September 11, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



33S 



not know an element from a compound, 

 and those who have passed the searching 

 college-entrance examination. 



Wishing to know what is the actual prac- 

 tise in the higher institutions. I sent to 

 each of the twenty-three colleges and uni- 

 versities that contribute to the College En- 

 trance Examination Board, the following 

 among other questions : ' Ai-e those students 

 that have passed elementary chemistry on 

 entrance obliged to take general chemistry 

 again if they continue the subject, or may 

 they go on at once with more advanced 

 work ? ' The College Entrance people were 

 selected because they are united on a defi- 

 nite object, and ai-e supposed to allow can- 

 didates for admission to offer chemistry. 

 The result would probablj- not vary much 

 if other colleges had been interviewed. Of 

 twenty-three replies to this qiiestion (for 

 ever}' one answered it) seventeen are to the 

 effect that the subject must be repeated, 

 though a few say that if the course has been 

 as thorough in the high seht)ol as it is in 

 the particular college, the student may go 

 on, implying at the same time that this 

 rarely, if ever, happens. In two cases 

 chemistry was not allowed as an entrance 

 elective. One states unqualifiedly that 

 students may go on, another that they may, 

 but that very few continue the subject. 

 Thus the almost unanimous verdict is: 

 Repeat. And the offense with which the 

 high school is charged is inadequate prep- 

 aration. 



AVishing to get at the evidence which 

 weighed in the minds of the judges, I put 

 to the same twenty-three institutions this 

 question: 'In what part of the work do you 

 find those offering chemistry most defi- 

 cient?' To this question fifteen direct 

 answers were given, and as they form the 

 important evidence on which my client is 

 convicted, I quote them. 



ANSWERS. 



1. Elementary general principles. 



2. A comprehension of underlying prin- 

 ciples. Pupils acquire facts but do not 

 understand their relation to general prin- 

 ciples. 



3. Want of application. 



■i. Work is not thorough; mostly taught 

 from books, ground covered too great for 

 time devoted to it. 



5. Elementary logic. Students coming 

 to college are very deficient in reasoning. 



6. Equations and laboratory work. 



7. Making, putting up and using appa- 

 ratus; a thorough Imowledge of the non- 

 metals; quantitative experiments. 



8. Their failings will vary with the in- 

 struction they have received. 



9. In general. 



10. Perhaps theoretical more than de- 

 scriptive. 



11. Have generally 'done' a large num- 

 ber of experiments, but are sadly deficient 

 in chemical laws. 



12. In theoiy and in knowledge of 

 metals. 



13. Equations and familiarity with fun- 

 damental principles. Three fourths of the 

 time at high schools is wasted in trying to 

 cover too much ground. 



14. They fail because they will not 

 study, and I think in many eases they were 

 never taught how to study. 



15. The fifteenth and last is a venomous 

 arraignment of high schools, untrue as it 

 is unkind. Its author says : "The prepara- 

 tory schools are not in a position to give 

 students anything like the comprehensive 

 instruction in elementary chemistry. In 

 the first place, they can rarely afford to 

 hire a chemist to give the instruction. They 

 only get a school teacher who has a smat- 

 tering of chemi.stry, and not a real chemist. 

 In the second place, they never have much 

 ajiparatus. so at best preparatory' chemis- 



