948 
—have given a new turn to medical teach- 
ing, that of active participation by the 
student. But still even in these branches 
the lecture still persists in most schools and 
frequently is so magnified in connection 
with the laboratory instruction as to make 
it appear in the eyes of the student as the 
most essential part of the course. The ad- 
vance in methods and means of practical 
laboratory instruction—that is, the visible 
machinery for developing the principle of 
teaching by actual observation and experi- 
ment—would seem in some schools to be an 
equipment for advertising purposes only. 
One does not have to go outside the group 
of our so-called ‘‘big’’ schools to find 
a department of pathology, abundantly 
equipped with apparatus and a wealth of 
pathologie material, offering five lectures a 
week; and one may find an elaborately 
equipped student’s laboratory of physiol- 
ogy manned by assistants while the head 
of the department fulfills his duty to his 
class with three or four lectures a week; 
and likewise, in the clinical branches, few 
men have had the courage to do away with 
frequent and voluminous lectures. Even 
schools controlling a large hospital, and 
sometimes several, and thus having an 
abundance of clinical material, do the bulk 
of their teaching by the formal lecture and 
the amphitheater clinic. The ward class 
and the clinical clerk system gain ground 
but slowly. The reason for this attitude 
is easily found. The lecture is the easiest 
form of teaching, and the average teacher, 
whether he be the laboratory man over- 
burdened by executive detail and handi- 
capped by lack of assistants, or the clinical 
teacher limited in time by a busy practise, 
follows the lines of least resistance, forget- 
ful, though sometimes resentfully so, of the 
best needs of his class. Usually coexistent 
with a pernicious lecture system is the 
habit of leaving those most favorable fields 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 912 
for proper education—the laboratory exer- 
cise and the ward or dispensary class—to 
assistants. No one has less desire to be- 
little the work of assistants or to lessen 
their independence than have I, but in the 
department in which the head lectures 
only the student naturally assumes that 
the work of subordinates—in laboratory or 
clinic—must be work of subordinate im- 
portance, and thereby he comes to have a 
wrong estimate of the live part of his edu- 
cation. The most ardent supporter of the 
lecture system can not say that he always 
holds the interest of his class. He may 
hold their attention and be flattered by 
copious note-taking, but this has for its 
object only one purpose—the final exam- 
ination. The real education—the training 
which means power and which character- 
izes “‘the mind which is prepared’’—can 
come only through independent but wisely 
directed observation, experiment and rea- 
soning on the part of the student. 
I have discussed elsewhere** how the lat- 
ter system may be fostered, and am now 
glad to be able to reinforce my position by 
quoting from the recent very excellent ad- 
dress on this subject by Professor G. M. 
Jackson.1* As to the share of the teacher 
Professor Jackson says: 
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 cooperation between 
teachers of the various subjects all along the line. 
% Pearce, R. M., ‘‘The Experimental Method: 
Its Influence on the Teaching of Medicine,’’ Jour. 
Am. Med. Asso., LVII., p. 1017, 1911. 
4 Jackson, G. M., ‘‘On the Improvement of 
Medical Teaching,’’ ScIENCE, XXXV., p. 566, 
1912. 
