July 20, 1888.] 



SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 



63 



THE VAGUE CRY FOR TECHNICAL 

 EDUCATION. 



UNDER this heading Lord Armstrong contributes a 

 short article in the July number of the Nineteenth 

 Century, which is well worthy of attention. It will be 

 remembered that not long ago Professor Huxley wrote 

 an able article in that magazine on "Technical Instruc- 

 tion," and the one now before us comes as a useful 

 supplement on this very important subject. Lord 

 Armstrong speaks with authority as one of the largest 

 employers of skilled labour in this country, and as one 

 who has established successfully immense works, whose 

 reputation is second to none in dealing with the practical 

 application of science to the requirements of modern 

 warfare. We have therefore the views of a writer well 

 able to judge of the need for technical instruction. Let 

 us see what he has to say on the subject. 



In the first place Lord Armstrong complains that at 

 the present time there is a general outcry for technical 

 education, although few people have any distinct idea of 

 what they mean when they use that term, or any definite 

 opinion either as to the class of persons who will be 

 chiefly benefited by it, or as to the time of life at which 

 it ought to be acquired. We cannot help feeling that 

 there is much truth in these remarks, and we go further 

 and say that the vague and indefinite speeches often 

 made in public on technical education do more harm than 

 good. They show to manufacturers and others who have 

 the responsible conduct of works where technical skill is 

 required, that the speakers are often mere dilettanti, 

 having but very slight knowledge, if any, of the true 

 bearings of the subject they profess to understand. To 

 put it plainly, this rather disgusts the well informed, and 

 if it does not lead them to pooh-pooh all that is said, it 

 at least begets a feeling of distrust, and they often stand 

 aloof. The practical result is that discussions usually are 

 too diffuse and wanting in thoroughness. It is all very 

 well to give expression to admirable generalities, but to 

 be useful they must be accompanied by definite conclu- 

 sions in detail, based on actual knowledge. Before dealing 

 with technical instruction, Lord Armstrong comments 

 on the present system of primary or elementary 

 education, and he gives it as his opinion that it has the 

 radical defect of aiming at instruction in knowledge 

 rather than the training of the faculties. It will be 

 remembered that Professor Huxley also thinks the 

 present system of elementary education too bookish, 

 and the 1 opinion that this is so is becoming more general. 

 Far be it from us to depreciate the value of knowledge 

 — knowledge is power— but it must be limited, and 

 of a suitable kind for the young mind, and have some 

 relation to the work by which the student must after- 

 wards earn his or her living. Lord Armstrong rightly 

 points out that a man's success in life depends much 

 more upon his capacities for useful action than upon his 

 acquirements in knowledge, and he objects to the 

 memory of a child being burdened with facts, rules and 

 information which for the most part are of little use for 

 developing the intellect, or preparing it for the ordinary 

 vocation of life. He adds that not only should the mind 

 be trained in habits of thought, and in quickness and 

 accuracy of perception, but that the hand, the eye, and 

 the ear should all participate in training exercises. He 

 recommends the teaching of drawing, as well as exer- 

 cises for cultivating the mobility of the hand, with pre- 

 cision and delicacy of touch. If in so doing the ability 



to use simple tools were acquired, it would be advan- 

 tageous in any line of life that might be ultimately 

 adopted. Every man and woman would be the better 

 for pre-acquired manual dexterity, but to attempt to 

 teach children special trades and processes of manufac- 

 ture would, he conceives, be a mistake, and in this we 

 entirely agree. It would involve great expense, would 

 be a misapplication of time, and would only forestall 

 the more effectual teaching, which at a more suitable 

 age may be obtained by actual practice in factories and 

 workshops. He aptly remarks that if a juvenile pick- 

 pocket can be trained to use his hands with exquisite 

 adroitness in the practice of his nefarious occupations, 

 why should not the hands of a schoolboy acquire by 

 proper training similar mobility and delicacy of touch, to 

 be used for honest purposes ? The cultivation of the 

 power of observation he also considers of great import- 

 ance, and he reminds us that Houdin, the celebrated 

 conjuror, and his son practised the receptive power of 

 their eyes by walking quickly past shop-windows, and 

 then recounting all the objects which in the moment of 

 time had been presented to their view. Coming more 

 closely to the subject of this article, Lord Armstrong 

 says that most people have the mistaken notion that 

 technical education is especially required for the working 

 classes. He is of the opposite opinion, and points out 

 that in the numerous class of labourers figuratively 

 styled hewers of wood and drawers of water, no man 

 would be rendered more efficient by the possession of 

 any kind of technical knowledge, although the value of 

 his labour would undoubtedly be enhanced by his having 

 been, as a boy, trained in the exercise of his hands and 

 limbs. In a higher scale of labour he takes the case of 

 artificers, such as joiners, carpenters, fitters, and all 

 others who work in wood and iron for constructive pur- 

 poses. Here again he finds that manual skill, intelli- 

 gently used, is the chief criterion of the value of their 

 labour. These men, in general, work under direction, 

 and so long as they do so it is their manual skill, and 

 not their knowledge, that comes into play. He concludes, 

 therefore, that knowledge, distinct from manual skill, does 

 not add to the value of their labour. In the case of 

 foremen, and others who emerge from the class of 

 manual workers, he thinks that a certain amount of 

 technical knowledge is useful, but considers that all the 

 formation they require, can be found in a condensed and 

 tabulated form in handbooks applicable to all kinds of 

 constructive art. He then considers the class of man- 

 agers and designers, who require technical education in 

 a higher degree; but even here he thinks it is only in 

 rare instances that high attainments in science 

 are essential to practical results. Without doubt 

 there is much truth in these statements, but we 

 cannot help feeling that they need some qualification. 

 We think Lord Armstrong is right in saying that techni- 

 cal instruction will not improve the work of labourers. 

 At the last meeting of the British Association it was 

 urged seriously that farm labourers would be better able 

 to do their work if they learnt the science of successful 

 husbandry ; but such an idea is Utopian. By all means 

 let the children of the working classes seek the best 

 instruction obtainable, but do not let any one of them be 

 misled by supposing that he has mastered the science of 

 his calling, when in truth he can have but a parrot-like 

 acquaintance with it. Lord Armstrong may also be 

 right in supposing that joiners and mechanics will not be 

 benefited by technical instruction, but we cannot agree 



