October 25, 1932] 



SCIENCE 



535 



Now, I am not arguing that these laws 

 are bad. Some of them are undoubtedly 

 artificial. But even these have probably 

 been necessary as applied to average stu- 

 dents and average colleges. The trouble is 

 that no arrangement is provided by which 

 the particular case can be excepted. The 

 law, we are told, is no respecter of per- 

 sons. So much the worse, I retort, for the 

 law. And the law by the way is beginning 

 to recognize this fact, as witness the more 

 enlightened way in which it is beginning 

 to deal with juvenile offenders. Each case 

 is settled on its merits and by careful judg- 

 ment of experts. 



In our association also we have laws. 

 With much labor we have formulated a 

 curriculum from which no college can devi- 

 ate in any particular more than 20 per 

 cent. Yet to-day I have in my laboratory 

 a young man who shows talent as an investi- 

 gator. He desires to become and I am sure 

 will become a professional physiologist or 

 pharmacologist. I should be a traitor to 

 my science if I compelled or advised that 

 young man to take the straight, fixed cur- 

 riculum. He should have a special course 

 laid out to meet his special needs. 



But some one objects, "This is unsafe; 

 this young man may later go into practise. ' ' 

 My critic is laboring under the belief that 

 our fixed curriculum contains all the sub- 

 jects and only the subjects without which 

 one can not safely go out as a physician. 

 My answer is, I know the man and his abil- 

 ity. The curriculum, I may further re- 

 mind my critic, is literally a race course. 

 We do not use the same kind of track for 

 automobiles and aeroplanes and steam 

 yachts. 



This criticism and my answer to it lead 

 me to state the first condition for dealing 

 properly with the individual student, 

 whether as regards curriculum, migration 

 or any other matter. Some one has got to 



know that student and the facts about him. 



A second critic may have said to himself 

 when I suggested a special curriculum for 

 my student in physiology, "It will be 

 against the Constitution of the Associa- 

 tion." My reply is, in the famous words 

 of the practical statesman, "What is the 

 constitution among friends?" 



And that leads me to enunciate the sec- 

 ond condition for dealing with the individ- 

 ual student. There must ie a body of 

 friends, friends of the student, friends of 

 education, friends of the public, who shall 

 determine when, where and hoiv the con- 

 stitution {i. e., the rules and regulations) 

 may safely be broken. 



You catch the drift of my thought: a 

 college may be run in two ways. It may 

 be run by infiexible rule. Students are re- 

 ceived, classified, advanced, rejected, grad- 

 uated, by regulation and statute. All that 

 comes in, whether iron, steel, lead, copper, 

 brass, silver or gold, is drawn through the 

 same hole to wire of the same size. Such a 

 college is not a human being. It is a ma- 

 chine, and it makes no mistakes. It needs 

 no intelligent supervision. You just start 

 the wheels going and watch the rollers 

 turn merrily on. 



Or a college may be run for the individ- 

 ual. It may have small regard for paper 

 standards, have few regulations, have a 

 flexible curriculum, care little for classifi- 

 cation, permit specialization. It may make 

 wire of iron and steel. It may turn the 

 lead over to the plumbing industry. It 

 may make scientific apparatus of its copper 

 and brass. It will surely make jewels of 

 its silver and its gold. Such a college is 

 human. It makes judgments, choices, de- 

 signs. It is not a machine, and it makes 

 mistakes. It can only avoid making many 

 mistakes by the most intelligent supervi- 

 sion and the combined judgment of ex- 

 perts. 



