August 31, 1372.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
173- 
debt ed to you for your exceedingly interesting and sug¬ 
gestive paper on Pharmaceutical Education. The firm 
and determined manner in which you have handled the 1 
subject is. to me, an especial source of satisfaction, 
whilst the value of your paper is greatly enhanced by 
the fact of your being practically engaged in the work 
of education; it seems to me that this distinct enuncia¬ 
tion of an opinion by so eminent a professor of the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society is precisely the one thing hitherto 
wanting' to enable those who, like myself, have had little 
or no practical experience in teaching, so to focus, as it 
were, their ideas as to approach the subject with much 
less diffidence, and with much more clearness, than has 
before been possible. Your paper will doubtless tend to 
draw present divergencies of thought into a common 
groove, and thus be the means of more speedily enabling 
us to devise some wise and permanent settlement of this 
all-important question. 
44 I must confess that I have been startled beyond mea¬ 
sure at the picture so vividly drawn, so eloquently put 
before us, in your description of that wretched and per¬ 
nicious system of 4 cramming.’ Although it was well 
known to me that 4 cramming ’ establishments ex¬ 
isted, I had not conceived the possibility of the 4 fact f 
that within the past ten months more students have been 
crammed than have been legitimately prepared for the 
Minor examination.’ This is not only a terribly humi¬ 
liating fact, but it is highly discouraging to those who 
are, and have been, conscientiously striving and working 
hard to disseminate sound instruction amongst the rising 
generation of pharmacists, and is, moreover, unques¬ 
tionably a state of things that cannot possibly be suffered 
to exist if our examinations are to be other than a huge 
sham. 
44 Whether this 4 cramming* ’ is encouraged most by an 
unfortunate selection of examiners, or by the present 
system of examination, may possibly be a point open to 
argument. For my own part I see no possibility of 
materially improving the personnel of the examiners, for, 
supposing there is at any time a 4 weak brother ’ on the 
Board, this could not really affect the general result of 
an examination. On the other hand, I think you have 
made out a strong case against our present imperfect 
system of examination, and heartily concur in your ob¬ 
servations both as to the imperative necessity of compul¬ 
sory education, as well as to the method propounded of 
supplementing the Minor examination, by requiring can¬ 
didates to produce certificates of attendance at some re¬ 
cognized school of pharmacy. 
44 But whilst thus acquiescing generally in your propo¬ 
sitions, I am not unmindful of the difficulties that sur¬ 
round them. I think the Society has not at the present 
moment the necessary powers to insist upon such attend¬ 
ance. There may be comparatively little difficulty in 
obtaining such powers if we can make our aim clear 
and induce Government to help us. This accomplished, 
the very difficult question as to the number of schools 
confronts us. 
44 1 certainly do not agree with your opinion that 4 there 
will be room for three or four or five schools,’ and that it 
is 4 impossible to establish a school of pharmacy in every 
twentieth town.’ The number of schools must depend 
upon the number of pupils, and this must depend upon 
the length of time each shall be required to attend 
a school. I gather from your paper generally that it is 
supposed that a pupil will attend for one session only. 
But why for one only F If we are to do the work tho¬ 
roughly, three sessions (certainly not less than two) 
would be insisted upon. Now if three sessions were 
adopted, you would have three times the number of 
pupils; there would be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years’ 
men. The advantages of this would be manifold. A 
greater number of more conveniently situated schools ; 
would be established, and a much larger proportion 
would be self-supporting; and thus, whilst all the larger 
towns would require little or no subsidy, the parent So¬ 
ciety would be enabled to give greater help to smaller 
schools, i. e., precisely the schools requiring most help. 
So far from twenty schools being impossible, I should 
hope to see fully that number in a flourishing condition. 
44 Of course, the compulsory attendance of an appren¬ 
tice for three sessions would involve a complete revolu¬ 
tion in the relation between master and apprentice, a 
revolution I, for one, would rejoice heartily to see 
brought about. The duty of the master should be 
limited to practical training; the duty of schools of 
pharmacy to supplementing this by theoretical and sys¬ 
tematic teaching, with practical laboratory work of a 
higher character than can be taught in an ordinary busi¬ 
ness establishment. 
44 But in my opinion, all our labours in this direction 
will be of very little avail, unless the Preliminary ex¬ 
amination is maintained at a good standard. Euclid and 
algebra ought eventually to be included, and Greek as 
well as Latin authors. 
“I regard this examination as the grand corner-stone 
on which all our hopes rest. It is the entrance gate 
that should be most jealously guarded. A Ye must rely 
absolutely upon this examination to provide suitable 
material for our educational efforts to thrive upon. If a 
youth is fundamentally weak in elementary education, 
if he is deficient in rudimentary knowledge, then he 
has not the mental power to assimilate the intellectual 
food of the character that ought to be provided by 
schools of pharmacy. 
44 The Preliminary examination not only tests the pre¬ 
vious training and actual knowledge of a youth ; but if 
the character of the examination is kept up to a suitable 
standard, it gives us reasonable grounds for assuming 
that the boy who can pass has been trained to habits of 
study, and has acquired a desire—a sort of appetite—- 
for further information. A boy who cannot pass is, in 
no sense, worthy of our consideration. One may as well, 
sow corn on a turnpike road as to anticipate any good 
fruit from such a source. _ . .... 
44 AVith many apologies for so discursively criticizing 
your paper—you will no doubt easily separate the rub- - 
bish.—Believe me, faithfully yours, 
44 Edward Smith. 
Letter prom Mr. John Mack ay, op Edinburgh. 
44 Dublin , 7th August, 1872. 
44 My dear Attfield,—Just as I was leaving Edinburgh 
on Monday morning a proof copy of your paper on Phar¬ 
maceutical Education was put into my hands, and, m 
case my silence in the face of your invitation to criticize 
might be construed into concurrence with your viev. s, 
I venture to send you one or two lines, to say I cannot 
agree with you on this important question. # 
44 1 have not time to discuss point after point wlieiein 
I disagree, and my few remarks must, therefore, be very 
general 
44 Let me say with such a communication as yours bo- 
ore the meeting on the 13th, how much I regret my 
mavoidable absence from Brighton on this occasion, as I 
eel certain the discussion will be a very interesting and 
44 From the very nature of existing things Pharma- 
eutical Education must, I submit, be looked on as com* 
misery up to a certain point, because we know that 
without a certain amount of education no one can lor t e 
uture become a dispensing chemist. AYith your horror 
t cramming (in the true sense of the word), I quite agree, 
ut such a system has existed, does exist, and will con- 
inue to exist. You have the highest authority fo r its 
xistence ; and go where you will, even m youi Oxford 
nd Cambridge, as well as in our own universities m 
Scotland, you will find such a course pursued, it not jn 
11 , certainly in connection with several subjects. 1 hh 
here is no Royal road to becoming a pharmacist, and the 
llusion you make to the public announcement that an. 
