ters of families in which a college education was either an established or a much desired tradition. That all classes are now embracing higher education, might account for the condition I speak of; the facts, however, will hardly justify the conclusion. If it were possible to divide all our freshmen into an upper and lower class, or even more classes, I think the statement as to fitness would apply to all classes.

Another factor, and one that we are apt to lose sight of, is, that our country and civilization is farther removed from the pioneer stage of development. There seems to be some inspiring element in pioneering which spurs men and women, boys and girls, to make the best of given opportunities, to take every advantage of a favorable condition. If this be true, our educational system has necessarily lost a vigorous, fundamental uplifting impulse.

It may be alleged, also, that our industrial and social life is much more complex than it was twenty-five years ago, and consequently ability to fit effectively into any part or place in it requires a much higher grade of preparation than formerly, and assent to this statement must be readily given. But the educational phase of our changing industrial and social life has kept pace, at least outwardly, with other phases, and from a mechanical point of view, the lack of equipment of the secondary school of today cannot account for the failure described in my hypothesis. There must be some elements inherent in our system of education, our theories, our practices, the tendencies of the times, if you please, which may account for the conditions under consideration.

In the last twenty-five years, a new system of philosophy has been formulated and promulgated. Were I a philosopher, I might attempt to show the influence which this system of philosophy has had on education; or I might attempt to show that the same influences which produced this system of philosophy has brought the change in educational affairs, or perchance I might endeavor to show that a misconception and misapplication of this doctrine has contributed in no small way in producing our present situation. But since I am not a philosopher, I shall not venture on an untried path.

But the people of this age easily and readily accept theories based upon pragmatic hypotheses. The facts of the situation, their bearing on the present condition of the individual and of society have been considered and partially weighed, and practices and theories long and apparently firmly established have been suddenly thrown aside for the new and untried. Your attention is invited to a consideration of one or two of these.

In order to indicate the change of attitude I have reference to, let me give a crude illustration. Years ago, while attending Harvard University, I had the great pleasure of sitting at meals with a group of students interested in many lines of study and research. Among them was a young man who made and is still making philosophy a subject of inquiry. One day while we were discussing, as the young will do, a certain theory of the

universe, I remarked that the facts were not in accord with his theory, to which he confidently replied, "so much the worse for the facts." The reply answered its purpose, for were we not all of us rationalists enough to perceive the drift of his remark? I surmise that today his retort would not be received with the same degree of finality. The most he could do would be to deny the existence of the fact, or at least doubt its existence as conceived in the mind of his opponent.

The change of attitude in regard to "formal" discipline has been most marked in twenty-five years. It has been my lot to take part in the deliberations of the faculty on two occasions of the adoption of requirements for entrance to the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts. The first time, years ago, the discussions were based on considerations of the comparative importance of studies as to their disciplinary value, and the conviction that somehow or other, one subject should or might be taught so as to be of as great disciplinary value as another, smoothed the way for a settlement of the matter. On the last occasion, a year ago, little mention was made of formal discipline; the discussion followed other lines; not that every one had lost faith in formal discipline, but it was felt that the attitude of the educational world had so shifted that arguments so based would not have sufficient weight to warrant the use of them.

I do not pretend to predict the fate of the doctrine of "formal discipline" nor does it matter much. I do not know if there be such an entity as my memory which can be brought to a higher degree of receptivity and conductivity by certain exercises and practice. It may well be that memory of portions of literature, may not assist memory of dates in history, or memory for faces may not assist memory of names. I leave all these matters to the psychologists. I do believe that a pedagogical misconception of the conclusions of the experimental psychologist may lead to grave results. It is but a step from the acceptance of the psychologic conclusion that there is no such a faculty of mind as the memory which can be developed in general by a particular study, to the belief that the habit of remembering the salient features (which I shall later discuss) of one's experience cannot be cultivated and strengthened.

I know not if there be such an entity as my reason which can be better quickened by the study of mathematics and kindred studies than by the study of language and literature. I leave that also to the psychologist. I do believe that the habit of reaching necessary conclusions can be fostered and strengthened by exercise and care.

There may be no such entity as my judgment, to be better developed by a particular study than by some other study. But the exercise of judging rightly, is the one thing which the world expects of the educated. Training to judgment must remain an important, if not the most important function of the high school. The ability to distinguish the trivial from the essential element in any experience in life even though the former may be more

obvious and insistent than the latter, is what every business man expects of the high school graduate who enters his employ. It is this element of power in the man of thought and action which enables him to give expression to the proper idea, and to follow the proper line of action. Any shift of the pedagogical interpretation of the findings of the psychologists which loses sight of this important fact, cannot but lead to disastrous results.

Let me refer in passing to the doctrine of "interest" about which much has been said and written in recent years, to most of which ready assent can be given. But, as has frequently been urged, there is a point at which interest ceases to contribute in producing desired results. And a misinterpretation and misapplication of the part which interest plays in real education can readily change the practice from an endeavor to interest with a view of engaging the attention, to a determination to amuse and interest with the result of scattering the attention.

Along with this change of attitude in regard to efficiency of formal discipline in theory and practice, and the emphasis of interest as a potent factor in education, has come the adoption of the elective system applied to high school. Whether the change of attitude in regard to the theory led to a change of practice, or the change of practice necessitated a change of theory. I cannot say. It is more probable that both are the result of the forces at work in the evolution of human society. The important thing here is the answer to the question, is there any relation between this change of theory and practice, and the accompanying result embodied in my observation that the product has deteriorated? Our high school graduates may know as much as their predecessors, but have they the same power to do new tasks, and grasp new conditions? I might hesitate to answer this question in the negative, if this inability was detected only in the college class-room; evidence that the same answer would be given elsewhere is not wanting. It is certainly worth while to stop a moment and consider if there is an essential element in the old theory and practice which has been lost in the new.

Has the elective course of study led to the elective attitude of mind, the elective mode of study as a recent writer has designated them? Is there a well-grounded fear that we are dangerously near the point where any real task is unconegnial?

Dr. Julius Sachs in his little book on "American Secondary Schools" by way of clinching his statements in regard to this subject says, “Our contention here is for the fundamental fact that that is no election at all which without knowledge of the content or their service to the thinking efficiency, chooses some subjects and discards others; it is license, and produces the usual results of thoughtless action-disappointment, discouragement, waste of opportunities." This, it seems to me is getting near the heart of the matter. I am not condemning the elective system, but endeavoring to point out that consciously or unconsciously, it has developed a wrong attitude. It

seems to have fostered the habit of choosing the agreeable subject without regard to what has been already called "knowledge of their content or their service to the thinking efficiency." And this habit of choosing the agreeable is destructive of manly thought and action. Professor Hinsdale has said, "hard work and plenty of it, and not the passive resignation of the mind to the stream of interest is the condition of thorough scholarship." May I add, hard work and plenty of it, and not the resignation of the mind to the stream of interest is in store for every high school graduate who does what is expected of him; and may I repeat, hard work and plenty of it and not the resignation of the mind to the stream of interest should be the discipline in the preparation for life.

Another great man has put it thus: "training is the discipline that teaches a man to develop the less promising parts of his mind as well as the more promising; to make five talents, ten; and two, five; to see that in his specialty he shall work better and enjoy more for knowing something outside of his specialty; to recognize the connection between present toil and future attainment, so that the hope of the future attainment creates pleasure in present toil; to understand that nothing can be mastered without drudgery, and that drudgery in preparation for service is not only respectable, but beautiful; to be interested in every study, no matter how forbiddding.”

I desire to reassert that I am not discountenancing the elective system. It is likely that this has come to stay, and I am not alarmed. What I am trying to emphasize is that, by its nature, and in the process of its adoption, an attitude of mind and a mode of study have been engendered which play counter to a certain essential element of a true education, which was given and fostered by the old system under the old theory. That element is power, power to grasp situations and power to think. And this power can be attained only by performing tasks, disagreeable tasks, if necessary, backed up by a will to do.

Again, the shift of emphasis in educational theory and practice has found its expression in the extension of the high school curriculum so as to include "vocational studies" and even to the formation of "vocational schools." And here, also, it is neither my desire nor purpose to decry the movement. I can fully appreciate the idea that an education should assist its recipient in earning a livelihood, and, consequently, a belief has arisen that it is best to know something of many subjects. But he who would make this the sole aim in the education of any class (if such there be) in society, has failed to grasp the fundamental ideals of a democratic state, or even the real significance of the ever increasing demand of society. An education must make a contribution to the ability of the boy or girl, not only in making a living, but also in making life worth living.

Let me give another simple illustration. A short time ago, I had a conversation with one of my colleagues in which he remarked, that of his intimate friends in an engineering class of some twenty years ago, not one of

them had followed the division of engineering practice which he studied in college. Had these young men been educated in a "trade school" they might have had considerable difficulty in adjusting themselves to the changed conditions. Their education had been, however, more a training than a trade. It is interesting to note that the attitude of the business world has changed and is still changing in respect to this phase of education. The belief that specific knowledge is most desirable has given place to the conviction that training to power is the more advantageous.

The popular criticisms referred to in the early part of this paper are based on the very thing I wish to point out. Most employers are desirous that their stenographers be capable of thinking as well as mechanically expert. No accountant can hope to be efficient if he cannot bring to his task a mind trained to think. No labor of any kind can long bring satisfaction and pleasure, if its mere accomplishment is the sole end of doing.

I was speaking to a friend a short time ago in regard to this subject and the way it impresseed me; he intimated that I should suggest a remedy. Time would not permit this, even had I the ability to do it. This is a matter for the educational expert, whose advice should be based on a sound knowledge of the way other peoples have solved similar problems, on a firm grasp of the important conditions involved and a clear vision of the ends to be attained; on a devout regard for methods and practice which have proved to be effective, and with a sympathetic but discriminating regard to popular demands, clamors if you please, which often prove to be fleeting, but more often represent the real call of the age for the remedy to meet an undefined and unfulfilled need of society. My purpose is to point out that, judging from the product of our high schools, while substantial gains have been made, this has been accompanied by certain essential losses, both relatively and absolutely; and that in the process of development, readjustments should be made with the purpose of restoring these losses.