568 
“practical” facts, those that are of obvious 
utility in the practise of medicine, should be 
taught, and that no time should be wasted on 
“theoretical” aspects. While this argument 
may appear plausible at first glance, its fal- 
lacy is apparent on closer examination. In 
the first place, it is impossible in any given 
subject to select out only those facts which 
may later be needed. Moreover, even if such 
facts could be selected, it would be impossible 
to teach them as bare, empirical facts, in 
such a way that the student could understand, 
remember and utilize them, without a com- 
prehension of the science of which they form 
a part. The “theoretical,” as Bagley states, 
contributes to the coherence of the various facts 
and principles as knowledge. Its value can not 
be disputed, for any attempt to ‘‘eut out’’ the 
‘impractical’? parts invariably results in the 
inefficient functioning of the remainder. Short 
courses that give only the essentials, fifth-rate 
colleges and normal schools that educate you while 
you wait, are sufficiently damned by their own 
products. 
There is, it must be acknowledged, some 
truth in both the “ practical” and the “ theo- 
retical” points of view. The best methods of 
teaching will, therefore, utilize both. While 
each subject should be taught from the theo- 
retical, scientific point of view, at the same 
time its practical application should be kept 
constantly in mind. Im selecting material to 
develop the essential principles, those facts 
should be chosen which will also probably be 
of greatest intrinsic value for later work. 
Anatomy, for example, should be taught, not 
as a mass of empirical facts, but as a special 
branch of biological science. But in selecting 
from the huge mass of available data the facts 
necessary to illustrate the science of anatomy, 
so far as possible those facts should be chosen 
that are also of direct, intrinsic value in 
physiology, pathology and clinical medicine. 
If this plan were consistently followed out, 
and everything excluded excepting facts, espe- 
cially those of intrinsic value, necessary to de- 
velop a scientific basis, a “ working-knowl- 
edge,” for each branch of study, the amount 
of subject-matter presented in each ould be 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 902 
greatly reduced. We all recognize that the 
curriculum is now overloaded. It is impos- 
sible to teach so much and teach it well. 
“What men need” (according to Huxley) 
“js as much knowledge as they can assimilate 
and organize into a train for action.” 
To develop in accordance with the fore- 
going plan the most effective methods of 
teaching, it is evident that each teacher must 
understand the curriculum as a whole. The 
laboratory man must be familiar with the 
clinical work. But this is not all. Since 
good teaching must take into account that 
which has gone before as well as that which is 
to follow, it is equally evident that the clinical 
man must be familiar with laboratory sub- 
jects and methods. We can not expect the 
best results in medical education until there 
is a better understanding and more coopera- 
tion between teachers of the various subjects 
all along the line. As medicine progresses, all 
phases appear more clearly as varied manifes- 
tations of the same underlying biological sci- 
ence, and only when this is realized will the 
clinical and laboratory work be more closely 
knitted together. 
We have seen that to interest the student 
and arouse him to self-activity, he should be 
made to realize that each subject contributes 
an essential part in training him for the de- 
sired end. We may next inquire as to how he 
must be self-active. Since efficiency in prac- 
tise consists in accurate observation and 
reasoning, resulting in wise action in dealing 
with medical problems, his training should 
develop self-activity in these very lines. He 
must observe, think and act for himself. For 
this purpose almost ideal facilities exist in 
our laboratories and clinics. Unfortunately, 
however, we are far from utilizing these fa- 
cilities to their fullest extent. Our methods 
fail to make the student self-active, especially 
in observation and reasoning. 
First we may consider observation. This 
can be cultivated only by actual observation 
of medical phenomena on the part of the stu- 
dent. It is, however, a surprising fact that 
in many laboratories and clinics there is no 
opportunity for the student to make an orig- 
