468 



SCIENCE. 



[X. S. Vol. XVIII. No. 458. 



It is true, however, that the descriptions 

 are in general much more philosophical 

 and mature than those in a book suitable 

 for children could be, and yet is there not 

 a noteworthy suggestion in the remarkable 

 success oi! this book? If the conversa- 

 tional style appeals to elders, all the more 

 would it be sure to appeal to the child. 



It would seem as if a book might be 

 Avritten adopting this style and treating 

 the subject in a manner suitable for chil- 

 dren of the grammar school grade. Bearing 

 in mind that the object of grammar school 

 chemistry is only to familiarize the pupil 

 with chemical phenomena and not to at- 

 tempt to explain and thus confuse the mind 

 with chemical theories, there seems to be no 

 reason why an interest in things chemical 

 can not legitimately be developed. 



In the high school the treatment chem- 

 istry should receive is naturally somewhat 

 different. The nature of the phenomena, 

 including perhaps some simple quantitative 

 relations, may properly be studied, the 

 main objects to be gained being: first, in- 

 creased powers of observation and, second, 

 an accumulation of chemical facts regard- 

 ing the more common elements and their 

 compounds and a few fundamental laws, 

 especially those of quantity. 



To bring the science into closer touch 

 with common life Lassar-Cohn 's admira- 

 ble book, 'Chemistry in Daily Life,' may 

 profitably be read and studied. This plan 

 eliminates practically all chemical theory 

 from a high school course. 



It will doubtless be considered heresy to 

 dignify instruction of this nature by the 

 name of chemistry. Should it be said that 

 a student has studied chemistry without 

 having had some drill in chemical theory? 



It is true that the algebraic expression of 

 a chemical action in the form of an equa- 

 tion may perhaps be used and the idea of 

 symbols elaborated somewhat. Is it best 



to go much farther? How many pupils 

 in our secondary schools have any concep- 

 tion of chemical theory six months after 

 they have been through the usual course in 

 chemistry? It is the common experience 

 of examiners of candidates for admission 

 to college that the three months intervening 

 between the termination of a high school 

 course and the fall examinations in chem- 

 istry for adjnission to college seem almost 

 entirely to obliterate the slight knowledge 

 of chemical theory possessed by the pupil. 

 Of all chemical knowledge theory goes out 

 of the mind first, chemical facts next and 

 descriptions of apparatus last. It has fre- 

 quently been my experience that if, for 

 example, a candidate for admission to col- 

 lege is asked how he made oxygen, he in- 

 variably starts with the test-tube, cork, 

 delivery-tube, glass bottle and pan of water. 

 Generally at this stage there is a long pause 

 with the chances greatly against his re- 

 membering what material was used, and it 

 is seldom that any intelligent grasp of the 

 fundamental principles involved in the 

 chemical action is exhibited. 



It seems to me that this condition needs 

 remedial action. The pernicious custom 

 of using stereotyped schemes for records 

 in note books is, I think, one great cause 

 for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. 

 Mechanically entering records under oper- 

 ation, observation and conclusion headings 

 invariably results in an elaborate and need- 

 lessly painstaking description of the gen- 

 erally simple apparatus ; a less thorough, if 

 anything, too elaborate description of the 

 changes in physical appearance of the ma- 

 terials used and a meager, oftentimes 

 wholly inaccurate, deduction. The result is 

 that what is seen by the eyes and described 

 in detail, i. e., the apparatus and physical 

 characteristics of the material, is longest 

 retained in the memory. 



It is in just this point that laboratory in- 



