OCTOUER 13, 



I9IO] 



NATURE 



Now, it is my desire to apeak about University education, 

 and for this purpose 1 must say something of school educa- 

 tion ; but I would have it understood that 1 really know 

 little about the actual conduct of modern school teaching. 

 One may read books which describe how it should be con- 

 ducted, but this is a very different thing from seeing and 

 hearing the teacher in his class ; and I fear that personal 

 recollections of what teaching in preparatory and public 

 schools was like from thirty to forty years ago do not 

 qualify one to pose as an intelligent critic of the methods 

 which now prevail. 



Human nature, however, has not changed much in the 

 last forty years, and if, in considering the relations between 

 University and school education, I can confine myself to 

 general principles, based upon the difference between boys 

 and men, I trust that I may not go far wrong. 



I propose first to consider some general relations 

 between teachers and their pupils, and then explain what, 

 in my opinion, should be the change in the method of 

 teaching, or at any rate in the attitude of teacher to 

 pupil, which should take place when the scene changes 

 from school to University. 



Kirst as to general relations between teachers and their 

 pupils. 



Educational systems necessarily prescribe the same 

 methods for different teachers, and, being made for the 

 muss, ignore the individual. But happily, in spite of the 

 attempts to formulate methods of instruction and to make 

 precise systems, there are many, and those perhaps some 

 of the most successful, in the army of earnest school 

 teachers who are elaborating their own methods. 



Now among all the changes and varieties of system and 

 curriculum there is one factor which remains permanent 

 and which is universally confessed to be of paramount 

 importance — the individuality of the teacher and his 

 personal influence upon the pupil. It is therefore a healthy 

 sign when school teachers who have been trained on one 

 system begin to develop their own methods, for in this 

 they are asserting their individuality and strengthening 

 that personal influence which is the real mainspring of 

 all successful education. 



Personal influence is, of course, not only a matter of 

 intellectual attainments : it appears to me, however, that 

 at the present lime so much is made of the duty of schools 

 to aim at the formation of character that there is an 

 unfortunate tendency to regard this duty as something 

 distinct from the other functions of a master, and as 

 independent of intellectual qualifications. Among the first 

 qualities now demanded of a master in a public school 

 for boys are manliness, athletic skill, and a hearty and 

 healthy personality, and these are often regarded as com- 

 pensating for some lack of intellectual equipment. I 

 suspect that there is a similar tendency in schools for 

 girls. .\nd yet I think it will be found that the only 

 permanent personal influence is really wielded by teachers 

 who exercise it through intellectual channels, and th.it 

 those who acquire intellectual authority will generally 

 succeed in training the characters as well as the minds 

 of their pupils. 



On the other hand, the master who is not up to the 

 proper intellectual standard will soon be found out by his 

 cleverer pupils, and will lose influence, whatever may be 

 the persona] charm of his character. 



The formation of character, so far as it can be dis- 

 tinguished from intellectual training, is largely worked 

 out by the boys themselves in any public school in which 

 healthy tradition and a sound moral atmosphere are main- 

 tained, although it is true that these traditions depend 

 upon the character and personality of the teachers. 



The educational value of the personal and intimate 

 association with one and the same teacher throughout the 

 school or University career is officially recognised in the 

 tutorial system at JEton, Oxford, and Cambridge. It has 

 generally led to excellent results, provided that the tutor 

 possesses the right qualities and that pupil and tutor do 

 not happen to be two incompatible personalities : but .the 

 results may be well-nigh disastrous where there happens 

 to be antagonism betwean the two, or where the tutor 

 does not realise his opportunities and responsibilities. I 

 have known some tutors who only excited a distaste for 

 learning in their pupils, and others who entirely neglected 



NO. 2137. VOL. 84] 



or abused the high irujt which had been committed to 

 them ; but far inore, 1 am glad to say, who have not only 

 exercised the most profound influence for good on their 

 better and cleverer pupils, but also inspired intellectual 

 interest in the most unpromising of them. .Although such 

 a tutorial system does not enter fully into the scheme of 

 other schools and Universities, and therefore a student 

 does not usually remain long under any one teacher, it 

 must be within the experience of most persons to have 

 come for a time at least under the influence of a teacher 

 who has inspired real enthusiasm for learning and from 

 whose lips the instruction, that might from others have 

 been a trial, has become an intellectual treat. 



It is given to comparatively few to exert this powerful 

 and subtle influence in a high degree, for it is a gift con- 

 fined to a few rare natures. \\\ the more important is it. 

 therefore, to ensure that an effective personal influence 

 may play its part in the intercourse between ordinary 

 teachers and ordinary pupils in the customary routine of 

 school and University life. 



How, then, is the proper personal and sympathetic 

 relation to be established between teacher and pupil, so 

 that the individuality of the one iray call out the character 

 and the effort of the other? Those who inquire of their 

 earliest school reminiscences will probably recollect that 

 the teachers who obtained a real hold upon them did so 

 by virtue of the power which they possessed of arousing 

 their intellectual interest. I would ask you for a moment 

 to analvse the character of this interest. 



In the voung child I believe that it will be found to 

 be mainly'that of novelty: with him "this way and that 

 dividing the swift mind," sustained thought, or even 

 sustained attention, has not yet become possible ; the 

 inquisitive and acquisitive faculties are strong ; and every 

 new impression awakens the interest by its novelty quite 

 apart from its purpose. Vou have only to watch and see 

 how impossible it is for a young child to keep its atten- 

 tion fixed even upon a game such as cricket or football 

 to realise how still more difficult it is to keep his atten- 

 tion fixed upon an intellectual purpose. 



To quite young children, except to those who are un- 

 fortunately precocious, even an impending examination is 

 not a permanent object of anxiety. 



Now contrast the aimless interest which can be aroused 

 in any young child's mind by the pleasure of a i.ew 

 impression, a new activitv, or a new idea, with that which 

 appeals, or should appeal, to the more mature intellect of 

 an older student. With him it is not enough that the 

 impression or the idea should be new ; if it is to arouse 

 interest it must also direct his mind to a purpose. This 

 is to him the effective interest of his games or sport ; in 

 the game the desire to succeed or to win is the anirnatmg 

 purpose, just as the expectation of catching a fish is the 

 interest which keeps the angler's attention fixed for hours 

 upon his line. In both the desire is fostered by the 

 imagination, which maintains a definite purpose before 

 the mind. 



It is sometimes forgotten that as he grows the pupil 

 is no longer " an infant crving for the light," but has 

 become a man with " splendid purpose in his eyes." 



While, therefore, it should be the aim of a teacher of 

 young children to set before them the subjects of their 

 lessons in an attractive manner, so that the novelty is 

 never lost, and not to weary their active and restless minds 

 with too sustained an effort, it should at a later stage be 

 the teacher's aim to keep the object and purpose of the 

 new fact or idea as cor.3tantlv as possible in view, and 

 not to distract the ardent mind with purposeless and dis- 

 connected scraps of learning. 



I ask vou to bear this distinction in mind, for jt is^ a 

 principle Which may guide us in differentiating University 

 methods from school methods of education. 



The distinction need not involve us in a discussion of 

 the ■' Ziel-Angabe " in elementary education, for that is 

 rather ;v, question of keening the interest alive during each 

 lesson than of maintaining a permanent purpose in view 

 throughout a course. 



The much discussed heuristic method as applied to 

 very voung children does, no doubt, fulfil this object so 

 f.-ir as it provides the inquisitive mind with novelty instead 

 of a set task, but so far as it makes the purpose more 



