Science for Science’s Sake 
teaching power. But 
to make a collection 
of one hundred speci- 
mens in order to ob- 
tain a pass-mark is 
scarcely worth the ef- 
fort. 
The point I wish 
to urge is that there is 
no reason in the nature 
of things why subjects 
always should be 
taught this way or 
that, so long as they 
are taught truthfully 
— and there are many 
| i By Herbert K. Job. 
ways of teaching the 
1 ° HEAD OF GRAY FOX. 
truth. The way to 
teach is, after all, mostly a matter of experience and expediency. Things 
were not made either to be analyzed or collected. 
All the above remarks are meant to differentiate nature-study from science. 
Various questions will at once arise in the mind of the teacher. 
But do you think that this nature-study will make investigators ? I hat de- 
pends on what you mean by an investigator. If you mean an inquirer, then 
I sav that nature-study will develop the trait to perfection. If you mean one 
who shall discover and record new truth bv means of painstaking investigation, 
then I answer that nature-study will not detract from such attainment. 
Neither does it lead directly to that end, and this is its merit. To be an 
investigator is to be a professionalist or specialist ; and professional ists should 
be developed late in the school life from the few who show talent in that 
direction. Nature-study is for every one, and therefore is fundamental ; scien- 
tific investigation is for the few, and therefore is special. If nature-study 
opens the sympathies natureward, it will also increase the appreciation of 
science. Too much are our college students taught to make their reputations 
as investigators. In fact, the student who goes to college or university to 
study usually thinks only or mostly of investigation — of his science. I won- 
der whether a science is not worth acquiring as a specialty for the sake of 
teaching it ? May not reputations be made as high-class teachers of ento- 
