508 Biological Instruction in Universities. [June 
teachers to abandon methods that lead to such deplorable re- 
sults, Place in every one of these fitting-schools to-day teachers 
who know full well the injurious effects of the methods em- 
ployed, and they would be powerless to abolish the system and 
replace it bya better. They represent only one of the factors— 
and that not the most important one—which must co-operate to 
effect the needed reform. Prof. Farlow suggests that “ improve- 
ment in the quality of college graduates who could teach biology 
in schools, if there was any demand for it, gives room for hope.” 
This suggestion brings back at least a part of the responsibility 
for unsatisfactory methods of teaching to the doors of our col- 
leges and universities. In this direction, more than in any other, 
lies the remedy for the evils complained of. Our higher institu- 
tions of learning represent the creative and directive factor; and 
to them we must look, first of all, for the supply of competent 
teachers, and, in the second place, for the creation of that healthy 
public sentiment which will give support and protection to 
teachers and school boards in carrying out the desired reforms. 
The interest of the educated public must be aroused to the 
supreme importance of cultivating the observing powers of the . 
young before any suitable provision for their training can be 
expected. . 
But how shall the capacity for observation be brought into ` 
general respect and esteem? Evidently the universities must 
move first. The stream does not rise higher than its source, and 
it can hardly be considered a reproach to our preparatory schools 
if they do not attach great importance to methods of training, the 
value of which is not made apparent in the requirements for ad- 
mission to college. Itis the fashion to speak of the “ cramming 
system” as the Pandora’s box of all the evils we discover in 
school methods. But where in this country is the college or 
university which does not foster the system in its rankest forni ? 
Tt is difficult to see why the system is not as good for the 
_ schools as for the universities ; and it seems pertinent to ask how 
the latter, while harboring it, can ever expect to eradicate it in the 
former. But is it, after all, the system itself against which com- 
plaints should be directed? We all have to “cram,” more or 
less; and the process is perfectly legitimate and harmless within 
ceiid limits. School education begins in cramming, and all 
— life we go on stuffing the mind with facts, of which 
