644 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LVI, Fo. 1458 



tunities tbat the non-gifted student enjoys. In- 

 deed, the whole appeal for the recognition of 

 the individual in education is as much for the 

 good of the non-gifted as for the gifted stu- 

 dent. I am speaking here from the point of 

 view of the intelieetually gifted; hut we all 

 know that these have miany weaknesses and that 

 there are many other gifts or talents which 

 supplement intellect and in many instances 

 outweigh it. I shall therefore not tolerate any 

 odious comparisons in terms of superior and 

 inferior, and my appeal for the gifted shall 

 not convey the slightest slur or disparagement 

 of the non-gifted; but the fact is that, in edu- 

 cation as in charity, there has been a constant 

 tendency to give the first and most ardent care 

 to the comparatively helpless. To this I would 

 add some thoughtful equalization of interest. 



The discovery of the individual and the 

 study of his talents in modem psychology has 

 brought forth a maxim which may well be 

 our educational slogan : "Keep each student 

 busy at his highest level of achievement in or- 

 der that he may be successful, happy and 

 good." 



This maxim is so pithy and cogent that we 

 can afford to read it and reread it, accenting 

 in turn each individual word, as every word 

 of it stands for a principle. Thus, we may 

 emphasize in reading, each, his, highest, 

 achievement, successful, happy and good. 



Keep the moron busy at his highest level of 

 achiievement and he will be happy, useful and 

 good; institutions have demonstrated that fact. 

 Keep the gifted student in music or art busy 

 at his highest level of achievement and he may 

 become an artist; that has been demonstrated. 

 But science is slbw in applying science to its 

 own procedures. The challenge of educational 

 psychology to-day is this: "Keep the gifted 

 student busy at his highest level of achievement 

 and you may find him a delightful comrade, 

 a contributor to the world's store of knowledge, 

 and a vastly greater man than he could ever 

 have been but for your thoughtful considera- 

 tion." 



To act on the application of this principle, I 

 would urge ithe extension of the following pro- 

 cedures which have all been tried to some ex- 



tent in various institutions but need to be pro- 

 moted. 



1. Sectioning classes on the basis of ability. 

 We may say in very rough, and conservative 

 terms that, if we think of a hundred college 

 freshmen, chosen at random, and match the ex- 

 tremes against each other, 5 at one end can do 

 more than 5 times as much as 5 at the other 

 end. The next 5 at one end can do more than 

 4 times as much as the next 5 at the other end. 

 The next 6 at one end can do more than 3 times 

 as much as the next 6 at the other end. The 

 next 9 at one end can do more than 2 times 

 as much as the next 9 at the other end. This 

 accounts for the highest and lowest quartiles. 

 The differences at the extreme are much larger 

 than here i-epresented because one or two at the 

 upper end may be capable of rendering more 

 than ten times the average output for the class, 

 while the one or two at the other extremes are 

 quite certain to fail. If, then, we seek for a 

 practical basis for the sectioning of classes, we 

 shall do well to recognize three levels which we 

 may call the high, the middle, and the low, the 

 middle being as large as the other two together. 



All too often our educational system is based 

 upon the assumption that, where the great 

 Creator failed to make all human beings equal, 

 it is the business of the school to make them 

 equal. To justify this procedure, the school 

 men have found cover in the argument that this 

 task works toward a democratic ideal; that it 

 represents the rights of individuals; that it is 

 necessary for the successful operation of edu- 

 cational machinery; that it is good for the 

 lowly individual; that the procedure is justified 

 by results. Each of these defenses represents a 

 fundamental error and misconception of fact in 

 educational procedure. 



The democratic ideal in education, as every- 

 where else in life, is not identical opportunity 

 for all, but equal opportunity in proportion to 

 capacity. The genius and the moron do not 

 have quantitatively the same rights to knowl- 

 edge; they have equal rights in proportion to 

 their relevant capacities (quantitative and 

 qualitative), and one should be as insistent 

 upon his rights as the other. 



Among the advantages of such sectioning we 



