain the general standard of the 

 class as a whole, or he may frame them so as to pick 

 out the best pupils, and so have regard to individual 

 rather than collective merit. The writer shows that the 

 former aspect is the desirable o:ie when considering the 

 general training of classes or bodies of youths: the latter 

 is the s^'stem applicable to competitive e-vaminations, 

 where it is desired to select youths of unusual merit 

 for special purposes. 



As the outcome of these and similar considerations, 

 the writer points out that it is all important that the 

 teacher should be able to realize the mental attitude 

 of his pupils, and to recognize that what may appear 

 perfectly clear and logical to him may not necessarily 

 appear so to them, owing to their less advanced training, 

 and their limited experience. The danger i.s very real, 

 the writer says, that in evolving a system which is' 

 reasoned and logical the teacher is evolving one which by 

 the very fact that it is reasoned and logical, will 

 appeal to the adult ^nd not to the pupil mind. Such a 

 teacher has, in fact, failed in one of the main functions 

 of a teaoher because he lacks the capacity of projecting 

 himself into the position of the pupil. 'J'he conclusion 

 is that in general educational matters it is the indi- 

 vidual that must be considered rather than the system, 



Very interesting and fundamental ijuestions are 

 discussed in legard to the nature of the training which 

 ought to be offered to the youths of any country. 

 The object of the training to be given is to render 

 the individual a useful citizen. Hen; it is shown that 

 his usefulness has two aspects : his usefulness to 

 himself, and his usefulness to the community in which 

 he lives: and that the former is largely conditioned by 

 the latter. Unless an individual can be useful as a 

 member >*ofa community, he is unable to be useful to 

 himself. From this it follows that the reijuirements of 

 the community govern the nature of the training that 

 must be given to its individuals. 



In developing this idea, the writer says: 'education 

 considered from a national aspect must be diverse, 

 and, in its practical aspect, the development of the 

 mind in a form which will leave the individual in ;i 

 condition in which he will render useful service as a 

 citizen. In former times the guiding factor in the 

 ehoice of a proiession was mainly parentage, the son 

 following the trade of the father, and this is still very 

 largely the case, especially in more backward countries. 

 But modern thought the result of compulsory 

 -education— is increasingly in favour of equality of 



chance, irrespective of birth. Within wide limits, 

 therefore, the diversity of education should place within 

 reach of each individual a form of education .suited to 

 his probable future life. A more detailed considera- 

 tion of the true meaning of this statement is desirable, 

 since it is here, I think, that the fallacy contained in 

 the modern claim for equality of chance, and the 

 various doctrines arising therefrom, is most readily 

 exposed'. 



Mr. Leake proceeds to show that equality of chance 

 would imply a claim on the part of each individual to 

 an education fitting him for the most lucrative pro- 

 fessions, but it is obvious that this is a self-destructive 

 proposition, for no community could" exist whose 

 members were all educated to what are now the 

 lucrative professions. 'Food and the thousand necessa- 

 ries of life have to be produced by human labour, and 

 for that labour the education re(iuired for the lucrative 

 professions is unsuited. Equality of chance is, there- 

 fore, not obtainable by the provision of an education 

 ijualityingfor the most lucrative fields of employment. 

 'J'he alternative, the equalizing of the reward, while 

 perhaps not theoretically unsound, is practically un- 

 attainable. Labour of the brain has always been, and 

 will continue to be, more liberally rewarded than 

 labour of the hands, though change may occur in the 

 degree of divergence.' Equality of chance is thus' a 

 fallacy; nevertheless the idea has an underlying basis 

 of truth. That truth Mr. Leake thinks is this. 'While 

 for the majority, it is desirable that an education shall 

 be provided that will fit them to fill the station which 

 they are most likely to occupy in life, namely, that into 

 which they are born, modern thoug;ht demands, and 

 rightly demands, that the individual should not be 

 bound by the a'^cident of birth. Far from this mean- 

 ing that e.r;h individual has a claim to the highest 

 form of eJucation, it implies that a ladder should 

 exist by which iudivi'Uials in any particular station can 

 ascend, if .so fitted, to a higher one. Advancement is 

 thus nob an inheron, right, but the reward of merit. 

 One error running through educational discussions and 

 educati jiial schemes is the misplacement of these two 

 objects of education — the conversion <>i' the ladder' 

 provided for the gift(>d to a broail staircase for the ■ 

 mediocre'. 



These ideas are fundamental to the framing of:iny 

 sound scheme of education; failure to recognize them 

 has wrecked many benevolent plans of agricultural 

 education; something akin to these ideas may be found 

 in the article which appeared some time ago in the 

 West Jntllan BuU(lin(\u\. ,\'IV, p.l71), and referred 

 toin thepagesof this Journal (Vol. XIII, p. 'AM), under 



