662 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 1010 



with characteristic thoroughness. We are 

 constitution makers by right of heredity. 

 Our mechanical genius asserts itself. Our 

 instinct is for standardization. We cut all 

 our cogs to the same bevel. A rigid align- 

 ment of moving parts is insisted on. We 

 are fond of link-belt machinery. We take 

 advantage of gravity for feeding and 

 screening. The machine runs well. The 

 only trouble is that we forget the insignifi- 

 cant detail that we are making men instead 

 of grinding com. 



A curriculum, gentlemen of the Associa- 

 tion, is an important matter. Not so im- 

 portant as good individual teaching, it is 

 true. Not so important, perhaps, as proper 

 material equipment. Not so important as 

 high ideals and a cooperative spirit among 

 teachers. Nevertheless, curriculum making 

 is a serious business. Are there no prin- 

 ciples which may guide us in such an 

 undertaking ? 



FORMER METHODS 



The simplest way to form a curriculum 

 is to have each professor state how much 

 time he wants. This is doubtless the way 

 the curriculum was made which every one 

 was laughing at a few years ago and which 

 required 230 hours of electro-therapeutics. 

 The principle involved was "All cards 

 have the same value. Every hand is a 

 winner. ' ' 



This method reaches its limit when the 

 added demands of all the instructors make 

 a larger sum of hours than the students can 

 endure. As soon as this happened the 

 usual procedure in the past was to place 

 an arbitrary limit on total time require- 

 ments. Then each professor began to fight 

 for as large a share of this time as he was 

 able to obtain. This was probably the way 

 in which a certain curriculum was pro- 

 duced containing 1,300 hours of anatomy. 



The principle was "Jack-high and a pis- 

 tol take the pot." 



These simple methods and elemental 

 principles may have been adequate in 

 ruder, simpler conditions. The best time- 

 getter was often the best teacher. At least 

 he was a strong personality. No standards 

 existed. No state boards had formulated 

 embarrassing exactions. The student con- 

 sidered one school as good as another; or, 

 most likely, he believed the particular 

 school he was attending to be the only good 

 school. He was concerned with a certain 

 square of parchment to be obtained after 

 so many years and for the payment of so 

 many dollars. He was not expected to 

 think and succeeded in meeting all expec- 

 tations. 



THE FREE ELECTIVE SYSTEM 



The opposite of these primitive methods 

 of curriculum-making is the free elective 

 plan. This has never been tried out in med- 

 ical education. But Harvard College had 

 a long experience with a program in which 

 very little restriction was placed upon the 

 students' choice of teachers and subjects. 

 Many western universities gave equal or 

 greater liberty to their students. It could 

 almost be said that there was no curricu- 

 lum. The principle was "American plan 

 hotel. Everything on the table. You pay 

 your money, and you take your choice." 



The results were excellent for serious 

 students of good judgment. But many 

 men are not serious, and not all serious 

 men have good judgment. A goodly pro- 

 portion of men were found to be selecting 

 their courses so as to fit in well mth mid- 

 night suppers and late breakfasts and 

 afternoon teas, or with more questionable 

 employments. The snap course was the 

 college man's blessing. Men were gradu- 

 ated whose education was an imitation 

 veneer on a pasteboard background. As a 



