Standardization in Scientific Education 49 



another, in high-brow East or uncouth West, in "liberal arts" or 

 "technical" college. 



A certain amount of standardization is, of course, necessary and 

 desirable. We must utilize the current conception of "clock hours" and 

 the same conventional calendar of days, months, semesters and years 

 (astronomical movements knowing no favorites), from which naturally 

 follow "semester hours", "credits", "courses" and "graduation", also 

 even "degrees". This is not objectionable, it is necessary and desir- 

 able, as I have just said. We should have some sort of definite notion 

 of what four years of college work and any specified number of years 

 of university work is to mean, in the matter of opportunities. But 

 there is no sort of possibility of measuring the results of these oppor- 

 tunities by saying that the student has "had" or "taken" or "pursued" 

 certain named courses or has received certain named degrees, unless 

 you further specify where and how the opportunities were found. Not 

 "where" in the geographical sense, nor with reference to the name of 

 the school or the character of its traditions or the prowess of its foot- 

 ball teams, but in the sense of the character and ability and enthusiasm 

 of its teachers. The age of the school, the style of its architecture, 

 the wealth of material equipment mean nothing, or so nearly nothing 

 that they may be ignored, unless the men and women who constitute 

 the soul of the institution in the form of its teaching staff are those 

 who carry their students irresistibly into the swing of their own en- 

 thusiasms, so that the hard work which is involved in education and 

 scientific training becomes recognized as a rare opportunity and a 

 real pleasure. 



Let me say here, with as much appearance of boldness as possible, 

 that I do not want to standardize college teaching very far beyond 

 elementary mechanical particulars; largely because it cannot be done. 

 Let us suppose that two men are giving instruction to their respective 

 classes in the same building. Let the classes be so assorted that their 

 general characteristics are well balanced in the two divisions. Let the 

 professors teach the same lesson, using the same text book and (let me 

 carry the illustration to the extreme of absurdity) even saying the 

 same words. 



What is the result? One group of boys comes from the room at 

 the end of the period, enthused, wideawake, refreshed from the hour's 

 experience, with the consciousness of some new step taken in the de- 

 lightful progress toward scientific understanding and with pleasurable 

 anticipation for the next day's work. The other group comes out 

 soured, disgruntled, pessimistic toward the whole question of education, 

 and cynical and rebellious toward the arbitrary requirements of the 

 college. What is the reason? Nothing any more difficult to understand 

 than this: that different men were doing the teaching. The students 

 absorbed what was about them. They caught the contagion that was 

 in the air. 



Have I not mentioned what we all know to be a perfectly familiar 

 state of affairs and need I elaborate upon this topic? I shall do so 

 only to the extent of saying that the unsuccessful teacher may have 

 been intentionally following an absolutely correct and approved system 



4—27933 



