October 8, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



461 



son who has had his attention for a time 

 directed, with the utmost insistence, ex- 

 clusively to the making of some addition 

 to human knowledge. He may be an inves- 

 tigator, but he is not necessarily anything 

 else. Training in the art of teaching is not 

 even a minor requirement for the degree. 

 We are constantly told that teachers are 

 born, not made. So, however, are the most 

 successful lawyers and doctors. This 

 "nascent" theory of teaching will not bear 

 a moment's scrutiny. What natural mech- 

 anism exists that shall direct the born 

 teachers into teaching, and shall prevent 

 the born policeman and born stock specula- 

 tors from drifting into the same line of 

 work? Then again, is the born teacher 

 necessarily able to teach withoiit training? 

 The discoverer of an important surgical 

 operation was probably a born surgeon, yet, 

 unless the story is entirely apocryphal, he 

 destroj'ed a whole hatful of eyes before he 

 found out how to perform the operation 

 successfully. Should we permit all other 

 surgeons, including those of less native 

 ability, to learn the art in the same way? 

 Since the art can be, and is, taught in a 

 more economical fashion, .should we not re- 

 gard the continual repetition of the orig- 

 inal process as an unbearable atrocity? 

 Shall we then allow even the born teachers, 

 not to speak of those who are not of this 

 select group, to mutilate the minds of our 

 youth while learning their business? 



No one has yet analyzed successfully the 

 attributes of the investigator, on the one 

 hand, and the attributes of the teacher on 

 the other, and placed them side by side, in 

 such a way that the extent to which they 

 are congruent can be determined. But, 

 that the natural qualities of the investiga- 

 tor should include all natural qualities of 

 the teacher, and that other qualities which 

 the investigation acquires by training in 

 research should include the whole art of 



teaching, can not for a moment be believed. 

 Perhaps an analogy may serve to bring out 

 the distinction. We might train a man in 

 the theory of music, and drill him in 

 musical composition, so as finally, with the 

 assistance of his natural ability, to develop 

 a successful composer. Yet, if the require- 

 ments for the doctor of philosophy in 

 music did not include anything more, we 

 should be extremely foolish to infer that 

 the graduate would be able to perform 

 upon some musical instrument. He would 

 be in the precise position of that classical 

 person who did not know whether he could 

 play the violin or not, because he never 

 had tried. His position would be only a 

 .shade less absurd than that of the individ- 

 ual (commonly known as the college presi- 

 dent) who, knowing the candidate had 

 never been trained to play, nevertheless 

 selected him to fill a position in the college 

 faculty orchestra. 



Of course I am aware that the president 

 searches diligently for teaching experience 

 amongst the qualifications of the candi- 

 dates, and very often succeeds in detecting 

 distinct traces of it. But teaching experi- 

 ence is one thing, and skill in teaching is 

 another. The self taught analyst is a lot- 

 tery, with the chances much against the 

 gambler. He may have succeeded in teach- 

 ing himself more bad habits than good 

 ones. 



It is hardly necessary for me to say that 

 we should welcome the investigator and, 

 other things being equal, prefer him in ma- 

 king a college appointment. In the college 

 teacher, a keen interest in research and the 

 ability to do it are indispensable. It is for 

 some rational method of adding to the re- 

 search ability, a certain amount of instruc- 

 tion in the art of teaching that I am plead- 

 ing. Surely some method can be devised 

 by which the prospective college teacher 

 may get over the cruder blunders and mis- 



