396 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 



performing some of the simpler experiments by way of illustrations. Later 

 the extreme opposite method was used, only laboratory work being thought of 

 value. In 1881 a discussion was had by the College Association in which 

 very decided views were promulgated. Professor John L. Campbell read a 

 paper in which he advocated, for physics, a combination of lecture, recitation 

 and laboratory work. Professor Wilej^ took the extreme view that, for chem- 

 istry, laboratory work was the all important thing; that the first day in the 

 laboratory should be research, as should be every day following. He said 

 nothing should be told the student; neither should he read anything. He 

 was to go into the laboratory and discover things which, to him at least, 

 were entirely new; investigate nature. While a number agreed with Wiley 

 the consensus of opinion seem to be that Professor Campbell's method was 

 preferable. This may give some idea of the confusion of thought that was 

 in the air relative to the place of chemistry in those transition years between 

 the pure classical education and the new science. Quite rapidly, however, 

 the chemical courses became standardized and took their places beside the 

 classical, equal in extent, almost equal in content. Each received something 

 from the other. The scientist came to understand that education is to make 

 men as well as chemists, and the classical man learned that there is a human 

 and practical side to all education. 



While chemistry- and the other pure sciences are fairly well standardized 

 as means of educational develoi)ment it is probable that the practical appli- 

 cations of chemistry can l)e better worked out so as to be used in a better 

 way as an instrument in tlic development of the student. On the contrary 

 some of the more ])ractical aj)i)lications of science as taught in our colleges, 

 such as agriculture and honu' economics, are about at tlie stage of develop- 

 ment of chemistry thirty or fort.\' years ago. And they ai'e lowering the 

 general standard of scientific education now in the same way that chemistry 

 lowered the standard in the earlier stages of its development, and somewhat 

 for the same reason. Their methods of attacking problems presented are 

 not sufficiently mental, thorough and developing. Instead of using the 

 practical things, with which they must deal, to develop educational quali- 

 ties in the student, the forms of education are being used to teach some 

 practical things which, in themselves, are of little educational value. The 

 two methods are not identical and cannot be superimposed. 



A roster of the men who were most conspicuous in the transition period of 

 which I have spoken ma\' not l)e out of place. In addition to the brothers 

 Owen and E. T. Cox, StateCJeologists, there may be mentioned T. C. VanNuys. 

 head of the Department of Chemistry, Indiana University; H. W. Wiley, 

 Professor of Chemistry, Purdue, State C^hemist of Indiana, head of the 

 Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture. President of the 

 American Chemical Society; P. S. Baker, Professor of Chemistry, DePauw; 

 J. U. Nef, Professor of Chemistry. Pur{lu(>, head of the Department of Chem- 

 istry, University of Chicago; W. A. Xoyes, Professor of Chemistry, Rose 



