PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 
SCIENCE REQUIRED FOR A GENERAL EDUCATION. 
BY JOHN L. TILTON. 
At first I thought that for this occasion I would prepare a paper on one of 
the important lines of recent scientific discussion. After the kind acceptance by 
Professor Chamberlin of our invitation to address us this evening I gave up all 
intention of preparing a paper, thinking that the address which we are about 
to hear would render the presentation of a related subject by me undesirable; 
but when I found that the omission of a paper styled the “Presidential Address” 
would be considered an unacceptable “innovation,” I immediately decided to 
present briefiy a pedagogical question which has been forced upon my attention 
again and again, and I doubt not has been the occasion of much thought on the 
part of every teacher present; a question that demands the thoughtful con- 
sideration of every scientist engaged in educational work. The question is this: 
What sciences should be required for a general education? 
As I view the field, the time is past in which there is a failure to recognize 
the value of a critical examination of scientific data, a logical development of 
scientific theory, and a consideration of the important bearing of such data and 
theories upon modern life; though there may be a partial failure of such recogni- 
tion on the part of some whose education is purely literary. Indeed, we re- 
joice to see the evidence of scientific method applied in all branches of education, 
notably in sociology, psychology and history; and we are glad that all lines 
of education can combine to establish care in gathering data, and correct 
method in developing thought; but amid the great numbers of authors and 
topics for study, and the pressure of other worthy courses for recognition, there 
seems to be no generally accepted conclusion as to just what sciences should be 
included in a course designed to give a generak education. In conversation with 
men from various colleges it is not uncommon to find evidence of attempts even 
in recent years to reduce required scientific work to a minimum, regardless of 
the importance of the various branches both in modern life and in education; 
while among teachers of science there are those who favor specialization in one 
branch of science without a general knowledge of other sciences as a pre- 
requisite, except so far as immediately necessary to the subject in which there 
is to be specialization. 
There is much to be said in favor of work involving specialization and orig-^ 
inal research. That various and deep problems are involved in the full investi- 
gation of any subject seems to be overlooked by those who decry the narrow- 
ness of the specialist; and the breadth of education that has often preceded', 
specialization is a source of surprise to the critic. It is not my purpose to dis- 
cuss the need and value of specialization. That courses leading to such an end 
have places in modern education seems recognized by all, but, on the other hand, 
a peculiar condition confronts us that we should not overlook. Many high 
schools graduate students who have had much of language and little of science, 
(13) 
