while he dislikes to be bothered by the partner undertaking to do his thinking, he dislikes just as much to try to do the thinking for his partner. So suggestions and discussions which are sure to come up are inclined more to throw him off the track than to help him. On his type of mind, everything that is done independently has a more lasting effect and tends to more accuracy in detached work in future technical performances. This student has always appealed to us as having in him the making of an engineer or technician, and his abilities might be cultivated in that direction even though he is in a normal school or teachers college. And we have always felt like advising him to, as soon as possible, get into a school of his kind.

In order to be sure of ourselves in our conclusions, we made a survey of our grades on laboratory work for six preceding years, three of which were taught in the Normal and Industrial School of Ellendale, North Dakota, and three of which were taught in the State Teachers College of Greeley, Colorado. In the Normal School at Ellendale we had no students who had had chemistry in high school, but in the college at Greeley we had students who had had high school chemistry and students who had had no high school chemistry and also some students taking high school chemistry at that time. Of the normal school students we had for the three different years an average of 20% of the students working alone and 80% working in pairs. There we grouped them with the idea of getting two strong students together and two weak ones together.

For the three years in the normal school those working singly totaled twenty-one students and those working in pairs totaled eighty-four students. This gave us twenty-one yearly grades, each made up of three quarterly grades. It represented also forty-two pairs of students having eighty-four yearly grades, each made up of three quarterly grades. The forty-two pairs of students were divided into twenty-one pairs having better grades and twenty-one pairs having poorer

grades. The forty-two grades representing the twenty-one better pairs averaged 89.4%. The forty-two grades representing the twenty-one poorer pairs averaged 82.7%. Of the twenty-one single workers the ten better grades averaged 89.5% and the eleven poorer grades averaged 78.3%. If we put the odd grade on the higher one it lowered the 89.5% to 89.1% and lowered the 78.3% to 78%. So we might reckon the two higher grades practically the same and make the difference of 4.5% in the lower ones.

In the Teachers College for the nine quarters accounted for we had 350 grades on laboratory work. Seventy of these grades were made by students working singly and two hundred eighty of them were made by students working in pairs. 80% of the two hundred eighty grades were made by pairs of students, both of whom had gone through the high school course. Their grades averaged 87.9%. One hundred of the two hundred eighty grades were made by pairs of students neither of whom had gone through the high school course. Their grades averaged 82.5%. The one hundred remaining grades were made by pairs of students, one of whom had gone through the high school course and one had not. The fifty grades of those who had gone through the high school course averaged 88% and the fifty grades of the ones who had not gone through the high school course averaged 84.7%. Thirty of the seventy single workers were high school students of chemistry. Their grades averaged 87.8%. Forty of the seventy single workers were not high school students of chemistry. Their grades averaged 79.7%.

It might be mentioned that 8% of the enrolled students failed in the laboratory work. Of those working alone 10% failed. Of those working in pairs three out of forty or 7.5% failed. We did not add the 7.5% and 10% obtained here and average to get the 8%. The average between these numbers would be 8.75%. But we cut down that answer to the 8% by placing only 20% of the entire enrollment to work singly and allowing 80% to work in pairs. We are not certain that we did the former ten people an injury by not pairing them in

the laboratory, for other things naturally entered in, but it seems as though we might have reduced the percentage of failure to 7.5% by doing so.

We have never had opportunity to gather sufficient data in organic laboratory work. Twelve to sixteen students constituted our classes in this subject. Because of a meager supply of expensive apparatus required and because of the fact that most experiments required more time in the adjustment of apparatus than in the carrying out of the processes after the apparatus was adjusted, we always felt justified in pairing the students off for their laboratory work.

In qualitative analysis the opposite is true. The adjustment of apparatus amounts to practically nothing. Very short processes in test tubes, not much opportunity for discussion but close observation after a mastery of the more fundamental theories seem to call for work by individuals, working singly. Quantitative work consists mostly in skill in manipulation of apparatus, so by no means would we think of grouping students in this.

It may be observed in comparing the grades of those who worked alone and those who worked in pairs that in both the cases of those representing the more capable ones and those representing the less capable ones, that there were wider ranges between the minimum and maximum of those who worked alone than there was for those who worked in pairs. This would indicate that there might have been more of a balancing influence between those working in pairs and that to a certain type of student there was an advantage in working singly and to another type a disadvantage, or that to the very strong student there was an advantage and to the very weak one a disadvantage in working singly. (In several cases as the work progressed we suspected that as referred to above and put the strong student alone, thinking of the student interested and not knowing that we would some time collect. the grades for research work.)

It may also be observed that the average of the upper half

of the number of grades, or the grades of the stronger student, in all of the three different cases: where a strong student worked with a strong student, where a strong student worked with a weak student, and where a strong student worked alone, were practically the same, The opposite relations may be noted for the lower half of the number of grades in each case, the better average being for those who worked in pairs.

From these observations we feel justified in concluding:

1. The average strong students are neither benefited nor injured by working in pairs.

2. The average weak students are benefited by working in pairs.

3. The average strong and weak student working together, the strong students are not injured by being paired with weak ones, but the weak ones are benefited by working with the strong ones.

4. Only the mechanical genius is handicapped by being paired with another student and seems to make no difference whether the other student is strong or weak.

As general conclusions we might suggest that in the normal schools and teachers colleges, excepting the occasional student who later expects to get into a school of his type, students may be paired off for laboratory work without any concern as to strength or weakness; and that in the high schools, excepting the few who expect to go on to college and prepare for some sort of practical work, or the occasional one preparing for some sort of simple mechanical routine work, the same thing may be done.

In addition to these conclusions we might remind ourselves that if the students are paired off for their laboratory work, the instructor could handle twice as many students in the laboratory, and that he could save half of the expense in apparatus and materials, which is generally a great benefit to the student as well as to the institution.

American Notes-Editorial

At a recent teachers' meeting in one of our city school systems, one teacher was heard to say, with a sigh, "Oh, it's the same old thing over again, I suppose." If this may be taken as a spontaneous expression of the teacher's feeling, it should contain food for much thought on the part of school administrators. Instead of ascribing it to lack of professional interest, they should regard it as a symptom of conditions that need to be corrected. Perhaps, in a few cases, it may mean nothing more than a lack of professional spirit; but we are inclined to believe that these cases form a very small minority. It may mean that the teacher is full of interest in his or her work, but has learned from boresome experience not to expect any profit from the wearisome and commonplace discussions that occupy the time of many such meetings. It may mean that the teacher is carrying too heavy a load, and that, worn out from the day's work, is in no mood to respond to an address from the principal, who doesn't seem to understand the problems anyway. It may mean that the teacher is struggling with difficulties that are beyond his or her power to correct, such as the effort to bring the formal requirements of a course of study and improperly classified pupils together, while the talk of the principal is usually about incidental matters that never seem quite vital. It may mean that help has been expected from others, help that in the nature of the case can never be given, help that only the ingenuity of the individual teacher can supply.

In very many cases the load placed upon the teacher's shoulders is too great. We forget that the work of teaching is more akin to that of the artist than to that of the artisan, and so we expect artistic results from the methods and conditions of the artisan, which we impose. Teaching that is done mechanically by the hour is poor teaching, and if it must be done in that way the little spark of artistic genius in the teacher will soon flicker out. The teacher needs encouragement, appreciation, instruction in new and improved methods, and inspiration. These the competent principal can supply. But there are other needs, some of them even more fundamental, that cannot be met at teachers' meetings, and these are the peculiar problems of principal and superintendent.-Contributed.