638 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 852 



necessary language work early in the 

 course. I believe also in prescribing the 

 other science work. The old-fashioned 

 classical courses, with some modifications 

 admitting science, appear to me to be about 

 the best foundation. Tou ask me why so? 

 For the reason that they began at some 

 place and ended at some place. There was 

 consistency and continuity, with resultant 

 training. The so-called "free elective" 

 plan is to me the worst of all plans. The 

 student is dazed by the many things that 

 he can do; and he does not know what to 

 do. In most institutions, he is supposed 

 to have an adviser, but, as Abraham Flex- 

 ner shrewdly says, "the advice is equiva- 

 lent to perfunctory consent to propositions 

 which the student himself submits." So 

 the student generally ends by doing a lot 

 of the easier things in a hodge-podge, aim- 

 less manner. 



Now let me make a few suggestions with 

 regard to the courses in botany. I fear 

 that I may shock some of you by some 

 things I am going to say. 



In the University of Nebraska we are 

 working on a three-year schedule (in a 

 four-year college course) for undergraduate 

 work in botany, intended to fit men for 

 filling instructorships in botany. I do not 

 believe in the "quick-meal" process in edu- 

 cation, but as I look over what I have been 

 doing the last forty or more years, it seems 

 to me that we can concentrate our work 

 to such an extent that a man who brings 

 proper preparation otherwise to the work 

 ought to be able, in three years, if properly 

 guided, to complete the course. We are 

 making this schedule aggregate from 

 twenty to twenty-five hours only — not quite 

 the equivalent of a single study taken three 

 years. In this time we think it is possible 

 to take a bright young man and fit him 

 well to begin work. Of course he will not 

 be the equal of our older men. Let us, 



however, give up the idea that we can turn 

 out young men who know as much as Dr. 

 Coulter or Dr. Farlow. That will take 

 years ; but a man can have a good prepara- 

 tion for teaching botany, as good as the 

 young engineer gets — and he is ready for 

 work when he finishes his course. So we 

 are working on a three-year schedule and 

 I think we are going to accomplish with it 

 what has hitherto taken a much longer 

 time. 



We are proceeding with the following 

 limitations. First: Such a three-year 

 schedule must include a general survey of 

 the plant kingdom. 



Second: This three-year course must in- 

 clude the essentials of cytology and his- 

 tology. It may not include an extensive 

 knowledge of them, but their technique at 

 least, and enough so that a man has mas- 

 tered a few, at least, of the principles. 



Third : Such a schedule must include the 

 essentials of plant physiology. 



Fourth: It must include also the essen- 

 tials of taxonomy. I will not attempt to 

 say how much that should be, and yet I 

 am certain that there should be a consid- 

 erable knowledge of taxonomy in regard to 

 the plants that a man is likely to come in 

 contact with. I should feel embarrassed 

 if called upon to teach in a part of the 

 world where I did not know what the plants 

 around me were. I would not like to em- 

 ploy a man in my department who would 

 frankly confess that he could not tell an 

 ash tree from a maple. 



These are some of the things that should 

 be known. There are many things I have 

 not included, but I think that what I have 

 put into my schedule will fairly prepare a 

 young man for beginning to teach. He can 

 not take my classes, perhaps, nor Dr. Coul- 

 ter's classes, but he can begin where we 

 began in teaching, and work up! 



Now this amount of botanical knowledge, 



