SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXI. No. 7S4 



can be made is that, while there is no lack 

 of criticism in a general form, as: "The 

 course is too mathematical," or "The 

 course contains too many topics" no clear- 

 cut, definite proposition for reform has 

 yet been made. For example, we have 

 waited in vain for an answer to the ques- 

 tion : "Which mathematical relation should 

 be omitted?" or, "Which topics seem su- 

 perfluous?" Most of the better high 

 school teachers have not changed their 

 course. Why should they do sol We 

 have statistical data showing that over 90 

 per cent, of the students in the larger 

 Michigan high schools, after having taken 

 physics, which is a required study, declare 

 that they would elect the subject if allowed 

 free choice. But doubtless statistics could 

 also be produced showing the opposite 

 effect iipon students in other schools and 

 under other teachers. 



There has been considerable hesitancy on 

 the part of the college professor to interest 

 himself in this question ; but within the last 

 year or two a change has taken place, and 

 it is a hopeful sign that section B is to 

 have a discussion on educational problems 

 during this week. Let us hope that some 

 positive results may be reached. The de- 

 cision as to how physics should be taught 

 rests finally with those men who know the 

 subject, understand the spirit of our sci- 

 ence and for this reason are the only 

 judges of its characteristic educational 

 value. Leaving the discussion of the 

 teaching of physics in our high schools to 

 our session on Friday, I wish to speak 

 upon a subject seldom touched upon in 

 our former discussions : ' ' The Teaching of 

 Physics in our Colleges and Universities." 



Many of us have heard the amusing re- 

 mark: "The worst teacher is the college 

 professor," a remark which always meets 

 with the hearty approval of unripe high 

 school teachers and arouses an unfortunate 



antagonism, instead of leading to a helpful 

 cooperation between college and high school 

 men. No matter how much importance we 

 attribute to the new movement or to such a 

 sweeping statement as the one just men- 

 tioned, may not we college professors in 

 the end be held responsible for the condi- 

 tions in the high schools? Or to be spe- 

 cific: "May not the preparation which we 

 give future teachers be faulty?" and "May 

 not our own teaching be capable of im- 

 provement?" I believe both these ques- 

 tions should be answered in the affirmative. 



1. My first proposition is then : The sys- 

 tem of the teaching of physics in many of 

 our colleges and universities is more 

 adapted to train professional physicists 

 than future high school teachers. I take 

 for granted that the two should receive a 

 different training, a statement with which 

 many of you will doubtless not agree. For 

 my own part, I believe that the ideal high 

 school teacher is one who has passed 

 through a complete and thorough graduate 

 course. However, we are not talking about 

 ideals, but about conditions which actually 

 coiifront us. At the present time the great 

 majority of our high school teachers do not 

 go beyond graduation, and I woiild deplore 

 any attempt to crowd so much physics into 

 the undergraduate course, that the physi- 

 cist whom we may finally turn out lacks 

 the general culture which an undergrad- 

 uate course should give. We can hardly 

 demand that an undergraduate spend more 

 than from 20 to 24 semester hours in the 

 department of physics, even if he expects 

 to teach the subject in the high school. 



In many of our institutions an elemen- 

 tary course is given, requiring the knowl- 

 edge of very little mathematics. After 

 passing this the student is turned loose on 

 advanced studies, often highly specialized 

 mathematical courses. By the time of 

 gradiiation he will have lost a general 



