Standardization in Scientific Education 53 



ments or courses, not simply by throwing increased financial support to 

 their material equipment but by improvement in personnel. This (if 

 my observation is a reliable indicator) is one of the most perplexing 

 problems of college management. Too many presidents and deans ap- 

 parently lack the courage to get rid of incompetent and mischievous 

 -^c'lers, especially when the latter form a part of an internal political 

 system that is hard to break. But it is the only real solution. 



If, then, it were possible to standardize scientific education to the 

 nth degree, if it were possible (as it never will be) for us to come to 

 unanimous agreement as to length, content and sequence of courses, 

 upon method of presentation, upon text books and examinations and 

 grading and degrees, we should be very little nearer a statement of what 

 effective training in science should be. For we should still have, as I 

 hope we always shall have, those personal differences in the character- 

 istics of the teachers of all of our colleges which break up, in such a 

 human and delightful manner, the mechanical routine of study and class 

 work and which give, or should give, every alumnus of every college some 

 ground for boasting of the excellence of his own alma mater. And 

 upon these differences, to a very considerable degree, must be based 

 the practical distribution of work in a given curriculum. 



As individuals and as faculties we believe in and fight for academic 

 freedom. And that is right. Let us understand that this idea shall 

 include the freedom to throw our individual selves into our teaching and 

 the assurance that our tenure and the moral and material support we 

 receive shall not depend upon any views upon political, religious, eco- 

 nomic or ethical questions we may hold and express, so long as these 

 are sincere, or upon personal favor of any kind, but upon the results 

 of our teaching, viewed in the bi'oadest possible way. 



In this paper and elsewhere I have repeatedly dwelt upon the im- 

 portance of good teaching. I believe that the mechanics of courses and 

 curricula, of quizzes and examinations, of honors and degrees, are of 

 very vital importance and it is necessary that they should be worked 

 out in the most intelligent manner possible, to the end that some degree 

 of uniformity should attend our various and united efforts to train our 

 young men and women for careers in the work of science. But 

 machinery, however perfect, will not run itself. You may have a mam- 

 moth educational plant, an all but ideal equipment of machinery and 

 apparatus and materials, and your courses and curricula may be planned 

 with the utmost skill, but if the soul of the institution is non-existent 

 there will be no education that is worth a fragment of the cost. As 

 I have already indicated, the soul of the college, of the university, is 

 its teaching staff and no amount of mechanical standardization is going 

 to develop a soul. Not only this but too much standardization will 

 inevitably cramp and destroy such a soul. A teacher must, of necessity, 

 be well prepared in the subject which he undertakes to teach but he 

 must also be a born teacher, loving his work, feeling its importance 

 and taking infinite pleasure in observing its effects upon the scientific 

 ideas and ideals developing in the minds of his students. And he must 

 have originality and spontaneity. Otherwise he is a foreordained failure. 



