666 



SCIENCE 



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



the questionable and the speeialistic mate- 

 rial should go into elective courses. 



In formulating its minimum a depart- 

 ment should bear in mind that not all the 

 teaching of its subject-matter is done by 

 itself. Anatomy is taught — should be and 

 must be taught — by surgery and pathol- 

 ogy; physiology, by medicine and pharma- 

 cology, and so on. 



The sum total of these minima should 

 constitute the required part of the curric- 

 ulum. Probably they should make up be- 

 tween three fourths and seven eighths of the 

 total. Nobody really knows. 



PRINCIPLE OF SEQUENCE 



In arranging a curriculum the principle 

 of sequence must be kept in mind. Cer- 

 tain subjects are indispensable prerequi- 

 sites to another subject. Others are desir- 

 able prerequisites. While this is true, it is 

 also undoubted that this principle may 

 be carried too far. The subject-matter of 

 medicine is inextricably woven together. 

 It is not even separable from the great body 

 of general science. Our departments are 

 in a measure artificial and arbitrary divi- 

 sions. If a man goes into physiology before 

 he has had anatomy, he is handicapped, it 

 is true. But, on the other hand, when he 

 gets to anatomy after physiology, he wiU 

 carry to that work usable facts and en- 

 larged interest. We may acknowledge that 

 systematic knowledge of disease is valuable 

 before the student can take up clinical work 

 to best advantage, and consequently we 

 make didactic courses prerequisite to clin- 

 ics. But consider for a moment how much 

 more intelligently the student would ap- 

 proach a systematic lecture course if he had 

 previously seen some sick people. We 

 should not allow too rigid an application 

 of sequence to interfere with larger aims 

 of elasticity and the recognition of individ- 

 ual capability and needs. 



PRINCIPLE OF CONCENTRATION 



In making a curriculum the principle of 

 concentration deserves consideration. The 

 theory is that the student does better work 

 if he confines himself to one or a few sub- 

 jects for a given short period of time. He 

 is to concentrate on one thing and get it 

 done. The antagonistic view is that the 

 student gathers more from a subject kept 

 before him for a long time. Under this 

 theory the curriculum may include from 

 six to a dozen subjects running through a 

 semester or a year. Recently I met a fresh- 

 man in the college of science, literature and 

 the arts of our university who was study- 

 ing seven subjects. She complained of be- 

 ing harried and overworked. I believe she 

 would do better with the same number of 

 class hours devoted to only three or four 

 subjects. I think we should avoid the mul- 

 tiplicity of subjects in the junior and senior 

 years by concentrating one hour a week 

 lecture courses so as to run a shorter time 

 and more periods a week. On the other 

 hand, I can not bring myself to accept the 

 Harvard plan by which only anatomy is 

 studied the first semester, only physiology 

 the second, and so on. I think Harvard has 

 stuck to this plan more for the benefit of the 

 teachers, who thus escape class work half of 

 each year, than for the benefit of the stu- 

 dents. Be that as it may, too much concen- 

 tration is bad pedagogy ; and in as much as 

 it contributes to a rigid curriculum, it is a 

 bad principle of curriculum making. A 

 proper medium is to be sought between con- 

 centration to the crystallization point and 

 dilution to tastelessness. At the present 

 time we are more guilty in the latter direc- 

 tion, particularly as regards the rapid 

 shifting of students among clinical instruct- 

 ors. If Dr. A. meets a group of students 

 to-day and does not see them again for six 

 weeks, how is Dr. A. to make his personal- 



