OCTOBEB 29, 1009] 



SCIENCE 



585 



general school text-book of physics, I shall 

 not reproduce it here. 



This report, made unanimously bj' a com- 

 mittee of six school teachers of physics, was 

 accepted in toto by the College Entrance 

 Board and now stands as the extended defi- 

 nition of the physics requirement of that 

 board. I here repeat the opinion which I 

 have expressed earlier in this paper, that 

 the revision, left at last entirely to experi- 

 enced school teachers of physics, has made 

 no revolutionary change in the require- 

 ment, and that we are therefore justified 

 in concluding that such teachers do not 

 condemn as bad, on the whole, the influ- 

 ence of college requirements on the school 

 teaching of physics. 



It would be quite a different thing, how- 

 ever, to express for myself or for school 

 teachers the opinion that the present state 

 of physics in the schools is satisfactory, 

 except as a temporary stage of development 

 under difficult conditions. Many teachers, 

 especially those new to the kind of work 

 required, have too little knowledge of their 

 subject, many school boards are unwilling 

 or unable to give the teacher proper facili- 

 ties and needed assistance, many college 

 men are out of sympathy with school men 

 and take too little account of what they 

 accomplish. Finally, we have thus far 

 attempted, in my opinion, to cover too wide 

 a field in school courses, or, at least, we 

 have attempted one part of this field which 

 is impracticable with an ordinary class in 

 a school course, the region of dynamics, 

 or kinetics. Seven or eight years ago I 

 raised the question, " Should we, therefore, 

 give up the attempt to teach this part of 

 physics in school courses, or the early 

 courses in college and content ourselves 

 with giving, in mechanics, the statical as- 

 pect only?" and said, "I fear that many 

 teachers will answer this question in the 

 affirmative, but I am not yet ready to do 



so." Now, after years of further experi- 

 ence and observation, I have come to the 

 point of making proposition 9 in the early 

 part of this paper. I have been brought 

 to this point partly by what I have heard 

 in the debates of the Eastern Association 

 of Phj'sics Teachers, partly by the opinions 

 expressed by other associations of teachers 

 with the encouragement of Professor Mann 

 and Professor Woodhull, but largely by my 

 own experience and observation of pupils. 

 Here, it seems to me, rather than in its 

 assault on the general character of college 

 requirements in physics, the "new move- 

 ment" has found a vulnerable place and 

 has indicated a M'ay of improvement. 



When the physicist looks at the familiar 

 formula, 



force = mass X acceleration, 



notes its simplicity and lets his mind enter 

 for a moment the vast regions of illu- 

 mination and power which it opens up, he 

 is only too apt to overlook the aspect which 

 this law takes for the beginner in physics 

 in this country. Let me, therefore, write 

 down several of the forms in which the 

 youngster is asked to recognize and use it : 

 force (dynes) ^ mass (grams) X accel. 



(cm. per sec. per sec), 

 force (poundals) ^mass (pounds) X accel. 



(ft. per sec. per sec), 

 force (gms.-wt.) ^mass (grams) X accel. 



(cm. per sec. per sec.) -^^(=981), 

 force ( lbs. -wt. )= mass (pounds) X accel. 



(ft. per sec. per sec.) -i- g(^Z2-\-), 



Even without adding to these the form 

 which many engineers would insist on, 

 force (Ibs.-wt.) = mass X acceleration, in 

 which the mass of a one-pound weight is 

 called (l-=-fif), we see that the difficulty 

 is a serious one. Are we justified in put- 

 ting it in the way of school pupils who, in 

 the great majority of cases, will never have 

 occasion, after their academic days, to use 

 the acceleration formula in any shape, and 

 who will find in the other regions of physics 



