578 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXX. No. 774 



12. How shall physics be taught to engineering 

 students ? 



13. How can the student be induced to get a 

 more catholic view of general physics? 



14. Has the introduction of courses in pedagogy 

 been justified by the results? 



15. Is there any reason that theoretical physics 

 should languish in America? 



16. Is the importation of professors of physics 

 from Europe necessary and desirable ? 



No formal action was taken at any of 

 these conferences; but at the second the 

 nine propositions given below^ were pre- 

 sented, and at the last conference a ma- 

 jority of those present signed the statement 

 which follows the propositions. 



1. That, while the amount of academic attain- 

 ment in physics which the prospective school 

 teacher of this subject should have can not be 

 definitely fixed, it may be usefully, if somewhat 

 vaguely, indicated as the state of advancement at 

 which, if the man were to be a candidate for the 

 doctorate, he would naturally begin the special 

 research intended for his thesis. 



2. That this preparation should include an ele- 

 mentary knowledge of the calculus and some ac- 

 quaintance with the general facts, principles and 

 laboratory methods of chemistry. 



3. That school authorities should not be content 

 with the appointment of a well-trained and com- 

 petent teacher. They should see to it that the 

 good teacher has good tools and good conditions 

 for his work, a well-appointed laboratory, an 

 equally well-appointed lecture room and relief 

 from unnecessary manual labor. 



4. That this relief of the teacher from unneces- 

 sary manual labor will require, as a rule, the 

 services of a man of all work, sufiiciently skilled 

 to use well the elementary tools of the mechanic, 

 sufiiciently permanent in his place to know thor- 

 oughly the building in which he works and its 

 equipment, sufiiciently teachable and willing to 

 make him a cheerful helper to the teachers of 

 physics and chemistry in whatever assistance they 

 may with reason ask of him. 



5. That the school teacher, so trained and so 

 equipped, should have all the liberty in the method 

 and scope of his teaching which is consistent with 

 the general consensus as to good practise, this 

 consensus to be reached, in the case of schools 



' The ninth was at first in a somewhat different 

 form from that here printed. 



which have close relations with the colleges, by 

 painstaking, sympathetic and persistent efforts 

 on the part of all concerned to come to an under- 

 standing with each other for the purpose of pro- 

 moting their common interest, the best attainable 

 instruction in science for the youth of our country. 



6. That the examination by means of which the 

 attainments of school pupils are estimated in their 

 candidacy for admission to college should include 

 a laboratory test. 



7. That colleges which accept but do not require 

 physics as a part of the preparation for admission 

 should so arrange their elementary teaching of 

 physics as to make an important distinction be- 

 tween those who have and those who have not 

 passed in physics at admission. 



8. That, accordingly, such colleges should main- 

 tain a physics course substantially equivalent to 

 the physics courses of good secondary schools. 



9. That colleges should require of the schools 

 no quantitative treatment of kinetics, or the be- 

 havior of matter undergoing acceleration. 



The undersigned, without committing them- 

 selves to approval of all the propositions given 

 above, commend them to the serious consideration 

 of college and school teachers of physics and 

 express the hope that they may be made the 

 subject of discussion at the coming meeting of 

 the American Association for the Advancement 

 of Science. 



A. G. Webster (Clark University), C. L. Spey- 

 ers, Norman E. Gilbert (Dartmouth College), 

 W. E. McElfresh (Williams College), A. P. 

 Wills (Columbia University), C. Barus 

 (Brown University), J. C. Hubbard (Clark 

 University), F. A. Waterman (Smith Col- 

 lege), E. A. Harrington, Ernest C. Bryant, 

 A. de F. Palmer, Jr. (Brown University), 

 Norton Adams Kent (Boston University), 

 Guy G. Becknell, Robert H. Goddard, Louis 

 P. More (University of Cincinnati), James 

 E. Ives (University of Cincinnati), R. W. 

 Wood (Johns Hopkins University), E. F. 

 Nichols (Dartmouth College), A. Wilmer 

 Duff (Worcester Polytechnic School), C. H. 

 Andrews ( Worcester High School ) , C. A. But- 

 man. 



In explanation and support of these 

 propositions^ I gave an informal talk, the 



" I make these propositions entirely on my own 

 responsibility and must not be understood to rep- 

 resent in this action any other member of the 

 Harvard Department of Physics. 



