138 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXII. No. 813 



various propositions has been notably dif- 

 ferent, and accordingly it seems well to 

 discuss separately, for the most part, the 

 treatment of each. 



One general explanation, or admission, 

 however, may as well be made here once 

 for all. There is doubtless much truth in 

 the statement of Professor WoodhuU (note 

 62) that the propositions in question can, 

 "in the nature of the case," relate to a 

 small proportion only of the high schools 

 of the country. I may even go farther 

 with Professor Woodhull and admit that 

 the larger and financially stronger schools, 

 for which especially these propositions are 

 intended, are "not necessarily the best 

 schools." A small town high school, as 

 compared with a large city school, is likely 

 to show the advantages and the disadvan- 

 tages which country institutions in general 

 show in comparison with city institutions. 

 The city must, in order not to be entirely 

 worsted in the trial of merits, make the 

 most of such advantages as are possible to 

 it, and one of these is the service of teach- 

 ers, more thoroughly trained- and better 

 equipped teachers than the country town 

 can afford. Suggestions for the improve- 

 ment of teaching in large schools expressly 

 should not be regarded — they are certainly 



not in the present case intended — as in- 

 jurious to or unfriendly to, or even un- 

 sympathetic with, the small schools. It 

 will hardly be possible to improve the 

 conditions and methods of teaching in 

 large schools without seeing the good in- 

 fluence of the changes extended automat- 

 ically to the small schools. 



The present discussion is frankly, and 

 has been from the start, on the ground of 

 the relations of schools and colleges, and 

 it is, indeed, "in the natare of the case" 

 that large schools should have closer rela- 

 tions to the colleges than small schools 

 have. 



This must be my answer to most of the 

 criticisms which intimate or declare that 

 the first two or three of the nine proposi- 

 tions are impracticable. 



Proposition 1. — This calls for an amount 

 of academic training in physics much 

 greater than most of those who are now 

 teaching physics in schools ever had. Ap- 

 proval of this is very general among the 

 school teachers as well as among the col- 

 lege teachers; but whereas the college 

 teachers, as a rule, favor the suggestion of 

 the A.M. standard, the school teachers, as 

 a rule, object to it. A number (see notes 

 9, 15, 20), who apparently approve 

 strongly of increased preparation, propose 

 something different from that which the 

 A.M. suggests. They would have shop- 

 work, technical school work, or "general 

 practise," for example. I have no quarrel 

 with these propositions. They would cer- 

 tainly give good preparation for teaching. 

 No beginners in this profession can be ex- 

 pected to have all the useful equipment 

 that he will have a few yeai-s later. If he 

 is distinctly strong on either the theoret- 

 ical or the practical side, he can work up 

 the other, with much labor, no doubt, but 

 without overburdening labor, while teach- 

 ing. But if he is not strong on either 



