October 5,1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
2G 
PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION. 
BY PROFESSOR ATTFIELD. 
At the close of the prolonged discussion on Phar¬ 
maceutical Education which I had the honour of in¬ 
troducing at the Brighton meeting of the British 
Pharmaceutical Conference, time forbad a reply to 
the remarks I had invited. A report of the proceed¬ 
ings having now appeared in the Pharmaceutical 
J ournal, I proceed to reply to some questions that 
have been raised, and make one or two additional 
observations. 
The want of a succinct statement of what has 
already been done for pharmaceutical education in 
Great Britain must have been felt by every one in¬ 
terested in the present position of the subject. Such 
an account was offered in the first and chief part of 
my paper. The labour involved in the production 
of that portion was considerable, but is more than 
rewarded by the testimony given to its faithfulness 
and usefulness. 
Respecting the present and prospective aspects of 
pharmaceutical education some dissent from my 
opinions was expressed; but this, I think, mainly 
because what was meant by education was not de¬ 
fined by me with sufficient fulness. By pharmaceu¬ 
tical education, pure and simple, I understand that 
knowledge which a man desires and acquires to fit 
him thoroughly for his calling, irrespective of any 
examination, voluntary or compulsory, or any title, 
legal or honorary. Having such knowledge, full in 
amount, but not more than is sufficient for the pur¬ 
pose just stated, a student necessarily, that is as a 
matter of course, passes the Minor and possibly 
the Major examinations of the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety ; afterwards retaining that knowledge, to¬ 
gether with all mental culture its acquirement has 
afforded. The Pharmacy Act of 1852 stimulated 
education of this kind. Such education demands 
the expenditure of a considerable amount of time 
on the part of the student; but the Council of 
the Societ} 7- has always set before pharmacists 
a course of study of this nature as a standard, 
and education of this character is what has been 
aimed at by the promoters, managers and officers 
of the various schools of pharmacy which have 
been started from time to time throughout the coun¬ 
try, more or less in connection with, or aided, or 
countenanced by the Society. But there is a method 
of obtaining knowledge—that is, short-lived know¬ 
ledge—occupying far less time than that necessary 
for the acquirement of the kind of education just 
described. Barristers and others sometimes have 
occasion rapidly to work up a subject for the tempo¬ 
rary purposes of debate, argument, or advocacy. It 
produces no sort of culture as respects the subject 
itself, and passes from the memory as rapidly as it 
entered; but it accomplishes its object legitimately 
enough. Persons possessing it are for the time well 
informed, not educated, in the subject. When, how¬ 
ever, such information is acquired and employed for 
the purpose of passing such an important public ex¬ 
amination as our “ Minor ” or “ Major,” I maintain 
that its use is in an ordinary sense of the word illegiti¬ 
mate, to be deprecated by every right-minded phar¬ 
macist, and, if possible, prevented. This is the 
kind of ephemeral knowledge which is confessedly 
taught and notoriously employed in England (not 
at present, apparently, in Scotland) to what many 
besides myself know to be an enormous extent to 
Third Series, No. 119. 
enable men to pass the examinations mentioned. I 
find that in imparting such information methods are 
employed other than the one mentioned in my paper 
—a process, “cheating” Mr. Stoddart and Pro¬ 
fessor Foster term it, involving downright violation 
of the spirit of the eighth commandment, and under 
which I include (and only under such) any variation 
in the mode having for its object the ascertaining 
what questions an examiner may get into the habit 
of asking. Questions of this kind—“ stock ques¬ 
tions, as Mr. Carteighe calls them—some of which, 
as. every examiner knows, must in the nature of 
things be put to almost every candidate, are those 
to which I alluded in my paper as being commonly 
asked, and which I mentioned as those the crammed 
candidate knows will be asked before he enters the 
room. .1 repeat that I think no language used in 
denunciation of the process can be too strong. 
Whatever be the process, however, it is the practice 
of giving and receiving mere information, and that 
of an ephemeral character, to which I wish to draw 
serious attention; a practice, the adoption of which 
by so large a number of students goes far to ex¬ 
plain the cause of failure of all such more recent 
attempts to establish provincial schools of phar¬ 
macy as that described b} r Mr. Hampson; a prac¬ 
tice which, by keeping so many students out of the 
classes, would, in my belief, prevent the success of 
the plans of education proposed by Mr. Reynolds, 
Mr. Schaclit, or even that which “ comes from Jb- 
tunlieim;” and a practice which is already damaging, 
and which, if allowed to develope at its present rate, 
will sap the foundation of that true pharmaceutical 
education which the Pharmaceutical Society fosters 
and promotes, and has ever fostered and both di¬ 
rectly and indirectly promoted in the metropolis ancl 
provinces. 
With regard to the means of preventing this 
“coaching,” the principle of the proposal which was 
stated during the discussion as emanating from the 
examiners themselves, deserves, in my opinion, the 
cordial support of all pharmacists of influence or in 
authority. It is that of requiring documentary 
evidence of lengthened education in at least one, 
and that the most important subject of examination. 
I have little doubt that if this plan were carried out, 
it would be found to work so successfully that it 
would be extended to the other chief subjects of 
examination. This is the plan advocated in my 
paper. My cherished ideas are apparently identical 
with those already entertained by the examiners, 
and hence, by the w’ay, the contributor to the dis¬ 
cussion whose remarks seem to indicate that he 
thinks my ideas involve a low estimate of the 
powers of our examiners, must please extend his 
censure to the examiners themselves. I repeat, that 
so far from attacking the examiners, I support them, 
and give little countenance to the adoption of the 
method employed at the London University of 
examination by special experts in each subject. 
It is not the examiners, but the system which the 
examiners have to carry out, that I venture to 
criticize—a system, the weak point of which is, a 
point in which it differs from that of all other 
Boards, that it does not at present possess as a 
guarantee against excessive cramming either docu¬ 
mentary evidence of education, or the special 
searcliing powers of professional questioners having 
plenty of time at their disposal. Nay, if there is 
one subject in which our examiners might already 
