22 IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 



hurried into the trades and specialists sent out who know 

 nothing but their little tread-mill round of practice. Is it true 

 that botany, zoology, astronomy, and theoretical chemistry and 

 physics have no great value, and that aside from their purely 

 disciplinary effects they might as well be consigned to the 

 rubbish heap? By many the field of the natural sciences is 

 regarded as a playground where the mind majT- relax itself in 

 intellectual somersaults. 



I would not be understood as antagonizing technical schools, 

 or as depreciating the value of a technical education, but I do 

 say that a general demand for the practical shows something 

 wrong in our educational system. Either we are failicg to 

 render the general culture effect of our teaching of much value 

 or we are holding out false notions as to the practical value of 

 our studies. I believe the former to be the true cause. We are 

 not seeking to discipline the mind in proper chaonels so much 

 as to fill up the cup of mental capacity with scholastic hodge- 

 podge. The great fault of science in our educational scheme is 

 not that it is not practical, but that too often it is not much of 

 anything. We are loading our courses of study with a great 

 bulk of interesting things, "such as every one ought to know 

 something about." Look at the program of studies of the 

 average high school: a term each of botany, zoology, geology, 

 astronomy, physiology, physics, chemistry, etc. What knowl- 

 edge does the student gain of the inductive methods of study? 

 Occasionally a little, usually none. What practical ideas does 

 he acquire? Some, no doubt, yet in the text- books ordinarily 

 used error is about as conspicuous as truth. If we could con- 

 fine our science teaching in 'the public schools to a year of 

 physics and an equal amount of some other one science, and 

 concentrate our energies on quality instead of quantity, method 

 instead of matter, the good results would be ten- fold what they 

 are at present. I am confident that in proportion to the time 

 spent upon it our science teaching yields fewer results than any 

 other line of public school work. The same criticism may be 

 applied to many of our higher institutions of learning. It is no 

 wonder the public calls for something practical. 



When the inductive sciences were given such a conspicuous 

 position in our educational sysLem as they occupy to-day, it 

 was thought society was in a fair way to free itself from many 

 errors. But we have too often gone merely from an error to a 

 blunder. Our college and university training has too often 



