22 
IOWA ACADEMY OP SCIENCES. 
hurried into the trades and specialists sent out who know 
nothing but their little traad-mill round of practice. Is it true 
that botany, zoology, astronomy, and theoretical chemistry and 
physics have no great value, and that aside from their purely 
disciplinary effects they might as well be consigned to the 
rubbish heap? By many the field of the natural sciences is 
regarded as a playground where the mind may relax itself in 
intellectual somersaults. 
I would not be understood as antagonizing technical schools, 
or as depreciating the value of a technical education, but I do 
say that a general demand for the practical shows something 
wrong in our educational system. Either we are failing to 
render the general culture effect of our teaching of much value 
or we are holding out false notions as to the practical value of 
our studies. I believe the former to be the true cause. We are 
not seeking to discipline the mind in proper channels so much 
as to fill up the cup of mental capacity with scholastic hodge- 
podge. The great fault of science in our educational scheme is 
not that it is not practical, but that too often it is not much of 
anything. We are loading our courses of study with a great 
bulk of interesting things, ‘ ‘ such as every one ought to know 
something about.” Look at the program of studies of the 
average high school; a term each of botany, zoology, geology, 
astronomy, physiology, physics, chemistry, etc. What know!- 
edge does the student gain of the inductive methods of study? 
Occasionally a little, usually none. What practical ideas does 
he acquire? Some, no doubt, yet in the text- books ordinarily 
used error is about as conspicuous as truth. If we could con- 
fine our science teaching in .the public schools to a year of 
physics and an equal amount of some other one science, and 
concentrate our energies on quality instead of quantity, method 
instead of matter, the good results would be ten- fold what they 
are at present. I am confident that in proportion to the time 
spent upon it our science teaching yields fewer results than any 
other line of public school work. The same criticism may be 
applied to ma)ay of our higher institutions of learning. It is no 
wonder the public calls for something practical. 
When the inductive sciences were given such a conspicuous 
position in our educational system as they occupy to-day, it 
was thought society was in a fair way to free itself from many 
errors. But we have too often gone merely from an error to a 
blunder. Our college and university training has too often 
