ON TEACHING CHEMISTRY. 79 



haps the first is non-classification. The boys are sent to chemistry lec- 

 tures grouped according to classics ; the result is confusion. Take the 

 fifth form, for example. It is sent into the laboratory for an hour's lecture. 

 In that form you have some of your promising boys, also some of the 

 weak ones, very good classics possibly, whom to teach chemistry is, you 

 know, hopeless. But the work must be done, so you take a medium 

 course, pitching your discourse to suit the average boy ; you must be very 

 careful to aim low or you will certainly hit nothing. In doing this your 

 lecture is below the promising boys, who feel a growing contempt for 

 you or your subject, and at the same time the lowest boys are wearied by 

 matter which they cannot grasp.' 



XXIV. ' Two difficulties are : — (i) Want of sympathy with natural 

 knowledge on the part of the majority of university men who take to 

 school work ; (ii) strong adverse ti'aditions in many schools backed up 

 by the fashionable superstition that literaiy rather than scientific studies 

 constitute the education of a gentleman.' 



XXV. ' The difficulty is that parents do not yet recognise chemistry 

 as a " paying " subject, consequently their boys neglect it.' 



XXVI. ' A serious difficulty is caused by the fact that boys may join 

 a class in any term. This may not be a great evil in the case of languages 

 or mathematics, but where from the very nature of the subject it is neces- 

 sary, in order to understand and benefit by a lesson, that the preceding 

 lesson should be first mastered, the case is altogether different, and it is 

 not clear how this and the kindred difficulty of grouping in one set boys 

 of very unequal powers and attainments can be obviated, seeing that 

 schools are classified on other lines, generally according to proficiency in 

 classics.' 



XXVIT. ' I believe that one of the great stumbling-blocks in the way 

 of chemical teaching in day-schools is, that boys are often sent to the 

 science master in classes determined by their position in classics or Eng- 

 lish subjects, so that there is no proper gradation in the teaching. This 

 obtained here until recently, but now, by simultaneous teaching by three 

 masters on two afternoons a week, it is possible to group the boys in the 

 senior school according to their proficiency in science (mainly chemistry) 

 alone. The result has been a considerable improvement in the quality of 

 the woi'k.' 



XXVIII. ' The scholastic disrepute in which chemistry is held is 

 apt to lead a head-master to devote to it the least mentally qualified boys, 

 who have absolutely failed on the classical side.' 



(iii) It appears that the time which is usually allotted to chemistry in 

 schools is altogether inadequate, and frequently this defect seems to con- 

 stitute one of the teacher's greatest difficulties. 



XXIX. ' I suppose few grammar schools give more time to chemistry 

 than four hours a week, and so long as competitive examinations assess 

 chemistry at one-quarter the value of mathematics, and one-eighth that of 

 classics, more time cannot be expected. When it comes to be recognised 

 that the mind which is scientifically trained is most likely to produce work 

 valuable to the community, and at the same time is best suited to grapple 

 with the practical problems of everyday life, all this will be changed.' 



XXX. ' This school contains 500 boys. The average number of those 

 who receive instruction in chemistry is 30 and the time allotted to the 

 subject is three hours a week.' 



